... on Hebrew Gematria for Harry - retort given and withdrawn

1) New blog on the kid : King James and Mary Tudor, the cat, the dog, the cog, 2) Some of the Main Suspects, 3) So, am I a suspect, before I go on citing others?, 4) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hebrew Gematria for Harry - retort given and withdrawn · 5) New blog on the kid : The Importance of Relying on One's Geekiness Rather than on Expertise

Why Prince Harry does not want you to see this Video
PrinceHarry 666
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMNPriSh_lw

10:10 May I exonerate Prince Harry somewhat? My ma studied Hebrew. Harry may or may not transliterate with one resh, I think it is one even when geminated, but you add some dots above or below. But the resh comes after beth, since it is not hAAri, but hAri, and the short A is not initial, so it doesn't have a Knacklaut onset either. Unless you refer to some non-standard way of spelling Hebrew. Have you looked the names and titles up in Hebrew form?

14:18 Google translate is NOT infallible either for translation or for transcription. Have you looked transcriptions from Google translate up in other sources, like Hebrew wikipedia? Or better still, material from British Embassy in "Israel"?

[update next day: Harry seems correctly transliterated after all, don't know why, but here is Harry Truman in Hebrew: הארי טרומן]

... against an Afrocentric Neopagan by the name of Tim Aldred

Video commented on

Bamboozled ( the bible is worst book ever written)
Ras Fyah Blaze
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE-_e_WQsJc

II comment with thread

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:38 "the African people never had a religion called the Christian religion"?

O K .... what exactly do you call Ethiopian Christianity?

Btw, Ethiopians were Christians while Swedes were still Pagans, worshipping Nerthus and later Odin and company.

Tim Aldred
(modifié)

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: Greetings to you my king. If you follow my argument in the video. You'll discover that I focus on points that are specifically relevant to human existence under the BC Big Era... opposed to the A.D. anno Domini ecclesiastical era. In my research only what world history recorded, is literal human truth. Truth of BC era, has jurisdiction under the Goddesses and Gods who hybrid and nurtured modern intelligent man, for at least 200,000 paleolithic age years-- with one primordial human religion. A.D. era with the words God, Devil and Jesus Christ, not anything literal, but fiction. Therefore sir, they cannot be argued on the basis of belief in them, white facing the reality of historic anthropic or parochial reality. If you are understanding my track of logic in this. In that sense my brother, the conclusion is this; Christianity is null and void, a matter that it only has fictional lies has premise for its grounds. Christianity in its origin has no civilized coherent or intelligent grounds for realistic argument...it's fiction. If Ethiopian Christianity exist in anyway, it was oriented from someone's unnatural contrivance, (not literal civility), to feed foolish people who have psychologically fallen asleep.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ethiopia is African before people migrated to the exterior. The origin of a small taxonomic group of people, started out under The Goddesses and Gods, this is where Pagan Polytheism derived. Christianity went into Ethiopia in the 1st century. Christianity started with the bible story in Matthew 2 with wise men following a star. And in book of Acts a Phillip baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch. No world history record Christianity in Ethiopia prior to the A.D. era. If you can prove otherwise just write it down here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Tim Aldred "You'll discover that I focus on points that are specifically relevant to human existence under the BC Big Era... opposed to the A.D. anno Domini ecclesiastical era."

That makes your point a bit pointless. EVERY people, except Hebrews were Pagan before Christ. Or was that precisely what you meant?

"In my research only what world history recorded, is literal human truth."

What exactly does a phrase like "world history" mean here? History is traditionally not written by a group of historians operating by research detached from loyalties, it is written by people within communities, usually religious ones. Both Abrahamic ones, on the Hebrew and Christian side and Pagan ones. VERY few if any Historians previous to Gibbons were atheists. So, does your "world history" simply mean Pagan Historiographers as opposed to Abrahamic ones?

"Truth of BC era, has jurisdiction under the Goddesses and Gods who hybrid and nurtured modern intelligent man, for at least 200,000 paleolithic age years-- with one primordial human religion."

You are welcome to TRY to prove :

• that number of years
• that palaeolithic was all Pagan.

Both are very tenuous and actually Marxist or Dia-Mat (or related Atheist) positions within the apostasy part of Christian civilisation. If you are Pagan, why do you settle for that?

" A.D. era with the words God, Devil and Jesus Christ, not anything literal, but fiction."

Whether forgery or truth, they are certainly meant as literal, not as metaphors or novel writing. If you can't see that, your research is very flawed.

BBL, someone's waiting for a computer.

Tim Aldred
(modifié)

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: I'm telling the world that those characters in the Christian bible are contrivance by white invading criminal white men. Are you basing your argument of biblical fraud. What of my research is flawed?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: I have just put down any Ethiopian Christianity. What is your stipulation for, in reference to whether God etc., is forgery. I'm not accepting none of the biblical farce. What are you asserting into what I have stated to you--just make the connection so I know what your thought is; my king! 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Therefore sir, they cannot be argued on the basis of belief in them, white facing the reality of historic anthropic or parochial reality. If you are understanding my track of logic in this."

Your track of logic is flawed by the false premiss of "nothing literal". Since it is meant literally, belief must be explained as ultimately:

• based on reality
• based on mistake (how? not all kinds of mistakes are applicable to all kinds of things!)
• or based on lie (how, again? not all kinds of truthfulness or lack thereof are compatible with all kinds of character!)

"In that sense my brother, the conclusion is this; Christianity is null and void, a matter that it only has fictional lies has premise for its grounds."

Your categories are flawed, unless by "fiction" you rhetorically mean "lies". If by "fairy tales" you mean things like "evolution is a fairy tale" or "Christianity is a fairy tale", OK, but not if by "fairy tales" or "novels" or any other genre of fiction you mean things like Little Red Riding Hood, Sherlock Holmes, Lord of the Rings.

This is not how these things are received. X writing a novel and Y, Z, W all mistaking the novel for documentary is a very extraordinary claim, to my best knowledge never seriously claimed for anything, at least not of having certainty of it, and it requires very extraordinary evidence. You have not got that.

[I meant "anything except the Bible", that is ... i e anything outside this debate.]

"Christianity in its origin has no civilized coherent or intelligent grounds for realistic argument...it's fiction."

Sounds like you did no detailed research at all. Sounds like you ONLY want to debunk Christianity. And therefore you are not even close to starting with someone who knows the details.

"If Ethiopian Christianity exist in anyway, it was oriented from someone's unnatural contrivance, (not literal civility), to feed foolish people who have psychologically fallen asleep."

I think I respect black Africans and their mental coherence more than you do, even if I am white and you are black.

"Ethiopia is African before people migrated to the exterior."

To the very best of my knowledge it remains very African.

"The origin of a small taxonomic group of people, started out under The Goddesses and Gods, this is where Pagan Polytheism derived."

Possible. So?

"Christianity went into Ethiopia in the 1st century. Christianity started with the bible story in Matthew 2 with wise men following a star. And in book of Acts a Phillip baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch. No world history record Christianity in Ethiopia prior to the A.D. era. If you can prove otherwise just write it down here."

I don't intend to. My point is not Christianity being older than itself in Ethiopia, my point is Ethiopia accepted it from the start.

"My brother, I am asking you to leave off religion alone"

You are preaching, and you are preaching badly.

"read the truth that is written in the world history text"

WHAT "world history text"? A modern textbook about it? It is true in most of what it says, omits much which is at least as certain, and is often false at edges. I say this as a Christian, but also as a history buff. Even if I were an Atheist, I could not respect as a historian a man who referred to anything as "the world history text", since there is no unique such text. And some of the texts which make the claim are Christian, like Bossuet's world history for a French Prince.

"about promordial human origins"

Primordial human origins is precisely one theme where texts about world history differ from each other. Leakey and Moses are not giving same account of first men, for instance.

"because the bible was designed to keep people mes-identigying things is the real sense."

This is a very interesting accusation, but you are not being specific about how you know that of who would have done that. It is also very much Marxist ideology.

"Our origins is recorded in history, so the story about Adam and Eve is fiction not the fact."

"is recorded in history" - which one?

• Genesis
• Egyptian
• Theogony (which claims to be a revelation to Hesiod and so is not history)
• Sumerian King List (which doesn't specify anything about first men, only about first kings)?

That is what "recorded history" - false or real - means. But Leakey is not giving "recorded history", but reconstruction supposedly a million years after the events.

[Here in the following I am probably answering points which were deleted in his modified version of what I answered, OR was posting an answer to wrong thread, see the other comment (namely I one, quoted below!) I made under video:]

"No spirit God create anything. We are literal"

You are not even grammatically coherent. You argue as if "literal" and "spiritual" were opposite, generally speaking (letter and spirit of law are, when it comes to Moses' law).

"to be spiritual is ti become a fool"

No. To be able to think at all presupposes you are not just matter but also spirit.

"that is what the bible tell people to do."

In some very specific contexts, yes, Bible tells people to become fools. For instance, to become fools to people like you. First Corinthians 1 and 2 tell us that people like you will consider us fools. People who look to their stomach or people who look too much on what other people think.

"you are to become unnatural for the bible to make sense."

Not UN-natural, but SUPER-natural.

"I'm telling the world those characters in the Christian bible are contrivance by white invading criminal white men."

You are taking "whites" as a homogenous group. Also, you are wrong to say all whites who invaded African countries are criminals, French invasions of Algeria and of Ashanti kingdoms were good deeds. But even if not, THOSE white men came millennia after them who wrote the Bible. It's like blaming Kunta Kinte for the evils of Barrack Hussein Obama.

"Are you basing your argument of biblical fraud. What of my research is flawed?"

For instance lack of being specific about details and for instance taking "whites" as one single group and blaming ancestors for what remote descendants perhaps did or perhaps did not commit crimes in doing.

"I have just put down any Ethiopian Christianity."

You have not.

"What is your stipulation for, in reference to whether God etc., is forgery."

My stipulation for a religion being forgery is for instance its making no certified miracles. Mohammed got a revelation, it made great claims, but he never raised one dead or healed one sick.

"I'm not accepting none of the biblical farce."

Your loss. But don't ask the rest of us to lose both or reason in this world and our souls in the next to agree with you.

"What are you asserting into what I have stated to you--just make the connection so I know what your thought is; my king!"

What do you mean by inserting "my king" in your discourse? I am, to the best of my knowledge, king of noone and nowhere, and I am not claiming to be king either. Is it a polite African phrase to strangers, is it what you call every mean according to your philosophy, or what is it?

Tim Aldred

+Hans-Georg Lundahl : I don't smoke or drink to get drunk, sober all of the time. I don't say something and then turn around and contradict what I have said. Here you have affirmed my position many times, yet later you say that I am flawed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have not affirmed it. I have cited your many words, then refuted each. What I put within "quotation marks" is generally your words. After it, I generally give my answer to those particular words before going on to next point. One does not need to have the flaws of drunkenness or drug abuse or even madness to be simply a bit too ignorant to have made a successful research. So, do another research, keep the points in mind I gave you, better luck with your research NEXT time.

[I cited words I was answering so that he should know what I was answering. When putting everything I cited within " and here too italicised - mostly I succeeded on youtube too, when not there were _ around citations as well as " and all my answers without it, I think he should be able to see what I am answering. Since he did nothing similar, but only answered, as if to something I had just said, I do not always grasp what exactly he was answering.]

Tim Aldred

+Hans-Georg Lundahl : You are talking very incoherent, why? Primordial history of the black-headed people, shows to be the product/ handiwork of Anunnaki who had left their homeland to takeover earth. We are first Primitive Worker said the Sumerian/Babylonian record. Unless you are prepared to prove by a different source that the Israelite originate otherwise, you have not shown what I wrote pointless in no king of manner. Why? All intelligent Homo Sapiens Sapiens are the creation of Anunnaki/ Goddesses and Gods... this is the only source of primordial pagan religion. Please speak sincere, this is not idleness for silly Hebrew game!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: None of you above.

[Here I had been very grateful if he had quoted what he was answering. I now see he was referring to my alternative about Genesis, Egyptian, Sumerian Kinglist. From my answer, you will see, I omit answering this, because I was not sure what he was referring to.]

You are not within the same human existence, and chronological construct, shown in the general civilized "World History."

[He still does not see there is no such an entity. Modern textbooks, etc, as I said above and they start with things that are not recorded but reconstructed. Everything about Palaeolithic, except when some modern savages are classified as such, is reconstructed: except if we accept parts of Biblical or Sumerian or etc. records really involved the kind of existence we call Palaeolithic.]

I stick to the general pattern of world history, which group people as a whole. I don't go into into the unlearned confusion where many spend time staking out who they supposed themselves to be. So I maintain the greatest clarity, using appropriate terms, like "world history" BC Big era v. AD anno Domini. Look these are master terms; to define all issues throughout historic times. So you can have your argument about AD classification of your branding of prodigal religions, and group such as whether it be Hebrew or one from the three sons of Noah. In my level of concern about humanity, it doesn't really matter tribe you are from. Earth is belonging to all creatures. Three major powers affect human and lower animal. You question or proposition, concerning Abraham and status of one being atheist is futile, when you face universal high meaningful existence, of intelligent distinction, concerning peoples of B.C. Big era paleolithic time v. A.D. Anno Domini...is moot, null and void!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: Very interesting my king, why do you not know, to cal a man king is complementary? Look, my thinking is that based on your level of reasoning, we can do better on air. Because in that way I can address broadly those points you have made that stipulate. I am inviting you to my show Mon Wed and Sun 4:00 PM EST (661) 467-2407 t'would be wonderful!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: Aha! You are to respect words much more, and advance your certainty of human existence, before giving yourself an elevation beyond your actual status. Here you apply some of the most illogical, and anti-African world history concepts, using words like [atheist]. You don't even know that is not a civilized word, as long as you are from the mold of known intelligent Homo Sapiens Sapiens origins. Then you are an Hebrew of Abraham. Those kinds of thinking are not subjects under B.C. Paleolithic era historic account. If you want to past the test for to be my coach, come on and let us do some shows together, even a go one my king. M. W. and SUN 4: 00 PM EST (661)467-2407

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: The problem here between you and I is you are under the Romans A.D. Anno Domini, and I an under the B.C. Big era. We don't speak the same notions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You are talking very incoherent, why?"

Incoherence is on YOUR side, not mine.

"Primordial history of the black-headed people, shows to be the product/ handiwork of Anunnaki who had left their homeland to takeover earth. We are first Primitive Worker said the Sumerian/Babylonian record."

That is an interesting theory. However, that is not even the record of the Sumerians, it is the reinterpretation of it by people like Zechariah Sitchen. I believe the Hebrew record is more credible than the Sumerian one. And I believe the reconstruction by Sitchen is less credible than the original versions of Sumerian one.

"All intelligent Homo Sapiens Sapiens are the creation of Anunnaki/ Goddesses and Gods... this is the only source of primordial pagan religion."

That all men are handiwork of some god, all except Atheists agree about. I believe in the God Who also had made the beasts and the plants and the Earth and the Heavens well before making men. I also consider that Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Heidelbergensis are descending from Adam. Probably all Homo Erectus, except forgeries (I heard sth about Peking man or Java man being a forgery).

"Please speak sincere, this is not idleness for silly Hebrew game!"

Hebrews are more serious in their silliness than you in all your seriousness.

"I don't go into into the unlearned confusion where many spend time staking out who they supposed themselves to be. So I maintain the greatest clarity, using appropriate terms, like "world history" BC Big era v. AD anno Domini."

You are forgetting, that even if you deny the validity of classifying certain years as AD, these years still occurred. African Ethiopians have under these years still embraced Christianity, so saying Africans NEVER were Christians is simply wrong. I agree Anno Mundi is a bigger era than Anno Domini. We are 2015 AD. When Christ was born it was 5199 AM. 2957 after the Flood.

But what exactly Africans believed in during the first 2957 years after the Flood, is not a matter of historic record. It is a matter of speculation, for most of the time. Adding tens or hundreds of thousands of years is also not recorded history (unless you go by the exaggerated Sumerian Kinglist and consider that a faithful record, I consider it a forgery as to its earliest contents, or at best a misunderstanding), but reconstruction.

"You question or proposition, concerning Abraham and status of one being atheist is futile, when you face universal high meaningful existence, of intelligent distinction, concerning peoples of B.C. Big era paleolithic time v. A.D. Anno Domini...is moot, null and void!"

When we look at UNIVERSALS of human religion, in human religionS, they best correspond to Abrahamic religions and very much better than anything else correspond to Catholic Faith.

"Very interesting my king, why do you not know, to cal a man king is complementary?"

In Europe this is not used as a compliment. I guessed and hoped it was a polite phrase, thanks for agreeing!

In Europe, we have had so many troubles about usurpers, that we reserve the term "king" for legitimate monarchs, we do not use the word as a simple compliment. That is why I was a bit worried.

"Look, my thinking is that based on your level of reasoning, we can do better on air."

I think not, I am afraid you might interrupt me. Also, I do not have a phone that is functioning, so I could hardly answer yes, even if I trusted your radio manners.

"Aha! You are to respect words much more, and advance your certainty of human existence, before giving yourself an elevation beyond your actual status. Here you apply some of the most illogical, and anti-African world history concepts, using words like [atheist]."

[Ah, here he is IS admitting that world history concepts do come in diverging versions, since he is complaining about an "anti-African" set of them!]

Unfortunately, there is such a sect as Atheists. If no sincere such live in Africa, there are some in Europe. Since you did not quote what you answered, I do not know what you were referring to (unless I go back to what I wrote yesterday), but I very much did not say anything specifically anti-African, that is for sure. I am European, and I am pro-European.

I am not anti-African, except for Africans having too much collectivism - as I told another African, who blamed colonialism and supposed genocides of it (last African genocide was committed by Africans, in Rwanda), and exceptionally real ones on "white Europeans" in general, that is as collectivist as if I were to blame the crimes of Barrack Obama on Kunta Kinte.

Colonialism in Africa is very recent compared to what makes up the back bone of European and Christian intellect. BUT since it was on another thread, with another African, I was not saying that anti-African thing to you.

[I was wrong, see above.]

"The problem here between you and I is you are under the Romans A.D. Anno Domini, and I an under the B.C. Big era. We don't speak the same notions."

BC means "before Christ". Big Era does not mean BC, it means Anno Mundi. We disagree vastly about how big anno mundi is really. BUT even you cannot claim to be chronologically before an event that happened 2000 years ago.

"Then you are an Hebrew of Abraham."

I take THAT as a real compliment.

I comment with shorter thread

A previous comment to video:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

0:23 OK, world leaders using religion to "control the populace"? Is that a sin or not? If it is, some men at least, world leaders, are sinners. And if they are sinners, either we are too, or we should ask how they got so much power over us. And no, religion is not the answer.

Tim Aldred

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: My brother, I am asking you to leave off religion alone, read the truth that is written in the world history text, about promordial human origins... because the bible was designed to keep people mes-identigying things is the real sense. Our origins is recorded in history, so the story about Adam and Eve is fiction not the fact. No spirit God create anything. We are literal, to be spiritual is ti become a fool that is what the bible tell people to do. 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 tells that God loves fools and you are to become unnatural for the bible to make sense. Till then Peace. Hey, if you desire, please listen into my show (661)467--2407. on Sun Mon and Wed 4:00 PM EST

Hans-Georg Lundahl
(modifié)

+Tim Aldred I think I had answered you about Corinthians, and it got deleted. Not so, you are repeating here what you said in other thread. Sorry. Sorry also for missing that your Europhobia had already been adressed with the comparison with blaming Kunta Kinte for the crimes of Obama. But you babbled on, and I saw no reaction on that comparison, no "sorry", so I assumed I had said so to someone else.

... on an Important and a Less Important Issue

FLAT EARTH LIES ARE EASY TO DEBUNK!
thirdeaglebooks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x0qi57GEEY

Important issue:

6:54 Actually, I was thinking on lines that Heliocentrism and Evolution Theory are, along with Psychiatry and a few related, what II Thessalonians is speaking of.

Stupid theories, well, Flat Earth is so complicated to debunk effectively that one cannot totally call it stupid.

BUT what about the kind of people who shout "stupid" after Flat earth, Geocentrism, Creationism?

Have they been taught to think? Or just to identify "intelligent" = with = "what my schoolmaster said in class"?

Unimportant or less important issue:

I am Geocentric, NOT flat Earth:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/04/with-james-hannam-on-whether-bible-and.html

Before you present your theories, 2:17 - here is mine: some people have been following me, have been very sceptical or rejecting of my geocentrism the last 10 or more years, and have associated it with flat earth. They have then, most of them gone on, but last year a lot turned just around and found that geocentrism cannot be debunked. They then go what they consider "the whole hog" and go flat earth as well.

Many have rejected the idea that traditional cosmologies of ANY religion stand up to modern astronomy. BUT, once they do find this latter unsure, they are, many of them, rather Jewish than Catholic (very many are 7th Day Adventist, which, except for being just Christian, is closer to Judaism than to Catholicism in many respects). So, if they think "Biblical astronomy works" in their tradition that means flat earth geostationary, not just geostationary. To make matters worse, James Hannam (see link above) has tried to show Church Fathers were not Biblical literalists by pointing out they were Round Earth many of them. This means that a Catholic has gone out of his way to stamp Round Earth cosmology of Church Fathers as un-Biblical, as a compromise with Pagan Philosophy.

You get the picture?

Why would flat earthers say that the Moon is flat? The Moon is not Earth, it is a luminary.

The Moon is in Heaven, Earth (surface) is between Heaven and Hell.

Now that latter point might to some seem clearer if Earth were a purely horizontal limit between these areas. The Moon doesn't have to be that for anything to work.

Note, I am not defending flat earth as a theory, but you are not arguing, so far, round Earth very convincingly.

5:13 You called this the "most obvious" proof?

No. The most obvious ones would be:

• different stars seen from different hemispheres, celestial equator seen from both
• Southern Hemisphere having a series of longitudes where days and nights get shorter and longer than further north, like on Northern hemisphere they get shorter and longer further than further south in winter, the completeness of these being South Pole which has 6 months day and 6 months night, like North Pole
• and the old Magellan proof.

9:11 "that the Moon is a globe" - yes - "and that therefore also the Earth must be a globe"

True per se, but non sequitur from your argument. Unless you add a premiss "Earth must have same shape as Moon" which is simply not demonstrable.

thirdeaglebooks

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I did not make this video to present flat earth arguments but to show that this is a planned government psyop. Flat earthers have zero interest in spherical earth proofs. In fact the stupider they appear the better because they WANT you to associate their flat earth nonsense with Christians and 9/11 truthers.

& thirdeaglebooks

+Hans-Georg Lundahl The moon is the most obvious because it is visible to anyone, even the most uneducated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It cannot be "the most obvious" of the proofs, because it is in itself not a proof.

A Pyramid is more obvious than a manuscript, but that doesn't make the Pyramid the most obvious proof for Christianity, as if manuscripts weren't more relevant as proofs.

"In fact the stupider they appear the better because they WANT you to associate their flat earth nonsense with Christians and 9/11 truthers."

Most of all, perhaps, they want to associate Flat Earth with Geocentrism and therefore with defense of Magisterium of 1633, Church Fathers, and via disposal of distant starlight problem also a Young Earth, like created along with universe 7200 years ago.

... or mostly support of tektontv's Defense of Christmas series

Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths, Part 1: The Fundy Who Stole December 25th
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAZ233XMLDE

2:17 "unless you were a particularly wealthy [or important] person, people had no way to track time that closely" ...

Er, not the case.

Tracking dates is not all that difficult.

If that hadn't been so, how could ordinary Hebrews know what date to celebrate Sukkoth, Seder of Passover, and so on?

Each Hebrew month began by a New Moon. Btw, as with Muslims today there can be quarrels on what evening a month began (up to Hillel II who invented precalculated calendars: Hillel II (Hebrew: הלל נשיאה, Hillel the Nasi), also known simply as Hillel held the office of Nasi of the ancient Jewish Sanhedrin between 320 and 385 CE. Thanks wiki) I think date of Seder when Christ celebrated with Last Supper may have been disputed between Him and non-Christian Jews like Kaiaphas, what evening two weeks earlier the New Moon of Nisan was sighted. So, unless there was a dispute over what evening a New Moon was (won't happen every year same place, rather places tend to differ over where a New Moon is seen same or next evening), it is just a matter of counting days from New Moon. Even ordinary people had that leasure.

Also, Birthdays were looked down on by Hebrews. Instead of celebrating a 30:th birthday party, one celebrated any major party after that - and Jesus was invited to a wedding in Cana. Satan and Angels offered Him kind of birthday presents that birthday, I'd think, and He was probably alerted to Satan's malice because He knew it was His birthday. But when angels offered Him refreshments, He knew He could accept, He had already won that round against Satan. I think those angels celebrating His birthday were what gave Christians the right to do so too.

And in Egypt the Egyptians (who celebrated birthdays) were of course asking. One very early Christmas hymn, to the Blessed Virgin Mary, is from Egyptian Christians.

2:27 You are referring to peasants, but Joseph and Mary were burghers, of the House of David and inmarried (Mary descending) also from Levites.

Also, a peasant in Protestant pre-modern Ozark is what you gave a good description of, but in Middle Ages, one rather remembered date of Baptism - generally eight days later. And it was remembered like "second Sunday after Michelmass" (after 29th of September) and so on. That is, it was remembered after calendaric principles of feastdays.

2:36 Leasure and means to TRACK birthdays were not rare. Means of making lavish feasts on them a bit more so (unless wine, bread, olives and perhaps a bit fish or meat and dates counts as lavish). But thing is, birthday celebration in time of OldTestament was usually a Pagan practise related to Astrology, celebrating your horoscope.

3:58 I am for my part saying it is true he was born that time of the year.

I think for one thing, the courses of priests (Gospel + Josephus) in temple and counting 15 months from conception of St John the Baptist (Gospel again) will bring you to something like that, and if January 6 principally is date for wedding in Cana, this would have happened some time after His thirtieth Birthday, some days between desert and Cana, calling the disciples who were with Him in Cana. Which also means His thirtieth Birthday was around that time of the year.

Now, if Roman and Hebrew calendars don't overlap equally from year to year, and January 6 is correct for wedding of Cana, tracking this back to december 25 forthrity years earlier would be risky - except for that argument about Zacharias in the Temple.

4:12 Armenians celebrate on January 6 : Birth, Adoration of Magi, Baptism AND Wedding at Cana.

Orthodox celebrate in whichever calendar they use December 25 : and if the Calendar is Julian one, that falls, between 1900 and 2100, on January 7 Gregorian. Between 1800 and 1900 (when as yet no Orthodox used Gregorian) it fell on January 6 Gregorian - coinciding with custom of Armenians, whence the mistake.

Chr[i]stmas is Pagan and Other Myths, Part 2: Why December 25th?
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qEk2ieUCOA

Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths, Part 3: Stuffing the Tree Up
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixehxlPnbtE

Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths, Part 4: Christmas Tree Potpourri
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqqnizHe_0o

Not as comments under videos, but as messages to youtube channel:

Since comments are off on part 3 (stuffing up the Christmas tree), and I am halfway through, I am not sure if you have heard the latest:

Writing the Renaissance : 16th Century Christmas Trees
http://writingren.blogspot.com/2015/12/16th-century-christmas-trees.html

Now I'll go back and listen - Merry Christmastide, what's left of it!



And on 4, comments are off as well, actually, there is an even closer parallel than the stones at Jordan.

Purim and Chanukkah - neither of them prescribed in the law of Moses directly per se - only indirectly in a way which CLEARLY points to Christian Holidays being legitimate.

Forgotten the passage, but it was sth about adding to feasts in order to commemorate the great deeds of God.

5:09 same video.

Jews in Jesus' time obviously at least some of them already believed in purgatory and in praying for the departed (at least the faithful departed).

Trey Smith made a video on Henoch, in which a passage sounded like a good reference both to Stabunt Iusti (Wisdom 5:1-5, I think) about those who get to bosom of Abraham directly and to a passage in the Epistles of St Paul about what happens if you build stubble on the right foundation - a passage Catholics interpret as referring to Purgatory, because it does involve the right foundation. Some refer it to Hell and "saved but as by fire" to refuting annihilationism. The passage in the books of Henoch, as I recall, a week or more ago, clearly does give hope for those who need to repent. Whether Henoch is genuine or 3:rd or 2:nd C BC apocryph, it does reflect what Jews clearly believed then.

So, how come Luther understood Purgatory belief was an abhomination so much better than Our Lord when He had time to deal with it?

... and comments on first twenty minutes of Presbytera Dr Jeannie Constantinou's talk on "reading the Bible as an Orthodox Christian"

Reading the Bible as an Orthodox Christian - Dr Jeannie Constantinou
St Barnabas Orthodox Church of Costa Mesa. California
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GHE6oqCc_U

3:50 "the Orthodox Church never objected to translating the Bible into the language of the people" - except of course when it came to Greek. The Greek Bible is still in koiné, a language now referred to as Katharevousa, while the Greeks have long since become speakers of a diverging and now other language known as Dhimotiki. Actually, early on, the Latin Church when it came to Latin was more popular than the Greek side.

http://ppt.li/351

4:26 Alphabets (versions of the Latin one) were given to West European (North of Roman Empire or invading) peoples. And actually, parts of Bible were translated in first millennium, but this was not used liturgically. Except perhaps as a sermon - after the Latin Gospel. Note that Latin was in Gaul up to c. 800 and in Spain and Italy up to c. 1000 pronounced in a popular way, like you pronounce katharevousa after the manner of dhimotiki, and not like historical reconstructions of koiné indicate. Soon after the change in Gaul a council was held in Tours, where a sermon explaining Gospel became mandatory. 813, I think.

5:45 No, Presbytera, the XXth C. mischief is NOT scholastic, and it is neither philosophical nor analytical. A for "critical" which you also mentioned, that is NOT the tradition of the Latin west. I came here to hear about Eastern exegesis, and I hear incorrect side nibs at Western one.

6:05 They do produce documents? Yes. But wasn't Eastern Christianity doing that too during first millennium? Up to the two versions of Constantinople IV, 869 and 879, Easterners were pretty good at producing documents. Not that Westerners were necessarily lousy at it.

6:40 Protestantism was entirely unbounded by any kind of structure? Presbytera, I am a former Lutheran, and I know about a century called Lutheran Orthodoxy in Sweden (meeting of Uppsala 1593 I think it was, up to Bible of Charles XII - which is Bible of Gustaf Wasa plus our last really useful spelling reform, abolition of th, dh, gh, which sounds had recently disappeared). I would NOT say it was unbounded by any kind of structure. Anabaptism perhaps was, but it was more persecuted by Anglicans and Covenanters perhaps too than by Catholics.

[And our own Lutherans persecuted Catholics and Moravians, and even Pietists remaining within the community during that century.]

7:32 by a common interpretation, there is a sense of consistency .... Presbytera, Catholics too. Trent very clearly referred to Church Fathers as a sine qua non for dogmatic interpretation. As binding wenever they agree.

7:52 "that is not created artificially by having a superstructure" I'd say it is preserved by a superstructure, called bishops and monks? And Catholics will NOT agree to accusation of our superstructure actually creating a consensus artificially, more like preserving an existing one against new heresies.

8:33 obligation of Catholics to conform to the teaching of the Pope ... well, since popes used to limit themselves to condemning heresies like "Sun is center of the universe and Earth in the third heaven above it" or "if someone says he'll calumniate you, that agression suffices for a defence which may be lethal to agressor of your honour". Urban VIII and Alexander VII or VIII. Since this was so limited, it was a reasonable approach. But you might be thinking of Pius XII? He said even non-infallible statements had to be adhered to.

8:39 "we never say 'you must conform'"? Hmmmm ... I don't really think so. What about the Sigillion* of 1583? Now, Sigillion and Bull actually mean same thing. And what about the persecution of Old Believers in Russia?

8:45 "we conform ourselves to the mind of the Church" - well, so do faithful Catholics!

12:30 for me as up to then at one age Pagan (not as Antichristian, but as without defined religion and accepting some atheist tenets), at a later age evangelical, when at thirteen I came to a theology class with ma, I did now exactly what was wrong: if Bible and Babylonian myth are similar, it need not be because Bible borrowed from it during captivity (which upsets the authorship of Moses), but "why not because events really happened and Babylonians remembered some details wrong?"

For me, the mentality I had acquired, equipped me to make a challenge, not against the Bible, but against what amounted to a subvertive attack on the Bible.

13:46 Ha, sounds nice!

For me, it is not just conclusions I will not reach, there is also a way of criticising how Modernists reach it, but not reaching them is at least a good thing. Loisy and so were pretty condemned by Pope Pius X. Who of these do you think had the more Orthodox phronema?

15:03 The kind of atonement theology which developed in the Middle Ages is not in the Bible?

"came to gather scattered sheep"?

Or in tradition, what about the difference of where Abraham's bosom was and is, in Sheol and in Heaven, thanks to a certain atonement?

What exactly is it you consider the West (including, I presume, Catholics) to have for theology which is not in the Bible or tradition of Church Fathers?

15:59 To a Catholic of the Latin Church, Academics is a way of life which recuperates that of St Justin and St Catherine of Alexandria. The way of life which means arguing with those who are wrong. Some of the very early Christians, even St Paul on Areopagus (whence we get the conversion of St Denys of the Areopagus - Dhionisios, as you pronounce his name), actually did so. Respecting a known protocol of discussion (going back to Socratic dialogues) was not foreign for them. Sacrificing truth to protocol, yes. And still should be to a good academician.

If you can't defend truth within the protocol, defend it to yourself or those you are concerned with outside it, but hope someone will also defend it according to the protocol : thesis, argument for thesis, argument against thesis, refutation of argument against thesis or perhaps some other order, but those components.

16:51 the idea of "OT age of Father, NT age of Son, x age of Holy Spirit" actually comes from a Joachim of Fiori** - a heterodox abbot, like Origen, he was not condemned himself, but his followers were condemned afterwards. In his case the NT was still ongoing and the "age of the Holy Spirit" was imminent, some of them would instead say x was Church from Acts to Apocalypse, some that it began on Asuza Street, even perhaps ...

How did the Evangelicals deal with Exodus "pi" and "before Abraham was, I am"?

18:56 "here you have a person knowledgeable enough to write commentary who doesn't know that" (it was the Word who spoke to Moses)?

Well, there is academia, and there is academia, this "knowledgeable" commentator was not the kind of academia the Catholic Church has approved of!

It is basically "same finger" which writes on stone and writes on very small stone pebbles also known as sand - in the time of Moses and when Pharisees accuse an adultereSS, but forget the adultereR ... (John 8?) and Church Fathers probably pointed out that He was writing same words (the decalogue)!

What was the name of the un-Catholic commentator? I would like to check if he is old enough to be in Index of Forbidden Books (one edition from 1948 is on the web).

19:14 I would say Western Traditional Catholicism has a mentality which is undistorted by later "developments" or heresies of either Protestantism or certain parts of Orthodox polemics.

That said, I'd pick Palamas over Luther any day of the week (Constantinople V, third time over - his council - was condemned by the Pope, but on VERY few points, like the Blessed not seeing the Nature of God : most of what he said was not considered suspect by the Pope's theologians).

19:32 We Catholics claim that the Latin Mass also belonged to the Early Church. We too share its liturgy.

19:45 "much more organic than it is for" ... Protestants and Modernists, please!***

Try reading Unwanted Priest by Father Bryan Houghton, he was kind of caught in acceptance of Vatican II despite so much, but he knew what "the mind of the Church" was.

19:50 "Ancient and Eastern"?

Hmmmm .... have you missed that St Barnabas ordained St Narnus as bishop of Bergamo, in Italy?

Or that in the papacy of St Clement, Corinth was still the Patriarchate of Rome?

Or that St Irenaeus was bishop of Lugdunum, in Gaul, now Lyons in France?

And Paris claims that the St Denys who was first bishop of - here° - was the Areaopagite. The one converted by St Paul.

Also, Marseilles disputes Larnaka the honour of being the city where St Lazarus the Four Days Dead died as bishop.

Of course, there are a sort of Catholics who will give you right on these issues ... to me they do not seem to have the mind of the Church.

Plus St Paul was from Spain, and so was Hosius, a man who with some wavering supported St Athanasius in his exile.

And St Athanasius was in Trier, now Germany. In exile, two years, but he was there.

* Is the Greek word for Bull now Sigillion - literally "little seal" or Sigillikon ("having to do with, equipped with a seal")? I found Sigillion in Orthodox wiki, but seem to recall Sigillikon. ** Actually I think it was "da Fiore", "of Fiore". My bad, if so.*** On video, she had implied that it was fro Traditional Latins too! °He also had a sound devotion to the Blessed Virgin. After being beheaded, he picked up his head and ran to a statue of the Blessed Virgin, putting his head down before Her. THEN he fell down and expired.

As I mentioned Index of Forbidden Books, here is the online edition I was thinking of:

INDEX LIBRORVM PROHIBITORVM -- 1948
http://www.cvm.qc.ca/gconti/905/BABEL/Index%20Librorum%20Prohibitorum-1948.htm

Full version of short link given above:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Iunctim, Iuncta or Simul
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/12/iunctim-iuncta-or-simul.html

Diverse comments, much on Tower of Babel, some on Christian Feasts on an interview with Rob Skiba

Video commented on:

Mind Blowing Revelation of Biblical Truths and Ancient Mythology w/ Rob Skiba
Joe Joseph
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffpe3Dblzq0

22:10 Most famous for the Ark, but the Flood was one year (though the building of the Ark was one hundred years, if I recall correctly). Reminds me of Middle Ages. Famous for the plague, but 1347-49 were three years (SE more like 47, over by 49, NW arriving 48-49, but had a decent 47). You can consider the Middle Ages 1000 years - or you can consider it 950 years, like Noah's life, depending on where you draw the frontier lines.

If Noah was still around when Nimrod, if Nimrod it was, started building the Tower, would depend on how you draw the longevity charts, i e after what text. You know those of KH by KJV, I presume, here I did some by LXX:

Creation vs. Evolution : Longevity Charts as per LXX
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/11/longevity-charts-as-per-lxx.html

1:25:23 It's not about height - agreed. But one misquote : you stated as if the tower should reach into heaven. What if it was ONLY top of it which should do so? What if top was meant to be some kind of rocket? What if Nimrod had heard rumours about power of uranium in pre-flood wars, assuming these were correctly recalled by traditions (some of them) behind Mahabharata (on Ham - Kush - line, family tradition), and God made sure uranium was covered mostly under ice while he was looking? Like Canada was covered by ice under ice age, and ice age might have been while Nimrod prepared the "proto-Cape-Canaveral"? Now we have Voyager one within a few light hours from one of the two or three places where I might put sphere of fixed stars (one light day, two light days, three and a half light years). God said "now nothing shall be impossible for them", but the punishment back then might have given a kind of delay, which was very healthy.

1:26:10 what exact words in either Jasher or Sumerian texts look like "star gates" or "interdimensional portals" to you?

And, Christ is Born, Merry Christmas!

1:26:17 or sth "on top of what I believe was a ziggurat structure" ... what about Göbekli Tepe? Some have identified it with location of paradise and even "origin of paradise myth", some have not, I think some before me have considered it as at least one candidate for Tower of Babel. But finds have suggested sth very odd about it. Ziggurats may have come later, when GT failed, as a reminder, a bit like how Pergamon Altar of Zeus (some identify seat of Satan with another temple in Pergamon, that of Sarapis) was taken to Berlin, some have suggested not for merely museal reasons. Whatever one may think of Prussian élite, among Babel builders such a move might have been popular.

1:27:03 "Not that they could kill God" - well, they DID, on the Cross, if He gave His life, at least they crucified Him.

[Or we did - each mortal sinner with his guilt.]

1:30:21 [At enumeration of diverse names of Nimrod:] Apollo, I am less sure. Apollo and Shiva might be Apollyon, a demon (or fallen angel, if you consider these as different). Have you checked out what Apollo did to:

• Theban royal house (Oedipus)
  
  
• Cassandra of Troy
  
  
• Orestes and before that Agamemnon?

Now, that is business of Hell. And by then Nimrod was already dead.

1:35:25 "they lived to long ages" - where does it say Og or Goliath were old? A warrior is not necessarily a healthy man, likely to live long. When I took stats from wiki on Russian rulers, I thought "do they have diabetes type I, mostly all of them?" They died in thirties. The Gonzaga house of Modena - well St Aloysius was not the only one to die young. They were frail enough as to health, but that doesn't mean they were necessarily frail in battle. A diabetic consuming lots of proteins to keep it in check can be strong (St Aloysius probably didn't and wasn't - though I am not sure, he was a "tennis" player). So, a man having that kind of health problem is not a real obstacle to his being a warrior.

1:36:11 "ye ruler"?

No.

Not "thou ruler" but "ye rulers" (plural).

1:38:19 I am not sure I would call these non-Geocentric astronomers and their bishops "the Roman Catholic Church", some of them may still be somewhat Catholic, but I am not convinced they all are.

1:39:54 "how do humans pull this off" - like controlling the two main, often only, parties, and controlling the media? Like by LOTS of Englishmen and Colonials being related to John Lackland? Like by Constitution being aristocratic to verge of nepotism in the first place, army carreers enforcing this? Robert E. Lee was related to lots of pre-1776 nobles of Virginia and South Carolina.

1:40:11 They are also part of secret societies ... which indeed began in English Americas in Colonial era, and helped to form US Society. Rosicrucians had probably begun in Holy Roman Empire among people fed up with Catholic - Protestant wars (which had started with the agression of Reformation), and seeking a refuge in light apostasy, these had come over to England by the time of Elias Ashmole, who also integrated "research" of occult type done by Dee. This then came to unite the lodges of freemasonry, which had by then been a kind of political secret maneuvres societies, infiltrated by Rosicrucianism, and this in 1717 hatches an idea of freemasons believing only in "natural religion" (which up to then had meant, not a specific religion, but the amount of Christian truth present in paganism and mahometanism) ... most Founding Fathers seem to have been Masons, Washington and Bzenjamin Franklin were.

1:41:14 "Christmas and Easter"

• 1) Easter is the NT version of Passover, centred on Resurrection more than on Exodus;
  
  
• 2) Christmas has been verified by when Zacharias can have served in the temple. Also, I had read an earlier year, if wedding in Cana was January 6, this brings Baptism of Christ and Christ's birthday to the forty preceding days and a little more. Probably, both Satan and Angels offered Christ Birthday presents : he rejected those of Satan, but received those of the angels. That passage is 30 years after "Hark the herald angels sing."

1:43:21 Sorry, if you believe The Lord revealed to you Christmas is Babylonian, I don't think it was The Lord who revealed it. You are basically saying all of Apostolic Tradition is Babylonian, I am not buying it. Babylonian is like when you start deciding the fates of men based on babbling in a closed circle, where the concerned have no say and often do not hear of it. Babylonian is like when you start accumulating excuses for depriving someone of freedom, or of regarding someone as so sick he can't be trusted with freedom. Buying and selling souls is specifically enumerated in Apocalypse.

1:44:03 "they know what Easter is, they will tell you" - would very much depend on whom you were asking. Joe Joseph was hardly asking the Catholic Clergy in either Bosnia or Iraq. And freemasonry will be there too. And freemasons LIKE TO CLAIM their ceremonies go back to Solomon, Nimrod or Tubal-Cain, and since they have no real tradition from then, they will usurp Christian traditions for it.

1:44:09 "people in the wicca and occult" or whether it was the reverse "they mock us, they know" ... they THINK they know. Who tells you THEY are the best informed?

1:44:19 They are shocked at how much that is going on in the Church is identical to what they did back in Wicca? Well, what if part is some "churches" (including some Modernist Catholics, ecumenical with Jewry) indulging in Kabbalah - and the rest is their former covens having plagiarised things that are legitimately Christian?

1:45:53 Each OT feast has a NT counterpart. They are still the feasts of The Lord - on the Catholic days. And, unlike Protestantism after Reformation, there are more of them than Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and Sundays.

Reply to Objection 4. The faith of Abraham was commended in that he believed in God's promise concerning his seed to come, in which all nations were to blessed. Wherefore, as long as this seed was yet to come, it was necessary to make profession of Abraham's faith by means of circumcision. But now that it is consummated, the same thing needs to be declared by means of another sign, viz. Baptism, which, in this respect, took the place of circumcision, according to the saying of the Apostle (Colossians 2:11-12): "You are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in thecircumcision of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism."As to the sabbath, which was a sign recalling the first creation, its place is taken by the "Lord's Day," which recalls the beginning of the new creature in the Resurrection of Christ. In like manner othersolemnities of the Old Law are supplanted by new solemnities: because the blessings vouchsafed to that people, foreshadowed the favors granted us by Christ. Hence the feast of the Passover gave place to thefeast of Christ's Passion and Resurrection: the feast of Pentecost when the Old Law was given, to the feastof Pentecost on which was given the Law of the living spirit: the feast of the New Moon, to Lady Day, when appeared the first rays of the sun, i.e. Christ, by the fulness of grace: the feast of Trumpets, to thefeasts of the Apostles: the feast of Expiation, to the feasts of Martyrs and Confessors: the feast ofTabernacles, to the feast of the Church Dedication: the feast of the Assembly and Collection, to feast of the Angels, or else to the feast of All Hallows.

Summa Theologiae, I part of II part, Q103, A3
Article 3. Whether the ceremonies of the Old Law ceased at the coming of Christ?
http://newadvent.com/summa/2103.htm#article3

Under 1:44:19

They are shocked at how much that is going on in the Church is identical to what they did back in Wicca? Well, what if part is some "churches" (including some Modernist Catholics, ecumenical with Jewry) indulging in Kabbalah - and the rest is their former covens having plagiarised things that are legitimately Christian?

tommy webb

+Hans-Georg Lundahl why are you trolling? Make your own videos debunking it. Oh, don't want to? Where's your radio show? Where's your research? Where your books you've written? None? Troll!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have written blogs, some of them with the text of my comments under videos.

And apart from "research" there is also a thing called "good sense", like the question "what if the shoe is on the other foot".

[linking here]

Under 1:26:10

what exact words in either Jasher or Sumerian texts look like "star gates" or "interdimensional portals" to you?

tommy webb

Why do you keep coming back to this video and trolling? Get a life bruh!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have a life, of writing.

As to answer, well, I stop the video every time I have sth to object to or clarify on.

tommy webb

+Hans-Georg Lundahl what are you a rabbi or something? Know it all!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, as a Catholic I will hardly be a rabbi.

I am, like Rob Skiba, a re-searcher (confer his definition of the term : what others have searched before, he - and I - search again).

And if I don't know all - only God does - I do know pretty much.

tommy webb

OK I apologize, if that is your true intention. Catholic? Huh, I'll keep that one to myself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+tommy webb - your apology is accepted.

By the way, if you have objections to WHAT I am saying, I welcome the debate.

... against Zionism and those who think Palestine Support is New Age

Video commented on:

Enoch: Prophecy of Isis, Israel, Rapture, World War 3, Antichrist, End Times and Bible's Armeggedon
Trey Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3LacqYR58

My comments are sometimes introduced with quote of relevant passage of video, sometimes just with time in video.

10:50 "The Romans kicked the Jews out of Israel"

Meaning they kicked out most Christ rejecting Jews. Christians who had fled to Pella and not taken part in the war were therefore not kicked out, they were allowed to return to near Jerusalem, not quite into, at least the Holy Sites were covered with Pagan Temples.

10:58 [And the name became Palestine, from that point.]

A change of name by decree from Caesar does not change the population.

11:50

You have passed over SEVERAL centuries without ANY account of what happened in Holy Land basically from Romans defeating Jewish rebellion to English coming to Palestine. How do you do your research?

I do mine in books giving diverse informations, and some off the topic.

THE DESERT A CITY by Derwas Chitty is mostly about Egyptian monks and especially hermits and cenobites.

One chapter is about Palestinians monks.

You hear how they were discovered as being already there when Egyptian monks thought it would be cool to have monks in the land of Christ Himself.

You hear of how they were persecuted under Chosroës, who desecrated the Cross Relic publically. Some Palestinian Christians "reverted to Judaism" (Derwas being Anglican saw no difference between OT religion and Judaism) and later followed Chosroës out of Holy Land into Persia. Those who had not thus apostasised or who reverted were again Palestinian Christians.

But why "reverted"? Only makes sense if their ancestors had in any sense been Jewish : either OT religion or even for some time Christ-rejecting Jewry.

ONE indication that Palestinian Christians were not of Gentile stock.

Here is the next one. The triumph over Chosroës (in which the Cross was honoured publically, as reparation for the desecration, on September 14th), was short lived. The next invader was Omar, from Arabian Peninsula.

Now, nearly last words of that final chapter : tribes who had been Christian came to the monks and told them they had to be forced to become Muslims, but were still their friends (and were indeed friendlier than the subsequent Seldjuk invasion which provoked Crusades with its brutality against Palestinian Christians and against Pilgrims, as I know from elsewhere).

Wait, Palestinian Christians lived in Beduin TRIBES, before Ishmaelite such came from Arabian Peninsula?

Where they some kind of "Arabs"?

Well, arguably they were Beduins speaking Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus Christ!

Palestinians were only LATER adopting Arabic of the Peninsular type, like Syrians who also spoke Aramaic - but they remained the people they were except for a gradual apostasy into Islam. Only slowly did the majority become Muslim. In recent years or decades, I heard of Christians still being 30%.

So, what kind of Semitic people were these Christians?

Well, Judean, Samarian and Galilean Christians of Israelite stock certainly fits the bill!

Other reason

ALSO, I had the discomfort to hear about what a Rabbi had said in Notre Dame. I think it was then and there that I heard that Jews regard Jesus as "not Messiah" BECAUSE He "didn't fulfil" Isaiah 11.

I looked it up.

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.

Fulfilled in Crucifixion and Resurrection, including Longinus admitting He was Son of God. longinus was a Gentile. An empty tomb guarded by angels is a very glorious sepulchre too.

11 - 12 resumé of fulfilment : Pentecost day.

13 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.

Ephraim being the tribe in Samaria, this refers to the union of Judean and Samarian Christians, when Church of Jerusalem sent missionaries to Samaria. Acts 8.

It remains true to this day, in the Palestinian Christians.

They are fulfilled prophecy. Even if they are just 30% of Palestinians and many of them also in exile, they still are so.

Next verses some way refers to end of Paganism and beginning of Christianity in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

I have no doubt. I did not get it by Ouija boards, but by Bible study, which I undertook to convert Jews to Christianity. And by the previous books I had read.

HOW THE HOLY CROSS WAS FOUND by my friend Stephan Borgehammar is also very instructive.

A Jew was tortured by St Helen so as to reveal where the Holy Sepulchre and Golgatha were. He did. But the end of the story isn't he was tortured. He saw the miracles the Cross did. He converted and became a bishop of Jerusalem (where the Pagan temple was taken away, also on order of St Helen).

One thing more : Christian Palestinians are generally NOT the vengeful kind who sing songs about killing Jews. Did you get that?

12:07 Other than religious reasons.

Exactly. Palestinians of Bethlehem, Nazareth (which meanwhile has now recently got Muslim majority, alas), Cana, Gaza even, wanted to stay near the place where Christ and St Peter and St James formed their nation by reconciling Judea and Samaria, but more importantly, saved their souls.

Under Christian Roman Emperors, from Constantine on, official name of land was Palaestina Salutaris - the Palestine where we were saved.

12:33 "even while we watch this"

... Christian Palestinians watch both Jews and Muslims.

They are like Civilians caught in Marseille or on Sicily between two fighting Mafia clans.

Tsahal shoots on Muslims - they duck.

Hamas shoots on Jews - they duck.

They do quite a lot of ducking and taking cover.

12:56

Actually, the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi Jewry (which I don't write off totally as a contribution, but who can't be totality, since the German dialects of Yiddish obviously come from French Jewry expelled into S & W Germany and going eastward from there) have been touted by Ernest Renan, who was a secularist Christ admirer and a heretic, but a bit too early to be New Age. It has also been touted by a Jew whose father was participating in Bela Kun's communist revolution in Hungary. Arthur Koestler.

13:25

The Khazar contribution is not about acting, but about a Turkic people being adopted into Judaism when converting to it.

About the same time as the real Russians, in Ukraine, mainly, converted to Constantinopel's Liturgic version of Christianity.

They certainly honestly felt they were Jewish. But that doesn't make them as Jewish as Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, or as Palestinian Christians, as far as ancestry and traditions are concerned.

14:29

Just for the record, I am NOT New Age, I do NOT believe in Aliens. OK.

NEXT question?

Oh, and as already SAID, I have NOT picked up my views, either on Palestine or on any other matter, by speaking to Aliens under whatever guise. I have been spared "encounters of third degree", unless you count human people behaving like certain aliens, namely shrinks. And free masons.