Brother.M and Peter Wallis Continued

Should I Thank Protestants Who Worry? No. · Brother.M and Peter Wallis Continued

Brother.M

@br.m

@peterwallis4288 Jesus told Nicodemus not to play with the rosary?

Peter Wallis

@peterwallis4288

@br.m don't pretend to misunderstand me. Jesus told him that baptism and belief were necessary.

Brother.M

@peterwallis4288 No I think you have misunderstood the interaction between Jesus and Nicodemus.

Jesus was not explaining to Nicodemus what to do. That would be work based salvation, my friend.

Jesus was telling Nicodemus who he is and what he came to do. Nicodemus arrived thinking Jesus was a rabbi send by God. Nicodemus left knowing that Jesus is the Messiah and will be exalted and that salvation is for the world and not an exclusive club for those begotten of the flesh. That is, those descended from Abrahams blood.

Peter Wallis

@br.m I'm not sure I can view baptism as a 'work'. I suppose, technically it is. But technically, believing is a work. Because you put work into understanding the gospels, then you think and eventually believe.

But I think what you mean by work is doing good deeds in the hopes they will get you into heaven. I don't think baptism fits into that category. It's a symbol of your commitment, it's not something like giving money, or helping at a children's home to get brownie points with God.

However, there are other verses that do not mention baptism being necessary. Whether it is or not, how can praying the rosary take away or keep you from salvation?

@br.m if anyone says the rosary is necessary for salvation, they are wrong. That is not in the Catechism. It is a collection of prayers. The idea being not to pile prayers on prayers to get God to listen, but to take time out of your day to think about the prayers and the "mysteries" (aspects of the Gospels). Prayer is a way to get closer to God. I mean that it plays no part in salvation, but can help you to get closer to God in this life.

@br.m you can be a Catholic and never pray the rosary. It's not a requirement for salvation.

Brother.M

@peterwallis4288 Sorry but baptism is not a work. Nor is believing..

Both are gifts that Christians have bestowed upon them.

The rosary is nonsense. Just like other things Catholics do. Even if rosary is optional, it is just one of many things unbiblical and anti-Christian that Catholics do and preach.

Peter Wallis

@br.m the rosary is just prayers. How can prayers be nonsense?

@br.m and great, you agree that saying baptism is necessary is not works based salvation.

@br.m and actually, Nicodemus did ask how can you be born again, then Jesus explained how. So he was explaining what to do.

@br.m you know what? Don't bother. I've tried to answer Protestant's misconceptions many times, and they don't listen and consider what I say. So I really don't expect you to be any different. I'll just dump it all here, pre-emptively.

No, we don't worship Mary. No, prayer is not the same thing as worship. The word also means to make a formal request. I can pray to my friends. It's just that that old meaning of the word is hardly ever used now outside of Catholicism. Since the saints are definitely alive in heaven, it is not communicating with the dead. We don't worship statues. They are like having a photo of your dear friend, which is in no way wrong.

Brother.M

@peterwallis4288 No sir. Nicodemus misunderstood what Jesus was saying.

Jesus said that he must be "born from above" but Nicodemus thought he was saying "born a second time".

This is what I already pointed out. Jesus was explaining to Nicodemus, who he is and what he came to do. Jesus was born from above. The Spirit rested on him.

I could have tried to help you understand but it is quite a lot to unpack, and you don't seem to be ready to hear it. You seem focused on teaching me something I don't need to learn. You seem to only be reading my comments, so that you can reply to me yo say your opinions. You never seemed interested in any conversation, or that I might have a deeper understanding than yours.

You are forgetting context and you are eisegeting.

Peter Wallis

@br.m he also said, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit." I mean, how else would you explain that? (John 3:5).

And this is a red herring to what we were originally talking about. You claimed that the rosary would somehow prevent your salvation. Well, I don't see why it would.

@br.m and then you say that is works based salvation, but then you seemed to walk that back, claiming baptism is not a work (I agree, therefore it is not works based salvation).

Brother.M

@peterwallis4288 I'm not walking back. Good luck friend.

Peter Wallis

@br.m you say that believing that baptism is necessary is works-based salvation, but then you say baptism isn't a work. You are not logically consistent.

Brother.M

@peterwallis4288 Friend, the topic was rosary.

Then you brought up baptism. Are you saying that you believe the "once saved, always saved" fallacy?

Baptism is not a work. Unless you say it is a work of God. Baptism is something God does. Not me. I am consistent, friend. I think the problem here is you are trying to be right about something, but are struggling to catch me out.

You love the rosary so much, my harsh truth offended your rosary and now you want to find a way to dismiss me as a heretic. Is that what's up?

Peter Wallis

@br.m ok tell me this harsh truth. Just do it. Why is the rosary going to keep you from salvation? Go on, give an actual reason, if you can.

@br.m I said that all that is required is belief and baptism. (My point was, why would the rosary have any impact on that?)

Then you said that would be works based salvation. But then you said baptism isn't a work. So how then is it works based salvation? Just trying to explain what happened. But just ignore that. Just tell me, once and for all, why would the rosary keep you from salvation? All this time, you have not actually given any reason for that.

@br.m come on, isn't there a reason? Or are you just like many others who spew anti catholic nonsense? The rosary is just a collection of prayers. So, please, once and for all, tell us why it would keep us from salvation?

Brother.M

@peterwallis4288 By the way I said nothing about "believing that baptism is necessary is works based salvation".

What I said on that topic was that, IF Nicodemus was receiving instructions on what to do, then it would be work based salvation.

That's why Jesus said what he did about the bronze serpent.

Peter Wallis

@br.m I don't understand your reasoning. So, if any of us receive instruction on what to do, that is works based salvation? And he was enquiring what it meant. And Jesus told him what a person would need to do.

@br.m I really think many protestants just repeat the lies they hear, without investigation or even thought.

But i shouldn't be too harsh. I was like that too.

Brother.M

@peterwallis4288 Get over yourself, child.

Am I a protestant? So I was right. my harsh but true words about the rosary offended you, so you took it upon yourself to take me apart.

Nicodemus is a Pharisee and he knew the scripture well. Like all the stuff in the Old Testament about clean water God will wash with, Ezekiel 36 for example.

Jesus did not tell Nicodemus what a person must do. He said what God is doing. Again, you are preaching work based salvation. How dare you say you were once like me. You don't know me and you don't know the Gospel. Stop making this personal this is about the rosary is bad, and salvation is not work based and the Bible is not an instruction book.

Peter Wallis

@br.m and you still haven't given a single reason why the rosary is bad. Jesus said, baptism and belief to be saved. That is not works based salvation. By saying that it is, you are disrespecting what Jesus said.

@br.m so you can't give any actual reason why the rosary is bad, you just know that it is. Ok then. Fine. Whatever.

@br.m I gave you a quote from Jesus where he says what you would need to do to be saved. He said, all who believe and are baptised will be saved. None so blind as those who refuse to see.

Brother.M

@peterwallis4288 Try to calm down buddy. I already explained the problem with the rosary. It is a symbol of unbelief.

Baptism is not a work but you try to make it one.

Praying the rosary is something for people struggling with unbelief to DO. And typically praying the rosary involves prayer to Mary, hail Mary, and counting your prayers.

I'm sorry you lack understanding. It is not the rosary itself but everything around it. The state of unbelief a person must be in to stoop to the rosary.

Sir, you lack comprehension and you are impossible. I've wasted enough of your time, go find something better to do like go read the Old Testament.

Peter Wallis

@br.m i never tried to say baptism is a work. You really lsck reading comprehension.

Oh, is that so? Really? Some of the most faithful people have used the rosary regularly. You have no clue what you are talking about. Sure, many people struggling with a lack of believe pray the rosary ..... as with any other prayer. Also, that's not wrong. If you are struggling, prayer is a good thing, right?

Anyway, you're so blinded by your anti catholic bias you aren't actually going to consider the possibility you might be wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@br.m "or helping at a children's home to get brownie points with God."

Or giving money to a beggar. The importance of "brownie points with God" see Matthew 25.

"Even if rosary is optional, it is just one of many things unbiblical and anti-Christian that Catholics do and preach."

If un-Biblical means "not explicitly in the Bible" there are lots of things un-Biblical about you.

If you pretend the Rosary is anti-Christian, you need to say why, Biblically, rather than just because Brother.M says so.

"Jesus said that he must be "born from above" but Nicodemus thought he was saying "born a second time"."

In fact, the fairly old Latin translation by St. Jerome has "born again" "renatus fuerit denuo" ...

I suppose you could be taking your take from the Greek, what if Jesus and Nicodemus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew, in which case it won't work?

"You are forgetting context and you are eisegeting."

Because you say so?

"You love the rosary so much, my harsh truth"

Precisely yours. The truth the Rosary is bad comes from Brother.M. So far not traced to the Bible, except perhaps by forgetting context and eisegeting.

"Get over yourself, child."
"Try to calm down buddy."

How's that not talking down to people and an ad hominem?

"this is about the rosary is bad"

I totally agree with Peter Wallis: // and you still haven't given a single reason why the rosary is bad. //

You pretend of course that you have:

"Praying the rosary is something for people struggling with unbelief to DO."

Why just those struggling with unbelief? And why would that be "to do" any more than any other prayer? You have not explained, and I don't think you have a good explanation. Or even half-good.

"And typically praying the rosary involves prayer to Mary, hail Mary,"

Which is one way of fulfilling Her prophecy, in :

Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed
[Luke 1:48]

We are literally precisely calling Her blessed in the words of the angel and of Elisabeth.

"and counting your prayers."

Absolutely not. Having to count one's prayers is a distraction from the Rosary prayer. In a rosary, you are very typically allowing finger movements on auto-pilot and the difference of bead sizes count the prayers for you.

"It is not the rosary itself but everything around it."

Again, you have not explained what.

"The state of unbelief a person must be in to stoop to the rosary."

Again you have not explained why.

We are left with "because Brother.M says so" or "take my word for it bro" ...

Objectivity of Truth

Atheism Logically DISMANTLED (Using Morality, Mathematics & Reason!)
Daily Dose Of Wisdom | 11 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AGZm-2g9os

I 1:00 think Alex recognizes that signpost 1:02 because on his website he rails I think 1:05 rightfully against some of the abuses of 1:07 the Roman Catholic Church where he talks 1:09 about how priests have sexually abused 1:13 children

Does that abuse belong to the Roman Catholic Church?

First, are Roman Catholic (as compared to other recognised confessions and religions) the worst offenders or just the least good at covering up?
Second, are those clergy, mostly really Roman Catholics (as the religion was traditionally understood) or are they modernists?
Third, even among the modernists, isn't that more a thing of the past, isn't Theodore Edgar McCarrick older than James Martin?

McCarrick later met with then senator John Kerry, a Catholic and the Democratic nominee in that year's presidential election. Some Catholics felt Kerry should not have been allowed to receive Communion due to his political position favoring abortion rights.

In 2019 Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia stated that "due to the confusion caused by his statements and activities regarding same-sex related (LGBT) issues, I find it necessary to emphasize that Father Martin does not speak with authority on behalf of the Church, and to caution the faithful about some of his statements."

Note, neither of these men is accused of personally having committed sexual acts incompatible with priesthood. But they represent tendencies and they represent tendencies of at least moderate modernism.

I suppose 1:56 um objectivity to me if if if you want 1:58 my definition would be to say um that it 2:00 is true regardless of human intervention 2:02 regardless of human consciousness for 2:04 instance the Earth orits the Sun that 2:05 would be true if all humans disappeared 2:07 every single one of them it would still 2:09 be an objective fact

Badly chosen example. The Earth shall not be moved.

Only an Atheist could argue this as objectively known from his erroneous Atheism.

Any Christian would run into things like "well, we actually can interpret the Bible this way" (which, even if it were consistently true, doesn't mean by itself we should).

Or things like "God wouldn't pose appearances that mislead the scientists" (when the scientists have their somewhat ad hoc and ultimately Atheism dependent view on how to interpret the appearances, which the vast mass of mankind has no inherent need to agree with).

Also, if all humans disappeared because (possible on his view, not ours) the Earth had ceased to orbit the Sun, what about that?

But actually, for "murder is wrong" to be objectively true, it need not be able to survive the disappearance of all man, it is sufficient that it's a corollary of human existence while it exists.

the 4:05 instinctual nature within us to stay 4:07 alive causes us to think of those as 4:10 objective truths

OK, so, what of the murderer who commits murder because of the instinctive nature within him wanting to stay alive and well, and feeling an intense well-being from the act of murder, alternatively, feeling his well-being depends on things he can only obtain from the murder, alternatively, both of above together?

4:52 Chocolate, objectively, is tasty.

So is in moderate quantities, tar. If you doubt the latter, ask a fan of tar flavoured teas.

A man who can't enjoy chocolate or tar flavoured teas, has an unusual limitation.

Now unusual limitations are there in everyone. We are fallen. The problem is not having one, but having one that affects others.

Like a murderer has a very unusual limitation if he thinks a corpse is nicer than a living person, and it very much affects others if he gets to the living person in order to obtain a corpse. I mean, for a living person to become a corpse, that is certainly being affected.

10:17 There is arbitrariness in mathematical language when you go beyond basic arithmetic of natural integers.

In "3 apples", three certainly is a number.

But some will state "3 meters" also contains this number rather than "3 meters" being a length proportion to a standard "meter" length. I'd balk at that. When we deal with length, we deal with geometry, not arithmetic.

It is certainly true that "(4 - 2)²" is equal to "4² - 2*4*2 + 2²", but is this because "(-2)²" essentially is "+4"? Or is it because "4² - 2*4*2 + 2²" is a convenient shorthand for "4² - 4*2 - (4 -2)*2" — and I hold the latter. There is no essential law about numbers as such saying "a negative times a negative equals a positive" it is just a way of restating "when you subtract something which contains a subtraction, the subsumed subtrahend subtracts from the overall subtraction" ...

14:02 In the Antebellum South, Racism was arguably internalised by lots of Black people.

That's part of why in American English "Negro" is perceived as a slur, as a way of marking inferiority of them.

Such a thing is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. You also find it in lots of Pariahs in India, and in lots of Mental Patients.

When lots of a certain class that's targetted are so Stockholmised they confirm the stereotype, a majority population that's prejudiced risks to have the prejudices confirmed.

If the statements of racists had been ontologically true, it is less certain that racism as a type of action would have been morally reprehensive. The point is, the Antebellum South had its collective moral delusions bolstered by delusions about fact. And those in turn bolstered by a collective Stockholmisation.

17:22 You are presuming it happened the way it is told. Have you gone through the truth claims involved and how they are supported or not, or is it just a prejudice?

Introducing: The Wisdom Society
Daily Dose Of Wisdom | 6 June 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tfSVx3qiKA

I'm so sorry you are including the old-earther and casual bit still anti-Catholic John Lennox, and even worse, the somewhat fanatic old-earther Hugh Ross in your wisdom club.

Someone seems to have made an objection, to my first, and then withdrawn it:

I'm Not Sure if Graham Hancock is Part of My Audience, I'm Part of His

Fact-checking science communicator Flint Dibble on Joe Rogan Experience episode 2136
Graham Hancock Official Channel | 11 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEe72Nj-AW0

I looked up your article, Sir.*

I owe you, you put me on the trace of Göbekli Tepe being Babel, even if you so far do not share that tenet.

I think your weakness is accepting traditional dates. If at certain parts of the early past, carbon 14 levels were lots lower than supposed, that means a remainder of for instance 25 pmC now is less than thought due to decay, and more than thought due to initially low values.

Let's say a Flood happened in 2957 BC. If the atmosphere had a carbon level of 1.628 pmC, the immediate extra years 34 000 and the carbon age is 39 000 BP** (Campi Flegrei).

Let's say Noah died in 2607 and Peleg was born in 2556 BC. If the atmosphere had (in forty of those fiftyone years) a carbon level rising from 43 to 51 pmC (not looking up the decimals), that means that the carbon dates would be 9500 BC to 8000 BC (Göbekli Tepe).***

Shem, Ham and Japheth had lived in the pre-Flood world for 100 years, and they were (presumably) each alive when Noah died. (At least Shem was).

23 000–15 000 BC, Kerbaran (from your article).°

The beginning thereof would like c. 2800 BC, c. 160 years after the Flood:

2811 av. J.-Chr.

7,952 pcm, donc daté à 23 761 av. J.-Chr.

2787 av. J.-Chr.

8,996 pcm, donc daté à 22 687 av. J.-Chr.

The end thereof would be like c. 2700 BC, one century later:

2712 av. J.-Chr.

17,576 pcm, donc daté à 17 062 av. J.-Chr.

2686 av. J.-Chr.

24,062 pcm, donc daté à 14 486 av. J.-Chr.

[It can be mentioned that the oldest shipwreck is dated to 2700–2200 BC:

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

The earlier limit would be a bit after 1700 BC

1700 av. J.-Chr.

87,575 pcm, donc daté à 2800 av. J.-Chr.

1678 av. J.-Chr.

89,4653 pcm, donc daté à 2598 av. J.-Chr.

The latter would be in 1633 BC:

1633 av. J.-Chr.

93,3283 pcm, donc daté à 2203 av. J.-Chr.

Cyprus, mentioned in the video, is considered as peopled 11 000 BC, that is between 2686 and 2659 BC.]

* Gobekli Tepe: Gradual evolution? Or transfer of technology? Or both?
by Graham Hancock, Published 14th April 2024
https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg23/

** Or 37 000 BC.

*** I'll be quoting the tables on this post:

New blog on the kid: Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14
Wednesday 1 May 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 09:28
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/05/mes-plus-recentes-tables-de-carbone-14.html

° Kebaran? It said "Kerbaran" on Graham's site, but the next period was Geometric "Kebaran" ... sounds more correctly.

I Have Some Audience in India

The Stone Age versus the Indian scriptures #stoneage #prehistory #Purana
Radha Mohan Das - Vedic Science and history | 12 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkvLaaaUw28

Göbekli Tepe fits the Genesis narrative very well.

It's West of the mountain land called Armenia, back then Urartu or Ararat (that Ararat has since then been the name of two specific mountains is somewhat beside the point). So it fits "and they removed from the East" ...

It's just three quarters West of the North side of a very square plain, and that square plain is between Euphrates and Tigris, as is Göbekli Tepe itself.

If "Shinear" means Mesopotamia, this fits "and they found a plain in the land of Shinear" ...

In Göbekli Tepe itself, you do not find proto-writing, but things dated older in carbon dates (which I think give the actual relative dates), you find the 32 symbols discovered by Genevieve von Petzinger (and Mr. von Petzinger is such a support for her) all the way from Spain to Indonesia. Things dated younger, you do not find the 32 symbols again, and when proto-writing reappears, its different in Vinča and in Mohenjo Daro, and different again in some place in the Ukraine.

This fits the idea that at the outset "all the earth was of one language" and in the end "God confused their language" ...

If we inverse the order of Ramayana and Mahabharata, the latter fits with a story of a world wide empire gone bad, and Krishna (whom you should not call lord, by the way) died about 150 years before the Flood of Noah.

Ramayana, apart from descriptions of cities that could be based on Indian architecture known to the poets, pretty well describes a Paleolithic world which as a Creationist I would consider as post-Flood.

Mahabharata also features Bhima, a giant, and Genesis says there were giants in the time described in Genesis 6 ("and also afterwards"), so, do we find giants in what one could consider pre-Flood times? If the idea refers to muscle mass instead of tallness, the Antecessor, Heidelbergian, Neanderthal populations, as well as the probably dumbed down Homo erectus soloensis population could fit that description more or less.

A quibble about the Yugas, I think the order is Satya, Dvarpa, Treta, Kali, , since Dvarpa seems related to "two" and Treta basically transscribes "third / tertius / trecias" and so on.

Analysing ' Jesus Christ ' in the Bhavishya Purana - Vedic Hindu prophecy
Radha Mohan Das - Vedic Science and history | 24 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Rph7HwXOs

Generally, Jesus went up to Heaven, He did not resettle in India.

If the apparition you spoke of had been genuinely from Him, He would not have called Earth a planet, and He would not have taken orders from that King about where to establish Himself.

7:04 Is this apparition telling the Indian king he's protecting "the earth planet"?

That makes the apparition fake or falsely transmitted.

Earth is not a planet, God knows better than being a Heliocentric.

8:19 Or their take on it.

Have any special reason to state that Jesus did not adequately establish how to transmit His correct and full message through the ensuing generations of the Church?

When you say His faith was "Judaism" that leads to an equivocation.

Second Temple Judaism? Or Judaism as so called today?

Christianity and Judaism are two contendants for being God's correct continuation of Second Temple Judaism, in both cases in a not quite identic way. As you may guess from the name, it was centred on the Second Temple, which was destroyed in AD 70.

Genesis and Moses in the Bhavishya Purana (Vedic Hindu prophecy)
Radha Mohan Das - Vedic Science and history | 17 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3-Bq5HgjDk

1:01 I'd heavily disagree on all of them becoming Mlecchas (which I presume means non-Indians).

From Adam and Eve, there was a just line by Seth and an evil line (at least often seen so) by Cain.

Each of them contains one Henoch.

Henoch the Cainite may or may not himself have founded a city, but he became eponymous founder of a city as his father Cain decided so.

Henoch the Sethite was taken up, because he pleased God.

The story of Bharat in the Mahabharata is a conflation of both Henochs. While the pre-Flood world's Cainite or Nodian Empire is genealogically equally distant from all post-Flood men, it was taken up as a choice memory by some of them, like probably already from the time of Regma (whom you call Rama and you shouldn't call lord). Probably he turned away from Nimrod (whom I presume to be Hanuman) when he started to build Babel, because he wanted to remember him with more gratitude. And in order to forget about Babel, Hindus later put the time of Rama 10 000 years before the time of Krishna (probably Jubal or Yuval, who is mentioned as a musician). And the flood along with that. And they forgot about things at Babel or anywhere west of India until the Aryans and later the Greeks arrived.

And this isolation helped them to keep the illusion of Rama coming 10 000 years before Krishna instead of Yuval dying 150 years before the Flood and Regma getting help from Nimrod perhaps 250 years after the Flood.

3:41 I highly prefer the Biblical proportion of 300 cubits, 50 cubits and 30 cubits.

A cubit being c. 1.5 to 2 feet.

Why?

Because, I have calculated the rolling period, supposing the weight was somewhat evenly distributed in the Ark and supposing the waterline was halfway up, as is pretty usual with boats. A rolling period of 11~12 seconds would have made for comfort, like a passenger ship.*

I don't know what the rolling period would be with feet instead of cubits, but I fear it would be shorter and more akin to a freighter's rolling period.

4:45 You are looking for the wrong flood.

Noah's Flood was 2957 BC, but would be dated to 39 000 BP in carbon dates.

It was global, and the palaces of Mahabharata kings could be buried below the Himalayas, which rose after the Flood.**

5:22 The Matsya Purana was, as said, pre-posing the Flood of Noah back in time, in order to be able to pre-pose Ramayana events way back too, in order to allow Regma to forget the sins of Nimrod after having received his help.

Here is Jasher 7*** (admittedly a very late work as we have it now), saying about the early carreere of Nimrod:

28 And when Ham begat his first born Cush, he gave him the garments in secret, and they were with Cush many days.
29 And Cush also concealed them from his sons and brothers, and when Cush had begotten Nimrod, he gave him those garments through his love for him, and Nimrod grew up, and when he was twenty years old he put on those garments.
30 And Nimrod became strong when he put on the garments, and God gave him might and strength, and he was a mighty hunter in the earth, yea, he was a mighty hunter in the field, and he hunted the animals and he built altars, and he offered upon them the animals before the Lord.
31 And Nimrod strengthened himself, and he rose up from amongst his brethren, and he fought the battles of his brethren against all their enemies round about.
32 And the Lord delivered all the enemies of his brethren in his hands, and God prospered him from time to time in his battles, and he reigned upon earth.
33 Therefore it became current in those days, when a man ushered forth those that he had trained up for battle, he would say to them, Like God did to Nimrod, who was a mighty hunter in the earth, and who succeeded in the battles that prevailed against his brethren, that he delivered them from the hands of their enemies, so may God strengthen us and deliver us this day.
34 And when Nimrod was forty years old, at that time there was a war between his brethren and the children of Japheth, so that they were in the power of their enemies.
35 And Nimrod went forth at that time, and he assembled all the sons of Cush and their families, about four hundred and sixty men, and he hired also from some of his friends and acquaintances about eighty men, and be gave them their hire, and he went with them to battle, and when he was on the road, Nimrod strengthened the hearts of the people that went with him.
36 And he said to them, Do not fear, neither be alarmed, for all our enemies will be delivered into our hands, and you may do with them as you please.
37 And all the men that went were about five hundred, and they fought against their enemies, and they destroyed them, and subdued them, and Nimrod placed standing officers over them in their respective places.
38 And he took some of their children as security, and they were all servants to Nimrod and to his brethren, and Nimrod and all the people that were with him turned homeward.
39 And when Nimrod had joyfully returned from battle, after having conquered his enemies, all his brethren, together with those who knew him before, assembled to make him king over them, and they placed the regal crown upon his head.

One of the brothers he defended would have been Regma:

And the sons of Chus: Saba, and Hevila, and Sabatha, and Regma, and Sabatacha. The sons of Regma: Saba and Dadan Now Chus begot Nemrod: he began to be mighty on the earth
[Genesis 10:7-8]

7:37 When it comes to Aristotle claiming Hebrews migrated from India, I'd like a reference.

Would it have been the Organon? Or the Politics?

* Creation vs. Evolution: Rolling Period of Ark?
lundi 27 août 2018 | Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 08:24
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/08/rolling-period-of-ark.html

** Creation vs. Evolution: Himalayas ... how fast did they rise?
vendredi 22 mai 2020 | Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 07:39
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/05/himalayas-how-fast-did-they-rise.html

*** BOOK OF JASHER | CHAPTER 7
https://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/jasher.html#CH7

There are some things that Tolkien loved

Did Tolkien Hate...Everything?
Jess of the Shire | 11 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLmvQtnaUKg

I think there may be a solution of part of the mystery of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry.

Obviously, in Fauns chasing Nymphs in C. S. Lewis, there is some gallantry.

In Silenus providing wine and Bacchus destroying the bondage of a bridge, next book, there is some revelry.

And in Tolkien there just may be a hint of "this is how a Christian writes that kind of thing" ...

8:40 Ball point pens are not all that much a question of technophilia or technophobia.

1) CSL had his ingrained writing routines. In rules for writing well given to aspiring authors among his child fans (forget if it was the god-daughter Joan or the family who were Catholics, I think including one Lawrence) two are all about this: a) turn off the radio; b) always read your text out loud. I can imagine that the feel of a filler pen on paper was also part of how he wrote. Obviously, a type-writer would have done too much noise.

2) The first ball point pens were not the best ones. I think Biro and Eversharp were inferior to Bic when it came to avoid ink leakage and things.

12:03 As long as "a little bit" really is a little bit and not Stephen King style graphic, and as long as the war, blood and death happens on paper and not in the lives of the young.

14:15 Someone (I think the guy who is behind Into the Wardrobe) claimed:

• Tolkien considered realistic Greco-Roman fauns totally inappropriate for children
• Tolkien considered inauthentic remake versions of Greco-Roman fauns inappropriate for anyone.

Pretty famously, there is a faun and a girl in the first chapters of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

In this case, I think we can have a notion that not just Catholicism, but also a partly Methodist upbringing (the relatives of his mother were not Catholics, and he wasn't staying with Fr. Morgan all the time) made JRRT perhaps prone to reacting a bit stronger than some others would.

20:16 Tolkien didn't like Dante?

That could very much explain why he didnt like Narnia. CSL was, famously, an admirer of Dante basically as much as Dorothy L. Sayers who, once she had earned lots of money off Lord Peter Wimsey, also made a good translation of Dante.

It's certainly not just that it's about the afterlife, he did enjoy Pearl (which he translated from a West-Midlands' Middle English more remote from Modern English than Chaucer's London Middle English), and he himself wrote a story in a similar vein basically about Purgatory. And in some way, he did put some studies of Hell into Lord of the Rings, like the Barrow Wight.

Probably, he may have felt that what he enjoyed and did was individual case studies (Pearl being a child gone to Heaven, and appearing to console her griefstricken father, Niggle being a somewhat unflattering self insert), and Dante was too much panorama.

26:09 I have nothing against celebrating what Tolkien loved.

• beer
• tobacco (even if I've ceased smoking myself)
• rurality
• taters (you know what Tolkien fan with a youtube channel has a T-shirt with TATERS on it?)
• and (to the measure my poor version of a Catholic life allows me) the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

And adding on afterthoughts into letters by PS and into essays by footnotes.

28:04 And as Tolkien loved Latin and St. Thomas Aquinas, I think you can make an educated guess about what I studied most at university (more than other subjects singly, if not taken together) and what extra course in that language subject I took without getting university credits for it, just because ...

As a mythology buff on my own, I feel the Ulmo chapters in Silmarillion really won't do. I read Hippolytus and concluded a devil really did appear to Theseus in Troizen, and later on sham warn him (but secretly goad him) to the murder of his own son. To Tolkien, no doubt, that was a perverted memory of sth purer, to me it was a real actual event with an actual devil involved. And if you want more on that note, ask an Exorcist about what he thinks happened to Hercules, supposing it was a real person (which I obviously do).

(And yes, a devil could make horses stampede over Hippolytus, just as devils could make swine stampede into a lake near Gadara).

30:00 Let me guess.

Humphrey Carpenter died in 2005, so the extra letters are not his pick?

Voynich, a Tip for Researchers

The Voynich Manuscript's alphabet is smaller than you think (and that's why your theory is wrong).
Koen Gheuens | 7 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uPrt65oiGY

I think this reduction of the Latin alphabet would still be functional:

A 1		N 8
E 2		O 9
F 3		P=B 10
I 4		R 11
K=G 5		S 12
L 6		T=D 13
M 7		V 14

One more reduction, either A=O or M=N would reduce it to 13. Use both, and you could afford U =/=V.

Kasumi Rina

@KasumiRINA

you can easily combine F and P with how Ph works, and R with L too as in Japanese... or you can just use cryptography shorthands.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@KasumiRINA I'm more like into how it would work with Latin.

The Voynich manuscript is not likely to be in Japanese.

I made a reduction, to show how it works.

The extra reduction was doing both E and I into y.

H is systematically omitted, as not pronounced in the Middle Ages, and -um and -am are remade into -o and -a.

Below that I give the original Latin, the opening chapter of Historia Scholastica.

yn prynkypyo yrat uyrpo, yt uyrpo yrat prynkypyo, yn kuo, yt pyr kuot patyr kryauyt munto. muntus kuatuor motys tykytur: kuantokuy ympyryo koylo muntus tykytur proptyr suy muntytya; kuantokuy synsypylys muntus, kuy a Graykys pan, a latynys omny tyktus yst kuya, pylosopus ympyryo non kognouyt; kuantokuy sola rygyo suplunarys, kuya ayk sola anymantya nopys nota apyt ty kua: prynkyps uyus munty yyykyytur foras; kuantokuy omo muntus tykytur, kuya yn sy totyus munty ymagynym rypraysyntat. unty a tomyno omo omnys kryatura tyktus yst, yt Graykus omynym mykrokosmo, yt yst mynorym munto uokat. ympyryo autym yt synsypylym munto, yt suplunarym rygyonym kryauyt tyus, yt yst ty nyylo fykyt; omynym uyro kryauyt, yt yst plasmauyt. ty kryatyony yrgo ylloro tryo ynkuyt lygyslator: yn prynkypyo kryauyt tyus koylo yt tyrra, yt yst kontynyns yt kontynto, yt yst koylo ympyryo yt angylyka natura. tyrra uyro matyrya omnyo korporo, yt yst kuatuor ylymynta, yt yst munto synsypylym yx ys konstantym. kuyta koylo supyryorys partys munty synsypylys yntyllygunt; tyrra ynfyryorys yt palpapylys. upy nos apymus tyus, yprayus apyt yloym, kuot ta syngulary kua pluraly yst, yt yst tyus, uyl tyy kuya trys pyrsonay unus tyus kryator yst. ko uyro tyxyt moysys, kryauyt tryo yrrorys ylytyt, platonys, arystotylys yt ypykury. plato tyxyt trya fuyssy ap aytyrno, skylykyt tyo ytyas , yly , yt yn prynkypyo tymporys, ty yly munto fakto fuyssy. arystotylys tuo, munto yt opyfykym, kuy ty tuopus prynkypyys, skylykyt matyrya yt forma, opyratus yst syny prynkypyo, yt opyratur syny fyny. ypykurus tuo, ynany yt atomos: yt yn prynkypyo natura kuosta atomos solytauyt yn tyrra, alyos yn akua, alyos yn ayra, alyos yn ygnym. moysys uyro solo tyo aytyrno propytauyt, yt syny prayjakynty matyrya munto kryato. kryatus autym yst yn prynkypyo, yt yst yn fylyo, yt ytyranto yst yn prynkypyo syk: yn prynkypyo kryauyt tyus koylo yt tyrra, yn prynkypyo skylykyt tymporys. koayua ynym sunt muntus yt tympus. sykut autym solus tyus aytyrnus, syk muntus sympytyrnus, yt yst sympyr aytyrnus, tymporalytyr aytyrnus angyly kuokuy sympytyrny. uyl yn prynkypyo omnyo kryaturaro, kryauyt koylo yt tyrra, yt yst as kryaturas prymortyalys fykyt, yt symul. syt kuot symul fakto yst, symul tyky non potuyt. lykyt ynym yk pryus nomynytur koylo, kua tyrra, tayn skrypto yst. yn ynytyo, tu tomyny, tyrra funtasty, yt opyra manuo tuaro sunt koyly, ank kryatyonym munty praylypata, sup opyrypus syx tyyro yxplykat skryptura, ynsynuans trya, kryatyonym, tysposytyonym yt ornato. yn prymo tyy kryatyonym, yt kuata tysposytyonym; yn sykunto yt tyrtyo, tysposytyonym; yn rylykuys trypus ornato.

In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat principium, in quo, et per quod Pater creavit mundum (Joan. I). Mundus quatuor modis dicitur: quandoque empyreum coelum mundus dicitur propter sui munditiam; quandoque sensibilis mundus, qui a Graecis pan, a Latinis omne dictus est quia, philosophus empyreum non cognovit; quandoque sola regio sublunaris, quia haec sola animantia nobis nota habet de qua: Princeps hujus mundi ejicietur foras (Joan. XII); quandoque homo mundus dicitur, quia in se totius mundi imaginem repraesentat. Unde a Domino homo omnis creatura dictus est, et Graecus hominem microcosmum, id est minorem mundum vocat. Empyreum autem et sensibilem mundum, et sublunarem regionem creavit Deus, id est de nihilo fecit; hominem vero creavit, id est plasmavit. De creatione ergo illorum trium inquit legislator: In principio creavit Deus coelum et terram (Gen. I), id est continens et contentum, id est coelum empyreum et angelicam naturam. Terram vero materiam omnium corporum, id est quatuor elementa, id est mundum sensibilem ex his constantem. Quidam coelum superiores partes mundi sensibilis intelligunt; terram inferiores et palpabiles. Ubi nos habemus Deus, Hebraeus habet eloim, quod tam singulare quam plurale est, id est Deus, vel dii quia tres personae unus Deus creator est. Cum vero dixit Moyses, creavit trium errores elidit, Platonis, Aristotelis et Epicuri. Plato dixit tria fuisse ab aeterno, scilicet Deum ideas , ile , et in principio temporis, de ile mundum factum fuisse. Aristoteles duo, mundum et opificem, qui de duobus principiis, scilicet materia et forma, operatus est sine principio, et operatur sine fine. Epicurus duo, inane et atomos: et in principio natura quosdam atomos solidavit in terram, alios in aquam, alios in aera, alios in ignem. Moyses vero solum Deum aeternum prophetavit, et sine praejacenti materia mundum creatum. Creatus autem est in principio, id est in Filio, et iterandum est in principio sic: In principio creavit Deus coelum et terram, in principio scilicet temporis. Coaeva enim sunt mundus et tempus. Sicut autem solus Deus aeternus, sic mundus sempiternus, id est semper aeternus, temporaliter aeternus angeli quoque sempiterni. Vel in principio omnium creaturarum, creavit coelum et terram, id est has creaturas primordiales fecit, et simul. Sed quod simul factum est, simul dici non potuit. Licet enim hic prius nominetur coelum, quam terra, tamen scriptum est. In initio, tu Domine, terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt coeli (Psal. CI), hanc creationem mundi praelibata, sub operibus sex dierum explicat Scriptura, insinuans tria, creationem, dispositionem et ornatum. In primo die creationem, et quamdam dispositionem; in secundo et tertio, dispositionem; in reliquis tribus ornatum.

Koen Gheuens

@koengheuens

@hglundahl Excellent! I may use this as an example in a later video.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@koengheuens Enjoy!

I Do Not Intend to do AA or Similar ...

New blog on the kid: If Some Idiot Pretends it was Irresponsible of Me to Go the Camino de Santiago in 2004 · Where are the Homeless in Poland? · I'm Not Likely to Admit I Need a Certain Type of Help · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: I Do Not Intend to do AA or Similar ...

... and I do not intend to humble myself being sorry right or left because someone decided to get hurt at something which inherently wasn't hurtful, or if hurtful for him, wasn't intended for him.

If crooks who were treating my mother possibly made sure she was hurt at sth I actually or supposedly did, it's not for me to apologise to her memory, it's for them to ideally go to prison for having mistreated her.

A Weirdly Christian YouTuber Apology Video
Emma Thorne | 9 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uegoA4wGYZY

"I 3:35 was difficult to work with. I took a lot of opportunities that I didn't deserve 3:41 and also had no business doing. (Gabbie laughs) There were a lotta people who kind of, you know, 3:46 practiced and trained and wanted some of those opportunities their whole lives and I was able to do them with really little 3:54 to no actual effort in that space. So also sorry to anybody who deserved the opportunity more than me. 4:01"

Sounds like she believes "narcissism" is a thing.

Her Church must be heavily modernist.

" This bit makes me uncomfortable because it feels like it's come from therapy. 8:24 That's a wild guess and I apologize if it's untrue. I just think that it sounds like the sort of thing 8:31 that your therapist tells you to do to understand your feelings in a situation. 8:36 Like writing out letters of apology, writing out your feelings, is the kinda thing that a counselor might suggest you do."

We could also be dealing with some kind of AA like thing.

__________________

Very seriously, AA is a hateful thing, and so are quite a few therapists of the psychological, psychoanalytical kind./HGL