... on a Number Identifying an Evil Man

666 - Numberphile
Numberphile | 12.IV.2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkZqFtYtqaI

I

1:14 "written as three letters"

Back then, if so, the third would have been digamma, not in use in most dialects.

BUT we can't say if original used "numerals" (as in three Greek letters) or written out numeral words.

I'd say the latter is probable.

II

3:20 I checked the ASCII gematric value of PETEWATTS - it's 711 (now we know where you go shopping late in evenings - or we don't, if we believe gematria is mostly a one prophecy validity). Here is how I got it:

P		80		080
E		69		140		09
T		84		220		13
E		69		280		22
W		87		360		29
A		65		420		34
T		84		500		38
T		84		580		42
S		83		660	+	45	=	711

Obviously, adding a space makes it 743 (space is 32) and making any letters minuscule would also give another value (unaccented letters always have minuscule 32 more than majuscule).

III

5:09 When apocalypse was written, one may presume, Nero was already a past reference.

Known to have 666 in name.

About that time - check out the vocative MAPKOC NEPOYA and then abbreviate it M. NEPOYA. And such an abbreviation may have even appealed to him, since it reminded of MINEPOYA / Minerva / Latin for Pallas Athene.

On the other hand, it is impossible to get 666 from a simple application of Greek isopsephy on Domitian.

However, Nerva was arguably a much better man than his predecessor Domitian. Domitian tried to kill St John in boiling oil, when this miraculously failed sent him to Patmos. Nerva liberated him from there.

Now, get over to ASCII:

M		77		070		07
N		78		140		15
E		69		200		24
R		82		280		26
V		86		360		32
A		65		420	+	37	=	457

Add minuscules and / or space (one space, four minuscules = 160) in appropriate number, perhaps a . (46) too ...

457		617
160		+46
617		663

So, closest (or "most suspect value") in ASCII is "M. Nerva" = "663"

Now look at a very simple Latin vocative of Domitian:

D		68		060		08
O		79		130		17
M		77		200		24
I		73		270		27
T		84		350		31
I		73		420		34
A		65		480		39
N		78		550		47
E		69		610	+	56	=	666

IV

7:48 In AD 90, criticising Nero would already be fairly safe.

The problem is who will be the next 666?

I think an Exile on Patmos was not perfectly free to send mail anywhere he wanted, while Christ had given him letters to seven Churches, he could call the "mailman" (his surveillant Roman "prison" guard on Patmos) for one destination only.

So, he gives the book to that prison guard, who takes it, and ... I have something of the mind of a novelist (and I could be very wrong on how it was for this prophet of God, who could have known this too all along) ... fortunately Domitian is not obviously adding up to 666, and as he is somewhat dense about anything except getting what he wants, he would not get any very subtle gematria values ... and the prison guard tells him there is a new emperor who will get the mail.

"What's his name?"
"NEPOYAC, MAPKOC NEPOYAC"

Ah, OK, seems fine, wait, what if I abbreviate M for MAPKOC?

M		-		40,
N		-		50+40=90,
E		-		5+90=95,
P		-		100+95=195,
O		-		70+195=265,
Y		-		400+265=665,
A		-		1+665 and yes, we needn't go to Cigma, there is a vocative as well ....

Next time he hears from Caesar (as in Markos Nerouas) he is a free man.

It seems Nerva later abdicated.

I have written some Narnian fan fic in which he meets Pulverulentus Siccus in Telmar ...

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Nerva the Narnian in Telmar
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2018/03/nerva-narnian-in-telmar.html

So, either St John was told to be Christ's postman to the seven Churches, when he left Patmos, or Nerva himself made himself postman for St John to the seven Churches. Or to all except Ephesus.

V

8:14 I recall prison, finding a paper clip (which we were supposed to apply to papers, the paper being a publicity for the clip, which was in plastic) ... on the paper clip, a triangle of dots, and the dots were on all sides of the triangle 36.

And yes, in a boring moment I had figured out multiplication tables for 11 - 20, including 18, or for prime numbers, including 37.

Formula for triangle number is side*(side+1)/2.

36*37/2
36/2=18
18*37 is 666

Guess who dropped that prison jobb quickly?

I was then asked to do sth else instead and studying Spanish was an available option, esp. as I was into languages before the incident...

VI

9:11 Nothing like?

Sure, A, B, C = 1, 2, 3 is DEFINITELY not anything like either Greek or Hebrew alphabets regularly used as numerals.

For one thing, you have a system in which C=100 and I=1 and in which MOST letters of MOST names have no number.

And for another, making C=3 is ad hoc, no use anywhere outside Apocalypse 18:13 context.

BUT we have computers now.

An at sign, @, is 64.
01000000
An Upper case A is 64+1, a k a 65.
01000001

Every visible sign on a computer screen (unlike months going from I to XII with very few Latin letters) is regularly (unlike ad hoc systems) represented by processes symbolised by 1 and 0, the binary number values of which can be taken out.

This makes ASCII very different.

Now, look at two men with 616 in ASCII (next comment).

I		73		070		03		H		72		070		02		456		(HITLER)
U		85		150		08		I		73		140		05		160		(change to Hitler)
L		76		220		14		T		84		220		09		616		(value of Hitler)
J		74		290		18		L		76		290		15
A		65		350		23		E		69		350		24
N		78		420		31		R		82		430	+	26	=	456
O		79		490		40
V		86		570	+	46	=	616

So I Uljanov (Iljitj Uljanov in his ancestry Swedish would be a relevant spelling) is 616 in BIG letters. Hitler is 616 in small letters (except initial).

As I'd say Lenin was more Satanic than Hitler, both being so somewhat, and as 616 fits only Nero (Hebrew for Nero Caesar) but not Domitian, and therefore 616 might seem to be a "runner up" to 666 ... I think this makes sense.

9:24 Except, in ASCII we don't get 1 to 26, we get 64+1 to 64+26 or 65 to 90.

VII

9:46 What is 2/3*1000 rounded off to whole numbers?

666 or 667?

I'd say 667 is the veritable 2/3 ...

V		86		080		06
E		69		140		15
R		82		220		17
I		73		290		20
T		84		370		24
A		65		430		29
B		66		490		35
L		76		560		41
E		69		620		50 - sorry, misrecalled, 670. I had recalled it as 667, my bad.

Here is a better one.

"the cat" and "the dog" could both be referred to as "the beast" (everyday meaning, not Apocalyptic). Now, check out the ASCII for the upper case, note that the 32s are seven, one for each lower case letter and one for the space.

T		84		080		04		|		441		443		(THECAT, THEDOG)
H		72		150		06		|		224		224		(the change)
E		69		210		15		|		665		667		(the cat, the dog)
C		67		270		22		D		68		270		23
A		65		330		27		O		79		340		32
T		84		410		31		G		71		410		33

Now, is there anything which can be termed any kind of beast which has an intermediate number?

Well, you could try going up from "the cat" to "the dat" - not much good.

Or you can go down from "the dog" to "the cog".

A cog in Medieval naval sense can be considered a "beast of burden" - comparable to donkeys or horses or oxen or camels carrying merchandise or drawing them behind them.

A cog in a much more modern sense, in a cogwheel, can be considered as a "beast of work" - comparable to a donkey tied to a pole walking round to make millstones grind ...

So, in a sense "the cog" can be considered as a kind of beast. Also, it is of metal, which in Antiquity was considered as modification of element earth.

(Cogs were of wood, of trees that grew in earth, inland, not in the sea).

AND treating men like cogs in a machinery is very emblematic of totalitarianism - precisely as required by the Apocalypse 18:13 context.

VIII

10:34 In fact, the reading 616 already existed in the day of St Irenaeus of Lyons.

And he said, "no it's 666".

He had tradition from a man (St Polycarp, or St Papias) who had known St. John, who must already have heard of it.

Since St Irenaeus explicitly excluded 616, he must have known "no, it's not Nero, he's already gone".

David Wood Shows a Weakness of Islam and of Protestantism

... against Maurice Buccaille, Basically · David Wood Shows a Weakness of Islam and of Protestantism · David Wood Partly Attacking Wrong Things in Islam

Though, the latter he would not have been aware of, totally?

Here is his video, under it are my comments:

The Quran, the Bible, and the Islamic Dilemma
Acts17Apologetics | 20.IX.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNAS0aaViM4

4:04 Mohammed is nowhere mentioned in our Scriptures.

Well, they would, some of them, claim "Parakletos" (advocate, a name of the Holy Ghost) should be "Periklytos" (famous, which is also the Arabic meaning of Mohammed).

One reason more to reject Islam.

4:11 "except the general admonitions against false prophets trying to pull us away from the Gospel"

Well, obviously, Mohammed really is one of those ... with Joseph Smith, Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Knox, Cranmer and a few more.

8:20 I am very much reminded of Luther here.

He based all on a book he had from the Catholic Church.

Not just that, he could have read in that book that the Church Jesus founded would always subsist as a teacher (Matthew 28:20).

But Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist sects obviously have not done that, since they come from the Reformation.

So, if Matthew 28:20 is false, Lutheranism is false because Christianity as a whole is false.

If Matthew 28:20 is true, Lutheranism is false because Christianity is described as having another type of Church than Lutheranism.

Ruckmanite Baptists are a little better off, they are not directly contradicting Matthew 28:20, but they are contradicting known Church History in affirming Baptism has always been the Church in unbroken succession.

Studylight actually has St Thomas Aquinas' commentary (compilation) on Gospels, and I quote from that on Matthew 28, section verses 16-20

"Chrysol, Serm. 80: Thus all nations are created a second time to salvation by that one and the same Power, which created them to being."

OK, we are therefore dealing with a Church which converts nations. Ruckmanite baptism or ... Catholicism, of some sort?

"Jerome: Observe the order of these injunctions. He bids the Apostles first to teach all nations, then to wash them with the sacrament of faith, and after faith and baptism then to teach them what things they ought to observe; "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.""

"Raban.: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." [James 2:26]"

"Chrys.: And because what He had laid upon them was great, therefore to exalt their spirits He adds, "And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." As much as to say, Tell Me not of the difficulty of these things, seeing I am with you, Who can make all things easy. A like promise He often made to the Prophets in the Old Testament, to Jeremiah who pleaded his youth, to Moses, and to Ezekiel, when they would have shunned the office imposed upon them. And not with them only does He say that He will be, but with all who shall believe after them. For the Apostles were not to continue till the end of the world, but He says this to the faithful as to one body."

So, Catholicism (of some sort, RC or EO) has to be actually teaching the right things to do ...

"Bede, Beda in Hom., non occ.: It is made a question how He says here, "I am with you," when we read elsewhere that He said, "I go unto him that sent me." [Jonah 16:5]

"What is said of His human nature is distinct from what is said of His divine nature. He is going to His Father in His human nature, He abides With His disciples in that form in which He is equal with the Father. When He says, "to the end of the world," He expresses the infinite by the finite; for He who remains in this present world with His elect, protecting them, the same will continue with them after the end, rewarding them."

"Jerome: He then who promises that He will be with His disciples to the end of the world, shews both that they shall live for ever, and that He will never depart from those that believe."

from Golden Chain Commentary, Matthew 28
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/gcc/matthew-28.html

Never is a big word.

A few centuries of "dark ages" is a biig exception to such a big word.

This obviously also takes care of the Muslim claim (the common one, not the Coranic one you have been showing forth).

Yeah, let's encourage Muslims and Protestants to take Matthew 28:20 seriously, as the three religions (the two mentioned and Catholicism) all require!

Addition on same topic:

Is Muhammad an Antichrist According to the Bible?
Acts17Apologetics | 8.II.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDH0uUMUNKk

Actually, it is also said that if you deny Christ came in the flesh, you are an antichrist, and this seems to be behind several Evangelical ideas about Eucharist, Mary, Christ in Heaven, ourselves in Heaven, which are in very active conflict with the Catholic Church and fairly traceable to denying "et incarnatus est".

Or, from Creed to the Angelus which is so popular on Malta "et Verbum Dei caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis".

"For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist."
[2 John 1:7]

This obviously applies to Islam and Christ-Rejecting Judaism too - which are ultimate roots of Evangelical Protestantism on this point.

But sure, what you said about Islam being a false religion is correct.

Begley, 2017, My Response, 2018

"Media Ignored" 1,500 Pedophiles Arrested Since Trump Took Office"
Paul Begley | 28.II.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cm0DQzQA8w

I

0:40 This was more than a year ago, and by now you would be able to know how many of the arrested "pedophiles" were also actually condemned for statutory rape, child porn, or whatever real business ("pedophile" is a buzz word) the arrest was supposed to be about.

1500? 750? 375? 187? 93? Fewer?

Of those not condemned, in how many cases was there so much remaining suspicion that whatever office was held before, the suspect was removed from even after clearance?

Citing one of your sources:

Unreported: 1,500 pedophile arrests made nationally since Trump took office
By World Tribune on February 26, 2017
https://www.worldtribune.com/unreported-1500-pedophile-arrests-have-been-made-nationally-since-trump-took-office/

Crokin noted some of the major arrests that have been made since Trump took office:

On Jan. 27 authorities arrested 42 in a human trafficking operation in Tennessee.

How many of the 42 were certain to be accomplices in it?

On Jan. 29 authorities announced that 474 were arrested in a statewide California human trafficking operation and 28 sexually exploited children were rescued.

With 28 children, wonder how many of them were children or how many just underage, I wonder how many of the 474 were at last certain to be involved?

178 people were arrested in Texas for sex trafficking in sting that operated in January until Super Bowl Sunday.

How many of these have been cleared?

On Feb. 14 the Polk County sheriff announced that 42 were arrested in Florida in child pornography related cases.

Were all possessing child porn on computers?

Were all condemned for possession of child porn?

Btw, 474 is an interesting number. A six letter word, if it has value 474 in UPPER CASE, it will have 666 in lower case letters, as per ASCII. Why? Any English letter and a lot accented ones too (not Polish bared L, though) will have lower case as UPPER CASE+32. And 6*32=192, 474+192=666.

As I recall, SAWRON (Welsh spelling of Sauron) in all lower case as sawron would be 666.

Rereading Book of Three, I came across "Horned King" - now HORNED KING (with space, fictional character of LLoyd Alexander) is 777, but HORNEDGOD (without taking note of usual space, non-fictional wiccan name for Satan) is 666.

So, even if some were indeed cleared after the Jan 29 2017 bust, the total of 474 is symbolic.

Those of them who were guilty are arguably fairly Satanic ...

Now, I don't think these cases alone add up to 1500 though.

____________
0	4	2		1	5	0	0
4	7	4		-	7	1	6
1	7	8		=	7	8	4
0	4	2
____________
5	0	0
2	2	0
0	1	6
____________
7	1	6

Nope, did not, just to a bit less than half ...

II

2:42 Back in 1995, in SC, a girl of 12 quit school to legally marry a fairly old man.

She would by now be both widowed and remarried.

Now, the problem is, Clinton heard of it, so he said, he would change laws, this would no longer be possible.

So, marrying before 16 is now illegal in most states, and I think that includes SC. I actually tried to check, when a girl just turned 16 and she was resident of SC. I had the hots for her, she didn't for me, apparently, so I'm still single.

Now, do you consider me as a guy who should be rounded up bc of my fighting an uphill battle to change laws back so 12 year olds can marry and quit school?

Or do you think it was rather Bill Clinton, who, by forbidding girls and boys 12 - 16 to marry have caused a lot of sexual desperation which in view of 1 Corinthians 7:9 should not have been provoked, and by doing so, pushed some of these into ways that were uncautious and made them exploitable? Thereby of course enabling the exploiters you are talking about.

Btw, I didn't read about the case in 1995 in some creepy child porn secret publication, I read of it in a girl's mag called FRIDA, as I recall. Sold in perfect legality and openly in Sweden.

And why was I reading FRIDA in 1995? Did I identify "as a girl"?

No, I had just once again relapsed in a porn addiction (not child porn, perfectly legal adult porn), and I wanted to get out of it into an affair, so I wanted to get to know girls better already at a distance ... so I exchanged porn as in porn for girl's mags with occasional porn effect on me.

I wonder, were you hoping I would be number 1501 arrested as a pedophile?

I know there ARE people around reading me, and sometimes the readership looks so well organised, it looks more like people watching out in a detective story than like normal fandom of a blog.

When for one blog, top 10 posts have for one 24 h period views numbered as ...

15	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	14
01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10

...and another one has ...

04	03	02	02	02	01	01	01	01	01
01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10

... and a lot more views in total than the 18 for those posts ...

I tend to think, the readership is extremely well organised - like policemen of InterPol or sth?

New blog on the kid : Yes, the Week Says People Read My Blogs
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/10/yes-week-says-people-read-my-blogs.html

This is a post involving, for fun of normal readers (if any left) links to much viewed posts, but where viewer stats are given with numbers. For first stat, a week, Russia had very many. For second stat, 24 h, US had twice 17 (marked xuij) and once 34 (marked xxxiu), while France and Germany each had a total of xuij and a total together of xxxiu.

21, 11, 13 and 12 are other numbers that by themselves and by multiples came up. Ukraine had a total of 132, which is 11*12. It had one blog viewed 12 times (marked XII) and another one 33 times (in Italics).

I think possibly each of them, certainly all together are overrepresented as compared to chance occurrence of such numbers, so, yes, my readers are VERY well organised.

III

Speaking of sex trafficking and high up ... are foster homes and orphanages being looked into?

I'd say a lot of children - not young teens, but real pre-teen and for girls under 12 actual children - may have been abused bc in foster homes, where the foster father or foster brothers (both of foster family and other foster "children" no longer actual children) have been abused.

Also a lot of young adults have been there, and have been getting a sex début normal as to age (over 14-12 limit) BUT within foster family.

Anecdotic. I sat on a long trip bus, I overheard a conversation, it was between two boys at least one of whom was a foster "child", neither a child, both teens, they talked about that situation, it was last millennium, can neither recall names (neither gave any to each other, and I was not involved) nor date.

Not too bad one concluded.

How so? He had had his first sex with another foster child of same family - one point - and also, more certain than first I am not conflating with another story - second point : if he was moved around the country, it helped him get contacts, a network.

This is what the Swedish CPS was helping him to.

Think this might be sth for Trump to take a look at?

Legalised child trafficking is still child trafficking, and sometimes the uses of it are not legalised even.

Not to mention, the CPS version of child trafficking is an offense to IV commandment:

"Honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam, ut sis longaevus super terram, quam Dominus Deus tuus dabit tibi."
[Exodus 20:12]

Honour THY father and THY mother ...

IV

5:35 My little hunch on why mainstream media did not cover the 1500 arrests?

Here:

• some would have thought Trump was encouraging hysterics to do unwarranted arrests, and wanted to wait till they were sure some were actually convicted
• and some while not so, would have considered it a propaganda stunt by Trump, whom they hate.

I would like to know, do you know anything about how many of the 1500 were then convicted? And how were if so convictions later covered in mainstream media?

V

6:21 Donald Trump rescuing 28 children is actually greater news than arresting 1500 suspects of diverse "pedophile" crimes (the word as commonly used is a buzz word, right?)

VI

7:20 "not a good one"

"In the interview in a January 2016 episode of the podcast Drunken Peasants,[113] Yiannopoulos stated that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can "happen perfectly consensually", because some 13-year-olds are, in his view, sexually and emotionally mature enough to consent to sex with adults; he spoke favourably both of gay 13-year-old boys having sex with adult men and straight 13-year-old boys having sex with adult women.[114][115] He used his own experience as an example, saying he was mature enough to be capable of giving consent at a young age.[110] He also stated that "paedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old, who is sexually mature" but rather that "paedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty."[114][115]"

I am taking Milo's statement from wiki.

Milo Yiannopoulos : Alleged support for paedophilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos#Alleged_support_for_paedophilia

• 1) Milo is confusing question of heterosexual and homosexual relationships involving one adult and one thirteen year old. Why? Bc the buzz word pedophilia treats both as the same thing, which they are naturally not.
• 2) Milo is arguably wrong on 13 year olds being "mature enough" for homosexuality, it would be the exploitation of a weak moment they should normally later regret, however, I am not sure statutory rape is the right solution, older laws against sodomy involved heavier penalties for an adult partner if the younger one was under a certain age.
  
  Bosey was perhaps not an innocent victim, but even so Oscar Wilde had some reason to be in prison, as such.
  
  
• 3) Milo is however not just arguably but definitely right about when the 13 year old person is a girl.
• 4) Was taking the statement as straight face, seems he has later said (same article) it was irony or humour. No hard feelings over that, what I said applies to if he had said it straight face or to whoever would actually say so straight face.

Again, "pedophilia" is a buzz word. Mixing the homosexual hebephilia which is a sin against nature, with normal hebephilia and both with "paedophilia proper," sex with or sexual desire for those not yet in puberty.

It is a useless word which is used to blur issues.

However, I can identify with why media would rather cover Milo than the 1500 arrests. If 1500 were condemned, that would be great news, supposing they were all guilty of real predation or sin against nature (sex with or sexual pictures of people under puberty, i e actual children, or homosexual hebephilia).

But they were back then not all condemned. However, if Milo had not later retracted, he could have made a real buzz for a somewhat candid and actually not totally wrong statement, which would severely disadvantage those who would want to keep the buzz and blur on the matter going, as it has been since Clinton federal wide and so, and even before in very many quarters (though not all of SC).

VII

8:58 "but they want to keep the dirty little secrets away from the public"

Like dirty little secrets of Protestants and Atheists arguing badly?

HGL's F.B. writings : Ghosts?
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/10/ghosts.html

HGL's F.B. writings : "I will explain why geocentrism is wrong if you don't post my words elsewhere."
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/10/i-will-explain-why-geocentrism-is-wrong.html

And of some Muslims arguing even worse?

Répliques Assorties : Contre Deedat
https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2018/10/contre-deedat.html

And of an internationally concerted tracking of a writer as potential criminal (perhaps "pedophile" whatever that means next time), involving also a blockade against normal people reading him, by spreading rumours?

I'm not sure they are quite alone...

VIII

Btw, I would agree it's the last days, we are arguably more than seven years before Doomsday, but I don't know how much more.

A PS to Pope Michael, if such he be, I published this and posted a link on his wall after trying to see if he would condemn my stance on consent. And while he did not, he removed the discussion. So, here are the words added under the link I posted on his wall:

Since you tried to silence a discussion which very much is necessary for the common good of Christian societies and since such discussions are NOT for closed doors between masonic initiates, as you seem to imagine ...

This One Only Agrees with Lizzy's Points - Except One (see item IV)

HOW TO AVOID Becoming Catholic!!!
LizziesAnswers | 24.X.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrURxxQuNTY

I

To title

Guessing what to put in there as two of the methods ...

• 1) suicide (when one is in Hell it is too late to convert) (but OK, you still will know Catholic truth if you go there, just you won't profit from it)
• 2) apostasy to atheism (and make sure you definitely drop all interest in religious questions)
• 3) apostasy to Judaism or Paganism.

OK, makes three or perhaps even four if you count 3 as "3 and 4" ....

II

2:29 Speaking of Protestant commentaries, have you seen many that even try to deal with Matthew 16:19?

Obviously at verse 18 they say "the rock is Jesus". Fine, what do they say about verse 19?

I saw one which claimed St Peter had the keys for a once only use, when receiving Cornelius who was not circumcised.

But that only deals with opening side.

Also, opening and closing is paralleled by binding and losing in John 20, where it is put next to the power of absolution.

III

5:01 My bad, I was fascinated with Middle Ages even before becoming a Christian.

I recently saw a French Protestant claim Inquisition killed over 60 million, and I compared this to a proverbially slow calligrapher being reported as winning a contest in speed typing ...

Look at the time taken with Tyndale (whose Inquisitor James Latomus wrote him a decent answer on Romans, I think [chapter] 3) or with Giordano Bruno (whose Inquisitor St Robert Bellarmine made sure the next Heliocentric did not get burnt on his account, that being Galileo).

Or that episode in 14th C France where some Waldensians had been in prison for years, and Inquisitors pleaded "please, help us keep them so we can convert them" and people (Catholics) said, "no, let them go, you've tried, enough is enough" ... (you can read of if in Charles Henry Lee or Henry Charles Lee who was NOT partial for Inquisition, I am not even taking this from Kamen - who is or was Jewish, not Catholic).

Even worse, I actually like to ask questions like "how did Latin become languages like French or Spanish".

If you tell me "Bible was in Latin in 600 AD so that only clergy should be able to understand," I'll laugh or puke depending on quantity of Protestant absurdities I had been consuming previous to seeing that in the past two hours.

Sure, people in France back then spoke so Cicero could not have understood, but that's how we pronounce English so Chaucer could not have understood. We spell English nearly as Chaucer, and they spelled their language nearly as Cicero. Plus Vulgate was even a bit updated compared to Cicero in vocabulary and phraseology and simplified syntax.

Latin only became incomprehensible to French speakers in 800 and following decade in Tours when Alcuin arrived telling the monks how Latin should really be pronounced. And 813 a synod there decided "you must translate the correct Latin of the Gospel in a sermon in whatever the people speak".

5:08 And reading Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose, while partial against Inquisition, was actually telling me a bit more than I had known about what the heresies around then were.

Not what I had been told after ma went to a Bible school ... I was 16, and already in favour of Catholicism since about 13, and even more since reading up on Reformations in England and Sweden. Only "Inquisition" was keeping me back from taking the step ... obviously, if Protestants ever burn books, Name of the Rose will sniff go into flames along Lord of the Rings and Letters by J. R. R. Tolkien.

IV

5:20 "created sciences like ... genetics, evolution"

Genetics, yes, Mendel.

Evolution, that pseudo-science, owes everything to Protestants.

James Hutton, Charles Lyell, Georges Cuvier, Charles Darwin, all of them were raised Protestants. Those of them who didn't apostasise remained Protestants, they did not convert to Catholicism.

Astronomy was actually created well before Christianity.

V

6:39 How about avoiding Malachi 1:11 where the prophet is not talking of Cohanim sacrificing, since not allowed outside Temple of Jerusalem, but still talking of a sacrifice?

Pretty specific on Mass being a sacrifice, right?

Isaiah on keys of the kingdom?

No verse contains the word 'keys' when searching the Old Testament.

Ah, singular does it, third hit of three is:

"And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 22:22]

Yes, fairly specific. Especially since Kingdom of Heaven in Apocalypse is described in very Davidic terms. As well as the titulus on the Cross describing it so, even if that is more than Pilate bargained for, possibly.

VI

6:53 The first part of Hail Mary is two verses from Luke 1 plus adding the name Jesus which Elisabeth didn't know yet.

The second part is a separate prayer which was then added to the first part.

When St Thomas wrote a sermon on Hail Mary, its last word was still the name "Jesus".

I don't know what method of Grignon's you use for the Rosary, back when I still prayed, it was nearly always the second method, in which the mystery is spoken directly after the name Jesus, added by a relative pronoun "whom, thou, o virgin, conceivedest of the Holy Ghost" and so on.

In Austria, that's how it is done.

VII

7:48 Speaking of Apologists, you obviously need to avoid Chesterton.

And Belloc.

So ... since Tolkien possibly liked both and both he and CSL liked Chesterton, avoid the two main Inklings as well.

Wonder why the "John Todd" testimony - he was after all received by very anti-Catholic Evangelicals back then - involves a claim he had been paying CSL and JRRT on behalf of illuminati?

When John Todd left Illuminati (which could still be true, even if he was forced to add a false story to escape), Tolkien was dying and CSL had died ten years earlier. Conveniently for that testimony, neither was around to answer it.

... against Maurice Buccaille, Basically

... against Maurice Buccaille, Basically · David Wood Shows a Weakness of Islam and of Protestantism · David Wood Partly Attacking Wrong Things in Islam

Countering Muslim Claims, Episode 8: Is the Quran a Scientific Miracle?
Acts17Apologetics | 13.X.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDhy5fO4CLk

Note:

all comments here are directed at what was said in French translation and timesignatures depend on when the French subtititling appears.

Since it was manmade, not machine made, it is presumably correct about what was said in English.

But this means some of my quotes in English are less than perfect.

I

At 4:06 in French translation ... the behaviour of the Muslims who believe their preacher or so has seen what needs to be seen, reminds me of things.

I just saw a video by one Chévrier in which he compared persecution of Christians today, often by Muslims (he told a horrible story about Nigeria) to the Inquisition. He seems to have believed without much checking a figure of "60 million" tortured, emprisoned and killed by the Papal Inquisition. It's a bit like claiming a famously slow calligrapher has won a contest in speed typing, if you see what I mean, not very credible.

Or some believe the Medieval Western Bible was put into Latin because only the clergy understood it ... seriously, even by 500 AD, 600 AD? And that hundreds of translations to hundreds of languages (not just versions of very few literary languages, much fewer than those heard on Pentecost, since most were unwritten, "analphabetic" like languages in Australian bush) had existed - I think the claim was for 500 AD. Such people seem not to care of how Latin ceased to be what we call a living language, which is later than the changes of pronunciation which would have made Latin as pronounced 500 - 800 somewhat difficult to understand for a Latinist.

Or, what about Evolution believers? Did you check that Cretaceous fossils of land vertebrates everywhere on earth lie below Palaeocene and above Jurassic, below Miocene and above Triassic, below Eocene and above Permian fossils of land vertebrates? If so, tell me where you found even one of these sequences, note, not in classification of stones, of minerals, but in fauna of land vertebrates. I haven't found so even one place (and I have looked at Karoo and Yacoraite and Jurassic Coast, in the literature I could find on the web).

So, while the behaviour is somewhat ridiculous and somewhat unfortunate precisely in Muslims, it is not their prerogative.

II

5:33 I'm curious as to what examples you will take, especially for one.

You see, back when I had an appartment, it was in a neighbourhood with quite a lot of Muslims, and quite a lot of Palestinians, not all of them Muslims.

A Christian Palestinian brought me to a conference on the topic, or a range of topics including this (I think the main topic was refuting Evolution, which per se is not bad, but Harun Yahya is an Old Earth Creationist, very far from Genesis literalists either Jewish or Christian in some respects, but I did not come to see much on main topic, because ...)

Well, topic anti-evolutionism was briefly presented, and the Christian Palestinian went out. Next topic touched "en passant" was sth which made me leave the conference. If you have missed it, I'll add it under here for you.

[They didn't, so I take it in context]

III

5:59 One of the wings has a disease, the other a remedy for the disease?

Wonder where they got that from ... the custom could be in order to get an extra portion of proteines, and a habit of crying over spilled milk (I first imagined the fly falling into wine, then recalled their unscientific and impious attitude about this beverage ...). Some get sick and some don't get sick and if you get sick, it's the sick wing, if you don't, it's the wing with the cure .... not exactly my ideal of medical investigation, but this is a pure reconstruction of where Mohammed had his family lore from (argumentwise), and pure reconstructions are also not my ideal of historic investigation.

I'd not like to drink with that fellow in an area infested with flies.

Nabeel was not too bright on medicine either.

Yersinia pestis is fatal to man or rat, often enough, but fairly harmless to lice.

If lice have a metabolism so different from ours as to be unharmed carriers of Yersinia (which fortunately doesn't have flies as carriers), arguably some diseases carried by flies would be simply carried around, and the fly have no resistance of immunity, because it doesn't need that. Wonder if Mohammed would have said the same in an area with Tse-Tse flies?

One could imagine a fan fic in which "life of Mohammed" meets "sleeping beauty" (sorry Sleeping Beauty, I didn't mean to compare looks!)

8:11 I wonder if the idea was from the time when Mohammed's ancestors drank wine.

One fly less, and the alcohol (often enough) takes care of he bacteria ... too bad he banned wine ...

IV

9:51 I'm sorry, you might have wanted to check with Creationists before speaking up on this one.

Of a probably pre-Flood or very early post-Flood probable Behemoth, a k a sauropod, there are three very dislocated and skull-less remains, with LOTS of specimens, since each little bone is a specimen.

Palaeocritti Blog : Uberabatitan ribeiroi
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/12/uberabatitan-ribeiroi.html

From this original work, which I thought I was preserving from programmed extinction from the internet:

Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals : Uberabatitan ribeiroi
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-group/dinosauria/sauropoda/macronaria/uberabatitan

Here is my comment:

// So little is given in holotype, sorry, in specimen C, I am not sure it can be excluded it was a real "titan" or "human shaped but gigantic mighty one" of the nephelim.

But I am not an anatomist or palaeontologist. I am not one of the medicine students of my family.

The other two specimens have bones identified as caudals, i e tail bones. //

Obviously, the tail bones are from non-human skeleta, but the one without tail bones theoretically could be human or from a nephelim.

A non-human skull would also have settled for non-human, but here skulls are totally lacking, whether non-human or human.

10:16 I have seen Catholic commenters say that pre-Flood men were larger than we too.

Possibly bc St Augustine found a bone which looked like a human femur apart from size (which I think is the case with sauropod femurs, don't take my word for it, that's from memory).

Now, the thing is, "pre-Flood" means we shrank since then, but not that we have continued shrinking since we shrank.

And 3000 years ago is less than half the time Earth has stood in the centre of the universe (7217 years, this year).

So, on this one, no clear palaeontological case against Mohammed's theory, but there is one against his originality, if he was perchance right.

"We can test it, thanks to archaeology"

For how long back do you consider it gives the correct or at least near correct dates?

Now, since I consider Neanderthals as pre-Flood, Denisovans as pre-Flood, their contemporary Cro-Magnons (carbon dated 40 - 50 millennia [there were more recent ones too!]) as pre-Flood and Antecessor and Heidelbergians as also pre-Flood, more precisely aliases of Denisovan, I don't share this idea.

Another Creationist considering them as post-Flood (Anne Habermehl, Jonathan Sarfati) would logically not be able to cite their size against St Augustine's theory rehashed by Mohammed.

So, that is why, when speaking of the possibility (so far not excluded by gene testing, I presume?) of one sample of Uberabatitan being a human like giant, I rather speak of nephelim (and even first generation, whil Skiba would probably shake his head and say "oh, considering that size, it's arguably just third generation nephelim".

Seriously, if nephelim bones of someone with that size were found, one could risk Muslims taking them for the "bones of Adam" which would arguably be bad. And I mean found complete with human like but much bigger skull and so.

"even if they are 100,000 years or older"

Now, that is not a dating.

Carbon dates just barely can be used to "60,000" years back, and those dates are of course inflated due to carbon 14 content being so much lower back then.

But 100,000 years is not a carbon date. It's most probably from lava over or under the skeleta, and the "date" probably says most of how fast the lava cooled and how much surplus argon was trapped by that fast cooling. Not about how old the thing is, even the lava itself.

V

12:20 I suppose that Mohammed would have been misinterpreting sth about water in Christian ritual, either Baptism or blessed water.

But that is some misinterpreting.

13:06 Boiling water?

Tea is nice and so is coffee .... (but for Mo's science, I don't give a toffee).

VI

15:41 On this one, you are somewhat less on firm ground with pure Coranists.

I'm not one, I'm a Christian, but if [...]

• 1) Dhul-Qurnayn was a Medo-Persian ruler (two horns = two kingdoms), the one who allowed Jews to return and was monotheist (part time)
• 2) Alexander Romance (of which there are many versions) borrowed from that one
• 3) "earth" ending means "land" ending where Caucasus touches Black Sea
• 4) it refers to Sun visually setting in Black Sea
• 5) and for some reason someone had either misunderstood or found the Black Sea very dirty,

[...] then the main problem for a Coranist, a total rejector of Hadiths at least as supernatural truth, would be why Black Sea is called a puddle.

Still - that too is somewhat of a problem for them, AND the thing is of course worse if you take Hadiths into account.

Obviously, who lives there is still somewhat important - if they are Magog and if this means Muslims had some tradition of Magog living just North of Caucasus / Black Sea.

18:34 This is one of the reasons why some Muslims have said, it is NOT Alexander.

And a Medo-Persian ruler would have/be "two horns" in the Biblical sense of being "two kings at once".

Caucasus would have been at one point on his North frontier and you can ride along either West to East or East to West ...

And if you are riding East to West (roughly speaking), you very probably will see the sun set in the Black Sea.

It's a pity Imran Hosein is Muslim and not Christian yet, but his view on this matter is not pure folly.

18:47 Actually, even Alexander did not JUST go from West to East.

He went East as far as Ganges. But then he was back in Babylon when he died, which clearly is a long way West of Ganges. So, he must have been travelling West after deciding not to try to cross Ganges, which he actually seems to have believed had Gibraltar at opposite side, and if so, it would have been poor and barbaric, and this was in fact one argument for Aristotle to accept Earth as a globe.

It was correct in principle, just wrong in fact, and it was superceded by correct in fact proof by Magellan about 2000 years later, or somewhat less.

So, what way was Alexander going from Ganges to Babylon?

When Greeks came to Bactria, now Afghanistan, was it before or after Ganges? Was it before or after Alexander's death?

19:07 I'd actually like to know what Greek recension of Alexander romance, or what Syriac recension, you can trace this to ...

A later Latin or French one is no use, since it could have been copied from Coran 18.

20:12 I suspect quite a lot of Mohammed's lore was common in his tribe.

And, when it came to flies or dirty water, Mohammed may have had a very robust immunity system ...

Well, Sunan Abu-Dawud 4002 seems to clinch the astronomic at least heterodoxy of Mohammed.

Btw, "Allah and his Apostle/Prophet know better" would have been a polite way for that follower who might have been from a different tribe ... yes indeed ... Mohammed was Banu Hashim and Abu Dhar al-Ghifari was Banu Ghifar.

So, he could have risked to say what Banu Ghifar were saying about the matter, and if that was not what the Banu Hashim said, well, he had made a fool of himself in the sight if the prophet.

Charming man he must have been (for those challenged about sarcasm, that was irony).

I wonder if Imran Hosein considered the "prophet" outside speaking the Ayahs as infallible exegete of the Coran ...

I also have not heard Imran Hosein use the "scientific miracles of the Coran" argument.

Good for him.

And obviously, I find it an interesting question if Darius or Cyrus was riding up that area and finding people descended from Magog and told Jews about it before they left for Jerusalem - or such Jews who lacked behind.

VII

24:02 This calls for comparing sizes of meteorites and fix stars.

"It was formed by a large asteroid or comet about 10 to 15 kilometres (6.2 to 9.3 miles) in diameter"

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

If stars are only one light day away, well, some of them are smaller than that.

New blog on the kid : How Big is Kepler 452? A Geocentric Minority Report
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-big-is-kepler-452-geocentric.html

So, on this account, I don't find the Coran all that counterproven.

I don't believe it is a fact, I believe rather the stars will be falling in the endtimes (see Matthew 24), but it would not be physically impossible.

Also, the text as such could well refer to Christian eschatology, unless you can find eavesdropping sheyatin getting thrown from paradise in the Coran itself (or, if you like, in a Hadith).

And obviously, I'm less than dogmatic on astrophysics.

Paradise just above our atmosphere?

Or just above where the meteorite came from?

I'd say Heaven is above the stars. So, if the stars are one light day away, Heaven as such, where the Pearly Gates are, is not all that much further away.

25:44 Well, I haven't heard a single scientist say that either, but I also refuse to bow down to them as much as to Mohammed, when they speak on astrophysics, which is unreachable. To us. Before we die a good death. In this life. In the existence a scientist has as a scientist.

VIII

27:20 Well, while male and female semen as secular science is acceptable up to microscope, like referring to the two types of gamete, what determins sex is actually inside the male gamete.

The female gamete by definition has no Y chromosomes, only X-Chromosomes, and they are transferred to all.

X+X = XX = female (with versions like X or XXX, less fertile)
X+Y = XY = male (with versions like XXY and XYY, also less fertile)

Where exactly did you find that any fight between the types of semen determined sex?

Not in the text cited, so, I guess a Coran only (not reciting Shahada and praying three times a day and so on ...) might have a chance on this one.

But I'm waiting for the other one.

The one which made me walk away from that Buccaillist talk back when I had an appartment ... 2003.

Oh, was tired, forgot (or was rather momentarily bad at French) how far down the ribs go.

Not quite as far down as the scrotum, I'd say.

Now, that one would be difficult for a Coran onlyist too.

IX

29:25 "the heavens are seven solid domes"

Hello, Telly!

(Like Savalas' name was in reality Aristotélis, I'm referring to his non-Kojak namesake).

A Church Father had a problem - why didn't the Bible mention those?

His solution was the Bible only told what was visible to the eye, not what the scientists had only concluded by painstaking reasoning.

Now, fortunately for the criterium of Trent, not all of the Church Fathers shared St Basil's astrophysical belief taken from Telly .... so, while we have one Church Father saying there were domes, others said or implied there weren't.

Now, the problem for the Coran is, it is so up to date, it did not miss out on including Telly's observations or rather explanations on why Moon, Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Fix Stars all share the same daily movement, with some delay further in.

It should have, because that explanation was disproven by Tycho Brahe.

Church Fathers : Coran = 1:0.

X

Yes, right. 30:12 - this is precisely what I heard in 2003.

It is also where this son of a med student with some knowledge of gynaecology walked out of that talk.

Buccaille ... let's put it like this, if he was on some kind of tour in the Orient, and if he was invited to a lot of Muslims, I think he might have risked diabetes if he hadn't converted and become able to add "I swear on the Coran" to whenever he had to say he had eaten enough, so, I can feel for his plight.

The psalmist says somewhat less precisely "thou cladstest my bones with flesh" - which is equally true if the bones came after the flesh was already there. It seems whoever was writing the Coran was sure of a certain interpretation thereof, and probably a Jewish one, or perhaps Oriental Christian one, and didn't want to miss out on being more detailed than the Bible.

He should have missed out on that one too.

In the case of a stage with bones only, it seems some very early kicks of the fetus are somewhat sharp, and pregnant women then and there considered they were being kicked with bones only, not yet any flesh on it.

Well, on this one, Mohammed showed a bit excessive empathy with women, taking gynaecological information from how women feel about it.

Reminds me a bit of those who think "someone's unborn baby" and a "lump of cells" depends on how the mother feels about the fetus ...

XI

Noted, CIRA:
http://www.cirainternational.com/about/

Al Fadi, knew David Woods before ... not you.

... on Philosophy of Mathematics

Video I

A negative times a negative is a ... ?
Mathologer | 24.VII.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij-EK-MZv2Q

I

(... - 3)(... -4) = ... - ... - ... + 12.

But is this because -3 and -4 are numbers existing in their own right, with + 12 as their product per se, or is it because subracting from diverse dimensions (think of geometry for instance, squares, cubes) tends to make subtractions cancel out?

Your own "real life example" 4 "losses" of 3 € debts, would it be a brut and net gain of 12 in someone who owed nothing in the first place, or would it just cancel out debts insofar as they existed, like:

I owe 15 €, get rid of 12 € debt, and now owe 3€. We agree on this one.

I owe 2€, get rid of 12 € debt, and now owe nothing - but does whatever made me lose 12€ in debt automatically give me any positive 10 € if I had only two euros in debt?

If I have a prison sentence of 42 months and get rid of owing 14 of them (realistic example), if I am freed after the 28 months, do I get to keep someone in prison myself for the days or weeks I did too much? Or do I automatically get a monetary compensation for the days or weeks I spent too much in there? Or would I have to sue extra for possibly getting that too? Could I loose such a case?

II

2:14 Lots of ancient civilisations did very well without having recognised "zero" as a number.

Fibonacci told us how to use "zero" on the papers we put an algorithm on, old sense, like this is an algorithm*:

	1	2
-		5
=		7

But he did not qualify "zero" as a number. He considered it a useful placeholder, to distinguish 10 and 100 from 1 or 105 and 1005 from 15.

*

Better example with this placeholder:

	1	0	5
-		7	6
=		2	9

III

6:29 Very nice proof in algebra that a negative times a negative is a positive.

However, algebra has everything to do with the "just do it" approach.

This does still not prove that "a negative times a negative" even exists in real arithmetic. You know, the kind where we get 2+2=4 from.

II+II = IIII (no zeros and no negative numbers in Roman numerals).

IV

10:36 Now you have shown why algebraically a negative times a negative should make a positive.

You have STILL not shown there are per se negative numbers.

(50-2)² = 2304 or even just (10-2)² = 64, we certainly can use a formula which goes a² - 2ab + b².

But if you really lay out 100 pebbles, this would mean, if you take that as it stands, that you are first taking away 20 pebbles, then putting back four pebbles in one end of the taken away strip and then taking away another strip of 20 the other way.

What you would normally really do is, 100 - 20 - 16.

a² - ab - (a-b)b.

Now, a² - 2ab + b² is not landing you with a wrong result, but that is only bc it is algebraically equivalent to a² - ab - (a-b)b.

V

13:25 "it works" doesn't prove negative numbers actually exist as numbers in their own right ...

Now the reason I keep coming back to this, is, while (-a)² = a² in algebra, I'd not consider it a good theorem in arithmetic.

I definitely would consider the following as good theorems:

(x-a)² = x² - 2ax + a² (as reformulation of x² - ax - a(a-x) obviously)
(x-a)(x-b) = x² - x(a+b) + ab
(x-a)(y-a) = xy - a(x+y) + a²
(x-a)(y-b) = xy + ab - ay - bx

But in each of these cases, I would argue, -a and when occurring -b also actually refer not to any "numbers lower than zero" but to subtraction.

Why am I saying this?

Bc, numbers begin from 1. This is philosophically important. You can potentially extend numbers forward as much as you like, but you can't extend them backwards even beyond 1. And this has implications for other fields where some kind of values are added one at a time.

YOU didn't come to stand here after an infinity of past causes leading to it.

YOU are where you are bc of a finite number of causes, including but not limited to own past choices - and so am I.

A finite number of causes implies a first cause - which according to St. Thomas Aquinas everyone calls "God".

Apparently this cultural generalisation is not valid for all types of modern men, some would consider "energy" the first cause or some would consider spacetime to be it, but let's not abuse mathematics to pretend there is no first!

Video II

Root 2 and the deadly Marching Squares
Mathologer | 15.V.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1yDExNAEMg

I

7 / 5 = 1.4
17 / 12 = 1.4166666666666667
41 / 29 = 1.4137931034482759
99 / 70 = 1.4142857142857143
239 / 169 = 1.4142011834319527
577 / 408 = 1.4142156862745098
1393 / 985 = 1.4142131979695431
3363 / 2378 = 1.4142136248948696

x² = 2, x = 1.414213562373095?

Nah, that is also an approximation, just a better than the previous ones.

In other words, when we speak of "square root of two" as such, we speak of an irrational which is not a number.

When we write out a fraction to represent sqrt(2) we use an approximation, which is rational.

Either way, nothing irrational has been showed to be a number, and no number has been shown to be irrational.

Why am I into this?

Well, some people have argued Medievals did not understand numbers as well as we do, bc they thought all numbers were rational.

But they actually are. If you want a real exact sqrt of two, you take one square, and its diagonal is the side of a square twice as extensive, exactly. So, sqrt of two is diagonal : side (of a perfect square).

But diagonal : side is not one number, it's not even the ratio between two numbers, it's the ratio between two lengths.

And no, just bc length is often "counted" in numbers times a unit length doesn't mean length is an actual number.

... answering, belatedly, a tirade of Hitchens

Here's the tirade:

Christopher Hitchens Schools The Catholic Church(Epic Closing Statement)
Siddharth Sridharan | 2.XI.2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZiIU3u3e6I

I

1:13 [Where Hitch evokes Catholic Bolivia] Well, more people die, because more people live.

All people who live, die.

3:23 I totally agree with Hitchens that Catholicism bans sodomy, like contraception and a few more.

It should.

Recall what Hitchens said about poor countries? "More people die".

Yes, but before that, more people live too.

II

1:38 Germany, Austria and elsewhere ...

Poles were indirectly participating, some of them, by delivering Jews up, by "I don't really care". Also, a synagogue burnt down with people in it ... and it had a statue of Lenin in it, and people hating, for good enough reasons, Lenin, may not have appreciated Jews honouring him with a statue.

Italy - only had camps for Jews, or one such camp, La Riziera, during Salò Republic. It only delivered Jews to Germany during Salò Republic. [a puppet régime to Hitler, for those unaware of history]

Austria involves Burgenland - formerly Hungaria, but German speaking. Some of the Nazis were from there. And Calvinist Hungarians like Gyula Gömbös* were far more directly involved in formulating Nazi accusations against Jews.*

Most Calvinists in Austria would be, I would either say from Burgenland, or from Burgenland and Vienna.

Austria and South Germany have two things in common - more dislike for Jews than North Germany, and more dislike for Hitler too.

In Berlin I heard 70 % Bavarians but 90 % in Berlin voted Hitler in 1933.

Why? Bc Hitler was progressive.

Now, what were progressives doing those days? Two states in Canada and two states in US were forcefully sterilizing people. Jews were not one of the targetted ethnicities. Sweden and Norway were sterilising Lapps, and Denmark was sterilising Esquimaux on Greenland. I think they were also sterilising tinkers. But they were not doing it to Jews. Hitler targetted a similar backward minority same way, namely Gipsies, and one hard proponent for his line was a Burgenlander, whom the Austrofascists put in prison. Portschy. [Still no English or French version of that wiki, for some reason.]

Now, Hitler did not only do it to Gipsies, he did it to Jews too. This means, 1945 there was a reaction.

Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Alberta and British Columbia and two states in US continued ... bc their victims were not Jewish. Early to mid seventies this stopped, bc someone came up with "hey wait, seems a bit like what Hitler was doing to Jews and Gipsies". In mid eighties Jews started the policy (on occasion of Catholics comparing abortion to Holocaust) of saying "never compare any other crime to the Holocaust, it is unique". Perhaps they did not want abortion banned? I don't know.

I do know that Spain while not very pro-Jewish in mentality, while certainly honouring not only the teaching on Jews participating in the guilt of the Christ-killers, but also honouring a child martyr killed by Jews, actually was one country of refuge to Jews, at least if Sephardic, during WW-II.

* (footnote to previous)

I searched for a forgotten reference, seems Gömbös was Lutheran, and I could not find the reference for what I recall as "Gömbös thesis," so I might have thought of some other man's or place's thesis, with a Hungarian name including ö.

I also looked up Béla Kun, who in 1937 looked very close to Hitchens.



"Béla Kun 1937, Official mug shot made by NKVD after arrest 1937 - https://www.sakharov-center.ru/asfcd/martirolog/?t=page&id=8282 original: Центральный архив ФСБ России"

III

2:16 Has it occurred to you, (ok, not Hitch, he is dead, but you other guys) that covetuousness, while a "thought crime" is one not punished directly by the Jewish authorities?

You have rules on when to stone a murderer, on when to stone an adulterer and on when to stone someone committing perjury.

You have rules on how much to pay back on when you have stolen without violence (4 times original amount, that is why tax collectors St Matthew and Zacchaeus both resolved to pay back 4 times over whatever they took too much).

You do not have any actual penalties for this thought crime.

You do, however, have a collective and family ritual of reciting this ban on those thought crimes at home, to your children.

Could it be somewhat educational? Could be. Could this have stopped some adulteries, thefts, and actually through either of them, murders? Could be.

Was there anyone involved to actually round up offenders on these thought crimes? No, and that is why Ten Commandments is not 1984.

Enterprise and emulation are not forbidden.

We are forbidden to covet what already belongs to someone, but not forbidden to want as much, gaining it by ourselves, without taking it from him in any way.

Unless it's him volunteering to, of course.

2:33 "though it lumps in are your women folk ..."

Deuteronomy 5:21 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife: nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

Note very well, wife is taken before possessions.

In other words, sexual illicit desire is worse than all others.

It seems that LXX readings of Exodus 20 have the same arrangement.

So, no, women are not just lumped in with possessions here.

IV

3:00 What does "cardinal" Bernhard Law have to do with Catholicism?

3:34 If BL would not tell Hitchens, I can tell, for all or most of 15 years, Stephen Fry was in a state of mortal sin:

"Fry was in a 15-year relationship with Daniel Cohen, which ended in 2010."

Barring of course the "possibility" of madness or dementia making him irresponsible for his actions.

The modernist excuse for "not judging" being that "overriding passion" is comparable and therefore absolves from responsibility, but presumably Stephen Fry was not the victim of "overriding passion" for 24/24, 7/7, 365/365 except leap years when it would have been 366/366. Presumably he had at least some clear moments, meaning if in those he decided to stay in a relationship involving sodomy, he committed mortal sin.

"it's a form of love and deserves our respect for that reason"

However laudible it may be that two persons love each other in some way, it is not and I mean not ever laudible that they "love" having deliberately infertile sex with each other.

I don't mean involuntary infertility, like old couples continuing to have sex, though stopping after menopause is laudible, and I also don't mean foreplay as not being fertile of itself, if emotionally directed to a coitus which potentially is.

But I do mean anything not even allowing an ejaculation to result in a pregnancy.

If Fry and Cohen had been a dynamic duo, with no sex (which is how Bob Kane imagined them), well, best wishes with keeping chaste.

But apparently, this was not the case.

3:51 No, he should not have been proud to have Fry as his babysitter.

Nor should anyone now, as long as Fry and Spencer are "married".

3:59 I don't think a priest would have agreed to babysit for Hitchens anyway ...

I did read of an actor converting, and that after finding out how people trusted Catholic priests.

"While serving in the Royal Navy, Guinness had planned to become an Anglican priest. In 1954, while he was filming Father Brown in Burgundy, Guinness, who was in costume as a Catholic priest, was mistaken for a real priest by a local child. Guinness was far from fluent in French, and the child apparently did not notice that Guinness did not understand him but took his hand and chattered while the two strolled; the child then waved and trotted off.[43] The confidence and affection the clerical attire appeared to inspire in the boy left a deep impression on the actor.[44] When their son was ill with polio at the age of 11, Guinness began visiting a church to pray.[45] A few years later in 1956, Guinness converted to the Roman Catholic Church. His wife, who was of paternal Sephardi Jewish descent,[46] followed suit in 1957 while he was in Sri Lanka filming The Bridge on the River Kwai, and she informed him only after the event.[47] Every morning, Guinness recited a verse from Psalm 143, "Cause me to hear your loving kindness in the morning".[48]"

Ah ...

And, yes, I would have been proud to have Alec Guiness as a babysitter, even despite this:

"In his biography, Alec Guinness: The Unknown, Garry O'Connor reports that Guinness was arrested and fined 10 guineas (£10.50) for a homosexual act in a public lavatory in Liverpool in 1946. Guinness is said to have avoided publicity by giving his name to police and court as "Herbert Pocket", the name of the character he played in Great Expectations. No record of any arrest has ever been found, however."

Especially as there is a serious doubt about the guilt:

" Piers Paul Read, in his 2003 biography, suggests "The rumour is possibly a conflation of stories about Alec's 'cottaging' and the arrest of John Gielgud, in October 1953, in a public lavatory in Chelsea after dining with the Guinnesses at St. Peter's Square." [41] This suggestion was not made until April 2001, eight months after his death, when a BBC Showbiz article related that new books claimed that Guinness was bisexual and that he had kept his sexuality private from the public eye and that the biographies further said only his closest friends and family members knew he had sexual relationships with men.[42]"

Hope those rumours were untrue, though.

My sources about Guiness and Fry being:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Guinness#Personal_life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#Sexuality

V

4:30 [people saying] "slavery is evil, but the Church wouldn't agree"

On slave hunt, that is hunting down free men to make them slaves, the Church definitely did agree.

It is evil.

Even slave trade was banned by Gregory XVI.

Now, keeping slaves who already are so? No, I do not think that is always evil.

For one thing, in many societies, that is precisely how people get their livelihood. For another, some people in legal formalities free were at some times worse off than slaves, bc of how wage earners were treated in Chicago, for instance, at the time of the Civil War.

This is not meant to excuse the racialism of ex-slave holders as evident from certain Southron attitudes to blacks post-bellum.

I particularly abhor what happened in the two states which allowed forced sterilisations - which slaveholders ante-bellum had not been allowed.

I recently learned, 1920, women all over the US got rights to vote. In the South or parts of it, this was only white women.

If this is true, this is the kind of reform which really makes things worse.

1865 - 1920. A black couple, one vote, the man, a white couple, one vote, the man.
1920 - 1963. A black couple, one vote, the man, a white couple, two votes, the man and his wife.
1963 - present. A black couple, two votes, a white couple, two votes, either of them, the man and his wife.

And soon after 1920, two states had forced sterilisations running.

And soon after 1963, they stopped it.

But prior to 1865, as far as I know, sterilising blacks by force was not allowed.

However, psychiatry started out (and this was probably not too well known in Rome) those decades with diagnoses like "drapetomania" - a slave running off is considered a "sick man".

Precisely as certain modernists would consider Fry not just a guilty man, but a sick man.

No, I don't think Pius IX was gravely wrong in 1860-65.

I do think Pius XI was definitely spot on in Casti Connubii, condemning forced sterilisation.

Some have pretended "Mit brennender Sorge" was the encyclical in which Nazi eugenics were condemned. No, "Mit brennender Sorge" condemned rulers disregarding Christianity like Hitchens does.

It was already known since 1931, date of Casti Connubii, that forced sterilisations are against the ten commandments.

4:45 God did already reveal to Moses that slave hunting was wrong.

While in NT slaveholders are not considered as criminals, per se, slavehunters are.

For the one, Ephesians 6: [5] Servants, be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ:

[6] Not serving to the eye, as it were pleasing men, but, as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart, [7] With a good will serving, as to the Lord, and not to men. [8] Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord, whether he be bond, or free. [9] And you, masters, do the same things to them, forbearing threatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven; and there is no respect of persons with him.

For the other I Corinthians 6:10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

For the last category, the Latin has "rapaces". It seems to mean or include slavehunters.

Even clearer, I Tim 1: [9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [10] For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,

Menstealers? Did you get that? Other name for them : slave hunters.

Whether Kunta Kinte ever said "toubab fa" meaning "death to the slavehunters", St Paul did say sth meaning that.

Latin for menstealers "plagiariis," and it doesn't mean using some writer's character in your own work without asking, calling that what is now known as "plagiarism" is simply a joke between authors, to begin with, it means in classical latin hunting someone down to make him a slave.

This is the rationale for Gregory XVI as well as for Casti Connubii.

Obviously, a state sponsored actor who forces someone to submit to getting his cojones cut off at some point is while doing so treating that person as a slave and therefore has previously to doing so stolen that person, treated him as a slavehunter treats the free men wanted for slaves.

How come Vatican was so much more clearsighted between 1931 and 1971 than four states in US and Canada?

Well, being commissioned to preserve God's revelation vs being a Protestant and secularised state may have sth to do with it.

VI

5:16 Half a chromastone away from a chimpanzee? Or half a chromosome?

Subtitles say the first, but the subtitles are erratic.

Whichever thing Hitchens said, he disqualified himself from speaking on human origins.

It should make even Evolutionists squirm.

VII

On the closing statement, I'll add that Fry and Spencer would need a firm purpose of amendment, soon.

Afterthought

From Fry's biography references:

The Brauns were members of Vienna's 200,000-strong Jewish community. Stephen paid an emotional visit to the house in which they lived, and was startled to see a plaque commemorating the house's inhabitants, among them Rosa's parents - Stephen's great-grandfather and great-grandmother - Berta and Samuel.

They had remained there until 1942, at the height of the Nazi terror, when they were deported to a ghetto in Riga, Latvia, along with 65,000 other Viennese Jews. Only a small number of those sent to Riga survived. The others, Berta and Samuel among them, were killed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/get_started/wdytya_s2_celeb_gallery_03.shtml

1942 - after Austrofascist had been exchanged to Nazi, in government of Austria, then Ostmark.

... on Bible Versions

Main theme in here is good, Lex is explaining that there is very little significant variation in Bible manuscripts (English translations being another matter):

Why are there so many different Bible translations, and which ones should we use?
UNLEARN the lies | 11.X.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb67KvD8LRk

Several things to say on this one, Lex is wrong on detail in more than one place:

I

"During the first 1400 years of Christian history, all Bibles were handwritten copies ..."

I suppose you mean up to Gutenberg*, says this quibbler.

In fact, the very first decades, I don't think there were any Bibles, since a scroll is too small, by physical necessity to have more than one book.

For instance, if "Samuel" and "Kings" are now two books each, it is partly bc writing all of Samuel from "There was a man of Ramathaimsophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elcana, the son of Jeroham, the son of Eliu, the son of Thohu, the son of Suph, an Ephraimite:" to "And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered holocausts and peace offerings: and the Lord became merciful to the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel," on one single scroll would be cumbrous.

While a book like Genesis has that size, about, a Torah scroll in a synagogue is set in a cask to make scrolling columns easier.

So, up to when there were codices, there were even no single volume Bibles.

However, this doesn't make your comment untrue, as you were not saying they existed all of the first 1400 first years of Christianity.

However, 0:53 "that were written and copied by hand, and most of the time, these copies were not made by scribes."

I thought the first writer in the NT era was educated as one. St Matthew was a Levite, and a Levite who was not serving in the temple at the least was a scribe, by training, even if he was doing tax collecting some time instead.

So, why would most of the time the copies NOT be made by precisely scribes?

Why would the Catholic Church have preferred amateurs over proper training, when starting out with at least one properly trained among the first disciples?

*

1455 is actually 1422 years after Christianity was founded - and as mentioned above we didn't have any one volume Bibles for more than just two decades, as far as I can see.

II

5:06 I was just thinking of Corpus Caesareum the other day.

Bellum Gallicum, Bellum Civile, and a few more (not sure if all are considered his).

One manuscript from a 10th C or so manuscript in Gaul, or France as it could begin to be called, because the Bellum Gallicum was of relevance to them. Plus later copies usually of it.

III

6:29 "For example, Matthew 17:21 is missing from the Critical Text."

Have you checked Matthew 17:20? Douay Rheims has this:

Gospel According to Saint Matthew Chapter 17
http://drbo.org/chapter/47017.htm

[20] But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.

This doesn't mean any verse content is missing, it means there is one division between verses less added.

You see, outside psalms, verses were added very late for reference. St Thomas Aquinas didn't have them, and only recently before him came the chapters.

In Matthew 17, the part when the father speaks has just one verse in DR, while KJV has one for fact of his speaking, other for what he says.

IV

8:26 "In this verse, the majority text makes it clear that God was manifest in the flesh, but the Critical Text using the pronoun He leaves it unclear if it was God or someone else"

Textus Criticus would have been somewhat ... based on Codex Sinaiticus, right?

I have heard that the circumstances of finding the codex were such, that the monastery itself did not really care to call it a Bible (and the researchers concluded they were ignorant, who didn't know a Bible) and I have also seen JW (Watchtower Society) value Sinaiticus.

I suspect that it could be an Arian copy, and that it was tucked away in a lowly place in a monastery once the controversy was over. And that therefore, the monastery was not sure whether it could be called a Bible or not, as some would not qualify New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures as a Bible.

And that this is why it was preserved so long, because so little used.

12:09 "the Greek text says"

[already visible, Greek text plus] "purifying all foods"

Now, this does not mean that NIV gets it right.

Why? Because the manuscript has no quotation marks. This means, Greek doesn't show whether "katharizon" (ending in omega nun, not omicron nun, that is important) refers to Jesus talking or to a masculine noun Jesus has mentioned while talking.

NIV takes a position and says it's about a masculine noun in the discourse of Christ. Bc, "purifying all foods" in the English language refers to what went immediaterly before, while this is not a Greek rule.

Now, is there a masculine noun in that discourse?

After checking Nestle Aland, no. All nouns from when He says to them in verse 18, all nouns He mentions Himself, are neuter nouns. They could not be qualified by "katharizon" ending in omega nun. He himself as saying this could be so qualified.

My dear, lear a little more about Greek grammar before recommending NIV (and I'll be watching if you actually do that ...)

Sorry, NKJV.

No, they do not have a bias only, they have a knowledge of the fact that grammatical context cannot be limited to the verse, since these divisions are very late and sometimes do cut through sentences, and that katharizon ending in omega nun, which is the masculine singular nominative ending for a participle like this, needs a masculine singular nominative behind it.

This can be the understood "he" within a verb form, but it cannot be any noun in the discourse Christ gave, so it must refer to Himself. If however it had been the whole process actually purifying, well, that nounless purely verbal "subject" would take a neutre participle and it would have been "katharizon" with omicron nun.

But in Nestle Aland, I find the ending in omega nun : καθαρίζων.

In Douay Rheims, I find Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?

In the wider context of the Vulgate:

Et ait illis : Sic et vos imprudentes estis? Non intelligitis quia omne extrinsecus introiens in hominem, non potest eum communicare : [19] quia non intrat in cor ejus, sed in ventrum vadit, et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas?

Now, in Latin "purgans" could be masculine, feminine or neuter. It could theoretically be, rather than the subject of "ait illis", the subject in previous sentence, namely, "omne extrinsecus introiens".

However, since "omne extrinsecus introiens" would be the "escas" themselves, and they are not purifying themselves and here they reappear in feminine plural.

Therefore, they could more properly be understoof of subject of "ait illis", namely Jesus.

However, if you would say that "since it could be neutre, it could refer to the process", no, in Latin that would be a gerund, not a participle (both are translated as present participle in both Greek and English). A gerund would be "purgando".

So, Vulgate also favours this as being a participle in masculine singular nominative, referring to Jesus.

V

Obviously, you should have a translation approved by the Catholic Church.

Douay Rheims.

DNW

The Reformation happened for a reason.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, there is a devil down in Hell, that is a reason ...

DNW

What's that supposed to mean?

Also, the Devil isn't in hell. He's very much in our midst, as he is the master of this world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Is he still the master of this world?

I'd say that title was taken from him on Calvary.

He's roaming in our midst, as are his minions, but his permanent adress is Hell.

What it is supposed to mean, is, that I think the Reformation was the Devil's work.

I'm Catholic and I went Catholic after studying the Reformation.

DNW

Catholic traditions and dogma supersede Biblical truth. That's why the Reformation not only happened, but was necessary. Unfortunately, many of those traditions were still carried over into Protestantism. The idea that Satan rules the underworld is pagan, not Christian or even Jewish.

Show me one Bible verse that says Satan rules hell.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Catholic traditions and dogma supersede Biblical truth."

The supersession is of NT over OT.

"Show me one Bible verse that says Satan rules hell"

Show me one which says that either Testament, Old or New, every teaching needs a specific Bible verse?

"That's why the Reformation not only happened, but was necessary. Unfortunately, many of those traditions were still carried over into Protestantism."

Your idea is Islamistic, in so far as it states that Christian truth in its fulness was lost to the nations the Apostles were sent to very soon after they even started obeying Matthew 28:16-20.

If it was how come you can't take Muhammed as well as Luther or your latest Judaising parody of him?

Bc Muhammed contradicts the Bible? But so do you as far as Matthew 28:16-20 says sth about the Church.

Also, we certainly do not believe Satan rules all of the underworld, as for instance his only gain in Abraham's bosom was the righteous souls being kept out for a while from the Heaven he had been eternally cast out from, he couldn't touch them. Also the souls in Purgatory are righteous and he cannot touch them. When I said "Hell" I meant Gehenna, not Sheol.

DNW

"Show me one which says that either Testament, Old or New, every teaching needs a specific Bible verse?"

I cannot believe that anyone would ask such a ridiculous question. A church MUST be accountable to the Bible. Otherwise, you could just make up anything you want and call it doctrine(the catholic church in a nutshell), or fabricate a whole new book and say that it's the latest revelation from God(the qur'an, the book of mormon). Do you not see the danger of such a view? This isn't a matter of telling a kid not to pull on a girl's pigtails, we're talking about the nature of the Devil and his place in creation. That sort of thing is too important to rely on anything other than the Word.

Galatians 1:8-9(YLT) "but even if we or a messenger out of heaven may proclaim good news to you different from what we did proclaim to you -- anathema let him be! As we have said before, and now say again, If any one to you may proclaim good news different from what ye did receive -- anathema let him be!"

That passage describes my position perfectly. Notice that Paul repeated himself. It must have been important, right? From these words, he is declaring that those who preach the Gospel are to be held accountable if they stray. Even angels are not exempt from this decree. Accountability is not authority. Paul and the apostles submitted to the Word in every way, and this was a clear warning against those who would twist Christ's words for their own ends.

Colossians 2:8(YLT) "See that no one shall be carrying you away as spoil through the philosophy and vain deceit, according to the deliverance of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ,"

That builds upon the verses from Galatians. This warns against those who would equate human fables and traditions with Christ's teachings(again, the catholic church).

Gehenna is not hell, but a burning landfill of refuse that existed outside Jerusalem in what is now called the Valley Hinnom. Christ referred to it as a contemporary example of ruin and destruction to drive his point about what awaits the wicked if they don't repent. Revelation cites the lake of fire as the final judgment of the wicked, where hell(Hades/Sheol) itself is also to be cast. There is no Biblical evidence for purgatory. All rest in Sheol until the resurrection, to be judged when Christ returns, not before.

The Bible is the truth. I will never give spiritual credence to anything else. The words of God and His son are the most important things on Earth, perfect and complete.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I cannot believe that anyone would ask such a ridiculous question."

I note, instead of giving even one Bible verse saying "all teaching must be directly and clearly backed up by a Bible verse", which is what I defied you to do, you gave two Bible verses which say sth other AND give a reasoning, which, if I accepted it, I would be accepting a teaching without (so far) one single Bible verse to back it up.

"A church MUST be accountable to the Bible."

Once again, no Bible verse exactly saying that either.

"Otherwise, you could just make up anything you want and call it doctrine(the catholic church in a nutshell),"

No, this is not the "Catholic Church in a nutshell" since the Catholic Church is accountable to Bible and Tradition.

If you tried today to make up a doctrine which was not given by tradition from back at the Apostles, you would meet opposition from Catholics since it is not traditional.

For instance, Anti-Pope "Paul VI" defied aspects of Tradition in Nostra Aetate and Gaudium et Spes, that is why there are Catholics rejecting his "papacy" as a non-papacy.

And his sending pills to nuns raped in Africa during a revolutionary war defied good morals, meaning calling him a saint also defies Catholic tradition, that is why there are Catholics rejecting the "papacy" of "Pope Francis" as a non-papacy.

"or fabricate a whole new book and say that it's the latest revelation from God(the qur'an, the book of mormon)."

Not with Catholics, since through the clergy all Catholics are accountable to Bible and Tradition. It is Catholic dogma that revelation is closed. No new content can be added after the last Apostle left the earthly life. A "truth" can be upgraded to "dogma" (a truth which all Catholics must believe), but a novelty can't be upgraded to dogma.

"Do you not see the danger of such a view?"

I even see a danger with saying anyone can interpret the Bible, since this gives free room for inventing new understandings of Bible verses, or for that matter of mistranslating the Bible.

That is the precise rationale on which the Catholic Church condemned Protestantism.

"This isn't a matter of telling a kid not to pull on a girl's pigtails, we're talking about the nature of the Devil and his place in creation. That sort of thing is too important to rely on anything other than the Word."

Except that The Word Made Flesh told us to rely on His clergy. Several times over in fact (including my favourite proof text against Protestantism, Matthew 28:16-20).

Galatians' quote - note "different from what we did proclaim to you" ... St Paul was not limiting this to what he had written only.

Note also "anathema let him be!" - St Paul was speaking in a Church able to anathemise people, which we also see from a more purely disciplinary matter in Corinthians.

Roman Catholicism, with its rivals Greek Orthodoxy, Copts, Armenians and Nestorians, makes the claim to be that Church still around. Yes, there are only five confessions you can get by "symmetric" anathema. Bishop against bishop (even if Pope against bishop involves an assymetric relation in anathema too).

"That passage describes my position perfectly. Notice that Paul repeated himself. It must have been important, right? From these words, he is declaring that those who preach the Gospel are to be held accountable if they stray. Even angels are not exempt from this decree."

Catholicism perfectly agrees.

"Accountability is not authority."

Accountability implies authority. This means, if you have one hundred Christians in a parish who all together are accountable, whether to "Bible alone" which is as un-Biblical as it is un-Traditional, or to Bible and Tradition, the Biblical and Traditional solution, there must be someone within them having authority to tell the others how to live up to this. Especially if an "anathema" is involved. The 100 Christians presumably involve some toddlers who have just learned to talk and some teens and some of them not even married yet, and it would be somewhat irrational to put all on an equal footing in this matter.

"Paul and the apostles submitted to the Word in every way, and this was a clear warning against those who would twist Christ's words for their own ends."

As far as I could see what happened in Reformation, that is exactly what English and Swedish and Genevan reformers actually did, which is why the warning was for them.

Colossians again does not speak of Bible alone, and Reformers owed lots of their understanding of Bible passages or of what constitutes idolatry to the "rudiments of men" called Humanist Renaissance learning.

"That builds upon the verses from Galatians. This warns against those who would equate human fables and traditions with Christ's teachings(again, the catholic church)."

I didn't see "traditions" in your quote.

"Gehenna is not hell, but a burning landfill of refuse that existed outside Jerusalem in what is now called the Valley Hinnom. Christ referred to it as a contemporary example of ruin and destruction to drive his point about what awaits the wicked if they don't repent. Revelation cites the lake of fire as the final judgment of the wicked, where hell(Hades/Sheol) itself is also to be cast. There is no Biblical evidence for purgatory. All rest in Sheol until the resurrection, to be judged when Christ returns, not before."

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Gehenna as the landfill was where Christ got His nickname for what we usually call Hell. All resting to resurrection is a teaching we condemn.

"The Bible is the truth."

Yes, read correctly.

"I will never give spiritual credence to anything else."

Even if the Bible requires us to do so?

"The words of God and His son are the most important things on Earth, perfect and complete."

Which doesn't mean that NT books are quite as complete a guide to them as the totality of Catholic tradition.

DNW

I apologize, but I cannot fathom how you can reasonably call yourself a Christian. I don't mean to be rude, but equating man-made tradition with scripture is clear heresy. You are putting your faith in men, not the Word. You're implying that the Gospel is incomplete, and by extension, that Christ failed in His ministry. If you don't see how that's a problem, then I can't help you. Christ tasked His Apostles to carry on in His place, not to make it up as they went. Again, accountability is not authority by any stretch of the imagination. You completely missed the point of the passage from Galatians.

Although I'm not easily rattled, nothing frustrates me more than hypocrites, especially those within the church who ignore our Lord's teachings. As I recall, Christ had a lot to say about hypocrites. I suggest you read the epistles again, but imagine that Paul is writing to the catholic church instead. You'd be amazed at the parallels that may be drawn.

Stop praying to Mary, angels and your saints. Stop praying for the dead. Stop confessing your sins to a man. Stop performing your pagan rituals. Stop calling Sunday the Sabbath. Stop forced priestly celibacy. Stop counting your prayers on a rosary. Stop fetishism.

Only God can point you in the right direction, please seek Him out in earnest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I apologize, but I cannot fathom how you can reasonably call yourself a Christian."

Thanks for showiing yourself narrowminded and incomprehensive, deliberately set on misinterpreting Catholics.

"I don't mean to be rude, but"

We have some more important issues here than who is rude.

"equating man-made tradition with scripture is clear heresy."

I agree. As long as the tradition in question is MAN-MADE, that is POST-APOSTOLIC, it clearly is heresy.

That is the precise reason why I reject both more Classic Protestantism, starting some 14 - 15 Centuries after the Apostles, and the even more recent Evangelical tradition, which you clearly belong to, which started out sth like after Freemasonry even (that is after 1717).

"You are putting your faith in men, not the Word."

False.

I am putting my faith in the Church which was founded by the Word as the Church of the Living God.

"You're implying that the Gospel is incomplete, and by extension, that Christ failed in His ministry."

Neither nore, I am implying that the written part of the NT would be incomplete without Apostolic tradition. But as the Apostolic tradition is there, Christ did not fail.

If you had been right, if we had to piece together original Christianity from Bible alone, Christ would have failed the promise given in Matthew 28:16-20.

"If you don't see how that's a problem, then I can't help you."

I am not asking you to, and you have more problems than helping me out, like helping yourself to not twist peoples actual words into whatever accusation best suits your defense for the indefensible reformation.

"Christ tasked His Apostles to carry on in His place, not to make it up as they went."

I totally agree on that one.

I also agree with the promise He gave them which implies one strand of clearly identifiable Apostolic tradition would last to the end of days.

Clearly identifiable means, it has to pass the test of Apostolic succession.

We cannot have one single day between Ascension and Doomsday, therefore not between Ascension and now either, when the Aposles did not have successors passing on exactly and precisely what they were supposed to pass on.

However, we can have Apostles not confiding every detail to writing (like the sign of the cross or the fasting on wednesdays and fridays), and we can have apostles confiding things to writing in such a way that some and even many would need tradition to know exactly what it meant, and that tradition would be necessary in order to get all of it right.

"Again, accountability is not authority by any stretch of the imagination."

Too bad you have too little imagination to see a very obvious point.

"You completely missed the point of the passage from Galatians."

Ah, you are conceding that the words as written can be misunderstood without tradition from those believing rightly?

Well, if so, who of us has a tradition going back to the Apostles? You or I?

"Although I'm not easily rattled, nothing frustrates me more than hypocrites, especially those within the church who ignore our Lord's teachings."

We are not within the same Church.

If the Catholic Church is what Christ founded and I belong to, feel assured, you are outside it.

"As I recall, Christ had a lot to say about hypocrites."

Yes, he specifically called one Jewish sect such, or even two (Pharisees and Sadducees are two different sects).

"I suggest you read the epistles again, but imagine that Paul is writing to the catholic church instead. You'd be amazed at the parallels that may be drawn."

Did you miss the point that St Paul was speaking about people keeping the old law and even considering it a matter of salvation?

"Stop praying to Mary, angels and your saints. Stop praying for the dead. Stop confessing your sins to a man."

Would you mind being precise about where in the Bible you get that admonition from?

I am neither getting it from Apostolic tradition, nor from any verse in the Writings of either Testament, as it is understood by the Catholic Church.

"Stop performing your pagan rituals."

I am sorry, but no verse in the Bible calls Catholicism Paganism.

"Stop calling Sunday the Sabbath."

Even if Christ told the Apostles to use it as the new Sabbath?

"Stop forced priestly celibacy."

Never was all over the Church and Pope Michael already did.

"Stop counting your prayers on a rosary."

What verse do you get that from?

"Stop fetishism."

Where in the Bible do you find a definition of "fetishism" and how exactly do you apply that to Catholicism?

"Only God can point you in the right direction, please seek Him out in earnest."

I would probably need to for my sins, but being too plagued by Protestants like you whenever I set my nose on the net, I do not find peace to do so.

I can't pray a rosary, and it's not the Hail Mary, except perhaps the "now" in the final part, it's more like "as we forgive those who trespass against us".

Protestants of some sort (perhaps ranging to Freemasons and Jews) have surrounded me, as to my internet activity, poking at me when I simply discuss matters, and the fact that I am in a Church you count as a trap for my soul is no reason to be impolite and play the father confessor to me. But also my readership is very well organised, my blogs getting around 600-700 readers per day, and youth being carefully kept away from them where I am.

Protestants are in a position to organise things like that.

You are losing the discussion or debate on the arguments, and you play the one "concerned for my salvation". That is a trump card you have no right to and that is real hypocrisy.

[+ Notified DMW of the fact this is reblogged. Sorry, DNW.]

VI

When it comes to dynamic translations, I think very many of them have Genesis 11:4 with a tower which reaches heaven - or even so tall it reaches heaven.

Word for word, no tallness is mentioned, and it specifically mentions that it is its top which reaches heaven. One could perhaps also translate the Hebrew word for "top" as "height", i e tallness, but both LXX and Vulgate have words meaning top.

And, I think this is significant.