Jimmy Akin Probably Wrong on Johannine Dates

Gospel of John Was Written MUCH Earlier Than Scholars Say–Here's the Proof! | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Jimmy Akin | 6 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nStpeGNrTtU

5:06 The traditional biography of John, while Fr. Jean Colson may have had a point that the Beloved Disciple wasn't the son of Zebedee, so not one of the Boanergs, would probably just be making a conflation and unlike his views actually be accurate to the Beloved Disciple after misplacing him into the twelve, and it specifically states that Domitian:

• tried to kill John by boiling him in oil and failed
• then banished him to Patmos
• whence he was released by "honest Nerva"

If St. John's measure to get the Apocalypse to the Seven Churches was writing to Caesar (as a banished person was allowed to), I would say that Apoc. 13:18 plus the fact that M. NEPOYA (genitive and vocative of M. NEPOYAC) adds up to 666, plus the fact that the book reached the Seven Churches and John was released actually does show Nerva was a very honest man.

I don't know what "the most recent persecution John mentions" is about, but the seven churches could be persecuted in other ways than by official Caesarian policy, the official Caesarian policy could have been there but be now missing, and if it's in the part that's traditionally taken as end times related, it wouldn't be about a persecution that John saw at all.

I obviously have very little patience for the revisionism that wants to see Apoc. as Preterist. Not how the Church traditionally read it.

5:55 Confirmed.

I started publishing in 2001 on MSN Group Antimodernism, and some Swedish and English stuff from back then is salvaged to blogs on my blogger account, when all MSN Groups closed down, and I am still publishing basically daily (though not yesterday). (For future reference, this is 7.VII.2026)

8:48 Yes, I've used the argument of:

• how St. John in his voice uses the word Jews
• contrasted with how Jesus in His voice used it before the woman of the well of Sychar, in Samaria.

I would tend to argue, 1) in Apocalypse he promotes a greeting from Heaven to Jewish heritage believers: "for the King of the Jews, you are the real Jews, your persecutors aren't" and then 2) guided by the Holy Spirit, in his Gospel tells them "but here on earth, you are actually pretty wise to allow those guys to use the word" ....

10:28 I'd say that St. Paul's use 2 Corinthians 11:24, like that of Jesus before Pilate in the Gospel of John, 18:36, was situational.

"The Jews" was a conenient shorthand, especially before Gentiles for that group of perpetrators.

In the Gospel, I suspect John is actually telling Christians whose grandfathers were Second Temple Jews "now it's time to leave that word to the other set" ...

For instance, in the Synoptics, when Jesus reproaches a group of Jews, generally that specific group (for instance "scribes and Pharisees") is specified in the actual words of Jesus, in the vocative.

In John, the group is left out, "to the Jews" is in the the sentence where John introduces the word, and Jesus is obviously NOT represented as saying "woe to ye Jews" .... whether He specified a group or not, John leaves it out, and in his own intro resumes this as "the Jews" ...

So, I'd date the Gospel to c. 100 AD, when the Sanhedrin of Jamnia or Yavne had claimed the name for non-Christians.

It's intriguing that one leading figure at that Sanhedrin was Yohanan Ben Zakkai, and I'm not sure he wasn't an unbelieving son to a believing Zacheus. Mentioned in Luke 19.

17:22 Horror of horrors.

I just saw a timeline where you put Matthew after Mark and Luke!

In the 19th C. a set of German liberal Protestants started campaigning for Marcan priority and while it was some time before the Kulturkampf, it was clearly popularised by the Kulturkampf.

You see, to certain Protestants, "accretions" are not just after the Bible, in Tradition, but even in the later written books of the NT. So, if Matthew was late, as they liked to argue, that could mean that the Papal and Indefectibilist statements of the Church in Matthew were "later accretions" ...

Traditionally, Matthean priority holds.

St. Matthew, the author of the gospel that we have under his name, was a Galilean, the son of Alpheus, a Jew, and a tax-gatherer; he was known also by the name of Levi. His vocation happened in the second year of the public ministry of Christ; who, soon after forming the college of his apostles, adopted him into that holy family of the spiritual princes and founders of his Church. Before his departure from Judea, to preach the gospel to distant countries, he yielded to the solicitations of the faithful; and about the eighth year after our Saviour's resurrection, the forty-first of the vulgar era [A.D. 41], he began to write his gospel: i.e., the good tidings of salvation to man, through Christ Jesus, our Lord. Of the hagiographers, St. Matthew was the first in the New, as Moses was the first in the Old Testament. And as Moses opened his work with the generation of the heavens and the earth, so St. Matthew begins with the generation of Him, who, in the fulness of time, took upon himself our human nature, to free us from the curse we had brought upon ourselves, and under which the whole creation was groaning. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock was a grandnephew several generations removed of one of the English martyrs. He published his comment in ...

George's brother, Thomas, was the Bible's publisher. Production began in 1811 and was completed in 1814, in a large, folio edition.[6] As were many editions of the Bible at the time, Haydock's was published and sold by subscription, a few leaves at a time. Subscribers would accumulate the sets of leaves over the years and ultimately have the completed Bible bound. Different copies have general title pages dated 1811, 1812, 1813 or 1823,[7] showing variously Thomas Haydock's Manchester or Dublin locations. English Catholics enthusiastically welcomed this impressive volume that symbolized a reinvigorated Catholicism on the verge of winning its long fight to repeal the Penal Laws. At least 1,500 copies of the first edition were sold.

So, it's not as if I came with some kind of novelty ...

21:25 There are some more interpretations on who the seven kings are:

A) Berean:

Let's us briefly examine the historical kings of Rome to see where we are in the timeline at the time of the books writing. Here are the kings of Rome:

1) Julius Caesar (49-44 BC)
2) Augustus Caesar (31 BC – AD 14)
3) Tiberius Caesar (AD 14-37)
4) Gaius "Caligula" Caesar (AD 37-41)
5) Claudius Caesar (AD 41-54)
6) Nero Caesar (AD 54-68)

We see, starting from the first Caesar of Rome, that Nero would be the sixth. But what about this future seventh one, you ask? You know, the one that the book says was to come but only for a little while. That will surely be a tell-tale point to determine if we're in the right spot with this counting. Well, after the suicide of Nero in 68, the next king to appear was Galba, and guess what? He reigned just seven months before being murdered in January of 69.

The page is going to argue what you have also argued that 666 refers to nrwn qsr.

B) Haydock:

Ver. 9. Seven mountains. We have already observed that ancient Rome stood upon seven mountains. The same cannot be said of modern Rome, as some of the hills are not inhabited. --- The seven heads....are seven kings, or seven Roman emperors, who were particularly distinguished as the chief supporters of idolatry, and the most virulent persecutors of the Christian religion. Their names were Nero, Domitian, Severus, Decius, Valerian, Dioclesian and Antichrist. --- Five of them are fallen or gone, viz. Nero, Domitian, Severus, Decius, Valerian, who supported the idolatrous empire for a time; one is, viz. Dioclesian, with whom the reign of idolatry falls; and the other is not yet come, that is, antichrist.

Ver. 10. Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet. The meaning of this is obscure. And perhaps it were better to own with St. Augustine that we do not know the meaning, than to advance suspicions and conjectures. But it is not improbable that by these seven kings may be understood the collection of kings, in what are called the seven ages of the world, from its creations to its consummation. The first age, is reckoned from Adam to Noe[Noah], and the deluge: the second age, from Noe to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to Moses; the fourth, from Moses to David; the fifth, from David to Christ. These five were past, and fallen, when St. John wrote. The sixth is, and is to last from Christ to antichrist. And another, the seventh, is not, being the time of antichrist, and only a short time. See Cornelius a Lapide on this verse. (Witham)

C) Peter Goodgame and Rob Skiba II:

1) Nimrod
2) Pharao of Exodus
3) King of Babylon
4) King of Tyre
5) Antiochus IV Epiphanes
6) Nero or Domitian, depending on the date of the Apocalypse
7) Hitler

"the eighth is one of the seven" ... they take this not as Satan, with the seventh as Antichrist, but that number 8 is the Antichrist. Rob Skiba thought it was Nimrod.

Now, I'd say Lenin was both more evil and ruled a shorter time and over a larger space. He's still in a maosoleum. So, I'd replace Hitler with Lenin on the list.

23:05 Consecutio temporum.

In Latin, you have separate tense forms for "prior" and "subsequent" action.

qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum.

In Greek, however, you have aorist for "prior" and future for "subsequent" in subordinate clauses.

23:43 "or has happened so recently"

I think you have answered your Bethesda argument.

John could simply not have known that the well's porticos had been destroyed. W a i t ...

πέντε στοὰς ἔχουσα would be true simply if it had five porticos back when this was about.

The porticos may have been erased by Titus, but that doesn't mean the well wasdried up. And St. John doesn't even specify that it still has those five porticos, since, in Greek, a participle is "contemporary", now, primarily to "estin" but ... this functions as an intro to the actual story. So, it could be contemporary to the story ensuing, even if the only part still true when he wrote was that the pool still existed.

26:03 By definition, John the Beloved, whether he was son of Zebedee (as St. Irenaeus thought) or a Cohen and host to Jesus (as Jean Colson thought), was living memory.

The late date is no obstacle.

If, one of my options for John the Beloved, building on Jean Colson, he was Theophilus Ben Hanan, though my friend Stephan Borgehammar contradicted that from Revelations of St. Bridget saying John was a virgin (though not exact same terms as John the Baptist was a virgin), that would mean that, dying by c. 100 AD, he had lived to 120, the last hagiographer like the first one (unless you count Job as written before Moses by the man concerned). 120 is a humanly possible lifespan.

You might hear "but back then they only lived to around" ... sorry, but medium lifespan is no indicator on how far out the extremes go. For a selection of Polish and Austrian royals, imperials, ducals, royal ancestors prior to Sobieski, I got lifespan mediums 43 for men, 42 for women. But maxima reached 78 for men and 61 for women. On other selections, I've seen for great-great-great-great-grandparents of Marie Antoinette: Médiane 50/52, Maximum 80.

Apocalypticae Considerationes

Apocalypticae Considerationes · More on Apoc. 13:18

On my current main blog (third so far), there actually is a label with that name. It's apocalypticae considerationes where only the first four posts were before Covid, 71 after the pandemic was announced.

How to Actually Read the Book of Revelation | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Jimmy Akin | Sts. Peter and Paul, 29 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N1Ekl3AtII

5:50 Apoc. 11 "spiritually Sodom and Egypt" ... would we be right to look outside Apocalypse to Genesis 19 and to Exodus to find out the social mores of end times earthly Jerusalem?

Does it seem to match anything in current news?

6:06 If St. Hilary of Poitiers had had newspapers, his exegesis would have been newspaper exegesis.

His newspapers would also have been conspiracy leaning.

He considered that the Antichrist was in the wings somewhere in the Byzantine court.

6:13 What the audience would have had in mind is not always automatically true of either early-times records or end times prophecy.

The audience of Moses' Genesis 6 and 11 could not have known of Mahabharata or Göbekli Tepe, yet that seems to perfectly fit "men of renown" before the Flood and the geography of Genesis 11:2.

The audience of John could not have known of ASCII. But it allows a gematria to be made in the most common, i e Latin alphabet, without skipping letters.

St. Irenaeus, I think it was, or possibly St. Hippolytus, said he ruled out Latin bc the letters mostly don't have numeric value and Hebrew because it's too abstruse. Today Greek is if possibly even more abstruse than Hebrew, and ASCII allows Latin letters, the now most used ones, to give full numeric translations of each syllable and letter.

Ruling out this bc the first audience is forgetting God isn't limited to the first audience, if it's not about sth they have to apply directly. Like the first audience of Matthew 6:7 were supposed to apply that immediately and would have known things like the finishing prayer in Velleius Paterculus, but be totally ignorant of "Allah's 99 names" and except for St. Thomas a few decades later of Hindu mantras ... unless even that is an innovation in a later reorganised Hinduism. But Genesis 6 and Apoc 13 left nothing to immediately apply.

8:27 Can you give even one Roman Catholic ruling from prior to Vatican II that says prophecy or early-times records (aka prehistory and to those ancients even more ancient history) needs to be interpreted as the first audience must have done?

Like Pontifical Biblical Academy, Holy Office, and so on.

A grade above Scheben or Ott, who had imprimatur, but each was only used in some seminaries ...

12:51 Daniel.

And the fourheaded leopard is Greece. Whatever was fourheaded about Greece in Hellenistic times, I can make a case for four heads in the end times.

Greece at this time worshipped Hercules very much and practised Stoicism.

So, we would expect ultra-masculine societies with sodomy issues, and has a huge fad for Immanuel Kant.

Judaism. Islam. Calvinism. Freemasonry.

Also, Greece compared to Rome had a more totalitarian and societally fixed education standard (Antonine Rome had full liberty in school choice, legally). All of the four have too precise criteria of maturity and tend to favour very centralised schooling.

You notice I didn't say "Protestantism" but "Calvinism" ... Lutherans and Anglicans in home base are very liberal theologically, basically a kind of neo-pagans. They score lioness of Babylon / lion as mouth.

It can be noticed, England and Scotland no longer have Elisabeth and Denmark no longer has Margarethe, though she is still alive. In the case of Elisabeth, one can argue that eagles wings being taken off her back was loosing the Empire of India (or in a longer sense, UK losing the US after 1776), being forced to stand was being forced to take a coronation oath, because someone else was supposed to be king, and being given the heart of a man could either be taken in a very modern sense, Prince Philip "didn't worship her, only the ground she walked on" ... or in an ancient sense, parallel to Nebuchadnezzar getting sane, if she saw Protestantism doesn't make sense. Or in a somewhat intermediate sense, the World War II version of St. Joan or of Jeanne Hachette. However, the Greek says: καὶ καρδία ἀνθρώπου ἐδόθη αὐτῇ. I presume she took some mental distance from Protestantism, if not from being a kind of Popess for it.

13:38 The ten horns certainly point to Republican and early Caesarian Rome.

Decemviri. Legibus faciundis. Stlitibus whatever the gerund was ... from at least the Gracchi, newly acquired soil for Rome was distributed by this kind of office. And the Twelve Tables were still in force, nominally. Essentially ten kings at a time.

At a certain point the Soviet Union had 12 concurrent Peoples' commissariats, one of them led by Yagoda, NKVD. Народный комиссариат внутренних дел. Would be instructive to see how many KKVD chiefs who were executed or assassinated, like if there were three of them, like Genrikh Yagoda was one.

16:53 The Middle Advent also involves Jesus as now coming in the flesh.

The Eucharist.

---

Update:

The 1,900 Year Old Number of the Beast Has Finally Been Decoded
Totus Catholica | 1 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgE0GB_dehQ

If early Christians considered the Beast as Nero Caesar in Hebrew, why are already Hippolytus and Irenaeus saying the Beast is an end times figure, as yet seen from their time only upcoming, and why does one of them specify that the gematria has to be in Greek, by default since Hebrew is to unknown (like Greek is today) and since Latin (up to ASCII)?

And why were they sure the katekhon of 2 Thessalonians hadn't yet been taken out of the way?

Papacy and Geocentrism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflection on the Ascension

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

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

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

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

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

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

"our knowledge ... is different from theirs"

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

If two people think:

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

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

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

3:49 Archimedes, two light years?

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

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

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

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

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

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

4:34 Wait.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7:21 These bodies are extended in three dimensions.

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

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

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

Not from the eyes of Mary.

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

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

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

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

Jimmy Akin on Genesis 1—11 and the Magisterium

Genesis 6, Archaeological Confirmation · Jimmy Akin on Genesis 1—11 and the Magisterium · No, Evolution Isn't True and Isn't Catholic

What Does the Church Say About Early Genesis? | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Jimmy Akin | 20 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwU7FLfIgqc

You do admit chapter 14 as fully historic in the normal sense?

Here is the thing for Deep Timers. IF the world is 100 000 or millions or billions of years old, the atmosphere is old and Carbon 14 is arguably in a kind of equilibrium.

So, c. 100 pmC. So, carbon dates should roughly match real dates.

However, in Genesis 14 you have an Asason Tamar inhabited when the chapter begins. It doesn't state that but also doesn't deny that the place was abandoned after the attack. However, Asason Tamar is En-Geddi, as we know from Chronicles (not looking it up, could it be II Chron. 20:2 or sth?).

However, the latest habitation in En Geddi prior to the Iron Age is carbon dated to ending in 3500 BC.

And if Abraham was born 2015 BC, given he was c. 80, the real time was 1935 BC.

3500 - 1935 = 1565 extra years, or the actual carbon 14 level had to be 0.5 to the power of (1565/5730), or c. 83 pmC.

If Abraham was born later, like an Exodus in the time of Amenhotep II would imply, even more extra years, even lower pmC, like 82 sth ...

"doesn't endorse either of these approaches"*

In the early world of PBC, there was no decision that would have gone against the idea of a video camera catching a good match for the wording in Genesis 1 to 11.

I'm obviously not counting 1992 under a non-Pope.

"in his preface"

Ah, so Joseph Ratzinger didn't write The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church but he wrote a preface to it.

How much does the preface endorse that horrible document?

It badmouths "Fundamentalism" horribly ....**

"at the time these documents had magisterial authority"

As in, no more, same documents?

That's not consistent with "sensum quem sancta mater ecclesia ... tenuit atque tenet" ...

[Letter to Cardinal-Archbishop] "Suhard"

Looking it up.***

"It is therefore impossible to deny or to affirm their historicity as a whole without unduly applying to them norms of a literary type under which they cannot be classed."

Sorry, but either one finds a loophole in the term "historicity as a whole" (like the historicity is not the same type) or one admits that Pius XII approved a faulty reply to part of the Church.

Or says, this means he was not Pope. That would make the election of Michael I one after at least 42 years of sedevacancy.

Tradition has always held Genesis to be a historical book.

Or, he was for the moment leaving the question open for discussion.

"overly enlarged the area of certainties that the faith can guarantee"

First, he shows he is not in continuity with that actual magisterium. Not Catholic. Not Pope.

Second, if anything, it overly diminished the area, left things open for discussion that could have and now after the discussions even more can now be affirmed with certainty.

"about the methods and limits of historical knowledge"

Well, more like what he affirmed as new understanding thereof is fake understanding thereof, the kind of faking of epistemology that Chesterton fought against (he had no Ratzinger to show him an example of such a sceptic pretending to wield cardinalic or papal dignity).

"where later Popes, such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI contradicted them"

Oh, they contradicted the Magisterial PBC in its binding judgements?

You see it as the judgements no longer being binding. I see it as they not being Catholics and therefore not Popes.

Just to mention, the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is by "early" PBC not explicitly tied to the Son of Zebedee, so Jean Colson is not falling afoul of it.

There is a big difference between early Church knowing two Johns and later conflating them, and early Church knowing one John and misattributing an authorship to him. The latter is condemned, the former, providentially, isn't. I say providentially since saying "John the Apostle" came close, but didn't hit it, as "Apostle" is not absolutely limited to "The Twelve" ... (where the only John is a Son of Zebedee).

"very abbreviated"

I'd agree. My reason to conclude that they were transmitted orally to Abraham, before he had a beduin caravan.

And that Abraham wrote down other things, and presumably these too.

You see, Sagen aus Österreich contains stories of an often historical or dubious nature, not meant as fiction, though in some cases, probably, tongue in cheek, and they are very abbreviated compared to stating such historical facts as articles or (when invented) as novellas.

The very abbreviated nature is a good signature for oral transmission. WHETHER Genesis 3 (for instance) was orally transmitted all the way from Adam to Abraham OR (for instance) Sarug possessed a book about it, was dispossessed of it by an idolatrous son and grandson (Nachor and Thare) and had to orally summarise what he could no longer verify in detail.

I'd go against the latter scenario, as it is possible or even probable that Thare didn't commit idolatry until Abraham was already 75 (i e he left Ur or Haran, whichever, on the spiritual death of his physical father).

"much more extensive sections"

Indeed. Suggesting these parts were originally written down by Abraham and the rest and came to Egypt when Jacob arrived, apart from what Joseph had already written himself in Egypt.

Clay tablets or papyri are insecure possessions of a lone traveller, can be stolen from a resident, but are a very secure possession, on par with tents and clothes, for a Beduin tribe. Which Abraham started to be head of in chapter 12.

"anthropomorphic language about God"

In Genesis up to chapter 3, Adam can walk with God and can describe a theophany, basically of pre-Incarnate Christ.

In Genesis 11, whoever saw what God was up to (perhaps in a dream) was also given a hint of the upcoming Incarnation of God.

"cosmic ramifications"

Not all of them. If Jubal (presumably recalled with additions and bad theology by Hindus as Krishna, though the actual Hebrew for that would be Kush) invented music instruments, that's a cultural, but not actually a cosmic ramification.

And if his half brother invented siderurgia along with chalcurgia, not only is the ramification non-cosmic, but to Abraham it would have been an incomprehensible fact with no ramification.

"from obscure ... to well known"

Indeed.

Genesis 1 to 11 spans pre-Flood events, with lower Palaeolithic giving us some, Mahabharata other, details. And the Neolithic, which had recently turned to Chalcolithic before Abraham was born, and the Upper Palaeolithic before Babel but after the Flood.

"history in the classic or modern sense"

OK. History comes in two genres. Thukydides and Mommsen. Got it. Every single other literary genre is "not fully historic" ...

I think this could be the last act of the PBC magisterium in a sense that parallels Deicide being the last act of the OT Cohen Gadol magisterium.

"non-historical if evaluated in terms of the modern methods"

By such evaluation, every single line of dialogue in a Classic work of history is non-historical, as the Classic view was that historians could not change what was said, but were free to present how it was said as they liked.

I would contend that modern standards, or at least the latitude about dialogue in Classic standards actually is met in Genesis 1 to 11. If we go on a few lines, here is sth nearly good:

The first duty in this matter incumbent on scientific exegesis consists in the careful study of all the problems literary, scientific, historical, cultural, and religious connected with these chapters; in the next place is required a close examination of the literary methods of the ancient oriental peoples, their psychology, their manner of expressing themselves and even their notion of historical truth the requisite, in a word, is to assemble without preformed judgements all the material of the palaeontological and historical, epigraphical and literary sciences.

Apart from "psychology" which is chimaeric about absent and therefore about past peoples, and "even their notion of historical truth" ... the investigations proposed are now very fruitful and precisely for Fundamentalists, for Creation Science, for Flood Geology.°

I've done my contributions°°, like verifying no fossil find anywhere has a whale above a plesiosaur. Or that Babel was Gobekli Tepe. Or that carbon dates match up very well, if the Biblical chronology is presumed (I'm using that of Roman Martyrology Christmas Day and presuming an Exodus ending the 13th Dynasty). Or that the breaks in generation overlaps from Genesis 3 to Abraham are comparable to from Trojan War to Homer.


"later ... pertain to history, but that it's expressed in a symbolic or figurative way"

1) Thank you for admitting this approach is indeed later than 1948.
2) I'd have appreciated you not using "the Church" as name for that entity making such statements.
3) I hope you'll be telling me in a moment how much later.

"we can't read ... without a careful story of how people thought and wrote at the time Genesis was composed"

This is a way more stupid thing than the 1948 document actually said.

1) Because it invalidates all reading prior to 1948 and some time past, which is contrary to "sensum quem ecclesia ... tenuit atque tenet"
2) Because it assumes the Hebrews and hagiographers had the same "mentality" to use the word in a loose way as idolatrous contemporaries
3) and because it assumes we can get closer to what the contemporaries did than guess-work, extrapolation from bragging (a certain Sayce on genealogies), and even wishful thinking ("we" wish the Flood wasn't supposed by Moses to have happened in actual fact as presented, so "we" assume a Babylonian writing about Enlil or Marduk and Tiamat didn't really mean it ... excluding my actual self from this "we" obviously).

hope of attaining

In other words, the need for an open mind is temporary.

Now, some would say, it is past, and it's results have confirmed the traditional (pre-PBC) readings. I'm of these.

adapted to the understanding of mankind at a lower stage of development

That one hasn't aged well.

---

* Text matching a video camera with a time machine and complete fiction.

** Ten years and some ago, I took him for the author of it, and wrote Apostatic Rejection of "Fundamentalism" in 1994

*** Found it cited last on this page:

Documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission Translated
July 7, 2022 | Admin
https://creationtheologyfellowship.org/2022/07/07/documents-of-the-pontifical-biblical-commission-translated/

° Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis (the latter unfortunately good friends with anti-Catholics, like Ray Comfort and Todd Friel) °° Creation vs. Evolution

Jimmy Akin somewhat overdoes the concept of reconstructed dialogue, but not by much

It helps to counter the kind of views I suppose he can be suspected of at least defending in others, about Genesis. However, all of the video, most of my comment, is about the NT.

Reconstructed Dialogue in the Bible | The Jimmy Akin Podcast 008
Jimmy Akin | 4 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig7RmmFfoyo

1:27 The equivalent of sthenographers, i e tachygraphers, did exist.

St. Mark took down by arguably tachygraphy what St. Peter spoke when comparing gospels of Sts Matthew and Luke and when adding some from his own memory.

2:36 For teaching occasions, I think there was a technique the disciples could have used.

Taking turns to memorise sentence after sentence. With twelve disciples, each had ample time to rehearse his sentence before it was his turn again. So, things like the Sermon on the Mount, to a lesser degree the Olivet discourse, would have been taken down word for word, basically.

6:58 Obviously, neither St. Peter, source of St. Mark, nor St. Matthew, would have repeated the words of a demon or of demons to learn them by heart.

The demons were not their teachers.

9:55 Obviously, the crowd was also not the teachers of the Apostles, they could well content themselves with a resumé. Probably a very boiled down one.

12:58 It is also notable that the places represent the four corners of the world.

Cape Horn to Jerusalem would pass by Egypt. Anchorage to Jerusalem would pass between Crete and Cyrene (and further away through Tunisia, which isn't mentioned). Kamtchatka to Jerusalem would pass by Persia, at least some, perhaps all of the three kinds of Persians mentioned. Hobart to Jerusalem would pass by Arabia, also mentioned.

16:53 I'd disagree on Olivet Discourse or Discourse of Last Supper involving more reconstruction.

They were teaching occasions, the one because they came asking, so probably came prepared, the other because He had already marked the extreme and unique importance of the occasion, so, they came prepared.

Unlike "the chosen", I do not think they took notes on paper, but obviously, I'd forward the same technique for learning by heart already mentioned.

24:02 The problem with the quote from Dei Verbum is, some find a way to weasel them into this or that or other not being properly an assertion of the hagiographer, presumably usually in combination with it having no (obvious) salvific significance.

Now, it may not have been obviously salvific to Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux that the creation days were actual days, because there was no carbon dating around in his time. He could believe and basically did believe, the fossils proved millions of years by a supposed succession of faunas, but Adam was the first creature that basically looked human and Adam lived as far back as the Syncellus chronology, the longest of the three Catholic chronologies, states. With millions of years, we have an old atmosphere, so we would have to deal with why Neanderthals are dated to 40 000 years ago. And apart from ignoring the issues, I don't see any way around this leading either back to the atmosphere isn't old, there were no millions of years, or to some kind of apostasy. So, while the question was not salvific for Fr. Vigouroux in 1909, it has become so for many since then.

Note also that the verdict involved a freedom for exegetes to discuss. That in itself involves a freedom for exegetes to conclude against the even Biblical licitness of Day-Age, since otherwise it would not be a freedom to discuss. It should not be taken as a definition that Day-Age is absolutely speaking OK as a Biblical exegesis.

Thank you very much for mentioning that short stories in short sentences are easy to remember. That means, the material for Genesis 1 through 11, at least the parts that fell under human observation, very well could be dictated in that form and then memorised in that form, without loss of information. By the way, this is how Fr. George Leo Haydock and others in the Catholic world of theologians, concluded that Moses knew the matter of Genesis 3 and other events. Your mention on the parables not needing much reconstruction is in this sense gold.

"Did Mary Sin?" — God, Angel and Cousin Elisabeth Said No

God when adressing the snake, Genesis 3:15. Angel Gabriel and Elisabeth the wife of Zacharias, Luke 1. Between that for meaning of an expression, do also check Judges 5 and Judith 13. However, Jimy Akin pretended, "this is not formally defined by the Church", so, after link to his video, my answer to that.

Did Mary Sin? | Conversations with TJ (2 of 5)
Jimmy Akin | 30 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PU_G9X-NHQ

6:52 The one way to argue for Mary's Immaculate conception Biblically is as a maximal version of Her Sinlessness.

Do you know what "blessed among women" means?

In the OT there are exactly TWO women this gets applied to. Jael and Judith. For killing Sisera and Holophernes.

So, exactly whose head was Mary crushing? That's probably why She was confused about the Angel's Greeting.

When She arrived to Elisabeth, She already knew She was Mother of God, or within probability if Elisabeth confirmed it. BUT ... when Elisabeth added "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" ... Genesis 3:15. As we know, this is when She was basically jumping for joy. Because this identified HER Sisera and Holophernes as Satan.

Now, again, this doesn't mean She was physically beating Satan in a boxing match, as if She were Thor of Marvel fame, no, it meant She had NEVER displeased God. She had NEVER done what Adam and Eve came to do. That's the victory a human person can have over Satan.

Why do I say She had NEVER sinned? Why wouldn't it just be enough if currently She wasn't? Genesis 3:15 says "enmities" and Hebrew uses this plural for complete enmity.

But since slavery is kind of nearly a friendship compared to ranged battle enmity, that also means NO slavery. She had given Satan not one single victory.

He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil
[1 John 3:8]

This is something which applies to many men, but not to Her. The second however applies to Her Son ... and to Her.

We can immediately rule out the idea that She was crushing Satan only by being Mother of God. Immediately. The greeting of the Angel very clearly was given before he spoke of Her pregnancy in the future tense. The pregnancy very probably didn't begin before She had given Her "fiat mihi". She was not yet Mother of God when She had already utterly defeated Satan.

You should have asked him "can you be a Bible believing Christian and NOT believe in the Sinlessness of Mary?" (add as many exclamation marks as you like).

[I tried to add:]

In the fencing match of wills, see Satan as the bungler fat prison guard and Her as Zorro.

[I could not document the censorship, as this involves narrowing down the screenshot through Paint, and it was broken ... but censorship occurred. The comment was taken down basically as soon as given.]

Jimmy Akin Pretty Good on the Other Subjects, Judging from Prior and Following, However YEC vs OEC ...

Young Earth Creationism vs Old Earth Creationism? Ask Me Anything
Jimmy Akin | 17 July 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv3QQPGo9Xs

8:10 What you just said was correct c. 100 years ago, or perhaps even a bit further back.

In your communion, there came out a so called CCC, where § 283 pretty much clinches modern research as correct, "which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man." and since it says just before that "many scientific studies" it arguably means the majority position of scientists.

That's a canonic change these last decades. But there is a difference between being old earther as Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux was and to be one as Swamidass is now.

To Fulcran Vigouroux, Adam and Eve were the unique progenitors of all men, not one couple out of 1000 or 10 000, and lived c. 7000 years ago (he favoured LXX over Vulgate in chronology, so do I). It's kind of less relevant that he could have accepted dinos as dying out 66 million years ago. Not irrelevant, but not amounting to anything like a major discrepancy from the faith.

That's pretty much what JW's do today. They ignore C14, so, a C14 date of 40 000 BP being really just before the Flood, where it occurs in the chronology, well, they don't realise this could only happen in a young atmosphere, before the equilibrial point between normal C14 production and C14 proportion and consequently decay mostly cancel each other out after some decades, sometimes after some centuries.

If you don't ignore C14, and if you accept and old universe, an old earth, if you accept 40 000 years in carbon date as implying 40 000 real years, you are suddenly in trouble.

Place Adam near the beginning or before it, you make Genesis 3 not transmittable, by oral historic transmission, and you make Adam being a farmer, like his son Cain, inaccurate.

Place Adam in 7000 BP, like 5500 to 4570 BC, as Fr. Fulcran would have done, but add human skeleta in 40 000 BP, you are suddenly in the domain of pre-Adamites, plus an insecurity if Pre-Columbian and Pre-van Diemen populations of Americas and Oceania could really at first contact have been descended from Adam. That's a very big no-no.

8:49 I agree Earth is older than dead dinos.

I don't agree we have any good reason to believe these are millions of years old.

Stratigraphy, ecology, radiometric, every one of these points, I have answers to. I'll share them if you are interested.

I'm happy you defend the right of both to argue their positions, but it seems the Archdiocese of Paris is in practise treating me as a dissenter, or, if not, due to inaccurately throwing doubt on YEC being my definite position, and writing, publishing on blogs and hopefully blog-to-book, my already chosen profession. Some may pretend the YEC articles they recently saw of me were a phase, I've been strict pro-Biblical chronology since 1999 or 2000 when reading City of God, and some may pretend writing is perhaps not what I really want to do, both ways they are ruining my capacity of getting paid as as writer for among other things YEC content.

9:08 100 years ago, a position on the six days was enough to be Old Earther. By then, Day-Age (strictly speaking) and Gap were already shown false by research, their compatibility hasn't improved since, as far as I know, and Fr. Eugène (?) Mangenot radically altered exegesis by pretending the six days were a freely chosen literary form, not falling under inspiration, at least as far as chronology is concerned.

But by now, an Old Earther would need a position on Adam and Cain as farmers and on genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11. Plus where the Flood fits in, if it wasn't global, and if it was, it accounts for dinosaur fossils and is therefore by itself an argument for Young Earth.

11:03 Literary structure argument suggests God as Creator and Providence is so radically different from good story-tellers, He wouldn't make the actual sequence of events coincide with a good story (the opposite view of what Tolkien had of the Gospels!).

The "days before the Sun" problem is dealt with in detail in De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII, namely in book I.

It's available in Georges Pompidou library, so I spent some time looking at that.

Earth is round. From the absolute beginning, it was first enveloped on all sides by darkness. After "let there be light" it was then enveloped on all sides by light, provided without a light source.

After Genesis 1:4, Earth was enveloped in light on one side, and in darkness on the other side, and the limits started rotating, same speed as Sun would take later. The days are counted in the Time Zone of Jerusalem, which is where God created Adam (Eden was probably in Jordan, somewhere, or perhaps even started as far West as Jericho ... either way, it was taken off the earth before Israelite history starts).

Joseph in Bethlehem

somewhere else: Nativity Narrative Revisited · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Joseph in Bethlehem

SKEPTICS DEBUNKED! Why Did Joseph Go to Bethlehem
Jimmy Akin | 20 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcJT2U4A2p0

4:32 Tax declarations to this day are with the tax office of your own city.

The sceptics are simply harping on the "discrepancy" of involving an ancestral city.

5:55 I have a somewhat different view. Meeting the sceptics halfways.

Joseph really went to an ancestral city.

B u t he did so because the tax registration (I take it it really was one) was ongoing in Galilee (which was already a Roman Province), would have been the first time when Joseph would have registered as resident in Nazareth before Roman authorities, which gave him leeway to deflect, say something else was his city. Given Bethlehem was the city of King David, he was not lying.

The Roman officer was not aware that Bethlehem in Judaea was outside the actual Roman Empire, Judaea being still a protectorate. Joseph neither found, nor expected to find, Roman officials for the census in Bethlehem. Either the Roman officer sucked at geography, or he thought Joseph meant a different Bethlehem.

"Located in the Galilee near Kiryat Tivon, around 10 kilometres north-west of Nazareth and 30 kilometres east of Haifa"

Either way, the Roman officer didn't mind Joseph going to "Bethlehem" this being "his own city" and Joseph didn't mind calling his ancestral city "his own city" ...

He was on business in Nazareth, but he just wasn't precise for the Roman how longstanding it was.

After Egypt, I think Joseph had a somewhat different view of Roman tax collectors, given they contrasted somewhat favourably with Herod the Great by that time ...

The tax census in Galilee is deduced from "the whole world" but it is forgotten, the one everyone in archaeology is talking about is the one (years later) in Judaea, when Judaea became a Roman province.

9:40 And the other family members offered Joseph, Mary and the Newborn Child a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

I don't think Bethlehem was what we would call Joseph's primary residence. He didn't have the keys to a house there. More like it was so in the eyes of Jewish law.

10:59 I note that you omitted the problem of the tax census in Judaea, which people rebelled against. It was after the birth of Our Lord.

My view takes care of this problem too.

When God was born according to the flesh, there was no census ongoing in Bethlehem, at least no Roman census.

Luke 2:5 To be enrolled with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child.

= They enrolled a real loyalty census, but to the Temple, by fulfilling the law.

But Galilee was already having a Roman census. That one is forgotten, because Josephus wasn't Galilaean. And because it was overshadowed by the later one in Judaea, both because Jews tended to concentrate more on Judaea, and because it made much more of a stir.

11:27 Blessed Pentecost!

Isdal Woman, Speculations and Rambles

The Isdal Woman: Europe's Most Famous Unidentified Person | Answers With Joe
Joe Scott | 29 nov. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA-5OJ8Yj7g

17:57 Let's put some things together:

Nuremberg area, early 30's to 45

1970 - 30 = 1940
1970 - 45 = 1925

Age in 1945 = 5 to 20.

Early 30's = a bit more than 30. Age in 1945 = a bit more than 5.

What if her parents had some NS connexion? What if she was the daughter of for instance Hitler or someone?

Some people after 1945 went into tracking NS war criminals. Could some have had a kind of paranoia about even allowing their children to live?

La mort obsédante de la femme Isdal
[Probably shows me the French title, because I am in France]
Random Nights | 19 juin 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHpb1VAsB3M

Isdal Woman (Cold War Mystery) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World
Jimmy Akin | 6 May 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cprkY4laxIM

32:19 What? February 5th? St. Agatha's Day?

27 years to the day for my resistance at Likenäs .... (which landed me in prison for 3 1/2 years * 2/3) ...

37:34 One can be innocent and yet share situations with tracked criminals.

Her age has been described as between early 30's and 45, and another video mentioned a substance with some kind of tie which I didn't totally understand to Nuremberg.

If she was German and above 5 but at most 20, she could have been the daughter of an NS actual or presumed War Criminal.

We know for very sure, people like Simon Wiesenthal have taken very great lengths to track war criminals themselves. Presumably, according to their official persona, however not trying to wreak revenge on children of them.

However, they are Jews. The most holy book of Judaism isn't the Four Gospels, it's the Torah, four out of five taking place in the Bronze Age (Genesis ends but doesn't begin in it), a much crueller time in many ways. Netanyahu recently made a kind of reference to eradicating Amalec. Do you get my drift? I'm not saying all of them are like that. I'm saying that kind of ideas of cutting off offspring do occur within that community.

* She could be in danger (have been, my bad) * or her daughter or even more so son could be in danger from that kind of persecutors. The child could have had adoptive parents, and keeping away from them, or keeping her away from them, could have been a way to actually get safety for her child.

On that kind of backdrop, she could be innocent as a dove, and still have to be subtler than most snakes.

Her murderers could have tried to make her reveal the placement of a child, or her murderer could have tried to keep the child safe, tried to prevent her from revealing it accidentally, depending on whether they were NS hunters more extreme than Wiensenthal or on the contrary NS agents. Unlike as for her, I have no reason to think they were practising Catholics at this point.

39:00 According to the other video, she frequently made sure to get attention at the hotels.

If she was simply a criminal, she would probably avoid attention.

I'm reminded of that Father Brown, when Father Brown makes sure to turn things upside down in more than one place, in an ultimately successful attempt to make police follow him. I think it's "The Blue Cross" ...

So, she was more arguably either paranoid (high functioning) or actually had reasons to believed she was tracked. And not by law abiding policemen.

41:25 Garlic, again sth which might have been a way to get attention.

People annoyed with her would become spontaneous body-guards against any real criminals — or "avengers" if you prefer.

43:29 You omitted (so far, you might add next second) another factor.

Norway was developing a military air craft which is still in use.

Note, that's an excellent reason for a spy to be in the Bergen area, but her travels over Norway seem very ... trapezoid, according to the other video, ... so, she was not simply in the Bergen area.

47:06 "Just because someone is a spy doesn't mean they are good at their job ...."

I was hearing none of that idea when it came to stating why the novel by Marie Carré was a novel and not a real thing ...

If the Isdal woman was actually a spy, she showed exactly the incompetence in a spy, which according to you spies don't show.

If on the other hand, she was the daughter of some highranking NS, if she was maybe also a mother who had placed her child to keep him (or her) out of the way of persecutors, if she was trying to keep alive while praying for her child, maybe looking for occasions to secretly meet him, or simply, while not committing suicide, trying to avoid getting in the kind of situation where she would betray her child, in that case, she was instead highly competent.

Calling attention to herself by wreaking havoc in hotel rooms, keeping men at arm's length by a taste for garlic probably more common in South Germany than in Norway, well, that's partly a way of keeping chaste while single, and partly a way of getting annoyed people to act as body guards so agents sent to kill or question her could have no occasion to get at her.

47:15 What exactly points to her being born in 1944?

On the other video [Joe Scott], she was described as "early thirties" or for some descriptions even "45" ...

Giving her age at the Collapse of the Third Reich as more than 5, but maximally 20. If she was born in 1944, she would obviously still have been born before some NS dignitaries died.

1:05:36 Childhood in Nuremberg (so on the other video, they were talking of isotopes).

Later on moved elsewhere.

Again, sth one would expect of a woman born to an NS dignitary, but who then was moved away from Germany for her security.

Could also be the case of a Jewish child moved away from Germany. A very different type of security reason.

1:07:15 So, Nuremberg, some time after, perhaps before 1940, and moved away for security, if that was the reason, more compatible with NS than with Jewish.

1:08:55 And Norwegian wikipedia had a notice:

"Lokalpressen spekulerte dessuten i om kvinnen kunne være Israel-avhopper som ble ekspedert av sine egne."

The local press was furthermore speculating that the woman could have been an Israeli defector who was executed by her own.

1:09:41 She seems somewhat tense. As if in some kind of grief.

1:11:04 If the pills stopped her from the rolling around?

Supposing it was some kind of suicide, this could have been an attempt of making sure she regretted it so much (without being able to do anything about it) that she could make an act of contrition.

Apart from suicides that totally fail, this is the most likely way of a suicide making it to heaven I have heard of since Tchaikovsky deliberately got cholera which he died in.

1:13:07 Plus, as said, all more peopled places she had been in Norway definitely would not have been safe to try, since, well, she succeeded very well in getting attention.

If the limelight is on you, and you are murdered, the limelight will be on your killer as well.

Indeed, if the killer is too slow, it could be on him before he manages to kill you, that might save your life.

This could be a reason she (pretty openly) watched the tests for the Penguin system. Naval officers aren't incompetent in stopping killings, "even if they are Norwegian" (sorry, that's just a corny reference to a corny joke Swedes and Norwegians have about each other).

Again, if she had some kind of child, and the killers were after it as well, killing her remotely would make sure those keeping the child would not hear of it too soon.

1:17:53 If they were Gipsies, that could be the kind of people who might either be used to track even relatives of NS criminals or even do so on their own hand.

Pretty obviously, either they had made an agreement she would be executed and her appeal to Ketil would only have brought him danger, without saving her, or she was followed and walking on a path where she survived a while as long as she met people.

1:18:32 "it's an international case, and it's never going to be solved"

Again, sth which one pretty much might expect from the tracking and murder of a child of NS real or presumed war criminals.

People forbidden to look into things.

1:19:43 Indeed. Ketil Kversøy could have bought her 24 hours more to live.

1:23:18 Just in case anyone is trying to present me as suicidal, I've never been in such thoughts for longer than half an hour, that half hour was before getting to talk to a girl, I had worked myself up so I could say without direct lying to her "if you don't marry me" (and I thought it just could work, two parents of mine came into marriages that didn't end up too well bc they responded to such a threat), and her response was to tell me of her dog who would be so sad ... I don't think I met the dog, but it was impossible to stay even "conditionally suicidal" after such a ridiculous reply.

On other occasions (two, at 15 and going on 18) when it was like 5 minutes, I recalled what CSL had said about Hell (at least the second time, not sure I had read The Great Divorce before the first time).

One reason why I'm unhappy about "empty Hell" theories, some suicides that do happen could be by people who hoped no suicide could be voluntary, therefore no mortal sin, therefore no damnation. Well, yes, mortal sins and damnation are real things.

31:07 If that police officer knew she had been tracked for her origin (or as a defector), he was obviously capable of saying with confidence she was not a spy.

Apart from that, he seemed more hesitant in ruling out the murder.

And here is a little reflection on the honesty of Norwegian police in sensitive situations.

2012, a certain Breivik killed 77 older children and younger teens on a Social Democratic Youth Group's summer camp on Utøya.

The day after, he was excluded from Johannis-losjen Søjlerne. He was a freemason when this happened. Sth pretty close to regular British freemasonry, that's how freemasonry is in Sweden and in Norway. Not Scottish Rite, not Shriners, and definitely not Grand Orient. Over the weeks it also surfaced that he was not a believing Christian. He was a cultural Christian, not totally unlike Dawkin's in that respect (though playing the piano like Dawkins and playing the "violin" of the Mafia are two very different talents, two very different personalities). He was totally against homeschooling or Christian private schools, one of his griefs against Muslim Immigrants was precisely that they were putting secularism in danger.

Well, what did Norwegian police say the exact same day that he was caught? They had apparently, according to their story, caught a "Fundamentalist Christian" ... this report was broadcasted over France as well, which is why I (a Fundie Catholic) looked into his actual beliefs.

Totally different track.

She could have been some kind of Catholic secret wife to some kind of Protestant royalty.

Back to same track, again, Norwegian wiki:

"Universitetet i Bergen foresto analysene av strontiumisotopene og oksygenisotopene på vegne av KRIPOS."

On behalf of KRIPOS, the University of Bergen led the analyses of strontium and oxygen isotopes.

"Sammensetningen av de ulike strontiumisotopene varierer med hvor i verden man har vært, og hva man har spist, mens oksygenisotopene forteller mer om drikkevannet der man kommer fra."

The mixture of different strontium isotopes varies on where in the world one was and what one ate, while the oxygen isotopes tell more about drinking water from the area you are from.

"Resultatene fra analysene ble tolket ved University of Canberra i Australia."

The result of the analyses was interpreted by the University of Canberra, Australia.

"Der ble isotopsammensetningen i en tann som stammet fra tidlig barndom, og to tenner som stammet fra tenårene analysert."

There the isotope composition in a tooth from early childhood and two teeth from the teens were analysed.

"Konklusjonen var at kvinnen kan ha tilbragt sine første leveår sørøst i Tyskland."

The conclusion was, the woman can have spent her first years of life in South East Germany.

"Deretter kan hun ha flyttet vestover, og tilbragte tenårene i regionen Lorraine i det nordøstlige Frankrike, på grensen til Luxembourg og Vest-Tyskland.[11]"

After that she can have moved West, and spent the teens in the region of Lorraine in North East France, on the frontier of Luxembourg and West Germany.

"Den sistnevnte konklusjonen stemmer overens med håndskriftsanalyser som er utført av KRIPOS, og som peker mot at Isdalskvinnen fikk skriveopplæringen sin i Frankrike, Belgia eller et annet fransktalende land.[12]"

The latter conclusion also agrees with the hand writing analysis (or graphology) performed by KRIPOS, which points to the Isdal woman being taught how to write in France, Belgium or another French speaking country.

[On the latter issue, schools in England and Austria promote a fairly round hand writing, while France, Spain, and presumably Belgium, prefer a fairly thin one. A lower case L in England or Austria would be a loop, oblong, but still a loop. A lower case L in France, Spain, presumably Belgium, would be a line. You get a line upwards, and then you trace the pen through the exact same line until you branch off for the next letter.]

It might seem the geographical areas are pretty conclusive, since, while either strontium or oxygen would have signatures recurring in different places, the combination of two isotope signatures would be less likely to coincide between different areas.

And what if the guys following the Isdal woman were involved in this kind of stuff? Here:

The Cult With CIA Ties | blameitonjorge
blameitonjorge | 3 Oct. 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSZ9fsqsu8

For her identity, we can exclude the Goebbels daughters:

Helga (12), Hilde (11), Holde (9), Hedwig (7) und Heidrun (4).

Mecklenburg and Brandenburg are not in South East Germany, they are North-East Germany.

We can also exclude the daughter of Goering, since her life is known, I think she died in Sweden, she certainly loved Sweden, and she proposed that not only her mother, but also her father were saving Jews. For the latter, I have anecdotal evidence. My gramp found a couple in Israel who told the story of how Goering (their longstanding friend) had passed them off as Aryans, without actually even saying so. Edda didn't die in Isdalen.

So, on that track, the most probable idea would be an unknown daughter of Hitler himself.

Or, she could have been the daughter of someone hunted by people like Wiesenthal, and killed for refusing to give the info.

"Though most of the Jews still alive in Linz had emigrated after the war, Wiesenthal decided to stay on, partly because the family of Adolf Eichmann lived a few blocks away from him.[44][45] Eichmann had been in charge of the transportation and deportation of Jews in the Nazi Final Solution to the Jewish Question: a plan to exterminate all the Jews in Europe, finalised at the Wannsee Conference, at which Eichmann took the minutes.[46] After the war, Eichmann hid in Austria using forged identity papers until 1950, when he left via Italy, and moved to Argentina under an assumed name.[47][48] Hoping to obtain information on Eichmann's whereabouts, Wiesenthal continuously monitored the remaining members of the immediate family in Linz until they vanished in 1952.[49]"

However, Eichmann's children are out of question, since Eichmann had been executed already in 1962, and since his children didn't grow up around the relevant isotope types.

And, obviously, the story of Angelina Szelest could suggest, she could have been targetted for her father being in the resistance against the Soviets, like their assessment of Bandera is very harsh, and we know Soviets have targetted children of people they dislike.

Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia, at age 13, was not killed for anything he had himself done.

But Yakov Yurovsky was ethnically Jewish ...

Could modern Jews do such things?

I am not asking if all could. No, no way. Most certainly couldn't. Same goes for the time when St. William or Norwich was killed.

The two stories that follow are not about suppressing a Christian because a Christian, but they are about killing of people considered by some as "viper brood" because children of people known or suspected of supporting Hamas.

Or, yet another theory, she could have been involved in bringing forth "Rosemary's Baby" and have been killed for wanting the child to grow up a Christian.

Just came to that hunch, when clicking on "Windswept House Exposed: Vatican's Satanic Cardinal Coven"

Some guys who reject Jesus want another Messiah. Jews may not be all of them, some Satanists may hope the Apocalypse partly prophecied their Messiah. Or some guys into very massive Realpolitik could be willing to risk someone's soul just for the power of 3 and 1/2 years ... obviously hoping the other stuff after that is a joke, which it isn't.

Al Jazeera : Israeli forces kill three children of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza
By Al Jazeera Staff Published On 10 Apr 2024 Updated: 06:44 PM (GMT)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/10/israeli-forces-kill-three-children-of-hamas-leader-ismail-haniyeh-in-gaza

IDF Likely KILLED This Little Girl, Investigation Uncovers
The Young Turks | 18 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZQAdNpiRE0

Other video, in the Isdal Woman:

Have we identified the Isdal Woman? Death in Ice Valley, Episode 12 — BBC World Service
BBC World Service | 7 July 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPPIJpCJS9Q

40:47 Högerova.

It is a real name for a place in Prague. Not sure if it's a monument or a street crossing, but its connected to Hlubočepy.

44:17 I find "Steel Material: C 22.8 (DIN/EN)"

Some would abbreviate chapter and verse with a comma instead of a colon, so, searching "22,8" I get a hit on

English Revised Version
And I John am he that heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

= Apocalypse 22:8

[If we want to go through the Bible for verses, chapter 22, verse 8, the first one is conspicuously in Genesis. And Abraham said: God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son. So they went on together.]

45:45 Porridge and coffee is not just popular in Eastern Europe but also Northern.

A Swede, Dane or Norwegian, would relish it as much as a Russian or Ukrainean.

Didn't hear to this moment that the latter shared this preference.

59:52 Why a Ukrainiean radio in Rome?

Well, the Pope was supporting the Ukrainean Uniates, who were outlawed in the Soviets.

That would be one reason.

1:09:55 I think, given her looks (in Norway), the Isdal woman would have been younger than not just Angelina Szelest, but also other women of the NS forced labour.

Plus Ukrainean upbringing would not give her the isotope signature that was found for oxygen or strontium.

If she were Ukrainean, she could be the daughter of, if not Bandera, some other member of his Ukrainean anti-Soviet resistance, had a very young daughter sent to Nuremberg for safety, and then sent on to Belgium (to the Ukrainean workers you mentioned) for better safety than in Nuremberg, after 1945.

These men were tracked as criminals by the Soviets, and these were sometimes very prone to target children of important "criminals" as equivalent of their parents.

When the Czar was shot, not just his wife was shot, but his daughters as well. And the Czarevich too.

Bible and Geocentrism

Bible and Geocentrism · Jimmy Akin Up to Tycho Brahe

DEBUNKING Geocentrist Bible Verses
Jimmy Akin | 29 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofrMEpo70Qw

3:18 Here is my first objection.

You have cited "science" painting the Sun as an object with neither conscious agency in itself nor attached to it, subject to only inertial prolongation of a movement already commenced, and graviational "acceleration" (including decelerations and changes of direction°

You have then written off the description in the psalm as poetic because it does NOT describe the Sun in such lifeless terms, but in terms of a personal, vaguely male character.

Have you checked out that:

• St. Thomas considered each heavenly body was moved by an angelic mover
• Riccioli concurred (though differring much on detail from St. Thomas on other items)
• so, this has not been refuted. Astronomers proceed to reason as if this idea could have no impact on reality, i e as if it is a false idea. An idea that accurately describes a reality, is obviously an idea that describes sth that can impact reality. And the angelic movers have not been refuted by some counterproof. They have just been ignored.

3:36 Your question in its wording presumes the mechanical account would be scientific, presumably accurate, and that deviating from the mechanical account would be non-scientific, therefore presumably inaccurate.

3:58 I would say the language is far more literal than you give it credit for.

The praise is undoubted. I just think it sticks far closer to actual facts about the sun. Whether it refers to the daily motion as Riccioli would say, or the annual motion, as St. Thomas would say, both would argue, angelic beings are very properly compared to athletes, like the guardian angel who lifted a wheel which was running over a child, so the child survived unhurt, so an angelic being is any day of the week very comparable to an athlete. Now, if the scientists are correct that the Sun is very heavy, the angel of the Sun would be a very great athlete on this comparison.

In Daniel 3, we Catholics have and the Protestants do not have the actual song of the three young men.

62 O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 63 O ye stars of heaven, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

This, both St. Thomas and Riccioli would consider as on the most literal level (not denying there are others) referring to the angelic movers of celestial bodies.

Now, before sun and moon, the three young men have already mentioned angels in verse 58 and powers in verse 61. Now check these verses:

85 O ye servants of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 86 O ye spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Servants would clearly include angelic beings. When beasts are mentioned, let's be clear that they have some kind of angels attached to them too, probably most usually not one per individual though, more like one per herd.

One could even argue in verse 86 that "souls of the just" are the reference to human spirits, while "spirits" refers to angelic beings.

In other words, Daniel 3 is stating that Sun and Moon are part of the angelic entities, if not bodies of angelic beings, relating to these as my face relates to me, at least bodies moved by angelic beings, relating to them as my keyboard relates to me (when I borrow one).

What Animism holds to be true about visible things on earth has not been per se condemned as false. Where animists go wrong is in worshipping for instance the spirit of a stone you happen to like (or even dislike) as the Japanese and the Lapps do. But telling the stone (meaning it's spirit, if it has one) to worship God would presumably be fine.

6:31 I note, you have not gotten into whether the book of Joshua gives a historically accurate picture of what happened on Joshua's long day, specifically what led up to it. Joshua chapter 10.

You want to explain verse 13 with "phenomenological language" ... well, falls afoul of the backreference in Habaccuc, seems awkward in relation to the other miracle in the time of Isaias and Hezechias, but one might ignore those and say your view could pass.

Now go back to verse 12. We do not have phenomenological language, because we do not have description. We have Joshua's miracle working prescription. Joshua first prayed to God, in words that are not given, and then, inspired by God, adressed himself to Sun and Moon. Those, not Earth, was what he told to cease their rotation.

Note, I am very much harping on the fact, the words adressed to Sun and Moon were not his prayer to God. If Joshua had simply asked "God, let the Sun and Moon stand still" and it had stood still, well, you could be welcome to say God had made an allowance for Joshua's ignorance and changed the behaviour of what would really need to change behaviour, namely the rotation of Earth.

BUT, this is not simply what Joshua asked God. The actual words of Joshua in verse 12 are not his prayer, they are his miracle working words.

If you can pretend that a miracle working word could involve some kind of error shared by the contemporaries, you could equally pretend that Jesus' words to demons were in reality without a real object and what Jesus really performed was sudden healings of perfectly intrapsychic or sometimes intrabrain conditions. Now, that is a route which some Lutherans in Sweden, in the late 19th C. took. An evil route. I do not want to share in it.

I think the safest or perhaps the only logically stringent way of avoiding it is, Joshua's words also did not involve any kind of error about what it is that moves each day. Or at least, not the kind of error a Heliocentric would say.

If Joshua had a kind of Riccioli view (the Sun's movement across the sky is the Sun's movement, performed by an angel) and the reality is more like a Thomasic view (the Sun's movement is a composite, God moves the heavens westward each day, and the Sun also moves a 1/365 to the East each day, by his own movement), there would be two entities per heavenly body obeying Joshua, and God would be one of them, verse 14, while the Sun's angel and the Moon's angel would be the other, as in Habaccuc.

"as 6:49 Cardinal Caesar baronius said back 6:51 during the Galileo controversy the Bible 6:54 teaches us how to go to heaven not how 6:58 the heavens go"

Now, did Caesar Baronius say so when getting involved in the controversy?

Or did Galileo say so, and Baronius simply cite him?

You might want to check out his lifespan.

Cesare Baronio, C.O. (as an author also known as Caesar Baronius; 30 August 1538 – 30 June 1607)

Galileo was in controversy twice. 1616 and 1633. On both occasions, Cesare Baronio was already dead. I think you have promoted a canard.

"the Bible 6:54 teaches us how to go to heaven"

Which presumes there is a heaven to go to.

Where is it?

If Geocentrism is true, fix stars could be no further up than 1 light day.

In that case, heavenly Jerusalem is arguably the coordinates of earthly Jerusalem, but 1 light day further up, plus some.

It is a real physical place, it is above the stars we see, and if we get there (where Satan can't get, though he had liked to) we can look down on the stars.

But if Heliocentrism is true, with lots of other modern cosmology, where is it?

If earth rotates, the coordinates of earthly Jerusalem are not much help, at least not East / West, and the next question is, is heaven 13.8 billion light years away, or is it a kind of spaceship, surrounded by stars on all sides? Or is it a parallel universe? Or is it non-physical?

The last of these is clearly totally off limits for a Catholic, since two risen bodies are there, Our Lord and Our Lady.

Adam, Eve, and Early Humans (amp; More Weird Questions) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World — I listened and commented

Adam, Eve, and Early Humans (amp; More Weird Questions) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World — I listened and commented · Protestants Don't Have the Council of Trent to Guide Them

Adam, Eve, and Early Humans (amp; More Weird Questions) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World
Jimmy Akin | 26 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5b9yu5wGLM

I can't afford to miss this one.

Last year, I heard some views about Theistic Evolution, and I possibly misconstrued as Jimmy Akin's own position what may not have been so. If so, I was inattentive, and I'll try to make up for it this time

4:43 Non-corporeal.

This would c. 70 years ago have been defended like "all four theological schools have by now agreed internally and with each other" (I think that means Thomistic Dominicans, Scotistic Franciscans, Jesuits and Augustinians) "that angels are entirely immaterial."

However, this leaves out orientals.

In some Oriental source, you'll find "angels are incorporeal compared to us, corporeal compared to God" ...

Or in other words, we don't experience them as material, but God knows they are material.

I think that could be St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox faith, not sure if there is maybe even a Council statement on the Ecumenical Councils I through VIII (somewhere in Nicaea I through Constantinople IV, whichever of the two meetings about Photius you consider ecumenical, or both).

5:27 This argument for Dark Matter is pretty moot.

a) Because the distances, sizes and consequently gravity factors of "galaxies" or spiral nebulas are moot, as derived from Heliocentric error. "Proven" from an unproven counterfact.
b) Because the idea that objects of this scale of size are moved only by vectors of inertia and gravity, both of which are dominated by mass, is part of their proof, it's neither proven, nor a first principle evident in itself, except it will be perceived like that to Atheists.

So, when the matter astronomers think is there won't explain movements as observed, instead of revising that assumption (and in doing so reverting to Geocentrism as per observations), they will add another layer of complexity to their theories by invoking dark matter.

"there may be a hidden substance hidden which is why it's called Dark 5:38 there may be a hidden form of matter or a dark form of matter that doesn't interact with light which is why we 5:46 can't see it because light just goes right through it um but does interact 5:52 gravitationally so it would have mass that's capable of influencing the visible matter that we can see"

Angels, angelic beings:
1) do not show visually (except by taking bodily form, which is a capacity but not a default state, this is by the way distinct from whether they are or aren't normally in some way corporeal)
2) do not need mass, but have will, to interact with any given body they chose to interact with, either on God's errand or with God's permission.

That's sufficient to motivate not just funny patterns of rotations on spiral nebulas (by some the last 100 years thought to be "galaxies"), but even Tychonian orbits. Actual spirograph patterns in relation to a space that rotates around earth each day.

It can be admitted, my own view also involves some kind of invisible matter, which I call aether.

It's not just the medium of light, but also of spatiality. Both physical vectors and angelic action would move bodies within this larger space, and down to earth, so does standing on the ground or humanly deciding to move a finger.

If I stood on the equator and dropped a stone having had no speed at all in relation to the aether, it would fly westward real fast. But this can't happen, unless I create the stone the moment I drop it, which I can't. While I hold it, it already acquires an eastward speed through the aether.

That's also why geostationary satellites work, the speed that's relevant for keeping them up is not in relation to absolute space or to earth, but in relation to the rotating aether.

That's also why Sirius can move around the Earth 2 pi the speed of light, if fix stars are one light day up. The speed of light is concerned with movement through the aether.

The speed of Sirius we observe is mainly speed of the aether, which at that height has that speed.

I would say, if angels are made of some kind of matter, it would be aether rather than particles.

8:27 For spirits known to be damned, like Satan, one Church father did pray, and he got pushback for it.

I think it was St. Basil.

For people who in fact are in Hell, but we don't know it, yes, one may pray.

It might cause temporary relief, it might be a prayer (specifically in the case of indulgenced prayers) that God uses for someone else, like a soul in Purgatory.

12:16 Do you think there are situations when an act against the faith on part of someone (not received into the Church) can be determined as either apostasy or part of a martyrdom, so that the person either went to Hell or to Heaven?

My mother's getting buried by a Lutheran seemed to me, last year, to fall within this range. She had prayed the rosary with me before I left Sweden.

I believe in Purgatory. I do not believe mother went there. Just as I don't believe Sr. Clare Crockett went there. With the latter, even though she accepted a wrong Pope, I do not envisage her as even optionally gone to Hell.

So, if upcoming 6.VI you think I am wrong, you can pray for my mother in Purgatory. But first try to pray to her. If she doesn't cure someone's bad cold or sth, you may proceed to pray for her.

14:58 The words do not amount to actual proof of exasperation.

She could have wanted to have a clarification, like She asked of the angel.

15:35 Consternation is far more like it.

She probably experienced lots of consternation until the parallel to Genesis 3:15 told her that Her Sisera or Holophernes was not a man of flesh and blood, but the author of sin.

Like Patrick Madrid said somewhere, the only OT parallels to the greeting "blessed among women" (in the OT there are qualifications, so less absolute than the words to Mary), were Jael and Judith.

So, since their heroism was about getting someone's throat cut, I think She was on and off consterned up to getting clarification by St. Elisabeth on what it meant.

17:17 Why would "selfish" be sinful?

Kant introduced the equation altruism = virtue, egoism / selfishness = sin.

This is followed in lots of modern Protestant moral theology, a k a heretical morality.

In the NIV, there are at least 8 items condemning selfishness. In the Douay Rheims, each is condemning something else.

And no, "lovers of self" does not equate with selfish, it's probably more like lovers of self at systematic expense of others or infatuated with self.

What I found is:

What does the word mean, in everyday language? It means for "contend" to quarrel or dispute, and for contentions "quarrels" or for contention "being quarrelsome" - so the verdict of those verses is, not about selfishness, but about quarrelsomeness. While we sometimes do need to quarrel for a good cause (Jude 1:3, or David taking up a quarrel with Goliath), we are forbidden to be quarrelsome, to be eager to find something to quarrel about.

Another word is "covetuousness" - it means one thing classified as "selfish" by those using the word, but not everything else so classified. It means specifically being greedy.

somewhere else: Is Selfishness Condemned in the Bible?
Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 05:09 dimanche 29 janvier 2023
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2023/01/is-selfishness-condemned-in-bible.html

23:42 You are aware how the long neck of the giraffe could never have developed from shorter necks gradually, because it involves safety valves in the blood vessels. Are you?

24:45 You are aware that a gradual emergence of a new cell type in any living organism type has never been observed?

Another major hurdle for the theory of evolution!

25:55 Wonder how many of my persecutors round here in Paris are involved in Pavlovian manipulation.

There are several occasions when I took some kind of contact with some kind of right wing thing (for instance Rivarol, last occasion, yesterday, I contacted Jean des Cars via his daughter, that's a man claiming Russia (rather than Ukraine) being founded in 882, in the intro to his book on the Romanovs.

I obviously thought he had been dupe of some Russian nationalists who were far better qualified to talk of Romanovs than of Kievan Rus', so I wrote about it, contacted his daughter who directs the Louvre. When I came to my luggage yesterday afternoon or evening, I saw someone had burrowed in it, making an ugly disorder.

Not totally sure if it comes from lefties who are mad I even get in touch with righties, or from righties who get mad, I am not their naive admirer. I tend to begin suspecting the latter.

27:54 A predisposition to alcoholism is not a disordered desire.

One can speak of disordered desire once a person who has developed alcoholism starts taking a sip intending to take no more, and ends up getting drunk.

By the way, if you have heard this is my case, that is a lie. If I have any disordered desire that strong, it's to food or rest. I have trouble staying away from a treat that's offered, even if I know it's beyond my allowed meals on a fasting day.

On Good Friday evening and Holy Saturday morning, I got into trouble by refusing meals offered despite this, and in order to not sin in food, I was a bit impatient in rejecting an offer from someone. That happened the evening. The morning I was woke up by someone poking in my luggage behind my sleeping bag. I tried to shove him away, got kicked down, got kicked on the head while down, had a brain concussion for one month. Police wrote it off as my getting into a drunk brawl because I was drunk.

Perhaps they protected someone. After the event, it struck me, he had some resemblance to Zelensky.

Well, I was not drunk.

28:52 I'd reject that one.

Adam was not created in grace, he was given grace, according to some, but even before grace he was in an original innocense which superpassed anything we have now.

Even if this is not true, on reflection I think it isn't, the abstract idea of it, what Adam before the fall would have been without grace, would still be far superior to us.

29:48 I'd go with this one rather.

a) making synthesis of vitamin C a pseudo-gene would be one thing hastening our death
b) and this would need some compensation, a drive to eat more fruit
c) and other biological signals of a more urgent situation.

When desires are to be expressed under a stress of urgency, they are more likely to become disordered in their expression.

But there is also a metaphysical loss, the interaction between (immaterial or aethereal) soul and body was re-geared to body less obedient to soul.

45:04 Perhaps, if you are prepared to deny the humanity of Neanderthals, maybe you shouldn't pray for my mother.

Nor a priest agreeing with you.

Neanderthals, not just made jewelry and buried dead, they kept a one armed man alive whose amputation had time to heal (Shanidar), they invented very roundabout glues to attach spear heads to shafts, they burned fat with wicks in bones to light dark caves, if they were already caves back then, we have their genes in vestigial amounts (also true for Denisovans), we would not descend from them if they didn't descend from Adam and Eve, and, even more.

Language.

They had our FOXP2 gene or a very similar version. They had Broca's area. They had human ears and human hyoid bones (Kebara), which have been worn in exactly the same way as that of a modern human wears his hyoid.

They were very clearly human.

One more. Dental calculus in El Sidrón reveals a vegetarian diet. Dental calculus in Belgium, also Neanderthals, reveals they ate woolly rhino and other men. Now, a split between vegetarians and cannibals suggest the pre-Flood world to me. Just vegetarians, see Genesis 9:2. Unjust into cannibalism and vampyrism, gay marriage and forced marriage, if I get the hint in Matthew 24:38 correct (some who were less close to the end times than we are have obviously held He meant ordinary food, drink, marriage arrangements).

Human language doesn't exist without the human soul. If some wacky theologian pretended it could back in the day of Pius XII, that could explain (along with non-condemnation in Humani Generis) the subsequent McCarrick-like scandals via a Romans 1 punishment. Plus all the disorders after Vatican II, whatever you believe of the Council. Plus the existence of four claimants to the papacy, I obviously think the one agreeing with you is for that reason the least likely.

You mentioned pushing Adam and Eve far back.

Not if there is something funny with the dating methods. Read this paragraph in context, you may find it instructive:

When it comes to radiometric dates, the carbon dates concern only Neanderthals and Denisovans, when it comes to Heidelbergians and Antecessors (whom I suspect of being simply Denisovans, but they are other finds and other dates) and to Homo erectus, we are more typically dealing with K-Ar, with Potassium Argon. In a Flood setting, how old would reflect how much argon was trapped by rapid cooling of lava spreading above the mud their bodies were in. For Neanderthals and Denisovans, where we have carbon dates, these end at or perhaps a bit before 40 000 BP. This is why for long I took the carbon date 40 000 BP or 38 000 BC as the carbon date of the Flood year.

Creation vs. Evolution : I Had a Dream : a Discussion About Human Skeleta
Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 00:34 mardi 23 avril 2024
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/04/i-had-dream-discussion-about-human.html

Note, I said "if" ...

45:50 Pretending Denisovans and Neanderthals are not rational men, not descendants of Adam and Eve, brings on the evil suggestion we descend from what would, on the level of consensus, have amounted to Bestiality.

If the problem with accepting Neanderthals as human is, you prefer not putting Adam and Eve 40 000 years back, me neither. But the solution is not stating Homo sapiens is the only real human descendants of Adam, since you have Homo sapiens dated this far back or further. The solution is an extra look at the dating methods.