Palestinian Genetics

Here Are My FULL DNA Test Results* As A PALESTINIAN
Wally Rashid | 25 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97m_keg0OUE

3:28 Arguably it's less about "Roman mixing" than about matches with Jews over the Roman Empire.

The Christian Palestinians are an older population than the Muslim ones, in the same sense that Bosniak Muslims are more recent than Serbs and Croats. Now, the ancestry of Christian Palestinians would, in the 1st C AD, have been Jews and Samarians. Of these, Jews were better at getting around to different places in the Roman Empire.

Christian Palestinians start the day that a Church in Jerusalem is joined by a Church in Samaria. Same Christianity, even if their ancestors a generation earlier would have been Second Temple Jews (not same thing as Rabbinic** ones) or Samarians. Acts 2 and 8.

If you want to know how relations were between Jews and Samarians prior to Jesus, John 4 and John 8 would be helpful. Like Luke 10 and Luke 17.

---

* Wally Rashid is using the site My True Ancestry. ** Rabbinic Judaism has some roots among Second Temple Pharisees, but is also defined by rejecting Christ and by losing the Temple.

That Galileo Was a Jerk Doesn't Matter (Unless if You're Praying for His Repose), and Didn't Matter as to the Process

The Truth About the Inquisition, Galileo & the Flat Earth Myth | Dr. Thomas Madden | Last Call Ep 11
Matt Fradd | 24 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8qy5pV1u2U

3:45 Four arguments.*

The one he considered most secure was a mistake, but the argument if not the fact is replicated by Magellan.

5:25 "which is true"

You just made the bans of 1616 and renewed because applied to Galileo, 1633, applicable to you.

Besides, you don't believe the Sun is centre of the Universe, you believe it's centre of the Solar System, which is a further departure from classical Christian Cosmology.

Galileo, unlike Bruno, didn't do that, as I recall. He still believed the Universe had an identifiable centre and a periphery in the sphere of the fix stars.

5:36 You're forgetting that in order to not get censored, Copernicus waited to the death bed and even than just stated it as a hypothesis, to make calculations easier, not as a fact about the universe.

6:28 St. Robert Bellarmine actually did have other objections than purely scientific ones.

And I think his proposal to Galileo, if any, was not "look at the sky more carefully, we don't see the Copernican model" but "you know, Tycho and Copernicus give us the same visual effect on the sky, what about Tycho Brahe?"

6:46 I think you are getting this from the Pro-Heliocentric side in 1822.

Father Olivieri could say this kind of things, because noone in Rome could check, the archives were in Paris where Napoleon I had stolen them to.

"Tutti i francesi, sono ladroni?
- Non tutti, mai buona parte"

7:28 Sorry, but he was in fact not free to promote Heliocentrism as science, as physical fact rather than mathematical shorthand, since the theology by Dominicans involved Joshua's miracle and Sun and Moon ceased to move.

Not Earth. Sun and Moon.

Galileo's theological and unacceptable response was "non-overlapping magisteria" ...

8:01 Howeversomuch Galileo may have been a jerk, the Inquisition doesn't give people abjurations and lifelong house arrest for that.

He was given that for doctrine, not character.

And as "Simplicio" took an argument that the Pope, while still a cardinal, had used, it is significant the Pope (who could be insulted) abstained from being among the judges, and his relative, among them, abstained from voting.

The argument, by the way, is this: God could create the world any way He wanted, and God could make the world look anyway He wanted. Now, on some level, this could be considered a sceptic argument, namely if the world looked Heliocentric. But as it looks Geocentric, it's an appeal to God's honesty.

8:26 It doesn't mean just he had to spend time at home, rest of his life.

It means he had to abjure.

The Dialogo is what he was being judged on. It's fiction, not everything said in it is his own view. It's as if Dan Brown would have been given an opportunity to abjure the Bloodline of Jesus theory after writing The da Vinci Code making him vehemently suspect ...

8:33 While his villa was different to a dungeon, like Liparic Islands are different from Siberia, he was denied social life, except with his spiritual caretakers and very close, including a daughter who was a nun.

An author whom Stalin didn't like could go to Siberia and hard work. One whom Mussolini didn't like to Liparic Islands, and a state pension while he was there. Both would be denied normal social interaction with their previous surroundings.**

---

* Aristotle against a Flat Earth. ** Again, it's a punishment, not for being a jerk, but for what he suggested.

Final Minutes of a Video with Melissa Dogherty and Stephanie Potts

Richard Rohr, Karl Marx, Psychedelics, and Putin. What’s the Connection?
Melissa Dougherty | 17 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTNnjGGtav0

Dugin and Putin are in fact right that the katekhon is not the Church.

Simple reason. Acc. to Matthew 28:20, the Church will not be taken out of the way.

Again, I think the katekhon was, specifically in Russia and Austria, taken out of the way in 1918.

Antichrist being with Secular Jews or Antichrist being with Religious Jews, there are arguments for either.

But Putin is not an heir of Nicolas II, he's an heir of a preliminary Antichrist, who had some Jewish heritage, and some Swedish, a certain Vladimir Lenin.

---

Do Putin and Dugin believe the Millennium is upcoming?

---

Jesus founded the Palestinian nation post mortem et resurrectionem.

Christian Palestinians are a population since Jerusalem and Samaria belonged to the same Church, Acts 2 and 8.

If you want to retroactively call Him a Palestinian, it's a bit like calling Clovis a Frenchman. But it's not wrong.

He did cross a border when fleeing from Herod, since Judaea at this time was a Protectorate, not a Province.

Muslims Do Have Things to Think Over

Dogs and Beer and a Bad Religion · Muslims Do Have Things to Think Over

Is Allah the pagan idol Baal?
Eleftheria Apologetics | 27 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fv_3j4-VaY

No, Evolution Isn't True and Isn't Catholic

Genesis 6, Archaeological Confirmation · Jimmy Akin on Genesis 1—11 and the Magisterium · No, Evolution Isn't True and Isn't Catholic

Stephen C. Meyer joins the show tomorrow to tackle matters of creation and evolution. Don't miss it!
@pintswithaquinas | 20 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hs1_4cTC1dM

Evolution is dead in science, but still has a good thriving as a religion.

Including by Syncretists in the Vatican II sect.

Daniel Krcmar

@danielkrcmar5395

We've literally observed evolution happening.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 Oh, you mean things like Ateleryx Algirus and Erinaceus Europaeus having a common ancestor?

I meant things like pretending ape and man have one.

ochem123

@ochem123

@danielkrcmar5395 Selection of traits via breeding practices includes an intelligence making any adjustments. We have never observed evolution of species as described by atheists. “Theistic evolution” is an ad hoc intermediate position. 🐬⚜️❤️‍🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸⚕️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 Except, we have.

Scientists have observed, or identified through genetic tracking, the evolution of several new species and distinct populations in modern times. Key examples include the Big Bird finch lineage on Daphne Major, Pod Mrcaru lizards evolving new digestive traits, and numerous insects developing resistance to pesticides.

@ochem123 We have but I'll leave your ignorance to you to correct yourself.

ochem123

@danielkrcmar5395 Do not confuse mutation and natural selection for “evolution.” Observing mutations and natural selections in observations of animals is not evidence of the origin of humanity. One must read Scripture and pray in order to know that.

What is the origin of the animals? Just as the Book of Genesis says. 🐬⚜️❤️‍🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸⚕️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 Mutation and natural selection are quite literally the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

We have observed the evolution of new species.

Evolution was from the book 'The Origin of Species' not 'The Origin of Life'. Evolution does not negate the possibility of a creator as it doesn't not address what caused life.

ochem123

@danielkrcmar5395 All mutations are bad. Did you not know that? Mutants are worse than the non-mutants. You claim that mutations lead to improvements?

Hybrids of animals, humans, and angels have been formed by intelligent beings to create monsters with mixed characteristics, but that is not a random process.

God’s hand guides all things, but you think randomness produces order? ️️‍🇻🇦🇺🇸️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 Okay, this is clearly pointless. You are wrong. Science has observed this happening. I never said God's hand wasn't involved. Genesis 1-13 are historically read as allegory and not literal history.

ochem123

@dan @danielkrcmar5395 The Bible is literal, and allegory can only be applied under that lens. Do you read Genesis 1-13 to argue with the plain sense of the text? Or do you read it to understand what happened before you were born? Big difference. ️️‍🇻🇦🇺🇸️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 The Bible os a massive collection of literary works with historical records, laws, allegory, poetry, songs, etc.

You can't read literal as allegory as they're opposite definitions.

The early Popes, Church Farthers, thinkers and modern Popes read 1-13 as allegory and not literal history.

ochem123

@danielkrcmar5395 If one reads the Bible with an open heart, one can see the Truths contained therein. Can you give a specific example you say is not literal? You cited thirteen chapters, rather than a specific idea. What concept are you saying is not literal? The Creation account? Six days? Why would you believe a secular “scientist” over a prophet of God? 🐬⚜️❤️‍🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸⚕️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 Why would you believe a lay person over The Pope and early Church Farthers?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 "Genesis 1-13 are historically read as allegory and not literal history."

You are historically wrong.

They are historically read as literal history with an added layer of prophetic (meaning Christological) allegory.

@danielkrcmar5395 "Mutation and natural selection are quite literally the mechanisms by which evolution occurs."

That's a bit like saying sound laws, analogy, word swaps, borrowings are the mechanism by which languageS evolve.

That doesn't remotely mean that they could explain how language evolved from sth non-human. And what you propose cannot explain how man evolved from sth non-human or even how fish evolved into mammals.

@danielkrcmar5395 "Why would you believe etc"

You are misrepresenting, very gravely, the early Church Fathers.

And if by "the Pope" you meant Wojtyla or any of his successors, you are mislabelling him or them.

Daniel Krcmar

@hglundahl We have fossil records of fish turning into mamals and land mamales returning to the water.

It is, that's just how it is.

We know that Whales speak and use language, as well as having unique names for each other. Language is not unique to humans.

@hglundahl
- Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254)
- Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
- Clement of Alexandria (c. 152–217)
- Philo of Alexandria (1st Century)
- Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395)

- Pope Pius XII
- Pope John Paul II
- Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)
- Pope Francis

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 "We have fossil records of fish turning into mamals and land mamales returning to the water."

No, we don't. We don't have proof of descent in these series.

"We know that Whales speak and use language, as well as having unique names for each other."

No, we know they have unique names for each other.

They come as close to language as song birds, which is closer than apes do.

Neither whales and songbirds, nor apes, have double articulation or three levels, but song birds and whales at least has one articulation or two levels, namely different sounds combining for a name or a song.

In apes, it's one sound or gesture that means one message. That one not being a unique name. One level, no articulation.

@danielkrcmar5395 "Pope Pius XII"

Not mislabelled, but didn't call the chapters "allegory".

Origen, Augustine and I dare wager the other ones as well did affirm historicity of the narratives.

Augustine misunderstood Origen as having affirmed Christological allegory only and no history, he did make such a comment on the Ark, but it was just one sentence in desperation over what he saw as problems about it.

The fullest treatment of the chapters in Church Fathers is St. Augustine, City of God, and it is clearly affirming literal history.

Daniel Krcmar

@hglundahl We do, but I'll let you love in ignorance if you don't want to do your own research.

You can't argue against them having language by saying they have a more basic level of language than humans. Of course they have a more basic language but language, is language and proves that it's not unique.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 "if you don't want to do your own research."

I did. That's what I'm telling you.

"a more basic level of language than humans."

No. A one level communication system and a three level communication system are not "more basic" or "more elaborate" they are functionally distinct.

There is no possible overlap.

There is a world, not just a degree, between having about as many messages as you can distinguish sounds and gestures and the messages helping you to convey emotions and what needs to be done, and having sounds with no message, combining to "words" or "endings" that are so to speak "message modules" but not yet full messages, and these then combined to full messages on the lines of predicative logic. Able to convey any subject of curiosity.

Daniel Krcmar

@hglundahl It is just more basic. A 3 year old has basic language skills but they can't communicate in the same way a 20 year old can, but you wouldn't say they don't have language.

One level communication is fundamentally a language structure because it uses structured symbols to transfer information.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 A three year old or even a two year old has all three levels of human language.

Maybe not all the sounds of his language (some take longer in pronouncing R), certainly not all the words or endings (that takes to c. age 5), possibly no more complex phrases than subject + predicate with or without negation.

But that's still all three human levels.

That's still a totally different structure from ape communications.

If you don't get it, you don't know what language is.

"it uses structured symbols to transfer information."

So do traffick signs and emoticons. Apart from making some of them stand for letters they are similar too (cheating), that won't get you to conveying even "I ate yoghurt today" ... (not yet true, by the way).

Jimmy Akin on Genesis 1—11 and the Magisterium

Genesis 6, Archaeological Confirmation · Jimmy Akin on Genesis 1—11 and the Magisterium · No, Evolution Isn't True and Isn't Catholic

What Does the Church Say About Early Genesis? | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Jimmy Akin | 20 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwU7FLfIgqc

You do admit chapter 14 as fully historic in the normal sense?

Here is the thing for Deep Timers. IF the world is 100 000 or millions or billions of years old, the atmosphere is old and Carbon 14 is arguably in a kind of equilibrium.

So, c. 100 pmC. So, carbon dates should roughly match real dates.

However, in Genesis 14 you have an Asason Tamar inhabited when the chapter begins. It doesn't state that but also doesn't deny that the place was abandoned after the attack. However, Asason Tamar is En-Geddi, as we know from Chronicles (not looking it up, could it be II Chron. 20:2 or sth?).

However, the latest habitation in En Geddi prior to the Iron Age is carbon dated to ending in 3500 BC.

And if Abraham was born 2015 BC, given he was c. 80, the real time was 1935 BC.

3500 - 1935 = 1565 extra years, or the actual carbon 14 level had to be 0.5 to the power of (1565/5730), or c. 83 pmC.

If Abraham was born later, like an Exodus in the time of Amenhotep II would imply, even more extra years, even lower pmC, like 82 sth ...

"doesn't endorse either of these approaches"*

In the early world of PBC, there was no decision that would have gone against the idea of a video camera catching a good match for the wording in Genesis 1 to 11.

I'm obviously not counting 1992 under a non-Pope.

"in his preface"

Ah, so Joseph Ratzinger didn't write The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church but he wrote a preface to it.

How much does the preface endorse that horrible document?

It badmouths "Fundamentalism" horribly ....**

"at the time these documents had magisterial authority"

As in, no more, same documents?

That's not consistent with "sensum quem sancta mater ecclesia ... tenuit atque tenet" ...

[Letter to Cardinal-Archbishop] "Suhard"

Looking it up.***

"It is therefore impossible to deny or to affirm their historicity as a whole without unduly applying to them norms of a literary type under which they cannot be classed."

Sorry, but either one finds a loophole in the term "historicity as a whole" (like the historicity is not the same type) or one admits that Pius XII approved a faulty reply to part of the Church.

Or says, this means he was not Pope. That would make the election of Michael I one after at least 42 years of sedevacancy.

Tradition has always held Genesis to be a historical book.

Or, he was for the moment leaving the question open for discussion.

"overly enlarged the area of certainties that the faith can guarantee"

First, he shows he is not in continuity with that actual magisterium. Not Catholic. Not Pope.

Second, if anything, it overly diminished the area, left things open for discussion that could have and now after the discussions even more can now be affirmed with certainty.

"about the methods and limits of historical knowledge"

Well, more like what he affirmed as new understanding thereof is fake understanding thereof, the kind of faking of epistemology that Chesterton fought against (he had no Ratzinger to show him an example of such a sceptic pretending to wield cardinalic or papal dignity).

"where later Popes, such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI contradicted them"

Oh, they contradicted the Magisterial PBC in its binding judgements?

You see it as the judgements no longer being binding. I see it as they not being Catholics and therefore not Popes.

Just to mention, the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is by "early" PBC not explicitly tied to the Son of Zebedee, so Jean Colson is not falling afoul of it.

There is a big difference between early Church knowing two Johns and later conflating them, and early Church knowing one John and misattributing an authorship to him. The latter is condemned, the former, providentially, isn't. I say providentially since saying "John the Apostle" came close, but didn't hit it, as "Apostle" is not absolutely limited to "The Twelve" ... (where the only John is a Son of Zebedee).

"very abbreviated"

I'd agree. My reason to conclude that they were transmitted orally to Abraham, before he had a beduin caravan.

And that Abraham wrote down other things, and presumably these too.

You see, Sagen aus Österreich contains stories of an often historical or dubious nature, not meant as fiction, though in some cases, probably, tongue in cheek, and they are very abbreviated compared to stating such historical facts as articles or (when invented) as novellas.

The very abbreviated nature is a good signature for oral transmission. WHETHER Genesis 3 (for instance) was orally transmitted all the way from Adam to Abraham OR (for instance) Sarug possessed a book about it, was dispossessed of it by an idolatrous son and grandson (Nachor and Thare) and had to orally summarise what he could no longer verify in detail.

I'd go against the latter scenario, as it is possible or even probable that Thare didn't commit idolatry until Abraham was already 75 (i e he left Ur or Haran, whichever, on the spiritual death of his physical father).

"much more extensive sections"

Indeed. Suggesting these parts were originally written down by Abraham and the rest and came to Egypt when Jacob arrived, apart from what Joseph had already written himself in Egypt.

Clay tablets or papyri are insecure possessions of a lone traveller, can be stolen from a resident, but are a very secure possession, on par with tents and clothes, for a Beduin tribe. Which Abraham started to be head of in chapter 12.

"anthropomorphic language about God"

In Genesis up to chapter 3, Adam can walk with God and can describe a theophany, basically of pre-Incarnate Christ.

In Genesis 11, whoever saw what God was up to (perhaps in a dream) was also given a hint of the upcoming Incarnation of God.

"cosmic ramifications"

Not all of them. If Jubal (presumably recalled with additions and bad theology by Hindus as Krishna, though the actual Hebrew for that would be Kush) invented music instruments, that's a cultural, but not actually a cosmic ramification.

And if his half brother invented siderurgia along with chalcurgia, not only is the ramification non-cosmic, but to Abraham it would have been an incomprehensible fact with no ramification.

"from obscure ... to well known"

Indeed.

Genesis 1 to 11 spans pre-Flood events, with lower Palaeolithic giving us some, Mahabharata other, details. And the Neolithic, which had recently turned to Chalcolithic before Abraham was born, and the Upper Palaeolithic before Babel but after the Flood.

"history in the classic or modern sense"

OK. History comes in two genres. Thukydides and Mommsen. Got it. Every single other literary genre is "not fully historic" ...

I think this could be the last act of the PBC magisterium in a sense that parallels Deicide being the last act of the OT Cohen Gadol magisterium.

"non-historical if evaluated in terms of the modern methods"

By such evaluation, every single line of dialogue in a Classic work of history is non-historical, as the Classic view was that historians could not change what was said, but were free to present how it was said as they liked.

I would contend that modern standards, or at least the latitude about dialogue in Classic standards actually is met in Genesis 1 to 11. If we go on a few lines, here is sth nearly good:

The first duty in this matter incumbent on scientific exegesis consists in the careful study of all the problems literary, scientific, historical, cultural, and religious connected with these chapters; in the next place is required a close examination of the literary methods of the ancient oriental peoples, their psychology, their manner of expressing themselves and even their notion of historical truth the requisite, in a word, is to assemble without preformed judgements all the material of the palaeontological and historical, epigraphical and literary sciences.

Apart from "psychology" which is chimaeric about absent and therefore about past peoples, and "even their notion of historical truth" ... the investigations proposed are now very fruitful and precisely for Fundamentalists, for Creation Science, for Flood Geology.°

I've done my contributions°°, like verifying no fossil find anywhere has a whale above a plesiosaur. Or that Babel was Gobekli Tepe. Or that carbon dates match up very well, if the Biblical chronology is presumed (I'm using that of Roman Martyrology Christmas Day and presuming an Exodus ending the 13th Dynasty). Or that the breaks in generation overlaps from Genesis 3 to Abraham are comparable to from Trojan War to Homer.


"later ... pertain to history, but that it's expressed in a symbolic or figurative way"

1) Thank you for admitting this approach is indeed later than 1948.
2) I'd have appreciated you not using "the Church" as name for that entity making such statements.
3) I hope you'll be telling me in a moment how much later.

"we can't read ... without a careful story of how people thought and wrote at the time Genesis was composed"

This is a way more stupid thing than the 1948 document actually said.

1) Because it invalidates all reading prior to 1948 and some time past, which is contrary to "sensum quem ecclesia ... tenuit atque tenet"
2) Because it assumes the Hebrews and hagiographers had the same "mentality" to use the word in a loose way as idolatrous contemporaries
3) and because it assumes we can get closer to what the contemporaries did than guess-work, extrapolation from bragging (a certain Sayce on genealogies), and even wishful thinking ("we" wish the Flood wasn't supposed by Moses to have happened in actual fact as presented, so "we" assume a Babylonian writing about Enlil or Marduk and Tiamat didn't really mean it ... excluding my actual self from this "we" obviously).

hope of attaining

In other words, the need for an open mind is temporary.

Now, some would say, it is past, and it's results have confirmed the traditional (pre-PBC) readings. I'm of these.

adapted to the understanding of mankind at a lower stage of development

That one hasn't aged well.

---

* Text matching a video camera with a time machine and complete fiction.

** Ten years and some ago, I took him for the author of it, and wrote Apostatic Rejection of "Fundamentalism" in 1994

*** Found it cited last on this page:

Documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission Translated
July 7, 2022 | Admin
https://creationtheologyfellowship.org/2022/07/07/documents-of-the-pontifical-biblical-commission-translated/

° Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis (the latter unfortunately good friends with anti-Catholics, like Ray Comfort and Todd Friel) °° Creation vs. Evolution

Biblical Israel is the Church. Christian Palestinians are an Ethnically Israelite Part of Her

Is modern Israel a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? #theology #doctrine #christian #bible #christ
@DrJordanBCooper
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/l8Z8z4DjpNs

Apocalypse 11 says there is a time when earthly Jerusalem is spiritually Sodom and Egypt ... sounds like being fulfilled?

Alex Estrada

@alexestrada1788

Out of context and wrong!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@alexestrada1788 Egypt in Jewish tradition means "house of oppression", look how they treat Palestinians. Note that the official capital is not Tel Aviv, but Jerusalem, now.

Sodom to any BIblically literate person means the consummation of homosexual perverted desires, Jerusalem has a Pride Parade since 2002.

What is not in context? Oh, sure, Henoch and Elias haven't come yet, but I think they might be round the corner.