Geocentrism Revisited

The Motion of Planets and the Geocentric Model
Jason Kendall | 26 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np9Rk3q-s_g

10:29 We see Sun, Moon and Stars moving from East to West, and we see Son, Moon and other Planets move from mostly West to East along the fix stars.

Now, the thing is, while parallactic views of things (like seeing houses move in a train ride) are possible, I would consider this possibility an insufficient argument for Earth moving.

I think only two arguments of necessity are possible.

They are opposed and depend on what youo think is the most obvious.

Both share the premiss that

• the Geocentric especially Tychonian Ricciolian movements are too complex for being simple products of automatic processes like inertia or gravity.

One continues:

• But on this scale, voluntary causes are non-extant;
• Therefore Geocentrism is an illusion.

The other continues:

• But Geocentrism is what we directly observe;
• Therefore causes that have will do exist and have power on this scale, like God and angels.

I know what an Atheist would chose. Given I'm Christian, can you guess what I would chose?*

---

* Jason Kendall should still be alive. He posted a video 10 days ago.

---

16:48 Tycho Brahe died in 1601.

His system was updated by Riccioli and was advanced against Galileo in the debate over his Assayer. St. Robert Bellarmine didn't bother to try to defend Ptolemy as such.

The update by Riccioli took into account Kepler's view on orbits being bifocal ellipses, not monocentric circles.

Now Riccioli's work was 17th C, Almagestum Novum came out in 1651.

17:32 As far as I can recall, "Almagest" is a corruption of "he megale syntaxis" just as "Istanbul" is of "eis ten polin" ...

Other video:

The Dawning of Astrophysics
Jason Kendall | 27 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MfMGPppzg0

14:29 to past 14:39
instead of using circles he tried an ellipse so he said ah wait if I make the orbits not circular but ellipses guess what and put the Sun at the focus of one ellipse then it works

And if the ellipses are then later by Riccioli (after Kepler died) put back into Tycho Brahe's idea of Geoheliocentrism, it still works.

Rapture Theology and Date-Setting, NOT the Same Thing

Is The Rapture Biblical?
Marie Mazzanti | 12 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HcyIJwhU6Yg

Let's be specific about the last point, shall we.

Day or hour is way more specific than "within a decade or two" ...

Now, a Catholic authoritative text, actually has connected the verse to date setting in the more general sense.

However, the text is in Lateran V, under Pope Leo X.

And the point to observe is, it comes in a disciplinary decree concerning preachers.

So, on that text, if I were ever appointed bishop or curate, or even certain types of deacon, I'd have a duty to avoid date setting. However, it doesn't specify laymen must have the exact same extra caution beyond Our Lord's words.

I totally agree on the post-Trib rapture, by the way, no Darby-fan here.

---

Never read or saw Left Behind.

Disagree on the character of "Nicolae Jetty Carpathia" (which doesn't add up to 666), there is no indication the Antichrist will sign a peace treaty.

However, I did read Mother Basilea Schlink. Lutheran nun, died in 2001. She wrote one book on angels, specifically guardian angels and one on the scary chapter of the Apocalypse (and she didn't teach a pre-Trib rapture).

Reunion of Israel and Judah, Fulfilled 2000 Years Ago, Nearly

Israel and Judah Were Reunited in Christ, Not in 1948 (Ezekiel's Two Sticks)
Christ The King | 15 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eng8Ez1YHwU

1:07 Unless the Church as such restored them.

Christian Palestinians to this day are fruits of this reunited Kingdom, in the correct covenant, or for EO and Copts, a version of it.

3:30 And David ruled over Samaria at the well of Sychar and in Acts 8.

9:46 It can however be a population which for 2000 years has been at peace between North and South, between Kana and Samaria, Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and for the same time unarmed, fulfilling some peace prophecies about precisely Ephraim and Judah.

Jews to their detriment conflate this prophecy or these prophecies, which are fulfilled in the Christian Palestinian population, with the more universal prophecy of "the word of the Lord shall go out to the nations, commanding peace" which doesn't state this word would be obeyed at all or even most times by all. However, between Judah and Ephraim, the prophecy says actual disarmament.

Fulfilled in Christian Palestinians. (Al Qassem brigades are Muslim Palestinians, not Christian ones).

17:14 Both have been restored as the two first dioceses of the Catholic Church.

17:30 Historical evidence.

I happen to have read more history of the region than most, between Jesus' time and ours.

AD 70 to 313. The ethnically Jewish Church of Jerusalem fled to Pella (al Fahl in Jordan) and then returned after the legions left.

That's part of how St. Helen could find the Holy Cross, the Church recalled the locality of Calvary.

Chapter 1, I think, of Stephan Borgehammar's How the Holy Cross was Found: from event to Medieval legend.

AD 313 to Omar.

Chosroes invaded. He persecuted Christians and favoured Judaism. Many Christians "returned to the Judaism of their fathers" (the wording of the Anglican author, Derwas J. Chitty), implying they were of Jewish ethnicity.

Omar invaded. Some Beduin tribes (so Semitic populations) went to their monastery and told them "we were forced to convert, we are now Muslims, we are still your friends" implying Muslim Palestinians have ancestry in this Christian Palestinian (or possibly Negev Beduin) population.

Last chapter of The Desert a City by Derwas James Chitty. Previous ones were on Egyptian monasticism, this last one on Palestinian monasticism.

Archaeology. During my "excursion" to Orthodoxy (I'm a convert from Lutheranism in 1988, revert from Orthodoxy in 2009), I met a priest's or deacon's daughter or granddaughter, who had been at an archaeology dig of a monastery from this period, halted by Zionists. She displayed an Aramaic Our Father as found there.

Omar to present day. Both Christian Palestinians and Jews have been put under pressure to become Muslims and are thus roots of the Muslim Palestinian population.

Genetics. An iron age skeleton from Galilee has been compared to modern populations.

1) Closest match: Samaritans.
2nd closest: Christian Palestinians
12th to 15th closest: Muslim Palestinians
3rd to 11th or 3rd to 14th) between these last ones several populations of Mitsrahi Jews and also two populations of Druz.

She underdoes [understates] the case for Catholicism

Was the Reformation a Return to Biblical Christianity?
Humbled Catholic | 14 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUl9uK6-lNw

Before I hear your answer, no.

Matthew 28:16—20.

The passage means Jesus built his Church on Apostles (verse 16 tells us whom He's talking to), what their mission is (all truth and all justice), what their help is and for how long (Jesus Himself and every single day to the end of time), what His power is (all power in Heaven and on Earth) ...

This being so, there can be no "return to Biblical Christianity" ever, except individually or regionally or otherwise less than universally. Because it can never be universally lost.

The only Protestants who get this right are those supporting Baptist Continuity, and they don't claim the Reformation was a "return to Biblical Christianity" but rather an attempted and botched return to it under influence of Baptists who had never left it.

What these guys get wrong is Matthew 5:14—15. The continuing Church cannot be a hidden secret society.

1:53 Calvin actually was somewhat insincere (or very obtuse) about Matthew 28:20.

In his commentary, he states that the promise doesn't mean Jesus ties Himself like a mercenary to all supposed successors who might change His doctrine, but he doesn't even adress the question where (if not in the Catholic Church) the doctrine hadn't been misrepresented.

2:08 "the Church is always in need of purification and reform"

The Church Universal?

2:16 not every action of every Catholic

No, but every doctrine held by the Church Universal. I don't defend (at least not actively) the expulsion of Jews from Spain, but I do defend the expulsion of Jews with exceptions by St. Pius V, or the expulsion of Jewish usurers by St. Lewis IX of France.

7:01 Actually, some shall we say "thoughtful" Protestants actually agree with you about Tradition in the First Century, they just say that past then, the only remaining infallible authority is Scripture.

Obviously, this contradicts Matthew 28:16—20.

But at least it admits that Jesus didn't establish Sola Scriptura as such.

Nero Turtle Made Two Videos Recently

First Video:

Catholicism disregards Scripture.. ‪@anamunley‬
Nero Turtle | 13 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv2-8I64cHc

My first reply is in this dialogue:

Mark Anthony

@Searchformeaningalways

As a former devout Roman Catholic, for any person and/or organization to declare that a human being is uncategorically in heaven, is pure HUBRIS.

Nero Turtle

@NeroTurtle

the bible is very clear that we do not know the hearts of men. And although outwardly they may have been and done great for the kingdom, we do not know their motives. Canonization is anti biblical. 100%

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@NeroTurtle "we do not know the hearts of men."

That's why we don't canonise living persons.

"Canonization is anti biblical. 100%"

And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
Luke 23:43

Some Catholics have claimed this was the first canonisation. I would say this was the first New Covenant canonisation — or the last Old Covenant one.

Previous Old Covenant ones include:

But for David's sake the Lord his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem Because David had done that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and had not turned aside from any thing that he commanded him, all the days of his life, except the matter of Urias the Hethite
3 Kings (1 Kings) 15:4-5

We do not see a man's heart. God does. And God can respond about it, like for Hagiographers and prophets about King David, like at the Crucifixion about St. Dismas, or by working miracles on behalf of a deceased saint, as per canonisations in more recent times, after the canonic books were all written.

If the Catholic Church cannot even humanly speaking recognise a miracle, how come Biblical authors could?

Claiming Moses couldn't know if he had parted the Red Sea, as a human, but somehow he still could know so as hagiographer and Israelites only knew they had walked through the Red Sea by accepting the account of the Exodus, not from memory, well, that makes simply no sense at all.

Oh, Biblical proof that miracles are endorsements of people:

So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.
Acts of Apostles 19:12

1:20 Apocalypse 6:9—11 doesn't use the term "saints", but clearly describes a category which is the most popular usage of "saints" in the Catholic Church.

The body of believers are, as Saint Paul uses it, collectively speaking saints. This doesn't guarantee that each individual in this collective is a saint.

If your sole beef with Catholicism is we use a different terminology, can you show beyond reasonable doubt that Biblical usage never varies in terminology for any concept?

Other example, St. Paul probably says "episkopoi" for what we call "priests" (presbyteroi), and for what we call diocesan bishops, he probably said "teachers" ... while he had other terms for other categories of bishops, including in his time still apostles (not limited to the twelve, btw).

Nero Turtle

We have a different perspective on death. I am of the camp called "sou sleep" and can use Revelation 6 alongside much of the rest of the bible to establish my view. For example, you can not use merely one verse to establish a doctrine. Regardless, you agree with my point in the second sentence in that alive people are saints. Thus the idea of become a saint only after death is not biblical. I have a lot of "beef" with Catholicism. As a protestant, there are three camps of eschatology. I am a historicist. In this camp, Catholicism (the system) is the first beast. The pope in history as a figure through all time (not a person in the future) is the anti-christ. Rather than writing a novel and in turn reading a novel... I recommend you watch the lecture series called Historicism made Easy on my playlists. It is a 37 video lecture series that covers the protestant reformation, historical continuity that establishes that timeline of the prophecies of Daniel, and more. Much of the material on the series actually comes from the Vatical Digital Library of all places. Just a snippet... the anti-christ will think to change times and laws. Publications like The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine by Rev. Peter Geiermann and historical extracts like The Catholic Mirror (1894) used colloquial or hyperbolic phrasing—stating that the Church transferred the solemnity or authority of the day. We also have (CCC 2190–2191): Clarifies that the Sabbath has not been "moved" by a later human decree, but rather replaced by Sunday to recall the new creation inaugurated by Christ's Resurrection. Not to mention we are on the using the Gregorian calendar after pope Gregory. I could type a book. I just suggest you watch the playlist. If you skip around you are missing out, because there is physical material evidences for my belief. Not just philosophical ones.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NeroTurtle "Thus the idea of become a saint only after death is not biblical."

It's also not Catholic.

As mentioned, "saint" doesn't mean quite the same thing in both contexts.

You want a second verse for saints in Heaven ruling with Christ? You are a preterist, right? Or is historicist very different?

I'll give you two:

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection. In these the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ; and shall reign with him a thousand years
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 20:6]

With the first resurrection not being a bodily one 1000 years in advance of goats and sheep judgement, but a spiritual by regeneration from sin, this means the saints are reigning with Christ. I e interceding for us.

The second death, i e damnation having no power means they are already safe and cannot be damned, this means they have died.

One more, given by St. Jerome:

These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb:
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 14:4]

So, if Jesus come to me, hearing me, they come to me as well, and I can adress them, or if I know someone to be among them, I can adress him.

Soul sleep ... a certain Mark Eugenicus of Ephesus, refusing to sign the council of Florence, actually taught soul sleep while denying Purgatory. He didn't deny prayers for the dead and also not prayers by the ones in blessed soulsleep awaiting a blessed resurrection.

As to the martyrs under the altar resting, it's not incompatible with them speaking and therefore doesn't teach soul sleep, at least not an uninterrupted one.

@NeroTurtle "In this camp, Catholicism (the system) is the first beast."

If the problem is having a different week from Old Covenant Jews, do you require Christians to use the Hebrew calendar too?

Even if Hillel II changed it from one observed to a pre-calculated?

I think I'll post this question under your historicism video though ...

@NeroTurtle wait, the historicism video you link to isn't yours and it also doesn't allow comments ....

2:52 As said, "only God knows the heart of a man" applies prior to God deciding to reveal sth about it.

Miracles are His preferred way of doing such revelation, as per Biblical ones.

Nero Turtle

show me in scripture where doing a miracle vindicated if that person would make it to heaven later. Obviously, we would both agree that people like Arron and Moses are on the team and they did that cool snake thing and such. However, show me in scripture that doing a miracle vindicates your salvific status.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NeroTurtle "show me in scripture where doing a miracle vindicated if that person would make it to heaven later."

No where at all.

Judas did miracles and the guys who Jesus talks to with "I never knew you" at least were practising exorcists (which is a specific office in the Catholic Church, no more guarantees you will make it to Heaven than giving a valid absolution or celebrating a valid mass, even greater miracles).

That's why post mortem miracles are important.

Jesus didn't say "I never knew you" to people saying "did you not wake up dead from our bones?" as with Elisha / Eliseus or with St. Martin of Tours.

3:29 The "I never knew you" passage involves people doing miracles while alive and being endorsed by God for something other than their persons.

When God does a miracle on behalf of someone already deceased, it's either not quite complete as a miracle, or it's an endorsement of the person.

And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet
4 Kings (2 Kings) 13:21

Nero Turtle

I am very aware about the verse on the person being healed by the bones. Beyond that you made a few claims. I look forward to scriptural validation on both of them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NeroTurtle I think you'd agree that God validated Eliseus before IV Kings (or you might call it II Kings) was completed and a hagiographer did so.

I also think you would agree that the raising of one dead with Elisha or three dead with St. Martin of Tours is a very complete miracle.

My observation on incomplete ones is hedging. Not a primary claim of Catholicism, but hedging.

Second Video:

Catholicism's interpretation of sacred Scripture.. ‪@TotusCatholicaEN‬
Nero Turtle | 17 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7UbbQZiWY

Nero Turtle

[pinned comment,
original text]

Root word: βατταλογήσητε - vein repetition. Catholicism tends to argue that older is better. But only when it suits the agenda. The lexicon conclusion for this matter was established in 1611. But they prefer the 1960 version.

[pinned comment,
changed text]

Root word: βατταλογήσητε - vein repetition. Catholicism prefers to confirm their faith from a copy of a copy. Rather than directly from the Hebrew and Greek. (edited because a Catholic commenter corrected me on my points regarding dates. I am okay admitting I was wrong.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The lexicon conclusion was a minority opinion by scholars from Geneva and later England.

Exactly three old Bible translations have this: Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, King James.

Douay Rheims is earlier than King James and has:

And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard
Matthew 6:7

Now, this repeats the way St. Jerome dealt with it, by rephasing. However Coptic and Syriac translations actually do give a translation "don't stutter" ...

EXACTLY what human type of discourse can be described both as stuttering and as using many words? Explaining yourself to someone above you, and don't completely trust, and being nervous.

This is exactly what Velleius Paterculus did in the last chapter (paragraph we would say) of his Roman History book II. Not by repetitive insisting on a phrase, but by constant rephrasing, from one deity to the next, hedging the petitions, giving each "a reason" to hear the prayer.

Now, "older is better" doesn't mean a Renaissance scholar or an Enlightenment scholar is better at history or linguistics than someone after 19th C.

1:23 I'm sorry, you are susbtituting Calvin's pseudo-scholarship and its English endorsement for the actual Greek.

As I recall, saying something over and over again actually has a known Greek term, it's thrallein.

Nero Turtle

The Douay-Rheims was a translation of a translation. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate. I think you and I have talked on that before already. Good note on the dates though. I will change the pinned comment since you are correct on the dates.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NeroTurtle Did you totally skip my second comment and did you only read the first lines of my first one? There is a button "see more" and when people miss that, I speak of "Seymour syndrome" ...

Now, to your changed text:

"Catholicism prefers to confirm their faith from a copy of a copy. Rather than directly from the Hebrew and Greek. (edited because a Catholic commenter corrected me on my points regarding dates. I am okay admitting I was wrong.)"

You missed the Syriac and Coptic BOTH giving a real translation of battalogein rather than rephrasing, and BOTH translating "stuttering" ... you also missed that repeating a phrase over and over again is "thrallein" in Greek.

Greco-Roman pagans didn't have repetitive prayers, but they did have prayers that come across like Edmund stuttering to the White Witch ... starting over and over again, not of a will to persist, but of a fear of having missed the right formula. Velleius Paterculus' last preserved paragraph is an example.

2:00 "between sacred and forgotten"

Not sure where the Catholicism is that he's describing, there are lots of Catholic places where praying the Rosary (including the Hail Mary's over and over again) is very commonplace.

Some of This Gets Personal, But I Don't Neglect Rational Inquiry for Navel Gazing ... (Features Fatima)

How Catholics Know if it's a Miracle
Brian Holdsworth | 15 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlpjRtmSJhU

Re beginning.

I have not stated I'm a prophet, so I don't need to prove it by miracle. The only proof I have to provide as a debater is rational argument.

If any "Catholic" has taken my writings under the scrutiny "real or false prophet?" that's abusive.

Not saying someone necessarily has, but that would kind of explain the "radio silence" ... something that could have been imposed for the sake of such a test.

There are other reasons I could think of, at least one of them worse.

6:17 Angels and demons can move objects by their act of will, not totally unlike how the human soul does with the human body, but the higher spirits aren't inherently tied to a specific material object.

Technology can move objects by the physical effects of other objects, which are ultimately moved by what a man's body can move moved by man's will.

I can turn a switch or hit letters on a keyboard, then technology produces the light in the room or the letters in your comment section.

10:27 Alas, my beginning relief from lice on death date and burial (deposition) date of Charlie Kirk do not meet the criterium sudden and inexplicable.

There still are some ...

10:57 Angelic beings do have the power to move celestial objects.

However, a demon couldn't actually move the Sun, because an angel in grace with God is moving it.

That said, there are Catholics who have claimed the thing happening didn't happen up at the level of the Sun at all ...

I think Dom Stanley Jaki OSB made such a point and also pretended this applied to Joshua's long day.

11:16 Illusions are not always through states of mind.

A physical appearance of something happening is, given demons can move objects and manipulate light, per se possible.

11:33 If a demon alters what's visible from below the atmosphere, from the ground, the demon doesn't need to have access to the minds.

Note, I'm a Fatima defender, but I don't feel we need to overdo what's impossible to demons.

Because God won't produce a miracle for someone if it won't help them in their faith.

I'm sorry, but God can produce miracles for one person to benefit the faith of someone else.

13:46 If they had stronger evidence of Catholicism being bad than the miracle is of it being good, that would not be circular reasoning.

They don't have that, in actual fact, but it would be a "breaking of the circle" as such arguments are "healed" ...

Let's not be Noahides, Shan't we!

Caleb Flynn's Inlaws "We Forgive You"
Allie Beth Stuckey | ? October 2026
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o1VL4SDzHx4

The government has a responsibility to execute murderers?

Bible or Noahide "laws"?

Romans 13 speaks of "the prince" who was an heir of Julius Caesar, and those ended in 1918 when Charles the Last left Hofburg.

Even very vile murders can be forgiven not just on the moral, but also on the penal plane.

Stabbing a younger girl you are impatient to seduce while she resists you and doing so 14 times giving her 24 more hours to live on earth is a very vile murder.

Alessandro Serenelli was forgiven by the mother, and not least by the victim herself, St. Maria Goretti. While she was dying and after confessing, she was worried he would go to Hell, and told, not necessarily, not if you forgive him and pray for him.

She spent her last 24 hours praying for her murderer and in prison he converted. Sentenced to 30 years, he did 27. When he came out, Assunta Goretti, the mother, forgave him.

---

Genesis 9? Eisegesis.

For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God
[Genesis 9:5-6]

God says "I will require" and not "you shall require".

He also says "shall be shed" and not "ye shall shed".

---

Haydock commentary on above verses:

Ver. 5. At the hand; a Hebrew idiom. God orders an ox to be stoned, which had slain a man, Exodus xxi. 28. --- Man, (hominis) every man, (viri) brother. By these three terms, God inculcates a horror of bloodshed; because we are all of the same nature, ought to act like generous men, and to consider every individual as a brother, since we spring from the same stock. (Menochius)

Ver. 6. Shed. God had not subjected Cain to this law of retaliation, as he was the first murderer, and the earth was unpeopled. (Haydock) --- Here he declares, that it is just to inflict such a punishment on the offender. (Menochius) --- Judges are hence authorized to punish murderers with death. (Calmet) --- The general law, thou shalt not kill, admits of exceptions, and forbids killing by private authority, or out of revenge. (Haydock) --- The blood of your lives, may signify the blood on which your life depends; or, according to the Rabbin, it is a prohibition of suicide, which one would think is so contrary to the first law of nature, self-preservation, as to require no prohibition; and yet, to the scandal of philosophers, some have written in its defence! (Haydock)

So, the commentary does not say that the retaliation by death penalty allows no exceptions, and mentions one exception with a somewhat sloppy explanation. Cain. By close to 130 or 230 years after Adam's creation, earth was not so unpeopled that there were not a sufficient number capable of killing him in return. However, all of them were close blood relatives, like "unpeopled" also being the reason Cain and Seth could marry sisters. But if God made an exception for avoiding another kinslaying, God can make and allow more exceptions. Menochius says capital punishment is just, not that it's always the only possible justice.