HGL's F.B. writings: 2020

mardi 1 décembre 2020

Pope or Not, After All?

Two FB profiles:
David Bawden (Pope Michael)
https://www.facebook.com/PopeMichael1

David Bawden
https://www.facebook.com/george.doit

Different people (uncle / nephew)?
Double life?
or
Papacy was an internet stunt?

I don't know./HGL

mardi 10 novembre 2020

Drew Gasaway Attacking QAnon - and Himself

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Drew Gasaway Attacking QAnon - and Himself · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Art of Interpretation

Drew Gasaway: I had to delete a political video oddly posted by a church.

I hope you people know that Qanon is politics. It is also such a badly produced hoax that no matter what side you're on it sounds like a kids cartoon.
Q is a Department of Energy clearance and your "Q" started it on 4chan stating it was a Department of Defense clearance. That clearance mostly pertains to nuclear reactor information and has limited nuclear weapons applications. I had a Q certificate and you know it is DOE, not DOD.

People are so gullible believing what they want to these days that they don't even Google basic words and terms before believing in them. They don't research platforms something was put on or the background of the people who them. This goes for both sides in the US and to people around the world.
Our churches are like this church A will say church B is the good guys but B is the bad guys. It won't matter if one said is right on the issue tribalism will lead them to back it. We see this in the history posts in the group. Some spend all their time attacking the other group instead of being productive.
Jesus warned about people who spend all their time accusing people and at one point spoke about them have a log in their own eye. Nothing is perfect and at this point everyone sucks. They all accuse the other side of doing what they do or plan to do.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "It is also so such a badly produced hoax that no matter what side you're on it sounds like a kids cartoon."

Ah?

"Q is a Department of Energy clearance and your "Q" started it on 4chan stating it was Department of Defense clearance. That clearance mostly pertains to nuclear reactor information and has limited nuclear weapons applications."

Sure that was hoax rather than tongue in cheek?
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl I just got up but the whole hoax is rather to build a persona around being a part of the CIA. Overtime the spin has reduced to nonsense, not just lies. So many predictions like setting a point and time when someone was going to be arrested and it never took place. I think this was designed to hurt the person they think it backs just like all the other activist stuff.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: QAnon pretended to be part of CIA?

I have not been on 4chan, I have only seen William Tapley give QAnon credits ...

What if, ironically, he was and was an agent to lead conservatives on into ridiculous positions (about my assessment of John Todd)?

(Like, whatever credit one may give to John Todd's general description of Illuminati, pretending ALL record companies by the fact of being so are dependent on Druids or that JT had time to give payments to CSL before the latter died fairly clearly is ridiculous).
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl Q sold itself as a senior national security official. The NSA doesn't some of the stuff they talked about but honestly, none of it matched how things worked. I would be shocked if it was an American or even one person.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Q sold itself as a senior national security official."

You have that from exactly where?

"I would be shocked if it was an American or even one person."

What about an American teen or tween out of work, or in studies, and with parents as conservative but less into internet than he?

William Tapley appreciated Q Anon, so, if Q Anon had (at least consistently) made such a claim, I think William Tapley would have known.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl it was on 4chan and then on FB. I saw but I believe it has been removed. The content of the posts still sell the idea mentioned.
The style of posts in Qanon is the kind fed by a government to cause issues. Governments do use proxies as they did with PACs and in the lockdown, protests to stir people up. Boy they went silent after the election fast the cash all stopped coming in. They wanted to defeat the person they that was being helped by making them like bad.

Qanon folks don't share all of it but there are different phases and there is a lot of inconsistency.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Wasn't his general style posing questions?

Was he ever affirming with full stop rather than asking with Q[uestion] M[ark]?
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl that is not all he did. He made a lot of predictions like he promised that Hillary was going to be arrested for running a pedo ring and set a date. That never occurred. Q also said that COVID 19 was a hoax and there was no virus. Note that since the polls closed in the US our misinformation ceased. Some of these things were run through a Russian money train in Europe. I think they liked the orange one's ideas but wanted to use his implosion to their advantage. They want chaos either way after the election and for their movement to believe the "deep state" robbed them. Hitler used this kind of tactic first by burning down parliament and then stage fake crimes that his brown shirts came to the rescue for.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: A bit like Guy Fawkes' background.

" I had a Q certificate and you know it is DOE, not DOD. "

I suppose this was before getting into theology?

You have just basically admitted that your competence in theology is that of an amateur (to which I count also those doing a new line of study when already settled adults).

Plus, D and E are close on a keyboard and DOD could be a typo.

"Some of these things were run through a Russian money train in Europe."

Possible - but do you have evidence, or do you like throwing around allegations about as much as QAnon did?

"They want chaos either way after the election and for their movement to believe the "deep state" robbed them."

I saw allegations that sacks of mail had not been opened strategically as they came from "circumscriptions" (not sure English uses this word) previously clearly pro-Trump - can that be traced to him?
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl I was in the military for a couple of years. I have a blacked-out DD214 if you if you would like to see it. I went to undergraduate school and after college, I went into the military but didn't do ROTC. I then went back to school toward the end and finished after. I got tired of doing adjunct bible college classes and went back to school. I was sick of lying for a living.

Hans-Georg Lundahl if just want to argue okay but he said Department of Defense. Q has nothing to do with the stuff they talks about.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: OK, in other words, you are not a competent theologian.

Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2020/01/intro-to-raqia-debate-with-drew-gasaway.html

Your opinion on raqia is in fact as little worth as anyone else's, you are an amateur.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl a theologian is someone who has a doctorate in theology and has made a new contribution to the field. However, your own tribalism from a traditionalist point of view has jaded your perspective on this. There is no ancient source to justify your position and it can only be reasoned using anachronistic thinking. It like most things from its sphere is a product of polarization. My view is the consensus of mainstream academic thought. That by itself is a fallacy but with the support we have is well-founded.

Hans-Georg Lundahl I should note that your position on "raqia" began with people who basically have no education in either science or Hebrew. Their arguments formed mainly out of it the whole it can't be and then developed from there eventually getting some traction from ideologues.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I did not claim I was an expert myself.

"There is no ancient source to justify your position"

Neither one that actually justifies yours, as pointed out.

Science education is in fact not a requisite for giving a witness on the tradition on what translations of raqia mean.

It is however a rival in attention to paying attention to fine shades in written and therefore languaged sources.

The point I am now making is, you have paid so much attention to this rival, your position on original meaning of raqia is not worth more than mine, rather somewhat less. I did not do Hebrew, but I did do some other ancient languages, like Latin and Greek.

LIke Latin and GReek = actually only those ...

If by "your position" you mean my full position, namely raqia being aether, this is in part making a harmonisation between my view on science and my respect for the text (like "waters above the raqia" = H2 throughout the universe, including in stars going toward He by way of D, by now, since day 4).
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl the Septuagint doesn't actually help but if you want to go there it is a translation and no text today is perfect. As for the Latin most modern Catholic theologians don't claim the Vulgate is perfect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl why didn't he say that it was a universe? This is double talk God gave perfect science in one sense and another he didn't. Remember that Philo who Jerome often revered said the firmament was a hard surface in Greek texts that qouted the LXX>
Hans-Georg Lundahl: My point is, regardless of your arguments, you have forfeited authority of expert status in the question.

You are a military, not a theologian, and the tone you sometimes took was more appropriate to a recrute than to a discussion partner on an internet forum.

If you want to resume the discussion, I'm fine with that, but in that case I'd like you to invite someone, if he has time. He will be soon, if nothing unexpected happens, "dekan" - I think dean is not just same Latin word but also used same way - of the Faculty of Theology at Lund University.

He definitely did contribute, not just to theology in general, but to Christian History and in some sense even archaeology. He made an assessment of antiquity of now preserved texts about St. Helen's archaeology on Calvary.

Would you like?
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl theologians study God. Linguistics is a side issue. However, I do have an MDiv. and I have studied Greek since I was in middle school and Hebrew since I was in High School. You really have no argument here other than the feelings from my background convict me. Philo was an ancient Jew who read both the Greek and the Hebrew.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Yeah and Philo lived c. 1500 years after Moses.

In fact, his comment in itself doesn't support you.

He was content with raqia being a threedimensional body to call it firm.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl wrong! Philo of Alexandria said, "The incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in the Divine Reason; and the world, perceptible by the external senses, was made on the model of it; and the first portion of it, being also the most excellent of all made by the Creator, was the heaven, which he truly called the firmament, as being corporeal; for the body is by nature firm, inasmuch as it is divisible into three parts; and what other idea of solidity and of body can there be, except that it is something which may be measured in every direction? therefore he, very naturally contrasting that which was perceptible to the external senses, and corporeal with that which was perceptible only by the intellect and incorporeal, called this the firmament." (On The Creation, chapter 10 [A.D. 50])

Hans-Georg Lundahl the fact is all we have is Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud to understand Hebrew here. Not a shred of evidence there supports your idea.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: You really don't like parsing sentences, do you?

"which he truly called the firmament, as being corporeal;"

Opposite : pure spirit.

"for the body is by nature firm, inasmuch as it is divisible into three parts;"

He clearly means three dimensions. To his view here, water and air are "firm" since bodies and such since threedimensional.

Since my aether is threedimensional (a globe, stretching up to the stars one light day up and involving them), he would count it as a body and hence firm.

"and what other idea of solidity and of body can there be, except that it is something which may be measured in every direction?"

Where he confirms what I just attributed to him.

Linguistics may be a sideline, but it gives more important methodological habits than dealing with nuclear stuff. Especially the linguistics of old languages known by old texts, the one called philology.

"all we have is Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud to understand Hebrew here."

Philo, Josephus and their contemporaries were c. 1500 years after Moses, contemporary to NT writings and c. 500 years before completion of Talmud - why would they be our only clue to exclusion of Christian Fathers?

Even if they could read the word "raqia" - what does that change? Words can change meaning over time.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl okay who do you have writing from then to demonstrate the language then? We don't even have the text in the style it is in. In the DSS alone there are 3 versions of Genesis. We know Hebrew solely because of the sources mentioned. You just don't seem to know how this works or care it is all "we are right" or war. It is people like you who make anachronisms commonplace and your investment in them. Culture and language change greatly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl the mix of proto-sinaitic and Hebrew in our current texts shows they were updated to Hebrew just like parts in the Hebrew were Aramaic. This language bridge is kind of a myth.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: My point is, from back then you do NOT have any extra-Biblical sources like Philo.

The fact that you know (if so) the language to be a mix of Proto-Sinaic and Hebrew in our current sense, the fact you know language was updated, fine, I can buy that. B U T it does not give you one single extra-Biblical text from back in Moses' time to prove raqia means a solid object.

Once you get extra-Biblical writers like Josephus (influenced by Ptolemy's solid spheres) and Philo, you also get, well before Talmud, early Church Fathers.

Why exclude them, and why impose the least probable reading possible on Philo?
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl okay I guess we don't have a Bible then because we can't read it with any certainty. However, we do have related languages like Ugaritic Hittite and we know all the views of civilizations around the Israelites to the said word.

The use of extra-Biblical sources is how we can read a single word in the Bible or know what things even were. This is one of many reasons why the Bible alone is an indefensible position. Unless you concede so kind of extra-Biblical source even your English reading is invalid.

This is the most probable reading because there is no source until you get very late otherwise. The original sources with your view were the least learned sources on Hebrew. You can show many examples beyond their background in their writings of mistakes in this area.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "okay I guess we don't have a Bible then because we can't read it with any certainty."

You omit the Catholic criterium of certainty. Tradition.

"However, we do have related languages like Ugaritic Hittite"

First, Hittite is normally used for Nesili, like Hattic for Hattili, while these parts of Syria spoke yet another language, under Hittite rule, so you would be better off to say Ugaritic in Hittite empire. Then we have when it is from:

"xve au xiie siècle av. J.-C."
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ougaritique

Probably spoken by some not yet enemies of Israel who lived by modern car routes 648 km north of, not Jerusalem, but Dan (I took Lattakie to Tel Aviv, since Lattakie is 11 km from Ras Shamra).

Note, these centuries are probably carbon dated, and carbon date for XVth C. carbon dated is probably still inflated.

In other words, Ugaritic is after Moses wrote Genesis around and Exodus starting with 1510 BC, the real time date for the Exodus from Egypt.

"and we know all the views of civilizations around the Israelites to the said word."

Probably not. You can know what Danes, Swedes, Germans, Russians, Poles, Italians, Spaniards of 19th C. meant by "civilisation" (the cognate exists in all of these languages), but you have a L O T more literature from Danes and Poles, Italians and Germans of the 19th C. left than you have of Ras Shamra speakers of Ugaritic or Pharaonic speakers of "very early Coptic" or indigenous speakers of eme-g̃ir (aka Sumerian). Also, I very much doubt you have any straight off cosmological works in Ugaritic, and Baal Cyclus in Ugaritic would typically make only passing mention of anything like "raqia" if it occurs at all. Unless Baal - like Hercules according to his bragging on eleventh and also twelfth work - is supposed to have held heaven like a physical burden on his shoulder, you cannot prove Ugaritic writers considered it as a solid.

But supposing you did, this does not mean you know the Hebrew meaning - as encyclopedic, not just roughly lexical meaning - from sources outside the tradition. Note very well, I consider Church Fathers to represent the tradition better, not less, than Talmud.

"The use of extra-Biblical sources is how we can read a single word in the Bible or know what things even were."

Not universally, unless by extra-Biblical you mean simple lexica or grammars.

You want to know what exactly a word means in LXX OT or in NT? Perhaps you go to Suidas. Now, the problem is, Suidas might consider that "artos" means leavened bread and that unleavened things are called "azymoi" without any other qualification, least of all bread. That is at least what Michael Caerularius considered about 1 Corinthians 11:23. He may have had encylopedic support in entries of Suidas, who lived before his time. In other words, unless you go to sources of the tradition - the Latin part of which is very solidly pro-azymite - and go just to any sources outside both Bible and tradition, simply secular, you can be wrong on what the full understandable meaning of a word is. But using Suidas for NT is a thousand times better than using Baal Cyclus of Ugarit for raqia.

The thing is, neither Hebrew, nor Aramaic, nor Koiné Greek were ever lost. The kind of check you mean (and it is not a simple check with your teacher in Greek or Hebrew and the grammar) is NOT how we learn these languages in the first place. You are wrong about methodology.

It is true that double checks with such indirect methods have their uses, but it is definitely a thing which is a side issue to understanding either words or meaning of the Bible.

"This is one of many reasons why the Bible alone is an indefensible position."

We have opposite reasons to reject it. I stand with Bible, Tradition, Magisterium.

"Unless you concede so kind of extra-Biblical source even your English reading is invalid."

Yes, some kind of. But this does not mean I look up in New York Times what "mankind" means in relation to 1 Corinthians 6:10. "Liers with mankind? You mean only bestiality is allowed or you mean the guys who have sex with all 7 billions alive - how do you do that?" Any priest or even Protestant clergy can tell you from TRADITION that "mankind" in this context means sth else, namely the male gender, and "lier" is (obviously not liar or lyre) in the Greek in the masculine, so it means someone committing the sin of sodomy. And I think that's a fair parallel for going to Ras Shamra Baal Cycle instead of to Patristic tradition to look up what raqia means ...

"This is the most probable reading because there is no source until you get very late otherwise."

It's a very improbable reading, since it makes the text a lie about the physical world. Sure, God did not intend to make lessons about the physical world, but neither did he allow hagiographers to lie about it by a slip of the tongue. Just as a definition of Nicaea cannot lie about the metaphysics of Trinity and Christology. Or those of Trent about the metaphysics of the Eucharist and some other subjects.

I don't mind getting late within tradition. I feel no need to get a confirmation as early as possible even outside tradition. Why? Bc I don't think God would allow the tradition of revealed truth to die out. Check Matthew 28:16-20 on that issue. And use the Greek : "pasais tais hemerais" or "pasas tas hemeras" (forget if it is accusative or dative of time) is not a vague "always" since that is "aei".

"The original sources with your view were the least learned sources on Hebrew."

Do you take that from the Tamud or from a normal Hebrew lexicon?
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl that is the description in my textbooks but it is actually Amorite.

Hans-Georg Lundahl the patristics were not experts on the ancient near east or science they were experts on spirituality. All the patristics agreed that the periodic table was just earth, air, fire, and water. Do we see those as a dogma?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "All the patristics agreed that the periodic table was just earth, air, fire, and water."

Do they?

All nations? Not just Greek and Latin but also Syriac and Coptic?

More to the point : are they all actively using this in exposing the Bible?

Bc some Father may have agreed with your assessment (not sure it is really all that correct a rendering of "four elements") in private but may have thought it totally irrelevant to exposing for instance Genesis 1 - or Genesis 2:7.

My point is, we don't have all fathers agreeing the firmament is a solid body. Indeed, Philo as being pre-Talmudic is sometimes counted with Josephus as honorary father, and you don't get to tie down Philo to "solid body" notion, unless three dimensions are enough for solidity.

Point on your textbook / wiki, noted.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl that is a dumb argument against mine. You're asking a lot citations. A textbook in the sense of what you want wouldn't be valid since they can't source that many in one book. This is how the world was seen and is alluded to in my places.

Hans-Georg Lundahl we show it over and over with Basil and others. Even Luther using the common Catholic belief then said it was in his day. Telescopes changed this thought.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I note you did not say "Basil and ALL others".

"This is how the world was seen and is alluded to in m[an]y places."

It is how the world was seen by some.

Among Church Fathers it seems many (including St. Basil) were round earth but not all.

St. Basil indeed endorsed Ptolemaic chrystalline spheres astronomy - the standard in Greek / Western up to Tycho Brahe. As you mention, observations changed this, not sure if Tycho needed a telescope to verify that the comet was indeed passing through where a chrystalline sphere would otherwise presumably have blocked it.

However, not being obliged to chrystalline spheres, I thank Fathers of a less Western / Hellenistic bent. This means, whether Round Earth, chrystalline spheres, solid-body-nature of raqia, some views were common but not universal. Your citing Philo shows a clear reserve with directly and without qualification calling raqia a solid. "Yes ... it definitely is f i r m, since f i r m doesn't mean anything else than it being measurable in three dimensions". But as you are a military and not a theologian in your basic outline of thought and method, you miss it.

Luther is highly irrelevant.

Your overall view is too bent on seing past views of nature as being equally uniform as you would like heliocentrism and evolutionism to be. Back in those days, there was no compulsory school to push single views to the masses.
Drew Gasaway: Hans-Georg Lundahl there were few people who didn't see the earth as having a hard dome above. It was how the world looked and it is how the authors of the Bible saw it. Basil didn't think it was a sphere btw. A number of the fathers were flat earthers because they saw Greek philosophy in some areas diminishing God. The fathers didn't know all things. The timeline in the fathers for the return of Christ would have already occurred.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "there were few people who didn't see the earth as having a hard dome above."

You get your Gallup polls from back then from?

"Basil didn't think it was a sphere btw"

I seem to recall a passage where he says he didn't care less. He was not a flat earther either.

"A number of the fathers were flat earthers because they saw Greek philosophy in some areas diminishing God."

Exactly, so they didn't believe Ptolemy's chrystalline spheres. Prove *those* specific fathers believed the raqia to be strictly a solid!

"The timeline in the fathers for the return of Christ would have already occurred."

I think St. Augustine entered an escape clause in commenting on Apocalypse 20 in De Civitate ...

lundi 9 novembre 2020

Turkiska Muslimer som bor i Dalby

Rosor och texten:

Vår kondoleans till de nära och kära av dem som förlorade sina liv i attackerna i Paris och Wien.
Turkisk muslimer som bor i Dalby.

mercredi 21 octobre 2020

Interaction with John Baumgardner

Creation vs. Evolution : Article and Details, Please? · Baumgardner Gave the Title, I Found the Link · My Tables End In Real Year 1032 (1028) BC, Dated As 940 · And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level? · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Interaction with John Baumgardner

Before first reading of the Cambridge article:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
on own wall: Article and Details, Please?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/09/article-and-details-please.html

John Baumgardner - can you help out, please?
added below: [800 - 400 BC is right the period where I am or was putting the evening out to 100 pmC.]
John Baumgardner: As a point of clarification, that quote referring to the Hallstat Disaster is _not_ from my RATE chapter on C-14.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: OK, do you know where it _is_ from?
John Baumgardner: In a quick Internet search, I found the term 'Hallstatt radiocarbon plateau' first mentioned in a 2003 review article in Quaternary Science Reviews by Zolitschka et al. This term refers to a 400 year long interval from about 800 to 400 BC during which global C-14 levels were more or less constant. That period had already been named by the archeological community the "Hallstatt Period" for the early European Iron Age. The name is from that of the village of Hallstatt in Austria famous for its salt mines even before that period. High-precision decadal calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950-6000 BC.

A 1993 paper in the journal Radiocarbon by Stuvier and Becker entitled "High-precision decadal calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950-6000 BC" had shown that radiocarbon levels during that interval coinciding with the Hallstatt Period had been almost constant. That meant that the use of C-14 for events during that time period had unacceptably large uncertainties for most archeologists.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ah, ok. I'll try to find a link.

Here?

High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC
Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2) +
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2016
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/highprecision-decadal-calibration-of-the-radiocarbon-time-scale-ad-19506000-bc/F1AB60097B0184501418D3EAEAD2EA90

What if archaeologists are wrong on what the real years should be?
John Baumgardner: In dealing with European history, archeologists largely rely on radiocarbon for what they assume are close to actual dates for the successions of occupations, for example, that they study. The mounting complexities with radiocarbon, for example, the 'Hallstatt Plateau' and the increasing discrepancies between C-14 dates and historically datable sites in the Middle East as one goes further and further back in time, are causing considerable consternation in the archeological community.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Yes, OK, but the problem is, the other dating reasons they use could also be wrong.

After some reading and rereading of it, with calculations leading to a discrepancy between (purported?) historic dates 665 and 595 BC:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

on Baumgardner's wall

Baumgardner Gave the Title, I Found the Link
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/10/baumgardner-gave-title-i-found-link.html

[technically first comment under I:] Would you mind taking a look on the problem?

My Tables End In Real Year 1032 (1028) BC, Dated As 940
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/10/my-tables-end-in-real-year-1032-1028-bc.html

And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/10/and-what-about-lowering-of-carbon-14.html

I

John Baumgardner

Hans-Georg, To me it seems clear that something unusual is going on during that interval. My conjecture is that it has to do with the atmospheric C-14 production rate, that it was for some reason higher than average early in the interval and then decreased back toward the average value, say, averaged over the past 2500 years. What might have been responsible for a higher flux of high-energy particles entering the atmosphere during that time? I do not have any firm ideas as to the answer to that question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem is not the overall scheme in the interval (760 - 450 BC), to me it is a question of pmC sinking by normal decay not compensated by any new production reaching down that low in the atmosphere.

The problem is where the level drops (and the radiocarbon years peak) faster than the atmospheric sample would decay between 665 and 595 BC.

It seems you are confusing production rate and level, whenever a production rate gets normal, it takes time for the level to sink down. Why did it sink faster?

Can 70 years be a question of simple mixture fluctuations?

As to where I think you go wrong in general terms, I think you are comparing 100 pmC to a "stable equilibrium point" to which everything automatically returns as quickly as possible as soon as contrary influences are done away with. For definition of the term:

Gömböc—The Shape That Shouldn't Exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvVF5QWSYF4

But 100 pmC is the unstable result of two in and of themselves opposed "forces", with no fixed value either of them.

The one pushing down is "decay" and you have not answered why pmC sank quicker than decay speed.

Have any idea particularly on that one?

John Baumgardner

Just as 11 years of atmospheric thermonuclear testing caused a jump in the atmospheric C-14 level, which then began to decay away, something like a relatively nearby supernova would do something similar and would yield what would appear to be anomalously younger C-14 ages in the organisms that died after that event, with the anomaly decreasing with time afterward. Let me emphasize that this supernova explanation is rank speculation on my part, but it serves to illustrate the sort of cause which seems to be needed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"a jump in the atmospheric C-14 level, which then began to decay away,"

But was the decay rate normal or accelerated?

How the pcM gets up quickly (with radiocarbon years going down) is not the problem. I am most fully aware extra radioactivity can get it up. The problem is, can it decay faster?

John Baumgardner

I was assuming a decay rate like we measure for C-14 today. Why would it need to be faster?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If we go from 102.016 pmC to 100.061 it is a decay as from 100 to 98.084.

If we go from 101.113 pmC to 99.142 it is a decay rate as from 100 to 98.051.

BUT in 70 we would normally go from 100 to 99.157.

So, going "from 100 to 98.084 / 98.051" is faster than normal.

It means like going from 100 to 20.5 in 5730 years.

What caused the more than double speed of decay?

The two different versions are due to my hesitation if "years bp" was expressed in Cambridge halflife or still in a Libby halflife needing to recalculate the numbers by 1.03 for Cambridge.

Either way, the stretch from 665 to 595 BC averages a decay twice as fast as normal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I can see three main solutions.

a) faster decay - but adding radioactivity should also make lots of new carbon 14 isotopes, see the article "Carbon dating into the future", right? Net phenomenon would be more C14, not less.
b) mixture phenomenon - while all of the period 760 to 450 averages a decay with no compensating production, 665 to 595 you get admixture from parts of the air which have been decaying their C14 for longer without receiving new production - but can air parts be that separate from each other in the atmosphere for 95 years or more?
c) while the tested objects have the carbon dates they have, some of their real dates could be somewhat misassigned.

Even for back in Our Lord's time, when Rome was vaster and better organised, Our Lord's nativity was in 1498 assigned to "Hebdomada sexagesima tertia, juxta Danielis prophetiam, scilicet anno quadringentesimo quadragesimo vel circa." (63:rd week of Daniel) and now it is 65th week of Daniel.

And Daniel's weeks start just after this period.
d) - a subset of b : natural gas leaked or petrol was used very massively in oil lamps over the period.

You did get how I had calculated it, right? It was stated in the text in the second link on this thread?

II

Brian James Kyle*

Perhaps nuclear decay on the earth could be a source for increased C14?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem was not INCREASED C14, but DECREASED, more rapidly than normal decay rate.

If you didn't see how I calculated a decrease more than normal decay rate, read my links again, please.

Esp. this one:

And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/10/and-what-about-lowering-of-carbon-14.html

* not shortening name, since his page says

Canadian Economic Security & Stimulus Initiative
Founder & Chief Visionary Officer · Décembre 2016 à aujourd’hui · Victoria (Colombie-Britannique)
http://www.briankyle.ca/

In other words, a known person.

mardi 20 octobre 2020

Pious Fideist (pseudonym "Blind Grappler") ... attacking Rational Apologetics

Blind Grappler: The greatest evidence of the Bible is the people that follow it. Jesus said for us to be the light of the world and to be holy for I am holy, was also stated by the apostle Peter.Paul stated, present your bodies a living sacrifice and that you were bought with a price. Jesus Christ is a testimony to us, therefore we will be a testimony of him. Archaeology and history matters, but not as much as what God demands. Atheist will find a way to twist the greatest findings we have and will find that truly do prove the Bible. The greatest evidence you could dig up in their minds would be Jesus Christ dead bones, even if we found an original manuscript, they would say it must be corrupted. In conclusion, the Bible and everyone of you are the greatest testimonies to God, including the people digging up all these findings. God bless all of you.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Look here, all this may be fine and dandy, but this group is for those (whether believers or the group you described) who are interested in archaeology and history.
Blind Grappler: Hans-Georg Lundahl The Bible itself claims to be hope for evidence of things that are unseen not for things that are seen and I am interested in all of this but if you follow what I was saying closely I’m talking about from a nonbelieving perspective the greatest apologetic is the Bible and its testimony through you
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not."
[Hebrews 11:1]

Now, the Bible is not restricted to faith in this sense, but also involves rational arguments to accept the faith - and no, this verse does not mean there cannot be any.
Blind Grappler: But it does hoist the word of God above everything else I feel like you guys are arguing against this in this post if Christians don’t submit to the authority of scripture as above all who does

And atheist could argue your position alongside with you, does this not bother you? I promise you this though, they could not argue my position alongside with me. That’s far more massively important, you guys are definitely missing the point and this raises a lot of concern with the true intention behind all these studies from the mini

Read what I wrote in this post and read with all you’ve guys have wrote in this post and then make that comparison could an atheist say the same thing as I am saying am I being too logical do I have zero spirituality to my Christianity, and if I’m right you need to rethink your strategy with all this the right approach is always the word of God first

I’m not arguing against archaeology and history I’m arguing against the lack of continuity between the old and the new testament proving the New Testament with the Old Testament and that being top priority and the number one true apologetic

You might be saved just by simply believing but if that belief doesn’t regenerate you or change you for the better by focusing on the perfect law of God and you’re claiming that it’s OK to do evil so that good may come in like Paul says surely not I think all this comes from a lack of obedience to the word of God

We are not meant to write down in our minds and out of our mouth no one‘s right now not one and just forget about it all and say I’m a believer we are meant to be holy set apart servants of the most high God

But no let’s argue with a guy like me and Claire obedience and the word is secondary and we need to go dig up bury treasure our faith is underneath the sand somewhere and God just didn’t preserve what is important at our disposal, Surely not

If we elevate findings on the same level as the Bible then we might as well be Roman Catholics and call these finding sacraments
Hans-Georg Lundahl: First of all, I am a Roman Catholic and think sacraments are MORE important to the single Christian than Bible text.

Second, I don't do that. I don't call the findings sacraments.

Third, it doesn't matter that the business of this group is less important than something else, it still is the business of this group. I am not here to get the sacraments, I am not hear to get the Bible readings in Holy Mass, I am here to get archaeological support or at worst purported refutations to refute in my turn about the Catholic faith.

If I want to commune with God, I go elsewhere, and not to you, since you are not even Catholic, Blind Grappler!

Blind Grappler "And atheist could argue your position alongside with you, does this not bother you?"

I don't think an atheist would argue my position that Ipuwer papyrus supports Exodus and it being previous to Hyksos invasion, nor my position that Hungere Stele argues reality of Joseph in Egypt.

I don't think an atheist would argue my position that Moses wrote the Penteteuch and that lack of Torah's from 1510 BC doesn't matter, nor my position that Gilgamesh and Atrahasis are perhaps only decades earlier than this.

I also don't think he would argue my position that carbon date 40 000 BP = real date 2957 BC, Flood of Noah, nor that the carbon dates 9600 and 8600 BC, surrounding Göbekli Tepe (lowest and highest levels) correspond not too far from real dates 350 and 401 years after the Flood, as death of Noah and birth of Peleg surround Babel.

G e t
a
g r i p!

But on certain matters where my position would be held along me by atheists, no, that doesn't bother me.

What's wrong is not agreeing with one specific enemy of the faith on one or even more than one issue, what's wrong is disagreeing with Bible, Tradition, infallible Magisterium on even one single issue.

jeudi 8 octobre 2020

Same William P. Lazarus on "Any Competent Researcher"

The Gospel Truth, by William P. Lazarus : part 1 · part 2 · part 3
William Paul Lazarus reacted to: part 1 of above · [Meme on Eucharist, so] Willam P. Lazarus Pretended the Eucharist was known in BC times · Same William P. Lazarus on "Any Competent Researcher"

Hans Georg Lundahl: [posted a link to previous on the wall of [William P. Lazarus'] FB account]
[William P. Lazarus]: I stopped arguing with you long ago. You know nothing of centuries of religious history and ignore what you don;t believe. There's no point in continuing the conversation.
Hans Georg Lundahl: Oh, nice one, general dismissal is a wonderful tactic when proven wrong in detail!
[William P. Lazarus]: Sorry, I'm not wrong and you know it. Any competent researcher can find numerous historical references to people thinking they are ingesting the body and blood of a god prior to Jesus. Paul, who was raised in the city of such a ceremony in honor of the risen Heracles, said the image came to him in a dream. Any Jew at the "last supper" of Jesus had actually offered them blood (in the form of wine) would have fled in horror.
Hans Georg Lundahl: "Numerous" (just saying it) is not even one reference (actually given).

You have not shown yourself a competent researcher, since you have not been able to give the Cicero reference.

At University, Latin students prior to post-graduate studies no longer will have read all of Cicero. Any more than all of Caesar, Virgil, Horace or Sallustius ... B U T we are taught what writings there are in Cicero's writings.

If you had given a reference to Tusculanae disputationes or to Epistulae ad Familiares, I'd have been perfectly competent to look it up in Latin, besides the fact probably all of Cicero is translated to English. If you had given a reference to Roman de la Rose or Iliad, I would have known you were bamboozling or bamboozled.

As you totally refuse to give any reference, I conclude you are bluffing (whether or not bamboozled before in your turn).

"Paul, who was raised in the city of such a ceremony in honor of the risen Heracles, said the image came to him in a dream."

You also gave no reference to this ceremony existing in Tarsis.

Or to there being any myth of Heracles rising (other than to Olympus, by his soul).

Or to St. Paul saying it came to him in a dream (he wrote 14 epistles of the NT, you could have referenced one).

"Any Jew at the "last supper" of Jesus had actually offered them blood (in the form of wine) would have fled in horror."

Those who would had already left at the John 6 incident.

[Plus link to this post, saving that dialogue with the one below.]

Now, I shared another thing.

Here:

Among the more than 30,000 Greek and Latin inscriptions have been discovered in the catacombs of Rome, is this marble slab is from about the year 313 A.D. The slab sealed the tomb of a little child named Asellus and the inscription goes on to tell us that he or she had lived 5 years, 8 months and 23 days. To the left we see the images of the Saints Peter and Paul, with the monogram of Christ above the name of Peter. The fact that the Gospel of Jesus brought to Rome by St. Peter and St. Paul was clearly professed by the early Christian community there.

And guess who commented ...? Mr. "I stopped arguing with you long ago."

I
[William P. Lazarus]: Since you are too lazy to look up facts that contradict your outdated beliefs, here's some help:

The Pagan Origin of the Communion
OCEAN MALANDRA 29 SEP 2017
https://classroom.synonym.com/natural-phenomenon-pegasus-associated-greek-mythology-19415.html
Hans Georg Lundahl: 1) Bacchae, no reference to bread, will look up Euripides' play (which is not in Cicero's writings, by the way)
2) Mithras mysteries, that come closest, can be totally fabricated : we have actually very little knowledge about them (and Cicero is not cited)
3) "According to one of the most prominent scholars in charge of translating the scrolls, John Allegro, Christianity was really based on ancient fertility rites from the Near East that revolve around the ingestion of psychoactive mushrooms."

Doesn't say which scrolls, and therefore not if I'd agree they are part of the make-up even possibly from an Atheist p o v of Christianity. I am fairly certain Cicero is not cited.

4) "Interestingly, hallucinogenic mushrooms were ingested in massive quantities by the Aztec peoples, who called them Teonanactl, or the 'Flesh of the Gods.'"

a) doesn't say whether it's flesh coming from bodies of gods or flesh consumed by the gods, the latter seems more probable
b) totally irrelevant as precedent of Christianity, if you care to look up Aztecs on wiki:

// The Aztecs (/ˈæztɛks/) were a Mesoamerican culture that flourished in central Mexico in the post-classic period from 1300 to 1521. //

If this was not clear enough, from 1300 AD to 1521 AD. Their language is not extinguished, and that is why we know so much about them. Teonanactl may well have been Satan's parody on the Eucharist.

References were given to three sites. John Allegro and Teonanactl are for two of them, the only one relevant for Euripides and Mithras would be first one, which no longer exists:

Page not found - The Mystica
https://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/c/communion.html

It can be mentioned, that site offers to read tarots for you, which might give you an idea about how much they are knowledgeable about Classical Greece or Rome ... even before reading Euripides, I don't think the more than 1770 lines will confirm their take very much.

A search in the text of Euripides' play, translated by Translated by Ian Johnston of Vancouver University in 2003, gave no hit at all for virgin, and 13 hits for blood (including bloody and blood-shed) which have no reference to wine.

As virgin has the synonym maid, maiden, there are three hits on maid, none of which calls Semele maiden when giving birth to Dionysus.

How I searched? Use ctrl + F!
KC: Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Passover meal. (OT is a type and shadow of the New Testament). “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place, a clean oblation is offered to my name, and a pure offering: for my name is great among nations, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:11). Most nations were still “Gentile” or “heathen” at this time. Pagan worship was still the norm…hence the command of Christ to His Apostles to "…go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 19-20). The world had not yet been converted to Christ.
Hans Georg Lundahl: I'd like to mention, [William P. Lazarus] is not a Jewish believer, but an Atheist.

He also wrote a book trying to debunk beginnings of Christianity.
[William P. Lazarus]: Hans-Georg Lundahl Wrong again.
Hans Georg Lundahl: What is wrong?

ARE you a Jewish believer?
Are you NOT an Atheist?
Did you NOT write The Gospel Truth?

[My guess before getting his answer : not strictly Atheist - or he prefers spelling it with lower case a, but that's less likely.]
II
UAS: seen it, been there!
Hans Georg Lundahl: Ah, the place depicted?
III
[William P. Lazarus]: I don't care enough about any god to be an atheist. I'm not Jewish. I didn't write a book to debunk Christianity. I write history books based on research. If it "debunks" a religion, it's simply because the facts rarely conform to belief. Any religious historian can tell you that. But you're too busy trying to prove the Earth is flat and only a few thousand years old.
Hans Georg Lundahl: Wait, you didn't write this book?

The Gospel Truth Perfect Paperback – February 10, 2011
by William P. Lazarus (Author), Halifax Country Publishers (Editor), Mary V. Wentzel (Illustrator)
https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Truth-William-P-Lazarus/dp/0982970021

Or you mean this applies? "I didn't write a book to debunk Christianity. I write history books based on research. If it 'debunks' a religion, it's simply because the facts rarely conform to belief."

Because, you see, you sent me an example, and your will to debunk Christianity was very obvious, but your quality of research was deplorable. Recall first part of my review? "In other words, WPL, as I will abbreviate him, is giving a scenario which I consider as free fantasy novel. So far, my resumé of chapter 1."

And your accountability for how you get your supposed information was deplorable too, you pretended 16 Church Fathers had cited Josephus and not cited TF:

"Now, we have a problem. WPL gives no footnote. I cannot check which 16 Church Fathers* [!] WPL means, nor how many of them were commenting on the Jewish War rather than on Antiquities, nor how many complain of him overlooking Jesus and in what terms."

Your having some kind of relation to Jewry is also either from my memory of the preface or from a discussion we had after. Here my source is lost to me, since I no longer have the book.

"Any religious historian can tell you that."

Religious historians often enough are not historians.

"But you're too busy trying to prove the Earth is flat and only a few thousand years old."

I am Geocentric, but not a Flat Earther.

I am also not "trying to prove", since there are prima facie cases for both (our view of the heavenly bodies and the Biblical timeline), I am just defending both against supposed disproof.
[William P. Lazarus]: Nonsense. You let belief dictate your "studies." No legitimate scientist thinks the world is a few thousand years old. No legitimate religious historian accepts mythology as fact. I've attended and participated in enough seminars to know even rigid fundamentalists accept proven findings. I'm done answering anything you write. It's just a waste of time.
Hans Georg Lundahl: You let your lack of interest in any god dictate yours.

"No legitimate scientist thinks the world is a few thousand years old."

Not relevant if true. Scientists are not infallible, even collectively.

Also not true, there are lots of scientists on CMI (Creation Ministries International), in fact I think a PhD is a requirement with them for writing for them.

Except, if you make it circular. Calling them illegitimate scientists because they consider Genesis true.

"No legitimate religious historian accepts mythology as fact."

As said, I don't think "religious history" stands up as good history, often enough. Especially not your version.

" I've attended and participated in enough seminars to know even rigid fundamentalists accept proven findings."

And what "proven findings" are you referring to here? You have shown none.

"I'm done answering anything you write. It's just a waste of time."

Reminds me of 'Allo 'Allo! and the line "listeune vèrie kèrefoulie, aï ouil séï zis ônli once"

mercredi 7 octobre 2020

Willam P. Lazarus Pretended the Eucharist was known in BC times

status in FB group: Kit Cronebaugh in Christian History and Archaeology; 29 septembre shared:
ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT SHOWS DOCTRINE OF COMMUNION: A 1,500-year-old fragment of Greek papyrus with writing that refers to the biblical Last Supper and "manna from heaven" may be one of the oldest Christian amulets, say researchers. The fragment was likely folded up and worn inside a locket or pendant as a sort of protective charm, according to Roberta Mazza, who spotted the papyrus while looking through thousands of papyri kept in the library vault at the John Rylands Research Institute at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.

"This is an important and unexpected discovery as it's one of the first recorded documents to use magic in the Christian context and the first charm ever found to refer to the Eucharist — the Last Supper — as the manna of the Old Testament," Mazza said in a statement. The fragment likely originated in a town in Egypt.

The translated text on the papyrus reads:

"Fear you all who rule over the earth.

Know you nations and peoples that Christ is our God.

For he spoke and they came to being, he commanded and they were created; he put everything under our feet and delivered us from the wish of our enemies.

Our God prepared a sacred table in the desert for the people and gave manna of the new covenant to eat, the Lord's immortal body and the blood of Christ poured for us in remission of sins."

'DOUBLY FASCINATING'

On one side, it has a combination of biblical passages from the books of Psalms and Matthew, while on the other is part of a receipt for payment of grain tax.
Dr Mazza said the amulet maker "would have cut a piece of the receipt, written the charm on the other side and then folded the papyrus to be kept in a locket".
She said the use of written charms was an ancient Egyptian practice, which was adopted by early Christians, who replaced prayers to Egyptian and Greco-Roman gods with passages from the Bible.
I shared above.: to my wall.
[Willam P. Lazarus]: Shucks, Cicero refers to communion about 50 years before Jesus was born. "Eating" the blood and body of a god was a common ritual in pagan times.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Yeah, how about exact quote, I am a Latinist and am able to judge that ...
[Willam P. Lazarus]: He said: anyone who takes bread and wine and thinks he is eating a god is an idiot. That was decades before Jesus.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Exact quote = what book, chapter and paragraph by Cicero.

It's like claiming "the Bible says 'God helps them who help themselves' " and not giving the reference to II Opinions (Kent Hovind's favourite reference to fake Bible quotes). Now, try again, what book by Cicero, and if you like, give the quote in Latin.

Legi enim eius opus De Amicitia ad Laelium, et latinitas eius, quamvis difficilior ea quae Thomae Aquinatis sit, mihi possibilis est lectu.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Come on, it's not like asking you to recite a work in Etruscan, here is the list of Cicero's works:

Writings of Cicero - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writings_of_Cicero

Bc, if you don't know which work by him, chances are you are repeating an urban legend about him. Like the other urban legend repeated by Acharya Sanning that Varro would have known about Jesus but conspicuously didn't. In fact he died in 4 AD.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Look, I did a ctrl F search of occurrence on the page for "anyone who takes bread and wine and thinks he is eating a god" on this English translation of De Natura Deorum:

LacusCurtius • Cicero — De Natura Deorum I.1‑19
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Natura_Deorum/1A*.html

[Willam P. Lazarus] - either your quote was not verbatim, or it was from another work, or ... sad to state such a suspicion, but not totally surprised after looking at your book against Christianity ... you are promoting an urban legend (or even worse, invented it yourself). So, where is the quote you gave from? I am not requiring you to dig up Sumerian clay tablets, it's as easy as asking about a fake Bible quote what book, chapter and verse you find it in the Bible!

I mean, in his book The Gospel Truth, he pretended to be knowledgeable on 1:st Centuries both BC and AD. Now, he is on three separate days challenged to provide the reference for a pretended quote from Cicero and the last of these days is now 3 days ago, it looks like he is less knowledgeable than he claimed.

He should not have tried to pull this one on a Latinist ...

mercredi 19 août 2020

FB automatic translations ...

Names omitted!

Swedish original, which I had to click specially to see:

Hej G. !

Läser att du har en högtidsdag i dag, varför jag önskar få GRATULERA i förhoppning om att de blir många många fler !

Bästa hälsningar, D.B.

French translation, automatically shown:

Bonjour G. !

En train de lire que vous avez une journée de congé aujourd'hui, pourquoi je tiens à vous féliciter dans l'espoir qu'il y en aura beaucoup d'autres !

Meilleurs vœux, D.B.

What does "högtidsdag" mean? It means a "day of celebration" - in this case a birthday.

What does "journée de congé" mean? It means "a day off" ... in fact the man was too old to be still at work./HGL

DT reattacks the Eucharist

Accusations à la Hochhuth's The Deputy · Mainly on Waldensians and Crusades · DT reattacks the Eucharist

I publish: in a new subthread, the link to previous, and later do excuses for the quality in the first hours of publication.

But the interesting thing is, DT is very keen on re-pretending the Eucharist is unbiblical:
DT: Hans-George Lundahl,
1. Christ didn't correct those who objected to his "you must eat my flesh" message either because they needed to chew off at least a finger or because (as scripture says) he knew what was in man".

I think the evidence heavy on the side of " he knew...".

No one ever actually ate any of his flesh...despite being told they must! No one ever claimed to until many years after his crucifixion. "They needed to eat some of him" is ridicoulous!

2. Communication is a two way street Mr. High & Mighty Sr.

3. If the disciples who left Jeshua were right in thinking that he taught that they would be needing to ACTUALLY eat his flesh why do we not read of anyone doing so?

Christ himself called the cup "this fruit of the vine" AFTER declaring it was the NT in his blood, so they didn't drink actual blood! Your claims contradict scripture!

4. The RCC agrees that the OT ceremonies were representative of spiritual realities but deny that the paschal cup & bread are because their fake transubstantiation is meaningless if they admit it! They were long representative parts of the paschal meal, what ground is there to claim anything different when Christ declared that they should be partaken of in REMEMBRANCE of his crucifixion?

None!

If your claim were true then man could forgo repenting, forgo living righteuosnesly and forgo believing in Christ and merely eat a wafer to be saved!

(Because your church demands literal eating of flesh AND drinking of his blood but doesn't even give the cup except to "priests"! Claiming the blood is in the bread ...even though Christ gave the bread AND the cup!) So, eat the wafer &:you are a "partaker of Christ"!

Ridiculous! (& refuted by scripture!)

That voodoo keeps looking like more & more DOODOO all the time!

Ridiculous fable piled on previous ridiculous fable! How can a seemingly intelligent man like you "buy" that malarky???

WHY would you buy that instead of biblical doctrine?

Partaking of Christ is a SPIRITUAL requirement and reality, not a physical one!

Christ died ONCE then sat down...waiting now for his enemies to be made his footstool.

His sacrafice does not need to be repeated and the claimed "making it present" repeat via the Mass makes a mockery of "biblical salvation via his one time sacrifice".

C'mon Hans you are smarter than that!
Hans Georg Lundahl: DT, //1. Christ didn't correct those who objected to his "you must eat my flesh" message either because they needed to chew off at least a finger or because (as scripture says) he knew what was in man". //

// I think the evidence heavy on the side of " he knew...". //

// No one ever actually ate any of his flesh...despite being told they must! No one ever claimed to until many years after his crucifixion. "They needed to eat some of him" is ridicoulous! //

Correction on the Catholic theology : no Catholic thinks we need to eat OF Christ's flesh. All of it is present in each small piece of what can be perceived as bread.

You are, like those Jews, adding a notion of cannibalism.

Whatever Christ knew, He was at that point communicating and giving some a last chance.

// 2. Communication is a two way street Mr. High & Mighty Sr. //

Certainly. But in this case, on your view, a metaphor had been mistaken for a literal thing, and in cases of mistake, one would normally try to correct them.

// 3. If the disciples who left Jeshua were right in thinking that he taught that they would be needing to ACTUALLY eat his flesh why do we not read of anyone doing so? //

In Corinthians 11 we see St. Paul talking of actually doing so.

// Christ himself called the cup "this fruit of the vine" AFTER declaring it was the NT in his blood, so they didn't drink actual blood! Your claims contradict scripture! //

You seem to be referring to the account by St. Matthew, on which Challoner commented:

[29] "Fruit of the vine": These words, by the account of St. Luke 26: 22. 18, were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents or qualities of wine.

Objection dismissed.

// 4. The RCC agrees that the OT ceremonies were representative of spiritual realities but deny that the paschal cup & bread are //

We deny that the paschal cup and bread Christ began with are identic to the sacrament of the New Covenant.

See Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Get it - of the New Testament!

// because their fake transubstantiation is meaningless if they admit it! //

What we do not admit is Christ both starting and ending with only a Jewish paschal meal. He started with one and added a new sacrament from two materials in it.

// They were long representative parts of the paschal meal, //

Of the Old Testament, which commemorated the Exodus from Egypt, which was a shadow of what Christ was to accomplish.

// what ground is there to claim anything different when Christ declared that they should be partaken of in REMEMBRANCE of his crucifixion? //

The very idea of remembering the Crucifixion places His institution outside the immediate context of the OT Seder.

Remembrance does not exclude what is being remembered also being there.

// If your claim were true then man could forgo repenting, forgo living righteuosnesly and forgo believing in Christ and merely eat a wafer to be saved! //

No, since someone who took of the sacrament without repentance of sins known, and without the intent of living righteously and without belief, would make himself CULPABLE of the Body and Blood of Christ. The sacrament he would take would be a true sacrament, but it would not save him any more than touching Christ saved those who hammered the nails in His hands.

// Because your church demands literal eating of flesh AND drinking of his blood but doesn't even give the cup except to "priests"! Claiming the blood is in the bread ...even though Christ gave the bread AND the cup! //

In the crucifixion, Christ's Blood was separated from His Body. In His heavenly glory, His Blood flows in His Body. This means, anyone who communicates under one species only, partakes of both Body and Blood, because we partake of the risen Christ. But in the Consecration, His death is shown forth.

The twelve to whom He gave the cup were all the first bishops of the Catholic Church, that is, its highest clergy (there is a dispute if Judas was still in the room when this happened, so, twelve or eleven).

// So, eat the wafer &:you are a "partaker of Christ"! //

Partaker if believing and repenting of any sins known, robber if unbeliever or unrepentant.

// That voodoo keeps looking like more & more DOODOO all the time! //

Sorry, but namecalling won't cut it.

// Ridiculous fable piled on previous ridiculous fable! How can a seemingly intelligent man like you "buy" that malarky??? //

Sorry, but namecalling won't cut it.

// WHY would you buy that instead of biblical doctrine? //

I am not buying your parodies of Catholic doctrine, but I am buying Catholic doctrine, since it is Biblical.

// Partaking of Christ is a SPIRITUAL requirement and reality, not a physical one! //

The requirement is both spiritual and physical. The reality also.

// Christ died ONCE then sat down...waiting now for his enemies to be made his footstool. //

Even so, His death is made present on our altars.

// His sacrafice does not need to be repeated and the claimed "making it present" repeat via the Mass makes a mockery of "biblical salvation via his one time sacrifice". //

Where in the Bible do you find the words "biblical salvation via his one time sacrifice"?

It's your interpretation of what the Bible says, not its actual words.

And unlike yours, the Catholic one was around in St. Ambrose, around 400 AD.

As to your final point, flattery won't cut it either.
DT: Hans-Georg Lundahl , so laughable I won't respond point by point.

What you do is what the Catholic Church has been doing for 1600 years...talking out of both sides of your mouth. "His flesh and blood had to be eaten!" and "no one ate it because that's not what he meant!"

"Everything was symbolic!" and "the bread & wine are not!"

"The wine LITERALLY becomes his blood!" & " It is an unbloody sacrifice!"

"We must have the bread & the cup!" And " it's ok for only the Priest to have the cup!"

"His one sacrifise is sufficient!" And " We make it present again and again but aren't repeating it!"

You can buy that all you want...AND act shocked when such tomfoolery is rejected by biblical Christians...but you should never expect the rejection of your church to change without that changing. It's not biblical.
Hans Georg Lundahl: I am not acting shocked, and you cannot pin point the RCC to 1600 years only.

You pretend we say "everything was symbolic" when we don't.

It's easy to "diagnose" contradictions and tomfoolery if you get to say what the other guy has said, even if it isn't the least accurate.

As I go through previous, I'll have to grant you one point : Christ took His seat. We partake of Christ risen, seated in Heaven. Or standing, on occasion.

But even there He is "like one slain". Apocalypse 5:6.

lundi 17 août 2020

Mainly on Waldensians and Crusades

Accusations à la Hochhuth's The Deputy · Mainly on Waldensians and Crusades · DT reattacks the Eucharist

Excuses for bad quality at publication yesterday, but html fixing was not finished, and I misjudged how much was missing under the stress of limited internet time. Added next day, HGL

[status:]
AN: What is the knowledge about waldensians? Who were they and why Roman Catholic Church oppressed them for centuries?
I
Hans-Georg Lundahl: They were either a group of lay preachers around Peter Waldo, who went out of hand, and started some Protestant errors, or, according to some, went back before his time (in that case they infiltrated his followers and he wasn't one properly), back to the time of bishop Claudius of Turin, who was in his turn influenced by the Iconoclastic persecutors of the Church in Constantinople.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: It seems DT is amused, are you up for a debate on this one?

Our older one is under IV here, do you want full name or is DT OK with you?

[link to previous]
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl The Waldenses were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. Beza dates the Waldensian church from A.D. 120 and their Old Itala Bible from A.D. 157. It was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century. Historians like Allix, Leger, Gilley, Comba, and Nolan document this churchs continual use of the pure text of the bible. They were persecuted severely between the fourth and thirteenth centuries by the Church of Rome. The bible of the Waldenses was used to carry the true text throughout Europe.
DT: Hans-George Lundhal, i am at the Doctor's this morning but will cerainly correct your misrepresentation of the Waldensians soon.

So...as said above the Waldensians differed with the (corrupt) Catholic church in the 1100's and were severely persecuted, as the RCC was want to do.

They objected to the sale of forgiveness for sins (indulgences), the baptism of unwitting babies, the supposed miraculous change of bread & wine to the actual flesh & blood of Christ, and the thoroughly unsupported limitation of the ministry to educated men.

Having long worked to gain secular power, the corrupt RCC had the Waldensians jailed, stripped of property and barred from meeting. A thoroughly disgusting mistreatment of dedicated Christians.
DT: Hans-George Lundahl???
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I missed your comment the day before yesterday, I have limited time online.

DT, this is for you, I am responding to AN's comment on another thread.

"the Waldensians differed with the (corrupt) Catholic church in the 1100's"

Fairly accurate, except for "corrupt".

This was the time of Peter Waldo. He didn't differ, he started a group of lay preachers that initially had some support from the bishop of Lyons. A RCC bishop.

"and were severely persecuted, as the RCC was want to do."

By that time, not yet. Severe persecution came with the Albigensian crusade, next century, and when Albigensian threat was over, things got more lenient with Waldensians too, even in France.

"They objected to the sale of forgiveness for sins (indulgences)"

At least if you go as late as 1500's, when they were in contact with other Protestants.

"the baptism of unwitting babies"

Seems to be correct.

"the supposed miraculous change of bread & wine to the actual flesh & blood of Christ"

Which is Biblical.

"and the thoroughly unsupported limitation of the ministry to educated men."

The limitation is pragmatic, and it has some uses, like avoiding the uneducation able to pretend Waldensians go back to 2nd C, as AN claimed.

Also, the preaching can among Catholics be extended to uneducated, with bishops' permission (bishop of Lyons temporarily giving one to Peter Waldo and the Pope permanently giving one to St. Francis of Assisi.

Also, the early 1500's proclamations from Laus and Chanforan don't seem to keep this so.

They have an accusation of clergy corrupting traditions, but not of clergy being wrong in demanding, usually, education.

"Having long worked to gain secular power,"

Like how?

"the corrupt RCC had the Waldensians jailed, stripped of property and barred from meeting."

At diverse occasions, fairly probably, and diverse levels of RCC responsibility too. Like the Pope himself was into the decision to make a Crusade against Albigensians, but when we come to 1655, we come to Catholic secular rulers. Their priests didn't say they were doing wrong and some said they were doing right, but they were less prominent than secular initiative.

"A thoroughly disgusting mistreatment of dedicated Christians."

Denial of real presence and sacrificiality of the Mass makes them at best misguided Christians.
DT: Hans-George Lundahl, I deny the real presence & sacraficiality of the Mass. I go further. I think the claim voodoo religion...a fable made up by thoroughly unbiblical men devoid of spiritual understanding almost entirely. Men who sell forgiveness, murder, rape children, create other entities to worship (Queen of Heaven...Saint Stanislaus!?), hawk a works (sacraments) salvation.

I think you need to take a closer look at just who was/is "at best misguided Christians"! AND stop excusing your church's evil deeds!
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl There are millions of dead because or RCC and Inquisition. Jews, waldensians, albignese, etc. That is more efficient killing and spy and deception organisation than any other in world history.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "There are millions of dead because or RCC and Inquisition."

DT, there you have the words of AN - a man who did say "millions" and who therefore arguablyis a believer in Trail of Blood, a tract with less accuracy than many a novel.

And AN, your bungling does not oblige me to bungle with you.

DT, you are like certain Jews in John 6 refusing to believe the words of God in the flesh.

John 6:54 in Douay Rheims, might be previous or next verse in KJV, since verse division sometimes differs.
DT: Hans-Georg Lundahl, you are (again) totally without reasonable excuse for the dispicable deeds of your church!

Your "at best misguided Christians" is refuted and instead shown to be fit for your sect as well.

And your baseless claim that i am like the Jews in John 6 ignores the fact that those Jews were offended because they took YOUR view...a literal view... rather than mine (a spiritual/representative view)!

It also fails to refute my evidence of ALL of OT ceremony being a representation of spiritual truth...none of it the literal substance.

When are you going to provide more than baseless claims? You invited debate but run from it when engaged!
Hans-Georg Lundahl: If the Jews were offended by MISTAKENLY taking my view of what Christ meant, why didn't Christ correct them?

Too high and mighty to admit to having communicated badly?

Not very Christian like.

They were right in taking my view of what He meant (with very little modification, since they added a notion of cannibalism to it) and wrong in rejecting it.

"t also fails to refute my evidence of ALL of OT ceremony being a representation of spiritual truth"

I must have missed that comment, read it hastily, or else you edited that into it after my response.

I and RCC agree with you about OT ritual. What we don't agree with is putting NT ritual on the same footing with it.

When Christ says sth is His flesh, this is literal substance, and no longer OT ritual.

"When are you going to provide more than baseless claims?"

Which one did I miss?

"You invited debate but run from it when engaged!"

It seems you have some catching up to do with the rest of my recent comments, OK.
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl I did my studies in history. Only 20 years of Baltic crusades saw 50% of the population dead. That is over a 1 000 000 people of various nations. Nobody counts Jews in Germany, France and Spain, muslims in Spain, catars, albignese, waldensians, lollards, indigenous tribes in New World, sabbath keepers in India, Ethiopians who died for sabbath etc. Also 8 crusades into Holy Land and Cyrenica etc. Many eastern crusades against slavs and finno ugric nations and baltic nations. Should I continue, or you see the pile of corpses already?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Only 20 years of Baltic crusades saw 50% of the population dead."

According to whom? How representative are they of RCC?

You know that Teutonic Order became Prussia, a Protestant power, and they tried a Crusade against Poland which was already Catholic and were defeated by Catholics at Grunwald / Tannenberg?

"That is over a 1 000 000 people of various nations."

What are your sources for population in Prussia, Estonia, Livonia and Curonia?

"Nobody counts Jews in Germany, France and Spain,"

Pogroms were both small and unendorsed by RCC. The one expulsion which caused death causalties was 1492, from Spain.

"muslims in Spain,"

Are you saying Christians had no right to fight back against unjust tyrannic misrule?

" catars, albignese,"

We know more were reconciled than killed by Inquisitors.

Bernard Guy tried 930 cases, had 45 burned, 42 burned in effigy.

And they were doing evil things, would have been killed under OT law too.

"waldensians,"

Before and after Albigensian threat, Waldensians were not very much persecuted by Inquisitors.

"lollards,"

We have a numbering of 282 or so known cases of killing, and from England / Scotland also 283 cases of Catholics killed.

"indigenous tribes in New World,"

More were killed by Protestant land grabbers than by Catholic conquistadors.

"sabbath keepers in India,"

Source desired.

"Ethiopians who died for sabbath"

Source desired.

"Also 8 crusades into Holy Land and Cyrenica etc."

One of which contained a large, well known wanton massacre deplored by its leader (1st Crusade) and one of which was a diplomatic mission (7? 8?).

The rest were mainly maintaining Christian rule or trying to establish it, to succour Christians.

"Many eastern crusades against slavs and finno ugric nations and baltic nations."

I think I mentioned you overdo the death toll in Baltic ones, perhaps except the repression after an insurrection in Prussia.

In Finland, Swedish crusaders (I'm a Swede) came to succour already Sweden loyal and Christian Finns against Pagan plundering neighbours.
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl You have not very much sources about waldensians and others. Only in Genova were killed 3000 waldensians.

Lollards numbers were in thousands.

I am Estonian. I know the history of the region well. Read many contemporary accounts and modern works.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: " Only in Genova were killed 3000 waldensians."

Would that have been 1655? There the decision was political, and provoked by Protestant killings of Catholics.

"Lollards numbers were in thousands."

C. 280 - 290 known cases.

"I am Estonian. I know the history of the region well."

If you are Estonian, your education system or that of the generation of your parents was in the hands of lying Communists.

"Read many contemporary accounts and modern works."

I don't really use all that many old ones. However, the accounts need to be from the times they are about.
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl Long before protestants were waldensians all over Italy.

I use sources from era before any communist.

Materials describing Eastern crusades are from monks who were there.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: OK, what exact crusade would have given a death toll of one million according to what monk or monks?

"I use sources from era before any communist."

Czarists were not all that Catholic friendly either.

"Long before protestants were waldensians all over Italy."

I think that is vastly incorrect, as Paterini were Albigensians and not Waldensians.
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl Read Livonian chronicles from 13th and 14th century.

You do not know the history of Baltics very well, it seems...

Read "Israel of the Alps."
Hans-Georg Lundahl: OK, Livonian chronicles ... that includes South of present Estonia, but which entries taken together indicate 50 % died in a Crusade? Bc, one of the last courses I did at university was in fact Cultural history of the three Baltic Countries, at University of Lund, and the professor or docent or lector was an Estonian.

I did get, like in Prussia, the indigenous population became very unfree serfs.

I did not get, 50 % died.

I did also not get 1 000 000 died.

"Israel of the Alps" is by the Protestant pastor Alexis Muston, and co-written William Hazlitt, of Irish Protestant background, that is very anti-Catholic prejudice. Both died in the 19th C. when lots of anti-Catholic bias dominated historiography.
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl That is an estimate number by our historians. Combined together all 7 nations of the area. Some even ceased existing shortly after. There is no such thing as anti catholic. You can see the references are all original sources.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "That is an estimate number by our historians."

Yeah, OK, who were raised within Communism of the Soviet Union.

"Combined together all 7 nations of the area."

The only nation of which I have read anything remotely resembling this is Prussia.

"Some even ceased existing shortly after."

Livonian nation did that, but this is no proof they were all massacred, they had a Fenno-Ugrian language, so part might have become Eesti, and part simply became Latvians, if they lived sufficiently far South.

The Crusades did end any indigenous independent states.

"There is no such thing as anti catholic."

Oh, there definitely is.

"You can see the references are all original sources."

There is a difference between a historian's reference and his conclusion. Also, a Soviet era historian may well have faked some references and even more probably left out others, speaking for contrary conclusions.
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl As I told you before - you forget a period of time when there were no communists and tsarists. When were free republics and free investigations into matters or crusades and deaths caused by them.

I was referring to the sources of "Israel of the Alps" and "Cross and Crown."

Hans-Georg Lundahl And really, you have no idea about "communist era" should not speak about it.

Nations ceasing to exist were semgals and sels. Also died out kurelians.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Semgals became Latvians, as far as I can see.

Kurelians became Latvians.

Sels I don't know, but presume they too became Latvians. Or Eesti.

Any indigenous people ceased to be independent, and some of them merged into Eesti, some into Latvians, as per peasant language not very respected by the city dwellers and military orders speaking German.

But there is a difference between losing national identity and getting massacred to extinction.

There is also a difference between losing religious identity and getting massacred to extinction, as per Albigensians.

Also, you have not dealt with the fact that the normal RCC Inquisition is better represented by how we dealt with Albigensians than by the English national Inquisition dealing with Lollards or Military Orders.

If you have "Israel of the Alps" and "Cross and Crown" before you, you can cite their sources rather than referring to the overall analysis and telling me to read all, so why don't you do it?

I have a very good notion of Communist era, I was doing my military service when it ended.

We in the West knew, you in the East were being bamboozled by state sponsored propaganda.
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl I do not have the books at hand.

There was a lot of state propaganda. But we still kept old books of history in secret and learned from them. There were very few who believed the state.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ah, but old books of history would probably have some Protestant (Estonia is mainly Lutheran, right?) anti-Catholic prejudice, some of the issues got cleared up in the West, during and after the Cold War, but it never got through to the East ...
II
Lea Greenall: They are part of the woman who fled into the wilderness that HaShem prepared for her to be under His protection during the absolute civil and temporal rule of the RCC church .... Rev 17:6

They stayed there and came out to join the reformation, only to be massacred wherever they went :(
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "They are part of the woman who fled into the wilderness that HaShem prepared for her to be under His protection"

OK, that's a theory.

"during the absolute civil and temporal rule of the RCC church"

We have a problem.

It would seem the RCC was the one spreading knowledge of the Gospel, and also it began its temporal rule way earlier than earliest mentions of anything like Waldensians.

So, how does your theory square with Matthew 28:16-20?

Lea Greenall, it didn't post under your comment, but it was an answer to it.
Lea Greenall: It is an undeniable fact that for approximately 1260 years there was one bible, written in latin, and only clergy of the RCC could have it, preach from it.... upon pain of death to others. The RCC attempted to thwart any other languages ie why Tynsdale was killed due him translating it into another language.

In this time the word of HaShem was added to with indulgences, an absolute host of other unbiblical rubbish that could not be verified as no one could use a bible.

The 'gospel' that the RCC spread was a false gospel... and 'woman' fleeing into the wilderness is 'church'... not a persecuting system like the RCC, but the true church as a whole. Since a woman is biblical prophesy represents a church.... Waldenses are part of that church, and since the OP specifically asked about them, they make up part of that church.

There is no problem at all if you view eschatology through the lense of Biblical Historicism and not Preterism or Futurism - which conveniently deny anything meaningful during the 'dark ages'.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "for approximately 1260 years there was one bible, written in latin, and only clergy of the RCC could have it, preach from it.... upon pain of death to others"

It's perhaps "undeniable" in the Bible school you came from, but for someone knowing actual details of the Middle Ages, it's baloney.

There never was just one Bible, though in the West one tended to have Latin Vulgate only for most of Middle Ages.

Written in Latin is correct for it, but part of the time, Latin was the spelling of living Romance languages, and the people who learned to read from it had to learn supplementary case forms, about as laborious or little so as learning "thou" and "thee" and "thy" and "art" and "hast" and "wantedst" in a KJB. And part of the time, RCC clergy in many countries did make partial Bible translations, to vernacular, even if the countries touches by Albigensian and Waldensian heresies were excepted, and England imitated them.

The one country where possession of a vernacular Bible by laymen was immediate or nearly so condemnation for heresy, and therefore death penalty, was England. The Coventry martyrs were often killed for possessing even a Lord's Prayer in English. But in Wilvoorde, Tyndale was, contrary to Protestant legend, not condemned for translating the Bible, but for his take on Romans 3.

"The RCC attempted to thwart any other languages"

Apart from England, not the least true.

" ie why Tynsdale was killed due him translating it into another language."

He fled from England after doing so, but in Wilvoorde he was killed for his heretical exegesis of Romans 3. The refutations by James Latomus, his inquisitor, are still around, and while Bible translation may have made him suspect, his take on Romans 3 was what James Latomus pounced on.

"In this time the word of HaShem was added to with indulgences,"

Indulgences for the dead by prayer or sacrifice, II Maccabees 12.

Indulgences for alms to the poor at a burial, Tobit, I think chapter 4.

"an absolute host of other unbiblical rubbish"

So far, you have not proven any RC teaching unbiblical, let alone rubbish, the one example you gave being Biblical (more Biblical than calling Adonai / Ho Kyrios "HaShem", at the very least).

"that could not be verified as no one could use a bible."

Clergy could, nuns could, non-clergy monks often could, some laymen who had special permission could and so on. St. Francis was a layman in Italy who used a Bible about the kind of life he would live as religious.

"The 'gospel' that the RCC spread was a false gospel"

So far, you have not shown it.

"and 'woman' fleeing into the wilderness is 'church'"

Apocalypse (Revelation) 12:6 mentions DAYS, you pretend to speak of YEARS.

"not a persecuting system like the RCC, but the true church as a whole."

1) Why could the true Church not persecute?
2) Woman fleeing into wilderness certainly is, at least part of, the true Catholic Church in the end times.

" Since a woman is biblical prophesy represents a church.... Waldenses are part of that church,"

What are the other parts? Do they have the same doctrine? If they do not have the same doctrine, how are they one Church? Jesus told the Apostles "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you", and this does not invite conflicts of doctrine. Do they chronologically add up to all times? If not, they aren't the Church, since the Church given this command was given a promise : "and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
Hans-Georg Lundahl
[added]: "There is no problem at all if you view eschatology through the lense of Biblical Historicism and not Preterism or Futurism - which conveniently deny anything meaningful during the 'dark ages'."

I missed this one.

The age between 33 and Doomsday is the Millennium of Apocalypse 20.

Giving Antichrist 1260 days after giving His own Church over 1000 years to run things is consistent with God's goodness and with Apocalypse mentioning Beast and False Prophet like two persons.

Giving Antichrist 1260 years (which on top of that cannot be adequately identified historically) before giving His Church only 1000 years isn't.

Dark ages is not a correct term for the Middle Ages, though vastly popular among Anti-Catholic prejudiced people.
III
E.L.: The RCC under the direction of their god, Satan, persecuted every single group that kept the original apostolic doctrines and traditions alive.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: If the apostolic doctrines and traditions were persecuted by RCC, what group or what doctrine or tradition common to all of them, lasted all the while RCC supposedly persecuted all of them?
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl RCC has pagan roots for most beliefs...
E.L.: Hans-Georg Lundahl the RC, while adhering to doctrines of worshipping graven images and praying to persons other than the Father in heaven, persecuted every group that continued in the faith of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, baptism by immersion in water, manifestation of the spiritual gifts, etc. God hasn't limited his spirit to one group or denomination, but He has always had a remnant that followed apostolic doctrine.
TC: Hans-Georg Lundahl history doesn't reveal that there was such a group. But more so it does reveal a restoration and reformation of sorts pertaining to the lost gospel truths. The gospel is a broad term but within its there's much treasures. Holy spirit has restored particular truths and gifts to the every generation of the church (this will be clearly seen under the observation of church history).
Hans-Georg Lundahl: E.L. "persecuted every group that continued in the faith of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, baptism by immersion in water, manifestation of the spiritual gifts, etc."

But the RCC continued in manifestation of spiritual gifts! It was Calvin who invented "the age of miracles has ended" and not the RCC!

"God hasn't limited his spirit to one group or denomination,"

God has given His Spirit to exactly One Church, not to many. Read Acts 2.

"but He has always had a remnant that followed apostolic doctrine."

Remnants are for extreme times, like the time of Ahab in Israel, where a remnant of 7000 did not bow down to Baal, or the end times. What God always has is a Church, usually not a remnant, and usually concerned with following the commands in Matthew 28:16-20. The concern of turning all nations into disciples isn't compatible with being always just a remnant.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: TC "history doesn't reveal that there was such a group. But more so it does reveal a restoration and reformation of sorts pertaining to the lost gospel truths."

So, there was no one group always in conflict with RCC, always persecuted by it, and always true to the Gospel?

There was a "Reformation" at which "lost" Gospel truths were "restored"?

Re-read Matthew 28:20, this word by God does not allow for that!
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl The term "church" does not mean denomination but body of believers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl There were no lost truths. RCC tried to loose those but could not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl The Waldenses were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. Beza dates the Waldensian church from A.D. 120 and their Old Itala Bible from A.D. 157. It was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century. Historians like Allix, Leger, Gilley, Comba, and Nolan document this churchs continual use of the pure text of the bible. They were persecuted severely between the fourth and thirteenth centuries by the Church of Rome. The bible of the Waldenses was used to carry the true text throughout Europe.
E.L.: Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, God has ONE church, but it's not a denomination. It's the body of believers who follow the doctrines of baptism by immersion in Jesus Name, baptism by spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues with signs following. Te body of believers who the RCC persecuted since the early days because the RCC chose to introduce pagan beliefs and heresy like the trinity, sun worship, praying to Mary, calling priests Father when Jesus said call no man father.
TC: AN indeed. That's the key point in understanding this whole discussion.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: AN // The term "church" does not mean denomination but body of believers. //

A body of believers having all truths cannot be same with a body of believers not having all truths.

Two denominations cannot both belong to the same body of believers. Not unless they are the same.

// There were no lost truths. RCC tried to loose those but could not. //

Interesting theory about RCC trying to lose any truths.

// Beza dates the Waldensian church from A.D. 120 and their Old Itala Bible from A.D. 157 //

Beza was not a very able Church historian, he was a reformer, a friend of John Calvin, and his dating was very tactical.

I do not agree that the Waldenses ever used the Itala, it was rather used by Catholics prior to the Vulgate, and arguably never by Waldenses.

What if you agree with Beza? Well, don't cite Beza who lived in the 16th C. and if I recall correctly into the beginning of the 17th C., quote old authors from second century and try to support they were speaking of Waldensians!

// Historians like Allix, //

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

A DD from Cambridge of 1690 is bound to show anti-Catholic bias.

// Leger, //

Couldn't find in a quick search.

// Gilley, //

I found a Bruce Gilley, probably not the one you are talking about.

// Comba //

// Emilio Comba (1839–1904) was a celebrated Waldensian pastor and historian //

// Ernesto Comba presented arguments to demonstrate that the name Waldenses derived from valley ("vallis densa" valdensis) and that they already existed before the time of Peter Waldo. //

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

They had a bias, and the argument about Vallis densa does not prove the actual sect was prior to Waldo. Even if it was, Baronius (who obviously had a bias of my own type) consider them derived from Claudius of Turin, a bishop taking up the Iconoclastic cause further West than anyone else, and hence less cruel than Copronymus et al.

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

Beyond that, but also prior to Waldo after Claudius, the arguments from documents would be very silent.

// Nolan //

This one?

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

Instead of citing a list of historians, if you have read them, how do they argue that in AD 500 Piedmont had the dissent from RCC or early Constantinian Church (however you'd like to term it for back then) that later was pronounced by Waldensians, and that they held the Itala text in polemics against the Vulgate text? I'll give you a leeway from 450 to 550 for the documentation of that!

// They were persecuted severely between the fourth and thirteenth centuries by the Church of Rome. //

Again, show such persecution ongoing in AD 500, same leeway from 450 to 550 applies.

// The bible of the Waldenses was used to carry the true text throughout Europe. //

My own knowledge of Bible text transmission in the Middle Ages says sth else.

Catholics were the transmittors, not Waldenses.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: E.L. // the doctrines of baptism by immersion in Jesus Name, baptism by spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues with signs following. Te body of believers who the RCC persecuted since the early days because the RCC chose to introduce pagan beliefs and heresy like the trinity, sun worship, praying to Mary, calling priests Father when Jesus said call no man father. //

OK, your definition of true Church:
* baptism by immersion
* non-trinitarian baptismal formula
* spirit baptism evidenced by glossolalia, as among Pentecostals
* non-trinitarian belief
* rejection of veneration of Mary
* rejection of calling priests father
* persecuted by RCC since the early days.

Show it existed in AD 500, that is show one clear group of such believers, Piedmont or elsewhere, which shows all of these criteria. NB, you also have the leeway to go between AD 450 to AD 550, as long as you don't abuse it to hitchpotch different beliefs who never were one group.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: AN again, Pierre Allix actually pretended that Albigensians were not Manichaeans, but the same as Waldensians.

Not very good historian at all to me, the Book of Two Principles is extant.
E.L.: Hans-Georg Lundahl you're confusing RCC with the Christian body of believers Christ called his church. When Jesus said "upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" he was talking of the believers who accepted him as the son of God and followed his teachings. The RC took it as Peter was their first Pope. Ok, what did Peter preach? Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Now, have you ever heard a catholic priest follow your first Pope's orders? Or do they sprinkle a few drops of water in the trinitarian invocation? Baptism is to be buried with Christ? Have you ever buried anything by throwing three grains of sand on it? Where did Peter ever pray to Mary? Jesus said "you will ask in my name". He also said " Our Father (not mother) who art in heaven". There is absolutely no scriptural proof Mary is on heaven or that she was venerated above any other saint. All these RC doctrines are constructs of mens minds added to the canon of scripture. If you set down with an open mind, pray to Jesus for guidance, and read the gospels, you will never look at the RCC the same way again. The RC is the Great Whore of Revelations that has martyred the saints and whored with the religions of this world. Just look at the staff of the Eucharist. The symbols upon it are the symbols of Ba'al Peor. Wake up my friend. You've been led far far away from God and true doctrine.
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl There is a lot of gapping in the story. Sounds like deliberately hiding something.

Another source puts waldensians around 270 AD.

Btw, waldensians existed when Calvin lived, so, this source is from the same waldensians.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Albignese and waldensians shared a lot in teachings.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: AN "There is a lot of gapping in the story. Sounds like deliberately hiding something."

You know something which CANNOT be successfully hidden?

A city built on a mountain.

Sharing doctrines with Albigensians is a very bad thing, unless one has other support for them. If they didn't even believe God had created our bodies (see the Book of Two Principles), they were not Christians.

This means, you cannot use "Albigensian line" to make Waldensians more ancient.

"Btw, waldensians existed when Calvin lived, so, this source is from the same waldensians."

They can have lied to Beza, Beza can have lied for them, or some of their predecessors may have invented the theory before the days of Beza.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: E.L. You missed my challenge. Whether I am right or wrong to identify the Church Christ founded with RCC, you have still shown no sign of YOUR "true Church" even existing in 450 to 550 AD.

E.L. Your list of discrepancies would be more impressive if we didn't have answers and if you did have a Church with your doctrine (all of the points given) in 450 to 550 AD.
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl Or RCC can be lieing. Like they did before times and times again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Waldensians are documented from 150-s.AD So, long before 500th.
E.L.: Hans-Georg Lundahl you completely fail to understand anything other than your worship of your Pope. I'm finished.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: AN You know what? If that were the case, - "Or RCC can be lieing" - that would not mend the case for Waldensian succession a bit.

Why? Bc there would still be lacking Waldensian documents from 450 AD to 550 AD, or even documents pertaining to them by accusers within RCC.

And a city built on a mountain cannot remain hidden.

Surfacing from hiding and remoteness after centuries won't cut it. It's about as credible as a society surfacing in 1717 AD and claiming succession from Solomon, King Hiram and Hiram Abbiff.

AN "Waldensians are documented from 150-s.AD So, long before 500th."

A claim by Beza in 1500 + does not constitute a document from 150 AD.

Plus, even if any sect in AD 150 could credibly be portrayed as equivalent of Waldensians, still does not cut it, since Christ in Matthew 28:20 specified "every day" and 450 to 550 belongs to that as much as 150 and 1500.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: E.L. I'm not quite yet. In denying Trinity, but yet affirming divinity of Christ, you are imitating Sabellius. From c. 215 AD. Can you document any Sabellians in 430 AD, or in 860 AD?

Oh, I am not worshipping Pope Michael, by the way, and "Pope Francis" isn't even my pope if you thought that.
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl There are documents. From various sources. From 390 s and 500s and 800s.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Nice, name one.
IV
Joel Smith: The number 1260 appears seven times in the Book of Revelation, a couple times in Daniel & several times in Shi’ih Islamic prophecies. It is a certain year in the Islamic calendar.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Yeah, but Revelation and Daniel feature it as a number of days, not as a number of years.
V
LH: The Bible Sabbath Association has information about the Waldensians.

Some of the reasons the RCC persecuted them (and others) is they did not accept or teach about the unbiblical trinity; denied the pope as the Vicar of Christ; they refused to honor the RCC priesthood; they kept the 7th day Sabbath and some/all of the Appointed Times of God (Leviticus 23); they allowed "unordained" to teach and lead services; did not believe in infant baptism; nor did they teach about going to heaven after death, and other contradictory teachings to RCC doctrinal.
AN: LH As much as I know, they were trinitarians. As trinity is bible based. And they kept only sabbath, not other Jewish feasts.
E.L.: AN you cannot find trinity in the bible. Sorry.
AN: E.L. Word no, idea yes.
E.L.: AN a godhead with three manifestations, yes. Three persons, no.
AN: E.L. All three mentioned at least in three places.
E.L.: AN Hear oh Israel the Lord our God is one. Any other doctrine is Satanic in nature
AN: E.L. Jawe Elohim, Jawe ekad - "elohim" god in plural. Same verse in Hebrew.
E.L.: AN yes, three natures of God. God the father being a spirit cannot be seen. Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh. The Holy Ghost is the spirit of God that I dwells believers. Three dwellings of the same spirit. Not three people. Only one throne in heaven. In the beginning was the Word ( Jesus) and the word was with God and the Word was God. You have to throw away far too many scriptures to make the RC doctrine of trinity work.
AN: E.L. In Jesuses baptism present: Jesus, in water, Father, in heaven speaking, Holy Ghost, flying as dove.

We are baptised in three names.

There are three witnesses in heaven.
E.L.: AN I am definitely not baptized in three names. I'm baptized in Jesus name as the apostles baptized. Jesus in the water: the man receiving the infilling of the Spirit of God. God created his earthly body but that body had to follow the same rules as everyone as was laid out by Jesus to Nicodemus: baptism in the water and by the spirit. God reconciled the mortal body to himself in Jordan. Three persons were not seen. The spirit of God came into his mortal body. Once again, God is a spirit. One spirit dwelling in believers, walking in the body Jesus Christ, everywhere present and nowhere absent.

You'll never see the revelation of the Godhead if you're not baptized in the spirit. Jesus told the disciples the Comforter, the indwelling spirit of God, would lead them in all truth. You're always going to struggle without it. Even the religious leaders of the day, the Pharisees couldn't understand it. To a spirit filled believer it's perfectly clear.
AN: E.L. Matthew 28:19-20 KJV
Go ye therefore, and teach j all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This is the word of God.
E.L.: AN yes, you just nailed it. Baptize in the NAME. Not names. If I said baptize this person in the name of E.L., AN, and Hans, it would mean that the three if us made up a corporate body with one mission, one purpose, one line of authority, and one purpose of administration. The godhead is three manifestations of one God, not three persons, since God is a spirit and the Holy Ghost is His spirit within us.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: LH " they kept the 7th day Sabbath"

Could it be a tactic by that association to pose as in continuity with Waldensians?

Or is there any extant document from actual 13th / 14th C proceedings against Waldensians, that they did so?
AN: Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, there are documents long before 13th century...
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Like, how about giving examples?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
[added]: De Civitate Dei, by St Augustine? Wait, no, that was not a Waldensian document.

De Sacramentis, by St Ambrose? Oh, not really Waldensian either ...

Those fairly openly RCC documents (sometimes also claimed by High Church Anglicans who are a far cry from Waldensians or from Lollards) are really from way before 13th C, as in around 400 AD.

HGL's F.B. writings

Pages

mardi 1 décembre 2020

Pope or Not, After All?

mardi 10 novembre 2020

Drew Gasaway Attacking QAnon - and Himself

lundi 9 novembre 2020

Turkiska Muslimer som bor i Dalby

mercredi 21 octobre 2020

Interaction with John Baumgardner

mardi 20 octobre 2020

Pious Fideist (pseudonym "Blind Grappler") ... attacking Rational Apologetics

jeudi 8 octobre 2020

Same William P. Lazarus on "Any Competent Researcher"

mercredi 7 octobre 2020

Willam P. Lazarus Pretended the Eucharist was known in BC times

mercredi 19 août 2020

FB automatic translations ...

DT reattacks the Eucharist

lundi 17 août 2020

Mainly on Waldensians and Crusades

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl

Antworten nach Sorte

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Répliques Assorties

Mes profils FB · my FB profiles · mina FB-profiler

Membres

Archives du blog

Qui êtes-vous ?

En défence de FB