jeudi 19 juillet 2018

Neanderthal Pre- or Post-Flood? Me and Roger Pearlman ...

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Neanderthal's Language · Creation vs. Evolution : Neanderthal - speculations and certainty · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Neanderthal Pre- or Post-Flood? Me and Roger Pearlman ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
[shared Neanderthal's Language]

Roger Pearlman
Nice. Per RCCF framework, the Neanderthal associated with The ice age lived post Mabul global flood year, but may have shared features w/ pre-diluvial man.

Most of the cave formation was not prior to that 1656 anno mundi impacts year.year.

The ice ages ending about 1996 340 post Mabul impacts year that caused The ice age to set in,

Either way most born re 1996 anno mundi confusion of the languages so optimal design was for Hebrew and Aramaic.

reminds me how most were lactose intolerant pre Mabul as the vegetation more nutritious pre start of radiation build.

also we were bigger framed as matured slower, lived longer.. so wisdom teeth problems now are due to degraded atmosphere and devolution..

Hans Georg Lundahl
The reason why Neanderthal is pre-Flood is this.

Imagine you had a person with curly hair, brown skin, except palms, dark hair- and eye-colours, thick lips and broad, short nose.

Imagine that person had NO Black African Y-chromosome and NO Black African mitochondrial DNA.

What would that person be?

Well, a woman (who has no Y-chromosome at all) whose father was Black African and whose mother was NOT so, but for instance White European and who therefore had White European some type of mitochrondrial DNA would do.

Such a person is of course less typical than a person who is either purely White European or purely Black African.

In what situatio would such an untypical DNA setup be generalised?

In a bottleneck.

Now, the Ark was the most bottle-neck bottle-neck there was and we have in post-Flood world some Neanderthal alleles going around, but NO Neanderthal Y chromosomes and NO Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA.

Ergo, our Neanderthal alleles come via a daughter in law of Noah whose father was Neanderthal, but whose mother was as Cro-Magnon as Noah.

Roger Pearlman
That could be and the Neanderthal washed up in the caves, that were mostly non-existent till the mabul and Ice Ages that followed.

It could also be they are a breed /s of Grandchild/grandchildren of Noach . also many of their features may just be due to lower entropy rates during the mabul.

the joke is on those who claim we are 98% similar to apes but 4% similar to Neanderthal.

when we measure the 4% it is based on ____ it may be that is the average we share w/ other dead lines from grandchildren of Noach in relation to us. But those that dd not die out had more chances to mix back into our lines.

Hans Georg Lundahl
"That could be and the Neanderthal washed up in the caves, that were mostly non-existent till the mabul and Ice Ages that followed."

We don't know caves were non-extant previous to Flood.

Also, according to Josephus, there was a smaller Flood before Noah's Flood and it left the Mediterranean behind, so if caves are Flood products, they could be from the earlier Flood.

Or Noah could have gone around burying Neanderthals in caves ...

The problem with having Neanderthal's as dead lines after Noah is not just that the Y chromosome and mitochondria of El Sidrón are gone, don't exist anywhere, as said, but also that mainly all grandchildren of Noah left extant lines (these are not all the nations, but many nations later were founded by splitting off or by mixing)

Hans Georg Lundahl
[Share Neanderthals - speculation and certainty]

Roger Pearlman

lundi 9 juillet 2018

Prayers that Repeat, For the Dead and Matthew 28 - with PM


some to get down to this following subthread:


What translation is that?


Burn it.

Here is Douay Rheims:

[7] And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.

HGL yeah, I've heard about that rheims version. The KJV is much better

In this verse, it is mistranslating.

Multiloquium and battologein don't mean repetition or repeat.


In the Bible, battologein is a hapax.

This means that the meaning given (in Strong?) is more or less his guess, and that guess might be influenced by his KJV or Protestant bias.

HGL you would be wise to trust the KJV

[Psalm 12:6, 7 - text of his Bible references, see below.]

There is nothing in that word which points to KJV over Catholic Church.

HGL unfortunately the Catholic Church listens to fallible priests who constantly change their minds rather than Gods eternal word.

The Catholic Church precisely refused to do so with a fallible priest called Martin Luther.

HGL Martin Luther regarded Gods word the way one should. He didn't buy into man made doctrines like purgatory.

II Maccabees 12 says there are people who need some kind of redemption from sins after death.

Assume this is not inspired, nevertheless it was at least an opinion in Second Temple Judaism (it is also prevalent in Rabbinic Judaism).

Therefore, if it had been wrong, Christ would have warned against it.

So, you cannot argue from your opinion on purgatory that Luther was right and therefore neither from Luther being right to KJV being right rather than the Catholic Church.

HGL and that's a great reason Macabees isn't scripture. No one can ever pay a ransom to redeem a persons soul. Neither does such a place exist

[Psalm 49:7 - 9]

Supposing you were right on interpreting this psalm, the Maccabee era priests would have done a mistake, and since no one else were correcting them (except Sadducees going to far by denying resurrection altogether), Jesus should have done so.

This is equally true if Maccabees is not scripture.

Unless you are willing to pretend it is also fake history.

As I look up the psalm with Challoner comments, the ransom here alluded to would be:

  • a ransom to not have to die (good reason against Rob Skiba's idea Nimrod and Mark of the Beast mean physical immortality)
  • or a ransom for the damned

As Catholics agree there is no ransom for this, it seems the psalm in question is not a good proof text against purgatory, and definitely not as good as II Maccabees (even if non-Scripture) is for it.

Also, you have a Matthew 28-problem.

Roman Catholics pray for the dead (not for the damned collectively or openly for someone who has very reasonable credentials for individually being so, like dying an apostate or even non-Catholic), Greek and Russian etc Orthodox do so (divided on whether prayers are for "airy toll houses" - a one size fits all purgatory - or for judgement after soul sleep or for graces God would have given before he died on prayers said after he died), Copts, Armenians and Nestorians also do so.

Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and derivatives have no claim at all to go back to Apostolic age, not even a wrong one, and Baptist continuity theory is not a historically reasonable claim.

HGL unfortunately many twist this passage by calling it an allegory and denying it. The sad fact is that there is no holding place for anyone who dies. It's either the presence of Christ or the flames

[Luke 16:22 - 24]

I am sorry, but purgatory is in the chasm, on the side of Lazarus and Abraham, but not visible to either Abraham and Lazarus or to the Rich.

I have really and truly no need of denying Heaven and Hell, during OT validity Abraham's Bosom in Sheol and Hell, to affirm there is a Purgatory between them. Like Abraham's bosom it was inaccessible to the rich man. Unlike Hell, it was accessible to Abraham and Lazarus.

Perhaps even just before the conversation, Lazarus had just given a cup of water to a soul in Purgatory.

So, change "not visible to either" to "not necessarily visible, or perhaps ignored by both that moment".

HGL absolutely not. There is nothing anywhere in scripture that ever even mentions purgatory. Nowhere. That's made up by the Catholic Church.

If you mean the technical term "purgatory" agreed, true for "Holy Trinity" too, as you may have discovered in debates with JW.

If you mean the thing, I think I have as much a reason to out line a Luke 16 case for purgatory as you have to make a very bad Luke 16 case against it.

Purgatory does NOT mean "escape clause from Hell". It does not mean "damned can get saved after death".

It means some saved have a waiting room before Abraham's bosom in OT times or Heaven now, which may also be termed Abraham's bosom but is no longer in the Limbus.

Lazarus was not one of them since he had had his purgatory on earth.

Proof texts, well, we take Maccabees and Tobit as Scripture AND 1 Corinthians 3:15, and Matthew 12:31-32.

[32] "Nor in the world to come": From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog., 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place.

It doesn't mean someone who died in mortal sin and got damned can be saved by such forgiveness, so it must mean forgiveness of remaining temporal punishment.

Also, your negative criterium goes against condemning purgatory, since it was a current Jewish thought even if (as you shouldn't) you dismiss II Maccabees and Tobit from canon.

HGL the bosom of Abraham is no longer in use. It was a place in Sheol that the righteous stayed. When Christ arose he emptied it. Now believers go straight to him. Anything else is unbiblical.

[II Cor 5:8]

I agree the bosom of Abraham in Sheol is emptied.

I do not agree there was no purgatory for anyone then, I do not agree there is not now.

"anything else is unbiblical" - not proven by II Cor 5, since Paul could be talking about his and similar saints who were already having their purgatory on earth - and because purgatory is also not anything like total absence from the Lord.

It's a waiting room to when one is fit to appear before His full glory.

You also still have not adressed your Matthew 28 problem, it is not going away.


The testimony of the early liturgies is in harmony with that of the monuments. Without touching the subject of the various liturgies we possess, without even enumerating and citing them singly, it is enough to say here that all without exception -- Nestorian and Monophysite as well as Catholic, those in Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic as well as those in Greek and Latin -- contain the commemoration of the faithful departed in the Mass, with a prayer for peace, light, refreshment and the like, and in many cases expressly for the remission of sins and the effacement of sinful stains. The following, from the Syriac Liturgy of S.t James, may be quoted as a typical example: "we commemorate all the faithful dead who have died in the true faith...We ask, we entreat, we pray Christ our God, who took their souls and spirits to Himself, that by His many compassions He will make them worthy of the pardon of their faults and the remission of their sins" (Syr. Lit. S. Jacobi, ed. Hammond, p. 75).


Cited from:

Catholicity : Prayers for the Dead,prayers_for.html

You'd need a Church visibly surviving from Apostles to our day (we cannot check beyond our days to end of the world) which doesn't - and you don't have one.

HGL there is no problem in any of Gods word. Including Matthew 28

I did not say there is a problem for Christians in Matthew 28, I am saying there is one for Protestants (of all stripes, Lutheran, Baptist or Mormon or any similar).

HGL show me

You forgot this one? Quoting self from earlier (click see more, if needed):

Also, you have a Matthew 28-problem.

Roman Catholics pray for the dead (not for the damned collectively or openly for someone who has very reasonable credentials for individually being so, like dying an apostate or even non-Catholic), Greek and Russian etc Orthodox do so (divided on whether prayers are for "airy toll houses" - a one size fits all purgatory - or for judgement after soul sleep or for graces God would have given before he died on prayers said after he died), Copts, Armenians and Nestorians also do so.

Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and derivatives have no claim at all to go back to Apostolic age, not even a wrong one, and Baptist continuity theory is not a historically reasonable claim.

HGL I'm still waiting for you to show me which verse in Matthew 28 is the problem

Last one. He cannot have said "I am with you LUTHERANS every day (from now on) to the end of time".

And so on for other sects which have risen centuries or more than a millennium after His words.

The "from now on" is implied in present tense rather than future.

[Of His "I am" in the Greek text: Greek and Latin don't say "I have been since" but "I am since" and don't say "I will be from now on to" but "I am on to".]

If you claim Baptist continuity, less theological difficulty directly, but a total disaster in history.

HGL He has to be saying He is with the Church He founded, with one of the churches claiming (with some reason) continuity from that day on to now.

This means, if all of them agree on prayers for the dead, prayers for the dead are a Christian thing.

HGL no offense, but that's one of the poorest points I ever heard. Christ is with each one of his children constantly through the Holy Spirit. No problem there at all.

"constantly" - even while there were only Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians and Nestorians (or undivided ancestral to each of these) and no one around to dispute prayers for the dead?

Because if yes, you just admitted that prayers for the dead doesn't make you anything other than a Christian.

If no, you have on the other hand admitted some centuries worth of exception to that "constantly" and that is a problem with the verse.

HGL there was never " a time that there was only Catholics" because the apostles themselves never held to catholic doctrine. None of this proves anything

I know very well that you deny Apostles held Catholic doctrine, that they held Catholic practises (like praying psalms every 150 week, or perhaps as Copts every day even).

So, you simply conclude, so to speak, theologically, a Church like yours must have existed all the time.

Nice, but less easy to document it.

Where was YOUR Church when England was converted by one Augustine who was sent by Pope Gregory, both honoured as Saints?

You see, the Church also cannot exist invisibly all over the world for centuries, especially not while a fake Church is usurping its place in the lives of ignorant Christians.

HGL wrong. The apostles never taught that church leaders should abstain from marriage as the catholic priests do. It's a man made doctrine

[I Tim 4:1 - 3]

You have not answered the question.

It was not "do you believe the Apostles were Catholics", I obviously know you don't believe that, but IF THE ORIGINAL CHURCH WAS YOURS WHERE WAS IT IN THE TIME OF ST. GREGORY AND ST. AUGUSTINE OF CANTERBURY?

I am sorry I only have caps, I have no means to make it big, so do try to get a good pair of goggles before next time you answer.

I think opticians are open on Saturday unless you happen to live in Holy Land outside Palestinian Authority?

[I can do better on blogger than on FB:]

HGL unfortunately that's where you're mistaken. The first church was never the organized churches you see now. The original churches began in people's houses

[I Cor 16:19]

I am very sorry that you seem to be unable to stay on a subject.

No Catholic is denying these house churches.

They were a necessity in times of persecution, since a Cathedral would have been an easy target.

They are also no proof that there was no wider organisation.

They ARE proof that priests can celebrate mass in other areas than cathedrals or parish churches, and that chaplains are a licit thing.

And, this whole question is NOT an answer to where YOUR type of Church was in 597 when St Augustine of Canterbury, ordered by Pope St Gregory the Great, arrived at Thanet.

Or were there no days back then? Or are you a Mormon claiming the true Church survived in Americas, because Jesus had preached there too? Oh, wait ... no, you just tried to twist I Cor 16:19 to a denial of wider organisation.

So, can you identify any man in 597 who would have refused to go to Mass with Pope Gregory or with bishop Augustine but who would have prayed to Christ in his home, without praying for the dead and a few more of the things you object to?

Reminder, the text doesn't say "every one of those days when you guys are around", it says "every day" meaning Christ cannot be absent any single of the 365 days of 597.

HGL very interesting. But unfortunately all this vain chatter doesn't really amount to much. The bottom line is that the Catholic Church never was the first church. Nor does it adhere to Gods Holy word. Rather, it follows made up traditions of fallible men.

Well, I'll give my bottom line. You prove 500 discrepancies between first Church and Catholicism, if you cannot show a non-Catholic Church the day when St Augustine of Canterbury arrived in Thanet, that disproves Christianity.

Not prove Protestantism of any form.

[Unless you count rejection of Christianity as a form of it. Which it is, of course. But I meant what he meant when he used the word. Unfortunately for his clarity of thought, he does not call Atheists of the modern type Protestants.]

HGL too many discrepancies in the Catholic Church to name. Such as praying to Mary.

[Acts 4:12]

Supposing you were right - where were the Christians not praying to Mary in 597, when St Augustine of Canterbury landed on Thanet?

Nestorians and Monophysites (perhaps already divided into Copts and Armenians, who are two different confessions), and Chalcedonians, not yet divided into Roman Catholic vs Eastern Orthodox, but both of these claim St Gregory and St Augustine of Canterbury as their saints - all of these obviously WERE praying to Mary, not seeing any conflict between that and Acts 4:12.

Oh, note : your "Christians not praying to Mary" would need to be Christians on other accounts too on your view. Manichaeans rejecting all of Old Testament do not count.

I already said, even if you could prove 500 discrepancies, as long as you can't prove a Church without these for 597 AD, well, you have proven Matthew 28 wrong rather than Protestantism right.

There is no pure hasard in the fact that Hume and a few more like that were from very overwhelmingly Protestant British Isles (outside Irish, Yorkshire, Highlander and Hebride Catholics).

It's not a real pure chance if the man who minted the list of ancient authors not mentioning Jesus (a fairly dishonest one, I have looked at it) came from equally overwhelmingly Protestant US. It is more or less a plagiarism on "where do you find that in the Bible".

Nor is it totally surprising that Atheism and other forms of Antichristianity started in Freemasonry, which, once again, started in Protestantism.

Dealing with each of the 500 supposed discrepancies singly does very much NOT deal with this overwhelmingly obvious argument.

And by "praying to Mary" I mean saluting Her, praising Her as blessed and as blessed among women, and asking Her intercession - NOT adoring as if She were a goddess.

Bible References from KJV
except that first mistranslated one which got a screenshot instead.

[Psalm 12:6, 7]
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

[Psalm 49:7 - 9]
7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)

9 That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.

[Luke 16:22 - 24]
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

[II Cor 5:8]
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

[I Tim 4:1 - 3]
4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

[I Cor 16:19]
19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

[Acts 4:12]
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Below, too
Since he (PM) continues to believe quoting Bible is more important than understanding what it says:

[Matthew 16:18]
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[Hebrews 4:12]
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

II Thess 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

II Tim 3:15-17
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

[Acts 17:11]
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

[Acts 2:41-42]
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

In these,
unlike Matthew 6:7, the problem is not any false translation, like translating battologein with "vain repetitions", but simply how these verses are put in the wrong place of context to argue against sth which they do not argue against. Also, see below, unlike Matthew 28:20, where pasas tas hemeras is mistranslated always.

After this I add a notification:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nearly forgot to notify - if you prefer full name, I will comply: [link to this post]

or updates, with more debate:

HGL wrong. There's never even a need to address Mary in any kind of a prayer. That's reserved for God only. Just another example of made up traditions that have been unbiblical for centuries

"traditions that have been unbiblical for centuries"

My challenge to you was precisely : find me in those centuries Christians whose traditions were yours. Not ours.

Three options:

  • Catholicism (large sense, could be Copts even) is Christianity
  • a clearly non-Catholic Christianity survived to AD 597 (not shown despite my challenging several times)
  • or Christianity as originally conceived ENDED before Doomsday, contrary to Matthew 28 (and it doesn't matter if it began again or not, its not being there one single day equates Christianity is wrong, Christ not God or God a Liar).

HGL I already showed you how inaccurate catholic doctrine is. Priests not allowed to marry and teaching people to abstain from meats on Friday for example. It doesn't matter how long the churches have practiced anything. What matters is whether they adhere to Gods word

[I Tim 4:2,3]

Any priest was allowed to marry before he became priest and in some disciplines to become priest while still married.

Any man abstaining from meat on a Friday is allowed to eat it on Sunday.

These examples cannot be what St Paul alludes to, therefore.

A radical vegan religion, like Albigensians and Manichaeans could be (a very good reason not to point to Manichaeans when pointing to "real Christians" if Sts Gregory and Augustine were fake ones in 597 AD).

A radically antimarriage religion (also these two, but also modern feminism and a few more) would also be so.

Eugenicism is so, it has told certain people to get a cut in genital regions - which is forbidding them the first good of marriage which is offspring.

After Hitler told half breed Jews they cannot marry, after a little earlier than 1933 even some states in US and Canada got people sterilised by force for being black and a culprit, for being Amerindians, for being Esquimeau, in one state even for being French Canadian, it is ludicrous to consider that verses as applying to clerical celibacy.


Not even a tiny attempt.

I am reminded of that Polish King whom Charles XII replaced for August of Saxony, whom he had defeated : on a history test I said "his name was never famous" and my history teacher wrote in red "can't you remember it, Hans?"

No, I could not remember Stanislas Leszczynski, but at least he existed. He was also grandfather to Louis XVI of France or sth.

Your Christians in 597 who were not Catholic, who were not Copts or Armenians, who were not Nestorians and who had no celibate clergy or no fasting ... well, considering the chances you've had so far, they seem not even to have existed.

If in 597 no Christians existed, either God is a liar or Christ is not God, as per Matthew 28. If God is truthful, Christ is God and Matthew 28 is Scripture inspired by the Holy Ghost, Christians DID exist every day of 597.

Can you name any? Unlike me on history tests, you have had occasion to look them up, if there were any ...

"It doesn't matter how long the churches have practiced anything. What matters is whether they adhere to Gods word"

As per Matthew 28, a Church adhering to God's word is precisely required every day between Ascension day and the present, as well as obviously beyond to Doomsday.

Therefore, a practise which definitely has no antiquity cannot be an obligatory practise of the Church and a practise which has undisputed antiquity all over the field, Chalcedonians, Monophysites, Monothelites (if they existed as a separate sect then), Nestorians all of them agreeing on it in 597, it is certainly at least licit and highly probably obligatory.

Why? Christ had not only stated he was being with the 11 Apostles all days to the end of time, but also just before that told them to teach men to do ALL He had commanded.

He gave them a task, He gave them the means, by being with them all days, and you try to tell me they can have failed for whole centuries? Gimme a break!

Note on Louis
Marie Leszczynska was his paternal grandmother, so Stanislas Leszczynski his paternal-maternal great-grandfather. See 5 and 10 on his genealogy.

HGL sorry pal but all those long sentences don't amount to anything. The Catholic Church chooses the instructions of priests that contradict each other rather than Gods word

So, which exact Church did NOT in 597?

He said "all days" and I believe all days means all days.

HGL sorry pal, but this is no reference to any denomination, but all who have the Holy Spirit dwelling within.

[Matthew 16:18]

Well, name one.

For 597 AD. As you just claimed Sts Gregory and Augustine couldn't have the Holy Spirit indwelling, due to anti-Biblical practises, name one WITH the Holy Spirit indwelling for 597 AD who was NOT into for instance praying for the dead.

Also, an isolated individual is no good, unless you can make a case he belonged to a Church teaching that.

As to "no reference to any denomination" - false, since contradicting visibility of the Church.

How is the Church, Biblically, visible?

Matthew 28 says it teaches nations. A parable says a city built on a mountain cannot remain hidden, and another that God has not lit a lamp to put it under a bushel, AND in Timothy (same chapter and verse but other epistle as "all Scripture is useful") the Church (not the Bible, not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in an individual) is claimed as pillar and ground of truth.

Also the Church can impose penances and penalties, as is evident from one of the epistles to Corinthians.

So, show a Church in action of doing these things, extant in 597 AD and not identic with Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox Church, nor sharing the practises you object to (as Nestorians, Monophysites and Monothelites were doing), BUT also not deviating from what you call Christian in other respects, for instance, you cannot point to Manichaeans, a sect clearly forbidden meat and to marry and unlike Our Lord rejecting Old Testament.

HGL a bit incoherent. The cold hard truth is that it's all about Gods word. Not the Catholic Church

I'm sorry, the incoherence is on your side, even if I got much noise around me the evening when I tried to speak. [Sleep, yes, I am tired.]

You try to make it about me being "it's about the [Roman] Catholic Church". It's in fact about God's word in Matthew 28:20 being precise about a Church with the characteristic of indefectibility. I already know you refuse to identify Catholic Church with this, and you have STILL not shown up any other Church for 597 AD.

The evening = last night (yes, I am tired, but my argument is not incoherent for that).

HGL wrong. It's all about Gods word. Not the Catholic Church

[Hebrews 4:12]

You know, the "word of God" is not limited to Bible, but includes Bible and Tradition - which is even in the Bible.

One of the main users of the Bible in its above capacities was also a bishop of the Church - Timothy.

So, your idea of "Matthew 28:20 doesn't matter, it would place one thing nearly on par with the Bible" is no good, something, according to the Bible itself actually IS more or less on par with it.

II Thess 2:15, II Tim 3:15-17.

HGL I'm extremely confused how this proves that the Catholic Church has validity over the Bible.

Who said "has validity OVER the Bible"?

Who said "the Catholic Church" and absolutely none other?

I speak of validity within the Bible, and my observation is negative : if a Church did NOT exist and teach correctly in 597 AD, it cannot have validity according to that verse.

For 597 your *options* include Catholic / Orthodox, Monothelite (but since then all of them became Catholics, they are known as Maronites), Monophysite, Nestorian.

Unfortunately for you, they all use prayers that repeat, they all pray for the dead, they all honour Mary and believe she is soul and body in Heaven ... and I am still waiting for you to show one Christian body in 597 AD which did NOT do these things.

Your options are not "Church OVER Bible" nor "Bible OVER universal tradition". They are either "Church's universal tradition WITH Bible" or "NEITHER Church NOR New Testament".

Oh, I saw you have a wrong translation of that verse.

It doesn't say "always" it says "all days" in a real Bible.

I did not learn Greek to total fluency, and lost much of what I learned, but I know that "pasas tas hemeras" is "all days".

As for "always", it is "aei" and you do find that in St Paul.

Nestle-Aland, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft : ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ 28

Sorry for a mistake in above. It seems Monothelites did not yet exist separately from Catholics in 597, as they also do no longer now.

HGL sorry pal, but the KJV is far more accurate and Matthew 28:20 is no fuel for your argument at all. It all boils down to not following the Catholic Church or any denomination, but searching the scriptures for yourself. It's that simple.

[Acts 17:11]

You know what the Bereans did after that?

Joined the Apostolic Church, which back in that day clearly existed.

The Bereans did NOT search the Scriptures as you say "for themselves" without reference to a Church, Sts Paul and Silas, from the Church, were there talking to them.

So, Acts 17 does not contradict Matthew 28:20 like your non-take on AD 597 does.

And my point is still not, in this debate, at this stage, with this prooftext "Catholic Church" it is ANY Church which claims with some realism Apostolic succession.

You are saying that KJV is more accurate than the Greek text?

HGL well first, my initial statement was simply a Bible quote of Christ saying not to pray with vain repetitions. Of which, I'm not sure what part of that you disagreed with.

Secondly, it's true that the Bereans did join the body of Christ. They also abided in the apostles doctrine. Not the traditions of the Catholic Church.

[Acts 2:41-42]

"Of which, I'm not sure what part of that you disagreed with."

Translating "battologein" as repetitions.

"Secondly, it's true that the Bereans did join the body of Christ. They also abided in the apostles doctrine."

A doctrine visibly present in a visible Church.

In other words, they did not check the OT "for themselves" to see what they could get out of it, they checked a specific, ecclesiastic body of doctrine against those Scriptures.

"Not the traditions of the Catholic Church."

You claim so.

Where was the ecclesiastic body the Bereans joined a few centuries later in 597 AD?

According to Matthew 28:20, it still had to be around, as it still has to be around today and will be around to Doomsday.

Because, you see, the Greek text of Matthew 28:20 says "pasas tas hemeras" not just always, but more specifically "all days".

Btw, in Acts 2 you are a few chapters and years before the Bereans, and the Church in Jerusalem was fairly clearly not just house Churches.

Added by HGL
Let us break this down even better, so you don't miss it yet another time.

Let's skip the remaining days in 33 and the previous days this year and stick to full years (I'll be a few days off, but not more than the skipped parts include).


365.2425 * 1984

365242.5 1000
730485.00 2000
693960.75 1900

No, even better ...

01 0365.2425
02 0730.485
04 1460.97
08 2921.94
16 5843.98

730485.00 2000
005843.98 - 16
724642.02 1984

724,642 days and the Church Christ founded around on Earth each of them.

One day when St Augustine of Canterbury landed on Thanet in 597 AD is among these.

Matthew 28:20 says Christ was preserving His Church all of these days.

YOU claim St Augustine of Canterbury and his Pope St Gregory the Great were NOT of that Church.

SO, a simple follow up question, if you really believe Matthew 28:20:


Is this simple enough?

HGL unfortunately none of all that means anything. But to answer your question, Matthew 28 in no way proves Catholic doctrine true. Basically, you need to prove Catholic doctrine legitimate before your claims can be true. Please show me, the perpetual virginity of Mary, purgatory, abstaining from meat on Friday, celibacy of church leaders in Gods word. Prove it.

I am sorry, but you seem to have decided not to let words mean what they mean.

"unfortunately none of all that means anything."

How many hypno sessions did you take for that?

"But to answer your question, Matthew 28 in no way proves Catholic doctrine true."

You are NOT answering my question, I did not state in the immediate that Matthew 28 proves Catholic doctrine on named matters true, as a proof text does.

My question still is, where is the Church whose doctrine YOU believe in back in 597 AD?

And it's soon two weeks you have been shirking that one.

What Matthew 28:20 does prove is that there needs to be one, if your take is right and Christianity is true.

What I have therefore said is : Matthew 28:20 proves Protestantism false. All stripes. Your Church cannot be documented from for instance 597 AD.

dimanche 24 juin 2018

Carbon Dating Debate

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI has a Long Ice Age in a Shortish Ussher Chronology · For my Part, I have a Shorter Ice Age in a Longer St Jerome Chronology · HGL's F.B. writings :Carbon Dating Debate

I linked to
CMI has a Long Ice Age in a Shortish Ussher Chronology

I also
called the attention of, for one, Roger Pearlman

Roger M Pearlman
Hi Hans-Georg Lundahl please define CMI?

per RCCF (RCCF The Recent Complex Creation Framework six principles for understanding science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
CMI = Creation Ministries International.

I linked and quoted their article.

Here is their article:

Why no mention of the Ice Age in the Bible?
Published: 16 June 2018 (GMT+10)

Here is their front page: | Creation Ministries International

Roger M Pearlman
The ice ages consensus dated 25M to 10k YA set in cause and effect by the tail end of the 1656 anno mundi Mabul impacts year globl flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
We cannot put a date "25 M YA" as per very different methods in the same chronology as "10 K YA" as per among other things carbon dates.

Roger M Pearlman
they can not , but they do it anyway, as that is the current popular consensus start of the ice ages. the reality being if RCCF 5778-1656 = 4122 YA

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Roger M Pearlman My point is, anything which seems carbon dated, like 40 K to 10 K YA, is a timeline, which is too long, but relatively correct in its order.

Anything which seems clearly NOT carbon dated like anything having x MYA, can be considered as undated and its relation to the corrected carbon timeline can be considered as often unknown or known by other factors.

Roger M Pearlman
Per RCCF Gobek-Tepi was founded not far from where we landed in the ark as an animal conservation project as we still cared for the animals to get a fair start post Mabul

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you consider that a clearly Nimrodian activity, namely collecting skulls separated from bodies and with holes to make them line up like strawberries in ropes, I think it is MUCH likelier Göbekli Tepe was Babel than anything just after the Flood.

Roger M Pearlman
I suspect we founded Gobeki Tepe just out of the ark but it fell under the Akadian enmpire 350 years later just after the passing on father Noach in 2006 anno mundi if RCCF

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Akkadian empire is later than Babel.

Skulls in GT seem to be there from all of the timeline, if I got it right.

It is a good candidate for Babel (perhaps the tower could be Harran a few km or 100 km SSE in Syria), geographically as well as temporally. Since it is east of Euphrates, it is technically in Mesopotamia, i e in Shinar, and it is in/near the NW corner of a plain, or at least it looks so on the map. Harran is on that plain. I have not checked yet if its carbon dates are available and fit GT.

Roger M Pearlman
Yes I think my comments above were that the Akadian Empire started 10 years after the dispersion from Bavel, Yet the Early kings of Akkad were alive and active prior to the start of their empire, ir=e Sargon I (see ID ibn Bible Chronology- untying a knot), Hamurabi (Nimrod)..

Hans-Georg Lundahl
See below on dating problem this involves.

Roger M Pearlman
I had not noticed u have Peleg birth 401 after the Mabul flood whereas I have him passing on 340 years after the Mabul in 1996 the same year as the start of the dispersion from Bavel, 10 years prior to the passing of Noach.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Indeed, this changes the overall chronology.

Roger M Pearlman
IN RCCF (like some other YeC narratives) bY Peleg's 1996 passing the land masses separated, this implies the approx. end of the ice ages due to rising ocean levels the land bridges were submerged,.

Per RCCF it was still the original single continent by the start of the Mabul, so the ice ages lasted 340 years not 25M.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I definitely agree the ice ages didn't last 25 M years, and my latest table has Babel (just after Ice Age) between Noah and Peleg, Noah's death in 350 after Flood and Peleg's birth in 401 after Flood.

The start of Babel being c. 5 or 6 years after death of Noah would mean Younger Dryas ended in 355 / 356 after Flood.

Younger Dryas seems to involve lots of disasters consistent with Josephus' saying God at first punished people, before He gave them leeway for Babel. This makes much more sense than Younger Dryas lasting 1000 years, which probably would have wiped out higher life on earth, not just "nearly did" as conventional science says.

Roger M Pearlman
In RCCF we have the dispersion from Bavel starting 1996 anno mundi 340 after the Mabul flood but Nimrod and the Akkadian empire waiting till Noach passes on 10 years later in 2006 before subjugating others such as the town of Sodom..

Hans-Georg Lundahl
2006 AM = Genesis 14?
1996 AM = Genesis 11?
[AM = Anno Mundi]

I take it dispersion of Babel is about last layer of Göbekli Tepe.

It is carbon dated to 8600 BC.

1763 BC

8600 BC
1763 BC
6837 extra years = 43.733 pmc

[Credits to:
Carbon 14 Dating Calculator

2006 =
1753 BC

3000 BC
1753 BC
1247 extra years = 85.998 pmc

So, carbon levels in atmosphere rising from 44 to 86 pmc in ten years sounds like a nuke disaster.

I take it you have a later id for Babel than GT? Which one?

Roger M Pearlman
In Torah Discovery Chronology : UR founded about 100 years rounded prior to the start of the dispersion 1996 the year Peleg passes on. (the approx. end of the ice age) 10 years later after Noach passes on the start of the subjugation by the 4 Kings of Akkad.

In 2018 when Abraham -1948 = 70 the 5 kings of Sodom stopped paying tribute, and 14 years later Abraham defeats the 4 kings to rescue Lot..

So GT final layer not long after dispersion from Bavel sounds good.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your problem is, at final layer of GT, you have an atmospheric carbon level of 43.733 percent modern carbon, and at Genesis 14 you have an atmospheric carbon level of 85.998 percent modern carbon BUT you have only provided ten years for this rise to happen.

Roger M Pearlman
GT founded about 1657 anno mundi.2000 -2100 anno mundi so about 400 years after the founding. By then Harran in what is now Turkey founded by dad of Abraham

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, you don't understand. Whether you are giving GT 400 or 40 years, the top layer has less than 44 percent modern carbon.

AND you want an event when atmosphere had 86 percent modern carbon to have occurred 10 years later?

Roger M Pearlman
OK so you have what % at the approx. end of the ice age, and how do you define end of the ice age? as the end of the ice age was not one year here the next year gone but a gradual ebb and flow over decades.

Did you see that ICR article on carbon dating w/ the Viking's?

it shows even more recent established dates are not that accurate, for whatever reason.

So we can say starting over 3300 YA once the radiation build that started by the Mabul global flood year impacts/global flood year can give us a general sequence of events but not a totally reliable one, and relative dates, (that we, you and RCCF, calibrate for the stronger YeC science), but not very reliable ones.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I define end of ice age as Younger Dryas.

It ends at beginning of Göbekli Tepe carbon dated 9600 BC meaning back then in perhaps 2602 BC, meaning a level of 42.89 percent modern carbon accounts for the extra years.

This means, Late Palaeolithic is not pre-Flood, but post-Flood.

Lascaux and Altamira could easily be by Noah or by his wife or by a son or daughter in law.

Now, Genesis 14 on my view was in 1940 / 1935 BC, carbon dated to 3100 BC, or 3200 BC so a level of 85.811 percent modern carbon.

The point is, the rise in atmosphere from 42.89 to 85.811 pmc took ... 667 years. Not 10.

2602 [BC]
1935 [BC]
0667 [extra years]

Roger M Pearlman
OK I have the start of GT 340 years before the end of the ice age, so near the start of the 340 years of The ice ages. right off the boat

Hans-Georg Lundahl
GT starts at end of ice age.

My table's 42.89 and not marked for your chronology's is where GT begins and ice age is ended. Your chronology's 43.733 is where GT ends. You have ten years later 86 sth percent.

So you have TEN YEARS to go from 44 to 86.

After ten years, 99.879 % remain of previous.

99.879 * 43.733 / 100 = 43.68 pmc

During ten years, atmosphere does not fall from 100 to 99.879 pmc, because 0.121 are replaced in ten years, i e 0.121 percent modern carbon is the now normal carbon 14 production for ten years.

Your carbon 14 production for that would be:

85.998 - 43.68 = 42.318 pmc.

Now 42.318 / 0.121 = 350 times the now normal carbon 14 production.

After 667 years, 92.248 % remain of previous.

42.89 * 92.248 / 100 = 39.565

Normal replacement is 7.752 pmc units.

Carbon production in this time is :

85.811 - 39.565 = 46.246

Now, how much faster do I have carbon produced than now normal?

46.246 / 7.752 = 5.966

So, if distance between end of GT/Babel and Genesis 14 is ten years, carbon was produced 350 times as fast as now, if distance is 667 years, it was produced only 5.966 times as fast.

Your 340 years are irrelevant, since the problem is concerned with end of GT, not its duration. They are also impossible, since it is too problematic to get a beginning carbon dated GT of "9 600 BC" contemporary with a Lascaux or Altamira. They have carbon dates of "15 000 BC" and "13 500 BC" (for earliest paintings) / "16 500 BC" (for earliest artifacts).

Roger M Pearlman
I think u are overly reliant on the attributions and results. for example just because they say from the end of GT what they tested, how do you know? It could have been from earlier or later.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, in archaeology, there are layers.

Beginning of GT, carbon dated 9600 BC, end of GT, carbon dated 8600 BC.

So, from end of GT, carbon date 8600 BC, to Genesis 14, carbon date probable 3200 BC or therearound, you have sth like a carbon production of 350 times as fast as now, bc you make it take ten years, I have a carbon production 6 times as fast as now, making it last 667 years.

"Did you see that ICR article on carbon dating w/ the Viking's?"

Sorry for missing this, no, I haven't, do you have a link?

Wait, is it this one?

Viking Bones Contradict Carbon-14 Assumptions

"Why would radiocarbon calculations indicate the buried warriors died during the 600s or 700s, a century or more before Derbyshire was overwhelmed by hordes of Vikings? Likewise, if radiocarbon determinations are so reliable, why is no Viking army reported as occupying Derbyshire during the 600s or 700s? This loud silence is what forensic experts call the “evidence of nothing” problem."

It is later answered by:

"However, a diet incorporating lots of finfish (cod, salmon, trout, herring, etc.) and/or shellfish (shrimp or crab) would nix that vital assumption.1,5 The Vikings were known for a seafood diet—specifically fish. And fish contain much less carbon-14 than land-based foods like grains, vegetables, fruits, dairy products, or livestock meats."

Yes, this is known as reservoir effect.

But you cannot have consistent reservoir effect for all of the wood and animals as well as human remains from Pre-Pottery Neolithic (GT age) and that means this solution is out here, as far as I can see.

To be
continued ...

[William P Lazarus]
Some of you should read the scientific, documented literature on the age of the Earth before attempting to make such wild, absurd guesses. The Earth has to be billions of years old, just from the obvious evidence of erosion. That takes time -- lots of it. Using the Bible as a calendar is like relying on a comic book to work out space travel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I saw two arguments and made each the start of a potential new subthread.

IV a
Hans-Georg Lundahl
" The Earth has to be billions of years old, just from the obvious evidence of erosion. That takes time -- lots of it."

Erosion can happen slowly with drip-dropping water or quickly with higher water pressure.

We tend to think the water pressure at times was very high during the Flood.

IV b
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"before attempting to make such wild, absurd guesses."

No wild guesses involved. I take Biblical history as history and as good grounds for calibrating and I calibrate accordingly.

The article I linked to and commented on had a scenario for ice age which would imply a bad calibration.

Linked to and commented on IN the article I wrote and here linked to. Sorry for unclarity!

[William P Lazarus]
Religion is the last refuge of the ignorant. Just a brief note: the sun and moon are "created" on the fourth day, one day after vegetation. If that doesn't end any discussion about biblical accuracy, nothing can.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Indeed, it can't.

Btw, MADE which opens the door for sun and other hydrogen rich bodies being made from a hydrogen named "waters above firmament" for day two.

LIGHT is what vegetation needs, not necessarily sunlight.

In Amsterdam, some are or were illegally growing marijuana hemp with halogen light lamps 24/24 to get higher THC. The hemp didn't die from that.

Surely a light specially created as basically a sign of God Himself can do what even halogen lamps can do?

Roger M Pearlman
[William P Lazarus] Deep-time dependent doctrine dogma is the ultimate dogmatic blind faith that fail big time when evaluating the pure science. unfortunately for them deep-time adherents never study and fairly consider the stronger ID and YeD models due to bias like yours.

I linked to
For my Part, I have a Shorter Ice Age in a Longer St Jerome Chronology
And to this one
calling attention of [William P Lazarus] and Roger Pearlman.

[William P Lazarus]
I'm done wasting time trying to help the ignorant. Believe whatever you want; that won;t change a single fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'd say the same for you, and you chose a graceful way to bail out ...

jeudi 14 juin 2018

Is Bergoglio a Heretic?

Catholics who accuse the pope of being a false prophet, a liar, a fake, a fraud, an antichrist, a false pope, a charlatan, or unholy are really treading a narrow line. They need to think of their own sinfulness before accusing somebody else, especially the pope, of such a serious thing.

some comments. They were by people known to JG, but not to me.

"They need to think of their own sinfulness before accusing somebody else, especially the pope, of such a serious thing."

Why? Would a lecher not have a right to distance himself from a heresiarch?

Would a murderer not have such a right?

At what point of personal sin excluding heresy do you lose th right to distance yourself from heresy?

Except, the pope is none of those things mentioned.

The ranting and raving is all because the pope says some things on non-dogmatic issues they don't like.

It's one thing to disagree with the Pope, but quite another to vilify him for a little thing you disagree with him on.

Too many Catholics look for the tiniest flaw of the pope, but wouldn't do the same with themselves. That is the point of what I said, Hans.

"Except the Pope is none of these things"

Have you checked Bergoglio's pronouncements about Creation in 2014?

There is no dogmatic teaching on how long or short the Earth was created.

JG Trent said sth about going with Church Fathers on ALL exegetic decisions.

Also, denial of God doing things directly rather than by processes (in creation for instance of certain items Genesis 1), also denies God doing them by processes of a finite number of steps, bc the first step would anyway be God doing sth directly.

Again, the Church never defined dogmatically the Earth's age. Unless a pope or the Magisterium defined something as dogma, it is not dogma.

Besides some Church Fathers taught things we do not believe, some of which are wrong: e.g. Origen believed in reincarnation and Tertullian believed in Montanism.

Ever heard of theistic evolution? It does not deny God directly created all things. It says God gradually created things, just as He gradually revealed Himself and His will to us.

"Again, the Church never defined dogmatically the Earth's age. Unless a pope or the Magisterium defined something as dogma, it is not dogma."

Unless it is dogma indirectly.

"Besides some Church Fathers taught things we do not believe, some of which are wrong: e.g. Origen believed in reincarnation and Tertullian believed in Montanism."

If all Church Fathers had believed Reincarnation or all had been Montanists (not the case and the two you mentioned are not even honoured as saints), we would as per Trent be obliged to the one having Patristic consensus.

"Ever heard of theistic evolution? It does not deny God directly created all things. It says God gradually created things, just as He gradually revealed Himself and His will to us."

If by gradually you mean over millions or billions of years, it is a heresy:

  • goes against all Church Fathers
  • goes against Mark 10:6
  • goes against obvious sense of words in Genesis 1 (if a day has evening and morning, it is not metonymically for a longer period)
  • is often coupled with the idea that hagiographers (not even accepting Moses as one author) wrote in "accepting ideas of their time" which undermines the divine inspiration of the Bible if extended to erroneous ones.

I think the fact that in defending Bergoglio against heresy, you show yourself heretical yourself speaks volumes about his pastoral and the pastoral of those accepting him as Pope.

Other status, JG, sharing a video:

[omitting link to video]
There is no such thing as a good reason for leaving the Church. Saint Paul didn't leave because of Saint Peter's hypocrisy. Saints Catherine and Brigitte did not for for the same reason. We, the branches, cannot fall off from the vine which is the Church the mystical body of Christ. A branch that falls off withers and dies. We need the sacraments, namely the Holy Eucharist.

"Saint Paul didn't leave because of Saint Peter's hypocrisy."

We do not know that the Cephas in question was even St Peter.

It could have been another one of the name (and it seems Caiaphas and Cephas could be same name - Cephas (St Peter this time) perhaps even identified as illiterate because he pronounced it Cephas and not Caiaphas).

So, Cephas could well have been someone else's name.

"Saints Catherine and Brigitte did not for for the same reason."

They however did tell Popes what to do.

However, another saint, namely Saint Vincent Ferrer told to take care which of the Popes you accepted.

There are no other Cephas known. Even so, the point still stands.

I'm aware Catherine and Brigitte rebuked the popes of their time. That's why I brought it up. But That's not the point. The point is even saints who rebuuked the popes of their time did not break communion.

"There are no other Cephas known."

Caiaphas seems to have had same name in Hebrew.

Also St Clement considered it was another (and Leo XIII considered him a Church Father) - one Church Father is sufficient unless the point is heretical (and you have no CF for Deep Time, btw).

"The point is even saints who rebuuked the popes of their time did not break communion."

The ones rebuking John XXII threatened to do so if he did not mend, that is what "withdraw obedience" reasonably means, no longer recognising him as Pope - it never came to that.

St Vincent Ferrer obviously broke communion with Avignon Popes.

Because he considered them fake Popes.

I think I read somewhere he had even been wrong on that before.

Breaking with a fake Pope is not breaking with the Church.

jeudi 31 mai 2018

I consider some people are attacking me for what I am not but without naming me.

I'll give you the two examples of Dwight Longenecker and John Horvath II.

Dwight Longenecker wrote this essay:

Are Conservative Catholics Fundamentalists?

And I quote from it:

To be fair, there are some conservative Catholics on the lunatic fringe who could properly be termed “fundamentalist”. I’ve engaged with some traditionalists who really are racist, anti-semitic, ultra right wing, geo centrist conspiracy theory nut jobs.

As for nut job, that is an evaluation. As for Geocentric, that is a fact about me. As for Antisemitic, Ultra Right Wing and Conspiracy Theorist, I am such on some definitions. But I am not a Racialist.

Nor are most Fundies who are normally considered such that.

So, he is at least clearly maligning Fundies, making "racist" a prominent part of the mix, and since I am one of comparatively few Geocentrics, and I have engaged in debates with him before, I am suspecting at least that refers to me.

But since he is not naming me, he can always pretend if he likes that my responding to it and refuting the charge of racism is paranoia on my part.

John Horvath II:

Is It Immodest to Wear Deliberately Ripped Clothes?
By John Horvat II

However, outside this extreme, most people seem to think they can wear anything, anywhere and at any time without any consequences. Clothes don’t have to be clean anymore. People can wear clothes that are deliberately ripped, stained and full of holes without fear of rejection. Clothes don’t even have to be clothes anymore. They can be shredded rags, the dingier the better.

I am often enough forced to walk in unwashed clothes, since begging has become of late less lucrative. Even while I am offering something in return, namely reading on my blogs, or perhaps precisely because of it.

To do one task on internet may involve changing the library, and to go to where I can get hours for free involves removing myself from where I could have a shower and (after longer or shorter time) a wash for the clothes.

And I often do have to fear rejection - and John Horvath II hopes I should have to fear it even more, I find probable.

But the main point is clothes full of holes. My outer garment has such and my trousers tend to accumulate such.

Note, not holes at my nipples or breasts, and not (usually) in the crotch, but holes that I have adorned with borders that are meant to prevent them from spreading.

Obviously, there is a difference between deliberately ripping a clothing which was not ripped, and deliberately wearing clothing which was not deliberately ripped (outside one specific case I'll explain in a moment). But that difference will be lost on some.

This one exception is, if a piece of cloth is starting to rip, I will softly rip as much as gives way easily, so as to know how much I need repair - by sewing a seam or by attaching a cord with a seam. I am wise and wily of rips I repair only to find next day the rip has gone beyond my repair, and I need to extend it.

John Horvath deliberately goes out of his way to pretend that either this clothing (or rather a general description of clothing which can be applied to it) offends my dignity or proves I don't have any.

Deliberately ripped garments work against the purpose of clothes. They are caricatures of what clothing should be. Far from adorning the body, the process of ripping turns that which should be strong, beautiful and orderly into something weak, ugly and frayed. Tattered attire is disordered and therefore should not be worn.

The Landsknechte disagreed. After each battle, they saw how many rips the swords of enemies had given their clothing, and mended, leaving the rip open but sewing new cloth under its both edges. Some did indeed rip more deliberately, so as to give and impression of having been in more battles than they had.

This is my model for how I deal with clothes now, especially my coat. Except the part of adding rips just to show off.

Most people would object that as long as tattered clothes stay outside the extreme point of undress that is considered morally and socially unacceptable, you cannot say that it is immodest.

And "most people" would on this point be right.

Modesty is the virtue that safeguards the dignity of a person in association with others. It benefits both the individual and society because it governs the exterior appearance and behavior of the person and thus helps make society civil and harmonious.

Beyond dress, modesty is concerned with the manner of speech, posture, gestures, and general presentation of the person. Modesty calls upon people to behave well with others and conform to standards of decency and decorum found in the healthy customs of an ordered society.

When you present yourself properly to others, you are modest. When you control yourself in your external actions and manners in society, you are modest. When you act erratically and speak in a manner that offends and disregards others, you are immodest.

Now, here comes a point:

In matters of Catholic dress, this means holding to all that is proper to a soul that is a temple of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, you dress in a manner that is ordered, dignified and reasonable to who you are. Adults dress like adults; children dress like children. Authorities dress in accord with their office.

It also means you should not dress carelessly. Saint Thomas Aquinas states that you are immodest when you are unduly negligent in your appearance and fail to present yourself according to your state in life.

The real problem for John Horvath with me, if, as I think, he is subtly referring to me, is, by being a blogger, I am stepping outside my state in life as a beggar. Writing is for professors on full time or office clerks on spare time, but not for beggars, you know.

Never mind that I had more than 6000 articles last time I counted. Never mind that starting to print even some of them would prevent someone else from economic disaster and take me out of it.

The thing is, if trousers are ripped at the knees, I also object to this being deliberate, since it is a waste - but my objection is repairing, repairing and repairing - not in invisible ways as my grandmother would have done, but in very visible and undiscreet ones. And when knees of some trousers are beyond repair, they become shorts - and I have more cloth to repair my coat with.

But his and his friends attitude to trousers torn at the knees is probably throwing them away. Why do I say so? Well, look at how he deals with a writer "torn at the knees" by the life of begging ... he knows I agree with him on sufficient things for it to make sense to publish me ... except, perhaps, his disagreement on this one. And similar ones.

But even a disagreement could be handled by polemising openly against a much read rival writer. He, like Dwight, seems to prefer "not to give me a platform" as the presumably Jewish and certainly Protestant description of this tactic goes.

Perhaps if I said, as I will not say "sorry, I realise I am a nobody, give me a decent job, even if not a very intellectual nor a very well paid one," he would think I were doing according to my station in life. I think such an attitude to a poor man's temporary station in life as poor is a Protestant one, confusing "estate" (the classic ones being clergy, nobility and commoners, sometimes these are subdivided into burghers and rural commoners) with "situation".

[posted on FB on Corpus Christi 2018]

mercredi 30 mai 2018

On Palestinian Origin

God gave Ishmael an inheritance. He gave Esau an inheritance. God gave Israel an inheritance. Why are Ishmael and Esau trying to remove Israel from their promised land?

"Why are Ishmael and Esau trying to remove Israel from their promised land?"

Why are you calling Christian and Muslim Palestinians Esau and Ishmael?

Palestinians are from Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, etc. Most Christian and Muslim Palestinians identify as Arab. They came to the land centuries after Rome expelled Israel. The Arabs are Semites, but not Israelites. The children of Israel are traced from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob.

MH "Palestinians are from Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, etc."

Source please?

I'd say Palestinians are from Palestine, that is from Holy Land.

Is that what you dismiss as "etc"?

"Most Christian and Muslim Palestinians identify as Arab."

So? Identifying as "Arab" does not mean tracing your genealogy to Ishmael.

It means identifying Arabic as your native language and Beduinism as at least one native (if not your own) lifestyle.

In a Protestant Bible* there are two "blessed among women", Jael and the Blessed Virgin. In the case of the Blessed Virgin, there is no limiting qualification to women, but in the case of Jael there is "who live in tents". So, Beduinism is a lifestyle possible to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I suppose that you agree Jael was as Israelite as she was Beduin. Obviously the one most blessed among all women was not a Beduin. So, the most blessed Beduin woman was Jael.

And Jael was not an Ishmaelite.

"They came to the land centuries after Rome expelled Israel."

If you mean in the invasion of Omar, no. That invasion of Omar gave Muslim Palestinians an admixture of Ishmaelites / Madianites from mid-Arabic peninsula and probably some Joctanites from South Arabic peninsula. But it did not introduce the CHRISTIAN Beduins of which SOME were forced to become Muslim.

"The Arabs are Semites, but not Israelites."

You are confusing "Arab" with "Peninsular Arab" + "Jordan Arab".

"The children of Israel are traced from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob."

Yes, I know that VERY well, and the Palestinians as much as Jael belong to that people.

By Jael, I have proven the lineage from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob can have a Beduin lifestyle. As for the Arabic language, some of Talmudic confession of that lineage have spoken a kind of German or a kind of Spanish (Yiddish, Ladino) which means that speaking a language other than Hebrew or Aramaic doesn't remove you from that lineage either.

*(In a Catholic Bible there is a third "blessed among women", Judith, who is "blessed among women of Israel" while the Blessed Virgin was of Judah).