I'm Glad I Left the North

3 Unwritten Rules of Scandinavia ...
Meg DuPer | 26 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGZrLPD1Rnk

One more reason why I'm not likely to return to Scandinavia and not all too happy with having too many Scandinavians close by even in Paris.

I'm Swedish and part Norwegian (1/4, basically). But I was raised in Germany and Austria and more specifically big cities.

It's not the American culture. It's not halfway to it. But it's perhaps a third or quarter to it.

On top of that, I became a Christian believer in the US. Lots of media I consume have US or other Anglo-Saxon origin. If you know Kent Hovind (whose surname and origins are Norwegian) you will hardly find him a very Scandinavian personality. A cultural comparison in Sweden would be Billy Butt ... who's an immigrant.

Now, what would a Scandinavian observer do as sabotage in Paris?

A) As I have a minoritarian religion, today, Roman Catholic NOT in Communion with Prevost AND holding to traditional doctrines like Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism, I need to be performative for it. As I have the goal of getting someone to start a publishing house, seeing even small Catholic oppositional ones are letting me down, I need to catch attention for that.

As a result, the Scandinavian observer, who values not taking up social space, is not my best friend.

B) As I maintain my writing without an income, pending the change I seek, I sit in the street with a cardboard to my blog URL, offering online reading and accepting money.

A Scandinavian will typically see this as being high maintenance, again, not my best friend.

C) This may strike some as a Scandinavian weakness in me, but I have a need of not being surrounded by too multiple social "deep" interactions, among which inquiries about how I am.

A human weakness is being more irritable after sleep privation.

A typically Scandinavian will note some irritability.

Thanks for showing again why Scandinavia is not the place for me!

On top of that, so C 2, loads of Scandinavians have internalised that "Science" is about reason, but "Religion" about emotions, and from that prejudice will take me as excessively emotional even when I'm simply stating the dogma of my Church or some basic apologetics argument for it.

Sweden is among top 5 countries with most Atheists.

Chesterton

A Sentence in Tolkien (or Two, or More) · Chesterton

Top 10 Prophetic Quotes From GK Chesterton
The Babylon Bee | 19 Dec. 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te1-gDhq3DU

5:39 In much of Europe, that's the huge contributor to Muslims replacing us.

["the one consoling thought is, that will only last one generation"]

8:03 In Chesterton's day, governments were sterilising people.

That's not "more fresh" ...*

12:34 Chesterton also said, Capitalism and Communism are so similar.**

Right now people in Anaheim are evacuated because a factory had the Capitalistic freedom to produce for such a large amount of customers and the Capitalistic corner cutting to not ensure proper safety for such large a factory.

---

* "Take out God, the government becomes the God" and they argued "when governments were more fresh"
** "Whether the share will be delivered in motorcar or balloon" and they argued "people say Capitalism won't work, but Communism will" ... Chesterton had attacked Communism, not specifically defended Capitalism

---

Lewis and Tolkien: G.K. Chesterton, Myth, and the Imagination
Ryan M Reeves | 2 Sept. 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McnaNqj_vA4

17:43 You can* observe angels by their actions when they do Tychonian orbits or "annual aberration and parallax" ...

If a rationalist claims that this is just because Earth moves, the problem is, his only proof for Earth moving is, lack of God and angels.

God doing, as per Romans 1, the daily movement of the whole shebang.

The rationalist pretends God and angels not existing is the default and is worth denying Geocentrism, despite universal observation of it by 8 billion people.

I say, believing your eyes (especially if backed up by so many other ones) is the default and is worth God and angels getting a proof via physics. As in, the universe couldn't turn around Earth by just inertia and gravitation, nor Venus do that pentagram like figure within that (i e in relation to a zodiac that moves daily, not to earth that doesn't move).

20:34 I happen to have a formula for saying that carbon dates can square with Biblical chronology.

Clearly not the same thing, but I have it, and I have also made tables with details. Right now, some Christians like very much to link Abraham (1900's or 1800's BC in Biblical chronology, depending on dating of Exodus and a few more) to carbon dated and archaeological 1900's and 1800's. So, they put my tables in a limbo, because I link Genesis 14 to carbon dated 3500 BC. But in carbon dates, Asason Tamar / En Geddi has no population in 1900's or 1800's BC. Therefore the Biblical dates need a reduction of carbon dates. I show this is possible.**

23:59 You certainly did have a right to feel wrath against the mean boy, I hope you didn't kill him. There are people I don't know how to deal with except by killing one, but it doesn't sit with my habits.

Note, they have gone out of their way to make normal reactions self defeating.

However, as an argument, I think Dawkins would argue sth about "the selfish gene" ...***

25:46 In Catholicism, you pray twice around a meal.

Before, you ask a blessing. After, you thank for the blessing.

---

* In response to:

if someone comes up to you and they say well you know what I I I've just used my mind and Science and I come up with these these conclusions um how can you believe in a world with Heaven and Hell and Angels and Demons you can't say well good let's let's go to the to the science lab and I'll I'll I'll show you the angel the angel particle or the demon particle you can't actually observe these things

** My latest completed version from Flood to fall of Troy: Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.

*** I think I have a somewhat better argument about speech. An Ambiguous Term, "Language Development" · Is Gradualism Really That Impossible? · Was Jean Aitchison Calling Bird-Song Doubly Articulated? AND Human Language Revisited · Elves and Adam · Back to Picq · Off the Bat

Capitalism, Specifically Industrial ... and Psychiatry

Citation:

The company's Garden Grove facility has undergone four inspections by OSHA since 2018, which resulted in 10 violations, public records show. Now, more on these violations wasn't available, but in 2019, this is one of the examples, uh the California Department of Industrial Relations uh a request in Orange County Superior Court that a judge ordered the company to pay about $3,000 in civil penalties.

EMERGENCY: White House Shooting & 40,000 Evacuated in California Chemical Emergency!
Lisa Haven | 24 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N18OVWjZw6g

I'm glad people from Anaheim are safe.

8:43 In the case of this attempt, let's face it, the man has been in psychiatry and therefore has faced some kind of torture.

I wonder if his wish to get arrested involved an attempt to clear up the story he had claimed to be Jesus.

(See also:
Garden Grove chemical crisis: Live evacuation maps, closures and updates
By Los Angeles Times staff
https://www.latimes.com/california/live/garden-grove-gas-leak-live-evacuation-maps-closures-and-updates)

A Sentence in Tolkien (or Two, or More)

A Sentence in Tolkien (or Two, or More) · Chesterton

I finally understand why I love the sentences of JRR Tolkien so much
First Timers | 23 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOrgYaP2VDg

6:12 Let's take the sentence.

The wind was howling | and the thun der still growling.

When the siege and the assault | had ceased at Troy ... this line has two beats plus two beats, but many lines in Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight (which I read in Tolkien's translation) actually have two beats plus three beats, like above.

And they had a business getting themselves | and their ponies along.

Two beats and two beats, like the first line from Sir Gawaine. In his explanation to Beowulf, Tolkien noted that only full beats, stressed long syllables, or two short ones the first of which is stressed, count as beats. You don't count a syllable as a beat just because it's surrounded by two weak ones in Anglo-Saxon poetry.

Hence "and they had a" contains no beat and "business" is one beat, not a beat plus a weak syllable.

The one difference is, first "line" has an internal end rhyme instead of alliteration, and second "line" has no type of rhyme ... or it actually has a kind of allitteration, "b" in "business" allitterating with "p" in "ponies" ...

Not sure if Tolkien did this fully on purpose or if his daily contact with Old and Middle English allitterating poetry simply rubbed off.

7:01 Once again, it's Anglo-Saxon metre with some liberties.

It was a hard path and a dangerous path | and a crooked and a long.

In this, the first half line is involving "path" as a secondary beat, but in AS poetry, this would not have been repeated in the next descriptor.

Crooked is obviously just one beat, because the first syllable is short and needs a second one to fill out a beat.

If he had said instead:

It was a hard path and at risk | and crooked and long.

THAT would have been totally in the Beowulf metre. He came very close. The Roman rhetors had a knack of getting close to Hexameter but just avoiding it, sometimes by ending sentences like a first halfline of hexameter, and beginning them as a second halfline.

Oh, my version obviously lacks the allitteration.

Wait, I curtailed the second part. I think one could analyse it as two lines, but somewhat shorter halflines than Beowulf admits, at times, and no secondary beat:

It was a hard path | and a dangerous path
and a crooked way | and a lonely and a long.

Allitterating between the two beats of a second halfline is obviously not done in Beowulf.

7:11 Here we could pose five halflines:

and the silence seemed | to dislike being broken
except by the noise of water | and the wail of wind
and the crack of stone. ...

Pretty good Anglo-Saxon poetry. Again, two words allitteraring in the second half, not done in Beowulf, but it is done at times in Sir Gawaine.

7:38 Here, the mood is less Anglo-Saxon and more Sir Topaz meets ballad meter.

Far, far away in the West (4)
where things were blue and faint (3)
Bilbo knew there lay (3)
his own country of safe and comfortable things (5)
and his little Hobbit hole. (3)

8:25 Beowulf for one line, then looser.

Boulders too | at times came galloping
down the moun tain sides | let loose by mid-day sun upon the snow

The second line has a second half with four full beats, one more than the Gawaine metre allows ...

9:52 As on a daily basis he was teaching old poetry, from Old and Middle English (before and West of Chaucer), and sometimes translating poetry or writing poems of his own, this is a thing he actually couldn't help ... but which helped him a lot.

Judaism Apostasised, Catholicism Didn't

Judaism Apostasised, Catholicism Didn't · Florence and Toledo I, Pope St. Celestine · YEC is Correct, Protestantism Isn't · Hollywood Genesis Bad, AiG Comment Not Fault Free

How Jesus Died: The Historical Sources Explained
Elon Gilad | 3 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnsHyneJuPo

Broke every law in a single night.

I'd be grateful for details.

We Christians hold that Hannas and Caiaphas founded what's now the Jewish religion by rejecting the true Messiah, so, breaking the law on top of that is not actually over the top for us.

EVERY Christian Should Learn These Church History Facts
Wretched with Todd Friel | 24 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBQOR12k5yY

Judaism apostasised in one night.

When Hannas and Caiaphas judged God.

Catholicism supposedly apostatised very slowly ... from the 6th to the 12th C.

How do you do such a thing? Could Adam have taken 600 years to slowly bite the forbidden fruit? Could Solomon have taken (given longevity, which he hadn't any more) taken 600 years from fully being a servant of the True God to actually adhering in at least cult of worship to the false gods of his wives?

Before you bring up slow apostasies in Gentiles after Babel (which I would hold) or Israel from Jeroboam to Baal, those are doctrinal slow rotting of what was already cut off fairly quickly, by obeying Nimrod more than God and Jeroboam over Rohoboam. So, this doesn't match, as you claim the 6th C. Church was still the Christian Church, standing, though compromised.

While Gentiles who had served Nimrod started to believe all sorts of (different) idolatrous nonsense, while Jeroboam's successors were drifting towards Baal, the line from Heber to Abraham and the line from Rohoboam to Joas were still standing doctrinally sound. So, that scenario would require a parallel Church that didn't slowly apostatise, that was already separated from when sth else started to drift after being cut off.

Christianity Unique in Witnessing Actual Miracles

I'm obviously taking the OT as a prequel to Christianity, not to Orthodox Judaism.

Alex O’Connor’s Mormon Witness Argument Fails
Testify | 22 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWrCsBamBT8

11:40 So, you are saying that even granting the witness accounts in Doctrine and Covenant and in the Sira, Joseph Smith and Mohammed have not proven beyond reasonable doubt they had a message by God?

Sounds quite convincing, actually.

As opposed to, Christianity is the one religion where the own origin story has to be discounted as decades later arisen myths in order to give room to scepticism ... I can even grant very much of what Mahabharata and Ramayana says without finding Hinduism convincing, with Christianity, that's somehow not on the table, with sceptics.

Hollywood Genesis Bad, AiG Comment Not Fault Free

Judaism Apostasised, Catholicism Didn't · Florence and Toledo I, Pope St. Celestine · YEC is Correct, Protestantism Isn't · Hollywood Genesis Bad, AiG Comment Not Fault Free

Hollywood Just Made a Show Depicting Genesis! Is It Worth Watching?
Answers in Genesis | 22 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TmErhLvgCc

4:08 There is a certain shtick in modernist theology, like Catholic "clergy" in communion with at least Ratzinger, Bergoglio and Prevost here in France, probably already Wojtyla, to pretend "Abraham was born in a Pagan family"

This is obviously based in part on Joshua 24:2, but they are over doing that.

And I'd say that Ussher had a finger in the play too. Abram was born when Thare was 70 c., not when he was 130, as Ussher wanted to deduce from:

Then he went out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charan. And from thence, after his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein you now dwell
[Acts Of Apostles 7:4]

Ussher took this as when his physical actual father (not grand or great-grand, just father per se) was physically dead.

If so, and if grand and dad were already idolaters, that would mean Abram was born to a culture of idolatry. A cradle pagan.

I dispute this. Stephen very probably meant when the physical father, Thare, was spiritually dead, i e the idolatry of dad started when Abram was already 75 or when the spiritual father (like Sarug, not mentioned as idolater by Joshua, or like a servant preserving the God-tradition, like Eliezer or his dad) had physically died.

So, when God spoke to Abram, both he and Sarai already knew which God, and probably Abram was as nearly educated for such a thing as Samuel.

10:30 [matriarchs, Sarah is strong and is taking the decisions]

Rip off from beginnings of Islam, as traditionally told?

Hadidja really was stronger than Mohammed (if that happened, there seem to be some doubts), and Muslims, after Mohammed, venerate the "mothers of the faithful" who, apart from his daughter Fatima were his multiple wives, except perhaps the Egyptian Christian who seems to have remained Christian.

Perhaps also a bow to the psychiatric view that Abraham was a schizophrenic, fake diagnosis, but from those believing this a madman, and in that case, obviously he would have been incompetent to handle the affairs of the tribe.

19:05 Again, some shrinks are into pretending Abraham was schizophrenic, I think the show is catering to this.

As for the physical power balance, Abraham had already tied Isaac, and there were presumably others around who could have prevented him from defending himself, if that had been the kind of deal the story was about. Not unlike some shrinks being weak people but always out of reach if a patient wants to defend himself.

22:18 "because he was old"

On this item, I would exonerate the show.

Now Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, and he could not see: and he called Esau, his elder son, and said to him: My son? And he answered: Here I am
[Genesis 27:1]

The Bible doesn't say that Isaac was dim eyed simply because of old age, and lots of people do retain good eye-sight. One condition that could cause blindness or impaired eye-sight and get worse in old age is diabetes. Some other sicknesses conducive to blindness are smallpox perhaps chicken pox, and when I had that, I was put in a room with dimmed light and red wall paper so as to spare my eyesight. Its recurrence shingles can also impair eyesight.

So, this item per se is not a fault, though a change in dioptres over aging can also do it. But that change has lots to do with modern life, like lots of reading ... which I presume was less an issue back then.

23:16 On this issue, I would say, that predestination is aided by the prayers of the saints.

Jacob was elect. However, he would not have been in heaven now if he hadn't been born, and he was born because his mother prayed.

Standard argument for our prayers, but ultimately also other actions actually making a difference, not for God electing, but for how that election comes to fruition. Against Calvinism.

28:31 Narcigesis?

I think you may have a kind of problem doctrinally, in accepting, perhaps promoting, the diagnosis "narcissism" ...

Have you heard what Tovia Singer says about Jesus?

The thing isn't a person who considers himself a Christian and you consider a narcissist is Jesus, it's:

For if in the green wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry?
[Luke 23:31]

If Jesus struck him as a narcissist, obviously he'll find Christians narcissists as well. I'm worried when Protestant "Christians" take a Jewish view of morality and mental health.

29:01 It very much did matter what Rebecca did.

Most specially her prayer, obviously.

The Roman Catholic blessing for a first time bride who's a virgin involves a prayer that she may have the qualities of Sarah, Rebecca, Lea and Rachel.

Rebecca's quality in this context is wisdom.

Antichrist; Some Observations

What Everyone Gets Wrong about the Antichrist
Sean McDowell | 3 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkRCpsZlOu8

Now, I'd say, it's not absolutely necessary that the individual Antichrist claims to be God.

Adore the beast could refer to giving divine attributes to the beast system, for instance medicine.

Recall the recent pandemic?

---

Second Temple Judaism had a unique place of worship.

Catholicism has a principal place of worship.

Peace treaty is not in any clear prophecy about the antichrist. You may think of this one:

And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.
[Daniel 9:27]

Check previous verse:

And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: and the people that shall deny him shall not be his. And a people with their leader that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation
[Daniel 9:26]

It mentions Christ.

The "covenant with many" is the Eucharist, the New Covenant.

---

keyman 66

@keyman6689

There is always an Antichrist in every generation. Satan doesn't know when the "end times" will be. He always has someone waiting in the wings to eventually be "the" Antichrist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

"Satan doesn't know when the "end times" will be."

How do you know that?

Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 12:12]

He has some kind of knowledge of the times, doesn't say how much.

A

keyman 66

@hglundahl "...only the Father knows." Matt 24:36

Satan doesn't have any hidden knowledge. He's not omniscient. As you point out, he knows his time is short. We know that, too. We're told Jesus can come back at any moment. But it's been 2000 years. Could be 2000 more. We don't know. Satan doesn't, either.

Every generation thinks they're the last ones. We all see signs that could be biblical prophecy fulfillment. It's possible that Satan may have figured out some clues from the Bible that we haven't. He's very smart, perceptive, and cunning.

My point is he doesn't truly know any more than we do. We're told to always be ready. Satan is, too. I grant he may have deciphered some information from the Bible that we haven't yet. Still, I don't believe it's possible to come to full knowledge of exactly when. It's hidden for a reason.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@keyman6689 "We're told Jesus can come back at any moment."

Not quite, the katekhon has to be removed first.

I hold this happened in 1918.

So, day and hour, we cannot know.

I think we might be able to know the generation (if I live twenty or thirty years more, it may well be in my time, but it could be way sooner than that).

And Satan could know that too.

The thing about generation is this, people are still alive who were born before ASCII was well known and we can now calculate whether their names add up to 666 in ASCII.

@keyman6689 "Satan doesn't have any hidden knowledge. He's not omniscient." But he does on occasion talk to One Who Is. As in Job. So, he could have knowledge that's hidden from us, certainly knowledge that was hidden from earlier generations.

keyman 66

@hglundahl It's pure speculation to think that Satan knows something we don't because God told him. That's certainly possible. But not likely. The removal of the restrainer will tip him off, imo.

Are you saying the restrainer was already removed in 1918? What was that?

My belief is that the restrainer is the church, which will be caught up to meet Jesus in the air. That will send the world into chaos. This could happen at any moment, like a thief in the night. At some point, whether immediately or possibly decades later, globalism will be instituted and the Antichrist will establish himself. After 7 years of tribulation, Jesus returns to step foot on the earth and begin his 1000 year reign.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@keyman6689 The restrainer is NOT the Church, she will NOT be raptured pre- or mid-trib.

She is not under the wrath, and likewise Israel in Goshen was not under the plagues of Egypt, but however under the threat of Pharao.

Why? Jesus said "all days, until the consummation of time" in the last verse of Matthew.

So, the restrainer which is taken out of the way is the Christian Roman Emperor, successor of Roman Emperors who were less good, but still restrainers, insofar as their evil had a certain magnanimity, which did not allow them to condone full scale the kind of evils the Antichrist will do.

On 17 July 1918, Nicolas II of Russia was killed. On 12 November 1918, Charles I of Austria (IV of Hungary) removed from the Hofburg with a kind of abdication.

Immediately, you had Lenin in Russia and Bela Kun in Hungary, clear precursors of the Antichrist.

B

Cecil Spurlock Jr.

@CecilSpurlockJr.

Satan obviously doesn't know tge hours simply because CHRIST says that only THE FATHER declares the hour of HIS return.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CecilSpurlockJr. I wasn't speaking of day or hour, but more like decade or century.

I think that kind of thing can be known by us too. In some ways.

Cecil Spurlock Jr.

@hglundahl I agree

Florence and Toledo I, Pope St. Celestine

Judaism Apostasised, Catholicism Didn't · Florence and Toledo I, Pope St. Celestine · YEC is Correct, Protestantism Isn't · Hollywood Genesis Bad, AiG Comment Not Fault Free

Did the Early Church Believe in Once Saved, Always Saved The Answer Will Shock You
Ancient Faith Explained | 24 March 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZLuXFo5FJs

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

The quotes they give for "once saved, always saved" are usually one of two classes:

"blessed" / "eternal life" = the state of grace can in fact be lost in this life, but if it isn't lost is the beginning of heavenly bliss, it's eternal in itself, because it's God's own life
"you" (not thou) = the hagiographer is adressing the Church, and it speaks of collective, not individual indefectibility

These classes, I would say, overlap.

Ancient Faith Explained

@AncientFaithExplained

@hglundahl > That distinction between the Church's collective indefectibility and individual perseverance is exactly the patristic reading. The early Fathers never taught that an individual believer was unconditionally secure they taught that the faith delivered to the Church would not fail. Those are two very different claims. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@AncientFaithExplained Thank you.

Then there is another question, which of RC and EO is in continuity with the first millennium.

Ancient Faith Explained

@hglundahl it's essentially what the Great Schism video addresses. The short answer from the Orthodox position is that the first millennium's conciliar model, unchanged Creed, and absence of papal supremacy all point East. But that's a conversation worth having properly. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@AncientFaithExplained Absence of Papal authority? Not if you ask Pope St. Coelestine I.

Conciliar model? Not if you consider he had already greenlighted opposition to Nestorius as a non-holder of office in 430, so the year before the council.

Unchanged creed?

The change, if really such, could be a contamination from statements by St. Athanasius or from the creed against Priscillianism by Toledo I, where you find "ab utroque procedens" and in Toledo I directly the wording "a patre filioque procedens".

Is the change to the creed all that bad, if the new formulation is still perfectly Orthodox? Which Pope St. Leo I, a few decades later, considered about Toledo I. Recommending it to Bishop (St.) Turribius of Astorga.

Ancient Faith Explained

@hglundahl Celestine's intervention in the Nestorian controversy is real, but it was presented to the Council of Ephesus for ratification he didn't simply decree it unilaterally. That's still the conciliar model at work. On the Filioque the Orthodox objection isn't primarily about whether the theology is wrong, it's about the process. You cannot change the common Creed without an Ecumenical Council. That principle was held even by Pope Leo III who agreed with the theology but refused to add it. The Toledo council was regional, not ecumenical. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@AncientFaithExplained In 430, there was as yet no Council of Ephesus.

He simply approved the reaction.

The original acts of Constantinople I are lacking, so it's uncertain whether Spain kept or added filioque, but in the latter case, it was a question of conflating two statements. Thank you for admitting Pope St. Leo III agreed with our theology.

Ancient Faith Explained

@hglundahl Leo III's agreement with the theology while refusing to change the Creed is actually the point he understood that the process mattered as much as the content. Changing the Creed without a council breaks the model that held the Church together, regardless of whether the addition is theologically defensible. On Celestine approving an action before a council confirms it still required the council to give it authority. That's still conciliar. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@AncientFaithExplained There was a council that actually ratified filioque.

Florence.

"approving an action before a council confirms it still required the council to give it authority."

If that were the case, the people who opposed Nestorius would have been in mortal sin up to the council and St. Celestine would have encouraged mortal sin.

Ancient Faith Explained

@hglundahl Florence was not accepted by the Orthodox Church it was rejected by the clergy and laity alike, and the union it produced lasted less than a decade. A council requires reception by the whole Church to carry authority, not just signatures from hierarchs under political pressure. On Celestine opposing a heretic before a council is different from adding words to the common Creed of the whole Church. One is a pastoral response to error. The other changes what every Christian confesses together. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@AncientFaithExplained "A council requires reception by the whole Church to carry authority,"

So, Ephesus required the assent of Nestorians?

Obviously, Ukraine remained overall faithful to Florence.

"On Celestine opposing a heretic before a council"

He did not just oppose Nestorius, he claimed, as by authority, to vindicate those who had ceased to recognise him.

YEC is Correct, Protestantism Isn't

Judaism Apostasised, Catholicism Didn't · Florence and Toledo I, Pope St. Celestine · YEC is Correct, Protestantism Isn't · Hollywood Genesis Bad, AiG Comment Not Fault Free

Someone answered below video like this:

Young earth creationism is based on a catalogue of lies and disinformation against science.

OK, saying a scientist is wrong is "disinformation" against him? If so, scientists are "disinforming" against each other all the time. Or, other possibility, "science" means your catalogue of "scientific" beliefs, and anyone contradicting them is doing "lies and disinformation" ... you can find the guy among commenters, I'll give him a link to the blog post here when it's published.

But here is the video, pretty good overall, I weighed in on two minor details, or minor in this context, but major in very many other ones (see below the video), and here is first the video:

Christians, NEVER Make These Bible Interpretation Mistakes
Answers in Genesis Canada | 22 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iATXJOroJeU

Dialogue I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

4:36 Disagree on thirty-fold, sixty-fold and hundred-fold fruit.

They mean degrees of holiness. In chastity it goes like married, widow(er), lifelong virgin.

Jim Hughes

@jimhughes1070

😂 it doesn't...
really 🧐
But that is a perfect example of "a private interpretation" that has no scriptural foundation.

The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin and unrighteousness

No one gets to the throne room without going through Jesus....

There are no degrees of "holiness" in the Bible.

"Therefore be ye holy, even as He is Holy."

There is no "1/4 of the way to God" concept in Scripture...
You are either 'in' , fighting against your flesh.... Or you're still on the outside.

Even "good works" are Fruit of the Spirit.
Some Christians seek all of the gifts of the Spirit... Some do not, but they can always be counted on to pray for others in need. Love Is Love.

Paul said whoever you give yourself over to obey, that is whose servant you are.

Of course I do understand that there are 49,000 different denominations.
Different doctrines. different creeds. Different ways of worshiping.

Lots and lots of
"Different"

One Bible telling us that we should all live by the same rule... The same Word.... In The same Spirit.

Isn't that a curious thing?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimhughes1070 "There are no degrees of "holiness" in the Bible."

Oh, there are.

Luke 18 depicts Jesus calling the rich young man to a higher degree of holiness than he had so far lived.

A parable about talents depicts the master giving more to the one who had won more and less to the one who had won less (only punishing the guy who had won nothing, because he buried the talent).

The one item of "equal" heavenly reward is the men who had arrived 1 h before the day ended and who got same pay.

But the point isn't all get absolutely the same heavenly reward, it's it isn't affected by seniority in service. The good robber began very late, perhaps an hour before he died ... and he's holier than most of us can hope to be.

It is also so not a private interpretation as it is an actual Catholic interpretation, namely St. Thomas Aquinas cites a Church Father for this one.

The connected doctrine is still taught and I learned it in Catechism preparing for conversion. The very opposite of private interpretation.

joe moricone

@tennis563

@hglundahl really go ahead and show me in scripture where one person, other than Jesus obviously, is holier than others. Holiness isn't earned by us it is what Jesus earned on the cross. Jesus didn't call the rich young ruler to a higher degree of holiness He made him realize his posesssions were his god.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tennis563 "He made him realize his posesssions were his god."

Doesn't say that.

Now, loving Jesus is holiness, and here is one candidate for holier:

When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
[John 21:15]

joe moricone

@hglundahl really then why did Jesus ask him to give up his posessions and He doesn't ask that of others? how does that show Peter is any holier than anyone else? You think holiness is earned ie a work?

Hebrews 10:10 (NIV): "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tennis563 "and He doesn't ask that of others?"

He also basically asked that of the Apostles.

Not sure if even their fishing boats are their own.

"how does that show Peter is any holier than anyone else?"

Because Jesus accepted Peter as loving Him more than the other apostles did.

Loving Jesus is holiness, and here Jesus is specifically grading it.

"You think holiness is earned ie a work?"

You think winning arguments is about strawmanning?

The beginning of holiness, known as justification, isn't earned by works, the increase in holiness is, see Ephesians 2:8 to 10.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God.
[Hebrews 12:14]

Parallellish to:

And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men
[Luke 2:52]

Again, "advanced" implies gradation.

joe moricone

@hglundahl you have to assume the fishing boats were their own and there is no indication they weren't. Peter loved Jesus more than the others? don't see where you get that in scripture. in fact if you look at the greed Jesus asked do you AGAPE me? Peter answered with PHILEO a brotherly love not the Godly love that AGAPE is.

Ephesians 2
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

so nothing about those works increasing our holiness.

that was referring to Jesus growing up as a man. Jesus is God almighty from birth so He knew everything and needed no grace since He is sinless. you really have some odd ideas about scripture

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tennis563 Fishing boats could, for two brother pairs, belong to the dads, so Jonas and Zebedee.

Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have
[Matthew 19:27]

"Peter loved Jesus more than the others?"

It would seem that Jesus accepted this as being so, even if Peter didn't directly answer yes to that. The very least is, Jesus accepted this as being a possibility, or He wouldn't have asked.

Ephesians 2
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Good citation.

"so nothing about those works increasing our holiness."

False. Since our holiness is God's doing, not ours, and since these works are God's doing, insofar as we accept to actually do them, they precisely increase God's doing (and being) in us, which is the definition of holiness.

"that was referring to Jesus growing up as a man."

Precisely. And therefore it concerns us too, since we are to conform to Him. Obviously most directly to what He did as a Man, including growing in grace.

Dialogue II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10:23 Note, St Paul plainly doesn't take knowledge of God and obedience to Christ as involving Scripture alone.

Subsection II a

James Krych

@jameskrych7767

The more noble Berean Jews would like a word or two.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jameskrych7767 The Bereans were precisely not yet Christians while the one common ground they already had with St. Paul was OT Scripture.

Berea or Viria is still a parish in the diocese or metropoly (archdiocese) of Thessaloniki.

James Krych

@hglundahl "Note, St Paul plainly doesn't take knowledge of God and obedience to Christ as involving Scripture alone."

Which is why I brought up the example of the more noble Berean Jews.

They
Used
Scripture.

Remember, the Jews were entrusted with the very oracles of G-d.

You totally missed the reason that was listed.

Heed the warnings from Isaiah.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jameskrych7767 The Berean Jews used Scripture and double checked St. Paul with it while deciding whether to take his message and submit to him, not after they did so.

"Remember, the Jews were entrusted with the very oracles of G-d."

Were.

The Catholic Church is the new Israel, and now the Church is entrusted with these oracles, not the Jewish Church that existed up to Caiaphas.

Subsection II b

T W

@tw2107-s7i

where does he say that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tw2107-s7i Yes, exactly, the quote doesn't mention sola scriptura, that's what I could be asking you.

T W

@hglundahl so you can't back up what you said.
2 Timothy 3

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tw2107-s7i You mean it's saying Scripture is ... sufficient (without anything else as rational faith input) for "every good work"?

Sorry, but "servant of God" is a technical term, doesn't mean every Christian, but those set aside, and these have already, usually before going to Scripture, received Catholic catechesis.

Here are two verses you didn't quote:

But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus
[2 Timothy 3:14-15]

This makes it clear:

• OT Scripture is the point, it is only salvific through faith in Jesus Christ, which at this point even in your view was mainly accessible to St. Timothy in oral tradition;
• and this oral tradition is even stated, namely St. Paul reminds St. Timothy that St. Paul was the Catechist of St. Timothy.

Attacked by Enemies of the Faith, Betrayed from Within

New blog on the kid: Do I Have Jewish Enemies? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Attacked by Enemies of the Faith, Betrayed from Within

The Beast Wants Your Will. Here's How to Win.
Fr. Jason Charron | 20 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrrHVMYhaMA

"better than religious people understand religion"

The reason why Soviets insisted, one must believe Heliocentrism and Evolution, from Oparin's Abiogenesis on, and religious people have said "oh, you can believe ..." and they will lump it together, perhaps excluding Abiogenesis, as "the Science" ...

10:03 Are fellows in your Church judging me by that criterium?

When I'm offline, I'm offline. I have far less control over my situation offline, because I'm surrounded. But I do not check updates, because I have no apparatus to do it on. I own no phone. And if I some mornings rush back online as soon as a library or a cyber is open, it's because my offline existence is being harrassed. When I'm online, I want to be online, without people trying to "wean" me. Unfortunately, as I'm on computers that I borrow, there are people who are capable of arranging disturbances when I'm online too like preventing me from signing in again on my email.

If a mail I'm waiting for isn't checked while I can, I may need to wait to tomorrow before I see it, and that can, for some of them, be too late.

The diagnosis "internet addiction" was invented by doctors in Red China. If you are helping shrinks to control my life on the excuse of "helping me against internet addiction" you are:

• degrading my possibilities to get paid for my work
• and adding to the frustrations in my daily life.

The huge difficulty with praying the Rosary, for me, is, a certain line in Our Father. What does Our Lord mean as I forgive you guys? Yes, I also have a hard time forgiving the guys who are using you, but to them, I'm, as a Catholic intellectual, at least an adversary. In your case, you are committing treason, or if you take it very harshly that I have another Pope than you, at the very least a Communist parody on pastoral. But reworking your pastoral on Communist principles is as such treason.

Addendum, next day:

The Convert Problem: When OrthoBros become OrthoBrats
Fr. Jason Charron | 21 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdIb8JtoEwc

Just in case you think that's where I'm coming from, no.

When I spoke of your Pope, I meant as opposed to ours that being His Holiness Michael II.

And since I returned from the Orthodox, seeing part too modernist and part too anti-Catholic and part both, Novus Ordo's have probably more than once helped their vendetta on me.

Like for saying Bishop Pablo de Ballester of Nazianzus (Ballester-Convallier) either misunderstood St. Robert Bellarmin, or lied about him, or accepted a fake translation, and lied about where he had found the quote. Like for saying his killer was probably not simply a Catholic fanatic madman. Even if they'd like that.

After getting the real quote in a library run by Dominicans, I was quickly banned from that library, probably because OrthoBros in Paris had complained about my pretended "misuse" and how unecumenical it was.

---

The blog posts I wrote in this connection are, on my first (of now three) main blog(s), Mystagogy posts certainly false allegation on St Robert Bellarmine · Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, book IV, chapter V really says (quote) · Further faults of fact in the Mystagogy post — the author of the blog Mystagogy and of the post I reacted to is one John Sanidopoulos who by now is an Orthodox priest. He has hidden the post and the blog and his profile. He has rebooted his blog and the post, which is now visible again as "Why I Abandoned Papism" by Bishop Paul Ballester-Convallier. Without my comments below it. My visit to the library, La Salchoire, is evident in the midmost of the three posts on my own first main blog.

I've Noted Some of My Readers Hate Tolkien

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: I've Noted Some of My Readers Hate Tolkien · HGL's F.B. writings: Are Some Presenting me as Toxic Because of Tolkien?

Apart from rumours he was a National Socialist, when in fact he quarrelled with NS censors in Germany on being asked about his "Arian purity" and went out of his way to defend the Jewish race, apart from rumours he was an Illuminato who got a special permission from their council to divulge runes, a rumour arising in the US, while in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, but also UK, Netherlands, Scandinavia, runes were at this point common knowledge both among learned people and even among school children (my mother who was born 1947 had a book on Swedish literary history which starts with runes), apart from such rumours, there are another class.

"Tolkien wrote badly, he has so many plotholes."

Not as many as Isaac Asimov ... where did Hari Seldon get the raw data to calculate his percentages of chances in psychostatistics or whatever that unreadable stuff was? ... and finding one not already answered (like the Eagles) is pretty hard. Here is a try, then my reply:

The Witch-king and The Shire Plot Hole
Darth Gandalf | 13 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-e2sxl-ss4

That leaves us with the answer, "The Witch King never learned about the Shire." Or in other words, he was focused on capturing Fornost and the rest of Arthodine didn't matter to him. But this would be really odd for an experienced military campaigner like the Witch King. If you're planning on conquering a kingdom, you want all the information you can possibly get your hands on. You would have spies in their lands and detailed maps.

That's supposing detailed maps existed at this point in history.

Did Frederick II of Prussia know where Appenzell was? I think that's about as close as Shire to Fornost. I don't think he knew.

Even if he loved cheese, I was just going to suggest that he might have had Tilsit cheese closer to home, and I just found out he didn't, that production started in the 19th C.

Internet allowing me to verify when Tilsit cheese started, Tilsit cheese, two things that didn't exist in Frederick II's day. A bit further back, detailed maps could be added to the list. Xenophon didn't give a detailed map of Persia and didn't have one. Even if repeatedly he says "pente parasangas" we don't know how far that is. Presumably he was less good in geography than we would be. Thror's map was not all that detailed and it was an item from the dwarves, not men.

So, I presume the Witch-King was simply as bad in geography as many Medievals would have been.

on the battle-field

A Saracen who saw a Belgian (like Geoffroy de Bouillon) on the battle-field might not know where Belgium was.

[Many of the other commenters suggested a translation issue: he never knew the Shire under that name, it was known in a different way when he was a ruler closeish by.]

---

Do try to make a Middle Earth plot holes series!

I predict you will find his plot holes internally are rare. The one glaring plot hole with both archaeology and Christianity is saying this is our world in a pre-Christian era, and Tolkien admitted it was "an imaginary time" a k a an Uchronia.

Joe Heschmeyer and Alms

Will I Go to Hell If I Don’t Help Every Homeless Person?
Catholic Answers Live Clips | 13 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDMUvjSnTDw

The good thing on your post is, you nailed it, the caller could have had a genuine call from God.

Imagine people taking that man for a drunkard and drug addict and giving him only food, and he needs to wash ... or imagine God wanted the caller to meet someone else through him or through stepping off the bus and talking to him.

But "intentionality" and Didache.

What Didache sounds to me is, like I did (despite being homeless myself, when I had money) when I took out money every day, and usually 10 or 20 € (it was 2011 or 2012). I took out the money in a bill. I changed the bill for the first thing I needed to buy. I took 1/10 (so, 1 or 2 €) and took the first possible chance to give it to someone. (It's less easy to do this when taking out once or twice a week, since beggars will be there other days too).

I was taking responsibility for myself in a goats and sheep perspective.

What you recommend is taking responsibility for the other ... in a perspective that sounds Quranic. "If someone is doing it for God, if someone is disabled, if someone is ignorant, if someone is in discomfort, if someone is your friend" ... but to no one else. Apparently. Not sure I didn't misquote, but actually Mohammed personally was better than "his god" when he spoke "do not regret it, even if you see him riding away on a horse" ...

And "addictions" ... some evil doers will try to apply a Commie Chinese diagnosis invented in 2004, "internet addict" which to someone actually writing as a kind of trade on the internet is like calling a baker an "oven heat addict" ... even to pure consumers, as an avid reader back in my youth, I'm happy they hadn't invented the term "book addict" ...

Ascension

HGL's F.B. writings: A Heliocentic Heckled the Ascension of Jesus · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Reflection on the Ascension · Ascension

Does Jesus Still Have His Body?
Dr Taylor Marshall | 15 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rONXdT5F51k

Next question is obviously where is this Body of the God-Man.

"Only on the altars" is obviously wrong.

I hold, in Empyrean Heaven, above the sphere of the fix stars, probably Heavenly Jerusalem is right above the coordinates of Earthly Jerusalem.

Heliocentrics have a problem and as a consequence disunity.

An SSPX priest in St. Nicolas invoked the immortality of risen bodies as a solution. Jimmy Akin said sth like "not our three-dimensional space, but like it in respect of capacity of receiving bodies" ... the obvious solution is Geocentrism.

Quora Prevents Questions About the Mother of Preston Davey

New blog on the kid: Preston's Death · Should Amy Shepherdson Stand Trial? · Preston Davey Case · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Quora Prevents Questions About the Mother of Preston Davey

I tried to add this question:

Who Knows Who the Mother of Preston Davey Is, and Why She Was Set Aside?

I do not get it published, but when I push the button, I get:

This question should be more general. Try starting your question with 'What is...', 'How do I...' or 'Why does..

Papacy and Geocentrism

What JESUS Teaches About HIS Church! | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Jimmy Akin | 14 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG-URS075N0

7:43 So, Caiaphas = Shebna, Cephas = Eliacim.

Call it replacement theology or not, at least it teaches "translatio sacerdotii" very clearly.

13:45 I sense a little pique about my position.

We would agree that Paul III (?) over Urban VIII bound in regards of banning not just putting the Sun at the absolute centre, but also having Earth move, annually or daily or both. And that they were successors of Peter, indeed given the power to bind and loose.

You would say "John Paul II" was successor of Peter and had the power to loose, and he did so in 1992. From experience, I have seen people state he went further and bound, namely in § 283 of the CCC. In 2001, I was one day a parishioner in a reverent Novus Ordo parish (I hadn't renounced SSPX, but they don't hold that "normal" curates and bishops steal authority with a non-pope, nor that the Novus Ordo is always invalid).

I was promoting my YEC position to a newer convert (after 1990, so he did promise to agree with current positions of the magisterium, even non-infallible ones, and implicitly even non-traditional ones). He told me, showing me that paragraph, that I was wrong.

In Paris, also, even before going Sede and Conclavist, while attending SSPX Masses, I met this attitude from people in "normal" parishes, like the ones hosting breakfast for homeless in St. Ambroise' parish house.

My solution is, Wojtyla was not Pope. Meaning, the office is or was empty, and if it was empty someone else could be elected. RIP, Pope Michael I. Vivat, Pope Michael II.

No, I Was Still Not Wrong About This

Q

Did Latin speaking continue after the Western Roman Empire fell? How much did later Latin speaking missionaries and colonists understand of these older lost Romani Latin dialects?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Latin-speaking-continue-after-the-Western-Roman-Empire-fell-How-much-did-later-Latin-speaking-missionaries-and-colonists-understand-of-these-older-lost-Romani-Latin-dialects/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Answer requested by

Nick Certeza

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

Ascension Day

14.V.2026

First, I don’t think there is any term like “Romani Latin”. Romani means an Indic language that came to Europe in Gipsy Caravans, a fairly Romantic, but not altogether Roman fate of a language (but they did dwell a while in East Rome, Byzantium).

You presumably mean “Romano-Latin” or “Romance Latin”.

Second, the answers are:

• yes, just as English would be spoken in the US, if the US were overthrown, however, the exception is Roman Britain, where only the upper class were really Romanised;
• I don’t know what era you mean by “later” … up to 800 AD, this was the standard way Latin was spoken, but in Gaul, comprehension by foreign priests was limited.
• Between c. 800 and 813, a foreigner was hired to teach people in Tours to speak Latin properly. Blessed Alcuin succeeded in making the Latin of the clerks comprehensible to English or Italian visitors …
• … but as a side effect, he made it incomprehensible to the people around there. Hence the decision in 813 (when Alcuin was dead) to not be content with a Gospel reading in Latin, but add a sermon explaining it, in Romance.
• This decision allowed priests to actually study how common people spoke, so as to come really close. Imagine standard English was for some reason rebooted and you suddenly had to speak to people from the Ozarks or to people using Ebonics in their very own way.
• By 880 or 890 they were so good at it, they wrote the first song in Old French, the song of St. Eulalia of Mérida.
• The same process was repeated with c. 200 years’ delay in Spain and in Italy.
• After c. 1100 in Spain or Italy, there was no dialectal Latin left that was represented by written Latin, except perhaps in the country between France and Italy. In whereever Romanian was spoken (Romania or Albania, opinions differ), there was no written Latin left. So, after 1100 or at latest 1200, there was no place left where a speaker of Medieval Ecclesiastic Latin, an Aux-Lang invented accidentally by Alcuin, would have met dialectal Latin and it would still have been written as Latin.

Book of Job, Read by Chesterton

The Book of Job Explained by G.K. Chesterton
The Apothecary | 9 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmB7HCqKouw

Reflection on the Ascension

HGL's F.B. writings: A Heliocentic Heckled the Ascension of Jesus · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Reflection on the Ascension · Ascension

The second half of the following video is totally orthodox. Jimmy Akin didn't convert for nothing and he wasn't the guy whom John Shelby Spong considered a liberal theologian. He should of course accept Pope Michael II, but still, he's never all bad.

Jesus Ascended on a Cloud—The Mind-Blowing Secret No One Talks About | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Jimmy Akin | 11 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgMt8lh0914

Jesus went to a place that is above the sphere of the Fix Stars (the latter probably one light day up, could be two light days) and like the Earth, unlike anything from Fix stars to Ocean streams, immobile.

That place has the same coordinates up there as Jerusalem here.

The voyage between upper atmosphere and that place would be intermediates where He was using immortality and therefore invulnerability.

"our knowledge ... is different from theirs"

Two people can have different degrees of knowledge of a topic. But a duly specified question, they cannot have different knowledge.

If two people think:

• exh A, Empyrean Heaven is above the fix stars, which are a sphere somewhere above that of Saturn (or of Pluto)
• exh B, fix stars or simply stars aren't in a sphere, like a shell, they are in a possibly somewhat spheric volume, with distances like 100,000 light years

then, at least one, possibly both, of the exhibits is doing sth else than knowing.

That one of them is (mostly) in the past doesn't change this.

3:49 Archimedes, two light years?

Is the subtitling automatic and automatically correcting "light days"?

I'd actually say, the space up to the fix stars is two light days across.

I looked up the Sand Reckoner. It seems Archimedes thought the distance up to the fix stars as being 10,000 times the radius of the earth, or in other words, the sphere of the fix stars has a diameter that's 10,000 times the diameter of the Earth.

A light day is 25,902,600,252 km, two light days are 51,805,200,504 km.

However, divide that by 10,000, you get 5,180,520 km. The diameter of the Earth is 12,742 km, c. 407 times shorter in one of the three dimensions.

Wait, I was not counting his universe beyond the sphere of the fix stars.

4:34 Wait.

Radiance seems to indicate the sphere of the fix stars or the Empyrean Heaven just beyond is 10 light days up, not just 1.

Ascension to Pentecost, He arrives in Heaven and sends the Holy Ghost, Who, being immaterial, has no travel time.

If my "one light day" had been correct (it could still be correct for creation week, just no longer for Ascension), then He would have ascended 1/10 the speed of light.

However, since Hebrews 1:3 calls Him the radiance, that would indicate He ascended the exact speed of light. Meaning the travel distance was 10 light days.

5:27 You are aware Hubble's "discovery" builds on accepting things like Sirius being 8 light years away, which builds on accepting the parallax measure of 0.35 sth arc seconds as a parallactic indirect view of Earths own supposed movement in the distance of 2 Astronomic Units?

In other words, if Galileo was wrong, so was Hubble.

6:55 "Spiritual realm rather than a physical one."

Jesus still has the same body He rose in. It's a physical body, that could eat fish and show forth the wounds, since it's the same body He was born and died in. Ave Verum Corpus natum would make no sense on some Evangelical theory of Jesus now having an "entirely spiritual resurrection body" ... which I think was condemned in the IV Lateran council, the explanatory creed Firmiter credimus.

Given Jesus has a physical body, He has physical dimensions. Given He has physical dimensions, they are in a physical place.

And as we also believe Mary is up there (see last or upcoming August 15th), physically risen, there are right now at least two human living bodies that obviously need physical dimensions around them.

So, as a Catholic, I definitely wouldn't go to "Spiritual realm rather than a physical one." I heard one of the Vatican II "Popes" held such an opinion, I'm not invoking him either as a saint in Heaven, nor as an authority on Earth.

7:21 These bodies are extended in three dimensions.

If you read up the Eucharist in the Summa, on an Altar, Christ's body is present under the dimensions of bread and wine.

The own dimensions are present with Him, but not touching the surrounding space. However, there is a place where He is present in His own dimensions, that being Heaven.

9:33 "this humanity meanwhile hides him from the eyes of men"

Not from the eyes of Mary.

9:58 "which was pictured as being up from an earthly perspective"

What was the worst word in that sentence, especially as to time form or tense?

I'd say, "which is up" (and leave "from an earthly perspective" understood).

Seriously, what God communicated then cannot be improved on. Not from new revelation. Not from new science.

I'm Not Bringing That Darkness To My Readers

Are you bringing darkness into your household?
Christine Niles | 13 mai 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ0s0cTcJcw

Just in case you were thinking of me.

1) I don't consider my writing a full scale apostolate, it is writing, sometimes goofy and totally unconnected to spirituality, and contains apologetics.
2) I do not engage in pornography, whatever my enemies have said about me.

In case you are one of those who read Παιδόφιλος; Ἐγώ; without knowing Ancient Greek (there have been a few).

1) It's in Ancient Greek, the language period ended c. 300 BC and a certain term was coined in the 19th C AD.
2) The title involves a sign called "Greek Question mark" ... "The Greek question mark (Greek: ερωτηματικό, romanized: erōtīmatikó) looks like ;. It appeared around the same time as the Latin one, in the 8th century. It was adopted by Church Slavonic and eventually settled on a form essentially similar to the Latin semicolon." (I used a semicolon to type it) So the title actually means "Pedophile? Me?"
3) I answer the question first from what the compound would naturally mean in Ancient Greek (opposite of Pedophobe) and stated I want to have many boys, like Jacob.
4) I also drop the tongue in cheek at the end, and state I'm not erotically interested in prepubescent boys. You can infer that's also valid for prepubescent girls.

So, if that's what the blockade is about, drop it. Goes for you and a few more in the Vatican II Sect, who know my existence, know I write and refuse to refer directly to my writings. No, I don't have to earn being a writer by living the life of an apostle, but I am also not engaging in porn. Some would count erotic hypnosis* there, doesn't work that way for me.

---

Your Vatican II Sect has pretty long been, here in France, engaged in blocking me from success.

Oh, helping me with spiritual struggle? Sure. I wasn't asking that.

I have a material struggle, where quite a few "Catholics" have been on the entirely wrong side, for very long.

---

* I still leave such videos out of my Blog 37, on Auto Hypnosis Experience. In case you wonder why I do any of that at all, I am deliberately exposed to fatigue and stress, and hypnosis helps with stress management and replaces sleep. This night, I had five different groups or persons pass loudly, and the fifth was the five AM van for the newspaper dealer facing side of the road, and when I woke, after that, no one seemed interested in allowing me to catch up with sleep someone else had lost me.

Figures of Speech Exist in Scripture, Yes ... But ...

Before 18:27 and after 29:18 I had nothing to contradict nor elicit clarifications on.

Joe’s WORST Take?
Scholastic Answers | 9 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDFWHChEA0

18:27 While I certainly agree Scripture has figures of speech and popular expressions, this has of recent been vastly exaggerated in scope.

I just commented under Dr. Joel Duff who has some sharp things to say ... to me less interesting ... on how CMI have very exotic views on how to solve the Distant Starlight problem (if Andromeda Galaxy was created 6 to 7.5 k years ago, on day 4, and is 150,000 LY away, how do we see it less than 150,000 years after it started to shine light?).

My comment is how this problem is totally solved by Geocentrism and Angelic movers of celestial objects.

Some even earlier have taken "four corners" to be a figure of speech ... I take it Sts Isaias and John knew where Alaska, Cape Horn, Tasmania and Siberia are and through what lines their direction is outlined to Jerusalem (all four points are represented via closer intermediaries in Acts 2).

The idea of "popular" presupposes the existence of an erudition that "goes further than" popular views. If this erudiction didn't exist in Joshua's day, Joshua 10:13 cannot by a pregnantly popular expression.

In Joshua 10:12, the author is not describing what Sun and Moon ("appear to") do, but he is describing the words by which Joshua as miracle maker ordered them. If it was Earth that ceased and 12 / 24 h later resumed rotation, this would be the only time when a miracle worker adressed the order to sth other than that which was supposed to miraculously change behaviour.

A theory of "accomodation" among Protestants (19th, perhaps already 18th CC) indeed stated that God inspired Joshua to utter words better suited to the understanding of the Israelites. They also went as far as to suggest this also happened with his Namesake when referred to as and speaking as if casting out demons. This is inadmissible, therefore Joshua also gave the miraculous order, after praying, to whatever was to change behaviour, i e it was actually Sun and Moon that stopped, it is actually Sun and Moon that go around us each day, not we rotating below them.

18:51 "God also, speaking to men." (Pesch)

Valid as possible explanation of Joshua 10:13, since the hagiographer and ultimately God together tell us what the Israelites saw in the sky.

But in Joshua 10:12 God says to us what Joshua said, and Joshua wasn't speaking to men. Like his Divine Namesake in Mark 1:25 is also not speaking to men. Not even to the one possessed.

20:20 "as Benedict XV points out"

Where?

In praeclara summorum (cited by the Dimond brothers) has only a very indirect allusion to Geocentrism possibly not being true. A subordinate clause in concessive subjunctive.

21:02 "speak about certain historical figures"

Like the list between Adam (over Seth) and Noah and his sons in Genesis 5, and the list between the son Shem and Abraham, in Genesis 11, right?

You do hold Abraham was born between 292 and 1070 years after a universal Flood, and that between less than 1400 and 2262 years after Adam and Eve were created, right?

21:08 Ah, Spiritus Paraclitus!

Thank you!

21:08 bis After reading through Spiritus Paraclitus I find that the relevant passage is as chemically free from any direct endorsement of Heliocentrism as the previous encyclical he looked back on Providentissimus Deus is.

Neither Leo XIII nor Benedict XV are saying Heliocentrism is compatible with Joshua 10:12.

Both are skimming around the subject and so to speak tacitly inviting theologians to speak up if they think so.

And given the outcome, some of these theologians were horrible liberals.

Since 18 November 1893, theologians have basically a standing invitation to defend Heliocentrism without attacking Biblical inerrancy. Challenge so far not met, invitation so far not taken.

Date Calculator gave:

It is 48 386 days from the start date to the end date, end date included.
Or 132 years, 5 months, 23 days including the end date.
Or 1589 months, 23 days including the end date.

I'm not sure if it's programmed for 1900 not being a leap year.

somedude

@somedude7589

They did in fact answer it, Galileo himself offered the alternative interpretation of Joshua. Namely that it was a figure of speech akin to the rising and setting of the sun. The sun does not truly rise or set, because the earth is not flat, and yet we and Scripture speak this way.

The issue was that his interpretation was against the common understanding of the theologians and Fathers, and so only a grave cause could justify breaking from their consensus.

Saint Bellarmine himself, the man who judged Galileo, said that a scientific proof would make the breaking from the consensus justified. So the entire question is reduced to if such evidence was given, and it was. Man went to space and most importantly he detected stellar parallax. Now a parallax proves the viewer is moving, thus the earth moves.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@somedude7589 I'm sorry, but you are talking of Joshua 10:13. Joshua as narrator many years later, speaking to us, yes, that could be phenomenological language.

In verse 12, Joshua is adressing sun and moon as a miracle worker.

That's one Galileo that offered no solution for.

God inspired Joshua's words, when Joshua prayed, first half of the verse. And a miracle worker adresses what needs to miraculously change its normal or previous behaviour, he's not adressing sth else in order to accomodate to popular misconception. When Joshua adressed Sun and Moon, it was Sun and Moon that needed to stop, and when Jesus adressed demons, it was demons that needed to quit a human person. It was not Earth in the one case and a quirk in the psyche in the other case.

Did I make the distinction between the two verses clearer this time?

@somedude7589 "Man went to space"

The absolute movement Armstrong experienced on the Moon if it moves around Earth once every 25 or so hours is slower than the absolute movement we experience every day if Earth rotates.

Tychonian and Copernican systems are equal as to relative positions and movements. Assuming the Earth moves doesn't help space missions, other than perhaps ease of calculations.

"and most importantly he detected stellar parallax. Now a parallax proves the viewer is moving, thus the earth moves."

The problem is, if Angelic movers exist (see St. Thomas' STh Prima Pars Q 70 A 3 and Commentary on Job, ch 38 v 7), you cannot prove either the detected parallax or the detected annual aberration are actually what they are analysed as, they could both be two mathematical analytical aspects of angels moving "fix" stars. Just like the year involves an angel moving the Sun through the Zodiac.

27:11 I hope there is no ban on this opinion:

St. Luke in Acts 27 wrote about "Illyric Sea" and copyists changed it to "Adriatic Sea" after 140 AD so as to keep the text comprehensible in face of an official name change.

I just defended St. Luke's authorship of Acts on this ground against someone who pretended Acts were written after 140 AD.

29:18 In Providentissimus Deus, passage quoted, the wording "as left by the hagiographers" seems to indicate that the actual text could be different from the Vulgate, for instance the LXX or an older version of the LXX ... do I overread this?

Scholastic Answers

@MilitantThomist

You’re completely correct to note that. Many Catholic authors point this out to explain numeric differences, spelling errors, and the like.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MilitantThomist Thank you very much, Sir!

Distant Starlight Revisited

Issues in Creationism: If Clocks Ran Faster in Deep Space, Were Genesis Days Really Ordinary?
Dr. Joel Duff | 6 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQIR6C7BxS8

Hi!

I discovered distant starlight, probably 23 of August 2001. 24 of August, St. Bartholomew's Day, I had solved the problem.

No, not "took four days on earth but billions of years out there" or whatever it was he was saying.

Geocentrism.

Have you heard the expression "von Neumann chain"? We use an already small measure to introduce an even smaller measure, then that to introduce an even smaller one than that ...

In the reverse, one of the links is "main series are roughly the size of the sun, because Sirius is 8.6 LY away and looks as big as the Sun (or a moderately bigger star) would look from 8.6 LY away" ...

Before you come to distances that are problematic ever so slightly for a young earth, this is more important than parallax ...

But the link before that is "Sirius has a parallax of 0.379 arc seconds, and that means, since we are moving, since 2 AU is a known side of the triangle, it's 8.6 LY away"

And this presupposes "we are moving, so 2AU is involved in the triangle, and the parallax angle is physically on the other side, between two positions of earth" ...

Which is totally superfluous if:

• Galileo was wrong
• Sirius is moved by an angel, both for annual aberration and for annual parallax.

Now, an Atheist would have no problem refuting that ... from Atheism, for other Atheists. How would you (if at all) refute it?

Joel Duff bailed out, at least under his own name.
Some half educated tribalist partial to modernity didn't:

Fulminato

@ilFulminat0

using big word without knowing their meaning is child-like behaviour, if you want the growup take note you should, at least, learn what are you babblering

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@ilFulminat0 I think you just did what you accused me of.

For instance, the word grown-up doesn't legitimately mean agreeing with your views, nor does the word "knowing their meaning" however opaque that may be to you.

Conspiracy or Conspiracy Theory?

Fire Actually Saved Notre-Dame
Engineering The Impossible | 2 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIuzjsJ5Lhg

So, let me review this.

1) Someone thinks the fire was useful.
2) The police ruled out arson bc no fuel or lighter found.
3) Electricity systems having an accident could never ever be arranged by someone who knows how they work, right?

I Was Wrong (Which Proves Something Else, Which I Was Right About)

The West Got Hinduism Wrong — And I'm Done Being Quiet
Neo Dharmism | 29 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2eD73ZLMyY

3:37 Hinduism is, by you, tracked to Upanishads, as first big step.

Interesting that you put it earlier than the Gita, which I thought was a part of Mahabharata.

Now, what I've read, Upanishads promote Pantheism: in you, it's Brahman itself which is your atman, and for some reason, what is more potent and knowledgeable than anything somehow enters into intellectual, not just poverty, Christianity admits this to a degree in the Incarnation, but actual error, unless you were never wrong in all of your life, which I find highly improbable as a fact, and highly improbable, you being an intellectual, that you are not aware of this.

Christianity says, God could ask "who touched me" or "my clothes?"
Hinduism seems to say, when I thought the First Christians were Evangelicals, "God" thought so.

6:54 A wave doesn't just depend on the water, it also depends on the sea bottom.

A wave in the mid Pacific is very unlike a wave in the Bay of Biscaya or in a storm in St. Malo.

Now, you my know, some Christians have decided the Ark of Noah was myth. Some even lost Christianity over that. Part of the reason is, the schooner Wyoming was destroyed completely, with loss of lives, in Nantucket Bay.

However, in Nantucket Bay, the water is just in medium 9 m deep.

And the reason this still worked as a refutation to their minds is, they had decided for a non-global Flood, against the obvious reading of the Bible, and in a large regional Flood, the depth would be sth like Nantucket Bay to North Sea. In a global Flood, it would be more like the Pacific.

The wave is in a mathematical and geometrical sense a circle segment. That segment can have the centre above sea bottom, in the Pacific, but it cannot have the centre below sea bottom, in Nantucket Bay. Hence a high wave was shorter, more abrupt, more violent, than a much higher wave than that would be in the Pacific.

Waves say more of the sea bottom than of the ocean. I think the ocean is a very bad metaphor for God.

9:06 The line Ekam sat etc, ... do you think this was from a time when Hindus or Proto-Hindus (whichever the Vedic religion actually was, I'd say Pre-Hindus) were speaking with people of other religions?

I find it likelier it's a kind of Ecumenism than a kind of Pantheism, as per Upanishads.

I find it likely Ecumenism led to Pantheism, either in Upanishads or in Buddhism and later imported by Gaudapada, for instance.

9:06 bis

I looked up, and here is what I found, whole sloka:

ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadanti
agniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānam āhuḥ.

Truth is one, though the wise describe it in many ways — as Agni, as Yama, and as Mātariśvan.

So, as I misstated it as being about outside religions, I was wrong in my guess.

Not necessarily Pantheism, but at least "unity of all gods" ...

So, if my atman were identic to brahman, why was I wrong?
v Rig Veda 1.164.46
https://www.sanskritica.com/shlokas/rig-1-164-46-ekam-sat

On CSL and Mike Schmitz

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: On CSL and Mike Schmitz · New blog on the kid: Did C. S. Lewis Publically Attack Catholicism? · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Charges Against C. S. Lewis

“Fr.” Mike Schmitz (Ascension Presents) - False Theology Exposed
vaticancatholic.com | 19 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v33YBiMgVGU

As you called C. S. Lewis not a Christian, which is true of any heretic from a strict p o v, would you mind taking a look at this quote and see if there is any error?

God has infinite attention for each one of us. He doesn't have to take us in the line. You're as much alone with Him as if you were the only thing He'd ever created.

Because, for a non-Christian, he seems to me to have written lots of things edifying to Catholics. Obviously also true of Virgil, so, doesn't prove him a Christian.

9:05 I'm noting that no Pope from Pius VII to Benedict XV overturned the Biblical proof texts for Geocentrism, or tried to.

They allowed discussion of the subject, not totally unlike Pius XII allowing some kind of discussion of the subject of Adam having non-human ancestors.

There is prima facie evidence for Geocentrism, according to Romans 1 that's evidence of a proving nature for God (no, he didn's speak of the flagellum of the bacterium, it hasn't been observed since God created Adam and Eve).

The only thing that could overturn the prima facie evidence for Geocentrism would be conclusive proofs against it, but such would need as a premisse at least a diluted form of Syllabus error 2 (Pius IX).

Are Muslims Talmudic?

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

The Talmudic Dilemma: How Jewish Folklore Shaped the Quran
Defending A Lion | 25 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PuRmgN7DU4

Highlight:

in Surah 5:32, it says, "We ordained for the children of Israel." So this is law given by Allah to the Jews. And then it quotes Sanhedrin. It quotes the Talmud. So it says like, hey, this is in our scriptures that we gave to the Jews. And it's quoting something from the Talmud. ... So right away the author of the Quran seems to be mixing up the Torah and the Tallmud with its references. It doesn't seem to fully know the distinguishing difference between actual Torah and the oral Torah the Jews were practicing, preaching, and believing in at the time of Muhammad.

An excellent example of what can happen to someone who verifies things primarily by talking to people.

The Jews that the author of the Quran talked to would not all the time make a distiction between Torah and Talmud, and they even have a tendency to call all of it Torah.

Ergo, the author of the Quran would have heard sth presented as "Torah" and have presumed it was actually in the Pentateuch./HGL

PS, the following item actually is pre-talmudic, I left a comment under the video:

"Abraham conversion by looking at stars, stolen from the Jews."

Could be an actual tradition before Jesus, could go back to Abraham.

Why so? It's already in Josephus. Antiquities, Book I, Chapter 7, first paragraph, reads:

Now Abram, having no son of his own, adopted Lot, his brother Haran's son, and his wife Sarai's brother; and he left the land of Chaldea when he was seventy-five years old, and at the command of God went into Canaan, and therein he dwelt himself, and left it to his posterity. He was a person of great sagacity, both for understanding all things and persuading his hearers, and not mistaken in his opinions; for which reason he began to have higher notions of virtue than others had, and he determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have concerning God; for he was the first that ventured to publish this notion, That there was but one God, the Creator of the universe; and that, as to other [gods], if they contributed any thing to the happiness of men, that each of them afforded it only according to his appointment, and not by their own power. This his opinion was derived from the irregular phenomena that were visible both at land and sea, as well as those that happen to the sun, and moon, and all the heavenly bodies, thus:—"If [said he] these bodies had power of their own, they would certainly take care of their own regular motions; but since they do not preserve such regularity, they make it plain, that in so far as they co-operate to our advantage, they do it not of their own abilities, but as they are subservient to Him that commands them, to whom alone we ought justly to offer our honor and thanksgiving." For which doctrines, when the Chaldeans, and other people of Mesopotamia, raised a tumult against him, he thought fit to leave that country; and at the command and by the assistance of God, he came and lived in the land of Canaan. And when he was there settled, he built an altar, and performed a sacrifice to God.

Whether it is or isn't Abraham's motif, though I think he had an education as a faithful, from someone in his family, like Sarug lived to when he was fifty (at least in the LXX, except a modern edition) and Thare could have been dying spiritually, i e become an idolater, only when he was 75, the fact it is in Josephus is supporting evidence on this being a current understanding in 1st C Jews, which would mean St. Paul alluded to this (understanding, not necessarily story about Abraham) in Romans 1.