A Serb is Anti-Austrian (Who's Surprised?)

HGL's F.B. writings: A Serb is Anti-Austrian (Who's Surprised?) · New blog on the kid: Would Conservative Protestants Like a Protestant Civilisation?

Andy Ujku-Dardania

shared in status

A Central Powers victory would have been a much better outcome for Western Civilization.

They also would have been neither willing nor able to impose on the Allies they kind of crippling and humiliating terms that the latter did on Germany with the Versailles treaty.

The animosity would have faded away over the years and decades instead of being bottled up like it was in Germany which led to the second war.

The greater Kaiserreich would have brought political, economic and cultural stability to Central and Eastern Europe.

There wouldn’t have been the post War revolutionary chaos that we saw with an Allied victory.

Europe would be stable and America would return to isolationism even harder than it did with a victory.

There would be no League of Nations, no UN.

No globalism a we know it.

A Central Powers victory would have been a victory for the old world of nobility and chivalry against the new world of capital and opportunism.

Unfortunately Europe paid the price for an Allied “victory.” Twice.

I

Nikola Avramov

Also, Lenin worked for Germany.

Bolshevism was what Axis Powers brought to Eastern Euroep.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nikola Avramov Protestant and basically Atheist Prussian Germany.

Austria was not his backer.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl I've said "Axis Powers".

He was just 100% aligned with the Austrian policy on Eastern Europe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Can you give any kind of documentation that Austria in 1914--18 was anything like for a Communist Revolution anywhere?

Or do you only mean, he allowed Poland freedom?

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl Lenin was caught with material evidence of working for German intelligence.

Germany is an Axis power.

Don't play dumb with me.

The Third Congress of the Communits Party of Yugoslavia was held in Vienna, Austria on 17th May, 1926.

Adolf Hitler "allowed Poland freedom"?

Are you seriously suggesting this or am I missing something?

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not in the mood for anybody's nonchalant obfuscation and bartering over the existence of mountains of evidence and events of Biblical proportions.

This is the last time I'm going to say this.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl Should you have any doubts about Axis destroying Yugoslavia, you would be well advised to consult the work of Matthias Küntzel called "Road to war, Germany, NATO, Kosovo" in which he cites Germany's state documentation and provides a decisive case on Germany destroying Yugoslavia during the 1990s.

While Germany's involvement was strong and undeniable, I only disagree with his conclusion on Germany being the ring-leader because I think the ring-leader was ultimately Great Britain in spite of Germany's enthusiasm and commitment to the agenda.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Adolf Hitler "allowed Poland freedom"?"

No, Charles I did.

"The Third Congress of the Communits Party of Yugoslavia was held in Vienna, Austria on 17th May, 1926."

OK ... not Ustashi anyway.

In 1926, they had no power. Also, in 1926, as later for any independent Austria, Austria cannot be considered an Axis power.

"anybody's nonchalant obfuscation"

Like you were taking Protestant "bishops" for Catholic clergy?

"Road to war"

Küntzel war Mitglied des Kommunistischen Bundes (KB) und gehörte nach dessen Spaltung 1991[2] der „antideutschen“ Redaktionsminderheit an, die sich fortan „Gruppe K“ nannte und die Zeitschrift Bahamas herausgab.

Either way, the Germany of Merkel was hardly the Austria of either Charles I or Dollfuss. Or Mons. Seipel.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm noting that both Nicholas II and Charles I were "taken out of the way" ....

In a certain sense by each other, though indirectly. Karl Renner in Austria and Lenin in Russia would have had lots less power without WW-I.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl Lenin worked for the Windsors.

Russia was pulled into the war because German reports were that "If Russia is left in peace by 2020 it will become unstoppable".

But ultimately, the war was instigated by Britain.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"for the Windsors"

Possible.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl Plenty of indicators for it.

Among the blatant ones: Lenin drove a Rolls-Royce around.

When questioned about it, the official explanation was that it was confiscated from the Tsar's garage.

The thing is... it was a model built AFTER WW1.

And then there's this:

Wall Street and the Russian Revolution, Richard B. Spence
https://dn720005.ca.archive.org/0/items/nwo-book-collection/Richard%20B.%20Spence%20-%20Wall%20Street%20and%20the%20Russian%20Revolution_%201905-1925-Trine%20Day%20(2017).pdf

III

Nikola Avramov

"The greater Kaiserreich would have brought political, economic and cultural stability to Central and Eastern Europe."

Eastern Europe?

They went for full-blown genocide of all Serbs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nikola Avramov Austrians genocidal against Serbs?

Er ... no.

Croats at a certain point (and without assistance from Alojzije Stepinac on that account), yes, Austro-Hungarian Empire, no.

At a certain point war gas was used, this ended as soon as Charles I came to the front and was able to stop it.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl Stepinac was appointed by the Vatican, but he wouldn't have been without endorsement from Pavelić.

And Pavelić himself was put into the office by Adolf Hitler, a German Chancellor and an Austrian citizen.

The Vatican, Germany, and Austria qualify as Axis powers.

Delegating genocide is still committing it.

If the Vatican, Germany or Austria did NOT want it to happen in WW2, they would've simply appointed some insipid Croatian politician like Stjepan Radić instead of assassinating him and replacing him with carefully groomed local fascists for decades.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And ... Stepinac didn't suck up to Pavelic once Jasenovac got started.

"and Austria"

In 1941, Austria did not exist. Ostmark did. Schuschnugg, the last chancellor of the first republic referred to 1938 as "Ein Requiem in Rot-Weiss-Rot" ... 1945 was Resurrection.

"Delegating genocide is still committing it."

Sure. But you can neither blame Austria nor the Vatican for Jasenovac, because these very clearly did NOT delegate it.

"they would've simply appointed"

You mean Hitler's Germany. A Hitler who had been banned from Austria and was excommunicated by German bishops (the Catholic ones, since Protestant "bishops" aren't actually bishops).

Austria and the Vatican had no say between Radic and Pavelic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My bad, Stjepan Radić seems to have been killed in 1928.

Puniša Račić seems to have been a Montenegrine Serb, a Crnogorski. NRS was purely Serbian populism. No ties to Vatican, Austria or even Germany.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl "And ... Stepinac didn't suck up to Pavelic once Jasenovac got started."

That was thoroughly debunked years ago.

Stepinac was VERY enthusiastic about it.

Among other things, he's on record for complaining to some Germans that they've massacred HIS flock FOR A CHANGE.

Look up for a recent publication which halted Stepinac's sanctification.

The Vatican halted the sanctification because it was facing overwhelming evidence.

"Alojzije Stepinac - state, church, archbishop (1934-1941) by the Filip Višnjić publishing house, published in 2019 is, I think, a very important publication on this issue. If memory serves, it cites overwhelmingly incriminating events and records of Stepinac enthusiastically expressing fascist beliefs. I do believe that it was presented to the Vatican and that it influenced Pope Francis's decision to freeze Stepinac's sanctification.

"and Austria"
"In 1941, Austria did not exist. Ostmark did. Schuschnugg, the last chancellor of the first republic referred to 1938 as "Ein Requiem in Rot-Weiss-Rot" ... 1945 was Resurrection."

When did anyone say otherwise?

The only "and Austria" refereed to the 1980s when Austria took part in destroying Yugoslavia in a proxy war.

Which is pertinent because the subject is Axis Powers and Eastern Europe.

"Delegating genocide is still committing it."
"Sure. But you can neither blame Austria nor the Vatican for Jasenovac, because these very clearly did NOT delegate it."

The "Serbs must die" motto originates form Austria.

The "Croatian nation" is an Austrian intelligence project.

I'm aware of Germany taking the reins after WW1, but they just picked up where Austria stopped and an Austrian, indoctrinated in Austria, put Pavelić into office.

If Germany's policy in 1941 was ANY different than the Austro-Hungarian policy on this issue back in 1914 - nuances would be pertinent.

They're the same policy. It's the tactics that have changed.

Sure, there are other factors, like the Vatican, the British endorsement of it all, the indirect French support, and occasional Polish meddling, which represented France or the Vatican.

Sure, Croats now look up more under German influence than Austrian influence... but the policies are pretty much the same: rob everybody in Eastern Europe, scheme in Eastern Europe so everybody gets killed, and when able to - literally kill everyone in Eastern Europe.

There's a Drang Nach Osten going on right now.

"they would've simply appointed"
"You mean Hitler's Germany. A Hitler who had been banned from Austria and was excommunicated by German bishops (the Catholic ones, since Protestant "bishops" aren't actually bishops)."

There's still a consistency of policy. This is a policy which has lasted for at least two centuries just on the topic of Serbian people alone and clearly longer when it comes to Russian people and state.

Plenty of Roman Catholics who became Atheists still insist that Roman Catholicism is The Church and that it is the center of Christendom. People who claim that they REJECT Christianity claim so. From an Orthodox Christian perspective - they're culturally and politically Roman Catholics.

Mutatis mutandis for Protestant Atheists.

Concordantly: whatever Hitler's differences with the Austrian leadership/government/state and/or the Roman Catholic clergy were - they did not prevent a measure of coordination and partnership in practice.

I'm generally aware of them. It's the German Protestants who overwhelmingly voted for Hitler. Hitler's placations towards Roman Catholics are overshadowed by his brutal hatred for Christianity (quite normal for someone whose party was shaped by Thulean and Vrill Luciferian wizards and witches).

Generally speaking, political factions REGULARLY cooperate on certain issues in spite of being fierce adversaries on other issues.

This is exceedingly self-evident and we're talking about one such blatant case.

Like I've said: Axis Powers have an extremely hostile policy towards Eastern Europe and I would argue that this goes for Slavic peoples in Central Eurore as well.

If they won WW1 there'd be way more violence and destruction in half of the continent.

Yes, the same goes for Western Europeans and their countries. This is where the two ultimately agree. And this includes the British Commonwealth, USA, and their respective satellites.

Personally, I think that it ultimately comes down to remnants of Western Rome taking revenge upon the remnants of Eastern Rome for 1st-millennium grudges. Some of those grudges I do understand, but it's been too much violence, crime and destruction to justify even a chunk of the actions taken in the 2nd and 3rd Millennia.

"Austria and the Vatican had no say between Radic and Pavelic."

There is overwhelming evidence of the local Roman Catholic monk order being involved with both Radić's assassination in order to pave way for the local clero-fascists. I forgot its name, but it should be easy enough to find.

"My bad, Stjepan Radić seems to have been killed in 1928."

Yes.

"Puniša Račić seems to have been a Montenegrine Serb, a Crnogorski. NRS was purely Serbian populism. No ties to Vatican, Austria or even Germany."

Yes, that's the way it was made to seem to be. And that's how the British propaganda covers it up: "violent Serbs doing violent crap".

The Black Hand, Račić's organization, was famously Freemasonic and there are clear indicators of British and German control.

Račić was released on the grounds of good behavior in a mere few years. He directly walked in to the Minister of Justice's office to turn himself in. Someone fixed that multiple murder to destabilize the country and make way for the fascists to radicalize the Croats.

His political party isn't very pertinent because he carried himself as a loyalist to the king and generally insisted on preferential treatment.

The Slovenian representatives, who generally sat BEHIND the murdered Croatian politicians, chose NOT to come to the Parliament that day.

There are plenty of interesting nuances.

There very much seem to be overwhelming indicators that this was a steady preparation for the Ustasha movement to take root as a relevant and rising political current in Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

Radić's assassination predates a rapid rise in the rise of fascist organizations.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl And I can and should blame the Vatican for not defrocking these friars for saluting with a salute used by Neopagans and blessing crimes before they even happened.

They're on record for pre-absolving murderers before the murder in this very period.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

None of the ones in this picture are friars.

They are Protestant "bishops". They and their flock couldn't care less about the Vatican. You know, it was c. 400 + years since Luther and then a bit later Calvin taught them not to mind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"on record" ... does that mean on criminal records by Tito Yugoslavia's cangaroo courts?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Stepinac was VERY enthusiastic about it."

Or a Commie court pretended so?

"Plenty of Roman Catholics who became Atheists still insist that Roman Catholicism is The Church and that it is the center of Christendom. People who claim that they REJECT Christianity claim so. From an Orthodox Christian perspective - they're culturally and politically Roman Catholics."
"Mutatis mutandis for Protestant Atheists."

Hitler wasn't exactly an Atheist, more like a Pantheist.

Spinoza, the Jewish take on Atheism.

But culturally and politically, Hitler was Protestant. He despised Habsburgs and admired Hohenzollerns.

IV

Nikola Avramov

Axis powers have for centuries and are at this very moment doing their best to murder everybody in Eastern Europe.

There are no crimes they haven't committed over Eastern Europeans.

The famous "Eastern European rivalries"?

Those have three authors: the Vatican, Great Britain, and the Habsburgs.

Europe is undergoing a catastrophe right now because the Axis powers REFUSE to STOP MURDERING EASTERN EUROPEANS EVEN IF IT CONTINUING TO DO SO WOULD COST THEM EVERYTHING.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nikola Avramov Beg your pardon?

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl Are you claiming complete and innocent ignorance or are you implying outrage?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For the Habsburgs, I simply don't believe you.

For the Vatican, I also don't believe you.

For Great Britain, I'm on the edge.

However, you said the Yugo-Commu congress was in 1926 Vienna? Check this out:

1920–1934 befand sich die Sozialdemokratie in der Bundespolitik in Opposition zur konservativen Regierung und schuf im Roten Wien ihr politisches Gegenmodell.

So, the federation was ruled by Habsburg friendly conservatives, but Vienna by Social Democrats leaning to Communism.

Why Don't they Teach Gynaecology in These Schools?

HGL's F.B. writings: Why Don't they Teach Gynaecology in These Schools? · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Predecessors of Jan III Sobieski and Austrians

Ana Abroad

I asked Russian women if they want to have kids

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Many children ... starting at 28—29.

Probably gynaecology is a bit undertaught in Russia.

Or, starting 29—30 as next woman said.

Has she never heard when Czarist Russian deliminated "Дѣвушка" from "Старая Дѣва"?

Adam Komanecki

Hans-Georg Lundahl Women remain fertile up until their 40s, 10 years is more than enough to have multiple children provided there's enough resources to sustain both them and the mother. Perhaps Swedish education was influenced by its current migrant minority into believing that the task of maintaining the population should be left to teenage females?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You forget the ova lost in menstruations and also that the basin which up to 30 hasn't given birth will be very much more painful than if one starts earlier.

So, a woman who has not had children before 30 is likely to chose fewer childbirths once confronted with the pain.

Also, the risk for Downs is 1/10 000 for a woman age 20, 1/100 for one age 40.

Are you asking if, while a teacher, I proposed teen marriages? No, I waited to after not getting the temporary job renewed next term. Even if you want to call me a migrant from Austria.

However, as a teacher, I did find teens not marrying conducive to teens aborting. In other words, murder. Plus some other tragedies, like broken couples.

Btw, I'm not in Sweden's current migrant minority now, but in that of France.

II

Audrūnas Gruslys

So why is the birth rate in Russia so appaling, averaging around 1.3 children per women despite including Causacus region into the statistics?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Audrūnas Gruslys Because they are totally gynaecologically naive.

---

Czarist Russian ... it had another alphabet. The letter ѣ was examplified by locative ending (o Царѣ = about the Tsar) and by Дѣва, with diminutives, which were explained. A Дѣвочка becomes a Дѣвушка at 12. A Дѣвушка, marries, becomes a nun, dies, or becomes a Старая Дѣва at 30. France in the Middle Ages actually counted a demoiselle as Catherinette if she was unmarried at 25.

Crossdressing or dressing with a Cross ... NOT the same

Peter Coulbanis

status

If you have a problem with a "drag queen" reading books to kids, I imagine you have no problem with one of these people reading books to kids?

Right?

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In fact I only have a problem with the guy to the right, who seems to be a Lutheran.

All the attire is male, it's just historic.

II

William Tarry

There is a statically significant difference between the number of clergy engaging in pedophilia and the number of drag queens engaging in pedophilia.

Children are demonstrably much safer from predators with drag queens than with members of the clergy.

Walter Purcell

William Tarry Did you make those statistics up in your head?

William Tarry

Walter Purcell here is a link to search a list of abusive Priests and Clergy Members.

Please, provide a similar list for drag queens.

We'll all be waiting.

List of Abusive Priests and Clergy Members
Home › Catholic Church Sex Abuse › Accused* Clergy Members
https://www.abuselawsuit.com/church-sex-abuse/accused-clergy/

* footnote:

the page actually involves a disclaimer:

Our Catholic priest database lists individuals facing clergy abuse allegations. AbuseLawsuit.com does not imply guilt for any accused individual on this list.

Even so, it would be great to have also a list of actually convicted sex abusing clergy. For "accused" California has 661. For actually convicted, it's probably lots fewer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How about comparing not only the number of accused, but also the total of each category?

Either way, in Spain, a statistic over actual perpetrators found clergy safer than the public school system.

studio de Fundación ANAR
ABUSO SEXUAL EN LA INFANCIA Y LA ADOLESCENCIA SEGÚN LOS AFECTADOS Y SU EVOLUCIÓN EN ESPAÑA (2008-2019)
https://www.anar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Estudio-ANAR-abuso-sexual-infancia-adolescencia-240221-1.pdf

As I commented here:

Gráfico 136.- ¿Quién es el agresor?
Monday, January 19, 2026 | En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2026/01/grafico-136-quien-es-el-agresor.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And recently convicted male couple Varley and McGowan-Fazakerley may never have made an actual drag queen story hour, as the main "actress", but they were certainly in favour and not very safe for young Preston.

William Tarry

Hans-Georg Lundahl so you cannot find any examples of drag queens being unsafe for children.
Good to know.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

William Tarry No, but teachers, and some of these presumably very OK with drag queen hours.

Equally good to know.

Yes, you meant what?

The-Why-Guy

God is a modern invention by man from the late Bronze age yet humans have existed for over 300,000 years. On top of that humans would eventually expand their territory across most of the world by 10k-15k years ago. A couple of questions...

Why was God silent for so long?

Why did God only show up in a very tiny part of the world when his created humans covered his created earth?

If he wasn't silent for 95% of human history then why doesn't any other cultures reference him from any other part of the world before the invention of the Hebrew Bible?

If your excuse is that God created the "new earth" just 7,000 years ago, which is equivalent to flat earth, then the problem is still in the regional isolation of God.

No matter how you splice it, it's clear that God was born out of religious evolution in a very tiny part of the world and doesn't even mention the rest of his human creation that had already populated the whole world.

The problem with God from the Bible is scale.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"yet humans have existed for over 300,000 years. On top of that humans would eventually expand their territory across most of the world by 10k-15k years ago."

OK ... can you conclusively prove your timeline?

I

The-Why-Guy

Hans-Georg Lundahl it's not my time line, but yes it's fact that humans first appear 300,000+ years ago in Africa and we've dated human footprints in New Mexico at about 20,000-23,000 years ago. I recommend taking some college classes on anthropology and history for a better understanding of the human time line.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"300,000+ years ago in Africa" proven by?

"dated human footprints in New Mexico at about 20,000-23,000 years ago." dito?

The-Why-Guy

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes they've been proven by lots of people. In the academic world they call it peer reviewed and validated. They replicate the experiments, confirm accuracy of the data, along with having others pick apart their thesis before confirming it as factual. Creationist* have never been able to create any evidence of the contrary without just saying "it must be so because I said so because the Bible says so." Even Christian scholars disagree with the small sect of Christians who believe in a young earth. It's right up there with a flat earth theory.

Ironically enough this was my very first debate topic in seminary as a devout Christian and I destroyed my debate partner who was defending the new earth logic so unless you have some new evidence that's been peer reviewed and confirmed then it's hilarious that you would ask me to prove what's already been proven. I can't help you learn if you refuse to accept new information. Have you researched this topic outside of the pages of the Bible that was written only 3000 years ago? What university did you attend that disproved an old earth? I'm more than happy to engage intellectually with you on this subject, but you would need to be willing to research your own argument first.

* footnote

Why "Creationist have" and not "Creationists have"?

Is he a Slav who doesn't master English?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, let's be more precise.

BY what method, which works how?

Creationist have never been able to create any evidence of the contrary without just saying "it must be so because I said so because the Bible says so."

When it comes to carbon dating (possible for the date of the footprints if it is associated with oprganic material), I do come with evidence that the raw data of the dating method are compatible with a real date of 2738 BC to 2719 BC.

Creation vs. Evolution: Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-flood-to-joseph-in-egypt.html

Yes, I elaborated these tables.

"Even Christian scholars disagree with the small sect of Christians who believe in a young earth."

A small minority doesn't mean a small sect. CMI éare usually Protestants, I'm Catholic.

"you would need to be willing to research your own argument first."

I did in 2015, when challenged on rising carbon and diminishing apparent age, according to them, causing a severe radiation problem.*

* footnote

In case it isn't clear, one I think I have solved, if you look up the link and then click back to "B) Distances and speeds." in the previous post Newer Tables, Preliminaries.

II

Bill Lyon

Hans-Georg Lundahl sure, there were no dinosaurs on Noahs Ark. Adam and Eve populated the world but we wind up with so many different races. All in 6000 years. Why did adam and eve have belly buttons, seeing as they were created in gods image?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First, we don't know they had belly buttons.

Second, racial differences (including to Neanderthal and Denisovan, pre-Flood races) don't take that long.

Third, there were dinos on Noah's Ark. They went extinct later.

Anything more?

What's Philanthropy?

Michael Nahass

status

Kristine Braaten-Lee

This comment is not easy to grab onto. Having the context for it may help.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Kristine Braaten-Lee How about people in the street?

How many efforts are directed by philanthropists to:

• give me food, perhaps articles of hygiene, not money
• give me the attention of people organised to care for me, not the people I'm trying to get interested in my blogs
• keep me among people similarily in the street or otherwise in very humbled (not just humble) positions, rather than allowing me the company that could help me get my things into print, my lice treated in the house of a friend or that of future inlaws and generally speaking my life into the kind of order that *I* rather than *they* want for me?

II

Michael Nahass

Kristine Braaten-Lee Put it in the context of what someone like Bill Gates is doing with his philanthropic efforts. What philosophy is he imposing at the moment? He thinks there’s too many people on the planet and aims his wealth at *remedying* this.

a)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Michael Nahass That too.

b)

Joe Wheeler

Michael Nahass the antidote that GKC prefers is the democracy that rejects the tyranny of "the small and arrogant oligarchy!"

Michael Nahass

Joe Wheeler With a healthy kick in the arse for the mad billionaire.

Joe Wheeler

Michael Nahass let's hope so!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joe Wheeler "that GKC prefers is" ... old fashioned individual alms giving.

Was Mary "a Child"? No. With Child.

Rebecca Hughes

status

How do you rationalize the Bible authors' lack of modern knowledge with the idea that an omniscient god guided them to write these things?

For example, God supposedly impregnated Mary. Mary was approximately 12-14 years old. Christians excuse this by saying "it was normal at the time," but will also claim that God knows everything that will ever happen, meaning he knew what pedophilia was and why we eventually make it illegal to sleep with children and why it's incredibly dangerous for young girls to get pregnant and give birth. He knew that in modern times, the age of consent would average around 16-18 in first world countries. He knew that by impregnating her, he was putting her life in danger.

Other comparisons can be drawn, such as when life truly "begins" (the Bible can't seem to give a straight answer despite modern medical experts having a clear understanding of the brain development in utero, so God should've known this too), no mention of what would later be known as "transgender" (they basically just called it cross dressing) despite the mountains of scientific research that would come about for it, and more examples I'm sure other atheists in here could provide.

So how exactly do Christians reconcile the Bible authors' lack of modern understanding with the idea that a god with all foreknowledge guided them to write it?

I answered

twice, A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"meaning he knew what pedophilia was"

Yes, a catchword equivalent to lumping murder, arson and jaywalking together.

She was obviously no child, or she couldn't have been pregnant, duh!

Rebecca Hughes

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Are you claiming your god didn't understand pedophilia?

You do realize children can get pregnant, right? Some girls start puberty as early as 8 years old. They could get pregnant. That does NOT stop them from being a CHILD.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm claiming "paedophilia" isn't a thing to understand in the first place.

A girl pregnant at 8 is not herself a child, she's just statistically likely to be a child, and a statistically unlikely case.

Rebecca Hughes

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A pregnant child is still a child. Puberty does not equal adulthood. Some girls experience precocious puberty as young as 5 years old. A pregnant 5 year old would STILL BE A CHILD.

If you're claiming that pedophilia doesn't exist because impregnating a child magically makes her an adult, I have news for you, you freak.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In a five year old, puberty would indeed be precocious.

But in normal puberty at least of medium age (like 14 for males and 12 for females), one must presume normal maturity to assume puberty.

One cannot assume a generalised mismatch between puberty and maturity.

And you weren't saying Our Lady was 5 or 9, but between 12 and 14 some time.

Rebecca Hughes

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Puberty does not equal maturity. One can absolutely assume a mismatch between the two because we have the scientific understanding that children's brains and bodies are still underdeveloped during puberty and even for a few years afterward.

So, again, with that knowledge that your god supposedly had access to, why did he still purposefully choose a 12 year old CHILD instead of a more mature woman who could more safely carry and deliver the pregnancy?

Jimmy Perry

Rebecca Hughes by you calling her a child is disingenuous. Her age is unknown.

Rebecca Hughes

Jimmy Perry Children in that time were typically betrothed around 12-14 years old. If she were much older than that and unmarried, then she would've been considered a spinster and likely brought shame to her family.

There is not a single historian who estimates her age any greater than 16 at the MOST.

So, either way, she was definitely a child, and that means your god purposefully and intentionally chose a child over all others to impregnate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Rebecca Hughes About your history lesson, thank you. Apart from the incorrect word child.

Betrothed children have certainly existed. The mother of St. Francis of Sales was betrothed at 8 and married at 14, giving birth to him, her eldest son, next year. The husband was significantly older.

She was a child when betrothed, but no longer when she got married.

"Puberty does not equal maturity."

Not in very seriously precocious puberty, like puberty in a five year old if that exists.

However, pretending medium age of puberty is NOT equal to the maturity needed to marry (which is not every maturity there is), is an accusation against God far beyond the instance of the Blessed Virgin's age.

You see, in Genesis 1, God says "be fruitful and multiply" and He also says "and it was very good" ... this would not be the case if people who got married and got children had over history been very often too young to take that decision.

"we have the scientific understanding that children's brains and bodies are still underdeveloped during puberty and even for a few years afterward."

Underdeveloped for exactly what?

In bodies, we can take hip bones. Now, at 13 a girl's hip bones are too narrow, at 30, if she hasn't given birth, somewhat too narrow but less so, but on the other hand too stiff. The suppleness at 13 compensates for the narrowness, when you get to 30, you need earlier child births to have easy deliveries. Inapplicable in males, and being tall enough to drive a car is historically not an issue for most people. By the way, in Europe it is not an issue in cities, because you have shops within walking distance, you don't need to drive to a supermarket. Same observation Middle East 2000 years ago, in case you forgot.

Brains. St. Thomas Aquinas certainly acknowledges that you have more maturity at 25 than at 14/12. However, he says 14/12 is the proper maturity for marriage, you basically need emotional intelligence and knowing what taste you have in the opposite sex (and yes, taste changes do come with puberty, even on a culinary level, I couldn't eat blue cheese or drink beer with hops before puberty, and I wasn't keen on black coffee either).

25 by contrast, is the maturity you need to take charge of other people, not meaning wife and small children, but people big enough to have decided wills of their own. Hence, taking your inheritance, running a business, being ordained a priest, starting to rule in your own name instead of others doing so for you, if you were heir to the throne, all these are for 25.

The explanation of St. Thomas was about experience, but that applies to the brain development too. At 12 the brain is at its largest, but it takes a shrink, gets rid of superfluous neurons, gets more stable around 18. You can argue it's not a fully developed brain, but it is developed enough to know your taste in the opposite sex, for instance if I like girls chubby or lean (fact: somewhat chubby).

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"he knew ... why we eventually make it illegal to sleep with children and why it's incredibly dangerous for young girls to get pregnant and give birth."

As She could get pregnant, She was not a child.

And "incredibly dangerous", apart from skewed outcome statistics by the one mostly happening in first world and the other mostly in the third world, a first birth at 13 is not ideal, but less dangerous than a first birth at 30.

From memory of my ma's words, and she had a gynaecology professor she respected.

Now, if giving a first birth at 13 in Ethiopia is more dangerous than at 30 in NYC, there are other factors than inherent dangerosity that contribute.

And yes, He knew.

Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth
[1 Timothy 4:1-3]

Rebecca Hughes

She was 12 years old. She was a child. Children can get pregnant. That doesn't excuse it.

"A first birth at 13 is not ideal, but less dangerous than a first birth at 30."

Were there no women between the ages of 20-30?? Literally anyone other than a child?

"He knew" what? He knew that he was participating in pedophilia? Yeah, that's my whole point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Children can get pregnant."

A person who can get pregnant is not a child.

A person is NOT a child up to 20.

Your blasphemies make me shudder for the hearts and lives of young women you would call "children" ...

Rebecca Hughes

Hans-Georg Lundahl A person may not be a child all the way up to 20 years old, but historians haven't estimated Mary's age to be ANY higher than 16 at the most, and anyone 16 and under IS a child biologically. Their bodies are physically not matured to adulthood.

If you think a child 16 and under isn't a child because they are capable of becoming pregnant, you are sick in the head. I'm genuinely surprised you put that on the internet under your own name. Would you show your boss that comment?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Rebecca Hughes "and anyone 16 and under IS a child biologically."

No.

That's a false definition of childhood.

Omne animal quod potest facere sibi simile perfectum est.

The basic biological perfection, as defined by Aristotle and accepted by the Scholastics excludes the immaturity one should call childhood.

Rebecca Hughes "Would you show your boss that comment?"

I don't have one. I don't intend to get one I couldn't show it, nor one who would want to make it a secret.

Righteous Indignation

Related, through or by Michael Nahass as below:

Michael Nahass

status

Jayson Leary

How could a man who makes insightful statements elsewhere, make a bullshit statement like that: one dripping with namby pamby ambivalence and weak-willed flexibility?

It was extreme righteous indignation that put an end to the brutal child labor practices in the factories of yore --where peoples' children came home with fingers missing because the venal factory tycoons were *not* so keen on the safety of employees.

It is extreme righteous indignation that is working to try to protect the children and underage teenagers from those who would downplay the evil of sexual molestation, as they do when they bandy about those silly terms "judgmental" and "finger pointing", so to solicit a lukewarm approach *not* denouncing such evil .

What people often call "judgmental" and "finger pointing" are often GOOD tendencies (consistent thinking that is outspoken) .

After all, to respect opinions that are inherently bad is to be mentally *disloyal* to the people who have been victims of those bad opinions being practiced!

To verbally denounce bad opinions to someone with such vehemence that the person totally recants those bad opinions is NOT torture ; it is an act of benevolence; constructive criticism !

I

Michael Nahass

Jayson Leary Meh, Most of what passes for righteous indignation (faux outrage) today is merely sentimentality in an angry state.

Moral indignation is, of course, one of the most pleasant emotions known to mankind, and unlike most other pleasant emotions it can endure almost indefinitely, no doubt with a little renewal from time to time by the finding of something else to be indignant about, a kind of top-up as to a glass of wine. Moral indignation is very reassuring. If you are indignant, you can't really be wrong and must be generous-spirited. Moral indignation is therefore both intoxicating and addictive.
-Theodore Dalrymple

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jayson Leary "It was extreme righteous indignation that put an end to the brutal child labor practices in the factories of yore"

Problem is, a) those brutal child labour practises in factories of yore were the fruit of other righteous indignation against corporations dictating practises and b) they overdid it by banning child labour at home in idyllic conditions and by using school compulsion to do so.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jayson Leary "It is extreme righteous indignation that is working to try to protect the children and underage teenagers from those who would downplay the evil of sexual molestation,"

Yeah, and unfortunately, in the process, also make reparation by marriage impossible and make prevention by marriage of "underage" teens impossible.

AND are prepared to use psychology about "pedophilia" instead of criminal records to do so. In other words, they go to superstition, like reading cards or tea leaves.

Geocentrism

Gonzalo Martinez

status, June 2nd 2026

I’m pretty open to geocentrism however one thing that I haven’t heard Sungenis or any one explain is how such a massive body as the sun can be revolving at such an incredible speed as to go around the earth in just 24 hrs. Comments?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My option is this.

The aether (which is also one of my options, the favoured one for the raqia / firmament) is moving around Earth in 23 h 56 min and 4 sec, full circle, from the Oceans where that's basically Earth's circumference up to the fix stars, where that's 2 pi to 20 pi times a light day (one to ten light days being the radius).

As the aether is the substance of space, this means, the Sun is basically just in for a ride. Its angelic mover is meanwhile slowing it down to precisely 24 h by adding a motion 365 times slower in the opposite direction.

Neither God's moving the aether nor the angel moving the Sun (backward) through the aether require any physical effort, since spiritual agents, uncreated or created, act on matter by act of will.

Related:

Audie Abel

status

Do you think Thomas Aquinas was a highly inspired church father? 🧐😆👇

[two more with unrelated diagrams, suggesting a flat earth, which neither Aquinas nor Josephus believed.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Church Fathers don't need to be inspired. They just need to be faithful to Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium up to their time.

Chrystalline spheres was what he got wrong.

He would NOT have considered Flat Earth a correct interpretation, and rightly so.

Since Tycho Brahe (some centuries after Aquinas) proved the crystalline spheres don't exist, I've updated "actual solid" to "quasi solid" (like an aether holding and bringing with itself the coordinates of space OR, other possibility, the magnetic field).

Todd Jacob

Hans-Georg Lundahl there’s no quasi solid in space. Care to elaborate or revise?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I actually didn't say there was a quasi solid IN space.

I said space is a quasi solid.

This means, if space is turned around Earth, parts that are 90° apart remain 90° apart, they don't float into each other.

What is Acceptable as Bad but still Valid Pope?

Gigantian Apologetics

status

Unlike the Progressives, the RadTrads openly entertain schism and conspiracies as legitimate. The problem is that RadTrads do a far better job of pretending to be Catholic, whilst Progressives can be shrugged off with a roll of the eyes. We should still condemn both, of course.

Joshua Bobo

We had medieval popes that literally had sex concubines and were among the most morally corrupt in society, but that’s ok for radtrads, they were valid popes.

But God forbid we’ve had a couple of popes who are pastoral to the marginalized and who aren’t super rigid about traditional liturgy. Nooooo, these popes are the Antichrist and true heretics who prove that the Church is compromised and only the Almighty Saint Marcel Lefebvre has maintained the real Catholic faith.

Preferring tradition and wanting to Church to be careful with prudence and discernment is fine. But I wonder if these radtrads even understand how prideful and pretentious they sound sometimes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joshua Bobo "that literally had sex concubines and were among the most morally corrupt in society, but that’s ok for radtrads, they were valid popes."

As long as they didn't teach verbally that having sex concubines was a good thing ...

"But God forbid we’ve had a couple of popes who are pastoral to the marginalized"

Exactly WHAT pastoral and exactly WHICH marginalised ones?

I am no fan of Roncalli, but his visit to a prison is NOT among my griefs.

Telling a couple "God bless you" when they are not trying to get out of a sinful situation is not pastoral and has nothing to do with merely social marginalisation.

Joshua Bobo

Hans-Georg Lundahl “As long as they didn’t teach verbally that having sex concubines was a good thing”

Even if they did, you’re missing the point. Neither the Church nor the papacy is built on exclusively moral and holy people. If immorality and sin and improper judgment/discernment disqualified the Church, Christianity would have died out long before it ever even got started.

No, the terrible medieval popes didn’t actively try to dogmatize or declare doctrine that suited their sins and they didn’t try to influence the church to their lifestyle. The authority they obtained from the seat of Peter was valid in spite of their grave sins. But that’s exactly my point: even when we had popes who would have made an Italian mafia boss blush, the Church still survived and people stayed loyal and faithful to the Church.

Tell me something: can you even begin to imagine how insane the media would go and how much the secular world would lunge at the Church and Christianity in general like ravenous vultures if it was ever found out that Pope Leo had mistresses, or if it was found out that he conspired to have rivals or adversaries killed? The secular media would immediately say the Church has lost all credibility and would say that Catholicism and Christianity is not a moral or upstanding religion. They already do that with the sexual abuse allegations.

And yet, radtrads would be so quick to de-escalate and rationalize Leo’s sin and evil in that hypothetical, so long as he was hyper conservative in church tradition and opposed Vatican II, and it’s all because radtrads are only concerned with being Catholic elitists who think only the TLM mass is valid and that any progressive ideals from a pope means automatic church heresy.

Just like his predecessors post Vatican II, Leo has not taught formal heresy and he has not tried to change doctrine or dogma. There is no calling away and no heresy because if there was, then Christ’s promises would be meaningless and of course no radtrad is going to dare argue that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joshua Bobo "Even if they did, you’re missing the point."

No.

"Neither the Church nor the papacy is built on exclusively moral and holy people."

However, exclusively on orthodox, on rightbelieving, people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joshua Bobo "Just like his predecessors post Vatican II, Leo has not taught formal heresy and he has not tried to change doctrine or dogma."

Wojtyla, the Galileo speech of 1992 and the CCC § 283, authorised by him.

FB censure contre la vérité / pardons, censurait

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

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

Le lien a été supprimé, voici la règle appliquée :

Personnes et organisations dangereuses

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

Exemples d’interdictions

Glorification d’une attaque terroriste

Encourager la violence envers un groupe spécifique de personnes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merci!/HGL

Contemporary Evidence, Again

Chris Martin

status

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

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

Meme:

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

Image of zombie apocalypse and fastidious Roman writer:

Probably not important
enough to mention.

Comment:

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

A

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the other historians of this day"

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

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

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

Chris Martin

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

(John actually wrote the Gospel later).

a

Chris Martin

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "and have actually read the bible"

But not the historians you refer to, implicitly.

When was last time you read Velleius?

Chris Martin

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

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

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

David Ewers

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

guess you did not read it. just throwing out garbage

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

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

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

b

David Ewers

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

David Ewers

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

I wasn't talking about the TF anyway.

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

a or b
or both continued

not all that sure on which of them Ewers answered.

David Ewers

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers You seem unable to read.

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

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

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

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

Matthew, Mark, Luke, Josephus.

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

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

David Ewers

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

*footnote

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

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

B

Tony English

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth-hurtz Jones

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

Chris Martin

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

Truth-hurtz Jones

Hans-Georg Lundahl hey buddy...

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

Ignoring

the jab, going for the argument:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

Chris Martin

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

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

3. Your defense is very much lacking any seriousness.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin In reverse order:

3) Your defense is very much lacking in knowledge.

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

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

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

* footnote

"I recall" ... found the reference:


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

Relevant excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Martin

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

No.

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

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

Matthew was earlier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Martin

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

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

Mark was the first gospel written followed by Matthew.

Luke and Acts came around 60AD

With John coming in around 90.

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

Or 1870's ...?

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

Bismarck was very much NOT keen on the papacy.

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

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

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

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

Chris Martin

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

Lazily repeating things from the Kulturkampf.

" Yours is just the tradition and apologetics."

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

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

Chris Martin

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

They were born more than 1700 years after he died?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Martin

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Exactly.

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

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

Chris Martin

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin Depends on the evidence.

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

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

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

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

Chris Martin

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

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

False.

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Martin

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

I can fly!!

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Martin

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

Chris Martin

later

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin Claims are evidence of sth.

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Martin

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

A syllogism is pretty solid.

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

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

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

Note how

he doesn't get into that. He tries another angle.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, 1. Jesus was a man. Men cannot be resurrected after death. Therefore Jesus was not resurrected?

2. Jesus is the son of god. There is no evidence of god. Therefore, Jesus is not the son of god.

See how the claim isn't evidence?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin 1) Men cannot resurrect themselves after death. However, they can be resurrected by God. Jesus had done so by Lazarus about a week before. So, if Jesus resurrected Himself, He was God.

2) There is evidence of God in the sky and atmosphere every day and night, because none other and nothing else could turn the visible universe around us in c. 24 h (actually some minutes less, the Sun lags behind). There is evidence of God having a son in the OT, and Jesus resurrecting Himself is evidence of His being that Son, especially as He had claimed it.

1 & 2) Jesus resurrecting Lazarus and Himself, and OT being from the actual God of the universe (see for instance marching through the Red Sea or commanding Sun to stand still) requires eyewitnesses, which are less numerous than the 8 billion eywitnesses we have every day for Geocentrism.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, "turn the visible universe around us"...do you think earth is the center of the visible universe?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin This is what we directly observe.

As said, whatever in any way seems so and so presumably is so and so, unless there is a stronger argument against that.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, this may be what it "looks" like to our naked, untrained eyes, but it is absolutely not what is actually happening, though.

Do you recognize this as being true?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin I recognise your claim as unproven.

And therefore no match for what we see, either with naked eye or with any telescope on Earth.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, "unproven"? Dude, this has been proven for 100s of years. We've been sending people out to see it for 80ish years. We have cameras out there flying all around one of which has flown all the way outside our own solar system. This is all very verifiable information.

Do you believe the earth is flat?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin I believe in Geography and History and a few other items of "brute fact", so I believe the flightroute Sydney to Santiago de Chile argues a round Earth, along with a few other things, like the four corners.

"Dude, this has been proven for 100s of years."

Reputed proven.

"We've been sending people out to see it for 80ish years."

Seing the earth turn from the moon is like seeing the Eiffel tower turn from a chopper.

"We have cameras out there flying all around"

See previous.

"one of which has flown all the way outside our own solar system."

Cameras are turned off in Voyager 1 and in Voyager 2. The only thing we have from them is radio signals going out to them and back to us, counting the time.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, 1. What do "4 corners" and "round earth" have to do with each other?

2. Reputed essentially means accepted by the masses. Is "reputed" the word you mean? Also, it has been demonstrated in every way imaginable aside feom putting you specifically on a rocket snd foring you out there to see for yourself.

3. "Seeing earth turn from the moon..." is a strawman as we literally have 1,000s of cameras in orbit all around the earth looking in any direction we want them to.

Granted...the cameras died but we still receive the signals (or at last time I checked) and readings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin 1. A modern flat earth map has three corners to the continents, four corners is by now only feasible on a globe.

2. "Is "reputed" the word you mean?"

Yes. Held in reputation of having been proven. In the rumour of having been proven.

"Also, it has been demonstrated in every way imaginable"

According to a rumour you have accepted.

3. "we literally have 1,000s of cameras in orbit all around the earth looking in any direction we want them to."

And each of them, or most, turning around earth. So, seing the Earth TURN is still in each case like seing the Eiffel tower turn when observing from a chopper.

If it had been about Earth being ROUND, that was already granted.

Perhaps you are confusing Geocentrism with Flat Earth? That confusion seems to be very popular too these days.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, again...the cameras around the earth can point in any direction and can look away and SEE that we are not the center...the sun is. It can be seen and demonstrated and the understandings of our rotations is how we can navigate outside of our own orbit.

I still feel like you are strawmanning when you use your Eiffel Tower analogy. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, though.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "the cameras around the earth can point in any direction and can look away and SEE that we are not the center...the sun is"

Oh, you mean centre of pretty close to circles ... sure. Annual, not daily movement. I misunderstood what you were talking about.

Again, not an argument. We or Sun being centre for the annual movement is equal, either way an ellipse close to a circle.

However, if we are the centre, this means for instance Venus or Mars is making a circle around a circle, since circling around the Sun. Too complex a movement for gravity and inertia to make and an argument for angels, like the daily movement is for God.

"the understandings of our rotations is how we can navigate outside of our own orbit."

Relative movements are equal in either system.

"when you use your Eiffel Tower analogy."

That was against an argument that Armstrong et al. from the Moon saw Earth turn around itself, i e about the daily movement.

Do Catholics in Any Sense Keep the Torah?

Clint tony Goldrest

status

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

own answer

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What if Christianity actually does follow the Torah?

I mean Roman Catholic Christianity.

That's the Torah fulfilled.

I

Frank Maiolo

Hans-Georg Lundahl it super doesn't

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Care to elaborate?

Frank Maiolo

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

You don't follow the Torah.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Frank Maiolo "the law forbids eating unclean things."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And we don't do it.

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

"The law commands stoning disobedient children"

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

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

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

I think you got that part totally wrong.

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

Canaanites were to do one of three things:

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

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

Frank Maiolo

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

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

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

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

II

David Ewers

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl you proven to be irrational. thanks

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

technically it's called an ad hominem.