mercredi 27 décembre 2017

Continuing with Ivan Shiek

With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy) · With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church · Continuing with Ivan Shiek · Ending with Ivan Shiek and Timothy Bradley

To clarify : this continues subthread II on previous, not subthread III.

Ivan Shiek
Here is another passage that speaks of worshipping God and how we must worship Him. I believe it throws out the "God in the church" theory.

“Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you people say that the place where one has to worship is in Yerushalayim.” Yeshua (Jesus) said, “Lady, believe me, the time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Yerushalayim. You people don’t know what you are worshipping; we worship what we do know, because salvation comes from the Jews (Jesus is born a Jew and brings salvation to all that worship God). But the time is coming — indeed, it’s here now — when the true worshippers will worship the Father spiritually and truly, for these are the kind of people the Father wants worshipping him. God is spirit; and worshippers must worship him spiritually and truly.”
John 4:20-24

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, it is speaking of the time when the Church was becoming Catholic (over the whole earth) and it is saying the Jewish continuity (up to Christ) trumps the Samarian discontinuity.

I know.

Timothy Bradek
Ivan, I'm sorry but Fb doesn't include my comment w/ your latest reply, so I'm unable to recall from memory what exactly I said. Anyway my friend, Merry Christ.. mas to you and yours and a thank you to my Saviour who died for our sins.. and made me complete in Him and He in me, and we are in the Father in Heaven. Rejoice, again I say rejoice in Christ Jesus, Amen? Amen.. glory to God!!!

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, you are so off base. If it was speaking about Catholics, why do they still worship in buildings? If you understand what Christ said in that verse you wouldn't think of Catholics.

Christ broke all the old ways of worship. We no longer worship God in buildings but in spirit and truth.

The Jewish worship is no more and the Catholic's worship is no more. God is not physical, He is spiritual.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"If it was speaking about Catholics, why do they still worship in buildings?"


In Jewish worship, there was exactly ONE building they could worship in. Key difference.

If you insist one must worship God outdoors, well, I see that as a retake of Mount Gadarim.

As to God being spiritual : since 2000 years and some more, this no longer implies "not physical".

Ivan Shiek
Arguing with someone who does not have the Spirit and it's gift of discernment of scripture, is foolish.

When does spirit not mean spirit?

Hans-Georg Lundahl, here is some homework for you.

By who's authority am I able to say that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Messiah, and the Holy Spirit is in me?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"When does spirit not mean spirit?"

I don't know where you spent grammar school, but I don't recommend the place.

I never said God being spirit doesn't mean God being spirit. I did and do say that since 2000 years God being spirit does not mean God is unphysical.

"By who's authority am I able to say that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Messiah, and the Holy Spirit is in me?"

I don't know that you have that authority, but if you do, you are heading for the Catholic Church, sooner or later. And if you stay out of the Church, you have no authority to say the Holy Spirit is in you.

B u t, whether you can or can't say the Holy Spirit is in you, you should be able to point to someone else the Holy Spirit is in - including was in when they were alive and stays in their soul, which is with Christ. At least probable candidates.

You are still behind when it comes to those from Vth C. By the way, St Winifrede is from VIIth C.:

Creation vs Evolution : Living Stones

mercredi 20 décembre 2017

With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church

With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy) · With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church · Continuing with Ivan Shiek · Ending with Ivan Shiek and Timothy Bradley

Under the general thread starting in previous post. Giving these subthreads numbers II and III.


Ivan Shiek
John 12:48-50 Those who reject me and don’t accept what I say have a judge — the word which I have spoken will judge them on the Last Day. For I have not spoken on my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has given me a command, namely, what to say and how to say it. And I know that his command is eternal life. So what I say is simply what the Father has told me to say.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
One of the things he said was, there would be a Church between 401 and 500 AD (assuming the world didn't end first, which it didn't) and that it would be visible.

Ivan Shiek
False, the Church of God is not a place, it is a people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Where exactly did I call the Church of God "a place"?

As to people, it would be a visible people. [Matthew 5:14]

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, "One of the things he said was, there would be a Church between 401 and 500 AD (assuming the world didn't end first, which it didn't) and that it would be visible."

Visible means physical, so no, the Church is not visible but spiritual.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew 5:14 means it is visible.

A Church which is "spiritual" only is not to be found in NT.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, if that is true, then this verse is also visible:

In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they may see the good things you do and praise your Father in heaven. Matthew 5:16

If that light is visible, then how do we not see a light from people?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Indeed, it is.

It need not be visible in every Catholic, but it must be visible:

* in lots of Catholic saints (as per canonised and also not canonised)
* in the known social mores of Catholics as compared with other denominations and religions.

The saints must be documentable people, their acts documentable acts, and the social mores, like freeing slaves, must be documentable social mores.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, it is talking about a metaphor not a literal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Cannot be hidden" is not metaphoric.

"built on a rock" is same metaphor as in Matthew 16:18.

Ivan Shiek
Can you hide joy? Yet people see that you are happy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, document people between Jan 1 401 and Dec 31 500 who were joyful - the people I cited were.

Ivan Shiek
The light Jesus speaks of is the joy of having salvation from hell. You cannot contain that joy, it is from our Father in Heaven.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not speaking of men "containing" the joy, I am speaking of men recorded in history SHOWING it.

Hint : among the 7000 in Israel, you can cite at least two names : Elijah and Elisha.

Ivan Shiek
We are to proclaim it on the rooftops that we are saved from hell. That proclamation will make others envious for sure.
It is the beautiful robe given to Jacob that made his other brothers envious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, who exactly was proclaiming from rooftops between 1 Jan 401 and 31 Dec 500?

I gave my names - you give yours.

[It seems a comment with a list of saints from 5th C. was deleted. - Nope, it was on subthread I, here is subthread II]

Ivan Shiek
No idea, it was a message to all believers. If someone did as God instructed, then glory to God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl, you are giving glory to men by mentioning them, as if they mean something. The only one that deserves glory is God our Father in Heaven, Jesus Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"No idea, it was a message to all believers. If someone did as God instructed, then glory to God."

Indeed glory to God, but also historic memory to these men.

You can't have men shouting from rooftops and then asking other men, like the Camel in an Arab proverb, who climbed into the Minaret "please don't look at me, I am hidden!"

Also, it was not directly to all believers, since He did not adress it to all, but to His chosen clergy among them, "the twelve" or right back then "the eleven".

"you are giving glory to men by mentioning them, as if they mean something."

OK, take a g o o d look at the title of the group we are in, first of all.

"Kent Hovind, Evolutionist's Nemesis"

Is some admin giving "glory to men"? Or, are we perhaps dealing with the fact Kent Hovind argued good for some things on behalf of Christ. In that case one might perhaps also mention the men who did so in the 5th C. AD.

You want Kent Hovind for fulfilling the promise in late XXth and early XXIst C.? OK.

You want Spurgeon to do so for XIXth C.? OK.

Whom do you take for early XVIth? Luther, Zwingli or Münzer? Or all three, despite them being in disagreement on why the Catholic Church was wrong? Fine, if you insist.

And back in XIIIth, perhaps you take Dante because he was a fine poet who put a Pope in Hell in his poem? Or Nogaret who arrested same Pope? I mean, you have no nproblem with taking Shaun Willcock as a Christian now, have you?

O ... K ...

But I am asking about Vth C. And you seem too cringy to answer the simple question. You seem intent on proving first of all that whoever in Vth C. was the fulfilment of Christ's promise, it can't have been the Catholics, and apart from that it doesn't matter who it was ...

No, that is not OK anymore, that is cowardice. You are acting like a hypocrite caught redhanded in lying and equivocating.

Ivan Shiek
Never heard Spurgeon's sermons. I did listen to Paul Washer though. Though I regard them both as my equals.

I consider Dante's work to be fiction and in the same category as the Greek gods; a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Whether you consider Spurgeon as your equal after he - on your view - already made it to Heaven, or not is not the point.

The point is, on your view, Spurgeon is someone you can name for XIXth C. as on your view a Christian.

Whom are you considering from Vth C. as a Christian, and what was the group he "enjoyed" outside the commandment "breaking" Catholics?

" I consider Dante's work to be fiction"

Divina Commedia is theological sci fi.

But the point is some were ready to take his word about why Pope Boniface VIII deserved to go to Hell.

I don't consider that as fiction, I consider that as, possibly, Dante misunderstanding Pope Boniface.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And, whom are you naming as Christians of the XIII and XIV C.?

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, I do not know who lived in that time period.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, but how can you know Catholic Church was "corrupt" if you don't know who lived then?

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, I only know about the Crusades back then. That is corruption.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, it is not.

Ivan Shiek
Christ's directive was to spread the Word of God through patience and longsuffering, not murdering anyone who didn't listen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, you don't care of history, how come you care for one version of what happened - and the wrong one?

Ivan Shiek
Very well, God will judge on the Last Day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Indeed. He will judge if your ignorance excuses you or if it is feigned.

The deletion of two of my comments - one with a list of people I consider Christian in Vth C and one with a directory to what Pope Pius XI REALLY said (with dates not including 30 April 1922) seems to indicate someone is being less than candid.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, do the Popes claim to be the vicar of Christ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The vicar of Christ, yes.

They do not continue and add "which means I am God on earth".

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl,

"the original notion a vicar is of 'earthly representative of Christ'" - Wikipedia.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, representative of, not Himself.

Ivan Shiek
If the Popes say it means something else, then that is what one would call "turning the truth into a lie".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The liar is the one who is putting non-genuine words in the mouth of a Pope.

Btw, one of my comments was apparently not deleted, just not exactly where I was looking for it.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, are the Popes claiming divinity or are they saying they are like Christ and only follow His way?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
They are neither.

They are claiming to be sent by Christ.

Ivan Shiek
Were they sent from Heaven?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, from Ascension Day and Pentecost Day, through unbroken continuity.

When Christ was last walking on Earth, when the Holy Spirit descended in tongues of flame.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, all of Christ's followers claim the same. That we are chosen by God to do His work.

We claim to be the sons of God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
But you do not have a clergy with Apostolic Succession, and also, you can produce none you consider as yours for some earlier centuries, as you admitted, so your claim is very moot, or rather spurious.

Ivan Shiek
Our claim comes from our Father in Heaven. Having repented our sins to God, Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. We proclaim with our lips and bondage to Him, that He is our Lord and Savior. Only Him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
He proclaimed He was staying with his Apostles, which includes their successors.

Where the bishop is, there is the Church, and where the Church is, there is Christ and where Christ is, there is eternal life.

Added next day, St Thomas Apostle, 21.XII.2017

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, so you put God in your box?

How convenient to pull Him out only when you need Him, then put Him back in.

Hans-Georg Lundahl, there will be nothing left of your churches. Not even a stone on the ground by the time He returns.

Hans-Georg Lundahl, let me give you an analogy of what you just described to me by your comment: "Where the bishop is, there is the Church, and where the Church is, there is Christ and where Christ is, there is eternal life."

Let's say my insects got the idea to shove me in their building, would I let them or squish them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl,

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1 Corinthians 3:16-19

This is to all believers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You know, God put Himself "in our box" as you like to call it.

Your outburst reminds me of "the wrath of Tash falls from above" ...

Our Faith is not tied to a specific building.

But there is a prophecy you may be able to take away the daily sacrifice for - was it 3 and a half years, or sth? Or was it 2300 days before the sanctuary was cleaned?

That is, if you are Assyrian enough. Otherwise, perhaps someone else will do what you called out for.

Yes, we know WE are the temple of God, we Catholics are.

Even briefer
Epilogue on December 22:

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, I do not put faith in man, only God. Your comment about Assyria, was that related to my statement about your churches being destroyed? I couldn't understand that fully. Who are the Assyrians?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[Daniel 11:31]

[+ linked to this and previous post]

Ivan Shiek
To answer your blog, it is not only joy that we are commanded to show, but truth and love also.
I do not say love in the modern sense of sexual nature, but family love. Family love also does correction and discipline to those who do wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Indeed, and Leo X showed Luther than kind of love.

I am a bit confused about "to answer my blog" - the blog is our debate from here.

And the question at hand is not whether it was enough for St Genevieve to have joy, the question is whether if I point to her as an example, you are pointing to someone else at the time as being a fulfilment, visibly, of Christ's promise in Matthew 28.

Continued from here

Continuing with Ivan Shiek


Glenda Badger

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'd like to know when and for what he is supposed to have massacred the population of Palestrina.

Glenda Badger
Hans-Georg Lundahl GOOGLE IT

Glenda Badger
Hans-Georg Lundahl It should be borne in mind that one Pope (Innocent III), in just one day, murdered more Christians than all the Roman Caesars put together.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Look, I'd really hope the internet is not all that littered with this that it is very easy to find.

So, what is your source?

Glenda Badger
Hans-Georg Lundahl History books - it's a well known fact bro

Hans-Georg Lundahl Research the inquisition ...

[gif : literaly the stuff of nightmares]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not where I come from.

I had a 5 - when the grades system was 1-5 - in ten subjects, one of which was history.

No massacre of Palestrina [see image] mentioned there.

Also, looks like a military thing, not a clerical one.

Also, I very much did look up the inquisition and you are wrong.

I mean, if you mean the Inquisitions of the Catholic Church, not the modern counterparts (psychiatry, KGB and CIA, CPS).

Glenda Badger
Hans-Georg Lundahl Tell me what the inquisition was about, who was involved and what happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Short? Very short?

I'll take two examples of stats.

In one stat, the number of "condemned" varies from 200 down per locality in Southern France (not sure if they were all burnings, but could be, those were the hotter days of Inquisition - but actually I think number includes those who recanted and were given penances or who were held in prison).

The thing about it is, Albigensians outnumbered Waldensians. Now, you might consider Waldensians as fully Christian, I do not. You might consider them as your counterpart, fairly possible (as long as you are not Anglicans and Lutherans).

But Albigensians who believed in "two principles" and in two opposed creators?


Other stat, Bernard Guy in Toulouse judged in 930 cases, of which 45 led someone to the bonfire and 45 someone's effigy to it. 300 or so were imprisonments - he was giving them a chance to become Catholics. 145 or so were his freeing people from prison.

Other cases involved imposition of penances (including pilgrimages and crusades) or destruction of property.

Citing both from memory, but the cases of Bernard Guy (which Charles Henry Lea cites only the condemnatory of) are cited several works and a few places on the internet.

The first stat I was looking up by accident in Charles Henry Lea while looking for something else. I have memorised it less well and not seen it outside Lea.

In all these cases, whereever someone was burnt, the Catholic Church reasoned that if he had sinned against the faith and failed to repent:

* he deserved it as per OT laws on stoning and their correspondence to natural law (our first duty is to God, heresy is worse than murder)
* he had been given time to repent and adequate admonition
* it was a kind of emergency in which heretics inimical to Catholicism (as Albigensians highly were) were threatening to get the upper hand if not checked in time (and had gotten it locally)
* heresy prefigures the Antichrist, so, by burning them, one was post-poning the coming of Antichrist a bit - through keeping society Catholic.

This last is actually so important that I consider the times are too late for reintroducing it.

So, out of 930 judged over several years in Toulouse, 45 made it to the fire. Does not sound like the working of a Church where someone would massacre - as a clergyman - whole villages for heresy or things.

Now, back to massacre of Palestrina.

I found a reference:

"In his Inferno, Dante portrayed Boniface VIII as destined for hell, where simony is punished, although Boniface was still alive at the fictional date of the poem's story. Boniface's eventual destiny is revealed to Dante by Pope Nicholas III, whom he meets. A bit later in the Inferno, Dante reminds of the pontiff's feud with the Colonna family, which led him to demolish the city of Palestrina, killing 6,000 citizens and destroying both the home of Julius Caesar and a shrine to Mary. Boniface's ultimate fate is confirmed by Beatrice when Dante visits Heaven. It is notable that he does not adopt Guillaume de Nogaret's aspersion that Boniface VIII was a 'sodomite', however, and does not assign him to that circle of hell (although simony was placed in the eighth circle of fraud, below sodomy, in the seventh circle of violence, designating it as a worse offense and taking precedence above activities of sodomy)."

It seems, Nogaret had his reasons for calling Boniface VIII a sodomite, he was captruing the Pope to humiliate the papacy.

As to the massacre in Palestrina - if not a partisan lie or exaggeration by Dante who was pro-Empire and anti-Pope partisan, is described as a feud.

This would mean it was sth Boniface VIII was involved in as political leader of Papal States, not as Pope of the Church.

It could also have been made up by Nogaret ... or not ...

But it is definitely not in a normal history book in Sweden.

Here is one Catholic take on Palestrina affair:

"Boniface made the mistake of developing enemies among the Colonnas, a noble and important Roman family with extensive land holdings and powerful influence within the Church. Boniface became involved in a dispute over Colonna family property in which the younger brothers accused Cardinal Jacopo Colonna of misappropriating their inheritance. The pope's intervention was resented by all of the brothers and the dispute developed into a two year confrontation which included robbery, murder, a small war that Boniface called a "crusade," and the wholesale destruction of the town of Palestrina. In July of 1297, during the course of this disturbance, the Colonna cardinals Jacopo and Pietro issued formal decrees blaming Boniface for the illegal (so they claimed) resignation of Celestine V, and holding Boniface to be an anti-pope. It fit Philip's purposes well to have two cardinals of the Roman Church calling for an ecumenical council to depose Boniface and warning all concerned not to "obey or heed . . . this man who does not possess the authority of the supreme pontiff."[51] Boniface had been elected with the cooperation of the Colonnas; they would prove to be powerful enemies."

Not exactly [anything linking] Boniface to the destruction of the city.

[Fixed a garbled text.]

As to Catholic encyclopedia, it says nothing about Palestrina, but gives some indication of his indirect involvement (and probably involuntary one) in a ruthless management of Florence:

"The efforts made by Boniface VIII to restore order in Florence and Tuscany proved equally futile. During the closing years of the thirteenth century the great Guelph city was torn asunder by the violent dissensions of the Bianchi and the Neri. The Bianchi or Whites, of Ghibelline tendencies, represented the popular party and contained some of the most distinguished men in Florence--Dante Alighieri, Guido Cavalcanti, and Dino Compagni. The Neri or Blacks, professing the old Guelph principles, represented the nobles or aristocracy of the city. Each party as it gained the ascendancy sent its opponents into exile. After a vain attempt to reconcile the leaders of the two parties, Vieri dei Cerchi and Corso Donati, the pope sent Cardinal Matteo d'Acquasparta as papal legate to mediate and establish peace at Florence. The legate met with no success and soon returned to Rome leaving the city under an interdict. Towards the end of 1300, Boniface VIII summoned to his aid Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair. Appointed Captain-General of Church and invested with the governorship of Tuscany (in consequence of the vacancy of the empire), the French prince was given full powers to effect the pacification of the city. Valois arrived at Florence on 1 November, 1301. But instead of acting as the official peacemaker of the pope, he conducted himself as a ruthless destroyer. After five months of his partisan administration, the Neri were supreme and many of the Bianchi exiled and ruined--among them Dante Alighieri. Beyond drawing on himself and the pope the bitter hatred of the Florentine people, Charles had accomplished nothing. (Levi, Bonifazio VIII e le sue relazioni col commune di Firenze, in Archiv. Soc. Rom. di Storia Patria, 1882, V, 365-474. Cf. Franchetti, Nuova Antologia, 1883, 23-38.) It may be noted here that many scholars of repute seriously question Dante's famous embassy to Boniface VIII in the latter part of 1301. The only contemporary evidence to support the poet's mission is a passage in Dino Compagni, and even that is looked upon by some as a later interpolation."

Sounds as if Dante could have had a motive for crediting Boniface with ruthless management of cities - and not one actually proving Boniface guilty.

Ivan Shiek
Any murder, no matter if they are "clergy" or not, is punishable by death. Have any of them repented to God for their sins?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ivan Shiek, the point was not whether there were sinners back then. There were. The point is not whether people went clearly to Hell back then. Some did.

The point is, whether Boniface VIII, as Pope a clear authority for the Catholic Church, was one of these or if he stayed clear of that.

The laymen who were appointed to end a civil war in Florence and abused positions where Boniface VIII had made the mistake to trust them are NOT authority figures in the Catholic Church. Kennedy was a President of US who was a Catholic. JF, I mean. But he was a layman, he has not been canonised as Saint, he is not in any way an authority figure for Catholicism.

Ivan Shiek if you considered the Inquisition as murderers, for what?

For death penalty being applied on their judgements?

You just mentioned death penalty yourself. The OT "inquisition" applied death penalty by stoning for the crime of blasphemy.

Or for their victims being innocent? Some were, certainly St Joan of Arc, possibly Savonarola (St Filippo Neri thought so - Savonarola had a great Marian devotion, btw).

But before you declare whole swathes of Albigensians and Waldensians as innocent, who were the Albigensians or Waldensians of the 5th C.? If they were the real Church of Christ, why are they absent from the 5th C.?

Ivan Shiek
I have no clue who those groups were. That is not important, the Lord Jesus Christ chooses His people. He is not a Pope. He is God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have no clue in what Church Christ fulfilled his promises between January 1 401 and December 31 500? [Back in the other more general discussion]

If that is not important, why do you single out one answer, with much history for it, as being excluded?

Ivan Shiek
A simple reason, was the Holy Spirit in it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am definitely saying yes, the Holy Spirit was in the Catholic Church and is so to this day (excepting certain modernists).

So, if you disagree with my answer, don't tell me just where the Holy Spirit, on your view "wasn't", but tell me where He w a s!

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, that would be a lie. The Holy Spirit is not present where there is corruption. Amend the corruption, throw out the ones responsible to be killed by nonbelievers, only then will the blemish be corrected.

And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Corinthians 5:2-8 KJV

No, Paul is not talking about the past for the Holy Spirit is present today and desires you to be without blemish.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The Holy Spirit is not present where there is corruption."

Not in the soul of a corrupt person, but sometimes in societies where some persons are corrupt.

"Amend the corruption, throw out the ones responsible to be killed by nonbelievers, only then will the blemish be corrected."

One can amend corruption in less drastic ways than that, right?

"No, Paul is not talking about the past for the Holy Spirit is present today and desires you to be without blemish."

What was future in the time of St Paul is partly past now.

Also, St Paul did care that in the then already past the Holy Spirit had spoken through prophets, and not through for instance Pharao's magicians.

Your position about the Vth C. is as if in the time of Exodus you could name Jammes and Mambres, but not Moses and Aaron, the evil prophets of Baal, but not Elijah and Elisha.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, I do not answer because I have no clue what you are talking about, I have not studied Catholic history. I only study the Bible and apply it to my daily life.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You only study the Bible and you still know of Spurgeon, who is not named in it?

You pretend the promise of Christ was kept in Vth C. outside Catholic Church - and you refrain from speaking of Vth C. because it is "Catholic History"?

You are aware that there is a mathematical reason why XIXth C. (with Spurgeon) is called "nineteenth" and not for instance "second"?

There do come a few centuries between the first century when NT was written (but not yet definitely collected as to which books were included) and our own.

The promise of Christ in Matthew 28 applies to these centuries too.

Catholic History? Maybe - if the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ!

Ivan Shiek
History does not matter to me, I do not study it. All I know is that they existed in our timeline.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, history matters to me, and I want to know who "existed in our timeline".

[Seems at the rest Shiek wants to goof:]

Ivan Shiek
I also know the Great Flood ended in 01/01/601 B.C. because Noah wrote it (or Moses wrote it of Noah).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"601 BC"?

Ivan Shiek
Yes, it will take a while to dig up that passage but it is there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
More like 2957 BC.

Moses wrote down the testimony of Noah, which had been left orally or in writing, along with others, similarily left there before him.

This means, Moses cared about history.

Ivan Shiek
I posted my find on my wall back in 2015 or 2016.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hmmm ... interesting.

Probably a wrong find, but still interesting.

Ivan Shiek
I'll try to find the passage again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not running away.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl,
And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Genesis 7:6


And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year (601), in the first month, the first day of the month (01/01/601), the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground (local area) was dry.
And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month (02/27/601), was the earth (global) dried.
Genesis 8:13-14

Hans-Georg Lundahl
This means that Flood occurred in 601 age of Noah, not in 601 BC.

With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy)

With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy) · With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church · Continuing with Ivan Shiek · Ending with Ivan Shiek and Timothy Bradley

Ivan Shiek
15 décembre, 16:27

(Subthread I)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You know, I thought this group was about Kent Hovind vs Evolution, not about his friend Jack Chick vs Catholicism.

Ivan Shiek
All Christians are like-minded.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Kent Hovind is on a subject Christian, namely in being against Evolution.

Jack Chick is on a subject un-Christian, in being against Catholicism.

Ivan Shiek
No, Catholicism in un-Christian. You do not even go by the name "Christian", you go by "Catholic".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Among whom ....?

Ivan Shiek
Among the Lord.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Er, no.

The Lord has said he doesn't consider certain adherent of Judaism, persecuting Catholics, to be Jews.

Were you confusing Jews with Catholics, or were you confusing yourself with the Lord?

Ivan Shiek
Nope, no confusion. The Lord hates the Catholic materialism and idol worship. That is plainly known to those that read their Bible and obey it.

Joseph Lynch
Catholicism=harlot of revelation 17

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ivan Shiek, Joseph Lynch, would you mind proving the allegations?

Joseph Lynch
Read the bible, look at history and today and use your common sense. Those who don't want to see will remain blind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am at least as familiar with the Bible, I think, and more familar with History than you.

As for Common Sense, I don't think hearing just one side's version is showing very much of it.

My mother was told that Albigensians were basically Evangelical Christians, I found out otherwise.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Also, while I was Lutheran, no "John Foxe" and "Book of Martyrs" was our common fare.

Some people will not mistake exaggerations and heroisation from centuries distance over a partisan hatred against contemporaries as excellent historiography.

Joseph Lynch
As I said, those who don't want to see, won't.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, my dislike of the Catholic Church is not founded on another denomination's view. It is founded on what Christ said. It is founded on the Ten Commandments.

Those that do not follow the Ten Commandments, are heretics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, I suppose you could be referring to what we Catholics often consider as OT liturgic parts of the three first commandments.

1st Commandment prohibits idolatry in the large sense, and has as a liturgic part a prohibition of imagery, valid up to Incarnation of God. The prohibition of imagery was explicitated in the lines after initial one.

2nd Commandment prohibits misuse of God's name, and has as liturgic part, not the pronunciation of the Trinitarian name, but the non-pronunciation (except for Cohen Gadol) of the Tetragrammaton one. The pronunciation of the "God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" liturgically took over when Christ revealed the Baptismal formula to the Apostles.

3rd Commandment commands working on the Lord's day, and explicitates the liturgic part as "seventh day" (i e of the week starting on Sunday), which was validly the Lord's day up to when Resurrection and Pentecost made Sunday the new Lord's day.

You have a little problem, since prior to reformation (or a bit before, but briefly, Petrobrussians) (or a bit before even that, less briefly and more bloody, Iconoclasm in Eastern Empire, which was also ended before Reformation), there were no Christians explicitly attacking Christians using images.

Prior to JW, no one was saying among Christians "you must use the Tetragrammaton as the most holy name".

Prior to 7th Day Adventism, perhaps before that a few other sabbatarian sects, no one was saying among Christians one had to use the Saturday Sabbath as if the Old Testament was still valid.

This means, your view of Orthodoxy would contradict Matthew 28:18-20.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, you don't understand, I do not kneel to Baal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I don't know what "kneeling to Baal" has to do with Catholicism.

If you mean there is such and such a cabale in the Vatican who are secretly kneeling to Baal, that is not Catholicism, they are infiltrators who should be, at best, exposed and opposed.

But if you meant sth else, as in Catholic view of commandments constituting such a crime, well, where are the "seven thousand men in Israel who did not bend their knee to Baal"?

You need them for each century of Church history.

Ivan Shiek
2nd Commandment - You shall not use the Lord's name in vain.

Meaning: do not assume His name to do vain things.

His name is Jesus Christ. His followers assume His name and are called "Christians".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Calling oneself a Christian is not vain, if one is.

Calling oneself a Catholic is not a contradiction of it.

Ivan Shiek
No, taking the name of the Lord and not doing all that He commands is taking it in vain.

If you do not practice His commandments, your faith is in vain.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is not in vain if I confess myself as obliged to His commandments.

It is perhaps in vain if my interpretation of what they mean involves a non-existence of the Church for centuries, contrary to His express promise in Matthew 28:18-20.

Or just verse 20.

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

This means, for every day from then to now and beyond to Doomsday there was, is and will be someone openly teaching ALL THINGS He commanded.

Where is your sabbatarian or iconoclast from 5th C. AD?

Come on, if you compare what we consider the NT liturgic implications of first three commandments as equivalent of "bowing our knee to Baal", each century, including 5th AD should have its seventhousand men who didn't.

Ivan Shiek
Yes, and they all should equal the 144,000 virgins mentioned in Revelation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not ask where you find the 7000 men in Apocalypse, I was asking where you found them for 5th C. AD in history.

Ivan Shiek
Only Christ knows who they are. They will be revealed on the last day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
owch .... you just contradicted Christ:

"You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid."
[Matthew 5:14]

Ivan Shiek
That is true also. The gift of the Holy Spirit cannot be hid, we are to give as we have received. To forgive our enemies as Christ has forgiven us who were His enemies before.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, if the gift of the Holy Spirit is visible for the 5th C. where in the confessions back then do you find it?

Ivan Shiek
What is the 5th C. AD you are referring to?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I can name Catholics in the 5th C whom I consider as showing forth the fruit of the Holy Spirit. You would not count them.

So, whom would you count?

On your criteria, they need to:

* use no images
* use the name JHVH
* worship on the Sabbath.

5th C. AD is the years 401-500 Anno Domini.

Ivan Shiek
Just throwing this into the mix;

Idolatry: occurs when you look down at the fruit of your own labor, the statue that you carved yourself, and you worship it.

[Bluff, when I checked it said - on the real page, not the one he gave:
noun, plural idolatries.
1. the religious worship of idols.
2. excessive or blind adoration, reverence, devotion, etc.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[under impression, back then, he had been honest]

* The dictionary is not a Bible, nor a Catholic Catechism.
* We do not "worship" statues.
* Supposing you were right, that we do, that would give you a right to disqualify my men, but doesn't produce yours.

Where are they?

I could point to St Augustine of Hippo, died 430, or to St Jerome from Stridon, died 420. I could point to St Simeon Stylites, who died in 459. I could point to St Genevieve, she died early in 6th C, but at a high age and so was alive most of the 5th C I am talking about. She was, by the way, active in promoting the cult of relics : remains of saints from which we expect miracles, as per IV Kings 13:21 or Acts Of Apostles 19:12.

I could point to St Patrick of Armagh who died in 492 or 493, though some historians claim it was rather 460.

I could point to St Germanus of Auxerre under whom he studied as a monk in preparation of receiving episcopal orders and going to Ireland as a missionary.

I could point to St Remigius who, like St Genevieve died in early 6th c. but at a high age.

And like her was involved in establishing the Frankish Kingdom as a Christian one. St Clotilde, a younger contemporary of theirs was even more involved, she was the wife of Clovis, leading up to his baptism.

On your view all of these are disqualified as worshipping statues, right?

So, exactly whom are YOU pointing to?

Also, by Dictionary definitions, Catholics count as Christians.

Ivan Shiek
I point to Christ not men.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Why were you pointing to the dictionary?

When I ask you to point to men fulfilling your criteria for Christians, I am pointing to Christ whose promise tells us we can point to men for fulfilment of the promise.

Joseph Lynch
Romanism is not catholicism. Rev 17 perfectly describes the whore church of the vatican.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, Christ fulfilled the promise. We need not look to anyone else.

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Matthew 24:5

Popes claim to be Christ, so yes they do fulfill this prophecy.
*mic drop*

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[Deleted comment in which I gave a directory over Pope Pius XI's documents, here are some more complete ones:

Homilies Speeches Motu Proprio Letters Encyclicals Bulls One Brief Apostolic Letters Apostolic Constitutions and a Biography about him, not by him, in Italian.

Not a trace of any document (including speech in his throne room) in April 30 1922.

As I pointed out in the deleted comment, not a trace in the directory over encyclicals. Nor, in the other ones linked to here. Where the directories had more than one page, I gave what was relevant for 1922.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do however find this quote in an accusation by Shaun Willcock :

// Pius XI, on 30 April 1922, in the Vatican throne room, said: "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth." //

The accusation is the less credible in so far as it says also:

// The Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, said: "There is no difference between the Pope and Jesus Christ." //

Also, not a link to any known passage from St Thomas Aquinas anywhere on the web, just a bland accusation.

// The Canon Law in the Gloss on the Extravaganza of John XXII, AD 1316-1334, calls the Roman pontiff "Our Lord God the Pope." And this was continued in all editions of the Canon Law up to AD 1612. //

And would you mind to tell me where you find in any body of canon law a "Gloss on the Extravaganza of John XXII"?

So, instead of showing your Church, where it was in the 5th C., you prefer accusing mine with false accusations.

Was it joy which could not be hidden if present in a heart ... you seem to be good at hiding your joy!

mardi 19 décembre 2017

Joe Hargrave's Genial Paragraph

OK, not saying his other ones aren't, so, this one is extra genial.

Politics will always work its way into art, and art into politics. This is unavoidable. But to reduce every artistic work created to propaganda is to make life unlivable and unbearable. If art is nothing but politics, life is nothing but politics, reality and existence are nothing but politics, there is no sanctuary, no 'safe space', not even a single moment of reprieve from warring, myopic, cruel, and unbelievably stupid dipshits screaming at one another over nothing.

mercredi 13 décembre 2017

[Can I Discuss in Portuguese? No, But I do it Anyway] O milagre de Josué e a exegese de todos os sigos ..

Bajo una video
que poco importa per la discusión fuero el hecho que menciona la terra como centro del universo como un factoido de la ciencia erronea y pasada.

Desde - a
"December 8 at 2:23pm - December 13 at 5:01 pm"

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A terra é o centro do universo, é a verdade ... Josue 10:12,13.

do Miguel de Jesus (por emoticon)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Miguel de Jesus, que pense Vocé sobre o feito que Josue diou o ordem ao sol e aa luna, e nao aa terra?

Miguel de Jesus
Hans-Georg Lundahl, penso que Josué se deixou iludir pelo movimento aparente do sol, como acontecia até à pouco tempo. Hoje a ciência já provou o inverso.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
mais em um milagro nao sao as aparencias a que o ordem milagroso se dereita, sao as realdades

e como a ciencia "provou o inverso"?

Miguel de Jesus
Coloco outra questão: qual é a prova que Josué apresenta para defender essa ideia?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Jesús da ordens aos ventos cuando os ventos tenem que calmarse, aos demonios cuando os demonions tenem que irse ao inferno.

Admeter o que admetes pelo libro de Josue da um peligroso ... uma peligrosa Jurisprudência pelos evangelios.

Miguel de Jesus
Hans-Georg Lundahl, Josué não é Jesus. Além do mais, o contexto do relato não parece referir um milagre.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
O contexto nao parece referir um milagre? Explique isso!

"Josué não é Jesus"

Pessoalmente, nao.

O rei Ezequias nao mais.

Mais, Ezequias tiveu a linea davidica e Josué o nome do Jesus (Jesus = Iehoshua = Josué, os LXX lo chaman "Jesus Nave").

Por isso, o sol obedeceu a Ezequias e a Josué, como senhalou a crucifixao pela obscuraçao e como dançou pela Virgem em Fatima.

Miguel de Jesus
Nem todos os relatos bíblicos são factuais. É o caso das Bodas de Caná. É um episódio meramente catequético.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nem = "nao" (mais o menos)?

O sacerdote parece um apostata ...

Miguel de Jesus
Não = Non; Nem = nec.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
O sacerdote do quem prendes catequismo e apostata ... "Nem todos os relatos bíblicos são factuais" e um proposto de apostata.

Miguel de Jesus
Hans-Georg Lundahl, estude mais exegese bíblica.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
estude a boa, nem a exegese de apostatas ...

do Miguel de Jesus

Miguel de Jesus
Qual é a boa, a do séc XII?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A de toudos os sigos ... cada vez que o sigo XII e o sigo XIII e o sigo XIV concurrem no mismo, e a boa.

Miguel de Jesus
Por isso, a actual também.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Entonces só issa actual que concurre com o sigo XII ou com sigo XIV ... nem a outra que difere dos toudos sigos.

Miguel de Jesus
Errado. A exegese actual, difere e bastante da antiga.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nao e "a exegese actual". E uma exegese actual e nao a boa.

Miguel de Jesus
Depende da perspectiva. Eu acho que o senhor está errado, o senhor acha que eu estou errado. É palavra contra palavra, com a diferença que minha está certa, porque concorda com o que está no site do Vaticano.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Depende da perspectiva."

Issa do San Vincente de Lerinos, issa do Conselho do Trento ... dogmatizada.

"com a diferença que minha está certa, porque concorda com o que está no site do Vaticano."

Es proba que o sito do Vaticano nao tem o verdadeiro papa.

do Miguel de Jesus

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ries tres minudos?

E bom pola saudade ... [es bueno per la salud]

Miguel de Jesus

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Desde 4 minudos só o riso baijo (?) o meu comentario, nem continua vocé o argumento ...

Rir e bom pola saudade, mais só reir nao e bom pola logica ..

Espeiro que nao sao os hispanismos ou castilhanismos que dao deudos sobre o que digo ....?

atualizações :

a referencia na video:
-5:30 Durante milhares de anos acreditou-se que a Terra era o centro do Universo.

Eu dei
um link para o blogpost

Miguel de Jesus
Afinal isto é uma discussão em português. Não parece LOL

Hans-Georg Lundahl
nao parece, verdade, mais o meu português es muito ...

"meu português é muito ruim" (Google translate)

I was expecting sth like má or mao ...

"sua teologia é muito ruim" (Google translate, també)

lundi 4 décembre 2017

Could St James Write His Epistle? Yes!

Vikrant Menon
shared a link: : How Bad Was the Apostle James’s Greek?
November 28, 2017 | Todd Scacewater

David Cole
Jewish boys were required to go to the synagogue during week days to learn how to read and write and memorize scripture and prayers. They were all well educated. James and Jude came from a fairly well to do home and probably had good education but whether he penned the letter himself or whether he had a scribe pen it while he dictated it is unknown. Paul used a scribe when he wrote his.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Jewish boys were required to go to the synagogue during week days to learn how to read and write and memorize scripture and prayers."


That came with Joshua Ben Gamla - after Hannas and Kaiphas.

Vikrant Menon
Perhaps Brian Wright's new book sheds some light

Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus: A Window into Early Christian Reading Practices
Author: Brian J. Wright (Author)
Editor: Fortress Press

David Cole
Education In Jesus' Time

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I said collectivity as requirement came with Joshua ben Gamla (which was during 1st C!).

I did not say it had not been customary before.

A legal or religiously legal requirement is sth else than a custom usually observed but not thought of as inflexible.

David Cole
And do you feel that's a valid excuse to dismiss the authorship of James?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, absolutely not.

I am just considering it as a valid ground for distinguishing between a customary education he had and which legally then could still have been home schooling, and a compulsory education Judaism invented just after that, outlawing home schooling for boys.

From Quora

Was James younger or older than Jesus?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered just now
Agreeing with Jack Wallace.

St James was the youngest son of St Joseph’s first wife, who died, and when St Joseph was widower, he remarried, the Blessed Virgin.

Therefore, while St James the lesser was perhaps younger than St James the greater (the son of Zebedee), certainly shorter, he was older than Our Lord.

EDIT : if you mean St James the son of Zebedee, he might have been either, though his brother St John was arguably younger than Our Lord, since the youngest.

lundi 13 novembre 2017

On the Buzz Word "Pedophilia" and the Confusion it Causes

In Kent Hovind group
shared a link:

Paedophilia a 'sexual orientation - like being straight or gay'
Ian Johnston @montaukian Sunday 3 April 2016 18:02 BST

some responses out.

= Hans-Georg Lundahl, me
Has it occurred to anyone that the word, having at least three different meanings, is meaningless?

[anonymised, for now]
Wtf?! Next they're going to tell us being a pedophile is hardwired I honour DNA & that ppl are born with it.. Being a child predator is not genetic, it's a choice & it's disgusting..

Child predator, however, has one meaning, it should not be watered down to "pedophile".

You know, some shrinks consider "pedophile" to mean a certain propensity, not a certain act. And after all, it is they who invented the word.

I still think their word is meaningless, since the "certain" propensity is one for three different kinds of act, one of which is neither predating on children, nor on adolescent boys and not necessarily on adolescent girls, that depends on how marital legislation is (if you marry a girl, you are not a predator).

Seems like you had more of a comment that got cut out..

"Cut out"?

Maybe not. I thought maybe you posted only part of your comment & maybe another part got cut out for some reason.

I care not for semantics. Looking upon a child with lust is immoral & acting upon a lustful thought should be a capital offense. Pedophiles & child predators should be castrated or killed

"Looking upon a child with lust"

What is a child in this context?

Below puberty, below legal age of consent or below legal age of marriage in your jurisdiction?

Does intention to (if possible) marry count as "looking with lust"?

"acting upon a lustful thought should be a capital offense"

OK, hardliner, I see ... in several Christian jurisdictions this has not been so.

Even in the OT some rapes were punished by rapist being obliged to marry the victim.

"Pedophiles & child predators should be castrated or killed"

I was going to ask you if by pedophiles you meant child predators, apparently not.

Why should a "pedophile" - whatever you mean by the term - who has not acted criminally on his propensity be subjected to such gross treatment?

We all know what a child is. Semantics will not help you here. Intent to marry implies a sexual & intellectual attraction. Adults cannot be foolishly swayed in the way children can. Also, the bible never condones rape with marrying the oppresser. What you probably have read is the NIV translation of Deuteronomy 22:28, which is what that particular translation says. However that translation is corrupt, among others. It also contradicts itself because in the verse directly before it (verses 25 & 26) it also states that a raped woman shall suffer no penalty & the rapist stoned. The kjv translates the verse in Deuteronomy 22 verse 28 accurately in that a virgin woman, unbetrothed (not engaged) is found laying with a man, they must marry & dude is to pay her father. The NIV translates this verse as meaning 'raped' when it clearly does not. It says 'lay hold of' which is a sexual expression much like the phrase 'knew her' means having sexual relations such as when the virgin Mary got pregnant of the holy spirit & the text reads that Joseph ' 'knew her not'. Meaning they hadn't had sex yet, in cultural context. Anyways, the NIV got the translation wrong & the kjv has the correct translation of the verse you brought up. Read the differences for yourself. This was the verse that lead to me to question certain translations of the bible. Some are inaccurate. The kjv is closest to the original text & has a majority of manuscripts backing up it's translation. I've digressed but i felt it was important to touch on the mistranslstion of deut 22:28 in the NIV because it does basically insinuate God condones rape. However the KJV has the correct translation of said verse & it reads quite the opposite.

Pedophiles are child predators by definition. They seek to have sexual relations with small children for their own pleasure. I never said ppl should be punished for thoughts. I said that lustful thoughts an a child is immoral & acting upon those thoughts should be a capital offense. When you engage in sexual relations with a small child, your actions do absolutely no good for them as it's purely for the pleasure of the one acting.

"We all know what a child is."

Apparently not.

To me a child is someone who is not yet in puberty. At least when puberty is not extremely early.

I have been accused of pedophile intentions because of a girl definitely puber, but not yet of legal age of consent.

I would have, at least thought so, up to her age of consent, one year's delay, have met her at openly seen places and with her parents and so, up to when she could have asked authorities to get a dispensation to marry me.

That she rejected me was one thing. But that the whole village more or less pushed her to go on rejecting me due to me being, apparently, "pedophile" means, they had a different view on what constitutes a child than I had or have.

"They seek to have sexual relations with small children for their own pleasure"

With SMALL children, thank you, your definition of pedophile is relatively sound, unfortunately not share by that village.

Age of consent is up to the society. Idk what it is where you are. In America, it's below the age of 18.. of course parents can give consent at an earlier age. I'd define someone as a child until the age of ab 14 or 15. Even then someone of that age doesn't really know the repercussions of their actions or give it much thought. What makes a child differ from an adult is more mental maturity than it is physical development, although it certainly still plays a role in discerning. Why did you wanna marry this young woman? If she rejected you, she obviously wasn't showing you her feelings were anymore than platonic. Seems you tried rushing the idea of marriage before the relationship was foundational & mutual. I wasn't there, but it seems the case from your description.

Ah, I'd agree with 14 for boys, 12 for girls.

In Sweden, I got stamped as pedophile because in love with a girl under 15, declaring it a few days before her 14th BD.

"What makes a child differ from an adult is more mental maturity than it is physical development,"

There is a brain development which is basic for any kind of "mental maturity", which is physical and surer to go by than subjective evaluations of the mental.

Apart from that there are also physical developments connected to sex hormones.

That's technically pedophilia. Keep in mind guys don't really reach mental maturity till they're almost 30. Women perhaps around 25, if I remember right. Maybe stick to women around your own age. 12, 14, or even 18 is still pretty young, mentally. These ppl (guys & girls) are still pretty foolish & naive at such a young age. Stick to around your own age as a limit, man. My niece is 12. If any dude tried marrying her, I'd be going to jail.. That's not happening.

"Keep in mind guys don't really reach mental maturity till they're almost 30. Women perhaps around 25, if I remember right."

30 or even 25 is rather late to marry, for a woman.

I am sorry, but you are wrong.

You seriously do NOT know what a child is. You are part of a modern pseudoculture.

As was the father of that gal. Too bad, I thought he was conservative.

"Maybe stick to women around your own age."

An old maid 49 is too old to marry. A divorcee, in the eyes of God, is married to someone else. And widows, I don't want to speculate in someone else's death.

Perhaps she thought an old man as too old to marry.. you're a pedophile. You should seek help before you end up hurting someone who doesn't share your views..

Look here, I was 28 on the occasion.

And, no, I am not "seeking help" the way you put it.

Your view of what a pedophile is, is worthless blabla, has nothing to do with what is inherently right or wrong, unlike for instance detesting homosexuality.

YOUR'S is the view which is making Europe childless and greying and a prey to immigration.

Here is some history:

James V of Scotland James V (10 April 1512 – 14 December 1542)
1) Madeleine of Valois (1537)
Madeleine of Valois (10 August 1520 – 7 July 1537) was a French princess who became Queen of Scots as the first spouse of King James V. (She was 16, and died that year)
2) Mary of Guise (1538–42)
Mary of Guise (French: Marie de Guise; 22 November 1515 – 11 June 1560) was Queen of Scots from 1538 to 1542 as the second wife of King James V. (She was married twice, her first spouse)
Louis II, Duke of Longueville
(m. 1534; d. 1537) (She was 19 when marrying first spouse)

James V's
Father James IV, King of Scots
Mother Margaret Tudor

James IV (17 March 1473 – 9 September 1513) was the King of Scotland from 11 June 1488 to his death. He assumed the throne following the death of his father, King James III, (1451/52–1488, reigned 1460–1488) in the Battle of Sauchieburn, a rebellion in which the younger James played an indirect role.

Margaret Tudor (28 November 1489 – 18 October 1541) was Queen of Scots from 1503 until 1513 by marriage to James IV of Scotland and then, after her husband died fighting the English, she became regent for their son James V of Scotland.

Margaret Tudor was 13 to 14 when she married James IV. Was he a pedophile? You have just spit on a large part of your own ancestry.

[He was also 16 years older]

Always seeking to justify your sin.. Just like the bible says ppl would. I don't understand why a mature 28 year old would seek courtship with a 14 year old. Go for someone your own age. Plenty of women your age are looking for mates. Leave children alone, Jesus warns that those who offend children, will suffer great torment on judgment day.

Sexuality is sacred, along with ethnicity. That's why Christians get uptight when racism is committed & homosexuality. Ethnicity & sexuality is a gift of God & is very sacred. Homosexuality is abomination to the sacred nature of sexuality granted to us by God. So, it seems that you are then one who has no moral foundation on which to base right or wrong actions. Pedophilia is a sexual predator of young children. Its not natural. You should seek a mate your own age & maturity level.

"Always seeking to justify your sin.. "

My sin? It would have been a sin not to try to marry.

I Cor 7:9

"I don't understand why a mature 28 year old would seek courtship with a 14 year old."

I said it was in a village, right?

I had ran out of prospects about my age, including two Catholic young ladies (that is my confession) a bit older than I. Both had been teaching what I had taught, German and Swedish.

She was, in my eyes, if not the, at least one of the most mature among my ex pupils. Note, ex, I tried nothing like that as long as I actually was a teacher. Also, I was not going for someone I thought less mature.

"Go for someone your own age. Plenty of women your age are looking for mates."

1) I had no one more there.
2) I am 49 now. An old maid of 49 is not very fertile. And I don't go for divorcees, respecting Mark 10:6 (a Bible verse which should be known on this forum) in its context. I don't want to speculate in other men's death, even if widows are licit.

"Leave children alone, Jesus warns that those who offend children, will suffer great torment on judgment day."

Oh, definitely. But she was 14, no longer a child. If you say she was a child, you do NOT know what the word means.

You are accusing God, our Creator, of tempting children, since clearly most girls of 14 like most boys of 16 can have sexual desires (and I mean vastly, the traditional limits of 14 / 12 are for about 50/50 statistics).

"Homosexuality is abomination to the sacred nature of sexuality granted to us by God."

So is masturbation, and your support of bad laws is helping these push young adults to masturbation and damn themselves.

"So, it seems that you are then one who has no moral foundation on which to base right or wrong actions."

Woah, no homosexuality here!

You are mixing oranges and very rotten apples here! Just because one thing called "pedophilia" is what used to be called pederasty, and is a homosexual predating, doesn't mean that anything you can label as "technically pedophilia" is homosexual too!

Just as both of these things, the good and the bad one, are not equal to the Satanic rituals involving babies!

"Pedophilia is a sexual predator of young children. Its not natural."

Marriage is not sexual predatorship. Marriage is natural.

" You should seek a mate your own age & maturity level."

I don't do "maturity level" on gliding scales. Either one is, or one is not mature enough to marry. Nearly all boys of 16, nearly all girls of 14, naturally are!

And I have just explained why "my own age" has by now become a no no.

KG, I missed to comment on this one:

"Age of consent is up to the society."

That is a Lutheran heresy, just as Luther imagined "society" (in his words rather "the prince") is able to legalise divorce and remarrige or even bigamy, contrary to Mark 10:6 (at least in the case of a society of state type sovereignty in majority inhabited by baptised Catholics).

No, there are limits the state has no right to touch.

mardi 31 octobre 2017

Stray comments on an article from Mises

Here is a link to the article:

Mises : Messianic Communism in the Protestant Reformation
10/30/2017 · Murray N. Rothbard

My comments after a friend posted the text on my wall:

Obviously, Munzer was a heretic as much as Luther.

Also, technically, this is not Medieval, but Early Modern Age (except by some fringe settings of limit).

[My friend had spoken about "Medieval Communism"]

"Most Anabaptists, like the Mennonites or Amish, became virtual anarchists. They tried to separate themselves as much as possible from a necessarily sinful state and society, and engaged in nonviolent resistance to the state’s decrees. The other route, taken by another wing of Anabaptists, was to try to seize power in the state and to shape up the majority by extreme coercion: in short, ultratheocracy."

Münzer came a few decades before Menno, precisely as the violent followers of Ziska came before the Moravian Brethren.

Pacifism and withdrawal were reactings to failure of revolution (as with Mormons who had a Califat like state in Utah, before it was beaten).

Kudos to Rothbart for citing Mgr Knox! [Later on]

"Müntzer was converted by the weaver and adept Niklas Storch, who had been in Bohemia, to the old Taborite doctrine that had flourished in Bohemia a century earlier."

Did not know this connection.

Taborites = followers of Ziska.

So Hus is not just responsible for Moravians and Methodists, but also for Mennonites and Amish - did not know.

"Furthermore, marriage was to be prohibited, and each man was to be able to have any woman at his will."

Reminds me both of feminism (which rules in Sweden) and of 1 Tim 4:1-3!

jeudi 12 octobre 2017

Leif Eriksson's Predecessors in Americas

Aristibule Adams
7 octobre, 20:37 ·
Monday is Leif Erikson Day.

some, even if fun.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Obviously some descendants of Noah came quite a while before Leif ...

(Not that I am not partial to Leif, Islands thusund ár and all that)

Aristibule Adams
They didn't hold the True Faith, but had fallen into idolatry.

Maximos Elisha Williams

Aristibule Adams
The descendants of Noah who preceded Leif here (sons of Shem, Nimrod, and Japheth as far as we can tell.)

Maximos Elisha Williams

Aristibule Adams
Which is whom Olaf the King commissioned him to bring the Gospel to.

John Gordy
Noah? Billionzz of yearzz, remember.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Aristibule Adams We do not know whether the first arrivals after Flood had already fallen into idolatry or not.

American Aboriginal religions involves both monotheism and idolatrous adoration of spirits.

It could have started as Nimrodian idolatry, but more arguably not. Aztec and similar ones with human sacrifice could be from a later arrival, like Phenicians.

"The descendants of Noah who preceded Leif here (sons of Shem, Nimrod, and Japheth as far as we can tell.)"

Do you pretend that all descendants of Cham are descended from Nimrod? Do you pretend that none else are?

"They didn't hold the True Faith,"

Palaeoindians are carbon dated to earlier than Göbekli Tepe, i e, on my view, earlier than Babel. This means, if I am correct in the identififcation, they arrived speaking Hebrew, believing in the true God, and recalling Genesis 1-9 and at least parts of Genesis 10.

Aristibule Adams
No - just that Nimrod's descendants fled north from Babel and became the Tartar (Mongol) peoples - and some American Indian bands and tribes are descended from that same population: the Dene, Apache, Athabascan, Tlingit, Haida,etc. A minority in North America. This population has C3 predominating as a male haplogroup - just as in Mongolia.

The majority of American Indians are descended from Turkic tribes though - sons of Japheth. Q, Q1, and Q3 in most of the Americas just like Selkup Turks, Turkmen, and Yeniseian tribes, and a small minority of R1b of a type normally only found in Central Asia & Siberia up in the northeast among Algonquin and Iroquoian peoples. Otherwise R1b is the most common among Western, Northern, and Central Europeans - but found as far east as the Bashkirs, who were originally Uralic. Maybe there were proto-Uralic people among the NE Woodland Indians. But interesting in that the 'Indo-Europeans' and most American Indians were of the closest relation among the sons of Noah. (So the German fascination with American Indians isn't so odd after all.)

But yes, by the time of Leif it was in idolatry - hence the negative reactions to the missionaries. The mission to the Skraelings didn't go well. Somewhere in the Atlantic provinces was the grave of the Irish or Saxon monk Jon, who they slew - and the Vinlanders buried him and set up a carving of a cross of a rock - calling the place Crossness. The location still has never been identified. We don't know if the rock was defaced, or if it has ever been discovered.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
" just that Nimrod's descendants fled north from Babel and became the Tartar (Mongol) peoples"

Ancient source?

"But interesting in that the 'Indo-Europeans' and most American Indians were of the closest relation among the sons of Noah."

That is presuming IE are either one single name in table of nations or names of brothers.

In fact, Anatolia would arguably in the East have had Chanaanean (Chamite) children of Het (first born of Chanaan) who would probably have been speaking at first Hattili, before they were conquered.

Lydians and Luwians are from Lud in Sem's line.

West of Aegean we have Javan, further west we have Thiraz, both of Japheth, and both Anatolia (Cappadocia) and Gaul we find Gomer : but south of if we have Caphthorim on Crete who could very well be earliest speakers of Aryan languages, there was one attempt to decipher Linear A, and it involved Cretan before Greek was spoken as being Aryan. Mount Ida is in this view named for "Indra" - appropriate about whoever became thundergod in both India and on Crete.

So, IE unity comprises an early at least divergence of Caphthorim, Gomer, Javan, Thiraz and Semitic Lud.

Some have considered Madan would be auhor of first IE language, but this places Aryan first - and Elamite is somewhat different, and Aryan priority within IE is a bit old fashioned linguistics. Hittite is probably older.

One of them could be next of kin to Scythians, not all of them.

So, that is why I go by idea that IE was rather starting out as a Sprachbund - or an Esperanto attempt which failed.

(Hattili is possibly Ural-Altaic, certainly agglutinative, like Sumerian : Hittite is rather called Nesili, and is probably from Cappadocia, a land of Gomer, not of Heth : first Nesili document actually treats Hattusha as Joshua treated Jericho, though later it became the capital).

(Just checked : Nesha / Kanesh, etymon for Nesili, is same centre of Anatolia as Cappadocia)

Salvatore Sberna
Hans I'd love to see the sources for this. Fascinating.

Aristibule Adams
Indo-European was spread by R haplogroup Y-chromosome speakers from Central Asia - who are most closely related to Q haplogroup. The spread of IE by that genetic group is well understood now. Most who speak those languages are still majority R haplogroups - Central Asians, South Asians, Eurasians, Europeans.

I think we've already pointed out before that the first Europeans were sons of Shem, and then more sons of Shem moved in, as well as sons of Ham (specifically sons of Phut). Sons of Japheth came to Europe quite late as his 'lot' was the greater part of Asia. In either case, we Europeans are mixed of Noah's sons - most thoroughly in the Balkans (the oldest settled part of Europe.)

Christopher Cline
The North American continent also featured a large civilization of some sorts before the Native tribes as we know them existed.

Aristibule Adams
Yes - European settlement came only after a major collapse happened. The first settlers of Virginia and New England had entered a Continent that had already collapsed due to rampant epidemic disease, fall of a major civilization, and endemic warfare. As our Iroquois elders said "every man if he met another tried to kill him." It was a Mad Max like post-apocalyptic landscape. Some areas were still that bad, and some had made a limited recovery (ie, such as those influenced by Hiawatha and Deganawida - about 1450.) It also explains the big disparity between bands: some had preserved the old civilization in part (such as the Natchez) and others had fallen into a much meaner way of life.

I think things were very different when Leif came, but the tales mostly tell of contact with the Skraelings (Inuit ancestors.)

Mississippian culture - Wikipedia

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Later events, no disagreement.

Earlier ones:

"Indo-European was spread by R haplogroup Y-chromosome speakers from Central Asia"

According to one theory, which is not substantiated by solid proof.

"The spread of IE by that genetic group is well understood now."

Well understood - or well publicised. An earlier time, a few decades ago, IE was spread by Scandinavians.

"I think we've already pointed out before that the first Europeans were sons of Shem"

Which one?

"Sons of Japheth came to Europe quite late as his 'lot' was the greater part of Asia."

I would have considered his lot as being generally "the North", with South divided as Cham to West and Shem to East.

Salvatore Sberna sources for which part of what I said?

I am giving a synthesis the parts of which are from somewhat different sources.

Which shall I take first?

Salvatore Sberna
Hans-Georg Lundahl post-deluge people movements

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bible History : The Table of Nations in Genesis 10

Probably based on Josephus.

Giving one link at random, since not having the sources I originally used at hand.

I think there was a good one over at CMI too.

Aristibule Adams
Sons of Shem will have closer relation on y-DNA. Same with sons of Japeth, etc. You can't have closer relation to someone on y-DNA than your own father or brothers.

Those maps by Protestants often don't place the lots of the sons of Noah in the correct place either. Though they do have Ashkenaz in the right place (abouts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You can't have closer relation to someone on y-DNA than your own father or brothers."

Probably right, but does not account for how many of the peoples have had admixture by immigrating males later on.

Actually, not a single nation I know of has its all members belonging to a single haplogroup, unless Samarians with only 777 members in two locations do so.

The haplogroup of Yamnaya is now BEST represented in Scandinavia (Sweden and Norway) and LEAST (but still some) in Sardinia. (Credits to the neo-Pagan Survive the Jive).

"Those maps by Protestants often don't place the lots of the sons of Noah in the correct place either."

I am myself not happy with "Gomer and Iavan" in the North. The map per se is not my source, since I mislaid it, it is a source which I offered.

However, the part with Anatolia including Semite Lud around Lydian, Phrygian and Lykian homelands makes perfect sense, and is supported by an ancient authority named Josephus.

Gomer being in Anatolia is supported by St Hippolytus, since he was the one who said Cappadocia hails from Gomer. He or Josephus tells us that Gomer is patriarch of Gaul as well.

Caphthorim being on Crete and coming from Cham is uncontroversial. It is also sure that the Linguist who lately claimed to have deciphered Linear A as an Aryan language was a Frenchman : his page is down, he withdrew the claim, no doubt due to pressure from other Linguists in France. Iavan being Greeks on South Balkan is uncontroversial, since Doric invasion is after Greek began to be spoken among Ionians. As to Heth in the East of Anatolia, their first language was not the IE Hittite (Nesili), but the non-IE, possibly Fenno-Ugrian Hattic (Hattili). The Hittite language takes its Hittite name, Nesili, from Kanesh, in Cappadocia - that is the original speakers of Hittite, the men who destroyed Hattusha like Joshua did with Jericho (on very similar terms of curse) were descendants of Gomer.

So, you must still count on earliest IE nations known in history coming from two peninsulas around the Aegean, and an island too : and you must count on them being from different Noahide (if I may say so without confusion with a certain religion) tribes : Chamite Caphthorim, Semite Ludites and Japhethite Gomerites and Iavanites. Add Madan as a later documented nation. Add Heth's children abandoning Hattili for Nesili.

This means, IE is not a single tribe as far as nations go and therefore probably not as far as languages go either. It's like Balkans. Languages not intelligible to each other get more intelligible by exchanging words and by exchanging grammatical traits.

As to CMI, I said "there was a good one", but I know there was also a bad attempt, trying to pretend IE was originally the language of Madan (why not Magog, while they are at "expansive").

I searched and found the CMI references:

Here we have the good one:

CMI : The sixteen grandsons of Noah
by Harold Hunt with Russell Grigg

Here, I was looking for the bad one, but found this which is rather good, though mistaken in equating IE with Japhetic:

The Early History of Man: Part 1. The Table of Nations
BILL COOPER, EN Tech. J., vol. 4, 1990, pp. 67–92

Here is the one which I was looking for, bad in equating IE with Madai (I had misrecalled Madan), and also in misassigning carbon dates:

The origin of languages: a synthesis
Thomas C. Curtis , CEN Technical Journal 12 (3) 1998

Carbon date of 9000 BC is not the first settlement after Flood, whether locality of Shanidar is so or not.

Carbon date for Flood is more like 40 000 BP. Neanderthals being arguably a pre-Flood race, Cro Magnon contemporary with Neanderthals in "40 000 BP" being arguably more related to Noah, the Cro Magnon settlement being arguably post-Flood, from carbon date 35 000 BP or a little earlier on.

After this
I have seen no more answers on the subthread, attention has gone on to another one where red hair (Leif and especially his father Eric were known red heads, his father was even nicknamed Eric the Red) was claimed to be a Germanic trait. I answered that in the North it is more of an Irish one after what I have heard, a Celtic one. In Sweden and Norway, red heads consider they have Celtic ancestry and what with Viking slave hunt on Ireland, it is rather well possible. But that regards his predecessors in his own ancestry, not his predecessors on American soil.

mardi 10 octobre 2017

And a Controversial One at That, Sometimes

HGL's F.B. writings : But I AM a Latinist · And a Controversial One at That, Sometimes · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Latin Spoken to When? Quora

3 octobre

Pau Amaro-Seoane
Why is it "deinon" in this sentence and not "deiná" ("terrible things"), in plural... which I would expect... "The storms do terrible things". Am I wrong?

Samuel Kaldas
I think δεινόν (masc. acc. sg.) is modifying χειμῶνα (masc. acc. sg. of χειμῶν). So it's something like "the winds produce [make] a terrible storm"

Pau Amaro-Seoane
that would be deinoos (written with omega), Brian

Brian Kelly
Correct. kai ... kai .. here gives us 'both ... and ...' - need better glasses and more coffee.

Diane Warne Anderson
Samuel has said it, χειμώνα is masc. acc. sing. also. (Sorry for the modern Greek accents)

Pau Amaro-Seoane
τόν χειμῶνα... yes, right... for some reason I thought it was n. and not m. and believed it was an accusative plural... everything clear now... thanks to everyone! It's nice to know that I can get my questions replied so quickly.

Bert McCollum
We are aware that's not Latin,,,,right?

Abran Serge

Oneida Musa
Nonis latinius? Ummmm....confusinitus erat Greekasbus. or....scribbelious!

Bert McCollum
At least no one has had the temerity to say, "It's all Greek to me!"

Brian Kelly
Rome, Athens, Constantinople - it was all the Roman Empire (and after AD 476 those eastern bits *were the Roman Empire) - and the Greeks insisted they were Romans! The Greeks had a word for it too: Romiosine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
(and after AD 476 those eastern bits *were the Roman Empire)

Hmmm ... no. Francia was from close after 476 to 800 auxiliarii, and its kings started off with patricia dignitas conferred by Constantinople.

Meaning that from 800 Aachen is as Roman as Constantinople.

Brian Kelly
Didn't deny that! But my point was that the Greek-speaking emperors and their circle insisted that they were ROMANS - a point not often appreciated by west Europeans.

[If I had taken it as if he had denied it, it was his use of "were THE Romans", and I did not have time to formulate a sensible answer before closing time of library.]

Pau Amaro-Seoane
Dialects of the same language, anyway...

Brian Kelly
.... although it is interesting that a lot of Greek words don't appear to be Indo-European (at least that's how it seems to me) - indications of the pre-Indo-Europeans of Greece?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Indications of IE unity being of Balkan type rather than of Romance type?

Abran Serge

Brian Kelly
A lot of common and important words have been identified as 'Pre-Greek' loan words:

Pre-Greek substrate - Wikipedia

Abran Serge
Like "labyrinthos"....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Brian Kelly, that is according to the theory that Greek developed from Proto-Indo-European.

Brian Kelly
Do you doubt that, Hans-Georg? It looks certain to me on comparative grounds (which is what historical linguisitcs is all about).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Comparative grounds speak for there being cognates.

But cognates are possible both on Balkan model and on Romance model, both Sprachbund and Proto-Language.

I do not doubt for a minute that water and Swedish vatten are related to the Hittite words.

I also do not doubt for a moment that pater / father is the same word with a real common proto-form in :

  • Greek, Latin, Sanskrit
  • Germanic
  • possibly Celtic (but athir could be a conflation between pater gloss and attas gloss, and triggering, when perceived as cognate of pater, the other losses of initial p or h).

I also do not doubt that pater, pater, frater all originated in the same language as the -teros ending for comparatives and in Latin esp binary choices.

But pater and water could in theory be from two different languages, neighbouring each other in the same area for sufficient long to exchange words - like the three sides of the Aegean, Asia Minor, Bulgaria and Greece, Balkans, extending east perhaps as far as - shall was say "Babel" or "Göbekli Tepe"?

In neighbouring languages, some syllables will yield instant cognates as soon as a word is borrowed. Any French word in té will yield an English one in ty, an Italian one in tà.

lundi 25 septembre 2017

But I AM a Latinist

HGL's F.B. writings : But I AM a Latinist · And a Controversial One at That, Sometimes · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Latin Spoken to When? Quora

Gabriel Svoboda
I have a few questions about what the 3rd declension looked like in Archaic Latin – namely whether it was more regular in the past than it looks today. I have a theory that 3rd declension nouns originally had only one stem (for example leg-) and the irregular singular nominatives are a result of later phonological or orthographical interactions between the stem and the nominative singular ending -s or -is (for example leg- + -s --> lex).

I understand ius/iuris was originally ius/iusis (then the s-->r change happened between vowels).

Was corpus/corporis originaly corpus/corpusis, or corpos/corposis, or none of the above?

Was curator/curatoris originally curatos/curatosis?

Was carcer/carceris originally carces/carcesis?

Was sermo/sermonis originally sermon/sermonis (then the n nasalized the preceding o and disappeared)?

What did origo/originis look like in Archaic Latin? Was it origin/originis (and then the word-final -in somehow managed to become -o)?

Was veritas/veritatis originally veritats/veritatis (then the t was assimilated by the following s)?

Was virtus/virtutis originally virtuts/virtutis?

Was miles/militis originally milits/militis, or milets/miletis, or none of the above?

Was gens/gentis originally gents/gentis?

Was fraus/fraudis originally frauds/fraudis?

Was sanguis/sanguinis originally sanguins/sanguinis?

Was crimen/criminis originally crimin/criminis, or crimen/crimenis, or none of the above?

Was opus/operis originally opus/opusis, or opes/opesis, or none of the above?

Was cinis/cineris originally cinis/cinisis, or cines/cinesis, or none of the above?

Was vulpes/vulpis originally vulpis/vulpis?

What about iter/itineris?

What about senex/senis?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I understand ius/iuris was originally ius/iusis" Yes.

"Was corpus/corporis originaly corpus/corpusis, or corpos/corposis, or none of the above?"

Corpos, corposis, then r shift and last o > u when not before r, I think. Perhaps rather corpos, corposes, since -es > -is arguably at same time as -os > -us.

"Was curator/curatoris originally curatos/curatosis?
Was carcer/carceris originally carces/carcesis?"

No, these two words have r from start.

"Was sermo/sermonis originally sermon/sermonis (then the n nasalized the preceding o and disappeared)?"

Sermo would have been sermon, yes, but probably before any recorded Latin, the Greek has Platon, Platonos, where Latin has Plato Platonis.

"What did origo/originis look like in Archaic Latin? Was it origin/originis (and then the word-final -in somehow managed to become -o)?"

Probably something like origo (long II o) *origones (short II o), where later *origones became originis. o > i because a vowel in short internal syllable not before r or labial, e > i because e and o when short in final syllables get closed to i and u.

I am not sure if what comes before woul have been orig- or perhaps oreig-.

"Was veritas/veritatis originally veritats/veritatis (then the t was assimilated by the following s)?"

Possibly, but possibly avoidance of -ts group was longstanding, so that it changed well before both Latin and Greek : both languages have III declinsion dental stems with nominative -s, not -ts.

Same for miles, gens, fraus, except that gens may have been nominative gentis, an -i-stem, since having gentium as genitive plural. I think we are dealing with gentis, genteis becoming gens, gentis.

"Was sanguis/sanguinis originally sanguins/sanguinis?"

Do not know.

"Was crimen/criminis originally crimin/criminis, or crimen/crimenis, or none of the above?"

Crimen, crimenis, then e > i, like all vowels in short medial syllables, not before r or labial.

"Was opus/operis originally opus/opusis, or opes/opesis, or none of the above?"

Probably opos, oposes, possibly opos, opeses. Medial short vowels become e before r, unless, sometimes, they stay o (corporis). I think opos oposes and corpos corposes were same declinsion type exactly, but the "sound law" vaccillated on the resulting internal vowel.

"Was cinis/cineris originally cinis/cinisis, or cines/cinesis, or none of the above?"

Could have been either. Cines would have become cinis because short e and o in final vowels close, unless before r. Cinisis would have become cineris, because short internal vowels before r become e (or sporaidically o, if originally o or u).

"Was vulpes/vulpis originally vulpis/vulpis?"

Not sure.

"What about iter/itineris?"

Originally iter itinis. If water had not been aqua, it would arguably have been **uater, uatinis, with a nominative close to English and German forms, an oblique stem close to Swedish and Icelandic forms : you probably find that in Hittite, if not in Latin.

Then itinis became itineris, contaminated with the r from nominative, like iecur, iecinoris.

"What about senex/senis?"

Two different word formations taking turns around a paradigm.