Objectivity of Truth

Atheism Logically DISMANTLED (Using Morality, Mathematics & Reason!)
Daily Dose Of Wisdom | 11 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AGZm-2g9os

I 1:00 think Alex recognizes that signpost 1:02 because on his website he rails I think 1:05 rightfully against some of the abuses of 1:07 the Roman Catholic Church where he talks 1:09 about how priests have sexually abused 1:13 children

Does that abuse belong to the Roman Catholic Church?

First, are Roman Catholic (as compared to other recognised confessions and religions) the worst offenders or just the least good at covering up?
Second, are those clergy, mostly really Roman Catholics (as the religion was traditionally understood) or are they modernists?
Third, even among the modernists, isn't that more a thing of the past, isn't Theodore Edgar McCarrick older than James Martin?

McCarrick later met with then senator John Kerry, a Catholic and the Democratic nominee in that year's presidential election. Some Catholics felt Kerry should not have been allowed to receive Communion due to his political position favoring abortion rights.

In 2019 Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia stated that "due to the confusion caused by his statements and activities regarding same-sex related (LGBT) issues, I find it necessary to emphasize that Father Martin does not speak with authority on behalf of the Church, and to caution the faithful about some of his statements."

Note, neither of these men is accused of personally having committed sexual acts incompatible with priesthood. But they represent tendencies and they represent tendencies of at least moderate modernism.

I suppose 1:56 um objectivity to me if if if you want 1:58 my definition would be to say um that it 2:00 is true regardless of human intervention 2:02 regardless of human consciousness for 2:04 instance the Earth orits the Sun that 2:05 would be true if all humans disappeared 2:07 every single one of them it would still 2:09 be an objective fact

Badly chosen example. The Earth shall not be moved.

Only an Atheist could argue this as objectively known from his erroneous Atheism.

Any Christian would run into things like "well, we actually can interpret the Bible this way" (which, even if it were consistently true, doesn't mean by itself we should).

Or things like "God wouldn't pose appearances that mislead the scientists" (when the scientists have their somewhat ad hoc and ultimately Atheism dependent view on how to interpret the appearances, which the vast mass of mankind has no inherent need to agree with).

Also, if all humans disappeared because (possible on his view, not ours) the Earth had ceased to orbit the Sun, what about that?

But actually, for "murder is wrong" to be objectively true, it need not be able to survive the disappearance of all man, it is sufficient that it's a corollary of human existence while it exists.

the 4:05 instinctual nature within us to stay 4:07 alive causes us to think of those as 4:10 objective truths

OK, so, what of the murderer who commits murder because of the instinctive nature within him wanting to stay alive and well, and feeling an intense well-being from the act of murder, alternatively, feeling his well-being depends on things he can only obtain from the murder, alternatively, both of above together?

4:52 Chocolate, objectively, is tasty.

So is in moderate quantities, tar. If you doubt the latter, ask a fan of tar flavoured teas.

A man who can't enjoy chocolate or tar flavoured teas, has an unusual limitation.

Now unusual limitations are there in everyone. We are fallen. The problem is not having one, but having one that affects others.

Like a murderer has a very unusual limitation if he thinks a corpse is nicer than a living person, and it very much affects others if he gets to the living person in order to obtain a corpse. I mean, for a living person to become a corpse, that is certainly being affected.

10:17 There is arbitrariness in mathematical language when you go beyond basic arithmetic of natural integers.

In "3 apples", three certainly is a number.

But some will state "3 meters" also contains this number rather than "3 meters" being a length proportion to a standard "meter" length. I'd balk at that. When we deal with length, we deal with geometry, not arithmetic.

It is certainly true that "(4 - 2)²" is equal to "4² - 2*4*2 + 2²", but is this because "(-2)²" essentially is "+4"? Or is it because "4² - 2*4*2 + 2²" is a convenient shorthand for "4² - 4*2 - (4 -2)*2" — and I hold the latter. There is no essential law about numbers as such saying "a negative times a negative equals a positive" it is just a way of restating "when you subtract something which contains a subtraction, the subsumed subtrahend subtracts from the overall subtraction" ...

14:02 In the Antebellum South, Racism was arguably internalised by lots of Black people.

That's part of why in American English "Negro" is perceived as a slur, as a way of marking inferiority of them.

Such a thing is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. You also find it in lots of Pariahs in India, and in lots of Mental Patients.

When lots of a certain class that's targetted are so Stockholmised they confirm the stereotype, a majority population that's prejudiced risks to have the prejudices confirmed.

If the statements of racists had been ontologically true, it is less certain that racism as a type of action would have been morally reprehensive. The point is, the Antebellum South had its collective moral delusions bolstered by delusions about fact. And those in turn bolstered by a collective Stockholmisation.

17:22 You are presuming it happened the way it is told. Have you gone through the truth claims involved and how they are supported or not, or is it just a prejudice?

Introducing: The Wisdom Society
Daily Dose Of Wisdom | 6 June 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tfSVx3qiKA

I'm so sorry you are including the old-earther and casual bit still anti-Catholic John Lennox, and even worse, the somewhat fanatic old-earther Hugh Ross in your wisdom club.

Someone seems to have made an objection, to my first, and then withdrawn it:

I'm Not Sure if Graham Hancock is Part of My Audience, I'm Part of His

Fact-checking science communicator Flint Dibble on Joe Rogan Experience episode 2136
Graham Hancock Official Channel | 11 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEe72Nj-AW0

I looked up your article, Sir.*

I owe you, you put me on the trace of Göbekli Tepe being Babel, even if you so far do not share that tenet.

I think your weakness is accepting traditional dates. If at certain parts of the early past, carbon 14 levels were lots lower than supposed, that means a remainder of for instance 25 pmC now is less than thought due to decay, and more than thought due to initially low values.

Let's say a Flood happened in 2957 BC. If the atmosphere had a carbon level of 1.628 pmC, the immediate extra years 34 000 and the carbon age is 39 000 BP** (Campi Flegrei).

Let's say Noah died in 2607 and Peleg was born in 2556 BC. If the atmosphere had (in forty of those fiftyone years) a carbon level rising from 43 to 51 pmC (not looking up the decimals), that means that the carbon dates would be 9500 BC to 8000 BC (Göbekli Tepe).***

Shem, Ham and Japheth had lived in the pre-Flood world for 100 years, and they were (presumably) each alive when Noah died. (At least Shem was).

23 000–15 000 BC, Kerbaran (from your article).°

The beginning thereof would like c. 2800 BC, c. 160 years after the Flood:

2811 av. J.-Chr.

7,952 pcm, donc daté à 23 761 av. J.-Chr.

2787 av. J.-Chr.

8,996 pcm, donc daté à 22 687 av. J.-Chr.

The end thereof would be like c. 2700 BC, one century later:

2712 av. J.-Chr.

17,576 pcm, donc daté à 17 062 av. J.-Chr.

2686 av. J.-Chr.

24,062 pcm, donc daté à 14 486 av. J.-Chr.

[It can be mentioned that the oldest shipwreck is dated to 2700–2200 BC:

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

The earlier limit would be a bit after 1700 BC

1700 av. J.-Chr.

87,575 pcm, donc daté à 2800 av. J.-Chr.

1678 av. J.-Chr.

89,4653 pcm, donc daté à 2598 av. J.-Chr.

The latter would be in 1633 BC:

1633 av. J.-Chr.

93,3283 pcm, donc daté à 2203 av. J.-Chr.

Cyprus, mentioned in the video, is considered as peopled 11 000 BC, that is between 2686 and 2659 BC.]

* Gobekli Tepe: Gradual evolution? Or transfer of technology? Or both?
by Graham Hancock, Published 14th April 2024
https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg23/

** Or 37 000 BC.

*** I'll be quoting the tables on this post:

New blog on the kid: Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14
Wednesday 1 May 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 09:28
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/05/mes-plus-recentes-tables-de-carbone-14.html

° Kebaran? It said "Kerbaran" on Graham's site, but the next period was Geometric "Kebaran" ... sounds more correctly.

I Have Some Audience in India

The Stone Age versus the Indian scriptures #stoneage #prehistory #Purana
Radha Mohan Das - Vedic Science and history | 12 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkvLaaaUw28

Göbekli Tepe fits the Genesis narrative very well.

It's West of the mountain land called Armenia, back then Urartu or Ararat (that Ararat has since then been the name of two specific mountains is somewhat beside the point). So it fits "and they removed from the East" ...

It's just three quarters West of the North side of a very square plain, and that square plain is between Euphrates and Tigris, as is Göbekli Tepe itself.

If "Shinear" means Mesopotamia, this fits "and they found a plain in the land of Shinear" ...

In Göbekli Tepe itself, you do not find proto-writing, but things dated older in carbon dates (which I think give the actual relative dates), you find the 32 symbols discovered by Genevieve von Petzinger (and Mr. von Petzinger is such a support for her) all the way from Spain to Indonesia. Things dated younger, you do not find the 32 symbols again, and when proto-writing reappears, its different in Vinča and in Mohenjo Daro, and different again in some place in the Ukraine.

This fits the idea that at the outset "all the earth was of one language" and in the end "God confused their language" ...

If we inverse the order of Ramayana and Mahabharata, the latter fits with a story of a world wide empire gone bad, and Krishna (whom you should not call lord, by the way) died about 150 years before the Flood of Noah.

Ramayana, apart from descriptions of cities that could be based on Indian architecture known to the poets, pretty well describes a Paleolithic world which as a Creationist I would consider as post-Flood.

Mahabharata also features Bhima, a giant, and Genesis says there were giants in the time described in Genesis 6 ("and also afterwards"), so, do we find giants in what one could consider pre-Flood times? If the idea refers to muscle mass instead of tallness, the Antecessor, Heidelbergian, Neanderthal populations, as well as the probably dumbed down Homo erectus soloensis population could fit that description more or less.

A quibble about the Yugas, I think the order is Satya, Dvarpa, Treta, Kali, , since Dvarpa seems related to "two" and Treta basically transscribes "third / tertius / trecias" and so on.

Analysing ' Jesus Christ ' in the Bhavishya Purana - Vedic Hindu prophecy
Radha Mohan Das - Vedic Science and history | 24 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Rph7HwXOs

Generally, Jesus went up to Heaven, He did not resettle in India.

If the apparition you spoke of had been genuinely from Him, He would not have called Earth a planet, and He would not have taken orders from that King about where to establish Himself.

7:04 Is this apparition telling the Indian king he's protecting "the earth planet"?

That makes the apparition fake or falsely transmitted.

Earth is not a planet, God knows better than being a Heliocentric.

8:19 Or their take on it.

Have any special reason to state that Jesus did not adequately establish how to transmit His correct and full message through the ensuing generations of the Church?

When you say His faith was "Judaism" that leads to an equivocation.

Second Temple Judaism? Or Judaism as so called today?

Christianity and Judaism are two contendants for being God's correct continuation of Second Temple Judaism, in both cases in a not quite identic way. As you may guess from the name, it was centred on the Second Temple, which was destroyed in AD 70.

Genesis and Moses in the Bhavishya Purana (Vedic Hindu prophecy)
Radha Mohan Das - Vedic Science and history | 17 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3-Bq5HgjDk

1:01 I'd heavily disagree on all of them becoming Mlecchas (which I presume means non-Indians).

From Adam and Eve, there was a just line by Seth and an evil line (at least often seen so) by Cain.

Each of them contains one Henoch.

Henoch the Cainite may or may not himself have founded a city, but he became eponymous founder of a city as his father Cain decided so.

Henoch the Sethite was taken up, because he pleased God.

The story of Bharat in the Mahabharata is a conflation of both Henochs. While the pre-Flood world's Cainite or Nodian Empire is genealogically equally distant from all post-Flood men, it was taken up as a choice memory by some of them, like probably already from the time of Regma (whom you call Rama and you shouldn't call lord). Probably he turned away from Nimrod (whom I presume to be Hanuman) when he started to build Babel, because he wanted to remember him with more gratitude. And in order to forget about Babel, Hindus later put the time of Rama 10 000 years before the time of Krishna (probably Jubal or Yuval, who is mentioned as a musician). And the flood along with that. And they forgot about things at Babel or anywhere west of India until the Aryans and later the Greeks arrived.

And this isolation helped them to keep the illusion of Rama coming 10 000 years before Krishna instead of Yuval dying 150 years before the Flood and Regma getting help from Nimrod perhaps 250 years after the Flood.

3:41 I highly prefer the Biblical proportion of 300 cubits, 50 cubits and 30 cubits.

A cubit being c. 1.5 to 2 feet.

Why?

Because, I have calculated the rolling period, supposing the weight was somewhat evenly distributed in the Ark and supposing the waterline was halfway up, as is pretty usual with boats. A rolling period of 11~12 seconds would have made for comfort, like a passenger ship.*

I don't know what the rolling period would be with feet instead of cubits, but I fear it would be shorter and more akin to a freighter's rolling period.

4:45 You are looking for the wrong flood.

Noah's Flood was 2957 BC, but would be dated to 39 000 BP in carbon dates.

It was global, and the palaces of Mahabharata kings could be buried below the Himalayas, which rose after the Flood.**

5:22 The Matsya Purana was, as said, pre-posing the Flood of Noah back in time, in order to be able to pre-pose Ramayana events way back too, in order to allow Regma to forget the sins of Nimrod after having received his help.

Here is Jasher 7*** (admittedly a very late work as we have it now), saying about the early carreere of Nimrod:

28 And when Ham begat his first born Cush, he gave him the garments in secret, and they were with Cush many days.
29 And Cush also concealed them from his sons and brothers, and when Cush had begotten Nimrod, he gave him those garments through his love for him, and Nimrod grew up, and when he was twenty years old he put on those garments.
30 And Nimrod became strong when he put on the garments, and God gave him might and strength, and he was a mighty hunter in the earth, yea, he was a mighty hunter in the field, and he hunted the animals and he built altars, and he offered upon them the animals before the Lord.
31 And Nimrod strengthened himself, and he rose up from amongst his brethren, and he fought the battles of his brethren against all their enemies round about.
32 And the Lord delivered all the enemies of his brethren in his hands, and God prospered him from time to time in his battles, and he reigned upon earth.
33 Therefore it became current in those days, when a man ushered forth those that he had trained up for battle, he would say to them, Like God did to Nimrod, who was a mighty hunter in the earth, and who succeeded in the battles that prevailed against his brethren, that he delivered them from the hands of their enemies, so may God strengthen us and deliver us this day.
34 And when Nimrod was forty years old, at that time there was a war between his brethren and the children of Japheth, so that they were in the power of their enemies.
35 And Nimrod went forth at that time, and he assembled all the sons of Cush and their families, about four hundred and sixty men, and he hired also from some of his friends and acquaintances about eighty men, and be gave them their hire, and he went with them to battle, and when he was on the road, Nimrod strengthened the hearts of the people that went with him.
36 And he said to them, Do not fear, neither be alarmed, for all our enemies will be delivered into our hands, and you may do with them as you please.
37 And all the men that went were about five hundred, and they fought against their enemies, and they destroyed them, and subdued them, and Nimrod placed standing officers over them in their respective places.
38 And he took some of their children as security, and they were all servants to Nimrod and to his brethren, and Nimrod and all the people that were with him turned homeward.
39 And when Nimrod had joyfully returned from battle, after having conquered his enemies, all his brethren, together with those who knew him before, assembled to make him king over them, and they placed the regal crown upon his head.

One of the brothers he defended would have been Regma:

And the sons of Chus: Saba, and Hevila, and Sabatha, and Regma, and Sabatacha. The sons of Regma: Saba and Dadan Now Chus begot Nemrod: he began to be mighty on the earth
[Genesis 10:7-8]

7:37 When it comes to Aristotle claiming Hebrews migrated from India, I'd like a reference.

Would it have been the Organon? Or the Politics?

* Creation vs. Evolution: Rolling Period of Ark?
lundi 27 août 2018 | Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 08:24
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/08/rolling-period-of-ark.html

** Creation vs. Evolution: Himalayas ... how fast did they rise?
vendredi 22 mai 2020 | Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 07:39
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/05/himalayas-how-fast-did-they-rise.html

*** BOOK OF JASHER | CHAPTER 7
https://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/jasher.html#CH7

There are some things that Tolkien loved

Did Tolkien Hate...Everything?
Jess of the Shire | 11 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLmvQtnaUKg

I think there may be a solution of part of the mystery of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry.

Obviously, in Fauns chasing Nymphs in C. S. Lewis, there is some gallantry.

In Silenus providing wine and Bacchus destroying the bondage of a bridge, next book, there is some revelry.

And in Tolkien there just may be a hint of "this is how a Christian writes that kind of thing" ...

8:40 Ball point pens are not all that much a question of technophilia or technophobia.

1) CSL had his ingrained writing routines. In rules for writing well given to aspiring authors among his child fans (forget if it was the god-daughter Joan or the family who were Catholics, I think including one Lawrence) two are all about this: a) turn off the radio; b) always read your text out loud. I can imagine that the feel of a filler pen on paper was also part of how he wrote. Obviously, a type-writer would have done too much noise.

2) The first ball point pens were not the best ones. I think Biro and Eversharp were inferior to Bic when it came to avoid ink leakage and things.

12:03 As long as "a little bit" really is a little bit and not Stephen King style graphic, and as long as the war, blood and death happens on paper and not in the lives of the young.

14:15 Someone (I think the guy who is behind Into the Wardrobe) claimed:

• Tolkien considered realistic Greco-Roman fauns totally inappropriate for children
• Tolkien considered inauthentic remake versions of Greco-Roman fauns inappropriate for anyone.

Pretty famously, there is a faun and a girl in the first chapters of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

In this case, I think we can have a notion that not just Catholicism, but also a partly Methodist upbringing (the relatives of his mother were not Catholics, and he wasn't staying with Fr. Morgan all the time) made JRRT perhaps prone to reacting a bit stronger than some others would.

20:16 Tolkien didn't like Dante?

That could very much explain why he didnt like Narnia. CSL was, famously, an admirer of Dante basically as much as Dorothy L. Sayers who, once she had earned lots of money off Lord Peter Wimsey, also made a good translation of Dante.

It's certainly not just that it's about the afterlife, he did enjoy Pearl (which he translated from a West-Midlands' Middle English more remote from Modern English than Chaucer's London Middle English), and he himself wrote a story in a similar vein basically about Purgatory. And in some way, he did put some studies of Hell into Lord of the Rings, like the Barrow Wight.

Probably, he may have felt that what he enjoyed and did was individual case studies (Pearl being a child gone to Heaven, and appearing to console her griefstricken father, Niggle being a somewhat unflattering self insert), and Dante was too much panorama.

26:09 I have nothing against celebrating what Tolkien loved.

• beer
• tobacco (even if I've ceased smoking myself)
• rurality
• taters (you know what Tolkien fan with a youtube channel has a T-shirt with TATERS on it?)
• and (to the measure my poor version of a Catholic life allows me) the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

And adding on afterthoughts into letters by PS and into essays by footnotes.

28:04 And as Tolkien loved Latin and St. Thomas Aquinas, I think you can make an educated guess about what I studied most at university (more than other subjects singly, if not taken together) and what extra course in that language subject I took without getting university credits for it, just because ...

As a mythology buff on my own, I feel the Ulmo chapters in Silmarillion really won't do. I read Hippolytus and concluded a devil really did appear to Theseus in Troizen, and later on sham warn him (but secretly goad him) to the murder of his own son. To Tolkien, no doubt, that was a perverted memory of sth purer, to me it was a real actual event with an actual devil involved. And if you want more on that note, ask an Exorcist about what he thinks happened to Hercules, supposing it was a real person (which I obviously do).

(And yes, a devil could make horses stampede over Hippolytus, just as devils could make swine stampede into a lake near Gadara).

30:00 Let me guess.

Humphrey Carpenter died in 2005, so the extra letters are not his pick?

Voynich, a Tip for Researchers

The Voynich Manuscript's alphabet is smaller than you think (and that's why your theory is wrong).
Koen Gheuens | 7 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uPrt65oiGY

I think this reduction of the Latin alphabet would still be functional:

A 1		N 8
E 2		O 9
F 3		P=B 10
I 4		R 11
K=G 5		S 12
L 6		T=D 13
M 7		V 14

One more reduction, either A=O or M=N would reduce it to 13. Use both, and you could afford U =/=V.

Kasumi Rina

@KasumiRINA

you can easily combine F and P with how Ph works, and R with L too as in Japanese... or you can just use cryptography shorthands.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@KasumiRINA I'm more like into how it would work with Latin.

The Voynich manuscript is not likely to be in Japanese.

I made a reduction, to show how it works.

The extra reduction was doing both E and I into y.

H is systematically omitted, as not pronounced in the Middle Ages, and -um and -am are remade into -o and -a.

Below that I give the original Latin, the opening chapter of Historia Scholastica.

yn prynkypyo yrat uyrpo, yt uyrpo yrat prynkypyo, yn kuo, yt pyr kuot patyr kryauyt munto. muntus kuatuor motys tykytur: kuantokuy ympyryo koylo muntus tykytur proptyr suy muntytya; kuantokuy synsypylys muntus, kuy a Graykys pan, a latynys omny tyktus yst kuya, pylosopus ympyryo non kognouyt; kuantokuy sola rygyo suplunarys, kuya ayk sola anymantya nopys nota apyt ty kua: prynkyps uyus munty yyykyytur foras; kuantokuy omo muntus tykytur, kuya yn sy totyus munty ymagynym rypraysyntat. unty a tomyno omo omnys kryatura tyktus yst, yt Graykus omynym mykrokosmo, yt yst mynorym munto uokat. ympyryo autym yt synsypylym munto, yt suplunarym rygyonym kryauyt tyus, yt yst ty nyylo fykyt; omynym uyro kryauyt, yt yst plasmauyt. ty kryatyony yrgo ylloro tryo ynkuyt lygyslator: yn prynkypyo kryauyt tyus koylo yt tyrra, yt yst kontynyns yt kontynto, yt yst koylo ympyryo yt angylyka natura. tyrra uyro matyrya omnyo korporo, yt yst kuatuor ylymynta, yt yst munto synsypylym yx ys konstantym. kuyta koylo supyryorys partys munty synsypylys yntyllygunt; tyrra ynfyryorys yt palpapylys. upy nos apymus tyus, yprayus apyt yloym, kuot ta syngulary kua pluraly yst, yt yst tyus, uyl tyy kuya trys pyrsonay unus tyus kryator yst. ko uyro tyxyt moysys, kryauyt tryo yrrorys ylytyt, platonys, arystotylys yt ypykury. plato tyxyt trya fuyssy ap aytyrno, skylykyt tyo ytyas , yly , yt yn prynkypyo tymporys, ty yly munto fakto fuyssy. arystotylys tuo, munto yt opyfykym, kuy ty tuopus prynkypyys, skylykyt matyrya yt forma, opyratus yst syny prynkypyo, yt opyratur syny fyny. ypykurus tuo, ynany yt atomos: yt yn prynkypyo natura kuosta atomos solytauyt yn tyrra, alyos yn akua, alyos yn ayra, alyos yn ygnym. moysys uyro solo tyo aytyrno propytauyt, yt syny prayjakynty matyrya munto kryato. kryatus autym yst yn prynkypyo, yt yst yn fylyo, yt ytyranto yst yn prynkypyo syk: yn prynkypyo kryauyt tyus koylo yt tyrra, yn prynkypyo skylykyt tymporys. koayua ynym sunt muntus yt tympus. sykut autym solus tyus aytyrnus, syk muntus sympytyrnus, yt yst sympyr aytyrnus, tymporalytyr aytyrnus angyly kuokuy sympytyrny. uyl yn prynkypyo omnyo kryaturaro, kryauyt koylo yt tyrra, yt yst as kryaturas prymortyalys fykyt, yt symul. syt kuot symul fakto yst, symul tyky non potuyt. lykyt ynym yk pryus nomynytur koylo, kua tyrra, tayn skrypto yst. yn ynytyo, tu tomyny, tyrra funtasty, yt opyra manuo tuaro sunt koyly, ank kryatyonym munty praylypata, sup opyrypus syx tyyro yxplykat skryptura, ynsynuans trya, kryatyonym, tysposytyonym yt ornato. yn prymo tyy kryatyonym, yt kuata tysposytyonym; yn sykunto yt tyrtyo, tysposytyonym; yn rylykuys trypus ornato.

In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat principium, in quo, et per quod Pater creavit mundum (Joan. I). Mundus quatuor modis dicitur: quandoque empyreum coelum mundus dicitur propter sui munditiam; quandoque sensibilis mundus, qui a Graecis pan, a Latinis omne dictus est quia, philosophus empyreum non cognovit; quandoque sola regio sublunaris, quia haec sola animantia nobis nota habet de qua: Princeps hujus mundi ejicietur foras (Joan. XII); quandoque homo mundus dicitur, quia in se totius mundi imaginem repraesentat. Unde a Domino homo omnis creatura dictus est, et Graecus hominem microcosmum, id est minorem mundum vocat. Empyreum autem et sensibilem mundum, et sublunarem regionem creavit Deus, id est de nihilo fecit; hominem vero creavit, id est plasmavit. De creatione ergo illorum trium inquit legislator: In principio creavit Deus coelum et terram (Gen. I), id est continens et contentum, id est coelum empyreum et angelicam naturam. Terram vero materiam omnium corporum, id est quatuor elementa, id est mundum sensibilem ex his constantem. Quidam coelum superiores partes mundi sensibilis intelligunt; terram inferiores et palpabiles. Ubi nos habemus Deus, Hebraeus habet eloim, quod tam singulare quam plurale est, id est Deus, vel dii quia tres personae unus Deus creator est. Cum vero dixit Moyses, creavit trium errores elidit, Platonis, Aristotelis et Epicuri. Plato dixit tria fuisse ab aeterno, scilicet Deum ideas , ile , et in principio temporis, de ile mundum factum fuisse. Aristoteles duo, mundum et opificem, qui de duobus principiis, scilicet materia et forma, operatus est sine principio, et operatur sine fine. Epicurus duo, inane et atomos: et in principio natura quosdam atomos solidavit in terram, alios in aquam, alios in aera, alios in ignem. Moyses vero solum Deum aeternum prophetavit, et sine praejacenti materia mundum creatum. Creatus autem est in principio, id est in Filio, et iterandum est in principio sic: In principio creavit Deus coelum et terram, in principio scilicet temporis. Coaeva enim sunt mundus et tempus. Sicut autem solus Deus aeternus, sic mundus sempiternus, id est semper aeternus, temporaliter aeternus angeli quoque sempiterni. Vel in principio omnium creaturarum, creavit coelum et terram, id est has creaturas primordiales fecit, et simul. Sed quod simul factum est, simul dici non potuit. Licet enim hic prius nominetur coelum, quam terra, tamen scriptum est. In initio, tu Domine, terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt coeli (Psal. CI), hanc creationem mundi praelibata, sub operibus sex dierum explicat Scriptura, insinuans tria, creationem, dispositionem et ornatum. In primo die creationem, et quamdam dispositionem; in secundo et tertio, dispositionem; in reliquis tribus ornatum.

Koen Gheuens

@koengheuens

@hglundahl Excellent! I may use this as an example in a later video.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@koengheuens Enjoy!

I Do Not Intend to do AA or Similar ...

New blog on the kid: If Some Idiot Pretends it was Irresponsible of Me to Go the Camino de Santiago in 2004 · Where are the Homeless in Poland? · I'm Not Likely to Admit I Need a Certain Type of Help · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: I Do Not Intend to do AA or Similar ...

... and I do not intend to humble myself being sorry right or left because someone decided to get hurt at something which inherently wasn't hurtful, or if hurtful for him, wasn't intended for him.

If crooks who were treating my mother possibly made sure she was hurt at sth I actually or supposedly did, it's not for me to apologise to her memory, it's for them to ideally go to prison for having mistreated her.

A Weirdly Christian YouTuber Apology Video
Emma Thorne | 9 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uegoA4wGYZY

"I 3:35 was difficult to work with. I took a lot of opportunities that I didn't deserve 3:41 and also had no business doing. (Gabbie laughs) There were a lotta people who kind of, you know, 3:46 practiced and trained and wanted some of those opportunities their whole lives and I was able to do them with really little 3:54 to no actual effort in that space. So also sorry to anybody who deserved the opportunity more than me. 4:01"

Sounds like she believes "narcissism" is a thing.

Her Church must be heavily modernist.

" This bit makes me uncomfortable because it feels like it's come from therapy. 8:24 That's a wild guess and I apologize if it's untrue. I just think that it sounds like the sort of thing 8:31 that your therapist tells you to do to understand your feelings in a situation. 8:36 Like writing out letters of apology, writing out your feelings, is the kinda thing that a counselor might suggest you do."

We could also be dealing with some kind of AA like thing.

__________________

Very seriously, AA is a hateful thing, and so are quite a few therapists of the psychological, psychoanalytical kind./HGL

Tyndale

The Church is Not the Restrainer · Tyndale

Tyndale's Brutal Death is NOT What You've Been Told
Truth Unites | 7 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DetuTE_XCo

Excuse me, but when exactly in the video do you cover how Tyndale and his Inquisitor Latomus interpreted Romans 3 differently, over in Belgium it had nothing to do with an English translation?

Latomus believed in Lordship salvation as do all Roman Catholics to this day.

Tyndale was burned over free grace theology. As was the theology of Luther and Calvin and a few more.

The following comment

seems to have just disappeared. Not sure if the author withdrew it or youtube is misfunctioning and deleting comments galore to make debates intraceable, except that they won't admit that. However, my response is left, so far.

Ace Swizzo

@aceswizzo8665

He said he wasn't going to get into every detail

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@aceswizzo8665 Yeah, but he skipped VERY main ones.

Next day

it is Ace Swizzo's comment that is visible, and my own that's no longer there.

[Other comment]

second mistruth about Tyndale that we need to correct here who 33:56 was responsible for his death here's where you can click off if you're sensitive to violence this is the second 34:03 major false claim and I'm grieved to see how commonly it is repeated people say no no no it wasn't the church authorities that executed him it was the34:09 secular arm and my appeal would be with how terribly Tindale and his friends have already been treated the least we 34:15 can do now is come along after and tell the truth let's explain why that's not truthful and it's pretty easy to see 34:21 once you get the basic Theology of heretic extermination at play in the 34:26 times

According to the traditional understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:7, heretics (including Tyndale's free grace false gospel) are precursors to the Antichrist.

Remember the abortion doctor who was shot by an anti-abortion activist? Dr. George Tiller was "churched" and that in a Protestant Church. Unlike Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden, nobody in his sect (which honours Tyndale) was denying him communion.

Now, in the understanding "the Holy Spirit and the Church are the restrainer" which contradicts Matthew 28:16--20 (at least unless "taken out of the way" means marginalised) and which isn't the Catholic understanding, the Church would have been responsible for burning Tyndale.

We insist the secular arm was directly responsible, because the Emperor in 1536, Charles V, was the then manifestation of the restrainer. Again, had nothing to do with his role as Bible translater. Has everything to do with his free grace theology.

36:45 [citing IV Lateran] "If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitican and other bishops of the province."

The immediate application does involve one Bernard Guy (not to be confused with his fictional namesake in a novel by Umberto Eco) who was sentencing about Cathars / Albigensians and perhaps in some cases also Waldensians.

He certainly did decide on "extradiction to the secular arm" (which in practise meant burning) and on other items. From his 930 sentences (some of which may have involved more than one man), 45 + 42 concern burning and burning in effigie (not sure which was three persons more common than the other). Above 300 involve sentencing to prison, and that was the largest number of sentences. Above 100 were releases from prison, I think 145 or sth, so he released between a third and half of those he had imprisoned.

Tyndale in prison had more than one chance to repent, if he had cared to.

The order doesn't mean "burn as many as you can" and doesn't specify the penalty by the secular arm has to be burning. In fact, given the number of people burnt in effigie, there was probably a sense that exile was good enough. Especially as that allowed him a kind of chance to reconsider things.

[The following was based on a misunderstanding on my part, which Gavin Ortlund proceded to correct:]

46:48 Are you under the erroneous impression that Tyndale was executed in Norwich?

Because, if not, why do you pass from Bishop Nix of Norwich to Tyndale's execution?

I'll quote wikipedia for you:

Eventually, Tyndale was betrayed by Henry Phillips[37] to ducal authorities representing the Holy Roman Empire.[38] He was seized in Antwerp in 1535, and held in the castle of Vilvoorde (Filford) near Brussels.[39] ...

... In Tyndale's case, he was held in prison for a year and a half: his Roman Catholic inquisitor, Jacobus Latomus, gave him the opportunity to write a book stating his views; Latomus wrote a book in response to convince him of his errors; Tyndale wrote two in reply; Latomus wrote two further books in response to Tyndale. Latomus' three books were subsequently published as one volume: in these it can be seen that the discussion on heresy revolves around the contents of three other books Tyndale had written on topics like justification by faith, free will, the denial of the soul, and so on. Latomus makes no mention of Bible translation; indeed, it seems that in prison, Tyndale was allowed to continue making translations from the Hebrew.[40] Thomas Cromwell was involved in some intercession or plans such as extradition.[41]: 220 

When Tyndale could not be convinced to abjure, he was handed over to the Brabantine secular arm and tried on charges of Lutheran heresy in 1536. The charges did not mention Bible translation, which was not illegal in the Netherlands.[40]: 317, 321

Tyndale — Wikipedia (accessed 7 Oct 2024)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

Truth Unites

@TruthUnites

No idea what you’re talking about. That section of the video was about Bilney

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthUnites Oh, my bad.

But you never seem to have mentioned (I perused the transscript rather than listen full length) that:

• Tyndale wasn't executed for translating the Bible;
• he very much was executed for his free grace theology.

Obviously, if I misunderstood whom the section was about it is because I jumped ahead.

You gave very long eulogies about Tyndale's Bible initiative, which while it was illegal in Catholic England at its latest century, still isn't offensive to Catholics, wasn't offensive to Catholics on the continent and is highly irrelevant for why Tyndale was executed.

After fleeing, he had several years of adapting to a Catholicism where the Bible (at least in a somewhat reduced form, the Rijmbijbel, comparable to "My Bible in Pictures" comic) was spread among the people, so, if English Catholicism denying laymen the Bible was the point, he had the chance to see pro-lay-Bible-reading Catholicism.

It turned out something else was the point. "Faith, not works" means free grace theology, and the thing about not having Jesus via His Church as Lord of your life, is, they wanted secular rulers and parents and employers to rule more completely.

Gavin then

did not reply, but my response to him is no longer visible, it looks as if he were giving me an unanswered and perhaps unanswerable objection.

___________________
If you attribute the death of Tyndale ("for Bible translation" which actually was illegal in England) to Richard Nykke or Richard Nix, you are adding to the malignations against a man who died blind the year before Tyndale, persecuted by the King just after his attacks on the most Catholic. As he was born in 1447, by 1535, he was 88 years old.

[More thereon in wiki:
Richard Nykke — Wikipedia (accessed 7 Oct 2024)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nykke ]

Cassidy Anderson

@cassidyanderson3722

Even Holy Orthodoxy owes a debt to Tyndall, as the KJV and NKJV are the NT of all English speaking members of the Church. What a blessing it was to already have a great English translation when Orthodoxy finally arrived in the English speaking world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There was also a Roman Catholic translation available.

Douay Rheims.

JesusIsGod

@JesusAlwaysIsGod

@hglundahl In English before Tyndale?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JesusAlwaysIsGod Some, yes, though not Modern English.

But I actually meant in English before the Orthodox arrived.

Douay Rheims is after Tyndale but before the Orthodox.

And they use KJV, which is not just after Tyndale, but even after Douay Rheims.

Cassidy Anderson

@hglundahl Isn’t the D-R a translation of the Vulgate, though? The KJV is a translation of our original Greek versions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@cassidyanderson3722 Tyndale also was based on the Vulgate.

The KJV for OT goes to the Hebrew text, accomodating some to Vulgate and some to LXX.

The OT text is based on a far older Hebrew text in the Vulgate than in KJV.

For Matthew 6:7, KJV (like previously Bishops Bible and Geneva Bible, but not Tyndale or Douay Rheims) mistranslates battologein as "use repetitions" which is not an obvious meaning in Greek and not found in the old translations — Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic).

Seanus

@SeanusAurelius

@hglundahl The D-R is almost a century after Tyndale. What a lot of Catholics don't know is that the DRB got a total rewrite in the mid 18th century by Challoner, and he actually switched to using KJV as the base text type, not the old DRB. In other words, a modern DRB has more in common with the KJV than its predecessor of the same name.

Which actually means that the primary author of the modern DRB is.....Tyndale!

Jd808

@Jd-808

This isn’t true. EOB exists now and the RSV has been used for a long time.

[Presumably in answer to Cassidy Anderson]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@SeanusAurelius At the very least, Challoner did not change the verse Matthew 6:7 in accordance with the series:

Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, King James

but, like Tyndale, kept the Vulgate, which is a fair and good rephrasing ad sensum of the Greek text, while "repetitions" is neither good rephrasing nor straight translation, but a personal quirk by Calvin.

In case you missed it, I didn't miss that both DR and KJ are later than Tyndale.

[The following two

began before some of the previous, but ended after]

Truth Unites

@hglundahl I addressed that in the video. It came much later, and wasn’t from the Greek and Hebrew.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthUnites Well, Tyndale at least used the Vulgate, as we can see from his translation of Matthew 6:7 being way more orthodox and Hieronymian than the Calvinist "vain repetitions" in Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible and King James.

Nonetheless, your video seems based on the premiss that the Catholic Church as such at the time had a big issue with Protestants wanting the Bible in the vernacular, while for instance Luther's was the 19th Bible and first Protestant Bible in the Germanies.

Or that Tyndale was a martyr for his Bible translation, my perusal didn't catch one whit of his being executed for free grace theology.

Some of above comments went down under the video, so I posted a new one:

I think I yesterday went back to the video and posted a comment on Tyndale's free grace theology and how it foreshadowed modern Antichristian society.

It seems to have gone down.

I came to a video entitled "God's Outlaw" but it was clearly shorter than the film from 1986, it was just a discussion.

"Tyndale was Public Enemy Number One 9:35 and Europe's Most Wanted fugitive 9:38 incredibly he managed not only to dodge 9:41 his desperate wouldbe capturers but he 9:43 wrote his most influential peace The 9:46 Obedience of a Christian man this work 9:49 set out much Doctrine but key to it was 9:52 his placing of King above Pope"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAZE2bBtzgg&t=475s

Because the justice that's actually required of a Christian is the social justice of obeying superiors, not the obedience to God, since in free grace theology that's not a prerequisite for salvation. Or (on "total corruption" and "simul justus et peccator" theories) even possible.

[For the moment at least, this one is gone too, could be a delay so Gavin Ortlund could validate.]

Neanderthal and Modern Human Offspring

[Caution advised for the video, I'd say parental advisory.]

Archaeologists Uncover The DARK TRUTH of Neanderthal Ancestry
Highly Compelling | 30 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i14YXyQcD8

Two divergences from your story.

Both hinge on "40 000 years ago" = 2957 BC, in an atmosphere having as yet 1.628 pmC. If carbon dated.

1) Both Neanderthal and Homo sapiens spoke an ancient form of Hebrew and had a common ancestor created in 5199 BC;
2) the volcano explosions happened during the Flood and on the Ark only traces of the Neanderthal genome survived.

Catholicism and Pope Michael (I & II)

More Proof that the Early Church was Catholic
Shameless Popery Podcast | 1 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMASBV7bNrQ

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

From the thumbnail. "Both are Catholic" ... well, St. Peter was, and is still in Heaven, of course, I don't that Bergoglio is ...

Vman93

@vman9347

You mean Pope Francis?

tony

@tony1685

Peter is most likely not in Heaven, as we don't go immediately at death.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tony1685 Martyrs do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@vman9347 I don't refer to Jorge Mario Bergoglio as "the Pope" ...

Vman93

@tony1685 Bro what? St Peter isn’t in Heaven? That’s a wild take

tony

@hglundahl where do i see this in Scripture?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@vman9347 I did get in line and accept Pope Michael I, he has a successor, Michael II.

M-I ruled longer than Pius IX.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tony1685 Perhaps here:

A faithful saying: for if we be dead with him, we shall live also with him.
[2 Timothy 2:11]

How soon?

Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live:
[John 11:25]

There were only a few days left until He opened the pearly gates, so this doesn't necessarily refer to existence in Sheol.

Where?

Who also said: Ye men of Galilee, why stand you looking up to heaven? This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him going into heaven
[Acts Of Apostles 1:11]

Francis Marion

@francismarion6400

@tony1685 Why would you not go immediately to heaven?

tony

@hglundahl 2 Tim 2:11 — does not say at death, we will be with Him.
John 11:25 — speaking of after the resurrection — Job is dead and in the ground — Job 14:12, as is David — Acts 2:29

Acts 1:11 — yes, Jesus is in Heaven, that doesn't mean we ignore 1 Thess 5:16-18 & 1 Cor 15:51-54
Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

tony

@francismarion6400 what good then would be the resurrection??
i keep posing proof, but it keeps being deleted.

Francis Marion

@tony1685 I don't know what you mean. Christ was resurrected already. He said on the Cross "It is finished".

Vman93

@hglundahl Lmao well that’s comical

tony

@francismarion6400 'It is finished' was Him paying the bill for repentant sinners, not for those who choose to live in sin.
it can't all be finished, since there is still sin and death. think it through, francis. this is pertaining to our resurrection.

Francis Marion

@tony1685 I don't understand what you mean "then what good is the resurrection "?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tony1685 "does not say at death, we will be with Him."

I know, that's why I followed up with "when"

"speaking of after the resurrection"

That is going beyond the actual text, as much as I did.

"Job is dead and in the ground — Job 14:12, as is David — Acts 2:29"

Job's body is in the ground, His soul came up to Heaven when Christ opened the Pearly Gates.

Job 14:12 So man when he is fallen asleep shall not rise again; till the heavens be broken, he shall not awake, nor rise up out of his sleep.

Speaks of the body.

Acts 2:29 Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day.

The sepulchre holds the body.

I Thessalonians 5:16 Always rejoice. 17 Pray without ceasing. 18 In all things give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you all.

What is the relevance to the question? I tried II Thessalonians if you had meant that, but has no chapter 5.

I Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.

Speaks of the Resurrection of the Body. Which we do not deny. Back in 1215 it was the heretics who were denying resurrection of the body, so we confessed, first part of IV Lateran council:

He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.

The immediate reward of some souls in Heaven and the immediate punishment of basically all damned souls in Hell is a soul only affair, at the resurrection the bodies and visibility for all will be added to the situations.

"what good then would be the resurrection??"

The bodies participated in sins and in virtuous acts, it is just that at resurrection of the dead the bodies be joined to the rewards or punishments of the soul.

[this comment seems to have been deleted since I posted it]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@vman9347 16th July 1990 to 2nd August 2022 is over 32 years, Pius IX ruled a bit short of 32 years.

Since when is good mathematics comical?

Vman93

@hglundahl 1990 he was elected pope by a group of six laypeople, including himself and his parents.

Is this ur pope?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@vman9347 He didn't vote for himself, and those were the people who showed up.

There have been popes elected by mainly lay electorates all over the First Millennium and Pope Innocent II was elected by a committee of six people outside the curia.

It's much more important whether Wojtyla was in 1990 Pope, had forfeited papacy or had preforfeited it prior to election.

Vman93

@hglundahl I’m sorry but all of that is nonsense. This “Pope Michael” dude doesn’t have apostolic Sucession and is just some random dude with no authority.

While Pope Francis has apostolic Sucession and is responsible for 2.4 billion Catholics worldwide.

Compare that to Pope Michael who only in charge of his local town deli. His rejection of Vatican 2 is just this arbitrary thing, he is the extreme “Trad Catholics”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"This “Pope Michael” dude doesn’t have apostolic Sucession"

You missed that he died in 2022.

More importantly, you miss the distinction he did get apostolic succession as bishop in 2011. If the new rites are invalid, Bergoglio never even was priest.

And you miss that getting elected as Pope and getting apostolic succession as (ontologically) a bishop are two different things.

You seem furthermore to have missed the outreach he had in later years, I think your level of news about him (and your priest's) may be a somewhat accurate update from 17th July 1990. Updates after that you (and your priest) seem to have shut out.

The Church is Not the Restrainer

The Church is Not the Restrainer · Tyndale

ANTICHRIST IS HERE! Pope Francis JUST MADE a SHOCKING REVELATION!
GOD's Motivation | 3 July 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljCeRs5dBIY

3:35 Where in the Bible does it say his action is being delayed "by the Holy Spirit and by the Church"?

It doesn't. We have no Biblical explanation of who "ho katekhon" and what "to katekhon" is, but we have a tradition it means the Roman Emperor.

The last such were taken out of the way 1918 (though Charles the Last tried, but failed, to make a comeback in Hungary) and immediately a very recognisable Antichrist figure which may possibly already be "the man of sin" appeared : Vladimir I of Muscovy, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, Lenin. He was not the final Antichrist, who will be "the eighth," and "one of the seven" but he arguably was the "seventh king" if there is something to the long term view of the seven, as with each having different empires.

I'm pretty sure the sixth king, in such a case, was Nero or Domitian. I know, they were Roman Emperors. But that role stopped each from taking up the full function of the final Antichrist, and many (especially from Constantine the First to Charles the Last) have been remarkably good if often flawed.

5:02 It may be mentioned that ten kings if a perfect representation of pre-Caesar Roman Republic as Empire.

It had three or four institutions referred to as Decemviri. That means "ten-men" ....

• 1 or 2 legislative ones, in 451 BC and perhaps another one (it seems some scholars might identify them, and I'm not sure whether 451 is the second or first, English wikipedia has same names listed under both; German wiki lists only one)
• a kind of judges
• a kind of priests (later known as Quindecimviri or fifteen-men)
• a kind of recurrent but intermittent land alotters.

5:46 "today, the territory of the Persian Empire corresponds to Iran"

Sloppy. Parts overlapped with territory of the Roman Empire (that's basically the Middle East), and parts went on into modern Russia. Derbent in Dagestan has been inhabited since 8th C. BC.

Due to its strategic location, over the course of history, the city changed ownership many times, particularly among the Persian, Arab, Mongol, Timurid, and Shirvan kingdoms. In the 19th century, the city passed from Persian into Russian hands by the Treaty of Gulistan of 1813.

Probably, some books on Biblical prophecy you consult were written before 1813.

11:03 No, believers are not generally taken away before the wrath, they shall be shielded, but Goshen was (while shielded) still in Egypt.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 explains 14:19 that a restraining Force identified as 14:21 the Holy Spirit and the church currently 14:23 holds back the full manifestation of the 14:26 Antichrist

You are dishonest. You are not telling newcomers to your video that "identified as the Holy Spirit and the Church" doesn't refer to identification by the Bible, but by your traditions of men.

You embrace republics and democracies. It's not in YOUR interest that the restrainer be identified as Roman Emperor, the two last of which were taken away in 1918.

Therefore you cannot stand the tradition which has a good chance of going back to Paul himself.

So, you could have understandably said "which we identify as" and so on, giving your alternative identification. But you didn't, you preferred giving the false impression that the Bible itself makes this identification. That's dishonest.

Bonus question, on other video:

Am I being censored because someone thinks I'm the Antichrist and they are "the Church" and therefore the Restrainer? Either way, I responded, and my answer is gone, you may need to click to enlarge to read:

Is Writing Above the Station of a Homeless? — No.

Should I Thank Protestants Who Worry? No. · Now, is Pope Michael II the True Pope? Hope So. · For the Feast of St. Thérèse · Advice on Turning the Other Cheek · Is Writing Above the Station of a Homeless? — No.

It may for most of history have been above his resources, but if it's not above his resources, it's not "above his station" either.

How to Love the Poor with Boundaries (Fr. Mark-Mary Ames)
Matt Fradd | 3 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAgo0vGASvA

"like we're supposed to be fathers 2:43 to the poor and father is also set 2:45 boundaries"

Excuse me, I don't think "we are supposed to be fathers to the poor" is anywhere in the Bible, but if it's in a Church Father or a Scholastic, I happen to have missed it.

I'm pretty familiar with Sts. Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. If it's in St. Jerome or St. John Chrysostom, I could however have missed it.

Besides, if it were, where does that leave friars? Technically they are precisely poor, so does that mean that people who hold possessions have the right and duty to set boundaries for them, like cutting their "air time" if a sermon comes to touch stinginess?

Some of the examples he gives however, are definitely more avoidable by people taking homeless people they like home for dinner (the last time this happened, the couple had been in Mauretania and were pretty chill with slavery in Mauretania, they could have scared others off from becoming to close with me), than it is for any type of shelter, day shelter or night shelter, which serves the poor en masse and where each poor is inconspicuous between a lot of other poor and lots fewer people who are into looking after the crowd.

I am homeless. I am also a writer.

It is a fact that yesterday and today I could not get a shower, yesterday bc the shower that was open Saturday afternoon had been closed for renovations on October 1st, today because I arrived less than 20 minutes before the shower was closing.

It is also a fact that I had on Good Friday 12 000 blog posts, the majority of which are not "my day was fine" or "check this link" but essays or dialogues, or comments on Quora. The dialogues, like some very little fan fiction, obviously involves someone else's copyright, so I keep it unmonetised on the blogs, I do not try to get it into print without authorisation from the ones I were debating. But some of the dialogues, I basically already have an authorisation, like with Stephan Borgehammar, and the essays obviously are my own copyright.

I get trapped in homelessness, and YOUR "Catholic Church" as holding many shelters has been involved in it, over evil people pretending that as homeless, I should live under boundaries preventing me from even hoping to get even one essay into print. I'm sad to say that Trad Caths have not been without guilt on this issue.

I have however not seen any kind of indication that Novus Ordos or EOFs intend to be anything like more respectful of my right to expression or my free choice of trade.

To some, the fact I am homeless obliges me to modesty and my writing is a sin against that modesty. I obviously disagree.

I remain a Catholic. I have for seven years opted for accepting Pope Michael I and then Pope Michael II as the true Pope. Neither of them has a parish in Paris, this means I can't go to Church, but neither of them has explicitly repeated this kind of oppressive view against the homeless because they are homeless, by people who have seen too many and obviously recall the bad guys better. Obviously, I do NOT imagine a future me taking care of homeless en masse, and as obviously, I do NOT imagine a future me remodelled by my experience into the kind of modesty certain people have expected.

You pretend that Karol Wojtyla is a saint, I suppose.

I consider he betrayed me as well as lot of other Catholics to the Scarlet Beast, by making some kind of peace agreement with psychiatry, around the time the second interreligious prayer meeting was held, and that one a few weeks or months before the massacre of Srebrenica.

Extra:

Can Rich People Go to Heaven? | Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.
Matt Fradd | 6 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-QTVRs7ZS0

[To the question and before hearing Fr. Pine]

Obviously yes.

Unless they go out of their way to keep poor people poor despite honest and prolonged efforts.

A certain Franciscan for Renewal that you may know via Matt Fradd was stating that "we are supposed to be fathers to the poor" ...

The one Patristic quote that just possibly could be interpreted that way is the comment on the beatitudes.

Now one says, "many are poor in spirit who are rich in substance, many are poor in substance and rich in desires" ... unless I get a little richer, I can very easily be damned as one of the latetr.

Another says that God has put rich and poor among us so that rich may merit by disposing and poor by their patience.

If this means "disposing" about a finite amount of material alms, and patience about a finite amount of material alms, I'm totally on board.

Some seem to take this as rather meaning the rich is supposed to dispose globally about the poor and the poor are supposed to be globally patient and make no initiatives until a rich person disposing about them makes one for them or suggests they should tell them about them.

To me that version (which would fit the comment by Fr. Mark-Mary Ames) doesn't come off as Catholic, but rather as Protestant or possibly Opus Dei (which at certain times got nicknamed "the Catholic Calvinists" not bc of their view of Predestination, but in reference to their social mores).

[Matt Fradd seems to have set my channel on some kind of automatic delete. Both videos have both of my comments deleted.]

Advice on Turning the Other Cheek

Should I Thank Protestants Who Worry? No. · Now, is Pope Michael II the True Pope? Hope So. · For the Feast of St. Thérèse · Advice on Turning the Other Cheek · Is Writing Above the Station of a Homeless? — No.

"Turn the other cheek" — they taught you wrong
Alice by the Palm | 26 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMdXly9mTY4

9:20 Three things you haven't backed up to my best knowledge:

• he had been in trouble for ten years (since being sold or since tempted by Potiphar's wife?)
• he became a leader among the slaves (of Potiphar)
• he became a leader among the criminals

A fourth thing, the prison where he was, there is no indication whatsoever that this was a prison for lowlife criminals, many of those would be punished very swiftly. They would die or lose one or more limbs. It was more of an oubliette, since it received people who had fallen out of grace with the Pharao or with his servants, like Potiphar.

For "ten years" I may simply have been forgetful, for the other two, I'm pretty positive.

9:20 bis, looking up.

"Became a leader" sounds wrong, but it is not totally contrary to fact.

And Joseph found favour in the sight of his master, and ministered to him: and being set over all by him, he governed the house committed to him, and all things that were delivered to him
[Genesis 39:4]

Becoming a leader usually refers to charismatically getting chosen by the others. He wasn't that. He was named by the common master.

9:20 ter, looking up

Same thing with the prisoners, as said not the same thing as criminals.

But the Lord was with Joseph and having mercy upon him gave him favour in the sight of the chief keeper of the prison Who delivered into his hand all the prisoners that were kept in custody: and whatsoever was done was under him
[Genesis 39:21-22]

He didn't (as far as we know) become the ring leader inside prison, he was named overseer over the others.

Again, no indication he was the streetsmart guy who could manage to get elected by his peers. Or that he wasn't.

9:20 quater

After this, it came to pass, that two eunuchs, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, offended their lord
[Genesis 40:1]

Doesn't say how long after.

After two years Pharao had a dream. He thought he stood by the river
[Genesis 41:1]

These two years (in the Scripture) are after the supposed "ten years" ... perhaps I wasn't forgetful, after all?

20:33 I have been scratching dead bodies out of my scalp all the morning.

You know, lice don't cease to itch because a shampoo kills them or because too much fat from outside or inside my body kills them. Dead lice itch too.

There are occasions when you are obliged to be agressive to dead bodies, like those of lice.

24:23 There are people verifying my capacity to turn the other cheek every day.

There are people who allow me no purpose as long as I react.

They think they are doing the Lord's purpose, they are taking up the role of Potiphar's wife, and of the unjust Pharao. Who didn't enquire if Potiphar was perhaps wrong.

And Joseph was brought into Egypt, and Putiphar an eunuch of Pharao, chief captain of the army, an Egyptian, bought him of the Ismaelites, by whom he was brought
[Genesis 39:1]

If you are an eunuch, you have some reason to fear your wife may be unfaithful. And that fear may strike out against the wrong person.

Possibly, the Pharao might even have been the one who made him a eunuch, but certainly he was failing in due diligence.

Verifying continuously how much I can take is a way of doing their work. And of keeping me away from my purpose.

25:39 Yes, exactly.

Pastor X wants to verify how close I am to Joseph and to turning the other cheek, pastor Y encourages people to make my homelessness a prison, which in France it didn't need to be, pastor Z tells you to be sad about that.

So many have shown this double take:

• IF I pursue my purpose, they say "he's happy" and conclude I wouldn't mind remaning poor, even if my blogs could actually be printed and make some profit, both financially and spiritually;
• IF I respond to anything, they say "oh, he's wasting his time responding" and pretend I need to be kept back until I have learned the lesson.

In God's eyes, such pastors may indeed be far below me. But unfortunately, they are seen as vigilant pastors, they are seen as spiritually mature, they are seen as doing their job, when they are pastorally abusive, and on top of that, they dispose of young and innocent souls, who are indeed far ahead of me spiritually (at least for the Catholics), and can tell them to pray for this or that or sundry, and people who are right with God will pray for what their pastor has told them I need, and ignore what I want.

In the case of a certain type of Protestant pastors, they want to pretend I need to learn more and more lessons as long as I defend the Catholic Church and the Rosary and the Palestinians (who are Israelites and partly descend from Joseph, through Ephraim, through the woman at Sichar and the audience of St. Philip the Deacon, just as much as they partly descend from Judah.

And a certain type of sham Catholics will pretend that I need lessons or need to be set apart like some kind of monk, as long as I defend Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism.

27:07 Young lady, I think I have had my "character" shaped a bit longer than you have even been alive.

27:39 Sometimes getting the studies done is more important than having "amazing focus" ...

And getting the wages for what you do by what you learned in your studies may also be more important than having "amazing focus" ...

29:01 The world may not owe me active helps towards my success.

The whole world however does owe me (and everyone else) to abstain from evil deeds calculated to hinder.

The kind of guys who pretend to analyse me over my thinking "the whole world owes me" are partly the guys who have been, themselves, machinating the evil deeds, as "tests" or as "ways to help God shape my character" or whatever.

30:24 You are aware that you just told how St. Paul certainly didn't disobey that, but definitely "disobeyed" a certain interpretation of that?

Josephus on Nimrod and Babel, Vindicated

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Babel's Confusion was Not a Curse · Creation vs. Evolution: Three Questions on Quora · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Josephus on Nimrod and Babel, Vindicated · Unity, Precious AND Dangerous

Mystery of the Tower of Babel: The Prerequisite
Brad McFadden | 16 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lKyEq-Ibvg

11:01 I would say, they actually could make hand signs, but that would have been inadequate for continuing the project.

I would also say that the difference of languages would immediately have been a much greater obstacle then than it is now.

Why? Babbel, Rosetta Stone, DuoLingo, or Langenscheit or Teach Yourself, and dictionaries and language teachers, none of that existed as yet.

They had never been faced with learning foreign languages and they didn't know how one can deal with it.

Now, one new language would not be a shocker. Ten or 100 wouldn't be. One would conclude "Oh, God repeated the Babel miracle" make some kind of hand sign for tower and then make some kind of hand sign for dictionaries or language learning.

Back then it was a total cold shower. Ice shower. It was a totally new situation they had never really dealt with, closest candidate being having learned the native tongue as toddlers. "What? To understand those, we would need to be like children again?"

[Previous comment is gone. The following comment is the sole one left under his video, now:]

11:38 Zacharias was not relying exclusively on hand signs.

He could still hear, they could still ask "do you mean" and he could nod yes or no, and he could write, which being the same language they could understand, from his hand if not from his mouth.

Brad McFadden

@BradMcFadden

@hglundahl good point

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@BradMcFadden Thank you!

@BradMcFadden So, thank you for explicitly approving of my comment on time stamp 11:38.

I also commented to time stamps 11:01, 11:53, 12:22, 14:31, 15:19, 15:49, 16:13, and see none of those comments.

Did you delete them?

Did youtube spam mark them without you finding them yet?

Or did someone else delete them abusing the fact that I have no computer of my own?

[Following comments are (at least at present) gone.]

11:53 If God imposes on me a change of all language competence into Quenya and on you a change of all yours into High Vallyrian, the result woudn't be that I could figure out I had to talk to you in High Vallyrian, remember, that was the language competence He'd have given you, not me. I couldn't use it.

12:22 If we suppose that "they" were not the whole human population, but lords and labour representatives from other parts of (at least) the (Old) World, the urge would be for them to go to their kin at home elsewhere.

Where they could understand the language, because God had changed the language of Javanites staying in Greece at the same time as he changed that of Javanites having travelled to Göbekli Tepe.

14:31 "Lest we be scattered ..."

This supports that they had started to move out already. They wanted an international metropolis.

Perhaps they had been hunting gathering (I think they did) and figured out how that would push them further and further away from each other (though it seems it didn't), but the evidence for them being hunter gatherers at some time, if you pose that between Flood and Babel, would coincide with evidence for an already extant geographic spread. The scattering is over and above that, namely a disunion between people living in France and people living in China.

15:19 If you ask me, Nimrod was not very sophisticated in knowledge.

Whether he hoped for a rocket to reach heaven (and "tower the top of which etc" is the oldest expression for rocket) or he hoped to build a skyscraper, he was probably not smart enough in cosmology to figure out this was impossible.

According to Josephus, he really did intend to physically get to Heaven, because apparently the Flood hadn't reached up there because apparently God hadn't drowned.

15:49 Prevention or suspension.

God never says "lest they do whatever they have imagined" He said "they will do" ... God suspended the project to our times, when getting rockets up is technically possible, and given Voyager 1 and 2, they haven't reached the stars at 1 light day distance nearly, manned voyages up above the stars is impossible. We can know this in safety now.

Nimrod would have held them captive for even longer into this, and it would have been unsuccessful and wasteful and a neverending excuse for tyranny.

16:13 Obviously, if you get the history wrong, you might get the implications for us today wrong too.

New comment after above (with one exception) went down:

One comment that was taken down was about "and they removed from the east" not referring to a whole world population, but to an élite.

I would say, Isabel Brown makes and excellent point in the video I linked to under your video two in this series, and while doing so, she uses the phrase "the proverbial they" ...

So, what are the actual words again?

And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it
[Genesis 11:1-2]

The argument for "no geographic spread before Babel" hinges, not just on identifying the event in 11:9 with the one in 10:32, but also identifying "they" in verse 2 (in the original a verb for 3mp = 3rd person masculine plural) with "the [whole] earth" in verse 1 (in the original a noun in the fs = feminine singular). What if Moses and his source instead intended a contrast, between what was happening globally (linguistic unity as a starting point, we are recapitulating before 10:32 mentions "languages") and a certain élite group?

If we presume Moses had sources like whatever Heber or Shem wrote down or dictated as a transmittable oral story (or you may say Noah, but I think he was already dead, that Peleg was born 401 after the Flood or possibly 531, as per LXX readings), would such a direct observer (who prophesied about what The Lord did in context) have said "they" if he was one of them? I don't think so.

Unity, Precious AND Dangerous

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Babel's Confusion was Not a Curse · Creation vs. Evolution: Three Questions on Quora · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Josephus on Nimrod and Babel, Vindicated · Unity, Precious AND Dangerous

Mystery of the Tower E02 The Problem and the Premise
Brad McFadden | 23 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSNYN9cFTzg

[All the following comments were taken down]

here's my 7:06 premise if all believers are guided by 7:09 the Holy Spirit to understand the word 7:11 of God and the mind of Christ and 7:14 assuming that many are willing to yield 7:17 to the Holy Spirit's 7:19 leading then the church over the past 7:22 2,000 years since being given the Holy 7:26 Spirit we should be gradually 7:29 approaching a closer understanding of 7:32 biblical 7:33 truth on any given issue and that should 7:37 reflect in a greater sense of of unity 7:41 overall

I'd disagree that all believers are guided, there are believers who live in sin.

But basically, I'd agree.

And I'd point you to a recurrent place in Church history where this has consistently happened. Rome.

Consistently, that is, up to a recent attempted hijacking of the Catholic Church.

as online platforms create 7:59 more opportunities for people to engage 8:02 with opposing views those professing a 8:05 faith in Jesus Christ are consistently 8:08 entrenching within their own views and 8:12 there is a tendency to 8:15 radicalize uh opposing views opposing 8:19 perspectives excuse 8:20 me

Well, there are quite a few who carry the name up to a certain point but who aren't Catholic.

On my view, that includes not just Protestants, to a lesser degree (as to doctrine) Orthodox, but it even includes Modernists.

9:13 We are to be known by our love for one another (within the true Church), not by our love for the world.

I would say, to a very important degree, the Ecumenic project is a kind of new building of Babel.

And God has put the internet to judge it.

Christians can't all be Christians, because Christians contradict. I am careful not to judge about your individual final salvation, you could be a Catholic before you die, but a community that isn't Catholic, as long as it remains such, is outside the Kingdom (to which Peter got the keys, Matthew 16:19, John 21:15—17). It is not as a community salvific.

11:28 As long as you do not give names, I cannot know for certain whether you are correctly assessing that those people should have repented.

Perhaps they should. Perhaps they shouldn't. Perhaps it shows those they ridiculed weren't real believers who deserved ridicule, perhaps it shows they weren't true believers.

If you think, as a Protestant, that a believer cannot lose salvation, you should not worry about that, the true believers weren't losing their salvation.

As a Catholic, I think, yes, a believer can lose both grace and even faith, but we are far less prone (apart from what I take to be hijackers) to believe a specific physical tool or habit can damn you, and we are also (as Chesterton mentioned more than once), happy to show forth us NOT being united to those in error.

The commandment you read is for the Church. Not for Church + all heretical sects taken as a unity.

13:36 "how does the Bible say we should get to unity"

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

what I found may be a possible 14:12 answer and I'm curious to know if any of 14:16 you think it would be worth 14:19 trying

If it's rejecting the internet, I know some do so already.

And I'm not one of them.

Dito for "debates on" ...

After my above comments were down, I have added a new one:

I am, between your words and the fact my comments are down reminded of the attitude of John Kerry as commented on by Isabel Brown:

Elites Just Told Us How They'll SILENCE US!
Isabel Brown | 3 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXM-JxDiP8A

"Is Christianity False if Judaism is False?" [If "Judaism" means Second Temple Judaism, Yes, But That's Not How It's Used]

Answer by Brian Holdsworth with two footnotes by myself.

Is Christianity False if Judaism is False?
Brian Holdsworth | 5 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv3giMzu8PM

the 5:44 people who practice what we would call 5:46 Modern Day Judaism or just Judaism are 5:49 descendants so they're still Jews but 5:52 their beliefs are something that are a 5:54 little bit altered

5:55 However, they are not the only physical continuation of the back then Jewish nation.

Guess what Palestinians are?

They are Jewish and Samarian ethnics of Christian or Muslim confession. Christian Palestinians are THE oldest version of Konversos or Jews for Jesus. Muslim Palestinians are ONE OF the oldest versions of Dönmes, or Jews for Muhammed.

[I got a response under my 5:55 comment, but it was deleted.

I'm not sure whether Lyn B. deleted it herself or not, but I will quote what I saw in the feed and respond to it:]

@lynb.3040 a publié la réponse suivante : "Palestinians claim to be arab. Also, historically, palestinian was everyone who lived in palestine. So, if we consider the arabs of that area palestine, then we should consider the Jews palestinian..."

Well, the Jews of that area could be classified as Palestinians of Jewish confession. That's Mitsrahi Jews. Israelis are 55 % Sepharad and 45 % Ashkenazi, I read somewhere. Not sure if the Mitsrahis are only insignificant or if they "count as" Sepharads, but either way, there are Sepharads who are not Mitsrahi and together with Ashkenaz Jews, that makes up more than half of the Israelis as not of the area.

Traditionally, the Mitsrahis, Christian Palestinians and Muslim Palestinians were referred to as Jews, Christians, Muslims.

In Islamic lore, where "Arab" is not just an ethnic marker, but also a honorific, there is a difference between "Arab" and "Mustariba" which latter means more like "Arabised" ... like Syrians and Egyptians so also Palestinian Arabs count as Mustariba.

Assimilated into the Arabic language from other ethnicities, and all three groups used to speak somewhat different dialects of Aramaic. Muslims ceased to do so 200~300 years after the Islamic Conquest, Christians only after the Countercrusade, and Mitsrahi Jews, I'm not sure the language even died ...

[above was posted in a comment separately from original post, and under that one, I had this dialogue:

SanctusPaulus1962

@SanctusPaulus1962

The vast majority of palestinians are ethnically Arab, not Jewish.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@SanctusPaulus1962 As ethnicities count now.

I speak of Jewish descent, like what their ancestors to a vast majority were.

They are more purely Jewish than the larger ethnic groups of confessional Jews, and the Christian Palestinians are more purely Jewish than even some Oriental etnnicities of confessional Jews (more Jewish than Iraqi Jews).

The ethnicity you are counting is "language and culture" ... and the one item that's easy to verify once you abstract from confession is language, saying Palestinians are not from Palestine 2000 years ago is like saying Irish who speak English are not from Ireland 2000 years ago. Palestine 2000 years ago being Judaea, Samaria and Galilee. If some Irish these days speak English more fluently than Irish Gaelic, it's due to Strongbow, Cromwell, William of Orange and Industrialism. If some Palestinians these days speak Arabic more fluently than Aramaic, it's due to Omar + some centuries for Muslim Palestinians and due to Saladin and Baybars for the Christian ones.

10:58 You may be thinking of the house of David. Bossuet in a universal history written for the Dauphin (Lewis of France, 1661 to 1711) affirmed that Jews couldn't find out who was of the house of David. The records were kept in the Temple and therefore lost at its destruction AD 70.

I'd be happy to agree with him. There is however a way around it. Jesus had "brothers" and I am not into saying they descend physically from Mary, it's not about denying Her virginity, I tend to hold with Proto-Gospel, though what we have could have been altered, it's not inspired and divinely preserved canon. St. Joseph was a widower and the brethren come from his first wife.

But the point is, all of them were of the tribe of Judah, more than one of them eventually were Christians, and not all of them were celibates.

One of them (or if you prefer, one of His cousins, as per St. Jerome's account) could have married someone designated as Jesus' widow, and their first son could have counted within Judaism as His legal son. That's the maximum of truth there could be to recently surfacing insinuations like those of Teabing in a famous novel by Dan Brown (or infamous, unless you take it as a document of how gullible Sophie Neveu and Mr. Langdon were to believe Teabing's allegations). I had to confront them in their somewhat older form with Baigent for his novelistic stand-in Teabing, since I had class mates and home mates (I'm allergic to boarding school stories, that's why I haven't read even one Potter novel), and in particular one who was both, who were into esoterica and he was into Baigent.

However, such a line would have started out among Christians as likely as among Jews. ANY line from ANY brother or cousin or third cousin of Our Lord would have initially had some kind of standing among Christians, and then Jews could have needed to attend to that line, not least if some of them then became Rabbinic Jews. "Desposynoi" doesn't have as dictionary definition what Teabing says, but it DOES mean "relatives of the Lord" and some such featured in early Church history after AD 70.

I'd be more attentive to Daniel's weeks and the very obvious fact that Bar Kokhba was not the Messiah, even if they calculated the chronology fraudulently to fit the weeks to him (and that's why putting for instance Ramses II as the Pharao of the Exodus is a very liberal reading for a Christian, but nearly a literalistic one for Rabbinic Jews).

Plus their claims that Jesus didn't create the peace or kingdom that was promised is answered in Palestinians:

• remaining an extant population
• reuniting Judah and Ephraim (see Acts 2 and Acts 8)
• not being sovereign and therefore not holding standing armies.

Another part of the peace prophecies was God's word of peace going out to all nations, they interpret it as God's omnipotent word, and therefore an immediate peace, but it can refer to the Church preaching peace.

More Tolkien and Maybe Lewis Too

Response Shared (I)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
https://www.quora.com/profile/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2/Tolkien-once-stated-that-the-only-reason-he-did-not-consider-himself-a-socialist-was-because-he-did-not-like-the-city

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

29.IX.2024

St. Michael's Day

“Tolkien once stated that the only reason he did not consider himself a socialist was because he did not like the “city planners” that came with that school of thought.”

Did you understand the phrase “if only” …?

The idiom “if only because X” doesn’t mean “X is the ony reason” but rather “even ignoring all the other reasons I have than X” …

Tolkien clearly was against the Soviet Union and he was at least during the war 1939 to 1945 on Franco’s side. He may have been less admiring of Franco’s administration after that.

So am I, but I might be seeing too much of myself in Tolkien, since I see so much of Tolkien in me. Believing Tolkien was for the Soviet Union is ridiculous.

That said, if Lord of the Rings was an attack on anything it was more like industrial modernity with remakes of traditional morality. The Soviet examplifies both, but had monopoly on neither. Both also existed in the Prussia he fought back in 1916 and 17 (by 1918 he had been shipped back to England). Both also existed in Victorian and early post-Victorian UK and Commonwealth, especially as projects, well before the Soviet Union.

Response To

Isn't is perfectly clear, really, given the incredible fear of the British people of the USSR when J.R.R. Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings, that is, in fact, an extremely complex and subtle attack on Communism, and the Soviet Union?
by John Sierra
https://www.quora.com/Isnt-is-perfectly-clear-really-given-the-incredible-fear-of-the-British-people-of-the-USSR-when-J-R-R-Tolkien-wrote-the-Lord-of-the-Rings-that-is-in-fact-an-extremely-complex-and-subtle-attack-on-Communism-and-the/answer/John-Sierra-38

I

Exchange also on

29.IX.2024

St. Michael's Day

John Sierra

Funny how you go off on an unhinged rant about the phrase “if only” when i said “the only”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The quote I recall includes the words “if only” …

I do NOT recall any quote at all saying that Tolkien’s ONLY reason to dislike the Soviet Union was city planners.

I do recall more than one stating the opposite, like the letter involving the Yalta Conference being highly ironic about Stalin, for a very different reason, namely mendacious propaganda.

2.X.2024

John Sierra

No one mentioned the Soviet Union. the quote wast he only reason that he’s doesn’t not consider himself a socialist was that he detested city planners. .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What is the source of this quote?

What are the exact words?

II

St. Francis' Day

4.X.2024

David Parry

“That said, if Lord of the Rings was an attack on anything it was more like industrial modernity with remakes of traditional morality. “

With special reference to Birmingham, methinks. On revisiting the university (my alma mater) a few years ago, I was walking around Edgbaston and saw a building that might well have been the inspiration for the two towers.

Tolkien is very clearly against the modern industrial world, and I wonder if he overdid it a bit with the orcs, making them too one-dimensionally evil.

The hobbits are clearly inspired by Oxbridge academics, a breed that Tolkien knew well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Except the ones that are inspired by other guys he knew well.

Family members and some female fussy ones.

People seen in Sarehole while it was green.

Response II to I

29.IX.2024

St. Michael's Day

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“There’s also the fact that Sauron never had a proletariat,”

He certainly had more proletarian than Middle Class subjects.

“never seized the means of production,”

He certainly seized means of agrarian production from whoever lived there before his conquests.

“and there’s absolutely nothing about Mordor that resembles the Soviet Union.”

High Surveillance? Over the top control?

Q II

What was the nature of the relationship between J.R.R Tolkien and CS Lewis? How would you describe their friendship?
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-nature-of-the-relationship-between-J-R-R-Tolkien-and-CS-Lewis-How-would-you-describe-their-friendship/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

29.IX.2024

St. Michael's Day

I’d like to validate all the answers by Jeff Mathieson[1] Jason Taylor[2] and especially Manu OG[3] … only adding that they were also both veterans of The Great War.

That was however also added in a longer answer by Timothy Train.[4] On a verbally not identic but substantially not different question.

Footnotes

[1] Jeff Mathieson's answer to What was the nature of the relationship between J.R.R Tolkien and CS Lewis? How would you describe their friendship?
[2] Jason Taylor's answer to What was the nature of the relationship between J.R.R Tolkien and CS Lewis? How would you describe their friendship?
[3] Manu OG's answer to What was the nature of the relationship between J.R.R Tolkien and CS Lewis? How would you describe their friendship?
[4] Timothy Train's answer to What was the relationship between J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis like?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

29.IX.2024

St. Michael's Day

I can say a few things that their friendship was NOT like.

1. They were not brothers in a Masonic lodge. The Inklings were no such thing. There were no initiation rites, newcomers didn’t need to shut up, indeed, the contrary, they would specifically be invited to speak up on their literary projects.
2. They were also not a homosexual couple. Tolkien was clearly heterosexual and normal, he was married and had four children. CSL has been speculated as having been marred in his heterosexuality, and he had prior to Christianity had an interest in BDSM, but he did live a somewhat married life (though not perhaps validly married) and was devastated at the death of Joy. Tolkien for his part was not surviving the death of Edith for more than about a year.

Q III

How did J.R.R. Tolkien's personal linguistic 'aesthetic' influence the development of his Elvish languages?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-J-R-R-Tolkiens-personal-linguistic-aesthetic-influence-the-development-of-his-Elvish-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

29.IX.2024

St. Michael's Day

Basically, if he loved two languages that have some traits in common, he was more than happy to invent a third one that involved the same traits.

Did he love Ancient Greek and Finnish? See Quenya.

Did he love Welsh and Spanish? See Naffarin (more to the Spanish) and Sindarin (more to the Welsh). While Naffarin is a Conlang, it is not an Elvish language, by the way.

IV

Did J.R.R. Tolkien have a specific timeline for the different periods of history in Middle-earth (LOTR, Hobbit)?
https://www.quora.com/Did-J-R-R-Tolkien-have-a-specific-timeline-for-the-different-periods-of-history-in-Middle-earth-LOTR-Hobbit/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

29.IX.2024

St. Michael's Day

I’d like to second Manu OG’s answer, which was unfairly collapsed.

I’d only like to add that The Hobbit was set some 70~80 years before the very end of the Third Age and LOTR was set in the last year and the final chapters run into the Fourth Age.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

29.IX.2024

St. Michael's Day

Here is his answer, by the way:

Manu OG's answer to Did J.R.R. Tolkien have a specific timeline for the different periods of history in Middle-earth (LOTR, Hobbit)?

Q V

Wasn't Tolkien trying to do what Homer did, to write an English version of the Iliad, and redefine English culture and religion? All Tolkien did was dress up contemporary events with some Norse legends, a kind of Norse version of the world wars!
https://www.quora.com/Wasnt-Tolkien-trying-to-do-what-Homer-did-to-write-an-English-version-of-the-Iliad-and-redefine-English-culture-and-religion-All-Tolkien-did-was-dress-up-contemporary-events-with-some-Norse-legends-a-kind-of-Norse/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

3.X.2024

St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus

No …

1. The Iliad is not fiction. It’s docufiction. It’s not like imagining how Nazism would be portrayed as (possibly) Sauron, or as (somewhat more probably) Tengil (Brothers Lionheart), it’s more on the level of how Nazism is portrayed in Cannons of Navarrone or Sound of Music or Schindler’s List. Except the Trojan war wasn’t all that much about ideology, it was more about language and resources, not totally unlike Hundred Years’ War or Seven Years War were between England and France.
2. Tolkien didn’t dress up contemporary events. When he said he “dislike[d] allegory,” he meant he disliked when Restoration poets made “allegories” about precisely contemporary events under kings and queens from Charles II to Queen Anne. The contemporary stuff that’s actually in Tolkien is more like horrors of World War I trenches, or the conflicts between Natural Law vs Reason of State, or between Industrialism and Ruralism (plus Arts and Crafts) or between often decentralised believers in freedom and the true faith (which “back then” was pretty much absence of idolatry) and very centralised, though with two or three competing factions, Satanists, Diabolists. That kind of conflict (with Bolsheviks as Satanists, I think Tolkien would have agreed with Wurmbrandt[1]) comes into contemporary events (from Spain 1931 to fall of the wall 1990, and beyond), but Tolkien’s work doesn’t quite align with Tolkiens views of The West (in the cold war), so, his fiction was not trying to depict contemporary events.
3. Unlike the Iliad, but like Robert E. Howard, Tolkien places his work into the far off past of Earth. Homer by contrast was dealing with things that happened up to 400 years earlier, like making a docufiction about the Thirty Years’ War.
4. No Norse legend as such is in The Lord of the Rings. I know them pretty well, Tolkien knew them even better. If you want an equivalent of the ring making invisible, go for Gyges in Lydia, and Herodotus considered that a true recent event. If you want to have a ring possessor cursing those who kept the ring from him, see an archaeological item. If you want a supernatural being that’s evil and that can only be killed by the destruction of an object, that’s the Russian tale of Koshchey the Deathless. If you want a quest ending with the destruction of a magic object (but of opulence, not of oppressive power), see the quest for Sampo in Kalevala, but there the destruction of Sampo is an accident, not what the heros wanted. Norse legends have contributed relatively little. Beowulf perhaps a little more, and to The Hobbit. And while certain things in Laketown may be seen as the conflict between Capitalism and Fascism (with Bard as a very idealised version of something ranging from Mussolini to d’Annunzio but just for parts of the situations at the end of WW-I and the Biennio Rosso, up to the March on Rome), the main action is very different from both most of Norse legends and most of contemporary events. One could argue important parts owe more to Rider Haggard than to either of these.

Footnotes

[1] WAS KARL MARX A SATANIST?: A Documented Study: Wurmbrand, Pastor Richard: 9798986178905: Amazon.com: Books
https://www.amazon.com/WAS-KARL-MARX-SATANIST-Documented/dp/B09YQ33N23/

Q VI

Can you describe the physical features and climate of Westeros and how they differ from our world?
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-describe-the-physical-features-and-climate-of-Westeros-and-how-they-differ-from-our-world/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

3.X.2024

St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus

No, I can’t.

Just because I love Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Lloyd Alexander, that doesn’t mean I’m into George R. R. Martin.

Q VII

What education did medieval European aristocracy receive?
https://www.quora.com/What-education-did-medieval-European-aristocracy-receive/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

Alex Pismenny

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Was bullied in school, both as pupil and as teacher. Against school compulsion.

6 years ago

My impression is, as C. S. Lewis was a good medievalist, he fairly much nailed it in the question of education on the page where Shasta, sorry, Cor enumerates what he is going to have to learn.

Note, the intellectual standards have been different for different periods and you would also like to consult the education of Prince Caspian.

But he took from a wide range, and a Latin grammar by “Pulverulentus Siccus” was clearly a good Renaissance asset …

In the earlier Middle Ages, one reason you did not necessarily learn all that much Classic Latin was, Latin was how you wrote your own language, up to Alcuin and in certain places some longer.

At the time of Alcuin, take a look at his dialogue for prince Pépin, probably while the latter was fairly young.

Dialogo di Pipino e Alcuino (This page takes it, Pépin was 5 years old)

I

St. Francis day, 4.X.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To the initial statement, from The Horse and His Boy, the chapter “How Bree became a wiser horse”:

"Buck up, Bree," said Cor. "It's far worse for me than for you. You aren't going to be educated. I shall be learning reading and writing and heraldry and dancing and history and music while you'll be galloping and rolling on the hills of Narnia to your heart's content."

II the following dialogue

is from six years ago too, soon after the answer:

Alex Pismenny

“P. Quid est libertas hominis?—A. Innocentia.”

I wish they taught that today.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

One can also enjoy “P. Quid est lingua?—A. Flagellum aeris.”

Alex Pismenny

Remarkable here is that these are questions a 5-year old is asking. We don’’t know if young Pepin can appreciate Alcuin’s wit, but can you imagine a 5-year old asking “what is liberty” or “what is language”, in any language?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Actually, I think he asked “what is the tongue?”

I have been a five year old asking about technicalities in Star Trek, because I have been a five year old watching Star Trek.

Five year olds ask about what they hear about.

One such asked “what is God?”

Not “who is God?” as he knew the answer from the Catechism, but “what is God?”

He is referred to as St Thomas Aquinas.

I wonder if it is ironic about his Summa that his last confessor said he found his conscience as pure as that of a four year old - or whether he was actually just four when he asked?

Alex Pismenny

Yes, perhaps, since he asked about other body parts.

Q VIII

What does the term "Canon" mean in the world of J.R.R. Tolkien?
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-term-Canon-mean-in-the-world-of-J-R-R-Tolkien/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

6.X.2024

XXth LD after Pentecost

In the case of any author who has derivative works[1] , whether authorised or as fan fiction, what the author wrote himself is considered “canon” …

The word means “measuring rod, standard” in Greek, so, what the author wrote himself is “canon” in relation to all derivative works and for that matter discussions.

This is not the only way[2] in which the word is used outside the discussion whether the canon of sacred scripture is 73 or 66 books.

Footnotes

[1] Canon (fiction) - Wikipedia
[2] Canon - Wikipedia