Eusebius Quoted by Sam Shamoun

A 1,900 Year Old Letter Claims Jesus Promised to Heal a Dying King — Did It Come True?
The Best of Shamoun | 27 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJnuPzLU4hg

Church History (Eusebius), Book I
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

Scroll down to near bottom of the page, the story is all of chapter 13./HGL

I'm a Writer, Not a Prophet

Catholic Priest Interns at PSYCHIATRIC Institute, THEN THIS HAPPENS
Daily Dose of Christ | 29 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulmCFHX8V1E

And I flee by the nearest exit from any private revelation of a person who seeks publicity, who goes around giving talks, who has a public relations uh media working for them. I flee because the church has only given its solemn approval to private revelations like the sacred heart like u St. St. Margaret Mary uh like um St. Faina like St. Katherine Laboreet when their identity was basically unknown at the hour of death.

1) Not true of Sr. Lucy of Fatima.
2) Now, this has to do with private revelations ... I think Gilbert Keith Chesterton would have had a major problem if Catholic clergy had told him: "no, we really can't allow you to publish The Catholic Church and Conversion, it's a private revelation, and you are already a known media person" ... it obviously wasn't a private revelation at all. And he didn't claim it was.

I wonder if Fr. Benedict Groeschel was involved in putting me on a kind of trial which is as inappropriate for me, as it would have been for Chesterton.

Because some shrink had told their colleague that I was "having revelations" and then publishing them as blog posts, which is not true.

On the case of Sr. Lucy, depends on whether the real one was replaced or not.

From a Swede and Ucraniophile to Russia, with Some Love

Why We Stopped Having Babies In Russia
Framebykate | 31 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r94etEzcJFM

I'm a Swede. I have at least two Ukrainian connections.

I'm not pro-Russian. B U T ... paying pregnant teenagers is actually a GOOD idea.

Even better let them marry and the dads get jobs (even if teenagers themselves) but after that, not a bad idea.

---

Other nice solution. Ban speculation types that unduly raise housing prices.

---

Third nice solution. Ban interest rates altogether or at least those above 5 %.

---

I find that official* good, but it would be better if the abortions were banned too.

I'd not like more pregnancies to boost abortions again ....

* He stomped on a contraceptive techniques poster.

---

Does monastic propaganda count as "child free" propaganda in the letter of that law?

---

Abortion should be banned.*

* Not just made less accessible.

---

Indeed. The rapist is only guilty of rape. The aborting woman of murder.

---

My mother parallelled raising me and studying at Med school, part time alone.

---

The miniskirts idea was however bad ....

---

"before growing up oneselves"

Let me give you some stats, age for marriage, per sex, in the extended ancestry of two adversaries and their successive wives. William the Taciturn of Orange Nassau, first Staadthouder of the Netherlands and Philipp II of Spain:

Mann heiratete*
18 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 25 26 26 28 28 29 30
16 17 18 19 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 28 28 29 29
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

31 31 31 31 32 33 36 36 37 37 39 42 44 49
30 30 30 31 32 33 35 35 36 37 39 42 43 44
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Stellwehrte
Minimum 16 oder 18 Jahre, Niedrige Quartile 24 oder 25 Jahre,
Median 29 oder 30 Jahre,
Obere Quartile 35 oder 36 Jahre, Maximum 44 oder 49 Jahre.

Frau heiratete
09 11 12 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17
08 09 10 11 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 22 25 25 26 27 29
17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 21 19 24 25 25 27 27
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Stellwehrte
Minimum 8 oder 9 Jahre, Niedrige Quartile 15,5 Jahre,
Median 17 Jahre,
Obere Quartile 18 oder 19 Jahre, Maximum 27 oder 29 Jahre.

Mann heiratete**
14 14 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 20 21 23 25
13 14 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 20 21 22 25
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

25 26 27 28 30 31 32 36 37 42 43 46 46
25 26 27 28 28 31 32 36 37 42 43 45 46
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Stellwehrte
Minimum 13 oder 14 Jahre, Untere Quartile 17,5 Jahre, Median 23,5 oder 24 Jahre
Obere Quartile 29,5 oder 30,5 Jahre, Maximum 46 Jahre

Frau heiratete
12 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17
11 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 23 23 38
17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 38
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Stellwehrte
Minimum 11 oder 12 Jahre, Untere Quartile 15 Jahre, Median 16,5 oder 17 Jahre
Obere Quartile 19 Jahre, Maximum 38 Jahre

In both cases, more than half of the women married before 18, and in the latter case 7 / 28 men did so too. That's 1 / 4.

* "Wilhelmus van Nassouwe, ben ik van Duitsen bloed ..." Wie Deutsch?

** Und Philipp II. von Spanien?

---

"instead of ending the war"

As I love Ukraine (at some distance, but still), I can only agree on that one.

Ukraine is not Zelensky. Stopping the aggression on the country might lead to elections where he loses.

Responding to Rachel Darnall

What Do You Mean, "Fundamentalist?" | Season 1, Episode 1, "These Troubled Times" Podcast
These Troubled Times Podcast (with Rachel Darnall) | 1 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_AnvXRitXs

5:50 OK .... what were the precise words of St. Paul?

If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men
Romans 12:18

I didn't see "have peace with all men whatever it costs" but "if it be possible" and "as much as is in you" which I take to mean "insofar as it depends on you" ...

Now, given that the faith itself is a "once given" that part is offlimits as to sacrifices for having peace ...

Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.
Jude 1:3

Contend basically means "quarrel" ... but obviously not for a new revelation, or understanding. Which is where Philipp II and Cardinal Beaton come off as better than John Knox or William the Taciturn.

9:30 Looking up:

The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth (generally referred to simply as The Fundamentals) is a set of ninety essays published between 1910 and 1915 by the Testimony Publishing Company of Chicago. It was initially published quarterly in twelve volumes, then republished in 1917 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles as a four-volume set. Baker Books reprinted all four volumes under two covers in 2003.

Ah, 1910. Protestants weren't first!

Anti-Modernists viewed these notions as contrary to the dogmas and traditions of the Catholic Church. In the decree entitled Lamentabili sane exitu[30] ("With Lamentable Results Indeed") of 3 July 1907, Pius X formally condemned 65 propositions, mainly drawn from the works of Alfred Loisy and concerning the nature of the Church, revelation, biblical exegesis, the sacraments, and the divinity of Christ. That was followed by the encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis (or "Feeding the Lord's Flock"), which characterized Modernism as the "synthesis of all heresies."

Dear St. Pius X, pray for us!

Now, I corrected the English translation of the first words ...

Pascendi Dominici gregis (English: Feeding the Lord's Flock) is a papal encyclical letter, subtitled "On the Doctrines of the Modernists", promulgated by Pope Pius X on 8 September 1907

Now, our dear Antimodernist pope beat the Chicago Protestants by more than 2 full years ....

13:24 Not to mention equality of men or Genesis 1:28 ... it was modernist Evangelische (the term evokes more United Church of Canada than Evangelicals) who handed Hitler's doctors the power to sterilise and even abort children with Downs ...

"Rough edges" ... St. Caesarius of Arles interpreted 616 (which he had in his probably incorrect text) as "CHi Iota ST" = "CHi RHota Iota ST" lacking the letter R, the rough letter.

Hitler in ASCII in normal capitalisation gives 616* ...

17:58 As it so happens, Catholicism never (prior to Vatican II) went back on a God-given mission to transform society including about just wages.

18:13 And prohibition and socialism were two of the wrong solutions ...

19:29 Catholic Fundamentalists, by contrast, are not premillennial (usually, but Tolkien who was can hardly be described as a Fundamentalist) and also do not believe that the "Church age" will be replaced by any other dispensation prior to the Final Glory.

20:17 Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr .... related to one Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr who is notorious for, like Hitler, having introduced into the legal system (barring differences of method between legislation and SC precedent) the slavery of some to eugenical experts ... I suppose.

21:47 Is it Left Behind that features some guy named Nicolae Jetty Carpathia?

I think some guys on the Protestant side have been comparing me to him.

Now, Nicolae Jetty Carpathia, like L'Empéreur Napoléon, doesn't add up to 666 in any known gematria. That novel, like the one by Tolstoy, shuffles over the gematric issue ...

25:00 Catholicism is kind of Narnian.

You recall The Last Battle? An actually good "meditation on" (as opposed to direct fan fiction of) the End of the World parts of the Apocalypse.

Jewel and Jill have this conversation, and it gives so much place for both multigenerational faithfulness (the standard) and an imminence that "a" world is coming to an end.

Catholicism has both.

Without the cynicism of "I'll be raptured" and without the poison of "socialism, prohibition, eugenics, raised marital ages" ...

---

* Gematria, letters, upper case values, adding 32 for each lower case:

H	72
I	73	140	5	32
T	84	220	9	32
L	76	290	15	32
E	69	350	24	32
R	82	430	26	32

430 + 26 + 160 = 616

Was Fulton Sheen a Theistic Evolutionist? If So, He was in Error

Was Fulton Sheen a Theistic Evolutionist? If So, He was in Error · I frankly don't know why a Theistic Evolutionist can obtain six miracles, but it seems Sheen did

Did Sheen Embrace Heresy? Plus, I'm Back With the Benedictines!
Christine Niles | 27 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC-vdy_5OYw

24:16 Let me break it down a bit.

1) Six literal days contiguous with the first moment of time or one single moment = fully traditional, unproblematic.

After this, Biblical chronology ensues, and Abraham, contemporary with some kind of Egyptian Pharao, is 2 to 3+ millennia after Adam. Depending on text. Fully traditional, unproblematic.

2) Six literal days after a gap, after a vastly longer pre-"creation" time period, or six long periods. Both have been accepted by some scholars, and are not condemned per se.

After this, either Biblical chronology ensues, as per previous, or, Fulcran Vigouroux suggested the post-Flood genealogy could contain some more gaps than just the second Cainan. Again, not condemned per se, and not very problematic in the less traditional setting.

3) No literal Adam = a nono, and it has been voiced by an Assumptionist in Paris. He's probably campaigning to get me stamped as mentally ill for calling him out on my blog. Some things have been done which could be vile steps going that direction.

4) Adam existed, but was born to non-human progenitors. Pius XII was weak on this. He was clear that him being Adam meant they had to be non-human. But would God have put an as yet sinless Adam into the care of non-human beasts, albeit such that have lots in common with us anatomically?

I'd suggest, even if this wasn't condemned, it is fully condemnable.

5) "mankind has existed for 40 000 / 90 000 / 300 000 years" again, I'd suggest this is fully condemnable.

a) because the number of generations between Adam and Abraham, therefore Adam and Moses would have been too long. Genesis 3 could not have been transmitted as oral history with fidelity in this case.

Or, if you place Adam in or much nearer the Biblical timeline:

b) because of this involving Adam after all not being the actual first man.

Now, so far, this was theology. There is some science to it as well.

IF the world is 6000 years as Hugh Owen thinks or 7200 years old as I think (chronology of traditional Christmas martyrology, based on a variant of LXX in Genesis 5 and 11), then a carbon date for a human skeleton saying "40 000 years ago", including for a Neanderthal skeleton ("42 000 years ago") can be explained by a rapid rise of carbon 14 levels in the 2000 years after the Flood, we are wrongly comparing the sample's carbon 14 content with the now current atmospheric level.

IF however the world is billions of years old, so is the atmosphere. That means a carbon 14 date of "42 000 years ago" needs to be taken more literally.

This is not just about the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but the carbon date for Chalcolithic Engeddi sets a conundrum for it for Genesis 14. We know from Chronicles, Engeddi is Asason-Tamar. But Engeddi has no population between the Chalcolithic and the Iron age, the latter being obviously too late. So, either the Bible's c. 2000 BC is somehow carbon dated to 3500 BC (my position, it goes perfectly well with Young Earth Creationism) or Genesis 14 contains a historical error. This is however a big no no. Especially given the central place of this chapter in Catholic theology, in connection with the Psalm Dixit Dominus and the comment thereon in Hebrews.

So, if Fulton Sheen embraced Theistic evolution, he was in error. One which has increasingly grave consequences today.

24:43 "this would include man"

Sorry, this is unacceptable.

It involves either Adam having non-human progenitors or Adam not being the actual first man or not even existing individually.

The first of these is a blasphemy against God's goodness, probably behind some of the earliest cases of childabuse late 40's or early 50's. The other two are directly against Trent Session V.

25:33 No. He very much didn't directly affirm that Adam having non-human ancestry was acceptable for Catholics to hold.

He did, and I made a close reading of the encyclical's text at this point, allow for debate behind closed doors and defenders of the non-traditional view needing to withhold a kind of final assent to it.

Now, one could read, but this would make Pius XII a heretic in 1950, that he required also defenders of the traditional view to withhold a kind of final assent. They had never done so previously, and the wording applies within the context of this debate behind closed doors. In other words, they were just required not to alert the general community of the faithful that some people were discussing Adam could have had ape ancestry.

25:39 Would the first of these "multiple popes since then" be one Wojtyla in 1992, whom for this precise reason I count as a non-Pope?

26:40 Let's check the wording of Pius XII again.

and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

Under normal circumstances, one would take this as a future judgement of the Church. One can't. And one needn't. I'm submitting to Trent Session V, which clearly implies the impossibility of Theistic Evolution as applying to man.

29:51 Your prediction was fulfilled within 11 hours. Here I am, admit I'm punctual!

Four Things I Believe Like 500 Years Ago

4 Things Christians Believed About the Bible 500 Years Ago
Mindshift | 24 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhXdUyGKy34

I Geocentrism

I still support a stationary earth.

A

Youknow Itstrue

@youknowitstrue3826

Too bad objective reality doesn't care what you support.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@youknowitstrue3826 You have the private phone number of "objective reality"?

Objective observations do support Geocentrism.

conquest_icon

@conquest_icon-f4w

@hglundahl , The Sun is stationary the earth moves😂😂😂. How much easier do you want me to explain it to you😂😂😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@conquest_icon-f4w OK, I didn't doubt you had this explanation so now proceed to provide another thing ... the proof.

Especially the proof from observation. Nearly all of the ones astronomy are based on are geocentric ones.

conquest_icon

@hglundahl 😂😂😂😂.

Youknow Itstrue

@hglundahl It sure doesn't, pagan, but a neat little feature of objective reality is that it can be tested, verified and proven. Crazy concept, huh? Of course, you pagans are various degrees of functionally braindead and pathological liars, but since you claimed that "objective observations" support your claim I would love to see the research you don't have. And I bet there's a lot of scientists in all related fields agreeing with you too. Otherwise, do you have any theories as to why not?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@conquest_icon-f4w OK, have a laugh, you may need it ...

When you're done, get back to proving ... if you can.

In case you skipped logic, proving sth to be true and explaining how it works are not the same logic operation.

conquest_icon

@hglundahl , go read a basic book on astronomy. I am not here to teach you about the earth's revolutions 😂😂😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@conquest_icon-f4w No, because when it comes to proving, you know you can't.

I did pick up a book on astronomy the afternoon before I became a Geocentric for good.

I did check that the "proper movement" that was largest, 10 arc seconds per year, was a significant portion of the "aberration" and way surpassed the "parallax" ... that and knowing about angelic movers (as per St. Thomas or Riccioli) did it. Parallax didn't prove Earth moved each year, as I had been thinking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@youknowitstrue3826 $"tested, verified and proven."

I don't know what you mean by "Pagan", but I do know that tested, verified and proven are not what you support Heliocentrism with.

My research involves looking up at the sky. So does Herschel's. Now tell me what Herschel saw (which I'm probably aware of) which convinced him and you and on your view should convince me that Heliocentrism is "tested, verified and proven" as you put it ...

conquest_icon

@hglundahl , st Thomas of riccolli 😂😂😂😂. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of. We are talking about astronomy. You are quoting the man who taught it was OK to kill heretics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@conquest_icon-f4w Both of St. Thomas Aquinas and Giovanni Battista Riccioli thought it was OK to execute heretics under certain court procedures.

It's not just one man.

Both of them spoke of angelic movers, and Riccioli, the one of them who was an astronomer, recognised there is no such science as astrophysics. Especially not on the level of Celestial Mechanics. He did however think angelic movers made most sense.

Youknow Itstrue

@hglundahl What software and hardware do you use? Which book? How did you disprove or explain stellar parallax or Foucault pendelum? Do you believe in gravity? You want us to believe this truth you have, right? So what's the problem?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@youknowitstrue3826 "What software and hardware do you use?"

None, my argument is simpler than that.

"Which book?"

I consulted? A paperback from 1980 in Swedish. It said the greatest parallax was 0.76 arc seconds, the aberration 20 arcs seconds (unless I misrecall) and Barnard's star 10 arc seconds (not back and forth, and per year, so c. 1/4 of the aberration).

"How did you disprove or explain stellar parallax"

After looking at the info on Barnard's star and knowing angelic movers: by angelic movers.

"or Foucault pendelum?"

Space has a substance, not just empty coordinates. That substance circles earth up to the height of Fix stars 1 full circle in 23 h 56 min. Moved, not by an angel, but by God.

"Do you believe in gravity?"

I do not believe gravity to be the sole cause in the universe. Even Heliocentrism accepts inertia too. As I believe God exists and angels exist, I see no reason why gravity and inertia should be the sole two causes even on this scale, and therefore none to distrust the immediate observation.

"You want us to believe this truth you have, right?"

Why the heck "this truth you have" .... centuries have had it in millions, I'm not unique, just reactionary.

conquest_icon

@hglundahl , both of them were ignorant as it pertains to basic science 😂😂😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@conquest_icon-f4w If by "basic science" you mean "materialistic world view" that's not ignorance, it's disagreement.

If you mean "basic astronomy" (the scientific discipline), it's ludicrous to call Riccioli ignorant, he beats both of us.

Youknow Itstrue

@hglundahl Take your meds. We're specifically talking about the material reality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@youknowitstrue3826 Sun, Moon, Earth and presumably Fix Stars are material realitieS.

This does not mean that all of reality is material or that only material realitieS can affect other material realitieS, to the exclusion of non-material realitieS doing so.

As to your insult, are you a damned Swede?*

YOUR attitude is the exact reason why I left my country 2004 and have never returned, apart from the embassy being Swedish ground.

It is also a pretty obvious thing that this kind of marginalisation is an excellent method of keeping anything going even if it isn't true, so, of keeping a lie going even if it's a lie. When it's the opposition to it you marginalise, of course.

After this response, I'm blocking you, and I'm far from certain you aren't personally identic to other profiles I've blocked.

* footnote:

I met a suspected Swede when leaving for the cyber, and it ruins my good mood. I should obviously have asked if he considered Riccioli or everyone else 500 years ago in need of medications.

I'd not be surprised if he did, it would show the "Present Time Exceptionalism" to the nth degree that's so typical and unbearable with today's Sweden. Culturally, it's in many areas (including Malmö) a very Commie country.

I did not wait for his response, I blocked him.

Update: I don't believe all Swedes are damned, but I'm very well aware of this type, and I think, barring a near miraculous repentance for any of them, they are.

B

conquest_icon

@youknowitstrue3826 , read their other comments, this individual if they are not a bot does not deal in reality 😂😂😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@conquest_icon-f4w You are aware that this kind of marginalisation of opposition is an excellent method of keeping a lie going, even if it's a lie ... of keeping anything going even if it isn't true, that is

I'm not a fan of Luther, Martin, but his view on Copernicus, well, even a broken clock is right twice a day ...

the word is "phenomenological language" and it could apply to Joshua 10:13. As Luther mentioned, it's much harder to fit it with Joshua 10:12, because Joshua is there not telling anyone what happened, but he's on God's behalf ordering the thing that needs to miraculously change behaviour

II Young Earth Creationism

I think you overdo the difference of interpretation, except as to the choice of text version, like LXX over Masoretic timeline (different in Genesis 5 and 11) and between 6 * 24 h vs "one single moment" ...

III Mosaic authorship

again, Moses wrote the Pentateuch

most chapters of Genesis were pre-written by patriarchs or pre-dictated orally, and last chapters of Deuteronomy were written by Joshua

Moses had a vision of creation on Mount Sinai

IV usury

I'm opposed to lending on interest

borrowing is not the borrower's sin of interest taking, but the lender's ...

Yes, I Did Sign Up For Belief in Sacrifice of the Mass When I Converted

I did so consciously. I already believed the Real Presence before my Baptism and as a Lutheran, and was shocked at Calvinists not believing it.

But I learned of and accepted the sacrifice of the Mass while converting.

The BIGGEST Problem With The Catholic Church… (NOT What You Think)
iThink Biblically (Church Adelaide) | 22 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqj86vDBYRA

1:00 You are already misrepresenting.

The bread and wine do not become the Soul and Divinity, these are made present by "natural concomitance" ... (like the Blood under the species of Bread, like the Body under the species of Wine).

What you do get right is, the Human Soul and the Divinity are made present ... God as such is omnipresent, but God is made present in a way He wasn't there before, like when Jesus walked into a room, for instance in the house of Jairus.

1:16 Thank you for calling "many Catholics" basically Anglo-Catholics or High Church Lutherans.

You can be a believer in Real Presence, even so a Protestant, like Luther was, like the Danish born Queen of James I was, simply because you deny Jesus is being Sacrificed in the Mass.

In whatever sense that may be.

I learned this while converting, thank you very much, and that was in my teens. One of the ideas behind a Trad Resistance in Catholicism is taking a distance from the kind of people you referred to as "many Catholics" ....

1:27 "to appease the wrath of God"

I'm not sure you ever find that word used about the as yet unsaved or about God's attitude prior to Calvary ever in the Bible, I just skimmed over 35 mentions of "wrath" in the DRB NT.

I think the Bible uses the word either about an eternally unappeased wrath, against those rejecting His grace, or a wrath leading to an actual temporal punishment. Including but not limited to the end of the world.

In Trent Session XXII you do not find "propitiatory sacrifice" defined as "to appease the wrath of God" ...

3:40 Yes, we believe that ...

I was well aware of it when I converted in 1988.

4:05 The Bible teaches that Christ is not killed more than once.

It doesn't say the presence of His Sacrifice comes only at Calvary.

The one death is being shown forth in each ... sacrifice.

Get your Bible quotes straight!

On Calvary, He made once an oblation ... but it makes Him forever a priest on the order of Melchisedec, so, He is offering that one oblation again, as priest in the consecrated person, the duly ordained priest, and as victim in the consecrated Host. We would only be contradicting Hebrews 10 if we taught the Mass were another oblation than that once on Calvary.

So, how is it the same? 1) Same priest, Jesus. 2) Same victim, Jesus, His Blood separated from His Body. 3) Same goal of sacrifice, to propitiate, to atone for sins, to give thanks and to give praise.

4:19 Your quote and bishop Challoner's comment:

Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holies, every year with the blood of others
[Hebrews 9:25]

[25] "Offer himself often": Christ shall never more offer himself in sacrifice, in that violent, painful, and bloody manner, nor can there be any occasion for it: since by that one sacrifice upon the cross, he has furnished the full ransom, redemption, and remedy for all the sins of the world. But this hinders not that he may offer himself daily in the sacred mysteries in an unbloody manner, for the daily application of that one sacrifice of redemption to our souls.

5:33 Now, the quote, and a very clearly referenced parallel text:

But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God From henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool
[Hebrews 10:12-13]

The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool
[Psalms 109:1]

But read on here:

The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech
[Psalms 109:4]

For "priest" the Hebrew uses "kohen" the same term as for Aaronite priests. And the order of Melchisedech was this:

But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God Blessed him, and said: Blessed be Abram by the most high God, who created heaven and earth And blessed be the most high God, by whose protection the enemies are in thy hands. And he gave him the tithes of all
[Genesis 14:18-20]

So, the eternal sacrifice of Jesus looks like bringing forth bread and wine ... well, that's exactly what we are saying.

6:11 "never to be offered again"

In the same manner.

Democracy is Neither Best Nor Per Se Best for Basic Freedom Or Equality

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Democracy is Neither Best Nor Per Se Best for Basic Freedom Or Equality · New blog on the kid: For Hobbit Week: Economy in Middle Earth

Tolkien's (VERY) Controversial Take on Democracy
Sword and Scroll | 14 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVjs8rKzN1s

I

E F

@eafky3935

I think the biggest problem with democracy is that it basically allows two idiots to out vote a genius and trust me....
Whether we like it or not accept it or not a huge portion of people around the world are simply not smart...
And even a bigger portion are outright stupid....
Just like socialism or communism is a good dream....
A bad idea....
And terrible outcome....
This are only good if it wasn't for us humans because let's accept it... HUMANS ARE NOT EQUAL
Never was and never will be equal
No matters how hard you try to force everyone to live just like cattle we love to do our things and be different its in our nature....
Some are smarter
More competent
More diligent

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

I think you have, from Tolkien's perspective, from Chesterton's or from mine, given the worst possible criticism of Democracy.

That it assumes voters are, before the law, equal.

A voter doesn't have to be smart. He just has not to be currently hoodwinked into some miserable gamble.

And your gamble on finding the superior man is one of the most miserable there is.

E F

@hglundahl with all respect brother 🙏
It's just my opinion ....
But I have witness what's happened when you give fools right to choose and power to control....
Im Iranian and i lost almost my entire youth to this so called democratic Islamic republic of iran
Democracy is almost always fundamentally weak if not lead by great and honourable people...😢
It's not from Tolkien perspective but mine....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@eafky3935 OK ... but are we talking of fools or non-Christians there?

II

Ian

@monkeymox2544

Except Aragorn does actively seek and desire kingship. It isn't a mantle that he takes on reluctantly, he pursues (or at least prepares for) it for his whole life, he believes it is his right, and he guards that right. He does so with humility and pragmatism, but he still does it. Of course a part of that is his desire to be with Arwen, but that isn't the whole story. In this video you seem to be talking about the film version of Aragorn, not the book version.

Tolkien clearly thought that part of the problem with the world is when the wrong people are in charge instead of the right people. And the right people are often defined in terms of... well... right. Some people are lesser, others higher, and being higher, they are fitter to rule.

Just look at his so-called 'free peoples' - they aren't actually free. Their freedom consists entirely in their freedom to be ruled by their own, rather than foreign lords. But those people are still ruled, subject to the whims and fancies of absolute rulers. They aren't free by any sensible definition. And Tolkien never questions whether they really do have a right to rule, he seems happy that these kinds of power relations should exist. Tolkien often talks about Sauron having 'slaves', whereas Aragorn's subjects towards the end of the Return of the King are described as 'servants', but in terms of the actual power relation, it is a distinction without a difference.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"whereas Aragorn's subjects towards the end of the Return of the King are described as 'servants',"

Are they?

I don't think so.

I think some of them are described as that, because that was their precise function. I don't think he ever described an old woman of Minas Tirith or a fisherman in Dol Amroth (not sure of the landscapes) as his own servant, but some were his servants, like Beef Eaters are servants of Charles III.

The difference is, is a man in his own house in no public function in Cornwall the servant of Charles III or any of his administrations, or isn't he?

The freedom isn't in having a say in who rules you. The freedom is in your being ruled in a way that doesn't ruin your freedoms.

Ian

@hglundahl I can't find the quote about servants, just flicking through, I'll have to have a closer search when I have a moment. I remember noticing it on my last read.

Freedom, though, can't be secured without the ability to choose who governs you. If you're ruled absoloutely, then you are not free, even if the person ruling you grants you all the superficial freedoms you desire.

'Ruled' is the key word, really. No-one who is ruled, is free. The less absoloute and arbitrary and fixed a form of government is, the more free it is, provided certain foundational freedoms are also protected.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@monkeymox2544 "Freedom, though, can't be secured without the ability to choose who governs you."

That's a claim by politologists which I think Tolkien would disagree with and so would I.

"even if the person ruling you grants you all the superficial freedoms you desire."

What's superficial about having freedom in your own life?

"provided certain foundational freedoms are also protected."

A proviso that Democracies have not been good at providing ....

"'Ruled' is the key word, really. No-one who is ruled, is free."

A state need not be a free person for its citizens to be such ...

But seriously, that word is obfuscating realities. If you are not a hermit living totally offgrid or a ruler, you are ruled. It means you can be required to do or let be things by people like the police.

Me and Garabandal

The video poses a question near the end, I'm giving that answer first below it.

The REAL Reason Garabandal Was Never Approved
Messenger of God | 19 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsmYg9OBjXA

I'm somewhat in between, but closer to believers' side.

As an adherent of Pope Michael II, I do have a problem with "there is now no other Pope to obey than Paul VI" which, if I recollect correctly was said to Conchita. Unless it meant sth like absence of other Popes (like "Clement XV" or "John Gregory XVII") or impossibility to obey one (if Siri was the real Pope but acting only through his limited influence on "Paul VI"), rather than a direct endorsement of "Paul VI" as actual Pope.

However, before I landed there, I was a devotee of Padre Pio and Garabandal, because Tom Zimmer was. I met him while converting. That Tom Zimmer, the Pilgrim of Loreto.

I didn't know he was mostly staying in Loreto, I met him in Rome. His tract Hope 84, to Honor Our Lady's Assumption (honor without ou, he was US American), it was like an extra catechism to me.

25:54 "Fr" Spitzer looks a lot like Joey Mangino, and is still alive.

So, if on the day of the miracle "Fr" Spitzer SJ receives new eyes, it will be kind of a fulfilment.

27:24 Pope Michael I, one Pope. Pope Michael II, two popes, not yet dead.

If "Paul VI" through "Leo XIV" are false popes, that could still be fulfilled.

---

Here is an argument that "Leo" isn't Pope:

Leo's Vatican Begins The Process To Canonize Teilhard de Chardin
Return To Tradition | 16 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjkZmjulmvM

No Flat Earther Here, Sirs (Nor Many in Early Church History)

@answersingenesis
Did the Church Teach That the Earth Is Flat?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1YUIhlLloRs

While the Church didn't teach the Earth was flat, it seems individual Church Fathers did.

And that's good, it means they rejected Greek cosmology. Now, is Greek cosmology that bad? Not really, but Greek cosmology taught concentric solid and transparent (so, crystalline) spheres.

Meanwhile, this leaves all of the early Church teaching that "Earth" ... sorry LAND ... has four corners, which is what Eretz means in contexts like Apoc. 7:1 (not sure of the precise extension of meaning of the Greek "ge" but it's used as a calque of Eretz), and all of the early Church teaching that Earth (this time, it's the correct English term) doesn't move, but Heavens move around Earth up to the stars.

(Solid spheres were refuted by Tycho Brahe, by the way, when observing a comet as not purely atmospheric and which would have passed through several solids if they had been there).

Life expectancy

The Life Expectancy Lies That Won't Die
vlogbrothers | 8 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B209EM_IJM

4:07 For my wikipedian genealogies with statistics (latest tracing ancestry of Eugene of Savoy to 1400's*), I actually give minima, maxima, medians, lower and higher quartiles.

AND I admit, though it was some time ago, that this gives an "ancestor bias" which like "professional bias" means, the persons would have lived past childhood.

Taking Eugene of Savoy stats:

Men died

Min 25, Lower Quartile 38, Median 51, Higher Quartile 58, Max 72

Women died

Min 20 or 21, Lower Quartile 34, Median 55, Higher Quartile 68, Max 86

So, half the men died between 38 and 58. Half the women died between 34 and 68.

We can take marriage too:

Men married

Min 14, Lower Quartile 22.5, Median 25, Higher Quartile 31.5, Max 47

Women married

Min 11 or 14 (depending on how you count), Lower Quartile, 15.5 or 16, Median, 17.5 or 18, Higher Quartile 21.5 or 22.5, Max 35

The words "depending on how you count" refer to a marriage and its consummation at 15, which only in the legal case is the lowest age. There are other discrepancies, since for some women the birthyear or even the year of marriage is not given on wiki.

Do you find these statistics surprising or (if you admit ancestor bias) misleading?**

5:42 Checking your stats link:***

For example, 15-year-olds in 1816 in France had a life expectancy of 58 years. By 2021, the life expectancy of 15-year-olds increased to 83.

This obviously doesn't cover all ages, just the ones we have good statistics for.

* Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Eugene of Savoy
Saturday, August 22, 2026 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 9:01 AM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2026/08/eugene-of-savoy.html

** Giving him a week to answer before this is published.

*** Meanwhile, living to 58 when if surviving to 15 is a fairly good match for the statistics I have given for previous centuries. Here is the link:

Key Insights on Life Expectancy: Life expectancy has increased at all ages
https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy?insight=life-expectancy-has-increased-at-all-ages#research-writing

Was Anthony Stine misconstruing Cardinal McElroy? I find it possible

American Cardinal Declares You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy
Return To Tradition | 15 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUuoNU83QY

2:10 No one intrinsically owns anything.

Did you note the word "intrinsically"?

The corrollary is, all private ownership is extrinsically assigned, by a kind of art.

Now, what did St. Thomas say?

Reply to Objection 1. Community of goods is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one's own: but because the division of possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement which belongs to positive law, as stated above (II-II:57:3). Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.

Reply to objection 1 is in article 2 of question 66 of Secunda Secundae, in case you wonder.

Sometimes when people find me childish in expression, I am going by wordings that simply translate St. Thomas. Like "thing" for "substance" or "can be" for "is in potency" or "is actually" for "is in act" ... and sometimes when people find me not a Christian conservative in content, it's because that's what they would think of St. Thomas too, if they actually read him (and some Protestant Conservatives actually do think that).

3:08 For "co-creators" I'd definitely prefer Tolkien's term "sub-creators" ...

3:25 Catholic teaching certainly says that private property is in a sense a right.

1) It is a right to have property for what one needs, collective or private.
2) Once it has been allotted either way, usually privately, one usually has a right to undisturbed use of it, even if it should exceed one's needs, it's not as if everyone had to give away all according to his possibilities and just keep the bare needs, or as if keeping more than one strictly needs were immediately in respect to everyone having less an injustice.

Same article, this time I give the corpus:

I answer that, Two things are competent to man in respect of exterior things. One is the power to procure and dispense them, and in this regard it is lawful for man to possess property. Moreover this is necessary to human life for three reasons. First because every man is more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is common to many or to all: since each one would shirk the labor and leave to another that which concerns the community, as happens where there is a great number of servants. Secondly, because human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion if everyone had to look after any one thing indeterminately. Thirdly, because a more peaceful state is ensured to man if each one is contented with his own. Hence it is to be observed that quarrels arise more frequently where there is no division of the things possessed.

The second thing that is competent to man with regard to external things is their use. On this respect man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 6:17-18): "Charge the rich of this world . . . to give easily, to communicate to others," etc.

3:52 Let's cite Divini Redemptoris:

In consequence he has been endowed by God with many and varied prerogatives: the right to life, to bodily integrity, to the necessary means of existence; the right to tend toward his ultimate goal in the path marked out for him by God; the right of association and the right to possess and use property.

Let's presume that this includes sime kind of gradation, given the Pope said "varied prerogatives", and let's assume the basic rights are given in their order of importance:

In consequence he has been endowed by God with many and varied prerogatives:

1) the right to life,
2) to bodily integrity,
3) to the necessary means of existence;
4) the right to tend toward his ultimate goal in the path marked out for him by God;
5) the right of association
6) and the right to possess and
7) use property.

The main problem during the Holodomor wasn't that Ukrainian farmers were denied property. The main problem is, that therefore they were also denied the necessary means of existence and therefore also bodily integrity and life. However, the denial of property was in this specific case the necessary means from taking away their rights to means of subsistance.

In the Irish Famine, which was also manmade, English landlors in Ireland were not denied their property, rather they made the utmost of it. Irish tenants were not primarily denied their property, since the wheat they grew by right of contract belonged to the landlord, the potatoes they grew to themselves. Now, certain years, there were no potatoes. The landlords didn't step back one millimetre from their contractual rights and as a consequence Irishmen starved or fled.

4:04 As many individuals and families as possible should own as much property as they need for independence.

When the property one owns denies some people both independence and even the relative independence (compared to the dole) of being a hired worker, one might be owning too much.

A Swedish popup politician from Örebro (pronounce Ur-rebroo) missed getting elected even in his district yesterday, but he made a comment about the "transferiate" ...

Formerly, Employers and Workers were the main contenders about the produced goods and their monetary value, but now they are both up against a third class, the "transferiate" ... people living by transfer via the tax bill.

It has an upper class, like social workers, integration officers, project leaders and so on. It has a lower class, and for some reason he doesn't count genuinely needy Swedes as part of this "lower class transferiate" but does count improductive (currently so) immigrants as the lower class of the transferiate.

The thing is, the more things are rationalised in production, the bigger first non-necessary sectors and finally the transferiate become. The mouths to feed don't become fewer just because fewer are engaged in physically producing food. The eyes to read don't become fewer just because fewer are engaged in printing. And crucially, their tastes in reading don't diversify enough to accomodate all new authors. Some authors are also blocked for other reasons. Therefore, rationalisation means more and more need to get their food and possibly reading from other things than earning them. Like tax transferred resources, like becoming social workers or private security or the cases they work for or against.

There genuinely is a sense in which ownership doesn't justify rationalisation, especially in the case of ownership by big banks.

"Every bit of land in a country that is a monarchy is owned by the monarch."

That degree of Communism (alias State Capitalism) is not common to all governments, it was reached in England at the Norman invasion.

Like, William I wanted sth to reward fellow Normans with.

In France, the theory is actually somewhat different. Private ownership of land is real. Roman and Frankish giant fortunes have since then become socialised into divisions of government. And when I speak of giant fortunes getting socialised, that's not a figure of speech. In the Roman Empire, each Civitas (often centred on a city i e urban centre, hence the modern meaning) is to some degree self governing, and the theory is basically, there is a double citizenship, of that city and of Rome.

And in each city, the very richest man each year is chosen as Decurion. This meant, he was personally giving to the poor in a dignified way, simply from his fortune. Next year he was reelected if he was still the richest. If he got ruined, he got a place at the table. Now, in Pagan times, that office was tied to Pagan sacrifices, and one Christian martyr was martyred for refusing it on this ground. However, in whatever place has been referred to as Bannavem Taburniae, a certain couple who were certainly Christians were the Decurion and his wife. Their son is St. Patrick.

But a local ruler as former ex highest fortune and it's succession, once he was truly a local ruler, tended to become a ruler, not an owner. Former serfs were in practise new and smaller owner.

8:27 No ... a country is NOT property of the governing class, it's field of jurisdiction of the governing class.

Aristotle would have argued that if the governing class assumes property over everything (qua governing) that makes the government a bad one.

A tyrant is a king who treats himself as owner of the country. A king is in some ways like a tyrant, but instead acknowledges smaller owners.

---

[Skipping the part on immigration.]

---

Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 66
Article 2. Whether it is lawful for a man to possess a thing as his own?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article2

DIVINI REDEMPTORIS
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19370319_divini-redemptoris.html

With an Orthodox on Apocalypse, Specifically Antichrist

The Antichrist You Were Taught About Doesn't Exist in the Bible
Ancient Faith Explained | 3 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLrxFr917GE

2:40 "four authors" ...

I take the Johannine Letters to have the same human author as Apocalypse.

"no where does the Bible"

So, what about Tradition equating Man of Lawlessness, Beast from the Sea, Little Horn?

There are genuinely two Bible passages which Darbyists attach to him and which certainly or probably do not belong.

The Rider on the White Horse is probably Christ, reappearing in that role in Apocalypse 19, and "will sign a Covenant with many" is also Christ, also already mentioned in phrases of the ongoing sentence, and refers to the Covenant Christ signed on His last Seder and on Calvary. Many meaning "not just ethnic Jews" ...

But the three individual figures you mention as such are by quite a lot of Church Fathers taken as being one and the same, and the gematria "Apostates" = 666 places that man into the category "an antichrist" of the Johannine letters.

Ancient Faith Explained

@AncientFaithExplained

The Fathers who equated the figures were making a theological synthesis the video's point is that the Bible itself never makes that equation explicit. Your gematria point on "Apostates" = 666 is exactly the kind of patristic interpretation the video says was happening. Worth a full video on the Fathers' readings alone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@AncientFaithExplained Thank you.

Fr. Jason Charron of the Ukrainian Church has already done a series of videos.

Bible.
Fathers.
Scholastics / Medievals.
Private Revelation.

3:46 Polycarp's observation has sth to do with St. Thomas rationale for the Inquisition.

St. Thomas Aquinas states that heretics, by being such, are preparing the way for "The Antichrist" (the other three figures taken as one) and considered it as a function of the Inquisition (in this regard, outside pure internal housekeeping like telling a Converso not to Judaise and what constitutes this) to delay this.

Ancient Faith Explained

Aquinas's connection between heresy, the Inquisition, and delaying the Antichrist is one of the more striking pieces of medieval eschatology not something the video could fit, but genuinely worth noting. God bless.

4:35 I stop the video again.

I look up "chrysostom antichrist" in the google and find Homily 4 on Second Thessalonians.

It's too long to quote integrally, but one key passage stands out:

One may naturally enquire, what is that which withholds, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholds, that is, hinders him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end. And he did not say that it will be quickly, although he is always saying it — but what?

Homily 4 on Second Thessalonians
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23054.htm

Well, that brings us to 1918. The Eastern Emperor was killed in Yekaterineburg. The Western Emperor left Hofburg and a Karl Renner drafted a law to ban him from returning.

Austro-Hungarian Empire was divided into ten parts. Constituting or enlarging the following:

1) German Austria (which became the First Austrian Republic)
2) First Hungarian Republic which became the Hungarian Soviet Republic, subsequently briefly restored and replaced by the Hungarian Republic, ultimately transformed into the Kingdom of Hungary
3) First Czechoslovak Republic ("Czechoslovakia" from 1920 to 1938)
4) Second Polish Republic, contested by the short-lived proto-states of Tarnobrzeg Republic and Polish Soviet Socialist Republic
5) State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia, both later absorbed into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
6) Greater Romania
7) Kingdom of Italy
8) the short-lived Ruthenian (Ukrainian and Rusyn) proto-states of West Ukrainian People's Republic (later absorbed into Ukrainian People's Republic), Hutsul Republic, Lemko Republic, Komancza Republic and the Galician Soviet Socialist Republic; all were ultimately absorbed mostly into Poland, but also into Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia.

Oh, I said ten?

9) Switzerland, lost in 1648
10) Germany, lost in 1806 and 1866.

Yes, I said ten.

Dissolution of Austria-Hungary
Immediate aftermath of World War I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Austria-Hungary#Immediate_aftermath_of_World_War_I

6:01 It so happens, St. John doesn't say the antichrist denies that Christ has come in the flesh, but that He is coming in the flesh.

Calvinism denies that Christ comes in the Eucharist. So do Islam and Judaism.

Leopards are sufficiently like lions to fools some non-zoologists they are such ... I think this is three of the four leopard heads if we compare Daniel and Apocalypse 13.

6:25 I have as a child read two books by the Lutheran abbess (not sure if she or her community converted later) Mother Basilea Schlink.

One was of angels, specifically guardian angels.

The other was on the Apocalypse, as in the dictatorship of the Antichrist. This was before the computer chip was thought of, so I grew up thinking of the mark of the beast as a tattoo with three sixes.

One more creepy detail. Devils are let loose during that period.

7:05 Before the story.

Where exactly does it say the Antichrist will be deceiving because he looks like he has solutions and looks good?

Not meaning the Bible, but early Church.

7:57 Oh, you took Zosima as "early Church" ...

I suppose you mean this one?

Zosimas of Solovki (Russian: Зосима Соловецкий; died 1478) was a Russian hermit. He was one of the founders of the Solovetsky Monastery,[1] which was established on the Solovetsky Islands in the White Sea of northern Russia. He is venerated as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Because, I just went through all mentions of St. Zosimas of Palestine in Life of St. Mary of Egypt, and this episode is not mentioned there.

Life of Our Venerable Mother Mary of Egypt
https://stmaryofegypt.org/files/library/life.htm

Ancient Faith Explained

The video says "a story passed down from a Russian monastery" not the early Church specifically. Zosima of Solovki is medieval, which is fair to note. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@AncientFaithExplained What about this sentence?

The early church gave [music] an answer and it is the most sobering sentence I have ever read on this subject.

Ancient Faith Explained

@hglundahl The "early Church" line introduces the theological principle the saints' understanding of the danger. Zosima is then cited as one who expressed it. But the transition is ambiguous enough to be misleading, and you're right to flag it. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@AncientFaithExplained " the theological principle the saints' understanding of the danger."

OK, do you have an earlier actually early Church example than Zosima?

Ancient Faith Explained

@hglundahl The transition in the video was ambiguous "early Church" introduced the principle, but Zosima is medieval not early Church. That's a fair criticism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@AncientFaithExplained Indeed.

That's why I'm asking if you have an early Church example saying the same thing?

8:22 Indeed, Jesus will certainly not come again and sit before a computer trying to make a living as a writer.

However, if someone behind my back makes a mockery of my poverty and pretends it's my nobility, and then presents me as "Christ" in order to trigger the spider sense of people who have heard that word by Zosima, does that make me or the liar the or even an antichrist?

9:59 A coming de facto world ruler is in fact in the Bible.

Not necessarily dictator from UNO or similar. He might be in one country and yet have influence in all the others.

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 13:7]

If John Kyriakou decides to and uses his influence with CIA and intelligence services to persecute Catholics for believing in an individual Antichrist, it could be John Kyriakou ... unless he lacks the gematria. But it makes more sense if it's actually someone with open power.

And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 13:8]

Doesn't sound like John Kyriakou. Who knows, but doesn't sound like him at all.

If you define "dictator" as illegal or paralegal transitioner from "democracy" or "constitution" to de facto real monarchy with neither inheritance of a throne nor election for elective thrones, that's not necessarily in the Bible, except perhaps the "not duly elected" part (Daniel).

And there shall stand up in his place one despised, and the kingly honour shall not be given him: and he shall come privately, and shall obtain the kingdom by fraud
[Daniel 11:21]

Bishop Challoner takes this as already fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes:

"One despised": Viz., Antiochus Epiphanes, who at first was despised and not received for king. What is here said of this prince, is accommodated by St. Jerome and others to Antichrist; of whom this Antiochus was a figure.

OK, also the case for Antichrist.

11:34 It so happens that it's more possible to check a chart and a gematria than one's own heart.

The heart is perverse above all things, and unsearchable, who can know it?
[Jeremias (Jeremiah) 17:9]

Perverse doesn't mean "wicked" as some Protestant Bibles translate this verse, but more like "handicapped" ... something like a limp or shortsightedness or being lefthanded when wielding tools made for the right handed and so one.

But "unsearchable" and "who can know it" (except God) are pretty clear.

You can not search your heart for knowing for certain that you know the real Christ well enough so the false Christ cannot fool you. Jesus Himself said:

For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.
[Matthew 24:24]

So:

1) the people deceived (at least momentarily or on levels not jeopardising their own salvation) will include elect, that is people who certainly know the real Christ well enough to be saved:
2) and Antichrist is not the only false Christ who will (momentarily or on levels not jeopardising their salvation) deceive them.

So, your test is impossible.

St. Robert Bellarmine did give a chart, and part of it was the "destruction of the Roman Empire" ... which has happened, roughly 100 years ago.

But you mentioned a false kingdom as in an earthly utopia. Now, there are certainly false utopias like Sweden saying "everyone can love everyone, getting children is optional even if you have sex" and things like that. But from your list, sth which sounds good to a Christian could, apart from being a utopia and that shouldn't sound good to a Christian, by itself be a warning flag. Let me quote Chrysostom again:

Why then, you say, did God permit this to be? And what dispensation is this? And what is the advantage of his coming, if it takes place for the ruin of our race? Fear not, beloved, but hear Him saying, In them that are perishing, he has strength, who, even if he had not come, would not have believed. What then is the advantage? That these very men who are perishing will be put to silence. How? Because both if he had come, and if he had not come, they would not have believed in Christ; He comes therefore to convict them. For that they may not have occasion to say, that since Christ said that He was God — although He nowhere said this openly — but since those who came after proclaimed it, we have not believed. Because we have heard that there is One God from whom are all things, therefore we have not believed. This their pretext then Antichrist will take away. For when he comes, and comes commanding nothing good, but all things unlawful, and is yet believed from false signs alone, he will stop their mouths. For if you believe not in Christ, much more ought you not to believe in Antichrist. ...

Did you note "commanding nothing good, but all things unlawful"?

Doesn't sound like the kind of utopia a Christian could find attractive, unless he were very heretical (as some are).

11:34 bis On the folly of "searching your heart" to know if you know the real Christ well enough ...

For if our heart reprehend us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things
[1 John 3:20]

The test actually is (to a great degree) external:

Dearly beloved, if our heart do not reprehend us, we have confidence towards God And whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of him: because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath given commandment unto us And he that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us
[1 John 3:21-24]

Your heart can tell a secret illwill behind an overtly generous gesture you do, but "commandments" refers to a mostly external checklist.

Now, whether the 3 and 1/2 years of Enoch and Elijah are prior to or concurrent with Antichrist's 42 months, I don't know. But as long as Enoch and Elias have not yet come I don't think the world wide misrule is yet here and might be waiting 3 1/2 years before that too.

That doesn't mean he isn't on the scene.

11:49 Again, be as good at theology as you like, but there actually are checklists for the Antichrist and one of them is a gematria and it's not that of "Apostates" since that's not a name of a person.

I saw a video by a former recruiter for the US Marines yesterday. He knows a good marine when he sees one and knows good marine material when he sees one.

But he actually does have a checklist.

And as it is likely that the Antichrist will at first not be asking to be taken for Christ (that will come later), the checklist is not just against Christ, it's also against the actually Christian politician.

And while this may seem very counterintuitive to some, my list of Christian politicians after 1918 involves more than one Fascist.

My favourite works in Fascist economics are:

• Quadragesimo Anno (which I have read)
  and
• Wirtschaftsethische Lehre der Kirchenväter (which I haven't read). Monsignor Ignaz Seipel.

Lots of the idea behind "Antichrist will promise a kingdom on earth" is basically "if you criticize Capitalism, that could mean you are it" ... which is false.

• Rerum Novarum (which I have also read).

I hold with Chesterton that Capitalism and Communism aren't opposed evils, except "opposed teams" sense of opposed, but rather twin evils. 1850 on Ireland or 1933 in Ukraine were both manmade starvations. Both took wheat out of hands of those who had grown it, until they died, because they wanted a name for themselves, for their businesses as landlords or for their Soviet miracle as dictator loyals, even if it meant someone other, who was less enthusiastic, had to die.

Some People Will Cultivate Very Irritating Conditions Around Me, then Observe Me, then Spread the Observation to Pretend I'm Easily Angered

One person did exactly that. In this thread.

No, not cultivate the irritating conditions, not observe me when angry, but spread.

Catholic vs. Orthodox: The Filioque Explained
Journey to Holiness | 12 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoQ0ddYPPy4

0:16 Catechism ... one more item against it, the fact is, we don't have any 381 manuscript of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

GranMaese

@GranMaese

Neither of 50-90 manuscripts of the Gospels, or Paul's letters, so what's your point?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@GranMaese My point is, when we get manuscripts later, the Latin and the Greek versions are already different.

GranMaese

@hglundahl Different how? Because by all means and purposes, they aren't. The Vulgate is a very faithful translation. There may be even better modern translations, fair enough, but it is still a very good translation.

Furthermore, how would you even know they are "different" if you claim we don't have any original manuscript to check? (about the creed).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GranMaese Presence vs absence of filioque.

I mean in the first actual manuscripts with the Constantinopolitan Creed.

From the second council itself, the Creed is lacking from the manuscripts.

GranMaese

@hglundahl That's not the question, though, my friend, for you said :"we don't have any 381 manuscript" But now it seems to be you say you do, that's a contradiction.

Now, perhaps you wanted to say, that the Filioque is not in the original Creed?

In the end, what does the Catechism has anything to do with it and how it is guilty of clarifying and being truthful to history? How is this "one more item against it", exactly?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GranMaese I'm sorry, were you bad at logic?

In 381, we have copies of the canons of the council, but not of the Creed. It's Creed only exists in later copies.

"the Filioque is not in the original Creed?"

We don't have the original Creed.

Filioque is not in the earliest Greek copy, but it is in the earliest Latin copy of it.

"how it is guilty of clarifying and being truthful to history?"

It's not being truthful to history and it's swallowing an accusation from the Orthodox which we have a right to rebut.

One more item, for instance along § 283, which completely destroys the traditional view of creation.

GranMaese

@hglundahl Nice projection, brother, people who get angry so easily and proceeds to offend out of the blue, unprovoked, are always far from God, but you do you.

But I digress. You say: "which completely destroys the traditional view of creation." According to who, though? You?

Also, if we don't have the "original creed's manuscripts" how can you even know and be so sure it was there (or not) to begin with? The Church, who has the authority, not you nor you schismatic group, certainly seem to recognize it wasn't, given the earliest Latin is around 8th century (if memory serves me right), while the greek is older than that.

Don't [g]et me wrong, we definitively are right to rebut and affirm "from the Son", but not by blind fanatism nor historical conspiracies or however we can classify your position, dear brother.

God bless, may He grant you discernment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GranMaese You may or may NOT consider Michael II as "schismatic" ...

You may very certainly NOT consider everything I know or say as having come exclusively from him, I had a pretty motley past before adhering to his predecessor.

Including researching Filioque as a revert from Orthodoxy.

Now, "you get angry out of the blue"... I wasn't angry before you got this psychologising idiocy about me.

"You say: "which completely destroys the traditional view of creation." According to who, though? You?"

Trent. Session V. St. Thomas. On your side one Ratzinger who said one could not get back to the Syllabus, as I recall having heard. His "reading of the Bible in the Church" includes both calumny of Protestant Fundamentalists and an overall distance from Fundamentalism, which overall is the historic reading in the Catholic Church.

"Also, if we don't have the "original creed's manuscripts" how can you even know and be so sure it was there (or not) to begin with?"

It so happens to be called Creed of Nicaea and Constantinople. Meaning it was formulated in fine then, and not later ... except for the side that fiddled with Filioque, whether as to adding or as to subtracting.

"The Church, who has the authority, not you nor you schismatic group, certainly seem to recognize it wasn't,"

Where do I begin? Did Jesus promise His Church infallibility over minute historic facts?

"given the earliest Latin is around 8th century (if memory serves me right), while the greek is older than that."

The Third Council of Toledo, in 589, recited the Creed, in Latin, with the Filioque. Orthos often get this wrong and pretend the Third Council of Toledo added it. No, it was there when they opened the Synod. They recited it as they had received it.

The possibility that the Filioque was added on the Latin side is not impossible, if so that was in Toledo a conflation with another Creed from the First Synod of Toledo, in 400, or ending that year. It had the Filioque, but in another overall creed, and the text is preserved.

As to the Greek version, I think the oldest manuscript is in the Greek manuscript of Chalcedon in 451. 130 years earlier than the Third Council of Toledo, which, given the scarce source material from Early Middle Ages / Late Antiquity is not overly substantial.

No to Bowling

Nicholas Bowling debates Catholic student on the Miracle of Fatima
PopeDefenders | 7 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgtCgBN9hOg

1:16 I'd say She predicted a great war, it was about to begin in the papacy of Pius XI.

It began in 1936 and ended in 1990.

World War II was a distraction from it.

7:48 Some have suggested that the healing of the first beast or even his raising from the dead is performed by real men of God, Henoch and Elias.

He then ungratefully kills them and makes up another story.

A lying wonder may sometimes be a lying story about a real wonder.

8:20 I was nonplussed by the words "in a moment" and find this:

And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time
[Luke 4:5]

I look up the Greek:

ἐν στιγμῇ χρόνου.

The lexicon refers to Bellum Civile, 2:14

At hostes sine fide tempus atque occasionem fraudis ac doli quaerunt interiectisque aliquot diebus nostris languentibus atque animo remissis subito meridiano tempore, cum alius discessisset, alius ex diutino labore in ipsis operibus quieti se dedisset, arma vero omnia reposita contectaque essent, portis se foras erumpunt, secundo magnoque vento ignem operibus inferunt. Hunc sic distulit ventus, uti uno tempore agger, plutei, testudo, turris, tormenta flammam conciperent et prius haec omnia consumerentur, quam, quemadmodum accidisset, animadverti posset. Nostri repentina fortuna permoti arma, quae possunt, arripiunt; alii ex castris sese incitant. Fit in hostes impetus; sed de muro sagittis tormentisque fugientes persequi prohibentur. Illi sub murum se recipiunt ibique musculum turrimque latericiam libere incendunt. Ita multorum mensium labor hostium perfidia et vi tempestatis puncto temporis interiit. Temptaverunt hoc idem Massilienses postero die. Eandem nacti tempestatem maiore cum fiducia ad alteram turrim aggeremque eruptione pugnaverunt multumque ignem intulerunt. Sed ut superioris temporis contentionem nostri omnem remiserant, ita proximi diei casu admoniti omnia ad defensionem paraverant. Itaque multis interfectis reliquos infecta re in oppidum reppulerunt.

But the enemy, with no sense of honour, sought for time and opportunity for fraud and treachery, and after an interval of several days, when our men were weary and slack in spirit, suddenly at noon, after some had gone away and others after their long toil had surrendered themselves to sleep among the siege works, and all their arms had been put away out of sight, broke forth from the gates and set fire to the works, the wind being strong and favourable. The wind spread the fire to such an extent that the mound, the sheds, the tortoise, the machines all caught fire at once, and they were all consumed before it could be ascertained how it had happened. Our men, alarmed by the sudden mischance, snatch up such arms as they can, others fling themselves from the camp. They charge the enemy, but are prevented from following the fugitives by arrows and catapults from the wall. The foe retire beneath their wall, and there without hindrance set fire to the gallery and the brick tower. So the labour of many p145 months perished in a moment through the perfidy of the enemy and the violence of the storm. The Massilians made a like attempt the next day. In similar weather they sallied forth and fought with greater confidence at the second tower and earthwork and cast much fire on them. But though our men had relaxed all the keen vigilance of an earlier period, yet, warned by the previous day's disaster, they had made every preparation for defence. So after slaying many they drove back the rest into the town and prevented them from accomplishing their purpose.

The moment lasted long enough for war machines to get burned.

It need not be telepathic communication in five seconds, though it could be that, but it could also be Satan "took a moment" to actually show some "clips" of each kingdom.

I had been used to reading it in Matthew where I didn't find this problem.

Noting when "in puncto temporis" qualified the verb "interiit" it came before, I think Greek has a similar syntax, so, when "en stigme chronou" comes after the noun, unless it could qualify "kai eipen" in the next verse ... Satan interrupts the spectacle by giving the suggestion ... it could qualify the noun. Each kingdom shown in a moment of time. All of them covered.

12:04 I would agree that Satan literally moved Jesus, however, not instantaneously.

The "in a moment" pertains to the showing or to each kingdom shown, not to the moving up on the mountain.

So, Jesus may have sat on a flying carpet or he may have had a Satanic grip around the waist, the latter like Satan's limbs were going to tie him on Good Friday and nail Him to the Cross.

I agree Satan didn't have the power to move Jesus from A to B in a single moment.

Recalling one morning of 12 IX 2001 ...

The Uncomfortable Truth About 9/11 Nobody Wants to Acknowledge
Answers in Genesis | 11 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wFNrpXXO6o

I remember my reaction.

I lived in Malmö, now in Paris, both are time zones where you hear of that the next day.*

I also learned Bush had declared war on Afghanistan, because the Afghanis refused to extradict Ben Laden, claiming he was gone.

If the US had made a forceful reaction about one month earlier, when Afghanistan was trying 16 Christians, lives could have been saved, and the US wouldn't have been on two opposite divides of a moral political issue in WW-I vs Afghanistan war.

8 of the Christians were Americans, they were deemed legally insane, they were put on planes to the US. The other 8 were Afghanis. And Bush didn't care about them. And THAT act very certainly, no ambiguity possible, was on the Afghanistan régime, the Taliban.

9/11 wasn't even in the official story (we need on this level not go into questions of conspiracies, if true, a possibly innocent President wouldn't have had time to get into investigating that), wasn't even, in this official story, on the Taliban. It was on Ben Laden. His relation to the Taliban was, the US suspected they were protecting him. JUST as Francis Joseph suspected Serbian police were protecting Gavril Princip.

My reaction was grief, not so much for the lives lost, as for the prospect of the US getting on the wrong side of a war. I sent the US Ambassador in Denmark a message ending in my hopes for the US to get right with this.

"Don't be afraid to be Crusaders"
meaning, defend Christians in that territory, if you are going to pick a fight**
"Don't be afraid to be Monarchists"
meaning, don't be shy of bringing back the King of Afghanistan, who wasn't a diehard Islamist, and apart from being innocent of the terrorism, would have been probably less eager to punish Christian conversions, especially if that was an explicit condition set by the US.

I knew of the Afghan King from one Charles A. Coulombe. His relation to Coulombe's Law isn't discovering it, that's a great-grand-uncle of his, it's naming one of his blogs so.

I was very brief in my reaction, because I was stricken by grief. The Ambassador didn't reach out to me to get any clarification.

Now, in a certain sense, you may find this callous, I wasn't grieving about the Twin Towers. They symbolised one specific take on world economics which I don't like, being much more of a localist. I think angels will feel actual joy (not my reaction, I'm not an angel) when something similar falls.

Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath judged your judgment on her
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 18:20]

But the US as a country, or US military, that's a different story. I grieved for the possibility of them getting on the wrong side of a conflict.

---

* At least if you have no TV. 9:30 AM NYC = 3:30 PM Malmö. So, lots of other Swedes would have heard it on the evening news.
** The 2003 invasion of Iraq also preferred "democracy" over Christian locals. It may have triggered lots of the Islamism seen after that, not that it excuses all of it.

A Fascist Recalls One Who Was Called One

My Tribute to Charlie Kirk.
Melissa Dougherty | 10.IX.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHPB8R9mdXw

As a painter, don't you think a certain man with closer ties to the Salò Republic than to the Ventennio Fascista should have remained one?

I mean his paintings of architecture are some of the best Disney or Don Bluth background paintings!

---

First image.

Someone's a fan of Mussolini? Comparing Kirk to Il Duce is kind of a compliment to the latter, especially in context of death, when the latter hadn't been doing too well morally in politics for the last few years.

I mean, I'm pretty much a fan of the Ventennio Fascista (with a few things getting worse, like liberties for gypsies and journalists), but in the hour of death?

I hope Benito repented, went to purgatory a few years and was prayed out of purgatory by Italian nuns and a priest saying masses, but when he was hanged, he wasn't showing an absolutely clean slate.

1:47 Let's compare.

Mussolini came out of a civil war (shorter than the Spanish one) and took away some freedoms in a fear, not totally unreasonable, that unrestricted political freedoms might fan one again.

Charlie Kirk, from his own words, was trying to prevent one, by using existing freedoms to the best of his ability.

It's more like comparing him to Calvo Sotelo or José Antonio Primo de Rivera. Two men assassinated by the reds, when the generals on the Baleares saw this, they said the civil war was already ongoing, their rising was a way to fight on the right side in it.

5:11 Pro-Life.

Charlie Kirk wanted abortion bans, and Mussolini had a penal code in 1930, which stated:

• a mother (above 14 and in her right mind and under no external pressure) aborts on her own, 1 to 4 years
• a mother (same qualifications) aborts with medical assistance, 2 to 5 years, for her and for the doctor
• she's under 14, insane, mentally handicapped or under external pressure, is not legally deemed to have aborted on her own, whoever is legally deemed to have forced her gets 6 to 12 years.

I'm thankful for Charlie giving me the chance to remember a good side of Il Duce! (It was under the Ventennio, not the Salò Republic, which I find reprehensible, for camps among other things).

Communications are a Bit Rocky (with Caleb Howells too)

Was Homer’s Troy Ruled by the Assyrians?
Caleb Howells | 8 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I1lS2-E56A

1:03 Barring your proposal of placing Troy in the Iron age and closer to Homer ... my view is, first Hattusa was destroyed (with possible Trojan involvement) and then Troy itself was temporarily destroyed and permanently joined to the Ionic Greek world.

May I remind that the famous Trojan war was not the first conflict between Mycenaean Greece and Troy, it seems that Priamos means "hostage" in Greek (correct me if I'm wrong) and got that nickname when Hercules took him hostage in an earlier war, when he was a boy.

As to the earlier war, I have no doubts that Hittites were involved.

2:37 I've noted that too.

With the exception of the word, presumably Myc. Greek *hethos and then by dissimilation of aspiration in Classical Greek ethos.

The possibly oldest and crudest meaning being "duty" or "taxation" ...

Hittites were forgot because they were plundering some guys with too much taxes. Damnatio memoriae, except for the Bible and one Greek word preserving the memory one tried to erase.

4:17 I would place Ninus in carbon dated 6000 / 3000-ish BC.

6000-ish ... Historia scholastica considers him a contemporary of Sarug.

3000-ish ... he is credited with having initiated idolatry over grief of his father Belus. Idols, specifically of Ishtar, come to the foreground in Mesopotamia around 3000-ish BC.

In both cases obviously carbon dated.

5:05 Assyria can have after taking over the Hittite heartland have taken on all Hittite loyalties as claims, and retroactively branding them as Assyrian ones.

30 kings, from Ninus. I'll go with the real historical years of Sarug, born 2295 BC. Nineve was destroyed in 612 BC. 1683 years.

Now 22/30 * 1683 = 1234, and so many years after 2295 = 1061 BC. One century off traditional date of 1180 BC.

5:25 Can Plato be dependent on Ctesias?

[All ensuing comments are lost]

6:13 Sure. But I obviously dispute that the actual Ninus lived in the 1300's BC.

Ninus and his father Belus are tied to a story in which Ninus invented idolatry over the statue of his dead father Belus.

And if I give the medium time for 22 kings out of 30, it's 1061 BC, a pretty good match for Troy destroyed in 1179 BC, 120 years earlier.

What's the time for each king on my view? 1683 years = 1683 / 30 = 56.1 years per king. Now, that's not realistic for the times of the Trojan war, and one could imagine that kings have been forgotten or interregna overlooked, perhaps deliberately so. It is more realistic for times back near Sarug.

Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243 f.Kr.-1208 f.Kr.). 1243 to 612 = 631 years = 631 / 30 = 21 years per king. Realistic as far as it goes, but why would Ctesias have come across people who forgot about his father Salmanassar, who must on any view have been pretty famous?

8:03 Some have said Cadmus is a myth and Herodotus was wrong in crediting him with the Phoenician letters.

Some have said the Greek alphabet is older than we thought.

Archeology doesn't quite prove that Thebes ever was a Phoenician enclave, Bronze Age or later. Herodotus can have been wrong in crediting Cadmus with the Greek Alphabet.

8:59 I would say that the Ethiopians in the Trojan war actually point to Hittite times.

How so?

My theory is, Hittite memories of Kadesh were mixed with Trojan memories of the War.

However, in Kadesh, Hittites were fighting Egypt and may have had Ethiopian allies. So little battle-field archaeology exists, this Ethiopian presence can't be ruled out.

Later, when one deliberately forgot about Hittites and their name got nobler connotations than taxation, these memories were reattached to the Trojan war.

I need to go back to the video* with Mary Bachvarova (channel Lantern Jack interviewing her) to get back to whether there was a Hittite version of the Iliad.

[tried to add:

Also, apparently Assyrians never conquered Ethiopia, so the info in Ctesias is spurious, i e garbled info.]

* A Hittite Version of the War of Troy?
Lantern Jack | 28 Nov. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ao2sps9bR4

As Said, Horrible Red Things is NOT CSL's Best Chapter

A CSL Fan Saying CSL Was Wrong · As Said, Horrible Red Things is NOT CSL's Best Chapter

This C.S. Lewis Argument Only Works Until You Read the Bible
Mindshift | 9 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYhHZlo0kQg

15:49 I accept 15 cubits.

Noah had built the Ark on the highest mountain of the pre-Flood world, so if the water line of the Ark was 15 cubits (half of the height, pretty normal for a water line) and Noah understood the waterline (he had 600 years of life experience, instructions from God and access to a pre-Flood Nodian civilisation lost to us), he knew exactly when the water was 15 cubits above that top, and hence at least 15 cubits above the other tops.

I would say this mountain may have been flattened by the Flood so the remainder where it's cut off is called the Meseta in Spain.

Even if you project the Meseta up to all the height possible of the angles leading up to it, that mountain will be lower than Mount Everest. Now, Mount Everest and Himalayas are post-Flood phenomena.

And the earliest parts of it rising were the fastest, and you don't find human habitation on the Sivalik hills (foot of Himalayas) until a few centuries after the Flood. Which on my calculations is adequate, given the earliest part was too violent to be safe for human even roaming in the vicinity.

So, where do you get "100 % incorrect" from?

I

Das Bus

@dasbus9834

So, where do you get "100 % incorrect" from?
Floods don't flatten mountains. And the Himalayas are of course way, way older. Also everyone would have suffocated on that ship with one tiny window. And so on.

So yeah, that story fails on absolutely every level. It is 100% false.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@dasbus9834 "Floods don't flatten mountains."

High pressure water with oversaturation of mineral particles does "sandpaper" even stone.

The point is, the Flood had enough water, enough speed and enough oversaturation to do this with a mountain. Not comparable to "a flood" as we see them today.

"And the Himalayas are of course way, way older."

Even if it were true, and we didn't have the Bible to tell the opposite, it would be unknowable.

"Also everyone would have suffocated on that ship with one tiny window."

Thou shalt make a window in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish the top of it: and the door of the ark thou shalt set in the side: with lower, middle chambers, and third stories shalt thou make it
[Genesis 6:16]

In a cubit shalt thou finish "the top of it" ... how much was the rest of it? Does this mean "the height" and no mention of width and length given? Does "a window" stand for multiple windows by a figure of speech that Noah understood?

Some creationists have interpreted this as a series of windows all 1 cubit high.

"And so on."

Like your summing up, this isn't an extra objection.

Das Bus

@hglundahl High pressure water with oversaturation of mineral particles does "sandpaper" even stone
"Sandpapering stone" and flattening mountains are not the same thing. By far.

The point is, the Flood had enough water, enough speed and enough oversaturation to do this with a mountain. Not comparable to "a flood" as we see them today.
Then the energies involved would not have allowed a wooden boat to survive. And the effects of these forces would show still today. Which they don't.

Even if it were true, and we didn't have the Bible to tell the opposite, it would be unknowable
It isn't unkowable though, and the Bible is wrong.

Some creationists have interpreted this as a series of windows all 1 cubit high.
Whatever fan fiction they need to make the story slightly less ridiculous.

Like your summing up, this isn't an extra objection
No. Those I gave are already enough. No reason to mention the countless further facts that make the story impossible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "are not the same thing. By far."

The difference is one of quantity.

"would not have allowed a wooden boat to survive."

Except for the mile or so of depth between the sandpapering and the water surface with the Ark.

"would show still today."

Flattening of whatever was above the Meseta is not unique. Welcome to actual geology.

"It isn't unkowable though,"

Allegation without argument.

"and the Bible is wrong."

At this level of argument, allegation without argument.

"to make the story slightly less ridiculous."

Or, other possibility, the "window" is not concerned with the ventilation at all, but only with the light. Ark Encounter had an article in 2012 to that effect.

"Those I gave are already enough."

To give me a nice little taste of the sport called "refutation" ...

Das Bus

@hglundahl The difference is one of quantity
Nope. It's a qualitative difference. One is a surface effect, the other is structural. What you're proposing wouldn't reshape the mountains, it would melt them.

Except for the mile or so of depth between the sandpapering and the water surface with the Ark
Insufficient to isolate the boat from the heat alone, even if we disregard the resulting vortices. Your version would have cooked off the oceans. It's that simple.

Flattening of whatever was above the Meseta is not unique. Welcome to actual geology.
Actual geology doesn't show flattening. It shows slow erosion, no cataclysmic reshaping of whole mountain ranges.

Allegation without argument
None needed to dismiss your unfounded bare assertion.

At this level of argument
As your entire argument is "the Bible says so", you should probably start improving yours first.

Or, other possibility, the "window" is not concerned with the ventilation at all, but only with the light
That seems likely given how it was insufficient either way. Doesn't make the problem of ventilation go away of course.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "One is a surface effect, the other is structural."

When surface is eroded, what's below it is the new surface and so on. In other words, this sooner or later becomes structural (as can be seen in old buildings collapsing after too much erosion).

"it would melt them."

Allegation. I've seen a few of that precise type before.

"Insufficient to isolate the boat from the heat alone,"

Heat? Melting allegation? I mean some heat from below may have been welcome when lots of water surface allowed heat to radiate from Earth and cool it.

"even if we disregard the resulting vortices."

Why would underwater vortices have any effect a mile up other than a pretty comfortable "out in the ocean" tsunami?

"Your version would have cooked off the oceans."

Did you read a paper by Soroka and Nelson too uncritically?

"It shows slow erosion,"

Which sometimes adds up to precisely flattening. And "slow" is guess work.

"no cataclysmic reshaping of whole mountain ranges."

You haven't read Mitchener's Centennial. Specifically not the first chapter, which is on geology.

"As your entire argument is "the Bible says so","

More like "the Bible says so" and "this is how it is possible."

"Doesn't make the problem of ventilation go away of course."

Could very well mean that the ventilation is a separate issue the preserved descriptions don't deal with and the better detailed instructions God gave Noah did deal with.

Das Bus

@hglundahl When surface is eroded, what's below it is the new surface and so on. In other words, this sooner or later becomes structural (as can be seen in old buildings collapsing after too much erosion).
Buildings aren't mountains. But I can see how that would be an appropriate description if the effect happened over many millions of years.

Allegation
Basic physics.

I mean some heat from below may have been welcome when lots of water surface allowed heat to radiate from Earth and cool it
Ocean surfaces radiate less heat than land masses. Your cooling gets worse. No good position for your unfortunate boat people to be in.

Why would underwater vortices have any effect a mile up other than a pretty comfortable "out in the ocean" tsunami?
Because vortices and tsunamis aren't the same thing.

And "slow" is guess work.
It's based on evidence.

You haven't read Mitchener's Centennial. Specifically not the first chapter, which is on geology.
Yeah no reason to waste my time with creationist drivel.

More like "the Bible says so" and "this is how it is possible."
Only it's not possible, and the Bible is still wrong.

Could very well mean that the ventilation is a separate issue the preserved descriptions don't deal with and the better detailed instructions God gave Noah did deal with.
So more fan fiction. Too bad you're still stuck with one window as per the story. So much for ventilation then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "if the effect happened over many millions of years."

Or with loads of more water.

"Basic physics."
"Ocean surfaces radiate less heat than land masses."

I think water has a higher heat capacity, so, it takes more energy to heat up water.

"Because vortices and tsunamis aren't the same thing."

Doesn't remotely answer my question why currents sandpapering the former land surface on sea bottom would generate vortices.

"It's based on evidence."

You are not being precise on which one, and I smell uniformitarian ideology.

"to waste my time with creationist drivel."

Mitchener isn't creationist. He believes in millions and billions of years. They involve, on his view, very cataclysmic changes overall.

"Only it's not possible,"

You haven't remotely given any reason.

"and the Bible is still wrong."

And you are out of truth ...

"Too bad you're still stuck with one window as per the story."

Not necessarily for the ventilation if that isn't what it talked about.

Das Bus

@hglundahl Or with loads of more water.
Then that's no longer erosion, so it wouldn't look like erosion.

I think water has a higher heat capacity, so, it takes more energy to heat up water.
You talked about radiative properties, not heat capacity.

Doesn't remotely answer my question why currents sandpapering the former land surface on sea bottom would generate vortices.
That's not what you asked. And if you don't understand how forces strong enough to remove mountains would create vortices, then that's unfortunate.

You are not being precise on which one
Basic geology.

Mitchener isn't creationist
If his claims directly support YEC and the flood, then they're nonsense. If they don't, they're irrelevant.

You haven't remotely given any reason
Or maybe you just don't like the reasons.

And you are out of truth
I have reality. That's all the truth I need.

Not necessarily for the ventilation if that isn't what it talked about
It doesn't talk about any purpose for the window. It does talk about one window though. Anything else is still fan fiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "Then that's no longer erosion,"

Well, yes, it is. Water taking away matter is erosion. Some looks pretty quick.

"You talked about radiative properties, not heat capacity."

I'm not a natural scientist, my bad, looked it up in the meantime.

"Basic geology."

You're not precise about what aspect.

"If his claims directly support YEC and the flood, then they're nonsense."

They are not meant to and are practically taken from geology text books.

But you show a huge display of bias here.

"If they don't, they're irrelevant."

Not if they indirectly support it.

"you just don't like"

I do like refuting specific reasons, when given.

"That's all the truth I need."

Let me rephrase. You are out of reality.

"Anything else is still fan fiction."

Any explanation about the past going beyond immediate evidence is fan fiction. Your evolution and geology does it to rocks as much as we to the Bible text.

Das Bus

@hglundahl Water taking away matter is erosion
Water melting away mountains isn't though.

You're not precise about what aspect
I was exactly as precise as necessary.

They are not meant to and are practically taken from geology text books
Then they don't support your flood story.

But you show a huge display of bias here
And it's well earned, in every way.

I do like refuting specific reasons, when given
You're not exactly doing a good job with that though.

Let me rephrase. You are out of reality.
Bad rephrasing for someone believing in the Bible nonsense.

Any explanation about the past going beyond immediate evidence is fan fiction. Your evolution and geology does it to rocks as much as we to the Bible text.
The idea that all of reality worked completely differently for some unspecified reason, only to end up looking as if it didn't, is indeed pretty weird. Probably why nobody but YECs would be desperate enough to come up with it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "Water melting away"

I said nothing about "melting away" ...

"I was exactly as precise as" ... someone lacking the specialist knowledge you claim to be on your side.

"Then they don't support your flood story."

They aren't meant to. But the overall changes on mountains are cataclysmic enough, he just pretends it took way more time.

"And it's well earned,"

You're admitting it exists.

"not exactly doing a good job"

Not right now, not with you, because you refuse specifics.

"all of reality worked completely differently for some unspecified reason, only to end up looking as if it didn't,"

But it ends up looking as things happened that really don't happen any more. Any real contact with geology or palaeontology will have this weird effect on you. Like that time a stampede of dinosaurs like diplodocus size in a river was compared to a stampede of mere bulls in Himalayas ... the river in question would have been bigger than Brahmaputra in flow, and this is in Argentina, where you don't have the place for that big rivers. Not Brahmaputra sized, let alone such that would bury stampedes of diplodocus type animals.

And unspecified reason? That's not what "miracle" means.

Das Bus

@hglundahl I said nothing about "melting away" ...
No worries. I still did.

[omitting the rest of what he wrote.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "I still did."

Showing your dishonesty. I'm blocking.

[done]

II

Rohan

@newsystembad

Any "global flood" would have eradicated ALL terrestrial plant life and left all land unfit for agriculture for the rest of time. To say nothing of the ludicrous thermodynamics that would've baked every living creature on the ark to a crisp.

Noah's flood is a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad "would have eradicated ALL terrestrial plant life"

Except flotsam.

"and left all land unfit for agriculture for the rest of time."

You are presuming pre-Flood seas were pretty salt, right?

"the ludicrous thermodynamics that would've baked every living creature on the ark to a crisp."

I've already adressed that allegation in the original form given by Soroka and Nelson.

19:08 Jericho was off by 300 years?

From what?

I pose the Exodus in 1511 BC which places the fall of Jericho, first year after the desert, in 1471 BC. The carbon date given is 1550 BC. The only problem is, how I account for the extra years, and my answer is, the atmospheric carbon 14 level of 98.929 pmC is the last stage of a Biblical calibration diverging from the uniformitarian one. Earlier parts have lower carbon 14 in the atmosphere and thus more extra years.

Rohan

The walls of Jericho fell from an earthquake, not from the supposed "conquest" featured in ancient Israel's school shooter fanfic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad The conquest involved as miracle that would look in retrospect like an earthquake.

Rohan

@hglundahl Uh huh, sure it did, very convenient. This is like those creationists who claim that god conjured starlight into existence midway to Earth to make the universe appear ancient. It's cope, nothing more

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad I'm not in the starlight created in transit camp any more, neither is Jonathan Sarfati.

He's explaining it with a stretching universe (which big bangers accept too), I'm with Geocentrism.

Now, I notice you assigned me a motive "cope" and reassured me I only had the motive, but I missed the part where you actually refuted the Creationist claim about Jericho.

20:08 What if:

• the moral atmosphere of the Amalecites was such as to make cohabitation impossible
• and the counterpart of a CPS action on part of Israelites (with relation to Amalecite children) was not in the least feasible?

The children were not being punished, they were suffering very briefly to punish their fathers. But the parents, both sexes, were punished even into the killing of their children.

23:03 Not the exact thing.

The underlying moral principle is in Exodus:

He that shall steal a man, and sell him, being convicted of guilt, shall be put to death
[Exodus 21:16]

That's why God freed Israel, and that's why (after some compromise), Catholics and Wilberforce ended up freeing slaves all over the Christian world.

However, the Chanaanean slaves were presumed guilty. Even if taken by people themselves guilty of above offense, they would probably have done a similar thing the year before they ended up in slavery. In the Catholic compromise, there was miscommunication between the Pope and Portugal, but theologians making sense of it were saying "we presume this slave was taken in a war trying to enslave others or sold by his own people for an offense against justice" (and obviously, this was the cynic part, one trusted the own kings' to have made a sufficient declaration of principle to this effect).

In Chanaan, the guilt of a slave then sold to Israelites was more probably presumable than in Black Africa, even if Black Africa prior to Brazza did lots of warmongering in order to take and sell slaves.

Obviously, a man deserving death, deserves slavery.