On Patrick Coffin's Interview with Lizzie Reezay (first half) - Since it brings back memories of my own conversion (Bonus : Jesus Healed by Whose Authority?)

Video commented on

68: Protestant YouTube Star Becomes Catholic—Lizzie Estella Reezay
PatrickCoffin.media | 27.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y1NAl4ZUkQ

(After watching first half).

I

"well, I actually kind of respect that point of view, yeah, in light of the claims of the Church, the Church isn't just a little bit wrong, if she's wrong we are in serious trouble"

Well, one reason to check out who between Bergoglio and David Bawden was licitly elected Pope as in was even eligible ...

Or, whether, when David Bawden held the emergency conclave, one could reasonably say that the perpetrator of 1986 (twice, visiting a synagogue and the prayer meeting) could possibly be a real holder of the Holy See, the seat of St Peter ...

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

Hans-Georg Lundahl
IN THE MALAY LANGUAGE, "WHEN THE HOUSE HAS BEEN BUILT, THE CHISELS START TO MAKE NOISE."
WHENEVER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS COMPLETED HER WORK, THE PROTESTANTS START TO MAKE NOISE.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't know what that has to do with any of what I said, since the emergency conclave was held by a Catholic up to then lay theologian.

You cannot classify David Bawden as Protestant by any stretch, whether you do or do not consider him as Pope Michael.

The Assisi Prayer Meeting of 1986 (and subsequent ones after the emergency conclave) clearly show that Wojtyla, known to some as Pope John Paul II, and even as saint or as the great, was not completing a Catholic work.

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

Hans-Georg Lundahl
ALL THE NOISES THE CHISELS AND YOU MAKE WILL NOT CHANGE A THING.
THE CHISELS AND YOU CAN KEEP QUIET.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You really do take me for a Protestant?

If you were a Catholic, why are you a liar?

If you are NOT a liar, why do you repeat a misudnerstanding after I corrected it?

If you have a bishop, why is he not shutting up your mouth of lies, imposing silence until you have learned some honesty?

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I WISH THAT YOU WERE A PROTESTANT. IF YOU ARE NOT A PROTESTANT THEN IT IS NO FUN TALKING TO YOU.
AT LEAST A PROTESTANT WHEN HE SAYS THAT I HAVE LIED, HE WILL TELL ME MY LIES.
YOU HAVE SAID THAT I HAVE LIED BUT HAVE NOT TOLD ME WHEN, HOW, WHY, WHAT I HAVE LIED ABOUT.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have lied by calling me and Pope Michael protestants after I already explained we were not.

KA Fleury

Hans-Georg Lundahl ... if you do not believe and accept EVERYTHING that the Catholic Church teaches, then you're protesting the Church that Christ established; the Church that He promised He would not leave orphaned; the Church He promised would be safe from the gates of Hell. All the breakaways said they were taking their marbles, which they claimed were the real marbles. All the breakaways said that the bishop seated on the Chair of Peter didn't have any authority over them. That's what you're saying. Ergo, you are schismatic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"All the breakaways said that the bishop seated on the Chair of Peter didn't have any authority over them."

Actually, SSPX is saying "yes, he has authority, but no, we still don't owe him obedience".

You have a problem with the following one:

"That's what you're saying."

No, I am saying that heresy makes a man ineligible for papacy, which means that if an apparent Pope was heretic in public prior to supposed election, that election can be known to be invalid.

New blog on the kid : Bergoglio and Quarracino Neognostics?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/05/bergoglio-and-quarracino-neognostics.html

II

7:20 "before the Gospels began to be formed"

Look here, in the Catholic Church we believe in Tradition.

It may be divided on whether IV Gospel was written by the son of Zebedee or by John the Presbyter, also known to Papias, but it is not divided on date of composition being earlier than even Apostolic Fathers, except perhaps St Polycarp.

Nope, St Polycarp too was independently active mostly after it was written.

It is also not divided on I Gospel being written by St Matthew. Very early after the events.

It is also not divided on II and III Gospels being written while Saints Peter and Paul were still alive.

III

10:52 As convert from Protestantism and revert from Orthodoxy, I don't think Stephen K. Ray's book would have helped me as much as experience of Orthodox.

I could kind of make a case for every local ordinary being a successor of St Peter and papacy only a coordinator iure eccelsiastico, replaceable by Ecumenic Patriarch.

I could not make a case for the Modernism of Neohimerite Orthodox or for the Anticatholicism of Palaeohimerite Orthodox (in Russian Church that would have been Patriarchate of Moscow vs ROCOR - I was myself a Romanian Neohimerite).

And if those were the Orthodox there were?

And if on top of that, some who were respected in both camps, Paul Balaster-Convalier, a Greek bishop in Mexico, were actually lying about St Robert Bellarmine, who still was a very favourite Saint of mine, not least because he was defending Geocentrism ... I came to the conclusion, I had courted trouble.

So, I came back. Then to FSSPX (which would work a bit better with every local bishop as successor of St Peter than with purporting to be Papalist, faithful to Vatican I), now to Pope Michael.

Those today most faithful to Palamas, on either the Blessed Virgin or St Peter, would seem to be Catholics, including Uniates of Byzantine rite (who explicitly refer to him in justifying the Unija).

IV

12:48 Conferring notes.

Back when I was Protestant, I thought the Bible self explanatory.

It is in great deal, and I only came to see the Catholic explanation in the verses, but, I had not seen interpretation as an intellectual game.

I do so more now, but of course, deferring as I do to Trent, I check I am not contradicting all of the Church Fathers in any one.

For instance, could Tower of Babel have been a rocket (not saying Nimrod could have made it work, only that could have been his project)? Well, "the top of which reaches into heaven" and absence of "so tall that" seems to argue it, but, I do care to not contradict all Church Fathers, like if everyone of them had been into the skyscraper interpretation, which seems fairly classic, I would have had to be wrong. You can check Postilla in Genesim by St Thomas Aquinas, that was not the only interpretation around, and so there is no patristic unanimity I am opposed to on this one.

V

13:44 "Like historicity of Jonah"

No, I think that would be braving all of the Church's tradition.

The idea Jonah could be a religious novel is imported from Rabbinic Judaism (and I am certain it is post-Christian rabbis, not Gamaliel or Shammai or Hillel), via Calvin.

It would be braving the tradition about his grave in Nineve, which was recently vandalised by Daesh. It would be braving the tradition of how Assyrians - uniates as well as Nestorians - think of how their Church was prepared already in OT times.

VI

16:17 Fulton Sheen is no favourite of mine.

Freedom is freedom to do what I ought?

At its basic foundation, yes.

But at its social realisation, no.

If freedom is in its social realisation freedom to do what I ought, someone can imagine what I personally ought to do and say it is better for me than what I want to do (we are speaking within the limits of licit choices).

Chesterton, please!

And yes, physical freedom, the gift God created us with, is of course freedom to do what we want, even go to Hell, as Chesterton mentioned.

VII

Patrick Coffin, did you say Heaven is no destination?

Dimond Brothers said this was also sth which Wojtyla held:

"John Paul II also taught universal salvation, denied that heaven, hell and purgatory are places, agreed ..."

The Antichrist and The False Prophet, at 3:53
vaticancatholic.com | 11.III.2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DucdCF4hMf8&t=233s

Well, while there is a continuity between the state of grace and Heaven, between mortal sin and Hell, they are not the same and Heaven and Hell must be, beyond states (but unlike those on earth with eternal fixation and no sensory distraction from what one's state is, no corporeal bliss in Hell, no corporeal suffering in Heaven), also, since we will rise in our bodies, actual places.

VIII

time for some dialogue, so here I note my name when it's me:

tiarnan

Will she discuss the torture tools used on Bible believing Christians by the Vatican during the Inquisition in which 50 million Christians were first tortured in the most horrific ways and ultimately massacred...

Corolla 97

50 million? - more like 3,000 over the 400 years of the Spanish Inquisition

john b

tiarnan; Exaggerated numbers.Maybe you should ask your protestant friends how anti catholic they were in England and Ireland. They stole catholic church property killed nuns and priests; so don't give us the I am innocent and the church is guilty.

Matter of fact it was only recently that a catholic could even become prime minister of England.

Arnold Conrad

50,000,000?! There weren't that many in all of Europe in those times. That is a propaganda number invented by anti-Catholic polemicists.

Pat B

50 million? Do you even think there were 50 million people living in Europe? Seriously, European population was lower than that even at it's high levels before the Black Death and the Great Famine of the 14th century. Also, you are aware that the Church never tortured anyone, that it was the civil authorities. The worst, most abusive episode--the Spanish Inquisition--was conducted by the King and Queen of Spain. Did you know that oftentimes criminals would commit some blasphemous act so that they might have their cases adjudicated by the Church rather than by civil authorities because the Church was more just?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tiarnan - I don't think many people having academic levels of history knowledge about the past 2000 years would subscribe to either Trail of Blood or Foxe' Book of Martyrs.

Just as they hardly would agree that VICARIVS FILII DEI was a current papal title.

There is a difference between historic recriminations for undisputed events, like Huguenots killed in St Bartholomew's massacre and Pope saying a Te Deum because he considered the French king had been saved from Protestant terrorists and recriminations for undocumented events claimed only by very biassed accusers.

I'd challenge you to one thing a bit outside this dispute. You would presumably agree that when St Jerome translated the Vulgate, he did so in a Roman Empire where Latin was a spoken language, his Latin in Vulgate was at least as close if not closer than King James' to your own English.

You would probably also claim, and here disagree with me, that after this, there was a time when the Church decided to keep it all in Latin to keep the Bible from the faithful who didn't know that language.

Now, my challenge : when exactly do you think this occurred? And how exactly do you think this happened?

I'll give you one clue in advance, your guess will be wrong.

tiarnan

Hans-Georg Lundahl -

Let me ask you a quick question first - seeing as though you want to change the topic.

Do you believe in Evolution and the Universe being 13-15 billions of years old?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you had checked my other comments, no.

I also don't believe Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio (anti-Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis) are or were Catholics or Popes of the Catholic Church.

tiarnan

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What other comments?

Anyway my question was -

Do you believe in Evolution and the Universe being 13-15 billions of years old?

They're just two simple 'yes' or 'no' question/answers....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I made comments to Patrick Coffin about "yes, Heaven is a place" and "yes, Jonah most definitely is historical". Not under your comment, but elsewhere.

The simple answers:

• 1) Evolution as in common descent (a wolf and a sheep, not a wolf and a dog having common ancestor) - no.
• 2) Universe being 13 billion years old - no.

I believe, as the Roman Martyrology said up to the time of Antipope Wojtyla, God created Heaven (all Universe!) and Earth 5199 years before Christ was born.

Or possibly 5500 years before, as the Byzantine's count the LXX chronology.

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

tiarnan
Will you show us the concrete historical facts to verify your accusations?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And while you are at it, for the century 1200 to 1300, for the groups Albigensians, Waldensians and Catholics, show which one is documented as being Young Earth Creationist?

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

Highlighted reply
Hans-Georg Lundahl

THESE THINGS A EXERCISES IN FOLLY.
DON'T WASTE YOUR BREATH.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT NOW IS TO FOLLOW THE CHURCH THAT JESUS FOUNDED.
USE YOUR BREATH, ENERGY AND FINANCE AND THE LIFE STILL LEFT IN YOU FOR THE CHURCH THAT JESUS BUILT. AND MAKE SURE AT THE END OF YOUR LIFE YOU ARE SAVED

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, I think you are really dreadfully wrong on how to deal with tiarnan.

He is not from a Catholic culture. He can have excuses in ignorance, and it is the job of a Catholic Apologist to actually correct him, not to ask him to shut up, nor to be rude.

I don't know what YOU consider an exercise in folly, but being a Young Earth Creationist was interesting enough for St Thomas Aquinas, whom I suppose you still honour as a Saint, even though you are Novus Ordo or sth like it.

tiarnan

Hans-Georg Lundahl -

Just as Muslims are blinded by the crimes of Islam and its priests Catholics too are blinded by the crimes of their Church and its hierarchy - the only difference being, Islam has only carried out a fraction of the atrocities carried out by the Catholic Church...

I'm sure you think all of the Popes from the Papal families: Borgias, Farnese, Orsini, Medici etc were infallible men of God (even though the average lay person is well aware of their most obvious crimes, if you did some basic research however you'd begin to uncover their untold crimes against Christians)....just as Muslims think all the Imams who call for terrorism to be unleashed across the West and for Western women to raped unmercilessly also think their Imams and Mohammed are also infallible men of God...

One day, hopefully you'll listen to the Words of Jesus Christ in Revelation:
"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Revelation 18:4

I'll leave it there as unfortunately I have to work a lot and don't have time to spoon feed evidence you can easily get for yourself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Islam has only carried out a fraction of the atrocities carried out by the Catholic Church..."

Sayz who ... a Muslim?

"I'm sure you think all of the Popes from the Papal families: Borgias, Farnese, Orsini, Medici etc were infallible men of God"

I think of the Popes as infallible in office as to certain types of official statements.

I do not think of them as impeccable.

"even though the average lay person is well aware of their most obvious crimes, if you did some basic research however you'd begin to uncover their untold crimes against Christians"

Keyword : untold. When you speak of 50 millions of Christians murdered by the Catholic Church, this seems to have remained untold back then and is only being told now by James Milton Carroll, a Baptist Minister.

You took Young Earth Creationism as one criterium of a Bible believing Christian. I fully accept that - or at least, if you can be a Christian without it, it is because God has some patience with your ignorance and circumstances.

I asked you, between Catholics, Albigensians and Waldensians, which group can be DOCUMENTED as being back in 1200-1300 Young Earth Creationist, the answer is Catholics.

The Albigensians, while remaining so, were not even past Genesis 1:1. Suppose an Albigensian had appeared in the times of King David saying "in the beginning God created heaven, then an angel betrayed him and created earth, our souls come from heaven and our bodies from that fallen angel".

Well, I think some of the Hebrews back then would have began to murmur the CORRECT text of Genesis 1:1 and started picking up some stones, just to be prepared after King David pronounced sentence, and I am sure if the guy didn't repent, King David would have told the stoners "go ahead".

Waldensians seem a bit closer to Christian. Now, a point is, once Albigensians were out of the way, Waldensians were a lot less persecuted.

One more detail. Numbers. Bernard Gui had a reputation of severity. His list of sentences as Inquisitor in Toulouse is preserved. 930 cases overall, of which above 300 to prison so as to correct heretics about in ways similar to some of the gentler modern kinds of Mental Institution, even if locked in. More like they would handle someone "suicidal" than someone "schizophrenic". Note, this was not torture, these were cases where guilt of at least material heresy, at least saying a thing that was wrong, had already been established, sometimes by torture, often not.

The other cases involved 45 whose dolls were burned and 42 who were burned in person.

OK, over half escape the awaiting death sentence? Look, that is NOT really how you conduct a killing business. More than those together were the ones who were freed from prison.

The rest involve some cases of carrying the cross, some cases of pilgrimages, some cases of other penances.

This was a preserved list of sentences - so, Inquisition is certainly off the hook when it comes to mass murder; whether you count Albigensians as Christians or not (I don't), whether you count Waldensians as Christians or not (I feel iffy, about as with some Pentecostals or Baptists).

So, were the Crusades against Heretics then mass murders?

No. Even the Crusades against Islam were fairly gentle as war goes, with some atrocities, not a long ongoing atrocity. The Crusade against Albigensians was more brutal, but also more marginal in terms of war effort.

It is impossible that more Albigensians were killed than there were victims (especially Christian but also Jewish ones) under many centuries more of much wider application geographically of Islam.

"just as Muslims think all the Imams who call for terrorism to be unleashed across the West and for Western women to raped unmercilessly also think their Imams and Mohammed are also infallible men of God..."

No Catholic clergyman is calling for brutal terrorism, and the call for crusades was not similar to such calls.

Clergy didn't go into details about how gory things were to be done, and when laymen filled out the blanks on the gory side, they sometimes were corrected by their clergy.

//One day, hopefully you'll listen to the Words of Jesus Christ in Revelation: "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Revelation 18:4 //

I did get out of communion with Bergoglio and Wojtyla already. As to the Catholic Church historically, well, I have never seen ANY cogent argument it should be equated with the harlot in scarlet.

"I'll leave it there as unfortunately I have to work a lot and don't have time to spoon feed evidence you can easily get for yourself."

Nice try to play the wiser guy ... come back when you have time, I do my work arguing, sometimes in essays, sometimes in debates wth people like you.

Two clarifications, "Albigensians, while such" = until they repented and reverted to Catholicism.

Bernard Gui's other sentences = forgot some confiscations and pecuniary punishments, fines.

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Dealing with "Trail of Blood" Claims
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2018/03/dealing-with-trail-of-blood-claims.html

Bonus video

Did Jesus receive His power from Satan?
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | 5.IV.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq3txBXe8_s

With my comments:

I

2:11 What if there was a man who did learn magic arts in Egypt, and then, going to Sweden, raised no dead to new corporeal life (but like the witch in Endor raised ghosts to momentary appearances, not saying Samuel's spirit was her usual fare), cured no lepers, gave sight to no blind and so on, but did things like what even hypnotism can achieve?

I think Swedish and Norwegian history calls that man Odin.

I also think, his grandsons or greatgrandsons were contemporary to Our Lord's birth, so he could have been in Holy Land in the days of Mariamne.

Jesus obviously did no necromancy, but one man accepted by the Jews did, if you have heard of Onkelos.

II

5:50 "to leave their idols and to believe in the God of Israel"

Strictly true on one condition : that Catholicism is not "thinly veiled paganism" as some claim.

Think about that one!

Bonus video II

Vladimir Putin Is In The 33 Boys Club
Shaking My Head Productions | 21.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEmQ1o_62eQ

First, the video goes into details, more or less plausible, about Putin.

One good thing, he was born on October 7, the old day of St Bridget and the day of Our Lady of the Rosary.

This is less interesting than how whoever made it tries to pass of Catholicism as evil. Here are my comments on that part:

I

15:36 Rome became the Catholic Church and the Roman Emperor became the Pope.

YOU claim.

Roman Emperors after Constantine:

Constantine II with Constantius II and Constans; Julian the Apostate, Jovian; Valentinian I and Valens; same Valens also with Gratian and Valentinian II; Theodosius I (who made Catholicism the state religion several decades after Constantine, died 395), then split.

West : Valentinian III, Petronius Maximus, Avitus, Majorian, Libius Severus, Anthemius, Olybrius, Glycerius, Julius Nepos, Romulus Augustulus (some consider Julius Nepos to have been the last, since he survived the deposition of Romulus Augustulus).
East : Arcadius (died 408), Theodosius II, Marcian, Leo I the Thracian, Leo II, Zeno, Basiliscus, Zeno again, Anastasius I Dicorus (died 518), Justin I, Justinian I, Justin II, Tiberius II Constantine, Maurice (with his son Theodosius, died 602), Phocas, Heraclius (reconquered Jerusalem from Chosroes), Constantine III, Heraklonas, Constans II, Constantine IV, Justinian II - first reign, Leontios, Tiberios III (died 703), Justinian II - second reign (died 711), Philippikos Bardanes, Anastasios II, Theodosius III, let's take a break, I don't like the Iconoclast successor ...

Now, in the time of Constantine, there was a Pope, Sylvester, here are a few Popes before Sylvester:

he came after Miltiades, who came after Eusebius, who came after Marcellus I, who came after Marcellinus (who began his reign in 296), who came after Caius, who came after Eutychian, after Felix I, after Dionysius, after Sixtus II, after Stephen I, after Lucius I, after Cornelius, after Fabian, after Anterus, after Pontian, after Urban I, after Callixtus I, after Zephyrinus (who accessed in 199), after Victor I, after Eleutherius, after Soter, after Anicetus, after Pius I, after Hyginus, after Telesphorus, after Sixtus I, after Alexander I, after Evaristus (who accessed in 99), after Clement I, after Anacletus, after Linus, after Peter who became Pope in Jerusalem in AD 33 from where he had gone first to Antioch and then to Rome.

So, if Popes existed before Constantine and if Roman Emperors existed well after Gregory the Great whom I think you too would count as Pope, how do you reckon Emperors became Popes?

It doesn't add up.

Now, Popes stepping into some of the Emperor's shoes, as secular lord of Rome and middle Italy, that does, once Romulus Augustulus is deposed and Barbarians have ceased too, but you are trying to pretend papacy is an offshot of Roman Empire.

It does so NOT add up.

II

16:11 Double Headed Eagle being a symbol of 33:rd degree masonry ... well, I think quite a few in Russia, Germany, Austria and Albania do not quite appreciate this, as with Serbia as well.

Guess what? Freemasonry was founded in 1717, well after the Double Headed Eagle was a well established symbol of the Roman Empire.

This means, its older uses cannot be sullied by Freemasonry.

III

around 16:47 "many compromises were made with paganism, instead of the Church being separate from the world, it became a part of this world system"

As it should - as long as there were no real and serious compromises with paganism.

Christ had told the Apostles to make all nations into His disciples. That begins with the ones in Roman Empire, as well as with even before, Armenia.

17:07 "wholesale mixtures of paganism and Christianity"

You might want to document that one.

Of course, Jews will say Catholicism is Pagan, insofar as they deny that Christ ended Paganism. [Over many, so far not all, nations.]

17:54 "neither did he build great shining cathedrals"

No, but He had ordered the building of a Temple which prefigured His Body.

"with great pageants on the holidays"

You would like to check that up with how the Old Testament cult was organised. Judaism now has not such great pageants since the Temple was destroyed, but great pageants are NOT a sign of paganism. Nor are holidays.

18:12 "where a poor [etc] would be turned away at the door"

In Holy Mass you are not turned away at the door because you are homeless in the Catholic Church.

If you think of some special concert, that is another question, but normally being homeless per se is not an exclusion, since a concert in Church is normally for free. Or for voluntary contributions.

I can say that with good conscience, since, from 2009 to 2010 (or even 2011) I though accepting "Benedict XVI" was OK, and resisting his modernism was OK, and so going to SSPX was OK, and I was homeless and practised in the SSPX parish of St Nicolas du Chardonnet, going to Church every Sunday. I was not turned away because I was homeless.

The idea of a Catholic Church which does not welcome the homeless doesn't exist.

I have been ill received as a writer, since some have accepted the Protestant idea that a writer needs to be an Academic with a well ordered life, but I was always very well received insofar as I was coming primarily as a homeless. As to my being a writer, I have not been better received by Protestants, including your own version of that.

Greek, Pre-Verner Germanic, and Proto-Indo-European : Daniel Ross on Quora

Q

What if the Proto Indo European language came from the Proto Greek, considering that Greek is an isolated Indo European language, plus the fact that Greeks had already been to India before Alexander the Great according to the Greek tradition?
https://www.quora.com/What-if-the-Proto-Indo-European-language-came-from-the-Proto-Greek-considering-that-Greek-is-an-isolated-Indo-European-language-plus-the-fact-that-Greeks-had-already-been-to-India-before-Alexander-the-Great/answer/Daniel-Ross-71

Answer requested

by Georgios Antoniou

Daniel Ross

I study Linguistics

Answered Mar 8, 2018*

No.

• The entire basis for reconstructing PIE is that there are similar forms in Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, etc., which descend from a common ancestor. Greek is not that original ancestor, specifically because it also descends from it. There are sound changes and grammatical changes and so forth that simply wouldn’t fit if you put Greek in it “backwards”.
• Alexander the Great is several millennia after the breakup of PIE, so that is entirely irrelevant. We’re talking about distant pre-historic times around 6,000–8,000 years ago.
• “What if” isn’t a scientific argument. What if PIE was really the language of aliens, or Atlantis? What if PIE is really English? etc. Greek in place of PIE simply isn’t a better hypothesis than the currently accepted hypothesis; in fact, it is must worse (see 1 above).
• In a sense, Greek is modern PIE. So is English. So is Spanish. So is Russian. So is Hindi. And so forth. Latin isn’t actually a dead language— we just call it “Spanish”, “Italian”, etc. now (Daniel Ross' answer to Can we say when exactly did Latin die out in the city of Rome?). And the same is true for PIE— it split up into dialects and then languages, which went in their own directions. But you could, if you wish, continue calling any (=all) of the branches “[P]IE” and still be correct. That’s just a name. There is no “true” daughter compared to the others, though, so that argument wouldn’t somehow privilege Greek above the others, just indicate that indeed it represents a continued development from PIE just like all of the other branches do. In fact, even if you were somehow correct about this, the timeline would be so much older than your question implies that it would really end up being effectively the same as this hypothesis: several thousand years removed from our earliest records of Greek, so it would be almost unrecognizable. Perhaps you want to claim that Greece is the homeland of PIE, which is really a “what if” because there is no substantial evidence to back that up, and the migration of PIE groups from there doesn’t really fit with how we understand the language spreading. That’s harder to disprove, though, because we don’t know much about the homeland. But that doesn’t really mean the language was “Greek” in the modern sense any more than it was “English”.

*

2.5k Views, Upvoted by Thomas Wier, Assistant Professor of Linguistics at the Free University of Tbilisi. and Nick Pharris, Ph.D. Linguistics, University of Michigan (2006) · Author has 1.1k answers and 885.1k answer views

Answered twice

by me : A and B each giving a thread:

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 8

“There are sound changes and grammatical changes and so forth that simply wouldn’t fit if you put Greek in it “backwards”.”

Not Greek as we have it, true but … Germanic as extant would not fit in it either, but a Germanic consonantism pre-Verner minus the Germanic changes in vocalism would.

That hypothesis, which I consider very weak, would however elucidate one etymology.

“Paphl-agon-ia” would involve a paphl = Germanic and PIE Babl : babl, South IE vavl, phaphl > paphl.

So, Paphlagonia would be “land of those who go babble”. Makes sense since they had a language unrelated to neighbours.

Try and see if something like that could be arranged for Greek?

Daniel Ross

Mar 8

But if you approach it that way, then you’re really just taking Ancient Greek and then backing up all the way to PIE, while still calling it “Greek”. The distinction between the conventional hypothesis and the one of this question becomes one of nomenclature, not substance.

If it’s all that for a single etymology (or even various data points), then you could simply reconstruct PIE differently regarding those features, even propose some new sound shifts and make PIE more Greek-like. But none of that would really make PIE into Greek, and certainly not in anything like the modern (or ‘Ancient’) sense!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 8

Not really. Let’s take the pre-Verner Germanic one.

On the conventional road, the original would have been bhabhl-.

On the now conventional road the original for father would be pxtehr (if x is a graph you accept for ach-laut), or for “o father” it would be “ogh pxthr” (using gh for labialised uvular voiced fricative). On “my view” it would have been fathéér / fáther (thorn, not eth).

Possibly precisely “a” as the vowel for a vs Skr i … while some other Germanic a would indeed have been more PIE, as in “o”.

I would say pre-Verner-Germanic as much as Hittite would be perhaps easier than Greek.

One recent Finnish construction is so close to Hittite that the known Hittite would be a spelling simplification of it (as Runes also don’t distinguish between p and b).

Also, a computer simulated cladogram for IE langs placed PIE close to Gothic and Germanic on one branch, other IE langs on the other primeval branching.

It is built on words, vocabulary, rather than order of sound changes.

Daniel Ross

Mar 8

The cladograms you refer to are all but meaningless, given that you can find a published one to represent basically any given subgrouping you’d like. As I said, important area of research, but not one we can cite yet for any sort of consensus because every apparently “reliable” source seems to contradict all the others!

As for the rest, that’s a very different question than the original one about Greek vs. PIE. Sure, PIE might have been different than some reconstructions, but that doesn’t make it Greek. Simple as that. And there’s a large burden of proof required to change the consensus that has developed over the last 200 years, but go for it if you want to take that on.

The odds of Greek in any meaningful sense being PIE? 0%.*

The odds of some of the phonological reconstruction for PIE being incorrect? >99%.

*

If for instance relative in PIE was yos, proposed etymon for Greek hos, and not quis or quei and not tos or te (so unlike the etyma for Latin and Germanic relative pronouns, that would have been one way in which PIE could have been in some meaningful sense Greek, even though not phonetically identic. For interrogative, one must presume quis still had qu, not ti as in Greek tis, but that would have been the case in Mycenean Greek which does count as Greek. If "sea" had been either *dhalakya or *eH3keH1eH2nos rather than *mari, that would also make the PIE closer to Greek than now presumed. So, non-identity of Lautstand does not per se preclude PIE being in some meaningful sense Greek. This is however not what I believe, I rather tend to believe that Iavan's tribe did have the word known as thalassa or as okeanos, while mare (Latin, Germanic, Slavic, Celtic) would be from Gomer's tribe, and common words "over" the branches would be from Sprachbund - from "neighbouring" languages borrowing from each other. Note that languages are always "neighbouring" in bilinguals, whatever the geographic position of most speakers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 8

“The cladograms you refer to are all but meaningless, given that you can find a published one to represent basically any given subgrouping you’d like.”

These ones are based on vocabulary. The idea behind them is, more close any clades are, more vocabulary they have in common.

Obviously, this makes Ukrainean and Bielorussian closer to Polish than to Russian, due to Tatarisation of Russian vocabulary.

Daniel Ross

Mar 8

Even more meaningless if they are blind computations based on vocabulary rather than the insights of a trained linguist. See the first video here: Daniel Ross' answer to What are some of the best YouTube lectures in linguistics?

But again, you cannot pick and choose a particular published account that supports your version of things, when there are many other published accounts out there that refute it. There is simply no agreement (let alone consensus) about these cladograms. I’ve done a bit of research about them, and it goes nowhere because each publication contradicts the last, in substantial ways. Nor are they currently converging on any sort of common result.

Links

What are some of the best YouTube lectures in linguistics?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-best-YouTube-lectures-in-linguistics/answer/Daniel-Ross-71

Mismodeling Indo-European Origins: The Assault On Historical Linguistics | GeoCurrents
GeoCurrents | 20.XII.2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 8

I don’t recall if it was the one with the full Swadesh list or a reduced one which gave the result.*

*

It was a case of different cladograms to that in "Mismodeling Indo-European Origins", since that one was based on more words than the full Swadesh list, I think. Disagreeing cladograms depending on how many words are used would be one indication against PIE branching out in linguistic clades.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 8

“There is simply no agreement (let alone consensus) about these cladograms. I’ve done a bit of research about them, and it goes nowhere because each publication contradicts the last, in substantial ways.”

I’d like links to that.

Notably, I noted there was no unity between Swadesh and reduced Swadesh, but can you find any on either contradicting the one which had Gothic Germanic and PIE close by?

Obviously, if a publication has another criterium than “vocabulary of Swadesh” or “vocabulary of reduced Swadesh” (Swadesh–Yakhontov, I just checked), it could contradict the cladogram.

I’m not supporting Evolutionary Phylogenetics, but I suppose AronRa would have more convergence between diverse criteria, one of them being the cladogram for … whatever it was, cytochrome ? C.

Your admission would be one argument against proto-language hypothesis.

Daniel Ross

Mar 8

Here are some references, which provide very clear (and apparently compelling) analyses that come up with completely different results. These are published, peer-reviewed, and inconsistent.

Blanchard, Ph., F. Petroni, M. Serva, & D. Volchenkov (2011): “Geometric representations of language taxonomies.” Computer Speech and Language, 25: 679–699.

Campbell, Lyle (1999): Historical Linguistics: an Introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dobson, Annette J. (1978): “Evolution Times of Languages.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73:361: 58-64.
Dyen, Isidore, Joseph B. Kruskal & Paul Black (1992): “An Indoeuropean Classification: A Lexicostatistical Experiment.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 82:5. Greenhill, Simon J. (2011): “Levenshtein Distances Fail to Identify Language Relationships Accurately.” Computational Linguistics, 37:4: 689-698.

Johnson, Keith (2008): Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Ringe, Don, Tandy Warnow & Ann Taylor (2002): “Indo-European and Computational Cladistics.” Transactions of the Philological Society, 100:1: 59-129.

Serva, M. & F. Petroni (2008): “Indo-European languages tree by Levenshtein distance.” EPL, 81:6: #68005.

Serva, M (Online): http://univaq.it/~serva/languages/languages.html

While not yet

having taken time to consult this, I think I may owe him a grazie.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 8

// “What if” isn’t a scientific argument. //

In that case, PIE isn’t a scientific position either.

There is as much what if to it as to pre-X-Greek and pre-Verner-Germanic or as to Sprachbund.

If “what if” can be logically asked, it is scientifically relevant.

The dismissal may be a very obvious and clear one, but the question is still relevant.

Which means it is scientifically relevant or relevant to science if you consider reconstruction of pre-written states of languages we find “related” but not mutually intelligible as a branch of science.

Btw, h- for previous s-, y-, sw- would be a mutation in Greek, since it involves a merger.

[In other words, PIE cannot have had h- for both hedys and hos, but it can have had *swadus and *yos in those Greek meanings. Again, not what I believe, but I think Daniel Ross dismissed the possibility too easily.]

Daniel Ross

Mar 8

“In that case, PIE isn’t a scientific position either.” — Untrue. PIE is based on two major scientific positions: (1) the similarity between the IE languages is too great to be dismissed as coincidence, thus pointing to a common ancestor; and (2) the comparative method, tested over 200 years(!) and one of the most debated and polished aspects of linguistic science, giving us some idea of what PIE was like. Even if it’s wrong, it’s scientific. Just saying “what if” is not. A scientific hypothesis is much more than that.

The more important point implied in your questions here is what the sub-branching is within IE. Which branches are more closely related to others? Which split first? What is the order of sound changes, not just their networked relationships across the attested daughter languages? And that becomes a very important and fascinating scientific question. It’s one that is not yet solved. And yes, you could have some room to argue that PIE was more Greek-like than currently proposed. But that’s a huge amount of research— literally hundreds of scientific careers over the past 200 years, with almost every minute detail already discussed and debated— that you would need to convincingly refute and adjust. I’m not saying this is wrong. But it would take a lot to convince people that it is right. Regardless, the accepted result would not be to think of Greek as PIE, but rather that PIE was more Greeklike than in earlier proposals, and that the branching of other groups fit in a certain way to result in the changes that derived the modern languages.

And as much as a few changes here or there are facilitated by this revision of current consensus, there would be many more problems that pop up by changing things around. Tricky.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 8

Whether “what if” is a scientific hypothesis or not, it is scientifically relevant.

Also “is too great to be dismissed as coincidence, thus pointing to a common ancestor” - this is a glaring what if, ignoring the rival what if of Sprachbund.

“the comparative method, tested over 200 years(!) and one of the most debated and polished aspects of linguistic science, giving us some idea of what PIE was like.”

Yes, Schleicher’s Fable started out sounding fairly close to Sanskrit and would now sound fairly close to Klingon, if you substitute h for H1, ach-laut for H2 and labialised uvular voiced fricative for H3.

“But that’s a huge amount of research— literally hundreds of scientific careers over the past 200 years, with almost every minute detail already discussed and debated— that you would need to convincingly refute and adjust.”

As with the rival pre-Verner-Germanic, it suffices to adjust a certain point once and you apply that to every carreer or paper that is relevant.

I do not have to refute it once for this paper, once again for that other paper and so on.

The difficult one, which I am most interested in, is the Sprachbund thesis : documenting PIE root for PIE root how a Sprachbund explanation would suffice.

Like the PIE possible wopswa/wepswa where only Germanic and Italic and Baltic are clear exponents (Slavic osa would be the result of it by Slavic sound laws, but is so unspecific it could also be a coincidence).

Germanic is neighbour to both Italic and to Baltic, hence Sprachbund is sufficient.

Daniel Ross

Mar 8

My goal isn’t to convince you. But it seems your goal may be to convince others, and that will be very hard.

A sprachbund? Not entirely unreasonable, but it goes against our basic understanding of historical linguistics (for which PIE is the primary model).

In the end, none of what you are saying is more convincing than the current hypotheses. And that’s the problem. It’s like reinventing a slightly less efficient wheel. Until you can demonstrate that your wheel is actually better than the others, rather than just remotely plausible (and actually less so than the other popular wheels), you won’t convince anyone.

Overall the problem is that the PIE hypothesis does a very good job of systematically explaining the data. It would be hard to construct an alternative theory that is both as effective and as efficient.

But this isn’t my argument to have. I find the current explanations satisfactory, and specifically more satisfactory than the alternatives. Science is open for debate, though, and I have no need or interest in defending the status quo beyond what I’ve written. Good luck!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 8

"But it seems your goal may be to convince others, and that will be very hard."

Depends on their background.

"My goal isn’t to convince you."

But perhaps others, right?

"Not entirely unreasonable, but it goes against our basic understanding of historical linguistics (for which PIE is the primary model)."

Actually, what I consider a primary model for historical linguistics is Romance linguistics, Germanic linguistics, Balkan linguistics.

In other words, PIE being a proto-language is as reasonable as PIE being a Sprachbund on that view. Neither is the primary model, both are derived from some such.

Balkan linguistics starting later than Romance would be one valid explanation on why Proto-Language is more popular than Sprachbund.

"In the end, none of what you are saying is more convincing than the current hypotheses."

To you, who presumably give a timeline of 6000 years to IE language family.

And who presumably don't believe that Iavanites and Gomerites spoke different languages just after Babel. If you even credit the labels with any meaning.

I identify Iamnaia culture as by Magogians ... so, if I were to accept proto-language model, it would involve a very drastic view of today's situation, as per Apocalypse 20:7.

I consider it very probable that also the Sunghir man on Grave 1 was Magog himself. And the time scale between "32,050 and 28,550 BC" (Sunghir) and "4000 BC" (Iamnaia) would be only a few centuries with my recalibrated carbon tables. With Babel between (Göbekli Tepe).

"And that’s the problem. It’s like reinventing a slightly less efficient wheel. Until you can demonstrate that your wheel is actually better than the others, rather than just remotely plausible (and actually less so than the other popular wheels), you won’t convince anyone."

In your set circles.

It is more efficient on the account of Paphla- getting an etymology that makes sense in context (note, if pre-Verner Germanic was part of a Sprachbund, it makes sense sound laws were reversible in loans between languages, like a French to English loan today would involve -té > -ty and an English to French loan would involve -ty > -té).

It makes sense because many word fields would be central and still lack a common IE gloss reducible to a PIE one. It makes sense because for father the oldest IE language has the Atta gloss in common with Uralic.

And a few more.

My real problem is, when I get in touch with linguists, they refuse discussion.

I want to know how many of the PIE roots have more than 3 language families?

I want to know how many of them have language families that are distant (like Sanskrit and Gaelic) among the three or more?

I'd need to ask a linguist. Again, I wanted to check what wasp was in Sanskrit, Persian and a few more, I couldn't in Google translate use Farsi, because I don't know the Arabic alphabet well enough - so I'd need a linguist. Who, as usual, are as supportive as Ilya Usoskin on the milliSieverts per year implications of faster carbon 14 productions.

"Overall the problem is that the PIE hypothesis does a very good job of systematically explaining the data."

Except the Biblical ones ... unless we take Magogian as PIE ...

"It would be hard to construct an alternative theory that is both as effective and as efficient."

Or easy, once I get the linguists to discuss with.

By the way, what is the difference between effective and efficient to you?

"But this isn’t my argument to have. I find the current explanations satisfactory, and specifically more satisfactory than the alternatives. Science is open for debate, though, and I have no need or interest in defending the status quo beyond what I’ve written. Good luck!"

Thank you. So, what is wasp in Sanskrit?

Daniel Ross

Mar 8

The reason that linguists refuse to discuss this with you is that the conversation is frustrating. It’s like insisting that a mathematician discuss with you the possibility that the number 5 does not exist. That is also the reason I am uninterested in continuing to debate this.

The approach of science is this: 1) do background research; 2) gather data and test specific hypotheses; 3) suggest conclusions. You’re doing that backwards, asking for the background research after you’ve made conclusions. If you want to be taken seriously, take some time to understand the subject well. That is the only useful advice I can give you. There is a reason that experts in the field do not agree with you. And it isn’t because they haven’t considered the possibilities you’re thinking about, or because they overlooked details in the data. You will note that I have a number of upvotes here from people who do have training in linguistics. Interpret that as you wish. I have nothing more than credentials and the consensus of my peers to offer.

As for the bible, I have absolutely nothing to say about that, because we can’t possibly arrive at a productive conclusion from a book that, interpreted loosely, is metaphorical, or interpreted literally claims the universe is 6,000 years old (so of course PIE cannot exist).

Thanks for the comment. I’ll attempt to point you in the right direction for continued research, but otherwise need to end this discussion.

• See Pokorny’s etymological dictionary (easy to find copies online, in various formats, English or original German). I don’t know if it lists wasp specifically but there’s lots of data there to consider.
• I will also give you some references to published accounts with wildly different subgroupings, as a reply to your other comment, for this now too-spread-out conversation.

Good luck.

Pokorny:
https://indo-european.info/pokorny-etymological-dictionary/whnjs.htm

Thanks for the tip!

I checked Pokorny on waps, and while Sanskrit was lacking, it is as far east as Persian:

u̯obhsā

English meaning wasp

German meaning `Wespe'

Material Av. vawžaka- `Skorpion', aber iran. *vawža- `Wespe' in mpers. vaβz `Wespe', Baluchi gwabz `Biene, Wespe';

lat. vespa f. `Wespe' (aus *vopsā);

acorn. guhi-en gl. vespa, mcymr. gw(y)chi, abr. guohi gl. fucos (*u̯ops-), woraus entlehnt air. foich gl. vespa (auch `eruca'), nir. fotlach und puith `Wespe', daraus spoch `heftiger Angriff' (O'Rahilly Sc. G. St. 3, 63);

ags. wæfs, wæps, wæsp `Wespe', ahd. wefsa, wafsa, waspa, bair. webes, thür. weps-chen und wewetz-chen, die auf germ. *wabi-s und *wabi-t weisen;

lit. vapsvà `Wespe', apr. wobse ds.;

ksl. osa, klr. osá (aus *vopsā, baltoslav. *u̯apsā).

References WP. I 257 f., WH. II 770, Trautmann 342, Vasmer 2, 280, Specht Idg. Dekl. 45 f., Szemerényi Arch. Lingu. 4, 52.

See also deutlich zu u̯ebh- `weben'.

Pages 1179

If option A is creationism and option B is Evolution. What is option C? (quora)

Q

If option A is creationism and option B is Evolution. What is option C?
https://www.quora.com/If-option-A-is-creationism-and-option-B-is-Evolution-What-is-option-C/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Answered Mar 2, 2018

For any item perceived to exist, at least by some, you have four options, first three being options for its actual existence:

• eternism
• creationism
• evolutionism
• illusionism

For instance, a Christian is eternist about God and creationist about the universe and about his soul and usually evolutionist about the English language (using the word evolutionist in a very loose sense), as well as illusionist about experiences of previous lives.

While an Evolutionist Atheist is generally eternist about matter/energy, or used to be before Big Bang became popular, creationist and illusionist about God, evolutionist about the universe, evolutionist and illusionist about his own mind. And usually evolutionist about the English language. He is even creationist about certain works written in it, like Romeo and Juliet. He also would be illusionist about experiences of previous lives.

A Hindoo is generally eternist (with some evolutionism) about the ultimate reality, which would be kind of a “god”, illusionist about the universe and his separate self, also evolutionist about his separate self, as it would have gone through several incarnations and therefore also evolutionist about experiences of previous lives.

Other combinations would be possible.

Paris or Königsberg, Robert Barron?

Bishop Barron on Stephen Hawking and Atheism
Bishop Robert Barron | 8.IX.2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-yx5WN4efo

I

I was just watching the Theological Robber Baron's talk on beauty, which is a beautiful talk and which I interrupted in order to resume it after I had read Evangelii Gaudium, which so far I have not.

In it, Robert Baron (none other) says he was in Paris for his doctoral thesis in Theology.

Now, this means you were in fact studying where St Thomas Aquinas taught.

But, opening this video, it seems you could as well have been studying in Königsberg for all the accuracy of your Thomism.

Of course the philosopher seeks empiricism!

St Thomas' contribution as compared to Plato was to give a bit more room to empiricism.

And since Geocentrism is Empirical (whatever Heliocentrism is, it is not direct experience), he duly deduced a first and outermost mover of all the finite numbers of the layers of the universe in its daily course around Earth, that first mover being of course God.

Note, since Thomists claiming to be such have abandoned Geocentrism, Prima Via, which St Thomas himself thought and taught as the most obvious one has become displaced by them and in their opinion by Tertia Via.

Phil Chalmers

St Thomas was betrayed.

He wrote enormous amounts of theology and philosophy which many humans thought was brilliant and wise and full of truth.

The Holy Spirit visited him and showed him what his work was worth. St Thomas then knew his work was as worthless as straw, he is quoted as saying just that, and ordered it in his last will and testament to be destroyed.

This was not done.

I cannot even imagine what damage has been done by such an act of quenching the Holy Spirit. Don't bother to quote Aquinas, it is stale straw from many yesterdays ago.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That his writings were straw as to his personal action, is possible.

I don't think so, but seeing the vision, it is possible.

It is also possible that he foresaw how he would be really betrayed by "Thomists" like Barron. For instance "omni artifici de sua arte loquenti credendum est" misapplied by expertise idolaters.

We have more reason to believe the universal Church than his private revelation, as to worth of studying his work.

Some detractors are even Kantian.

II

0:50 - 1:00
"see, there's a qualitative difference between science and philosophy : science seeks after events and objects and phenomena within the empirically observable and measurable universe"

Well, the universe is not measurable empirically, but if you take this as being a differentia specifica for science as opposed to philosophy (a distinction St Thomas would have denied), that means you deny this to philosophy, and you want to construct all philosophy around pure logic applied to itself without reference to the empirical.

If however some level of metaphysics does start out with the empirical, then science is directly relevant for it, in so far as it is correct.

And this would mean, we either accept the metaphysical conclusions of Hawking, or we refute him on some of his science.

I think I did so here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Computers Afraid of the Dark?
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/03/computers-afraid-of-dark.html

III

3:21
"I'm the one supposed to be defending old pre-scientific views of the world"

Yes, you are.

When you start doing that, you are a robber baron no more.

First of all, there is no such thing as "pre-scientific". Those who use the word are referring to views on "scientific" topics before there was what they consider in their field a "scientific community".

A "pre-scientific" view is all views including the latest before that one which started the academic collaboration now referred to as "science".

For instance, in Indo-European linguistics, considering pater and father, it is "scientific" to speak about a "sound law" like p > f in Germanic, even if it would be equally possible that f > p in non-Germanic and even if a Proto-Indo-European Lautstand is simply not empirically accessible.

On the other hand, speaking of a "sound correspondence" like Latin/Greek p = Germanic f, which is strictly empirically verifiable (pater, father, piscis, fish, caper, hafr (OE for goat or buck), apo, af / of / off, hyper, over ... you'll need to accept some wavering between f and v sounds at this point, but that is empirically verifiable too), speaking of "sound correspondences" is "pre-scientific".

Second, quite a few of the "pre-scientific" views would be those of scholasticism.

Third, quite a lot of scholasticism works much better on the theological and philosophical level, if you refrain from divorcing it from "pre-scientific" views on the empirical or more close to empirical one.

For instance, Prima Via looks a lot better as proof for one God if there is one unified movement of one whole universe around Earth. Replace that with Heliocentrism and multiple solar systems ... well, you see how Giordano Bruno got in trouble. He was a Dominican, he was familiar with Saint Thomas, so, arguably, his apostasy was motivated by combining Prima Via with Heliocentrism and multiple solar systems in an infinite cosmos.

Obviously, Bruno's Heliocentrism, unlike Newton's, would also count as "pre-scientific" for the guys who tout that word. I don't mean you should defend ALL "pre-scientific" views of the world.

It's a bit how some call Pius XII Hitler's Pope. He was. And he withdrew from Hitler the correction in Humani generis unitas, which he never published as an encyclical.

Reminds me, I ought to read that one.

IV

Before 5:04

Things in the world are contingent.

Not admitted by that side.

On a view which could have been also that of Stephen Hawking, and certainly was that of a lot of other atheist science believers and still is:

IF we had all data about the initial state of the universe and IF we had all data about how causes interact and IF we had infinite time and patience - THEN from the initial state of the universe one could deduce Bishop Barron being a Bishop and Stephen Hawking being an atheist.

And the most obvious answer in defense of contingency is - we look contingent. We look as contingent as the universe looks geocentric.

We deem ourselves contingent because of this look, because this prima facie probability of contingency is one we have not refuted.

Hence the problem with divorcing sane philosophy from empirical data, from experience, from the prima facie look of things.

Note, whenever on some one item we do not accept the prima facie look of sth as true, it is because we deduce from the prima facie look of a lot of related things.

Contingent is not just depending on the necessary, but depending on the necessary in such a way that the necessary was not under necessity to produce the contingent item.

"Hawking" would admit that we are in a sense contingent on sth else, but he would not admit there was any freedom in that something else, and therefore would not admit there is any real contingency in us. We would on that view be the ephemeral shape of sth very permanent.

If we look at Tertia Via, divorced from Prima, we could arrive to ultimate necessary being in the universe being a freedom, like God - or we could equally arrive to it being an unfreedom, the Ananke he believed in.

V

6:02 "and this is precisely what Catholic philosophy identifies as God"

And atheistic philosophy identifies the necessary being with the multiplicity of particles and forces.

That is why Prima, Secunda and Tertia via have an atheistic counterpart, for those divorcing Prima via from Geocentrism.

That is why Quarta and Quinta via for the atheists ultimately aren't meaningless, but if they went beyond the text of St Thomas, they would replace "orderer" with "failure of all that can fail" (in biology known as natural selection, death) and "most noble per se" with "most evolved".

Hence the urgency of defending intelligent design and geocentrism. And if you do that, you can as well defend Young Earth Creationism too.

6:34 "unlimited in its being"

• 1) Less obvious, by far, than "if the universe moves around Earth, something is moving it and if the stars don't collide, someone has ordered them"
• 2) An atheist could argue that a quantum particle is "unlimited in its being" and its limits are only meta-limits, due to the existence of other particles, which in and of itself is how quantum physics approaches limitless existence.

VI

Up to 7:07

"gravity is finite" - Hawking was speaking of the law of gravity, which he pretends is universal, all over the universe
"gravity is variable" - but Mm/d^2*constant is not variable
"gravity of itself is not that which exists through the power of its own essence" - what Hawking denied
"and it's ludicrous that something like it within the universe is itself the cause of the being of the universe" - he would of course say it encompasses the universe.

If we can say it doesn't, how can we - how can you - defend using gravity as a universal truth the application of which primes over empirical evidence for geocentricity?

I am not defending that. Some American Catholics are.

VII

7:59 "within that framework, I'm not going to find a deity"

No, not a deity. But certainly more than one very obvious God-did-it.

8:06-08 "God is not a force within the observable measurable cosmos"

In a sense He is, if He distinguishes miracles from ordinary events.

In a sense He is, if certain things within the observable cosmos are directly produced by Him and others only indirectly.

You are verging on interpreting Tertia Via in such a Pantheistic way as to clearly impinge on Prima Via.

8:31 "no one thinks God is a ... you're going to find within the universe"

Well, if not God, then very immediate traces of God.

LIKE, on the Thomasic and Geocentric view, the daily motion of the Universe around us.

Obviously, denying this is in conflict with the theorem that there are only a finite number of moved movers.

Some moved mover is not moved indirectly by the unmoved one and directly only by another moved mover. Some moved mover is moved directly by the unmoved one.

Deny that, you pull away the very basis for concluding there is an unmoved one, since you have admitted in principle a clear possibility of an infinite series of moved movers.

Fr Spitzer's Wrong on This One - Huge Wrong (Humani Generis Revisited)

Did he speak these words as a lie after reading it in Braille, or was he lied to about exact content of Humani Generis?



I don't know, but at least he is wrong in what he is proposing.

Video from which

The Catholic Church on Evolution
Magis Center | 21.VI.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-KeQOVLxyQ

I

1:01 Glad you mentioned Humani Generis.

It is in a sense a somewhat perfidious act.

Pius XII never said in so many words "Catholic faithful are free to believe in evolution as commonly believed by non-Christian scientists and some Christian ones as well".

He said that the magisterium at present (ok, what about historic magisterium and what about acts the present one cannot supersede, such as Trent solemn definitions?) does not forbid (so, the magisterium previously forbade and Pius XII dares not say "now allows"?) that people expert in both science and exegetics (how many are that?) defend either position (not just the evolutionist and not just the creationist, but either) as to whether Adam's body was taken from previously alive material (are we talking maggots in the mud on day 6 or are we talking Neanderthals not yet being humans?).

So, very glad you mentioned it.

However, he allowed theologians to comment on it and give the impression that Catholics are now allowed to believe in Evolution. Just like "Paul VI" allowed his act of circumscribed dispensation to gain the impression of being a general "thumbs up" for hand communion (or even thumbs down for traditional distribution of communion in their mouth while they kneel).

That is a tactics I am, as no great fan of Novus Ordo, most certainly not a fan of either.

Also, he did not state how long this "at present" was supposed to last, while he gave an impression that both parties should be prepared to defer to a future act of the magisterium. But he did not state the act of the magisterium had to be a future one. I defer to Trent. And to all Church Fathers being very much against deep time, even as moderate one as "40 000 years" of Egyptian King Lists.

Also, he did not state how humanlike the previous living material could be while still lacking an immortal soul - if it is too far, we are not talking evolution but Ovid. If it is too close, like Neanderthals, we are clearly risking stamping human beings, presumably descended from Adam as non-human.

Some people to this day claim Europeans and generally non-Africans and North Africans are "partly non-human" due to Neanderthal admixture.

Obviously, no.

1:11 Would you mind telling me in what exact paragraph of Humani Generis Pius XII is himself indicating his own personal uncertainty on whether evolution is right or wrong?

1:49 Thank you for saying a Catholic can't deny the soul, that is correct.

However, I don't think Pius XII actually went as far as to say directly with that one restriction one was free to support evolution in one's actual belief.

Here are the paragraphs which would be targetted:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

Now, a few data which should shock Catholic evolutionists out of some lethargy:

• 1) "and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church,"
  
  He did not say it was a future one! Trent referring to Church Fathers (which also is a negative one on Heliocentrism).
  
  
• 2) "research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution,"
  
  Not a word about belief and not a word about the common man.
  
  Presumably the Catholic in the pew who is neither a science geek nor a theology geek should pass his way and go for surer things, like Catechism of Pius X or definitions of Trent.
  
  Also, as said, you can't have a discussion involving on the one hand a theologian experienced in how to handle Heliocentrics question in exegetics but no scientific training and on the other hand a scientist, avidaly aware of every "bone of contention" (to give them the name given by Lubenow) but a bit shady on theology.
  
  BOTH sides have to be experienced in BOTH fields.
  
  
• 3) "for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."
  
  With exclusion of reductionism, Pius XII cites "Catholic faith obliges", but with openness for evolution on the bodily side, there is no corresponding "Catholic faith allows us".
  
  
• 4) "Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament." ... "If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents."
  
  We are not free to take genealogies of Genesis 4, 5 or 11 as on par with if not genealogies in Lord of the Rings, at least genealogies involving "Zeus impregnated" as a valid explanation for Hercules.
  
  We must on the contrary take genealogies in Genesis 4, 5 and 11 as historic data.
  
  This poses a timelimit.
  
  Adam is more recent than modern scientists believe that Göbekli Tepe is.
  
  Was Göbekli Tepe built by pre-Adamites? No. By non-humans? No.
  
  It was built by Adamite men.
  
  It was even built by post-Flood men, since the account also involves universality of Flood (diocese of Paris has cheated on this one a lot - since the article Inerrance biblique in Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, an otherwise fairly good work).
  
  If Göbekli Tepe is in fact less than 5000 years old, or, taking Syncellus chronology, not much more than 5300 years old, this means that its carbon date as 11600 - 10600 years old at botton and top must be false.
  
  History takes precedence over reconstruction. History says GT is less than 5400 years old. Reconstructions claiming it is 11600 to 10600 years old are out of court.
  
  This implies there is a problem with the method given to reconstruct other things.
  
  That, plus Trent, should settle any claims Humani Generis allows, let alone explicitly allows, believing evolution.

2:31 with proviso against reductionism "you can believe in evolution as long as science supports that"

Well, no. Humani Generis does not say anything like "as long as science supports" either one or the other.

The support of the scientific community was not mentioned as a criterium in Humani Generis and is not a Catholic one.

II

"1989" and "st john paul"

Thank you, but the villain of Assisi 86 and Rome synagogue 86 is hardly a Catholic criterium.

2:43 "to the pontifical commission on science"

Thank you, like the act on Nov 22 1951, that is not very high ranking as magisterium goes even if you accept him as having been Pope.

3:18 "that it was no longer a hypothesis"

According to criteria of Pius XII in Humani Generis, was Wojtyla even qualified to discuss the question?

Whether he was experienced in Catholic or in some other exegesis we can leave aside, but what was his exact experience in palaeontology?

Or in anthropology of the archaeological type?

Would he have even understood what I just stated about Göbekli Tepe as implying we either must scrap the evolutionist reconstruction, since deep time and reliance on dating methods are part of it, or we must scrap one criterium of Humani Generis, as set out in paragraph 38?

If he had, would he have felt confident to check it out with a thought process of his own, or would he have been like "oh, I must hear what the experts have to say on this one"?

Here is not the document from 1989, but one from 1996:

MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: ON EVOLUTION
"Pope John Paul II"
https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points."

What exact paragraph in Humani Generis was that?

Or was it a shady overall impression?

"In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research."

In other words, he is taking science for a certainty and hermeneutics for uncertain. Totally backwards.

"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

He's forgetting how it was semi-planned by experts doing discoveries nearly all coming from evolutionist background.

III

5:13 pre-human beings couldn't suffer prior to the fall?

Well, God couldn't and animals created on days 5 and 6 didn't.

I hesitated on whether to publish this as post 666, but Catholic Evolutionists are such a no no, such a paradox, that could be one of the signs of that grat apostasy which leads up to the Beast of which that is the number.

Schnoebelen - agreeing with most except Flat Earth

Genesis, Globes & Gnostics: Flat Earth Paradigm Shift?
Dr. William Schnoebelen | 25.VI.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OwPIVYTGt0

I Chronicles 16:30 Geocentric, not Flat Earth
(parallels would involve "Ps 93:1" and "96:10" = 92:1, 95:10 in Douay Rheims numbering)

II Kings 22:[16] And the overflowings of the sea appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid open at the rebuke of the Lord, at the blast of the spirit of his wrath.

Tectonics?

(parallels would involve Ps "18:15" and "102:25" = 17:16, 101:26, Proverbs 8:27-29 seem to concur with tectonics interpretation, Isaiah 48:13 does not make any objection)

I Kings 2:8 has poles in DR, Job 9:6 seems to indicate some support (!) of tectonics interpretation.

7:46 "you can't get four corners out of a ball"

No, but you can with land masses meeting seas on a ball.

The actual maps for flat earth involve 3 south corners (unless you generously think Oz counts as two South corners), but the land masses on a globe would involve NW, NE, SE and SW corners, either of Old World or involving Americas.

Isaiah 11:12 was fulfilled in Acts 2. DR has "the four quarters of the earth."

Ezekiel 7:2 has "the four quarters of the land."

Apocalypse 7:1 has "the four corners of the earth" and would be said NW, NE, SE and SW corners.

Firmament - I posit it could be aether turning around the Earth, it is strong enough to keep geostationary satellites up and some more ...

Genesis 1:6-8 could seem to speak of atmosphere, since oxygen divides water below atmosphere from hydrogen and water way above it.

But if my identification of aether as medium of electromagnetic waves is correct, this could be involved since aether could have been involved in electrolysis on day 2.

Ezechiel 1:26 has firmament as all of the aether turning around Earth, since we are in Empyrean heaven here.

Job 37:18 speaks of a strength equal to a very strong solid, but does not directly predicate the heavens are per se solid.

Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass.

9:56 Geocentricity = agreed.

That is what Pope Urban VIII upheld in 1633 against Galileo, or his judges did, and he sent out their judgement. Note, he abjured, he was the rest of his life in house arrest and I believe he is with God, by now perhaps already above the fix stars.

Psalm 18:6-7 Not just geocentricity but sun being in some sense animate, either sun is an angel or there is an angel in the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 with a round earth we have either phenomenal language or a reference to solar apogee and perigee - these happening at same place in zodiak.

Joshua 10:12-13, I'd say verse 12 clinches it that Sun and Moon are usually moving and were those that stopped.

11:35 Earth is called a globe in Isaiah 40 in DR.

Isaias 40: [22] It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

LXX seems to imply sth like a "tour" (ton gyron) - which is obviously equally the case if heavens make a tour around Earth.

Ps 18 - already dealt with.

Daniel 4 involves a dream with symbolic imagery.

Isaiah 40:22 already dealt with.

Matthew 4:8 has this comment by bishop Challoner:

"shewed him": That is, pointed out to him where each kingdom lay; and set forth in words what was most glorious and admirable in each of them. Or also set before his eyes, as it were in a large map, a lively representation of all those kingdoms.

Considering demons can do everything that scientists can do, I consider it possible Satan showed Our Lord some TV shows from around the globe on that mountain - it only had to be hidden from where other people could have seen it.

Thanks for the reminder about one reason why we keep Lenten fast!

Ps 135:6 is speaking about dry land.

Isaiah 44:24 would once again speak about tectonics.

Schnoebelen is speaking about seeing Israel from mount Everest, but if those who were up there can't do that today, why would Jesus have been able to do that back then?

Rather, this confirms that Earth is a globe and that Satan was showing some TV show. However, it is possible that Satan did try to make Our Lord a flat earther too, but, if flat earth had been the real perspective, it would normally be so now too.

Excepting of course the "mechanics" or "fluid stability" of elfland. One metaphysical possibility too.

For Luke 4, lectio 2 in Catena Aurea, THEOPHYL. But how did the devil show Him all the kingdoms of the world? Some say that he presented them to Him in imagination, but I hold that he brought them before Him in visible form and appearance.

Here is Chrysostom, Matthew 4, lectio 3, in a work now denied him (I don't believe Higher Criticism more than I believe psychiatry, or not much):

The Devil, left in uncertainty by this second reply, passes to a third temptation. Christ had broken the nets of appetite, had passed over those of ambition, he now spreads for Him those of covetousness; "He taketh him up into a very high mountain," such as in going round about the earth he had noticed rising above the rest. The higher the mountain, the wider the view from it. He shews Him not so as that they truly saw the very kingdoms, cities, nations, their silver and their gold; but the quarters of the earth where each kingdom and city lay. As suppose from some high ground I were to point out to you, see there lies Rome, there Alexandria; you are not supposed to see the towns themselves, but the quarter in which they lie. Thus the Devil might point out the several quarters with his finger, and recount in words the greatness of each kingdom and its condition; for that is said to be shewn which is in any way presented to the understanding.

In other words, if it was Mt Everest he could point to the West and add "beyond the horizon" and if it was on Caucasus he could point to the South, also saying that.

Ends of the Earth are coastlines of the mainland, of the continents. Eretz in Hebrew is used for dry land in Genesis 1 (the whole shebang is however referred to as Arda).

Deuteronomy 13:7 May I guess Hebrews has eretz?

14:41 "that is how the world looked like according to the Sumerians, the Babylonians"

We don't know that for certain, but we do know the Bible verses are not that specific.

15:22 I agree we are a far cry from a solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago, that is rubbish.

For earth being a globe we have surer things, like geography.

15:29 "Modern science presents a direct attack" - but Magellan did not do so.

He was a globe earther, "but" he was also a Young Earth Creationist and a Geocentric.

18:01 - 18:10 "science fiction is built upon this idea that the earth is just this little teeny blue speck in the vastness of space with the idea that there are alien races more advanced"

Correct.

And Heliocentrism has been in Kant and in Euler sold by sci fi about aliens (either redeemed by Christ having parallel incarnations in other solar systems or unfallen and not needing redemption) seeing their own planets as much as a centre as we do with ours, optically.

Hello, that was 200 years ago, and we still don't know that these guys even exist. More like we can start suspecting they don't exist by now.

19:48 Actually, "since Copernicus" has NOTHING to do with Earth being a sphere, that was already uncontroversial and common place.

Since Copernicus has only to do with at first a debate surrounding and later a culture unilaterally supporting Heliocentrism - or Geokinetism.

20:18 "There are no genuine pictures of the globe earth from space"

Do we need them? I find Magellan believable and the implication of four corners even more so.

20:44 "NASA is primarily made up of Freemasons."

Possible. Certainly there was one on one of the real or purported moon landings.

B U T, Magellan was not a Freemason.

21:56 On this picture, you don't know how high it is taken from, and you don't know how much refraction in atmosphere has lifted up "the picture" of Chicago skyline above its ordinary position.

"that should not be possible"

Well, not if the photo was taken with the camera held at the feet of someone on the opposite lake shore just one meter behind the waves, no.

If it was taken from a window in a building it would be much more feasible. I have checked those parts of the mathematical formulas.

I also tried to get through to Rob Skiba with that one, as well as with Four Corners, and no reaction.

I Tim 6:10 - a good thing to keep in mind with materialism ("mind is a product of matter organised in brains"), heliocentrism, as mentioned here, and evolution.

Magellan was not a PhD in science, he was a geographer and a seafarer.

24:18 Yes, scientists believing they are custodians of esoteric knowledge, that I have encountered. Matthew Hunt, Ilya Usoskin, in some ways also Daniel Ross defending Proto-Indo-European, but he at last and at least had the decency to give me what I need for my research : Pokorny, available online.

Matthew Hunt for Michelson Morley and Ilya Usoskin for radioactivity and speed of carbon 14 production have shown somewhat more of a disingenious attitude.

List:

• "science lies about evolution" - well, evolutionist scientists do, then there are also creation scientists;
• "science lies about cancer" - possibly about cures which could be available but would be bad for business, I'd recommend, based on ma's ideas and on anecdotic material raw red beet root juice;
• "science lies about global warming" - possibly, but some measures for less transport and less high energy production would be good for employment as well;
• "science lies about vaccines" - well, there was one who died recently due to one or at least got seruiously ill ...;
• "science lies about the unborn" - not honest Christian gynaecologists who are pro-life;
• "science lies about mental illness and psychiatric drugs" - if you call psychiatry "science" ...;
• "science lies about childhood disorders like ADHD" - when both ADHD and Asperger are admitted to be each one in 50, we are clearly dealing with normal conditions, and it is modern school environments and modern work evinronments which make these uncomfortable in some situations. So, again illustrating, if you call psychiatry "science".

25:56 Attacking the Catholic Church - no thanks.

See Matthew 28:20.

26:10 Obviously not saying that Catholics who are syncretistic with scientism are real Catholics.

26:21 immovable, centre of cosmos and unique? Well, I have gotten back to how Medievals and Baroque Catholic Theologians viewed Scripture : as inerrant word of God.

Not just tacking the label inerrant to them, but actually agreeing they are.

26:36 Since about 16 and a half years I am no longer dealing with any cognitive dissonance between Bible and "science" falsely so called, since I am Geocentric and don't think Earth is at all spinning or whirling anywhere or anyway.

Not around itself, not around Sun, not with Sun through the Galaxy, nothing, zilch, nada.

I also think the limits of the visible universe are way closer than moderns think leaving room for Empyrean heaven to be above the fix stars.

Before that, previous years, very little, already steeped in St Thomas and therefore also Young Earth Creationism.

27:07 A circle exists in a plane, but to take Isaiah 40:22 as implying only one circle in only one plane to exclusion of globe is also to take God as in His Divinity actually spatially circumscribed and limited. God sitteth on every circle of the Earth as seen on either side of every plane going through it.

27:53 You might be interested that a globe earth but also geocentric like Sungenis perfectly shares your attitude to Neil DeGrasse Tyson ...

28:17 Isaac Newton New Agey Christian?

I'd say a lot of those are more Christian than he was. Arian, I think. Possibly into necromancy and certainly into astrology. Someone wrote a book about him calling him "the last Sumerian".

I had heard this from Lyndon LaRouche, and got it confirmed from elsewhere.

But Kepler whom Schiller Institute prefers was also an astrologer.

And Riccioli, who was in a sense more "New Agey" than Kepler, because Kepler believed magnetism ruled the celestial movements, and Riccioli believed the celestial bodies are moved by angels, he was far less New Agey. I don't think Riccioli ever made a horoscope - but that would need checking. Kepler certainly did, he made horoscopes for Wallenstein and for Tilly, generals involved in THirty Years War.

It may interest you that Magellan lived before all of these guys and one thing he did discover when on the Southern hemisphere was the Southern Cross.

You know what he concluded, as did every other Spaniard and Portuguese back then?

"The stars form a cross, that must be where the Pearly Gates are".

Now, that is a scientific conclusion - as long as Theology is queen of sciences.

What are the degrees required for the research field? (quora)

Q

What are the degrees required for the research field?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-degrees-required-for-the-research-field/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Self Employed at Writer and Composer

Answered Feb 17, 2018

“What are the degrees required for the research field?"

You mean THE field of research totally in general? None at all.

If you mean a specific field of research at a specific institution and as part as their research team, it seems PhD and Masters are usual, while those training for either are welcome as junior members of some research (you can’t get a PhD without doing some kind of research first).

But, first of all, the degree requirement varies from institution to institution doing research in teams or with subsidies, and, second, doing your personal inquiry on time not given to some wage earning job which would require other activities conflicting with it, that requires no degree at all, unless you require it of yourself.