A Q on a Novel by Alexander Dumas

Q

Was the Count of Monte Cristo a real free spirit? He can stand his ground and would go very far for it. Would the count be an ideal role model?
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Count-of-Monte-Cristo-a-real-free-spirit-He-can-stand-his-ground-and-would-go-very-far-for-it-Would-the-count-be-an-ideal-role-model/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Alexander Indianer

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

I have actually read a complete version of it in Swedish translation.

As other men have pointed to Edmond Dantès prior to meeting Abbé Faria in prison, I think this is not a real issue, since we would be talking of the person after he assumed the guise of Count of Monte Cristo. To bring in his past prior to the imprisonment is like asking if Bruce Wayne was a good crime hunter prior to his parents being murdered.

Before we go on, I will however mention that the denial of human rights given to Edmond Dantès during the Restauration of Bourbon Monarchy is, according to an issue of Ça m’intéresse based on a real case, but who got out of unjust imprisonment precisely then, while the culprits had been free to act this vilely with such power abuse during the time when Napoleon I Bonaparte was in power. Alexandre Dumas the Elder being highly pro-Napoleon, this was changed so that the Restoration régime should seem less good than it really was in the case.

Now to the diverse questions:

Was the Count of Monte Cristo a real free spirit?

He was after Abbé Faria became his mentor, partly free spirit, but even more the kind of intriguer whom certain people call out as “Illuminati”. Insofar as these are based on false speculation (which I would not guarantee), characters like Abbé Faria and Count of Monte Cristo have highly contributed to fuel these. Recall (assuming you read the full version) the lessons about controlling coincidences?

He can stand his ground and would go very far for it.

Destroying one’s enemies and at last killing both one’s love and her son for revenge is not my definition of standing one’s ground. It’s more like my definition of making a devil’s bargain and having to regret it without being able to repair the damage.

Would the count be an ideal role model?

No way José!

It is possible that he was even invented in order to show himself off as a warning example to the reader. Or that Dumas brought such things in, in order to please the censorship and the as yet fairly Christian taste : the publication in serialised form started in 1844, under Louis Philippe. It’s not as if it had been published in US or Third Republic.

I am glad he ended up dissatisfied with his schemes, since that may have preserved me from taking such a man as rolemodel.

Plus, I don’t think an adult who takes a mentor to arrive out of trouble is a very good rolemodel either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Pierre Picaud — Wikipédia
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Picaud

Twelve Questions on Genesis I to XI

John Hunt Thinks Nimrod is a Myth, dito for Babel · Three QQ from Issah Mohammed, on Babel · Twelve Questions on Genesis I to XI

Q I

What is the first thing a Catholic should do before talking with a fundamentalist?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-first-thing-a-Catholic-should-do-before-talking-with-a-fundamentalist/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered 6h ago

Be wary if some people around might mind him talking to himself.

I’m a Catholic and I’m a fundamentalist.

Q II

Is it acceptable to interpret Adam as an allegory, not a historical person?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-acceptable-to-interpret-Adam-as-an-allegory-not-a-historical-person-1/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered 13h ago

No, it is not, the Session V of the Council of Trent clearly links Original Sin to Adam as one individual and first man.

If he hadn’t been an actual individual, he could not have committed one actual sin on which a loss of grace and perfection immediately followed, and if he hadn’t been the first man, head of mankind, it is not understandable why his sin should affect all men after him.

Q III

Did Adam and Eve have children between Abel and Seth?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Adam-and-Eve-have-children-between-Abel-and-Seth/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 8h ago

Arguably yes, the words “And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters,” certainly mean Seth was not last, but do not necessarily indicate he was only the third child of Adam and Eve.

Q IV

What's up with the ridiculously high ages in the Bible?
https://www.quora.com/Whats-up-with-the-ridiculously-high-ages-in-the-Bible/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Apr 5

That we have ridiculously low ages now, compared to our ancestors, first ten generations (all from Adam to Noah being ancestral to all after the Flood, except Noah’s wife and daughters in law, and that’s ten generations).

Imagine mankind were reduced to a subset with diabetes type 1 and we lived in a world with no artificial insuline. Yes, men would live much shorter than now.

This is basically what happened the first thousand years after the Flood.

Carl Wieland on CMI also came up with “genes over pre-Flood environment” before I did, and obviously, when I made my tables on rising C14 levels, the common causality of more radiation from the cosmos than before and than now would have achieved three things:

• human genes and in general genes deteriorate = lower life spans
• carbon 14 is produced quicker than now, explaining why it rose quickly (1.4 pmC at Flood in 2957 BC to 100 pmC achieved at Fall of Troy in 1180 BC, with first half having the quicker rise)
• ionising particles would also have helped to cool the weather for the post-Flood ice age.

Q V

Would Noah’s ark have been as sea worthy as the steel ships of today because of the SAP turned into tar that covered from inside to outside?
https://www.quora.com/Would-Noah-s-ark-have-been-as-sea-worthy-as-the-steel-ships-of-today-because-of-the-SAP-turned-into-tar-that-covered-from-inside-to-outside/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered 29m ago

Yes and no.

In proportion to circumstances yes - and by that I mean, the Ark was not navigating anywhere. Hence the only one of the movements imposed by the waters on the ship would be “the rolling,” as the Ark would have its length parallel to the wave troughs.

The steel ships can certainly navigate, but on the other hand would not be able to survive the kind of waves you get in a world wide Flood.

Q VI

Is it possible that there were not nearly as many species on the Earth before Noah’s flood than after because of the increased size?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-there-were-not-nearly-as-many-species-on-the-Earth-before-Noah-s-flood-than-after-because-of-the-increased-size/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur reader of it

Answered Fri

There were not as many species before than after because the species diversified after the Flood.

There was one hedgehog couple on the Ark, there are 17 hedgehog species today.

Q VII

Do Young Earth Creationists really believe that God created the world 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, and how did they arrive at that number?
https://www.quora.com/Do-Young-Earth-Creationists-really-believe-that-God-created-the-world-6-000-to-10-000-years-ago-and-how-did-they-arrive-at-that-number/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 7h ago

"Do Young Earth Creationists really believe that God created the world 6,000 to 10,000 years ago,"

Yes, we do.

"and how did they arrive at that number?"

Adam was the first man, created within 168 hours from the creation of the universe (Genesis 1). Counting together the ages of fathers at birth of sons, in Genesis 5 and 11, from Adam to Abraham via Noah, noting Abraham was 75 when he had a promise about Exodus happening 430 years after the promise (see Galatians 3:17), and the Exodus happening "480 years" before the Temple of Solomon, which was around 1000 BC. There are text variants for 480 and there are explanations according to which it would cover only part of the actual years (like not counting bad years).

c. 1000 + 480 + 430 + 75 + A + B = C
A is Abraham born 292 or 942 or 1070 after the Flood, depending on text version.
B is Flood coming 2242 or 1658 after Creation, also depending on text version.
C is the BC date of Creation.

Let's put in 1070 for A and 2242 for B
c. 1000 + 480 + 430 + 75 + 1070 + 2242 = c. 5297 BC

Let's put in 292 for A and 1658 for B
c. 1000 + 480 + 430 + 75 + 292 + 1658 = c. 3935 BC

Add 2022 after Christ:
2022 + 5297 = 7319
2022 + 3935 = 5957

So, about 6000 to 7500 years ago.

Michael Somerset

8.XI.2022

Can you provide any testable and verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt to support the claims made by creationism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8.XI.2022

History is not court justice.

But yes, I consider historic evidence of genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, along with evidence for Flood mentioned after Genesis 5 and for Babel mentioned in first part of Genesis 11 as fairly good historic evidence, and all doubts I have so far seen on it as unreasonable doubts. Care to take up one of yours, and see what I make of it and if I already dealt with it?

So, beyond any reasonable doubt I would have come across, to say the least.

Michael Somerset

8.XI.2022

Care to take up one of yours, and see what I make of it and if I already dealt with it?

You are the one who has made public claims. It is up to you to provide the evidence to support those claims.

You noted some Bible passages as well as the genealogies. Can you show how they all are testable and verifiable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.XI.2022

The test for a text from older times being historic rather than fictional is, the earliest known audience takes it as historic rather than fictional.

1st C. AD and late BC commentators on Genesis obviously took it as historic, do you have any earlier commentators who can be nailed down as taking it as fictional?

The verifications involve seeing if other historic accounts about same or potentially same events are more or less credible, more or less scrupulous in recording, for instance and if there are any obvious points at which frauds or misunderstandings would have been very likely to induce the tradition even if it was not their true historic memory from before.

Do you have alternative accounts that involve the same events and that you find more credible? Why so?

Do you see an obvious point at which a story told for fun could have been misunderstood as history or at which someone had the opportunity to fake knowledge of earlier events? When and who?

That is precisely the kinds of tests and verifications that history gets.

Michael Somerset

9.XI.2022

So, in other words, these Bible passages do not have any testable and verifiable evidence to back them up. I thought that would be the case.

Just because something is written in an ancient text it does not mean that it has to be taken as literal truth. The arguments you have provided can also apply to other ancient religious texts such as the Sumerian tablets or the Egyptian texts or the Indian Rigveda. That is why testable and verifiable evidence is needed to support your claims that the Biblical texts are true. Credibility is based on this evidence, not on your say so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10.XI.2022

"in other words, these Bible passages do not have any testable and verifiable evidence to back them up."

In other words, you don't know what testable and verifiable evidence means in connection with history.

"Just because something is written in an ancient text it does not mean that it has to be taken as literal truth"

History is not always literal truth. It is sometimes literal fraud.

"The arguments you have provided can also apply to other ancient religious texts such as the Sumerian tablets or the Egyptian texts or the Indian Rigveda."

For Sumerian texts, you have a point. Hence I mentioned that the relative value of two different sources should be compared. Sumerian Ark is not seaworthy for a world wide ocean, the Biblical is.

Religious texts of a certain other type, like Book of the Dead or Rigveda do not even claim to be historic, that is about past events witnessed by men. That is off topic.

For India, you would have done better to cite Mahabharata and Ramayana, and yes, I believe them to be mainly historic, with certain reversals of chronology and distortions of theology to the minus.

"That is why testable and verifiable evidence is needed to support your claims that the Biblical texts are true."

It is true that in my main answer I mentioned believing the Bible is not just historic (for this book), but even true (for this and all books).

But after you commented, I actually was providing what you are asking for.

"Credibility is based on this evidence, not on your say so."

Historic credibility is based on some old and dead guys say so.

Michael Somerset

10.XI.2022

History relies on multiple primary and secondary sources including some old and dead guys. Note I said multiple sources, not just one.

You are relying on just one source, the Bible. And no one has yet provided any testable and verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt that support the supernatural claims made in the Bible.

So, I still don’t see any testable and verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt from you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.XI.2022

St. Martin of Tours

"Note I said multiple sources, not just one."

For there being a Flood, there actually are multiple sources. By the way, the main thing is primary sources, and that means contemporary ones, while secondary sources are a standin.

That said, it doesn't make sense to pretend "one source has zero credibility, ten sources have total credibility" since 10/10 doesn't equal 0.

For most of what we know of ancient history, we do not have multiple and especially not multiple independent contemporary sources.

"And no one has yet provided any testable and verifiable evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt that support the supernatural claims made in the Bible."

Leaving aside the prophetic and doctrinal claims, since Apocalypse and Ephesians, Ezechiel and Wisdom aren't exactly historic books, by "supernatural claims" I suppose you mean miraculous events. If you didn't, if you confused the two questions of historic reliability with theological reliability, too bad, and I'll ignore that for the following, since we are here talking of history.

Testable and verifiable evidence is texts. "No one has yet provided" is your prejudice. Reasonable doubt is what I challenged you to provide. And you haven't.

There are two kinds of doubts that are not reasonable against Biblical history:

• miracles don't happen
• past events are proven by multiple independent contemporary text sources plus archaeology.

The latter is a near good position for events 1800 AD, but atrocious for events 1800 BC. Not all events leave physical traces, not all physical traces are preserved. A leper healed by Christ will not have traces of having had leprosy, otherwise the priest could not have pronounced him clean, and his flesh will be rotted in the grave a long time ago, by now.

The former is putting the cart before the horse. It's the miracle that is to prove the theology not the theology that is to prove the miracle. And pretending a historic text containing miracles is as moot as a doctrinal text containing doctrine is missing the point. Most false doctrines didn't come about through miracles.

What would constitute a reasonable doubt? Two options: prove the dating methods used by evolutionists allow no reasonable doubt or that their reasonable doubt doesn't extend to the position of Biblical chronology, or prove some other text tradition involves better genealogies and more credible descriptions of the Flood. So far you haven't even tried either.

So, I haven't seen any reasonable doubt, I have provided my evidence, you have not provided reasonable doubt. Just saying “it isn’t beyond reasonable doubt” doesn’t make that so.

Q VIII

How many years are there between Noah and Moses?
https://www.quora.com/How-many-years-are-there-between-Noah-and-Moses/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 6h ago

From Flood to birth of Abraham, 292, 942 or 1070 years.

From birth to vocation of Abraham, 75 years.

From vocation of Abraham to Exodus 430 years. 75 + 430 = 505.

292 + 505 = 797
942 + 505 = 1447
1070 + 505 = 1575

If you meant from birth to birth instead of from Flood to Exodus, add 600 and subtract 80 = add 520.

797 + 520 = 1317
1447 + 520 = 1967
1575 + 520 = 2095

Q IX

Was it a Mesopotamian disaster or a world catastrophe? The flood continues to fuel speculation worldwide.
https://www.quora.com/Was-it-a-Mesopotamian-disaster-or-a-world-catastrophe-The-flood-continues-to-fuel-speculation-worldwide/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 6h ago

If it was a Mesopotamian disaster:

• how come it is recalled (with some variation) in the Andes?
• how come a vessel taking off at 28 m above sea level landed 800 m above sea level?
• how come the Mesopotamian vessel would not have been able to float even through a “Mesopotamian” flood on previously mentioned condition?

In other words, as the Bible says, it was a world wide catastrophe.

Q X

If the ice age occurred as a result of Noah’s flood, could that possibly be how fantastic formations like the Grand Canyon occurred?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-ice-age-occurred-as-a-result-of-Noah-s-flood-could-that-possibly-be-how-fantastic-formations-like-the-Grand-Canyon-occurred/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur reader of it

Answered Mar 31

When the creation science groups like CMI or AiG have an answer on a thing, I usually don’t put that into question, unless I already arrived at a different one (Neanderthals as a human race were - me : pre-Flood, they : post-Flood).

Now, I’d consider the Ice age began after Noah’s Flood, I’d add that higher levels of cosmic radiation speeded up the process.

But as to Grand Canyon, I simply leave the answer to those guys, and theirs is, the excavation of that canyon was during the Flood, after the Flood had already piled lots of sediments on top of each other. A stream of water came to carve out a canyon in the sediments that were still soft.

Here is one article on CMI:

A receding Flood scenario for the origin of the Grand Canyon
by Peter Scheele | This article is from
Journal of Creation 24(3):106–116, December 2010
https://creation.com/grand-canyon-origin-flood

Q XI

Where and how did Noah build the Ark?
https://www.quora.com/Where-and-how-did-Noah-build-the-Ark/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Dec 10, 2019

Where?

Where he was getting into it and that would have been on top of the highest mountain known to the pre-Flood world, since 14 and a half to 15 cubits could then have been his waterline, and he could have known it covered it and all equally high mountain tops by 15 cubits when the Ark started floating. I presume he knew all of the pre-Flood geography very well, and therefore that he was chosing the highest mountain.

How?

• 1. According to God’s instructions;
• 2. Using the best technology the pre-Flood world had to offer him (not Neanderthal hunting spears from same time, like Versailles wasn’t built by the tomahawks of Chingachgook);
• 3. Certainly with the help of his three sons, possibly with help of other hired labour or volunteers who were stopped from coming along, probably also involving a hand or two from Methusalem, unless he was too old to do much - not sure how the age just before death affected pre-Flood labour capacity.

Q XII

Is the Tower of Babel the originator of languages?
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Tower-of-Babel-the-originator-of-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Answered 17h ago

First, the tower itself is not originator of languages, the language differences came when God wanted to prevent the tower from being built then and there.

Second, human language existed well before, but very important language barriers didn’t, so, God working at Babel is the originator of language differences.

Three QQ from Issah Mohammed, on Babel

John Hunt Thinks Nimrod is a Myth, dito for Babel · Three QQ from Issah Mohammed, on Babel · Twelve Questions on Genesis I to XI

Answer requested by

Issah Mohammed (QQ I - III, not explicitly the extra Q IV)

Q I

Is there historical evidence of the Tower of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-historical-evidence-of-the-Tower-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

Given the historic evidence for the Flood, there is a definite need for an event that explains why there are so very different languages after the Flood.

Then there is the fact that Göbekli Tepe does fit the the geographic bill (West of Mountains of Armenia), the temporal bill (Babel being between Flood and Abraham, and Flood having a carbon 14 level of c. 1.4 pmC, Abraham up in 80–90 pmC, and Babel, if identified with GT, has 43 - 49 pmC which is between the other values).

It also fits the linguistic bill, no written language differences are documented before Göbekli Tepe. And if you say “that is because there were no writings at all” - no, there was after all the 32 symbols studied by Genevieve von Petzinger in palaeolithic caves (from Noah’s post-Flood lifespan).

It also fits the cultural bill : “And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.” - and it so happens, symbols found at Göbekli Tepe have been found in use among Polynesians and Australian aborigines - birdman for the first, lying down “figure eight” (or actually lying down oval cut in half from top to bottom) for the latter.

And obviously, stories from the past are the main historic evidence for any event. Not just in a particular religion, but in general. See thereon my debate with Kevin R. Henke: The Real Reason Why we Can and Could All the Time Say we Know Alexander's Carreer (linking to last part of more than one).

There are no other ones from the Old World, and this confirms (to some degree) that non-Hebrew people setting out from Babel were venerating Nimrod and the world project, and therefore ashamed to state how it worked out in Nimrod’s time.

Q II

Was the Tower of Babel before or after Noah?
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Tower-of-Babel-before-or-after-Noah/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 12m ago

Babel ended - as to the city - when Peleg was born.

Noah died 350 years after the Flood.

Peleg was born according to different chronologies for the Genesis 11 genealogies in one of three years : 101 after Flood (Ussher, Masoretic, Vulgate, King James versions), 401 after Flood (Samaritan or LXX without second Cainan), 529 after Flood (LXX with second Cainan).

If you ask me, Noah died, Babel project took off, and then ended when Peleg was born 401 after the Flood.

Q III

Was the Tower of Babel in Eridu?
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Tower-of-Babel-in-Eridu/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 15m ago

If you ask me, no.

• I identify Genesis 11 Babel with Göbekli Tepe;
• “And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar,” - while both Göbekli Tepe and Eridu are in Mesopotamia (what Shinar / Sennaar arguably means in context), only GT is West of reasonable candidates for the landing place;
• Given Biblical chronologies - all three ones - of the Genesis 11 chronogenealogy - Babel comes fairly early and this makes for a less credible rise of carbon 14 in the atmosphere if you take Eridu (carbon date c. 5000 BC) rather than GT (carbon dates 9600 - 8600 BC).

Q IV

added later

What were men trying to do at the Tower of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/What-were-men-trying-to-do-at-the-Tower-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 22h ago

The Bible text, Genesis 11:1–9, doesn’t seem to give a concrete answer as to the goal.

Some have from the words “and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands” following after the decision to make the tower concluded the tower was meant to make their name famour or prevent them being scattered into all lands.

I disagree, I think - I do not pretend to know - that Josephus was right. In the passage I will here quote:

2. Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! And that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers! 3. Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work:

So far, right : they imagined God as their enemy, and reaching up hgh enough as a good stratagem against the next Flood (either not hearing about or not believing God’s promise to Noah).

Next is where I think he goes wrong and where I think the Bible is - unlike him - not too specific:

and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than anyone could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water.

Josephus Antiquities Book I, chapter 4, from §2 quoted on this site: Josephus – Antiquities of the Jews – Book 1
https://onlineancientwitness.wordpress.com/josephus-antiquities-book-1/#JAnt-01.4

First, very likely the “tower, the top of which shall reach into heaven” encapsules the general idea of a three step rocket of which only the capsule (!) on the top actually reaches into space. Nimrod and his pals had no material means to actually pull it off, so God put it on hold for 4500 years.

Second, if not, second likeliest possibility, Nimrod tried to figure out the height beforehand, he built small towers of equal height, the first three at 63 feet equilateral triangle between the centres, so if the rise of heavenly bodies occurred at different times seen from them, that would give a possibility to triangulate the height of heaven. As any body, Sun, Moon or any given star, rose at the same time seen from each tower, they expanded. And expanded some more, and some more. Göbekli Tepe finally covered 20 acres, before God said “stop, you’ll speak Coptic and you’ll speak Sumerian, and you over there will speak Elamite and …” so Nimrod had to quit.

Either one or two would explain why we have found no big skyscraper like thing in Göbekli Tepe.

Third Josephus says burnt brick and a mortar made of bitumen would not have been in the actual building materials. Here again, I have two possibilities:

• 1. the Hebrew words mean sth else, the burning was not actually in ovens but by some chemical fire, like for burnt chalk - there is a Swedish style of farm house architecture where stamped earth and burnt chalk combine;
• 2. sth closely like this (not the burnt chalk, but the Biblical description as usually translated) has been found in Jericho (West of Mesopotamia, but starting out at the time of Göbekli Tepe = Babel) and it isn’t used for walls, but on the floor, as a kind of streets.

Since I have been accused by some of "gossip"

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: David Wolcott on "Gossip" as a Species of Sin · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Since I have been accused by some of "gossip"

Here is a moral theologian explaining what the sin is:

Gossip: Why it's SINFUL w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, OP
2nd April 2022 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD9eQLVyHtI

Here is my question about this accusation:

8:20 Now .... if I republish a debate I had with someone and he lost on argumentation, and he complains of "gossip" ...

• have I lied about him by citing his actual words in conjunction with mine or the debate as context of both?
• have I exaggerated his bad logic, when I actually left the word to him?
• or have I attributed to him a hidden intention, by the fact of publishing, which I hadn't possibly already attributed to him during the debate?

Because if I actually didn't do any of these, it would seem I have committed neither detraction nor calumny.

Again, he may consider it sneaky to first enter a written "conversation" (correspondence or forum exchange or exchange in youtube comments) which he tacitly imagines will stay between us, and then republish it - but if I then send him a link to the post, I have given him possibilities to act - ideally by accepting he was "on stage" without knowing it, and rise to the occasion with good arguments, that I continue to republish - would that act constitute detraction due to the partial sneakiness of my approach? Is Wallraff guilty of detraction because he describes what people did to him when they thought him such and such rather than a journalist?

On the other hand, if a help organisation or a doctor or a policeman (I do not know exactly which of these it might be) is saying things about me which I cannot hear or read in writing, cannot comment on, but which would explain why some other people act in certain ways to me, am I - if my guesss is correct - not the victim of detraction?

Brian Holdsworth on Catholic History and Recent Scandals

His video:

Aren't You Embarrassed to be Catholic?
2nd April 2022 | Brian Holdsworth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87HLqDZUmgM

My comments, and debate with A Reasonable Man:

4:00 Yeah, let's have an accurate understanding of what was imposed on innocent Azteks ... (duh!)

Like, they can't go on with sacrificing men each day, how horrible is that? And they can't keep cocoa to their kings and priests either, it becomes a common fare, oh the horror of it.

9:46 Wait, are you crying for Catholics being associated with Don John of Austria delivering galley slaves from the Turks or John III Sobieski delivering Vienna from the Turks?

I mean, those things were actually deeds of war, and Popes prayed the Rosary for Christian victory.

And instituted feasts to the Blessed Virgin:

• Our Lady of the Rosary on 7.X (previously St. Bridget's day)
• Our Lady Help of Christians (there is a street in Vienna called Maria Hilferstrasse).

I mean, are you trying to explain that as failures of individuals? I for my part am celebrating that.

13:08 One could describe European colonialism as in these stages:

• it began with Crusades, on a fairly high moral ground, at first not even allowing Christians to capture slaves (that changed when Portugal had a permission to retaliate against "Moors" - and extended it into African societies South of the Muslim commonwealth)
• then you had Conquistadors, more or less concerned with Crusading ethics, but always having some hope to gain territory and riches for the mother country - I mean both Spanish Conquistadors and people from other parts of similar times
• then you had Colonial Wars, and France lost both Indian and American parts (like Québec)
• then you had 19th C expansions, with a sentiment of cultural and in the end racial superiority
• which sentiment helped to breed abuses and provoke decolonisation, not saying that one always happened in correct ways.

The Reasonable Man

You should really decouple your last two points, as they have very little to do with Catholicism and Christendom. As you can see by the date you gave, 19th century, it should be pretty obvious that colonialism predicated on racial superiority was first an entirely protestant thing, then an entirely secular state thing. You don't even need to compare the histories of the different empires. Just take a look at how populations look in places administrated by the english for centuries vs the spanish.

In the case of the english, you always find segregation and sometimes even genocide. To them, other populations were at best markets to exploit, at worst, pests to be exterminated. In case of the Spanish, other populations were always souls to be saved, even if sometimes there might be abuses.

No seriously, compare how much Native population and mixed native/european population is there in Latin America today and compare with North America, it's pretty obvious from where did racism come, and it isn't the Catholic Faith or Church, there's no reason why the Church should accept any responsibilities for atrocities caused by first heretical, then outright apostate States, such as the British Empire.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The Reasonable Man I was giving a brief overview over the history of colonialism.

In the case of the taking of Algers, 1830, obviously most participants were Catholics. They were arguably more thinking in terms of cultural than racial supremacy, as well as paying back for a longstanding but not long since grudge of piracy.

However, by III Republic, one laïcard called Jules Ferry (of Jewish background, I have gathered), was clearly speaking in terms of racial supremacy, and was not clearly pushed back by the local Catholic establishment - partly arguably because they had more burning matters to complain of.

When it comes to decolonisation, the British Empire acted with a bit more grace than the French. And I put that as the last act.

I am not the least concerned in putting blame on Catholicism, and as you can see, I consider Colonialism was better off the more Catholic and the further back it was.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The Reasonable Man My main point was, while Crusades and 19th C. colonialism had very important differences, they certainly had a kind of continuity between them (a bit like the national centralism of Richelieu was, on Belloc's view, continued, completed, in Bismarck - in this case, it was however not a completion, but a retreat from ideals).

The Reasonable Man

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm just pointing out that while European Colonialism is often conflated into one huge basket, it really shouldn't be.

Also the fact is that after the French Revolution, while there is still a Catholic identity there and there were and obviously still are many devout Catholics in France, we are talking about a French State already heavily influenced by the ideas of the French Revolution: Secularism, national pride, etc... all things that lead to Colonialism as justified by "cultural/national" superiority, rather than the conversion and building up of pagans. In that sense, the French colonisation of Algeria in the 19th century resembles much more the Secular/Protestant style of colonisation that the British practiced at the time, rather than the Catholic style of Spain and Portugal, not just at the time, but especially of earlier centuries.

While not necessarily directly responsible, secularism also does little to stifle the morphing of the superior culture narrative into the superior race narrative.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The Reasonable Man Totally agreed on the last one.

Secularism has however used Darwinism as a hobby horse for a while, and that one certainly has contributed, so secularism is indirectly responsible.

The Reasonable Man

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, i respectfully disagree that the spirit of the crusades has a continuity with the 19th century style of colonialism. Although i could see it the following way:

The crusades certainly did inform Portuguese and Spanish Colonization in the americas (The Reconquista was a crusade), English, Dutch and French Colonization mainly came about as an answer in order to disrupt and supplant Portuguese and Spanish colonization. Portugal's colonies in Brazil, for example, had to deal with French Huguenot and Dutch Invasions.

In that case, I could see it, as the evolution of a reaction to something inspired by the crusading spirit, but otherwise, the crusading spirit has absolutely nothing to do with British or Dutch colonisation in my opinion. French colonization efforts seems to fall in an intermediary point I suppose. To be fair, I am much less familiar with French colonisation history in general, compared to Portuguese/Spanish/British/Dutch colonisation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The Reasonable Man I didn't say the Crusading spirit was kept up in 19th C. colonialism.

I am also not saying the Apocalyptic Crusading spirit in Richelieu's Centralism and Anti-Habsburg zeal was kept up in Bismarck's centralism.

Except in the form (both cases) as a very distorted shadow of things that once were.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The Reasonable Man Again, not sure you have heard of Rev Bryan Houghton, he ended up in Ecclesia Dei context, and in discussing the Jesuits and contemplative prayer, he remarked, "it's easier to copy a plan than to revive a spirit" - meaning Jesuits before dissolution were readily much more contemplative, if you will hesychastic, than those revived after Napoleonic wars.

The same applies to the Crusading model, which is different from the Crusading spirit. The distinction is, one can copy that you find a state in place inadequate and worthy of dissolution, and yet fail to copy the strict restrictions on why and when this would apply.

13:26 "a defensive war" ... "to Islamic"

Not exclusively to Islamic expansionism, and therefore more than just one defensive war - cfr Northern Crusades.

Finland became a Swedish "colony" if you will, and remained so to Napoleonic wars, in small part before Sweden became Christian, but after that in defense of Christian Finns who were (usually, not the Tavasts in a Dominican run Republic) Swedish subjects against pagan neighbours who wanted to loot Christians (and take slaves from among them).

16:16 Brilliant comparison.

I'm copying it.

Spanish Inquisition, 3 Centuries, 5 K dead.
French Revolution, 3-4 Years, 27 K dead.

Not to mention, "loi Chapelier" was not too kind to trades union like rights either.

If you want local democracy, the Basque Fueros are fairly ideal, they were protected by the Inquisition.

And similar local democracy was rather actually ousted in favour of centralism, not just by the French Revolution, but by that one too. It ranged from Richelieu, over Lewis XIV, to the Jacobins and Napoleon.

17:18 starvation - noting that both Capitalistic Potato Famine and Communistic Holodomor come in here

Wars. I had a book about the 30 Years War.

The 17th C was the bloodiest century in internal European wars prior to ... 20th.

From 13th to 16th, it goes up each century, even more so in the 17th (30 years, 80 years, English Revolution, part of Nordic wars, defense against Turks at Vienna, "Glorious" Revolution (which wasn't as bloodless in Scotland and Ireland) and with it Glencoe ...

Then it goes down in the 18th (but not below 16th) and, untypically, down in the 19th as well, until 20th provides the next skyrocket with two world wars and the Revolutionary wars in Russia.

The book was written and published and printed before the 20th C was over and before the Balkan wars.

25:43 There is one thing in keeping an employment, if that's what you would like to call for instance incardination.

It's another to get "employed" in the first place.

Also, credally, "firing" a priest who committed homosexual acts either with consenting adults or with children is not anything like problematic, historically. 1568 Pope Pius V issued De horrendo scelere which stated they should immediately be cut off from sacerdotal service (or seminary studies) on condemnation for the act, those who could be laicised should be so, those who had made final vows should keep to themselves, making penance in celibate solitude, but not in monasteries.

It is disengenious to rake together homosexual offenders, who are often very good at melting in, with disruptive people, for instance like Luther, and the tolerance for that has been lowered all over the field since companies became bigger, since school systems became obligatory and you couldn't just take children out of a school they didn't feel good in.

Your explanation is basically taken from the attitude of false charity extended to pedophile (and often homosexual) priests over recent decades, prior to your "Pope Francis" and has little to do with past centuries.

And citing "disruptive" or "difficult personalities" is a very low shot against people sometimes so labelled, which has been the case with me, in contexts like such horrible abuses, as committed by people shielded by ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, as alleged (very probably in some cases falsely) against residential schools. I do not seek employment in the Church, I seek making a living as a writer - as a colleague of yourself or of Chesterton.

The kind of psychological explanations you give really don't hold. If I don't go to Mass, it's because I hold to Pope Michael, who has no Church in Paris in communion with him. I am avoiding communicatio in sacris with heretics and schismatics. People who speak of "disruptive" about someone who likes arguing things through on the internet may have applies it to my work as a debater, if that explanation were true, I would have been wasting 20 years of my adult life over defending something I don't really believe - even if some of the early traces are wiped out, by internet admin deletion abuses. I don't think this kind of explanation is all that much more convincing about lots of other cases than myself either. If anything, smooth people like "Pope Francis" who refuse to defend the faith in a militant way, are more suspect of secretly or not so secretly believing something different from the Catholic creed.

27:45 I am, so far, facing the kind of persecution you simply imagine as possibly upcoming.

Who Cares about Orthodoxy? God for One (in Three and Three in One)

And, less importantly overall, but for some importance to ourselves, Colin Miller and me too.

Progressive Christian’s Argument Gets DESTROYED!
29th March 2022 | Colin Miller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNdgLd_4Q2c

2:39 I have come to bear witness for truth.

The One Who said that obviously did care us believing truth. I e - our right beliefs.

3:59 Mark 10:6. In context, the number of your lover (note the singular) - but by extrapolation from the reference, the natural gender (which should not be changed) too. (Nor denied for that matter)

Romans 1:27 was written unlike when Mark 10:6 was spoken, after the old law was out, in which "such things must not even be named among you".

4:43 who are of opposite genders, who do not use certain pills and not the invention of Julius Fromm either - and who also abstain from certain positions which I think the Hindoos arguably do not have in their Kama Sutra, them also having a sense, if not a historic and theological knowledge of Genesis 1:28.

6:01 The frequency Popes and Bishops have decided, or rather upkept, following the tradition from the apostles. A tradition certainly human on one side, but there is more to it.

6:37 It so happens:

• in verse 16 it is specified, He was talking to the Eleven - converting is not everyone's job;
• and converting from non-Christianity is not for every time and place either, some times and places, priests and deacons working under bishops have been either instructing in the Christianity already received at within 8 days after birth or converting them from lives in disaccordance with it.

I feel, converting is not my job, unlike the twelve I'm not a bishop, but arguing for either conversion or non-apostasy is, in writings that actual converters can use for the purpose.

Hence, I write apologetics. I do not try to convert everyone around me - except on occasions, when they offer room for a wedge.

6:47 "all that I have commanded you" includes, obviously, the distinction He made between:

• St. Peter
• the twelve except for him
• the 72
• normal people whom He was preaching to and reaching out to.

9:53 Indeed. Hence the Irish saying, whenever a Bogtrotter and a Whig meet, on both sides, "you worship God your way, I'll worship Him in His!"

Did you note "in reverence and awe" which at least prima facie seems to endorse kneeling and candles, and Gregorian, rather than sitting under electric light, spending more on Bible study than on adoration and the parts sung not very different in melody from Border Ballads, for all of the music at Church?

And obviously, receiving communion on the tongue, with only the priest touching the Host. Normally either standing below an altar rail where the priest behind it is raised higher, or, more usually, kneeling before it, to lower yourself, before you receive God's flesh.

10:01 As an ex-Lutheran, I was fearing that reverend was from the Episcopalians ... no, wiki says "Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) clergy" ... phew, not their, "formerly our" fault this time!

I was obviously using "reverend" as a social title, to be more precise, that guy is as irreverend (and irreverenT) as Gretta Vosper.

Reasoned Answer to Ray Comfort

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Reasoned Answer to Ray Comfort · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Was Simon Peter Ever Called Niger?

Here is a recent video by Ray Comfort (there are three other guys on living waters, but this one is by him), here:

This Will Make You Think Differently About Catholicism...
30th March 2022 | Living Waters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZesJt_8JBIg

Where I answer at time stamps 1:51 and 2:02, though, there is a clip with MacArthur, whom I answer. Apart from that I comment when Ray Comfort or someone he's talking to is talking.

0:37 A Roman Catholic who says "I'm not born again" is misstating a truth : he's not of the confession that's nicknamed "born again".

A better instructed Catholic - like normally any priest - will say "I was born again by water and spirit, in the sacrament called baptism".

1:02 No, that verse does not say that James, Joses; Simon and Judas and at least two girls were physically Her daughters. In Biblical language, "brother" and "sister" have a range of meanings, and one pertinent one is, if someone dies childless, who will marry his widow. If you read the book of Ruth, you know that is not always a full brother. It could be a first or second cousin. Or whoever is closest, unless the one actually closest gives his shoe to the one next in line. Nevertheless, the term in the law was "brother". The sisters would have been full siblings to these brothers, but it doesn't say they were so to Our Lord.

In the case of legal half brothers, they would share neither God nor Mary as parents, but Joseph as in one case actual father but for Our Lord fosterfather. See Proto-Gospel of St. James.

1:51 Needing a Saviour is not exclusive of having one, meaning, She is not portrayed hereby as having ever sinned or even had the stain of Adam's sin. All that is needed is, being in Her case free even from the first from that sin is a state She owed to Her Saviour.

Now, what exactly had St. Elisabeth told Her before She said that?

"Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb"

What's the connection? It meant, She and Her Son were and are the "woman and her seed" of Genesis 3:15.

And as the angel had already said "blessed art thou among women" before She was pregnant with God, this means She had already in Herself a complete victory over the serpent.

There are only two women in the "bigger" Old Testament we use, only one of them in yours, who were in a sense called "blessed among women" - one won a complete victory over Sisera, and the other over Holophernes.

You can check that these days with a simple computerised search.

2:02 "because she was a sinner, and she knew it"
Doesn't say. You are, in your own classical words "adding to the Bible" - but what's worse, it's not from tradition.

2:33 That St. Peter had a wife is correct.

It doesn't say she stayed with him in married life, while he was a disciple.

I don't even think it says she was alive at this point, though a common tradition says she was.

2:41 it says "ειδεν την πενθεραν αυτου" - and "την πενθεραν" means, the mother in law.

Some languages (like French) would have to say "wife's mother" because the word mother in law in their language also means stepmother. In Greek and Latin this is not so, "socrum" cannot be confused with "materteram" in Latin. The wife as such is not mentioned in the text.

Mt. 23:9 - are you also literalistic about the command in Mt 5:29?

Or is there room for a spiritual meaning differing from the letter, in commands?

Like Mt 5:29 means cutting off occasions for sin, even if it hurts like ripping out your eye, and Mt 23:9 involves not taking any man, as man, for mentor.

3:41 In the New Testament, Our Lord Himself uses resumés for commandments, or approves them.

The division between the ten commandments, like between the 16 verses, is not textually transmitted, only the whole passage is.

When there are verses in Exodus 20, the chapter is called "Exodus 20" because of a Roman Catholic bishop who divided the Bible into chapters at a hunting trip (apart from being a hunter, he also knew the Bible by heart).

A certain passage is now known as verses 2 to 6, and as little as the passage was originally divided before the Renaissance into five verses, as little was there among Christians an agreed division whether this was one or two commands. No verse is skipped, because the enumeration of commandments is not a quote.

If that hunting bishop were asked to quote the first commandment from the Exodus, he would have answered:

Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus, qui eduxi te de terra Aegypti, de domo servitutis. [3] Non habebis deos alienos coram me. [4] Non facies tibi sculptile, neque omnem similitudinem quae est in caelo desuper, et quae in terra deorsum, nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terra. [5] Non adorabis ea, neque coles : ego sum Dominus Deus tuus fortis, zelotes, visitans iniquitatem patrum in filios, in tertiam et quartam generationem eorum qui oderunt me : [6] et faciens misericordiam in millia his qui diligunt me, et custodiunt praecepta mea.

And some Jews who agree with you on the tenth, would quote the Hebrew equivalent only of Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus, qui eduxi te de terra Aegypti, de domo servitutis.

4:57 I am the Lord thy God, ... Thou shalt not have strange gods before me...

See what the catechetic version leaves out - both parts of verse 2 and everything after 3. It's not meant as a straight quote.

6:54 The guy uses "born again" as about a certain Protestant lifestyle centering on an experience.

He probably is born again around day 8 of his life outside the womb.

If he believes you don't need to be baptised, he has a problem both with John 3 and with the Council of Trent.

7:58 I'm on exactly the right day to object to the rigmarole pseudo-"confession of sins" here.

A man who today says "have you seen my new notebook - it rewrites on voice command" and after being at least half and half believed says "April fools" is not someone one would call a liar, normally.

Similarily, stealing small amounts from necessity is not the sin of stealing (it would be in a part of the world where one could beg that amount easily - the case for food, but not for transport in Paris).

8:25 "making a graven image with your mind" - what Protestants are doing when it comes to their imagination about God.

There is a difference between saying God's name without much care, and saying it with contempt.

Just because someone shouts it out about as loud as the S word doesn't mean it replaces the S word.

In the case of the S word, one could imagine a notion like "I found s..."

In the case of "oh God" one could imagine a notion like "oh God, why are you allowing this to happen!?!?"

The latter is being somewhat rude to God, not trusting Him, but not treating Him with actual contempt.

8:53 In fact, God will judge everyone on the commandments - but the sins will be those that are current.

Blessed are those whose sins are forgiven, so if one of the sins was committed, was mortal in its kind, was sufficiently deliberate for God to judge you on the act as your act, and therefore deserved Hell, if it is forgiven, you will still not go to Hell for that sin.

However, the verse I cited has been abused for OSAS - it doesn't say that.

The blessedness of those whose sins are forgiven at a given moment in their earthly life before it is over, can be taken away again, by new mortal sins. The blessedness of those whose every sin is forgiven when he dies and faces God, can't. Only that blessedness is guaranteed eternal.

12:04 What exactly does it say in John 3?

[14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: [15] That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting. [16] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Sounds you are right if you stop there.

[17] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [18] He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Sounds you are right all believers go to Heaven, if you stop there.

[19] And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. [20] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.

Oh, suddenly it sounds like we do have to keep the commandment after all, as part of the bargain here referred to as believing in Christ. Those who don't can't stand the light. They get themselves into judgement instead.

[21] But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.

What does "doing truth" mean? It means keeping the ten.

Christ said so to the rich young man.

12:24 "confess your sins to God" ... good enough if you can't confess them to "God and men" in the context where a man, representing Christ, has authority to bind or lose you in or from your sins (John 20:21-3)

If you are near Topeka and committed sins after you were baptised, get ready to confess to Pope Michael or to Father Francis Dominic!

13:08 Wait a minite ... Quomodo ergo invocabunt, in quem non crediderunt? aut quomodo credent ei, quem non audierunt? quomodo autem audient sine praedicante? quomodo vero praedicabunt nisi mittantur? sicut scriptum est : Quam speciosi pedes evangelizantium pacem, evangelizantium bona!

Switching to English, I happen to know "quomodo audient" by heart, so this is where I go when I have to look this up ... ah, yes, it's also known as Romans chapter 10 ...

How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

Eleven men were sent, directly by God, as we read in Matthew 28:16-20.

How does it go on after that? That's right. Apostolic succession. It's available through the sacrament of orders, but is effective for salvation on condition of being faithful to the tradition that Christ gave the eleven and the new twelfth. He said: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: - Meaning, even if you were a bishop with full sacramental validity, your preaching would be a trap and a snare for souls as long as you stand outside the universality of the Christian message as preserved by the Catholic Church.

And no new man gets sent only by God.

St. Paul had the epistemological authority of an apostle over and above that of other bishops directly by God. But he and Barnabas both get put into the chain of apostolic succession, linking us to Christ, before they go out and get souls saved.

[1] Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. [2] And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. [3] Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. [4] So they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. [5] And when they were come to Salamina, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John also in the ministry.

Paul and Barnabas being sent by the Holy Ghost = Paul and Barnabas being sent by men who ordained them.

Here is the Haydock comment, from Acts 13:

// Ver. 3. Fasting and prayer, imposing their hands upon them. By which is clearly expressed, the manner in which the ministers of God were, and are still ordained bishops, priests, deacons in the Church. Witham.

— Interpreters are much divided in opinion, whether this imposition of hands be a mere deputation to a certain employment, or the sacramental ceremony, by which orders are conferred. SS. Chrysostom, Leo, &c. are of the latter opinion; nor does it any where appear that S. Paul was bishop before this. Arator, sub-deacon of the Church of Rome, who dedicated in the year 544 his version of the Acts of the Apostles into heroic verse to Pope Virgilius, attributes this imposition of hands to S. Peter:

———Quem mox sacravit euntem
Imposita Petrus ille manu, cui sermo magistri
Omnia posse dedit.———

— See his printed poems in 4to. Venice, an. 1502. Arator was sent in quality of ambassador from Athalaric to the emperor Justinian. — Following the practice of the apostles, the Church of God ordains a solemn and general fast on the four public times for ordination, the ember days, as a necessary preparation for so great a work, and this S. Leo calls also an apostolical tradition. See S. Leo, serm. ix. de jejun. and ep. lxxxi. c. 1. and serm. iii. and iv. de jejun. 7. mensis.

— Nor was this fasting a fasting from sin, as some ridiculously affirm, for such fasting was of universal obligation: nor was it left to each one's discretion, as certain heretics maintained. Vide S. Aug. hæres. liii. //

You may think it means, five men can (none of them having apostolic succession) get together and pray, and then all of them ordain one or two of them. Not what it means, not what the practise of the Church shows afterwards.

14:33 Ah, atheism!

I've recalled to celebrate it today!

(April Fools!)

14:57 How about you get a Haydock study Bible and start printing that instead.

Wait ... there are some Catholics left at TAN Books, they are still printing it:

The Douay-Rheims Bible, a Reproduction of the 1899 Edition of John Murphy Company
3rd June 2018 | R. Grant Jones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk6FE_sw5tM