Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Tuesday, July 28, 2026

Biblical Prophecy, a Mormon Called Up Joe Heschmeyer, and Then I Comment (Daniel 2)

A Reflection by Mother Miriam (Who I Think Has the Wrong Pope) · A Novus Ordo Gave Advice · FSSPX Does Not Equal Sedevacantism or Conclavism, There is a Difference of Approach · Biblical Prophecy, a Mormon Called Up Joe Heschmeyer, and Then I Comment (Daniel 2)

I'm Not Catholic Because I'm Mormon...
Catholic Answers Live Clips | 20 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgFlbDzW4wo

Just out of curiosity, has the Catholic Church condemned the Book of Mormon?

I am totally on board with Mormons usually being outside the Church (possible individual exceptions of the type Dimond brothers dispute and even then, they are outside Her in the external forum).

But it was founded in the early 1800's, like sometime after 1838 or sth. Book of Mormon is as far off a prequel to that Church as Book of Acts are, according to their claim. They can show no more direct unbroken unity with Nephite believers than with 1st C AD Jewish and Greek ones.

That said, I don't believe that book to be true, but what if it had been? Obviously, if it clearly teaches a theology like that of Joseph Smith, it's out.

6:16 While not disputing this, I'd say they also are the main rulers over another Eretz, the one divided from Sea in Genesis 1.

Rome is (to the exclusion of Genghis Khan) ruling in great shape in the treaty of Tordesillas.

When somewhat later one Tatar type kingdom actually does become important on the world wide scene, it claims to be Third Rome. I'm speaking of Muscovy. The only Tatar kingdom that came to rule one of the Four corners.

So, currently, the four corners are still in a sense ruled by Rome.

Alaska and Tasmania by post-Roman Britain's successor and Charlemagne's ally Alfred's successor. Cape Horn by a successor of Spain, which was once ruled by a Roman Emperor, Charles V. And Siberia by Third Rome.

But, the katekhon, as such, the dignity of Roman Emperor concretely on a human person was taken out of the way c. 100 years ago, when Nicholas II and Charles the Last were so.

One could say, the Holy Roman Empire got carved up into ten kingdoms, not counting Liechtenstein or Luxemburg.

1648, Austria lost Switzerland. 1864, the German parts of HRE apart from Habsburg lands (Erbländer), and after WW-I, it was divided into 8 regions. 1 + 1 + 8 = 10. St. Hippolytus thinks of the ten toes as democracies ... which all of the ten regions currently are.

11:12 "There isn't a clear day, when the great apostasy happened."

For an end times only great apostasy, this doesn't work.

I am open to Vatican II and even Assisi 86 being kind of false alarms, and the great apostasy happening when Wojtyla holds a speech in 1992 that mentions Galileo of Pisa. And by then an emergency conclave had already happened, so, the papacy was not seriously interrupted by Wojtyla losing it.

However, Popes Michael I and II have so far held already Vatican II and Novus Ordo were marks of The Great Apostasy.

As you might know, these never quite flew with all Catholics. Which means the Great Apostasy would even so not have been a Universal one, sth excluded by Matthew 28:16--20.

Cuando las reformas del Concilio Vaticano II comenzaron a implementarse en Norteamérica, fue Sáenz quien lideró la lucha contra ellas. Su tradicionalismo intransigente condujo a un rechazo de la nueva Iglesia Conciliar, y fue uno de los primeros en proponer la conclusión teológica del sedevacantismo, que sostiene que, desde la muerte del Papa Pío XII, ha habido un estado de sede vacante en Roma porque los siguientes llamados papas abrazaron las enseñanzas heréticas del falso Concilio Vaticano II.*

I think this means, Joaquín was still on board with Vatican II until it got practical consequences.

Even earlier? Well, in 1958, Duarte Costa and Michel Colin, though illegitimately so on other grounds, were refusing obedience to Roncalli.

12:52 I hadn't understood the dynastic part.

If I'd give an alternative interpretation ... ethnicities getting drawn into Rome and Germanic and Slavic people are still not Romance, or even Munich is under iron in 1864 and under clay in 1870, Austria is divided into iron of Austrofascism and clay of Social Democrats and Nazis in the 1930's. BUT they are still ethnically the same.

For my interpretation, we have St. Hippolytus.

Or against it. To him, the democracies are the toes.

But the mixing begins before the toes, so ...

* https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaquín_Sáenz_y_Arriaga

A Side Note

Creation vs. Evolution: Green Arabia · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: A Side Note

Suzanne Martser's Self Defense Course, Episode 1: Does God Tempt?
TektonTV Redivivus | 28 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvb_6GOymm0

Plus, after Abraham inadvertently nearly killed Ishmael by sending him out into the Arabian Desert, c. 30 years after Green Arabia ended, his nearly killing Isaac was arguably a move on God's part to prevent Ishmael from actually killing Isaac in sheer frustration.

So Abraham rose up in the morning, and taking bread and a bottle of water, put it upon her shoulder, and delivered the boy, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Bersabee And when the water in the bottle was spent, she cast the boy under one of the trees that were there And she went her way, and sat over against him a great way off as far as a bow can carry, for she said: I will not see the boy die: and sitting over against, she lifted up her voice and wept And God heard the voice of the boy: and an angel of God called to Agar from heaven, saying: What art thou doing, Agar? fear not: for God hath heard the voice of the boy, from the place wherein he is Arise, take up the boy, and hold him by the hand: for I will make him a great nation And God opened her eyes: and she saw a well of water, and went and filled the bottle, and gave the boy to drink
[Genesis 21:14-19]

I just need to find a source for Negev having a similar green period, since I didn't read the reference to Beersheba, but cited from memory when commenting on my calculations.

FOUND

From 1987 to 1989, excavations at Shiqmim revealed the longest chronostratigraphic séquence for a late hfth to early fourth millennium site in westem Palestine. The séquence extends >5 m in depth and spans >800 radiocarbon years of occupation (4500 to 3700 BC)

.

Source:

https://www.academia.edu/47953461/Subterranean_Negev_Settlement_Subterranean_Settlement_in_the_Negev_D%C3%A9sert_ca_4500_3700_B_C

2097 BC: 74.949 pmC, dated as 4481 BC*
1982 BC: 80.546 pmC, dated as 3770 BC
1965 BC: Serug died
1959 BC: 81.656 pmC, dated as 3634 BC
Let's count: (1982 + 1959) / 2 = 1970.5 BC; (80.546 + 81.656) / 2 = 81.101 pmC; 5730 * log(0.81101) / log(0.5) + 1970.5 = 3702 BC
1970 BC: 81.101 pmC, dated as 3702 BC
1936 BC: 82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC
1930: Ishmael born
1916 BC
Isaac born.: 83.166 pmC, dated as 3440 BC

So, the Shiqmim habitation was still going on near Beersheba to five years before Serug died.

Meaning Shiqmim had been inhabited for over 120 years, from 2097 to 1970 BC, then empty for c. 50 years, 54~55 years to when Ishmael was going that way.

And needed an angel to find water.

As Genesis 21 is the first time Bersheeba is mentioned in Genesis, we can surmise, Abraham may have been unfamiliar with the exact circumstances.

When Abraham and Abimelech and Phicol met, in Bersheeba, they may have been looking for Shiqmim./HGL

* The tables cited are quoted from Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt, also true for the other post. Years obtained by calculation and not in original tables are marked in italics.

Monilia and manes don't prove Roman ladies wore beads to remember the exact number of prayers

Q Why do definitions and the historical context of words matter when discussing social constructs, like those in dictionaries or legal texts?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-definitions-and-the-historical-context-of-words-matter-when-discussing-social-constructs-like-those-in-dictionaries-or-legal-texts/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl: amateur linguist
28.VII.2026: I have as a favourite Matthew 6:7.

Some Protestants translate “battologein” as “repeat oneself” where a more reasonable translation is “speak with a stutter”. But they will point to next words “as the heathen do” and say “look, Hindus and Muslims are heathens, and so are Buddhists, and they have repetitive prayers”.

The thing is, while Hindus and Buddhists weren’t totally unknown in the Roman Empire, they were very marginal. Muslims didn’t even exist yet.

So this means “as the heathen do” should refer to something else than repetition in praying. Unless Greeks and Romans in their paganism did so, and they didn’t.

Look up Velleius Paterculus, Roman History, book II, last chapter.

Another favourite is this verse:

For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

It’s Romans 1:20. Certainly, it points to God being provable from observations. But also, the observations are there to the naked eye, to people who have no microscope or telescope. Not saying these can’t bring additional proof, but the thing is, first we need to know what St. Paul was directly talking about.

I’d say, prove God from Geocentrism, like Aristotle did. The intellectual framework was certainly there in St. Paul’s day, and Geocentrism can be evidenced by the naked eye. Unlike the things that are supposed to prove Big Bang.

Obviously, it is also possible for someone’s erroneous definition to matter in the wrong way, like if he were saying Romans and Greeks were doing repetitive prayer since Nimrod in Babylon, as I think … well, I actually know now:

Every one knows how thoroughly Romanist is the use of the rosary; and how the devotees of Rome mechanically tell their prayers upon their beads. The rosary, however, is no invention of the Papacy. It is of the highest antiquity, and almost universally found among Pagan nations. The rosary was used as a sacred instrument among the ancient Mexicans. It is commonly employed among the Brahmins of Hindustan; and in the Hindoo sacred books reference is made to it again and again. Thus, in an account of the death of Sati, the wife of Shiva, we find the rosary introduced: “On hearing of this event, Shiva fainted from grief; then, having recovered, he hastened to the banks of the river of heaven, where he beheld lying the body of his beloved Sati, arrayed in white garments, holding a rosary in her hand, and glowing with splendour, bright as burnished gold.” In Thibet it has been used from time immemorial, and among all the millions in the East that adhere to the Buddhist faith. The following, from Sir John F. Davis, will show how it is employed in China: “From the Tartar religion of the Lamas, the rosary of 108 beads has become a part of the ceremonial dress attached to the nine grades of official rank. It consists of a necklace of stones and coral, nearly as large as a pigeon’s egg, descending to the waist, and distinguished by various beads, according to the quality of the wearer. There is a small rosary of eighteen beads, of inferior size, with which the bonzes count their prayers and ejaculations exactly as in the Romish ritual. The laity in China sometimes wear this at the wrist, perfumed with musk, and give it the name of Heang-choo, or fragrant beads.” In Asiatic Greece the rosary was commonly used, as may be seen from the image of the Ephesian Diana.

So, the one indication that Greeks used rosaries in Asia is the status of the Ephesian Diana according to Hislop. I checked it, and nothing looking like a rosary is there. And Rome?

The necklaces which the Roman ladies wore were not merely ornamental bands about the neck, but hung down the breast, just as the modern rosaries do; and the name by which they were called indicates the use to which they were applied. “Monile,” the ordinary word for a necklace, can have no other meaning than that of a “Remembrancer.” Now, whatever might be the pretence, in the first instance, for the introduction of such “Rosaries” or “Remembrancers,” the very idea of such a thing is thoroughly Pagan. It supposes that a certain number of prayers must be regularly gone over; it overlooks the grand demand which God makes for the heart, and leads those who use them to believe that form and routine are everything, and that “they must be heard for their much speaking.”

He fails to prove that Remembrancer can have no other meaning than “remember to say this prayer” … and also fails to check Velleius Paterculus about what “heard for their much speaking” really looks like. Why should I believe the theology of someone who so grossly bungles basic philology?

As to monile, he thought it had to mean something like “remembrancer” from the verb monere. But here is a different etymology:

Connected to Old English mene (necklace/collar), Sanskrit maṇí (jewel/necklace), and Old Irish muin (neck).]3, 2, 1

monile - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monile#Latin

A lion’s mane has the same etymology, it would seem.

Monday, July 27, 2026

FSSPX Does Not Equal Sedevacantism or Conclavism, There is a Difference of Approach

A Reflection by Mother Miriam (Who I Think Has the Wrong Pope) · A Novus Ordo Gave Advice · FSSPX Does Not Equal Sedevacantism or Conclavism, There is a Difference of Approach · Biblical Prophecy, a Mormon Called Up Joe Heschmeyer, and Then I Comment (Daniel 2)

The German Bishops & Whataboutism
Christine Niles | 27 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJjS8sqjLnc

1:02 Nuance.*

If you can be legally deposed in due form in theory, and the guy who can do it (a k a the Pope) is in contact with you, like modern communications allow, at least since the telephone, well, you do not lose your office automatically for promoting heresy. This is the case at least since the 1917 code, which on this point a certain Fr. Paul Natterer, back then FSSPX, quoted on a four part Lenten sermons series entitled "Wie müssen wir zum Pabst stehen".

Why? Because the Pope can supply the jurisdiction that ontologically would be missing from your own person, if you are outside the Church, and therefore, the automatic deposition is suspended, so to say, until you are legally deposed, and then he steps in and sees that none of your nominations to a parish, none of your admissions to matrimony, are disasters due to your heresy.

Or dito if you're just a parish priest and your superior who can depose you is the bishop or his superior an archbishop.

This is not the text itself in the canon, but it is my theological analysis of it given, as per St. Robert Bellarmine and Pope St. Coelestine I in 430, that a man cannot be head of what he is not even a member of.

However, this practical solution doesn't work in case of a person assuming and assumed to hold Papacy, if he's promoting heresy. Therefore this, as it really is, exception, is inapplicable.

3:09 "Because they think that the Roman Pontiff has lost the faith"

Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio and so far Prevost has not clearly broken the trend, they have put up a very good show of losing the faith since 1992.

For Assisi 86, that could be a one time thing. But the 1992 speech was immediately backed up with § 283 of the CCC. It remains in the second edition. 2002.

His successors have not taken a distance from that.

Therefore, the huge doctrinal weakness of SSPX is believing, like Salza, promoting heresy does not lose you your office. Like ever, even outside circumstances when a superior could in theory easily step in.

* 0:55 to 1:02 "someone doesn't lose his office or his jurisdiction, even if he's publically promoting heresy, as the German bishops are."

A Novus Ordo Gave Advice

"What these groups failed to realize is that the change they envision can be accomplished from within the church. Just look at the Second Vatican Council. The preparatory documents entering the council were fairly traditional and upheld the status quo."

The problem from Pulvermacher's pov, just as from that of Pope Michael I or his now successor Michael II, is, it didn't stay that way.

The problem is this:

"But when a group of motivated modernists got together during the deliberations, they were able to usher in many changes to the Catholic Church. They couldn't have done that outside of communion."

Pulvermacher shares the exact same pov on this as the also late Mgr Lefebvre. Or SSPX. This pov being, a communion with modernists is tainted.

But there is a huge problem when you concentrate on Pulvermacher who's already died, RIP, while ignoring the guy he plagiarised, Michael I, who died somewhat later, but got a successor within a year, Michael II. And especially as Pulvermacher was just Michael I ter.

So, far from the success story of the modernists being a reason to stay in communion with that Vatican (Michael I called his seminar and site The Vatican in Exile), it is instead a reason to get out of her.

Again, Pulvermacher was the second* guy to plagiarise Pope Michael I.

* "Pope Michael bis" was Linus II, who stepped back, "Pope Michael ter" then Pulvermacher / Pius XIII.

A Reflection by Mother Miriam (Who I Think Has the Wrong Pope)

⚡️tonitrua⚡️
@tonitrua4711: 😂
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @tonitrua4711 You can find that version in St. Clement's Stromata.
⚡️tonitrua⚡️: It is deeply ironic to see you champion the concept of 'Authority' and 'Tradition' only to discard them when they do not suit your personal narrative. You are leaning on a single, isolated remark from Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata—a fringe opinion never adopted by the Church—and using it to bypass the overwhelming consensus of the Church’s greatest intellects, including St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the Doctor Angelicus, explicitly states in his Commentary on Galatians: 'James and Cephas, i.e., Peter.' He does not entertain the idea of two different people; he recognizes the historical reality.

By dismissing the unanimous testimony of the Church Fathers and the Scholastic tradition simply because it contradicts your preferred theory, are you not engaging in the very 'private judgment' you usually criticize? If you are willing to discard the authority of Aquinas to protect your own hypothesis, my question to you is this: When you reject the giants of the Church to favor a historical anomaly, on whose authority exactly do you stand—the Church's, or your own?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @tonitrua4711 Since St. Clement is a Father, the sentence of St. Thomas is not "the unanimous" one.
⚡️tonitrua⚡️: Being a Church Father doesn’t make every private thought a binding dogma. If this were truly 'Tradition,' there would be a consensus throughout history.

Here is the challenge: Name just one Pope or one Church Father, from the 3rd century to the present day, who supports Clement's isolated view.

If you cannot, then you aren't defending Tradition; you are simply cherry-picking a rejected historical outlier to shield your personal opinion.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @tonitrua4711 Given it is in a publically known work, the Stromata is not a private thought.

There are simply subjects on which tradition is not unified. NEITHER St. Thomas NOR St. Clement represent all of tradition, the Church has not infallibly decided between them.

However, no, it is not isolated to St. Clement, first because he is still read, but second, because Eastern Orthodox and presumably also Byzantine Catholics agree with St. Clement and even give an account of who this other Cephas is.
⚡️tonitrua⚡️: @hglundahl still “stromata” , book II

“But the knowledge of those who think themselves wise, whether the barbarian sects or the philosophers among the Greeks, according to the apostle, “puffeth up.” But that knowledge, which is the scientific demonstration of what is delivered according to the true philosophy, is founded on faith. Now, we may say that it is that process of reason which, from what is admitted, procures faith in what is disputed. Now, faith being twofold—the faith of knowledge and that of opinion—nothing prevents us from calling demonstration twofold, the one resting on knowledge, the other on opinion; since also knowledge and foreknowledge are designated as twofold, that which is essentially accurate, that which is defective. And is not the demonstration, which we possess, that alone which is true, as being supplied out of the divine Scriptures, the sacred writings, and out of the “God-taught wisdom,” according to the apostle?”

Does the Church teach that Scripture is the sole authority?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @tonitrua4711 He didn't even say that the "God taught wisdom" was only in the Scriptures.

He did say that the supernatural faith (Scripture plus God taught wisdom) was the sole certain demonstration.
⚡️tonitrua⚡️: “THAT ALONE WHICH IS TRUE”

Not clear for you ?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @tonitrua4711 Yes, he excluded rational demonstration from it, but did not limit it to Scripture alone.

You seem to think that "alone" and "Scripture" appearing at a distance in the same sentence allows you to diagnose "Scripture alone" ... which by the way is a formulation that the Catholic Church has never condemned and some Church Fathers (St. Augustine, but I think St. Thomas too) have used.
⚡️tonitrua⚡️: @hglundahl It is deeply ironic that you use Stromata to support your view, because Clement wrote it specifically to combat the Gnostics. The Gnostics were the very people who claimed to possess 'secret revelations' or 'extra-biblical knowledge' to bypass the public Apostolic Tradition of the Church.

By claiming that there is 'revelation outside the Bible' which gives you the authority to contradict the consistent consensus of the Church on Galatians 2, you are doing exactly what the Gnostics did—which is the very thing Clement fought against. You are behaving like a Gnostic while trying to cite a Father who died fighting Gnosticism.

The reality is that you clearly do not understand the historical background or the purpose for which Stromata was written; you are simply cherry-picking quotes to suit your narrative
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @tonitrua4711 There certainly is simply NOT a consistent consensus of the Church on Galatians 2, since St. Clement is outside it.

It has nothing to do with Gnosticism to say that people in the area recalled, and could name the Church where that Cephas was later a decent bishop, that Mark who knew Peter could transmit to Clement that Peter was not that culprit.

You are dreaming that your own simplified Reader's Digest summary of Tradition is equal to The Tradition.

And on top of that, you hide behind a very anonymised account. No, I'm not behaving like a Gnostic, you are behaving like a nervous hysteric and on top of that, against me, as a scoundrel. Because I can't tell my readers where the finger you try to point at me is pointing back to you, because you gave no name.

Or if you like, you named yourself Baal Hadad ... Satan.*
* footnote: My take on Mark 3:17 is "Boanerges since Sons of Thunder" implies their relative had played the role of Thor up in Sweden (or Swabia) and that is a very bad one. The teasing on this issue provoked moans like those of oxen, hence Boan- (moan like an oxen) -erges (doers)

Sunday, July 26, 2026

In Answer to Phil Stilwell / Tokyo Taboo

Phil Stilwell Gets Remedial Philosophy (quora) · In Answer to Phil Stilwell / Tokyo Taboo

In the previous post, namely:

Phil Stilwell Gets Remedial Philosophy (quora)
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2017/09/phil-stilwell-gets-remedial-philosophy.html

... from nine years ago, I took a debate from Quora with one Phil Stilwell onto this blog.

Recently, eleven days ago, he has found this post and graciously instead of protesting about copyright commented to continue the argument.

It so happens that this library doesn't allow me to comment under blogger blog posts, which means I couldn't answer him properly below his comment, elsewhere I will therefore link here, but probably not today. Meanwhile, I'm answering (selectively) in a post here:

"Your argument currently has this structure:"

Let's see how he analyses me.

"1. You assume that Catholicism is divinely protected.
"2. You treat Catholic traditions and miracle reports as confirmation of that protection.
"3. You then use the alleged divine protection of Catholicism to certify those same traditions and miracle reports."

No.

Tradition by itself even non-Catholic, even not divinely protected, is a prima facie argument. It could be overridden, but it is not to be dismissed just because it is tradition.

Dito for miracle reports.

"You may continue calling Pentecost 'objective history,' but repeating that label does not produce independent corroboration."

A) Such things (independent corroboration) are a bonus, not a necessity. Not outside periods that are both welldocumented enough and wellpreserved enough for the absence to be conspicuous.
B) There actually is independent corroboration of the Church existing, which leaves the question since when and how, and leaves the Church's tradition about it a prima facie evidence about its origins. As with any other community.

Before you try pretending I need remedial logic from the likes of you, try learning sufficient logic to not misanalyse how my argument stands.

"You accuse me of “atheistic prejudice” because I do not accept miracle stories at face value."

We should take any story at face value unless a factor overrides it. In many cases that factor can be, it's a joke. In your case, it's atheistic prejudice. I e, you hold a world view excluding miracles and that fudges your demands on how much confirmation it needs.

For a miracle, the procedure is not "how many other sources that don't believe the miraculous report the miracle" (at many times that would be zero, since none at the time systematically disbelieved miracles, plus, if it reported the miracle, it would presumably believe the miracle and therefore not count on your view), the procedure is: apart from the purported miracle, what else can it be, and can that be excluded, reasonably?

And the answer to very many miracles is, yes, it can be reasonably excluded. That's when a miracle is accepted.

"You have only demonstrated how thoroughly your prior commitment determines what you count as verification."

I have a prior commitment to believing any story unless there is a specific reason to disbelieve it. You have one to disbelieving specifically stories of miracles, unless there is on the spot presented an overwhelming amount of evidence, from other sources, even if that was not where you were pulling the debate. And even if all the other sources would be discounted as routinely as soon as they indisputably were reporting a miracle.

"You then demand that I reconstruct, step by step, exactly how the Pentecost story developed. That reverses the burden of proof. I do not need to produce the complete historical genealogy of a story before declining to believe its supernatural elements."

I was not asking "complete" and at that accurate. I was asking a reasonable alternative to the miracle.

For instance, a non-miraculus example, the German legend of the Rabenschlacht features Theoderic beating Ermaneric at Ravenna.

A reasonably alternative to this, and preferred for chronological reasons, is, first Ermaneric beat someone other than Theoderic, then Theoderic beat someone other than Ermaneric, both times at Ravenna, then the two battles became confused, only each winner was remembered and because Theoderic came to power after it, he was considered as the winner between the two. I do not know if this was the exact procedure or the sole factor, and given it is in and of itself reasonable, and Ermaneric meeting Theoderic would require a time machine, according to other sources, I'm satisfied that the story is so explainable.

For other instance, the miracle discussed, if the Apostles had been speaking so no one could understand anything, that would have reasonably excluded divine origin.

If they could speak so different people heard their own languages (verified as these converted hearing that preaching, and that in thousands) that would reasonably indicate at least some kind of supernatural origin.

If the story were made up later, you need to answer when.

Say "AD 50" and you need to account for how the community still holding people knowing the real story came to accept this instead. Say "AD 150" and you need to account how the community came to forget whatever story they had previously accepted.

"your dismissal of Islam exposes the special pleading. You readily devise natural explanations for Muslim miracle reports—social pressure, propaganda, retrospective invention and forced testimony—but resist applying those same categories to Christian reports."

The one Islamic miracle report I would do this for (and actually did this for in the discussion nine years ago) is the one Islam makes from its beginning: the split Moon.

IF the Moon split, it would have been seen over the world. The two testimonies we have are one from the original community and one from India. And the former one is dubious given how late the testimony is. And given the Indian king was submitting to conquerors.

A Muslim claiming supernatural healing, I would usually accept the supernatural healing and explain it as God granting him some reward for the basic goodwill of praying, even if he was wrong about whom to pray to. It didn't happen by Mohammed while he was active, not even claimed to, unlike supernatural healings in the career of Moses (taking away the leprosy given as punishment) and of Jesus (taking away many leprosies and other ailments, including death for some added time).

Your standard is: “Natural explanations are acceptable for rival religions but presumptively inadequate for mine.”

No. Natural explanations are acceptable when available. For many of the miracles in mine they aren't. If you want a natural explanation for Lourdes healings of Tuberculous peritonitis back before they were routinely cured by antibiotics, check out how much blue cheese and goat cheese was served in Lourdes, since these cheeses have molds that are of the penicillus genus. Like the one that's used to produce penicilline. It would still have been providential that so many came to Lourdes and ate goat cheese and blue cheese because of an apparition which presumably didn't come from someone who knew penicilline in advance and planned it ... unless that someone were God.

"Secular institutions, rival religions and political movements have also produced education, medicine, charity and social reform."

Like the one in National Socialist Germany which from 1933 was pushing loafers and vagabonds into camps like the one in Charlottenburg or the one in Oranienburg.

Islam as one rival religion has produced persecution of alcohol (and skyrocketting diabetis). Anglicanism as one rival religion has produced compulsory work houses after taking away monasteries that were voluntary ones. Judaism has produced pornography. Calvinism has produced Totalitarianism since Geneva and Cromwell. As have Anglicanism and Lutheranism since Gustaf Wasa and Henry VIII.

"Conversely, Catholic history contains violence, persecution, coercion"

Comparable to any of above named rivals.

"and credulous superstition."

Like not an objective fact prior to deciding the question we debate, but rather totally dependent on how it is answered.

Your argument is like complaining about non-Socialism allowing private property before the debate between private property and Marxism is closed.