Extracting a Dialogue from Previous

Some Are Wrong on Babel · And Others Are Also Wrong on Babel and on Flood · Extracting a Dialogue from Previous

XI

dialogue - when I saw on a word document, that with it the document of text from previous post had 3326 words, 10 pages, and without it only 1250 words, 4 pages, I figured it could be a post of its own, this dialogue.

Matt Holton

I am endlessly amazed by videos that try to persuade people that the biblical flood myth actually happened. There are endless proofs showing that the flood story is just a myth. I offer just one here but can offer many more if needed. If you cover the earth 6 miles deep in salt water for a year, what happens to the plant life?, indeed to the whole biosphere? When the water magically disappeared (to where?) the occupants of the ark would all have soon died when they found themselves on an earth that could no longer support animal life.

Dee Lee

6 miles deep?

The highest hill, which may have been only a few hundred feet high (or less - nobody knows) was covered by 15 cubits of water. That's about 22ft. And it would have been fresh water.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In fact, the one way for Noah to know if the very highest hill was covered by 15 cubits of water would have been to know the Ark had a 15 cubits water line and having built it on that hill.

Matt Holton

Dee Lee Don't you believe the Bible version then? You think it was a very small local flood?

teddansonLA

Dee Lee Everest is almost 9000 meters above the sea level, which is about 5.5 miles - call it six miles. And Everest has been this tall for all of human history. So yes, 6 miles deep - please explain the flood without having to make even more ludicrous claims like Everest grew 9000 meters in some short time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Both Matt Holton and teddansonLA seem to have a problem grasping what Creationists are actually saying.

LA is somewhat better.

"without having to make even more ludicrous claims like Everest grew 9000 meters in some short time."

If the mountain was FOLDED while the sediments were still WET, it can have risen very high very quick - along with all the rest of the Himalayas (dito Alps, Andes and probably some more too).

Matt Holton

Hans-Georg Lundahl , I think you must be smoking something. The Himalayas are not sedimentary. They are upthrust mountains caused by the collision of the Indian and Asian plates. The earths crust is vastly thicker all through the collision zone and that zone is thousands of miles long. Folded? really? The collision process started millions of years ago and is continuing to this day. I think Creationists should try reading some science books to find out the very obvious, straightforward and well understood reasons why their beliefs are ludicrous.

teddansonLA

Hans-Georg Lundahl No, there is no problem grasping what creationism says. Essentially, creationism is saying that the Bible is completely correct and should be accepted without question. In this case it means attempting to fit the geologic history of the earth into a biblical timescale, which includes mountain building - a process which takes of order 10 - 100 million years - clearly the facts of science are not compatible with creationism.

If the mountain was FOLDED while the sediments were still WET, it can have risen very high very quick - along with all the rest of the Himalayas

Nonsense. You've got to cram 65 million years of mountain building into a few years and the rocks being wet will not do that. Any undergraduate textbook on geology will help you understand what science says.

And while you're at it, explain the presence of marine fossils and the lack of mammalian fossil on top of Everest. After all, if the flood covered the whole earth, then you'd expect all fossils to be deposited on Everest, right? So you'll need to explain why there are trilobite fossils up there but no rabbit fossils.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[to teddansonLA]

"In this case it means attempting to fit the geologic history of the earth into a biblical timescale, which includes mountain building - a process which takes of order 10 - 100 million years - clearly the facts of science are not compatible with creationism."

Clearly we have not seen the 10 - 100 million years in direct observation.

You should reformulate to "clearly certain theories of science are not compatible with creationism". Which I obviously endorse.

"And while you're at it, explain the presence of marine fossils and the lack of mammalian fossil on top of Everest. After all, if the flood covered the whole earth, then you'd expect all fossils to be deposited on Everest, right? So you'll need to explain why there are trilobite fossils up there but no rabbit fossils."

Mt Everest like Bonaparte Basin was sea in pre-Flood times.

Vienna was sea shore. You find a whale in one place and a seal in another one.

Against creationist arguing these could have been dragged any number of miles, since so much débris was under flood, I submit, if they had been, they would not have arrived as identifiable fossils, but as bone crush powder.

So, Vienna was sea shore. This opens for Danube to have been floating other way from Dobrugea to Vienna, since Black Sea Flood happened in post-Babel times, and this means, Danube and Euphrates riverbeds could have been one river Frat but floating NW instead of as now both of them SE.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[to Matt Holton]

"The Himalayas are not sedimentary. They are upthrust mountains"

Upthrust would mean original sediments have been deformed by an upthrust, right?

In the triple classification of sedimentary, volcanic and metamorphic, I suppose this makes them metamorphic.

"They are upthrust mountains caused by the collision of the Indian and Asian plates."

A collision which helped drain off water from the then still muddy Himalayas, I presume.

You know, if you want fresh cheese to dry, it helps to get it into a more vertical mold (I've done cheese making). This was in this case accomplished by such folding or upthrust of two plates.

As to the exact shade of meaning between upthrust and folded, that is beyond my own level of amateur geology.

"The collision process started millions of years ago and is continuing to this day."

Ah, so your level of amateur geo-history starts out with the process taking place at about same speed all through ... we'd of course extrapolate from that and say it happened faster.

Matt Holton

Hans-Georg Lundahl You need to read some real science, some real geology, your ignorance is astonishing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look here, I am a few days past fifty ... the brazen boldness of men thinking they are to mentor me is what I find astonishing.

Did you even have time to read through my points?

teddansonLA

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Clearly we have not seen the 10 - 100 million years in direct observation

Why would one need to see anything in "direct observation"? Science is not limited in this way - fortunately. In anycase, we can directly measure the ratios of radio-isotopes in certain kinds of rocks and determine ages very effectively.

You should reformulate to "clearly certain theories of science are not compatible with creationism".

No, I think the plainer, and more accurate way of stating it I have already written. Creationism is incompatible with science.

Mt Everest like Bonaparte Basin was sea in pre-Flood times.

Not 4000 years ago it wasn't. And more to the point, I want an explanation for the fossils that are found there, not a vague "it was once sea" statements.

You find a whale in one place and a seal in another one

And never a whale and a plesiosaur in the same place. That's the point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah, so your level of amateur geo-history starts out with the process taking place at about same speed all through

He hasn't said anything of the sort. And go easy on the "amateur" disparagement: you are trying to say mountain building is like cheese making below, so you should realise you are in no position to mock others.

we'd of course extrapolate from that and say it happened faster.

You need it to be about 100,000 times faster (at least, since you are not actually saying how fast you think the mountains were built - but I assume you mean on a scale of 100s of years, instead of the correct value which is 10-100 million years.).

You know, if you want fresh cheese to dry, it helps to get it into a more vertical mold. This was in this case accomplished by such folding or upthrust of two plates.

The Himalayas are not made of cheese - so lets dispense with the irrelevant nonsense please.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Did you even have time to read through my points?

Yes, I took the required seconds to read your posts. How about before you post in response, you learn the science?

the brazen boldness of men thinking they are to mentor me

Nobody is here to mentor you. You made statements that were wrong, they got corrected, that is all. You should at least acknowledge this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Why would one need to see anything in "direct observation"?"

Well, whatever you have indirect evidence for would imply you have direct evidence for something else, so, at least some things you need direct observation for.

"In anycase, we can directly measure the ratios of radio-isotopes in certain kinds of rocks and determine ages very effectively."

Unless of course the ration of Argon to Potassium in lava can be affected by how quickly the lava cools and solidifies, trapping excess argon, which is affected by temperature (some lava formed under water in currents) ...

"No, I think the plainer, and more accurate way of stating it I have already written. Creationism is incompatible with science."

With your ideology of it.

"Not 4000 years ago it wasn't. And more to the point, I want an explanation for the fossils that are found there, not a vague "it was once sea" statements."

Your scientists were also not there looking 5000 years ago (I presume you referred to the Flood date, which I take as closer to 5000 than to 4500).

"And never a whale and a plesiosaur in the same place. That's the point."

You said "place" and not "layer"? Indeed, it is a point. It suggests while whales and plesiosaurs could both have swam above trilobites in pre-Flood times, they did not like swimming close to each other.

"He hasn't said anything of the sort."

Well, I think it was you who said sth about cramming so many millions of years into a short space ...

"And go easy on the "amateur" disparagement: you are trying to say mountain building is like cheese making below, so you should realise you are in no position to mock others."

Not quite always, but for those built by upthrust and or folding after Flood, I think there is a parallel. Like porosity and verticality and like things drying and solidifying better if liquids drain off first.

"You need it to be about 100,000 times faster (at least, since you are not actually saying how fast you think the mountains were built - but I assume you mean on a scale of 100s of years, instead of the correct value which is 10-100 million years.)."

That will do.

Probably ridiculous if stones had already hardened, but less so if there was more like mostly still soft mud.

"The Himalayas are not made of cheese - so lets dispense with the irrelevant nonsense please."

I think mud and fresh cheese have in common the property of a big content in H2O, and therefore I also think they have in common certain properties on how this is best eliminated.

"Yes, I took the required seconds to read your posts. How about before you post in response, you learn the science?"

Are you Matt Holton?

"Nobody is here to mentor you."

Did you read Matt Holton saying this? Here: "You need to read some real science, some real geology, your ignorance is astonishing."

I think that was an inappropriate tone to someone 50 years old.

"You made statements that were wrong, they got corrected, that is all. You should at least acknowledge this."

Read through the debate again, if you think that! Here it is, under XII on this link you find our debate:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : And Others Are Also Wrong on Babel and on Flood
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/09/and-others-are-also-wrong-on-babel-and.html

Sorry, under XI and above XII.

Sorry again, now it is a new post:

[linking here]

And Others Are Also Wrong on Babel and on Flood

Some Are Wrong on Babel · And Others Are Also Wrong on Babel and on Flood · Extracting a Dialogue from Previous

Origins: Noah’s Flood Genetics
Cornerstone Television Network | 5.I.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJNtUEzRGxM

I

3:17 Noah born about Anno Mundi 1056? More like 1642 ... - as you know, I go by LXX in Genesis chronology.

3:48 Rephrase : how many would have been on Earth after 2242 years?

6:23 Flood was nearly 5000 years ago, 2957 BC, btw.

Dee Lee

[to first of above]

Making Noah 14 years old at the time of the flood, and the father of 3 sons!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, since Flood was Anno Mundi 2242.

II

6:00 I'd like to know : are the Denisovan traits still available in mankind compatible with the Neanderthal traits - or do we need to think of one N and one D trait as having, for instance, a different chromosome 18 or a different chromosome 4?

In the former case, the Denisovan and Neanderthal traits could come from same daughter in law of Noah, in the latter case, from two different ones at least.

III

7:35 Peleg was born 401 after Flood (in the version of LXX available to St Jerome), I'd say, which fits nicely with Babel ending 395 after Flood, and the linguistic and ethnic break up still going on six years later, when Peleg was born ...

(With a second Cainan, "normal" LXX versions would have him born 529 after Flood).

IV

8:20 While the population could have grown much faster, I think there could be something amiss in how you explain the slowing down.

This based on my stats from Middle Ages.

You are omitting social factors which impede men from marrying and getting babies, bc they are socially not allowed to be breadwinners.

Note, people both died younger and were less well documented in early AD centuries than in the Middle Ages.

(Or the Imperial families studied for early AD centuries are less representative, since many Emperors were killed).

V

9:44 I see you take a "long stay in Egypt" approach.

That might fit ill with the 14 generations from Abraham to David in St Matthew's Gospel.

However, while 215 years in Egypt is about standard both Roman and Greek chronologies, a Syrian one (diocese of Antioch, where St Peter went between Jerusalem and Rome) actually also has a long stay and agrees with you.

10:22 ah - even after 215 years - fine!

Btw, I saw the charts involved small or short child spacing = no contraception.

VI

12:46 "yeah, there are some ancient bones we found - great, but those are post-Flood people"

I'd say some were pre-Flood.

Pure Denisovan, pure Neanderthal, anything not predominantly Cro-Magnon, and some of the Cro-Magnon too.

Sethites as in Noah's line, 10 generations from Adam, and Cainites as in Noema's, Madame Ham's line, 7 or 8 generations from Adam, well, those would both be Cro-Magnon, and some in the Cainite lineage would have some darker skin.

Kush was named after that trait, this would have been the original nickname of for instance Jubal, who, in Sanskrit is later known as Krishna ... I am speaking of the human carreer, not about the divine claim Hindoos make for him.

But in Romania you have found two brothers, half Cro-Magnon and half Neanderthal - they would have been pre-Flood.

Neanderthal extinction = 40,000 to 35,000 BP, sth.
Denisovan extinction = 40,000 to 35,000 BP, sth.
Flores hobbit extinction maybe 40,000 BP, sth.

These being carbon dates.

I see a pattern, and it says "40 000 BP or 38 000 BC is the carbon date for the Flood year".

Note, men that were dated by Potassium Argon in lava above or below them can of course be considered as undated.

VII

13:36 In fact, there is a more recent male ancestor of all men than Adam : Noah.

It is Noah who is "Y chromosome Adam". And Neanderthals NOT having Y chromosomes so explainable is one indication they were pre-Flood, as not descending from Noah.

Even if one of his daughters in law partly descended from them.

There are TWO possible explanations of why Neanderthals and Denisovans are so much more different genetically than post-Flood men from each other:

• more generations between Adam and Flood
• OR some angelic or other bad meddling with genome.

If Svante Pääbo said, he was surprised, Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA is not very close to "Homo sapiens" (or Sethites, as we would call them), but midway between man and chimp ... I wonder whether some transhumanism in the pre-Flood world tried to mix man with chimp.

13:50 Mitochondrial Eve would, considering Neanderthal's also be much more recent than Eve.

VIII

15:31 I think you are putting Tower of Babel too far back in archaeology. Before (parts of) Palaeolithic.

Genesis 10:32 By these were the nations divided on the earth after the flood.

Genesis 11:9 and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.

It would be possible that this is not the same event, and that the former preceeds Upper Palaeolithic.

Even if for instance Basques came to their place directly after the Flood, some people came there after them (Gomerites from Babel).

I think Tower of Babel was in the Neolithic = Göbekli Tepe.

(Btw, some other Evangelicals go to another extreme, and put ToB too late in archaeology, to make it fit Babylonian / Sumerian Ziggurat history - no, the Ziggurat of Ur has been built by a man already speaking Sumerian as a post-Babel language).

IX

20:26 "if Noah and his family are all closely related to each other"

I think Noah wanted to preserve Cainite lineage for future city building (Noema being Mrs Ham), and some Neanderthal lineage for immediate post-Flood use of "stone age" or Gilligan's Island survival skills.

If you knew you were going to Gilligan's Island, wouldn't it be great to bring along at least one Red Injun?

X

22:57 You are forgetting, most mutations are functionally irrelevant.

In flus, such would be pragmatically and circumstantially benign : since a mutation makes it less likely for a virus to get detected as such by the human immune system.

23:22 Virus are not biologically alive, and the extinction of a strand in 2009 would more probably be due to its being a strand which was narrow enough to actually end by the human immune system killing it off (along with some help by vaccinations, I presume).

XI

dialogue moved to own post:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Extracting a Dialogue from Previous
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/09/extracting-dialogue-from-previous.html

XII

dialogue

annieladysmith

Stupid. The DNA is set and will not change. Skin colour is one example. "Mutations" will not bring about the characteristic differences we see in races today. Not everyone came from Adam and Eve.

Viking Knight

how much less chance then we all came from a rock or a puddle of mud(primordial soup) & w/ your way of thinking speciation even not possible which evolutionist try to say is evidence for evolution, though it's just "selecting" from existing DNA & limits(not expands) the DNA Pool which BTW is what cause our races hmmm, I guess either way, Evolution's not happening. & you can bet your soul Abiogenesis didn't either

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Skin colour is one example."

In fact, the gradations of skin colours can be explained by greater concentration of one or other allele on a gene (or multiply by more genes) involved with skin melanin production.

And the one with less melanin is a mutation, a bit like bleaders' disease.

Some Are Wrong on Babel

Some Are Wrong on Babel · And Others Are Also Wrong on Babel and on Flood · Extracting a Dialogue from Previous

Know Your Enemy (Part 7 - Tower of Babel: Heaven)
TheFuelProject | 13.V.2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_2xrp3aXmQ

I

You have a mistranslation of Genesis 11:4

and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven

Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes : Book Of Genesis : Chapter 11
http://drbo.org/chapter/01011.htm

et turrim, cujus culmen pertingat ad caelum

Latin Vulgate (Clementine) : Book Of Genesis : Chapter 11
http://drbo.org/lvb/chapter/01011.htm

Similarly, LXX has:

καὶ πύργον, οὗ ἔσται ἡ κεφαλὴ ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ,

Septuagint GENESIS - 11
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/septuagint-genesis/11.asp

Your translation omits "the top whereof".

II

0:46 "the Babylonians were not attempting to build some kind of structure that would literally reach into outer space"

• 1) Babelians were not necessarily as yet Babylonians
• 2) How do you know they weren't?
• 3) A structure of which precisely the top section, but nothing else reaches outer space has recently and repeatedly been launched from places like Cape Canaveral and Baikonur - how do you know they were not trying precisely that?

In fact, if they were, this explains (one way, at least) why we don't find any extremely tall or skyscraper like building at Göbekli Tepe, if that was Babel (or City of Babel) - another way would be if Tower was outside the City, these ways are not mutually exclusive.

It also explains why God stopped Tower of Babel but not recent space travel:

• 1) Nimrod may have been trying the wrong rocket fuel (Uranium may have been known from pre-Flood times)
• 2) Also, a rocket project back then would have swamped a MUCH larger portion of mankind into Nimrod's proti-version of NASA.

That would also explain the verse neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.

Rocketry was recently accomplished and getting to the stars has remained a dream among pagans since Babel.

III

0:52 "a temple dedicated to the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis"

I don't think there is as much archaeological evidence for such a temple as there is for Göbekli Tepe.

IV

1:14 "ziggurats"

Göbekli Tepe is older than the Mesopotamian area Ziggurats.

V

Insertion : I was viewing your e-book and saw you identified Mesopotamia with Iraq.

Sorry, but South Iraq is South OF Mesopotamia and North West Mesopotamia straddles Iraq, Turkey and Syria.

While South East Mesopotamia was Babolonia in Mid Iraq, North West Mesopotamia was Assyria.

Did you know, one of the things which changed Greek culture between Mycenean and Classic times was the influence of Assyria, after elimination of Hittites?

Well, if Assyria had been in Iraq, beats me how that could be, but since Assyria straddles Iraq, Northern Syria and Eastern Anatolia (modern day Turkey), it becomes plausible.

So, Göbekli Tepe was arguably the first post-Flood city and it was outside Iraq. It was probably Babel.

VI

3:50 In your four purposes, you have exegeted "tower" as "religious temple" - I think you are wrong here.

I also think materialism was an earlier non-Hebrew philosophy than what we usually call Paganism.

4:24 You trip over considering the "tower" as a "ziggurat".

That would eliminate Göbekli Tepe, as there was no ziggurat there.

If the tower was a rocket project, it is arguable it had been prepared by some astronomic obervation, and if Graham Hancock was right, there is a ziggurat older than Göbekli Tepe in Indonesia - here we are:

"The site was dated 6,500 years BP (before present) by carbon radiometric dating at 3–4 metres below the surface (12,500 years at 8 to 10 metres below the surface), and the artifacts at the surface date to about 4,800 years BP."

12,500 BP in radiocarbon dates = older than Göbekli Tepe.

GT = 11,600 - 10,600 BP = 9,600 - 8,600 BC, as per carbon.

Real dates, on my view : 355 to 395 after Flood, so 401 after Flood Peleg is born in the following break up.

It's from :

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

And, yes, Gunung Padang is far east compared to Mesopotamia, and what does the Bible say:

And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

Well, Sennaar or Shinar = Mesopotamia, so ... anything between Persia and Gunung Padang would be within this information.

VII

5:10 "and not be scattered" in your version.

Douay Rheims has:

before we be scattered abroad into all lands.

Vulgate has:

antequam dividamur in universas terras.

LXX has:

πρὸ τοῦ διασπαρῆναι ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ προσώπου πάσης τῆς γῆς.

According to all these three versions, the Babelian "they" were counting on eventually getting scattered - they wanted to get sth ready first.

In other words, the text does not quite by itself denote a disobedience to God's command a few chapters earlier.

"Dark Ages" video reviewed

Know Your Enemy (Part 30 - The Dark Ages)
TheFuelProject | 14.II.2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-6rnllKY6w

I

0:49 As I will probably soon disagree with you on this video, I agree yin and yang is a bad concept.

Would you agree Jediism is Stoicism + Yin and Yang Pantheism?

1:44 East India Trading company ... can Sikhism have been involved with Enlightenment?

1:59 Feng Shui = Pythagorean ideas ...

II

2:14 Here are some disagreements and questions on your checklist:

"Hypnosis" - why occult (obviously, past lives regression is, since involving reincarnation ideology)?
"Self hypnosis" - rarely has to do with past lives regression, so, why occult?

"Mysticism" - too vague
"Numerical symbolism / Numerology" - even if Biblical? "Kabbala (Occult Lore)" - even if leading a man to Christ? (Isaac Kaduri)
"Metaphysics (study of spirit world)" - studying how spirit differs from matter by rational means is clearly NOT occult!

"Apparitions - occultic" - I definitely hope you don't mean Marian ones, recognised by the Catholic Church!

"Divining rod or twig or pendulum (Hosea 4:12)" - Not sure pendulum belongs here, though Pius XII thought otherwise.
"Rhabdomancy (casting sticks into the air for interpreting omens)" - I think this is what Hosea 4:12 refers to?

"Dungeons and dragons" "Gothic rock music" "Punk rock music" - over the top.

Däniken and Cayce? It would be wrong to agree with them, in their major points (ancient alien astronauts being once taken for gods or Mu, Lemuria and Atlantis being part of a spiritual ascension of mankind) or to keep them where children could get them (at home), but what if one disagrees with what they are saying?

"Yoga (involves Eastern demon worship)" "Mantras" - in original form, certainly. Reapplied in a secular way (not reusing Hindoo mantras) or using Christian prayers "as mantras" is sth else.

"Martial arts (Aikido, Judo, Karate, Kung fu, Tae Kwan Do, Tai Chi etc)" - why? "is muay thai occult too?" someone asked. Is wearing Haori and Hakama for men, or Kimono for women occult too?

III

2:39 "Europe entered the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church stepped into power."

Technically both statements are true.

Dark Ages = Western Part of Roman Empire was multiply defeated and occupied by Barbarian not just rulers but dynasties (in which latter case they did not stay really Barbarian unless staying non-Catholic).

In some places precisely men of the Church helped when civil servants had failed. St Severin in Austria (parts of modern Austria), before he made a deal with Odoacar on peaceful march through and evacuation (Austrian Romans largely evacuated to Naples, where his biography was written). And Rome's only authority when Attila came was Pope St Leo I. And Paris region, after death of Syagrius, opposed the Pagan invader Clovis until he converted, and that under the bishop St Remigius.

Sure, where the Church was not persecuted by Arians, she stepped into power.

2:47 "and it quickly became the most powerful spiritual and political entity in the world"

Byzantium? China?

2:53 I am not certain that Donatio Constantini was a forgery.

"although it was found it was fraudulent in the 15th C"

Know what? Darwin and Lyell "found" that Genesis was inaccurate. Valla "found" that Donatio Constantini was a fraud.

I have not read his work on that question, but one part of the trouble might be, he was expecting Constantine's Roman times to be near identical to Julius Caesar's or Cicero's (except for Edict of Milan of course) and so was debunking things which might be genuine in it.

3:08 "legal authority over the kings of Europe was already in the hands of the Pope"

• 1) This has to do with God's law, as per Matthew 28:16-20. Converting one whole nation involves converting its king. Teaching one whole nation involves teaching its king. Converting or teaching a nation which has a king unconverted and untaught is risky business, so, popes and bishops have power to depose kings disobedient to God (see thereon Samuel deposing Saul).
• 2) This also has to do with the role of the Church as a solid anchor during the Dark Ages (which ended around 800).

3:29 Would you mind telling us the words and documents in which Pepin was "bribed"?

Also, yes, the Lombards were attacking Papal territories, and this was a bad thing. If people have been used to obeying a Christian bishop (including the universal one, that of Rome) as their civil authority, why should they be forced to accept another one which hates that bishop instead?

3:44 The reason why the Pope could crown an emperor other than the one in Constantinople was:

• possibly Donatio Constantini (it was thought so at the time)
• certainly the precedent of St Remigius crowning Clovis
• the then ineptitude and Barbarism of Byzantine Empire, where recently Iconoclasm had prevailed, where the Orthodox party were defended by an Empress (technically Emperor, since basilissa meant sth other then basileus, basilissa meant empress consort) who punished her son by gouging his eyes (a kind of punishment which had been abolished or not successfully even introduced among Franks)
• the necessity to continue the dignity of Emperor, since that dignity is what was holding back the mystery of iniquity.

II Thess 2:6-7
[6] And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

And "he that now holdeth" = Roman Emperor. Yes, even with Nero (but the words could be from when Claudius was emperor) the Emperor held back the "fourth beast" (as Roman Republic had been when Antiochus Epiphanes represented it in Holy Land) from as yet producing the revolt and the man of sin.

Hence, putting off the end time tribulations = perpetuating Imperial Dignity of Rome.

This is one reason why St Remigius had not simply accepted whoever invaded as the new power, but tried to perpetuate a corner of Rome and insofar succeeded as Clovis could only step in when he became Catholic enough to be somewhat Roman.

Hence, even if Donatio Constantini was a fraud, which could be, the Pope Leo III had good reason to crown Charlemagne as Emperor.

IV

3:57 "who claimed the authority to do so because of the forged donation of Constantine"

Not exclusively.

V

4:04 If you are looking for a confirmation of the quote you just gave as coming from "the Catholic historian Tertullian" - you get an error 404.

Now, you were just being a bit moralistic on frauds involved in Donatio Constantini, and now you forward a fraudulent claim yourself.

Oh, you took it on good faith? Well, then Pope Leo III perhaps also took Donatio Constantini on good faith too.

Here is a passage I did find with the words:

When Tetzel entered a city, he made his way directly to the cathedral. A cross was set up in front of the altar and a strong, iron box was placed beside it. Tetzel, mounting the pulpit, would expound on the incomparable merit of his wares. Never before had the gates of Paradise opened so wide. “’Indulgences,’ he said, ‘are the most precious and most noble of God’s gifts. . . . Come, and I will give you letters all properly sealed, by which even the sins you intend to commit may be pardoned. I would not change my privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven, for I have saved more souls by my indulgences than the apostle did by his sermons. . . . But more than this . . . indulgences avail not only for the living, but for the dead. Priest, noble, merchant, wife, youth, maiden, do you not hear your parents and your other friends who are dead, and who cry from the bottom of the abyss: “We are suffering horrible torments! A trifling alms would deliver us; you can give it and you will not.”?

‘At the very instant,’ continues Tetzel, ‘that the money rattles at the bottom of the chest, the soul escapes from purgatory, and flies liberated to heaven. Now you can ransom so many souls, stiff-necked and thoughtless man; with twelve groats you can deliver your father from purgatory, and you are ungrateful enough not to save him! I shall be satisfied in the Day of Judgment; but you—you will be punished so much the more severely for having neglected so great salvation. I declare to you, though you have a single coat, you ought to strip it off and sell it, in order to obtain this grace. . . . The Lord our God no longer reigns; He has resigned all power to the pope.’” Wylie, History of Protestantism, vol. 1, 57.

Now, Wylie's History of Protestantism vol 1 (chapter or page?) 57 is cited on this page:

https://www.stepstolife.org/article/martin-luther-part2-indulgences/

And I would NOT take Wylie's words that even Tetzel actually said those words.

Here I come across some "Papal claims of divinity", and I will after deal with each one:

“The Lord our God no longer reigns: He has resigned all power to the Pope.”
TETZEL, Vendor of Indulgences to obtain money for the repair of St. Peters Basilica: Cited in “THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANTISM”, Vol. I pages 255-260

“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks...”
Pope Pius X, when Archbishop of Venice; Quoted by “Catholique Nationale”, July 13, 1895

“It is certain that the Pontiff was called a God by the Pious Prince Constantine.”
Canon Law, published by Gratianus, 12th Century

“The Most Holy and Most Blessed One, who hath Divine Judgment, who is Lord on Earth, successor of Peter, the Lord’s Christ, Lord of the Universe, Father of Kings, Light of the World, the Chief Pontiff Pope Martin.”
Annunciation of Pope Martin at the Court of the Greek Emperor. 13th Century.

http://www.christadelphianbooks.org/croconnor/tokan/tokan07.html

“The Lord our God no longer reigns: He has resigned all power to the Pope.”
TETZEL, Vendor of Indulgences to obtain money for the repair of St. Peters Basilica: Cited in “THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANTISM”, Vol. I pages 255-260

So, the quote is not from any Catholic historian "Tertullian" (there is one known Tertullian, he is kind of a Church Father, but before Constantine, and ended a schismatic Montanist)

“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks...”
Pope Pius X, when Archbishop of Venice; Quoted by “Catholique Nationale”, July 13, 1895

Now, thank you VERY much for the actual reference to Pius X saying so.

Sarto, who was patriarch of Venice from 1893 (later Pope Pius X, the name under which he is best known) is quoted as saying so in "Catholique Nationale"

Now, I did a search on "Catholique nationale" AND "13 juillet 1895"

I get this:

Full text of "Recueil de jugements du Tribunal cantonal de la ...
https://archive.org/stream/.../recueildejugeme00unkngoog_djvu.txt
Le 13 juillet 1895, Aloide Morel se fit inscrire au registre du commerce sous la ...... 13,000 conclu par la paroisse catholique nationale, suivant acte reçu Jules ...

This might be a better format:

https://archive.org/details/recueildejugeme00unkngoog

In other words, the words atttributed to Giuseppe Sarto from before he became Pope Pius X are given in the book(s) by Rick O'Connor The Things Of The Kingdom And The Things Of The Name / The Bible: The Only Source Of Authority and attributed to a non-extant source.

“It is certain that the Pontiff was called a God by the Pious Prince Constantine.”
Canon Law, published by Gratianus, 12th Century

I may ask a canonist on this one, but I suspect it is a fraud.

“The Most Holy and Most Blessed One, who hath Divine Judgment, who is Lord on Earth, successor of Peter, the Lord’s Christ, Lord of the
Universe, Father of Kings, Light of the World, the Chief Pontiff Pope Martin.” Annunciation of Pope Martin at the Court of the Greek Emperor. 13th Century.

There is indeed a Pope Martin during the 13th C. Pope Martin IV.

Wikipedia has a thing to say on his relation with the Court of the Greek Emperor:

"Dependent on Charles of Anjou in nearly everything, the new Pope quickly appointed him to the position of Senator of Rome.[42] At the insistence of Charles, Martin IV excommunicated the Eastern Roman Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus, who stood in the way of Charles's plans to restore the Latin Empire of the East that had been established in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. He thus broke the tenuous union which had been reached between the Greek and the Latin Churches at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 and further compromise was rendered impossible."

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

Ah, sounds like he came as a guest and was honoured in the court of Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus (the Greek Emperor in 1281, the Latin one, the successor to Charlemagne being Rudolph I, King of the Romans). [Irony!]

So, no, this is also a fake quote. At best, Palaeologus may have made a mock ceremony of receiving "him" and made an announcement calculated to sound blasphemous - but that does not make Pope Martin IV such.

VI

4:38 "anyone who did not willingly submit to the authority of the church was persecuted and killed for heresy"

In the Dark Ages? (400/500 - 800/1000)?

In the Carolingian Renaissance (800)?

Really?

All over the Catholic world, even when death penalty for heresy was approved by the Church as late as in ... I was going to say 1215, but in fact the canon 3 of IV Lateran council speaks of expelling heretics, does not officially approve of, still less demand, killing them:

"Canon 3: Procedure and penalties against heretics and their protectors. If those suspected of heresy should neglect to prove themselves innocent, they are excommunicated. If they continue in the excommunication for twelve months they are to be condemned as heretics. Princes are to be admonished to swear that they will banish all whom the Church points out as heretics. This canon mandates that those pointed by the Church as heretics shall be expelled by the secular authorities or they will be excommunicated if failing to do so."

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

Note, theologians did argue death penalty for heresy was OK, St Thomas Aquinas being one of them.

But you are vastly exaggerating the time period and the geographic area in which heretics were likely to be killed.

VII

4:45 "European citizens were taxed heavily and were expected to spend their lives in the service of the Church"

No. 10 % of income is not heavy taxation.

THAT is the taxation asked by the Church (+ Peter's penny to Rome, a far smaller proportion).

VIII

5:20 "the Church taught the ignorant masses:
'as soon as the coin in the coffer springs, the troubled soul from purgatory springs!' "

I have heard Tetzel used to say so. [But see above, comment on Wylie]

If so, it is an oversimplification of what the Church really teaches on indulgences.

Yes, the moment you gain a plenary indulgence (for which giving money in alms is just one of the ways, there are other ones which are not costly in money), if you intended it to be applied to a soul in purgatory, the soul does spring from purgatory - but only if you managed to gain a plenary indulgence.

That depends not only on the work as such, but on your disposition when trying to gain one : no affection for mortal sin and not even affection for venial sins. Praying for the Holy Fathers intentions (not just your own).

And no, the invention of purgatory is God's.

Nothing impure can enter heaven = some who are saved when they die still need some extra cleaning.

IX

5:28 "the fable of Christ" quote attributed to "Pope Leo X"

You know this historiography is from Bilious Bale?

I found this out years ago.

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

If you want to identify papacy with Apocalyptic Antichrist, it pays to show some blasphemous words in papal mouths. If none are available, you can also invent them ... which it seems John Bale did on this one.

He was, on the RC view, sacrilegious as "bishop" not consecrated according to a real Catholic rite (invalidly "consecrated" bishop) and not in communion with Rome (therefore schismatic).

He was also sacrilegious by abandoning his eternal vows as a Carmelite friar. Like Luther, he had good reason to accuse his accusers. Tactically and socially, that is. Not sub specie aeternitatis.

X

5:33 "as a result of such corrupt behaviour, the Church became [exceedingly rich]"

Image doesn't show any bishop as a billionaire. Image does show a Church building richly decorated.

The objection to this one reminds me of Judas' objection to the precious oil.

Someone said "Judas Ischariot was the first Commie" but he was also the first of this crew of Protestants.

XI

5:40 "they played on fear"

That is told people to think of eternity.

"to control and dominate"

Less than you control and dominate your sectarians, after seeing your checklist on the occult.

"and increase their wealth in the process"

Oh, you don't live by donations, don't you? You don't sell books, you don't receive collections, your ministry is financed by your full time day job or night job, you do all this on evenings and weekends ...?

Or you are giving atheists excuses to object to your finances.

XII

5:40 - 5:49 "before long the Church dominated the political and cultural landscape .... [powerful institution in the] world and the Pope the most powerful man"

Christ is, both as God and as Man the most powerful.

Guess what he told His Church to do?

Matthew 28: [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: ...

Sounds like a command to dominate the political and cultural landscape to me ...

Btw, you know the sequence to the end of the last verse? Where in that day/those days do you consider the true Church of Christ was, if you dismiss the Catholic Church from being that?

You know, your sentiments about a Church being powerful (apart from your complaint this one wasn't faithful) remind me of the ideals of Otto von Bismarck in Prussia. In his days, Markan priority was touted among Protestants - because admitting Matthew was the first Gospel and therefore had even humanly a good chance of being true to the facts, the real words of Christ, was totally against what Otto wanted for his Kulturkampf.

He didn't like papacy, and he didn't like a powerful Church. He wanted a poor Church led by Germans without Italian interference.

XIII

6:11 Excommunication does not equal eternity in Hell. It means lacking the Communion of Christ's Church.

God can in eternity overrule an excommunication that is unjust.

However, when Popes excommunicated rulers, they excommunications were usually very just.

Image here is about Pope Gregory IX.

"At the coronation of Frederick II in Rome, 22 November 1220, the emperor made a vow to embark for the Holy Land in August 1221. Gregory IX began his pontificate by suspending the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, for dilatoriness in carrying out the promised Sixth Crusade. Frederick II appealed to the sovereigns of Europe complaining of his treatment. The suspension was followed by excommunication and threats of deposition, as deeper rifts appeared. Frederick II went to the Holy Land and in fact managed to take possession of Jerusalem. Gregory IX distrusted the emperor, since Rainald, the imperial Governor of Spoleto, had invaded the Pontifical States during the emperor's absence.[1] In June 1229, Frederick II returned from the Holy Land, routed the papal army which Gregory IX had sent to invade Sicily, and made new overtures of peace to the pope.

"Gregory IX and Frederick came to a truce, but when Frederick defeated the Lombard League in 1239, the possibility that he might dominate all of Italy, surrounding the Papal States, became a very real threat. A new outbreak of hostilities led to a fresh excommunication of the emperor in 1239 and to a prolonged war. Gregory denounced Frederick II as a heretic and summoned a council at Rome to give point to his anathema. Frederick responded by trying to capture or sink as many ships carrying prelates to the synod as he could."

Sounds like Frederick II acted like a robber ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_IX#Struggle_with_Frederick_II

"Eberhard II von Truchsees, Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg, in 1241 at the Council of Regensburg declared that Gregory IX was "that man of perdition, whom they call Antichrist, who in his extravagant boasting says, 'I am God, I cannot err'."[12] He argued that the Pope was the "little horn" of Daniel 7:8

'A little horn has grown up with eyes and mouth speaking great things, which is reducing three of these kingdoms—i.e. Sicily, Italy, and Germany—to subserviency, is persecuting the people of Christ and the saints of God with intolerable opposition, is confounding things human and divine, and is attempting things unutterable, execrable.'

"The struggle was only terminated by the death of Gregory IX on 22 August 1241. He died before events could reach their climax; it was his successor Pope Innocent IV who declared a crusade in 1245 that would finish the Hohenstaufen threat."

Sounds like Eberhart II was promoting the Protestant accusation against papacy in order to serve his worldly ruler Frederick II ... in other words, he was what certain Protestants usually accuse papacy in the time of Constantine of. However, he did not say so about papacy as such, only about that particular Pope.

XIV

6:29 "endeavoured to block all independent learning and scientific progress"

Copy-pasted from some Atheist propaganda site, right ...

The Church secured learning and secured scientific progress. The Albigensians and Waldensians didn't.

"in that way the people would be forced to depend on the church's hierarchy [for information]" 6:34

Much less than people just before internet were depending on certain institutions like universities for information.

These, btw, were founded by either the Church or a State with good relations to Her (usually, not counting the Hohenstaufer era in HRE).

XV

6:47 "This is primarily why the era has become known as the Dark Ages."

No. Petrarca called certain ages dark bc they wrote a Latin which was too close to their spoken language and therefore hard to understand 800 years later, when Latin was already an artificial language.

That is the primary reason.

"The concept of a "Dark Age" originated in the 1330s with the Italian scholar Petrarch, who regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

If the link doesn't work, add a closing parenthesis, or use instead http://tiny.cc/h4u8xy

XVI

6:55 "By 500 the Bible was accessible in 500 languages, by 600 the Catholic Church had restricted it to just one language, and that was Latin"

A very stupid claim.

• 1) There were not 500 languages around the Roman world, especially not as used beyond lower class everyday communications, so it is certain there were not 500 languages to translate it to;
• 2) The translations did not disappear by 600, neither Coptic which was used in liturgy nor Anglo-Saxon which was used in sermons translating the Latin liturgy;
• 3) The restrictions for liturgic language were in fact to 3 such : Hebrew, Greek and Latin, but this restriction was not applied to stop Coptic or Syriac liturgy, and it was not remembered when a Slavic one was began by Sts Cyril and Method;
• 4) In 600 Visigoths in Spain were still using Gothic as liturgic language for Arian liturgy;
• 5) But above all, Latin in 600 in most parts of Western Roman Empire was a vernacular language.

Only later, around 800 for Franks and after 1000 for Spain, did Latin in what is now France or Spain come to be pronounced in a non-vernacular way, so that learning Latin became learning a foreign language instead of learning to write.

7:00 "dead by this time, understood only by priests"

False for 600.

In 800 Alcuin came from York to Tours, so that monks in Tours should be able to say Latin so that monks from York or Rome should be able to understand it when hearing. In 813 they discovered as a result that the people no longer understood it, and promptly ordered that the Latin gospel reading which just last decade had become unintelligible to people, should be followed by a sermon translating or explaining what had been read in the Gospel, on the days when the people were required to go to Mass (Sundays and Holidays).

Obviously, 800 is 200 years later than 600.

Even after 800, "only by priests" is an exaggeration, since"education" (Learning Latin) was never formally restricted to priests and generously offered even to poor laymen.

This is reading back into 600 a problem concerning English RC bishops and Lollards like the Coventry case in 1511 (if I recall the date correctly). [I checked, that is when procutions started.]

XVII

7:05 or 7:10 sth "people became utterly reliant on the Church for information about God"

But as long as the Church is faithful, this is as it should be.

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
[1 Timothy 3:15]

XVIII

7:31 on screen:

"Hierarchies make some people dépendent on others, blame the dépendent for their dependency, and then use that dependency as a justification for further exercise of authority." - Martha Ackelsberg

I believe, this is a correct quote.

Ackelsberg, Martha (2005). Free Women of Spain. Cited in the article:

Institute for Anarchist Studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Anarchist_Studies

I also believe, the idea may be correct about some hierarchies, but not of others. The Church was made a hierarchy by Christ.

XIX

7:52 Your accusations of devotion to Mary, idea of sacraments, mandatory celibacy as pre-requisite for priesthood or monasticism being corruptions are really an enumeration without argument. As if nouns were by themselves arguments ... in this case each noun is a disputed one.

Standing with Nicaea II? Or falling to Hell with Iconoclasm?

You chose what you do, for me it is Nicaea II, which the Catholic Church has recognised without controversy for centuries (unlike "Vatican II" or "Ephesus II", both of which have by some been called Robber Council)./HGL

Why did the Devil want Moses' body which God had buried?
DTBM OnlineVideoTraining | 21.VI.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqGpv58bRr8

I

1:09 "we are so wanting to materialize the spiritual"

Between God's burying Moses and now, we have had God do it for us - the right way.

Nazareth, Bethlehem, doesn't it ring a bell?

From Matthew 2 on, it is OK to adore something visible, like the presence of the Christ child:

[1] When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. [2] Saying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to adore him

And once we can now adore a visible God, an Emmanu-El, the honour to visible saints is a less delicate one, since we can place the Incarnate God above the all dimensions created people saints.

That is why Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. - Yes, it is in a Catholic Bible - was an important part of the commandment to the Israelites and is not quite as applicable now.

No, we did not delete a commandment from our Bible.

What we did is not to number the cited words as a separate commandment from previous verses. Or following.

[I Commandment in Catholic numbering : Exodus 20:2-6]

II

1:23 I detected an Anti-Catholic slur about Catholic prayer beads (rosaries, I presume, mainly, though we have a few other ones) and saying "idols" and "icons" in the same phrase ...

I think there is an anathema over your heresy.

You can check with these extracts from a Council by the Church that Christ really founded (not yours, that is):

Second Council of Nicæa
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

Back to Misdefining Paedophilia - as in even defining it is misdefining it

The Paedophile Agenda
TheFuelProject | 3.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8p5ijTfdPM

I

5:08 There is a fault of connection in this campaign text.

• 1) Homosexuality was NOT regarded as normal all over Greece. Aristotle considered it against nature and gave a list of how different states (city states) handled the question. Only Corinth thought it was quite all right - and they were a merchant city. Athens had paederasty - considered as OK as long as the lover didn't touch the beloved sexually and as shameful if he did. Sparta had homosexual couples of same age as basis of the army - but this was JUST for Spartans and JUST a way to make the army more efficient, and both the lovers had regularly to withdraw from each other to their wives. AND, many other Doric states, like Crete, simply had death penalty for homosexuality. Paederastic or not.
• 2) Anything moderns would have labelled as "paedophilia" outside this, i e an older man with a very young woman was, however, considered as perfectly normal, as long as she was old enough. The age limits were 14 / 12.

So, a girl of 12 marries a man of 14 ... modern world goes "how could they afford it". And answer is often "rich parents" and sometimes "low expectations in income anyway".

A girl of 12 marries a man of 60 instead ... modern world goes "no, it's so gross" - but she will be a fairly young, still attractive widow, and second marriages are allowed in Christianity - not after divorce, but after widowhood and widowerhood.

BOTH the pro-campaign AND what seems as your anti-campaign (dragging Jeremy Forest into what you are attacking) are doing meaning and grammar and logic a very great disservice by equating "girl of 12 marries man of 60" with paederasty of Corinthians.

That was probably the age relation (more or less) between the Blessed Virgin and St Joseph.

One more thing - Christianity probably contributed to respecting the 14 / 12 age limits, since they coincided with the Davidic ones. Pagans actually, a bit like Tibetans and Muslims, got under that.

A girl can/could marry, then:

• if Roman Christian at 12
• if Tibetan at 11
• if Roman Pagan at 10 (yes, there are tombstones saying so)
• if Muslim at 9 or perhaps even 8.

This should be considered a separate question to the NAMBLA one.

(And Tibetans, Roman Pagans, Muslims are/were wrong, but that is not as wrong as paederasty or any other kind of homosexuality.)

II

7:49 "pedophilia can be" ... in fact so many different things that the term is meaningless.

A term where ritual sexual abuse of babies is as much a possible interpretation as going somewhat "Muslim" on matrimonial age issues or not even that (in Sweden, pedophilia is considered attraction to persons under 15 - due to legal reasons, that being the age of consent - if it is exclusive, if over 15 is a turnoff, which it isn't to me), well, such a term is useless.

Or worse, it has a bad use, of confusing issues, if it is done deliberately.

As I just commented on the TED talk a bit before that, Jonas can be attracted to girls of 12, my proposed solution for him is, he should be allowed to marry one, and let's hope the attraction outlasts her 13th birthday.

If the comment where I discussed Jonas was deleted by TheFuelProject, this shows TheFuelProject is fulfilling St Paul's prophecy to St. Timothy and "forbidding marriage" because adhering to the doctrine of evil spirits. It is evil to stamp a person who is not just in puberty but who is so normally rather than precociously as a "child". It contributes to delayed marriages and to abortions in case of teen pregnancies.

In that comment, I also referred to my mother and her interest in Judaica, despite not being of Talmudic confession.

She told me without any shame or rejection, Jews used to have 12 and now have 13 as matrimonial age (she was not referring to Israeli legislation, that is another and modern thing).

The horror for "pedophilia" is a modern and recent thing. It is younger than my mother.

III

dialogue (starting with two words, may be prolonged)

Peter O

Mr Vladimir Putin and 99% of Russian people would not like this mental sickness....#StandWithRussia....you know it makes sense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In the case of young girls marrying, they are wrong in "not liking" it or calling it mental sickness.

They are using Commie indoctrination after Communism was supposed to be already gone.

It was Vladimir I, Lenin, who raised the marriage age in Russia to 18 for both sexes. If Vladimir II sticks to that, he is as much an Antichrist if not worse as Vladimir I.

alan mcnew

I'm an American and I feel that all pedophiles should be drug out in the street and shot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What type of "pedophiles"?

I saw a video in which a newly wed couple or a couple going to a wedding, she twelve, he senior, were attacked as "pedophiles" - that is, he was, but she was suffering too.

They are the probable age relation of St Mary and St Joseph at the first Christmas.

Would you have drug out St Joseph on the street and shot him? I think Herod could have used you.

alan mcnew

Hans do you think pedophilia is OK?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

alan, which definition of "pedophilia" are you asking about?

Raping babies? No, I don't think that is OK. I think it is a heinous crime.

NAMBLA? No, I think it is as bad as other homosexuality with some extra badness.

Muhammed marrying Aisha when she was 9? Not quite OK. While Aisha may have had her menses, that was unusually early.

Going under a current age limit, but not under 14 / 12 and without homosexuality? Yes, OK.

What I do not think is OK either (on top of the ones I did not find OK, which was most), is lumping all of these together, bc some shrink decided they should be same diagnosis.

When is Hislop Wrong? Everytime!

Tuborg will excuse me for using a meme from their own publicity ... but it is really to the point.

Here is a video by some Hislop fan, and below it are 17 comment sections of mine:

Know Your Enemy (Part 23 - Roman Catholicism)
TheFuelProject | 29.I.2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=221sYyagu2I

I

4:03 "the traditional Sabbath of God"

In other words, you consider the true Church needs to keep the Sabbath on Saturday (or perhaps on set days of lunar months, like new moon and every seventh day from the new moon up to next new moon).

On the other hand - where do you find a Church which did so through the centuries?

Matthew 28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

So, we must conclude that:

• since God ordered Apostles to teach all nations to observe whatsoever He commanded them;
• since God promised to be with them all days to Doomsday;
• since Doomsday has not yet occurred;
• thus every day from then to now and beyond now to Doomsday, there has to be a Church which teaches (this implies visibility, an invisible Church of just souls cannot effectively teach) all God commanded His apostles.

You suppose unlike us, that He did not command them after Resurrection to worship and rest instead primarily on the weekday of His Resurrection, so, where is, through the centuries, the Church which agrees with you?

Untouched by the love of Christ to the end ...

Well, precisely as an invisible Church of just souls cannot be teaching, so also a visible Church can teach even by men who are unjust and who are in a state of mortal sin.

However, Constantine was not an official teacher of the Catholic Church.

Also, what he did for Catholicism, his sons reversed by doing it instead for various shades of Arianism.

But the Catholic Church condemns Arianism, therefore is not Arianism.

So, if ever a Church was started by evil Roman Emperors, it was the one which seduced the Goths for a few centuries, and which ended when the Goths in Spain converted to Catholicism.

II

5:45 Personal corruption and pursuit of wealth had been in the Church Christ was leading Himself.

Judas Ischariot, remember?

If you recall the words he used of the precious ointment, see John identifying him as speaking them, the other Gospels or some say that disciples, in the plural, were saying them and Christ corrected all of them.

Now, Judas was personally corrupt and definitely pursuing wealth as a bishop should not (please note, I am not a bishop, I am a writer, so if I invite readers to become paper editors and send me voluntary royalties, this is not a betrayal of episcopal duties, me not having any such), his error echoed for some seconds in the Church, and then Christ corrected it.

This is what we should expect to happen later as well.

5:50 They forgot Jesus saying "My Kingdom is not of this world"?

Or they remembered Him saying "teach ye all nations" rather?

III

6:52 The Pope was called Damasus, not Damascus.

He held the Council of Rome from which you have (I presume) your NT canon.

"One of the important works of Pope Damasus was to preside in the Council of Rome of 382 that determined the canon or official list of Sacred Scripture. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, states: A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent. American Catholic priest and historian William Jurgens stated: "The first part of this decree has long been known as the Decree of Damasus, and concerns the Holy Spirit and the seven-fold gifts. The second part of the decree is more familiarly known as the opening part of the Gelasian Decree, in regard to the canon of Scripture: De libris recipiendis vel non recipiendis. It is now commonly held that the part of the Gelasian Decree dealing with the accepted canon of Scripture is an authentic work of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. and that Gelasius edited it again at the end of the fifth century, adding to it the catalog of the rejected books, the apocrypha. It is now almost universally accepted that these parts one and two of the Decree of Damasus are authentic parts of the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers)"

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

While you presumably reject his OT canon, you do not have an earlier canon version involving all the books you do recognise. St Athanasius may have used all 27 of NT, but he seems to have been doubtful about Esther.

Canon of Council of Laudicaea agrees with your OT canon, but omits Apocalypse from NT.

If you consider Ursinus (the rival of Damasus) was the true leader of Christians in Rome, how do you explain that Ursinus probably and his followers after his death certainly accepted Damasus and his followers?

IV

6:22 You said Gratian refused the title of supreme pontiff.

"The reign of Gratian forms an important epoch in ecclesiastical history, since during that period Nicene Christianity for the first time became dominant throughout the empire."

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

V

7:09 "And therefore the Catholic Pope is still the head of the mysteries of Babylon"

Does not follow.

Verbal identity of title does not imply real continuity or identity of thing.

Applies to "pontifex maximus" and also to "regina coeli".

The Blessed Virgin is not Ashtoreth and the honours given Her is not Ashtoreth worship.

The ire of God against Ashtoreth as "regina coeli" is totally explicable if He intended to raise His Mother to a position with similar title (it seems in Hebrew there are two words for queen, Jeremiah uses one of Astoreth and Kings uses another of Bathsheba as Queen when Solomon was King - the latter being relevant for the Blessed Virgin).

VI

7:27 Are you quoting this man?

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

Bc he was Broad Church - i e same party in CoE as Charles Lyell, those not believing the Bible.

Citing wiki:

"Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, FRS (13 December 1815 – 18 July 1881), known as Dean Stanley, was an English churchman and academic. He was Dean of Westminster from 1864 to 1881. His position was that of a Broad Churchman and he was the author of a number of works on Church History."

There were three parties in CoE : High Church = closer to Catholicism; Low Church = further away from Catholicism; Broad Church = not Christian (Liberal Theologians, Modernists).

VII

7:42 "he believed himself to be head not just over the Christian Church, but also over the Pagans in Rome"

In what way? That he could destroy their temples?

So ...? In any other way? Where do you get that from? Stanley?

VIII

8:03 (on screen) "Key point : in order to rule Pagans and Christians, the Catholic Church compromised Christianity."

I've heard that one very often, and since I was a child. I have never believed it.

I also have a Biblical reason to disbelieve it.

You can claim such a thing of Catholicism ONLY if you can show a visible Church existing in the same days (Matthew 28:20) and to ours, consistently opposing Catholicism on the same points as you do.

You do not have such a thing.

9:02 If this were so, (you were continuing the allegation of RC = Paganism + Christian façade) how come the fake Christianity fulfilled the command of converting nations and the sects you consider as true Christianity were very inactive as missionaries?

You do consider some sects opposed to Catholic Rome as true Christianity, don't you?

Or do you consider true Christianity had just vanished? That's same as saying (Matthew 28:20) that Christianity is not true.

IX

9:19 You cite:

"Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,"
[1 Timothy 4:1]

As being fulfilled in Catholicism.

Note, it says "some" - not "all".

9:36 [3] Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.

There was one fulfilment in Albigensians, an earlier in Manicheans, and there is one now, when teens are forbidden to marry, mental patients (some of whom are sane) are forbidden to marry, some were to recently forbidden marriage or at least real marriage as with fertility on racial grounds.

Similarily there is one now which promotes veganism - not on Fridays, but all year round.

X

9:46 You cited "idolatry" as one "accepted doctrine of the Church" (back then).

• A) what do you refer to?
• B) where was the visible Church which rejected what you consider as idolatry?

Remember, it has to have been there in those days as in all days up to Doomsday and still be there today, as Doomsday hasn't come yet.

You also called baptismal regeneration an error, what about John 3: [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

XI

10:08 Patron saints ... Hebrews 11 - 12:

[36] And others had trial of mockeries and stripes, moreover also of bands and prisons. [37] They were stoned, they were cut asunder, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword, they wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being in want, distressed, afflicted: [38] Of whom the world was not worthy; wandering in deserts, in mountains, and in dens, and in caves of the earth. [39] And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise; [40] God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us. [1] And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us: [2] Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God.

In other words, St Paul is considering OT saints as patron saints of the Church, now they have been perfected and now that Heaven is open to them, after Calvary.

This ties in with Pope St Damasus promoting honours to martyrs.

"He also did much to encourage the veneration of the Christian martyrs,[25] restoring and creating access to their tombs in the Catacombs of Rome and elsewhere, and setting up tablets with verse inscriptions composed by himself, several of which survive or are recorded in his Epigrammata.[26] Damasus rebuilt or repaired his father's church named for Saint Laurence, known as San Lorenzo fuori le Mura ("St Lawrence outside the walls"), which by the 7th century was a station on the itineraries of the graves of the Roman martyrs. Damasus' regard for the Roman martyr is attested also by the tradition according to which the Pope built a church devoted to Laurence in his own house, San Lorenzo in Damaso. St. Damasus sat in the Chair of St. Peter for eighteen years and two months. His feast day is 11 December. He was buried beside his mother and sister in a "funerary basilica ... somewhere between the Via Appia and Via Ardeatina", the exact location of which is lost."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Damasus_I#Devotion_to_the_martyrs

Gives reference:

Grig, 213 note 50 - referring to Grig, Lucy, "Portraits, Pontiffs and the Christianization of Fourth-Century Rome", Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 72, (2004), pp. 203–230, JSTOR

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40311081

10:23 - 10:34 Gods were sacrificed to, saints are supposed to and asked to pray for us.

XII

10:56 "all the mother and child cults, which originally represented Semiramis and Tammuz"

Back that up, will you?

Sounds like - Hislop.

A much closer analogy, in Paganism, would be Isis and Horus - but the problem is, they are also close enough to Apocalypse 12.

Yes, part of Apocalypse 12 seems like an echo of the Holy Family fleeing from Herod, and that exact story is so close to Isis and Horus fleeing from Seth, that obviously Zeitgeist and similar minded claim Christianity - the Gospel writers, hagiographers - took this over from Isis and Horus.

Btw, to someone with some real knowledge of letters, you need not expect Hislop to be taken as an authority or as someone who might know what he's talking about.

XIII

11:22 "instead of abandoning the old pagan holidays, they would simply adopt them under a new meaning, the winter solstice festival ..."

I go from subtitles and look at screen : Saturnalia.

Now, the thing about Saturnalia is, they were from December 17 to December 23:rd.

They were NOT on December 25. And the last few days before Christmas were NOT like starting to get in the mood, they were very strict Advent fasts. Polish Catholics still do 40 days of fasting leading up to Christmas and starting on or after 11.XI, St. Martin's day, therefore they are called St. Martin's fast.

This means that, while Christmas of Christians and Saturnalia of Pagans were both done, which was a few centuries or at least one, celebrating Saturnalia meant breaking the Christmas Fast, and that means they were doubly forbidden by the Church : both as Pagan and as breaking the fast.

Natalis Invictus Solis - sure that Natalis was part of the Pagan name?

In fact, the Pagan feast is so late in attestation (a few decades before Constantine's edict of Milan) that it could have been put in place in such a policy as you describe, but by a Pagan Emperor trying to bring Christians around, namely, if he knew they celebrated Christmas.

Which, at least in Egypt, they did.

But yes, it was on December 25. Unlike Saturnalia, which clearly is pre-Christian.

11:45 "indeed 25th of December was widely regarded by all Babylonian religions"

As Nimrod's birthday? As per what shows on screen?

You know what, the months January to December are a Roman invention. Especially having them alternate between 31 and 30 days except February getting 28 or sometimes 29 days was a Roman invention, by the Pontifex Maximus Julius Caesar.

Know one more? Other Pagan calendars usually had - like OT Judaism - real Lunar Months (which is what Roman calendar also started out with), and in such a system, one specific day on one specific month coinciding with a day in Roman calendar would be impossible. Precisely as onset of 25th of Kislev can vary at least as early as sunset 28 November (1st day of Chanukkah in 2021) to at least as late as sunset of 24th of December (1st day of Chanukkah in 2016-2017), so any date in any Lunar month would have no precise correspondence in this specifically Roman calendar. Typically, some years there is an intercalatory month, so years on average get close to Solar years.

With the Babylonian calendar of 12 non-lunar months of 30 days, we have a shift from year to year, precisely as with, though less than, the Muslim calendar with 12 and never 13 Lunar months. There it would be even less possible to assign any date in Roman calendar to a date in Babylonian one.

No, Egyptian calendar did not have 25th December as birthday of Isis and also Isis is not exactly Ashera.

Here is what I find on Isis' birthday:

"The Gods’ Birthday Parties: The Five Special Days"

"The five days added to the Egyptian calendar to bring it up to 365 days each involved the celebration of the birth of a specific god. The first was the birth of Osiris, the Lord of the Duat (the Egyptian underworld). The second day was the birth of Horus, a very prominent falcon-headed deity associated with kingship. The third day celebrated Seth, a god associated with chaos and the wild deserts of Egypt. The fourth and fifth days celebrated the goddesses Isis and Nepthys, two sisters who were associated with protective funerary rites and who brought the god Osiris back from the dead."

https://garstangmuseum.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/ancient-egyptian-festivals/

Note that here the Egyptian year was exactly 365 days, so, every four years, it removed one day from the Roman year. Four Egyptian years = 1460 days, four Roman years 1461 days.

12:08 "Similarily, the spring equinox festival ..."

On screen : Ishtar.

Remark : no.

There are known feasts to Ishtar, unlike Jewish Pesach and Catholic Easter, they are not tied to spring equinox.

Constantine would have pronounced Easter as Pascha, and for details, go here:

https://bellejar.ca/2013/03/28/easter-is-not-named-after-ishtar-and-other-truths-i-have-to-tell-you/

12:19 "Eastre in Gaelic"?

Sorry, Eastre is Anglo-Saxon. Easter and Ostern are the only words with this root I know of.

Frisian has Peaske and Netherlandish or Dutch has Pasen. From ??? Yes, Pascha.

In Gaelic, Easter is Cáisc, and since feminine, with definite article it is an Cháisc - and it comes from Latin Pascha.

http://www.tearma.ie/Search.aspx?term=Easter

https://fy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaske

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasen

XIV

12:38 "Lent has no Biblical basis"

Jesus fasted 40 days - wait, this would have been the Christmas fast, as in St Martin's fast. His fast was after His baptism, and His baptism was when He was nearly 30, while feast in Cana after the fast was when he was already 30.

Well, at least the term 40 days occurs.

Also, Pascha is celebrated for both Redemption and Resurrection. So, Lent gives a kind of OT backdrop on what happened so we needed Redemption. That is why Genesis was traditionally read in Lent - or still is in Orthodox Church - at least chapters 1 through 3.

Also, at Pascha we need some cleanness, spiritually speaking, and unclean spirits are sometimes driven away by ... yes, prayer and fasting.

"but was an essential part of the Babylonian spring festivals"

Would you care to give a reference - and I mean outside Hislop, please!

XV

12:51 "in autumn, there was a harvest festival that honoured the goddess Pomona and this became Christianised as All Souls' Day"

O ... K ... some facts might be nice here!

"In the myth narrated by Ovid, she scorned the love of the woodland gods Silvanus and Picus, but married Vertumnus after he tricked her, disguised as an old woman.[4] She and Vertumnus shared a festival held on August 13. Her priest was called the flamen Pomonalis. The pruning knife was her attribute. There is a grove that is sacred to her called the Pomonal, located not far from Ostia, the ancient port of Rome."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomona_(mythology)

Not All Saints' or All Souls' AND not Our Lady's Assumption either. As you know, that is August 15th. Again, a Christian feast before which fasting was done (Western rite : August 14, Eastern rite : August 1 - 14) comes a few days after a Pagan feast ... as with Saturnalia and Christmas.

13:26 Not sure whether Adam's and Eve's fall is reenacted at bobbing of apples.

Very sure, however, Christmas tree decorations involving apples originated with a reenactment. On 24th of December, in certain cities, a man and a woman would stand naked under a fir tree (the only green one on such a date of the year) to which apples had been tied and speak with some actor impersonating a snake, and then with an actor spekaing up for God and then with actors impersonating the cherubs with swords.

So, thanks for bringing this up.

XVI

13:52 "the Pagan religions polluted Christianity to produce Catholicism"

Nice myth ... you are into murder of Hiram Abiff too?

But if we like a bit less Freemasonry as I do, and a bit more reality, where does this leave the UNPOLLUTED Christianity back then?

You know, back then was not night 24 hours per day, there were days, so the time period has to match Christ's promise in Matthew 28:20.

XVII

15:53 "[it can be guaranteed that the secular counterpart is] coming from Satan to take attention away from Jesus"

No, it can't.

When you have spent 24 hours, or even 12 hours with all of your attention on Jesus, we can talk again ... meanwhile, the Church may prefer secular festive things to using lots of time on secular non-festive and everyday things, since spending 24 hours with all attention on Jesus is really not for everyone.