Three Secret Societies and Catholicism their Enemy Misrepresented

Refuting Gene Kim on Slow Apostasy and Perhaps More · What About Bad Popes? · McCullough on France · Three Secret Societies and Catholicism their Enemy Misrepresented

Top 5 Most Mysterious and Powerful Secret Societies
Origins Explained | 25.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lu4Uvc5EhA

Notice, I have very little to say about Skull and Bones or Bilderbergs.

Freemasons

0:58 "oldest and largest"?

As in 1717 is older than "fama fraternitatis"? First printed edition 1614?

No, don't think so, Rosicrucians may be smaller, but they are older.

1:29 No, freemasons are not the unlocal guilds known as free masons.

Freemasonry is not operative masonry. Freemasonry is not Medieval.

Operative masonry was fully accepted by the Catholic Church. While freemasonry took on some of their ritual, it's not the same fraternity, it changed meaning and therefore identity drastically when first accepted masons need not be stone masons, second these could involve Rosicrucians and third in 1717 confessionality was replaced by "the religion in which all honourable men agree".

2:31 1738 is not "a long time ago" historically speaking. It is, by the way 21 years after 1717.

Clement XII was not the first to forbid masonry, this had already been done ... "So war die Maurerei in Neapel 1731, in Polen 1734, in Holland 1735, in Frankreich 1737, in Genf, in Hamburg, in Schweden und von Kaiser Karl VI. in den österreichischen Niederlanden 1738 sowie in Florenz 1739 untersagt." - and untersagt means forbidden.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_der_Freimaurerei#Antimasonismus

Also, the problem was not their ambition of providing education, it was providing education of a certain type - unconfessional, sharply critical of monarchic and Catholic status quo (Lutheran too in Sweden and Hamburg, Calvinist too in "Genf"=Geneva, even Netherlands with mixed confessionality were against it).

Illustration:

German wiki

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_eminenti_apostolatus_specula

enumerates five points given by Pope Clement XII:

Der Anstoß an der religiösen Toleranz der Freimaurerei, der die Aufnahme von „Menschen aller Religionen und Sekten“ erlaubte;
The impetus to religious tolerance of Freemasonry which permitted reception of "people of all religions and sects"

Das unverbrüchliche Stillschweigen;
The strict secrecy

Dass diese geheime Gesellschaft die Ruhe des Gemeinwesens störe;
This secret society disturbs the peace of the society.

Dass die Freimaurerei der Häresie verdächtigt sei und
Freemasonry is suspect of heresy (later, when more of its doctrine was known, arguably not just suspicion)

„aus anderen der Kirche bekannten, gerechten Ursachen“
from other just reasons, known to the Church.

Providing knowledge is not one of these five. Did the presenter or journalist simply accept the Mason's version of what In eminenti apostolatus specula was?

Rosicrucians

7:36 - The image shown id definitely NOT Christian Rosencreutz.

1) Christian Rosencreutz is very arguably a fiction by a Calvinist clergyman:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Valentin_Andreae

2) if real, in 1614 he would not have been wearing what looks like clothes from 1750.

8:25 No, Medieval Europeans did not despise Medicine, specifically Medicine of the Moors, and did also not consider bathing an act of heresy.

AND they didn't burn people before asking questions either. Before they burnt anyone, they certainly HAD asked questions.

So, the knowledge they couldn't handle is simply Anti-Catholic propaganda.

And the guys who consider Francis Bacon wrote Shakespear's works are guys who think riches make you talented and poverty stupid.

Which is not the case.

AMORC claim Napoleon was serving as a Rosicrucian ceremonial master.

AMORC is a recent sect within Rosicrucianism. It started 1909.

That Disney belonged to it is possible, but as far as I know speculation.

It is very possible the Rosicrucian claim of secretly knowing better than Catholics has been operative in certain Evangelical retellings of Church History with Culdees operating as "a secret society". They were simply Irish type monks.

Illuminati

13:35 You really suck at accuracy about Catholics.

Several Popes have spoken out against Masons, the one you showed was Clement XII, who died in 1740.

He can hardly have disbanded anything or anyone in 1776. Or after that.

"Im selben Jahr erklärte auch Papst Pius VI. in zwei Briefen (vom 18. Juni und 12. November) an den Bischof von Freising die Mitgliedschaft im Orden als unvereinbar mit dem katholischen Glauben."

So, it was Pius VI who reacted against them from papacy, that is the Pope who was imprisoned by Napoleon.

So if Napoleon was a Rosicrucian fighting Illuminati and if Pius VI also fought them, why did Napoleon imprison him?

Here is Pius VI:

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

Btw, the year was 1785.

As for me, I think Illuminati got a hype by Dan Brown's Angels and Demons.

I also think, unlike Christianity, such things can be totally absent and come back and fulfil their mission (stated as revenge on Catholicism in the novel).

I also think, much of what has been attributed to Illuminati really is about other groups, like a certain culture current among Rotschilds and Rockefellers (respectively of Jewish and Calvinist origin) and among non-Catholic near-Abrahamic (most would say Abrahamic) confessions.

Plus some Evangelicals started demonising certain entertainment industries as not just sinful in typical output, but also entirely controlled by them. Their hype of the John Todd "testimony" (which included accusations against CSL, dead since 1963, and JRRT, dying when John Todd came out or dead, not sure about exact month of John Todd accusing these two).

Note, Dan Brown in 2000, in Angels and Demons, painted Illuminati as basically benevolent, but capable of great cruelty in their hatred of Catholicism.

It came obviously before certain events claimed to have been arranged by Illuminati, so he could be responsible, with Jack Chick / John Todd, for painting a devil on the wall ... and there may be people who dream of entering that role, who have been or will be inspired by this.

To return to Dan Brown, his depiction of their revenge is inconsistent : one moment the Assassin is portrayed as lamenting Crusaders trampling on "our gods" (polytheism) and another he is portrayed as an Arab (Islam).

MrAnonimak

Good apologetics

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MrAnonimak Thank you, that is my ambition.

On Possibility of Ongoing C14 Increase, as per Morris et al.

Quora : Is carbon-14 still increasing in the atmosphere?
https://www.quora.com/Is-carbon-14-still-increasing-in-the-atmosphere

Omitting some answers and going to the one I commented, now twice:

Edgar Korteweg,

studied Chemistry at University of Groningen

Answered Jul 4

yes sure thing

since the magnetic fielsd of earth is declining over time. and there has never been an equilibrium reached. that is why C14 dating is very unreliable.

to reach an equilibrium it would take about 30.000 years. and the fact that C14 has not reached am equilibrium shows us that earths age has not reached 30.000 yrs. which matches the biblical age of the earth.

God bless

Edgar

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu

This is an answer I have heard from other Creationists, but being one myself and more exposed to adversaries, I had to check this matter closely.

If carbon 14 started building up around the Flood, with the present input (equal over time to decay), we would now be at 45 pmC, and carbon level growing.

However, this would have certain by-effects, such as taking the 45 pmC for 100 pmC, but also inability to get a consistent halflife from there, and all halflives gotten from comparing objects with known age over last 2000 years with typical carbon 14 remains would give very much shorter halflives than the actual one, plus, as said, not one like the other.

I wondered if the “higher input than output” has to do with the Libby halflife, but probably the Cambridge halflife would make it worse if so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Mathematical details on previous reasoning:

Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html

McCullough on France

Refuting Gene Kim on Slow Apostasy and Perhaps More · What About Bad Popes? · McCullough on France · Three Secret Societies and Catholicism their Enemy Misrepresented

Every leader of France, EVER
J.J. McCullough | 6.VII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ppuA4sAmc8

I

"after the fall of the Roman Empire, the Franks organised themselves" ...

O U C H

Don't do this to me! I am sensitive about history!

I hate thunder blunders about as much as scratching a blackboard with something sharper than chalk!

• 1) The Roman Empire did not fall over night. Nor even over just a few years. One can argue it took from AD 410 when Roman Legions left England to 1918 in the aftermath of the First World War matching a Western Emperor Francis Joseph and his successor Karl against an Eastern Emperor Nicolas II.
  
  
• 2) Roman power deteriorated over Gaul before the Franks arrived.
  
  Visigoths, Burgundians, Bretons coming from Cornwall to Brittany all took chunks and had more or less easy or uneasy relations with an actual Roman official, Syagrius, based around Central France.
  
  Together they fought off Attila.
  
  The Franks came as conquerors, and had established themselves outside the limes, North and North-East of Gaul and of the province Germania. They took the chunk of Syagrius after 20 years protracted battle.
  
  
• 3) Once they were in power, which cost Clovis I a Catholic baptism and involved him conquering Burgundian and Visigothic entities North of Pyrenees as new protector of Romans, they extended both in and outside modern France, notably in most if not all of Belgium, Luxemburg and Netherlands, as well as Western parts of Germany, where they were expanding East.
  
  
• 4) After Clovis, the division in Neustria, Austrasia and other entities was not an organisation but a disorganisation, treating royal power as a personal property and therefore as a heirloom to be potentially divided among heirs.
  
  
• 5) Francia was not Neustria, but all of the kingdom or budding Empire (heir of West Rome in 800 AD). Francia was all of it, including whatever of Germany was involved up to Charlemagne, that including Bavarian Duchy from which he separated an Ostmark now known as Austria.

Yes, I think that basically sums up the faults in that comment as well as in the map.

II

2:36 Plus, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were not decadent.

Previous king, Louis XV had been so and even more the regent while Louis XV was a minor (his father and grandfather having died before Louis XIV, he was very young when succeeding him and had a recency).

Point in case, Louis XV was so decadent that he allowed his mistress Madame Pompadour to bully him into expelling the Jesuits and into asking the Popes or pressuring the Popes for dissolution of the order.

Other point in case, Regency and Louis XV was arguably, as most Pagan period (prior to Revolution), the worst one for black slaves in Louisiana and certain island colonies (Québec never had legal or as far as I known any other slavery, any more than France itself).

III

6:59 Did you mention, later, Louis Philippe descended from the very corrupt Regent of Louis XV?

And for that matter, how opinion about conquest of Algeria changed.

Charles X started Algerian war in response to a diplomatic insult (his ambassador had been slapped by the Dey of Algers), they did conquer Algeria before he was out of power and did hang Algerian pirates (slave hunters) in their own masts - but the news of this only reached Paris by when Louis Philippe was already in power.

Once this happened, one general Bugeaud helped to convince Parliament that conquest of Algeria was not just a good idea, but also worth burning fields of the country folks in Algeria.

So, 1830 sees a Revolution meant to stop involvement in Algeria but eventually (at least by 1840) has a Parliament that makes the Algerian war more brutal than it was under Charles X (more effective too, as one must say in favour of Bugeaud, if efficiency with brutality is a favourable credit).

IV

8:11 "after leading France into a disastrous war with neighbouring Prussia"

Who led two nations into that war is disputed. Some would say that Bismarck truncating the Ems telegram was responsible for the Franco-Prussian war. Anyway, Napoleon III lost it.

Matthew 24 and Genesis 6

Answering Rob Skiba on Tower and Other Issues · Chuck MIssler on the Demonic, some Complementary or Corrective Comments by me · On Not Demonising Internet · Matthew 24 and Genesis 6

Video part I

Jesus' Strange Prediction Part 1 - Chuck Missler
Koinonia House | 13.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mMkuR6X5QU

I

0:37 Confidential briefings are not Jesus' style.

While Our Lord spoke certain words to the disciples, without masses present, it was still not a confidential briefing, since He wanted it to be known publically through the Gospels.

If you want to compare it to anything in modern terms, it is more like giving an interview to a newspaper or submitting a manuscript to an editor. Let's take the interview comparison.

Let's say also he founded the newspaper - a bit like a Koinonia publication doing an interview with Chuck Missler, if any, back when he was alive, or New Solidarity doing an interview with Lyndon LaRouche. So, the journalist is not totally independent of the interviewee.

New, Lyndon LaRouche, back when he was alive, would certainly sometimes do interviews with New Solidarity. Helga Zepp LaRouche is arguably still doing them.

Such interviews are not "confidential briefings" just because interviewer and interviewee are in a calm place with not many others around. That is a physical similarity with a confidential briefing, but the reason why it is not a confidential briefing is, the one giving such a thing says "don't publish this, don't pass it on to anyone at first, and later on only to someone you have tried several times over so you know you can rely on his discretion". The one giving an interview will arguably on the contrary say "this is an important topic, make sure to sell many issues of New Solidarity at places where the topic is relevant".

Now, Lyndon La Rouche is not Jesus and neither is Chuck Missler. Koinonia House and New Solidarity are not the Bible. But these things are very much closer to what Jesus did, than a possible "confidential briefing" by Cardinal Bea to a possible Jesuit named Alberto Rivera. If Alberto Rivera started his "coming out" while Bea was still alive, had they asked Bea about it - even supposing he ever gave such a thing to that man - Bea would have denied it. Either because it never happened and was Rivera's invention, or because Bea wanted to keep the briefing confidential. This means, it is very hard or impossible to check that Bea actually gave Rivera such a briefing. I believe Rivera invented it, but could be wrong. However, if a Pharisee had asked Jesus about something some of the 70 or 72 disciples had said while touring, and Jesus had said it, He would not have denied that He had said it and He would not have denied they were his disciples.

Our Lord did give some "confidential briefings" meant to remain so for the time being - up to Calvary - but after Calvary, after the Empty Tomb, the time for confidential briefings is over.

II

1:30 Deception is indeed one characteristic.

One kind of deception is concerned with people claiming "confidential briefings" which, obviously, the Matthew 24 discourse was not.

Alberto Rivera and Avro Manhattan are deceivers about Church History. And in Alberto's case, he pretended to a confidential briefing and in Avro Manhattan's case, he pretended to be a hereditary "knight templar" (forgetting conveniently that Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonics are and for Templars were not feudal knights, but military orders, you joined them by personal vocation, and it involved celibacy and therefore no heirs : a Teutonic Commander in Prussia (in what is now Poland) left the Teutonic Knights pretending Luther's recommendation were a reason to abolish that, and so he could become heir to his cousin who had died in Brandenburg, in Berlin, and similarily, Templars too were celibate ; forgetting also that claims to be Templars after 1313 are uncanonical and as for Templars refusing the dissolution of the order, arguably very likely to be spurious).

Similarily, in Dan Brown's novel, basically the centre piece of a certain Anti-Catholic, Anti-Christian deception is where Teabing gives Sophie Neveu and Robert Langdon precisely a "confidential briefing".

Dan Brown never says as authorial voice that Priory of Zion was founded to protect Merovingian heirs of Our Lord and of Mary Magdalene. It is the character Teabing - ultimately revealed as an evil man - who says so.

But the situation in which he says so is a "confidential briefing" - a situation which arguably has a certain grip on imaginations.

Even in Lord of the Rings, Gandalf gives Frodo a confidential briefing, or actually two, first after Bilbo leaves, then early in Shire reckoning 1418. But from the time of the council of Elrond, the time for confidential briefings is up.

Well, Christ in the real story also gave confidential briefings for only so long. Even when the Blessed Virgin gives a secret each to Mélanie and Maximin, they are not to keep it entirely confidential, they are supposed to share it with the Pope - so that from the Vatican it can be revealed when needed. 19.IX.1846.

Obviously, She did also give a public message.

III

3:32 "With an insight that we missed for a good part of our intellectual lives."

As, with me, rereading Genesis 11:4 after hearing a video with Graham Hancock (or seeing it with subtitles) where he remarked Göbekli Tepe looked like made for a rocket launch or landing place ... if you can't name a rocket a rocket, but have to use a word in your own language or a phrase in your own language (rocket is Italian for bobbin) and you can't take the parallel from firework rockets (if they were invented way later), what would you call the space rocket?

Unlike the fireword rocket, you would not call it a bobbin (rocket meaning bobbin, as said) or a sword hilt (meaning of French fusée). A tower, of which the top - not the rest, just the top - shall reach Heaven (a word used also about space, not just the Throne Room of God) ... that sounds like a fair attempt of describing a three step rocket.

In this context, verse 6 has:

neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed

The dream of going to heaven has been kept alive. Modern rocketry owes sth to astronomy on Ziggurats and in Stonehenge, but also to Greek myths about Perseus and Andromeda going up among the stars - one part of Greek myths which a Church Father called a lie of Satan.

And verse 8 has:

and they ceased to build the city

Ah, it doesn't say they ceased to build the tower ... now if it had only been a local piece of architecture, that would have been included in ceasing to build the city. But if it was meant as a rocket project, they have so to speak been "building" it up to Bajkonur and Cape Canaveral. Probably only speaking openly about Göbekli Tepe (in their view the original Bab-Ilu, gate of gods, in mine the original Babel - confusion) in "confidential briefings" which would have also for long times have distorted the original project.

Also, one really ceased to build Göbekli Tepe, but not Babylon or Woolley's Ur in times prior to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

IV

4:56 Someone pointed out that Septuagint for Genesis 6 does not have angeloi, but οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ

In other words, the LXX is not bona fide a source for Chuck Missler's claim specifically about Genesis 6.

Septuagint GENESIS - 6
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/septuagint-genesis/6.asp

6:35 "and it translates beni ha-Elohim as angels"

Not in the text given by Ellopos. Not for Genesis 6.

V

5:48 [book of Henoch] "highly venerated by Jewish scholarship from about the 2nd century BC to about the second century AD"

Interesting.

Trey Smith had a reading from Henoch on one of his videos (the God in a Nutshell guy).

It first followed very closely the section which we Catholics do hold to be inspired, namely Wisdom 5:1-5. (Later parts of same chapter 5 are an OT counterpart to the spiritual armour in a letter by St. Paul, so he was basically citing Wisdom 5).

Then, it says in Book of Henoch something of the just praying for their repenting harassers and being forgiven ... in other words, it preaches Purgatory.

Unlike us, you may not believe Maccabees is inspired, but it actually suffices that II Maccabees 12 is historically accurate for the not yet Sadducee temple priesthood to have believed sins could be forgiven (at least forgiven as to punishments) even after death, and that people on earth could pray and sacrifice for it.

This means, the idea of Purgatory was around in Our Lord's time, and He did not speak up against it. Presumably meaning He approved it and this means, presumably St. Paul praying for a man whose household he was greeting was doing a prayer for the dead.

Lily Powell

Don't ever presume anything !! When you do that ..you ALWAYS come up empty !!! And WRONG !! Silly , one would think a normal INTELLEGENT person would know better then to " ..ASSUME " , stuff !! Especially when your "ASSUMING " about "BIBLICAL SUBJECTS" !!

So come on ..stop it !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

So, people around then were into accepting Genesis 1 - 11 as historic if they were not Pagans.

Presumably this means Our Lord did so too, hence we are YEC ...

Comes Lily Powell "Don't ever presume anything"

I think the word presumably has a reasonable meaning. It is also sometimes used for modesty in relation to stronger wordings of one's claims.

VI

9:11 Gigantes.

Now, the word in Isidor I find XI.3.12-14 dealing with gigantes ... first he mentions them as a monstruous race, then he discusses the etymology earth born. In Classical Greek that would be gegeneis, not gigantes. Now, the idea of a connection could have sth to do with ge, originally pronounced like "gay" coming to be pronounced like "ghee" (itacism). So, St. Isidor is right to be sceptic about the etymology. And finally, he considers the angelic view as false and as due to inexperience in Scriptures.

Lily Powell

Oh shut up , phoney !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What if Chuck was the phoney?

I gave a reference to my claim, and I looked it up in Google books, so I didn't make it up.

VII

10:35 Unblemished genealogy.

This could mean he had no demonologic involvement in his ancestry even if the demonologic involvement in that of Nephelim was not from "angelic seed."

It could theoretically also refer to his being able to recite his ancestry in an ublemished way, so as to give a correct account of Genesis 5 generations.

In Postilla in Libros Geneseos, presumable St. Thomas Aquinas (though its Latin is different from his mature Latin as in his undisputed works) says:

Noe vero invenit gratiam coram domino. Posita est supra hominum communis malitia, hic subditur ipsius Noe justitia. Alii enim ex injustitia displicebant, sed iste ex justitia placuit. Unde tacitae quaestioni respondet. Posset enim aliquis connexere: ex quo debebat mundum delere, quomodo a regula, quam generaliter proposuit, istum Noe excepit? Et etiam quia videretur esse personarum acceptor, si alios deleret, et istum conservaret, ideo excusat se, et respondet quod cetera non sunt paria. Nam alii communiter erant injusti, et iste justus. Ostenditur etiam devotus ad Deum, ibi, cum Deo ambulavit. Non potuit errare, bonum directorem habuit. Ostenditur etiam ordinatus ad semetipsum, ibi, justus atque perfectus. Benevolus atque solicitus ad aedificandum et conservandum populum suae correptioni subjectum, ibi, in generationibus suis. Et genuit Sem, Cam, et Japhet, qui fuerunt paternae justitiae imitatores.

http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/xgn06.html

So, he takes it as Noah:

• 1) walked with God [was just and perfect as worshipper]
• 2) was just and perfect [in himself, in his ways]
• 3) [not just in himself, but also] in generating.

Presumably the wife by which he begat Shem, Ham and Japheth was not from the Cainite evil state, was not a which and was a good role model.

Linda Duke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Noah had a perfect pedigree. No intermingling with giants

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) I perfectly got this was Chuck Missler's opinion;
• 2) I noted it could be true even if the demonological inolvement into giantism was not one of angels having an own flesh with which to mate with human women;
• 3) I then checked with St. Thomas Aquinas, whom generally I hold higher than Chuck Missler, and noted he had another view of what the words meant.

VIII

11:20 "there was a gene pool problem"

The phrase sounds very related to certain evil practises, like Eugenics.

Now, let's be precise about one thing : just because a doctor has no right whatsoever to forbid a man to marry or a woman to marry or a married man or woman to have children or even unmarried to have such, this doesn't necessarily mean God has no right to Eugenics either.

Precisely as, since God is Lord of life and death, God is not a murderer if He makes a mercy killing.

Quod licet Deo, non licet medico.

Lily Powell

NAH !! YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFULL , WHEN YOU ATTEMPT TO MAKE PROCLAMATIONS ABOUT THINGS YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD GRASP OF !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, that is the case with any medic speaking of "gene pool problems".

Video part II

Jesus' Strange Prediction Part 2 - Chuck Missler
Koinonia House | 14.VI.2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGYYX2CCLdI

IX

2:52 On Sethite view as exposed by St Augustine, sons of God mean faithful Sethites, while daughters of men refer to women in the non-faithful, secularist, Cainite society.

Let's ask if for instance Cainites could have practised, arguably not yet full blown idolatry, as in religions denying the faith as then already given, but witchcraft : Sethite faithful men would have been for instance pure from sexual sin when marrying these witches and then these witches would have invoked demons over such specially "powerful" pregnancies.

That's one view of what happened. Another is, Cainite society was so totalitarian, the state could impose witchcraft in transmhumanist purposes.

Obviously, on St. Augustine's view, the separation of lines imposed in Genesis 11 was a restart, as once again a "human city" had arisen within the City of God (which was what survived the Flood).

X

4:57 I recall the word in Genesis 4:26 as "in his day" and now read "this man":

But to Seth also was born a son, whom he called Enos; this man began to call upon the name of the Lord.

Note very well, the Catholic view is not that he started to profane it, but:

[26] "Began to call upon": Not that Adam and Seth had not called upon God, before the birth of Enos; but that Enos used more solemnity in the worship and invocation of God. (Challoner comment to DRV).

Most versions have what I recalled, and LXX has:

26 καὶ τῷ Σὴθ ἐγένετο υἱός, ἐπωνόμασε δὲ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Ενώς· οὗτος ἤλπισεν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ.

26 And Seth had a son, and he called his name Enos: he hoped to call on the name of the Lord God.

This would perhaps also clear up why Abraham could name a mount Mor-iah and Moses' mother be named Josabeth, before Exodus 3:14, while God tells Moses He had not revealed this name to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.

It would then have been known before them.

As to commentaries stating "profane" Chuck enumerated St. Jerome.

His Vulgate translation, however, has:

[26] Sed et Seth natus est filius, quem vocavit Enos : iste coepit invocare nomen Domini.

And invocare does not mean profane, but invoke or call upon.

Augustinian basis for subset : confer Apocalypse "earth dwellers" ... daughters of a city that was merely human.

Cainites not necessarily godless? They could have been believers, but lax ones (a bit like modern Anglicans who dabble in Harry Potter style spells thinking it doesn't matter). Then also would they have theophoric names.

And daughters of Seth may not have been less attractive, but, say, less willing to flirt and less easy going. That can also play a role.

6:44 No, St. Augustine was not a "liberal" scholar.

There is a textual basis for Cainite city being a bad one : sevenfold vengeance for Cain, seventy times seven fold vengeance for Tubal-Cain (familiar with a very stark contrast in NT?)

There is such a thing as excessive state power. Sure, St. Paul in Romans 13 specifically says the prince carries not the sword in vain, so - does this mean the state can have capital punishment for murder, arson and ... jaywalking?

The seventy times seven fold vengeance for Tubal Cain sounds like they were into very extreme pursuits of power and violence in a game of "zero tolerance".

So, the text actually does indicate Cainites were bad guys.

Less directly and only taking into account extra information from a text corrupted by idolatry, Mahabharata, it seems the grandchildren of Lamech could have been Pandava's and Kauravas. Especially as one ancestor is "Bharat" who seems to have been based on conflating two Henochs, the "city founder" (actually he didn't found a city, Cain did and named it after him) and the raptured one (see Genesis 5).

XI

7:26 Chart on problem with Sethite view as to offspring.

• Nephelim = ?
  
  Well, when Samson's mother was pregnant, she had a compact with God. This made Samson very special and gave him very high powers.
  
  For Beowulf (of Gentile origin in 5th or 6th C AD) the Christian poet (arguably 10th C) argues his strength was a gift of God.
  
  For Hercules and Theseus, I would argue their strength was a gift of the Devil, or of whatever demon "fathered" them. Or took them as adopted children. I'd argue their mothers, after a "wet dream" and believing its contents, had a sort of compact with demons.
  
  
• Supernatural offspring - or just supernaturally marked offspring?
  
  
• You presumably mean "only Y chromosomes among Sethites" - no, but compact being active and different than that of mothers' own (if witches) would be the case with boy pregnancies rather than girl pregnancies.
  
  
• Noah would have had no witch in his foremothers and he would also have preserved the genealogy unflawed as to memory. How did Moses know of all this? Via Noah's memory. Other Sethites would have been playing fast and loose so long with liberal and tyrannic Cainites that they had forgotten the generations. He would be unflawed as to memory of them, but yes, mainly, he would have had no witch among ancestors.

XII

7:34 Chuck's reference to NT is perhaps more to the point.

And St. Augustine's view can be put down to his commenting on Genesis without taking these into account, a bit like a man later on commented on days in Genesis 1 without taking into account Mark 10:6.

However, on this, I am obliged to submit to the judgement of the Catholic Church, if given.

I said if given. Chuck basically said it was given, but a commonly held doctrine not based on all Church Fathers and going against some others of them is not given as a judgement automatically.

One can add that part of St Augustine's rationale is angels are pure spirits, and not created with genitalia, therefore cannot produce seed (they cannot produce it in bodies they don't have, assuming a body is not self incarnation with real biology, and as they aren't God, they cannot create it either). However, he says himself when discussing Romulus (I think it was) that demons can collect semen from a man and then inseminate into a woman, if appearing to both in a seducing manner (first succuba, then incubus).

This possibility would defend the possibility of angelic view insofar as in pre-Flood times incubi could have even appeared socially, as "husbands" when allowed to assume a body.

This view would have an evil, fallen angel even more involved with a pregnancy starting from two human gametes, than if the mother was only a witch.

What About Bad Popes?

Refuting Gene Kim on Slow Apostasy and Perhaps More · What About Bad Popes? · McCullough on France · Three Secret Societies and Catholicism their Enemy Misrepresented

Top 10 Worst Popes in History
TopTenz | 21.I.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTy8l26PJG8

Intro

0:21 "millions have been slaughtered in the name of God" - care to expand on that?

[He didn't, but may have referred to Urban II and Boniface VIII, neither of whom slaughtered millions even indirectly.]

Boniface VIII

2:30 Sacking of Palestrina can not be put down to Boniface VIII.

Leo X

3:59 The indulgences for St. Peter's Basilica were actually given as indulgences precisely for contributions to that goal.

It's not as if he he given indulgences for his own private spending.

4:07 As to homosexuality, wiki only has:

"Suggestions of homosexual attraction appear in works by two contemporary historians, Francesco Guicciardini and Paolo Giovio. Zimmerman notes Giovio's "disapproval of the pope's familiar banter with his chamberlains – handsome young men from noble families – and the advantage he was said to take of them.""

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

Francesco Guicciardini was a friend of Macchiavelli - arguably a secularist, hardly interested in defending a pope.

The footnote says:

"Paolo Giovio, De Vita Leonis Decimi Pont. Max., Firenze (1548, 4 vols), written for the Medici Pope Clement VII and completed in 1533; and (covering the years 1492 to 1534) Francesco Guicciardini, Storia d'Italia, Firenze (1561, first 16 books; 1564 full edn. 20 books) written between 1537 and 1540, and published after his death in the latter year. For the characterisation of the relevant passages (few and brief) in these authors, see, e.g., Vaughan 1908, p. 280:- and Wyatt, Michael, "Bibbiena's Closet: Interpretation and the Sexual Culture of a Renaissance Papal Court", comprising chap. 2 of Cestaro, Gary P. (ed.), Queer Italia, London (2004) pp. 35–54 a. To these can be added Zimmerman, T.P., Paolo Giovio: The Historian and the Crisis of Sixteenth-Century Italy, Princeton University Press (1996), citing at p. 23 Giovio's disapproval of the banter. Two pages later Zimmerman notes Giovio's penchant for gossip."

I checked the Latin text of Giovio, it certainly lacks the word "sodomia[m]".

Giovio was a physician, so used to interpreting small signs, perhaps overinterpreting some.

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

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/scanned/paulo_giovio_de_leonis_x.htm

His dying in bed with a boy might be from one Bale, John Bale, known as Bilious Bale ...

Urban II

5:41 Disagree on First Crusade. It was a defensive war.

Atrocities committed during a war do not always reflect on those who ordered it, unless also leading it.

Urban II at Clermont said nothing about doing atrocities to either Jews or Eastern Schismatics (whom he was trying to help), and for that matter neither about any against Muslim civilians.

Part of what damaged the actual morality of the war effort was bad discipline (Geoffroy of Bouillon notably took three days before succeeding in stopping a massacre, that of Jerusalem), part of it was leaders who were ambitious for own power gains, like Tancred and Bohemond whose grandparents or greatgrandparents or something (perhaps a bit further back, though) had been Pagan Vikings.

Julius III

7:03 You are for "Julius III" showing Raphael's portrait of Julius II. That is, of the predecessor of Leo X.

Your assessment of Julius III may for all that be fairly correct.

Stephen VI / Sergius III

Relating to Formosus trials

9:25 sth, "his ordinations were declared null"

Very good point.

Protestants have argued against Apostolic succession due to schisms in Rome, when Popes have retroactively been declared non-popes - but the succession depends on validity of ordination or episcopal consecration and this can be the case even when the man consecrating held his episcopal or papal functions illegally.

Declaring someone's ordinations and episcopal consecrations null is an extra, it doesn't follow from someone being an Antipope. This means earlier and later Antipopes can - as well, obviously as real Popes and all real bishops also not Pope or not even bishop of a See - transmit Apostolic succession, plus obviously even Formosus' consecrations being null doesn't mean all other bishops consecrated prior to him suddenly lost Apostolic succession too.

Whether you consider Stephen VI or Formosus the baddy, either way, the story when studied in detail debunks a few Protestant ideas - probably gotten from misapplying this declaration of nullity to all other Popes who were declared Antipopes.

As to Sergius III burning the corpse of Formosus over again, that seems physically impossible.

Benedict IX

11:43 Henry intervened, but ineffectively, however, then Benedict IX resigned for real and died penitent in a monastery. Probably Pope St Leo IX had also lifted the ban on him.

Alexander VI

12:58 No, not quite no.

9th and 10th C. Popes were equal to Alexander VI's worst moments.

Belloc considered him "a bad liver and a good pope". Liver arguably not as "foie" but as "viveur" - "un mauvais viveur mais un bon pape". Then, Belloc could have been somewhat biassed against the somewhat puritanic Savonarola who was victim of a trial where he basically had ordered the outcome.

If Savonarola had told people "you need to stay in Florence if possible and if not live like here elsewhere, so everyone needs the bonfires of vanities", he would have been over the top, but it seems the bonfires were voluntary and those who didn't throw jewels, cosmetics, paintings and novels on them were either discreet or leaving Florence, so, Savonarola could have been innocent.

Plus, unlike Julius III, Alexander VI was at least hetero.

13:28. I suppose you mean "Borgia Pope".

A Borgia non-Pope was by contrast a good Jesuit priest, even a saint : Francis Borgia.

And while he tried to foist the see of Carpentras on his son Cesare, the latter refused, preferring to be a layman.

Meaning, Carpentras after that got a bishop Alexnader VI nominated on his merits, not their family relation.

Extro

14:19 This somewhat not so correct presentation we hosted by Simon Whistler, a very popular presenter, and authored by Keith Burnside.

Refuting Gene Kim on Slow Apostasy and Perhaps More

Refuting Gene Kim on Slow Apostasy and Perhaps More · What About Bad Popes? · McCullough on France · Three Secret Societies and Catholicism their Enemy Misrepresented

The Church Is NOT In the Final Tribulation (Rev. 2:8-9a) | Dr. Gene Kim
BBC International | 17.IX.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXpcnLvBPoI

I

"stray away and apostasise" ... a thing the Church cannot do, see Matthew 28:18-20.

Specifically the part where it says "all days" (sometimes mistranslated as "always", probably after Protestant French models, since "toujours" used to mean "all days" and now means "always").

2:28 "a thousand years, fullblown apostasy"

Oh, so after one thousand years, the promise of "every day" ceases to apply?

4:27 Oh, so you are better than ante-Nicene fathers at studying Bible truth?

Nah, don't think so.

Modern times are busy times. Even if you are not technically a slave, you are often a slave of a timetable.

Contrast ancient Roman times. St. Joseph could absent in Egypt from his carpenter's shop, leaving it to older sons from a previous marriage, and just resume it when he got back with Our Lady and Child Jesus.

Dan Barker thought, when St. Paul mentioned 500, most of whom are still alive, nobody could check, St. Paul could have afforded the bluff, no problem. Well, he's presuming St. Paul was speaking to 20th C. Proletarians. No, he was speaking to Roman Empire not just resident slaves, but also citizens. Free citizens. Some of whom could absent for the year or so it would take to get to Holy Land on foot and back again after checking. Or even many of whom could do so.

Same with studying Bible : even persecuted Roman Christians enjoyed more leasure than you do, simply because they were not living in the 20th C.

And obviously the Church would set apart time for its bishops, priests, deacons to actually do the study very well.

You have a greater choice of tools and texts, than they had? True, but your choice involves some more morbid items, like the idea Apostolic Fathers were heading towards apostasy. So, you are making a poorer use of the choice you have than they were making.

"you got time"

Old Romans were so much more pressed by the clock ... not.

They used sun dials, where you could know if you were in "first hour" (6 - 7am), "second hour" (7 - 8am), and if you had shown them a watch showing exact minutes (6:35 am) they would have marvelled more about apparent uselessness of your trinket than about its ingenuity.

THEY got time. YOU are the one pressed by the clock. You are turning historic truth upside down. Just so you can pretend you are wiser about the Bible than the Apostolic Fathers and Ante-Nicene Fathers and obviously also Post-Nicene Fathers.

II

4:58 "everyone had manuscripts all scattering around see"

It's presumed Christians if not invented at least very early took on codex form. Manuscript or print doesn't matter all that much, manuscript is a bit like large print. But codex vs scroll does matter.

Meaning, yes, there were early on codices of complete Bible.

Did all have them, they were expensive? No, hence the idea "each Christian needs to have a Bible" is wrong.

But did the Fathers have them? Think. Each of them was a prominent figure in his Church, more likely than simple lay members to get martyred, up to 313 (except in Ethiopia and Armenia and Edessa, outside Roman Empire). Would they being devout enough to take that kind of post not want a Bible? And would they not be sufficiently supported by their Church to have one? Sure. Case closed.

ANY Christian even teenager in 3:rd C. having a Bible? Baloney.

Any Church Father in 3:rd C. NOT having a Bible? Equally BS.

And, for next time, learn the difference between "manuscript vs print" and "scroll vs codex".

So they very much did have at least as good an opportunity as you to know the truth.

III

5:15 Apostasising more and more and more till it contributes to the Catholic Church later on?

Baloney. Apostasy is not that gradual.

I'll show you an example of Apostasy from the Catholic world.

1947 someone in Paris is asking Papal Biblical Commission in Rome "pretty please, can we say Adam developed from previous humans" or sth like that. They got too much of a yes, in 1950 Pope Pius XII changed this to a half and half no in Humani Generis. Fast forward to present decade. TOFspot blogger claims to have shown a model in which Adam is ancestor of all men but not sole ancestor in his generation. His friend Mark Shea is calling Creationists "liars for Jesus" and pointing to them as examples of what happens when you don't obey all that comes from "Pope Francis"

1947 - 2019 = 72 years. That's how fast apostasy happens, there are perhaps fewer real Catholics than new "Catholics."

IV

5:20 "Dark Ages, full blown Apostasy"

First phrase, "Dark Ages" - full blown mythology.
Second phrase "full blown Apostasy" - again full blown mythology.

Probably not half as historic as Greek mythology about War of Troy.

V

5:37 "their focus was to break from the Catholic Church system"

And therefore completely right in doctrine was not required of them ... read Matthew 28:18-20 once again, you just made Our Lord Jesus Christ a liar with those words.

VI

5:55 During that time the focus was to resist persecution etc.

Fine. And next generation of those was even on your own admission, Roman Catholics or Catholic Church System.

6:14 And you missed out on "angel of the Church" meaning its bishop ....

VII

7:05 And your refutation of JW was very probably used by St. Athanasius at Nicaea too.

When the Catholic Church was refuting Arians, while Novatians seemed to no longer exist and Donatists only locally around Carthage.

And if anyone was apostasising, it was Donatists, when they became robber "anarchists" known as Circumcellions.

VIII

9:07 Catholicism is (mainly at least) post-Tribulation, for rapture of those surviving to second coming and resurrection of those who had died before that, at the same time.

9:22 We also think the Church will fail and be socially and militarily more and more conqured by Antichrist, till Jesus comes down.

A bit like US Cavalry saving the last three waggonloads going West from a massacre by someone like Geronimo.

IX

10:30 "The Church will be raptured before the tribulation"

Where does that leave "all days" in Matthew 28:18-20?

Plus, the camp of the saints means the Church.

10:51 "The Church can't bring the kingdom"

What if the Church is the kingdom?

"Christ has to bring in the kingdom"

What if He did so by founding the Church?

X

13:47 The ten days part is about individual prison.

Ten days to martyrdom or freedom.

The 1260 days are overall a bit longer.

Chuck MIssler on the Demonic, some Complementary or Corrective Comments by me

Answering Rob Skiba on Tower and Other Issues · Chuck MIssler on the Demonic, some Complementary or Corrective Comments by me · On Not Demonising Internet · Matthew 24 and Genesis 6

Demonism - Chuck Missler
16.IV.2013 | Koinonia House
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgbiVTXRGF4

1:16 I grasped that "Greek mythology" was history, when I realised the oracle of Cumae and the oracle of Delphi were real demons.

They worshipped a "god" named Apollon, and one by-name of Apollon by the Greeks themselves is Apollyon. Another one is "fly-god" - basically Belzebub. In Iliad A, he not only ended the plague, but sent it, and sent it not just by way of judgement, but by sending arrows.

1:56 By the way, the roles of Poseidon and Aphridite in Hippolytus are arguably also demonic.

Theseus basically sacrificed his son to his demon step father.

Poseidon in oldest form is Potei Daon ... Lord Dagon, a demon known from Philistines and Canaanites in Holy Land.

In other words, the behaviour is not one I expect some fairy tale inventor to attribute to beings he considers (though erroneously) as holy, but one I consider demons are capable of.

4:01 Psychiatric patients often demonic?

Most possessed? No. Very many are misdiagnosed and actually sane.

6:48 The world was Satan's. He lost it on Calvary.

The victory of Christ is however something to be applied by the Church : hence exorcisms, blessings, Church bells, holy water, holy salt.

As well as the proper use of the sacraments.

Andrea Mobeck

The world still is Satan's until Jesus (Yeshua) returns.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, Jesus conquered it on Calvary.

Satan still lingers and will make a move for taking it back final 3 and a half years, but he is no longer on his own ground.

Sharon Hall

Church bells, holy water, and holy salt have nothing to do with it. It's all aboutTHE WORD!!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sharon Hall You are wrong, since in OT times, you could be cleansed by water sprinkled on you if it was mixed with ashes of the red heifer and since the blowing of the shofar also was a sacramental.

Since there is no more red heifer in the sense veterinarians use the word, Christ replacing the red heifer, nevertheless, there is water that can cleanse, and that means drive away demons.

If demons could be afraid of a shofar blowing from a temple that only symbolised Christ, they are afraid of bells ringing from a Church where this New Temple, this Third Temple is kept literally and bodily in the Tabernacle.

So, holy water, holy salt and Church bells, as well as the proper use of sacraments, do have an impact on residual demonic activity. No demonic activity being ordinary, all of it just residual, since Calvary.

Sharon Hall

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Jesus, himself, did not use all of those things to drive demons away or to heal people. He simply had the proper application of the word. Oh yeah, I forgot, used mud and spit to heal somebody's eyes. Now there's some holy water for you . He won his fight against Satan's Temptations, who also used the word of God, with the application of using the right words at the right time. I see no use of holy water in the New Testament outside of being totally immersed for baptism, (using any body of water available) washing feet to keep humble and serving others. I see no application of salt using. I don't remember any more ashes for grieving in the New Testament . I do seem to remember a scripture that says we are the temple, we are the light, we are the salt, and Jesus , God, the Holy Spirit, and the kingdom of God is IN us. I believe praise and worship to our Lord and God is to be our daily blowing of the shofar.

[reedited as]

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Jesus and the disciples did not cast out demons with holy water, salt, or blowing a shofar. And yet they did cast out demons after Jesus died and rose again and left. The scriptures I read only mention water for immersion baptism once, in foot washing to keep people humble and serving others. The New Testament says we are the temples and we should be holy, we are the light, we are the salt, and I believe that our blowing of the shofar is our praise and worship. Scripture also says that Jesus, God, the Holy Spirit, the kingdom of God is IN us. We fight demonic attacks and cast out demons with the proper application of the RIGHT words at the right time. That's the way that Jesus Juan his Temptations against Satan's attack, who by the way also would using the word of God out of context. God is responding to our faith not all these actions that you are proposing. you seem to be stuck in the Old Testament. The Jews who are going to have the Third Temple, I'm not yet believing in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sharon Hall "Jesus and the disciples did not cast out demons with holy water, salt, or blowing a shofar."

Exorcisms of the possessed people are another sacramental if not sacrament of the Catholic Church. Disciples not using holy water seems to be "Bible alone" reasoning, like "if we don't read it in the Bible". It certainly itself cannot be proven from the Bible that they didn't.

"And yet they did cast out demons after Jesus died and rose again and left."

So does the Catholic Church to this day. Have you heard of Fr. Gabriele Amorth?

"The scriptures I read only mention water for immersion baptism once, in foot washing to keep people humble and serving others."

Well the foot washing (practised on twelve poor parishioners each Maundy Thursday in Catholic Church) is different from baptism and therefore a sacramental, not a sacrament.

Baptism is never described as "immersion baptism only".

"The New Testament says we are the temples and we should be holy, we are the light, we are the salt, and I believe that our blowing of the shofar is our praise and worship."

While in NT symbolic meanings take precedence over kashrut and sacramentals of the OT, they do not forbid NT sacramentals and symbols.

"Scripture also says that Jesus, God, the Holy Spirit, the kingdom of God is IN us."

Well, having God in your soul doesn't exclude having a parish around your body.

Hence, it does not exclude external signs of worship, of blessing or of exorcism.

"We fight demonic attacks and cast out demons with the proper application of the RIGHT words at the right time."

And, for formal exorcisms of possessed persons, usually at least by the right people - Catholic exorcists.

"That's the way that Jesus Juan his Temptations against Satan's attack, who by the way also would using the word of God out of context."

Problems with autocorrect?

In Satan's case, there were other misuses than "out of context". Like ignoring the general scheme of things. This is also the case with those missing Christ founded a Church which is still here, not restored, but never vanished.

"God is responding to our faith not all these actions that you are proposing."

What if the actions are done with faith?

"you seem to be stuck in the Old Testament."

Funny, since every Jew who considers me as impure for using Catholic rites instead of their kashrut would be claiming I was cut off from the OT.

"The Jews who are going to have the Third Temple, I'm not yet believing in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior."

Problems with autocorrect?

Jews are not going to have a Third Temple, Jesus is the Third Temple. The one He tore down and rebuilt in three days.

I do believe in Jesus as my Lord and Saviour, and I do believe in Him as founder of a visible Church which He assigned so as to prevent me and others from inadvertent rebellion and to provide the sacraments for salvation.

[added]

@Sharon Hall "Oh yeah, I forgot, used mud and spit to heal somebody's eyes. Now there's some holy water for you ."

Well, the full healing would also have involved the use of the water blessed by an angel at a certain well, wouldn't it?

Christ told the man to use it, when He had answered he saw men but they looked like trees.

Yes, there is some holy water there.

Spit of the priest is used in immediate preparations of child baptism. Or even adult baptism.

7:25 When St Paul warns St. Timothy of false doctrines as demonic, he does not call these "non-Biblical".

Nor does he leave room for doubts of it being Puritan of a Vegan or Vegetarian type and Malthusian or Eugenic as in forbidding marriage (could also be a question of Feminism of the more rabid type).

11:09 "before our time" they said ... that being Calvary.

Christ was going to take dominion away from them and they knew it.

Andrea Mobeck

The demons were speaking of the time of Judgement. They are still here doing their work.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

They are still doing their work, but no longer as rulers by conquest, as between Adam's sin and Christ's obedience.

In the time of Theseus (a generation presumably before the fall of Troy which was when or before Eli judged Israel) a demon could appear to a man and claim to be his father, and send horses to tear that man's son apart under their hooves. Theseus thought Poseidon was his father. Hippolytus died of horses trampling him down, when Theseus in jealousy had spoken to his "father".

In the time when Roman Empire was persecuting Christians, a Ceres priest could summon up a kind of dragon, but a Christian bishop sufficed to chase him into a stream and into turning into stone.

Since then, Church bells, Holy Water, Sacraments, Christian lives have chased Satan and his minions further and further away from having the kind of power they had. However, as Catholic societies disintegrate (Reformation, Enlightenment, post-Russian Revolution times), the demons are getting less and less confronted with the exorcistic powers of the Church

14:05 Not eligible for resurrection, Isaiah 26:14 ... hmm ... the Beavers said Jadis was not truly human "but a giantess" ... C. S. Lewis probably could have a point.

Let not the dead live, let not the giants rise again: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and hast destroyed all their memory.

Douay Rheims.

Answering Rob Skiba on Tower and Other Issues

Answering Rob Skiba on Tower and Other Issues · Chuck MIssler on the Demonic, some Complementary or Corrective Comments by me · On Not Demonising Internet · Matthew 24 and Genesis 6

The Tower of Babel and Confirming the Nimrod - Osiris - Orion - Apollo Connection [MODIFIED]
Rob Skiba | 4.IX.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-GULAzoduU

I

Do you know how 666 looks like in Babylonian numerals?

660 = 11 = a corner to the left and a wedge perpendicular.

Last 6 = three wedges perpendicular over three other wedges perpendicular, and it is placed after the signs which by itself could be 11.

Looks like a space rocket to me.

Confirming my theory, that is what Nimrod was trying to build.

"a tower, the top of which shall reach into heaven" = looks like a tower before take off, only step three gets into space, compatible with non-flat cosmologies.

However, Nimrod may not have known how far up Empyraean Heaven is, it being beyond fix stars, and these being probably at least 1 light day up.

Hence Obadiah 1:4, Luke 14:28.

In other words, Nimrod's tower was going to succeed as far as take off and as far as getting to some spaces in space is concerned, but he had not counted what it really takes, which is less than what we have. Even if Empyraean Heaven is only one light day up.

II

2:35 "plains of Shinar" says where?

And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

Finding "a plain" suggests it is higher up than in the plain land around South Shinar (Babylonian kingdom).

How about North Shinar, where there is "a plain" with Göbekli Tepe where it touches hills undulating again?

III

dialogue:

Narn

so God was worried that they were going to climb up and kill him?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

More like, Nimrod's prototype rocket was as useless as a Leonardo da Vinci airplane and much more dangerous for bystanders, so God post-poned rocketry until we had time to learn about rocket fuels.

trintdaddylandis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl prototype rocket? you for real?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@trintdaddylandis Read the text.

and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven:

If you were naming a space rocket, couldn't refer to firework rockets, and couldn't borrow from another language, what noun would you use and how would you explain the difference from the more usual object?

Plus, have you heard that Graham Hancock considered Göbekli Tepe looked like sth for a space launch?

Seems Mad

It was of no threat to the Most High, other than in the minds of those wicked men........laughable. It was a threat to His beloved creation, and as such, He took action. I believe the threat was that individuals would have become a part of a hive mind, losing free will, which is necessary for Father to restore all creation to perfection and not violate His perfect righteousness. He has a plan, and ALL things, ALL events, ALL actions of EVERY being, work toward the perfect completion of that plan....period. May the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob bless you and keep you in the days ahead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Seems Mad "It was a threat to His beloved creation, and as such, He took action."

Exactly.

A rocket project back then, based on Uranium as rocket fuel would have given a mushroom cloud over Göbekli Tepe, and bringing it to the point would have drafted too much of mankind (as it did for some 40 years) to a project of no use, and uselessly globalist collective.

trintdaddylandis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not saying it's not possible.. i suppose it is.... do you know of any concrete evidence that supports the idea they would've had any type of technology even close to a rocket? are we talking about ancient alien/vimana type stuff here?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@trintdaddylandis There is a difference between having a rocket functional and planning one. As there is a difference between a Leonardo da Vinci airplane and the planes that exist since Brothers Wright.

My point is, Nimrod was a man of ideas, but somewhat going on bungling them in the realisation. God was saving mankind from disaster.

The evidence?

The wording of Genesis 11:4 (a tower, the top of which shall reach into heaven).

The look of Göbekli Tepe.

The fact that GT carbon dates fit perfectly in with where Babel would be in Biblical chronology, once the carbon dates are made to match it.

AND the fact that we have different traces of such a project after Babel.

Stonehenge and Nabta Playa among other stone circles are about astronomic observation. Makes sense if the judgement from God could be taken as observations weren't good enough. "So let's make better ones," they may have said.

Egyptians make Horus and Greeks make Perseus and Andromeda go up to the stars - a religious version of a rocketry project, just as the modern rocketry project is a secularised version of this dream. Makes sense if one wanted to esotericaly keep the dream alive.

Chinese have firework rockets, a kind of miniature of the planned space rocket, which also later did serve as a model for our space rockets, and that makes sense if it was meant to serve so (after a somewhat tedious search for useful gunpowder).

Isaiah's words to Satan in chapter 14 (I think it was) make sense if Satan was instigating Nimrod to a rocket project.

Obadiah's words in verse 3 make sense if some type of Edomite was going to be involved in rocketry projects:

Though thou be exalted as an eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars: thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord.

Each by itself makes sense otherwise too. But together they make even more sense with my interpretation.

Perhaps most : skyscrapers have already been tried (though 9/11 found them wanting in security), so, a blunder in rocketry makes more sense in why God stopped it all than a skyscraper project. Yes, we do have rockets, but probably much safer than the one Nimrod was planning. And also able to work, which has was probably not. My hunch (with a hint from Mahabharata taken as pre-Flood times), is nuke bombs were known, Nimrod wanted to exploit the energy in a more peaceful way (peaceful between men, that is, or those sharing his project).

IV

9:43 You know, I have done a few essays to refute Zeitgeist, especially back when their spoekeswoman Acharya was alive.

Sad she died without converting, as far as we know.

Like here:

somewhere else : No, true enough Acharya, Varro did not write about Jesus ...
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/04/no-true-enough-acharya-varro-did-not.html

V

10:03 So you agree with the errors of Acharya on Catholicism giving a Pagan Jesus?

Why? Bc of "December 25th"?

Earliest known pagan feast held on that date is Sol Invictus. It is so young, the emperor (Aurelian, I think) could very well have tried to hijack Christmas. As already existing among Christians. (Yes, Aurelian is before Constantine).

ANY older Pagan feasts than that are uniformly either on another Roman date (Saturnalia Dec 17 - 21, later 17 - 23), or not in Roman calendar at all, and since Roman calendar was the first to have 365.25 days per medium year, translating from one calendar to another is meaningless, unless you pick a particular year for the translation.

Probably, December 25 is a translation from Hebrew calendar from the year Christ was born, and that being 15 months after 2nd week of Tishri, if not day of Atonement itself. (One Church Father, St. John Chrysostom, actually considered Zacharias as High priest and the sacrifice of incence as sacrifice in the Holy of Holies on that precise day ... may have been an error).

10:10 No Pagan rituals involved in the substitutions.

St. Thomas has a list of OT feasts and how they correspond to NT feasts of the Church, each feast of OT having a precise NT counterpart. Sabbaths - Sundays. Newmoons - Feast of the Blessed Virgin Conceiving on March 25. Pesach of Exodus - Catholic Pascha (Easter) of Death and Resurretion. Pentecost of Old Law - Pentecost of descent of Holy Spirit. Feast of Trumpets - feasts of Apostles. Expiation (Atonement?) - Feasts of Martyrs and Confessors. Feast of Tabernacles - feast of Church dedication (each Catholic parish celebrates the feast when its Church is dedicated). "the feast of the Assembly and Collection, to feast of the Angels, or else to the feast of All Hallows." - I don't know what "assembly and collection" feast is.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sum of Theology I-II (first part of second part), Q[uestion] 103, A[rticle] 3, ad [=reply to objection] 4.

No, as said, December 25 is not the "day of dying and resurrecting Sun gods of antiquity".

Hislop, Acharya and yourself are simply wrong on history here.

VI

10:37 I very much agree "do this in remembrance of me" is very key.

However, we take it as Christ ordering His first Catholic priests to do "this" thing He had just done, namely turn bread into His Body and wine into His Blood, and to do this in remembrance of His death.

And how do we know He had in fact done so? Well, because we take what He just previously had said literally.

Your theory on "do this" meaning "celebrate Passover" is a subsidiary argument on why Catholic Easter changes from the Easter of Exodus, but it cannot be the most important thing, since it doesn't involve anything like an explanation for the words where He said, "this is my body" or "this is the chalice of my blood".

Catholic theology perfectly matches every word, and especially "the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you" (Luke 22:20) matches the first Eucharist at Last Supper being already the sacrifice of Calvary taken place. It was going to be shed next day, but its New Covenant was already there.

10:42 There is no mystery which is known to resemble the Eucharist.

Bacchus mysteries have a certain resemblance of idea, and while we are at it, Moses is a better candidate than Nimrod for ultimate (though misunderstood) model for Bacchus. But no good resemblance in form, since St Paul upbraided Corinthians for doing what came too close to a Bacchanal.

10:48 "look at those good Catholics up there"

There was no Catholic there. Presbyterians aren't Catholics and Presbyterian communions are not real Eucharists, neither valid nor intended to be so.

"Aldrin’s lunar communion has since become shrouded in mystery and confusion, but the rite itself was relatively simple.The astronaut was also an elder at Webster Presbyterian Church, and before he headed into space in 1969, he got special permission to take bread and wine with him to space and give himself communion."

Updated:Aug 29, 2018· Original:Jul 31, 2018
Buzz Aldrin Took Holy Communion on the Moon. NASA Kept it Quiet
NASA worried the Christian ceremony may draw unwanted scrutiny.
Erin Blakemore
https://www.history.com/news/buzz-aldrin-communion-apollo-11-nasa

Webster Presbyterian Church was not a Catholic parish, nor is it now.

VII

12:06 Apollo 11 / Saturn V as projected on Washington Monument looks a bit like a tower, right?

And only the top of it reached into Heaven, while the rest dropped into the Ocean (or at least first step did, but step two was discarded as well, perhaps burning in atmosphere).

Note, if Nimrod had been allowed to try that, he would just have made a mushroom cloud over Göbekli Tepe ... that's my theory on what he was trying to do.