Answering Ray Comfort, Part I of the video on Bergoglio's Near Death (There May Be No Part 2)

Am I a Catholic? Yes. · Against Protestant Propaganda · Answering Ray Comfort, Part I of the video on Bergoglio's Near Death · A Catholic Wanted to Concede Too Much

The Pope’s Frightening Near Death Experience
Living Waters | 28 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UajiDoQ-oEo

No, he's not as Catholic as you can get, he's not Catholic and therefore not the Pope.

Or, at least up to the Near Death experience, not sure of latest updates.

In any case. He was a very good friend with the Anglican "bishop" (Anglicans don't have Apostolic succession, except some very few who got it from the Orthodox), Tony Palmer, and gave him the burial reserved for a Catholic bishop. If he had died first, he'd have been content for Palmer to bury him as an Anglican "bishop" ... that's a very far call from "as Catholic as you can get" ...

0:45 Jesus had people who could perform levirate for Him if He died without children.

Presumably one did, with someone designated as His widow, doesn't mean He was married to someone other than the Church and doesn't mean the person performing levirate was a son of the Virgin Mary.

But given the terms of the law, it makes sense if the nearest of kin to do that, like some would say sons of St. Joseph in the first marriage, some would say first cousins, children of a sister of the Blessed Virgin, would be called "brothers" and their full sibling sisters in analogy therewith His "sisters" ...

1:13 A baby can have the habitual virtue of faith infused by God.

1:31 What was the citation again?

O taste, and see that the Lord is sweet: blessed is the man that hopeth in him.
[Psalms 33:9]

If you ask me, that's a prophecy about the Eucharist. It is also a sin to partake of the Eucharist without Faith, Hope and Charity, so the second part of the verse is perfectly in harmony with this being a prophecy about the Eucharist.

1:43 Well, yes, the priests does this, namely says it's the Body of Christ, citing Christ's own words, participating in Christ's omnipotence for the purpose, in remembrance of His death on the Cross.

This is why he (acting in the person of Christ) makes Jesus present, separately both as body, where there was bread, and as blood, where there was wine. Now, Christ is risen, the whole living Christ is present, the blood, the soul, the divinity are present with the body in the Host, the body, the soul, the divinity are present with the blood in the chalice, but from the direct effect of the words ("ex vi verborum") it's the body present here, the blood present there, because they were also separated on Calvary.

And like the Mass contains the victim of that Sacrifice, it also contains the Sacrifice it commemorates. Every Mass does that. A particular Mass can commemorate something in the Gospel readings or the date, but every Mass is, as Mass, commemorating Our Lord's Sacrifice on Calvary. Once the priest is saying those words, the theme of the date is a secondary matter to that. That's why no actual Mass is celebrated on Good Friday.

1:49 No, it's not Communion, not the taking of the Sacrament, but the Consecration, in the words of Jesus, which the Apostles were told to do in remembrance of Him. "do this" doesn't refer to "do what I told you to do" but "do what I just did" ...

1:56 Jesus was with them, they were even so eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Arguing otherwise is to argue that He couldn't both be held by God in existence as Man, and be God, holding Himself into existence as God.

This kind of argument against the Real Presence is actually even an argument against the Incarnation.

If you want to go where Muslims go, up to you, I prefer going to Heaven. And believe what Jesus said.

3:02 She was already born again, through water and Spirit, when she was sth like 8 days old (if they followed the older custom).

3:49 If she's a LaVeyan Satanist, she is arguably sinning against the commandments of the first tablet.

Meanwhile, does your book* preach Geocentrism as an evidence for God?

Considering Romans 1, it should.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:18-20]

What is both revealed from Heaven, a thing that's made and clearly seen since the creation of the world, and available back in the first century as proof of God?

It's not the flagellum of the bacterium. I do not doubt it proves God, but it was not available in the first century.

It's not the spiral galaxies that are "very far" ... first, as a Geocentric, I don't believe "parallax" should be called that, it's a misanalysed part of the proper movement performed by an angel, just as retrogrades for planets are proper movements performed by angels, so I don't believe in the distance. They are just smaller than the Spiral Nebula of Andromeda, not further off. But second ... supposing modern cosmology were correct, it was not known in the first century and images of those "very far" spiral "galaxies" were not available since the creation of the world either.

Before you object to anything ... do you believe in God, or do you believe in God?

Or, perhaps, don't you believe in God?

5:49 Purgatory in the Bible.

II Maccabees 12.46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

* Scientific Facts in the Bible
https://livingwaters.com/store/books/scientific-facts-in-the-bible-book/

Fatima and St. Bridget, Consecration and Muscovy-Russia

The Reason Third Secret Of Fatima Was Hidden By The Popes
Return To Tradition | 28 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EediP59dm20

0:30 Pope Michael I actually did consecrate "that country" alone, with all the two bishops in communion with him, who had ordained him and consecrated him bishop.

I would say the reason "that country" alone is to be named is, Ukraine already inherits the Medieval consecration of Kievan Rus' to the Blessed Virgin. A "that country" politically beginning in Suzdal and Vladimir* is cut off from that Medieval consecration by willing collaboration with the Tatars.

Our Lord told St. Bridget to tell the Swedish king to go on a Crusade against the heathen in Novgorod. My back then Novus Ordo second father confessor used this as proof the revelations of St. Bridget contain errors, since the population of Novgorod was in majority simply schismatic, Russian Orthodox. However, since then I have gathered two things:

• Novgorod was under the Tatars who certainly were heathen at this point;
• if Sweden had given the Tatars sth to do on the Novgorod front, there wouldn't have been Tatars catapulting plague death corpses into a Black Sea port, which then launched the Black Death in Europe.

My respect for the Revelations of St. Bridget is certainly unscathed.

My friend and benefactor Stephan Borgehammar, convert from Lutheranism like I, but later, and I had a debate about the identity of St. John the Gospeller. I suggested it could be Theophilus Ben Hanan, and he said, no, Our Lady had told St. Bridget that John "was a virgin" ... I defended it on the ground (I did some F-searches in an online text of the Revelations) that there is a distinction between how John the Beloved simply was a virgin, and how John the Baptist was a virgin who had never emitted semen. I took this as possible indication that John the Beloved simply lived as a virgin after Calvary. Why Theophilus? Well, with Orthodox Christology "God-Beloved" becomes "whom Jesus loved". Why not the son of Zebedee? Well, the son of Zebedee must have been effectively martyred according to a prophecy by Our Lord. The Beloved wasn't, as far as biographies go. The son of Zebedee must have fled along with the other, and later Peter turned around and followed from afar, but the Beloved went to the High Priests. That parenthesis aside, we both presumed the words recorded in St. Bridget are true. And that would include, as mentioned, God counting Novgorod as Pagan territory because of Tatar domination. Perhaps also because the old Slavic religion had something to do with the Tatar domination, as Novgorod was not the most eager to do what St. Volodimer the Great had done in Kiev.

That said, were the two bishops in communion with Pope Michael I sufficient? I don't know.

* And Tver. See Principality of Moscow

Against Protestant Propaganda

Am I a Catholic? Yes. · Against Protestant Propaganda · Answering Ray Comfort, Part I of the video on Bergoglio's Near Death · A Catholic Wanted to Concede Too Much

Todd Friel Spreads Wycliffe Propaganda
The Crusader Pub | 28 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTGZfjYGD7Y

My oral Latin isn't on par with my written, and in oral Latin my Classic Pronunciation isn't on par with my Ecclesiastic one.

However, he does seem to have actually recited something in Classic Pronunciation which ended in "venit" and I wonder if it wasn't a line or two from the Aeneid. Like the first two lines?

Arma virumque canō, Trōiae quī prīmus ab ōrīs
Ītaliam, fātō profugus, Lāvīniaque vēnit*

It's not gibberish, and someone who hasn't learned ecclesiastic Latin will not find the readings of the Mass an easy deal either, for intellectual understanding, unless translation or paraphrase is added.

That's why in 813 the Council of Tours mandated that on Lord's Days and Holidays of Obligation, a paraphrase be added after the Gospel. Which is where we have the sermon from.

Prior to 800, or maybe 790's, in Tours the Latin wasn't unintelligible to the people, but to clergy from other parts of the Latin Rite. In the 700's a visiting priest from Italy had witnessed a Baptism, in which he asked himself whether the Baptismal formula was valid, if the priest had Baptised in the name of "and of the Son" or "and of the Daughter" ... simply because in the popular language, and hence the older ecclesiastic pronunciation, "filii" and "filiae" were pronounced the same, that is older pronunciation prior to Alcuin from York arriving in Tours.

The thing Todd Friel forgets is that the priest was obliged (all the days when everyone, not just clergy, were obliged to attend Mass) to add a correct paraphrase of the Gospel or (on Saints' Days) how it related to the Saint in question.

2:33 The reading was actually in Latin.

The Homily was an addition precisely because of this.

Now, you are perfectly right that the purpose of going to Mass is not the Homily, it's the Sacrifice, and I can understand the sacrifice even if I have no homily and even if I have no idea what the Gospel reading in today's Mass is about. That's why there was a thing called Catechism, so that the Mass and the Sacraments could be understood.

Now, the Church DOES care about the experience of the Church goer, and hearing a language you don't understand, provided you don't find it ugly or ridiculous, is actually apt to give a certain experience, namely a contemplative one. I'm not sure if it was Jung or someone else who noted that seeing signs in Cyrillic (he didn't know that alphabet) induced him into a state which would in him produce free associations.

One really important difference between Catholics and Protestants is, how do they see the alpha state, being in a kind of trance during prayers and services. Calvin was allergic to it, probably because someone had abused him, and this reflects in his attitude towards Gregorian, Rosary, Litany, and probably the experience of hearing Mass in Latin for someone not familiar with the language.

The reading in Vernacular (at least as the liturgic reading) only became an option with ... Liturgic movement or maybe even the immediate post-Vatican II rite (which is not the Novus Ordo, but a different version, shorter and more vernacular, of the 1962 rite).

3:04 I'm not sure whether Todd had permission or not, but it is Vilvoorde, where Catholics are in a bad position because everyone commemorates Tyndale.

I'm not even sure the Church that Tyndale was burnt before is still a Catholic Church. Well, probably it is, because "protestantse kerk William Tyndale-Silo" looks different ... wikipedia was down.

The Crusader Pub

@TheCrusaderPub

That’s a good point, I assumed he was traveling to different locations.

My tip off that he may not have had permission was the fact that all the lights were off .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@TheCrusaderPub Thank you.

3:34 Thank you very much.

Local council. And probably no longer applied in Toulouse even once the Albigensians (and Waldensians?) were eradicated.

In Belgium and Netherlands, it was not just legal, but even done, to read the Rijmbijbel. It was a Dutch translation of Historia Scholastica.

4:54 If he's standing in front of a painting of John Wycliff, he's very arguably in a Protestant church.

Don't be fooled by the fact it looks Gothic, in Europe pretty many not just Anglican and Lutheran but even Calvinists worship in churches built in the Middle Ages.

5:52 I'm not sure whether the restrictions about Scriptures applied in England against the Lollards were just because of heresy in the text.

After all, the English Inquisition system, where among other things the local bishop was judge, and which was applied in France also, where the English King ruled, it tried and convicted St. Joan of Arc.

The English Inquisition was in many ways about social conformity, including over expansionism against France and the Celtic fringe, since one of the presumed heretical (and actually at least heterodox) beliefs of the Lollards was, it would be illicit to go to war except on an expressed command by divine revelation (like the one St. Joan received). While this is not correct, one can relate to this being a reaction against Kings going to conquests in France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland, because the discretion over a war being just in the normal Catholic view lies (normally!) with the sovereigns. Another belief, definitely heretical, condemned by Constance, and arguably Sedeprivationists are culpable, is, a man in office has no right to command in his office while he is in mortal sin. Again, this can relate to the sinful ambitions of English kings.

* P. VERGILI MARONIS AENEIDOS LIBER PRIMVS
https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/aen1.shtml

Lifespans for Early 1700's

I'll not comment on the Count of St. Germain, whom I do not believe to be immortal or even alive today.

Here is the video for those who are interested, but I'm just in for the videast's view on normal lifespans in the early 1700's.

The Only "Documented" Immortal in History
Motech | 27 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocuiy6118fQ

"If you were alive during the early 1700s, then you could expect to live up to 30-35 years old, maybe even 40 years if you were extremely lucky."

Er, no. I'll go by wikipedia born in 1695, but as that is too many pages, I'll just take the letter B.

Johann Lorenz Bach 1773
Johann Caspar Bachofen 1755
Pacificus Baker, O.F.M. (1695–1774)
Joseph Banks (MP for Peterborough) 1741
Thomas Barton (Bordeaux merchant) 1780
William Bateman, 1st Viscount Bateman 1744
Louis Bazil 1752
Philip Bearcroft 1761
Paul Bécart de Granville et de Fonville 1754
Benigna Marie of Reuss-Ebersdorf 1751
Nicolaus II Bernoulli 1726
Slingsby Bethell 1758
John Bevis 1771
Augustin Blondel de Gagny 1776
Santiago Bonavía 1759
Louise Anne de Bourbon 1758
Vincent Bourne, familiarly known as Vinny Bourne (1695 – 2 December 1747), was an English classical scholar and Neo-Latin poet.
Edward Braddock 1755
William Braund 1774
Bernhard Christoph Breitkopf 1777
Sir Orlando Bridgeman, 4th Baronet 1764
Giovanni Francesco II Brignole Sale 1760
James Brodie (politician, born 1695) 1720
Robert Browne (1695–1757)
Francis Scott, 2nd Duke of Buccleuch 1751
Barthold Douma van Burmania 1766

Only Nicolaus II Bernoulli who died in 1726 and James Brodie who died in 1720, died younger than 40.
Then you have William Bateman who died 48 or 49, Vinny Bourne who died 52.

All the rest were older than 52, not younger than 40. [my bad, one more in the 1740's]

25 31 46 49 52 56 56 57 59 60 60 62 63 63 64 65 66 69 71 76 78 79 79 81 82 85
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

On the Word Naturalism, and Whether it's Possible

I'm not sure whether Duff is assessing Carl Werner (Werner, not Warner) correctly or not. He seems to have made some mistakes. I'm concerned with a remark according to which Werner uses the word "Naturalism" for "Evolution" ...

Evolution 101: Dr. Carl Warner [sic] Fails to Understand Basic Evolutionary Theory
Dr. Joel Duff | 25 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rJEW8iCVg

[... 2024 that was the year that was 1:50 the year it all came undone the entire edifice of Naturalism (which is his 1:55 his usage of for the word Evolution) came crumbling down and crashed ...]

2:01 Naturalism is not his usage for the word evolution.

But naturalism philosophically presupposes either an eternal steady state universe, or evolution, and as the eternal steady state universe is already out, it only needs taking down evolution to disprove naturalism by now.

Juan Ausensi

@juanausensi499

If you disprove 'things change' and also 'things don't change', you disproved not just naturalism but reality itself

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@juanausensi499 I'm sorry, but "evolution" is not "things change" + "things don't change", evolution is saying we got capacities that our remote ancestors absolutely hadn't. It's things like saying, we can speak, but at some point far enough back in time, all of our ancestors communicated basically as chimps or gorillas do today. Especially if you go to the ancestor that's also supposed to be ancestral to chimps or even to gorillas.

Disproving that is not disproving reality itself.

@ In case you missed it, "eternal steady state universe" is not the only option of things not changing, an unchanging God is an alternative.

And evolution is not the only option for things changing, things apart from God changing from Nothing to Created because He Created them is an alternative.

And eternity of God + the universe we live in was created = God is Supernatural, hence an alternative to Naturalism is Supranaturalism.

Juan Ausensi

@hglundahl God, unchanging or not, is not an alternative for a universe, unchanging or not.

The universe either changes or doesn't. There is no third option, with or without a God.

Evolution is not a explanation for change, but another word for it.

@hglundahl As i said, evolution just means change. Even if you lose something your ancestors had, it is still change and thus evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ Evolution is not another word for change.

As eternal existence is a given (being cannot come from non-being), God as eternal is an alternative to the Universe being eternal.

Juan Ausensi

@hglundahl Yes, it is, and you can check it for yourself. If you want to use a word to specify a positive change, you can use "improvement", 'progress' or "development" instead, but beware of context, because "development" can be used as neutral too.

God is an alternative to no God. Of course, if God exists, the universe he created could be eternal or not eternal. That's why the hypothesis of God doesn't do much for us to know in what category the universe is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ We know on other grounds that the universe is not eternal.

For instance H + H => D
D + D = He.

Irreversibly.

If the universe were eternal, why do the stars still have Hydrogen to "burn"?

This means, a) something else than the universe has to be eternal, and b) the living things came by some kind of change, whether it's the change we call Creation or the change we call Evolution.

So, we just need to exclude Evolution to prove the Supernatural, like God exists, He created the universe, and He created living things pretty like those we see today. I'm not saying the change from wolf to chihuahua is impossible, but the change from amoeba to man is.

[this response is for some reason not visible on the thread]

Grey the Malkin

@GreyTheMalkin

@hglundahl you forgot "cyclic" as a possible naturalistic 'presupposition'

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GreyTheMalkin Cyclic universe actually DOES mean that an eternal multiverse is divided into non-eternal universes.

This places each non-eternal universe into a position of needing either a Creator or a functioning Evolutionary process.

Am I a Catholic? Yes.

Am I a Catholic? Yes. · Against Protestant Propaganda · Answering Ray Comfort, Part I of the video on Bergoglio's Near Death · A Catholic Wanted to Concede Too Much

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Fr. Jenkins on the Galileo Case · Am I a Catholic? Yes. · Great Bishop of Geneva! | Does the Catechism of the Council of Trent Teach the Contradiction of Contemporary Catholic Embryology?

Since some have probably heard some of the rumours about me, or maybe even genuinely misunderstood me while reading me, here are a sample of accusations against me, though not so directed, answered, as well as some possible other reasons to keep silence about me:

A Woman Priest in the Catholic Church | Father Charles Murr
FULL SHEEN AHEAD `| 25 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tJfJ6XPEdk

You would agree that a layman, reading the missal, with no bread or wine, totally shutting up at the words of consecration, just imagining a priest elsewhere in the world saying that, and reading the rest of the Mass on his knees, again, in union with some faithful priest elsewhere, and not pretending to celebrate any Mass on his own, would not fall under that canon?

In German, I think it's called "Messandacht".

Mgr Lefebvre very early on, well before he had real canonic troubles, recommended people who had no access to the Latin Mass to "lire le Missel à la maison" ... you would agree that someone doing that would NOT incur any of the penalties of that canon?

Because, this is what I did on a fairly daily basis from a certain point in 1996 on to the day of 5 of February 1998, when Swedish shrinks bumped into my life. Now, they were, as most Swedes, or for that matter Danes, very incompetent on Catholic things, and they read up on what Fr. Murr just said, and concluded I either wasn't Catholic or a very confused one.

They have communicated this to what Charles Murr would deem competent Catholic authorities, and as a result, three of what Charles Murr would refer to as Popes have presided over several bishops getting me treated with an utmost suspicion which has ruined my life. Since one of them was Wojtyla, I have a real problem with joining a communion requiring its members to call him a saint.

---

Terry Barber, you are obviously free to offer sufferings YOU have for anyone you like, including the man that YOU consider the "Holy Father", I object to being treated as a hoarcrux for him and having OTHERS offer up sufferings they at least contribute passively to producing for him, or anyone else not of my chosing.

---

And by the way, Charles Murr, don't pray for me to remain celibate and don't hope any cardinal votes for me.

I'm a layman and intend to marry, supporting my family on my writings.

Your Church is free to condemn my writings or not, they are not free to keep them as its little secret and a hope for a better future pope.

Or whatever other reason people may have had to keep my writings secret.

---

---

Loving Your Enemy Isn't Optional
Breaking In The Habit | 25 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlPmOsvxM78

Loving one's enemy may not be optional, but there are circumstances in which it is also not possible.

If my circumstances don't change, and I have done my part to change them, but people of YOUR version of Catholicism have blocked, and no, Jews, Muslims, Evangelicals are not likely to replace them just because they are more comfy with Young Earth Creationism than lots of Catholics these days, I'm likely to be damned because I am not loving my enemies.

---

---

Jorge's conversion. Charity. Ensoulment? Marital abstinence? Lenten Penance? Mary's holiness!
What Catholics Believe - Full Episodes | 26 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVWQzogZpsY

13:10 You would agree that there is no backbiting when someone blogs and sends the blog post specific link (not just to the blog as a whole) to the person criticised?

I hope.

Because I regularly do so, and that means, on my estimate of Catholic morality, I'm not backbiting. If someone feels insulted and tells me, there often ensues a debate, and I often clarify I was not disrespecting the image of God, whatever I hated about their position (not in those words, I'm a layman).

So, Catholics divide the "lingua dolosa" (which I suppose is what Jews mean by Lashon Hara) into insult, calumny and backbiting. If I'm not guilty of any of these, I'm not guilty of "lingua dolosa" ... whatever Jews may say, or Protestants who use the category Gossip.

Do you agree or not?

Joan LaFleur

@joanlafleur9349

If a situation can't be avoided in overhearing gossip, the best thing to do is defend the person that is the subject of detraction or calumny, change the subject and refrain from passing the conversation on to someone else. You can also pray for all involved and be a good example.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@joanlafleur9349 Supposing I don't know the person and am too tired to inquire?

14:08 You would agree this applies to coworkers who have had a good night's sleep?

Passively listening to someone who is a stranger, and after you are too exhausted is rationally speaking NOT a criterium of approving of the backbiting.

Just in case anyone is pretending I've showed passive approval of backbiting.

Glenn Lego

@glennso47

What if you simply get up and walk away so you don't hear the people who are talking about someone? 😮

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@ Imagine:

a) I'm in a cyber, so going up and leaving would interrupt my work;
b) I'm in my sleeping bag eating breakfast or drinking coffee, and someone does it right next to me, walking slowly by in conversation, do I need to interrupt my breakfast just so I can get up and walk away?

I don't know that the other comments were really adressed to me. Sorry.

26:04 First of all, I'd like to know exactly in what context St. Thomas stated that the then present knowledge was provisional and could change.

Second, there is a huge difference between a changing understanding of embryology, where instruments are very close at hand to the thing studied, and astronomy, where the instruments are usually as far off as the naked eye, so that improved instruments just improve the minute details, but not the overall picture. Just in case Father Jenkins wanted to make a devious parallel to changing understanding of astronomy. No, we do NOT have an improved understanding of natural phenomena involved, not by much, in that instance, we just have an impoverished scholasticism.

28:01 Actually, not an overall bad understanding.

Anything that is a nutrient helping the embryo and fetus to grow comes to it through the blood of the mother, via the placenta and umbilical once these are formed.

Actual scientific progress on this matter has improved details, but not destroyed the overall picture of the science back then.

29:41 Also, the rational soul at conception or later, embryo usually do not enjoy the USE OF reason.

They have reason as a natural faculty, but they have not yet learned to use it.

Christ's soul didn't need that extra time before He could pray for His Blessed Mother, for instance, or make sure that She came to know She was sinless (on top of Mother of God, which She knew) through this other fetus who had precocious sanctification and use of reason and adored His God in St. Elisabeth's womb.

I do maintain that Her sinlessness was hidden from Her when She didn't understand "blessed among women" (given this in OT refers to "female secret agents" of a pretty bloody type, Jael and Judith) but was revealed to Her when Elisabeth added "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" ... (meaning Her own Sisera or Holophernes had been told this in Genesis 3:15).

Our Lord loved His Mother, not just as a human creature, because She was His Mother, but also as God, because She was always doing the will of the Father. He arranged for Her to have the Sinlessness revelead in the most pleasant manner, in a meeting between two pregnant women.

32:00 Not so as for the recently conceived person to have an immediate use of reason.

Immediate faculty, yes, but a faculty not yet perfected by use. Like the toddler having already the faculty to walk or at least toddle, but not yet having learned to use it.

The use of reason in this life usually requires a brain, which the embryo does not yet have, since the object of reason comes in from the outside, through the senses.

Susanna C Donovan

@susannaCdonovan23

"And the Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us." Your ideology is completely erroneous especially regarding the soul which is infused into the body at the moment of conception. Every human life is a miracle of God's creation and is destined to be born. Human life is not a disposable commodity. It's an abomination to think otherwise.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@susannaCdonovan23 Do you know what the words "use of reason" mean?

A man who is mad has not become an animal, he has still his faculty of reason, but intermittently or constantly, he lacks the proper use of it.

I would also say, an infant or according to some any person below 7 years does not have the use of reason. But that person still has reason.

I don't know how you can possibly class me among abortionists because I say that ordinarily a newly conceived embryo does not have the USE OF reason.

U N L E S S of course, you have been primed to suspect me for utterly un-Catholic things, and in that case I'd like to know how.

Because it seems, in that case someone slandered me.

Joan LaFleur

Fr Jenkins was speaking about Jesus being the exception in having immediate use of reason at the instance of conception. We believe our Blessed Mother and not scientists to know that we are infused with a soul at the moment of conception for she revealed to St Bernadette, "I am the Immaculate Conception."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ I did very clearly NOT say we are only gradually ensouled.

I very clearly DID say Our Lord (and I would add Our Lady) were exceptional in having immediate use of reason, which is a faculty of the rational souls, of the image of God, but which is not in full use in every man.

Joan LaFleur

I just want to make clear that the intellect is a faculty of having a soul and not a brain.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ I totally agree.

But having the faculty and having the use of the faculty are two different things.

Joan LaFleur

When and why should this difference be important?

The clump of cells vs. human being?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ I am v e r y certain that a human embryo, first cell that's neither ovum solo nor spermatozoon solo, is an image of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

I am also very sure it is not yet able to draw out a syllogism or formulate a conscious prayer.

Our Lord was. Our Lady was. That is what the quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent said. They had the use of reason. You know, that Catholic joke of an older sister on the birthday of her seven year old brother saying "congratulations, you can now go to Hell" (as in capable of committing mortal sin, being fully responsible for one's acts). That's how mature Our Lord and Our Lady were at the moment of conception, not that either had any propensity for using that maturity for mortal sins or going to the Hell of the damned.

---

---

Can a Catholic date another Catholic who has been divorced but not yet had an annulment?
Mercedarian Friars USA | 26 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTcwXRQsWj4

For those reading this comment on my blog.

I have never married, and if someone is considering a certain "NN Lundahl" that happens to be my mother, who died recently under another civil last name. I have my mother's maiden name.

If someone has told stories about me being married, these are simply false.

It's possible (though not certain) some Swedes around Paris or some non-Swedes whose facebook acquaintance with me is indirect and superficial have presumed on the evidence of her existence on my friends' list that I'm a married man. This is not so.

Will Dovid Vigler be the next convert to Christian Faith?

Ivanka Trump: "I Can't Keep Quiet About This Jewish Law Any Longer..."
Rabbi Dovid Vigler | 23 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zDyktUIm3M

the word for word 1:48 is exactly the same word as 1:50 the word for things, the word for word is Davar 1:54 and the word for things is Davar 1:58 because words actually become things 2:00 they become the reality

In Spanish orthography the Hebrew word you mentioned is Dabar ...

Cardinal Cisneros says, this was the first name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

If God did NOT have an eternal word, were did He come by a word to create the world?

If He DID and DOES have an eternal Word, how is He not also a person, Son of the Father?

(Apart from that, perhaps some Jews around Paris might do well to recall what Ivanka said ...)

Best Wishes for their Catholic Conversion ... and That of Other Jews

"Jews For Jesus Is DECEPTIVE" | Our REACTION
SO BE IT! | 24 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6-u6dKMZtQ

1:36 Nearly all Non-Denominationals are de facto Baptists, i e think that only explicit believers can be baptised.

This is a bit like a Non-Denominational more or less accepting the label Baptists and objecting to the term Protestant, even if they:

• do not believe that Jesus is present Body and Blood in the Eucharist
• do not believe He is made present or makes Himself present in Holy Mass which is a Sacrifice
• do not believe you have to have a succession of ordinations from the Apostles to be able to say Mass

which are the essential definitions of Protestant. Some would say "sola fide justification" but that would limit Protestants to the ones who inherit Free Grace theology from the Reformers

Ivor Kovac

@ivorkovac303

They are not Protestants, they are Anabaptists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@ivorkovac303 Which is a version of Protestants.

4:00 A compliment, and so not true (as Merry said when Frodo was called a Brandybuck).

A standard Christian is a Catholic. And the oldest population of Jewish Catholics are the Christian Palestinians (except those who are Orthodox).

But I'm happy you are striving for it.

6:27 Catholics teach the Torah remains valid as to spiritual meaning, even in ritual laws.

The ban on shatnets means, I cannot mix Hebrew truth with Pagan error (also known as Heresy) and the ban on boiling the kid in the milk of its she goat mother is a prophecy that the ultimate Scape Goat, Jesus, would not be killed as a babe, despite Herod trying his worst.

Something a bit more interesting than the Rabbinic interpretation which could be resumed in the Kosher Cheeseburger. There are two types of Kosher Cheeseburger: the Cheeseburger without the cheese, and the Cheeseburger without the burger. I think I prefer the Catholic interpretation.

Devious Tactics, To Say the Least

My comment was immediately censored. Probably not by Anthony Stine.

Vatican Exposes Ongoing Marian "Miracle" As Fraudulent
Return To Tradition | 24.II.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTlHnTqsKmY

I think this airing of the video one hour ago was not the first.

I also think that I had commented on the previous one, and published a link to your video with my comments.

Now, I search for that post, it seems to have gone down.

It is a VERY serious thing to allege about someone else he's an alleged seer who needs to be tested for truth or falsehood of the prophecy, when that someone is actually a blogger who doesn't pretend to be a seer.

Don't take this down.

But if you do, don't try to get my copy off my blog. You have no valid copyright reason to erase a post where I link to your video and also show the comments I made.

Catholics have either been principal or accessory to Swedish shrinks, for years on end, and for years on end, it has deprived me of the readers who would have published on paper, gaining money for themselves and also for me.

The LEAST I can accuse Catholics like you of is passivity.

I am a Catholic, and Catholics have helped all the Anticatholic rabble there is to either make me their piñata (to borrow an image from Robert Sungenis) or to look good by comparison, as the ones helping me out while Catholics stand aside.

We are NOT united about who is the Pope. That does not equate to Protestantism. If you try to pretend it does, if you try to write Pope Michael I and his successor Michael II off as Protestants or to do so with me adherring to them, that is simply the tactics of the devil, who was a liar from the beginning.

Ecumenism, No Thanks (Not Open Table)

Catholic Evangelism sells itself too cheaply in London. Bishop Barron and Open Table Communion?
Catholic Unscripted | 23.II.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0-CYoabICw

Horace wasn't Homer and I'm not Robert Barron.

Nevertheless, "indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus" said good Horace.

I've sometimes had occasion to call Robert Barron the Robber Baron of Theology. Happy he has gone somewhat more quiet about defending Evolution since those days.

[tried to add, unsuccessfully, which shows I'm censored again, the following, see image]

For myself, I could have made more impact if I hadn't been artificially held down by voyeurs who remark that I drink alcohol at all or that some nights haven't been perfectly chaste (I've not gone out of my way to show it, some have gone out of theirs to watch), or who listen carefully when I say "merrrrde" when an umpteenth passer by hits that iron grid around the base of the tree and wakes me up or prevents me from falling asleep.

And the kind of Catholics who have been willing to defend "Pope Francis" as being Pope by welcoming such witnesses.

18:14 Some Protestants still do believe in the Real Presence.

I did.

I accidentally found out that some of my then fellow Lutherans didn't by the fact that when I argued for a literal understanding of the creation days, he answered I could as usefully and intelligently argue for a literal understanding of Matthew 26:26.

Which had some things to do with my decision, immediately, to stick to High Church men who were sooner or later joining the Catholic Church (hasn't happened collectively speaking) and later on, my decision for an individual conversion as opposed to waiting for Church union.

18:43 I actually believed that, and I simply found Luther's preference for Consubstantiation over Transsubstantiation or even for "in, sub et cum pane" very off-putting. One of the things to get fixed on that future day of Church Union (which hasn't come). This may be my bad memory and self flattery.

I had gone to a Catholic school in Austria, in 3rd and 4th grade. I even believed the papacy in some sense (and that it was conferred in John 21 with "pasce oves meas"), and my defense of the Deformation was pretty parallel to my later defeinse of Lefebvrism. To put it in Mgr Marcel's words: "obedience was good when the popes were good" and I, very erroneously, believed Leo X was a bad pope.

The one thing that was really news to me, when I actually converted, was the Sacrifice of the Mass. Jesus is offering to the Father on every altar (where He is truly present in a valid mass) the same thing He offered on Calvary. That I was not aware of. I may have been aware of some garbled version of it, but not in these terms. And that's why I can't go back to CoS even if there are clergymen who believe the Real Presence.

more and 19:11 more I see the point of the Latin Mass which is which which has which safeguards the Transcendence and the 19:17 miraculous because one of the tragedies that's happened is the way in which the Novus Ordo has developed during my 19:23 lifetime the Novus Ordo developed and then the anglicans developed they moved out of Cranmer and copied the Novus Ordo 19:30 so that the liturgy is almost identical and what this does is it gives a cosmetic appearance that we're talking about the 19:36 same thing so no wonder the silly Anglicans dear things imagine there there's almost no difference because 19:43 when they come to a liturgy in the Novus Ordo Well bar a couple of words and the 19:48 fact that the orders of the priests are valid the Catholics and they're not as anglicans and bar a couple of prayers 19:56 for of the intention of changing the substance it looks exactly the same

Are you sure the Novus Ordo and the new Pontifical are actually from the Catholic Church?

see Protestants are taught to to react to a number of things like for 32:39 example ainus and Aristotle so as a Protestant one of the ways in which we we come to transubstantiation is say 32:46 silly medieval Catholics they're trying to explain the inexplicable how do they do it oh they go to Aristotle well 32:52 that's a bit silly isn't it and then and then ainus goes to Aristotle so aquinus takes these sophisticated ideas nothing 32:59 to do with the New Testament nothing to do with the Holy Spirit we get a mixture of aquinus and Aristotle and and and 33:05 medieval o over something or other and um and it's it's too prescriptive in 33:10 anyway who can believe any way that accidents stay as they are and substance changes this is this is kind of a mental 33:17 gymnastics it's just typical of the Scholastics

You have just spelled out why I dread going back to Sweden, where, barring my return to Novus Ordo, which won't happen, I would be shoved together with people who think like that, and who would be far better equipped to treat me like a madman than they are in France.

35:03 One thing to actually do on Galileo would be to tell how even to this day, there is no actual proof of Heliocentrism (even in the relative sense, with "our Solar System" not being unique).

Fr. Jenkins on the Galileo Case

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Fr. Jenkins on the Galileo Case · Am I a Catholic? Yes. · Great Bishop of Geneva! | Does the Catechism of the Council of Trent Teach the Contradiction of Contemporary Catholic Embryology?

Church v. Galileo? ONE true Church? Veils on women? Naming children? Catholicism and race.
What Catholics Believe - Full Episodes | 16 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULLWYdT0dGA

I am sorry.

B U T ... saying that the passages present phenomenological language is:

1) the position of Galileo that was condemned
2) not a position that Leo XIII directly vindicated in Providentissimus Deus
3) not compatible with the context of Joshua 10 specifically verse 12.

It is also not compatible with what St. Paul says in Romans 1. Natural theology is not about the vastness of the universe as discovered (pretendedly) by telescopes or about the irreducible complexity of the flagellum of the bacterium.

Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:19-20]

A universe 13 billion light years across is not the argument for God St. Paul had in mind, if true, since that was not seen since the beginning of creation.
The flagellum of the bacterium is also not what he had in mind, despite being true and despite proving God, since it was just recently discovered and is not visible to the naked eye.

However, in Thomistic Geocentrism, God is every day turning the universe (not just or even mainly solar system objects) around Earth each day, which Riccioli, a Geocentric, acknowledged as being St. Thomas Prima Via. Day and night clearly are visible, and with this mechanism show God's power inexhaustible.

I would definitely not say the Bible teaches Geocentrism like it teaches the Trinity or the Necessity of the Catholic Church. It teaches Geocentrism like it teaches that lions roar, and like it teaches Our Lord was judged by Pontius Pilate.

12:11 "and this was what got him into trouble"

Well, because he contradicted all of the Church Fathers, precisely as a Heliocentric does today.

12:31 "he was not a theologian"

Strictly speaking irrelevant. Father Foscarini was, and his thesis got condemned too.

15:05 With a fairly good overview of the scientific debate since his day, I've read two books by Frédéric Chaberlot,astronomer and historian of science, Galileo's point and related non-Geocentric points are to this day not proven.

16:12 I suppose the Wilson Quarterly gave a source for what you paraphrase as "then the theology can give way to that" .... ?

17:09 How much theology was there really in Dialogo?

The extracts I have read seem like it was a philosophical debate. Yes, Galileo is an Italian Classic, and in an anthology of Italian Classics, you can find an extract from Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (fortunately for my understanding with French text on the facing page). Along extracts from Pinocchio, Promessi Sposi, Dei delitti e delle pene ...

The one thing any reader could gain from Dialogo was, philosophically speaking, Galileo was pretty convinced of Heliocentrism.

17:50 "because it was making assertions that could not be proven"

That in itself is an assertion that can not be proven.

The condemnation, in which the Pope was not directly involved, but which he promulgated to all of the Catholic world once it was done, like Pius XII did with that of Fr. Leonard Feeney, condemned specifically two THESES, not "thesis papers" but two categorical sentences, these being, quoting the paragraph in full, from Famous Trials:

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

Here are the two theses, the latter has also been designated as at least philosophically false, but that could be from the trial of his book in 1616:

• that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west
• and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world

So, according to this quote, both the statement about Sun and that about Earth, are a doctrine "which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures"

Obviously, a thing which is contrary to the sacred Scriptures cannot be actually proven as true, but that in and of itself is not a sufficient reason for house arrest for life, under the back then view of ecclesiastic penalties.

19:01 House arrest in whatever confort is kind of a persecution.

He was kind of a widower, his former mistress Marina Gamba had died (before all of this started) and being consigned in house arrest prevented him from getting a wife or a mistress.

19:21 In the 1616 trial, which didn't feature Galileo as a suspect, but just one of his books, St. Robert was very prolix in verifying the degree of proof.

In the 1633 trial, this was not so.

As far as the 1633 trial was concerned, St. Robert Bellarmine had already shown there was no proof for Heliocentrism.

19:58 It's more like he was given a chance of, and he took it, pursue his work until he realised he was perfectly free to accept the sentence of cursing Heliocentrism, which he did.

Some have constructed that letter in which he told Francesco Rinuccini on the 29 March 1641 that "the falseness of the Copernican system should not be put into any doubt and least of all by us Catholics" as hypocritical and a way of escaping consequences. Many however consider this letter as perfectly corresponding to his genuine convictions.

Francesco Beretta wrote a paper about this in 2003.

UNE DEUXIÈME ABJURATION DE GALILÈE OU L'INALTÉRABLE HIÉRARCHIE DES DISCIPLINES
Francesco Beretta
Bruniana & Campanelliana Vol. 9, No. 1 (2003), pp. 9-43 (35 pages) Published By: Accademia Editoriale
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24333106

20:22 The Church actually didn't say "OK" ... unless you count Wojtyla's speech in 1992 or the CCC § 283 as speaking for the Church.

Pius VII didn't say "OK, you can believe this" but just "OK, you can read this" and Gregory XVI added "even Galileo and Copernicus" ...

Leo XIII didn't say "Joshua X can be understood as phenomenological language" but only that phenomenological language was one of the possible solutions to a whole array of problems concerning Scripture and Science, the ones who were convinced Heliocentrics obviously rushed to the occasion of applying this to Joshua X, but Providentissmus Deus doesn't mention it.

The sentence "or even earth might not be the centre of the universe" in an encyclical about Dante is in a concessive subjunctive, not a sufficient assurance of the Heliocentric position actually having become licit.

I would say, these men did pretty much what Honorius I did. Not professing an error, but refraining from condemning it.

because sacred scripture relates the movement of the sun according to the uh 20:52 position of the relative to The Observer here on Earth 20:57 okay

Doesn't seem to be the case with Romans chapter 1.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:18-20]

What is revealed from Heaven, and reveals God's eternal or in other interpretations perpetual power?

It also has to be a thing observed from Creation.

If Earth each day revolves around itself, that could be due to some lesser God than that of the whole universe, and even due to purely physical factors. If each day and each night are the work of God in a Geocentric setting that reveals not just perpetual power but also that it is infinite or at least encompassing all of creation.

21:26 Speaking of which, we have observed the universe from the standpoint of Earth. We have not observed it from a standpoint outside the Solar System and independent of both Earth and Sun, which would be the requirement for proving Heliocentrism by observation, minimally, and that leaves the direct observation, Geocentrism, as the default interpretation.

We cannot say the perspective of a passenger in the train remains the default interpretation, because we have seen trains from the outside while standing still on hills or in houses. But we have no corresponding ocular proof that a universe revolving around ourselves is the illusion of the train passenger.

24:16 The beautiful tomb of Galileo was accorded a man who had done his penance, and who had, with conviction, abjured Heliocentrism.

24:56 "even when Galileo died, it has not been established empirically that the Heliocentric view is correct"

Nor has it since.

I've gone through the six proofs for Earth's supposed annual movement and the six proofs for Earth's supposed daily movement in Chaberlot, and no, they do not prove that.

My decade old reading of Chaberlot:

Série contre l'héliocentrisme du deuxième livre de Chaberlot: 1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Les fameux (et pas toujours fumeux) paradigmes en science et philosophie, 2) Et le paradigme héliocentrique, est-il fumeux?, 3) Frédéric Chaberlot dans l'éthique, 4) Fr. Chaberlot sur le paradigme héliocentrique - avec mes critiques

Série contre l'héliocentrisme de Chaberlot dans son premier livre: 1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : En lisant La Voie lactée par Chaberlot : en guise de Proesme, 2) Les définitions de Chaberlot, 3) Inégalité des mythes payens - ou prétendument tels, 4) Chemin des oiseaux migrateurs, 5) Roemer n'était pas Jésuite, 6) Wright, cosmologue héliocentrique de l'infini, 7) La cosmologie moderne, repose-t-elle sur spéculation non vérifiée ou non?, 8) La Statistique Stellaire de Herschel - a-t-elle refuté le géocentrisme?, 9) Dom Calmet et George Leo Haydock sur la louange des étoiles

Against School Compulsion

The Anti-Catholic Origins of Public Schools
Catholic Answers | 20 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjl94TS_NLw

You can obviously add that if, in times prior to "AD 33", a Bet Sepher could certainly exist in bigger places, attendance was not made mandatory for boys up to the days of Joshua Ben Gamla, who was killed at the beginning of the Jewish War, and was thus part of a Judaism already rejecting Christ.

That would have been the first instance of school compulsion fuelled by some degree of Anti-Catholicism, even if he may not have been as bad as Hanan Ben Hanan or as the usurping High Priest who was taken down by Titus. Forget his name ...

I haven't found evidence there was a Bet Sepher in Nazareth.

A Reason to Not be Zionist, I Think

Israeli Society really had a lot of disdain for Holocaust Survivors so 5:06 they did something very disgusting they both weaponized the Holocaust to justify their 5:11 extermination of Palestinians and they mistreated Holocaust survivors in fact they even refer to 5:17 them as sapon which means soap in Hebrew and that was because there was a myth that Nazis turned 5:24 Jewish bodies into soap it's not true but that was a myth and the important thing is that people 5:28 thought that was true and they thought it would be appropriate to call Survivors by that name

For more, see:

Jewish Journalist EXPOSES Israel
Double Down News | 20 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwsKBBFG728

Here it was Katie Halper being interviewed, below she interviews Miko Peled, the son of an Israeli general:

Israeli General’s Son Compares Israel to Nazis
Katie Halper | 14 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz-o4hrZCrs

Some People Can't Take Criticism and Try to Take Internet Content Down

Criticism:

This Hyperpolyglot Is A FRAUD
Evildea | 16 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppdCYE212W4

The hyperpolyglot in question tried to get the above video down, to which the above channel responded:

Hyperpolyglot Tried to Cancel Me
Evildea | 20 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpCnm-ZFnfE

I think people who want to cancel me (by pretending I "obviously wouldn't want to spread my stuff" or things) equally have a problem with valid criticism hitting them./HGL

PS, original video criticised:

Can this guy REALLY speak 46 Languages? #polyglot #languagelearning #polyglotakram
AKRAM GLOBAL LANGUAGES INSTITUTE | 4 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk0ddzup7rQ

If you think he speaks one of the languages badly, try leaving a comment and see how long it stays up!/HGL

PPS, French is apparently easy for Europeans, according to the video, but not really for Indians. Anyone from Pondichéry who would like to comment?/HGL

PPPS, I left the following comment:

May I give you a tip?

Your problem seems to be lack of native speakers, and I think some Muslims from some of the concerned countries may be willing to help you out if you admit the problem and offer a reward ...

Proof:

(Click to enlarge)

PPPPS, I invited Metatron to review the Italian on AKRAM, and I just came across the evidence I was a bit late, 17 to 18 h late:

This Hyperpolyglot Is A FRAUD. Evildea is Right
Metatron's Academy | 19 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC0zDLky5DA

Not the Hugest Fan of Dan McClellan, but he Has a Point Here

Responding to a silly theory about gopher wood
Dan McClellan | 19 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcEYQOL-Y78

Is it even a species of tree?

LXX and Vulgate translate as if it were a question of a specific process done to the tree.

de lignis laevigatis (I don't know exactly the meaning of laevigare, but Douay Rheims translates timber planks)
ἐκ ξύλων τετραγώνων

This seems pretty plausible if Brown-Driver-Briggs gives a suggestion about "(hence 'pitch-wood, resinous wood')" and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance mentions "From an unused root, probably meaning to house in; a kind of tree or wood (as used for building), apparently the cypress -- gopher."*

I get the impression of wood cut into logs as for log houses. As the Ark wasn't meant to navitage against the waves, but to float with them, very thick outer walls of the ark actually make sense. I took this into account when calculating the empty weight of the Ark a few years ago.

3:47 My theory of the four rivers** is, in post-Flood times we find the same river valleys closest to where Eden was as Euphrates, Tigris, Blue Nile and White Nile.

However, in pre-Flood times, the rivers flowed outwards instead (so, river valleys preserved the cavity but changed slope, in the Flood), from the Jordan river, which was bigger.

And they did flow outwards even to the outermost corners of the world, Euphrates or pre-Flood Frat to St. Lawrence river and maybe also Mississippee in the North West, for instance.

Frat would have gone North-West along first Euphrates, then post-Flood Zagros and Black Sea, then Danube (reverse direction), then Alps and Rhine (maybe also Rhone and Garonne, same direction), then across what in post-Flood times is the North Atlantic, into St. Lawrence (again reverse direction). It would have gone out into the Pacific about today's Alaska (comparing not so much coordinates of the globe as coordinates of each tectonic plate).

4:52 Christian nationalism per se (apart from its current realistation in the US) is actually not a worship of naked power.

Matthew 28, 16 to 20. The stated goal of the Great Commission or Target Population if you prefer, is "all nations" ... this means, obviously nations converting king down (Kingdom of Abgar, Armenia, Roman Empire, Franks, Kingdom of Kent, Kingdom of Northumbria, the five kingdoms of Ireland ...).

MUCH LESS OF A POINT HERE, THOUGH:

Has this Bible contradiction been debunked?
Dan McClellan | 18 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By4bKXURd3w

This is a case for Haydock.***

You know, the Roman Catholic Scofield, but about a century older than Scofield.

Ver. 19. Cattle. Some had escaped the former plague, or the Egyptians had purchased more from their neighbours, and in the land of Gessen. (Haydock) --- God tempers justice with mercy. (St. Augustine, q. 33.) --- Die. This message was accordingly delivered to Pharao. (Samaritan copy) (Haydock)

So, if Egyptian horses were killed in the murrain, the war horses in chapter 14 would have been purchased from neighbours or even in Goshen.

7:05 One of the communities that assert inerrancy is actually the Roman Catholic Church (traditionally, apart from contemporary partial apostasies), as you can see from Father Haydock's comment on Exodus 9:19. And as this is the Church that Jesus founded, this is where I need to be. I find a patronising tone from people who are both Protestant and Anti-Inerrantists (a k a Modernist, Liberal Theologian) very annoying, since they are doubly cut off from the Church that Our Lord actually founded.

Kyeudo

@Kyeudo

Asserting the inerrancy of the Bible is the fastest way to demonstrate that you don't know anything about the Bible.

What year was Jesus born? Answer that question without making at least one gospel a liar.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Kyeudo Before Herod the Great died.

Luke is not tied down to the post-Archelaus census, since Galilaea was a province earler and could have had a census earlier.

Meaning that St. Joseph by going to Judaea then was doing tax evasion by going to a country not yet a province.

Kyeudo

@hglundahl Then you have just called the Gospel of Luke in error. Quirinius was not governor of Syria until 6 AD, a decade after Herod the Great died. The Gospel of Luke specifically calls out that Quirinius is governor when the census happens. If you want to posit a census earlier, a thing for which we have no records and for which there is no precedent, then you are automatically claiming that the author of the Gospel of Luke was incorrect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ Actually, you are basing that on Josephus, there is a stone memorial in Italy that suggests Quirinus (best fit to the man described in the inscription) was probably ruling or coruling in Syria earlier, and Josephus just recalled the later occasion as a prequel to a census that was prequel to a revolt and massacre.

"No records" actually isn't this much of a problem given that we do have records for census taking decades in different places, and given records are fragmentary.

Kyeudo

@hglundahl We know where Quirinius was and what he was doing from 14 BC to 4 AD. None of it was governing Syria. You can place Quirinius as governor of Syria in 5 AD if you like, but that still makes Luke wrong. Herod the Great is dead no later than 4 BC.

The lack of records is huge here because there is no indication that the Romans ever conducted a census of a client kingdom like what Herod the Great ruled. They would have no reason to either, as a census was about assessing taxation and client kingdoms paid tribute to the empire, not taxes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ "We know where Quirinius was and what he was doing from 14 BC to 4 AD."

Yes, from what sources?

I'm going to a Christian archaeology site.°°°

The Emperor Augustus (reigned 27 BC-14 AD) ordered the undertaking of his second known census of the Roman Empire in ca. 8 BC, which appears to be the census associated with the birth of Jesus (Augustus, Res Gestae Divi Augusti). Meanwhile, Quirinius was a legatus commanding legions in Cilicia and Syria to the north, apparently as one of two rulers in Syria Province at the time, and following Roman protocol the military authority conducted the census (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem; Tacitus, Annals; Josephus, Antiquities). According to a stone inscription dedicated to a Roman military officer named Quintus Aemilius Secundus, found in what was formerly the Roman province of Syria, Quirinus was the legate in command of the Syria Province when a census was issued during the reign of Augustus (Epitaph of Secundus).

Now, you mentioned Romans didn't conduct a census in a client kingdom.

PRECISELY my point. Joseph avoided a census in Galilee by going to Judaea.

Tax evasion. The Gospel never said he actually registered in Bethlehem.~

Kyeudo

@hglundahl
Your source is not peer reviewed and is from a blatantly credulous position. Further, it has wrong information. The governor of Syria in 8 BC is known. His name was Gaius Sentius Saturninus. At the time, Quirinius was at least one province over, in Cillicia and Galatia, prosecuting a campaign against the Homanades. Also, the census ordered by Augustus in 8 BC was for Roman citizens, not the provinces.

As for Joseph trying to evade taxation by being in Judea during a census, that would itself be an error: Luke 2:4-5 - And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judæa, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Joseph is explicitly going to be taxed. Further, there was no tax evasion under the Roman system. The publican that bought the taxes in the area is just going to knock on your door when you come back. He'd have to forget that he hadn't hit up your house for his money in order for you to avoid taxes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kyeudo "Your source is not peer reviewed"

// APXAIOC Institute of Biblical Archaeology is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit //

Probably argues it isn't peer reviewed by YOUR favourite team.

"and is from a blatantly credulous position"

You mean they are upfront Christians? Fine with me.

"Further, it has wrong information. The governor of Syria in 8 BC is known. His name was Gaius Sentius Saturninus. At the time, Quirinius was at least one province over, in Cillicia and Galatia, prosecuting a campaign against the Homanades."

Cilicia is actually neighbouring Syria, and Romans had a knack of going back and forth.

Quirinus is not said to be "ho hegemon" but rather he is described as doing sth, as "hegemeuon" ... he could have filled duties for Saturninus without actually having the principal office in Syria.

The Homanades might not have taken all of the time, and the old stones actually do suggest that 6 AD wasn't his first time over.

"Also, the census ordered by Augustus in 8 BC was for Roman citizens, not the provinces."

Are you sure? What I know of Roman taxation at this time (before all provincials became citizens in the 200's AD) is that citizens sponged on provincials as to taxation, while citizens on the other hand provided the soldiers.

"The publican that bought the taxes in the area is just going to knock on your door when you come back."

Well, Joseph obviously planned for living in Bethlehem, free from Publicans.

"Joseph is explicitly going to be taxed."

If I see a Roman tax collector in Bethlehem, I'll certainly go to the census there, as I promised the Roman centurion up in Galilee.

What? No tax collectors? Maybe God doesn't want me to pay Roman taxes, after all!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ Are Musei Vaticani sufficiently peer reviewed for your taste?

Citing:

Fragment of the sepulchral inscription of Quirinius

The inscription, found near Tivoli in 1764, probably belonged to the tomb of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, "proconsul" (governor) of Asia and "legate divi Augusti" (imperial official) of Syria and Phoenicia in the time of the Emperor Augustus (27 BC -14 AD). This figure is mentioned in the Gospel in relation to the census at the time of the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem "when Quirinius was governor of Syria" (Lk 2, 1-7): indeed, this census has been the focus of intense historical debate, as it would appear that it took place twelve years after the birth of Jesus. In fact, the inscription in question, with the term "leg (atus) iterum ..." ("... twice legate") attests to the possibility of that Quirinius held an earlier post in Syria: on that occasion he could have overseen a more approximate estimate of the population, thus limiting the presumed discrepancy between historical sources and the passage from the Gospel according to Luke.

https://www.museivaticani.va/content/museivaticani/en/collezioni/musei/lapidario-cristiano/abercio/frammento-dell-iscrizione-sepolcrale-di-quirinius.html

7:28 Well, indeed there is a sense of self worth in being part of the Church that Jesus founded. I do have a reason to echo Belloc° who, echoing himself St. Paul said "civis Romanus sum" and the actual words°° were "Si hominem Romanum, et indemnatum licet vobis flagellare?"

8:02 Thank you very much for being this patronising, it may be instructive to my readers.

For instance, you sound as if 1) wanting a social standing, 2) in a community, 3) and believing the social standing and the community to be good were, all three of them, carnal things and likely to mislead a man, come into objective conflict with objective truth, for whatever community this be the case. In other words, you are at the edge of Albigensian condemnation of the physical and social world as a creation of the "bad principle" ...

I'm not. I'm not subconsciously Catholic, but very consciously so. I think my standing as a Catholic (which doesn't mean with "Pope Francis") is a good thing and conducive to acceptance of objectively true propositions, and that therefore the propositions it involves can be very rationally defended.

8:39 You seem to be referring to 1984. Orwell.

The ones threatening me with rats have so far been on your side. It's not Catholicism that's abusing me. It's Anti-Catholics, plus the fact that Modernist Catholics both are too impressed by your likes and too eager to please them with providing them yet another go to convince me, which they have been provided with since 2000. No comforts allowed. No Catholic allowed to print my works, earn us both money, which would get me off the street in maybe a week. JUST treading on with them caving in to the likes of you, "no, we can't let him be Catholic for worldly gain" a bit like how Israel's law forbids Christians to support converts from Judaism, except I've never been part of Judaism in the first place. Not in the usual Halakhic way, and not even that I would count as banning me from Catholicism or defying the inhuman laws of the Knesset.

9:02 I actually see a time marker in chapter 9 which basically excludes Haydock's conclusion.

The day after the murrain Moses threatened the hail which arrived the next day.

Solution. The "servants of the Pharao" were Israelites.

During the soujourn, there were Israelites in Goshen and there were Israelites elsewhere serving the Pharao. The latter would have preserved cattle from the murrain but not (apart from heeding Moses) from the hail. How much sense does it make for Gentile Egyptians to have listened to Moses anyway?

2 + 2 = 4, as Bishop Richard Williamson, recently deceased, like yourself a fan of Orwell, and Catholicism is true. This extends to Biblical inerrancy. You're the guy who puts 2 and 2 together and gets 7, like that man who wanted gopherwood to prove a point about the US.

Kyeudo

Why would gentile Egyptians pay attention to the guy who has foretold six country wide plagues? The answer is in the question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kyeudo It didn't state "feared Moses" but "feared Adonai" ...

Plus, even if you had a point, there is no impossibility in Hebrews outside Goshen being servants of the pharao.

Kyeudo

@hglundahl You are making a distinction without a difference.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ It actually has one.

Everything the solution requires is for some Hebrews to have lived outside Goshen. As servants of the Pharao.

Fearing Adonai typically refers not to being scared, but to adore the true God.

Notes from my original comments:

* Works accessed through:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1613.htm

** For instance in:
Location of Eden and Four Rivers Revisited

*** Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition. [the first edition is older]
EXODUS - Chapter 9

° Or Chesterton. At least.

°° Of St. Paul.

Notes from dialogues:

°°° https://apxaioc.com/?p=29

~ As I mentioned here: Nativity Narrative Revisited

Not a Noahide Here

I descend of Noah of course, but I mean, I don't believe in "the Seven Noahide laws"

Ari Shaffir tells Tucker Carlson what Jews REALLY think about non-Jews ‪@TCNetwork‬ ‪@arishaffir‬
SoulWords—Rabbi Shais Taub | 24 July 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CBWQsF3AK8

The big problem a Christian has with the "seven Noahide laws" is that it would seem that many Jews and many in the Noahide movement consider Christianity as "idolatry" ...

A smaller one is, they do not seem to exactly correspond to God's covenant with Noah.

BB

@BB-ft6nd

Water can be in three states of matter (Ice, vapour and liquid). God's interaction with us is also in three. Remember this. We are Christians. What the heretics think is of no consequence. Your laws and the way you are supposed to live life are found in the New Testament. This is the way.

lookatmepleasesir

@lookatmepleasesir

thats not necessarily true, or at least, its not considered as serious as other forms of idolatry, because of the intent

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@lookatmepleasesir thank you for the information, it can still be sth that varies (not sure Tovia Singer agrees with you)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BB-ft6nd Thank you.

This does not mean we have no right to discuss whether Noahidism is a boon or a threat to Christians.

lookatmepleasesir

@ not sure if he agrees either, but its a common perspective from rabbis

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@lookatmepleasesir thank you!

5:13 Maimonides taught abortion was sometimes acceptable, and he also denied that Job was a historic person.

No, I will not put Maimonides or Mendelides next to Amramides.

God Bless Barron Trump

Hope he one day gets an opportunity to do what this video portrays him as doing:

Liberal Calculus Professor Tries to Humiliate Barron Trump — Has No Idea He's a Math Genius!
Hidden Stories | 9 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gr6Tb7gbY0

However, I made this remark:

Some people question whether George Washington cut down a cherry tree.

I have just checked that Barron Trump is 18 years old, he attends a "school of business" which is not likely to hire people like Professor Markham as portrayed in this video and I actually doubt it offers classes in calculus.

Nice morality, nothing against that, but I'm less enthusiastic about complete and unmitigated factuality.

As I raise my eyes up towards the video, to the title between it and the comment, I come across some kind of confirmation, to say the least:

// ⚠️ DISCLAIMER 🚨

The stories presented on this channel are entirely fictional and crafted solely for entertainment. Any resemblance to real events, individuals, or situations is purely coincidental and unintentional. These narratives are not intended to depict, reference, or represent any actual occurrences, persons, or entities.

Smart guy detects, what I would have seen them admit upfront with no checking, had I been more attentive ... my bad!

Not Enough from Bergoglio's Side

Will Trad Caths FINALLY Support The Pope After His G Slur & Desire To Clean Up The Seminaries?
5-Minute Catholic Apologetics & Living | 20 June 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmzDOrQ1qC4

Before looking.
In the title, you didn't mention any:

• return to Young Earth Creationism (the historic position of Catholicism)
• or clarification that support of YEC is no act of either "rad trad schism" or Protestant heresy.

Tyler Brown

@tylerbrown4483

YEC is a wild take

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@tylerbrown4483 like that of literally all of tradition up to 1830?

+ even later coexisting only with gap theory and day-age theory up to 1919~1920?

+ never banned up to at least 1992, and if so only in the schismatic and by that fact also heretical church of Wojtyla?

Back when I converted, I was somewhat desensitised to Assisi, but in 1988, no one told me Wojtyla was going to actively promote old earth + evolution and by implication a L O N G stretch in the chronology of Genesis 5 and 11.

Tyler Brown

@hglundahl the tradition of the church has always viewed science as part of divine revelation, and reason through science as an acceptable lens for interpreting church teachings and scripture. So yeah, up until 150 years ago YEC was a totally normal take. The science wasn’t there to show that it’s not true, and the best interpretation of the scriptures at that time with the knowledge we had was that the earth was (at the time) like 5800 years old.

But now we know better. And we know better because it was revealed to us through science. And it’s okay to apply that reasoning to the tradition and the text and conclude that now God must want us to know better.

Vigorously clinging to verifiably false beliefs simply because “it’s what we always believed” in spite of new revelation is errant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ "the tradition of the church has always viewed science as part of divine revelation"

Apart from certain parts of science directly mentioned in the Bible, like Geocentrism in Romans one or lions tending to roar and devour in more than once place ... no.

"The science wasn’t there to show that it’s not true"

It's still not there to show it is not true.

"with the knowledge we had was that the earth was (at the time) like 5800 years old."

According to Vulgate chronology and you are decades off.

"But now we know better."

No. We. Do. Not.

"because it was revealed to us through science."

Revelation was closed at the death of the last Apostle.

You are adoring Delphic Apollo. "Science" as an oracle.

"Vigorously clinging to verifiably false beliefs simply because “it’s what we always believed” in spite of new revelation is errant."

There is no new revelation between the death of St. John the Gospeller and the Second coming. There are clarifications about certain things, like possibly where Babel was (if I'm right) and certainly what the Mark of the Beast is and who is a credible candidate and has the gematria 666.

By the way, Apollo in the five cases of Classic Attic does add up to 2666, and the thousands can be ignored according to Hebrew convention. And Apollo was called Apollyon by Homer (the four cases of Apollyon adding up to 4666). I'd suggest you ditch any hint of belief in Delphic Apollo (and Apollo Medicus was actually a man, so, it certainly is, in that sense "the number of a man").

Worth Noting

Fmr. Head of Saudi Arabian Intelligence Reacts to Trump's Proposal for Gaza | Amanpour and Company
Amanpour and Company | 6 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqGRjiSnoO4

Allie Beth Stuckey has a Point, But I'm Not Where Her Finger Points

@AllieBethStuckey
If you didn’t speak up before, don’t start now
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9o_DMgkF8E8

I am still very happy (with caution) that Trump won, rather than Kamala.

I promoted you, I promoted abolitionists in Florida, I promoted Isabel Brown, I didn't too much bother to look up Peter Sonski (probably more pro-life, as well as less deportation than Trump), I became basically to my readers, whatever that may imply, a little locomotive for Trump, because pro-death and trans policies disgust me, I am also not even saying anything like Trump should deport no one at all, just he should moderate his ambitions. Orders to quit the territory don't work as swiftly as bar bouncers, he may have been naive, but once the rubber hits the road, if he wants to deport actual violent criminals, a goal I can sympathise with, it should take the time needed to make sure he doesn't deport a lot of other people as well.

Excerpt

from my statistics, last 6 months. First row are blogs where the US presence is fewer than 1000, but taken together they are 9656, which I round to 9,66 k in order to count it together comparably with the blogs where the US presence was more than 1000 views last 6 months. Then 3 last months. Then last month.

États-Unis

216 + 368 + 318 + 288 + 312 + 798 + 379 + 340 + 354 + 341 + 295 + 475 + 463 + 359 + 274 + 410 + 284 + 632 + 275 + 193 + 228 + 735 + 888 + 431 = 9656 = 9,66 k

9,66 k + 18,9 k + 17,6 k + 1,13 k + 1,03 k + 1,83 k + 10,4 k + 3,02 k + 2,38 k + 1,17 k + 1,91 k + 2,86 k + 2,16 k + 1,91 k + 19,4 k + 3,37 k + 1,29 k + 1,86 k + 1,54 k = 103,42 k

États-Unis

426 + 694 + 93 + 301 + 93 + 108 + 102 + 170 + 441 + 455 + 429 + 110 + 242 + 160 + 884 + 120 + 118 + 119 + 125 + 101 + 85 + 107 + 148 + 75 + 130 + 218 + 274 + 49 + 246 + 269 + 807 + 88 + 246 + 460 + 90 + 326 + 807 + 49 = 9765 = 9,77 k

9,77 k + 7,02 k + 7,02 k + 4,73 k + 6,89 k = 35,43 k

États-Unis

346 + 41 + 47 + 51 + 40 + 57 + 42 + 24 + 42 + 69 + 89 + 205 + 149 + 136 + 63 + 127 + 81 + 157 + 44 + 210 + 134 + 52 + 42 + 44 + 898 + 57 + 89 + 11 + 50 + 96 + 114 + 88 + 229 + 30 + 132 + 20 + 171 + 199 + 116 = 4592 = 4,59 k

4,59 k + 3,4 k + 1,51 k + 2,42 k = 11,92 k

First three months

103,42 k - 35,43 k = 67,99 k, 747 per day.

Next two months

35,43 k - 11,92 k = 23,51 k, 379 per day

Last month

11,92 k, 397 per day.

Vivat Beinart! (Sharing)

Peter Beinart on "Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza" & Trump's Call for Ethnic Cleansing
Democracy Now! | 6 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkPTwB58FpI

Two disagreements.

1) He believes the fears of White South Africans were wholly unfounded, but white farmers are being killed for land with no punishment. Or at least that was the case a few years ago.
2) He sympathises with students who would want to protest for "abortion rights." What happened to "every life is a universe"?

On Tolkien Besides His Books

What Was Tolkien Like As A Professor?
Ink and Fantasy | 8 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIjSKX5Hx2M

8:03 It may be noted that Kingsley Amis and Philip Larkin* were in the same set, comparable to, but not necessarily friendly to, the Inklings, also all of them jazz musicians, as far as I can tell.

It may also be noted Kingsley Amis was a Communist up to 1956. He had quit the university of Oxford in 1947. So, he was a Communist while studying for Tolkien.

In other words, Kingsley Amis may have found the man unintelligible because he wanted other people to find him unintelligible. From what I can hear on the interviews I can find on youtube, he was in fact (most words) intelligible. The faculty for hearing someone with an accent other than you are used to is uneven. Some people can't make out what I say in French, or so they say, and with some working class I can't make out all of what they say. It's not an objective measure of my capacity for French, it is an indication, I should prefer writing to podcasting, and I should note that a small shade in accent makes a big difference to some. But ... from my ear ... Kingsley Amis was overdoing it.

Thurso Berwick

@ThursoBerwick

Tolkien does mumble in some of the clips I've heard.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@ThursoBerwick not many words at a time to the point of making a sentence incomprehensible. It can be a word of two I don't pick up.

---

* It may be noted that Philip Larkin was either very allergic to Tolkien's prose or to Anglo-Saxon:

Oz and Ends: Tolkien the Teacher
https://ozandends.blogspot.com/2011/12/tolkien-teacher.html

“I can just about stand learning the filthy lingo it’s written in,” Philip Larkin, another Tolkien student, complained about the old man’s lectures on “Beowulf.” “What gets me down is being expected to admire the bloody stuff.”

Did Philip Larkin hate "the filthy lingo" of Tolkien or of the Beowulf poet? Did he feel annoyed about Tolkien expecting him to love the Beowulf poem or did he feel annoyed about others expecting him to love Tolkien's lectures? As far as I can make an educated guess, Sweden owes the Beowulf poet the missionary vocation of St. Sigfrid of Skenninge.