Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: March 2024

Saturday, March 30, 2024

Some Responses to Candida Moss (Beginning of Video)

POPPÆA SABINA:
By: Kaufmann Kohler, Eduard Neumann
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12274-poppaea-sabina

Mistress and, after 62 C.E., second wife of the emperor Nero; died 65. She had a certain predilection for Judaism, and is characterized by Josephus ("Ant." xx. 8, § 11; "Vita," § 3) as θεοσεβής ("religious"). Some Jews, such as the actor Alityros, were well received at court, and Poppæa was always ready to second Jewish petitions before the emperor. In 64 Josephus went to Rome to obtain the liberation of some priests related to him who had been taken captive to that city for some minor offense. With the help of Alityros, Josephus succeeded in gaining the intercession of the empress, and returned home with his friends, bearing rich gifts with him.

a) Jews were already unpopular
b) Christians were unpopular among Jews
c) Poppaea persuades Nero to target Christians rather than Jews.

The word of Tacitus shows they were targetted.

11:08 Reference in legal texts is desired.

[for the claim that ...]

11:42 "It would have been Jews"

Except for Poppaea.

PhiladelphiYAHH&Smyrna Yeshiba
@philadelphiyahhsmyrna0: What is that supposed to prove?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @philadelphiyahhsmyrna0 Candida Moss speculated that Christians wouldn't have been targetted, Jews would have been so.

Poppaea was what would now be called a Noahide, so, she made sure Nero didn't persecute Jews proper. More open to having him persecute a Jewish sect which Jews had persecuted.

11:58 The correspondence in Pliny's correspondence with Trajan shows Christians already being persecuted.

It does not mark a decision to persecute Christians.

The Romans were perfectly capable of persecuting Christians under a legal text which to them applied to "sth similar" namely Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus.

Sei quis velitod bacchanal habuisse ...

Romans were perfectly capable of classing Jews, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists as Bacchus worshippers.

They were also (with a little help from Poppaea) able to distinguish between different groups that they would tend to view as Bacchus worshippers.

John Cooper
@user-tf6rf5ch9i: Pliny would have been three when the Fire and persecutions happened.. If the persecution was limited to Rome as seems to be the case then his relative lack of knowledge is explainable. At the end of the day there are at least two sources that say Nero persecuted Christians.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @user-tf6rf5ch9i Thank you!

Tacitus and ...?

12:27 The reasons why Pliny and Trajan would still be having that conversation would be:

if the persecutions under Nero and Domitian had been intermittent, and ceased already
and their mediatisation had been inferior among Romans than among Christians
and on top of that had used legal clauses not originally meant for Christians.

henri
@Bluesruse: Pliny and Tacitus were buddies. Pliny's dad (the Elder) was considered a hero, and a contemporary to Nero.

It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest Tacitus wrote anything about any 'Christians' without Pliny knowing. Tacitus would have asked Pliny, or used his dad as a source, and Pliny would have known those sources by heart as well.

Tacitus wrote some dirt on Nero, because he didn't like him. Christians saw an opportunity to bullshit their way into history, just like they did with their so called 'Christ'. Case closed.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Bluesruse Let's take a look at Pliny the Elder:

"At the earliest time that Pliny could have left the service, Nero, the last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, had been emperor for two years. He did not leave office until AD 68, when Pliny was 45 years old. During that time, Pliny did not hold any high office or work in the service of the state. In the subsequent Flavian dynasty, his services were in such demand that he had to give up his law practice, which suggests that he had been trying not to attract the attention of Nero, who was a dangerous acquaintance."

This means, his son could have been aware of Nero's persecution without being sure whether this should count as legal precedent.
henri: @hglundahl When you lift a direct quote from somewhere, you should really say where it's from. In this case, Google lead me to Wikipedia, and the quote in question to be completely sourceless. The opinion of a random person online can therefore be left on its own.

But just to comment what's wrong there: Any Emperor could have of course been a potentially 'dangerous acquaintance', but on its own this is like saying 'you didn't eat a Snickers bar yesterday, so you must be allergic to nuts'.

A more accurate and honest description of Nero is pretty far from the popular image people know that the Christians fabricated. You could say that Nero suffered the greatest character assassinations in history.

Also, Pliny the Yonger in his letters to Tacitus pretty clearly describes his father as a 'good Roman'. Something Nero arguably was not in the way the term was understood and meant to be understood by Tacitus. Shortest way to describe the situation is: Nero was "gay".

And the Elder being an army man and a friend to the general who ultimately takes the crown after a civil war (Vespasian, whom with the Elder had served together with in German legions), there's quite a bit wrong with saying the Elder didn't hold office in Nero's court, because Nero was a 'dangerous acquaintance'. He didn't hold office, because there was a) no reason to b) because he didn't want to. Vespasian changed both.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Bluesruse Thanks for noting it's from wikipedia.

Still more credible than your own totally unsourced claims.

Nero was a man who forced Seneca and Burrus to commit suicide and who was thought responsible for the murder of his mother.

This is in Annals book VI, not in wikipedia (at least the passage about his mother's death) which means that this was the view Tacitus had of him. This being so, it was probably the view Pliny the Elder had of him, on your information. This being so, it is once again very likely that Pliny the Younger could have been aware of Nero persecuting Christians and even so being unsure if this was supposed to be legal precedent.
henri: @hglundahl "This means, his son could have been aware of Nero's persecution without being sure whether this should count as legal precedent."

Oh, and this is just some apologist non sequitur nonsense. It's not what the quote you refer to means even if we would take it seriously, which we shouldn't.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Bluesruse I have no reason to take you seriously.

And "this means" in English is not uniquely used of exegesis of direct meaning, it is also used of implication.
henri: @hglundahl Still more credible than your own totally unsourced claims.

Umm, actually no? It's still at most just as unsourced as anything else. Although, I think I've been pretty straightforward about where my information comes from (letters between Pliny and Tacitus, and Trajan). What claim do you think you need a source for, specifically? What claim is in dispute?

Funny you should bring up Nero's mother, Agrippina, who by the accounts of Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Suetonius, and Juvenal, was a serial killer who would sleep with her own brother (Caligula, the real sicko) as well as probably trying to sleep with her own son too (yuck), and who manipulated her son to the throne for her own power hungry gains; who thought she could control him, and who tried to have him replaced (read: killed) multiple times when that didn't work anymore: When Nero would "put his foot down" so to speak.

Seneca was also involved in the conspiracy to have Nero killed (Dio Cassius), with no other than himself (rumored by Tacitus). Although, whether Seneca was involved in the conspiracy directly himself is disputed. Nero did sentence Seneca to death in the aftermath, but not Burrus. Burrus' death also being in dispute.

Regardless, having usurpers killed is not the reason Pliny would say Nero to not be a "good Roman" like his father. Augustus was the Son of God who had tons of his rivals killed in the most brutal of ways, yet he was "the best" of the Romans.

This being so, it is once again very likely that Pliny the Younger could have been aware of Nero persecuting Christians and even so being unsure if this was supposed to be legal precedent.

It's not likely at all. Nothing you have said connects anything to 'Christian' persecution still. You are simply spewing a non sequitur, for reasons we can only guess (you are probably Christian yourself). There is still zero evidence Pliny knowing of any 'Christian' persecutions by Nero. But there is evidence against it (Pliny's correspondences with Tacitus and Trajan).

@hglundahl I have no reason to take you seriously.

Of course you don't. That would require you to listen to reason (pun intended). Something Christians have great troubles with sometimes.

And "this means" in English is not uniquely used of exegesis of direct meaning, it is also used of implication.

Nothing you said implicates that, either. Still a non sequitur of an argument.

Faurisson thought he could achieve some good for the Palestinians by a much better motivated questioning of the Shoah as usually described than "henri" (Bluesruse) is providing motives for questioning the persecution under Nero.

I wonder whom "henri" thinks he is favouring.

Perhaps his goal is simply to ruin Christianity. Some people, and that would include some Jews and Noahides, have that goal.

The Messiah is Among Us! -Rabbi Tovia Singer
Tovia Singer | 22 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiHqrMNSxAw

6:47 Jeremias 30:7 ...

Ver. 7. Great, and terrible for this city, the outer walls of which shall be demolished, (Beros.; Calmet) and all its glory perish. (Haydock) --- Of it. Cyrus liberated the Jews, 1 Esdras i.

Paula Wallace
@paulawallace8784: Christianity is the Last Beast, Enemy of Gd and His Chosen.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @paulawallace8784 Pagan Rome was the last beast, and Christianity is the stone that toppled the statue.

If you believe the suffering servant in Isaias 53 is Judaism, then you disbelieve Deuteronomy 28.

Fuller dealing with that video in a separate post.

Anyway, "henri" seems to have similarily dim views of Christianity. He wants to deny Christians existed under Nero to persecute, since that would create some distance between documented Christians (for the time of Pliny he doesn't deny them) and the "alleged" life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and "alleged" creation of His Church starting with people who had known him for up to three and a half years, and who were able to testify to both death on the Cross and seeing Him alive after that.

In order to do so, apart from doing his Antichristian Superiority Complex, trying to discourage me, and trying to paint me as "not listening to reason", he gives as argument that Pliny's correspondence with Tacitus showed that Tacitus couldn't really have known of the Christians persecuted under Nero, since if so, Pliny's letters to Trajan would be "inexplicable." For the argument given in the video and then refuted. He claims to have a much more credible source than my citations from the wikipedia, namely the correspondence of Pliny and Tacitus.

This consists of 11 Letters in Epistulae, 2 each from book 1, 7 and 9, 1 each from books 4 and 8, and a whopping 3 from book 6.

I could theoretically ask "henri" which of the only 11 letters would have been worded differently if the common sense assumptions about history being true history are true. Given his anti-Christian provocation, I refrain from doing it today, Holy Thursday, and the following days, it will be published on Easter Sunday, so people do not think I am compllicit with him.

Meanwhile, he hasn't shown that Pliny couldn't have doubted the legitimacy of Nero's persecution as legal precedent, even if it happened, as documented.

Pliny the Younger : Letters https://www.attalus.org/info/pliny.html

Pliny the Younger : Letters - BOOK 1 https://www.attalus.org/old/pliny1.html 6 Cornelius Tacitus 20 Cornelius Tacitus Pliny the Younger : Letters - BOOK 4 https://www.attalus.org/old/pliny4.html 13 Cornelius Tacitus Pliny the Younger : Letters - BOOK 6 https://www.attalus.org/old/pliny6.html 9 Tacitus 16 Tacitus 20 Tacitus		Pliny the Younger : Letters - BOOK 7 https://www.attalus.org/old/pliny7.html 20 Tacitus 33 Tacitus Pliny the Younger : Letters - BOOK 8 https://www.attalus.org/old/pliny8.html 7 Tacitus Pliny the Younger : Letters - BOOK 9 https://www.attalus.org/old/pliny9.html 10 Tacitus 14 Tacitus

Update 9.IV.2024, I answered "henri" thus:

@Bluesruse It so hapens, I decided to not ruin my week of Easter, or yesterday, which was the Feast of Annunciation (since March 25 fell in Holy Week) by talking to you online.

It is possible, and if so not to your credit, if you have made a point of talking to me where I have my luggage, so as to make my acts stand in apparent contrast to that word.

Because I actually published it, and made this remark about you. Since the morning of Easter Day, this is on my blog:

Faurisson thought he could achieve some good for the Palestinians by a much better motivated questioning of the Shoah as usually described than "henri" (Bluesruse) is providing motives for questioning the persecution under Nero.

I wonder whom "henri" thinks he is favouring.

Perhaps his goal is simply to ruin Christianity. Some people, and that would include some Jews and Noahides, have that goal.

[omitting here the full reference to other debate]

Fuller dealing with that video in a separate post.

Anyway, "henri" seems to have similarily dim views of Christianity. He wants to deny Christians existed under Nero to persecute, since that would create some distance between documented Christians (for the time of Pliny he doesn't deny them) and the "alleged" life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and "alleged" creation of His Church starting with people who had known him for up to three and a half years, and who were able to testify to both death on the Cross and seeing Him alive after that.

In order to do so, apart from doing his Antichristian Superiority Complex, trying to discourage me, and trying to paint me as "not listening to reason", he gives as argument that Pliny's correspondence with Tacitus showed that Tacitus couldn't really have known of the Christians persecuted under Nero, since if so, Pliny's letters to Trajan would be "inexplicable." For the argument given in the video and then refuted. He claims to have a much more credible source than my citations from the wikipedia, namely the correspondence of Pliny and Tacitus.

This consists of 11 Letters in Epistulae, 2 each from book 1, 7 and 9, 1 each from books 4 and 8, and a whopping 3 from book 6.

I could theoretically ask "henri" which of the only 11 letters would have been worded differently if the common sense assumptions about history being true history are true. Given his anti-Christian provocation, I refrain from doing it today, Holy Thursday, and the following days, it will be published on Easter Sunday, so people do not think I am compllicit with him.

Meanwhile, he hasn't shown that Pliny couldn't have doubted the legitimacy of Nero's persecution as legal precedent, even if it happened, as documented.

As Easter is over and Annunciation is over, we can resume the debate if you wish.

Sharing : Isabel Brown

Friday, March 29, 2024

Colin (Not a Pastor) on Fight For Truth Had a Better Take

Whaddo You Meme ?? Tried to Give His POV on Christ is King

lilly
@greatballsoffire02: There is a lot of medieval Jewish scholarship that supported Christian monotheism. The official ruling was for a non Jew it's fine to worship in addition outside the traditional non visible non tangible Eternal.

The issue with Christianity was mostly the persecution, ghettos, forced conversions, etc.

For religious Jews a monotheistic religion that promotes order and loving kindness is always better. Atheist Jews probably prefer other atheists.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @greatballsoffire02 1) I don't know what you mean by "the official ruling";

2) It seems they are able to support human sacrificing Pagans over Christians in cases where that's the so far established religion (Azteks vs Conquistadors; Baltic Pagans over Christian Missionaries and Crusaders);

3) You kind of presuppose all Jews who converted to Christianity were simply forced and would have preferred not to;

4) You said "for non-Jews" — does the same "official ruling" prescribe any kind of penalty for Jews who become Christians?

5:44 After seeing some Nick Fuentes, I get the impression he's just one shade less ironic than Mel Brooks.

You recall:

"Don't be stupid, be a smarty
"Come and join the Nazi party."

Which, as a Jew, I am fairly sure Mel Brooks did not actually want.

6:49 So, you want to pretend not supporting Netanyahu's basically genocidal actions against Jews of Muslim and Christian confessions is somehow suspect?

Al Jazeera + had this to say, interviewing a Lutheran Pastor from Bethlehem:

"10:12 It becomes easier to oppress the "bad ones," 10:15 "because they deserve it, because they brought it upon themselves. 10:18 We can build the wall and lock them on the other side 10:21 because they are the ones who are enemies of democracy and freedom."

Rev. Dr. Munther Isaac.

How Evangelicals Betray Christians In The Holy Land [Pt. 2]
AJ+ | 12 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHT-SjIM0tA

lilly
@greatballsoffire02: That's interesting because even Muslims in Bethlehem have been supportive to Israel, and helping out the people who had become refugees in Israel due to Hamas bombings.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @greatballsoffire02 By now that could be a thing of the past.

Have you heard the Christmas sermon by Munther Isaac? Search "Christ in the rubble" ...

Obviously, Hamas have done lots of overkill in the past, and therefore there have been things to distance themselves from, even in supporting Israel. Over the years.

Is this still the case?

7:11 Why? Well, ... (broke off, did some fact checking, came back ...)

7:11 I fact checked when Andrew Tate came in relation to Candace Owens.

It seems Andrew Tate did his tweet "4 days ago" and Candace Owens was being slammed already "4 days ago", meaning it's pretty safe to assume Andrew Tate and perhaps Sneako too have been doing this in support of Candace Owens.

Candace Owens is friends with Kanye West, and it's probable Kanye West is not unknown to Andrew Tate and Sneako.

7:54 So you say they had never done so before or sth?

It is a fact, that Muslims believe "Isa Al Massih" to be at least in one context a king, namely the warrior king that kills of Al-Masih ad-Dajjal.

Here is the description from a video:

In traditional Islamic eschatology, it is claimed that Isa PBUH will return in the Second Coming with Imam Mahdi to kill the Al-Masih ad-Dajjal ('The False Messiah')

The title is:: Islamic Animation : Isa Al-masih , The True Savior/Messiah
The channel is:: Kang Sewot Animation

And, very interestingly, the date is not just before the recent controversy about Candace Owens, but also before even October 7.

Also, interestingly, this part of Muslim eschatology actually agrees with Christianity. One point:

But he shall judge the poor with justice, and shall reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.
[Isaias (Isaiah) 11:4]

And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him,
[2 Thessalonians 2:8]
Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders
[2 Thessalonians 2:9]

The parallel suggests two more things:

some things are not yet fulfilled about Isaias 11, but will be fulfilled at the second coming (though a first just after the first coming was St. Peter, vicar of Christ, killing Ananias and Sapphira)
the Antichrist will not be a defender of the meek or the poor, so, not a Classical Commie as they like to appear. (Well, if you look at Tambov and Kronstadt, Lenin was hardly a defender of the poor either, but Commies tend to forget that).

7:54 bis. Is there a connexion between Jewish Messianism and Muslim Antijudaism? I think so.

There are Jews who are really offended by "Christ is King" for a few other reasons than its supposed status as antisemitic dog whistle:

it reminds them of Christian kingdoms (in which abortion and pornography were forbidden, and Jews second class citizens, usually)
it reminds them, they have no right to set up a king against Christ, in the Holy Land.

8:44 "or for their political gain, then it's sinful"

Are you dissing: Constantine? Clovis? Francisco Franco? Éamonn DeValera?

Are you dissing Pope Pius XI who instituted the feast of Christ the King (last Lord's Day of October) to protest against political secularism?

Are you dissing Traditional Catholics, who have spoken up about this feast?

Because, it's Good Friday. Jesus died as martyr for more than one thing.

He had criticised the Pharisees in unaccomodating ways.
He had confirmed His claim of Divinity to Caiaphas.
He had also confirmed His Kingship to Pilate and to Herod.

Wednesday, March 27, 2024

Christ is King of the Jews

Licoricia of Winchester, Interest, Blood Libel · Look at This · Palestinian Origins · Christ is King of the Jews · Whaddo You Meme ?? Tried to Give His POV on Christ is King · Colin (Not a Pastor) on Fight For Truth Had a Better Take · Sharing : Isabel Brown · Some Responses to Candida Moss (Beginning of Video) · Christ is King of the Jews, even if Tovia Refuses to See That · Tovia tried to counter ...

Is Saying "Christ is King" Antisemitic?
The Counsel of Trent | 27 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vErF9WttOU

2:23 The pre-Islamic Christians in Arabia would have been Ethiopian Church Yemenites.

Are you sure ancient Yemenite used the word "Allah"?

I am aware that after the spread of Islam and Islamically promoted Arabic, the word has come to use in that sense among Christians who use that or derived versions of it as their daily language.

For instance, Maltese is originally a dialect of Arabic, and "Mother of God" is "Omm Alla" (Latin alphabet).

2:58 Indeed Palestinians say this now, but the fact is, prior to the Countercrusade, they spoke Aramaic rather than Arabic, among themselves.

Muslim Palestinians adopted Arabic a bit quicker, I think by 800~900 they had switched from Aramaic to Arabic.

2:58 Speaking of Archbishop Sebastia Theodosios, this shows a further truth that Ben Shapiro might not like:

Christ is King of the Jews.

Palestinians are Jews, Samarians and Galilaeans from 2000 years ago who, unlike Mitsrahi Jews and other Jews did not side with the Sanhedrin both against Jesus and against Mohammed.

3:35 How do you define "the sin of Antisemitism"?

Shapiro will probably consider it "Antisemitic" of Candace Owen to have reminded him that he is in rebellion against his King.

3:52 Yes, I definitely do not hate either Lenin or Freud because of their genetics, but rather because of their evil deeds.

Some will however count this as Antisemitism on my behalf.

4:22 Today there is also a dehumanisation of Fascists, whether Antisemitic or not, and of Antisemites, real or supposed.

That's a reason to not inflate charges of Antisemitism, right?

Now, I think you are using "Antisemite" as Jew-hater. Some people also or rather use it as Critical of the Jewish community.

In Swedish and German for instance, "Jew-hater" is a very current word, or rather cognates of it, so "Antisemit" tends to be more ideological, less emotional.

I once told my sister (of Jewish Liberal persuasion) I had become "ein Antisemit" ... I simply meant I had become so critical of the Jewish community that I endorsed positions I, like she, had been taught to regard as "Antisemitic" ... like it was unfair of Jews to be harsh loan sharks and taking interest is in and of itself evil. Or like it is probable that Jews were behind some of the killings of children. St. William of Norwich has in iconography a long nose and curly hair. It's not just the Gothic way of drawing heads, it's clearly a question of personal traits ... sometimes associated with Jewish genes. My bet is, 1) St. William of Norwich was executed for being Christian, while of Jewish ancestry, 2) Theobald blamed a far off cabale in Narbonne in order to stop investigations against Jews closer to home (Theobald converted after the death of William).

I had been taught that every allegation that a child had been killed by people of Jewish origin of any type (Chesterton thought it was Jewish Satanists, and I thought so too back then), was the same as maligning the usual ritual of the Seder. Which I would certainly not do. That it was only done by the most vile people with the most irrational hatred for Jews, probably sparked by their envy. A view of the Christian Middle Ages I could no longer have and cannot recover.

It's as stupid as claiming "spices were popular because meat was rotten" or "every sickness flourished because Medievals had no hygiene" (I've been in a debate with a man who claimed there was cholera in the European Middle Ages, when the first time it spread to Christian countries as far West as Russia was in 1817, an epidemic starting in Bombay).

It's equally stupid to claim they had no justice.

6:05 I do not hold Gaudium et Spes to be a real council text, and I do not consider every kind of discrimination as contrary to God's intent.

More than one Church Father, it would seem, has mentioned that "ho katekhon" in II Thessalonians is the Roman Emperor.

Albert II of the HRE / Albert V of Austria fulfilled this in a somewhat harsh, possibly unfair way against Jews of Vienna, when he suspected them of financing the terror of the Hussites.

But if he had not been allowed to use any discrimination against Jews at all, he would not have fulfilled his duty as "ho katekhon" it's just possible he overdid it this time.

This is by the way one reason why the Catholic Church cannot take over after 1918 as "ho katekhon" ...

9:23 This is where I think this breaks down.

Catholic teaching has a real sense of fairness, which is lacking to the Talmud.

Please note, the Supreme court of Roe v Wade, of unhappy memory, the operative source of evil would have been Protestantism:

Presbyterian, Catholic (?), Episcopalian, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Presbyterian (omitting the two who dissented).

However, check the dissent in Everson v. Board of Education, Felix Frankfurter did actually want to discriminate against school transports to Catholic schools, and he was Jewish.

In the US, people like he are marginal. In France, less so.

9:57 I am very careful to note I really appreciate Jewish musicians and linguists.

But some of them don't seem eager to requit it, if I have any reservations against Jewish shrinks or bankers.

10:38 There are at least two exilations of Jews that we, as Catholics, do have to defend.

That of St. Lewis IX. That of St. Pius V.

It may be noted that St. Lewis only expelled money-lenders, which he also did to Lombardian ones.

It may be noted that St. Pius V allowed the ghettos of Rome and Ancona to stay.

It may be noted that if St. Pius V was not a pathological liar or totally deluded about what was happening, and therefore an incompetent ruler, Jews had really behaved very badly in the Papal states.

I have been stamped as Antisemite, and therefore more or less "self hating Jew" and so on, simply because I refused to condemn exilations of Jews, in principle, and to condemn these two.

10:54 The Church Fathers were not individually infallible, but where they agree, they do amount to infallibility.

Now, beyond attacks on St. John Chrysostom, some will ask us to forego the Gospel of St. John too.

When a canonised Saint has done something, it is not an appalling injustice. Unless he repented of it.

Btw, as I had written to Ratzinger back before leaving Sweden, I do consider Wojtyla, "John Paul II" as very probably involved in injustices against me. He's also incanonisable for other reasons.

11:22 I think St. Thomas was on this account simply reflecting canon law.

Now, canon law, of the actual Catholic Church, cannot be unjust. There can be situations not foreseen by the law (how do you elect a Pope if all cardinals endorse an Antipope?), but the law itself, insofar as it is binding on all Catholics, cannot be unjust.

11:42 In 1916, Chesterton was yet an Anglican.

He may have made the remark in reaction to Pro-Prussian Jews, prior to the Balfour declaration, which suddenly rallied Jews to England.

He may have sincerely believed the guilt of Dreyfus at this point, even if later he would say that of the two trials, the first could very well occur in England, but the victim would not be a Jew, and the second (basically whoever was the victim) is what could not occur in England.

12:27 St. Simon of Trent was found with his throat slit like the slaughtering ritual of a Jewish butcher.

The Jews in town were very few and could have been very extreme.

He could, like St. William of Norwich, have been of Jewish descent.

12:36 Keeping people in unsanitary places is murder in and of itself.

There are reasons to highly doubt whether the gas chambers were used as murder weapons. In saying so, I am actually not accusing Jews of lying, I am accusing Hitler's men of being efficient bogey-men, as they certainly were to the 50, probably to all 650, involved directly or indirectly in Jo Wajsblat's visit to a gas chamber.

But the parents of Dita Kraus dying, one by typhoid in the camp and another by too much exhaustion, is still murder.

12:46 I abhor the Paedagogic terror against young Jews by Adolf Hitler.

14:50 If he thinks Hitler stood for Christian leadership, he is probably not so much Antisemitic as ill informed (so are some Anticatholics!) about Germany 1933 to 1945.

It's over the top to take a distance from Fuentes for that, even if he's mistaken.

I've been accused of Antisemitism because I simply defend German bishops during this time, or the War effort against the Red Army.

onvogmasaj
@onvogmasaj: actually he admits to not knowing all there is to know about him and shits on actual hiterfanbois all the time.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @onvogmasaj good to know

16:13 I had my dose of Hitler's coolness during the most Pro-Semitic and indeed Pro-Zionist era of my life. Also before my Baptism.

It's a real social thing, but if we can admire cool guys, and are Catholics, how about admiring Franco instead?

He did defend the Church. He did not go after the Jews, even just for occasions that killed them in the typhoid.

17:46 I think that Deutsche Christen predated the Nazi régime, even if part of the leadership then endorsed it.

"Positive Christianity" is a bit like ... "you just need to be sure that you are saved" + the "muscular Christianity" of Matthew Arnold.

I'm not sure if they ever tried to attract Catholics, but it was a very Protestant thing.

SS members (I think prior to international volunteers) would be c. 50 % Protestant, 25 % Catholic, 25 % "Gottesgläubige" = Neo-Pagan. Theistic Evolutionists.

18:15 Did Heschel find any Catholics involved there?

Perhaps a few priests, but hardly bishops.

19:42 In John Jesus is using the word "Jews" in a different manner from the narrator.

The narrator is very aware that in the meantime, the predecessors and ancestors of for instance Sebastia Theodosios were no longer considered as "Jews" by the majority of the nation.

John 4:22 doesn't mean salvation is from unbelieving Jews.

Why Don't I Share Lutheran Admiration for Luther?

One could argue, even if Luther had been right, back in 1517, in fact he wasn't, there is still no use in trying to uphold his 95 theses, since NOBODY does.

The Catholics follow a Pope who condemned 41 theses (not all of them from the 1517 document, some from earlier works).

The Lutherans, at best, follow his later lines (though that would involve huge amounts of Antisemitism, once again underlining what Chesterton said about Luther being a precursor to Hitler), and at worst a totally made up pseudo-history of his life, which would be inspired by what non-Lutherans wrote much later. I cannot pinpoint Merle d'Aubigné in this case, which I know to be a fact about the founders of 7 Day Adventism, but I can say what this Lutheran pretends is total bogus:

Why Did The Catholic Martin Luther Leave The Church?
CTKLM | 2 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4rLV6kUofI

0:51 "the belief that a believer could buy an indulgence"

Can you document that as being a belief which was around for Luther to criticise?

Indulgences were given for good works, and then and there certain types of alms were among these, does not mean anyone said indulgences could be bought.

1:02 I just checked wikisource.

In the 95 thesis, there is no contestation against Purgatory existing, and there is no pretense that the Purgatory is not mentioned in Scripture.

One part of contestation was this passage, theses 16 through 20:

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

As you can see, Luther presumes 1) there are souls in Purgatory, 2) as they can still continue sanctification, they should not want to get time off from it, 3) a contestation of what the Church can or cannot remit by an Indulgence.

1:17 What was Luther saying in 1517, on works?

41. Apostolic[70] pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

1:50 In 1517, Luther was not the least pretending Purgatory, Good Works or even Indulgences were leading people to Hell.

2:33 to 2:37 ... Why did you leave out Ephesians 2:10?

So, not by works (already done before justification), but certainly into works (those that God has prepared for us).

I think a better translation would be "of" or "from", so I give the full quote from Ephesians 2 in Latin Vulgate and English Douay Rheims:

8 Gratia enim estis salvati per fidem, et hoc non ex vobis : Dei enim donum est : 9 non ex operibus, ut ne quis glorietur. 10 Ipsius enim sumus factura, creati in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis, quae praeparavit Deus ut in illis ambulemus.

8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

2:55 "the Church had put a bounty on his head, that if anyone killed him"

Can you document that?

Or are you informing yourself on Luther by Merle d'Aubigné, who should have been a novelist rather than a pastor?

Joe Heschmeyer Gives an Excellent Case for the Church Needing Infallibility (We are Both Papists, so Think the Infallibility Resides in some capacity in the Pope)

For Some Who Believe "Francis" is Pope · Joe Heschmeyer Gives an Excellent Case for the Church Needing Infallibility (We are Both Papists, so Think the Infallibility Resides in some capacity in the Pope)

Here is his case, then a comment I made, with the thread under it, then a transition to another and shorter thread:

The Biblical Case for Infallibility
Shameless Popery Podcast | 21 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2djx9lESGgA

Now give the Biblical case for whether Infallibility resides in "Francis" or in Michael II ...

Master Chief
@masterchief8179: Infallibility resides in the Church through the Successor of Peter and bishops gathered in Ecumenical Councils in communion with him, when issuing to teach the universal church and other specific circumstances.

Or you can buy a cheaper seat to watch Pastor Bob preach in a garage with his interpretation of the Bible that fell from the sky, saying you - and everybody - should stick with this guy’ interpretation:

“Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught, or whoever condemns me therein, he condemns God and must remain a child of hell” (LUTHER, Martin. German answer of Martin Luther to the Book of King Henry of England, 1522 Deutsche Antwort Luthers auf König Heinrichs von England Buch). In: Dr. Martin Luther's Sämtliche Werke, Polemische Deutsche Schriften, Johann Konrad Irmischer, Erlangen, 1833, vol. 28, p. 347).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @masterchief8179 The question is not about Pastor Bob.

It's about whether "Francis" or Michael II is successor of St. Peter.
Susan D
@susand3668: Dear @hglundahl , you are kidding, right? Pope Francis is accepted as pope not only by his followers, but by the UN and every nation and so on and so on.

Who is Michael II?
Master Chief: @hglundahl You can’t be serious.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @masterchief8179 I am at least not going to be A-rious instead of C-rious. A-rious was a heretic!
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @susand3668 "not only by his followers,"

Which is also the case with Pope Michael II. Even with Peter III, whom I don't count as Pope.

"but by the UN and every nation and so on and so on."

So? From their pov it means "head of the Vatican state" (usually) and that was founded in 1929, between Pius XI and Mussolini.

"Who is Michael II?"

Pope Michael II Passion Sunday 2024
vatican in exile | 19 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Kso2_JY3QM
Shameless Popery Podcast
@shamelesspopery: I know more about Antipope Michael I (David Bawden, Rogelio Martinez's predecessor) because he's from here in Kansas. He was "elected" by his family and some friends in his family's thrift store in 1990 when he was 30. None of his alleged electors were Cardinals of the Catholic Church (obviously). In no way, shape, or form is such an "election" valid, regardless of what you think about the real pope. I mean "Michael I" wasn't even an ordained priest (by his own admission!) during the time he was claiming to be the real Bishop of Rome.

Let's say that you decide that the 2024 presidential election is stolen, and so you and your family and friends declare you the president of the United States. That absurdity would actually be MORE valid than Michael I or Michael II's claims to be popes, since (unlike in a papal election) your family and friends can presumably vote in a secular election.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @shamelesspopery Thank you for your input, Sir, let's break this down:

"None of his alleged electors were Cardinals of the Catholic Church (obviously)."

Cardinals electing is of human positive Church law, not divine law, since otherwise the Popes elected before the Cardinals would have been invalid.

One of the friends was Theresa S. Benns, who later left him.

She has so far NOT used the idea that his invitations to conservative (sede+) bishops and (perhaps) conservative cardinals were bogus.

In other words we have an important witness to misproceedings, if there were such, who hasn't spoken up about them.

In other words, until the opposite is proven, we do not have the wherewithals to present the election as finally held, with 6 laymen, as being what he had planned all along (among these laymen he was the star theologian, along with ineligible Theresa).

I think we should therefore presume he had hoped that clergy would come and he would not be elected.

"I mean "Michael I" wasn't even an ordained priest (by his own admission!) during the time he was claiming to be the real Bishop of Rome."

During the 21 first years of the time. He did get ordination and consecration on the Gaudete Weekend of 2011. I congratulated him on the occasion, without yet accepting him as Pope. I had known him online since the early 2000's.

A bishop can be elected before he is ordained, before he is consecrated. Otherwise, the election of the Catechumen St. Ambrose would have been invalid.

"Let's say that you decide that the 2024 presidential election is stolen, and so you and your family and friends declare you the president of the United States."

Usurpation without tyranny is not necessarily a cue for legitimate insurrection. Especially if the usurper would be deposed if not reelected four years from hence.

"since (unlike in a papal election) your family and friends can presumably vote in a secular election."

Again, you are judging the case of laymen voting from positive Church laws of the second millennium. The exclusion of laymen from episcopal elections, including that of Rome, was first of all never put into place in the East, and second, a kind of security measure against powerful laymen rigging elections for their friends.

Given the six laymen were presumably nobodies, the risk of them being so manipulated is negligible.

@shamelesspopery Think about my answer to your first objection:

Cardinals electing is of human positive Church law, not divine law, since otherwise the Popes elected before the Cardinals would have been invalid.

I was somewhat incomplete, I left out the idea that in a case of emergency, you can never set divine law aside, but positive human law (like disciplinary Church law) can be set aside.

But, as you wrote a book about the first 200 years of the Church, you would normally be aware of lay participation in episcopal elections including in Rome.

Where did I get this about his book from? Here, other thread under the youtube:

Skarlet
@Skarlet-ju8sr: You should write a book about the history of the early Church, first 400 years. The title would be this perfect catchphrase in common use back then:

"Rome Has Spoken."
Patrick Steil
@PatrickSteil: I think he did. It’s called the Early Church is the Catholic Church. Great book and he shows this taking only the first 200 years before any Protestant claims of the corruption of the church.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @PatrickSteil If that's the case he should be aware of laymen electing bishops, including of Rome, meaning his case against Pope Michael I is not just wrong but also less than perfectly candid, perhaps even dishonest
Patrick Steil: @hglundahl Can you elaborate, I am not following?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @PatrickSteil His view on the election in Kansas in 1990 involves it being invalid because all the participants were non-cardinals.

The fact is, "By decree of a synod of 769, only a cardinal was eligible to become Bishop of Rome." -- and papal elections being between cardinals only is even later, seems to be 1059 or sth, i e, the law he is referring to was not applied in the early Church, and can therefore be set aside in a case of dire necessity, as David Bawden, when calling the election, judged the situation in the Church.

As he has studied the early Church, he should be aware of this.

Other thing:

Tom Tyrone Beiron
@TyroneBeiron: It may be necessary in these times to consider the Orthodox Churches not in communion with the Catholic Church to be ‘Protestant’ as well, mainly because of the various new emerging narratives from their commentators, apologists, synods and canons which very much hold seriously anti-Catholic and anti-Papal statements which they have never removed or corrected in spite of the dialogues, joint-statements etc. In a similar way, these autocephalous churches vary in teaching and biblical interpretation, sometimes even holding commentary by their own saints to be held as magisterial authority. Catholics nowadays are hardly vehement towards these others - I am old enough to remember when priests and bishops did not mince their words towards schismatics and Protestants; not anymore today. 🤔
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "sometimes even holding commentary by their own saints to be held as magisterial authority."

That's actually Catholic, except for post-schism ones being on the wrong side of 1054.

The principle is also there in Trent Session IV.

In fact, Trent Session IV sets a kind of safety rule, what you must take as magisterial is all of the CCFF agreeing, but even so.

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Palestinian Origins

Q

If the "Palestinians" supposed to be indigenous to the region, why they're still speaking an Arabic dialect/variant instead of reviving/revitalizing an extinct/a moribund Hebrew dialect/Canaanite language (e.g. Samaritan Hebrew)?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-Palestinians-supposed-to-be-indigenous-to-the-region-why-theyre-still-speaking-an-Arabic-dialect-variant-instead-of-reviving-revitalizing-an-extinct-a-moribund-Hebrew-dialect-Canaanite-language-e-g-Samaritan/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

26.III.2024

2000 years ago, both Jews and Christians (or back in AD 24 more like future Christians, still Jews), spoke mainly Aramaic, though they knew Hebrew for the liturgic uses.

After 600 and before 700, Omar conquered the region and forced part of them to become Muslims.

The Muslims adopted Arabic from the Peninsula, language of a minority of conquerors, by 900 AD.

The Christians were still speaking Aramaic in the time of the Crusades, they were pushed to adopt Arabic in the time of the Countercrusade (Muslim rulers like Baybars). So, the reason is a bit why Irish, descending mainly from Gaels, mainly do not speak Irish Gaelic, but English.

I

Jeric Ilagan

26.III.2024

Tuesday of Holy week

Oh yes, the classic case of Ireland (and Scotland).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

29.III.2024

Good Friday

They are not really comparable, you know.

I specified Ireland, even more specifically Irish Gaels, because I think it’s parallel to the Palestinians in language change.

Jeric Ilagan

30.III.2024

Holy Saturday

I stand corrected.

II

Zhun-Yong Ong

28.III.2024

Maundy Thursday

There were Arabic speakers in Israel long before the Islamic conquest. You can find the ruins of Nabataean settlements such as Avdat in southern Israel.

https://en.parks.org.il/reserve-park/avdat-national-park/

The Qedarites were attested in the Levant by the 9th century BC.

Qedarites - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qedarites

Hans-Georg Lundahl

29.III.2024

Good Friday

As I read the map, there were more Qedarites on the Peninsula than in Avdat.

I’ll quote a part of the wiki:

Attested from the 9th century BC, the Qedarites formed a powerful polity which expanded its territory over the course of the 9th to 7th centuries BC to cover a large area in northern Arabia stretching from Transjordan in the west to the western borders of Babylonia in the east, before later moving westwards during the 6th to 5th centuries BC to consolidate into a kingdom stretching from the eastern limits of the Nile Delta in the west till Transjordan in the east and covering much of southern Judea,[dubious – discuss] the Negev and the Sinai Peninsula.

So, the idea that they were in Southern Judaea is dubious.

Going to the link in Israel parks site, it seems Avdat is indeed in modern Israel, but it’s still the Negev.

Would you mind explaining how Avdat was identified as Qedarite rather than Jewish?

Zhun-Yong Ong

30.III.2024

Holy Saturday

So, the idea that they were in Southern Judaea is dubious.

Even so, Southern Judea is only a small part of modern Israel and an even smaller part of the Levant. The Qedarites were found in the Negev and also across the Jordan river.

Going to the link in Israel parks site, it seems Avdat is indeed in modern Israel, but it’s still the Negev.

Would you mind explaining how Avdat was identified as Qedarite rather than Jewish?

I did not say that Avdat was Qedarite.

Avdat was a Nabataean settlement.

From https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/avdat :

The little we know about the Nabateans comes from Roman historians and geographers. They were nomadic tribes from northern Arabia who wandered and traded, then established permanent settlements and finally created an independent kingdom with Petra, in the mountains of Edom, as their capital. At the climax of their power, from the first century BCE to the first century CE, the Nabatean kings ruled regions that today belong to Jordan, Syria, and Israel. Their contact with the Hellenistic world had great influence on their material culture, uniquely manifest in their architecture.

The Nabateans accumulated great wealth from their trade in costly perfumes and spices from East Africa and Arabia which they transported by camel caravans to the southern Mediterranean coast, with Gaza serving as the main depot and port. The Negev was the direct overland link to the Mediterranean coast, and the Nabatean way stations at the main crossroads in the Negev, developed into cities. In this inhospitable desert region, the Nabateans developed an agriculture based on terraces built on the hillsides. To capture flood waters, they constructed dams in the valleys; to collect rain water, they cut cisterns in the rock. These measures, initiated by the Nabatean central administration, established their control over the Negev and guaranteed the caravans’ safe passage.

The Nabataeans were Arabs. You can visit Nabataean ruins in Jordan and Israel.

Nabataeans - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30.III.2024

Holy Saturday

Ah, Avdat was Nabataean and in the Negev.

It’s South of Judaea in the historic sense, South of West Bank, South of Gaza strip.

Like Southern Jordan, it’s in historic Edom.

I do not deny that Palestinians may have partly Nabataean ancestry as well, but pointing at them as the main ancestry would be idiotic, given that Christian Palestinians spoke Aramaic up to after the Countercrusade.

And given that a large origin of Muslim Palestinians are descended from:

Christian Palestinians
Jews,

it won’t fly to consider them either as mainly Nabataeans.

A comment of mine was censored:

As it happens a few other comments were hanging on that one. There was no spam about the comment, I was simply contradicting someone who agreed with Quora moderators.

Monday, March 25, 2024

Putin Lied to Tucker Carlson?

Douglas Macgregor: SURRENDERED This Morning!
World_Info | 24 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzYGiGlk4VU

0:56 Lviv region?

That's the second westernmost oblast (if the Ukrainians use the word) in all of Ukraine!

And Putin had claimed to Tucker Carlson that he was only interested in the Eastern part.

What a liar ...

Since the face of Douglas Macgregor could be a deepfake

Kyiv and Ukraine's Lviv region report 'massive' Russian attack • FRANCE 24 English
FRANCE 24 English | 24 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzQfQJBdWnI

It seems the news that Lviv was targetted is NOT fake./HGL

Does This Writer Read?

New blog on the kid: Traditional Publishing Does Not Mean Already Existing Publishing Houses · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Does This Writer Read?

Yes, this essayist reads essays.

I could add, I used to read lots more novels before I got this stress level. Some people think my being a Meldahón equals my being impotent, and if they could only stress me out a bit more, I'd be a Meldahón no more. They have stressed me out of being a regular novel reader and out of writing chapters on my fan fic novel. They have not stressed me out of reading essays and of writing essays.

You're Not Really a Writer Unless You Do THIS
Alyssa Matesic | 24 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VybKKdyQy30

1:21 I think this is OK criticism, about novelist.

I don't read much novels, ergo, I am not a novelist.

It's not OK criticism about essayists.

I read lots of essays, reply to lots of them in mine and write others not in such replies.

The fact that I read the essays mainly online and that essay writing is a much shorter format than novel writing, doesn't basically change this. Though obviously it changes the perception of people who consider "being on the internet" is mutually exclusive with reading. People who wonder why I don't have thick books and they see me spend hours on them.

Look at This

Sunday, March 24, 2024

For Some Who Believe "Francis" is Pope

there was a mandate in Vatican City all workers all 6:42 employees had mandated to receive the [vaccine] 6:48 jab in their arm the other option is they had to have 6:53 a neg they had to have a negative test for the virus but it got so ser 7:00 ious that three Swiss guards Swiss guards are the security team of the Pope 7:06 and of the Vatican three CIS guards were fired because they refused to get the 7:13 [vaccine] there were also several 7:19 Bishops I already mentioned Cardinal Burke Cardinal Burke got very sick he got covid he almost died you remember we 7:25 were praying for him every day praying for him praying for him there there was one day in particular I heard that this 7:33 might be burk's last day I remember couldn't sleep that night I was praying for Cardinal Burke Cardinal 7:41 Burke not only is it questionable medicine according to Cardinal Burke but 7:48 because this so-called medicine is derived from aborted fetal tissue 7:55 Cardinal Burke says there's an a moral a proper moral objection to receiving this 8:02 so-called medication or as Francis calls it the 8:08 antidote you'll remember there was Cardinal puetts there was Bishop athanasia 8:14 Schneider he spoke out against it Bishop Strickland spoke out against it of course Bishop Strickland got cancelled I 8:20 think part of his cancellation was not only speaking against certain things in the United States Conference of Bishops 8:27 not only resisting what happened at the LA Dodger Stadium last 8:32 year but also his very vocal objections to receiving the [vac 8:40 cine] so there's Cardinal Burke there was Cardinal puetts there was Bishop 8:45 Strickland Bishop athanasia Schneider and also I believe Archbishop langa who 8:52 used to be in Kazakhstan I believe with

Pope Francis Condemns Cardinal Burke and the Anti-Vaxxers
Dr Taylor Marshall | 21 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAZXMeqFmv4

Blessed Holy Week to Burke, Strickland, Puett ?, Schneider, and three former Swiss Guards!

Not to mention Taylor Marshall ... thanks for the story!/HGL

Oceanic Deep Water Waves in Whole Gale : Whitecaps on a Lake, But Bigger

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: He did some answering, though, to others ... · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Oceanic Deep Water Waves in Whole Gale : Whitecaps on a Lake, But Bigger

Q

If a whole gale (60mph) occurs on the Pacific Ocean, far from land, what do the waves look like?
https://www.quora.com/If-a-whole-gale-60mph-occurs-on-the-Pacific-Ocean-far-from-land-what-do-the-waves-look-like/answer/Nathan-Smith-2494

Nathan Smith

Thu, 21.III.2024

“If a whole gale (60mph) occurs on the Pacific Ocean, far from land, what do the waves look like?”

That depends on how long the wind blows and how large an area it's blowing over. It also makes a difference how large the ground swells are, and which direction(s) they're from. The new waves generated by the gale will become bigger and more chaotic as they interfere with existing swells.

After a 60 knot gale has blown a day or two there will be what's called a fully developed sea. It's as rough as that amount of wind can get it. A fully developed sea in a 60 knot wind will have waves of many sizes. The largest waves will be over 40 feet or 12 meters high. The crests of some waves will be breaking. The wind strips water off wave crests, so foam and spray will be flying in the air and blowing in streaks on the water surface. The air is full of spray. Sometimes one wave will be extra large, like 60 or 70 feet high due to constructive interference.

The waves look about the same as whitecaps on a lake, but the scale is different. Imagine a pile of water the size of a 4 story building breaking over you. These keep coming every 10 to 15 seconds for something like 30 hours.

[moving image, gif]

Fri, 22.III.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you … what is the distance of the crests or troughs from each other, you only mentioned height, not wavelength.

The picture shows a ship heading into the crest, not how it would look if the motors were off and the ship were facing the crests sideways.

Nathan Smith

The wavelength varies due to the mixture of new waves forming over existing ones. As the sea matures toward full development, the period will be about 10 to 15 seconds or more. The dominant wavelength between crests would be on the order of 300 meters or more. If the wind direction has changed during the gale, or if large swells are passing through the area from elsewhere, the wave heights, and wavelengths, will be very irregular. As the waves propagate away from the storm, they sort themselves out into more regularly spaced swells. The longer swells move faster. Save pass right through each other if they come from different directions or have different lengths. The largest waves in a gale can have 10 seconds periods and lengths of 600 meters or more.

Sat, 23.III.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“The dominant wavelength between crests would be on the order of 300 meters or more.”

“The largest waves in a gale can have 10 seconds periods and lengths of 600 meters or more.”

Thank you very much!

What I had expected, but better. What I didn’t expect directly, but which is not suspect either is:

“The wavelength varies due to the mixture of new waves forming over existing ones.”

Does it vary SO much that it can resemble the turbulence of coastal waves?

Tue 26.III.2024

Nathan Smith

The sea is very confused and chaotic while the storm wind is blowing and building new waves. It looks like this. The sailboat is Gypsy Moth lV off Cape Horn. Sir Francis Chichester was sailing it alone around the world.

Waves start forming as ripples about an inch or a few centimeters in size. From there they keep getting bigger, oscillating on the water surface of the larger waves already present. Waves of every size can coexist together. Smooth, regular swells are only seen a few days later after the storm waves have propagated away from the gale a few hundred miles, or a few thousand, to an area of calmer wind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

All of these far from land?

“The sailboat is Gypsy Moth lV off Cape Horn.”

The fact is, I am trying to figure out what waves around the Ark would have been like over a global ocean — is it sufficiently far from land to be deep and comparable?
At least all of the three seem to involve no very steep waves, like the turbulence near a coast?

Nathan Smith

All the photos are of conditions in deep water, many miles from shore.

If waves get steep they break. Waves on a beach break as it gets shallow near shore. That's “surf”. In deep water, as the wind is building up waves, they get steep and break. Those are “whitecaps”. They can be any size. They are steep up near the crest. Rogue waves can be very steep and dangerous even if the water is 3 miles deep in the middle of an ocean.

I suggest looking on you tube. There are videos made by people on ships in storms.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you.

What I have seen so far from videos, they are typically taken with ships heading into the waves, which makes for more turbulence. The Ark had no motor, as far as we know, and no sails.

Rogue waves are certainly likely to rock any vessel on the deep, but they are also relatively isolated, right?

Nathan Smith

They are infrequent, but in storms they do happen. Some happen in normal weather when big swells from different directions meet a current.

The helmsmen on those ships in the videos are heading into the storm waves to save their lives. If they get broadside to waves like that, it's possible to get rolled over. Losing power or rudder control out there presents a dangerous problem. A drifting ship tends to lay in the troughs ( crosswise to the waves ). So the ship rolls badly. That can end tragically whenever an extra steep and extra high wave happens to break against the side of the ship.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“A drifting ship tends to lay in the troughs (crosswise to the waves ). So the ship rolls badly.”

The rolling period of the Ark was about 12 seconds.

I have the impression all of these ships are smaller than it?

“whenever an extra steep and extra high wave happens to break against the side of the ship.”

That’s sth which God’s providence would have avoided, obviously.

Saturday, March 23, 2024

A Follow Up After Josef G. Mitterer? Presenting Joseph Foster ...

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: A Follow Up After Josef G. Mitterer? Presenting Joseph Foster ... · Creation vs. Evolution: Do Historic Books Have Metaphors?

Q

What was the time span between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic?
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-time-span-between-Proto-Indo-European-and-Proto-Germanic/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

23.III.2024

I’ll answer the question in BC dates.

According to mainstream near consensus:

3300 - 500 = 2800 years.

According to Alinei and apparently Renfrew:

8000 - 500 = 7500 years.

If we reduce the PIE starting points in archaeology to my Biblical recalibration:

1868 - 500 = 1368 years for Yamnaya
2511 - 500 = 2011 years or
2556 - 500 = 2056 years for Neolithic Anatolian Farmers / Anatolian Neolithic Farmers / ANF.

To get from PIE to Proto-Germanic is not a problem on the Biblical timescale and also not on conventional time scales.

To get from PIE to documented Mycenaean Greek and Hittite is another question. Conventional dates first.

3300 - 2000 = 1300 years Hittite from Yamnaya
3300 - 1600 = 1700 years Mycenaean Greek from Yamnaya

8000 - 2000 = 6000 years Hittite from ANF
8000 - 1600 = 6400 years Mycenaean Greek from ANF

Then my recalibrations.

1868 - 1610 = 258 years Hittite from Yamnaya
1868 - 1511 = 357 years Mycenaean Greek from Yamnaya

2511 - 1610 = 901 years or
2556 - 1610 = 941 years Hittite from ANF

2511 - 1511 = 1000 years or
2556 - 1511 = 1045 years Mycenaean Greek from ANF.

So, this is the part which makes me sceptic about Mycenaean Greek, Hittite and Germanic languages sharing a common origin in a single language spoken especially in the Yamnaya culture. The three “branches of Indo-European” do share common traits, and these have to be accounted for by either a common single language or a common ancestral area where languages neighboured each other. When it comes to an origin among Anatolian Neolithic Farmers, it’s less incredible, butu on the other hand the area would both Biblically for back after Babel, and archaeologically for times around Hittite and Hattic and other ones be one where different languages neighboured each other.

23.III.2024

Joseph Foster

I’m not sure I follow all this, nor of what you actually intend by “Biblical Recalibration”. But what you’ve written tends to reinforce my suspicions about Biblical dates and “calibrations”. Remember that those Old Testament / Jewish Scriptures “events” and stories were handed around orally before, some of them long before, they were written down so probably got time compressed and altered in other ways in the telling over the generations.

As to dating anything from the City and Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11, as far as the account of linguistic divergence is concerned, that simply did not happen. It was a “just so story” of those people to try to account for linguistic divergence, for why there are different languages. And they got cause and effect competely 180 degrees backasswards.

A

23.III.2024

Joseph Foster

I should have been clearer. I didn’t mean compressed into briefness. Indeed it’s more likely they got expanded. I meant compressed in time of actual events. You seem to want to compress “archaeological, linguistic, and geological time’ into Biblical time and then use Biblical time as evidence for something.

And Language divergence, that is the emergence of different dialects and languages out of one original ancestor language did not happen the way the story of the Tower and City of Babel in Genesis 11 says it did. Moreover, it’s not even at all clear that the story entails the different languages being related to the single language the builders spoke before the apparently rather sudden replacement with different languages.

And there was no general global flood, though the Biblical Noah story may have an origin in more local floods.

It’s not at all clear why you think the time lapses based on the Old Testament Genesis stories are even relevant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“the emergence of different dialects and languages out of one original ancestor language did not happen the way the story of the Tower and City of Babel in Genesis 11 says it did.”

The Genesis 11 story does not state it is about normal language change in the first place.

You presume it is, because you presume it is a just so story, but if you were not presuming it, you could see it as a one time event. The 8 people on the Ark were certainly speaking the same language, and c. 500 years later, especially with the long life spans, you’d have perhaps a divergence like between Danish and Swedish, at most.

“And there was no general global flood,”

That proposition is:

not true
not Christian
not taken from linguistic evidence, the one you are expert at.

“why you think the time lapses based on the Old Testament Genesis stories are even relevant.”

Precisely for the same reason that I think Eratosthenes’ time lapse between Trojan War and Alexander relevant.

Because I believe the history. I’m hard put to try to imagine believing it without believing the miracles in it and the Christianity they authentify, but I hold they are also believable as history, even prior to any question of whether they are the true religion. As I also believe the time line of Eratosthenes, even if I do NOT believe Homer’s Iliad shows the events in the light of the true religion, but rather misinterpreted by a false one.

Now, that proposition ALSO of yours is not the least based on your expertise as a linguist.

“You seem to want to compress “archaeological, linguistic, and geological time’ into Biblical time and then use Biblical time as evidence for something.”

Archaeological time and geological time do not exist. Unless they are calibrated by objects of known age or events of known age.

Linguistic time … well, what time it takes for Germanic and Greek to be different and apparently (except to Grimm and Brugmann) even unrelated languages is obviously different depending on whether they started out as the exact same language or as languages in a Sprachbund.

Joseph Foster

I also have some expertise in Anthropology, as my profile which you apparently checked shows.

And I think your pretty literal interpretation of Genesis and taking it as “history” in anything like the modern sense is poppycock.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I consider Linguistics expertise.

I consider Anthropology mainly the kind of Colonial Prejudice, which to a linguist would jar so terribly when people tell how the “primitive” language of the Berbers got competition of the “superior” language of the French.

You are, fortunately, not saying such stupid things about their language, but you are saying the equivalent about non-Westerner’s and non-Contemporaries (pre-Enlightenment) way of recording their history.

As to your guess the stories in Genesis 2 to 11 got “expanded” in length, check the actual length of the pericopes. It’s modest. It’s for each easy enough to learn by heart.

i

Joseph Foster

You’re way out of date. Anthropologists haven’t thought of any languages as “primitive” certainly not since the days of Frans Boaz and really even Lewis Henry Morgan back deep in the 19th century did not think of Onondaga as “primitive”.

If you want to read something that pulls a lot of this together and is, excepting a detail here and there, pretty up to date, look at David Anthony’s

2007 The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

He’s written a few things since then but this volume is presumably easily accessible.

And forget about the damned Bible. It’s not a textbook of history, archaeology-anthropology, Linguistics, or Geology. There is some good ethnographic information in it but you have to know some Anthropology to know what you’re seeing when you come across it.

Palm Sunday

24.III.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Anthropologists haven’t thought of any languages as “primitive” certainly”

Thank you, I’m aware of that. That’s why I took “primitive languages” as apt to show the ridicule I feel for other aspects of anthropology, like for “pre-modern” historiography.

I didn’t say “since you are an anthropologist, you think of native languages in colonies as primitive” I said “since you are an anthropologist, you think of certain aspects of native cultures in as absurdly colonial a way, as those colonialists did, and by extension also of pre-modern ancestors of our culture” — or to put it short : about languages, you thankfully accept the update by Boaz, but about genealogies, there has been no significant update since Archibald Sayce, 19th C.

“look at David Anthony’s”

Already did:

Can a PIE Spread with Anatolian Farmers be Defended?
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2023/10/can-pie-spread-with-anatolian-farmers.html

Think I wrote an earlier article too, but it seems to have gone missing … at least what I could find. I had read it previously, though.

“And forget about the damned Bible. It’s not a textbook of history, archaeology-anthropology, Linguistics, or Geology.”

I consider it both theologically and historically as a higher authority than such textbooks.

At least you are upfront on your anti-Christian bias.

Joseph Foster

Re your last three paragraphs and especially your last sentence, if Melissa B. sees that she’ll probably chortle. Actually I’m a practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian, a member of an Orthodox Church in America parish. Used to sing regularly in the choir and still fill in if they need a bass-octavist, although I can no longer guarantee the hypolow Bb in Rachmaninoff’s Vespers. And like MacNamara’s band, I “sing at wakes and weddings” if they have trouble filling a choir for one of those. And we now have another bass-octavist who can deliver the Rachmaninoff low Bb. The rector’s and presvytera’s son, so he’s a generation and a third or so younger than me.

I’ve read the article, or commentary note, for which link thank you. It’s a little cryptic, possibly because of the venue, but I think I follow it. I too had problems with Renfrew when his book came out, not the least of which was that he’s a good archaeologist but his understanding of comparative-historical linguistics was at the time somewhat lacking, say, mangelhaft. He did not seem to understand that we can often identify loanwords as opposed to native inherited vocabulary. Not always, but often.

And Anthony of course has a later dispersal time. But of course neither Anthony, nor I, nor the vast majority of others doing research of this nature and in this field and region start with the Bible and its dates, even where those can be pinned down. That’s simply not the way Science is done. It doesn’t start with a priori “revealed Truth” and interpret everything else in such a way that it fits that “truth” or reject what does not or cannot be made to fit it.

Linguistics and also Archaeological investigation and retrodiction attract a fair number of people who do so start out. Or if not with religious “truth”, with political, social, or especially nationalistic and ethnicist agendas. There’s an interesting article about that the the following link will take you to.

Pseudoscientific language comparison - Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscientific_language_comparison

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“He did not seem to understand that we can often identify loanwords as opposed to native inherited vocabulary. Not always, but often.”

In fact, that’s most usually the case when they are recent. If mutual loans happen before both languages start sound laws, the identification can be way harder (unless you have access to much earlier stages of the language.

“nor the vast majority of others doing research of this nature and in this field and region start with the Bible and its dates, even where those can be pinned down. That’s simply not the way Science is done. It doesn’t start with a priori “revealed Truth””

In this context, the Bible would actually serve me even if I didn’t (yet) believe it to be revealed truth. Even as an Odinist or a Olympicist, God preserve me from becoming either, I think I might appreciate the Bible as a very uniquely well preserved traditional history. Key word not “revealed truth” but well preserved history.

Gallo-Romance language studies tend to take into account that Aquae Sextiae was founded by Sextius Calvinus in 122 BC, while Tours receives Latin from the legions of Caesar more like 58–50 BC, and that Sextius Calvinus and Caesar spoke a fairly identic Classical Latin, that of Calvinus maybe a bit archaic. Linguistics is not independent of history.

Now, is the Bible history?

As said, judging from my non-Christian, undecided small childhood, I’d probably assess it as such, even before becoming a Christian. To me as a Christian, it is indispensible to believe it is history.

I am a Catholic, we are since Trent Session IV under orders to receive the totality of the Church Father and the totality of the Church Fathers that speak on the subject do agree that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are correct. St. Augustine says so in City of God, St. Jerome makes a chronology of the world landing Christmas day in Anno Mundi 5199, which for Genesis 5 and 11 uses the work of Julius Africanus, who used a Vetus Latina, LXX based and without the second Cainan.

If you go to Syncellus, he’ll land the Birth of God in 5508 Anno Mundi or sth like that. YOUR view of the matter comes from Commies in the Seventies maltreating lots of Orthodox Churches, including those of Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and a few more. Or having done so in previous decades and these Churches caving in in the seventies.

Meaning, the dates of Flood and Babel are as relevant for possible placings of PIE Ursprache or Pre-IE Sprachbund as the dates of Romans Conquering Gaul are for Gallo-Romance.

Thank you for the article, I am pretty positive for Alinei’s support for Etruscan being old Hungarian. Less so about Toth’s (?) previous linking also Sumerian and Hattic to Fenno-Ugrian. And even that one is not on the list.

Trubetskoy is the founder of Balkan linguistics, the study of a Sprachbund admitted as such on all sides. He held to IE also being a Sprachbund. He is also not on the list.

ij

Melissa B

What anthropological theorists and theories are you familiar with?

I answered second

but here it is as intro to the later reply:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Was the question to me? I didn’t see it.

I have mostly interacted with anthropologists online, so I get their theories from their attitudes.

I am definitely not an anthropologist myself.

By the way, a comment on your conversation with Joseph was posted as an answer to his reply to you.

Melissa B

Yes, the question was for you.

Examples of anthropological theories include structuralism, functionalism, historical-particularism, cultural ecology, cultural materialism, political economy, iterpretivenist, and symbolic interactionism, just to name a few.

Notable theorists inclide Malinowski, Levi-Strauss, Boas, Mead, Steward, Harris, Geertz, Wilhelm Schmidt, Durkheim, and Radcliffe-Brown.

Boas became increasingly aware of the racism and the colonialism mindset of the armchair anthropologists who preceeded him. You also alluded to colonialsm. Thus, my question for you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I’m not sure how much Milman Parry counts, but I am aware of his work on oral transmission via aoidoi (researched on Serbian epic, relevant for Homeric ones, and obviously for transmission of at least early Genesis events to Moses).

Obviously heard of it while reading Menin aeide and Andra moi ennepe ….

Joseph had answer first

and it had led to a discussion with Melissa B, here:

Palm Sunday

24.III.2024

Joseph Foster

I notice you’ve gotten no answer. As you can guess from Lundahl’s and mine later exchanges, I began to get real suspicious so when I could make time for a little research to try to cut through his smoke and mirrors, I did. He may not be very familiar with any real anthropological work — his “Humanoria” at Lund University included Lithuanian “culture history” and the rest mostly languages. [There are BTW good Swedish anthropologists — I had one for Advanced Social Anthropology back when I was an undergraduate, a Dr. Birgir Lindskog, U of Uppsala., Visiting Professor at LSU.]

This guy’s a piece of work. He actually knows some linguistics, more than most of the kookoisie attracted to the field do. But he failed his Linguistics exam at Lund University, though passing several other more “Humaniora” exams.

It turns out he’s a geocentrist, a young creationist, a professional anti-modernist, and a very traditional Roman Catholic, I think a convert though am not certain. That all explains why he tries to compress everything into Biblical dates. And takes a lot of Biblical stuff literally. It’s not just bad science but also bad theology. He’s apparently a good example of Frederick the Great’s observation that experience is worth nothing unless the proper conclusions are drawn therefrom.

He’s unemployed, or “self-employed” and given his apparent attitude in a video interview with him I found, probably unemployable. He churns out a lot of blogs, which was probably what prompted the interview another blogger did. It’s in English BTW. He apparently survives in Libraries, homeless shelters and kitchens, thanks to the Swedish safety net, and from occasional donations/alms, or “informal voluntary royalties” for an occasional musical composition and “writing”.

Melissa B

That's some impressive research!

I knew about his literalist views, views that are held by few Catholics. It would make sense if he's a convert.

Given the other information you relayed, I feel badly for him now. He's in need of compassion…and some theological and anthropological education.

Joseph Foster

I agree. And lest my comment about the Swedish safety net be misinterpreted, I think it’s a good thing and that our country could do with something closer to it. Mr. Lundahl has I think a good mind and energy for research and could make good contributions were it not sidetracked into a dead end track spur.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To Joseph:

"I think a convert though am not certain."

Can confirm. 1988.

"And takes a lot of Biblical stuff literally."

What exactly would I NOT take literally?

"It’s not just bad science but also bad theology"

An Anti-Christian putting on airs about what's good or bad theology, that's rich ....

"He’s apparently a good example of Frederick the Great’s observation that experience is worth nothing unless the proper conclusions are drawn therefrom."

Thanks for admitting your loyalty to anti-Christians like Frederick II. A guy willing to murder Germans for being Catholics and preferring Maria Theresa!

"He apparently survives in Libraries, homeless shelters and kitchens,"

Forget about homeless shelters and kitchens. Libraries are good work places, though.

"thanks to the Swedish safety net,"

Total opposite of the truth.

I get no money from Swedish welfare, and am harrassed to pay back my study loans, while calumniators like yourself make it hard for me to get my stuff into print!

"and from occasional donations/alms,"

Actually pretty recurrent. I put out card boards as a kind of busking, they hold my URL’s. You seem to be the damage control against what this could accomplish.

"or “informal voluntary royalties” for an occasional musical composition and “writing”."

The compositions may be very occasional, the writings not so.

The voluntary royalties would be a thing if I got printed, or got compositions performed. People like Your Crookedness had stopped this from happening.

While alms when holding out a cardboard with an URL are ALSO income from my writings, that’s very different from royalties, as such suppose someone had gained something (you are impoverishing young people, not just myself!) by selling my texts or performing my compositions for paying audience.

Linguistics exam:

“But he failed his Linguistics exam at Lund University,”

It was a five point exam, with studies I did brilliantly, and I failed because the essay question was answered in a way the examiner didn’t like. Five university points = 20 weeks quarter time or 5 weeks full time. The exams I didn’t fail add up to 201 points.

To Melissa:

"That's some impressive research!"

Would be if I hadn't put lots of it on my blogs and if he hadn't misrepresented half of what he had found.

"He's in need of compassion…and some theological and anthropological education."

Least of all. The very people who have impoverished me are the crooks who have thought me in need of education!

There are ways of oppressing people by "compassion" when oppressing them by outright outrage is out of the question, you examplify that.

To Joseph again:

"And lest my comment about the Swedish safety net be misinterpreted, I think it’s a good thing and that our country could do with something closer to it."

Thanks, but no thanks.

I have left Sweden to get away from that safety net and from its conditions
I am doing a huge job, and sometimes even a great job, but Swedes and people like you have detracted and made me socially unreachable for getting it into print and my finances to profit from voluntary (I did not say informal) royalties!

"were it not sidetracked into a dead end track spur."

Oh, my job and my goals is me being sidetracked, but your anthropological colonialism against a European is somehow "putting me back on track"? I am fifty-five, people like you are the least thing I need!

God curse you and similar Freemason Crooks!

Joseph Foster

I have no idea why your reference to Freemasonry. I am not nor have I ever been a Mason and never had any interest in that.

Re your leading question What exactly would I NOT take literally?, referring to the Bible:

Well, how about the verse where Jesus said “I am the vine…”, or the one where he said “I am the door….”.

Unless you think he was a shapeshifter and actually was a vine and a door, presumably not both at the same time, then you do not take those literally and in not so taking them, use good judgement. In that case, however, you then accept that some parts of the Bible are best taken metaphorically or figuratively, and the question becomes that of which ones and why those. Part of the reason there are a lot of Christian denominations is differences among various people as to what is to take literally and what figuratively. That’s an old issue and problem in Xianity; I believe Augustine the Hippo addressed it. He doesn’t carry as much weight in my Church as in yours, but maybe some earlier patristics did too.

In your comments to Melissa, you wrote: Would be if I hadn't put lots of it on my blogs and if he hadn't misrepresented half of what he had found.

I had no intention of misrepresenting you or your situation and if I inadvertently did so, I apologize. I read a number of your items in the extensive Henke correspondence, watched a few blogs, watched the interview on Youtube that somebody did with you, and got some information from a web site you yourself had put up — in connection with Lund University I think it was. I had to draw some inferences and that’s why I sometimes used “apparently” and “may” and / or “might”.

I don’t understand the Swedish point system so will let that pass. But as to your having trouble getting your work published, I shouldn’t wonder. You’re not doing linguistic science, nor prehistoric and eohistoric, i.e. very early historic investigations in a scientific way. You are a self-proclaimed “creationist”, a geocentrist apparently, and for the topic at hand: linguistic and archaeological-paleoecological investigation, inference, and reconstruction, you start with the Bible as you understand it and try to make everything fit, rejecting anything that does not. That’s not science — it’s religion. It wouldn’t surprise me if most of your submissions to referred journals got what we call a desk rejection — rejection by the screening editor as unsuitable or inappropriate, or of insufficient merit to be sent out to referees for peer review. Members of review editorial boards serve unpaid out of a sense of professional responsibility. An editor will not knowingly waste their time and good will unnecessarily.

To be blunt, you’re simply not taken seriously. You know enough to be able to throw up smoke and mirrors and to deal with a number of details. But you’re basically not doing Science; you’re doing Religion. You might get published in some Biblical Archaeology Journal, but that field got such a bad reputation that I understand those journals have tried to clean up their act a bit.

And your apparent stance and mode of operation with respect to Religion is not even in step with the mainstream of science and scholarship of your own Church that you quite some time ago converted to. My Church, Eastern Orthodox, is in many respects though not all even more conservative than the Roman Catholic Church is, and you would be considered on a side current of it also.

That’s not necessarily bad. Scientific and scholarly advance often come from steering into a side current out of the mainstream. But many scientific failures and dead ends do also. What is the case is that if you make extraordinary claims, you have to present extraordinarily strong evidence in their favor. Scientific explanation does not begin nor end with “for the Bible tells me so”. Especially not when what the Bible “tells us” is sometimes open to interpretation, doubt, or conjecture. There are even parts of the Bible that make sense only when an anthropological understanding of tribal societies is brought to bear on them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Well, how about the verse where Jesus said “I am the vine…”, or the one where he said “I am the door….”.”

The verse is literally true about Jesus saying these things. A metaphor, either in description of the author or in the words of a character (God or other) is so to say baked in into a passage which as a whole is Literally true, before also having the Allegoric, Moral and Anagogic meanings.

The account in Genesis 1, 2, 3 uses a kind of extended meaning, in chapter 2 verse 17. Adam died spiritually same day as when he ate the fruit or he died physically same millennium as he ate the fruit. He did not die physically the same day. But this clear example of non-typic, even non-literal meaning, does not make the meaning of the event sequence not literally true.

You will admit that Cassian is a Church Father, so that his famous Quadriga is good enough in Exegesis? And before telling me he was just ONE of the Church Fathers, OK, I have heard that before, from Neohimerites. So, give me a CF who is certainly a Saint and who is certainly not in favour of a literal interpretation of Biblical history.

“I have no idea why your reference to Freemasonry. I am not nor have I ever been a Mason and never had any interest in that.”

As sth like a Neohimerite, you have a kind of Masonry lite on topics. In the French language Romanian Orthodox parish in Aix, I met a philosophy teacher who was taking his distance from me because I had exposed Bruno as an intellectual humbug. He probably shared a Masonic veneration for Giordano, burned in 1600.

I have no interest in being remade in the image of that kind of person, even if Daniil of Iași likes him.

“I don’t understand the Swedish point system so will let that pass.”

It changed after joining the EU. The old system in which I am used to counting has one week full time = two weeks half time = four weeks quarter time = one point. The linguistics exam I failed on the final essay was in fact this last model.

“But as to your having trouble getting your work published, I shouldn’t wonder. You’re not doing linguistic science, nor prehistoric and eohistoric, i.e. very early historic investigations in a scientific way.”

Would it be scientific to do Russian and Ukrainean history without referring to the Nestor Chronicle?

What you call “science” in this context is the “science” of the kind of Apostates who do not believe the Bible. Which is certainly not all the Christian has to believe, but a very important part corpus of credenda, including historic ones.

If we cannot rely on the history of the Fall, even supposing we rely on the history of the Redemption anyway, how would we be sure to get the theology of Redemption right without the theology of the Fall? Or to get the theology right if we got the history wrong?

“watched the interview on Youtube that somebody did with you”

It’s old and it was heavily edited, some things appearing in text are not what I said, while some things I said were left out. Neither there, nor elsewhere have I expressed myself as depending on the Swedish welfare system.

“You are a self-proclaimed “creationist”,”

OK, I proclaim myself a Young Earth Creationist, but I am really something else on this topic?

“rejecting anything that does not.”

I reject conclusions that do not fit. I have so far not had to reject any hard facts.

"That’s not science ... rejection by the screening editor as unsuitable or inappropriate, or of insufficient merit to be sent out to referees for peer review."

You are seriously confused about what kind of re-publication I seek. I know the biasses of people who reject view points that do not suit their Evolutionist and Uniformitarian religion.

I’d as soon send a Creationist article to Nature (except once I did send sth to Nature Genetics, exactly once) as I’d send a Catholic Apologetics article to get published by 7DA.

“To be blunt, you’re simply not taken seriously.”

From those people, I’m not surprised at all.

What I complain about is when people like YOU seem to think THEIR pov should be EVERYONE’S law about how to deal with me. In such contexts, overdoing the degree to which I sponge and underdoing the degree to which I work comes pretty handy.

“And your apparent stance and mode of operation with respect to Religion is not even in step with the mainstream of science and scholarship of your own Church that you quite some time ago converted to.”

I’m currently under obedience and under the Omophore of Pope Michael II. In 1988, there was no rule forbidding a Catholic who admitted “John Paul II” as Pope to be strictly YEC. I got talked out of it, and came back to it when reading St. Augustine. When Wojtyla died, I prayed for his soul, but I did not recognise him as having been Pope. With Ratzinger, I gave him two chances (before and after my venture to RomOC), and ended up with giving him up too. Pretty precisely over CCC § 283. Something which did not exist when I converted. I did not yet have that clue to avoid Wojtyla.

“What is the case is that if you make extraordinary claims, you have to present extraordinarily strong evidence in their favor.”

To some, “extraordinary” in this case means “outside mainstream science” — to me it means “the stronger claim” …

“Scientific explanation does not begin nor end with “for the Bible tells me so”.”

Historical knowledge as a default has, “the chronicle tells me so” … I reject Homer and the Tragedians on Theology, but not on History. My basic “strength of knowledge” is not science, but history. Even the knowledge that strictly speaking is scientific relies on “the history of the experiment is accurately transmitted” (if you couldn’t rely on that, 1000 repeats could not convince you rationally, unless you did it yourself).

“There are even parts of the Bible that make sense only when an anthropological understanding of tribal societies is brought to bear on them.”

If you bring in the assyriological views of Archibald Sayce, of unhappy memory, about ancient oriental genealogies, that is the kind of anthropology that is a counterpart to a colonial officer’s “linguistic” ranking of French and Berber, which we fortunately agree on.

“Especially not when what the Bible “tells us” is sometimes open to interpretation, doubt, or conjecture.”

I’ve even doubted things myself, and interpreted things myself, trying to make sure to not contradict an opinion held by all CCFF. Since St. Jerome put more than 480 years between Exodus and (50 years after anointing of King David) the Temple, I was in doubt about the accuracy of that. A perusal of Judges convinced me that the “300 years” of Jephtha mean “at least 300 years” and that probably the “480 years” at this point mean “300 years — at least — of Jephtha + 180 years since Jephtha” … so I accept St. Jerome again.

I have interpreted “a tower of which the top shall reach into heaven” as a three step rocket, and God’s act as a merciful way of putting the project on hold until when Armstrong and Gagarin could rely on teams with adequate know how, which Nimrod obviously hadn’t.

I have close read the verses before that to find that:

yes, Göbekli Tepe is indeed West of any landing place in Armenia
it’s right at the edge of a plain inside Shinar (if that means Mesopotamia — the LXX is from when “Babylonia” included this region!), whereas locations like Babylon or Woolley’s Ur would be in plains surrounding the two rivers
and if burnt bricks are not found as building materials in GT, it is found as pathway plastering in contemporary Jericho. Which therefore goes back all the way to Babel, even if it’s not the location of Babel.

Assume two things:

Biblical history is literal history (even humanly) with no details totally wacky (thanks to inspiration)
anything written of that happens outside the culture of the hagiographers may involve simplified language which is better understood when compared to objects outside it.

Then I think my work will hold. I have tested it on several grounds.

If not, I’d like to hear why you assume we could these days calculate someone as the Beast in Greek gematria, when that’s a fixed spelling only for one small area, and when on top of that the values have been known for so long that parents could chose it in order to give their children that power (in the case of parents who don’t believe in Hell, probably).

Joseph Foster

I’m not going through this line by line nor even paragraph by paragraph. I’ve already spent too much time and effort on it.

But your first full paragraph: No. Jesus was not a vine and was not a door. In the absolute semantic value of |vine| and |door|, the verse is not true. It’s pretty certain he didn’t intend it to be taken that way but metaphorically. Without the extended metaphorical comparison meaning, the statements are not true. Not literally. Your smoke and mirrors turgid paragraph notwithstanding.

What in hell are “Neohimerites”?. Or a Neohimerite? As to Bruno and Giordano, I couldn’t care less. Except that burning people alive because they don’t believe what the Church thinks it believes at the time is a thoroughly shitty thing to have done. If that is what Christianity is about, I want no part of it. But I don’t hold the whole religion responsible for that.

I have no idea what a “Masonry lite” refers to.

Apostates would include people who had been believers but “stood away”, i.e. left it. Those who never believed to start with aren’t apostates. And what exactly does “believe the Bible mean?” If it claims Methuselah lived 969 years and that means Tropical Years, no, I don’t believe it. If it claims the Earth and universe were “created” in 6 days of 24 hours each, no I don’t believe that. I do believe “In the beginning, God…”. A Roman Catholic theologian sometime in the 1600s I think pointed out that Scripture gives us a guide on how to get to heaven; it does not tell us how the heavens work.

I don’t know what you mean by “re-publication”. I assumed you sought publication in professional journals, but perhaps that was an over assumption. Maybe you want publication in popular venues where it will have a non-critical and less knowledgeable audience.

BTW, there is no such thing as an “evolutionist” or “evolutionist religion”. Evolution of species is not a creed, a religion, or an ism at all.

I do know what an omophorion is. Our Orthodox bishops wear them, and I think those of the Eastern Rites subordinate to the Roman Papacy do also. And I know what the phrase “under the omophorion” means. It’s another metaphor. The OCA Bishop of Chicago and the Midwest couldn’t possibly literally get every Orthodox Christian in his Diocese under his omophorion. So it’s a figurative expression. —But as to your “Pope Mikey II”, Right. So you’re not only out of the mainstream of your own Church; you’re off down a sedevacante distributary that will probably lose itself in the swamp.

Extraordinary claim does not the way most people use it mean “the stronger claim”. It means the one that is the more apparently goofy, more apparently outrageous. Or at best the more unusual or more unlikely. I’m not a believer in forced standardization but if you want to get published, you’ll have to write with meanings that are generally understood unless you specify your peculiar meanings clearly beforehand. And others will tolerate that only for technical terms, and that only to a limited extent.

I have no interest in the Assyriological views of Archibald Sayce. You’re out of date and focused on historical chronology. I had in mind things like matrilateral cross cousin marriage (Jacob with Leah and Rachel), delayed patrilateral parallel cousin marriage (also Jacob = Leah and Rachel), patrilineal descent group endogamy, (the marriages of Jacob and later marriage of Esau codified as a principle in Numbers 36), the levirate (Ruth, among others), ultimogeniture inheritance (Abel, Ishmael, Jacob, Saul, David), the food tabus on things like swine and pork among pastoralist peoples — stuff like that. The anti-urbanism of much of the early Old Testament can be understood in the light of the Hebrew people’s primary cultural ecology of pastoralism. Pastoralists generally ‘hate” cities and city slickers for systemic anthropological-cultural reasons.

I don’t think you’re going to get your Tower of Babel as a three stage rocket published in a respectable journal! It sounds like that charlatan Eric von Danniken.

As to your last paragraph about some beast and calculating “the number of the Beast”, I am mystified why you think I would believe that numerology stuff at all. Or why I would want to “calculate it”. I suppose it’s mildly interesting in being a possible clue to what that passage in Revelation was referring to. I assume you are aware that that book almost didn’t get into the Canon. In hindsight, the Church and Christianity would probably have been better off had it not gotten in.

And now I’m pretty much done with all this.

Monday of Holy Week

25.III.2024 (Annunciation is, if I get it correct, transferred to April 8, first day after Holy Week and Easter Week)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Your smoke and mirrors turgid paragraph notwithstanding."

You missed the point. You cherry picked a verse with metaphoric meaning, and obvious such, from an obviously literal passage.

"What in hell are “Neohimerites”?"

The guys in Greece, Bulgaria and Romania who celebrate Christmas on the same day as us Latins.

That is obviously against a certain Sigillicon (= Greek Patriarchal Bull) which condemned our change of calendar.

Now, Neohimerites have other sides than that one. Which are less kindly seen by traditionally minded Roman Catholics.

"what the Church thinks it believes at the time"

So, Basil the Physician could have been right to deny the corporality of Our Lord, and shouldn't have been burned for the Church "at the time" believing the Word really became flesh?

The first burning of a heretic which was not a lynching seems to have been that one, by Isaac Comnenus, already in schism from the Pope.

And Giordano Bruno could have been right to say each solar system (world in his parlance) while all were created by the same Father, each had its own The Son and its own The Holy Spirit, and shouldn't have been burned for the Church "at the time" believing there is ONE God the Son, there is ONE Holy Spirit? Just as there is ONE Father?

But I would agree, burning Avvakum over the Russian Patriarch at the time no longer believing the Immaculate conception was a shitty thing. Shame on the Skirzhal of 1666! Prior to it, Russians did believe the Immaculate Conception!

"I have no idea what a “Masonry lite” refers to."

For one thing taking burning of heretics as a valid criticism of a Church.
For another thinking Giordano Bruno was burned for being Heliocentric, mainly.
For a third, thinking the support of Geocentrism is a temporary "what the Church thinks it believes" when all Church Fathers were Geostatic and most Round Earth.
For a fourth, taking pity on someone for "being sidetracked" and hoping to mentor him, and taking his poverty and exhausted appearance in a video from a decade ago as proof he needs it.

"If it claims Methuselah lived 969 years and that means Tropical Years, no, I don’t believe it."

You just contradicted St. Augustine. You have so far shown no Church Father who would agree with you. As far as I am concerned, you have taken on ALL of the Church Fathers in Heaven.

Unless you meant, "well, it must have been Babylonian years of 360 days" or "it was very probably Luni-Solar Years alternating between 12 Lunar and 13 Lunar months" and that for purely calendaric reasons. But I guess you meant something very different from that, Apostate.

"A Roman Catholic theologian sometime in the 1600s I think pointed out that Scripture gives us a guide on how to get to heaven; it does not tell us how the heavens work."

I don't think Galileo Galilei had more credentials in theology than I have, if you mean the letter to Christina of Pisa.

"Maybe you want publication in popular venues where it will have a non-critical and less knowledgeable audience."

By RE-publication, I mean, texts for publishing commercially are not a promise for the future, there are already lots online, it's just that the online version is for free, so I can't get money from it.

By popular venues, bingo.

By "non-critical and less knowledgable" you presumably mean those who don't agree with your academic protocol fit that description PLUS you mean that it would be most honest of my part to reserve readership to very academically savvy readers, leaving all popular venues to those who agree with you and present five year olds with claims like "the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago" ... I do not admire your sense of honesty, and if it's shared by your priest, by your bishop, my charge about "Masonry lite" stands.

"BTW, there is no such thing as an “evolutionist” or “evolutionist religion”."

So there is no such thing as "young earth creationism"? Or "creationist sectarian extremism" either? When two pov oppose, they are named opposing isms.

"distributary that will probably lose itself in the swamp"

Pope Michael I was elected in 1990. He got ordination and episcopal consecration in 2011. Before I accepted him. His successor has episcopal lineage from Eastern Orthodox. His rivals "Linus II" and "Pius XIII" are gone. No, I don't hold up your prophecy as anything like probable.

"It means the one that is the more apparently goofy, more apparently outrageous."

Or, in other words, unless the usage is flawed by bias for "conventional wisdom" the stronger claim. For instance, if you didn't have your baggage of socially endorsed Heliocentrism, how would you motivate preferring "the Earth turns about itself and about the Sun, and we see that as the Sun turning around Earth and around the Zodiac, and all this takes is graviation and inertia moving on masses" over "we see the Sun moving around us, because it moves with the universe and because God moves the universe around us" (see Romans 1 and St. John of Damascus!) "and the Sun moves around the Zodiac because an angel is appointed for so moving it" ... unless you start out with materialism, your claim is the goofier one.

Meaning, you are a syncretist with materialism, and syncretism is also a sign of Masonry, including "Masonry lite" ...

"I have no interest in the Assyriological views of Archibald Sayce."

You seem totally to share them about genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, though.

"Pastoralists generally ‘hate” cities and city slickers for systemic anthropological-cultural reasons."

Thank you for clarifying, such things seem somewhat more legitimate than the Archibald Saycean view on Genesis 5 and 11!

"I don’t think you’re going to get your Tower of Babel as a three stage rocket published in a respectable journal!"

Why would I limit myself to "respectable journals"? Why would I take academic establishment as a kind of scientific parallel to the college of bishops? God never promised those guys that kind of authority!

"It sounds like that charlatan Eric von Danniken."

X sounds like Y, Y is a charlatan, therefore X is a charlatan ... does not seem a very stringent line of reasoning. It's a bit like "Resurrection sounds like The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, but the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is Fantasy, therefore John 20 is Fantasy" ... if you are a Christian, you should have a problem with that kind of reasoning.

"I am mystified why you think I would believe that numerology stuff at all."

Well, because the Church Fathers did, and as a Catholic, unlike a Neohimerite "Orthodox" I actually take the Church Fathers seriously. Hippolytus of Rome, Irenaeus, a few more. Plus, because ASCII provides a system which certainly was not abused to manipulate the prophecy about some people who are still alive.

"In hindsight, the Church and Christianity would probably have been better off had it not gotten in."

Ah, you prefer the canon of Laodicaea, with a Protestant OT? Or near Protestant OT?

You do not respect the decisions of the Church?

If your omophorion allows the communion and other sacraments to people of your convictions, it's a rag in scarlet ... read Apocalypse 18.

Tue, 26.III.2024

Joseph Foster

I trust you feel better now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was not venting bad feelings in the first place.

Your theology affects me like a bad smell, but I was totally able to answer coherently.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// I’m not sure I follow all this, nor of what you actually intend by “Biblical Recalibration”. //

The standard calibration for Carbon 14 follows mainly tree rings. I consider it more or less reliable for c. 3000 years back, before which I think this lignine based method of establishing a chronology, much like the other one (contemporary documents in originals or very early copies), becomes too fragmentary and too scarce.

Now, at the Fall of Troy, which is c. 3200 years ago, I consider historic (Biblical and extra-Biblical) events, known by tradition, already coincide with standard calibrations for carbon 14.

But up to the fall of Troy, I think this very alternative and newer attempt at calibrating carbon 14 from Biblical events holds better, first the more complete version but one from 2020:

New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

Then an update on why I no longer hold to the end or “table VIII — IX” on that one:

480 Years From Exodus to Temple?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/01/480-years-from-exodus-to-temple.html

Then an update on the earlier parts of New Tables, namely tables I—II, II—III and III—IV, here:

The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html

A standard carbon date of 8000 BC is affected by this revision, if it holds, and a standard carbon date of 3300 BC isn’t. Nor are the recalibrations of 2000 — 1868 or 1610 — 1511. 500 BC being after the Fall of Troy, it was never part of my recalibrations, except when I thought the level below the one matching the Iliad, when 500 BC instead of Fall of Troy became my “recalibration=normal calibration” point. But that I abandoned years ago.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Pages

Saturday, March 30, 2024

Some Responses to Candida Moss (Beginning of Video)

Sharing : Isabel Brown

Friday, March 29, 2024

Colin (Not a Pastor) on Fight For Truth Had a Better Take

Whaddo You Meme ?? Tried to Give His POV on Christ is King

Wednesday, March 27, 2024

Christ is King of the Jews

Why Don't I Share Lutheran Admiration for Luther?

Joe Heschmeyer Gives an Excellent Case for the Church Needing Infallibility (We are Both Papists, so Think the Infallibility Resides in some capacity in the Pope)

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Palestinian Origins

Monday, March 25, 2024

Putin Lied to Tucker Carlson?

Does This Writer Read?

Look at This

Sunday, March 24, 2024

For Some Who Believe "Francis" is Pope

Oceanic Deep Water Waves in Whole Gale : Whitecaps on a Lake, But Bigger

Saturday, March 23, 2024

A Follow Up After Josef G. Mitterer? Presenting Joseph Foster ...

About Me

Fighting Totalitarian Takeovers