The King Returns on the Feast of Trumpets?

"L'heure fixée du retour du Roi dans le mystère de la Fête des Trompettes."
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | 2021 6 Sept.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlm5bS8DAjE

"you know the armies have come to destroy israel there's the last bit of jewish people that are holding out there and um it seems like all hope is lost yes and then all of a sudden here he comes and he saves israel and he defeats the armies of darkness"

You know, as Palestinians are Israel, they are Israelites, right now IDF looks a bit like an army of darkness.

Not necessarily against Hezbollah, but I suggest you make peace with Palestinians first before you fight Hezbollah.

14:57 So, the Yom Teruah in Jesus earthly life was announced in Galilee on horseback?

Is it a coincidence if the second coming in Apocalypse 19 is the heavenly calvalry?

17:35 A certain Brenda Weltner actually claims that Sabbatical years do start on Yom Teruah.

I think it might be based on:

But in the seventh year there shall be a sabbath to the land, of the resting of the Lord: thou shalt not sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard
[Leviticus 25:4]
And thou shalt sound the trumpet in the seventh month, the tenth day of the month, in the time of the expiation in all your land
[Leviticus 25:9]

18:17 Sabbatical years have agricultural implications.

23:49 Acts 1:6—8 Jesus actually was pretty soon establishing even an earthly kingdom.

Remember how Zionists say Palestinians have never been sovereign?

That means, Palestinians never had an army. They also were not involved in wars between Judean and Samarian. I think you might recognise some prophecy there.

Up to Omar, their religion was Christianity. Even after Omar, to this day, many Christians remain.

Responses to the Anti-Missionaries

Here is ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry:

A pregnant virgin? Defending the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | 11 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5aQkUPoK1U

Here are my complementary comments:

8:25 In Exodus 2:8, Miriam is an almah - but did she remain a betulah all her life?

We never see any husband or children attributed to her.

This would make Miriam a type of Mary as not just virgin in the virgin birth, but perpetually a virgin.

15:40 Isaiah [54:4-5] has prophecied both the Virgin Mary and the Church.

Mary is fertile because She is, as the Greek liturgy says "the unwed wed" - and Church is a widow, but a redeemed widow. Her husband and redeemer died on a Cross.

This is probably why St. John says of a harlot that she imagined "I am not a widow" ... (Apocalypse 18).

Look out for Christians with liturgic colours if they don't use black on Good Friday.

18:16 translating almah and betulah into Russian, as it was used before the Revolution, according to a grammar or Russian from 1914 I found in an old book shop.

almah = dievushka
betulah = dieva

Once someone is a stara dieva (old maid), she is still a dieva (betulah), but no longer a dievushka (almah).

Don't dismiss the mutual influence of Russian and Jewish culture. Kvas is basically the recipe of shekar - a beer brewed from bread with possible additions of fruit (Hebrew preference, dates, Russian preference, apples, I use both when I make kvas).

28:13 Notice God has a rugby team. 7 + 8 = 15 = a rugby team.

I suppose there is also some end times application for God's rugby team ... with Antichrist featuring as "the Assyrian" in Micheas.

30:12 It so happens that a rabbi in Paris, Rivon Krygier, invited into Notre Dame blasphemed the Messiah by stating He hadn't fulfilled Isaiah 11.

My answer starts at verse 10.

In that day the root of Jesse, who standeth for an ensign of the people, him the Gentiles shall beseech, and his sepulchre shall be glorious.

Him the Gentiles shall beseech - Centurions and Syro-Phenician woman after Magi
His sepulchre shall be glorious - empty grave.

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand the second time to possess the remnant of his people, which shall be left from the Assyrians, and from Egypt, and from Phetros, and from Ethiopia, and from Elam, and from Sennaar, and from Emath, and from the islands of the sea.

Fulfilled at Pentecost. That's the congregation in Jerusalem that St. Peter spoke to in Acts 2.

And he shall set up a standard unto the nations, and shall assemble the fugitives of Israel, and shall gather together the dispersed of Juda from the four quarters of the earth.

Cross and Baptism was a standard unto the nations as well as a gathering of Jews, the last 2000 years.

And the envy of Ephraim shall be taken away, and the enemies of Juda shall perish: Ephraim shall not envy Juda, and Juda shall not fight against Ephraim.

The first local Church was in Jerusalem, the second (Acts 8) in Samaria. Between pre-Christians, Jews and Samaritans were still fighting, but among Christians, they were very quickly reconciled.

But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines by the sea, they together shall spoil the children of the east: Edom, and Moab shall be under the rule of their hand, and the children of Ammon shall be obedient.

Philistines here taken for Romans, and the Church fleeing from the legions of Titus (both from Jerusalem and Samariah) put them into refugee status and missionary status in Pella, Jordan (Jordan = Edom, Moab and Ammon, Pella = Ṭabaqat Faḥl).

And the Lord shall lay waste the tongue of the sea of Egypt, and shall lift up his hand over the river in the strength of his spirit: and he shall strike it in the seven streams, so that men may pass through it in their shoes.

Egyptian idolatry was replaced by Christianity.

And there shall be a highway for the remnant of my people, which shall be left from the Assyrians: as there was for Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.

This one, I am not sure of.

33:21 "To break Assyria in my land"

Antiochus IV Epiphanes was ruler of Assyria (in his day Sumerian and Akkadian were still studied, by the way, and some preferred Chaldanism over Olympian gods). (It can be added, Alexander the Great was ruler of Babylon and he had no offspring).

He, Antiochus, was broken in the Holy Land (see Maccabees).

Now the Maccabees period was the Second Temple period, and the Maccabees heroism against Antiochus was fresh in memory when Jesus was born. The popularity of names like Matthew, John, Simon, Judas has quite a lot to do with that.

34:31 So, the King of Persia is the King of Assyria?

That allows the rulers of Russia to be Kings of Assyria. Just North of Caucasus, a part of Russia was formerly a part of Persia.

36:51 Could United Kingdom be end times Babylon? Not whore of, but lion of ...

Iraq transitioned from Ottoman Empire to sovereign state via a British mandate at World War I.

Babylon was excavated mainly by Brits:

Claudius Rich, Captain Robert Mignan, William Loftus and Austen Henry Layard were all Brits.
Fulgence Fresnel, Julius Oppert and Felix Thomas weren't, but their work was lost.
Henry Rawlinson and George Smith were Brits.
Robert Kildewey was certainly a German, but in a Germany ruled by a relative of Queen Victoria. Then the German archaeologists fled before British troops.

Heinrich J. Lenzen was born in Duisburg, I think British occupation zone after WW-II.

Ur was excavated by John George Taylor, Reginald Campbell Thmpson, H. R. Hall, and Sir Charles Leonard Woolley.

Check if there is any prophecy in Daniel about the lioness that Queen Elizabeth did not fulfill ...

Answering Charges against Catholicism in an Otherwise Interesting Video

New blog on the kid: Zionism is Part of the Leopard - Confirmed? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Answering Charges against Catholicism in an Otherwise Interesting Video

Why Jesus Is NOT Coming Back Until Israel Believes - And How Satan Fights It! (Dr. Eitan Bar)
2nd May 2022 | ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opuf3MW9rYM

I

8:29 "forbade those with Jewish background to come" ...? [Constantine, to Nicaea]

Reference very highly needed.

As to the usage of some Church Fathers, previously mentioned, it echoes the usage of St. John as narrator in the Gospel, but not the usage of Our Lord in his Gospel.

"and changed the Sabbath day"

Reference for all Christians worshipping on the Sabbath or resting prior to the day of worship prior to Nicaea. Also highly needed?

"forbidding to even have a meal with Jewish people"

I think this was directed to lots of converts from Judaism who would have risked getting drawn back if not.

Similar bans also regard other types of religiously strong minded or stiff minded infidels, like heretics. And before you pretend Albigensians were just good Christians, they were guys who refused to worship the God of the Old Testament and didn't even get the first verse of the Bible right.

II

8:49 1) First Crusade, 2) Burnt in Synagogues.

1) The crusader knights were not attacking Jews mainly. The Crusader peasants were, especially to get some loot to "finance" their crusade, and Blessed Peter the Hermit (he's just blessed, you may avoid praying for his prayers if you like) actually withdrew from preaching the peasant crusade after he saw that.

2) Some times children were at least purported to have been killed by Jews, the people got angry, and at one point, the Jews were given the chance to leave the synagogue alive if they got baptised, and people who tried to get out would get stabbed from behind - by fellow Jews, who were also killing wives and children before killing themselves, a bit like top Nazis or some Russian Oligarchs, lately. Then the people got so angry, they followed through with burning the synagogue with people in it. I think that was the synagogue of York.

But this was not encouraged by civil authorities or bishops. People who did this could count on at least some kind of punishment. Even if it was small, the principle was upheld, such things were not to be done.

And sometimes authorities also managed to stop this.

III

9:00 "Twelfth to fifteenth C, Catholic Church would force Jews to convert to Christianity" ...?

1) The dates you give in English spell out as 1101 - 1500 - are you sure that is what you mean?
2) Certain Inquisitions started about 1200 and were mostly done by 1400, this is the case with the Inquisition in France, the target were Albigensians, not Jews, Albigensians who were baptised and who had then gone back on their baptism to adher to a heresy stating Satan created the material world and human society, and all types of things in society : civil authority and marriage are not just corrupted by Satan, from time to time, they said, but they said he was the inventor of these things. Secondary target were the Waldensians, a bit like Lollards, and in France the Inquisition petered out when only they were left. I think some of the last Waldensians to get burned in what's now France were so burned at Arras, which was under the English crown, with the English, fairly national, Inquisition, and targetting, due to English ire, Lollards and their likes Waldensians for simply being felt to be anti-social, among heresies, serious enough, but less so than Albigensianism;
3) The Spanish Inquisition lasted from 1492 to 1820 - 1830 (depending on part of Spanish Empire). One of its targets were Crypto-Jews. People who pretended to have converted and hadn't. But as to forced conversions, no conversion from open Judaism, as far as recorded history tells us, was made by the Inquisition, it was the Crown who gave Jews the choice of exile or conversion. To some the fear of exile was felt like a death threat, and so this can be in a way considered a forced conversion. Back in 1492 and the ensuing decades.

The Catholic Church has as doctrine, and had back in the 12th and 13th CC. as well, Jews were being kept for conversion in the last days, and were therefore less of a missionary target than other peoples, though of course Catholics that did have a reason to be around Jews were encouraged to do something to convert them. I saw a Catholic very short short list of end times events, there were seven, and I think I can enumerate them:

1) Antichrist is on the scene
2) Enoch and Elijah come back and convert
3) the Jews "en masse" (last conversion in Jerusalem, 7000 people watching them rise from death and up to heaven)
4) Antichrist persecutes
5) Christ returns
6) and resurrects the dead
7) whereupon He starts judging them.

9:08 And no, whether "marrano" does or doesn't mean "pig" (it seems both pigs and marranos have the name from "muharram" = forbidden thing, and both were forbidden by Islam, that religion preferring obviously dönmes) it wasn't the Church which gave them this nickname.

The Portuguese conversion was very much forced - and also an entirely political move.

1497 a king forced the conversion - 1536 Portugal had an Inquisition. 40 years later.

I saw about it in the library, and that one was atrocious - so was the will of certain Jewish parents to kill their own children.

IV

9:16 Martin Luther was in fact fairly pro-Jewish while a Catholic and became anti-Semitic after his so called Reformation, which I, as an ex-Lutheran of partly Jewish origin, prefer to nickname a Deformation : he deformed Christianity.

10:24 As you know the name of "bishop Berning" you also know he was a non-Catholic, right?

10:38 What is the name of the "bishop" Robert who "admitted" the following?

V

12:56 We certainly see Jesus as dead, as having died, on the Cross.

We are a Church who say "we are a widow, we were born as a widow" - if the Church came of age at Pentecost, it was born of Christ's side when He died, so the Church is born a widow.

This would perhaps help to distinguish the Church from certain other entities ...

Spot the Moral Monster + Other Stuff

Spot the Moral Monster + Other Stuff · Karl Keating Disclaims Responsibility for Paris Archdiocese Having a Prejudice on YEC = Protestant, Claims he Never Said So

Is Psychiatry a Moral Monster?

Jewish Kirt Schneider was locked up by his own family, only because he said I believe in Jesus!
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | 1.VIII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dz2swDzMlU

Seems so.

Now some, including I presume some within this moral monster that psychiatry is, have asked "is God a moral monster" or "is the God of the Bible" (if they acknowledge there could be some god but hope it's someone else) "a moral monster".

Here is an answer to that one from CMI:

Is God a Moral Monster?
Creation Ministries International | 3.XII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3pufFpDiF0

Three comments on it, from me:

I

7:22 The soldiers? Not camp guards, but common soldiers?

In the case of those shooting Jews on the East Front, how about the knowledge Trotsky recruited the Cheka mostly from Jews? A bit like those Poles who burned a synagogue in a barn after finding a bust of Lenin in it.

In the case of shooting every resistant caught on the West Front, how about taking a "code of war" from Coligny who had (prior to being killed at St. Bartholomew two years after the peace) executed 250 peasant resistants during the recent religious wars?

Berlin, like Belfast, was one of the main refuges of the Huguenots.

And some Calvinists had in fact compared Catholics to Canaanites. Check Oliver Cromwell.

As to camp guards, lao gais and abortion clinics have sufficient recruitment to this day ...

II

dialogue:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8:18 Genesis 3 ... with a mere 2000 to 3000 years between Adam and birth of Abraham (depending on version) and with lots of people living into 900's in the first part, there is not much of a problem, is there, knowing about it?

Especially as the texts are short enough to learn by heart.

I just challenged two Catholics (a priest at a Paris parish and Karl Keating) how they, accepting evolution and deep time, account for us knowing the Genesis 3 events.

For a Catholic, the chapter is ultra important not just about the general condition of man prior to grace, but about the Blessed Virgin. I am not a Hebraist, but the impression I got from being around one is, "enmities" as plural of "enmity" would imply complete enmity.

And complete enmity with Satan would imply no sin. This is said of the woman, not just of her fruit or seed. In St. Luke 1, She doesn't completely get what's being said until Elisabeth basically identifies the fruit of Her womb with the Woman's Seed. Considering Jael and Judith, She must have been confused for a moment what enemy of Israel She had utterly defeated.

So, Genesis 3 being this important for Catholics, I wonder how Evolution believers among them account for us knowing it in detail, like knowing the exact words of God to the serpent.

One of them said "it was revealed" - but that is not how it has come to us, like a vision or anything reported as such. Tradition from the time of Adam and Eve is what makes sense.

Creation Ministries International

That is very interesting! Head over to creation.com and search our huge database of articles to see if you can learn more about what how catholics explain Genesis 3! Here is one article that might help! https://creation.com/the-gift-of-scripture-its-an-issue-of-authority

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Creation Ministries International The traditional view is God made the Jewish Church from Moses and Aaron up to Kaiaphas to safeguard His revelation (identify, copy, and authoritatively interpret the books of the Old Testament) and that God founded the Catholic Church with a similar mission from Pentecost day on, to Doomsday.

This means, Catholics, traditionally, have the same epistemology about Genesis as trad minded Jews or trad minded Protestants.

Now, you may have noticed I put Kaiaphas at the end of the Jewish Church. It did commit a treason at the very end. As you know from John 4, this doesn't mean Jesus sided with Samaritans as to where the authority was. It's just - Kaiaphas was not on par with his predecessors. Many believe while a true Pope cannot be the false prophet (worst case scenario : could be, like infallible on rare occasions of definitions, very errant on other occasions when not protected, like airport interviews), most certainly a fake pope, a non-Catholic anti-pope, could fill such a role.

In other words, much of what you are identifying as "Catholics" are to me an "end times counter Church". After the worship of Ceres of the Andes, aka as Pachamama, this view is gaining ground with some who would hitherto have been timid about going that far. Did you know that, like Pachamama is sometimes depicted as a woman, she is also sometimes depicted as a serpent or dragon? And that a Roman Pagan priest of Ceres actually summoned a dragon from Hell? It was St. Front of Perigueux who exorcised it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[added]

On the precise epistemology of Genesis 1 to 11, or if 1:1 to 2:4 was a vision of Moses, 2:5 to 11, Haydock gives this account:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

E-Catholic 2000 : Haydock Comment : Genesis 3
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-05.shtml#navPoint_6

As I go by the LXX based (mostly so) chronology of the Roman Martyrology, I differ in detail, but not in principle. From Abraham on, too, written texts may well have been safeguarded by the beduin tribe that was heading for Goshen. And while a Pharao tried to kill their first born, he didn't try to burn their books.

Obviously, those who would like to put Adam at 90 000 BP could not make this work, especially as this would provide us with Genesis 5 and 11 as bungled transmission.

I made this challenge to Robert Barron:

Creation vs. Evolution : Length of Two Texts
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/11/length-of-two-texts.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[after looking up their article]

Reading from your article:

"This appears strange to those wedded to the concept of sola scriptura (the Bible alone). Even Catholic creationists, such as Fr David Becker, abhor evolution mainly because it constitutes a ‘departure from the Sacred Tradition of the Church’, rather than its opposition to Scripture. He rightly criticises theologians who imply that ‘no longer would Original Sin be an historic event, a real breach of holy obedience committed by two real people’, yet he places on the same level as his belief in creation that of ‘the infallibility of the Church and of the Pope.’"

Infallibility of the Church is in fact Biblical, so is papacy being its supreme judge under God, and infallibility of the pope is a conclusion from these two (whoever really is that, in my view definitely not "Pope Francis" or his predecessor, the very evolutionist "Benedict XVI") - so this is Gospel truth, is Biblical.

By contrast sola scriptura is not only non in scriptura but even contra scripturam. St. Paul's II Thess. 2:15.

"Ruth Gledhill says that ‘the document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system’. This is historically inaccurate."

It's not. Galileo was the original proponent of NOMa.

"Galileo didn’t threaten Biblical ideas, but the Platonic world view that the Roman Church was tied to at the time.’"

Aristotelic? Platonic? Why not Confucian while you are at it? Ptolemy would be closest and in fact every contradiction between Ptolemy and Galileo was left alone, the charges were about where Galileo flouted the actual account of Joshua's long day and connected Scripture. Catholicism was no more tied to Ptolemy than being able to revise so much that all sense data given by Kepler's time to account for were in Riccioli's Almagestum Novum accounted for Geocentrically.

Ptolemy would have solid spheres? The Church was fine without solid spheres. Ptolemy would have perfect circles? Copernicus was more tied up with perfect circles than the judges of Galileo. And so on, you keep repeating a falsehood about history here.

As an overview : I believe the bishops or even laymen who issued The Gift of Scripture belong to the end times counterchurch. To me, they are not properly Catholic.

III

9:57 "it's actually our sin nature"

Being born with original sin will certainly damn until that is removed, but only to limbo.

To go to Hell, one needs to be in a state of personal mortal sin.

Those who don't receive grace sooner or later fall that way, due to original sin.

But Hell, with pains, is still about what we do, not just about what we are.

Until, in some cases, a mortal sin is forgiven after repentance.

... on Second Temple Priesthood

The untold reason why Jewish people do not believe Jesus is the Messiah!
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | 2.IV.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP_JGRHvsE8

I

8:52 - 9:05 "is proof of the poor condition the temple priesthood was in. According to Elior, scrolls written by the Zadokian priesthood describe how they had to flee for their lives and hide from the new priests"

Now read II Maccabees 12 from 42 up to the end.

[42] And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. [43] And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, [44] (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) [45] And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. [46] It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

Now, re-read verse 44, it is a parenthesis, with the words in previous verse to which this parenthesis refers:

thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)

As we know it, the priesthood in the temple in Jesus' time were in fact what we call "Sadducees" - deniers of the resurrection (among some other key concepts). This would mean that the author could be one of those fleeing from the new priests, or, at the very least, one who noted the difference.

And who preferred it the old way.

II

What do you think would have happened if in Our Lord's time there was one cohen, not John the Baptist (Yohanan ben-Zakhariah ha-Kohen, right?), but someone else, who actually also was against the corruption of Sadducee priests?

Would he have been a disciple of Our Lord?

What would Our Lord have thought of him?

Since St Irenaeus, most Church Father's have considered "John" and "the beloved disciple" as being John the son of Zebedee and the brother of James the greater. Look here at two texts from Gospels of St and of St John:

1) Now all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then the disciples all leaving him, fled. (Matthew 26:56)

2) And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. And that disciple was known to the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the court of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door without. The other disciple therefore, who was known to the high priest, went out, and spoke to the portress, and brought in Peter. (John 18:15,16)

We see a disciple who doesn't exactly look like fleeing. And one whom St Matthew, writing very early after the events, does not mention. Both say Peter (later a saint and martyr) was at the occasion half-brave, only one (the later writer) dares say how he even came in ...

Also, Matthew and Luke in Acts seem to contradict each other about how Judas Ischariot died - the John who was known to people in Asia Minor where St Irenaeus had spent early years (and perhaps misunderstood sth which early Church Fathers writing back there understood better) was able to tell what had happened. Judas didn't die from hanging, he was cut down. But he died from burst stomach when ploughing on Aceldama, trying obviously to "get things together" after a failed suicide and this not pleasing God. Or the guys who cut him down and saved him also killed him by giving him really too much comfort food. These explanations are not mutually exclusive.

How did this John know what had happened to Judas? Was he a fisherman - or a priest?

One man from Asia Minor, also an early Church Father, speaks of one John who had worn the "golden head plate".

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

For once, ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministries are Wrong on Some Points

Inquisition, Crusades & Pogroms, really are from Jesus?
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | 14.I.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITM_FCP1NrE

I

Is the blood libel a horrible deed against your people (part of my own ancestry too)?

Or are child murders a horrible deed by extreme Jews who hated Christians so much they wanted to "execute" a Christian guilty of no other thing (they could have considered that any Christian past puberty was stoneable for other offenses and so wanted as young and innocent a Christian as possible)?

Or were they done by a synagogue of Satan in the sense of Molochists, hidden by the Jews, within Jewry, but not being part of it?

We do know very well that Andrew Ochs[n]er was found killed in a way resembling kosher slaughter of lambs, we also know he was before that frequent guest in a Jewish home, before being killed, so, while he was a Christian boy, it is likely he had some Jewish ancestry and could therefore be "justiceable" by Jews.

Note, the Christian interpretation of Genesis 49:10 means that as Jews had lost the right to public execution (even kept in Babylonian captivity, see Daniel 13) by the Romans, the Messiah had to come before that.

And it could be some intrigue on part of Jews was claiming, first through Pagan Imperial executioners and then through these child murders that no, the sceptre (and sovereignty, and right to execute capital punishment) was still with Judah.

As you may know, one Ariel Toaff wrote a book with an admission of the blood libel, on his theory extreme Jews. More like hate crimes. He was more or less forced to take it back.

Oh, red matsoth were not for food consumption, I am not claiming there was a confusion involving Christian human blood to be kosher (though some might have pretended so in a tit-for-tat accusation against the Eucharist), but the perpetrators knew they could not transport the body of Andrew Ochser, and so red matsoth would have been used for documentation (before you had cameras and internet tweets).

Dear St Andrew Ochs[n]er, pray for us and for the conversion of the Jews!

I think the rabbi who fed feces to children would very probably be one argument for the existence of the kind of extreme hatemongers within Jewry I envisage as culpable for killing of Bl Andrew Ochser and Simon of Trent.

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

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

Quoting from the latter:

"Town magistrates arrested eighteen Jewish men and five Jewish women on the charge of ritual murder — the killing of a Christian child in order to use his blood in Jewish religious rites."

Note, the part of "religious rites" may come from a false confession previously planted to give Christians a confusion about the exact nature of these proceedings. Have you read Da Vinci Code? Saunière to his killer confesses a false secret.

So, obviously, using Christian blood in a Pesach rite is not kosher. But, if someone had planted this info, this could involve an attempt to hide the real nature of the proceeding.

If they wanted to make it out they publically executed Simon of Trent for being a Christian, they would consider within the Synagogue as public enough, and consider whether Christians knew it was an execution or not didn't matter.

Or would you disagree on the Talmudic attitude to Christians?

Similarily, if it was a recurring band of Molochists, they would have needed Christians to suspect normal Jews in order to keep Jewish solidarity sheltering them from Christians.

Note, it is also possible that people sent on a mission to kill a toddler were already criminals among the Jews and Jewish justice used Gentile justice to dispose of them.

II

2:02 The common people did have access to Holy Scriptures up to 800 in a Latin pronounced basically as they spoke, and when Latin pronunciation was restored to a few centuries older and became incomprehensible, the Gospel reading was each Sunday and Holiday by a decision in 813 translated in what is the origin of the compulsory sermon.

Ostendite mihi numisma census. At illi obtulerunt ei denarium. (from Matthew 22)

Pronounced before 800 (fair linguistic guess):

Ostenditz-mei nümisma tsens. At li optulayrent ey denier.

Pronounced from 800 in Gospel reading:

Ostenditay meehee noomisma tsensoos. At illee optulayroont e-ee denahrioom.

After the ritual thanking Christ for the Gospel, the priest would, from 813 on say (also, fair linguistic guess):

Ostenditay meehee noomisma tsensoos. Tso est, ostenditz-mei la moneye le tsens.
At illee optulayroont e-ee denahrioom. Tso est, meis li monstrayrent ey ün denier.

[Pikardy, like Italy would have pronounced chens, chensoos, rather than tsens, tsensoos]

Not only popular pronunciation, previously to 800 the correct one, but also replacing the less known old words with more usual ones. And adding definite articles, which aren't there in Latin (they were taken over by calque from Greek, Hebrew or Arabic later than St Jerome's translation). Perhaps even indefinite articles too.

A priest who missed this part could get imposed to fast if it was occasional, or he could be deposed from parish service, and confined in a monastery, where his reading Mass involved one server who also was too bad at Latin to give a good translation, or not. Arguably, most priests were able to and did comply.

2:06 The average Christian could not read the New Testament on his own. Technically correct.

Some have argued an average Galilaean in Our Lord's time would not have been able to read the Old Testament on his own.

Arguably, if he couldn't, he didn't have to. If he went to Synagogue on the Sabbath (not a command by Moses, by the way), after a reading in Hebrew there might be some comment in Aramaic. A Targum on the meaning of the text would be appropriate if the audience included people not able to read Hebrew.

When Our Lord had read from Isaiah, either the Gospel doesn't mention the Targum part, or, it was not needed, because everyone in that particular synagogue either knew Hebrew or the text well enough to know what Our Lord meant, when He added his explanation of what Isaiah had prophecied.

III

2:38 Jews were widely impopular for economic reasons (read up on how debtors were tied to creditors and on how much interest Jews could charge when they were allowed that business).

This means that some people had a real itch to beat Jews to death.

What religious leaders at least in Western Europe have done was try to limit this.

After a pogrom in 1300's in Germany, a monk chronicling the events and with a very large sympathy for this popular hatred and very little sympathy for the Jews was writing things like "unfortunately we simply can't kill off all Jews, God has reserved Himself to use them later on," and references to both conversion of some and their adherence to Antichrist of others were either given or omitted as already known "but let us pray that up to then, they may find a land far from good Christians where they may live on their own".

Any Jew in New York or Tel Aviv can verify New York is across the Atlantic and Tel Aviv is across the Mediterranean, as the German Antisemite had prayed for ...

Violent and evil Christians ... not sure they were more violent and evil than a synagogue who in a pogrom (I recall it was even the one recorded by the antisemite) on being given the alternative to convert or die set fire on their own synagogue, so as to prevent conversions by weakness - or [than] the killers of blessed Andreas or Simon.

I mean, punching a Jew on the nose on Good Friday is not good, but it is less bad than such acts.

3:22 I would hardly consider a Catholic delivered up to child killing or Russian Revolution and its aftermath (Jews in Cheka were killing in Ukraine some months before what is now considered breakout of WW-II, before the death of Pius XI) were less disciples or less Jewish than the ones standing before Christ in Matthew 24:9.

3:40 How binding do you consider Matthew 5:39 is to an average Christian when it is far beyond just the striking on the cheek?

Do you consider Christian civil authorities have a right or duty to defend Christians, if for instance a toddler is killed for being Christian?

3:55 Matthew 5:44 was spoken to the chosen disciples.

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set down, his disciples came unto him.

On another occasion (Luke 6), perhaps an hour later same day, He was speaking to a multitude:

And all the multitude sought to touch him, for virtue went out from him, and healed all. And he, lifting up his eyes on his disciples, said: Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

No going up to a mountain this time. Here he is not saying: pray for them that persecute and calumniate you as to the chosen disciples, but Bless them that curse you, and pray for them that calumniate you

Meaning, ordinary Christians are not necessarily called to put up with persecution, if there is a possibility for defense. That also seems implied in a warfare going on in Apocalypse - as where presumably both sides make use of weapons of the kind that physically hurt and kill.

4:27 As you mention Romans, how about chapter 13, where St Paul says "the magistrate beareth not his sword in vain"?

5:55 It is dubious to interpret "his brother" in [1 John 2:9] as including persecutors, including Christ-rejecting Jews who persecute Christians.

In fact, the very same John in Apocalypse received words about them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

And in Gospel, instead of quoting words of Jesus involving a vocative to Pharisees and Sadducees, and whoever, he instead omits what Jesus called them and starts the quote by "and Jesus spoke to the Jews and said" - implying the Christ-rejecting Jews are NOT our brothers. Especially not if persecuting Christians.

IV

8:13 Have you conferred Deuteronomy 28 with Matthew 28?

The covenant in Deuteronomy 28 is conditional, because God knows Jews will reject Him.

The covenant in Matthew 28 is not stated in conditional but in categoric terms.

Therefore, unlike the old nation of Israel, the Church that Jesus founded is indefectible. Individual members may indeed be in a state of mortal sin (sometimes involving a pogrom against a Jew), but the Apostles are always there with Christ to guide His Church and that specifically in their successors, as before 10 days had passed, Judas got a successor.

So Moses and Josue went and stood in the tabernacle of the testimony: And the Lord appeared there in the pillar of a cloud, which stood in the entry of the tabernacle. And the Lord said to Moses: Behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and this people rising up will go a fornicating after strange gods in the land, to which it goeth in to dwell: there will they forsake me, and will make void the covenant, which I have made with them, And my wrath shall be kindled against them in that day: and I will forsake them, and will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured: all evils and afflictions shall find them, so that they shall say in that day: In truth it is because God is not with me, that these evils have found me. But I will hide, and cover my face in that day, for all the evils which they have done, because they have followed strange gods.

Can the same thing happen to the Church Christ founded?

Could for instance the Catholic Church have been following strange gods in the days of the Inquisition and so on?

Well, not unless there is another Church with better claim to continue since Apostles.

See here:

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

This means, the Apostolic Church, whichever it is, cannot have failed as Old Testament Judaism failed, sometimes wholesale all or nearly all of the people, and at one important point 2000 years ago, in those who rejected Christ - and His Church.

9:47 Confer the perverse generation in [Deuteronomy 32:20] which is echoed more than once by Our Lord [Matthew 17:16], [Luke 9:41] AND by St Peter [Acts Of Apostles 2:40] with [Matthew 24:34] and [Mark 13:30] and [Luke 21:32] - presumably referring to the generation of the Catholic Church, which has not passed since those words were said.

The generation that will not pass, that is.

[Matthew 23:37] would imply a hint on why Roman rather than Hierosolymite Church is the mother and teacher of all Churches. (Roman Catholics claim this for Rome, some at least Greek Orthodox for Jerusalem).

In AD 70 (or whenever Titus came), the Church obeyed Christ's words of fleeing to the mountains, so they fled to Pella.

There are more places than one that are called Pella. No, it is not to 40° 45′ 36″ N, 22° 31′ 09″ E that they fled, a place in Ancient Macedon and modern Greece. Nor 35° 25′ 00″ North, 36° 23′ 00″ East, better known as Apamaea. It is to 32° 26′ 57″ N, 35° 36′ 54″ E that they fled, to what is now Tabaqat Fahil or Tell al-Hosn in Jordan, and was in ancient times part of Edom, Moab and Ammon - fulfilling Isaiah 11:14.

As to "fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines by the sea" (same verse) that might mean Romans (culturally related to Greeks and Philistines, worshippers of Dagon / Poseidon) were chasing the Church so closely, some of them were even able to touch the shoulders of Romans - or that they sometimes behaved better to Christians fleeing Jerusalem (obeying both Christ and Titus) than to Jews (who were disobeying Titus after saying "we have no king but Caesar" when disobeying Christ).

V

12:53 I cannot agree to compare Crusades and Inquisition to Holocaust.

At all.

I cannot agree to consider people taking part in Crusades or Inquisition as automatically evil people.

Some incidental acts by the Crusades (massacre of Jerusalem which Godfrey of Bouillon tried to stop and finally did stop) or of Inquisition (like the episcopal Inquisition by a bishop Cauchon of Beavais trying St Joan of Arc or by some English bishops considering people as Lollards simply for having some Bible access or access to prayers in English), yes.

But you cannot condemn the Kingdom of Judah because Herod massacred the innocents, and you cannot condemn Aaronite priesthood because Kaiaphas perpetrated the so far most ultimate rebellion against God.

Similarily with Christians states and with the priesthood of the New Covenant, including when at war against infidels (for some other reason than them just not being believers!) in Crusades on the state side or in Inquisition on the Church side.

13:39 Indeed I do love Israel, first and foremost, in honour if not personal closeness, Christian Palestinians, who are the remnants of the earliest Jewish and Samarian part of the Church.

And next, people like you and ...

Israeli News Live
https://www.youtube.com/user/BenDeNoon

Those of Jewish or Muslim confession come after and proportionally to their peace with or love for Christians.

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

Video commented on

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

(After watching first half).

I

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

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

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

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You really do take me for a Protestant?

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

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

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

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

KA Fleury

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

You have a problem with the following one:

"That's what you're saying."

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

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

II

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

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

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

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

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

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

III

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

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

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

And if those were the Orthodox there were?

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

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

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

IV

12:48 Conferring notes.

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

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

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

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

V

13:44 "Like historicity of Jonah"

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

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

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

VI

16:17 Fulton Sheen is no favourite of mine.

Freedom is freedom to do what I ought?

At its basic foundation, yes.

But at its social realisation, no.

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

Chesterton, please!

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

VII

Patrick Coffin, did you say Heaven is no destination?

Dimond Brothers said this was also sth which Wojtyla held:

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

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

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

VIII

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

tiarnan

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

Corolla 97

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

john b

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

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

Arnold Conrad

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

Pat B

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tiarnan

Hans-Georg Lundahl -

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you had checked my other comments, no.

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

tiarnan

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What other comments?

Anyway my question was -

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

The simple answers:

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

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

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

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

Highlighted reply
Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

tiarnan

Hans-Georg Lundahl -

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

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Sayz who ... a Muslim?

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

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

I do not think of them as impeccable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, were the Crusades against Heretics then mass murders?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonus video

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

With my comments:

I

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

I think Swedish and Norwegian history calls that man Odin.

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

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

II

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

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

Think about that one!

Bonus video II

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

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

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

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

I

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

YOU claim.

Roman Emperors after Constantine:

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't add up.

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

It does so NOT add up.

II

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

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

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

III

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

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

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

17:07 "wholesale mixtures of paganism and Christianity"

You might want to document that one.

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

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

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

"with great pageants on the holidays"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eitan and Moti on Davidic Lineage "objection"

Is Jesus really NOT a descendant of the line of David as the Rabbis claim?!?
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | 18.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhaBcN_Vmb4

Two genealogies.

Matthew 1:[16] And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:[23] And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,

Here is how bishop Challoner - an English bishop serving English Catholics from France - reconciles this:

[23] "Who was of Heli": St. Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob, (St. Matt. 1. 16,) in the account of the law, was son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob were brothers, by the same mother; and Heli, who was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow: in consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli.

This could also be a solution about Jehoiachim and Zerubbabel.

Zerubbabel could be grandson of Jehoiachim after the flesh, but of some other Davidic line after the law, and therefore not under the curse. Just a speculation.

Ah, here we have an indication. Zorubabel has an occurrence in each genealogy, along with his father Salathiel:

Matthew 1:[12] And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel.

This is the physical lineage ... now :

Luke 3 [27] Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri,

So, Salathiel could also be exempt from the curse because in law he was the son of Neri.

How come there is no world peace?

While Eitan Bar and Moti Vaknin have not found the true Church, they have at least found the true Messiah and the true God.

"If Jesus is really the Messiah - how come there is no world peace?"
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | Ajoutée le 29 juin 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8FnuTOgi50

3:39

[Rabbinic discussion on how Messiah will come]

Riding on a donkey - fulfilled first day of the week on which He was Crucified on sixth day.

In the clouds - remains to be fulfilled, see Apocalypse 19 for details.

5:11

Actually, Christ already has established a kind of world peace, that being the Catholic Church.

HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT
ISAIAS 11
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-876.shtml#navPoint_877

6:19

Brod on Isaiah 53 ... what would you do, if you heard of some plot to single out a man today for the role of "Messiah son of Joseph" so that through his sufferings Jews might be saved? What would your reaction be if you met such a man? Wouldn't the next step be a plot to set up someone else as "Messiah son of David" in a sense every Christian would need to dread?