Some Men Who Saw or Committed Too Much Cruelty in Action Become Jaded

For instance, while Francisco Franco was arguably tons better than Azaña for Spain, he had some deficiencies in sensibilities about physical cruelty. Arguably, he had seen too much of it on the Rif (he may have seen things this guy has not seen), and he had maybe also done a few things too much under the orders of Gil Robles, while repressing the Red Terror in Asturias.

This does not mean we must change them, nor that we must punish them. But some things are good to take a distance from.



So, he claims, she deserves a lynching:

she should be taken around the back of whatever terminal this is, shot once, cleanly, in the back of the skull and her lifeless, wretched body dumped in the nearest industrial waste container to be disposed of the following more with the rest of the useless garbage.

Considering how damaging modern school systems are, I don't think a Muslim or Muslima caught in such should be that heavily judged simply for having joined ISIS.

One could argue, one would not want her back, that is another story. But she should not be murdered.

I'll send this to the police, and hope they take contact with their British colleagues. Let's hope TL (I'm not exposing his full identity to the public) was just letting off steam. But I definitely do not share his sentiment. Little as I like ISIS./HGL

Did send to French police, and did unfriend him. Oh, the police got the full details of his profile too./HGL

Update, 17:25 same day (16.II.2019)

Is it just a coincidence there is some fan of TL who is showing a gif of Putin winking with the right eye? I don't think so:

Comparing Inaccuracies : A. N. Wilson on CSL / Shrinks on Patients

Brenton Dickieson

shared a link

Hi folks, this is an old book, but I read it because people out in the public keep referencing it and it haunts beneath Lewis studies. There are A LOT of poor facts in this book, and an example of why Lewis gets bent in public. But he also gives another reason why Lewis is being misquoted: Because he is a legend that we shape. Intriguing to think about more this facebook site and William's work. Here are my thoughts about the book as a whole, but I will follow up next week with some more thoughts about Wilson's Lewis journey.

A Pilgrim in Narnia : A.N. Wilson’s C.S. Lewis: A Mythology
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2019/02/11/a-n-wilsons-c-s-lewis-a-mythology/

GD

Good job. It annoys me that this biography is taken seriously as biography by anyone, with all the errors and sloppiness in it. Biographies like that always annoy me. No, we can't know everything about a person, but at least do your best to be honest!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Biographies like that always annoy me."

You hate psychiatry too?

"No, we can't know everything about a person, but at least do your best to be honest!"

You really hate psychiatry, don't you?

GD

No, why?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bc their journals of a given patient are more often than not very fake biographies.

Like the level where A. N. Wilson will seem accurate about CSL by comparison, and that is how they earn lots of money (collectively) from tax payers on treating people often in no need of their services.

GD

I'm . . . not even gonna touch that one.

Brenton Dickieson

I have issues with the methods of some that do psychological shrinking of historical figures, but personally, I would love to have access to a psychiatrist or an informed spiritual director to help me order things. And as a pastor and teacher*, I cannot tell you how many times shrinks and psychologists have made critical interventions--some of them life-saving--in the lives of my parishioners and students.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Due to your sending them there?

How do you know they were in fact lifesaving?

Brenton Dickieson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, they didn't die. I mean, literally dozens of people who didn't commit suicide or die of anorexia or bulimia or addictions. Anyone with any experience working with mental health professionals can see the limitations and problems. But anyone who has tried to help people without the right tools can see what the help can do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Well, they didn't die."

For an internvention to be lifesaving there are two criteria needed, that one, and "they would have died otherwise".

"literally dozens of people who didn't commit suicide"

How many had tried previous to shrink getting involved (btw, generally I think they are rather good with cases of depression, that's why depressed patients often become their poster children)?

"or die of anorexia"

How many were legitimately very starved?

"or bulimia"

How many were legitimately destroying their stomachs?

"or addictions"

How many of the addictions were lifethreatening? For instance, Amy Winehouse was arguably getting an earlier death, if she wasn't treated, but as it was, her treatment lowered her tolerance to alcohol and she died in ethylic coma when trying to drink as before, plus the treatment was imposed in such a manner that it arguably made her want to drink more.

"Anyone with any experience working with mental health professionals can see the limitations and problems."

Understatement of the year.

"But anyone who has tried to help people without the right tools can see what the help can do."

To or for some who chose that help.

For or to some who that "help" is imposed on.

How many would, for instance, have fared worse than dying at 65 from renal failure (sth CSL's lifestyle arguably had sth to do with and I don't mean he should be considered a suicide for that)?

With patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, these guys often make up biographies, as they don't see the patients' words as reliable, and one frequent thing is "observing" audible or other hallucinations simply from someone talking to non-present others.

Ben Gunn's syndrome, if you ask me.

That Long John Silver and a few others were not present while he dreamed of revenge doesn't mean they were not emotionally relevant to Ben Gunn (I trust anyone in our culture knows Treasure Island). So, that Ben Gunn spoke to them while absent (including threats) doesn't argue he hallucinated.

GD

All other considerations aside, this conversation is wildly off-topic.

Brenton Dickieson

GD I agree. I'll bow out.**

HGL (after adding link here)

False as hell biogaphy, item 1:

Therapeutic Superstition
by David Bentley Hart | November 2012
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/11/therapeutic-superstition

"There was a therapist at the funeral who had known Reuben for some time and who, in the course of lamenting Reuben’s death, remarked that he was at least glad that the psychiatrist in charge of the case had been able, in those last few years, to help Reuben get in touch with “reality.” There had been, he said, a marked improvement in Reuben’s state of mind under care, and there was some comfort to be taken from the knowledge that he had enjoyed a short period of stability and general sanity before the end."

False as hell biography, item 2:

Some guys think I am like Reuben, in the sense of living mainly in what is invisible to others.

When I talk to absent people, it's usually neither angels nor demons, nor fairies, it's people I engaged intellectually or morally with, and am shadow boxing, bc social defeats smart.

GD

Hans-Georg Lundahl Once again, this thread has gone OFF-TOPIC. This discussion is about Wilson and Lewis, not psychiatry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

he point was, Wilson was doing a very psychiatry like (in places) false biography.

Some of the errata Kathryn Lindskog noted are like the ones mental patients can note in their journals, if accessed, or in stray remarks : Freudian analyses of some known fact, contradicting facts known to person himself or to those knowing him.

// Unlike the irritatingly tolerant Protestants, Wilson takes smoking and drinking so seriously that he claims against all evidence that Lewis disliked nonsmokers: "Lewis was impatient with puritanism and disliked non-smokers or teetotallers." (Lewis's good friends Roger Lancelyn Green and George Sayer were both nonsmokers, and Lewis tried hard to quit but couldn't.) //

Against all evidence?

Not as shrinks look at it. Eustace Clarence Scrubb's parents are non-smokers tee-totallers and wear special underwear (and obviously have more businessmanlike than chivalrous moral ideals, as reflected in their son's upbringing).

They were deluding ECS about life, so presumably Lewis didn't approve of them ... =========> Lewis was impatient with puritanism and disliked non-smokers and teetotallers.

More correctly, he didn't approve of puritanism as a cause or non-smoking and tee-totalling as causes. He would probably not have approved of signs saying "smoking forbidden" all over nearly every public place either, even if he didn't quite approve of his habit.

But not approving of a cause and hating all espousing it is precisely the kind of thing a shrink WILL NOT distinguish, if triggered, and they are often that.

// Third, Wilson attacks C. S. Lewis's own portrayal of himself as a reasonably heathy-minded Christian. Wilson reduces Lewis's evangelizing Christianity to a crippled way of coping with life. He claims that Lewis's account of his boyhood frustration with prayer can't be true. Then in one of the most amazing passages in his book (on page 162), Wilson claims to have been considering for twenty years a June 1938 letter from Lewis to Owen Barfield that shows how warped Lewis's thinking was when he began defending Christianity. At that time, Wilson says, Lewis turned against innocent pleasures such as feeling the wind in your hair, walking with bare feet on the grass, and swimming in the rain: Lewis decided these activities were Nazi or would lead to homosexuality. Thus "one must also view with ambivalence his excursion into the realm of religious apologetics." Wilson slays his third strawman with a flourish, and makes C. S. Lewis look silly. //

// But as anyone can see by reading the passage in Letters, Lewis was reporting an idiocy that he overheard from two undergraduates, and he was horrified by it. //

Deciding what a patient thinks, and then presenting any evidence to the contrary as efforts to rationalise, overlooking text passages ... (or conversation snippets) ... they thrive off that business.

// A.N. Wilson substitutes his own ideological Freudian view of C. S. Lewis. Thus the real C. S. Lewis, he claims, was not a perpetual virgin, not a nonsmoker and nondrinker, and not the genuine Christian believer he wanted to be. He was instead a terrified Oedipal neurotic and a closet misanthrope. The Narnian wardrobe is a symbol of Flora Lewis's private parts. Surely it is disingenuous for a biographer to psychoanalyze an author this way without telling readers what that author wrote about such psychoanalyzing. //

I think the same about psychoanalyzing.

// The hero of this book is A.N Wilson, who quickly and easily sees through everything, and who winks at his readers because they are now in on the joke also. //

The hero of a shrink's journal is the shrink. If you have had to do with them, you can't miss the parallel.

// He even recounts what the obnoxiously drunk Lewis allegedly said to one of his drunken students at a urinal fifty years ago, without explaining how he could know such details it if it were true. //

Shrinks also are shady on theory of knowledge.

GD

You are slandering an entire group of people, some of whom may be in this group and watching you do it. If you don't stop, I'm getting the moderator involved. It's up to you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fine, my point is they are excellent slanderers themselves, I am the first slander victim here.

I am living on the street bc slandered as an alcoholic, shrinks (or addictologists) and Muslims seem to be both involved.

I am presumed to be suicidal, bc I threatened suicide when I was half as old as I am now, in an attempt to commit emotional extortion against the gal I loved and had a rival about. Sure, I worked myself up as to be actually planning (hypothetically, should she refuse me) suicide, so as not to lie to her.

But I didn't do it, am not suicidal etc.

I defended myself against the slave hunt they commit by shooting at a policeman who was (against his better judgement, or what he had expressed as such) delivering me to them. This was 21 years ago. I already did time, for mistreatment alternatively attempt of unpremeditated manslaughter.

People are still poisoning my life about how I must have been unstable and they are waiting for me to become stable - with the criteria of shrinks.

I was yesterday given food I didn't need, while already enjoying a light supper, and the guy who gave it said "bon rétablissement", which I think is synonym for "bonne amélioration" or "get well soon" - supposing I had been ill.

As a consequence, when I was stopped from going back to sleep at before 2am, in the bank automat space, I stayed awake till past (I think) 4am.

My blogs are being read more in Ukraine (where men analysing CSL as Wilson did, or actually using Wilson, abound), than in Paris, where I am making publicity for my blogs as the busking.

And someone is telling people "ssshh" and "don't tell him, but don't read his blogs, you might get an unfavourable impression, he sometimes writes when he's in a bad mood" (a damned lie and complete literal truth at the same time, I am in a bad mood right now), or "we are studying his blogs as symptoms" or "in his own head he is a writer" (with 7000 articles on my blogs which are publilcly accessible, why shouldn't I be?)

So you tell ME that I am slandering MY SLANDERERS?

Just because the lines I just gave were realistic second guessing and not always overheard or directly told?

If I were for instance speaking on a FB back in the time of Wilberforce, would I be slandering slave traders?

* "And as a pastor and teacher, I cannot tell you how many times ..." => Brenton Dickieson is a pastor and teacher => not anonymised. ** This is where I made the post. The next comment of mine on that subthread (there are others) is the link to this post.

Les 18 Apparitions de Lourdes, par Micheline Albert Tawil Tramp

Cette amie sur FB, Carmélite séculière, m'a donné la permission de republier ici.

Les 18 Apparitions de Lourdes

- Jeudi 11 février 1858 : la première rencontre

Première apparition. Accompagnée de sa sœur et d’une amie, Bernadette se rend à Massabielle, le long du Gave, pour ramasser des os et du bois mort. Enlevant ses bas pour traverser le ruisseau et aller dans la Grotte, elle entend un bruit qui ressemblait à un coup de vent, elle lève la tête vers la Grotte : « J’aperçus une dame vêtue de blanc : elle portait une robe blanche, un voile blanc également, une ceinture bleue et une rose jaune sur chaque pied. » Bernadette fait le signe de la croix et récite le chapelet avec la Dame. La prière terminée, la Dame disparaît brusquement.

- Dimanche 14 février 1858 : l’eau bénite

Deuxième apparition. Bernadette ressent une force intérieure qui la pousse à retourner à la Grotte malgré l’interdiction de ses parents. Sur son insistance, sa mère l’y autorise ; après la première dizaine de chapelet, elle voit apparaître la même Dame. Elle lui jette de l’eau bénite. La Dame sourit et incline la tête. La prière du chapelet terminée, elle disparaît.

- Jeudi 18 février 1858 : la Dame parle

Troisième apparition. Pour la première fois, la Dame parle. Bernadette lui présente une écritoire et lui demande d’écrire son nom. Elle lui dit : « Ce n’est pas nécessaire. » Elle ajoute : « Je ne vous promets pas de vous rendre heureuse en ce monde mais dans l’autre. Voulez-vous me faire la grâce de venir ici pendant quinze jours ? »

- Vendredi 19 février 1858 : le premier cierge

Quatrième apparition. Bernadette vient à la Grotte avec un cierge bénit et allumé. C’est de ce geste qu’est née la coutume de porter des cierges et de les allumer devant la Grotte.

- Samedi 20 février 1858 : la grande tristesse

Cinquième apparition. La Dame a appris une prière personnelle à Bernadette. A la fin de la vision, une grande tristesse envahit Bernadette.

- Dimanche 21 février 1858 : « Aquero »

Sixième apparition. La Dame se présente à Bernadette le matin de bonne heure. Une centaine de personnes l’accompagnent. Elle est ensuite interrogée par le commissaire de police Jacomet. Il veut lui faire dire ce qu’elle a vu. Bernadette ne lui parle que d’ « Aquero » (cela).

- Mardi 23 février 1858 : le secret

Septième apparition. Entourée de cent cinquante personnes, Bernadette se rend à la Grotte. L’Apparition lui révèle un secret « rien que pour elle. »

- Mercredi 24 février 1858 : «Pénitence !»

Huitième apparition. Message de la Dame : « Pénitence ! Pénitence ! Pénitence ! Priez Dieu pour les pécheurs ! Allez baiser la terre en pénitence pour les pécheurs ! »

- Jeudi 25 février 1858 : la source

Neuvième apparition. Trois cents personnes sont présentes. Bernadette raconte : « Elle me dit d’aller boire à la source (…). Je ne trouvai qu’un peu d’eau vaseuse. Au quatrième essai je pus boire. Elle me fit également manger une herbe qui se trouvait près de la fontaine puis la vision disparut et je m’en allai. » Devant la foule qui lui demande: « Sais-tu qu’on te croit folle de faire des choses pareilles ? » Elle répond : « C’est pour les pécheurs. »

- Samedi 27 février 1858 : silence

Dixième apparition. Huit cents personnes sont présentes. L’Apparition est silencieuse. Bernadette boit l’eau de la source et accomplit les gestes habituels de pénitence.

- Dimanche 28 février 1858 : l’extase

Onzième apparition. Plus de mille personnes assistent à l’extase. Bernadette prie, baise la terre et rampe sur les genoux en signe de pénitence. Elle est ensuite emmenée chez le juge Ribes qui la menace de prison.

- Lundi 1er mars 1858 : la première guérison miraculeuse

Douzième apparition. Plus de mille cinq cents personnes sont rassemblées et parmi elles, pour la première fois, un prêtre. Dans la nuit, Catherine Latapie, une amie lourdaise, se rend à la Grotte, elle trempe son bras déboîté dans l’eau de la source : son bras et sa main retrouvent leur souplesse.

- Mardi 2 mars 1858 : le message aux prêtres

Treizième apparition. La foule grossit de plus en plus. La Dame lui demande : « Allez dire aux prêtres qu’on vienne ici en procession et qu’on y bâtisse une chapelle ». Bernadette en parle à l’abbé Peyramale, curé de Lourdes. Celui-ci ne veut savoir qu’une chose : le nom de la Dame. Il exige en plus une preuve : voir fleurir en plein hiver le rosier (l’églantier) de la Grotte.

- Mercredi 3 mars 1858 : le sourire de la Dame

Quatorzième apparition. Dès 7 h le matin, en présence de trois mille personnes, Bernadette se rend à la Grotte, mais la vision n’apparaît pas ! Après l’école, elle entend l’invitation intérieure de la Dame. Elle se rend à la Grotte et lui redemande son nom. La réponse est un sourire. Le curé Peyramale lui redit : « Si la Dame désire vraiment une chapelle, qu’elle dise son nom et qu’elle fasse fleurir le rosier de la Grotte ».

- Jeudi 4 mars 1858 : 8 000 personnes à la Grotte

Quinzième apparition. La foule toujours plus nombreuse (environ huit mille personnes) attend un miracle à la fin de cette quinzaine. La vision est silencieuse. Le curé Peyramale campe sur sa position. Pendant vingt jours, Bernadette ne va plus se rendre à la Grotte : elle n’en ressent plus l’irrésistible attrait.

- Jeudi 25 mars 1858 : la Dame révèle son nom

Seizième apparition. La vision révèle enfin son nom, mais le rosier (ou églantier) sur lequel elle pose les pieds au cours de ses Apparitions ne fleurit pas. Bernadette raconte : « Elle leva les yeux au ciel, joignant en signe de prière ses mains qui étaient tendues et ouvertes vers la terre, et me dit: Que soy era immaculada councepciou ». Bernadette part en courant et répète sans cesse, sur le chemin, des mots qu’elle ne comprend pas. Ces mots troublent le brave curé. Bernadette ignorait cette expression théologique qui désigne la Sainte Vierge. Quatre ans plus tôt, en 1854, le pape Pie IX en avait fait une vérité de la foi catholique (dogme de l’Immaculée Conception).

- Mercredi 7 avril 1858 : le miracle du cierge

Dix-septième apparition. Pendant cette apparition, Bernadette tient son cierge allumé. La flamme entoure longuement sa main sans la brûler. Ce fait est immédiatement constaté par le médecin, le docteur Douzous..

- Vendredi 16 juillet 1858 : la dernière apparition

Dix-huitième apparition. Bernadette ressent le mystérieux appel de la Grotte, mais l’accès à Massabielle est interdit et fermé par une palissade. Elle se rend donc en face, de l’autre côté du Gave… et voit la Vierge Marie, une ultime fois : « Il me semblait que j’étais devant la grotte, à la même distance que les autres fois, je voyais seulement la Vierge, jamais je ne l’ai vue aussi belle ! ».

On Soul and Spirit (and some more)

JDR

Have You ever ask this questions to yourself? 🤔

➡️ 1. Who am I, and what am I worth? am I really love?

➡️ 2. Where did I come from? How did I exist?

➡️ 3. Why am I here? What's the purpose of my life?

➡️ 4. Where am I going when I die? Is death really the end of my life?

Kindly comment your answers to this 4 questions below 👇

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1. "Who am I,"

in most general terms, a man created in God's image, sinner by my acts, Catholic by grace

"and what am I worth? am I really [worth] love?"

No one knows if he's worth love or hate.

2. "Where did I come from? How did I exist?"

Most general terms : God created all, less general and more specific, my parents did sth, and God gave it success and created a soul for my body.

3. "Why am I here? What's the purpose of my life?"

God has created man so as to enable him to get to know, love and serve Him and eternally enjoy Him.

4. "Where am I going when I die?"

Three places immediately and two ultimately possible, except, judgement is even more immediate.

"Is death really the end of my life?"

Of the life in which one prepares for judgement, yes, of the life after judgement, no.

Michel Snoeck

1. Question is what "God's image" really implies. I think we usually get it all wrong.

2. I think "soul" is just the integration of body and spirit. This according to Genesis, or my take of it.

3. If that is so, then... is God an egotist?

4. I think it is pending your deeds and your conscience that is creating a pitfall for man. The end of life is a result of how much responsibility you did or did not take. The more responsibility, in that degree, the more life you have or are. 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"1. Question is what "God's image" really implies. I think we usually get it all wrong."

Man is an animal insofar as having a body animated by a soul, he is also a spirit, which is either God (which I am not) or God's image.

The soul of man is a spirit, unlike the soul of a tulip or a dog. The spirit of man is a soul, animates a body, unlike the spirit called angel.

Both angels and men are the image of God.

"2. I think "soul" is just the integration of body and spirit. This according to Genesis, or my take of it."

See above.

"3. If that is so, then... is God an egotist?"

For two reasons, no.

a) God is three persons, each loving the other.
b) this way God is offering us the one happiness there is, not keeping any surplus happiness for himself.

"4. I think it is pending your deeds and your conscience that is creating a pitfall for man. The end of life is a result of how much responsibility you did or did not take. The more responsibility, in that degree, the more life you have or are."

Not the more, but the better responsibility.

A shrink would perhaps say "more" responsibility whatever direction is automatically better, like planning to wank on a toilet is better than deciding to in the last minute with your trousers on. BUT the latter may be sufficiently involuntary not to be a mortal sin in the concrete case, the former is a mortal sin.

Hence, not more responsibility, but better use of the responsibility one has.

Michel Snoeck

1-2. No. Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." I take this literally, it says what it says. Through history I think man has misinterpreted this and persist with that the soul is something apart from a body. Scripture says it is not.

3. No. If you say: "God has created man so as to enable him to get to know, love and serve Him and eternally enjoy Him." then it seems to be ALL for HIM. It reminds of the Ori (as in the series Stargate). Of course, I interpreted the purpose of life very differently.

4. The degree of responsibility taken will tell how aware and awake you are and can be. I fear that this is how the mechanism works. A person who denies or will not see his own responsibility in matters will make him himself go to sleep/becoming less aware.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Through history I think man has misinterpreted this and persist with that the soul is something apart from a body. Scripture says it is not."

Catholicism says it is not too.

Soul = form of the body.

"then it seems to be ALL for HIM"

It is.

Michel Snoeck

Thus an egotist... 🤨

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The degree of responsibility taken will tell how aware and awake you are and can be."

Exactly, that is the reason why planning to wank is mortally sinful.

"Thus an egotist... "

God has three egos, they are all for each other, not each for itself.

Michel Snoeck

You have to regard exactly what Genesis 2:7 says! Soul is not what man has thought it to be. We got the word from Scripture, we therefore have to define it according what Scripture says it is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Soul is not what man has thought it to be."

What do you mean by "man"?

"We got the word from Scripture,"

Even for nephesh, we have it from tradition before there was Scripture.

For psyche and anima we definitely have it before Christianity, likewise probably with Germanic sawol.

Michel Snoeck

I don't care about what you refer to as 'tradition'. I regard how Scripture defines it at Genesis 2:7.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you don't care about tradition, your concern for Scripture is spurious.

Michel Snoeck

Well, I think your concern is spurious. Scripture defined 'soul', that should be enough for anyone... You counter with referring to some, I would say, anonymous 'tradition'. That simply will not do... 🤨

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How come you even consider St Thomas Aquinas contradicted Scripture?

Michel Snoeck

Why do you consider Thomas Aquinas being senior to Scripture? I take it directly from the source, you take it through an interpreter that decides for you how to take something... 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Why do you consider Thomas Aquinas being senior to Scripture?"

Why do you put words in my mouth I did not say.

I do consider he goes into more detail of explanation than this one passage in Scripture, so, all I need is his not contradicting it.

"I take it directly from the source, you take it through an interpreter that decides for you how to take something..."

Following your recommendation, I'll take my reading of Scripture, which agrees with that of St Thomas, over yours.

And you have still not answered the question I considered relevant, namely, why do you believe he contradicted Scripture?

Michel Snoeck

Sorry, I find he does contradict it. I do not have to explain why or how some person contradicts Scripture or not, I simply go directly to the source. You go to interpreters. Might I say you have only countered me with an opinion while forwarding your authority carrying the name Thomas Aquinas. You failed to address and factually query my take of Genesis 2:7. 🤨

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, I gave you St Thomas'.

You have failed to adress how you "find" he contradicts it.

He built his anthropology much on a very close reading of that.

Closer than yours, if you dare pretend to expose his supposed contradiction in detail.

Also, a sentence like this one is simply fraudulent: "I simply go directly to the source. You go to interpreters."

You want me to change interpreter from Aquinas to you.

Michel Snoeck

Your whole defence mechanism miserably falls because... till date you have not addressed nor properly analyzed Genesis 2:7. You fail to deal with source of Scripture! Instead you try to derail with stating as if I am the interpreter to be followed. That is outright false, I néver stated any such thing! 🙄

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but if you want me to conduct a "proper" analysis of Genesis 2:7 under YOUR supervision, it is obvious you ARE making yourself the interpreter for me, which I refuse.

Again, where did St Thomas contradict the verse?

Oh, by the way, by now you CAN note my analysis of Genesis 2:7 as being = that of St Thomas.

In other words, it is given, if you look it up.

S. Th. I
Question 75. Man who is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal substance: and in the first place, concerning what belongs to the essence of the soul
Article 6. Whether the human soul is incorruptible?
http://newadvent.com/summa/1075.htm#article6

Reply to Objection 1.

Michel Snoeck

You are twisting... all I said was that one has to regard SOURCE, but you REFUSE, you instead want to deal with people (St. Thomas; turned into Saint by 'man' nót God!)

I said it before, I care very little about your authorities and interpreters, I regard SOURCE... 🧐

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You think it is OK to use Strong's lexica for Bible Hebrew or Bible Greek, I think it is OK to use Catholic commentary.

Where is the difference, except that you refuse to deal with what I already said and refuse to respect my methodology?

You are not in fact asking me to VERBALLY call you "father" or master, but you ARE asking me to do so in the very sense that is relevant to what Christ said, namely you are proposing yourself as a mentor for me.

The one twisting things is you;

A man who can be provoking someone about "your defense mechanism" deserved to be blocked and Michel Snoeck is blocked now.

I left Helgon.net to avoid the hex of one masonic sympathising and discordian member, and it will probably mean leaving this group, I prefer avoiding the analyses of Snoeck, whether of me or of Bible.

He babbled about "throughout history" without checking what St Thomas said and what Catholic scholasticism says.

Carter's Notification on His Post

Answering Robert Carter's Four Reasons · Carter's Notification on His Post

Myself, Robert Carter, and David Palm are known writers (including bloggers). The other two, MC and DC have been left with initials' wise anonymity.

Robert Carter

3.II.2019, 15:57 ·

An excellent question. Have you ever wondered where Neanderthals fit into biblical history? Were they pre-Flood?

Are Neandertals pre-Flood people?
Published: 2 February 2019 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/neanderthals-pre-flood

I

MC

Very interesting. Could they have had burials before the flood that the flood didn’t destroy. Not sure how that would work but it’s the first question I thought of.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Depends on how deep they were buried and how much the Flood destroyed right there.

Robert Carter

Your Flood model is wanting. The fossil record was produced by the Flood, thus it matters not 'how deep they were buried'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The fossil record was produced by the Flood"

And why would the dino fossils have to be older than the Neanderthals?

"Depends on how deep they were buried"

Refers to if they were buried deep enough, and the Flood destroyed little enough right there, that means they would remain where they were buried.

If they were buried shallowly on a place where the Flood destroyed much, obviously they would probably not remain.

Update(s)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am inclined to take the following video, strategically published days after our debate, as subreptitiously answering me without actually mentioning me, so as not to "give me a platform" according to some para-Jewish gatekeeping morality.

Here is the video I talk about:

Boulders moved over 500km!
CMIcreationstation | 6.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUjL5KodAl0

Comprehensible implication for this exchange, if Neanderthals had also been transported 500 km away, why is there anything left of them at all? The boulders are probably just half the diameter they started out as.

Well, if the whales at Linz and Vienna had been transported 500 km they would not have arrived where they were as recognisable whale skeleta. Nothing to do with spurious whale evolution, pretty clearly whale creatures, hardly differing from many modern species.

And you can hardly have a geological event after Flood in which whales get trapped there.

So, they are from Flood.

Ergo, some things were less transported and less destroyed than others, why not the Neanderthals?

II

DC

What do you make of Fuz's claims they weren't human? Have you ever addressed his claims elsewhere?

Robert Carter

His claims fly in the face of all the genetic data. If you search creation.com you will see enough articles (several written by me) to see where we stand.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'd simply agree on that one.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm begging to differ, and I am putting your genetic argument first of what I answer:

Creation vs. Evolution : Answering Robert Carter's Four Reasons
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/02/answering-robert-carters-four-reasons.html

If I'd admit arguing weakly on one point, it would be why there were pre-Flood caves.

I might perhaps venture to add - between us non-geologists - that smaller caves could have become very much deeper during Flood and still have kept some nook with a Neanderthal burial.

Also I wonder if the 12 in El Sidrón weren't trying to huddle from the Flood in the cave and then drown in it.

Btw, if you get sn asking hard questions on baraminology called David Palm, I directed him to you.

IV

David Palm

The questioner in the article mentioned "Homo erectus", "Homo heidelbergensis" and "Homo denisova". I've been reading also recently on Dr. Todd Wood's blog about "Homo naledi" and "Little Foot". Like the questioner in the article, I'm struggling to see how these could all be post-Flood. Would you assign those finds to the post-Flood time frame as well?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For my part, I would consider "erectus" dubious in the Classic form of Java and Peking man, while Heidelbergian and Antecessors share morphology, basically and Antecessors and Denisovans share pretty much of the genome. Ergo, I would take Heidelbergians, Denisovans and Antecessors as one race of pre-Flood mankind. And one where mixed heritage, as for Neanderthal, was on the Ark.

Now, awaiting Carter ....

Robert Carter

You might have to wait a long time. This is not our first interaction and none of the others have gone well. Why would I respond?

David Palm

Alas, mine was a serious question.

Robert Carter

David, yes these all have to be post-Flood as well. We can debate the species names and argue about whether or not they they are human, but they must be post-Flood. This is especially true of the Denisovans, since some people can have up to 5% Denisovan DNA (and 3% Neanderthal at the same time).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Accounted for if the Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA came via Noah's daughters in law.

And not all of them.

"This is not our first interaction and none of the others have gone well."

I agree you have been somewhat churlish at times.

Robert Carter

Uh huh.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look, I have dealt with people calling me creatard ... I'm fairly jaded about your degree of churlishness and was making a polite if facetious verbal agreement ....

On the other subthread, I noted you did not appeal best to genetics, since you knew I had answered that part, but to geology, btw ... which is not churlish, just devious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Palm "Dr. Todd Wood's blog about "Homo naledi" and "Little Foot"."

Wd you mind to link?

I'd say, without extracted DNA we cannot absolutely definitely settle human or non-human, and without carbon dates, I am for my part not willing to settle on pre- or post- ... Robert Carter, while I await David Palm's link, your turn ...

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

By the way, David Palm, as Carter is a geneticist, wasn't there something you wanted elucidation from one about?

The subjects on which we, Robert Carter and me, did clash previously were:

• Robert Carter thinks mutations are rapidly dooming mankind;
• Robert Carter thinks it was bad enough to "give a platform" to Sungenis
• Robert Carter thinks the blockade agains linking to blogs must stand.

David Palm had a question about a geneticist (which Robert Carter is) saying his say about the theory that the kinds correspond to mainly families, and that he thought rapid speciation after Flood needed very great genetic diversity at Flood.

Either he did not care to ask the question to a Young Earth Creationist geneticist, or he did not care to risk me documenting the interchange by reblogging. Which presupposes two things. There is a high risk or chance of my doing that (touché), and that is bad, so more of a risk than a chance (I'm more or less nonplussed about that attitude, as we are Christian writers on a subject, not bankers discussing business options for the next week's stock market).

A Christian has One Chance in 4200 to be Right, Really? [Guest Post]

SG made an excellent essay, as I noted yesterday, and here is his answer to me on links to blogs:

thanks. I made that change.. I don't know of another blog. But you can copy and paste and make changes as you see fit and link it or put it to whatever you want.

I thanked him gently, am awaiting his answer on whether to expand SG into his name, and here is his actual essay:

The argument used by atheists is that there are so many religions in the world, some websites, report as many as 4200 or so, that the probability that one religion is right is equal to the amount of religions in the world. Now first, 1/4200 odds or whatever the estimated religions are, for coming to a religious truth is an exaggeration, because these so called different religions come under groupings of main religious ideas, thus there can be many dialects of the same language. This high number stat is looking at each religious name as all being separate totally distinct religions and religious viewpoints rather than potentially some being different dialects of the same religion. In fact, many of these religious titles come under more generalized categories, so there could be many nuances or dialects of the same religion, as there are many denominations in Christianity, yet it’s all Christianity, many different versions of Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. In reality they can be condensed to an exceedingly smaller number once we categorize them more broadly, showing the atheist’s argument is an exaggeration. In fact, all these religions fall under one of 4 worldviews on religions (Pantheism, atheism, theism, polytheism), making the probability of general religious/metaphysical truth ¼.

Additionally, there is no good reason to exempt Secular Humanism from these probabilities. Since Secular Humanism, which includes evolutionism, atheism and agnosticism has been declared to be a religion by the courts then it too is under the same probabilities of being true as the non-secular religions, making the probability of atheism just as equally improbable, whatever those probabilities may be.

Furthermore, when one appeals to probabilities, the assumption is that all the different religious viewpoints are equally probable of being true, but there is no way one can know that as an atheists. What knowledge would you have to suggest they are all equally probable? As atheists, they deny supernatural revelation, so would have no means or mechanism they would be privy to, thus could not know that by reason of naturalism. In various systems, number of possibilities are not always weighted equally, since in many systems these possible outcomes are not determined by random chance. If certain outcomes are more probable than alternatives, then we can’t weigh them equally. For example, if you flip a coin there is an equal chance of getting heads or tails, but if a regular, knowledgeable horse gambler who knows horses well and often wins bets on a horse, in a race of 10 horses, the probability of him winning is 1/10 only if the gambler, horses and jockeys all are equal in ability, but if some horses and jockeys are better, and the horse gambler is a better more knowledgeable gambler and knows which horses and jockeys are better, than the probability is no longer as high as 1/10, so he has a better chance of being right by his advanced knowledge. In fact, this is the basis of the odds system in horse racing on the original odds at the outset of the race and why some horses have better odds than others. This means not all odds are equal even if there are numerous alternatives. Hence, alternative religions don’t mean equal probabilities of being true for each.

A thesis of 1/4200 or whatever is only valid if the outcome is determined by random chance, but that is an assumption one can’t justify and is also denied by the proponents of religious viewpoints in which you are debating against. How would one know they were wrong? One might argue that they know they are wrong because they have different religious viewpoints, but that is to beg the question whether these viewpoints are purely random.

Now let’s apply that same logic and statistic theory atheists employ to another field to see if it consistent! For example, the probabilities of getting the finetuned ratio between the electromagnetic force and gravity was altered more than 1 in 10 ^40, which is astronomically higher than any probability presented for religions being true, but that precise constant is what is featured in the electromagnetic force and gravity, allowing for a life permitting universe. And yet as high as those odds are against getting within that range, it is within that range, so here we are. If it was random chance we shouldn’t have a universe, but we do. Should I assume that probabilities for this finetuning that permits a life bearing universe so astronomical, that we should deny the truth that we live in a life permitting universe? Of course not. Yet that is just what atheists do with the religious probability argument. Denying the specific truth because probabilities, yet as an atheists/naturalists one must believe that finetuning is due to chance, not design, since that would mean God exists, yet atheists would believe it did happen by chance even given the 1 in 10 ^ 40 probabilities against such, but ironically deny people can come to truth about religion with such exceedingly lower probabilities (1/4200), showing a total inconsistency on their part. They simply don’t apply the criticism to other venues, but if they did, they should see its fallacious nature. However, the most plausible explanation for overcoming the 1 in 10 ^ 40 odds of the electromagnetic constant falling into the correct range to permit a a life bearing universe is that the correct range is not due to chance at all, but due to design. Therefore, the system is rigged by the designer, making the other possible outcomes not equal, explaining why the electromagnetic force fell into correct range to begin with. Given the finetuning constant, design is the best explanation over chance, meaning God does exist, and if he does than coming to religious truth would not be random either, just as finetuning wasn’t! It is reasonable to think that if God exists, he can and would make himself known and his truth to those that seek him. Jesus says such in his famous Sermon On the Mount accepted even by skeptical scholars. “Ask it shall be given, seek ye shall find and knock and it shall be opened unto you.” In fact, so does Jeremiah in the Old Testament. “Ye shall seek me and find me when you shall search for me with all your heart.” Why don’t all come to the true God in proper relationship? They don’t seek him in truth (Romans 3:10-13), but seek a god, a religion, a comfort, an accountability system or no accountability at all (as atheists don’t), or an acceptance by their family or culture, or something palpable for their own beliefs and lifestyles, or permission to do as they please (as atheists do). If you never get past those things, you will not be seeking God in truth, but if you do seek the Lord for his own sake, no strings attached, the God that designed this universe evidenced by finetuning, and powerful enough to create it, is the same God who is able and willing to reveal himself to us in relationship made possible by sending his Son to be our Savior, which is testified historically in the person of Jesus Christ, further giving us evidence via history, making the likelihood of knowing the truth more probable, showing it is not random at all, making this atheist/naturalist objection utterly fail. For it to be true, a good God must not exist, but that begs the question. Jesus says, “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” One would have to know Jesus is a liar for that not to be valid, showing one knows what religious viewpoints are untrue, meaning one knows something of religious truth, but how could they if they are claiming we can’t know religious truth, especially given the odds against them being right on a religious belief according to their own thesis, ironically blowing up their own argument. Atheists/naturalists/unbelievers need to think more thoroughly, accurately and objectively before they make unsustainable arguments. But that doesn’t seem to be their strong point! Rejecting God, is a rejection of reason!

On "Nimrod, Semiramis, Tammuz" Canard

StG

[published an excellent little essay. AM's initial comment was in response to one phrase in it about atheists and their "4200 religions meme" - he did not give a link to a blog, but allowed me to make a post, so you can see the text without having to log on to FB:

A Christian has One Chance in 4200 to be Right, Really? [Guest Post]
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-christian-has-one-chance-in-4200-to.html]

AM

I always tell them to read the book of Jasher to get to know where does all those pagan religions come from (Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz), and there also states that people just made gods out of nowhere. And Islam was created be the vatican, research ex Jesuit priest Alberto a Rivera whom they murdered for revealing this secrets from the libraries of the vatican.

HGL

"I always tell them to read the book of Jasher to get to know where does all those pagan religions come from (Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz)"

It says so in the pretended "Book of Jasher"?

Bc Christian OT historiography says sth else.

In the time of Sarug, one Ninus (not Nimrod) was in grief over the death of his father Bel, and erected a statue of him, which statue he loved so much that he pardoned criminals who embraced it and then they started adoring the statue.

AM

HGL yes, the pretended book quoted in the Bible by Samuel and Joshua.

HGL

The book I call pretended lacks the quote from it in Samuel.

That's one reason to think it is not the same book.

As you know the stuff you are promoting, what exact place in "Book of Jasher" has this allegation about beginning of paganism?

AM

HGL no, you got your timeline wrong. Nimrod was Noah's grandson, and because the tower of Babel became too be known with many different names, since all languages were created in there. Baal was another name for Nimrod.

HGL

It is the late Rabbinic forgery Book of Jasher that gets chronology wrong.

Nimrod was long dead in the time of Ninus.

[It's content need not be late Rabbinic nor more forgery than Rabbinic midrashim overall, but it's title is usurped by a late forgery.]

AM

Who is Ninus in the biblical timeline? The lines of Noah are well written, and besides Nimrod was the one who founded Babel, Niniveh and other cities. He is also known as Gilgamesh. So where is this Ninus? Since no alive man was left in the flood and only the 8 people in the ark were the only ones left to repopulate the WHOLE EARTH.?

Was Ninus son of Shem, Japhet or Ham?

It wouldn't surprise me that 'Ninus' is just another of Nimrod's names.

[table of names omitted]

And those are just a few... Every language on earth started to give him a different name, just as semiramis and the son tammuz. (exactly how the vatican depicts their false Christianity) with the image of the virgin with the child on her arms.

HGL

I have heard that exact claim before.

"Who is Ninus in the biblical timeline?"

He is extrabiblical.

"The lines of Noah are well written, and besides Nimrod was the one who founded Babel, Niniveh and other cities."

Nimrod arguably founded the Babel which is Göbekli Tepe.

Also, it is not clear even that he's identic to the Asshur who built Nineveh.

Now Chus begot Nemrod: he began to be mighty on the earth. [9] And he was a stout hunter before the Lord. Hence came a proverb: Even as Nemrod the stout hunter before the Lord. [10] And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Arach, and Achad, and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar.

So far on Nimrod.

[11] Out of that land came forth Assur, and built Ninive, and the streets of the city, and Chale. [12] Resen also between Ninive and Chale: this is the great city.

This could be a person later than Nimrod.

Now neither is claimed to have invented idolatry.

"He is also known as Gilgamesh."

That is possible. It is possible Gilgamesh claiming to have visited Utnapishtim reflects some claim by Nimrod to have seen Noah, and a spurious one.

"So where is this Ninus?"

In Babylon, possibly, arguably when it was founded by Amorrhaeans, after the time of Joseph.

Note, Egyptian paganism seems to have another root than Babylonian.

But considering Sumerians are known to have adored idols, perhaps it is rather the beginning of Ur in Sumeria (not necessarily identic to Ur of Chaldeans).

"Since no alive man was left in the flood and only the 8 people in the ark were the only ones left to repopulate the WHOLE EARTH.?"

That was centuries before Sarug and therefore centuries before Ninus.

"Was Ninus son of Sjem, Japhet or Ham?"

Neither son nor grandson, but probably a much later generation and very probably Ham's line, like Nimrod before him.

"It wouldn't surprise me that 'Ninus' is just another of Nimrod's names."

It is claimed by some ...

Are you referring to the Jasher printed by Jews in Venice 1625, or the Jasher claimed to have been trasnlated by Alcuin, printed in England?

Also, what I know of Egyptian paganism doesn't fit in with both Osiris and Horus being Tammuz ...

"(exactly how the vatican depicts their false Christianity) with the image of the virgin with the child on her arms."

Are you quoting this book?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jasher_(Pseudo-Jasher)

[This forgery is not Rabbinic]

AM

HGL why do you think the vatican hid it, along with Enoch and others which are really inspired.

The Bible was not written in English, but the KJV 1611 (anda yes, I know also that there is another version by the freemasons...) is the most close translation but that is another different topic.

Read Jasher and you can quickly tell if it fits or is bogus... But the worst is just to stay ignorant because the vatican told you.

You will see all those 'claims and questions' you state are pretty well put together in there.

And if you say Enoch is not biblical and authentic, believe, your know nothing then..

HGL and give proof then this Ninus built or what did he do exactly!? Your are proving nothing, just trying to disqualify with a fable

Pass me your 'Ninus' links please

HGL and so, from whom 'Ninus' was born? Since what you say its way before Nimrod, only had 3 generations to spring from. (everyone died in the flood). Who were Ninus parents?

Or because you believe is 'extra biblical' there were more people alive after the flood??

HGL

Henoch is another topic, it does not involve any claim about Nimrod in family with Semiramis and Tammuz.

Meaning of course the Ethiopian book of Henoch.

It may be inspired or not, genuine or not, it is not canonic bc of hesitations about it's being genuine and well preserved.

Now, there are TWO available books on the market labelled Book of Jasher, and I don't think either of them is the genuine deal that is cited in the Bible.

Just because I am a Catholic and do believe definitions of the Catholic Church (not apostasised Vatican II sect's Vatican), doesn't mean I don't think for myself.

"Since what you say its way before Nimrod"

No, way after Nimrod, Sarug being way after Peleg.

Now, my link on Ninus is older than either printed work labelled book of Jasher, it is Historia Scholastica for which there are medieval manuscripts.

Here it is on wikisource in Latin:

De dispersione filiorum Noe et Nemrod
Vicifons : Historia Scholastica : Genesis
https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Historia_Scholastica_(Genesis)#De_dispersione_filiorum_Noe.2C_et_Nemrod.

I have linked to the section on Nimrod, but if you scroll down you see Ninus coming later.

NOW, I did an English translation on both passages, here:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What is a Nation? part I
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-is-nation-part-i.html

AM

Oh... That explains it all... You are still trapped in the matrix... I'm am ex catholic btw... The gotcha buddy..

HGL you still have to realize and wake up that the worst enemy of the Bible and the truth is the vatican, and it is a satanic institution COMPLETELY.

HGL

"from whom 'Ninus' was born? Since what you say its way before Nimrod, he ponle had 3 generations to spring from. (everyone died in the flood). Who were Ninus parents?"

You are getting chronology of Ninus seriously wrong.

Flood was arguably 2957 BC, Serug was born 2294 BC, and that is way after Tower of Babel which was arguably in these years: Babel begins 2602 BC - Babel ends 2562 BC.

Citing from my table where Biblical chronoology and inflated carbon dates are made convertible for the time or part of the time they differ:

Creation vs. Evolution : Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/refining-table-flood-to-abraham-and.html

So, Ninus is after Tower of Babel. After Nimrod.

"That explains it all... You are still trapped in the matrix... I'm am ex catholic btw... The gotcha buddy.."

When you apostasised, what did you do of the Matthew 28:20 problem for Protestantism?

"you still have to realize and wake up that the worst enemy of the Bible and the truth is the vatican, and it is a satanic institution COMPLETELY."

If you meant the Antipopes who have usurped it in recent decades, even they have to give some show of Catholicism and do some things that genuinely belong to it.

As you mean the Vatican overall, several centuries back, you are simply wrong.

Some snake oil salesman has bamboozled you, perhaps after you were disappointed over sth in the Vatican II Sect.

AM

HGL flood was about 4500 years ago.. And exactly Kent Hovind s videos (you know, the one who is this page about) proves it over and over.

I believing you gotta watch the series...

And also, guess WHO is the virgin with the child on her arms that the catholics all the time use on the church buildings? Semiramis and Tammuz. Born December 25th (and the vatican moved Jesus birthday to December 25 'coincidentally', and imposed the gregorian calendar in order to erase and confound the real Moeds of Elohim, in which Jesus was born on September and fulfilled many aspects of proof of his diety. But of course, catholicism has tried to hide this all. No matter how much I debate with you, because you are trapped in that trap. And I understand perfectly because I was a catholic. So... I can only pray for you).

You might have eyes to read, but not heart to understand. Pray God and he spoil give you understanding and wisdom.

HGL

"flood was about 4500 years ago.."

2019 AD (c.)
2957 BC
4976 years ago (c.)

"And exactly Kent Hovind s videos (you know, the one who is this page about) proves it over and over."

The Masoretic over the LXX timeline? Don't think he went into that one very much.

"I believing you gotta watch the series..."

I do watch individual videos, Kent Hovind has some really decent points.

"And also, guess WHO is the virgin with the child on her arms that the catholics all the time use on the church buildings?"

No need to guess, I know what is real, and I knew in advance what you imagine.

"Semiramis and Tammuz."

Look, I am now at Jasher Chapter 43, skimming through somewhat quickly, and haven't found any Semiramis or Tammuz ...

Sacred Texts : Jasher : Chapter 43
https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/43.htm

[back to their intro:]

// This is one of the apochrypal Books of Jasher. There are several (as many as five) separate works by this title, all composed much later than Biblical times. This particular one is a translation of a Hebrew book printed in 1613. Sepir Ha Yasher, the Hebrew title of this book, means the 'Book of the Upright', or 'the Upright or Correct Record'. This title was misread as 'Jasher', and at some point Jasher was treated as a proper name; however the pronoun 'the' (hebrew 'ha') never preceeds proper names. //

"Born December 25th (and the vatican moved Jesus birthday to December 25 'coincidentally', and imposed the gregorian calendar in order to erase and confound the real Moeds of Elohim, in which Jesus was born on September"

Rather, it was the sacrifice of Zacharias which was in september:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Second week of Tishri + 15 Month = Christmas
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2018/12/second-week-of-tishri-15-month-christmas.html

As for December 25 being the birthday of anyone before, the Julian calendar didn't exist too long before, and the Roman pre-Julian calendars wasn't important for long before Julius Caesar and the pre-Roman calendars don't have the month December and don't work the way that a date can be translated from their terminology to a Julian December.

Babylonian year had 360 days. If one started January 1st, next started December 27, the one after that December 21, except if a Julian or Gregorian leap year came around, which would have meant an added six days, not just five days of difference to previous year's "translation."

Egyptian year had 365 days and no leap years. There too, no such thing as a fixed translation.

Greek and Hebrew calendars did have lunisolar years with at least one month's variability about what Julian or Gregorian date they would correspond to.

"and fulfilled many aspects of proof of his diety. But of course, catholicism has tried to hide this all."

Not of Christ fulfilling many aspects of His deity, no.

"No matter how much I debate with you, because you are trapped in that trap."

Your thinking that traps you in a trap.

"And I understand perfectly because I was a catholic."

Not quite comparable, I converted to Catholicism.

"So... I can only pray for you). You might have eyes to read, but not heart to understand. Pray God and he spoil give you understanding and wisdom."

I am willing to debate you, if you dare, but I find your admonitions superfluous.

AM

HGL so you claim to know anything about freemasonry and believe in catholicism?? That's a compete contradiction.

You are deceived.

HGL

Catholic Church condemned freemasonry.

You made this claim:

"And Islam was created be the vatican, research ex Jesuit priest Alberto a Rivera whom they murdered for revealing this secrets from the libraries of the vatican."

I am sad Kent Hovind also believes that stuff, one of his less bright moments.

AM

And the Babilonian roots of catholicism, and the pedophilia (which is part of the 'ingredients' of black Magick, which has been since Babylon, (another 'concidence')

"catholic church condemned freemasonry"...?

Yes, but you know nothing about freemasonry and how they work. And your comment proves it. (they always play both sides, the good and the bad). Soak yourself in a youtube channel named "call for an uprising" and search some of his stuff related to freemasonry.

HGL

If freemasonry plays both sides, how come you are not bamboozled by freemasons?

If you mean since they do so no one can recognise the Church Christ founded, since it could be freemasons, you contradict Matthew 28:20.

"And the Babilonian roots of catholicism, "

In Hislop's dirty imagination.

"and the pedophilia"

By which God chose to remind the Vatican II Sect that they had apostasised by ecumenism with Anglicanism .

AM

Hans-Georg Lundahl Mmmh.. Super tough question to answer here shortly. I might give you an essay of 'Don Quijote' much faster... You have a lot to research, and carefully , because they have propagated now so much deflection of who they really are and what they do and believe on the high degrees that is hard to fing the genuine info. Watch that channel.

HGL

I take that as you are not continuing the argument this evening?

Have a pleasant evening, then!

[Note, I was not greeting this heretic with a formal religious "peace"!]

Update

AM

HGL I've told you what you need to know in order to wake up.

As long as you are still deceived by the vatican we cannot jump to the next phase.

HGL

I am jumping nowhere with you.

[+ linked to this post]

AM

HGL exactly, because you are not listening. Just replying whatever in order to not stay quiet. You will never be able to see beyond the blindfolders if you don't want to really.

HGL

Oh, by the way, your procedure of "next phase" and "I told you what you need to know" is very masonic. How do YOU know you are not the one deluded by Masons pretending to be Antimasonic?

And Blindfolders is EXTREMELY like the vocabulary of my Masonic acquaintances, who did not make me apostasise from Christianity.

AM

HGL yeah, because in your belief you think I'm like the ones in apostasy because you believe the true church is catholicism. That's how they trap you.

HGL "If every catholic started to actually treat their bibles, there would be no catholicism yet."

HGL

I was not trapped, I walked into what you call a trap and out of it and into another one (Catholicism against Vatican II).

I was very familiar with the Bible before converting and even more since converting.

You tell why you think YOUR Church is the one Christ started, and how it spans all centuries, not why MINE isn't.

AM

HGL you walked into a trap, thats correct.

HGL

We differ on why the Vatican II Sect is a trap, you say because it is Catholic, I say because it isn't Catholic.

You are still behind in your accounting for your church in 7th C.

AM

HGL because NO denominational church organized as a religion is correct. All of them contradict the Bible. Very easy to dismiss them....

If your 'religion' contradicts the Bible your religion is WRONG.

"Call no man on earth Father".... Paraphrasing..

How do you call every priest that stands in there?? FATHER! just as easy as that.!

HGL

"because NO denominational church organized as a religion is correct."

Where was your non-denominational Christianity in 7th C AD?

AM

Your really need to see Hovinds videos...

HGL

I enjoy what he has to say on the Gilligan's Island situation after the Flood ...

AM

You will not understand. Simply. Start doing your research and you will be guided.

HGL

I have done my research, and I have been guided TO Catholicism.

AM

HGL you're blind that's all I will say.

HGL

Then have a pleasant evening, this is not a formal peace, however, STOP badgering me with "admonitions" about my having to wake up.

AM

Hans-Georg Lundahl then stop pretending to know REAL history with 'Ninus' and get into the Bible.

... Which includes the books of Enoch and Jasher

HGL

I am ready to debate you, but the origin of idolatry is not given in the Bible.

And it does neither include Enoch nor Jasher.

And debating is sth other than giving admonitions, show some manners and don't behave like a Masonic or Communist venerable or Politruk, OK!