Answers on Palestinian Origins

Who are the Palestinians? An Arab Invention. CBN.
Anthony Lee | 1.VIII.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbf2LjF8OPw

I

It so happens, Palestinians are people, not just anyone's invention.

It so happens, there is a presence on that ground from the time when the first Christian Palestinians were the first Marranos. Later on, the ones becoming Muslim under "pressure" from invader, to put it very mildly, became the first Dönmes.

II

1:11 It so happens, Hitti was educated by Presbyterians, who had a bias against Catholic and Orthodox Palestinians.

"He was educated at an American Presbyterian mission school at Suq al-Gharb and then at the American University of Beirut (AUB). After graduating in 1908 he taught at the American University of Beirut before moving to Columbia University where he earned his PhD in 1915 and taught Semitic languages. After World War I he returned to AUB and taught there until 1926. In February 1926 he was offered a Chair at Princeton University, which he held until he retired in 1954."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Hitti

As to earlier quote from Awni, I think it is taken out of context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awni_Abd_al-Hadi

III

1:46 Hafez to Yasser quote, well, I think there were Syrians in OT times too who wanted Palestine, i e Holy Land, included as part of their land, the Levant.

Recall the one who needed his leprosy cured and went to Elisha?

IV

2:37 "Palestinians are Canaanites"

No more than other Israelites, except with Philistines and Danites at Gaza strip.

V

3:40 "Palestinians are Philistines"

No more than other Israelites who came from some people assimilating Philistine minorities ....

VI

5:43 They [Palestinians] also share DNA with Shepharadic Jews. For that matter, Y-chromosome DNA even with Ashkenazi Jews.

VII

Just before 6:04 Actually, there was a period when Roman Citizens there thought of their land as Palestine. Before the Arabian conquest.

It so happens, some Palestinians are, in terms of a certain Arabo-Islamic Empire "Araba" by the fact of coming along with Omar. Often they are also even Shareefs, that is descendants of Mohammed, who was Ishmaelite or Madianite.

But Palestinians overall, as well as other Syrians, well, they are "Mustariba". Arabised.

So what population of Roman Citizenship can have been living in Palestina when Omar came?

People from Latium or Greece? Arguably some part, since pilgrims came galore. Some stayed and some who stayed did not become monks or nuns.

Mostly, they were the populations that had been ruled by Herod and Pilate.

The liturgic language of Palestinians is Syriac, that is Aramaic - the language Our Lord spoke.

Obviously Christian Palestinians, since the other ones have Coranic Arabic as their liturgic language.

Some were living as Beduins - as I know from the Church Historian Derwas James Chitty.

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

Check out his work :

The Desert a City: a Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire, 1966.

Most chapters deal with Egypt, last with Palestine. As it was called, not just under Hadrian, but also under Constantine and Theodosius and even up to Heraclius, who reconquered the Holy Cross from Chosroes II.

How Persians and Jews persecuted Christians under Chosroes is very telling. One of the items is Christians having dreams in which Christ was in Hell (you know the Targum Onkelos stuff) and returning to their ancestral Judaism.

Oh, wait, did Derwas Chitty say ancestral? Yes, he did. It's decades since I read the book, but I am sure he did.

So, population of Palestine when Omar came : Christians of Jewish origin. Some of them having resisted Chosroes with sacrifices going up to martyrdom, some of them having reverted as second time when Heraclius came. But either way, if Derwas said the Judaism they "returned" / "reverted" to was "ancestral" ... they were as Jewish as Torquemada.

VIII

"a fairly unimportant city in the Byzantine Empire" (7:04)

Except it has Holy Cross at that point, except it has Holy Sepulchre.

When Heraclius took it back from Chosroes, he was more or less a proto-Crusader.

IX

"without a single Mosque" (7:10)

Yes, but Christian Palestinians (some of whom identify as Israeli Arabs, btw) are not dependent on Mosques for being Palestinians.

Or for descending from people who lived there 2000 years ago.

X

8:28 I am not surprised to her Saladeen was a fraudster.

I am not proposing a Muslim religious claim to Holy Land, but a Palestinian ethnic claim, since the ethnos is based on Jews, Samaritans, Galilaeans from 2000 years ago. Some of whom only later became Muslims.

XI

10:23 Jews were here first. By the time of Constantine, maybe 50/50 proto-Talmudic and Christian, maybe already Christian majority - the population later split religiously into Christian and Muslim Palestinians.

Btw, they were not cut off from Edom, Moab and Ammon either, thereby fulfilling Isaiah 11.

Interesting how much you ignore indigenous Christian claims and appeal to Arabic Muslims who have other reasons to ignore them ....

XII

11:20 And one can also remind us that neighbouring Edom, Moab and Ammon had been Judaised by being Christianised about 2000 years earlier, starting AD 70, when Christians of Jerusalem fled to Pella - meaning Pella in Jordan, not Pella in Macedonia.

Of course, a tourist book about Jordan omits this info.

Christians fleeing to Pella in Jordan and then returning, so the holy sites of Crucifixion and Resurrection were correctly identified is an integral part as I recall it of a certain book by my friend Stephan Borgehammar.

How the Holy Cross was Found. From Event to Medieval Legend.
Stephan Borgehammar 1991
https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/f074f6ea-05ab-4363-943b-e76a2d8c9091

He's my friend and benefactor, by the way.

So, commonality of Palestinian and Jordanian populations dates back to early Christian times.

Meaning, Jordanians have a strong Jewish (Christian / Muslim in confession, Jewish in ancestry) admixture, as Palestinians have a strong Jordanian one.

XIII

12:06 "but not to Israel"

US Americans invading Britain could claim English could go to Holstein (as origin of Angles), neighbouring parts of Germany (as origin of Saxons) and of Denmark (as origin of Jutes), and for that matter to Denmark and Normandy (as origins of Normans), and to Netherlands (as origin of Flemish), but not to England.

Just because US Americans of 13 states mainly came from England (not counting admixtures from Irish, Scots, non-British, including Poles, which are relevant comparisons for Ashkenazi ancestry, see their maternal DNA, mitochondriae not being Middle Eastern but Eurasian from further North), doesn't mean English are not from England.

XIV

13:56 I read a book bout history of Iraq a few months ago.

Interesting stuff about Hamurappi and all that, but it went on to WWI even.

Part of the Anti-British sentiments in Arab world leading to certain dispositions about Iraq is from English negotiations about Arabic speaking parts of Ottoman Empire.

Arabs took part in a rising against Turkey and thereby probably promoted Entente victory in WWI. One of the agreed conditions - this was prior to 1922 as WWI was ongoing - was to have a large Palestine under Jordanian monarchical mandate.

This is what Jordan claims on Palestine go back to in a more mundane sense than Isaiah 11 and its fulfilment 2000 or 1949 years ago.

Your 3 omits the Roman Province of Palestine. A Christian land of mainly Hebrew ethnicity.

XV

14:52 "to call the Jews occupiers in their own home" ....

I refer back to my comparison with US Americans invading England to settle there.

Fortunately, so far, hypothetical.

"To call Yankees" (the word means English!) "occupiers in their own home! This is a travesty of history."

Note, I have not said much FOR Arafat's historiography. What he may have really meant was Palestinians descend from Jews, but he did not want to use that word.

West Bank was held by ancestors of Palestinians in the times of King David as well as of Christ.

And since then the Jewish people has split into three : Jews, Christians, Muslims, the latter two called Palestinians. The former called "Palestinian Jews".

How Impossible or Possible Are Moon Hoax Theories?

How Do We Know the Moon Landing Isn't Fake?
Fraser Cain | 14.IV.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHt842u_Yw4

I

1:51 I happen to be fairly undecided on this particular.

Agnostic, except the cancer of one of them who went through van Allen belt suggests he went through the van Allen belt.

I also happen to have taken up a debate with Phil Plaite.

On the issue.

In order to fake, one need certainly not have 40 000 people faking, it's enough, according to your enumeration, 12 faked. Plus some more. Not 40 000 more.

Now, usually, one should trust the evidence of 12 men good and true, but, one of them wasn't, since he was willing to risk sacrilege about the Eucharist in a "Lord's Supper" held where ... wine (if there was no consecration that was valid, clearly the case with him) ... would be spilled.

Also, another of them had a chance of giving sworn testimony, and boxed the man proposing it.

Phil Plaite's narrative is, the moonlanding would have been hoaxed in order to show off before Russians, so 40 000 would have been doing fake tests on things that would not have worked in space. That's not how I would consider a possible fake motivated. Ergo, in a possible fake on my view, the technological testing by the 40 000 would have been just fine.

My main point is, even with the moonlanding, there is no proof for Heliocentrism. If Armstrong et al. saw Earth turn around itself, according to Geocentrism they were on a Moon turning westward around Earth at full circle every 24 h 55 minutes.

So, if the recommendations for me to watch videos arguing for the moon landing being genuine are there to convince me of Heliocentrism, by someone manually recommending, not by algorithm, someone is doing a very foul coverup over my real line of argument. And Phil Plaite certainly knows by now (if he was coherent, has good memory and is honest to himself) that Moonlanding denial is NOT my basis for anything, it's simply an option he has not successfully argued against.

II

2:43 "appearance of hurling metal capsules containing humans"

Metal capsule is real.

Astronomers could have gone in by door and out by secret back door before takeoff.

Takeoff real as to ascent from Cape Canaveral.

Rockets go into space, and cinema is played before TV cameras.

So, the many would have been involved in producing what is real, like metal capsule, the few would have been involved in rigging a back door, receiving the astronomers, etc. In other words, few real conspirators are enough.

III

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Phil Plaite considers a conspiracy would have taken 40 000 humans conspiring, because he argues that the raison d'être for a conspiracy would have been a Potemkin façade of good technology. My point is, technology was real enough, no Potemkin façade involved, a conspiracy would have been due to NASA having insufficient trust in space being what they believed.

If there was no conspiracy, they had sufficient trust, and misplaced, and fortunately, they were at least right on gravity being Newtonian, so Armstrong didn't fall from Moon to Earth.

The maximum a Moon landing can have proven is, gravity is Newtonian rather than Aristotelic. Fine, not enough to debunk Geocentrism, if so.

seigeengine

The only rational conclusion your reasoning can bring is that the USA had a perfectly working capability to put humans on the moon, but didn't, for no reason.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@seigeengine "had a perfectly working capability to put humans on the moon,"

More or less, adequate protection with Van Allen belt was lacking, I only recently heard one of the 12 got cancer.

"but didn't, "

On that theory.

"for no reason."

Reasons can be other than lack, real or perceived, of adequate technology, like second thoughts on the cosmology behind it.

If I were a Flat Earther, this would be a really strong motive ... I'm not.

seigeengine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Their radiation exposure was negligible.

Yeah, that's more of your moronic drivel. Stop doing that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@seigeengine My dear, I'm not into taking orders from you.

IV

3:09 400 000 or 40 000?

Either way, you are allowing Phil Plaite to define the Hoaxer's side and what it implies.

V

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4:18 Russian astronomers back then were USSR astronomers.

While they had a Cold War loyalty to competing with US, they had a more overreaching loyalty to modernity.

In other words, if they thought a ruse would help proving Galileo right and his judges wrong (which is not the case even with a real landing, but some have illogically twisted it that way) then they would have had a valid motive for collusion with NASA.

Note very well, I am not saying it was a hoax, I am not saying for certain it wasn't, I am saying your argument isn't good enough for proving it beyond reasonable doubt.

A USSR astronomer who didn't see it and honestly said so could have been dismissed as "you missed it" or if insisting "no, I looked where you guys said you were looking, when you did" he could have been put into a Gulag or a mental institution, heavily politicised in Soviet Union.

Someone just said in French on another youtube video, the only empire that hasn't used archaeology to glorify the past, is USSR which glorified the future instead. So, the motive of glorifying future modernity ..

Fraser Cain

It wasn't just astronomers, the whole military complex would have been tracking them in radio waves. They would have been receiving the radio signals broadcast back to Earth. And they would have loved to prove that the Americans were faking it. Can you imagine how good that would have made the USSR look?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Fraser Cain "And they would have loved to prove that the Americans were faking it."

Good alibi against them faking it - except if they did fake, it was for a cause overriding the rivalry USSR and US.

In other words, your proof ain't none.

Fraser Cain

So you're saying there wasn't a space race, that the Soviets were in on the conspiracy too? And the Chinese orbiters at the Moon right now, they're in on the conspiracy too? And when SpaceX sends Starship to the Moon, it'll be in on the conspiracy too?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I perfectly admit there was a space race, but before there was a space race, there was a space project and before there was a space project, there was a modernity project.

And US, Soviets, China are all part of that project.

Ergo, I am not saying there was a conspiracy, but I am saying, a conspiracy would have been possible.

By now there is a conspiracy to use this occasion for making conspiracy theorists look bad.

VI

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5:07 The guys who are producing the high resolution pictures are also much fewer than 400 000 or even just 40 000.

The orbiter is in the hands of far fewer people.

Remarcable how you seem to have to fake what someone else's argument means ....

The Moon Hoax is still possible, and that is, to me, still very much beside the point, since if the landing was genuine, that still doesn't disprove Geocentrism one bit.

Though, some think it does.

seigeengine

The moon hoax isn't possible.

And while that wouldn't disprove geocentrism... geocentrism is objectively the inferior model.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@seigeengine "The moon hoax isn't possible."

Disagreed, or impossibility was only recently proven.

"And while that wouldn't disprove geocentrism..."

Thank you.

"geocentrism is objectively the inferior model."

Ah, in what way, for what reason?

seigeengine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You're wrong.

It's a joke.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@seigeengine Which of my three statements or things alluded to is, and why should I agree it's "a joke"?

Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)

On First Half of a Barron Video · Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)

8:20 Probably, part of the problem behind modern doctrine errors is, Étienne Gilson preserving the exact thought of Aquinas is dealing as if with an objet d'art, and divorced in a way from the neo-scholasticism of Jaques Maritain.

Best exception, Rev. Houghton, whose godparents for his conversion were Jacques and Raïssa.

9:05 In my recall of Newman's history of the Arians, not only was homousios a neologism, but the Latin version, consubstantialis, had even been tainted by previous use, in Patripassian heresy (the one opposite to Arian one).

Perhaps it's just my bad memory.

A word can have different meanings in different contexts, like when in XXth - XXIst C. someone says he's "creationist" you ask if he means young earth or old earth creationist - a Catholic obviously should be young earth, even if Fulcran Vigoroux took liberties - but two centuries earlier you would have replied "oh, you think you got your soul from God, not from your father, then?" (opposites being for one Theistic Evolutionist - or Atheistic such - and for other Traducianist).

So, the problem your "Pope Francis" sees with Fundies is surely not that adding millions and billions of years in the timeline somehow is just a neologism for an old doctrine. Even he must realise, they - we, I'm a Fundie in this sense too - see that addition as a novum.

9:49 Homousios may very well be a Greek culture synonym - indeed is - of adequately researched and obvious Biblical doctrine.

Old Earth creationism or Theistic Evolutionism aren't so to an "Evolutionist" culture, since Evolutionist is actually not a culture, but a specific religious stance in it.

0:45 "the nostalgia of Fundamentalists is to return to the ashes"

In other words, your "Pope Francis" was in fact both referring to a term often used about young earth creationists and also given a disparaging psychological explanation, a Bulverism, of it.

Discussion of Number of the Beast

666: What Does It REALLY Mean?
ReligionForBreakfast | 13.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-PqevqQEQ4

1:52 "both Greeks and Hebrews believed that every letter had a corresponding number"

In fact, it is not a matter of belief but of a then current usage. They didn't have Arabic numerals, and Roman numerals were clumsy for the purpose, since most letters had no number value.

As current as in our day ASCII, which for each visible sign (and some non-screen visible ones, commands) has a binary number with a number value ... the visible signs generally reaching from 32 (space) and upward. A to Z have values 65 to 90, a to z 97 to 122. Accented letters have higher values.

2:03 You know one other guy whose name gave 666 in gematria of the Greek alphabet?

Or, if you prefer, isopsephia.

Now, here is a vocative, possibly also genitive.

M.NEPOYA.

Yes, modern Greek spells him NEPBAC, but back then it was NEPOYAC.

He was emperor when St John was captive on Patmos, and it was his predecessor, Domitian, who had put St John there after failing to kill him by boiling in oil.

Now, Nerva did not become a very eager persecutor. He freed John from Patmos and he abdicated before dying.

He was probably also the first recipient of the text of Apocalypse, and he probably made the copies to the seven Churches (St. John himself carrying the one to Ephesus).

How so? If you are emperor or other ruler and exile someone to an island, who is a communicator you don't like, it makes sense to allow letters from him only to yourself.

He should be able to apply for grace ... not communicate with the guys you want to suppress.

So, first reader of Apocalypse should have been Nerva. And he seems to have got nervous about persecuting Christians, so, St. John was a free man, and letters were delivered.

3:39 "there is no evidence" - discounting Eusebius, of course ... going along with evaluations by Merrill, Thompson, Willborn.

4:26 Yes, there are manuscripts writing 616 instead of 666.

However, this reading is explicitly refused by St Irenaeus, who came from Asia Minor, where St John had died.

Nero himself back then being the culprit is also excluded by Sts Irenaeus and Hippolytus both referring to a future Antichrist near the end of time.

If Nero were a real candidate to St Irenaeus, why was he excluding 616?

Here are the thing with Hebrew / Greek gematria.

Nero 666 or 616.
Nerva 666.
Domition, scot free.

And ASCII : Nero and Nerva scot free, Domitian has a vocative DOMITIANE

5:18 "conspiracy theories and predictions of the future"

1) You don't know St John meant Nero, it is an educated guess, but still a guess
2) Predictions of the future are NOT conspiracy theories.

It's a huge difference between believing in Illuminati and believing in Harmageddon.

You may believe in both, I tend to do so, but they are two different types of belief. Believing in Illuminati is a conspiracy theory, believing in upcoming Harmageddon is a prediction of the future. Believing the one is believing some people have been clever and justified in their second guessing of events and known networks, believing the other is believing Christ revealed Apocalypse to St. John.

5:51 The one actually brushing aside the historical context is in fact you.

St Irenaeus and St Hippolytus are near contemporaries to Apocalypse, they take it as precisely a prediction of the future.

You live 1900 years later, you believe it was a polemic with only back then current events being relevant, no predictions of a far future which could be coinciding with our time.

You are not the historical context, neither are the guys second guessing it, Sts Irenaeus and Hippolytus are.

On First Half of a Barron Video

On First Half of a Barron Video · Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)

Bishop Barron on Pope Francis, Tradition, and John Henry Newman
Bishop Robert Barron | 11.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e231Z2LnNt8

"fundamentalism of the museum"

As Marine le Pen said on another issue (I know you know French) "je me sens visé, mais pas coupable" (changing spelling to adapt for other gender of speaker).

Your "Pope Francis" has seemingly so deep a friendship with non-Catholic enemies of Fundamentalism, like Rabbi Skorka and the late Tony Palmer, that he shares - remember I said seemingly - compulsively their enmity for it.

Pope Michael may be flawed when it comes to pastoral of personal choices, being allergic to too independent such and confusing the role of Pope with that of Novice Master (he's an avid reader of Little St Thérèse), but your "Pope Francis" is allergic to doctrinal positions that are in fact Catholic, like Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism.

Because that is part of what Fundamentalism means.

There was a time, when Mouseion meant, not what we refer to as Museum, with dead exhibits of animals, stuffed, or skeletal or fossilised remains impregnated with shellac, or houses no longer inhabited, clothes no longer worn, tools no longer used except on entertaining rather than commercially productive occasions in the Museum.

There was a time, when Mouseion simply meant an institute of higher learning, not cut off from the past.

An Universitas Studiorum is, as you may know, an extention of the concept. From the litterae humaniorae like occasion at the Mouseion of Alexandria (with a library according to some far too practical, like Hogwart in book form) to all kinds of learning available in Paris where there were also colleges like Sorbonne.

Now, one could argue, Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism at Sorbonne were there because Heliocentrism was not available, deep time was not available.

I argue, Sorbonne was a true University, with true learning before these positions contradicting its learning were invented, and that means the positions of Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism should be defended like St Thomas defended the Creed against Averroes.

Sure, it's no longer the Blessed Trinity, but it's still an attack on traditional full understanding of "creatorem coeli et terrae". Meaning, the discourse on "God is not a magician with an omnipotent magic wand" is a repetition of errors shared between Averroes, probably Spinoza (whom I know less, I know Averroes through oponents like St Thomas and Bishop Tempier, but CSL was less concentrated on refuting Baruch Sp.), probably Jewish kabbalism of some non-Theistic version.

And your "John XXIII" has also been accused, not with certainty, but at least with realism, of being a non-Catholic, Masonic, Communist infiltrator.

His flawed starting of a council clearly merits his counting as either a bad pope or none at all. If saint at all, not canonisable. Especially not as Pope.

"organic images"

Some point, one should be able to state truth directly without recurring to an image, but as you wish for an image of gardening, I'd liken modernism ("John XXIII" and "Pope Francis" included) to Monsanto like tampering with the genomes.

Monsanto can of course sue me for libel for likening them to antipopes Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio ... but their take on infertilising seeds of upcoming plants, so one is obliged to buy seeds from Monsanto next year again, that reminds so much of a Magisterium where recalling what it said yesterday isn't good enough, you have to check what it says today. I think I might win if Monsanto sued me.

Patric M.

Excellent point, Hans.

3:09 Ah, the development of doctrine, in Newman's sense, btw, which of them ...?

He wrote a book with a title referring to the concept, but it was "an early version of his Apologia", and in the foreword, he specifically stated he had written it about his decision before receiving Catholic instruction, so it could be identified as a comprehensible decision by an Anglican clergyman, which he had been, and not stated in terms imposable by his Catholic catechists.

Meaning, the Catholic Church specifically wanted it to risk including errors Newman had made prior to learning from the Church. And this is stated as a kind of foreword.

3:51 Granted.

This is the exact reason why I have dared use aether as medium of not only light, but even vectors and as surrounding medium around atoms, despite this not being specifically taught by the Church, as it defends Geocentrism.

This is the exact reason why I have claimed "tower of Babel" was planned as a three step rocket, and God meant what He said in Genesis 11:6. The "tower" eventually stood over Cape Canaveral.

The fact that it was not called "rocket" in so many words might be because "tower" has an apt "sensus technicior" in three step rockets, since before takeoff they look like towers.

By "sensus technicior" I mean a sense still in contact with primary sense and not yet fully formalised as a "sensus technicus".

And reason why God said no, back then, apart from disobedience, well re-utilising Uranium known from Mahabharat wars (extended but corrupted version of Genesis 6 verses 4, 5, 11, as well as of Genesis 4 description of Lamech's family), would have been a very bad rocket fuel. God wanted to prevent a mushroom cloud over Göbekli Tepe, and did just that.

Genesis 1 - 11 is literally history (traditional doctrine) fell unto a mind so lively some have taken it for heretic (though I did check there was no patristic unity about skyscraper version of intended tower) and some for mad. As it happens, though this is of less concern to other than myself and those dealing with me, mine.

That is dealing with me as something other than a writer.

4:38 "to live is to change"

For men.

As far as we know, not for God. God being unchangeable. At least in relation to our time. God evaluated every split second of my life before he said "fiat lux" in fluent Hebrew.

5:40 "an animal changes to remain the same."

In a pastoral sense, as dealing with "animals" (sheep are animals and animalia rationalia need have no qualms of being likened to these animalia irrationalia, better sheep than goats) so does the Church.

This is why I think, while Montini was an Antipope who had no authority to abolish the duty of previous submission to Church censors, through him, God was doing a favour, both to Catholics caught up in his Vatican II sect, and even to the up to now less unified in command non-Vatican-II-ers, since to a blogger it makes much more sense submitting to a post factum judgement of a legitimate bishop than submitting everything before publishing on a blog - which is a true publishing, unless it's a private blog for invited readers only - to previous censorship.

N'en déplaise pas trop à Pape Michel!

In a doctrinal sense, no.

An animal which changes chewing habits as teeth grown and are lost, still is not supposed to change the DNA. And doctrine is to Church as DNA to livestock.

6:02 It so happens, a white fence might be less tarnished by going black over no touch policy than by going rainbow colours over a different and changed painting strategy. Especially with a certain today well known symbolism of rainbow colours.

Bishop Robert Barron

Well, of course...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bishop Robert Barron You are aware, the Church is the mystical body of the God-Man and cannot change anything He revealed while on Earth, right?

Bishop Robert Barron

Hans-Georg Lundahl Development is not change in the sense that you mean. You’re referring to corruption.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bishop Robert Barron A changing DNA is corruption.

Mutations mean aging and less fit (if at all affected) offspring.

Now, in organisms, DNA is information.

In the law, hagada, what it says is facts, is information.

What obliges may change somewhat according to circumstances, for instance the Sabbath from the old creation be trumped by the Sunday of Resurrection, this morning of the New Creation, or Temple Sacrifices be replaced by Holy Mass. Plus lots of lesser instances.

What must be believed cannot mutate.

It can flourish, show new sides, etc, but it cannot mutate. The Yellow Rose of Texas can't be a red rose unless it's another rose.

A N D what God as Man revealed c. 2000 years ago can be interrogated from all scholastic and scientific and possibly other angles, but it cannot change.

Bishop Robert Barron

Hans-Georg Lundahl Friend, that’s what I mean. You’re more or less inventing a quarrel here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, we are on the same side in principle. Fine!

So, where did your quarrel with the Fundies come from?

You agree that Mark 10:6 situates creation of Adam and Eve far closer to beginning of time than to time of Our Lord speaking, right? You agree He could be ignorant in the sense of not knowing one way or the other, but He could not be in positive error when He was teaching, right?

On to : Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)

On Good and Bad Arguments for Good and Bad Ideas (or admitting an argument wrong, even if popular and in support of one's idea

Flat Earther AGREES With SciManDan!!
SciManDan | 7.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWKqpBINNRE

I

4:20 There are Evolution believers who can't do the maths too.

(Btw, I am not a Flat Earther, but I am a Geocentric, so this argument concerns me, I gave it up after a mathematical analysis by Robert Carter).

For instance, if I state that carbon date 40 000 years ago really was date of Deluge, 2957 BC, they will go, "oh, he must be wrong on the maths, there is no way a measurement could be wrong by a factor of 8".

Well, carbon dates don't directly measure time, but directly measure remaining C14:C12 ratio. And I consider them wrong about not one percent of that measure, I only consider them wrong by a factor of about 60 about how much C14:C12 there was when last Neanderthal died.

Which is not a thing they measure.

So, the alternative science side is not alone in lots of supporters handicapped in maths. It's fairly common across the field.

In my case, the argument I withdrew support from was how it would feel to be on a spinning earth (merry go round parallel, also the one adressed by Robert Carter).

Oh, feel in our stomachs is basically what I was supporting up to Carter (not FE, but Geocentric, but this is not about globe as globe, but globe as spinning).

[S]-Riley Dunn

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh? How would it feel on an Earth spinning at 0.0007 RPM? How would it feel to travel 0.25 degrees per minute?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, point already granted on my part.

[S]-Riley Dunn

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I asked you a question and you answered with “yes”. Try again. Also, remember that humans feel acceleration, not velocity. But anyway, show us your math.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I gave a yes to your point : it is already granted.

II

4:59 By his words "gravity doesn't exist" I suppose he means Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity doesn't exist.

Either of them, or Aristotelic gravity (heavy bodies tend to the centre of the Universe, which is the centre of the Earth) or sth else could account for the observed acceleration.

People who differentiate between observations and deductions are fairly rare on your side too (outside the science geeks, who you seem to be one of).

He might also mean gravity if his model (not Aristotelic if he is Flat Earth) is not universal.

III

By the way, thanks for the trampoline clip, exactly what would happen to someone jumping off a train, he would be dragged on ground with train speed and probably die or get very unhealthy if at all surviving, and probably be maimed for life if any survival.

Also, a miss on usually well documented Hergé in The Temple of the Sun : he jumps off a train into a narrow river gorge and into the water, arguably he would be crashing into the gorge walls if it wasn't a comic book.

IV

8:34 And how rare is it Evolution believers and Heliocentric / Acentrics admit there are flawed arguments for their view.

"Armstrong saw Earth spinning from the Moon"

Yeah - if Moon is turning around Earth at 24 h 55 minutes per turn, what would Earth look like from Moon? Turning around itself of course.

Or this one:

"We managed to orient ourselves in space, which we would not have been able to if we had the wrong idea of it"

Depends on what type of wrong idea, if you wear glasses that turn all upside down, your brain gets used and you start to orient normally, even if light hits your eye the "wrong way round". Geocentrism doesn't state Heliocentrics get the facts wrong within the wrong framework, just that they get them in the wrong framework.

a

johnbiggscr

The moon takes roughly 30 days to go around the earth, not 24hours.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is according to Heliocentrism, in which the 24 h 55 min between twice you see the moon in same place is supposed to be a compound of Moon's monthly movement and Earth's spin.

Gratulations to showing up to illustrate my point that being knowledgeable on the opponents' pov is rare all over the field, not just among the "marginal" community.

b

[S]-Riley Dunn

Where are your quotes from? What is the second one even talking about?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My "quotes" are summing up arguments given by Heliocentrics.

And the last one, successful space travel, has been featured as a recent new proof we got cosmology right.

[S]-Riley Dunn

Hans-Georg Lundahl
So what is the source of your quoting?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Arguments I met in real life and on the internet, and not actual quoting.

If you insist on a real actual quote with a real actual source:

"Ok, I get it. You think this is silly because there is no way to get a lander on Mars without a heliocentric solar system model. Yes, that's an excellent point. But still, this IS evidence of a heliocentric model that you can figure out for yourself."

Wired : How Do We Know the Earth Orbits the Sun?
Author: Rhett Allain dot-physics 04.14.14 08:26 am
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/how-do-we-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/

Hilbert on Swedish Proposed Rune Ban

Is Sweden Banning Runes?
History With Hilbert | 31.V.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHzZCNpVvmc

I

2:19 "runes are an alphabet" [plus ensuing parts of his discussion]

Actually, three different ones.

• 1) Older Rune row, 2:nd C AD, as you mentioned, probably depending on some alphabet from Rhaetia, had 24 letters or runes. (This is where the odal rune comes from, now banned in singled out shape, since symbol for indigenism considered as incitation against ethnic group);
• 2) in England, there is an extended version of it (used by Tolkien for the map in The Hobbit);
• 3) Younger Rune row (Scandinavia with other "Viking" countries only), which is Viking age and had only 16 runes.

The now discussed Tyr rune (a T with "slanted roof") is common to all three of them. In older one, it stood for T, in younger, for T and D. But not Thorn and usually not Eth, which would be written Thorn.

I see the English rune row was also used in Frisia, as you mentioned "Anglo-Frisian", I'd say "rune row".

To me, Futhark or Futhork refers to Younger rune row. The other ones don't start with F, U, Th, A/O, R, K.

Banning of Odal Rune in Sweden doesn't concern "letter O," since it is either written with the A/O letter or the U letter in the younger rune row, the one most used by us.

One could imagine banning a certain type of letter O, like the yin and yang symbol ...

I do not think Odal rune is banned in the context of texts written in Older or Anglo-Frisian rune rows.

Using it as abbreviation for example of Olof would be a probable prosecution, and the concerned Olof would be suspected of using "abbreviation" as a lame excuse, unless he was known to be highly pro-immigration. Or at least not highly anti-immigration.

5:29 Gott mit uns - I think this text goes back well before Nazis.

II

9:39 Good parallel.

There are Christian texts in the Arabic alphabet.

And Sweden is not likely to ban the Shahada or Allah Akbar as long as Löfvén is PM.

Here you have for instance a Bible in two languages online, Arabic and English:

http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/

III

14:33 "descended from Odin" (unless the automatic subtitles went wrong).

As a Christian I would actually agree lots of us are descended from Odin and Frey as well as from non-divinised later Ynglings. Like lots of Italians are descended from another false god, Julius Caesar ....

How do you like my theory that Odin is the Yeshu of the Talmud (at least in contexts prior to trial/execution ones, which seemed calqued on Jesus Christ and are incompatible with his dying in Uppsala region)?