Sometimes Evangelicals are Just Ridiculous (I leave the reply to Joe Heschmeyer)

I'm Not Catholic Because You Drink Wine...
Catholic Answers Live Clips | 5 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7HG5bAlF8E

Gavin Ortlund Appeals to von Harnack and Raymond E. Brown

When Did the Papacy Begin? (Response to Joe Heschmeyer)
Gavin Ortlund | 29 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zQU-_78P34

1) In order to not be nasty, I refrain from giving the details of my position of Adolf von Harnack.
2) I would say "prophets" would be a charismatic office. However, "teachers" not necessarily so.

Bishops and deacons could be presbyters and deacons, while teachers could be what we call bishops.

17:06 St. Irenaeus is obviously 2nd C.

However, he retrospectively considers Rome had single bishops from when Sts. Peter and Paul were there to ... "Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate."

If there were no single bishops, how come he's able to name such?

17:11 With conservative Catholics, appealing to Raymond E. Brown is a bit like appealing to the Devil.

He opposed Biblical inerrancy, for one.

17:50 "later developments"

Feel free to develop (!) on how episcopate, being a later development of the 2nd C could so naively be read back into the 1st C by St. Irenaeus?

Joshua Johansen

@joshuajohansen1210

Quote please from Irenaeus

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@joshuajohansen1210 Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate.

Against Heresies, book III chapter 3, from §§2 and 3.

18:40 How much would a purely disciplinary thing be mentioned in writing, while people were living out the discipline in action?

19:02 1st Clement ... I suppose you are of the school stating 2nd Clement is a fraud?

BernardClvx

@BernardClvx

Writing things and attributing them to someone more famous happened a fair amount. It may not always have been intended badly. But its pretty definite that 2 Clement was written later - not even all that much later - maybe 120's? 130's? Something like that. Its still a legit early Christian writing, and I don't think its even deemed heretical. It's just probably not Clement's.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BernardClvx "happened a fair amount."

How much? Sufficient for Gospels to be pseudepigrapha too?

And wasn't 2nd Clement a follow up on 1st Clement?

"But its pretty definite"

Definite from what? From the idea that papacy hadn't developed enough for 2nd Clement to be written in the lifetime of St. Clement?

Joshua Johansen

@hglundahl Pretty much everyone knows Clement of Rome didn't write 2 Clement. This goes all the way back to Eusebius.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joshuajohansen1210 "pretty much everyone knows" ... isn't an argument.

Eusebius disagreeing may be motivated by other things than knowledge, just as his non-mention of St. Helen's finding of the Cross may be motivated by other things than his never hearing of it (as I recall, Caesarea and Jerusalem had a rivalry and the finding of the Cross boosted Jerusalem).

Joshua Johansen

@hglundahl Here are some arguments:
1. Internal evidence - the author does not identify himself as Clement.
2. Scholarship - Lightfoot and Harmer argue that the Greek of 2 Clement does not match the Greek of 1 Clement.
3. Historical Evidence - Someone like Eusebius is someone you should seriously consider, although it is true he had his own bases.

What is your evidence for it being written by Clement of Rome?

That being said, it doesn't seem like that big of deal, most scholars still see 2 Clement as a helpful 2-century homily.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joshuajohansen1210 I had a mistaken memory of 2nd Clement being a follow up on the same issue.

However, it appears on the same two manuscripts.

If it's genuine, it was less known. But even if it's spurious, it was less known. Not quoted with approval before Timothy of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch doesn't fit with Pope Soter, unless less known ... which would also explain it's non-quote if it was by Pope Clement.

19:12 "entirely standard summaries of the scholarly positions"

Jesus in Matthew 28:20 promised to be all days with scholars or with the people we claim were the first bishops?

Your scholarship is standard Protestant scholarship, or it is standard Catholic scholarship as well?

The latter, I don't think so.

While Slow Apostasy is Out, Great Apostasy Long Ago is Out, What About Recent Great Apostasy?

Debunking the Great Apostasy!
Catholic Answers Live Clips | 31 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2bh1y6c804

As you may note, this totally excludes that the great apostasy involves predecessors of St. Gregory I or some of his immediate successors.

It does not preclude that Dimond Brothers are right about "Leo XIV" since not only there are still Catholics not holding to Vatican II and all that but even clergy who claim continuity with the faith of Pius XII and rejection of Vatican II (and who have good claims, confirmed by Michael I before he died, to Apostolic Succession).

"anyone who would leave the Church and demonized her to justify their rebellion was the true definition of apostasy. If that isn't the Protestant REBELLION"

Speaking of which, loads of what's wrong with Vatican II is an exaggerated reach out to Protestants.

Case in point. My confirmation sponsor in 1990 had as his confirmation sponsor an old man who was somewhat of a mentor to me ... to a point. He was engaged in ecumenic dialogue with a Methodist "bishop" who was cramming him full with snydes about "we need to get rid of the accumulations, all the councils and definitions, and theologians and stuff, and go back just to the Bible" ...

Watching that work out, near his deathbed, was also the deathbed of my loyalty to the Dominicans of Lund, to the bishop of Stockholm, and the supposed Pope who made him such, supposedly (a real bishop of Stockholm being Johannes Erik Müller).

To make it clear, I think the Great Apostasy is in some sense incomplete.

I think Mother Miriam is a Catholic, if answering to the wrong Pope, but I also think some guys who deny individual existence of Adam and Eve are Apostates, and that the "authorities" allowing this are promoting Apostasy.

Is Catholicism Really Pushing for That Unity?

It’s Time to Take a Stand Against Catholicism’s Push for Unity
Wretched / Fortis Institute | 31 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VwYlZWQAAw

3:53 Indeed, imputation and infusion are very different.

Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

Sounds like King David was expecting infusion.

What's your fav. on "imputed"? Romans 4?

In the promise also of God he staggered not by distrust; but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God Most fully knowing, that whatsoever he has promised, he is able also to perform And therefore it was reputed to him unto justice
[Romans 4:20-22]

He did a good work of immense sacrifice, and he did so in a faith not in "Christ died for my sins" but "God can do what he has promised" ... even when it doesn't look like it.

1) Was that faith infused or just Abraham's own doing?
2) If you say it was infused, are you saying that it wasn't righteous in itself, it was only imputed as righteousness?

4:22 Indeed. That's exactly why Pope Leo X would have preferred the excommunication to effect a total social isolation of Martin Luther, so no one would be contaminated.*

5:11 And avoid them.

Precisely what Leo X told Germans to do with Martin Luther.

6:31 You teach Ephesians 2:8—9. We Catholics teach Ephesians 2:8—10.

GhillieCapone

@ghilliecapone

Ephesians 2:10
[10]For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@ghilliecapone Here is the Douay Rheims:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them
[Ephesians 2:10]

Note that the "for" indicates this preparation of good works and us being supposed to walk in them has a relation to the previous two verses about our justification.

Meaning, at justification, no one is justified by his own previous good works, but (apart from baby baptism) his preparedness (at least in principle) to walk in God's good works is required. Exactly the point that Catholicism makes against the Reformers.

GhillieCapone

@hglundahl Which doesn't make sense, even the translation you posted says it very plainly "that we SHOULD walk in them". Works don't justify you, only faith. God's prepared works are what we SHOULD do, not to BE saved, but because we ARE saved.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ghilliecapone There is anyway a previous willingness to walk in the ways of God:

Cause me to hear thy mercy in the morning; for in thee have I hoped. Make the way known to me, wherein I should walk: for I have lifted up my soul to thee.
[Psalms 142:8]

Without the willingness, one is not justified.

We Catholics tend to distinguish "justified" / "in the state of grace" / "finally saved (at a good death)" even if the Bible habitually uses "saved" or"eternal life" of more than one of them.

It's wrong to press the Biblical terminology as if it were a precise terminology, which allowed you in each case to determine which it is.

You are "saved" = justified, without your works.

You are "saved" = dead in Christ, in for a glorious resurrection, not without your works.

I would say, when the Bible speaks of "salvation" about people presently alive, it means the former. You cannot press it to mean no one can lose salvation.

6:58 Yes, at Baptism. = Not of works (that the baby has done).

GhillieCapone

So other people's works saves other people(babies)?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ghilliecapone No, Jesus' work (through other people) saves other people.

And in general, to some degree obviously yes.

Someone is saved because someone else witnessed. Someone is saved because someone else forgave his misdeed. You can't ignore that practically, but somehow the one item or two items when you can't accept it is when:

• the work actually is God's work, through a man's hands and voice
• or when the Church hierarchy transmits a teaching from the Apostles.

GhillieCapone

@hglundahl No, other people cannot save other people. Only by a conscious admission to Christ can they be saved.

Other people can help lead someone to be saved, but it would be ridiculous to say that they "save them" even if you say it's "Christ working through them". Jesus doesn't save people who don't want to be saved which eliminates the whole saving others thing. Jesus saves those who put their faith in him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ghilliecapone "Jesus doesn't save people who don't want to be saved"

Jesus doesn't save people who positively disagree to being saved (including by disagreeing to "sign up for" the good works God has prepared).

Jesus does save people, just as Adam damns people, before they really have a say of their own. Otherwise the sin of Adam would be mightier than the justice of Christ, which is absurd.

When it comes to sacraments received by adults, the one receiving must intend to receive the effect of the sacrament.

GhillieCapone

@hglundahl Everyone knowingly sins, you would be a liar to say you don't. By your view everyone would be in a constant state of jumping between saved and unsaved between times of confession, otherwise you would be choosing not to do God's will, which by your belief means you would be unsaved.

Galatians 5:4 comes to mind

Please explain yourself with your claim "the sin of adam would be greater than Christ's sacrifice".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ghilliecapone Sinning knowingly is a necessary, but not a sufficient criterium, for sinning mortally.

"By your view everyone would be in a constant state of jumping between saved and unsaved"

Well. Some of us are. Confession is among other things there to help us beyond that, to when the sins one commits are smaller.

"otherwise you would be choosing not to do God's will, which by your belief means you would be unsaved."

Oh, you meant the implication in Ephesians 2:10, as I stated it?

I didn't state that every omission of doing what I think God would want is an immediate exit from the state of grace. Depends not just on how aware I am, but also how willing I am and how important the matter is. But if one keeps omitting, one certainly will sooner or later commit a mortal sin.

@ghilliecapone "Please explain yourself with your claim"

Adam's sin has the power to make babies sinners. How then can Baptism, as the fruit of Christ's sacrifice, not have the power to justify them, if Christ is more than the First Adam?

7:03 "water process and ceremony" ....

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God
[John 3:5]
Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?
[Romans 6:3]
Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification.
[Romans 4:25]

"but you've got to keep yourself clean" ...

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.
[Philippians 2:12]
In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin
[Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 7:40]

8:48 You don't have to give to the Church?

And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need
[Acts Of Apostles 2:44-45]

When Catholics in England gave to monks, a beggar who wanted some quiet could go and stay in a monastery for a week with some work in return, because the monastery existed, because people had given to it.

A few decades later, monasteries were gone, people were confronted with all the beggars all of the time and they thought it was a brilliant idea to force all the beggars into a place where they were forced to work all the time, and one representative got around to do the begging in a "polite" manner (a k a, Englishmen were no longer living what Jesus said in Mark 14:7, so presumably Englishmen had ceased to be His disciples).

9:22 If Luther spoke of the local Church of Rome, in the city in Lazio, we Catholics agree. That's why we say the city has three Apostles.

St. Peter and St. Paul in the time of Nero.
St. Philipp Neri in the time when Popes had despaired about cleaning the house at home.

9:41 John Calvin famously failed to account for where the ministry of truth had been in previous centuries and perhaps up to a millennium.

Here is on Matthew 28:20, his final words:

So much the more intolerable is the wickedness of the Popish clergy, when they take this as a pretext for their sacrilege and tyranny. They affirm that the Church cannot err, because it is governed by Christ; as if Christ, like some private soldier, hired himself for wages to other captains, and as if he had not, on the contrary, reserved the entire authority for himself, and declared that he would defend his doctrine, so that his ministers may confidently expect to be victorious over the whole world.

We totally agree that Christ will not be with those who distort His Gospel. But the thing is, He also promised to be with someone's (present there and their successors) and that all days ...

So, Calvin say for instance that in 1500 Alexander VI and the bishops in communion with him, in 1400 Boniface IX and Benedict XIII and bishops in communion with either of tham and in 1300 Boniface VIII and bishops in communion with him were not fulfilling the Great Commission.

The problem is, he nowhere says, that I know of, who was in 1500, 1400 and 1300 fulfilling it, who was enjoying the fulfilment of that promise. According to Jesus, someone was. And Calvin wasn't born yet in any of these years.

11:00 You can say that again.**

Not sure all Evangelicals are, some look a bit like Alumbrados, but all Protestants are.

11:19 I'm happy that the document, well meant as it can be described as, was not endorsed by an anti-pope and is not obliging on the Vatican II sect.

The "Catholic" signatories are:

Fr. Avery Dulles, Society of Jesus and Fordham University
Bishop Francis George, Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Diocese of Yakima (Washington)
Mgsr. William Murphy, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Boston
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, former Lutheran minister and Institute on Religion and Democracy
Archbishop Francis Stafford, Archdiocese of Denver
George Weigel, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Note, only Americans. And as they are in the Vatican II Sect, Americans without actual authority in the Church.

I'm not saying all of the document is bad, but saying "Together we search for a fuller and clearer understanding of God's revelation in Christ and his will for his disciples." ... sorry, but this is to deny being the Catholic Church. At least if it means the Catholic understanding isn't full.

The worst news one can say about Charlie Kirk is, he prayed with Evangelicals 20 minutes before he died. Perhaps the Catholic priest who had prayed an exoercism to protect him from a hex misled him on that issue.

11:34 For about 500 years, Catholics and Protestants understood "not together" ...

There weren't Evangelicals all of this time.

Also, not quite true of all Protestants, some actually questioned the Reformation (perhaps the spelling should be with a D and not an R). Some then went the whole hog and became Catholic, my case, some are "technically Protestant" (real issues why counting them as Protestant is OK, but also real issues why one could not accuse them of an open and unmitigated will to be Protestant).

15:05 Totally agree. The Great Commission was pronounced to the clergy of one Church and it is not that of the diverse Protestant sects.

Guess what? John McArthur and yourself totally stand outside the Great Commission.

15:59 You're united to all true believers in the Catholic system.

Which, if you divorce that from the system as such, means, no visible unity.

Does unity have to be visible? Does the Church have to be visible?

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world
[Matthew 28:19-20]

An invisible Church may be a witness to God, if He recognises such a thing, but it certainly isn't a witness let alone a teacher to the nations, not to mention a teacher of a complete cursus of His commandments.

You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house
[Matthew 5:14-15]

Doesn't sound like Jesus is describing an invisible unity of true believers strayed into a wonky visible non-Church. Sounds like He's describing a visible Church. Here is another one along that line:

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
[Matthew 18:17]

He doesn't state whether the Church is constituted with a hierarchy who speak for the Church or more democratically, but He does say it is visible and we have to hear it. We cannot hear the invisible unity of true believers when they are not visibly united in the true Church. It's like hearing a whisper from a mile away.

But on another occasion, He actually does speak up on the Church being hierarchical:

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
[Luke 10:16]

I think I just demolished your position, more effectively than I could in conversation with a Lutheran back when I was converting.

16:39 The council Fathers of Trent were successors of the Apostles.

That's who they were to pronounce "anathema" ...

ejeh daniel

@ekehdaniel3020

Lies. The Council of Trent was in the 16th Century. 1500 years after the death of the Apostles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ekehdaniel3020 I didn't say they were "the Apostles" and I also didn't say they were the "immediate successors", I said they were the successors.

That's not a lie, it's in Matthew 28:20, and the Catholic Church is one of very few claimants to have their bishops in unbroken line from the Apostles. The other ones are Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, and maybe one other Church in communion with Copts, I think called Syriac.

If you prefer to say the Eastern Orthodox were the true successors of the Apostles in the time of the Reformation, be aware that the councils of Jerusalem and Iasi (in Romania) also condemned Protestant propositions (and anathematised those holding them). They are not held to be Ecumenical Councils by the Orthodox, since representing only the patriarcates of Jerusalem and ... Iasi is the patriarcal see in Romania; but they are definitely held to be pretty respected and normative (like we see things like the Councils of Toledo or of Orange).

17:06 No, it actually isn't.

Notes:

* If such an excommunication were pronounced over me, I think I could respect that as an attitude from the Vatican II Sect. I think it would backfire, as it backfired with Luther's countrymen, but openly saying so would be honest. However, telling people behind locked doors to behave in partly similar manners, perhaps pretending (incorrectly) I consider all people in the Vatican II Sect as non-Catholics, when Pope Michael I considered many were "displaced souls" (there was some stealth and delay in the takeover of institutions, but not a question of "100s of years of accretions" which is not so much stealth as making a takeover indetectable).
** Mr. Wretched took it on himself to confront Protestants — in his words Evangelicals — with the anathema of Trent "means you are damned."

Continued Debate

No, Nathaniel Jeanson was NOT Lying About Recent History · Continued Debate

jesuitfreemason

@jesuitfreemason

@hglundahl
Our understanding of the heliocentric nature of our solar system allows us to determine with precision the retrograde motion of the superior planets, a phenomena only possible if we orbit the Sun as do the other planets.
Our understanding of orbital mechanics allows us to launch satellites into any chosen orbit. Geocentrism has zero predictive qualities.

shassett79

@shassett79

@hglundahl "memory and testimony are by default trustworthy, except when they aren't"
It's common knowledge that testimony is often wrong and this is an important consideration in legal proceedings.

"Then you are a bit uneducated about the reasons there are"
Again, I'm unimpressed by your assessment of my education, but you should feel free to give me good reason to believe in supernatural phenomena if you have any.

"But 'it could be' is a very vague reason for anything."
Great, now direct this insight at your religious dogma.

"We have never seen consciousness at all."
Don't play word games. You know I was referring to observations of consciousness.

"There is no specific reasons in either consciousness or physics why consciousness should be a subcategory of physics."
Other than the simple reality consciousness is always associated with a physical substrate and can be directly altered through purely physical interactions with that physical substrate, right? But if your fallback position is that nonphysical consciousness isn't metaphysically impossible, that's fine.

"In other words, it's not 'methodological naturalism'"
Yes, it absolutely is, and your assertions to the contrary are unpersuasive.

"Partly true."
Completely true. Humans make up stories to explain things, and all religions are such stories.

"Like your religion of Naturalism is false. "
This is a silly claim. Naturalism is not a religion and al you have to do to falsify it is show me something supernatural. So stop waving your hands and do that, if you can.

"Not if Mount Everest is a higher mountain and..."
Enough speculation. Prove it happened. Convince geologists that any of this actually happened. Best of luck.

"Tell me what 'here-and-now' discipline I'm supposed to ignore?"
Hard pass. I'm not going to play the "we can't know about things we didn't witness" game with someone who thinks a compendium of Bronze Age mythology accurately describes the beginning of the universe.

"I meant the totally off analysis."
Again, not impressed by your assessments. Keep them to yourself.

"We observe Earth still."
No we don't. The Earth is obviously moving.

"We observe Heaven moving each day, and several bodies in Heaven move in other types of periods"
We'd observe this in either case.

"We have no reason other than methodological naturalism"
Apart from basically everything we know about physics, astronomy, and cosmology. What's your take on gravity, anyway? In your model, what makes the sun orbit the Earth? Is it just god or what?

shassett79

@jesuitfreemason I honestly can't believe we're arguing against geocentrism in 2025, lol.

Seán Pól

@seanpol9863

@hglundahl Mate, you're bending every bit of data to fit a story written by Bronze Age tribesmen. Radiocarbon dating isn't some toy you can tweak with your own "calibration". It's cross-checked with tree rings, ice cores, and volcanic ash layers that all line up across the globe. Jericho's destruction layer doesn't match your made-up Exodus date, and pretending it does is dishonest. Mate, evolution isn't a fairy tale – it's proven by DNA, fossils, and lab experiments showing new traits forming and spreading. You can't just ignore the fusion in human chromosome 2 or the thousands of shared genes we have with chimpanzees. That's physical proof, not opinion. And don't start with your "geocentrism" nonsense. Every test – Foucault's pendulum, stellar parallax, GPS, satellite tracking, even the bloody seasons – proves Earth moves. If the universe spun around us, everything outside would have to travel faster than light. It's insane to call that "data". Mate, you're twisting science into knots to protect an ancient myth. It's not brave or clever – it's denial, plain and simple.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@jesuitfreemason "the retrograde motion of the superior planets, a phenomena only possible if we orbit the Sun as do the other planets."

You have proven you don't know Latin or Greek (singular is phenomen-ON, while phenomen-A is plural) as well as your incompetence in astronomy.

Retrogrades are phenomena or constitute a phenomenon which is perfectly possible if:

• the Sun orbits the Zodiac
• and Mars, Jupiter, Saturn as well as Mercury and Venus, as well as planets unknown to the ancients in their turn orbit the Sun.

It's called the Tychonian system.

"Our understanding of orbital mechanics allows us to launch satellites into any chosen orbit."

You know, you are pretty bad at metaphysics as well.

My point isn't orbital mechanics don't exist at all. My point is, God exists, and angels exist, and can override what orbital mechanics would do on their own.

And before you come out with some idiocy about that would be cheating on God's part or sth like that, no, the natural laws, including those of orbital mechanics, never are able to determine the outcome on their own, it's all conditional on other factors interfering or not interfering. For instance, water boiling at 100°C (don't ask me what that is in Fahrenheit!) is contingent on an air pressure of 1 at. Freefall is contingent on lack of obstacle. Etc. Being interfered with by God or angels isn't different from being interfered with by other factors following physical laws.

"Geocentrism has zero predictive qualities."

Let's see. Heliocentrism is false, will therefore lead to absurd conclusions. Dark matter, dark energy, check. Big Bang being a point starting time but allowing no previous time, check. (It would of course function with a Creator, but so does a six literal days' creation 7200 odd years ago).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 "It's common knowledge that testimony is often wrong and this is an important consideration in legal proceedings."

The most typical situation is identification of strangers one meets at crime scene and then again in court.

Or colour, speed, size etc of some object or motion.

"now direct this insight at your religious dogma."

Doesn't point that way. I have specific reasons for every basis of "the Catholic Church speaks for God" and not just "it could be" ...

There is a huge difference between a "could be" as a reason, which you give, against testimony (but even so you are selective, you trust testimony on experiments about air pressure), and a "could be" as an answer to an objection. But obviously, if you are into the shrinkish professions, logic is not your forte.

"You know I was referring to observations of consciousness."

You can internally observe your consciousness directly. You can also externally infer consciousness from a behaviour matching your externalisations of your own consciousness.

Only the latter is always associated with a body. As to the former, it happens while you are in the body, but you are not observing your body while observing your consciousness.

"and your assertions to the contrary are unpersuasive."

To someone who sucks at history and doesn't know the clock was invented by people who rejected methodological naturalism in metaphysics or its limits with physics.

(After 1200, before 1400, don't quiz me on the exact date, but it was way before Diderot, d'Alembert or Immanuel Kant).

"Humans make up stories to explain things, and all religions are such stories."

If "made up stories" mean fiction, sorry, you are not just wrong, but biassed as a Commie.

"Prove it happened."

It's enough to prove it could have happened and that this matches Biblical history.

"Convince geologists that any of this actually happened."

Tasman Walker is a geologist, you know. He believes Mount Everest rose after the Flood. Or in the final stages of it, not sure which.

"the "we can't know about things we didn't witness" game"

Not the question. I was challenging you on what direct observation I'm refusing to believe.

"with someone who thinks a compendium of Bronze Age mythology accurately describes the beginning of the universe."

You are so biassed against the Bronze Age (and what sucked most about it wasn't the Hebrews). And against this fudge category you call "mythology" ... the original use of the word was anything the Greeks a) said about gods or origins beyond observation, and b) said about heros very well observed, but only back in a different society known as Mycenaean Greece, described by Homer and Tragedians and very exotic. One could of course make similar collections of stories in other religions, one could even argue Biblical history has its parallels. BUT, very important point, in Biblical history the parts about "God and origins beyond observation" ends in day VI, and the parts about "heros very well observed" (and sometimes in a very different society) start in day VI. This would obviously be totally irrelevant, if you could argue that either A) every sane man must consider the parts about b) heros very well observed as even so total fiction, or B) that at least I as a Christian had to discount them, because they are stories of another religion. I rebut both those positions, whichever you'll try to dare me on.

"Keep them to yourself."

Keep your analyses to yourself.

"No we don't."

You are denying direct empirical evidence, just because you have a habit of reinterpreting it as a parallactic inverse.

"We'd observe this in either case."

Indeed. But as both direct observation and parallactic inverse exist, I have my epistemological criteria for when to use each. Direct observation is the default. Parallactic inverse motion has to be argued. Atheism and Methodological Naturalism aren't valid arguments.

"What's your take on gravity, anyway?"

Exists. When it comes to what it would do to Earth, overridden by direct action by God.

"In your model, what makes the sun orbit the Earth?"

An angel makes the Sun orbit the Zodiac annually. God makes Heaven (with the Zodiac) turn around Earth each 23 h 55 min approx.

"we're arguing against geocentrism in 2025, lol."

Good arguments shouldn't exasperate you. I am delighted to use triangles in squares to prove Pythagoras' theorem, even if it was proven more than 2 and 1/2 millennia ago.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@seanpol9863 "Mate, you're bending every bit of data to fit a story written by Bronze Age tribesmen."

You are biassed against history, if you are biassed against story. You are biassed against Bronze Age history if you are biassed against stories written in the Bronze Age. And if you hate the guts of tribesmen, I suppose you can always join the NSDAP in some not yet banned or successfully underground avatar.

History is written in stories, and being part of a tribe or living in the Bronze Age doesn't disqualify you (I mean, to sane and non-Nazi judgements).

"Radiocarbon dating isn't some toy you can tweak with your own "calibration"."

Minze Stuiver did one, based on tree rings. For the last 3000 years, as far as I know, it doesn't contradict the Biblical timeline. Earlier, before the fall of Troy (a story told and later written by Bronze age Greek tribesmen and their successors, and confirmed by archaeology, despite counting as mythology), like the fall of Jericho or Genesis 14, I'll prefer Biblical history over tree rings.

I have not deleted his calibration, I am doing no damage to it by doing my own, with the latest point of divergence being Jericho's fall. 80 extra years. One of the surest ones is the Chalcolithic habitation of En-Geddi, the time of Genesis 14 (Abraham, born in 2015 BC, was c. 80 years) and the carbon date indicate 1565 extra years.

And I can state that the further back you find Bible+Carbon equations, the more extra years you get.

"tree rings, ice cores, and volcanic ash layers"

You know, back in pre-Troy times, the "cross-check" becomes more and more of a circular proof. But thanks for mentioning ash layers. Campi Flegrei, 39 000 BP = from the Flood, meaning we do have a carbon date for the Flood. 2957 BC is carbon dated with 34 000 extra years. Obviously more than En-Geddi, with 1565, which again is more than Jericho, with only 80.

"Jericho's destruction layer doesn't match your made-up Exodus date, and pretending it does is dishonest."

I am not dishonestly pretending standard radiocarbon matches the 40 years after Roman Catholic Exodus date 1510 BC, see the Christmas martyrology, and I don't mean the Novus Ordo version. I am honestly stating that I diverge from standard radiocarbon, with a calibration based on Bible+carbon matches, and that at this point I see a 80 years' divergence.

"Mate, evolution isn't a fairy tale – it's proven by DNA, fossils, and lab experiments showing new traits forming and spreading."

You seem very keen on arguing in a patchwork of diverse things, without double-checking what each of them actually proves.

Mutations leading to new traits in lab experiments are either sideways, tweaking information already there, or downward, losing information.

"You can't just ignore the fusion in human chromosome 2 or the thousands of shared genes we have with chimpanzees. That's physical proof, not opinion."

Whether it's physical proof of a common origin or of a common creator is however another matter.

Why are you ignoring the impossibility to add new chromosome pairs? And how that clashes with Evolution, if not the supposed one of man from something close to a chimp?

"Every test – Foucault's pendulum, stellar parallax, GPS, satellite tracking, even the bloody seasons – proves Earth moves."

Foucault's pendulum ... God moves the aether along with the stars.

Stellar parallax ... would only prove Earth moves if we could exclude it from being a proper movement. With angelic movers, we can't.

Seasons have been analysed abundantly by Geocentrics, it's a case of the Sun moving around the Zodiac each year, and the Zodiac being tilted to the Celestial Equator. Citing it is proof against Geocentrism is ludicrous.

"GPS, satellite tracking"

Would you mind being more specific about the actual argument?

"If the universe spun around us, everything outside would have to travel faster than light."

If we take it per empty space coordinates, the sphere of the fix stars would be (or if it's thick, its innermost layer would be) travelling at a speed close enough to minimally 2pi the speed of light. In one stellar day, each star makes a circle of 6.28 (stellar) light days. However, the thing is, the aether is what's moving this fast, no star moves that fast within the aether.

"Mate, you're twisting science into knots to protect an ancient myth."

Science has, as another name, "research" and research has done quite a lot of twisting and protected quite a lot of myths, including the insane myth of matter organising itself to life, life evolving itself to consciousness, consciusness developing to the point of being able to do language. That's a totally insane myth, but the majority of research resources these days go to protect it. As Nathaniel Jeanson indirectly alluded to by mentioning the similar fact about school hours.

Catholicism vs Turek

I would not put myself into the position of the Catholic student. Perhaps he acted on his priest's orders?

Frank Turns the Tables on Catholic Student
Cross Examined | 23 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p33QiwFxBk

By the way, one thing that the Catholic Church emphasises in every Mass is Christ's qualifications to be Our Saviour.

God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father ... by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

Like "not man only God" = couldn't be sacrificed. "Not God, only man" = His sacrifice wouldn't have been perfect.

---

1) "why is X emphasised / not emphasised?" is perhaps not the most helpful question;
2) justification is the first moment of sanctification, and therefore involves the readiness for the upcoming works (Eph 2:8—10);
3) Matthew 20:28 obviously doesn't mean we have no commandments to keep,
4) but rather Matthew 28:20 means the Church He founded cannot lose essential truth and in the light of verse 16, it's founded on Apostolic succession.

6:19 When we say of a living person "he was saved" we mean he was justified. When we say of someone who died "he was saved" we mean he "was not damned" ...

Being justified is compatible with being damned after that, if you lose justification by sinning.

It's the second kind of saved that needs good works actually being done, not the first which is the initial moment also known as justification.

7:05 We do need a series of people authorised by God to forgive our sins, because that's what Jesus gave us.

Whether you call them "mediators" or not doesn't change that.

1) He authorised His Apostles to forgive sins:

He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained
[John 20:21-23]

2) He promised to perpetuate their line:

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them And seeing him they adored: but some doubted And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world
[Matthew 28:16-20]

3) We see their line being perpetuated both in individuals and in the general idea: 1) Acts 1:26, Acts 8:19,20, 2) Acts 13:3, 3) I Tim 4:14/II Tim 1:6, 4) I Tim 5:22.

4) We see one in the line forgive and speak of when to forgive sins on God's behalf: II Cor 2:7

7:14 The proof text you appeal to doesn't say whom to confess to, like "directly to Jesus" or to a priest:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity
[1 John 1:9]

Also looked up 1 John 5. Pretty much against OSAS in the cases of people sinning after being forgiven.

7:51 The laity are a priesthood according to Catholic theology, but a passive one, in relation to the clergy.

And clergymen as people remain that too, passive in relation to the clergy. Even the Pope has to be forgiven by a priest in Confession.

8:11 That St. Peter is speaking about a passive priesthood when he speaks of the one of all believers, see here:

Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ
[1 Peter 2:5]

Be ye built up ...

On Vikings and Sapmi

Why I use the term "Viking"
Elisabeth Wheatley | 27 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnMXV6ebTmU

1:28 By scholars and historians ... presumably English, Scottish, French and derived ones.

A Dane or Norwegian arriving into the Danelaw, raiding Iona or bargaining about Normandy would be a Viking. If he hadn't been a Viking, he would have stayed at home and English, Scottish, Irish (sorry, Brian Borumha!) and French people wouldn't have heard of him. Or Poles, if he was a Joms-Viking (a very peculiar twist on the Viking profession).

Also, when arriving into Iceland or Greenland or Vinland, they were by definition Vikings, since sea farers. But among them, they would keep up professional distinctions between being a "gothi" (local lord) or "going into Viking" (which pretty much presumes you were son of someone still living as gothi or younger brother of his heir, or serving this kind of person).

I saw a comment from "Lord Norden" to the effect of "We do often call ourselves vikings still, especially if we wanna be boastful," ... or in lessons of PE. As I hated PE, this may help to explain my distaste with the wider usage

1:37 Victorians. "I knew it" (except I actually didn't, but I totally believe you).

They were both very Anglo-Centric (so not very concerned with a gothi staying on Iceland or a jarl somewhere in Norway staying at home) and very much into PE. You may have read a book by CSL "Surprised by Joy" on how he hated a certain school founded by 25 January 1865, which was well into the Victorian era and thusly overpriorised PE. He especially hated the privileges of boys excelling at PE.

2:14 North Germanic tribes didn't migrate into Scandinavia after the decline of the Roman Empire.

Some who split off as East or even West Germanic tribes (Goths, Burgundians, but also Lombards) left Scandinavia around the Birth of Christ and then arrived to put pressure on the Roman Empire as it declined.

Sami ... the Pitted Ware culture was not Sami. The Komsa culture may or may not have involved ancestors of the Sami.

It is possible that the Norwegian coastline and Sweden inland from that was all Sami. But South Sweden and Denmark weren't.

There were times when Vikings (or likeminded, if not so ship born) went North to conquer Sami land, they are the so called Helsings.

The archaeological area of Slate Knives (with reindeer decorations) is generally thought to involve part of the Sami ancestry, though not necessarily the part that made them speak a Finno-Ugric language. The South limit of Slate Knives is in Wermland and Dalecarlia, but archaeologists tend to think they came there by trade.

So, probably from Wermland and Dalecarlia, certainly from South of there, you have ancestors of Scandinavians. Well before Rome.

The Slate Knife culture is in carbon dated 3300 to 2000 BC, which I'd recalibrate to times of Abraham into the Soujourn of Egypt.

Erik Holten

@ErikHolten

Excellent post from the archeology domain. Additionally, the domains of ancestral genetics and historical linguistics have also shed light on the prehistory of the peoples of the Fennoscandian area.

It looks like although the Proto-Germanic speakers were a late arrival, they had installed themselves in the area and had widespread contact with the Sámi ancestors well before the fall of the Roman Empire. We know this because of the word forms of early Proto-Germanic loanwords found in modern Sámi.

It seems like their culture had replaced an earlier, non-Sámi hunter-gatherer culture that had inhabited the thawed parts of the peninsula, perhaps partially overlapping or coexisting with the Sámi. The evidence is contested, but it's speculated that Sámi contains another substrate of certain non-Germanic loanwords that may have come from the language of these mysterious precursors.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@ErikHolten Thank you ... I didn't know that. This:

"The evidence is contested, but it's speculated that Sámi contains another substrate of certain non-Germanic loanwords that may have come from the language of these mysterious precursors."

However:

"It looks like although the Proto-Germanic speakers were a late arrival,"

Here I disagree.

Proto-Germanic starts, apparently, 500 BC or so.

However, the speakers are not just the Yamna or Bell Beaker arrivals, and for that matter, Lapps have as much Yamna heritage as Norwegians, c. 50 % of the genome.

Meaning the speakers of Proto-Germanic are a mixture of arriving Bell Beaker people and indigenous peoples South of the Slate Knife area.

2:24 By carbon dated 3300 BC, Scandinavia is divided into ancestors of Sami in the North and ancestors of Scandinavians in the South. The linguistic influence leading to Germanic or Finno-Ugric language probably come from later migrants in both cases, but in neither case totally displacing the indigenous people.