samedi 17 mars 2018

Matthew Hunt thought Attacking Kent Hovind was a Way to Vindicate Hawking

If anyone thinks I should ask Matthew Hunt before republishing his part of a debate, I think a man who can say people with strong religious convictions are dangerous for society, who has a PhD, who argues badly, needs exposure. If he thinks he argued well, well then he can't really mind being exposed, can he?

Also, when I was a "science" believer, in late 70's in my early school years, I was told anyone can ask a scientist a question, there was an openness about the scientific community. I think someone willing to state "my explanation is as precise as it needs to be when talking to someone who isn't a scientist," has just debunked this supposed respect for amateurs.

Checking the Rule, since I got thrown out of another closed group because of reposting - not "in another group" and not of deleted material, but simply without admission of the person.

Check rule 5 - material not deleted. Check rule 8 - whether I get or don't get Matthew Hunt's permission, this reposting is on a blog, not in another group.

As he has a PhD, I will not anonymise him.

I see nobody salivating over his death. That's sick and twisted for you to even think and just shows exactly where your heart is.

Just another athiest using this as a time to express how much they hate CHRIST and Christians.

Matthew Hunt
It was in a message by Tom Wolf about Hawking going to Hell. This I have experienced many times when a famous person who happens to be an atheist dies.

Tom Wolf
Matthew Hunt
The fact that you are willing to outright lie is a strong indicator of your spiritual state.

Copy and paste where I stated anything about Hawking and Hell. I will give you eternity to reply as that task will be impossible to complete.

Matthew Hunt
Tom, why do you think I lied?

Tom Wolf
Matthew Hunt
You lied about my posting as you know and knew as you did it.

//Copy and paste where I stated anything about Hawking and Hell.//

Matthew Hunt
This was the sentence:

Mr Hawking fate is now established as decreed by God. God's judgement is all so I will not assume.

Tom Wolf
Matthew Hunt

Thank you. As anyone who can read will see there is no mention of Hell. All mankind will face judgment.

I stated, ""I will not assume"

I also explained this to you in that post (see Attachment).

I used to work in the education system. I can recommend a remedial reading course if you need assistance with comprehension.


Matthew Hunt
Tom, I read between the lines. I pity the students who you taught.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt for my part I'd pity the students you are teaching if any.

And you claim you have an "accredited PhD" ... so much for the value of those!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
My initial answer
OK, first of all, I was not salivating over Hawkin's death very much (I was wondering a bit if he and his had been involved in campaigns to keep my blogs "a secret" rather then the publications they are). I did once try to get through to him, via his surroundings.

Second, you are strawmanning creationism.

Kent Hovind doesn't believe he knows biology better than the Evolutionist biologists. He believes he can correct them on one specific point or a specific number of points, where they have been misled by ideology.

How he started his phd in Education (while he was a science teacher, his phd was in education, not science) says something about his style (perhaps an appropriate one in classrooms) but nothing about his arguments being either good or bad. That was a third one.

so to speak, are here numbered I, II, III

Matthew Hunt

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, I was thinking of Sam Hawkins, a person I like better even if he's fictional.

Matthew Hunt
Hovind has no accredited PhD.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Did I call his phd "accredited"?

Obviously his university accredited his phd, but they are not accredited for doing so, and that is what you mean by his phd not being accredited, but I didn't call it accredited.

Matthew Hunt
I could print off a generic look PhD certificate and would be as "qualified" as Hovind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, he did not print out his PhD certificate and sign it with his own stamp.

If you want to play equal, here is how you do it, you get a few guys together to start a university, ideally one of the guys already has a PhD, Dr Med, D D (not your style, I know), Iur Dr or sth and then you start studying, then writing theses and then evaluating theses.

Ordinary universities of Europe started out like that.

Matthew Hunt
I have an accredited PhD. You assertion that the hut is a university is just "starting out" is frankly laughable. Nowadays if a university wants to start it normally has to get accreditation for it's degree programs from more well established universities.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Key word : normally.

That involves universities in the same tradition.

Your is one which by now is in a secular tradition, I presume.

This means it would not have accredited Patriot University. Hence their initiative of starting out without accreditation.

Your PhD is in what subject?

And, excuse me again, isn't your PhD from a University of UK, where these things are more regulated by law than in US?

And, as per previous comments on thread, isn't your college one where you were taught that aggravating allegations about someone else can be verified by reading between the lines?

Matthew Hunt
My PhD is in mathematical physics.

My PhD was from University College London which was the first proper secular university in the UK.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Was ...

OK, that clarifies some ...

"Established in 1826 as London University by founders inspired by the radical ideas of Jeremy Bentham, UCL was the first university institution to be established in London, and the first in England to be entirely secular and to admit students regardless of their religion."

Was it accredited by Oxford or Cambridge?

Matthew Hunt
Probably, there are other universities which are older that UCL.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"In 1836 UCL became one of the two founding colleges of the University of London, which was granted a royal charter in the same year."

Doesn't mention any process of accreditation, though.

Also, a royal charter is a total no no and a papal charter at least a bit iffy in US.

Chris James
Hans-Georg Lundahl. UCL is currently the 7th most prestigious university in the world. Hovind would struggle to get a job cleaning its corridors:

View The QS World University Rankings® 2018

Matthew Hunt
Plus it looks like I'll be getting a postdoc there soon...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Chris James, Matthew Hunt - I said nothing in doubt of that.

I mentioned that when it began, it began with a Royal Charter. In US, you don't do Royal Charter.

I asked whether UCL was accredited by Oxford or Cambridge and I got no answer.

Obviously, UCL was a real university (as real as a university gets with no Theologia Regina Scientiarum of the Catholic type) before it was renowned.

The question is not at all whether UCL is more renowned than Patriot university. The question is if UCL is a "more real" university. You claimed Patriot University is less real, because of the lack of accreditation.

You also claimed that accreditation was not really a thing with the first universities of the West, but now it is necessary.

My point is, when did it become so?

I guess this new "requirement" for a real university is not just later than 1150 AD when Paris University was founded, but even later than 1836 when UCL got its Royal Charter.

That being my whole and wholly adequate point. You are pointing finger at Patriot University for a requirement which your own university - at least Matthew Hunt's - does not fulfil.

Actually, perhaps a Royal Charter is not a total no no for a university in the US, some were founded before the War of Independence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt, you called me out on misspelling your intro and on a somewhat spoof reply to my third, but how about my second ...?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
an hour later
Matthew Hunt, just to refresh your memory a bit:

Second, you are strawmanning creationism.

Kent Hovind doesn't believe he knows biology better than the Evolutionist biologists. He believes he can correct them on one specific point or a specific number of points, where they have been misled by ideology.

Answered twice
α and β

Matthew Hunt
Thus supposing knowing more than evolutionary biologists

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not overall, but on a particular issue.

It is a glaring lack of logic stringency to glide between "simpliciter" and "secundum quid".

Sara Taylor
I'm just curious.. Hans-Georg Lundahl, what is the issue your speaking of? Cause I don't understand a word you said lol. In laman terms can you describe the particular issue that the creation biologist knows more about or debates? I'm very curious...I would like to research the subject to see which way I will go with this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, I am even just amateur in creation biology, here is my own contribution, I was just calling out Tony Reed on it:

Mammalian Karyograms:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Evolution of Mammals

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now, the thing is, believing x can correct sn on a particular issue (know better secundum quid) is sth other than believing x can correct sn on all their field (know better simpliciter).

Simpliciter and secundum quid are terms in logic, not in biology. I was noting Matthew Hunt's bad logic, not any particular issue, as he himself didn't take one up.

Sara Taylor
Gotcha...and thank you for your help. I look forward to checking this out.

Matthew Hunt
I'm afraid you're still wrong Hans, not even in specific issues.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, as you are into maths, Matthew Hunt, how about studying the geometry of a chromosome?

The half you get from one parent - whether you call that half one chromosome or the whole set a chromosome and the half a chromatid - has a very specific shape.

Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere.

Exactly one human chromosome has this shape:

Telomere. Genes. Centromere.

It's the chromosome women don't have and, while an X can be viable on its own without either another X or a Y, a Y is not viable on its own.

So, the centromere is where the half from your dad and the half from your mum keep together.

No one is saying that scientists from outer space just came and added extra chromosome pairs to change animals.

And reducing chromosomes is no problem, you have a telomere on the telomere of another chromosome and they form a new centromere and the old centromeres are deactivated and even reduced.

The problem is the other way round.

P Z Myers has proposed this solution:

1) a doubling event.

This would reform one chromosome from

Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere.
Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere.

2) a breaking event.

Here he is not clear which of the following he imagines as ensuing:

Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere.

Sorry, resuming :

Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Centromere. + Centromere. Genes. Telomere.

First centromere around break refunctions as telomere, second centromere is both.

Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. + Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere.

Here all meres keep the functions, but both new chromosomes have Genes not protected by a mere.

You see this in cancer.

The result you would like to get is this:

Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere. + Telomere. Genes. Centromere. Genes. Telomere.

Can you use your geometry skills to help PZ Myers out?

Matthew Hunt
Why do you believe yourself to be correct?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Check the geometry.

P Z Myers made diagrams where he left out the telomeres, as if they weren't important to the issue.

You are a math specialist, you said, check the geometry!

Chris James
Ah yes. Just about every evolutionary biologist on earth is wrong and Hovind is right, concerning the evolutionary paradigm. Just about every geologist on earth is wrong about the age of the earth, but Hovind is right. Ok.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You know, Kent Hovind has Geologists on his side too.

There are mathematical problems with the dating methods, like if the presumption (as stated by AronRa) "all the lead we have used to be uranium" (and thorium too, some of it, I presume) is wrong, that puts one big hole in one of the issues.

Geological dating isn't like geological lithography.

Evolutionary biology isn't like simple biology.

Precisely as astrology and astrophysics neither of them are planar astronomy.

Sara Taylor
Chris James if Hovind is correct your statement is as well. You have geologists on both sides of this, creationists verses evolutionists. Hovind is by no means the only person in the field who believes the way he does. You realize there's more creationists then evolutionists. Even the scientific method was made by a Christian and the mri as well. You ever notice that evolutionists think they are their own God? They know it all? They get angry if u mention God? Wonder why? Why be angry at something that doesn't exist? Because if it does then it means what else exists? Even Hawkins believed their was a higher power but we're finite so we're not looked upon. Darwin came out as well saying yup there's a God. Einstein? Yup....he believed in life after death. The bible is a theology not a science book. I believe it because never has it been tested and failed. Human science? Fail after I couldn't make sense of it. The bible says each thing produces it's own kind...and we see that. Evolution states the opposite. All this time and evolution has never been actually seen or found. I see a biblical record showing a young earth. I see archeology proving these claims but no eye witness to a billion yr old or so earth. The missing link will always be just that...a missing link. I believe it's a debate not about science but one about I'm my own God and I will do as I please. I make my own decisions. I be damn anyone else will. That's ok to wanna be that way but look where it's got people. War after war, lawlessness, hate, murder, etc. Why? Because they lack any good or love. God is that love. Why do many not want that along with an everlasting hope is beyond me. I'm sure ull respond with rude angry sarcasm because nobody's gonna debate or talk to me that way. Why do guys get so angry? But it ok...

Chris James
Sara Taylor. Email any geologist in any of the top 200 universities on Earth and tell me how many agree with Hovind on the age of the Earth. if you can get more than 2 I'll post you a free fruitcake.

Sara Taylor
Have you checked into what you just asked? I don't like fruit cake. But this is what I said ud exactly do.

Chris your also referring to humans...but still humans. My point Chris James is were all finite. If there is a God NO human can compare do you agree with that? As you notice I am not disrespecting you in any way. I would appreciate the same from you. By the way Einstein was a brilliant man as you know. I want you to point out one wiser of your choice, wiser then him and Hawking. You choose...

Chris James
Sara Taylor. I wasn't attacking Einstein, just pointing out the unlikeliness of Hovind being right about biology and geology and just about every reputable biologist and geologist being

Sara Taylor
Chris James Im not accusing you of attacking Einstein. Im not saying either that any professor at our top colleges are ignorant. We have many a great minds at work in this field. What Im trying to get you to see is there could be that possibility of a God who created everything. If so even our brightest scientists would be finite to him. A lot of people think Christians dont believe in science believe it or not. We do we just believe differently what, how, why and who is behind it. Im not gonna dismiss you because of your belief. You have that right to believe what you want. I just want to try to get you to see possibility's. When people think for themselves that is sheer wisdom. Thinking on all ends and options. Not just one sidedness. Thats how I am exactly. Ive been this way since a child. I was raised in churches...many different ones. From around 11 yrs old I remember setting in a Pentecostal church. People jumping, shout, passing out! Speaking in tongues! Saying we was going to heaven but the later gonna pop up out of the ground at the rapture. That made absolutely no sense. Bare with me Im not done lol. I started believing people were full of crap. Many were not who they said they were. The gift of tongues is not running around blabbering. It was a gift given to the disciples to understand tongues..aka language of those there. People lie and are not Christians. Not trying to preach the bible to you but this is why I started researching not religion but God himself. I believe he exists. But I will be honest with you. I no longer go to church. Me and my husband will have a beer. Im not gonna be talked down to by anyone about it from any church. Sorry Im venting. My point is, is I do believe in God. I believe in creationists because I dont believe anything of us etc is by chance because its just to perfect. But my own belief wasnt enough I had curiosity. Im sure that same curiosity drives all scientists crazy. I didnt take what I believe lightly. Ive spent countless years studying apologetics and humanism and evolution. Apologetics pulls the bible and science and shows how they correlate. There are scientists from all the top major colleges that have their input on and teach apologetics. Regardless what you believe it is well worth your time to watch and study. Its all I didnt even know existed. After studying theology of both I came to agree with creationism. Regardless Chris James what you will ever believe, always believe you are not an accident or a mistake. That would mean your life is pointless and worthless...and that I will never believe about anyone:)

Chris James
Sara Taylor. I never denied there was a God. I didn't make claims about God one way or the other. That wasn't the point I was discussing.

Sara Taylor
I'm confused then but I usually am was nice discussing it all with you. Thanks for listening to me vent! Enjoy ur weekend ok:)

Chris James
Sara Taylor. No probs, have a good one :-)

Michael Gilroy
Evolutionary scientists are an oxymoron. Aside, any people have contributed without having Albert Einstein.

Matthew Hunt
Einstein actually had a PhD...

"Creation science" is essentially simply theology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If that were true, how come carbon dating is not in the Bible and Creation Science has sth to say on the topic?

Matthew Hunt

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You do find Carbon dating in Creation science, one theory that used to be popular and I am refining is, carbon 14 levels rose, drastically, between Flood and Abraham and also, less but still fairly drastically, after Abraham, on my view.

You do not find carbon 14 in the Bible, so, this theory, which is creation science, is not per se theology.

Matthew Hunt
Creationists lie about radiometric dating. They assert that the half life changes over time but offer absolutely no evidence to support that assertion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is another theory.

First off, I am into carbon 14, leaving the rest aside.

Second, that other theory is not mine, I am fine with Carbon 14 having had a halflife of 5730 years since creation in 5199 BC (if there was any carbon 14 that early).

Third, not offering evidence is not always lying, it is sometimes wishful thinking.

Fourth, my own evidence involves a 900 years carbon misdating of Joseph as he is Imhotep, and also involves a 7000 years misdating of Babel as it is Göbekli Tepe - the evidence is circumstantial that Imhotep fits the bill of Joseph and GT the bill of Babel. AND I am taking the conventional carbon dates for beginning and end of GT and for Djoser's coffin.

Joshua Paul
Matthew sure likes making stuff up

Matthew Hunt
I leave that up to people like you Joshua. I'll stick to science.

Joshua Paul
The point is that you don't... you believe in fairytales like animals changing to other animals and the universe popping into existence uncaused for no purpose.

Matthew Hunt
Again, a strawman of actual science. If you tried to understand the things you say aren't true then you wouldn't sound so silly.

Joshua Paul
I do understand... you don't. There's the difference. You so silly.

Matthew Hunt
How can you understand science? You're a creationist. That implies the following:
1) You don't understand science
2) You are too scared to learn because of the consequences your religion put on you in you reject a literal interpretation of your religious text.

Michael Gilroy
Matthew Hunt How can you understand logic when you do not use it? You're making several logically fallacious arguments. Very immature, circular, strawman, ad hominem attacks to avoid the subject which you h eery t owned on.

Chris James
Michael Gilroy. Do you believe the Earth to be billions of years old, or just a few thousand years old?

Jeff Hames
it dont matter how old the earth is cause we dont know

Chris Perdue
Matthew Hunt Actually, evolutionary theory et al do sounds silly. Joshua just boils down all the "scientific" gobbledygook into a simplified form, and that is what it all boils down to.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt, if UCL is accredited at present and if you are enjoying the confidence of that university, perhaps UCL should be losing some status due to the immense ideological dead weight and total lack of objectivity in a statement like:

"That implies the following:
1) You don't understand science
2) You are too scared to learn because of the consequences your religion put on you in you reject a literal interpretation of your religious text."

I think at Lund University, even if you could not be sacked for saying that in essence, you could be sacked for using that tone.

I hope, it may be worse than I thought of it when I went there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt - you did not answer my points, perhaps you were distracted by Joshua Paul?

Joshua Paul - when you said Matthew Hunt liked to make things up, were you specifically referring to his attributing Setterfield's theory of changing light velocity and correspondingly changing decay speeds to all of us Young Earth Creationists?

Chris James, whatever Michael Gilroy believes, I most definitely do believe Earth was created either 5199 BC or 5500 BC or something like that. A N D that there is a perfectly coherent way to account for the carbon dates that seem to conflict with it.

Jeff Hames, we pretty much do know how old the Earth is, because the Bible pretty much does tell us that (btw, I am using LXX chronology).

Matthew Hunt
Joshua lies a great deal. I've found it to be the case with many creationists so I've come to expect it.

The varying speed of light is a big problem for creationists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The varying speed of light may be a problem for the kind of creationists who are using the wrong and unnecessarily exotic solution to Distant Starlight Problem.

As a Geocentric, I don't take "parallax" as being parallactic and therefore I don't have a distant starlight problem in the first place.

Matthew Hunt
If the speed of light has changed drastically then we should be able to predict the effects and yet the experiments show that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum.

You're a geocentrist!!!! Oh my...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt I am fine with speed of light being the same.

Since I am a Geocentrist, this has no bearing on Distant Starlight problem.

Matthew Hunt
As a geocentrist, you have insurmountable problems with your idea.

Joshua Paul
Matthew Hunt still at it with no evidence. He's a puppet of his lying masters caught countless times. He likes to lie on numerous occasions to wriggle out of things he's got himself into. Just like him calling me a liar. What a jerk off. He only does that to cover the fact that he lies like crazy.

Matthew Hunt
Evidence of what? Evolution? What type of actual evidence would you accept?

Joshua Paul
Evidence that I've lied. Evidence that you the truth. Evidence that evolution is real by mutations that add genetic information to the genome instead of what actually occurs by mutations. Evidence there is no God which you blatantly claimed. Etc...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Joshua Paul, thank you for cluttering a subthread I tried to conduct on dating methods with generalities.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt "As a geocentrist, you have insurmountable problems with your idea."

How about checking pronouns?

YOUR problems may be insurmountable with my idea, but mine haven't been so.

Matthew Hunt
[to Joshua, I presume]
You lie about the actual theory of evolution.

Matthew Hunt
Hans, then explain Foucault's pendulum for a start. Then explain the seasons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Foucault's pendulum, Coriolis, Equatorial bulge, etc.

Day and Night are there because Sun follows the aether being moved by God from East to West.

Aether moving from East to West explains all of above.

Sun not only moves from East to West with the aether, but also from west to East considerably slower through the aether along the ecliptic plane, this explains the seasons;

Matthew Hunt
You also have to explain the Michaelson-morley experiment an the more modern versions of it.

Oh and gravity would help.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Michelson & Morley, according to Sungenis, did get a result for the daily movement, the one of - on their supposition Earth, on mine Universe - around Earth. It is just for the relevant speed of daily portion of yearly motion, the supposed one of Earth around Sun, which they got no result for.

I think I can refer you to Sungenis Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right on this matter.

Your exact problem with gravity is what?

Matthew Hunt
I've interacted with Sungenis before. His "theory of gravity" contained an imbalance of units. He was more than embarrassed when I pointed it out to him...

Sungenis also just focuses on the experiment done buy Michaelson and Morley and ignores the recent tests and experiments which also agree with the original thesis.

You're happy with arbitrarily high speeds then?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I referred you to Sungenis on Michelson & Morley (when did Michelson change spelling to Michaelson?) not on gravity.

His problems about gravity is not my business.

I am very sure Sungenis has dealt with both Michelson-Morley and Sagnac, would you tell me one he could have missed on the aether business?

So, "arbitrarily high speeds" is relevant for what?

Matthew Hunt
When pressed, Sungenis will look at the size of the experimental errors in the original experiment and argue from that and ignore the more modern version of the experiment where experimental error is very small indeed.

Things in general need more energy to go faster and faster So you have a problem with that if you think the universe rotates around Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Things in general need more energy to go faster and faster"

Not if God or angels rather than physical vectors are moving.

Not if aether is the medium of vectors and is moving locally.

"So you have a problem with that if you think the universe rotates around Earth"

Supposing all fix stars are exactly one light day up, how big is the problem?

And supposing the problem was just there because you were thinking of movement through aether, even if not recognising its existence?

As to the other, I'll rely as much on his account of experiments as on yours.

Matthew Hunt
So many assumptions which you cannot prove...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Like on your own side, but you don't bother to question.

Sphere of fix stars one light day up is what I consider a fair guess.

What would the magnitude of the problem be if that were the height of them?

Matthew Hunt
There are very few assumption in actual science. Certainly when it comes to geocentrism. Would you like to go over a few of these assumptions that are present in science?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you like ...

  • As far as I recall the discussion on luminiferous aether, Michelson Morley was presumed to have disproven it due to its inability to detect the annual movement of Earth - if Earth is not moving, there was no annual movement to detect, so aether is not disproven
  • You are presuming causalities affecting physical things are limited to physical things (matter or energy, not just definite bodies of matter, I don't want to strawman you on that one)
  • This means you are presuming that, as heaven and stars and planets are too big for freewilled agents with bodies to handle through their bodies, then only physical things affect them.

Did I miss any?

Did I add one not there?

Matthew Hunt
No, it wasn't due to the annual movement of the Earth, it was to do with light passing through the aether. There should have been a slowing down of the light beam through the aether. After all, the aether was invented as the medium which light waves pass through.

So your whole idea is wrong. Perhaps you should read up on the experiment first.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"There should have been a slowing down of the light beam through the aether. After all, the aether was invented as the medium which light waves pass through."

There should have been a slowing down of the light beam where Earth was moving away from the aether.

There should have been a hasteing up of the light beam where Earth was moving into the aether.

That is, it was precisely as I said, about the annual movement. Tom Wolf offered some lessons in reading comprehension ...

Matthew Hunt
Hans, I've explained that the should have been a delay on the time taken for the time taken for the light to travel but there was none. This indicating no need for an aether.

Is there something you're not quite understanding here Hans>

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your explanation was imprecise.

"there should have been a delay" = there should have been a delay in one specific direction of presumed orbital movement and a hastening in the opposite direction, too bad you want to swap precision for imprecision, I am not falling for that game.

Matthew Hunt
My explanation is as precise as it needs to be when talking to someone who isn't a scientist.

The travel times around the square should have been different for each edge but they weren't. They were all exactly the same.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"My explanation is as precise as it needs to be when talking to someone who isn't a scientist."

That sounds like talking down to those who aren't scientists.

"The travel times around the square should have been different for each edge but they weren't. They were all exactly the same."

And the difference in question was related to the supposed orbital movement, also known as annual movement, as I said.

Matthew Hunt
It had nothing to do with the orbital movement. The speed of light is far faster than the speed of the Earth through space.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not deny that.

But Michelson Morley was about finding a slight slowing down in one direction and a slight speeding up in opposite direction according to orbital movement.

Matthew Hunt
So why are you bringing in the red herring of the orbital motion?

Relative to the speed of light, the Earth can be considered stationary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Aether is every direction.

Presence of aether as such is certainly not what would have speeded up in one and slowed down in opposite direction.

So, the movement one was trying to measure by its slight percentage or even less in influence to speed of light was the orbital one.

Joshua Paul
Notice I said etc? So you didn't bring evidence I lie about evolution. Still being a liar I see.

Joshua Paul
Notice I said etc? So you didn't bring evidence I lie about evolution. Still being a liar I see.

Matthew Hunt
he aether is considered a medium. When things travel through a medium they slow down.

Matthew Hunt
Joshua, I explained that evolution happened in populations over generations rather than to a single organism over it's lifetime. You laughed indicating you thought my explanation was wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The aether is considered a medium."

At least in a sense, yes.

"When things travel through a medium they slow down."

When light travels through a denser medium (like water or glass) it slows down.

It slows down exactly where water or glass meets the less dense medium.

It doesn't get slower and slower the longer it goes through water or glass.

Matthew Hunt
In a sense? That's WHY it was hypothesised to begin with. It was "known" that all waves had to have a medium to travel in. They invented the aether to be the medium which light travelled in.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, the sense of a medium waves travel in is one I accept.

Joshua Paul
Matthew, that was your assumption.

Matthew Hunt
I have no idea what you mean.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BBL after some factchecking, enjoy yourself with Joshua Paul in the meantime.

back now:

Matthew Hunt
I would suggest you look up the experiment so you're not confused...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You know, I am not sure you aren't yourself confusing Michelson Morley with Sagnac and giving the wrong result for Sagnac, but the following is about your idea of "aether" and "medium":

"The speed of sound is the distance travelled per unit time by a sound wave as it propagates through an elastic medium. In dry air at 0 °C (32 °F), the speed of sound is 331.2 metres per second (1,087 ft/s; 1,192 km/h; 741 mph; 644 kn). At 20 °C (68 °F), the speed of sound is 343 metres per second (1,125 ft/s; 1,235 km/h; 767 mph; 667 kn), or a kilometre in 2.91 s or a mile in 4.69 s."

"In common everyday speech, speed of sound refers to the speed of sound waves in air. However, the speed of sound varies from substance to substance: sound travels most slowly in gases; it travels faster in liquids; and faster still in solids."

"The speed at which light propagates through transparent materials, such as glass or air, is less than c; similarly, the speed of electromagnetic waves in wire cables is slower than c. The ratio between c and the speed v at which light travels in a material is called the refractive index n of the material (n = c / v). For example, for visible light the refractive index of glass is typically around 1.5, meaning that light in glass travels at c / 1.5 ≈ 200,000 km/s (124,000 mi/s); the refractive index of air for visible light is about 1.0003, so the speed of light in air is about 299,700 km/s (186,220 mi/s) (about 90 km/s (56 mi/s) slower than c)."

"For example, the refractive index of water is 1.333, meaning that light travels 1.333 times faster in vacuum than in the water."

"Window glass 1.52"

Now, this would mean, window glass is less dense in aether than water and water is less dense in aether than vacuum.

Aether being what light travels best in, just as compact solids are what sound travels best in.

Matthew Hunt
This has nothing to do with sound. It has to do with light.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt, you seem to be too impatient to read through an argument before answering.

Take the lessons in reading comprehension Tom Wolf offered you!

"It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind")."

Now, the aether wind would only be there, if Earth was moving.

"The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist; this result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether.[A 1] The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution"

Now, let's highlight:

"the direction of movement through the presumed aether"

Ideally, this would be a double one, a movement of rotation and a movement of orbit.

The one which most definitely was found lacking was the movement of orbit.

According to how Sungenis told the story, there was a slight result as expected for the rotational movement (as expected if aether rotates around Earth as if Earth rotates within aether), while the bigger result, for the orbital movement, was found lacking.

So, it was about orbital movement.

Matthew Hunt
You seem fixated on something which is not directly relevant to the experiment. Perhaps we should leave this here and move on to something you're more willing to talk about?

What I've said is nothing different to the article, it's your interpretation which is off whack.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You seem fixated on denying the facts.

On treating me as an imcecile you can play around with.

I was following you up where you were attacking and you are pretending that the article doesn't say what it says about aether wind.

Your words per se sound as if the experiment would have been about detecting refractive index of aether, or even worse, as if refractive index were synonym for permanent deceleration, which is not the case with either type of waves in either type of medium.

he seems either to read very quickly or to not have taken time to read my comment:

Considering how unspecific his answer was, I think the latter is more probable.

But back to his own words:

Matthew Hunt
Do I treat you as an imbecile? Yes, you're a geocentrist. I think that these are only slightly more intelligent than flat Earthers. Get used to it.

The medium of light was thought to be the aether, that's why it was invented, to explain how light waves travelled.

I think
this is where I stop debating, and publish.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
True Christians are NOT "salivating" over his death. You should be ashamed to even so much as insinuate that. Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints... Tragic is the death if one who rejects God since only a sad and fearful day of reckoning awaits.

Matthew Hunt
I think they are.

Chris Perdue
I have not seen one post by a Christian that was salivating over his death. I have seen some that said that he denied God all his life, and now he in eternity and will face the God he denied. But we are not rejoicing over the fact ... we would have preferred he got saved.

Matthew Hunt
I have seen plenty of posts of people talking about how Hawking will get "judged" by your deity. Everyone knows he was an atheist and are using this opportunity to emotionally manipulate people into belief.

Tim Eakins
Matthew Hunt... You, too, will be judged. He's YOUR God, too. After all, that's why you waste so much time arguing against Him.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
If someone dies in a fiery crash because they broke simple traffic laws, like running red lights and speeding... Yes, we WILL talk about that as a warning to others! Traffic laws are in place to keep people from getting killed. Pointing out why the fiery crash happened doesn't help the guy who died... Too late for him, but it's a valid case study and warning for those who are still alive. Have you ever taken a driver's education class? Remember how they show graphic footage of horrific crashes? There's a very specific purpose for that. The warnings leave an impression on many, but some just won't listen, thinking that "it won't happen to me..." But the class instructor was not "salivating" or chuckling over how the victims died in those crashes. Only a few sick, immature individuals in class would joke and make fun of the victims. But you can't attribute that kind of sick behavior to the class instructor. Nor to a preacher of God's word.

Matthew Hunt
People with strong religious beliefs are dangerous for society.

Sara Jenna Rahal
Matthew Hunt just stop.. i got hate from athiests when all i said was i hope he repented... as if i said something evil.... when in REALITY Christains don't wish hell on anyone and want everyone to come to repentence.

Mike'n Tabea Warrak
Wrong. That's like saying people with strong beliefs in gun rights are dangerous to society, when it's only certain maniacs who are the danger. Or all police are corrupt because of a few bad apples. Why do you insist on lumping everyone together into one pile? The vast majority of police are good cops trying to do their jobs.

Chris Perdue
An atheist mindset has killed just as many innocent victims as a religious mindset ... so atheism is not the answer, either.

Matthew Hunt
Chris Perdue, you're equivocating atheism with totalitarianism. They're not the same.

Chris Perdue
The totalitarians were atheists ... and the belief that they were not accountable to God played a role in them killing so many ... and especially them targeting those who did believe in God. Thus, their atheistic world view resulted in many deaths.

Tom Wolf
Chris Perdue
Actually more: Mao of China. Stalin in Soviet Union, Hitler in Germany to name a few.

Chris Perdue
Tom Wolf Actually, those were the people I was thinking of Tom Wolf. But a lot of people have also been killed in the name of religion over the centuries ... so it would be hard to really determine how many were for religion or how many for atheism.

Tom Wolf
Chris Perdue Agreed.

Matthew Hunt
There are also theists who are totalitarian, so your first statement was wrong.

Chris Perdue
Not really wrong. I agree that there are religious people who are just as evil. But YOUR implication is that atheism is a great viewpoint, when in fact it has its own fair share of evil people and governments.

Matthew Hunt
It's wrong.

Tim Eakins
Yes. Atheism is wrong.

Chris Perdue
It seems I am willing to admit that religious people have committed many atrocities in the name of religion, but he is not willing to admit that atheists have done the same while following the tenets of atheism. That makes Matthew the one who is being dishonest.

Matthew Hunt
I'm not saying that but you need to be specific. Communism, which is a form of totalitarianism was the cause, not atheism per se. It is dishonest to try and separate the theist/atheist...

Tom Wolf
Matthew Hunt
An essential concept of Communism is atheism. Religion is the opiate of the masses according to Marx. Your attempt to separate the two us disingenuous.

Matthew Hunt
You need to understand that in totalitarian regimes, like communism, it is the state which must have the ultimate authority. This is the key. To pick out atheism and say, atheistic regimes are bad, is very disingenuous.

Tom Wolf
Please, name a benevolent Atheist regime to illustrate your point.

Matthew Hunt

Tom Wolf

Aaron Purple Morph Wain
Hitler and Stalin had moustaches too, moustaches must make you commit atrocities 🤔

Chris Perdue
As for myself ... I did not say all atheist states/leaders are evil, murderous regimes. I only said that many of them have proven to be evil. Second, while Sweden may have a large atheist population, it also has a large religious population, with 61% registered as Christians. And reading about Swedish government a bit, it appears they have a representative government with a separation of church and state ... so not the same thing as an atheist regime. Furthermore, "All members of the Royal Family belongs to the Church of Sweden, which is an Evangelical Lutheran Church. Evangelical for its basis in the Gospel of the Bible"

( )

So much for the claim that Sweden is an atheist regime . :)

Reading further, they have a separation of church and state, much like America does. The state is friendly toward religious freedom, whereas an atheist regime is typically NOT friendly toward religious beliefs. Sometimes they tolerate it to a degree, as in China, but they are most definitely not friendly to it.

Tom Wolf
Thanks, Chris Perdue. I appreciate the backup. Frankly, I was just not into the fight earlier and his reply made me chuckle. Sweden is not exactly a world power that is of consequence. I am surprised he did not say Vatican City; millions have not died within its walls.

Chris Perdue
I wasn't so much fighting in this instance as I was curious whether his claim was correct, Tom Wolf. :) And upon reading that the his claim was completely off, I had to comment.

Tim Eakins
It seems that the recent high school shooting that happened near here was perpetrated by an atheist with communist sympathies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt Did you call Sweden a benevolent régime?

I am a Swede and an expatriate.

While I have been in prison, I was not escaping from it, but had been legally free more than 3 years before leaving, nearly 4.

If I had not needed to defend myself against certain aspects of the benevolent atheist régime, I would not have gone to prison in the first place.

Atheists have a way of reading between lines which is sometimes applied to other things than just texts on a paper or a computer screen.

When they do that to a human life, they can wreak havoc. Note, Evangelicals were presumably also at least somewhat involved, but here I am guessing on what happened behind my back.

They were trying to take me to mental hospital, ultimately for certain life choices which I thought if not totally fitting at least the least unfitting I dared to what I considered my Christian duty.

I shot at a policeman involved in that procedure, I have done the time, but I would have preferred if the procedure to lock me up hadn't started in the first place.

No such luck with the benevolent atheist régime in Sweden.

Swedish and Norwegian CPS are also a nightmare and I know a woman who at least claims she was forced to abort by psychiatry in Sweden. Benevolent? No ... not quite.

Sweden, like two states in Canada, like two states in US, had enforced sterilisation of certain groups up to 1970's. Since then, enforced sterilisation is gone, targetting those groups is fortunately more difficult, but medical mentalities are somewhat similar. State run medicine is an oppressive system in Sweden.

As to ensuring Old Age Pensions, in 2003 the news were, we were not getting that any more. We needed to sign up private old age pension ensurances. Great. When the old age pension of one breaks down, its that one, not the state, which will be liable to criticism ... but the bottom line is, swedes were encouraged to save for old age, no longer in begetting many children, but in earning much (ideally both in a couple) which would involve higher old age pensions, guaranteed by the state.

And it is breaking down because of what?

Well, part of the problem is at least that some people quite having as many children as before.

Children being the ultimate guarantee for an old age pension, if not for each individual person, at least for a generation as a whole.

And replacing younger generations of Swedes partly with younger generations of immigrants doesn't work out all that well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Chris Perdue " Second, while Sweden may have a large atheist population, it also has a large religious population, with 61% registered as Christians. And reading about Swedish government a bit, it appears they have a representative government with a separation of church and state ... so not the same thing as an atheist regime. Furthermore, 'All members of the Royal Family belongs to the Church of Sweden, which is an Evangelical Lutheran Church. Evangelical for its basis in the Gospel of the Bible'"

Most registered Christians are probably as Christian as the Christian friends of Matthew Hunt (or himself, didn't see him state he was atheist) - they are fine with 4 point 5 billion year old Earth, with abortion more or less and certainly with contraception and homosexuality and blessing gay couples and lesbian couples in Church.

That would mean nearly all (or the large majority, perhaps at least 75 % - 80 %) of the Lutherans of the former State Church, and a few of the Evangelicals, though that might be more 50 / 50.

The royals are famous for not being particularly "fanatic" about religion, the Queen apostasised from Catholicism to be queen, even if it was not constitutionally required. She and her husband the King went to ski on Easter in 2012, more interesting than going to Church it would seem. I noted this, because it fulfilled a Bible code prediction. It's about equidistant letter words.

Year according to Hebrew calendar and Pesach visible in the "cylinder", a vertical word with the Hebrew for Capricorn, and on the bottom of the cylinder the word Messiah.

Jesus is the Messiah and Queen Silvia is a Capricorn - she put her skiing interest above Him in Easter that year, and that year Latin Easter coincided mostly with Jewish Pesach.

Chris Perdue
Hans-Georg Lundahl Good to know. Thanks for sharing. All I could go on were a few brief articles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are welcome!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew Hunt When you say that "people with strong religious beliefs are a danger for society" you are repeating the idiocies which have made Sweden and Swedish society a danger to Christian citizens.

Matthew Hunt - while you are there, anything you'd like to delete from yesterday or today?

Oh, one more when you say "There are also theists who are totalitarian" - do you mean Muslims in Daesh or do you mean John Calvin and John Knox and Oliver Cromwell and Henry VIII?

Matthew Hunt
I'm fine with my statements. You might like a think though.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thank you, I have thought these things through years ago.

vendredi 16 mars 2018

Två undertrådar under status af en Martinist

Creationism och stafning · Två undertrådar under status af en Martinist

DL och DP hade påstått att jag missuppfattat Martinus, men när jag collade, hade jag fattat det rätt.

De voro till slut mer intresserade af min språkform än af mina argumenter.

En stilla undran : är det många nordbor som fallit för Martinus?

Skulle tro att det ligger på några tusen sammanlagt, men Martinus verk är rätt okänt egentligen, eftersom det inte är handlar om en sekt eller församling som försöker värva medlemmar, och man lägger inte några större resurser på att informera om det, utöver vad enstaka entusiaster gör, det är i princip bara ett verk fritt att studera för dem som finner det intressant. Jag är personligen helt klart en entusiast, och har varit det sedan jag öppnade böckerna för 20 år sedan, och kommer vara det tills jag lämnar detta jordeliv. Om människor visste vilken skatt som finns i de där böckerna skulle de inte tveka en sekund att lusläsa dem. Den dagen kommer, det är jag övertygad om, när folk ska upptäcka detta, och då kommer det nog ske en global revolution på många områden, inte minst vad gäller hur vi utformar våra samhällen.

Jo "tack", jag såg en viss brochure en gg, det verkade som om han hade ngn slags communistisk syn på huru yrkesval skulle gå till.

Ngt slags committeer skulle visst besluta om hvars och ens yrkesval eller dylikt, icke denne sjelf ...

Han har skrivit om en ny samhällsmodell ja, men inte så detaljerat, mer på principnivå, det hör framtiden till.

Jag vill intet ha den typen af framtid, tack!

Det handlar bara om att värna allas rätt till ett gott liv, i samhället lokalt som globalt, och lämna det hierarkiska och där några på toppen berikar sig på andras arbete, monopoliserar på naturens resurser eller roffar åt sig av rikedomar genom makt och list. Är det någon som är emot ett sådant rättvist och kärleksfullt samhälle i grunden? Möjligtvis bara dem på toppen...

Eller de som skulle vilja ha andra yrken än de de utnämnts till ...

Det funkar inte så, läs på innan du uttalar dig är du snäll. Det handlar om att var och en hamnar på rätt plats, efter lust och kompetens.

"lust och"

Det var intet hvad jag läste i den brochuren ... competence, jo, det verkar stämma med hvad jag mins.

Sedan kan jag ha sett en sak och missat resten.

Lätt hänt :) (y)

Se dock mitt svar till DP.

Hans-Georg, det är helt klart en missuppfattning att Martinus skulle ha menat att vi i det framtida globala kärleksrike han förebådar, skulle bli "tilldelade" något verksamhetsområde vi inte själv väljer! Tvärtom mot nu kommer alla att bidra med just det som de brinner för att göra!

Å andra sidan, att ngn hamnar der han intet valt blir kanske bittrare om en committée bestämmer.

Och att alla skulle brinna för sin uppgift är en utopie, gator behöfva sopas i framtiden med, fram till Harmageddon eller nära på.

Som sagts, läs hans texter själv innan du drar slutsatser!

Ngn passage du recommenderar?

De flesta av hans texter finns tillgängliga på nätet på ett flertal språk! Googla på!

Här är innehållsförteckningen i Livets Bog:
Livets Bog, innehållsförteckning
Läs och sök i Martinus: Tredje testamentet.

[Référence gifven, länkar ej]

Kapitel 4 handlar om de politiska principerna.


"107. Men tack vare de senare århundradenas utveckling har kontrasten mellan över- och underklass minskats betydligt, och vi upplever alltså att det inom överklassen förekommer allt fler individer som är ädla och flitiga och verksamma för hela samhällets väl, liksom också att det efter hand i någon mån har uppstått bättre arbetsvillkor och friare förhållanden för underklassen än förr. ..."

Huru var det nu med hans historiekunskaper?

"Men härigenom kommer ju samma överhet ytterligare att dokumentera, att endast jordmänniskosamhället kan vara "arbetsgivare", medan den enskilde individen endast kan vara "arbetare". I den fullkomliga världsstaten kan således inget väsen komma till världen för att låta sig betjänas, utan endast för att tjäna."

Jahadu ...

Och fritid skall egnas åt, förmodligen obligatoriska studiedagar ... och machiner bidraga till mer fritid ... jahadu ...

"Varje arbetsför individ blir därför skyldig att prestera sin del av det arbete, som enligt vetenskaplig uträkning är nödvändigt för att han själv och den övriga delen av jordmänniskosamhället, med dess till arbete oförmögna individer, skall få en existens av ovannämnda slag. Detta lagpliktiga arbete kommer på intet vis att få en framtoning av slavgöra eller tvång, eftersom världsstatens högstående moraliska och vetenskapliga administration garanterar varje individ hans arbete inom det fack eller på det område där han just har sitt intresse, sin största begåvning och bäst utvecklade anlag. Födda konstnärer kommer därför att arbeta i konstens tjänst. Vetenskapligt lagda individer kommer att arbeta inom vetenskap (och hit hör såväl andlig som materiell vetenskap). Begåvningar inom hantverk och industriell verksamhet kommer att medarbeta inom dessa särskilda grenar osv. Och på så sätt kommer alltså varje individ att befinna sig på sin, genom egen upplevelse och utprovning, "rätta plats" och kan då känna glädje i sitt arbete. Det ligger ju helt i världsstatens intresse att göra arbetet till en stimulans, underhållning och välsignelse för den enskilde individen - och inte till ett "nödvändigt ont", som fallet är i vår tid, när miljoner människor över hela jorden endast kan uppfatta sitt arbete på detta sätt, just därigenom att till arbetet för den egna existensen också knyter sig vidmakthållandet av en överflöds- och gratistillvaro för en stab av kapitalistiska makthavare, varigenom arbetet blir liktydigt med träldom eller framtonar som slaveri."

Detta var nu 111.

Det är en vetenskaplig uträkning hvilken del ngn har af arbetet, och dermed hvilket arbete han har mest lust och fallenhet för ... jag tror jag fattade rätt i alla fall.

Ifall det är öfverskott af candidater för sångcarrièrer säger det sig sjelft att intet alla bli sångare som ha lust till det. Dermed brukar det vara individuella val att försöka och individuella lyckanden eller misslyckanden eller sidspår som afgör. Martinus vill göra det till verldsadministrationens vetenskapliga studium, och påståendet att det ligger "i dennas intresse" att ge enhvar det arbete som bäst stimulerar honom är lika öfvertygande som att det låg i slafegarens intresse att behandla sina slafvar väl. Till viss grad, ja, men sexuelt utnyttjande, mobbande m m förekom likväl.

Nu kunde slafveriet i Sydstaterna afskaffas genom Lincolns seger, men hvem skall befria menniskorna ur Martinus' verldsstat?

För dem som vill fördjupa sig i Martinus perspektiv på Evolutionen och intelligent design, kan jag rekommendera denna bok av biologen Ole Therkelsen:

"Martinus utvecklingslära har i stort sett inte beaktats under de senaste årens skapelsedebatt. Den erbjuder en intressant och perspektivrik infallsvinkel och underbygger både darwinismens och intelligent designteorins position och berättigande. Martinus argumenterar för en evolution som är baserad på de levande väsendenas eget medvetande och erfarenhetsskapande, och han ger en inblick i människans framtida utveckling mot fullkomlighet.

Boken belyser en lång rad frågor om MARTINUS, DARWIN OCH INTELLIGENT DESIGN och vänder sig till alla som intresserar sig för utveckling, oavsett om det är utifrån en naturvetenskaplig, andlig eller religiös synvinkel. Boken kan också läsas som en introduktion till Martinus kosmologi."

Han trodde således intet på Skapelsen i biblisk mening?

Han insåg som alla intellektuella nog gör, att bibelns berättelser ofta är symboliska. Det gär dem dock inte nödvändigtvis mindre sanna, tvärt om, mer realistiska.

Enligt catholska kyrkofäder är skapelseberättelsen i vissa drag symbolisk om Långfredagen.

Detta innebär intet att de skulle vara symboliska snarare än factiska ang. sjelfva Skapelsen.

Skriver du alltid på fornsvenska? :)

Nej, jag behärskar icke det fölgande språket:

Svea'r egho konong at taka ok sva vra'ka'· han skal ma'þ gislum ovan fara ok i o'stra'go'tland · þa skal han sa'ndi ma'n hinga't til aldrago'ta þings · þa skal laghmaþa'r gisla' skipta'

Eller menade du att stafva som före 1870? Jo, jag bojkottar tre stafnings och böjningsreformer. 1870-talets, 1906, 1950.

[missade jag en smiley eller hvad?]

Creationism och stafning

Creationism och stafning · Två undertrådar under status af en Martinist

Att evolutionen ägt rum är i så hög grad styrkt av vetenskapen så att, om man betvivlar det så finns det knappast något annat som man inte också borde betvivla.

Ändå är man så fixerad av att just ifrågasätta evolutionen.

Varför just evolutionen och inte något annat vetenskapen har förklarat?

Varför tror man att närmast 100% av vetenskapsmän i en mängd berörda dicipliner är eniga om att det varit en evolution av livet på jorden?

Tror man att de är med i en konspiration? I vilket syfte? Ledd av vilka?

CB "Varför just evolutionen och inte något annat vetenskapen har förklarat?"

Förklara och bevisa förklaringens riktighet äro två olika ting.

Vid heliocentrism, astrofysik, afstånds-"mätningar" i universum, liksom vid miljoner och miljarder års evolution af olika slag från gemensamma förfäder fins det inget bra sätt att colla upp riktigheten practiskt.

I electronik kan man ju colla att machinerna funka, hvilket intet är helt relevant för alla theoretiska puncter, men i hvart fall ger antydningar om att t ex Ohms lag eller Coulombes lag är riktig.

"Varför tror man att närmast 100% av vetenskapsmän i en mängd berörda dicipliner"

Och hvarföre intet ta upp en lika rörande enighet bland vetenskapsmän i en mängd irrelevanta discipliner? Typ medicin, egyptologie, etc.

"är eniga om att det varit en evolution av livet på jorden?"

Jag tror du öfverdrifver enigheten, om jag fattar dig rätt om att "evolution af lifvet på jorden" innebär "ur en gemensam förfader".

"Tror man att de är med i en konspiration? I vilket syfte? Ledd av vilka?"

En cultur kan missleda sina adepter utan conspirationer.

Deremot finnas en del sådana inblandade, t ex en ganska ny sådan om att härleda creationisternas ståndpuncter ur just en conspirationstheorie.

Vi ha ganska mycket annat att gå på, syfted med just DEN conspirationen är att afleda uppmärksamheten från argumenten vi ha, och den är ledd en smula chaotiskt här och hvar som af menniskor som intet gilla att se sin evolutionstroende och heliocentrismtroende cultur framgångsrikt attackerad af argument.

"Att evolutionen ägt rum är i så hög grad styrkt av vetenskapen så att, om man betvivlar det så finns det knappast något annat som man inte också borde betvivla."

Grof Öfverdrift. Mycket grof.

Får man fråga varför du skriver med de stavningarna du gör?

SI, ja, man kan till och med få ett svar om nra ögonblick ... voilà:
Om det är "gammelsvenska" jag skrifver?

HGL Tack men nu var ju inte det svar på min fråga "varför?" ;)

"Sista ggn en stafningsreform fölgde en ändring i uttalet var den ggn, och det har jag intet bojkottat."

Indirect svar ... och nra flera med.

Ngn replik med anledning af det sagda?

HGL Nope

SI Min stafning var altså intressantare än mina svar?

HGL Inget var direkt intressant, mer nyfikenhet varför.

OK, nu kanske jag var intresserad af hvad andra hade att tycka om mina svar till CB ... inclusive han sjelf.

CB eller SI hade fölgande på vännerlistan.

Notera nedre venstra hörnet. OK ... jag har varit i fängelse, men kom ut 2000. Psychiatrien hade med den saken att göra. Saken är den att med den typen af bekanta och den prioriteringen af nyfikenheter började jag undra om rättspsyk vore intresserad af mig än i dag ... i öfrigt äro de nunorna för min del ovidkommande för ofvanstående.

William Paul Lazarus reacted to part 1

The Gospel Truth, by William P. Lazarus : part 1 · part 2 · part 3
William Paul Lazarus reacted to: part 1

Hans-Georg Lundahl‎
to [William Paul Lazarus]
Hello, book arrived, hope dog is better and house drier now!

Chapter 1 was read, here is therefore part 1 of my review:

[link to my article]

[William Paul Lazarus]
You don't have to read any further. You obviously have done no research in religious history. I certainly don't want to challenge your beliefs or your imagination. By the way, just so you'll feel better, I know fully well when Paul may have died. However, since his death was never recorded historically, conjecture regarding the date and place has extended from Spain to Rome. But don't let actual facts get in your way.

N. O.
Friend of [William Paul Lazarus]
Oh, you are the master with words. Love everything you have written.

[William Paul Lazarus]
Thank you. It's very hard trying to explain anything to people with closed minds. Hans, for example, believes Matthew wrote the book with his name on it. He is wrong. The texts were all anonymous and assigned names in the next century. Then he claims Matthew was a scribe, a "fact" unknown in any source material. Extensive research on Christian history has been conducted by reputable scholars for centuries. The information is documented and recognized as accurate. Unfortunately, not everyone is happy with the results, so they come up with conjectures as if that replaces facts. I wrote the book to provide interested readers with the latest research. Those who prefer to ignore scholarship probably shouldn't read it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You don't have to read any further."

I intend to. Part 1 means parts are upcoming. Your money shall not be wasted.

"You obviously have done no research in religious history."

I am challenging you to provide some references.

"I certainly don't want to challenge your beliefs or your imagination."

Don't worry.

"By the way, just so you'll feel better, I know fully well when Paul may have died."

If you wrote anything about it and against the traditional view, he died 64, I missed it.

I also don't think I wrote any line to which this is a very adequate reply.

If I am wrong, copy it from my essay.

"However, since his death was never recorded historically,"

That is a rich one. A record in the martyrology is not a historic record to you on what exact ground?

"conjecture regarding the date and place has extended from Spain to Rome. But don't let actual facts get in your way."

Yes, you said "conjecture". You are very dandily placing such on each item, or quasi, in the place of traditional accounts of the facts - even when we have no alternative accounts from non-Christians at the time, which hence did not become Christian tradition.

"It's very hard trying to explain anything to people with closed minds."

It is very easy to delude people with so open minds there is nothing in it.

"Hans, for example, believes Matthew wrote the book with his name on it."

Yes, along with exactly EVERY early source we have on the topic.

"He is wrong."

Because William Paul Lazarus says so, or do you have an argument?

"The texts were all anonymous and assigned names in the next century."

Because William Paul Lazarus says so, or do you have an argument?

"Then he claims Matthew was a scribe, a "fact" unknown in any source material."

Except his Gospel and the fact he is traditionally identified as tax collector Levi?

"Extensive research on Christian history has been conducted by reputable scholars for centuries."

Reputable to whom?

"The information is documented and recognized as accurate."

That is rather what I claim for the traditional Catholic account.

As to "recognised", obviously not by all, not by the group to which certain scholars seem reputable.

"Unfortunately, not everyone is happy with the results, so they come up with conjectures as if that replaces facts."

This is unfortunately the exact reverse of the facts of the case. The Catholic Church recorded its early as well as later history. Some are for diverse reasons not happy with it, first Protestants who dislike very early references to Holy Mass or Veneration of Saints (which you find in Martyrdom of St Polycarp and in St Ignatius of Antioch), then Prussians (the idea of Markan priority came during the so called Kulturkampf).

"I wrote the book to provide interested readers with the latest research."

Except the references to the facts as per source material are lacking. For instance, "16 Church Fathers" and you don't name one of them.

"Those who prefer to ignore scholarship probably shouldn't read it."

Because William Paul Lazarus says so, or do you have an argument?

For my part, I don't prefer to ignore your admired scholars, but to refute them.

Oh, by the way, why is N. O. told what I wrote, as if she could not look up my online article herself?

mercredi 14 mars 2018

On Wein, Weib and more debate than Gesang

If your pastor says it's ok to drink, find a new church

Do you agree?

some ...

HGL said
If your pastor says it's not ok to drink in moderation - find an old Church.

some ...

BL said
What’s the line between sober (which we are told to be), and intoxicated (which we are told not to be)?

Why gamble?

HGL said
If you are an adult and you drink one glass of wine slowly (you have a glass of water too, so you don't need to haste the wine for thirst) at a meal, you will be sober.

THAT quantity is not a gamble.

EEC said
Bible didn't point anyway or didn't sayed we should not drink but did't be a drunkness Paul say to Timothy .Stop drinking only water and use a little wine 4 his stomach anhis frequent illness

SM said
Having a drink is not having 3 or 4. Everyone has their limit, mine is 1 to 2 so I have 1 when I do. It’s not rocket science.

BL said
starting a subthread
I’ve taken a lot of classes on this, intoxication begins at first sip. Why do it if we are commanded to stay sober and vigilant, for Satan seeks to destroy us

JG said
I disagree with your logic.

HGL said
"intoxication begins at first sip."

You have taken classes by heretics who consider initial euphoria as "intoxication".

It is like considering the effect of coffee as "caffeine intoxication".

BL said
HGL said

Lol both of you... 🤗

The classes were biology classes and classes to be certified to serve alcohol when I was s server long time ago. ... not bible classes on intoxicating start times.
“Heretics” .... LOLOL

Caffeine is not commanded against silly

JG said
Nor is alcohol, silly.

HGL said
BLif you were a server, perhaps it was good to not drink, since otherwise these have access to much alcohol and situations in which using too much of it would be tempting.

BL said
True, but too much is, yet too much caffeine isn’t the decay of society into sin and debauchery

BL said
No matter what your job, it’s wise not to drink at all

HGL said
"yet too much caffeine isn’t the decay of society into sin and debauchery"

Do you count Sabbath breaking and overworking employees as kosher?

"No matter what your job, it’s wise not to drink at all"

Until the job is done ...

BL said
HGL I’m not referring g to drinking on the job. Just drinking at all in life : which is obviously what I’m speaking about.

There is no command in the new covenant for sabbath keeping

HGL said
The ten commandments oblige.

Working in "non-necessary" works on Sundays is wrong.

Serving is "necessary," it gives other people among others a chance to eat on Sundays without the bother to cook, and I am not bothered to enumerate specifically all the issues on which Sunday work is allowed, but Sunday work in general is forbidden like it was on Saturdays in OT (though not as strictly).

JG said
I don't disagree, I'm against the idea of getting wasted and out of control, but to know your limit and be in control of your faculties is not sinful.

AM said
BL why would the Bible tell you to drink it if it were a sin? I was a server too we are taught the way we are in those classes to be able to recognize when people need to be cut off..resturants are extremely careful in this area because they don't want to be accountable if someone is driving drunk and they didn't cut them off earlier....server training is hardly a biology class....though the effects of alcohol start when you have your first glass not need to continue to drink for you to become can't ignore the scriptures that permit drinking in moderation just because you have convictions with it...if you don't drink that is your prerogative but its not a sin for those who do as long as they aren't drinking to drunkenness...also being sober and vigilant is speaking not only in terms of physically sober but spiritually as well...1 Peter 5 King James Version (KJV)

5 The elders [ancients] which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.

8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

11 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

12 By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.

13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

BL said
Show me where I said it was a sin? I said it is better to not drink at all. Am I wrong? Also, I said I took classes, which does not lump them all in one group called ABC license to serve class. Speaking of, you must have been sleeping. Intoxication starts w first sip. You do t finish one drink before you feel the effects. Anyone who has ever had a drink can tell you that without biology classes.

HGL said
BL "Show me where I said it was a sin?"

You didn't, but you did ask about whether not drinking could be foolish.

"I said it is better to not drink at all."

Correct, as with not marrying - provided you stay chaste.

"Am I wrong?"

If you feel superior to those who do drink in moderation, you are.

"Also, I said I took classes, which does not lump them all in one group called ABC license to serve class."

I suggested you can have been taught by a heretic, the fact that it was in classes before becoming a server is no guarantee there was no Islam or 7 Day Adventism or Mormonism behind.

"Speaking of, you must have been sleeping. Intoxication starts w first sip. You do t finish one drink before you feel the effects. Anyone who has ever had a drink can tell you that without biology classes."

The problem is not whether you feel effects from the first sip.

The problem is whether that counts as "intoxication" and whether it counts as "getting drunk".

Now, as to "intoxication", you can as easily speak of "intoxication" of either sugar of caffeine.

As to "getting drunk," saying that is obviously against the Bible.

Christ made more wine when the guests were already tipsy. In other words, being tipsy is not against the commandments against drunkenness.

HGL said
AM "though the effects of alcohol start when you have your first glass not need to continue to drink for you to become drunk...."

Thank you very much. It seems BL was sleeping through this piece of your text.

Other subthreat
where first is in response to the one starting previous subthread. Or rather, second is, that is where the subthread starts.

JG said
I disagree, not backed by Scripture. Unless I miss read the miracle at the wedding at Cana. I agree with you if your pastor advocates getting wasted and intoxicated. That would be reason enough to look elsewhere. But not for what you stated. Can you agree with me on this?

BW said
I am a Pastor, I believe that drinking is okay but you CANNOT get drunk it says in the Bible do not be a drunkard!

BL said
Ok, forget right vs wrong, sin vs not sin.

Do you think drinking at all falls under the heading of wise or foolish?

Do you think that not drinking falls under the heading of wise or foolish?

HGL said
Both can fall under the heading of wise and both can fall under the heading of foolish.

BL said


HGL said
Not to drink to avoid getting drunk is wise.

Not to drink and think it will forever whatever your future circumstance save you from getting drunk is foolish.

Drink to enjoy a good taste and a great carbohydrate which also eases your possible constipation is wise.

Drink to when alcohol starts showing other traits than the euphoria common to carbohydrates is ... if done too much ... foolish.

TN said
What does being a pastor mean? We are all accountable to the Word whether a pastor says it or not!

BL said
HGL first one is not a choice. Drinking or not drinking. Not drinking but how much is ok?

You must not be able to imagine life without drinking. Sad for you. I used to be a raging everyday drinking alcoholic. It can be beat. Haven’t had a sip in 14 years.

There are so many health choices benefits that contain no alcohol.

I’d like to wait to hear this pastors answer.

HGL said
"You must not be able to imagine life without drinking."

I am not imagining mine without occasional treats like a beer to a meal ... my grandfather was a distiller.

I have not had to deal with alcoholism in my own person, and do not imagine paying for someone else's alcoholism.

I am perfectly capable not just to imagine but to live weeks without a drop.

(oh, not water or coffee)

(you know the saying "too much blood in my caffeine ...")

[Alert : "caffeineism" is a joke, a spoof on those who imagine I am an alcoholic. OK.]

BL said
HGL my stance is not to call a drink a sin, but to state that it’s better not to even have any. Don’t allow yourself to be convicted. I see no argument for my stance, unless one thought all abstinence from alcohol was wrong

HGL said
"not to call a drink a sin"

Fair enough

"it’s better not to even have any."

Under circumstances.

"I see no argument for my stance, unless one thought all abstinence from alcohol was wrong"

All abstinence is not wrong, but neither is all celibacy.

Some Catholic priests would be overzealous and basically tell people not to get married, you sound a bit like that.

It's better not to marry, Christ and St Paul said so, doesn't mean every celibate is wise or every married person foolish.

BL said
Is the topic marriage? Is all sex sin? No but we are not substituting words and topics. Topic is drinking, not all abstinence or no abstinence of anything under the sun

HGL said
Drink and sex are both things which man does best to abstain from and both are things which are nevertheless licit choices.

My point is, if a thing is always foolish because one is in general better off doing without it, then marriage also would be always foolish, which is false.

BL said
I agree with none of your logic. You compare things as if they are equal. Too much drinking in any situation is always wrong. In marriage, there is no too much sex that makes it sinful.

GS said
resp to TN
A pastor is another name for shepherd, elder,overseer or bishop. 1 Tim 3.1-7 &Titus 1.1-5 not given to much wine

HGL said
BL " In marriage, there is no too much sex that makes it sinful."

Yes, there is. The one where you take on a condom where you don't want a baby and don't want to abstain.

Sin against nature, sin of Onan, horrible thing.

GS said
So if you have a cat or dog do yo let them have puppies or kittens all the time

Sex is not purely for procreation, my wife is passed child bearing we stop having sex?

BL said

Exposing Roman Catholicism (Former Catholic Priest Richard…

This seems to be the root of your bad logic

GS said
did Abram abstain from sarai because she was barren

TN said
Scripture doesn't say if he did

GS said
I'm just trying to point out that sexual relations between man and wife are not just for reproduction

HGL said
"So if you have a cat or dog do yo let them have puppies or kittens all the time"

Since they are not created in God's image, it is not a pure evil to sterilise them, but I would not, I'd try to find owners for puppies and kittens.

"Sex is not purely for procreation, my wife is passed child bearing we stop having sex?"

According to St Ambrose, you normally should. However, it is not canonically required.

As long as you are open to life should God make a miracle, no problem.

"This seems to be the root of your bad logic"

Answering that man who fell off after Vatican II is a separate issue, here I deal with your arguments.

"did Abram abstain from sarai because she was barren"

It would seem they didn't, since they got no actual order like "don't be afraid to enter into her chamber".

On the other hand, it seems they did, since the prediction of a son would entail a promise of a miracle justifying sex as within the goal given to the first married couple in Genesis 1:28.

In other words, we don't know.

However, what is certain is, if they did have sex, they were not saying "ha, at last we won't have to worry about getting children, let's go for it".

Sara was regretting being childless. So was Elisabeth.

Two women were even praying in the temple because they were barren, the mothers of Samson and Samuel.

"I'm just trying to point out that sexual relations between man and wife are not just for reproduction"

"Not just for reproduction" does not mean they can be licitly twisted against reproduction. The goods of marriage are : 1) reproduction (Genesis 1:28); 2) mutual aid in repressing desire which could otherwise get evil (see I Cor 7); 3) the sacrament being an image of Christ and the Church by mutual fidelity.

TN said
People just trying to do the right thing.

HGL said
As long as they don't use condoms or coitus interruptus or worse, they can be within reason, ideally no NFP either.

One more subthread
coming after the "pastoral" one:

TN said
Just keep in mind when you do take a drink you are chemically altered

HGL said
When you eat you are chemically altered too.

TN said
Different effect

HGL said
Different, when it comes to sugar and early stages of alcohol euphoria, not too different.

TN said
I do feel different, sorry

HGL said
Nevertheless, you do feel sth when you eat.

TN said

EC said
When you take medicine you are chemically altered

TN said
Alcohol is known to dull response time when driving

EC said
and eating too much makes you drowsy

TN said
But alcohol has many legal ramifications that eating does not. You do what you like. As for me and my house we will not indulge but keep a sober mind.

EC said
You can consume alcohol without being drunk

TN said
Try an experiment and observe another person and take note of the differences after consuming the first one. Without you imbibing.

HGL said
TN sth = something (S ome TH ing)

Response time for drivers, correct, but we are not driving the road 24 by 24. Nor should we.

As for you and yours, you do what you like.

Legal ramifications in US law is not the issue when it comes to Christian morality and overeating is as much a sin as getting drunk.

As to the experiment you proposed, I was enjoying the video with Catholic Couple and Lizzie's Answers and reflecting "why wasn't I invited" ...

LizziesAnswers - The Newest YouTube Convert!
That Catholic Couple | Diffusé en direct le 12 mars 2018

A weird thing seems to happen
when I had posted it and TN answered, I saw my last answer and her answer to that had moved upthread.

TN's name crossed out for anonymity.

lundi 5 mars 2018

... on Palestinians, esp. Christians, and Twelve Tribes

BE, DP and MH are ladies, HGL is myself, abbreviated since abbreviating the others.

2 mars, 20:25
Read revelation. There is no Gentile gate. There are only gates for the 12 tribes of Israel. To enter the kingdom you must be grafted into Israel through Christ.


I think this was settled in Acts 15.

Also, the Church is the true Israel, the Synagogue is the false one.

Yes the church is the spiritual Israel but there is a physical Israel too all 12 tribes not just the Jews

Well, thing is, many of them are already in the Church.

HGL no there not. Which church are you suggesting they are in

The Catholic Church.

Palestinians come from Samaria as well as from Judea.

[Marked as hilarious by BE]

(OK, some are in Greek Orthodox Church too, not quite correct, but still)

HGL certainly NOT the RC church. Have you read their doctrine and history and what the bible say is the future of the Pope that man of sin

I am a Roman Catholic and probably know their doctrine and history better than you.

I'd like you to show where in the B I B L E it is supposed to say precisely a P O P E is the man if sin.

(Or, try to)

HGL sorry to offend but you might remember this conversation when it just might matter. The Pope will shift to Jerusalem. He will do mighty miracles. He will sit in the Holy of Holies after the Jews rebuild the temple. He will preside over the world Churches . Gods true church will be persecuted Rev 17 and 18

If St Peter's is the Holy of Holies, it might be an Antipope has already sat himself there.

BE, I fail to see what is hilarious with the comment The Catholic Church.

Palestinians come from Samaria as well as from Judea.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Samaria the tribe of Ephraim?

(Note, Palestinians come from Galilea too, but that is more like displaced tribe of Judah then like tribes originally from there).

HGL who is being hilarious

DP, not sure if you saw the smiley at the comment, it was the smiley of the type "hilarious", or "cracks me up". If you click it, you can find who thought so. It was BE - and I am well aware she found me hilarious.

That is not the question who, just why.

HGL Ephraim is a Son of Joseph Great Britain , Australia New Zealand

DP, if you check the book of Joshua and later Kings, Ephraim is Samaria.

There may be another Biblical character for English speakers and it could be a less pleasant one.

Here is an Israelite:

Not sure if Nablus is Samaria or Galilea, it is somewhere North anyway.

HGL Not saint peters that’s in Rome The temple the Jews will rebuild. In Jerusalem. Now the Palestinians are not Israel they are Gentiles.

HGL you are defiantly wrong. I know who and where the 12 tribes of Israel are. It is common knowledge to any who understands history of the bible

"Not saint peters that’s in Rome"

Still the temple of God.

"The temple the Jews will rebuild."

Doesn't say in the verse.

"Now the Palestinians are not Israel they are Gentiles."

False. They are Israelites uniting in the Apostolic Church when the second CHurch was Samaria, see Acts 8, fulfilling Isaiah 11. P L U S their descendants, some still Christian and some alas Muslim, to this day. That population is called Palestinians.

You do not understand or even know history of the CHurch.

The Catholic Church does not replace Israel. The Catholic Church doesn't even adhere to the Torah. Revelation 18 tells us how the Catholic Church along with all the other false denominations (including Protestants) will be deconstructed. Ultimately, Yeshua will return to enforce and established the Torah which the mainstream church's have made void. Isaiah 66, Zechariah 14, Micah 4, rev 17,18

It's all happened before and the same things happening nape.

The 1st century church fathers adhered to the Torah but the RCC strayed. Come out of her.

"The Catholic Church does not replace Israel."

Continues it, see Acts 1 (where twelveness of apostles is essential) and 2 where Catholic Church unites dispered Jews.

"The Catholic Church doesn't even adhere to the Torah."

You mean it does not impose the Cashrut. Decided in Acts 15. You mean the Lord's Day was changed because New Creation beginning on Resurrection Sunday trumps Old Creation, ending on first Sabbath.

But if it comes to truths rather than ritual, yes, the Catholic Church definitely does adhere to the Torah, at least if you except some Modernist with doubtful qualifications on being Catholic, who doubt there was an Adam created directly from dust.

"Revelation 18 tells us how the Catholic Church along with all the other false denominations (including Protestants) will be deconstructed."

Not really, since the chapter contains no two words saying "Catholic Church".

"The 1st century church fathers adhered to the Torah but the RCC strayed. Come out of her."

Your words contradict Matthew 28:20. E V E R Y day. Not just for one century, but for all centuries up to Doomsday.

HGL you believe what you want but I do understand a lot more than you give me credit for. I do know the history of Gods true church and of the RC church and of the 12 tribes of Israel or 13 tribes because Joseph’s sons are joint heirs Great Britain and USA. Truth cannot be changed despite what some WANT to believe. Rev 2 and 3 show the eras of Gods Church. We are now going into the Laodicean era. Note Ephesus is mentioned as a city on the mail route not as a tribe or nation.

"I do know the history of Gods true church"

Well, what happened after the 1st C Church Fathers adhered to the Torah, as BE claimed?

"and of the RC church"

Just checking who was on your view the first Pope of it?

I have posed that question to non-Catholics on quora, apart from Constantine who was not a Pope, I have had no answer.

"and of the 12 tribes of Israel or 13 tribes because Joseph’s sons are joint heirs Great Britain and USA"

What language is spoken the four corners of the Earth?

If you take only Old World, you would have NW Europe, Cape of Good Hope, Singapore / New Guinea / Australia, Sakhalin and Japan. That would make Americas an Island world.

If you consider Atlantic as an inner sea, and Americas as included, the four corners would be Alaska, Cape Horn, Singapore / New Guinea / Australia, Sakhalin and Japan.

Which of these four corners do you not find English spoken in? Of course, Jewish presence would also be there.

What Biblical character is said to come from the four corners of the Earth?

Now, one more, where do you get this idea from, that the sons of Joseph are English?

"Truth cannot be changed despite what some WANT to believe."

Truth cannot, no. THat is why I stick to a Church with unchanging doctrine.

"Rev 2 and 3 show the eras of Gods Church."

That idea is disputable, it would seem to apply immediately to seven Churches of the area.

And typologically to diverse Churches and diverse souls all over the time - not to specific eras.

"Note Ephesus is mentioned as a city on the mail route not as a tribe or nation"

Of course. So?

HGL saint Peters is not the temple of God. Even the pope will move to the temple the Jews will rebuild because he knows it is the temple of God and he will sit in the Holy of Holies. It is written and it will be . Gods word and prophesies are sure


My words contradict matthew 28:20?

Where in scripture is authority given to men to change Yahovah's law? Did it Yeshua tell us to do all that is taught from Moses seat?

You are free to walk as you will, but I will not be caught making the Torah of YHVH void. Which is very thing the Pharisees were rebuked and condemned for.

True Israel exists outside the Roman Catholic Church, as true Israel does not submit to foreign Gods.

You say you are Jews but you are not.


DP "Gods word and prophesies are sure"

And water is wet. Yes.

Water is wet doesn't answer which day it was raining, and your word's don't answer where in the Bible you find your interpretation buttressed.

"saint Peters is not the temple of God."

It is, or to recently was.

"Even the pope"

Sorry, I can't see Bergoglio as Pope, if that is who you mean.

"will move to the temple"

Bergoglio already is in what was recently a temple of God, perhaps still is (would perhaps need reconsecration if a true Pope comes back there).

"the Jews will rebuild"

Not sure they can. The place where the Mosque is, is tectonically unstable, according to some.

"because he knows it is the temple of God and he will sit in the Holy of Holies."

If Bergoglio thinks so, he may do that too. But not sure it can be the temple of God, since Aaronitic priesthood was replaced by Melchisedecian one.

"It is written and it will be ."

The prophecies are, your interpretation of them needs support you are not giving.

BE "My words contradict matthew 28:20?"

They do unless you show a historically continuous Church from the day of Christ to the present.

"Where in scripture is authority given to men to change Yahovah's law? Did it Yeshua tell us to do all that is taught from Moses seat?"

He said so before His death, while the Old Covenant was still valid and had a content. We do not say it is no longer valid, we say it was voided of content.

Now, the words still apply, but now to those who sit on and teach from St Peter's seat, should they behave like Pharisees.

"You are free to walk as you will, but I will not be caught making the Torah of YHVH void. Which is very thing the Pharisees were rebuked and condemned for."

Voiding of Old Covenant is not the same as voiding of Law. Some parts of the law were specific to Old Covenant, others are not voided.

"True Israel exists outside the Roman Catholic Church, as true Israel does not submit to foreign Gods."

Where was "true Israel" in AD 800?

(For pax, it is a bit early)

HGL the messianic Jewish people who have faith in Yeshua and obey the Torah of YHVH. Revelation 14:12

This is the church.

The twelve tribes of Israel are returning to Israel from many nations. The rabbis in Israel have many tests to authenticate that.

The Palestinians are Arabs, although they have other bloodlines too (Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, Turkey, etc.) Arabs and Jews share some genes; they are cousins. Christian Arabs are not lost tribes of Israel.

Western nations have no genes, historical/religious roots or language roots tracing back to any of the tribes of Israel. When Christianity came to pagan Europe, the Jewish roots of the Christian faith came too - in the Bible. British Israelism is fake history.

BE "the messianic Jewish people who have faith in Yeshua and obey the Torah of YHVH."

Since when?

Palestinians, since 2000 years.

MH "The Palestinians are Arabs"

No, in Muslim thought, excepting a few Muslim nobles among Palestinians, the Arabic speaking peoples of Near East outside Arabian Peninsula are not "Arab", but "Mustariba" - it means they are "Arabised" and spoke something else before.

Palestinians celebrate Liturgy in Aramaic, which was the language of Jesus.

Do you start to comprehend what part of history you need to look on?

MH "When Christianity came to pagan Europe, the Jewish roots of the Christian faith came too - in the Bible."

In Catholic Church and its Bible.

Jesus is the Head of His body now. Only Jesus.

HGL if your last comment is true, then why did the Catholic Church segregate the Gentile believers from the Jewish believers in Christ by keeping them from observing the Shabbat together or the feasts? Why did the Catholic Church think it acceptable to change the laws and times as the prophecy of daniel for-tells? It's lawlessness.

Ezekiel tells us that Israel will he rejoined to Judah and we will establish the law of the Most High which is His Torah, kept with faith in Yeshua.

I pray for the scales to be removed from you eyes, my friend. That you may seen clearly all things written and come to truly understand the God you serve.

BE, Where do you have ANY Jewish believers all through the ages who did so?

For instance AD 800?

"Ezekiel tells us that Israel will he rejoined to Judah and we will establish the law of the Most High which is His Torah, kept with faith in Yeshua."

Happened in Acts 8 and the Christian Palestinians are still there.

HGL this hasn't happened yet. Judah is only one of 12 tribes.

Yes, but in Acts 8 Judah (Jerusalem) reunited with the main tribe of Israel, Ephraim.

It happened 2000 years ago.

Much of rest of tribes, see Mesopotamian Christendom.

some more.