With Real Protestants - Bryan Sager I

With Real Protestants - Bryan Sager Intro · With Real Protestants - Bryan Sager I · With Real Protestants - Bryan Sager II and Dariusz Kulikowski

Bryan Sager

Should we pray to the dead?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Amen, amen I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life."
[John 5:24]

"Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live:"
[John 11:25]

"Otherwise believe for the very works' sake. Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do."
[John 14:12]

When it says "God is not a God of the dead", take that as He is not the god of those who go to the Hell of the damned.

Bryan Sager

In your own words can you define what praying to the dead means to you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you mean to the "dead" in a Biblical sense of "dead" it would mean praying to the damned.

I just indicated that according to three passages in St John, the words of Christ Himself, not everyone deceased qualifies as "dead" in this sense.

Bryan Sager

I mean, how do you pray to the dead and what is the purpose of praying to the dead? I'm asking you to define your claim using your own words then we can bring forth the evidence that you say supports your claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, you mean how I pray to the deceased I consider already in Heaven?

• 1) I honour them;
• 2) I ask for their prayers;
• 3) I hope they will pray for me.

You wanted evidence?

In the creed, there is "sanctorum communionem" as a definition of unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, and it implies a communion between the saints on earth, in purgatory and in heaven.

In Apocalypse I see martyrs in heaven praying.

Apocalypse 6:[9] And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. [10] And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Bryan Sager

a

How does the bible define praying to the dead?

b

Anything you use for evidence outside of the Bible has to cohere with the teaching of the Bible where it cannot be accepted as evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

a

Does it?

b

I am content with the definition of the Church, e g in Trent.

As to your criterium, it sounds like "sola scriptura" which is a heresy condemned at Trent.

How does the Bible define obeying the Church?

I Timothy 3:[15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

So, for me it should be fine enough to show the definition of Trent does not contradict anything in the Bible.

Would you mind coming forth with accusations, if you think there are any?

Bryan Sager

The burden of proof is on you, you're the one making the claim. i didn't ask for a definition of the church. I'm asking for your evidence to back your claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but you came with the challenge [see OP above], equivalent to a claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

You did not ask for a definition of the Church, because you are not a Christian. I do ask for such definitions, since I am.

Bryan Sager

Ok, if you're not going to bring forth your evidence then its over. Thats not how a debate works. You are saying that a certain action should take place regarding certain scripture to back your action. That doesn't leave me with the burden of proof. I never made that claim, my claim doesnt cause a action.

you opened with your claim [!], a opening is always a claim followed with evidence backed by effect.

Of course, if you're only here to argue that would be a different thing but since you keep sharing these on your personal blog I figured we would use the typical outline for a debate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"you opened with your claim,"

You opened with "Should we pray to the dead?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you refer to my words previous, I was actually giving a previous debate. Where I had already given the proof.

Bryan Sager

Either you can define your claim with evidence or retract your claim. I don't get whats so hard for you to understand about debating? This is a sign of lack of understanding of the layout of debating. Im not going to set here and debate with you about debating, either you're going to back your claim or this arguement is over.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have debated for 17 years on internet - never once in a formal one where I was supposed to make the equivalent of Kent Hovind's or the other guys 15 minute opening statement.

You pretend I have given no evidence?

I have, but you are dishonest about that.

The opening of this line is about whether you appropriately can classify deceased believers as "dead" in the relevant sense.

3 verba dominica saying "no".

And, you know what?

Bryan Sager has not answered this ...

II

a

Tom Dorsey

YES!! The word "pray" can and does also mean "ask/request".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

AND we cannot refer to as dead those who live in Christ or who walk with the lamb whithersoever he goeth.

b

Nwadinigwe Michael

If you mean to the saints, those who have died and are in Heaven, I will say Yes.

Not all death are in Heaven, dose in hell can hear your prayers but can not ask God to answer you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In order to hear our prayers, any soul needs to have this revealed from God. The saints do get such a revelation.

III

Irene Tinsley

We shouldn't be praying to anyone but God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We should not ADORE anyone but God.

We should not worship WITH LATREIA anyone but God.

Maja Hill

We pray to God alone, if we are true to what is in the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Would you mind telling me where asking saints for their intercession is forbidden in the Bible?

IV

Suzy Minck

Jesus set the example in the Lord’s Prayer, only to his Father. At Ecc. 9:5,6 & 10, we learn the dead know nothing. So why pray to the dead?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Now, ... Eccl 9: [5] For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, neither have they a reward any more: for the memory of them is forgotten. [6] Their love also, and their hatred, and their envy are all perished, neither have they any part in this world, and in the work that is done under the sun. ... [10] Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither thou art hastening.

• 1) "hell" means Sheol, not necessarily the Hell of the damned - but in Heaven things may be different from the bosom of Abraham in Sheol;
• 2) it may refer to Purgatory, since we agree in Purgatory we have no more occasion to merit;
• 3) Verse 6 clearly limits verse 5 to refer to earthly affairs, but praying for the brethren is an eternal one;
• 4) even in this respect, verse 5 would perhaps preclude, except bishop Challoner has a solution:
  
  [5] "Know nothing more": Viz., as to the transactions of this world, in which they have now no part, unless it be revealed to them; neither have they any knowledge or power now of doing any thing to secure their eternal state, (if they have not taken care of it in their lifetime:) nor can they now procure themselves any good, as the living always may do, by the grace of God.

In other words, no proof text against praying to the dead.

Now look at Luke 16.

Suzy Minck

Hans-Georg Lundahl Sheol is the original word, grave, where man goes when we die. The dead know nothing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That changed when Chrust

That changed when Christ went down there.

V

Bryn Hagan

Nope. The bible even tells us not to try to communicate with them - yet there was one king (can't remember which one) that did.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You misrecall the exact words of the command as well as not recalling Saul.

Now, the command in question Deuteronomy 18: [9] When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee, beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations. [10] Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard,

[11] Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. [12] For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations he will destroy them at thy coming.

So, it's about seances.

Saul was condemned for going to a witch for a seance with Samuel.

Bryan Sager

Hans, nothing you posted here constitutes praying to the dead, they can't hear you.

God is omnipresent not us.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God can definitely reveal a prayer to each saint He wants to intercede for us and thereby be glorified by miracles.

ALSO, you do not know the outline of a debate, if you imagine I am everywhere and anywhere only trying the exact one thing of proving the exact one point you thought I should prove.

I was here answering an objection from Deut. 18 and from Witch of Endor episode.

Why did you not bring that up under the subthread where you were asking me for proof instead? [see I]

Bryan Sager

Hans, you defined your opinion but you never brought your evidence. I proper rebuttal takes evidence to refute.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Actually, you are here trying to refute a claim I had made already there.

In fact, you bail out of the one to one with me and disrupt my one to one with more than one of the others.

Bryan Sager

Hans, I think you fail to realize that this is "my" OP.

If you think I "bailed" you're sadly mistaken, Im not going to waste my time with someone that doesn't understand the format of debating. I made a OP, I tagged you in it, you made a claim, you gave me no evidence to refute. What do you not understand about that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where exactly someone got the idea (except possibly yourself) that you understand debating.

You used a key term, my initial answer was refuting the appropriateness of that key term, and you have still given nothing in response to that initial answer.

Bryan Sager

Hans, you should look this stuff up, you can find simple 5 min video on youtube to explain this to you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but you need very much more than 5 min youtube videos to understand debating, if ever you do.

Fairness is a key term on debating I haven't heard from you so far.

Bryan Sager

The outline of debating is still the same, why would I be fair if the other person isnt willing to follow the proper outline? No outline no debate, its only a argument then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fairness means you don't twist what the other guy does about the outline of debating. You twist all the time, snake.

Bryan Sager

Hans, proper outline of a debate never changes, fairness is staying on course of proper outline. without the proper outline it is just a arguement. Im done teaching you about debating. take care

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I never asked you to teach me about debating in the first place, and I don't know why you repeat "take care" from your words on Kulakowski's subthread, is it some kind of threat?

That subthread on another OP was partly in temporal tandem to this one. Hence, while it comes after here, some parts of it come before parts of this one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[notified of debate being mirrored]

Bryan Sager

I'm glad you're making a great name for me lol I love the free advertisement

Do you want a picture to go on there with it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Why not?

But as to making a great name for you, I think you might want to spread my blog a bit for that.

With Real Protestants - Bryan Sager Intro

With Real Protestants - Bryan Sager Intro · With Real Protestants - Bryan Sager I · With Real Protestants - Bryan Sager II and Dariusz Kulikowski

Bryan Sager

It seems that people have been emotional when debating me, sorry if I'm here to debate.

You pick the topic on this post and I will reply to your topic, remember this is a debate, don't let your emotions get the best of you.

Much love and blessings

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Problem is, when I get lectures from a Calvinist, I end up giving some to him ... nearly for free (he risks having the debate mirrored on my blogs).

Bryan Sager

Hans, I have already debated you before, you fail to realize what debating is about, you're not debating, you're arguing and ignoring everything anyone says.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You mean this debate?

On Praying to or for departed and involving statues
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/05/on-praying-to-or-for-departed-and.html

If by ignoring what you say you mean I am not apostasising from Catholicism, that is correct.

Bryan Sager

Hans, I guess you honestly don't realize how ignorant it makes you look praying to someone that is deceased. Smh.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Like Jesus departed for "three days and three nights"?

And Bryan Sager did not answer right here, where I could have pointed out to him that Jews could say the same about praying to Jesus - but we don't, since He is alive.

On Certain Catholics Considering Pope Michael or myself as Protestants

Paul J Martin

Admin ·

There seems to be a lot of controversy over Pope Francis, ranging from rumours, accusations, hearsay, sensational tabloids or expectations on what a pope is supposed to be and do. I would value your feedback so I can better understand how you feel about the pontiff.

• Pope Francis is a great pope doing a great job. +30
  
  
• Pope Francis is a bad pope leading the one true church. +6
  
  
• Pope Francis is a highly flawed individual trying his best to lead the church. +6
  
  
• Pope Francis is a Communist because he comes from Latin America, and is in cahoots with the banks and the Illuminati.
  
  
• Pope Francis is the Antichrist or an apostate and I’m a Sedevacantist/Protestant.

Steve Wall

Pope Francis is THE Pope and Catholics should show him the proper respect. No Catholic should publicly castigate the Holy Father based on unproven accusations. Wait for the investigations to be completed, otherwise it is slander.

Paul J Martin

Then cast your vote 🙂

Steve Wall

There was not an appropriate choice.

Skipping

some other comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look here, "sedevacantist" and "protestant" are not exhaustive for Bergoglio being apostate.

What about "orthopapist" (recognising someone else as pope; my case) and certain more stringent of the Orthodox?

Steve Wall

There is only one Holy Father. Catholics call him Pope Francis.

Even before he became the Vicar of Christ, calling him by his last name without using his title would have been disrespectful . . . unacceptable behavior from a Catholic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholics call him Pope Michael.

Oh, there is a certain point to Bergoglio. Even clearer if you write in Upper Case BERGOGLIO. Try the sum in ASCII (A=65 to Z=90, that name has no accented letters).

Steve Wall

Who is Michael and why would you, a protestant, believe him to be the Vicar of Christ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Will you take back "you, a protestant"?

Steve Wall

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Absolutely not! You are as protestant as Martin Luther! Perhaps more so!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As Martin Luther in what year?

1515? He was basically Catholic.
1517? He was Jansenist.
1520? He was Protestant.
and so on ... one minute more Protestant than Erasmus, one minute less Protestant than Zwingli (good for him, btw).

Now, if you do not believe ANY of the heresies condemned at Trent, you cannot qualify as Protestant.

I believe in Seven Sacraments, Mass being a True Sacrifice, Mary being Co-Redemptrix (a Prot just called me blasphemous for the quote from Challoner on Genesis 3:15) ... you could call me schismatic or heretic, from your point of view, but calling me a Protestant is as inaccurate as calling Luther a Nestorian.

Btw, before calling me a heretic, you might want to check the exact definition on which you would call me so.

Steve Wall

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not call you a heretic. Please do not lie in an attempt to strengthen your position.

I would say you are as protestant as Martin Luther in 1522 when he published his perversion of the New Testament. In it, he corrupted Sacred Scripture in an attempt to strengthen his position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not say you had already called me a heretic.

The technical term for publishing an own Bible translation which is not the Church's is schismatic.

I said you could from your p o v call me schismatic. However, Protestant refers to a very specific group of heresies, with close kins, the original ones condemned at Trent being Luther's, Zwingli's, Calvin's, Bucer's, Cranmer's, the Anabaptists' and the two Sozzini's more or less contemporaneous heresies.

If someone's position doesn't fit these, you cannot call him a Protestant.

Btw, I was quoting a fully Catholic Douay Rheims.

Steve Wall

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I didn't call you a Protestant, I called you a protestant.

Say what you want, but the one thing you are not is Catholic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I didn't call you a Protestant, I called you a protestant."

Oh, sorry, missed that shade of meaning.

A "protestant" - lower case - has no canonical meaning whatsoever.

In that sense, St. Thomas More could have been called "a protestant" bc of protesting against the majority of the English bishops (against all but one, in fact).

As for the last, you are not my bishop or pope.

Steve Wall

Well, you've told us who you chose to be you pope, who have you chosen to be your bishop?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For the moment, His Holiness seems to be the only bishop in the world.

(Only bishop with jurisdiction, those who consecrated him seem to have retired)

Steve Wall

It's a shame you've rejected the Catholic Church. We have a lot of bishops and each one of them has a proven line of Apostolic succession all the way back to Jesus Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You know, there are some of them whose most recent in the line consecrations are after a new rite (1970 or 1969 or sth).

Steve Wall

So? They are still valid and licit lines of Apostolic succession.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is disputed.

The Anglican lines are invalid, due to a change in rite.

The Novus Ordusian ones could be so too.

His Holiness has a line reaching back to Duarte Costa.

Steve Wall

Wow!

ALMOST a full century of succession???

You do realize that Duarte Costa was excommunicated BEFORE he founded his own Church.

What's that question we always like to ask of protestants???

WHO FOUNDED YOUR CHURCH?

The answer to that question for you would be:

The excommunicated Duarte Costa in 1945.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You do realize that Duarte Costa was excommunicated BEFORE he founded his own Church."

Do you realise this does not make his line of succession invalid, any more than that of the patriarch of Antioch?

A schismatic bishop is still a bishop.

The Anglican non-bishops (except very recent through Antioch and very few) are not non-bishops due to schism, they are non-bishops due to change of rites.

An illicit consecration is not the same as an invalid one.

The consecrating bishops were juridically reconciled with the Catholic Church (insofar as Bawden was validly elected) before ordaining and consecrating him in 2011, Gaudete weekend.

Some background to the election, the emergency conclave.

• 1) 1986 Wojtyla had visited a synagogue in Rome and convoked a prayer meeting involving non-Catholic and non-Christians, every religious tradition except atheists and radical evangelicals;
• 2) 1988 Monseigneur Lefebvre had consecrated four bishops, on the theory that Wojtyla was not fit to decide on what bishops to consecrate;
• 3) 1990 a conclave took place on the theory that if so, Wojtyla was not Pope and since the Church has a right to elect a valid Pope, even laymen could go ahead, should higher clergy and lower clergy fail to take on the duty which normally would have fallen on cardinals.

Steve Wall

You do realize that a schismatic bishop does not have the authority to ordain anyone as bishop.

When Duarte Costa rebelled against Christ's Church, he ended his line of succession.

Your church is just one more in the tens of thousands of protestant religions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are dreaming. The Church has decided otherwise, that is the only reason why Orthodox bishops are considered as HAVING valid, though gravely illicit, Apostolic Succession.

Steve Wall

Duarte Costa was not an Orthodox Bishop, he was an excommunicated bishop. His Apostolic succession ended when he was excommunicated. He had no authority to ordain anyone to carry on his line.

Your pathetic claims that Michael is the Pope are without merit. He is a false pope, a false bishop, in a false church with no link to Christ or His Apostles. Just one more protestant sect among the tens of thousands.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Orthodox bishops have been excommunicated since 1053.

"His Apostolic succession ended when he was excommunicated."

If so, Orthodox would have as little valid bishops as Anglicans.

"He had no authority to ordain anyone to carry on his line."

He had no jurisdiction to do so licitly, but he did have the powers to do so validly.

"authority" is a buzz word fuzzying out the distinction between jurisdiction and episcopal powers.

Mark Shea : For Kaepernick AND For Tebow

New blog on the kid : Citing Mark Shea on the Prejudice of Certain People he Considers as Racist · HGL's F.B. writings : Mark Shea : For Kaepernick AND For Tebow

Ty Barker

Admin

Shared:

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not all of them.

I really don't think Mark Shea was against Tebowing.

I added

a link to the article On the Dumb Nike Flap

Ty Barker

Your comment has been removed because it violates Facebook’s Community Standards.

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/integrity_authenticity/?hc_location=ufi

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Nous travaillons sans relâche pour limiter la diffusion de contenu commercial indésirable en vue d’éviter les publicités mensongères, les fraudes et les failles de sécurité qui empêchent les utilisateurs d’interagir et de partager l’esprit tranquille. Nous n’autorisons pas les utilisateurs à utiliser des informations trompeuses ou incorrectes en vue de recueillir des mentions J’aime, des abonnés ou des partages."

It was NOT a commercial.

NOR a fraud.

Your removal of it on that pretense was fraudulent.

II

Martin Brown

I've never even heard of this Tim bloke

Ty Barker

Tim Tebow is a Christian who used to play in the NFL. Liberals hated him, because he had a habit of taking a knee to give thanks to God for his success on the field. He wasn't protesting anything, he was simply expressing his faith. The same people who vilified him for expressing his faith by taking a knee to show respect for God are the same people who now lionize Kaepernick for taking a knee to disrespect police officers, the military and America in general.

Martin Brown

Ty Barker can we verifiably state "the same people"?

Ty Barker

Martin Brown Yes we can.

NewsBusters : Flashback: When Tebow Knelt
By Corinne Weaver | September 25, 2017 12:06 PM EDT
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/corinne-weaver/2017/09/25/flashback-when-tebow-knelt

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"While the NFL outrage poured in on all fronts over the weekend, resulting in mass protests among football players that were heavily encouraged by both the media and liberal celebrities, it’s interesting to note that about six years ago, these same outlets bashed quarterback Tim Tebow for kneeling on the field in prayer."

You have NOT verified "the same people" since "these same outlets" in article refer to some media, which are not exhautsive of the ones who are for Kaepernick.

As I showed with the link to a Catholic blogger which Ty Barker FRAUDULENTLY pretended to remove in "obedience" to FB standards.

Mark Shea was certainly for Kaepernick, as shown by the article, but as certainly, since Catholic, for the right of Tebow to bow.

Unless you can show on Mark Shea's blog that he was not so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Afterthought

I actually searched it, and found he was FOR Tebow:

Catholic and Enjoying It : What is “Christianism”?
December 13, 2011 By Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2011/12/what-is-christianism.html

"Those sorts of things (and similarly politicized stuff) could arguably be called “Christianism”: the conflation of a peculiar political agenda with the gospel. But Sullivan’s reason for seeing the telltale traits of Christianism in Tebow? He prays publicly. He’s overt about his faith. This discomfits Sullivan, whose own Irish Catholic pieties see this as Not the Done Thing. So Tebow is consigned to the circle of the Christianists. What then, is “Christianism”? Whatever a conservative Christian does, says, or thinks that Andrew Sullivan doesn’t like. Mystery solved."

AND HERE:

Jewish Writer Labors to Dispel Anti-Semitic Myth…
December 14, 2011 By Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2011/12/jewish-writer-labels-to-dispel-anti-semitic-myth.html

…that Jews are smarter than the rest of us; goes into full panic mode about Tim Tebow:

If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell​’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.

What’s particularly delectable about this snobbish rant is that the author, apparently noticing the gales of laughter greeting him in this most Judeophilic nation of Gentiles on planet earth, has gone back and quietly excised this lunatic paranoid remark from his original piece. Unfortunately, he didn’t excise the whole piece.

In other words, Mark Shea, just shown to be for Kaepernick was also FOR Tebow, not against him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2 More Afterthoughts

i

On top of that, your article on Flasback was from September 25, 2017 - well before the Kaepernick affair, as far as I get it.

ij

Sorry, I seem to be wrong - in fact the Kaepernick affair was 2016 - and that was under Obama's mandate.

So, he was even protesting things which happened under Obama.

Ty Barker

Hans-Georg Lundahl Your link was removed because it said Trump had mocked a reporter for his disability. THAT IS FAKE NEWS.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Don't pick a fight with me Hans. First off, you’re not even an American, which means you’re not familiar enough with the Kaepernick controversy to give an informed opinion. Second, the same networks that eviscerated Tebow are indeed the same networks that are now praising Kaepernick. I never pretended to offer an “exhaustive” list, nor did I need too.

Tell you what Hans, I don’t make a habit of getting involved in the affairs of other countries, so why don’t you do Americans a favor and keep your uninformed opinions about what’s going on in our country to yourself? America is already being ripped apart by fascists like Kaepernick, so we don’t need outside help to make a bad situation worse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl On top of that, your article on Flasback was from September 25, 2017 - well before the Kaepernick affair, as far as I get it.

-----

And thank you for making my point that you’re not informed enough about this controversy to comment. Kaepernick first started protesting in August 14, 2017 and that article I referenced was published on September 25, 2017. Of course if you had taken time to read the article, you would know that the entire reason for the article was to contrast how leftist hypocrites in the media reacted to Tebow with how they reacted to Kaepernick.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And if YOU had read my comment, you would have known I took issue with exactly one phrase of yours.

"are the same ones" - stated in a way not limited to leftist media.

Ergo, exactly ONE counterexample is enough to prove you wrong, and I provided one with Mark Shea.

Regardless of how little I could be informed about it in other respects.

"America is already being ripped apart by fascists like Kaepernick,"

That's meddling in Italian business.

Il Duce would be rolling over in his grave if he had overheard you comparing him to Kaepernick - since I just found out Kaepernick donated to a "pro-choice" (pro-death) so called "charity".

In his Italy, abortion with medical assistance was 2 to 5 years prison for both aborting mother and assisting medical personnel. Abortion wiithout that was 1 to 4 years.

I think you would owe Il Duce an apology for calling Kaepernick a fascist.

Ty Barker "Your link was removed because it said Trump had mocked a reporter for his disability. THAT IS FAKE NEWS."

Possible. If so, would you mind explaining the gif.

Also, while this might be fake news, it was a side issue on Mark Shea's rant against those who boycott Nike now.

Ty Barker "I don’t make a habit of getting involved in the affairs of other countries, so why don’t you do Americans a favor and keep your uninformed opinions about what’s going on in our country to yourself?"

You were a bit less eager to say things like that when I campaigned for releasing Kent Hovind, when he was still in prison, or when I supported NoBama.

Ty Barker

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Investors : Fake News: Trump Did Not Mock Disabled Reporter And Other Lies From The Left
KERRY JACKSON 1/17/2017
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/fake-news-trump-did-not-mock-disabled-reporter-and-other-lies-from-the-left/

Hans-Georg Lundahl BTW even though that is a "side issue," if a site is spreading fake news like that about Trump, nothing it says can be trusted. Especially when it comes to defending anti-American communists like Kaepernick.

Hans-Georg Lundahl You were a bit less eager to say things like that when I campaigned for releasing Kent Hovind, when he was still in prison, or when I supported NoBama.

-----

There’s a difference between Christians supporting a fellow Christian who is being persecuted and getting involved in the politics of other countries. I may have opinions about Canada’s Prime Minister or Great Britain’s royal family, but I keep those opinions to myself and I wish people from other countries would show Americans the same courtesy. As a Christian, though, I would have definitely appreciated your prayers and support for Kent Hovind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The truth is, Trump has often used those same convulsive gestures to mimic the mannerisms of people, including himself, who are rattled and exasperated."

Noted.

"And here's another point: Why have we seen no images of Kovaleski moving the way Trump is moving? In every video and photograph of Kovaleski we've seen, he is calmly standing still with his right arm held firm against his chest. He's not waving his arms uncontrollably.

"Why would Trump imitate a man who has difficulty moving at least one of his limbs by madly thrashing his own?"

Noted.

Mark Shea, while not a liberal, is a bit too eager to find fault with Trump, so he could be a sucker for this kind of disinformation.

"if a site is spreading fake news like that about Trump, nothing it says can be trusted."

Mark Shea is a blogger. One man can have an error of judgement without being completely unreliable on all issues.

"There’s a difference between Christians supporting a fellow Christian who is being persecuted and getting involved in the politics of other countries. I may have opinions about Canada’s Prime Minister or Great Britain’s royal family, but I keep those opinions to myself and I wish people from other countries would show Americans the same courtesy. As a Christian, though, I would have definitely appreciated your prayers and support for Kent Hovind."

Well, I did.

Not so much praying, my prayer life is a bit lame, but writing in his favour.

As for Canada's prime minister, I happen to read one Canadian blogger, who called Trudeau a "fascist" and noted that was not quite correct with Mussolini's memory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(starting new thread)

If you have a real issue with Kaepernick, it should be this one:

LifeNews : Former NFL Player Colin Kaepernick Donates Thousands to Radical Pro-Abortion Group
Opinion Ryan Bomberger Sep 10, 2018 | 9:20AM Washington, DC
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/09/10/former-nfl-player-colin-kaepernick-donates-thousands-to-radical-pro-abortion-group/

Samuel Rivera

Is incredible. Individuals like that, (Mr. Kaepernick), are the "heroes or role model" of today's society. Some even wants to compare Mr. Kaepernick and his cause and values, with Mr.Tim Tebow...NO WAY...no way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but the comparison is over the right to be public, not over each stance each makes.

Ty Barker

Hans-Georg Lundahl Actually the point of this thread is that liberals are rank hypocrites. No one is saying a communist like Kaepernick doesn't have the right to make millions of dollars from America's capitalist system and then trash the system that has blessed him so much. We're just saying he, and the liberals who defend him after they eviscerated Tebow, are hypocrites.

Samuel Rivera

Hans-Georg Lundahl Mr. Kaepernick action, is like the "pandora box"...will open in minds the "van wagon effect" We do not need to disrespect our nation "soul".... And that is just reality 101. 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, the point is a bit different from the wording.

Mark Shea is not democrat, he voted third party.

Samuel Rivera - I do not say his choice was necessarily good, but as far as Mark Shea's article is concerned, unlike the donation to some pro-death "charity", he had a point.

X had been charged with a crime he could not possibly have committed. Perhaps bc X was black. This is not quite what police are supposed to be doing. Kaepernick had some point in that.

Btw, the Pandora's box comparison is exactly what a liberal Jew made about Tebow, and what Mark Shea found exasperatingly dumb.

Petition I am sharing : don't drop Latin from Creatorspace

Link: Don't Drop Latin books from Createspace (now sold to Kindle Direct)
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/fr/499/013/403/dont-drop-latin-books-from-createspace-now-sold-to-kindle-direct/?taf_id=58856514&cid=fb_na

Image of my signature, with the text:

Two other subthreads, here with Creationists

Men, Dinos, Trent, Church Fathers · Continuing with Tom Dorsey · Men, Dinos, C14 and Harry Weatherford · Two other subthreads, here with Creationists

I

Brian Lantz

Frankly I think that was a period of history so violent, demanding a worldwide flood, that man raised the dinosaurs as a food source!!! lol

Harry Weatherford

Sophia Kok

Yuppa duppa dooooo!!!!😬😆

Brian Lantz

Sophia Kok that's Yabba Dabba do and I don't think they were quite that happy

Sophia Kok in fact if you want to look at some of the crazy stuff they made long before the Egyptian pyramids Google Baalbek. Frankly I think it was dedicated to human sacrifice

Sophia Kok

Brian Lantz Baal? It’s detestable to God , so is Astheroth, Molech , and many Egyptian and Babylonian gods

Brian Lantz

Baalbek not ball. This is much earlier than that

Sophia Kok

Brian Lantz

The Myth of the Megalith
By Elif Batuman | December 18, 2014
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/baalbek-myth-megalith

☝️this one you mean ? Their root also from Baal , the word Baalbek tells about it

Brian Lantz

Sophia Kok that's just a name given to it we don't know what it is. The article isn't very descriptive you can find better pictures of it elsewhere illustrating 1500 ton megalithic Stone precisely cut and precisely stacked on each other. That's not something the Romans did their biggest crane was no more than 10 times. In fact it in most the megalithic sites around the world you will find huge foundational sounds even bigger than 15 and 20 tons upon which people came later and built with smaller cut stones. But find the picture of the pillar with a 90-ton Capstone sitting on a pillar 60 feet high. Nobody knows how that was done. The article is imbecilic

Sophia Kok

Brian Lantz noted

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Brian Lantz - I don't think dinos are very edible.

I do think they are very dangerous, and so can have been used as death trap fences (like machine guns at Berlin wall).

Brian Lantz

Hans-Georg Lundahl oh my gosh some of those animals presented huge steaks veryfit for those who built Baalbek. Google Baalbek and look at some of their work

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you have heard Kent Hovind's video on crypto-zoology, there is one with a plesiosaur or sth getting killed and being TOTALLY inedible.

Brian Lantz

Hans-Georg Lundahl apparently the other dinosaur that killed him didn't seem to think so

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sure dinosaurs don't have the same taste buds as we do.

[I added the link to this post as notification.]

II

James T Beaton

Genesis didn’t say much about the animals before the flood. I’m sure there were large animals that didn’t survive in the flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Flood would for land animals be the least likely time to go extinct.

Before or after, but not at.

Human populations did go extinct though : Neanderthals, Denisovans and Flores Hobbits.

(I suppose that Homo Antecessor and Homo Heidelbergensis are two aliases of Denisovans : Antecessor in Atapuerca has been analysed as having a genome with Denisovan traits, and they are anatomically very close to Heidelbergians).

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl sounds like you believe in evolution

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where do you get that from?

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl from your words. Non biblical and evolution terms.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But none of the terms were used to bolster evolution or to contradict anything in the Bible.

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl ya think?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, show otherwise if you can.

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl evolution terms versus biblical terms are obvious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What Biblical term was negated by the use of so called "evolution" terms?

Is Genesis 10:32 These are the families of Noe, according to their peoples and nations. By these were the nations divided on the earth after the flood. - is it contradicted by my saying there are biological differences between Japanese and Negros, like in capacity to drink milk as adults?

No.

Hence saying that Denisovans, Heidelbergians, Neanderthals and Sethite = Cro-Magnon = Noah's race all "evolved" from Adam is also not contradicting the Bible.

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl wow

I studied evolution and the Scriptures for almost 50 years. It’s amazing to see the twisting and misinterpretations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What exactly is twisted compared to what?

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl human reasoning

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, what about it?

You might use some of it on this one:



Yes and no.

Adam and Eve were all 512 to some (like Lamech, if I counted right)

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl The Bible does not use the term caveman or Neanderthals. So, according to the Bible there is no such thing as “prehistoric” man, in that sense. The Bible gives no indication that Adam and Eve evolved from lower life forms.

When God created Adam and Eve, they were fully developed human beings, capable of communication, society, and development (Genesis 2:19–25; 3:1–20; 4:1–12).

The creation vs. evolution debate even exists in its present form. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”

The Bible is clear: God is the Creator. Any interpretation of science that attempts to remove God from involvement with origins is incompatible with Scripture.

David Jackson

All races descended from Adam and Eve, and later from Noah and his family. I am sure there were some unusual offshoots... pygmies, etc.

In Hawaii there was a race they called the menehune, or little people who were there when the earliest Hawaiians arrived.

Skeletons of giants have also been found around the world.

Some of these tales of unusual races in the past may be only legends, but I suspect that at least some of them are real.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

James T Beaton "The Bible does not use the term caveman or Neanderthals"

So?

"So, according to the Bible there is no such thing as “prehistoric” man, in that sense."

More like, there is no such thing as prehistoric in the sense of being before there was history, Biblical history starts with Adam.

"The Bible gives no indication that Adam and Eve evolved from lower life forms."

Didn't say they did.

Neanderthals and Apauerca men [Atapuerca men] have been found, they have to fit in somewhere, if not before Adam, as you said, then after.

[as you said = as you rightly said]

James T Beaton

David Jackson either be all biblical or don’t play Christian using evolution terms.

David Jackson

James T Beaton I am 0% evolution. I won't cede all words to them them, though.

James T Beaton

David Jackson sorry. That was meant for Hans-Georg Lundahl

[For those unfamiliar with Facebook. In the groups or on the walls, FB has a system in which you can write a few letters and it fills in suggestions of names, or you can click reply and it fills in the name of the one you clicked reply under. James probably wanted to reply to me, but clicked "reply" under a comment of David.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look here.

Neanderthals have been found. What term do you propose for them?

I am Biblical, since I place them in a Biblical context.

They lived after Adam, i e after 5199 BC, and before the Flood, i e before 2957 BC (Biblical chronology as per the LXX version available to St Jerome when he calculated the chronology the Catholic Church or its Latin rite liturgy uses at Christmas).

I think that should be Biblical enough for you.

And before you propose "pre-Flood men", Heidelbergians, Antecessors and Denisovans were ALSO pre-Flood men, all of which may have been same race type or very similar with each other, but were not so with Neanderthals or with Cro-Magnon, that is, with Noah's race type.

Human reasoning can go wrong like if Lamech had said "no way I could have just two ancestors seven generations ago, there must be 512 of them!" (probably Lamech did believe in Adam and Eve, this example is spoof).

But human reasoning can get it right by saying that 512 ancestors need not be 512 different people.

Btw, it's not necessary that Adam and Eve were always in the 512 ancestor generation to Lamech, with people marrying nieces or aunts, some lines from Lamech back to Adam and Eve could be longer than the patrilinear one given in Genesis 4 and some could be shorter.

Same way, human reasoning can go wrong with Neanderthals and Denisovans, with Antecessors and Heidelbergians ... by assuming they evolved prior to times recorded in the Bible, by taking certain types of dating too literally or trusting certain other types at all.

But human reasoning obedient to the faith can get it right too.

[I added the link to this post as notification.]

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl if they don’t agree with Genesis. Then it is human reasoning and rejecting God’s word over man’s words.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, you did not catch me not agreeing with Genesis anywere.

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl evolution terms and theories do not belong in Christianity. By faith, we are trust God’s Words alone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Evolution THEORIES do not being in Christianity.

You did not tell me which TERM can be only used appropriately by a deluded evolution believer.

Neanderthal?

What term would you use for the men whose bones are found in Sidrón cave?

OxA-21776 bone 48400 ± 3200 Galeria del Osario III
Beta-192065 tooth SID-19 40840 ± 1200 Galeria del Osario III
GifA-99704 Hominid bone SID-00B 49200 ± 2500 Galeria del Osario III
Beta-192066 Hominid bone SID-20 37300 ± 830 Galeria del Osario III

Heidelbergian?

What term would you use for the men whose bones were found in Mauer near Heidelberg, or Petralona, near Thessaloniki?

Denisovan?

What term would you use for the men in Denisova who were not Neanderthals?

Calling all of them "pre-Flood men" obfuscates:

• they are different between them
• they are different from the pre-Flood men we mainly descent from (Noah was Cro-Magnon type man)
• there is a controversy among Creationists whether they were pre-Flood, early post-Flood or even post-Babel.

I consider them pre-Flood, Cuozzo says they were post-Flood patriarchs who lived long (as I understood him as cited by Kent Hovind), and CMI considers them (at least Neanderthals) as one post-Babel population.

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl well. That’s your reasoning I don’t agree with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, you don't agree with it, but you haven't shown it contradicts Genesis, bc I nowhere did that.

Men, Dinos, C14 and Harry Weatherford

Men, Dinos, Trent, Church Fathers · Continuing with Tom Dorsey · Men, Dinos, C14 and Harry Weatherford · Two other subthreads, here with Creationists

Harry Weatherford

The answer is no. The scientific evidence shows that man did not live during the age of dinosaurs. How ever man did live during the time of mega mammal fawna. These are what we find as leviathans and behemoths.

Richard Linck

All evidence is interpreted from one's world view. The Secular Evolutionary world view is that since the earth is billions of tears old, man did not live with dinos. The Creationist world view is the world was created around 6,000 years ago, with a great, world wide flood around 4,000 years ago, which wiped all air breathing life from the face of the earth, except for Noah and his family.

Harry Weatherford

Richard Linck that is true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The scientific evidence shows that man did not live during the age of dinosaurs."

Do you include or exclude Mark Armitage's carbon dating of dinosaur soft tissue or bones in the scientific evidence?

28 000 BP for one, 22 000 BP for another.

That is Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl any scientist worth his weight would know that after 15000 to 20000 bp radio carbon is unreliable. Now I want to indulge you so post a link of his full report as well as peer reviews so that I may look at it. And it must be from a reputed journal. Not off of a creationist web post.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"any scientist worth his weight would know that after 15000 to 20000 bp radio carbon is unreliable."

Not exactly what the Carbon calculator says.

30 000 years = 2.654 pmC.

His reports are on video:

AgeOfSpecimensandPreachtheWord
MarkHArmitage | 4.XI.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpRK7v2_Ok4

Btw, adress to carbon calculator:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

When I type in 70000 years, I get this:

This date is too large and beyond the limits of present accuracy (55000 to 60000 years)

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl that still does not verify his c14 findings. Its been a few moons since I studied the accuracy so the extent may have changed however I would like still see the findings. How he verified the c14, who else verified the findings, as well as the peer review.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Its been a few moons since I studied the accuracy"

Sorry, but 22 000 BP and 28 000 BP have ALWAYS been considered within accurate, as long as the method exists.

The recent push is from 40 000 to 55 - 60 000.

"How he verified the c14"

By sending samples of dinos to carbon labs.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl where is the article? Where is the proof? I'm sorry but up till recently what I stated with c14 dating was the truth. Now with that said I will not take the word of a creationist young earth crack pot website. I want to see the verified evidence my self

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" I'm sorry but up till recently what I stated with c14 dating was the truth."

You know, I'd like to see a paper on that one.

"Now with that said I will not take the word of a creationist young earth crack pot website."

I was looking for the video, where he showed the lab reports.

There is one.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl where

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Carbon-14 dated dinosaur bones - under 40,000 years old
TrueThatiz | 24.VIII.2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl from what I have discovered is that outside this "group" there was no independent testing for verification. The group as a whole is bent on young earth theory. There are many doubt's as far as contamination. So therefore there is yet to be conclusive proof of younger Dino's.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where have you "discovered" this?

From what I saw on a video, the probes were sent to labs, outside creationism, since creationists don't own their own C14 labs.

And doubts about contamination were raised after the results were known, so as to discredit the conclusion - sometimes by those labs, and yet they did show the measured pmC values and therefore ages.

Obviously, non-creationists don't take samples of dinos and send them for carbon testing - at least it has not been routine so far. Or they haven't said so.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl there have been however dating have been inconclusive

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, and perhaps they have concluded it was "inconclusive" for the reason they can't accept the conclusion?

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl still researching

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Would you like to give a link or so?

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Letters to Creationists : Some Simple Evidences for an Old Earth
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/some-simple-evidences-for-an-old-earth/

Live Science : Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
By Stephanie Pappas, Senior Writer | November 26, 2013
https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Second link is not concerned with C14 dating.

Iron will perhaps preserve soft tissue, but not C14, as far as I know.

First link includes this one:

"some (e.g. Cyprian) held them to be 1000-year periods"

Would you mind documenting he held them to actually BE 1000-year periods, rather than correspond to subsequent such of post-Creation history?

"while Augustine opined that it was difficult to be sure about what the “days” of Genesis actually were."

He gave two alternatives.

• 1) days were 24 h periods
• 2) creation was in exactly one moment, but God gave angels six moments in viewing it (and these angels then gave Moses the account).

NOT a trace of 1000-year or longer periods.

"Today’s Young Earth (YE) creationists typically take them to be normal 24-hour days,"

As the Church Fathers except Clement, Origen and St Augustine, these favouring a one moment creation.

"and also take the genealogies in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible to be literal and exhaustive representations of post-creation chronology."

As do all Church Fathers INCLUDING St. Augustine. See de Civitate. Origen also had no use for Egyptians inflating post-Creation chronology to 40 000 or some years.

NEITHER of the two dealt with C14 dated dino bones and conclusions about dates being inconclusive.

Which is what I was asking about, since it was what you were speaking of.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm still researching plus one must look at all info. How ever all that I have found thus far preclude that contamination can and will give false readings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, but you missed that Armitage had taken special care to avoid contamination, due to being aware of the problem.

Oh, it was you who were still researching, thought you meant non-YECs carbon dating dinos and they still researching what these things meant ...

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes I'm still researching. there is much info and I am at work I'm not able to look at it all. However in response to him taking precautions not all contamination can be removed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not all extant one, which is the reason where bone parts where such are likely were discarded from samples.

"I am at work I'm not able to look at it all"

• 1) You are at a work NOT involving looking into this. Mine is looking into things, I am a full time writer ("unpaid" so far).
• 2) You probably did a search which gave too wide a scope of answers.

[+notification of the debate being mirrored]

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl it is the wide scope that gives rise to wisdom.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And also, in a debate, to not finding the wanted link ... very fast ...