FB censure contre la vérité / pardons, censurait

J'ai voulu partager ce contenu avec un ami nordique :

På Svenska og på Dansk på Antimodernism : Tyska National-Socialister intet alltid de värsta
https://danskantimodernism.blogspot.com/2026/06/tyska-national-socialister-intet-alltid.html

Le lien a été supprimé, voici la règle appliquée :

Personnes et organisations dangereuses

Nous n’autorisons pas les personnes à partager ou à envoyer des symboles, des signes de glorification ou du soutien à des personnes et des organisations que nous définissons comme dangereuses.

Exemples d’interdictions

Glorification d’une attaque terroriste

Encourager la violence envers un groupe spécifique de personnes

Soutenir ou faire la promotion d’activités criminelles comme la traite d’êtres humains

La seule glorification dans l'article est à Paulina Forslund, une national-socialiste assumée, et, surtout, une mère de neuf. J'ai porté dans les PS un regard bienveillant mais critique sur ses constats de la réalité suédoise, l'interview étant par des nationalistes tchèques.

Elle a notamment dit que des couples de blanches avec immigrés racisés sont dûs à la propagande de mélange de races. J'ai répliqué qu'ils sont surtout dûs au fait que les immigrés reçoivent et les Suédois de souche se voient presque interdit une éducation assumée masculine.

Le bloc de l'article était sur un acte terroriste commis contre des Allemands des Sudètes, et comment le National-Socialisme Tchèque a, dans ce cas, commis une pire chose que les National-Socialistes Allemands dans le moment et l'endroit. Je pense que le massacre de Postelberg était, effectivement, un acte terroriste.

Je n'ai ni encouragé des attaques contre des Tchèques, ni contre des Allemands./HGL

PS, restauré sept minutes après ma demande d'examen. C'est plus vite qu'avant.

Merci!/HGL

Contemporary Evidence, Again

Chris Martin

status

I know I won't get a lot of Christians to respond to this post, but I'll try anyway.

What did the other historians of this day ever mention any of this?

Meme:

Three hours of midday darkness.
Earthquake.
Zombie prophets walking the streets.

Image of zombie apocalypse and fastidious Roman writer:

Probably not important
enough to mention.

Comment:

How did all the Roman, Jewish and
Egyptian historians and scholars
not notice this?

A

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the other historians of this day"

Such as? Velleius Paterculus ceased writing three years earlier, arguably same day as the Sermon on the Mount (his final prayer is a good illustration of praying with "battologia" and it doesn't mean repeating phrases).

Labienus and a few more got their work erased, this lasted from Velleius Paterculus up to Tacitus' Agricola, and survive only in excerpts in Tacitus, Suetonius etc.

Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio Cassius wrote when Christianity was definitely already persecuted. Would you have liked providing an argument for Christians at that point?

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, are you saying that you believe there was no one at this time to even write about zombies, and 3 hour eclipses and earthquakes? No one in the whole surrounding area saw it or even heard about it and thought to jot it down?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin You are saying you have no clue about what writing was back then and what writing from these decades have survived.

In the Roman Empire, people dealing with contemporary historic events, not old history, not natural history, not philosophy, but contemporary history or recent history, for the decades between Velleius Paterculus' Roman History up to Tacitus' Agricola, fall into two classes:

• not preserved in their own integral works
• Matthew, Mark, Luke or Josephus

(John actually wrote the Gospel later).

a

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, 1. You didn't answer my question. Were there no other people surrounding these events that were writing about things?
2. Please refrain from telling me what I'm doing or saying. I'm perfectly in control of my words and actions and bases of knowledge. I do actual research and have actually read the bible. All of it.

Also, John would have been long dead before the book with his name added to it was written.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "and have actually read the bible"

But not the historians you refer to, implicitly.

When was last time you read Velleius?

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg,1. you assume entirely too much, sir. Please stop doing that.

2. You still have not answered my question. One more chance to be a participant in an actual conversation before I move on to others.

3. Velleius wrote about histories around the Trojan war. What does he have to do with Jesus?

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl Velleius Paterculus did not write about Jesus. As a Roman historian who served under Tiberius and published his Compendium of Roman History around \(30\text{ AD}\), his work covers the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius but contains no mention of Jesus of Nazareth or early Christianity.

guess you did not read it. just throwing out garbage

Hans-Georg Lundahl we have no idea of any of the authors of the nt ither than paul

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin I think my presumption is proven, you didn't read Velleius. His history starts at the Trojan war and didn't end there.

Now, the point is, we have a very good indication of when he wrote and also why he didn't mention Jesus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers If Velleius came to know about Jesus after the Crucifixion and Resurrection, we would not know.

He finished the work in the year or next year after Jesus started the 3 1/2 year public ministry in the Holy Land only.

When is the next author of Roman contemporary history of whom we have full texts preserved?

I gave you Matthew, Mark, Luke and Josephus, and YOU reduce that to Josephus only. He was born after the facts.

Can you give me the next specifically Pagan ROMAN historian of contemporary events? I can. And it doesn't suit your or Chris' case at all.

b

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl this as currect t then, not a single word. josephus talked about this period

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers Josephus, both as adopted by Flavians persecuting Christians, and as Jewish and eager to be accepted by a community that rejected Christianity had a special motivation not to mention this.

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl false. the testimony is one of je most debated in all of his works. the idea of persecution is invented by Christians. nero could not have done anything to them in the colosseum since it had not been built yet. and rome put down the jews too at the same time. you want to elusively look at history. there is zero actual evidence, of the jesus of the bible, no evidence of where he went, who he talked to and what he said. you came with an empty box of nothing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers If Nero killed no Christian in the Colosseum and if Flavians built the Colosseum, that could argue that the idea Nero killed Christians in the Colosseum is a conflation of Nero killing them elsewhere (Peter and Paul were both killed elsewhere) and of Flavians killing Christians in the Colosseum.

I wasn't talking about the TF anyway.

The list I gave was not of people testifying the three hour darkness at the crucifixion, it was the grand total of preserved authors from the relevant decades who in some systematic way wrote contemporary events.

a or b
or both continued

not all that sure on which of them Ewers answered.

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl that is dumn, beyong any caopacity to think critically. and this conceot of Christiana being persecuted is way ovr blown, the data does not support it this is also circular reasoning, using the bible to prove the bible/ and you have zero evidence about jesus coming back to life. not a critical thought ever

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers You seem unable to read.

You pretend I'm "proving the Bible from the Bible" without presenting any kind of case how.

As to data, you don't give any precisions where you get your data from. Data from the period are not all that abounding overall.

If it's a case of discounting all and any Christian sources, that's a very heavy bias you bring INTO the analysis, rather than getting it out of it.

Whether Josephus was 1/4 historians from this time or 1/1, that's too few of them to be sure to find someone supporting (if there is support) another 1/4 (at best). And I mean contemporary history ones and preserved ones. Velleius lays down his pen while Jesus is in full freedom. Tacitus takes it up when it's certain that Nero has already killed Christians in Rome decades earlier. Those between are, at best, dispute as many as you like, it only makes the remainder fewer:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, Josephus.

You can't take out Matthew from the actual historians JUST because he by himself constitues the 25 % of these who mention the darkness. You'd have to do it, if at all, on other grounds.

And you can definitely not discount that Josephus was under pressure from other Jews, besides being born too late to have seen it himself.

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl you really are one ignorant person of the bible. its really bad

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers What were you saying about one Christian Apologist in 2024?

"He is very abusive to everyone who disagrees with his position. He starts called them every name in the book."*

You called me ignorant after accusing me of circulus vitiosus, you seem to have the behaviour you attributed to him.

*footnote

available from his profile. I blocked him after that abusive comment.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"How did all the Roman, Jewish and Egyptian historians and scholars not notice this?"

Someone's attributing to this time period a kind of plethora of these categories.

As to Jewish ones, how about bias forbidding them from commenting?

B

Tony English

Thallus (c. AD 52) — The Earliest Reference
Thallus was perhaps the earliest non-Christian writer to refer to Jesus. His work has been lost, but a fragment was quoted by Julius Africanus around AD 220, which itself was quoted by the Byzantine historian Georgius Syncellus. Africanus writes: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus in the third book of his History calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”

Notably, Julius Africanus pushed back on Thallus’s “eclipse” explanation, pointing out that a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon — which Passover always is.

Phlegon (c. AD 140) — A Greek Historian
Julius Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around AD 140. Phlegon records: “In the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” This matches the gospel timeline precisely — noon to 3 PM.

What Scholars Note
If Thallus’s statement refers to Jesus’ crucifixion, it indicates that (1) the Christian gospel was known in the Mediterranean region by the mid-first century AD, (2) there was a widespread darkness implied to have taken place during the crucifixion, and (3) unbelievers were already offering rationalistic explanations for supernatural claims not long after they were first proclaimed.

The Apologetic Significance
The interesting thing is that both Thallus and Phlegon were trying to explain away the darkness as a natural eclipse — which actually backfires as an argument, since as Africanus pointed out, a solar eclipse is astronomically impossible during Passover’s full moon. Their attempts to rationalize it end up confirming that something unusual happened that needed explaining.

This is a solid piece of evidence in historical Jesus discussions — skeptics in the first and second centuries didn’t deny the darkness occurred, they just tried to give it a natural cause.

Truth-hurtz Jones

Tony English they try to give it a natural cause...

They didn't know how it happened , which is proof that it didn't happen because of people got up out of their graves or they would have simply said that

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Truth-hurtz Jones People getting out of their graves was local to Jerusalem.

The darkness wasn't, and the ancients were so scientifically illiterate that they could believe in a solar eclipse at full moon, with some exceptions who has read Aristotle.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, "local to Jerusalem"...historians and other writers in the area (Paul) would have heard about it, yes? And they eould have mentioned it, yes?

Truth-hurtz Jones

Hans-Georg Lundahl hey buddy...

If you believe that the earth is older than the sun then nobody can help you...

Ignoring

the jab, going for the argument:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "historians and other writers in the area (Paul)"

Historians in the area would be limited to Matthew and Josephus, for some time Luke. Other writers would have been doing other kinds of things than mentioning historical events.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, lol. 1. Paul was the first human that we know of to write about Jesus.

2. Historians and writers of the time and in the area would write about big eventd and things they found interesting.

3. Your defense is very much lacking any seriousness.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin In reverse order:

3) Your defense is very much lacking in knowledge.

2) You are giving a total a priori that lacks any perspective on what we have from this period.

From 30/31 AD to c. 90 AD we have AT MOST these four men setting down in writing contemporary events: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Josephus. Take away Matthew if you like, even Mark and Luke, that leaves Josephus. It doesn't offer you any more than the four. Note, I didn't say "there were" but I said "we have" ... some others also were writing down contemporary events and they are lost or only preserved in quotes.

1) Your view on the redaction of the Gospels lacks ancient sources, not just from the decades in question, but from ensuing centuries, unlike mine. Paul is anyway out of the discussion, since doing tractates, not contemporary events. I recall sth like NT having 260 chapters and Paul writing 100.* A Gospel is 16 to 28 chapters long. 16 is like the longest book by Paul, and that one is as densely packed with argument, often about ancient Israelite history or Roman institutions, as the Gospel of Mark is packed with the life of Jesus. 100 - 16 = 84, divide that by 13, the average book by Paul is short, and it's a tractate. Not a cue for details on the crucifixion, and he presumably had the Gospel of Luke to preach that from.

* footnote

"I recall" ... found the reference:


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: ... against aboKhansa
Wednesday, February 21, 2018 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 4:20 AM
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/02/against-abokhansa.html

Relevant excerpt:

M 28 chapters Tens = 70
M 16 chapters Units = 19
L 24 chapters Total = 89 chapters
J 21 chapters Typically a chapter is about a page long

I can add, the four Gospels are, as said, 89 chapters. Acts another 28, so 117 chapters.

The books by St Paul are not so many chapters, only 100 : 16 + 16 + 13 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 13 = 100.

Then there are the books placed in the collection after the epistles of St Paul:

5 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 22 = 43

43 + 117 = 160 [non-Paul + 100 ch. Paul = 260]

So, St Paul wrote a minority of the New Testament. Less than 40 % of it, and it is the shorter Testament.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, 1 and 2 combined. I don't know nor care what you seem to think the length of the writing has anything to do with my topic here. Paul was the first person to write anything about Jesus, to our knowledge, correct? Luke and Acts (supposedly) are Paul's tellings of Jesus and the apostles and to state that he (likely) would have mentioned any or all of these three events is appropriate. Also, we know that Paul was around the area when Jesus was there and would have heard of these eventd. We literally do not know who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

3. Your defense lacks logic and literally must be taked from the context.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "Paul was the first person to write anything about Jesus, to our knowledge, correct?"

No.

"Luke and Acts (supposedly) are Paul's tellings of Jesus and the apostles"

Luke is Mary telling Luke about Jesus and Acts involves Luke observing Paul.

Matthew was earlier.

"to state that he (likely) would have mentioned any or all of these three events is appropriate."

Not given all the rest there was to mention too and that Matthew had already mentioned it, but even if you discount traditional authorship of Matthew, that doesn't help your point.

"Also, we know that Paul was around the area when Jesus was there and would have heard of these eventd."

He could theoretically have been outside Jerusalem and come in after Pentecost, but discounting that possibility, he first hand experienced both darkness and just people walking out of their graves. Like the High Priests and the Pharisees, he didn't from this conclude that Christianity was true. Most of them remained opponents, and he was converted by sth else.

A very good reason why he would not think himself fit to narrate the events.

"I don't know nor care what you seem to think the length of the writing has anything to do with my topic here."

Try copying a scroll by hand and then imagine composing it. Without typewriter or computers. If you have small space, you include the details YOU (and not someone else) find important for YOUR purpose, not the ones a heckler 2000 years later pretends "you should have noticed and written down" ...

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, none of what you just stated is supported by scholarship.

The letters of Paul outdate the gospels (M,M,L,J) by 20 to 50 years.

Mark was the first gospel written followed by Matthew.

Luke and Acts came around 60AD

With John coming in around 90.

We aren't working with the same sets of facts which will lead us nowhere.

Fortunately for me, the majority of Christians and Secular scholars agree with me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "none of what you just stated is supported by scholarship."

You mean the specific scholarship that came to prominence in the Kulturkampf in the 1880's in Germany?

Or 1870's ...?

The Prussians and their imitators have an axe to grind. If Matthew is the first and if it's close to the events, that dooms any "Christianity" with nothing like a papacy (see chapter 16 verse 19).

Bismarck was very much NOT keen on the papacy.

The one thing I support is, John wrote down the Gospel after 90 (when he wrote the Apocalypse) so, c. 100 AD.

"We aren't working with the same sets of facts which will lead us nowhere."

We both know, or should know, what I present represents traditional authorship assignment.

We both know or should know, the scholarship you reference came to prominence first among Protestants and among these first among the very Liberal close to Atheist ones in Evangelische Kirche, Germany. 1880's or 1870's.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, no, sir. My support comes from centuries of study and is resupported every single day still today by continued scholarship. Yours is just the tradition and apologetics. It isn't supported by evidence. Just an abundance of claims.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin The Kulturkampf (lit. 'Cultural Struggle') was the seven-year political conflict (1871–1878)

THAT's the exact era, and it's less than 200 years ago, when Marcan priority came to the forefront. It had been very marginally upheld before that, maybe Astruc was one (but I recall him for the JPD hypothesis on the Pentateuch) was an earlier proponent.

"is resupported every single day still today by continued scholarship."

Lazily repeating things from the Kulturkampf.

" Yours is just the tradition and apologetics."

It's in fact the tradition .... of the community of the first audience, which is usually evidence of authorship and originally perceived intent. It's not about specific truth claims in the work and most historic works do contain mistakes, and some contain lies, but this is the evidence we go by.

I believe Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction and was written by JRRTolkien because of tradition. If you say we have statements by Unwin, well, the tradition of the Catholic Church has statements by Papias.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, why should we carw what Papias said. He wasn't born until 30ish years after Jesus died.

As for scholarship, I don't know anything sbout this German thing you keep mentioning but I can list off multiple modern day scholars (christian and non) that provide the support for the things that I state.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "why should we carw what Papias said. He wasn't born until 30ish years after Jesus died."

Why would we care what Wilke, Weisse and Holzmann said?

They were born more than 1700 years after he died?

In 1838, two theologians, Christian Gottlob Wilke[9] and Christian Hermann Weisse,[10] independently extended Lachmann's reasoning to conclude that Mark not only best represented Matthew and Luke's source but also that Mark was Matthew and Luke's source. Their ideas were not immediately accepted, but Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's endorsement in 1863 of a qualified form of Marcan priority[11] won general favor.

To return to Papias, if someone said right now that Tolkien was author of Lord of the Rings as a work of popular fiction and someone in the future had no earlier sources about authorship and intent, he would be wise to trust a source from 2026, even if that's near 53 years after he died.

The point is, Papias claims to have known a man who knew the Apostles, as I recall. Again, not the earliest thinkable confirmation, but it's the earliest we have.

"I can list off multiple modern day scholars (christian and non) that provide the support for the things that I state."

And they were born before Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's 1863 endorsement which got really popular in the Kulturkampf? No, after.

And Heinrich Julius Holtzmann was of the Evangelische Kirche. I i theological liberals.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, "Papias claims to have known someone who claims to know something about an extraordinary dude".... do you see how that's not good evidence to believe extraordinary claims?

As for your Tolkien example... if zero other corrobrating evidence to support or deny it, I suppose we would accept it. However, if there were an extraordinary claim added to it "Tolkien traveled through time to write it", we wouldn't believe it, correct?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "if zero other corrobrating evidence to support or deny it, I suppose we would accept it."

Exactly.

"However, if there were an extraordinary claim added to it 'Tolkien traveled through time to write it',"

I would have believed he made the claim. Just as I believe Cyril Henry Hoskin made the claim to be channeling Lobsang Rampa.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, what? Who would care if someone made the claim, would you believe the claim? That's the point, right?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin Depends on the evidence.

You know, claims are always evidence of something. Of truth observed, of truth divinely revealed, of a misunderstanding, of a liar making a false claim.

Sometimes the alternatives to truth can be eliminated. Pretty often they can.

For non-Christian religions, whether Hercules worship or Mahabharata or Islam or Mormonism, I can take the *historic* parts of the claims without concluding anything divine. Historic here defined as visibly and before witnesses.

Christianity, specifically Catholic Christianity, is pretty unique insofar as you need to make a hairbrained revision of the bibliographical evidence in order to discount the divine claims.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, bro...there is no "biblical evidence" of the divine claims. They're all just claims.

A claim isn't evidence of anything other than words were spoken.

A claim can be based off all of the things that you listed.
Truth claim
False claim
Mistaken claim

And, the only thing that makes a claim more than a claim is evidence. Without evidence, it's just words.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "A claim isn't evidence of anything other than words were spoken."

False.

"A claim can be based off all of the things that you listed.
Truth claim
False claim
Mistaken claim"

In theory, yes. True claim being the most often one, followed by mistaken.

"And, the only thing that makes a claim more than a claim is evidence."

Again, a claim IS evidence. Then the question is WHAT it is evidence of.

Suppose the claims INSIDE the Gospel are so internally solid that your BEST option is, contrary to bibliographical common practise, to ignore the tradition of authorship and intent, that makes the internal evidentiality of the claims fairly extraordinary.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, Let's put your thoughts to the test.

I can fly!!

1. This is true
2. You can't prove I can't
3. If you don't believe me you will lose all of your taste buds.
4. Also, 1,000 people have seen me fly.

Now, is my claim here more likely true or more likely false?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin I don't see any community that's likely to involve your 1000 people.

With the 500 "many of whom are still alive" St. Paul was referring to people inside a specific community, the Christian Church.

The same community in principle he was adressing. And served as an officer of.

If you were a police prefect in France, visiting Nantes, would you be likely to lie about sth that had happened before witnesses in Paris, even before videos?

Chris Martin I'm very willing to make a different assessment, if you meant you have a licence for an airplane.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, wait...did you just discount or dismiss my evidence? My evidence is absolutely as good as Paul's seeing as how he did NOT tell you who they are where they came from. So, you should start believing that I can absolutely fly. (Without a motor of any kind)

Chris Martin

later

Hans-Georg, that's it, brother? No more responses? Are you really resting your entire belief system on "claims are evidence"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin Claims are evidence of sth.

One needs to find out what. Deliberate fraud being statistically significantly the least probable after truth and honest mistake, it's not the first thing you pull out, unless you have very strong evidence AGAINST a claim.

Even for Hercules being "son of Zeus" that could have been an honest misunderstanding, or even half truth if Satan had kind of adopted him (as with Theseus and probably the upcoming Antichrist). However how this mythological Zeus differs from a theologically correct Satan would have been honest mistake on his part ... up to a point. I obviously have very strong evidence against this being simply the truth, namely in Catholic theology.

Every appearance is prima facie evidence of what it is the appearance of. One needs strong evidence against that in order to make it evidence of sth else.

"seeing as how he did NOT tell you who they are where they came from."

He could have been perfectly willing to provide that information on inquiry and I think he did. It's just not in the letter. It would have been a risk on his part to pull a bluff, seing one could write back and ask precisely that.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, are you telling me you have solid evidence that I cannot fly?

Cite your source behind the claim that fraud us "statistically' the least probable behind truth and honest mistake, please because I believe that to be a made up claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "you have solid evidence that I cannot fly?"

Chris Martin is a man. Now, men cannot fly. Therefore Chris Martin cannot fly.

A syllogism is pretty solid.

"the claim that fraud us "statistically' the least probable behind truth and honest mistake,"

Take a look at history books. Suppose Leo Taxil's work was a hoax or suppose his retractation was an (imposed hoax), either way, a hoax was involved.

Then take in that the Taxil hoax is remembered and a few more hoaxes, while loads of true claims (about electromagnetism or inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego) or honest mistakes (about animal magnetism, false understanding of hypnosis, or Darwins understanding of the Fuegans, false understanding of "primitive" culture) are remembered from the 19th C.

Do Catholics in Any Sense Keep the Torah?

Clint tony Goldrest

status

If Christians actually followed what Jesus taught, they'd be Jewish and following the Torah. Because jesus didn't start a new religion and was jewish

own answer

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What if Christianity actually does follow the Torah?

I mean Roman Catholic Christianity.

That's the Torah fulfilled.

I

Frank Maiolo

Hans-Georg Lundahl it super doesn't

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Care to elaborate?

Frank Maiolo

Hans-Georg Lundahl the law forbids eating unclean things. The law commands not to plant mixed crops or wear mixed fabrics. The law commands all peoples If all nations to be circumcised in the heart and the flesh in the new Jerusalem. The law commands stoning disobedient children and wives who don't bleed in their wedding night. It commands that Hebrews may enslave non-Hebrews, unless they're living in the land of Canaan. In that case, the law commands slaughtering anything that breathes, including infants and even livestock.

You don't follow the Torah.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Frank Maiolo "the law forbids eating unclean things."

Clean meat walked on fully cloven hooves, symbolising the Two Testaments, Old and New, belong together, but not mixed, hence "fully" cloven.

Rabbits are unclean because they hop on feet with several toes, representing polytheism, hence idolatry.

It also had to chew the cud, in the case of actually clean things, that means four stomachs. This symbolises meditating on God's law or doctrine.

In rabbits, chewing the cud means sth else, just like Hindus meditate on sth else.

In swine, there is no chewing the cud. Like some have both testaments, but don't avail themselves of meditating on them.

And a camel has an only partially cloven hoof, symbolising an undue mixing of the Testaments.

"The law commands not to plant mixed crops or wear mixed fabrics."

We are not allowed to mix Christian doctrine with Pagan error, such as Stoicism or Epicureanism or Polytheism.

And we don't do it.

We keep this command spiritually, by admitting Two Testaments, admitting they are separate and meditating on them.

"The law commands stoning disobedient children"

That was part of the civil law and as such is no longer applicable after Archelaus or his dad Herod the Great died.

Also, Jesus did not tell dads to stone minor children, he told adult sons to stop behaving to elderly dads like jerks that deserve stoning (but whom no one can stone).

"It commands that Hebrews may enslave non-Hebrews, unless they're living in the land of Canaan."

I think you got that part totally wrong.

Sorry, you haven't learned what the law says, you've copied a list.

Canaanites were to do one of three things:

• get out
• get enslaved
• for specific cities (like Jericho) get slaughtered.

They were to do that in ONE specific circumstance, the entry of Israel into the promised land, and that circumstance is now over, 3500 c. years ago. Not doing that over again is not "not following the law."

Frank Maiolo

Hans-Georg Lundahl I didn't copy a list. I wrote it down because I read it. You're flat out making up stuff about what these laws mean. The words mean what they say.

Jesus advocated stoning disobedient children. He did not qualify them as "adults".

The symbology and typography you're trying to arm-wrestle into the text is simply false. You're making it up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Frank Maiolo If anyone is making the typology up, it's St. Thomas Aquinas, I have it from him.

// Jesus advocated stoning disobedient children. He did not qualify them as "adults". //

Here are the words, and "children" does not occur:

But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition
[Matthew 15:3-6]

People who are able to declare a thing a korban, are not children. He is blaming the punishables, not the non-punishers, in his adult audience.

So, as you said "children" you have clearly not read the actual passage.

II

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahspecial pleading, not adressing the issue. major dailurel

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers I don't care whether you call it special pleading or not.

It's one specific claim of my religion, you had better try to poke an actual hole rather than just throw big words around with no specifics.

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl you proven to be irrational. thanks

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers also a big word to throw around when you have no concrete evidence

technically it's called an ad hominem.

Are Some Presenting me as Toxic Because of Tolkien?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: I've Noted Some of My Readers Hate Tolkien · HGL's F.B. writings: Are Some Presenting me as Toxic Because of Tolkien?

Two FB statuses, one on each profile:

I

What's the worst thing that can be said about Tolkien's death?

His son who was at the death bed was, known to his father, celebrating the Novus Ordo. He certainly was a valid priest, ordained in 1946.

Other things on that son may have been unknown to the father.

II

No, Mikael Rosén, Sedevacantist Catholic and (at least formerly) National Socialist, a combination not possible in Tanus, he didn't leave FB, he blocked me (on my other profile).

Last interaction we had, he had a meme with "maybe I was raised wrong, but if we wanted sth, we worked for it", I guessed a kind of criticism some may have of me, and I actually responded accordingly, showing last list of my work which presents the production in a comprehensive way, the production of April.

A similar list of May is so far not yet extant, as May isn't finished yet.

New blog on the kid: Production April 2026
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2026/04/production-april-2026.html

As I mentioned to him and as you can verify, it links back to earlier lists (March 2026, which links to February 2026 ...)

Elaine Holt Took Off at a Tangent

Spinoff from A Heliocentic Heckled the Ascension of Jesus

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Elaine Holt As far as I can tell, his claims do not come wholesale from the Bible.

It is a reliable source for the event, by the way, if not for James Shiers' explanation, since it isn't in there. Specifically this statement on material reality:

"the dimensions (time, space, matter and six other dimensions now proven with the Hadron collider)"

No, they aren't. Hadron colliders can be very misinterpreted.

Elaine Holt

Hans-Georg Lundahl ... Disagree.

1....The entire basis for miracles of Jesus rests on the his familial divinity. Since there is no verifiable existential evidence for the god of Abraham, Jesus is not the son of a god.

2....There is no verifiable evidence for miracles, paranormal, or the supernatural. There are million $ awards offered for proof of miracles and paranormal which have not been awarded. When someone does prove it, it will be all over news media.

3....There are many claims for 'miracles' claimed by other gods and messiahs long before biblical writers ' borrowed' the those myths. For instance, ancient Egyptian myths are full of miracles. The Jesus myth is second to the last messiah in a long list of would be worldly saviors.

James Shiers

Elaine Holt

The “book” wasn’t a book until 382 AD.

Until then it was OT prophecy that Greeks also took an interest in by translating the Septuagint, then at the appearance of the historical Jesus, eyewitness accounts by traditional Jews of unexplainable supernatural events, deep moral teachings, a claim to fulfillment of Hebrew scriptural covenant, and “man”ifestation of claims they would not immediately comprehend.

It would require the metanoia of a renowned persecuting, murdering Pharisee writing (at least) 16 letters to early ecclesia to fully detail the meaning of the resurrection event.

The resurrection event was so powerfully evident that the closest eyewitnesses gave up traditional Jewish beliefs, left or were booted from the synagogue lives and sought to relay their experience by traveling to spread the “good news” (Grk: Gospel) at the expense of being mocked, beaten, tortured and killed by some who would label them atheists for refusing to address Caesar as a god.

They called themselves “followers of the way” however Rome sought to mock the growing group of believers in the sincerity of the followers and the alignment of scriptural prophecy to the event by naming them “Christians “.

An embarrassing abundance of first century manuscripts (5600+ Koine Greek and 15,000+ in other languages of the day, of firsthand Jewish witnesses; then writings of secular and even hostile persons of note such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Josephus, and others testify to the veracity of the event.

If such information were demanded of George Washington’s existence he wouldn’t qualify.

The OT writings, with narrative, prophecy, and typographies are confirmed by the Dead Sea scrolls, providentially discovered after the Third Reich was dispatched, and authenticated to have been copied roughly 200 years BC.

Order and occurrence of these events defy random chance and offer a complete explanation to homo sapien sapien’s (thinking man’s) earliest and long standing existential questions of origin, meaning and destiny. The Bible unabashedly claims “truth” and is found to demonstrate it among many today.

Which is the reason the “book” is the longest running best seller in human history.

Elaine Holt

James Shiers .... All of your comment is interesting however, it does not address my claim of the book being full of contradictions, fallacies, superstitions, and myths from earlier cultures. The bible is therefore not a reliable source for 'truth'.

Your assertion that the bible is the largest selling book in history has no bearing on the lack of evidence for its claims or lack of truth. Several thousand years ago, everybody in the world 'knew' the earth was flat and sun circled the flat earth.

The writers of the books of the canon are in question even by biblical scollars. There are no original scripts; and it has been edited more than 15 times. The King James committee of reviewers who translated the book (around 1600CE), was then again modified by the king BC some of the passages that didn't suit his biases. And, there has been even another translation of the king James version since more of the scriptures have been found offensive to the powers that be.

So, none of your comment addressed the issues I opened, but I do respect your attempt to try.

I don't believe I mentioned that biblical scriptures testify that the unproven god of Abraham sanctioned every atrocity known to man onto the humans he claimed to 'love'. Maybe we can discuss morality later.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Elaine Holt "Disagree."

You know what? You have still not traced his exotic world view with ten dimensions (if I added up together) to the Bible.

"Several thousand years ago, everybody in the world 'knew' the earth was flat and sun circled the flat earth."

For Sun circling, along with the universe, each day, counter to the zodiac, each year, you have not disproven.

If everyone in the time and region when most OT books (prior to Maccabees, for instance) were written were Flat Earth, isn't it a little miracle in itself that this doesn't in any way shape or form show up clearly in any of those texts?

"my claim of the book being full of contradictions, fallacies, superstitions, and myths from earlier cultures."

Feel free to name some. You already mentioned Flat Earth, which isn't there, and Geocentrism, which you haven't disproven.

"There are no original scripts; and it has been edited more than 15 times."

Not serially, but in parallel. King James, I'm against, as it is Protestant, groups books and book parts as "apocrypha" and above all mistranslates Matthew 6:7 with "vain repetitions" that's not what battalogein means.

A Heliocentic Heckled the Ascension of Jesus

HGL's F.B. writings: A Heliocentic Heckled the Ascension of Jesus · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Reflection on the Ascension · Ascension

Garry Smith

status*

The bible says Jesus rose bodily into heaven and sits at the right hand of the father and will return. Christians also say God exists out of space and time. Wonder how does a physical body get outside of space and time and then return?

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God as God exists outside space and time, not meaning "on the outside of" but independently of.

To meet angels He always had a throne room, above the stars, which doesn't exist independently of space and time.

There is where Jesus went.

Thomas Kieft

Hans-Georg Lundahl above the stars, you say? Like billions of light years away?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

One to ten light DAYS up.

The "cosmic distance scale" once it involves fix stars, involves Heliocentric interpretation of the phenomenon labelled "parallax" ... mislabelled according to this Geocentric.

If Heliocentrism (on the local scale) holds, that means that we have a triangle between Earth position A, Earth position B and star AND a known distance between Earth positions A and B, namely 2 AU.

In Geocentrism, the 2 AU are still a known distance but outside the triangle Star position A, Star position B and Earth. Without a known distance IN the triangle, you can't triangulate a distance. If the angle of 0.35 arc seconds doesn't belong to Earth but to Sirius, we cannot know that Sirius is "8.6 Light years away" ...

So, forget about light years, there is no such distance.

In the diagram**, I used alpha Centauri, bad choice, since not main series, so less relevant for cosmic distance scale. I learned the "distance" and parallax for Sirius much more recently.

II

Bruce Molinari

His body took on the qualities of His divinity

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Actually false, if you mean things like inspatiality.

Bruce Molinari

Hans-Georg Lundahlnot how it works; His body is now the same as His divinity: this means that He is everywhere undiminished and is perfect in every way

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is actually a Monophysitic heresy, and I'm not even sure the Copts or Armenians would accept it.

This was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon.

III

Haangala Simuunka

Can you give a citation where the Bible says Jesus rose "bodily"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Do you need the actual WORD "bodily"?

1) The disciples SAW Him.
2) St. John SEES Him again, on Patmos.
3) Just in case you think of Theophanies, like God speaking to Adam, in that case God assumed a voice at least, and with Jacob God assumed a body (I'm one who holds that "the angel" was God the Son, before His incarnation), which Jesus doesn't need to since He assumed humanity in the womb of His Virgin Mother.

Haangala Simuunka

Hans-Georg Lundahl So you can't find a passage that actually says he went up bodily?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Haangala Simuunka Yes, I can, unless it's the exact WORD you want.

You admit He claimed to be God when He claimed to be Son of Man, Mark 2 verses 2 to 12, and yet you don't find Him using the word God.

Now your turn. Luke 24 and Acts 1 are the passages, if you pretend He DIDN'T go up bodily, how do YOU explain it, and above all how do you explain the Disciples and all of Church history since then got it wrong?

IV

James Shiers

Evidentially the power to transcend dimensions is part of the answer.

Do you suppose the creator of such dimensions would possess such power?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I suppose the creator would have such power.

I do not suppose it's a very big part of the answer. It is more of an answer on the Eucharist than on God the Son seated at the right of God the Father.

James Shiers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Interesting… please elaborate

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, at the Right of the Father, Jesus is in normal space, in Empyrean Heaven, above the Fix Stars.

Normal distance between head and feet.

In the Eucharist, head and feet are there, but it's the dimensions of bread that touch surrounding space.

V

James Shiers

The creator of the dimensions (time, space, matter and six other dimensions now proven with the Hadron collider) transcends all dimensions. This is what allows Jesus' miracles to be understood. From water to wine, multiplying bread and fish, walking on water, calming storms, healing sick, raising the dead ... to walking through walls to eat fish dinners after being murdered:

"Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." - John 21:25

... Jesus demonstrated His divine nature and authority over the four categories that affect humanity: disease, nature, temptation and life itself.

Elaine Holt

James Shiers ....As far as I can tell, your claims come from a book full of contradictions , superstitions, fallacies, and myths from earlier cultures. Do you have a reliable source for your claims?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Elaine Holt As far as I can tell, his claims do not come wholesale from the Bible.

It is a reliable source for the event, by the way, if not for James Shiers' explanation, since it isn't in there. Specifically this statement on material reality:

"the dimensions (time, space, matter and six other dimensions now proven with the Hadron collider)"

No, they aren't. Hadron colliders can be very misinterpreted.

Elaine Holt's answer

and the ensuing debate merit a post of their own:

Elaine Holt Took Off at a Tangent

* Timely the day before Ascension in 2026. ** Original on a disconnected old blog of mine :

Geo vs Helio | hglwrites
May 29, 2012 | hglundahl
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/geo-vs-helio/

Rédemptoristes Transalpins

Adrien Abauzit

statut

Un nouveau groupe ex-moderniste devient sédévacantiste.

Gloria TV : Les rédemptoristes transalpins deviennent sédévacantistes : "Pas de reconnaissance de Léon XIV
https://gloria.tv/post/CQzxnN33smpb4pPzdhYXGVq2V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ce qui me rappelle, je devrais leur dire de reconnaître Pape Michel II.

Merci pour le rappel !

Adrien Abauzit

Hans-Georg Lundahl Par définition, lorsqu'on est sédévacantiste, on ne reconnaît pas les faux papes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Pape Michel II ne reconnaît pas Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio ou Prevost, non plus.

Je suis d'ailleurs Conclaviste.

Apparenté :

Adrien Abauzit

statut

Les sédévacantistes font le constat de la vacance du Siège.

La Fraternité saint Pie X fait le constat de l'état de nécessité.

Sauf que s'il y a un pape, il ne peut pas exister d'état de nécessité.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

S'il n'y a pas pape, c'est en soi un état de nécessité, à moins d'avoir illico une conclave valide et en bonne et due forme.

1988 Monseigneur Lefebvre fit constat de l'état de nécessité en sacrant des évêques.

1990 David Allen Bawden fit constat de l'état de nécessité consistant en absence prolongée d'un pape et entra une élection "par état de nécessité" (emergency "conclave").

C'est d'ailleurs
lui qui sortait l'élu. Si des Évêques étaient venus, peut-être un d'entre eux aurait été élu. Prit le nom Michel (I).

Freewill

Atheists vs Christians Debate Central 101

David Knowles

status

If God took away our free will to sin, we would be more like God because God can't sin. So evil isn't necessary for good to exist.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God can't sin and a stone can't sin.

God taking away our free will would make us more like a stone.

If we freely collaborate with God, the moment He perfects our freedom to no longer be able to sin is at death. If we don't, that's when we lose the freedom to repent.

I a

David Knowles

Hans-Georg Lundahl God has free will and he is not like a stone so why would humans be that way? You logic is faulty.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God has free will and cannot sin.

I b

David Knowles

Hans-Georg Lundahl God never gave anybody free will. God gave obey or die. That's coercion. Free will is not even a biblical concept. It's a Roman Orthodox Church invention so they could prove inheritable sin. If you had actual free will you could just choose not to sin but you can't because god cursed humanity with inherited sin, not free will.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Knowles "obey or die" isn't a lack of free will, it's an incentive to use it.

God also gave us opportunities enough to ignore the incentive, so it doesn't constitute coercion.

I c

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl That's like saying God takes away freewill because we can't breath underwater.

If your God is so helpless he can't keep freewill and make us incapable of sinning, that bodes poorly for Heaven.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler It's not a question for God being helpless, it's a question for God being consistent.

If God takes away the freedom to sin in advance, that takes away the free will.

If God takes away the freedom to sin as a reward for chosing not to sin, that takes away a distraction and weakness.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Would you focus on the issue?

One can have freewill and not sin.

This is true.

So why not give people freewill without sin?

The answer is not because you don't understand the paradigm.

If you indicate you can not understand this, it is clear your opinion and your reason for religion, is erroneous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler "One can have freewill and not sin."

Under condition of having a perfect will.

Now, the perfect will comes in "two flavours" ... God's will is the definition of perfect and always was. A created will has to progress by choices to *become* perfect.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl No, it does not, and you have no authority to say so.

A God of your description could have given us freewill without the capacity to sin, in the same way he could give us the freewill and be unable to breath water.

The reason this is otherwise, is because God is a fiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler The reason this is otherwise is, because a creature cannot have freewill without some at least initial independence of the creator.

Not sinning = perfected dependence on God.

Now, Mary did have that from the beginning, but that was a privilege.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Since there is no creator, this is wrong.

[meme referring to First Law of Thermodynamics]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler The denial of creation from a law that would describe a common experience, but cannot deny its universality either in time or space is not a reason against good points about creation.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl You can talk sideways all you want, but all your ideas have been shown false.

Your God is false, proven decisively.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler I'm so sorry that you take a mis-stated observation about nature as a "proof" against her Author.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl You have demonstrated an inability to follow a conversation, much less the complexities of this subject.

Your opinions, unsubstantiated opinions, are dismissed for these reasons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler "inability to follow a conversation,"

More like you have.

"Your opinions ... are dismissed"

My Latin teacher told class one day, the passive has a first hand use in avoiding to talking about the doer ... who's doing the dismissing? You, Greg Tyler?

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl You have not been able to follow the conversation, made things up, and submitted opinion as fact.

What can I do but consider you unworthy of conversation?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler Oh, *you* are doing so, thanks for the clarification.

I'm not answering the rest of your comment.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Correct, you have shown you do not have the capacity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler To your taste, not the best.

Excursus

The Byzantine Forum: The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/400295/the-roman-catholic-doctrine-of-marys-impeccability

II

Jay Reb

How did you verify that free will even exists

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If I lie, I know I could have been silent or I could have spoken otherwise and said the truth.

II a

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl how do you know that? How do you know you could have done anything differently?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb How do you know anything about yourself?

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl I can only trust what my brain tells me. So I ask again, how did you verify that free will exists? I personally don’t think it does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb I need to repeat the question: how do you know *anything* about yourself?

Is introspection valid evidence that I think?

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl I am forced to trust what my brain says about me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Freewill doesn't mean freedom on all levels.

I'm also forced to believe the grass is green, as per my eye-sight.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl that’s not what I mean. I mean everything is based on cause and effect and the laws of physics. If you restarted the big bang, I maintain everything would happen exactly the same way. Every single time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb The laws of physics make no statements about exclusivity in causation.

They only make statements of exclusively one outcome other things being equal (which often enough, they aren't). They make no statements whatsoever about the other thing needing to be also phsyical and also subject to the laws of physics.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl that’s why cause and effect is the other thing I mentioned. Please explain how you could do anything different if given the exact same situation with the exact same knowledge and emotional state. You would make the same choice over and over and over for eternity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb You are presuming all causes are, like the physical ones, such as can have only one particular effect.

Wrongly so.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl how can the exact same action have a different effect?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb You are forgetting that the will is not just a passive resultant of inner and outer circumstances, but actively engaged in forming what we receive, certainly from the outside to some degree even from the inside.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl that makes no sense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Oh, your will just floats along with whatever stimulates it, without any attempt of curbing it?

Too bad for you, if that's the case.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl you’re missing the point. How do you verify that you have a choice over what decision you make?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb I've already answered: like I verify that I think, like I verify that I see green when looking at grass.

Immediate experience.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl you’re missing the point. How do you verify that you have a choice over what decision you make?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Again, what *verification* do you ask of *immediate experience*?

Leaving out

a foulworded reply from Jay Reb, but he claimed he was asking me to prove my claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb No, you weren't.

You were asking me how I verified, presumably to myself in the first place.

That's different from proving to you.

Now, if you have no immediate experience of actually chosing, I can't help you. That's just too bad for you, if so.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl no, if you can verify it to yourself, you can verify it to anyone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Not the least.

I can verify to myself I ate cherry yoghurt this morning, not to you.

II b

Jamison Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Even if you repeat a lie believing it to be true, you're still lying!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jamison Peterson No, that's not lying, that's repeating a lie.

Jamison Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Does repeating a lie somehow make it true? A lie, is a lie, is a lie!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jamison Peterson No, repeating a lie believing it to be true (and not just possible) is a different action from saying what you know to be a lie and from being callous about the possibility.

Jamison Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl A lie is a lie. It can't be excused by igorance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jamison Peterson If I'm ignorant, the lie may still be someone's lie, but not mine. It's in that case just my mistake.

Mike Winger; What is a Child?

Mike Winger
This little girl... Islam did this
https://www.facebook.com/reel/968812972680235

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mr. Winger.

As the picture was shown, so also your statement indicated *she was pregnant.*

A person with a uterus is not a male. A person with another person in the uterus is not a child.

Book Review (Geocentric Book, Geocentric Review)

Book by Levi J. Pingleton, available through Kolbe Center:

Keep Me as the Apple of Thine Eye: A Theological Reflection on the Absolute Primacy of Christ
$25.00
https://kolbecenter.org/product/keep-me-as-the-apple-of-thine-eye-a-theological-reflection-on-the-absolute-primacy-of-christ/

Review by our friend Johnny Proctor:

Levi Pingleton penetrates the essential center of creation theology in Keep Me as the Apple of Thine Eye that challenges conventional orthodoxy and lifts the soul to God in unanticipated and spiritually edifying ways.

Coining a useful idiom to capture the main thesis, “Christocentric exemplarism” encompasses the mystery of the incarnation as both source and ultimate fructification of creation. Pingleton traces the mystical reflections of Saint Basil the Great, Saint Augustine, Maximus the Confessor, and Saint Hildegard of Bingen with a deftly woven thread of their common affirmations regarding the divine purposes of creation, the incarnation, and the teleological summation of the ages. These he brings to a crescendo with an in-depth analysis of Christian anthropology as the hermeneutical key to unlock creation’s proclamation of the divine essences which ubiquitously appeal to men through the natural order.

These themes culminate in a compelling case for restoring the traditional cosmology of the Catholic Church to its rightful place in Christian pedagogy; Christocentric exemplarismappeals for a verdict from the sincere disciple.

The Church’s perennial and dogmatically asserted cosmology is geocentric, which is to say, as the Fathers all taught with one voice, the earth is at rest in the center of the cosmos. Pingleton argues gently and with understatedurgency for the traditional coherence between the metaphysical and the theological sciences as something most Christians know is missing implicitly but which evades them as a practical diagnosis. This wonderful coherence – which this book masterfully lays out for the reader –is in fact missing from modern understanding yet is constantly appealing to our consciences and intellects through the ‘speech and words’ of the created order (cf. Psalm 18).

The treatment of the Galileo affair of the 17th century is explained with meticulous footnoting and concise accounting of the major milestones leading to the modern misconception of the Church’s actual position. This section presents a defense of dogmatic development of the geocentric aspect of Patristic and medieval cosmology and its enduring value as the appropriate hermeneutical approach to both Scripture and metaphysics.

I personally appreciate how this book promotes cosmological coherence, encouraging a union of sacred and profane sciences within the Creator's intended order. Levi Pingleton elegantly presents this coherence as a spiritual necessity, as a mystical blueprint, and the proper exegesis of the intelligible universe. This brief study is desperately needed today in a theological milieu too often characterized by incoherence, ruptures between the natural and supernatural orders, and irreconcilable approaches to metaphysics, philosophy, and the science of divinity.Keep Me as the Apple of Thine Eye offers an authentically Catholic vision of creation gracefully traversing these disciplines in a brief and elegant structure that economizes argumentation without sacrificing substance.

What Does Faith Mean? Same as in St. Thomas' Day!

Tyrone

status

why do you apply logic and evidence to literally everything in life—health, money, decisions—but abandon it when it comes to the bible?

you don’t run your life on faith when it comes to doctors, mechanics, or finances. you demand evidence. so why lower the standard here?

what’s the justification for using a completely different set of rules for one belief?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

When I stopped drinking a pint of beer every evening on the day of St. Lucy, I was exercising FAITH on three items:

• that I did not have a fractured bone in the left toe
• that I did have very probably gout
• and that alcohol is one factor that makes gout occur.

Now, it's only one, and some have been pushing other risk factors, but these three things were NOT things I could have checked for myself, I had to have FAITH in what the doctors said, because of their expertise.

Faith isn't absence of logic, it's confidence in someone who knows better trumping what the own logic would have one believe (I had gone to the hospital believing I had a fracture).

Tyrone

Hans-Georg Lundahl You dont know what the word 'faith' means. You're trying to redefine it to make your religious beliefs sound as reasonable as trusting a doctor, and it's a pathetic and dishonest comparison.

You didn't have 'faith' in your doctor. You had trust based on EVIDENCE. You trusted them because doctors have years of medical training, they use diagnostic tools like x-rays, they understand biochemistry, and there is a massive, publicly verifiable track record of them successfully diagnosing and treating things like gout. Their expertise is built on a mountain of EVIDENCE. If your doctor told you to treat your gout by sacrificing a goat, you'd get a new doctor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, I do know.

"You're trying to redefine it to make your religious beliefs sound as reasonable as trusting a doctor"

Well, that's the meaning.

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

Summa Theologiae, I Pars, Q 1, A 2, Corpus of the article.

Tyrone

Hans-Georg Lundahl You think quoting a 13th-century monk proves what 'faith' means today? You're just hiding behind Thomas Aquinas because you got caught dishonestly comparing religious faith to trusting a doctor.

You can call your 'sacred doctrine' a 'science' all you want, but it's not. Real science is based on testable evidence. Yours is based on 'principles revealed by God', which is just a fancy way of saying you have to believe it with no evidence.

Your analogy of a musician and a mathematician is stupid. A musician can test the principles of harmony for themselves. You cannot test your 'revealed' principles. You just have to believe.

You didnt answer the point. You just tried to hide behind a quote from a guy who lived before the scientific method was even invented. You're trying to redefine faith to make it sound reasonable, and when you got called out, you ran away to a medieval philosopher.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"what 'faith' means today?"

Faith is about the Catholic religion, which is the exact same one today and in his day.

"A musician can test the principles of harmony for themselves."

Yes, but a beginner can't.

"before the scientific method was even invented"

What the H...l do you mean by "the scientific method"? Denial of God as explanation?

Because, if it means anything else, St. Thomas as well as his more natural sciences oriented mentor St. Albert were great exponents of "scientific method" if it means doing science with a rational method.

And by the way, as there are different sciences and different questions in each science, there is no "one" scientific method.

Challenge not met

HGL's F.B. writings: Challenge not met · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Spinoff Debate with Justin Roe

Creation vs Evolution Debate Group

Hans-Georg Lundahl

status / question challenge

23.III.2026, 18:07

If man evolved from apes ("from non-human apes" according to a certain modern terminology), what intermediate is there between:

a) ape:
1 sound = 1 message

b) human:
1 or usually more sounds = 1 meaning unit,
1 or usually more meaning units = 1 message.

All Human Languages are Human, None are "Primitive"
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2026/03/all-human-languages-are-human-none-are.html

A

Joe Dennehy

Here you go, you could place them in chronological order

[Image of "human ancestors"]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry, I wasn't speaking of skeleta.

I was speaking of two clearly different ways of communicating. Check my question once again.

Bill Vanyo

Hans-Georg Lundahl Your question isn't clear.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think it is very clear, since after ape, I gave a characterisation of what exactly in the ape I was talking of: what intermediate is there between:

a) ape:
1 sound = 1 message

And again, after human (note, adjective, not noun), I have a characterisation of what in human communication I was talking of:

b) human:
1 or usually more sounds = 1 meaning unit,
1 or usually more meaning units = 1 message.

I also gave a link dealing with the human side of the pretended equation.

If you replace "sound" with "phoneme" and "meaning unit" with, not word but "morpheme" and then "message" with "phrase, you get the exact terminology used by linguists. I was trying to be popular and roughly comprehensible even to non-linguists.

Joe Dennehy

Hans-Georg Lundahl you failed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not as far as I can see.

Joe Dennehy You DO admit as a fact that human language involves double patterning?

Take your words "you failed", they involve three morphemes. "You" = telling the one you're talking to you're talking about him.
"Fail ..." = stating what you state if a failure
"... ed" = stating what you state is sth that already happened.

"You" involves two phonemes "y" and "oo". Neither of which states anything by itself.
"Fail..." involves three phonemes, "f" and "ey" and "l" none of which states anything by itself.
"... ed" involves one or two morphemes, here only one, "d" which doesn't state anything by itself except when used in this ending.

B

Dudley Chapman

Here are all the intermediates you asked for:

Natural History Museum: The origin of our species
By Jenny Wong and Lisa Hendry
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origin-of-our-species.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Chapman I think I already gave Joe Dennehy the response that I wasn't asking about anatomy, but stages of transition between two very different systems of communication.

Dudley Chapman

Hans-Georg Lundahl what do you know about languages used by the species that are ancestors to humans?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you think Ramapithecus was ancestral, one can reasonably presume that "ancestor" communicated like apes do.

The point is a VERY basic distinction between ape communication and human communication.

So basic you should be able to do a kind of theoretic modelling of how the transition happened ... if it was even possible for it to happen.

My point is, it wasn't possible, and therefore didn't happen.

C

Corey Taylor

Wild Apes make tons of sounds and body language cues with hundreds of messages .. where do you get this 1 sound from ?

α

Dudley Chapman

Corey Taylor he is making stuff up as he goes along. It bothers me how little effort some people put into their Christian testimony. As if it is more faithful to remain totally ignorant of a subject so you can say ridiculous things.

St. Augustine warned us about this in his treatise on reading Genesis literally.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Chapman Can you stop being a damned calumniator?

For your soul's sake, if you don't care about mine!

"in his treatise on reading Genesis literally."

In his treatise on the Literal Reading of Genesis. And you are quotemining a certain passage which is a very short passage of book I, in a total of XII books.

Dudley Chapman

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, thanks,

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” (1 Tim. 1:7)

-St. Augustine of Hippo (The Literal Meaning of Genesis Book 1 Chapter 19 Paragraph 39)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you!

You found the quote mined quote!

If this is one of at least 39 paragraphs of one of at least 19 chapters of in fact one out of twelve books, do you think this is all St. Augustine had to say?

It. Quite. Frankly. Isn't.

And thanks for giving the title correct this time. On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, not On Reading Genesis Literally, meaning, he is, book after book, chapter after chapter, paragraph after paragraph discussing what Genesis actually says. This passage is in the contect of his defending fix stars being in a sphere rather than on a flat disc. Some people actually did read exactly one passage to that latter effect, and that's what he polemising against.

Not against Geocentrism (he was Geocentric, which you would know if you had read book 1), not against Young Earth Creationism (which you would know if you had read City of God), and especially not against Adam being created directly from soil, rather than through living intermediaries.

β

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Corey Taylor READ AGAIN.

I did not say apes makes just one sound. I DID say with apes making one specific sound equals making one whole message.

They lack what in human language is called "double articulation" or "dual patterning" which is a very basic concept in linguistics.

I don't know if apes have 50 or 500 different sounds, but it should be in that area. That's a total of 50 to 500 different messages they can convey. Because, with apes, each sound has a meaning. That meaning is a message.

Corey Taylor

Hans-Georg Lundahl again… you’re only looking at half the picture because primates utilize body language just as much if not more than actual vocalizations to convey messages. Same with the most mammals.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Body langugage ALSO has one gesture = one complete message.

Body language also HASN'T double articulation or dual patterning.

D

Ire NE

Humans are humans and Animals are animals. That's it!

E

Justin Roe

This is basic sets and subsets. Literal 6-month-old babies get this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But 6 month old apes don't.

So, how do you explain the transition?

Justin Roe

Hans-Georg Lundahl uh, 6 month old humans ARE 6 month old apes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look, I didn't ask whether men were apes, I'm aware of the terminology you are using.

That's the exact reason why I added a parenthesis:

If man evolved from apes ("from non-human apes" according to a certain modern terminology), ...

How about getting to the question which is why man communicates so differently from apes, or on your terminology "non-human apes" ... do you have a clue are are you trying to avoid the question by heckling my terminology?

Justin Roe

Hans-Georg Lundahl there are a variety of hypotheses for the evolution of human language. It's a frontier of study at the moment, are you proposing that such a thing "can't evolve"? We know some of the genes responsible for our speech capacity.

Additionally, molecular analysis conclusively demonstrates that if "apes" is a real clade, we nest within it, as panins (chimps and bonobos) are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas, all African great apes (including us) are more closely related to one another than any is to the orangutans, and all hominids (great apes) are more closely related to each other than any is to the hylobatids (gibbons and siamangs, or "lesser apes").

If placing the origin of language as a supernatural intervention by whatever deity or deities you believe in helps you sleep better at night, go ahead until further discoveries are made.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"there are a variety of hypotheses for the evolution of human language."

Yeah ... care to take up and defend one? Not least on how it deals with the proposed problem?

"It's a frontier of study at the moment"

Been so for decades, like Abiogenesis. Since early optimism got some sane input from people knowing what language is, I suppose.

"are you proposing that such a thing "can't evolve"?"

Yes.

"We know some of the genes responsible for our speech capacity."

Feral children have them too. Human language can only be learned by people with a certain FOXP2 Gene, with Broca's and Wernicke's areas in the brain (plus adequate apparatus for sound production and hearing), but it has to be actually learned, you aren't born with actual knowledge of human language.

I can in principle explain the transition from Latin to French, in a very big resolution of detail. But Latin, like French, already has the human three tier system. Ape communication hasn't.

"molecular analysis"

I'm not betting on apes being one real clade. But molecules are not responsible for the input in language learning, only for the receptivity.

F

Barry Peterson

You can see many of the homonid fossils with your own eyes at the Smithsonian…..

[image]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Barry Peterson You are the third person so far who just skims through my question and presumes I was asking for the intermediates between apes and men. I asked for the possible intermediates between ape communication and human communication.

Barry Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl I suggest you research the homonids ath the Smithsonian. Some of them utilized advanced communication….Beyond Homo sapiens, Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) are the strongest candidates for having spoken, as evidence suggests they possessed the hyoid bone, ear structure, and FOXP2 gene necessary for complex speech. *Homo erectus* and other archaic humans also likely had some form of vocal communication.

Australian Museum: How do we know if they could speak?
Author(s), Fran Dorey | Updated, 21/10/20
https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/how-do-we-know-if-they-could-speak/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are still misconstruing my question.

It wasn't "which extinct presumed species were also human and could speak" but given some ancestry on your view actually COULDN'T speak, how do you explain the transition, in principle?

Some FB Admins Hate Chesterton

I regularly share Chesterton quotes on FB.

Both my accounts have now been de facto blocked from access.

At least the Georges Pompidou library right now.

The one which has a composition of mine as profile picture was blocked in another library too and has been that for some days.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
https://www.facebook.com/hansgeorglundahl/

But the same is also the case with the other account:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
https://www.facebook.com/hglundahl/

From Rivarol I know that Islamist leaning Muslims are doing the Admins on FB France. I also know an Englishman or US American FB Friend, who is not among my most intimate, got a birthday present, a link to a post of mine, which he may not have appreciated. But even if he "sounded the alarm bell" he could not do anothing himself, it would have to go through Admins of FB or of the internet connections (and that's less economic, it would be two libraries and one cyber)./HGL

PS, I find a QR code as a means of connecting myself:

Scannez le code QR et confirmez que les codes correspondent pour vous connecter.
KAG-ICR-HUFI

I do not have a cell phone, so I can't. I always use computers only for connection./HGL

PPS, fixed for one of them, right now [hglundahl]/HGL

PPPS, in case you wonder, less than two hours after I published this./HGL

PPPPS, still not fixed for the other [hansgeorglundahl]/HGL

Shared

One of the biggest changes for me post retirement (which I hope doesnt mean I am turning into an alkie)🤣 is the desire and ability to enjoy a Guinness on any day. At work in the University I didn't drink during the day - contact with students and complex meetings precluded that). Now I do it when I choose, if I have walked the calories off beforehand and eat with it.

Responding to Culture Wars on Tolkien

Tolkien got the main symbols in The Hobbit from Richard Wagner’s Ring cycle,*

Like?

Obviously, omitting things that Wagner had in common with Norse sources that Tolkien could read directly without Wagner (and the actual Wagner fan CSL in addition to Wagner).

Dragon, hoard, dwarf, talking bird, do not count. These are all in the Norse sources as well.

---

* From "The West Has Failed: Tolkien, Traditionalism and Islamophobia" January 06, 2026/ E. Michael Jones, in Culture Wars