Friday, June 21, 2019

On Mariology, Rosary and the Five Month "Plague"


Revelation's Timelines of the End! Part 11
Brenda Weltner | 20.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNynmyCnCmY


Hans-Georg Lundahl
150 days?

about the Hail Mary's in a full Rosary ... "a Hail Mary, per day, takes the sting away" (actually it's 153).

moca
really??

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If we take 5 months as per Gregorian, not Babylonian, calendar, and starting from first of first month to last ot last month, starting any time from March 1st to September 1st, it's 153 days, exact same number as Hail Mary's in a full Rosary.

Any sequence involving a non-leap-year February, from October 1st to January 1st will have only 151 (152 if the Febrary is of a leap year) and if it starts February 1st, only 150 (or 151 in a leap year).

moca
@Hans-Georg Lundahl you pray the rosary?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The most usual way of "looking at the brazen serpent" is looking at Christ in the Eucharist.

But for 3 years and six months, the daily sacrifice - of the Mass - shall be unavailable, if not everywhere, at least to nearly all of the public.

Therefore, this may really be the time when the need for the Rosary sets in.

Most sequences of Gregorian calendar months have 153 days, which is the number of Hail Mary's in a full Rosary. 153 is also featured in the account of Genesareth fishing after Resurrection.

moca
@Hans-Georg Lundahl we are not to pray to anyone but God the Father through the Son

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"you pray the rosary?"

Not right now, a fifteen decade Rosary involves saying 16 times over "as we forgive those who trespass against us". That's irksome to me.

"we are not to pray to anyone but God the Father through the Son"

We adore the Blessed Trinity and praying to the Father, through the Son, in the unity of the Holy Spirit is one way.

However, we reach the Son, very typically, though His Blessed Mother. The phrase "pray to" is equivocal and does not always refer to adoration.

moca
@Hans-Georg Lundahl oh my....Jesus is our Advocate who prays for us continually..Mary was blessed bc she bore the Savior, but we are not to exalt or pray to her or anyone else other than Jesus!! In addition, there is never anywhere in scripture that tells us to do that. I will pray the Lord will reveal this truth to you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
First, you are wrong on what "pray to" means, if you think it is mentioned in first commandment, second, Scripture doesn't say all generations shall admit she "was" blessed, but all generations need to praise her as blessed - as still blessed. She is still the Mother of God. Third, if St. Elisabeth greeted Our Lady in words referring to King David's words about the Ark of the Covenant, how is that NOT exalting Her?

moca
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Jesus alone gets the praise! Am done debating. Only God can convict and lead into all truth

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@moca I'll give my reply too. Or St. Luke's.

"Jesus alone gets the praise!"

Luke 1:42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

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

Peace To All
I have to say something .. My husband, mother, and I said a novena prayer (Hail Mary Rosary) prayer for 9 weeks at our church years ago .. praying for God's help to conceive a child. I know many people are dead set against the Rosary and Hail Mary's .. and personally, I understand their reasoning, and don't attend the Catholic Church anymore .. however, the prayers worked. I conceived a son, and it's a been a gorgeous, beautiful sunny day every single year on his birthday since .. 23 years so far.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Peace To All Well, sounds a good deal, and if you have reasons against Vatican II Sect, you might want to try with Pope Michael.

On Astronomic Theory of Knowledge


How do we know the Milky Way is a spiral? | The Story of the Milky Way
Dr. Becky | 12.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq0zyA6Yr7o


I
1:34 Note very well, Galileo was never condemned for what he observed and said about the Milky Way. Clavius, though, after verifying (it was Clavius whom St Robert charged with verifying, wasn't it?) suggested stars might be only part of it, and there may be non-star matter as well.

Moderns, I think, have added gas clouds to stars as components, right?

What you said earlier about philosophers considering Milky Way "in the background" as early as 5th C BC must refer to Milky Way being part of Fix stars, since the only stars moving visibly to naked eye in relation to Milky Way are planets.

Oh, not just gas clouds, but dust as well, right?

Chris Baker
@Hans-Georg Lundahl You either don't understand anything about astronomy and astrophysics or you are deliberately obfuscating the issue for some unknown reason. (unknown to us.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Chris Baker I think I have read, though it was some years ago, that Galileo's observations were checked by Clavius, and that Clavius found some cloudy stuff besides stars in Milky Way.

As I recall it, between the stars in Milky Way, interstellar matter, which is now recognised to exist, consists not only of gas clouds but also dust clouds - am I wrong?

Or was the issue the other thing about how parallax is measured? In that case, first you ought to have said that, perhaps by quoting a salient part of relevant passage in my comment, and then be a bit more precise on what I am supposed to be obfuscating or not understanding.

Parallax and aberration are both so small they cannot be seen by the naked eye, and the only thing very ancient astronomers can have seen moving in relation to the Milky Way is therefore the "seven planets" - Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, and occasionally a comet.

II
2:11 Not only did Kant and the other guy have no proof, but their unproven speculation was arguably very instrumental in popularising Heliocentric or rather Acentric / Newtonian cosmography.

Obviously, appealing to Aliens was also very important:

New blog on the kid : Continuing with Carter to 24:01
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/06/continuing-with-carter-to-2401.html


If you want to skim fast to the reference, scroll down very low to "3) Idiocentric model as illustrated by Robert Carter" and then a few paragraphs lower start with "Between Kepler and Herschel, Carter omitted the real propagandists for Heliocentrism."

III
dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl
5:08 Neither Cepheid's nor stellar statistics by Herschel are apt to actually prove stellar distances, unless you presume some kind of uniformity.

The one presumed by Herschel is partially already seen as wrong, the one presumed by Leavitt could be wrong too, and either way, any absolute distance has to start in some other way, like using parallax for trigonometry - which is only valid in a Heliocentric view of the "Solar System".

Chris Baker
They measured the distances to the "local" Cepheid Variables with Parallax so they have true distances. It's perfectly accurate out to a distance that I forget but it's far enough to measure interstellar distances. But it is several hundred light years. Probably getting further all the time as the technology improves.

That gives them a light curve to pulse time relative to absolute brightness, that apparently holds true throughout. However, there's no proof that the laws of physics don't change minutely or at all over extreme distance. The actual gravity distance may be a teensy tiny fraction of a percent less than the strict inverse distance square law that we believe holds true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Chris Baker "They measured the distances to the "local" Cepheid Variables with Parallax so they have true distances."

You missed that Parallax only measures if we presume Heliocentrism (alternatively, even less intuitive, Geocentrism, but with stellar deplacements aligned in not only time but also distances with Sun).

Chris Baker
@Hans-Georg Lundahl It seems you don't understand how parallax is measured. Heliocentrism has nothing to do with it. The local star's apparent position against the more distant stars is the same function as watching fence posts next to a road go zooming behind your while the distant mountains stay the same for much longer. If you looked across the field to a fence post on the other side of the field and you measured the angles from 2 known points at right angles to the distant fence post and measured it's displacement against the mountains in the far distance behind you and used trigonometry to figure the distance you would be doing exactly the same thing the astronomers are doing to measure the distance to nearby stars. The only difference is the scale of the measurements. The distances are no more heliocentric than the distance to the fence post is Hans-centric. The distance would be the same whoever measured it if they do the math correctly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Chris Baker "Heliocentrism has nothing to do with it. The local star's apparent position against the more distant stars is the same function as watching fence posts next to a road go zooming behind your while the distant mountains stay the same for much longer. "

Which presupposes you are in a moving car.

Heliocentrism is also known - perhaps better in the context - as Geokinetism, "Earth moving".

So, my observation can be restated "what if Earth isn't moving".

IV
dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl
6:01 So, Shapley considered the Milky Way as 100 000 light years in radius.

Now, with a distance 100 000 light years, you have a Distant Starlight Problem for Young Earth Creationism.

However, suppose the real distance was only 316 or 317 light years ... exactly what would Cepheid's require in different positioning for "close stars" like alpha Centauri? Instead of 4 light years, what?

And how far away would Andromeda be, on Curtis' observation, if Milky Way were only 316 rather than 100 000 light years away?

If we continue using square roots, I get 707 light years ... also no Distant Starlight challenge to Young Earth Creationism ....

Chris Baker
It seems pretty obvious that God created the universe in pretty much it's current state, 13.8 billion years or so old at the time of creation.

Otherwise we wouldn't be able to see all the things out there that proclaim the glory of God because the light wouldn't have had time to arrive. This in no way conflicts with the evolutionary view of the universe because it was created looking as though it actually had been born that long ago. There's nothing wrong with scientists finding out how it works and even how old it is because it really is 13.8 billion years old. Here's a thought, Prove to me it was not created last week. You can't. The evidence is that it was created much longer ago but there's no way to prove it. Fortunately religion does not deal with "HOW?" and instead deals with "WHY?". Science deals with "How?" quite nicely. As we learn more, the "HOW?" changes to explain what we know.

So my faith in a created universe, about 6,000 years ago, in no way conflicts with my scientific knowledge that it is 13.8 or so, billion years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Chris Baker "Otherwise we wouldn't be able to see all the things out there that proclaim the glory of God because the light wouldn't have had time to arrive."

My question was precisely on how we are supposed to know A N Y T H I N G is as far away as 13.8 billion light years.

What if certain assumptions are flawed?

"Here's a thought, Prove to me it was not created last week."

I have memories from years ago. To account for them with a creation last week would require God including traces of things happening before creation.

My point is, with "distant starlight" the problem is the same, S U P P O S I N G we know the furthest away we see is 13.8 billion or anything exceeding 8000 light years and even some 500 less away.

B U T if instead the very distant stars are a bad conclusion on a bad supposition, we don't need God creating traces of what wasn't there to see what we see and 7200 - 7500 years being the age of Cosmos.

V
dialogue

Chris Baker
Everything in the universe seems to have a inverse relationship between the size and the number of objects. From the smallest sub atomic particles to the largest galaxies. The larger they are, the fewer they are. I haven't read anything about any studies on how many true wanderers (planets) are in interstellar space. It seems there should be a LOT of them. We have a few gigantic stars, lot's of medium sized stars, a multitude of red dwarf stars and it seems a logical progression that there would be a much larger mega multitude of failed stars and even more giant planets and again even more smaller rocky planets although small gas planets could exist if they'd never been near enough to a star to evaporate their ices. and on and on throughout interstellar space and even intergalactic space. There would be more moon sized wanderers in and around the galaxy than there are stars by a huge amount. Has anyone studied this possibility? I would think that they could easily account for the so called "missing mass" without resorting to the mysterious "dark matter".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And what if suppositions are flawed, and the sizes are wrong?

Chris Baker
@Hans-Georg Lundahl What suppositions and what sizes??? I asked questions about possibilities that seem to be logical. The whole point of my comment was to find out if anyone knows if any studies have been done or are being planned. So I really don't understand your question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Chris Baker Suppositions like "aberration and parallax" being derived in two different ways from movement of Earth, and therefore supposed Trigonometry by parallax and therefore the very first stellar distances and sizes ("local" or "our part of the galaxy" I think I have heard them called) and therefore the other distances and sizes as well.

I don't see any lack of logic in this question, and if you mean it is physically impossible in your world view, how about learning sufficient philosophy to understand difference between physically impossible (as miracles seem to an Atheist) and logically impossible (as 2=2=5).

VI
9:00 You said Hydrogen was the most abundant element in the Universe, right?

Some guys have been denying "waters above the firmament" .... and what would Hydrogen best be described as in Biblical terms?

If we term it "instant water" (add Oxygen and a spark, you get an explosion and water), we can see why Moses would have called Hydrogen water rather than air.

Plus, if I recall correctly, second most abundant interstellar matter molecule after H2 is H2O.

VII
16:00 Kapteyn ... seriously Cup Tine and not Cup Tayn?

I'm not that good on Dutch I can confidently correct you, though.

Thursday, June 20, 2019

On Who's Holding Back


The Antichrist Didn't Reveal His Identity...BUT HE'S HERE! | Dr. Gene Kim
BBC International | 27.VIII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeztOsTICzo


I
13:57 Did you say "and his tabernacle"?

"And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven."
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 13:6]

Some blaspheme the Holy Trinity, the name under which we know God since Christ's speech in Matthew 28.

Some blaspheme the Tabernacle of the Sacrament.

Some blaspheme the honour given to saints - who are ... in Heaven, right?

So, it seems Apoc. 13:6 attributes to THE Antichrist some JW/Muslim and some Protestant tenets.

II
15:21 Why would Israel have been holding Antichrist back in 50's AD, when true Israelites were persecuted Christians, and when other Israelites were submissive to Rome and for that matter clearly anti-Christian, clearly persecuting Christians, to the point where Christians had enough of being identified with them and quit calling themselves Jews, in the time of St John who in his last work, the Gospel (unless Epistles are even more recent) uses "Jews" like Synoptics use "Pharisees" or "Scribes" or "Sadducees"... why?

And how could Israel hold him back in AD 70?

You are the first time I heard any give "Israel" as solution to who's holding back (one RC solution is Imperial Dignity in Rome or Roman Empire ... mystery of inquity could be a Babylonian or Egyptian infiltration of it, which was after Actium still at bay). I have heard Protestants say both "Church" and "Holy Spirit" but not yet Israel.

It has to be something with a presence both back then and up to end times.

And Roman Empire ceased in World War I, with the fall of Russian Czars in Revolution and the exile of Charles I (Charles the Last) from Vienna. Just then in comes Communism ... with so many evils. Guess why Roman Empire is still an option? Because everyone does not agree with Gibbon on when Roman Empire ended.

III
15:57 Someone unduly occupying a major Catholic Church will in fact do, since each Catholic Church is a temple of God, and its tabernacle usually contains the Temple which tore itself down and build itself up in three days - the Body of Our Lord.

18:29 And in fact, the Catholic Church has sacrifices, so, getting them to cease 3 and a half years at Tribulation's second half of week, that is one point more in common between Antichrist and Protestant Reformations.

IV
As you brought up Jews, I'm myself as "Jewish as Torquemada" if you get my drift (or, ok, somewhat more goy blood perhaps than he, who cares), so - Romans 11 means every Jew who is not a Catholic is a cut off branch, but every Jew has a place in the Catholic Church. God can make each grafted back whenever he choses.

This does not mean Catholicism should "rejudaise", that supposes it was in some important and bad sense dejudaised.

It was dejudaised as to halakha, as Christ's new covenant replaced the Old Temple. Never as to haggada, never as to what it believes. And there are still Catholics who are ethnically the same as those Jews in Jerusalem AD 33 on Pentecost day. They are called Palestinians.

V
It seems there were only two things you noticed about Rome - it's connection to Roman Catholicism (while missing there was a Church in Rome St. Paul called saints, or more precisely, "called to be saints"), and its empire.

You have not considered its Republic.

Modern ideologies start with a Liberalism which harkens back to the Roman Republic (very pronouncedly so in the days of American and French Revolutions), and Protestantism harkens back to Luther being a disciple of Erasmus who was a nostalgic of the Republican Cicero.

Aix was made part of Republic's Empire under one Calvinus. Sextus Calvinus, hence Aquae Sextiae.

Reminds of another Calvin ... and I don't mean Calvin and Hobbes. And, while Antiochus Epiphanes was a Seleucid, heir of the leopard power, he was also a vassal of the Roman Senate.

So, I agree fourth beast is probably Rome. But in a Republican, anti-monarchic and anti-Catholic sense.

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Answers on Palestinian Origins


Who are the Palestinians? An Arab Invention. CBN.
Anthony Lee | 1.VIII.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbf2LjF8OPw


I
It so happens, Palestinians are people, not just anyone's invention.

It so happens, there is a presence on that ground from the time when the first Christian Palestinians were the first Marranos. Later on, the ones becoming Muslim under "pressure" from invader, to put it very mildly, became the first Dönmes.

II
1:11 It so happens, Hitti was educated by Presbyterians, who had a bias against Catholic and Orthodox Palestinians.

"He was educated at an American Presbyterian mission school at Suq al-Gharb and then at the American University of Beirut (AUB). After graduating in 1908 he taught at the American University of Beirut before moving to Columbia University where he earned his PhD in 1915 and taught Semitic languages. After World War I he returned to AUB and taught there until 1926. In February 1926 he was offered a Chair at Princeton University, which he held until he retired in 1954."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Hitti

As to earlier quote from Awni, I think it is taken out of context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awni_Abd_al-Hadi

III
1:46 Hafez to Yasser quote, well, I think there were Syrians in OT times too who wanted Palestine, i e Holy Land, included as part of their land, the Levant.

Recall the one who needed his leprosy cured and went to Elisha?

IV
2:37 "Palestinians are Canaanites"

No more than other Israelites, except with Philistines and Danites at Gaza strip.

V
3:40 "Palestinians are Philistines"

No more than other Israelites who came from some people assimilating Philistine minorities ....

VI
5:43 They [Palestinians] also share DNA with Shepharadic Jews. For that matter, Y-chromosome DNA even with Ashkenazi Jews.

VII
Just before 6:04 Actually, there was a period when Roman Citizens there thought of their land as Palestine. Before the Arabian conquest.

It so happens, some Palestinians are, in terms of a certain Arabo-Islamic Empire "Araba" by the fact of coming along with Omar. Often they are also even Shareefs, that is descendants of Mohammed, who was Ishmaelite or Madianite.

But Palestinians overall, as well as other Syrians, well, they are "Mustariba". Arabised.

So what population of Roman Citizenship can have been living in Palestina when Omar came?

People from Latium or Greece? Arguably some part, since pilgrims came galore. Some stayed and some who stayed did not become monks or nuns.

Mostly, they were the populations that had been ruled by Herod and Pilate.

The liturgic language of Palestinians is Syriac, that is Aramaic - the language Our Lord spoke.

Obviously Christian Palestinians, since the other ones have Coranic Arabic as their liturgic language.

Some were living as Beduins - as I know from the Church Historian Derwas James Chitty.

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

Check out his work :

The Desert a City: a Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire, 1966.

Most chapters deal with Egypt, last with Palestine. As it was called, not just under Hadrian, but also under Constantine and Theodosius and even up to Heraclius, who reconquered the Holy Cross from Chosroes II.

How Persians and Jews persecuted Christians under Chosroes is very telling. One of the items is Christians having dreams in which Christ was in Hell (you know the Targum Onkelos stuff) and returning to their ancestral Judaism.

Oh, wait, did Derwas Chitty say ancestral? Yes, he did. It's decades since I read the book, but I am sure he did.

So, population of Palestine when Omar came : Christians of Jewish origin. Some of them having resisted Chosroes with sacrifices going up to martyrdom, some of them having reverted as second time when Heraclius came. But either way, if Derwas said the Judaism they "returned" / "reverted" to was "ancestral" ... they were as Jewish as Torquemada.

VIII
"a fairly unimportant city in the Byzantine Empire" (7:04)

Except it has Holy Cross at that point, except it has Holy Sepulchre.

When Heraclius took it back from Chosroes, he was more or less a proto-Crusader.

IX
"without a single Mosque" (7:10)

Yes, but Christian Palestinians (some of whom identify as Israeli Arabs, btw) are not dependent on Mosques for being Palestinians.

Or for descending from people who lived there 2000 years ago.

X
8:28 I am not surprised to her Saladeen was a fraudster.

I am not proposing a Muslim religious claim to Holy Land, but a Palestinian ethnic claim, since the ethnos is based on Jews, Samaritans, Galilaeans from 2000 years ago. Some of whom only later became Muslims.

XI
10:23 Jews were here first. By the time of Constantine, maybe 50/50 proto-Talmudic and Christian, maybe already Christian majority - the population later split religiously into Christian and Muslim Palestinians.

Btw, they were not cut off from Edom, Moab and Ammon either, thereby fulfilling Isaiah 11.

Interesting how much you ignore indigenous Christian claims and appeal to Arabic Muslims who have other reasons to ignore them ....

XII
11:20 And one can also remind us that neighbouring Edom, Moab and Ammon had been Judaised by being Christianised about 2000 years earlier, starting AD 70, when Christians of Jerusalem fled to Pella - meaning Pella in Jordan, not Pella in Macedonia.

Of course, a tourist book about Jordan omits this info.

Christians fleeing to Pella in Jordan and then returning, so the holy sites of Crucifixion and Resurrection were correctly identified is an integral part as I recall it of a certain book by my friend Stephan Borgehammar.

How the Holy Cross was Found. From Event to Medieval Legend.
Stephan Borgehammar 1991
https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/f074f6ea-05ab-4363-943b-e76a2d8c9091


He's my friend and benefactor, by the way.

So, commonality of Palestinian and Jordanian populations dates back to early Christian times.

Meaning, Jordanians have a strong Jewish (Christian / Muslim in confession, Jewish in ancestry) admixture, as Palestinians have a strong Jordanian one.

XIII
12:06 "but not to Israel"

US Americans invading Britain could claim English could go to Holstein (as origin of Angles), neighbouring parts of Germany (as origin of Saxons) and of Denmark (as origin of Jutes), and for that matter to Denmark and Normandy (as origins of Normans), and to Netherlands (as origin of Flemish), but not to England.

Just because US Americans of 13 states mainly came from England (not counting admixtures from Irish, Scots, non-British, including Poles, which are relevant comparisons for Ashkenazi ancestry, see their maternal DNA, mitochondriae not being Middle Eastern but Eurasian from further North), doesn't mean English are not from England.

XIV
13:56 I read a book bout history of Iraq a few months ago.

Interesting stuff about Hamurappi and all that, but it went on to WWI even.

Part of the Anti-British sentiments in Arab world leading to certain dispositions about Iraq is from English negotiations about Arabic speaking parts of Ottoman Empire.

Arabs took part in a rising against Turkey and thereby probably promoted Entente victory in WWI. One of the agreed conditions - this was prior to 1922 as WWI was ongoing - was to have a large Palestine under Jordanian monarchical mandate.

This is what Jordan claims on Palestine go back to in a more mundane sense than Isaiah 11 and its fulfilment 2000 or 1949 years ago.

Your 3 omits the Roman Province of Palestine. A Christian land of mainly Hebrew ethnicity.

XV
14:52 "to call the Jews occupiers in their own home" ....

I refer back to my comparison with US Americans invading England to settle there.

Fortunately, so far, hypothetical.

"To call Yankees" (the word means English!) "occupiers in their own home! This is a travesty of history."

Note, I have not said much FOR Arafat's historiography. What he may have really meant was Palestinians descend from Jews, but he did not want to use that word.

West Bank was held by ancestors of Palestinians in the times of King David as well as of Christ.

And since then the Jewish people has split into three : Jews, Christians, Muslims, the latter two called Palestinians. The former called "Palestinian Jews".

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

How Impossible or Possible Are Moon Hoax Theories?


How Do We Know the Moon Landing Isn't Fake?
Fraser Cain | 14.IV.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHt842u_Yw4


I
1:51 I happen to be fairly undecided on this particular.

Agnostic, except the cancer of one of them who went through van Allen belt suggests he went through the van Allen belt.

I also happen to have taken up a debate with Phil Plaite.

On the issue.

In order to fake, one need certainly not have 40 000 people faking, it's enough, according to your enumeration, 12 faked. Plus some more. Not 40 000 more.

Now, usually, one should trust the evidence of 12 men good and true, but, one of them wasn't, since he was willing to risk sacrilege about the Eucharist in a "Lord's Supper" held where ... wine (if there was no consecration that was valid, clearly the case with him) ... would be spilled.

Also, another of them had a chance of giving sworn testimony, and boxed the man proposing it.

Phil Plaite's narrative is, the moonlanding would have been hoaxed in order to show off before Russians, so 40 000 would have been doing fake tests on things that would not have worked in space. That's not how I would consider a possible fake motivated. Ergo, in a possible fake on my view, the technological testing by the 40 000 would have been just fine.

My main point is, even with the moonlanding, there is no proof for Heliocentrism. If Armstrong et al. saw Earth turn around itself, according to Geocentrism they were on a Moon turning westward around Earth at full circle every 24 h 55 minutes.

So, if the recommendations for me to watch videos arguing for the moon landing being genuine are there to convince me of Heliocentrism, by someone manually recommending, not by algorithm, someone is doing a very foul coverup over my real line of argument. And Phil Plaite certainly knows by now (if he was coherent, has good memory and is honest to himself) that Moonlanding denial is NOT my basis for anything, it's simply an option he has not successfully argued against.

II
2:43 "appearance of hurling metal capsules containing humans"

Metal capsule is real.

Astronomers could have gone in by door and out by secret back door before takeoff.

Takeoff real as to ascent from Cape Canaveral.

Rockets go into space, and cinema is played before TV cameras.

So, the many would have been involved in producing what is real, like metal capsule, the few would have been involved in rigging a back door, receiving the astronomers, etc. In other words, few real conspirators are enough.

III
dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Phil Plaite considers a conspiracy would have taken 40 000 humans conspiring, because he argues that the raison d'être for a conspiracy would have been a Potemkin façade of good technology. My point is, technology was real enough, no Potemkin façade involved, a conspiracy would have been due to NASA having insufficient trust in space being what they believed.

If there was no conspiracy, they had sufficient trust, and misplaced, and fortunately, they were at least right on gravity being Newtonian, so Armstrong didn't fall from Moon to Earth.

The maximum a Moon landing can have proven is, gravity is Newtonian rather than Aristotelic. Fine, not enough to debunk Geocentrism, if so.

seigeengine
The only rational conclusion your reasoning can bring is that the USA had a perfectly working capability to put humans on the moon, but didn't, for no reason.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@seigeengine "had a perfectly working capability to put humans on the moon,"

More or less, adequate protection with Van Allen belt was lacking, I only recently heard one of the 12 got cancer.

"but didn't, "

On that theory.

"for no reason."

Reasons can be other than lack, real or perceived, of adequate technology, like second thoughts on the cosmology behind it.

If I were a Flat Earther, this would be a really strong motive ... I'm not.

seigeengine
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Their radiation exposure was negligible.

Yeah, that's more of your moronic drivel. Stop doing that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@seigeengine My dear, I'm not into taking orders from you.

IV
3:09 400 000 or 40 000?

Either way, you are allowing Phil Plaite to define the Hoaxer's side and what it implies.

V
dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl
4:18 Russian astronomers back then were USSR astronomers.

While they had a Cold War loyalty to competing with US, they had a more overreaching loyalty to modernity.

In other words, if they thought a ruse would help proving Galileo right and his judges wrong (which is not the case even with a real landing, but some have illogically twisted it that way) then they would have had a valid motive for collusion with NASA.

Note very well, I am not saying it was a hoax, I am not saying for certain it wasn't, I am saying your argument isn't good enough for proving it beyond reasonable doubt.

A USSR astronomer who didn't see it and honestly said so could have been dismissed as "you missed it" or if insisting "no, I looked where you guys said you were looking, when you did" he could have been put into a Gulag or a mental institution, heavily politicised in Soviet Union.

Someone just said in French on another youtube video, the only empire that hasn't used archaeology to glorify the past, is USSR which glorified the future instead. So, the motive of glorifying future modernity ..

Fraser Cain
It wasn't just astronomers, the whole military complex would have been tracking them in radio waves. They would have been receiving the radio signals broadcast back to Earth. And they would have loved to prove that the Americans were faking it. Can you imagine how good that would have made the USSR look?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Fraser Cain "And they would have loved to prove that the Americans were faking it."

Good alibi against them faking it - except if they did fake, it was for a cause overriding the rivalry USSR and US.

In other words, your proof ain't none.

Fraser Cain
So you're saying there wasn't a space race, that the Soviets were in on the conspiracy too? And the Chinese orbiters at the Moon right now, they're in on the conspiracy too? And when SpaceX sends Starship to the Moon, it'll be in on the conspiracy too?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I perfectly admit there was a space race, but before there was a space race, there was a space project and before there was a space project, there was a modernity project.

And US, Soviets, China are all part of that project.

Ergo, I am not saying there was a conspiracy, but I am saying, a conspiracy would have been possible.

By now there is a conspiracy to use this occasion for making conspiracy theorists look bad.

VI
dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl
5:07 The guys who are producing the high resolution pictures are also much fewer than 400 000 or even just 40 000.

The orbiter is in the hands of far fewer people.

Remarcable how you seem to have to fake what someone else's argument means ....

The Moon Hoax is still possible, and that is, to me, still very much beside the point, since if the landing was genuine, that still doesn't disprove Geocentrism one bit.

Though, some think it does.

seigeengine
The moon hoax isn't possible.

And while that wouldn't disprove geocentrism... geocentrism is objectively the inferior model.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@seigeengine "The moon hoax isn't possible."

Disagreed, or impossibility was only recently proven.

"And while that wouldn't disprove geocentrism..."

Thank you.

"geocentrism is objectively the inferior model."

Ah, in what way, for what reason?

seigeengine
@Hans-Georg Lundahl You're wrong.

It's a joke.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@seigeengine Which of my three statements or things alluded to is, and why should I agree it's "a joke"?

Sunday, June 16, 2019

Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)


On First Half of a Barron Video · Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)

8:20 Probably, part of the problem behind modern doctrine errors is, Étienne Gilson preserving the exact thought of Aquinas is dealing as if with an objet d'art, and divorced in a way from the neo-scholasticism of Jaques Maritain.

Best exception, Rev. Houghton, whose godparents for his conversion were Jacques and Raïssa.

9:05 In my recall of Newman's history of the Arians, not only was homousios a neologism, but the Latin version, consubstantialis, had even been tainted by previous use, in Patripassian heresy (the one opposite to Arian one).

Perhaps it's just my bad memory.

A word can have different meanings in different contexts, like when in XXth - XXIst C. someone says he's "creationist" you ask if he means young earth or old earth creationist - a Catholic obviously should be young earth, even if Fulcran Vigoroux took liberties - but two centuries earlier you would have replied "oh, you think you got your soul from God, not from your father, then?" (opposites being for one Theistic Evolutionist - or Atheistic such - and for other Traducianist).

So, the problem your "Pope Francis" sees with Fundies is surely not that adding millions and billions of years in the timeline somehow is just a neologism for an old doctrine. Even he must realise, they - we, I'm a Fundie in this sense too - see that addition as a novum.

9:49 Homousios may very well be a Greek culture synonym - indeed is - of adequately researched and obvious Biblical doctrine.

Old Earth creationism or Theistic Evolutionism aren't so to an "Evolutionist" culture, since Evolutionist is actually not a culture, but a specific religious stance in it.

0:45 "the nostalgia of Fundamentalists is to return to the ashes"

In other words, your "Pope Francis" was in fact both referring to a term often used about young earth creationists and also given a disparaging psychological explanation, a Bulverism, of it.

Saturday, June 15, 2019

Discussion of Number of the Beast


666: What Does It REALLY Mean?
ReligionForBreakfast | 13.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-PqevqQEQ4


1:52 "both Greeks and Hebrews believed that every letter had a corresponding number"

In fact, it is not a matter of belief but of a then current usage. They didn't have Arabic numerals, and Roman numerals were clumsy for the purpose, since most letters had no number value.

As current as in our day ASCII, which for each visible sign (and some non-screen visible ones, commands) has a binary number with a number value ... the visible signs generally reaching from 32 (space) and upward. A to Z have values 65 to 90, a to z 97 to 122. Accented letters have higher values.

2:03 You know one other guy whose name gave 666 in gematria of the Greek alphabet?

Or, if you prefer, isopsephia.

Now, here is a vocative, possibly also genitive.

M.NEPOYA.

Yes, modern Greek spells him NEPBAC, but back then it was NEPOYAC.

He was emperor when St John was captive on Patmos, and it was his predecessor, Domitian, who had put St John there after failing to kill him by boiling in oil.

Now, Nerva did not become a very eager persecutor. He freed John from Patmos and he abdicated before dying.

He was probably also the first recipient of the text of Apocalypse, and he probably made the copies to the seven Churches (St. John himself carrying the one to Ephesus).

How so? If you are emperor or other ruler and exile someone to an island, who is a communicator you don't like, it makes sense to allow letters from him only to yourself.

He should be able to apply for grace ... not communicate with the guys you want to suppress.

So, first reader of Apocalypse should have been Nerva. And he seems to have got nervous about persecuting Christians, so, St. John was a free man, and letters were delivered.

3:39 "there is no evidence" - discounting Eusebius, of course ... going along with evaluations by Merrill, Thompson, Willborn.

4:26 Yes, there are manuscripts writing 616 instead of 666.

However, this reading is explicitly refused by St Irenaeus, who came from Asia Minor, where St John had died.

Nero himself back then being the culprit is also excluded by Sts Irenaeus and Hippolytus both referring to a future Antichrist near the end of time.

If Nero were a real candidate to St Irenaeus, why was he excluding 616?

Here are the thing with Hebrew / Greek gematria.

Nero 666 or 616.
Nerva 666.
Domition, scot free.

And ASCII : Nero and Nerva scot free, Domitian has a vocative DOMITIANE

5:18 "conspiracy theories and predictions of the future"

1) You don't know St John meant Nero, it is an educated guess, but still a guess
2) Predictions of the future are NOT conspiracy theories.

It's a huge difference between believing in Illuminati and believing in Harmageddon.

You may believe in both, I tend to do so, but they are two different types of belief. Believing in Illuminati is a conspiracy theory, believing in upcoming Harmageddon is a prediction of the future. Believing the one is believing some people have been clever and justified in their second guessing of events and known networks, believing the other is believing Christ revealed Apocalypse to St. John.

5:51 The one actually brushing aside the historical context is in fact you.

St Irenaeus and St Hippolytus are near contemporaries to Apocalypse, they take it as precisely a prediction of the future.

You live 1900 years later, you believe it was a polemic with only back then current events being relevant, no predictions of a far future which could be coinciding with our time.

You are not the historical context, neither are the guys second guessing it, Sts Irenaeus and Hippolytus are.

Thursday, June 13, 2019

On First Half of a Barron Video


On First Half of a Barron Video · Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)

Bishop Barron on Pope Francis, Tradition, and John Henry Newman
Bishop Robert Barron | 11.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e231Z2LnNt8


"fundamentalism of the museum"

As Marine le Pen said on another issue (I know you know French) "je me sens visé, mais pas coupable" (changing spelling to adapt for other gender of speaker).

Your "Pope Francis" has seemingly so deep a friendship with non-Catholic enemies of Fundamentalism, like Rabbi Skorka and the late Tony Palmer, that he shares - remember I said seemingly - compulsively their enmity for it.

Pope Michael may be flawed when it comes to pastoral of personal choices, being allergic to too independent such and confusing the role of Pope with that of Novice Master (he's an avid reader of Little St Thérèse), but your "Pope Francis" is allergic to doctrinal positions that are in fact Catholic, like Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism.

Because that is part of what Fundamentalism means.

There was a time, when Mouseion meant, not what we refer to as Museum, with dead exhibits of animals, stuffed, or skeletal or fossilised remains impregnated with shellac, or houses no longer inhabited, clothes no longer worn, tools no longer used except on entertaining rather than commercially productive occasions in the Museum.

There was a time, when Mouseion simply meant an institute of higher learning, not cut off from the past.

An Universitas Studiorum is, as you may know, an extention of the concept. From the litterae humaniorae like occasion at the Mouseion of Alexandria (with a library according to some far too practical, like Hogwart in book form) to all kinds of learning available in Paris where there were also colleges like Sorbonne.

Now, one could argue, Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism at Sorbonne were there because Heliocentrism was not available, deep time was not available.

I argue, Sorbonne was a true University, with true learning before these positions contradicting its learning were invented, and that means the positions of Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism should be defended like St Thomas defended the Creed against Averroes.

Sure, it's no longer the Blessed Trinity, but it's still an attack on traditional full understanding of "creatorem coeli et terrae". Meaning, the discourse on "God is not a magician with an omnipotent magic wand" is a repetition of errors shared between Averroes, probably Spinoza (whom I know less, I know Averroes through oponents like St Thomas and Bishop Tempier, but CSL was less concentrated on refuting Baruch Sp.), probably Jewish kabbalism of some non-Theistic version.

And your "John XXIII" has also been accused, not with certainty, but at least with realism, of being a non-Catholic, Masonic, Communist infiltrator.

His flawed starting of a council clearly merits his counting as either a bad pope or none at all. If saint at all, not canonisable. Especially not as Pope.

"organic images"

Some point, one should be able to state truth directly without recurring to an image, but as you wish for an image of gardening, I'd liken modernism ("John XXIII" and "Pope Francis" included) to Monsanto like tampering with the genomes.

Monsanto can of course sue me for libel for likening them to antipopes Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio ... but their take on infertilising seeds of upcoming plants, so one is obliged to buy seeds from Monsanto next year again, that reminds so much of a Magisterium where recalling what it said yesterday isn't good enough, you have to check what it says today. I think I might win if Monsanto sued me.

Patric M.
Excellent point, Hans.


3:09 Ah, the development of doctrine, in Newman's sense, btw, which of them ...?

He wrote a book with a title referring to the concept, but it was "an early version of his Apologia", and in the foreword, he specifically stated he had written it about his decision before receiving Catholic instruction, so it could be identified as a comprehensible decision by an Anglican clergyman, which he had been, and not stated in terms imposable by his Catholic catechists.

Meaning, the Catholic Church specifically wanted it to risk including errors Newman had made prior to learning from the Church. And this is stated as a kind of foreword.

3:51 Granted.

This is the exact reason why I have dared use aether as medium of not only light, but even vectors and as surrounding medium around atoms, despite this not being specifically taught by the Church, as it defends Geocentrism.

This is the exact reason why I have claimed "tower of Babel" was planned as a three step rocket, and God meant what He said in Genesis 11:6. The "tower" eventually stood over Cape Canaveral.

The fact that it was not called "rocket" in so many words might be because "tower" has an apt "sensus technicior" in three step rockets, since before takeoff they look like towers.

By "sensus technicior" I mean a sense still in contact with primary sense and not yet fully formalised as a "sensus technicus".

And reason why God said no, back then, apart from disobedience, well re-utilising Uranium known from Mahabharat wars (extended but corrupted version of Genesis 6 verses 4, 5, 11, as well as of Genesis 4 description of Lamech's family), would have been a very bad rocket fuel. God wanted to prevent a mushroom cloud over Göbekli Tepe, and did just that.

Genesis 1 - 11 is literally history (traditional doctrine) fell unto a mind so lively some have taken it for heretic (though I did check there was no patristic unity about skyscraper version of intended tower) and some for mad. As it happens, though this is of less concern to other than myself and those dealing with me, mine.

That is dealing with me as something other than a writer.

4:38 "to live is to change"

For men.

As far as we know, not for God. God being unchangeable. At least in relation to our time. God evaluated every split second of my life before he said "fiat lux" in fluent Hebrew.

5:40 "an animal changes to remain the same."

In a pastoral sense, as dealing with "animals" (sheep are animals and animalia rationalia need have no qualms of being likened to these animalia irrationalia, better sheep than goats) so does the Church.

This is why I think, while Montini was an Antipope who had no authority to abolish the duty of previous submission to Church censors, through him, God was doing a favour, both to Catholics caught up in his Vatican II sect, and even to the up to now less unified in command non-Vatican-II-ers, since to a blogger it makes much more sense submitting to a post factum judgement of a legitimate bishop than submitting everything before publishing on a blog - which is a true publishing, unless it's a private blog for invited readers only - to previous censorship.

N'en déplaise pas trop à Pape Michel!

In a doctrinal sense, no.

An animal which changes chewing habits as teeth grown and are lost, still is not supposed to change the DNA. And doctrine is to Church as DNA to livestock.

6:02 It so happens, a white fence might be less tarnished by going black over no touch policy than by going rainbow colours over a different and changed painting strategy. Especially with a certain today well known symbolism of rainbow colours.

Bishop Robert Barron
Well, of course...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bishop Robert Barron You are aware, the Church is the mystical body of the God-Man and cannot change anything He revealed while on Earth, right?

Bishop Robert Barron
Hans-Georg Lundahl Development is not change in the sense that you mean. You’re referring to corruption.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Bishop Robert Barron A changing DNA is corruption.

Mutations mean aging and less fit (if at all affected) offspring.

Now, in organisms, DNA is information.

In the law, hagada, what it says is facts, is information.

What obliges may change somewhat according to circumstances, for instance the Sabbath from the old creation be trumped by the Sunday of Resurrection, this morning of the New Creation, or Temple Sacrifices be replaced by Holy Mass. Plus lots of lesser instances.

What must be believed cannot mutate.

It can flourish, show new sides, etc, but it cannot mutate. The Yellow Rose of Texas can't be a red rose unless it's another rose.

A N D what God as Man revealed c. 2000 years ago can be interrogated from all scholastic and scientific and possibly other angles, but it cannot change.

Bishop Robert Barron
Hans-Georg Lundahl Friend, that’s what I mean. You’re more or less inventing a quarrel here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, we are on the same side in principle. Fine!

So, where did your quarrel with the Fundies come from?

You agree that Mark 10:6 situates creation of Adam and Eve far closer to beginning of time than to time of Our Lord speaking, right? You agree He could be ignorant in the sense of not knowing one way or the other, but He could not be in positive error when He was teaching, right?


On to : Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)

Friday, June 7, 2019

On Good and Bad Arguments for Good and Bad Ideas (or admitting an argument wrong, even if popular and in support of one's idea


Flat Earther AGREES With SciManDan!!
SciManDan | 7.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWKqpBINNRE


I
4:20 There are Evolution believers who can't do the maths too.

(Btw, I am not a Flat Earther, but I am a Geocentric, so this argument concerns me, I gave it up after a mathematical analysis by Robert Carter).

For instance, if I state that carbon date 40 000 years ago really was date of Deluge, 2957 BC, they will go, "oh, he must be wrong on the maths, there is no way a measurement could be wrong by a factor of 8".

Well, carbon dates don't directly measure time, but directly measure remaining C14:C12 ratio. And I consider them wrong about not one percent of that measure, I only consider them wrong by a factor of about 60 about how much C14:C12 there was when last Neanderthal died.

Which is not a thing they measure.

So, the alternative science side is not alone in lots of supporters handicapped in maths. It's fairly common across the field.

In my case, the argument I withdrew support from was how it would feel to be on a spinning earth (merry go round parallel, also the one adressed by Robert Carter).

Oh, feel in our stomachs is basically what I was supporting up to Carter (not FE, but Geocentric, but this is not about globe as globe, but globe as spinning).

[S]-Riley Dunn
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh? How would it feel on an Earth spinning at 0.0007 RPM? How would it feel to travel 0.25 degrees per minute?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, point already granted on my part.

[S]-Riley Dunn
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I asked you a question and you answered with “yes”. Try again. Also, remember that humans feel acceleration, not velocity. But anyway, show us your math.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I gave a yes to your point : it is already granted.

II
4:59 By his words "gravity doesn't exist" I suppose he means Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity doesn't exist.

Either of them, or Aristotelic gravity (heavy bodies tend to the centre of the Universe, which is the centre of the Earth) or sth else could account for the observed acceleration.

People who differentiate between observations and deductions are fairly rare on your side too (outside the science geeks, who you seem to be one of).

He might also mean gravity if his model (not Aristotelic if he is Flat Earth) is not universal.

III
By the way, thanks for the trampoline clip, exactly what would happen to someone jumping off a train, he would be dragged on ground with train speed and probably die or get very unhealthy if at all surviving, and probably be maimed for life if any survival.

Also, a miss on usually well documented Hergé in The Temple of the Sun : he jumps off a train into a narrow river gorge and into the water, arguably he would be crashing into the gorge walls if it wasn't a comic book.

IV
8:34 And how rare is it Evolution believers and Heliocentric / Acentrics admit there are flawed arguments for their view.

"Armstrong saw Earth spinning from the Moon"

Yeah - if Moon is turning around Earth at 24 h 55 minutes per turn, what would Earth look like from Moon? Turning around itself of course.

Or this one:

"We managed to orient ourselves in space, which we would not have been able to if we had the wrong idea of it"

Depends on what type of wrong idea, if you wear glasses that turn all upside down, your brain gets used and you start to orient normally, even if light hits your eye the "wrong way round". Geocentrism doesn't state Heliocentrics get the facts wrong within the wrong framework, just that they get them in the wrong framework.

a

johnbiggscr
The moon takes roughly 30 days to go around the earth, not 24hours.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is according to Heliocentrism, in which the 24 h 55 min between twice you see the moon in same place is supposed to be a compound of Moon's monthly movement and Earth's spin.

Gratulations to showing up to illustrate my point that being knowledgeable on the opponents' pov is rare all over the field, not just among the "marginal" community.

b

[S]-Riley Dunn
Where are your quotes from? What is the second one even talking about?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
My "quotes" are summing up arguments given by Heliocentrics.

And the last one, successful space travel, has been featured as a recent new proof we got cosmology right.

[S]-Riley Dunn
Hans-Georg Lundahl
So what is the source of your quoting?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Arguments I met in real life and on the internet, and not actual quoting.

If you insist on a real actual quote with a real actual source:

"Ok, I get it. You think this is silly because there is no way to get a lander on Mars without a heliocentric solar system model. Yes, that's an excellent point. But still, this IS evidence of a heliocentric model that you can figure out for yourself."

Wired : How Do We Know the Earth Orbits the Sun?
Author: Rhett Allain dot-physics 04.14.14 08:26 am
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/how-do-we-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/

Monday, June 3, 2019

Hilbert on Swedish Proposed Rune Ban


Is Sweden Banning Runes?
History With Hilbert | 31.V.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHzZCNpVvmc


I
2:19 "runes are an alphabet" [plus ensuing parts of his discussion]

Actually, three different ones.

  • 1) Older Rune row, 2:nd C AD, as you mentioned, probably depending on some alphabet from Rhaetia, had 24 letters or runes. (This is where the odal rune comes from, now banned in singled out shape, since symbol for indigenism considered as incitation against ethnic group);
  • 2) in England, there is an extended version of it (used by Tolkien for the map in The Hobbit);
  • 3) Younger Rune row (Scandinavia with other "Viking" countries only), which is Viking age and had only 16 runes.


The now discussed Tyr rune (a T with "slanted roof") is common to all three of them. In older one, it stood for T, in younger, for T and D. But not Thorn and usually not Eth, which would be written Thorn.

I see the English rune row was also used in Frisia, as you mentioned "Anglo-Frisian", I'd say "rune row".

To me, Futhark or Futhork refers to Younger rune row. The other ones don't start with F, U, Th, A/O, R, K.

Banning of Odal Rune in Sweden doesn't concern "letter O," since it is either written with the A/O letter or the U letter in the younger rune row, the one most used by us.

One could imagine banning a certain type of letter O, like the yin and yang symbol ...

I do not think Odal rune is banned in the context of texts written in Older or Anglo-Frisian rune rows.

Using it as abbreviation for example of Olof would be a probable prosecution, and the concerned Olof would be suspected of using "abbreviation" as a lame excuse, unless he was known to be highly pro-immigration. Or at least not highly anti-immigration.

5:29 Gott mit uns - I think this text goes back well before Nazis.

II
9:39 Good parallel.

There are Christian texts in the Arabic alphabet.

And Sweden is not likely to ban the Shahada or Allah Akbar as long as Löfvén is PM.

Here you have for instance a Bible in two languages online, Arabic and English:

http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/

III
14:33 "descended from Odin" (unless the automatic subtitles went wrong).

As a Christian I would actually agree lots of us are descended from Odin and Frey as well as from non-divinised later Ynglings. Like lots of Italians are descended from another false god, Julius Caesar ....

How do you like my theory that Odin is the Yeshu of the Talmud (at least in contexts prior to trial/execution ones, which seemed calqued on Jesus Christ and are incompatible with his dying in Uppsala region)?