... On Apostolic Succession in Correction of Jordan Cooper

On Apostolic Succession
Jordan Cooper | 30.I.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xRwwCswp1I

I

see below with debate under heading V.

II

4:54 "aren't talking about sacramental authority"

Why would they when it is for one thing clear from the Bible (words of institution say "do this" to the twelve, John 20:21-23 promises the same body the power of forgiving or withholding forgiveness on God's behalf, St Paul to St Titus or more probably St Timothy says to recall the power given through his laying on of hands), and for another thing dangerous to reveal in an as yet Pagan world?

Gustav Wasa knew very well what a bishop and a non-bishop could do, so he forced one elderly Catholic bishop to lay hands on Laurentius Petri. This doesn't mean Laurentius Petri handed on the apostolic succession, has to do with verifiable intention.

5:15 "the way it develops later"

For reasons stated. And I object very strongly to "develops later" terminology, you pronounce it as if it were later a novum.

5:30 "it comes out of this idea of"

Ideas a and b are both stated in NT Bible books.

In Fathers, idea a is stated earlier than idea b.

Of the options:

• 1) Fathers had reason to mention a before they had reason to mention b
• 2) Fathers forgot b was in the Bible books and developed b independently from a, even if it logically doesn't follow

which one makes more sense in a Church given the promise "every day" in Matthew 28:20?

III

6:27 Obviously, with a broken link in some place, that place will have no valid bishops, priests or sacraments beyond those that laymen can confer at least in cases of necessity without a priest, that being baptism and matrimony (if a couple otherwise having the right to marry cannot find a priest willing to marry them within two months, they would make valid marriage vows even without a priest to bless them).

You cannot have any general anguish on "what if", since the Church has made sure to avoid broken links (up to changes after Vatican II, but that is in a Protestantising anti-Church, and doesn't affect all Catholic clergy, since some rejected these changes in time, like Catholics rejected changes of Protestant Reformations even when pretending to be episcopal).

IV

I think I'll break off watching here, since subtitles are automatic and clearly garbled, and resume the refutation when I have a computer with headphones and sound. Feel free to answer before that happens, should you have occasion.

V

Debate, but muted on the other side. He wanted to get out and so he blocked me. My responses partly quote him.

i

4:20 Would you agree to two things:

• a) while changing Sabbath to Sunday is reflected in a hinting way in Acts, the change itself is not in any NT Book, and not in any OT book either?
• b) even so, sanctifying Sunday is obliging on us, up to Doomsday?

Bc if you do, how are you not defending tradition as infallible outside the purely theoretic framework of sola scriptura?

ij

@Tom "The Bible's Letter to the Hebrews specifically rules out this possibility."

Only if you suppose the sacrifice of the Mass to be another sacrifice and not the same as that of Calvary.

We actually consider it the same.

Two Masses are not two separate sacrifices, they are the sacrifice of Calvary made present in two times and locations often outside Palestine and often after AD 33.

@Tom "Sola Scriptura as found in the New Testament,"

Sola Scriptura is specifically ruled out by the New Testament and nowhere found in it.

iij

@Tom "But when assessing the gravity or degree of difficulties of such a thing, this must be, in the end, a not-infallible judgment."

It can't, due to Matthew 28:20 saying "all days".

You probably get Sola Scriptura from a comment in St Athanasius whose point was that Arius was using, not tradition, but things totally extraneous to either Bible or Tradition.

Your first difficulty with Sacred Tradition is answered.

If you read up in St Paul's three epistles to Timothy and Titus, you see bishops are being trained as guardians of tradition.

While this includes all NT as well as OT books of the Bible, some points are not directly found in it.

iu

@Tom I'd have to ask you (or if you prefer someone else to answer, not forcing you but I take this as public debate, not a private conversation with you):

• 1) does Malachi 1:11 indicate Mass is a sacrifice?
• 2) does the citation in Hebrews of "tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec" in light of Genesis 14:18 indicate it?
• 3) supposing Mass were not instituted as a sacrifice, where was the Church not having it in 7th C AD?

Not just the one not directly stating it, but one stating or showing for them Mass was no sacrifice, and which can otherwise be defended, from the Bible, i e nothing like Gnostics, Manichaeans, Iconoclastic Emperors of Byzantine Empire, Paulicians etc. - was there one?

Matthew 28:20 says "all days". I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, I do believe in Tota Scriptura.

For good wishes, same to you. I am not an Inquisitor.

VI

7:14 It can be added, some consider Apostles were never Baptised either.

Therefore, that the laying of hands was not how they received orders doesn't mean it is not strictly necessary after them.

The character is there for three sacraments : Baptism, Confirmation and Deaconal or Sacerdotal Ordination / Episcopal Consecration.

That this is not explicitly treated of in Bible or very early Church Fathers doesn't change that that is tradition.

7:40 You are also confusing "call" with character.

A man can be called to priesthood, but as long as not ordained, he cannot be living that call.

The call is God's preference for your life, the ordination gives power to transsubstantiate, offer sacrifice of Mass, absolve.

... on Expertise

10 Famous People Mistakenly Cited as Experts
TopTenz | 28.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR5tSIovOeE

I

1:34 Come on, a debate and a productive conversation are two different types of verbal interaction.

And while climate change was perhaps on the debate Ham vs Nye, the main topic was Creation vs Evolution.

What is the scientific field for that one, if there is any?

And Tyson being good at explaining concepts doesn't exactly mean he is good at examining what concept needs to be considered as true.

And I mean this on a "simple concept" level.

II

I think your obsession with "no training at all" is somewhat of an appeal for East Bloc "intellectual hierarchies" ...

In the East Bloc, however, people were also trained in ideology and it spread very well thanks to Darwinism and Draper White, so, this means while people were basically required to either listen to "trained people" or shut up, they were also required to listen to this ideology. And in some cases, like Oparin's idea of abiogenesis, there was more ideology than science.

Experiments have to date failed to replicate what Oparin was suggesting.

Speaking of which, while you are not the active researcher behind all of your shows, you definitely have hosted some badly researched comments, like Uighurs being a Muslim sect rather than a majority Muslim ethnicity in China.

Check this link:

Comic Guide : Marco Polo : Band: 6 - In der Höhle der gelben Teufel
https://www.comicguide.de/index.php/component/comicguide/?controller=details&file=book&content=short&comment=short&id=31129&page=5

If you look at the picture in the link, you will see one Marco Polo in fictitious situations and just before him, an Uighur who is a Buddhist. While that person is a comic book fiction by Enzo Chiomenti and Jean Ollivier, that comic book seemed to be well researched and therfore, if it features an Uighur Buddhist, I take it Uighurs in historic times have been both Buddhists and Muslims.

Since the image doesn't click up on previous link, here is a link directly to image:

https://www.comicguide.de/pics/large/31132.jpg

III

10:46 You're the opposite of Beyoncé in my criticism.

She got credit for writing songs written by her team, you got discredits for research done by the teams you represent ...

Apart from the difference between credit and discredit, the situation is parallel.

Internet users are often these days used to doing their thing without a team behind them, that includes me, I sometimes get dialogue partners or correspondence debates, but there is no standing team I consciously work with (there might be one hiding from me, but making youtube recommendations, though), so, I see a vlogger (I'm a blogger, with b) and assume he's researched what he is saying. My bad.

Taking note, the author of this one is Gregory Myers.

IV

12:57 In other words, how about starting to cite C. S. Lewis or G. K. Chesterton instead of Einstein?

They were amateurs, but they certainly cared and certainly did amateur level research ... they also showed me the way to a clearly well trained theologian like St Thomas Aquinas, and I am probably not the only one.

V

13:40 Actually, the individual mom ought to be more important than any number of scientists a to the vaccines her baby is or is not given in shots.

The fact there are even groups of moms shows that governement has been giving too much power to scientific expertise and too little to those God actually gave the task of taking care of the children, moms and pops.

"many deadly diseases that were thought beaten could start seeing a serious resurgence"

Oh, the way mankind survives is by beating deadly diseases till all are immortal, not by reproducing so those who die are replaced in their families?

So not the case.

These scientists may be well trained in immunology, in epidemology and so on, but they have no training in Christian morality (as can be seen from some supporting abortion and contraception) and therefore their view on whether vaccines should be compulsory or not is morally worthless - at least not greater than that of moms and pops.

14:13 "The problem comes down to the way many people evaluate information,"

And so scientists should be given the power to evaluate it for other people and enforce their evaluation? Sounds horribly East Bloc to me.

"and it leads to many parents improperly considering other mothers or parents as experts simply because they happen to also have a child"

I'm not sure considering them "as experts" is really the correct term.

They may be considered as a relevant counter culture. Their stance may be considered as the morally correct stance. Which the epidemologist as epidemologist, the immunologist as immunologist, has really no superior knowledge or training about.

Probably the idea of "many deadly diseases" ties in with "we live significantly longer now than back before medicine checked epidemics".

We have less child mortality, unless you count abortion and in at least one case a vaccination cocktail gone wrong.

But adults certainly do live at most a decade or two more than earlier, and those who live longest seem to be most tied to caring homes. While people leading rich lives, even among atheists, one could cite Christopher Hitchens who died at 62 a few years below the median of a medieval non-royal and non-feudal known person.

Like C. S. Lewis, 64. Tolkien dying at 81 would be like near upper end of pre-modern known people.

VI

14:27 "as if having a child made you an expert not only on child rearing, it also makes you an expert at everything that could possibly befall them"

We live under God's providence, there is no such thing a an expert at everything that can befall anyone.

I prefer someone erroneously getting a similar status by the actual parents over someone being given by the state such a status against parents, as in CPS decisions.

14:31 "she is just sure of it"

Well, how have revolutions happened in the past?

Even erroneous suspicions against people in certain positions have been decisive for taking action. Sometimes bad action, as storming of the Bastille, with a blood bath on the guards, but those doing it had no training in military discipline any more than the first crusaders and those having such training were exactly the suspects.

Collectively, and due to an overkill a few months earlier, perhaps not quite unreasonably.

Here it is experts who are the suspects.

If you recall what expertise were giving as advice to the Kennedy family about Rosemary, perhaps not too unreasonably either.

I'd agree with Gregory Myers that she was wrong in saying her child got autism from vaccines.

I think you are likely to be wrong whenever you say your child has autism, even if it is from a psychological or psychiatric authority saying so.

Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too

... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check · .... on a Few More Items Where "Simon Whistler" Needs Improving "His" Fact Check · ... on Use and Abuse of Wiki · On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler" · Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too

I spoke of TopTenz as Simon Whistler's channel and while he performs on it, he doesn't seem to own it.

There are other channels where he performs, and Today I Found Out is run by a team and was not involved in any of "his" fact check misses.

Sorry to Simon for blaming him for his authors' faults and sorry to TIFO for potentially letting bad fact check on the TopTenz team smudge their reputation, just because they share Simon Whistler.

Sincere Apologies,
Hans Georg Lundahl

... also against Flat Earth, But he Partly Argued Badly

Five Reasons Why the Bible Does Not Teach a Flat Earth
Jordan Cooper | 6.IV.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lukEbqaikLE

I

1:45 First reason is not the best.

While the Bible is the text book for no human science at all, it can definitely correct each of them. Like thou shalt not murder can correct abortion promoting "medicine". Or the prophecy about forbidding to marry and to eat meat to correct "medicine" promoting eugenics.

Some pseudo-science can very well be damning and therefore it can be that the Bible warns against that pseudo-science.

And not in a secret way, since the pseudo-science is in that case actually much more secretive than the true scientific understanding which has Bible backing.

2:04 "I'm not saying that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate"

Thank you.

II

3:13 While the Bible does use figures of speech, and while this can be an approach against Flat Earth, I don't think it is the correct one.

3:43 I'd like to underline a thing. Poetic and figure of speech do not cover each other.

On the one hand, "flat earthers affect me as a pain in the arse" involves a figure of speech, but it is not poetic.

On the other hand, when Homer sung "menin aeide thea" while it is definitely poetic and while Christian readers can take it as a figure of speech, Homer was arguably actually invoking what he considered a goddess, a muse, for real. Not sure whether the nine appearing to Hesiod were witches or demons, but Hesiod also clearly believed muses to be persons, not personifications of his mind's diverse aspects or talents. Or other minds' etc.

3:59 God has a literal right hand, since 2019 / 2020 years ago. Not sure when in pregnancy right hands and left hands are formed.

And about God having body parts already in OT, that is prophetic, not purely poetic.

"God is a bird" - you mean "under the shadow of thy wings", right?

When a boy stretches out his arms and runs and says "look, I'm a bird, I am flying", referring to his wings refers to his arms.

In Latin, wing and shoulder pit come from the same root.

Wing ala with a long first a from axla [not sure if attested in very old texts or only inferred], and shoulder pit with an extra diminutive, axilla.

OK, so that passage really was literally fulfulled on Calvary. I suspect Christ when 12 or even some earlier visit to Jerusalem for Easter had played that game all boys play. So, Adam and Eve looked up from Sheol and knew exactly what King David had meant and how that would be fulfilled about 20 years later at the Crucifixion.

No, saying "God is a bird" or "God has feathers" does not follow from refusing to take that passage non-literally.

4:44 As for Revelation, I suspect we may be spared seeing a hydra like monster in this world, but St John could have (potential mood) been taken from Patmos physically to another world God created so that in it Antichrist may appear physically with what moral characteristics he has - like the Pevensies could have (modus irrealis) been taken to a world where Christ appeared as a lion.

In that way, yes, prophecy is sometimes using figures of speech.

However, I think we should be on the lookout literally for a gematria in 666, and not just for a Nero Caesar bis. I mean, in so far as we should have lookouts about what comes before the second coming.

4:52 Psalms may be poetic, but using figures of speech not literally true (some are, as parallelism is a figure of speach and it does not take away literal truth and it is paramount in psalms) is not really part of their poetic appeal.

Poetic and not literal are not coterminous.

5:07 I think every phrase the Scripture does use about Earth or Heaven can safely (if not must obligatorily) be taken as literal. I think we may come back to this later? Or are you treating four corners already here?

5:15 I was wrong.

When I talk about the four corners of the Earth, I wonder whether the NE one is Japan or Sakhalin and whether the SE one is Singapore or Sydney, I also wonder whether Atlantic counts as an inland sea or Americas as islands, and hence whether the SW one is Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn, while the NW could be Belgium, Jutland, Scandinavia, British Isles. Or, with Americas not counted as islands, Alaska.

Btw, this is a very good point against Flat Earth, since with "South Rim" as periphery and North Pole as centre of a flat circle, you kind of tend to get three corners rather than four.

See illustrations:

Promoting, with Illustration of Four Corners on Round Earth
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/01/promoting-with-illustration-of-four.html



[see lines between corners for angularity of them]

5:27 "it goes out everywhere"?

There is one precise Bible verse I think does not fit this interpretation.

"After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree."
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 7:1]

Unlike men or kingdoms physically looking like hydras, angels do exist literally in our world and do control the weather, under God's guidance, as well as factors other than physical weather which could be meant.

So, I think there are exactly four different angels meant and they are engaged on this exact mission (or were or will be).

Which means, they are standing in four different places.

III

5:32 The cosmology of the Bible is not defined by that of other ancient cultures

No quotation marks, since I endorse this to the full and co-say it.

5:55 "When the Bible was written"

Between Babylonians, Egyptians and Phoenicians.

"it must have assumed"

That the Earth was round, bc Phoenicians knew that? Or that it was flat bc Egyptians certainly and Babylonians probably thought so?

Which one is it, it must have assumed?

A good thing to remind both Flat Earther and Flat Earth derailing atheists.

6:35 If all Israelites were in fact Flat Earthers, Flat Earth must have been at least anachronistically a truth believed after ceasing to be such.

If for instance Book of Henoch is teaching Flat Earth (though what I saw of it when I looked carefully at a passage actually doesn't) and Book of Henoch is genuine (though not canonic, due to doubts about genuinity), then Flat Earth would have been correct cosmology up to the Flood of Noah. You read Akallabêth, a very fine meditation on Apocalypse? Well, the scenario of Earth changing shape could account for that.

Also, while the Church at any time may not have known x (OT was before plenitude of truth), it cannot have all of it believed non-x, if x is true.

But chances are they didn't, for one thing priests and kings can have received a tradition about not taking earth as flat due to one verse and other verse seeming to give the supposed disc very different contours. Circles don't have four corners.

Living a long time ago and not having discovered x does not mean actively believing non-x.

If on the other hand a non-x was from the first of man's history available to "discover", and only recently x could be "discovered", than likely the non-x discovered first with less means is likelier to be true.

7 billions of pairs of eyes can watch the skies moving around earth, and the stars along with them.

11 pairs of eyes only could watch earth turn from the moon and not too many more from MIR.

The view of the 7 billions of pairs of eyes is likelier to be true. And it was available earlier.

6:51 But we do hold our faith in what all the ancient Israelites believed, just as we do hold our faith in what at any given century all Catholics believed, in the cases where a consensus is available.

This follows from infallibility of Church, as per this verse:

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
[1 Timothy 3:15]

Here St Paul is not talking just of a purely metaphysical or invisible body, he is talking of a visible body having a magisterium which can be consulted.

IV

7:19 Thank you very much.

Catholics have not always believed Earth was Flat. However, let's not overdo it the other way since it seems St Basil didn't care one way or the other, while Lactantius (if that was the guy) actually was Flat Earth, there is not a complete consensus against Flat Earth, meaning that Flat Earth while erroneous is not heretical. It's an adiaphoron.

7:50 As you mentioned Aristotle.

His reasons for Earth being round include shadow of Earth on Moon, and this asks the question (some Hindoos answer in the negative, as a mountain at the centre of the Earth's circle would also be a Hindoo / Jainist / Buddhist position) is that shadow Earth's?

They include ships disappearing and appearing at horizons of the sea and they include Eratosthenes (after his day, but E had less exacting precursors) measuring the curvature through sun's shadow on midday, midsummer. But this doesn't prove a full globe, though that is likelier.

The one argument he thought strongest is, past India, you have a sea strait or very broad river to which Alexander came and on the other shore, there are the pillars of Hercules.

In fact, his best argument was a pseudo-Magellan. Now between his day and Magellan's day, Eratosthenes proved that Ganges and Pillars of Hercules aren't far enough apart, others discovered beyond Pillars of Hercules you have a broad sea called the Atlantic, and beyond Ganges you have land.

Hence, Cosmas Indicopleustes was not a fool in considering Earth Flat. And when Photius in Vivliothiki cosidered him such, he also dumpted what was St Thomas' explanation of celestial bodies moving, other than that movement which turns the skies around the Earth each day. So Photius arguably was a cultural snob.

Before Magellan, we had good reasons to believe, but no exact uncontrovertible knowledge that Earth was a full globe rather than for instance a Chapati pan shape.

8:10 Yes, it would matter. What everyone in the Church has always (or always up to a point of controversy) believed, is part of the truth God has revealed or of the truths God has so to speak "co-revealed" with it.

You cannot have one day with the Church believing a lie, all of it. It is against Matthew 28:20 and against 1 Timothy 3:15.

8:36 No, there is no such thing as "people believed things because they lived a long time ago".

You can have lack of belief in a certain discovery before it is discovered, you cannot have uniform belief in its opposite everywhere up to then. The one example I suppose you would cite is Heliocentrism. And you are wrong on Heliocentrism not being taught by the Bible. I suppose like Lita Cosner and the "don't take the psalms literally" crew, you use "under the shadow of thy wings" to prove "the earth shall not be moved" must be taken non-literally. You are also wrong on Heliocentrism having been literally discovered since. It's no more a discovered truth than Big Bang is. Or cosmos beginning 13.5 billion years ago is.

Indeed, they are related issues, since so much of the cosmological distance scale depends on Heliocentrism in interpreting the 0.76 arc seconds alpha Centauri are different in December from June in relation to surrounding background of stars. And therefore so does the Distant Starlight paradox.

Owen Barfield, while he was part of a forbidden society and involved in erroneous doctrines, had an excellent view of what you just said.

A phrase like "people believed things because they lived a long time ago" is in his terms "chronological snobbery".

V

9:17 I believe in a Round Earth and while Church Fathers mostly agreeing certainly helps, so do the literal four corners.

Again, see where the corners are four:

Promoting, with Illustration of Four Corners on Round Earth
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/01/promoting-with-illustration-of-four.html

[illustration taken from there, see above]

Btw, there is no statement on Earth literally being a disc.

There are four corner's and if you step outside them you need a boat. Then there is a circle, from whichever angle God, angels and holy souls in Heaven look at Earth and it doesn't narrow down via ellipse to thin line, that circle is the contour of a globe and to get off that contour, you need a rocket.

As to disc, no literal such description in all of the Bible. (Btw, in case someone would cite Nebuchadnezzar's dream, it was a dream).

9:49 It's precisely by taking the phrases literally that Round Earth is, not indeed certainly discovered, we'll thank Magellan for that, nor probably discovered, we'll thank Eratosthenes and Aristotle for that, but confirmed.

VI

9:56 "imagine if you were having a conversation with somebody and every time they used a figurative phrase you'd point it out and say, well, you mean that literally"

I think this could be very useful in debates, when opponents argue in loose figures of speech instead of in correctly thought out categories.

Like you just did when saying "they believed that because they lived a long time ago". Do you literally believe everyone (not just the medical establishment, who were a minority anyway and had definitely less control over education of masses than now) believed there was air rather than blood in the veins?

Even the peasant who had never been in town? Even the Esquimeaux? Even the Aboriginees of Australia?

More precise than guessing : even the Viking? Snorre's detailing of how philosophy started to arise among Swedes just before Odin came along arguably reflects some philosophemes he got hold of even via Odinism, of which he was knowledgeable though no adherent. And in it, the parallel of veins to streams of water (not to winds) is noted. OK, was Snorre living after Harvey? No. Were pre-Odinist or Odinist Swedes or Norwegians (not including Neo-Odinist ones) living after Harvey? No.

They were not knowledgeable of Harvey's discovery precisely as they were not knowledgeable of the pre-Harvey consensus in Western medicine. BUT what they did believe coincided with what Western medicine teaches post-Harvey to this day.

Also, the intended argument on your side is that we know, that everyone knows, that four corners are a figure of speech. In many verses it could be, but in that verse from Apocalypse, translating "four quarters" as in four directions from any place you stand won't quite do the work. That is why it is the one place where Douay Rheims actually has "corners" (last time I verified, numeric edition could have changed) and not "quarters".

10:06 You are not accounting for how language works either.

With ancient languages, we must look under every nook and cranny to find out what a word actually means. That is why a hapax legomenon is a problem to the Lutheran exegete. He doesn't rely on tradition, hence he needs to rely on very erudite exegesis. With a hapax, that is difficult - unless it's only hapax within the Bible rather than overall. For certain words in LXX version and NT we actually do have lots of Classic Greek literature elucidating the word's general meaning.

That "we must look under every nook and cranny" is a figure of speach not involving physical turning of objects (other than pages in old books) we both know as living now and as sharing a present day English language culture. We cannot presume on same familiarity with ancient Hebrew meaning of "four corners of the Earth".

As to pillars, I'd take that as a schematic representation of tectonic plates being held up over magma and in place by going down deeper into the magma in the middle than at the edges. When it says "pillars of the Earth". As to "pillars of Heaven" I think those places might also translate as "lintels" and can be taken as poles. The axis of heaven turning around earth. The one that crosses the surface of the globe at N and S Poles.

The point is, if you take this as literal about Flat Earth, this will contradict, but if you take it as literal about Round Earth, it will stick together. Pillars are about tectonic plates holding up the surface we live on over interior, while hangeth the Earth on nothing in Job refers to the globe as a whole in space.

VII

10:46 "and I'm not going to get into the scientific evidence"

I have nothing against going into it.

The scientific evidence for a Round Earth and not just a curved one that is safest is a seafarer from Portugal. Checking wiki, yes, he was from Portugal:

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

Fernão de Magalhães, bom dia ...

11:27 I'd clearly like to know why NASA is a better authority for Round Earth than Magellan.

You know people giving them observed informations, fine, as they probably live in US, those would probably be real informations in US.

If they were conspirators and needed less information from "South Rim" as Rob Skiba et al. would have it, what is to stop NASA from sending billions of dollars to boomerang accounts, making up the information, and taking the money for their own wallet?

That other people are doing real observations near the South Pole independently? Well, that presupposes there is one (I believe there is) and this then needs to be taken from some surer source than potentially corrupt NASA. I'm taking Magellan.

No, while I think the accusation is at least in this case unfounded, it is not impossible. Or only becomes so through evidence prior to and exterior to NASA.

(Btw, Rob Skiba, like you, doesn't believe 1 Tim 3:15 means that much, he has taken it to extremes where he rejects Nicaea).

Sending money to people who will not do the work they are nominally paid for is alas NOT an absurd amount of secrecy.

Tax payers do that to medicine, when in many countries some doctors will nominally be paid to save lives and in actual fact abort babies. Not to mention what psychiatry is supposed to take care of and what it actually does to people.

VIII

12:12 No, the Flat Earth issue gives us occasion to show we are not stupid.

As I did, showing literal Scripture working better for Round than for Flat Earth.

12:17 "every Reputable Christian" ... you mean like canonised saints?

You mean like a Catholic hierarchy (not meaning the Vatican II pseudo-one)?

Oh, "organization" ... you know, I am not into World Council of Churches, and it would have been better for the Catholic apparent hierarchs post-Vatican II not to have approached it.

Besides, who says Rob Skibas Seed isn't a reputable Christian organisation about end times prophecy?

The Magisterium of Rome? What Rome? Your neighbour in Kansas (and the probable real pope, if he drops some Spurgeon type manners in pastoral)? Or the guy from Buenos Aires? Or the guy IN Buenos Aires ("Alexander IX")?

12:38 "all agree this idea has no merit"

So, Biologos and Reasons to Believe are in your view reputable despite flouting Biblical history?

And CMI and AiG are reputable in Astronomy, even when also rejecting Geocentrism, even when this means they bend themselves into pretzels over Distant Starlight (including arguing light travelled millions of years to arrive when Earth had day IV ... which on normal interpretations of "simultaneous" and of "before" and of "after" means that stars were created diverse numbers of millennia or megayears or gigayears before day I)?

Like Photius rejecting Indicopleustes, this is an appeal to social prestige. I think baptismal vows (even if your godfather pronounced them for you) would oblige you to a somewhat different view on the world.

Abrenuntio Satanam, et opera eius et praestigia eius.

Same with appeal to people with scientific degrees.

Excursus on Magellan

While he planned the expedition, he didn't complete it, but was killed "on the road." There is some dispute on who first completed it, since Magellan's slave Enrique from Sumatra could have been home soon after running away, which would be well before the Spaniards returned home, but there is no dispute we got the news from the Spaniards who were acting in Magellan's name (except on the item of freeing Enrique, as Magellan had written in his testament). For details on that other dispute, see here:

Who Really Was First to Travel Around the World?
Today I Found Out | 7.IX.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSBF41yRVqs

Excursus on God as Bird

Deuteronomy 32:[11] As the eagle enticing her young to fly, and hovering over them, he spread his wings, and hath taken him and carried him on his shoulders.

Here we have a figure of speech indeed, but one clearly detailed out as a simile, not the metaphor, where the signalling of "figure of speech on comparables" is omitted.

Also, we find in this verse literal prophetic reference to King David's carrying lambs (which is a prophetic metaphor for the Good Shepherd) and again, to Christ on the Cross.

In order for this one to imply God is taken to be a bird if this is taken literally, one would have to have a text omitting first part of the verse. Or something. Also, spreading wings and carrying of shoulders is, taken literally, quite a feat for a bird. Glimfeather?

On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler"

... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check · .... on a Few More Items Where "Simon Whistler" Needs Improving "His" Fact Check · ... on Use and Abuse of Wiki · On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler" · Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too

... or for Dustin Koski, author, in this case. Or for Shell Harris, executive producer.

Top 10 Countries Infamous for RELIGIOUS Persecution
TopTenz | 24.VIII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqbP8f5yWsQ

I

2:25 "Most of their abuse does not come from the National Front, even though it's an openly fascist organization and we know the history that political movement has with Jews."

Double error in fact check.

• 1) National Front is very much not openly or even closet Fascist, it is openly anti-Fascist. And, for context, pro-Jewish.
• 2) No, most people - that is what you would be referring to as "we" - don't know more about the history of Fascism with Jews than the Commies in Czechoslovakia knew back when it was a Communist country.
  
  
  • a) Do most people in most countries - notably US - know that Jews were overrepresented in Mussolini's Fascist party up to the bad turn when Mussolini introduced racialism, including then Antisemitic racialism as late as in 1938 (after he had been in power for 16 years)?
  • b) Do most people know that the worst Austrofascism did physically to Jews was beating a gang in a fistfight provoked by the Jews insulting the memory of Dollfuss?
  • c) Do most people know that Spain was receiving Jewish refugees during World War II, and that Raul Wallenberg and Spanish diplomats were agreed on Ashkenazim to Sweden and Shepharad to Spain?
  • d) Or that Salazar was as much pro-England as Franco was pro-Germany, but both even more pro-each-other and therefore kept Iberian Peninsula neutral during World War II?

I don't think so.

Now, I'll scroll back a bit in the video.

2:06 I don't see this as abusive of Jews.

"French Jews will have to give up Israeli citizenship, says Le Pen"

Marine Le Pen also wants French Algerians and Moroccans to give up Algerian and Moroccan citizenship.

She is simply against dual citizenship. And it seems this is limited to "with non-European countries" and this limitation is itself limited "except for Russia".

It would be perhaps unduly favourable to Russia, but it is not targetting Jews. Least of all openly.

II

4:07 "The Chinese Islamic sect known as the Uighur"

Relevant senses of Uyghur after disambiguation page I am quoting:

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

Uyghur may refer to:

Uyghurs, a Turkic ethnic group living in Eastern and Central Asia
Uyghur language, a Turkic language spoken primarily by the Uyghurs

Uyghur alphabets, any of four systems used to write the language
Uyghur Khaganate, a Turkic empire in the mid 8th and 9th centuries
See also
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region

In other words, Uyghurs are not a sect of Islam, they are an ethnicity.

It seems they have been Muslims (mostly) since ...

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

4:22 I don't think Uyghurs appreciate being called "Chinese."

They are Chinese citizens like Lapps are Swedish citizens, they are not Chinese, like Lapps are not Swedes and like Lakotas are not Yankees.

III

5:04 In a sense I am glad you considered National Front as "openly fascist".

You see, the things you are saying about Egypt can be read in one or two papers in France.

La Croix, close to modern mainstream Vatican II Catholicism and not for National Front.
PRÉSENT, also Catholic, but more like Trads, and close to National Front.

So, when I have cited sources close to PRÉSENT about Egypt, this has in France got me a stamp as "facho" ... while that is not wildly inaccurate, I appreciate the support about facts from one not "facho".

IV

6:51 - 6:53 "All especially hard to believe in light of Buddhism's reputation as a passive, meditative religion."

Guess why Viet Nam was conquered by the French in the first place?

There was Buddhist persecution against Catholics from the place around French Catholic missionaries.

I'm not forgetting that ...

V

7:18 I wonder, considering the number of Somalians France is taking as refugees, how many Somalians have been involved in painting me as a madman who thinks he's Jesus ... or who has other "issues" ...

I and they have shared day shelters, notably SOS Accueil in Versailles and also I think one in Beauvais (not sure if they were Somalians there, but possible).

VI

10:15 "on the Muslim sect Yazidi"

What I previously knew of Yazidis didn't consider them a Muslim sect and what I learn from wikipedia now doesn't do so anymore.

Besides Christianity, Judaism and Islam, there are also smaller roughly Abrahamic or semi-Abrahamic religions. Samarians are perhaps the smallest, but not the worst targetted.

Then we have Yazidis, Mandeans and perhaps some more.

Some have called Yazidis "devil-worshippers" due to them thinking "the peacock angel" (Satan, basically) will repent and will be restored to grace with God, wherefore they also give honours to him. They also believe in reincarnation.

I don't think calling them "other Muslims" will actually help them. Against ISIS, Christians, Shia Muslims and Yazidis have a common cause of defense.

Here is wiki on them, what I learned new from it involves them being likened to Zoroastrians, as well as them believing reincarnation (as do some Jews):

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

They aren't really.

Zoroastrians don't believe in the restoration of Ahriman, and I don't think that the first man is considered to have been Adam either. With Yazidis, he is.

For Mazdeism (not to be confused with Mandeism), here is from a summary of book 7 of Denkard:

"the span of human history beginning with Gayomard, in Zoroastrian tradition identified as the first king and the first man, and ending with the Kayanid dynasty. This section of book 7 is essentially the same as that summarized in the first part of book 5, but additionally presents Zoroaster as the manifest representation of khwarrah (Avestan: kavaēm kharēno, "[divine] [royal] glory") that has accumulated during that time."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denkard#Book_7

"One of the key creation beliefs held by Yazidis is that they are the descendants of Adam through his son Shehid bin Jer rather than Eve.[107][not in citation given] The Yazidis believe that before Adam and Eve copulated with each other for the first time, Tawûsê Melek encouraged them to see if they could reproduce on their own. He had the couple place their reproductive fluids in jars and store them for several months. When each jar was opened several months later, Eve's was found to contain vermin and insects, and Adam's was found to have contained a beautiful baby boy, Shehid bin Jer.[112] This lovely child, known as son of Jar grew up to marry a houri and became the ancestor of the Yazidis. Therefore, the Yazidis regard themselves as descending from Adam alone, while other humans are descendants of both Adam and Eve.[113][109]:33 This is the reason given for Yazidis being exclusively endogamous; clans do not intermarry with non-Yazidis and accept no converts to Yazidism.[citation needed] A severe punishment for breaking this rule is expulsion, which is also effectively excommunication as the soul of the exilee is forfeit.[citation needed]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidis#Descendants_of_Adam

In fact, this is what I get from the note 107:

"The Yazidis believe that they are the descendants of Adam only, while the rest of the world are descendants of Eve, hence inferior. It is impossible to convert to Yazidism; you must be born one. The strongest punishment among Yazidis is expulsion, which means that your soul is lost forever."

http://looklex.com/e.o/yazidism.htm

Ah, while they do not consider Melek Taus as source of evil, their story of him parallels the Muslim story of Satan's fall, both being ordered to bow down to Adam, both refusing.

Muslims, notably, consider this disobedience meant Satan was damned, while Yazidis (according to this source!) consider this was Melek Taus passing a test.

Hence a very obvious religious conflict between the two.

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

It seems this high regard for Melek Taus (or Tawzi Melek) is confirmed by a Yazidi source:

http://www.yeziditruth.org/the_peacock_angel
A Humanitarian Organization. Hosted by: International Order of Gnostic Templars - United States

A false religion. On the Christian system, they should not have to suffer for it, as long as not baptised and apostasising (unlikely since all are endogamous), and as long as they do not agress Christians (or possibly someone Christians should protect for some other reason).

Referring obviously to what constitutes just war and just punishment about infidelity in St Thomas Aquinas.

Unfortunately, ISIS targetting Yazidis gives them good publicity ...

... on Use and Abuse of Wiki

... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check · .... on a Few More Items Where "Simon Whistler" Needs Improving "His" Fact Check · ... on Use and Abuse of Wiki · On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler" · Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too

Top 10 Most Pathetic Ways People Abused Wikipedia
TopTenz | 16.XI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4GzuE5ROWU

I

6:20 "Now we're not going to begrudge someone for using Wikipedia as a jumping-off point"

Thank you, I often quote wiki articles (usually attributing by link, unless I quote very many articles on a theme, when I link to only one), so I appreciate this stance.

Some seem to have the idea, if you quote wiki, even with attribution, you are braving the acacemic rule against plagiarising wiki.

As to Jarre quote which was made up, fortunately I often access things which are less interesting to make up.

II

8:44 I have been accused of vandalising French wikipedia.

Here is the story.

I am a Geocentric. I am also well versed in the historic controversies around it.

On the French page of Géocentrisme, I made some changes:

• 1) Geocentrism doesn't say Earth is "centre of the solar system" (pointless, and as for Tychonic geocentrism arguably misleading), but "of the universe."
• 2) I deleted "in perfect circles" which is true for some types of geocentric systems (notably Aristotle) but inessential and not true of Tychonian system as updated by Riccioli.
• 3) I added a set of paragraphs on how Geocentrism involved more than one system (Aristotelic, Ptolemaic, Tychonic)
• 4) I involved a paragraph on how Geocentrism sees astrophysics in Thomistic style (God moves the whole shebang and within it angels move the several diverse celestial bodies).
• 5) I finished this off with a paragraph on how parallax contributed to Catholics accepting Heliocentrism, while the parallax as discussed between Galileo and St Robert Bellarmine not was identic to the parallax which was thereupon discovered by I think it was Herschel ... meaning there is no reason to reject Geocentrism.

That's it. That final touch is perhaps against the wikipedian rules of impartiality and non-controversial content (not editing in own research or controversial theories, which mine arguably is), but the other ones are simply improving on the historiography of the article.

I did a similar remark on the passage "parallaxe de la lumière stellaire" in the article Parallaxe.

Now, this was back in 2005 and 2006.

I was of course noting that parts of my work was being discarded by subsequent edits, so, in order to have my work not lost, I copied the articles as I had left them on a site of mine, an MSN Group, which no longer exists any more than other MSN Groups since Bill Gates did furious vandalism in february 2009 on lots of MSN Groups, all which could not be transferred to Multiply, which postings I then copied onto the blog where I saved all 50 French postings on that group ...

Here they are, and "ma version 1" refers to work of 2005, "ma version 2" to work of 2006.

Note, some are seemingly still stamping me as a wikipedia vandal because of this:

En français sur Antimodernism : Parallaxe
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.com/2008/10/parallaxe.html

En français sur Antimodernism : Géocentrisme, ma vers. 1
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.com/2008/10/gocentrisme-ma-vers-1.html

En français sur Antimodernism : Géocentrisme, ma vers. 2
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.com/2008/10/gocentrisme-ma-vers-2.html

III

In sum : some would probably be abusing other features of the internet, like bounce rates:

New blog on the kid : Si Russie et Ukraine manipulent le lectorat ailleurs?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/01/si-russie-et-ukraine-manipulent-le.html

Promoting, with Illustration of Four Corners on Round Earth

Video:

Noah's Flood and Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (from Pangea to Today) ver. 1.1
Genesis Apologetics | 7.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8SCjn1hubc

At 2:23 at least, it is still good.

Projection from Globe:



Red crosses represent Old World take on the Biblical Four Corners, Yellow ones include Americas and Australia.

Either way, or perhaps best Old World but including Australia, you have a four cornered image.

With Flat Earth and North Pole in the Middle, you have a three cornered one, unless you want to count Australia as two corners:



Taken from here:

Flat Earth Conspiracy: The Surprising Truth
America Uncovered | 15.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GP0zYqoMwk

The angles are clearly more cornerlike on above from the projection of the globe, with four corners: