tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-77269353394866132062024-03-16T10:44:14.035-07:00Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg LundahlHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comBlogger175125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-26555010695338108312024-02-13T01:20:00.000-08:002024-02-13T01:20:00.144-08:00Damien Mackey Seems to Run Out of Arguments<br />
<b>You see, he gives vocational advice. But, before I serve you that, let's get through the arguments we had, shall we?</b>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Damien Mackey
<dd>2/2/2024 at 2:04 PM
<dt>Who's the astute commentator?
<dd><i>"rightly described Creationism as a form of modernism, attempting to reduce Genesis to science."</i>
<br /><br />
Is "rightly" your own assessment?
<br /><br />
Either way, I disagree.
<br /><br />
Here is the answer to that one, from my essay today:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Damien Mackey is, if so, very far from à jour with current Creationist literature. We regard Genesis, not as true systematic science, but as true, chronological, sequence of events history. When I say "history" and not "historiography", some may object that it's not historic research conducted in the way that modern scholars conduct historic research. It's a very ancient historiography. Yes, but history the way that modern scholars conduct historic research is a very modern historiography. History primarily, throughout history, means what certain modern historians would call historiography.
<br /><br />
I don't think modern historians are to be confused with scientists, and the ones doing so are not us Creationists, it's the ones pretending we confuse Genesis with science, when in fact we don't.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
And here is the essay:
<br /><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/does-genesis-1-through-11-have-author.html">Does Genesis 1 through 11 have an author prior to Moses?</a>
<br /><br />
I'm sorry, but the adverb "rightly" makes your status as fellow Catholic moot, and therefore I leave to God either way how you spend your own experience of the feast day. Btw, it's probably already late on Hobart, maybe even tomorrow, from where I write.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Damien Mackey to me
<dd>2/3/2024 at 9:02 PM
<dt>Re: Who's the astute commentator?
<dd>I hope your leaders can understand that H-G, because I had difficulty.
<br /><br />
Creationists I know believe that the Flood had a tabula rasa effect - nothing whatsoever left of the old world.
<br /><br />
The Bible tells differently, the 4 rivers of Genesis, for instance, were still there after the Flood, still at the time of Sirach, still there today.
<br /><br />
From the blood of Abel to Zechariah, a sweep of history from the Beginning to the time of Jesus.
<br />Where is the connection, where the continuity, if the Garden of Eden wasn't the same site as Jerusalem?
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Damien Mackey
<dd>2/4/2024 at 2:19 PM
<dt>Re: Who's the astute commentator?
<dd><i>"Creationists I know believe that the Flood had a tabula rasa effect - nothing whatsoever left of the old world."</i>
<br /><br />
That's a totally different issue. Habermehl is of that school.
<br /><br />
It's an overreading into Genesis 6:7 (much as the Protestants overread a mistranslation of Matthew 6:7, against the Rosary).
<br /><br />
You cannot make that a definition of Creationists, just because it happens to be a common position.
<br /><br />
You also cannot go from that overreading into the definition you made in the paper.
<br /><br />
I highly agree with you the location of certain things very much can be reseen in the post-Flood world.
<br /><br />
That does not the least imply I cannot agree with them, that a) there was no significant time (less than a full week) before the creation of Adam and Eve; b) the timeline of the Bible in some of the text versions needs to be believed for what happened after Adam was created. People who don't know you would be prone to see your comment here:
<br /><br />
<blockquote><i>"rightly described Creationism as a form of modernism, attempting to reduce Genesis to science"</i></blockquote>
<br /><br />
as implying you deny the full factual historicity of Genesis. For the record, I think Adam was buried (with Eve) where he was created, and that spot is Calvary, which is therefore West of Eden.
<br /><br />
Things certainly have been totally buried by the Flood, some of them, like Henoch in Nod would have been buried under the Himalayas. But some things were simply buried in the ground, also "off the face of the earth" for millennia, like the men laying around under lava that's dated to 100 ky or more. And some had already been buried in caves before, like the cannibals of Atapuerca or of the Neanderthal site in Belgium. El Sidrón, by contrast, is where Neanderthals ate mainly pine nuts and other veggies, which is why I don't think Neanderthals need to have been full blood Nephelim.
<br /><br />
ANY reading of the text which states that ANY of the things actually happened as described is very likely to be, by "astute observers" stamped as a "modernist heresy, attempting to reduce Genesis to science" .... that's how I know the liturgically conservative modernists (a category where both Ratzinger and Kirill certainly fit).
<br /><br />
Abel was probably also killed West of Eden.
<br /><br />
If the Holy Sepulchre is East of Calvary, I think Calvary would have been West of Eden, Holy Sepulchre more likely just inside the borders of Eden. Because the Old and the Last Adam were gardeners ...
<br /><br />
Did you read <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/does-genesis-1-through-11-have-author.html">Does Genesis 1 through 11 have an author prior to Moses?</a> or did you miss the point by pretending any defense of Creationism involves automatically subscribing to total annihiliation of the pre-Flood world, none of it recovered, none of it traceable as to place?
<br /><br />
I don't think Creationism means that any more than Creationism meant believing in a pre-Flood water canopy.
<br /><br />
And if it did, it would still not be more than a misreading, rather than what the "astute observer" claimed it to be, "reducing Genesis to science" ...
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>IV
<br /><br />
<dt>Damien Mackey to me
<dd>2/5/2024 at 7:39 PM
<dt>Re: Who's the astute commentator?
<dd>Aren't you hedging your bets, H-G, with a global Flood that would have dumped miles of sediment upon the world - but a world that is still accessible to archaeology?
<br /><br />
And I would rather take Our Lord's authoritative geographical connection between Jerusalem and Abel than your "probably" west of Eden.
<br /><br />
<dt>V
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Damien Mackey
<dd>2/6/2024 at 10:26 AM
<dt>Re: Who's the astute commentator?
<dd>1) Our Lord never said Abel was killed <i>inside</i> Eden. Genesis 3 actually implies the opposite.
<br /><br />
He also doesn't explicitly state that the moral unity (of Himself with Abel, of Pharisees with Cain) is matched by geographic unity.
<br /><br />
2) Miles of sediment depends on area. Henoch in Nod East of Eden is probably buried under the Himalayas. The Sima de los Huesos is accessible to archaeology, but it's still in Mountains, where the Flood dumped Sediments:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_site_of_Atapuerca">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_site_of_Atapuerca</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>The archaeological significance of this part of the province of Burgos became increasingly apparent in the 20th century as the result of the construction of a metre-gauge railway (now disused) through the Atapuerca Mountains. Deep cuttings were made through the karst geology exposing rocks and sediments of features known as Gran Dolina, Galería Elefante and Sima de los Huesos.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
See, without those deep cuttings, the Sima de los Huesos would still be covered by huge chunks of sediment. Pre-Flood archaeology also covers El Sidrón, Denisova Cave and some similar ones:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidr%C3%B3n_Cave">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidr%C3%B3n_Cave</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>The total length of this huge complex is approximately 3,700 m (12,100 ft), which contains a central hall of 200 m (660 ft) length and the Neanderthal fossil site, called the Ossuary Gallery, which is 28 m (92 ft) long and 12 m (39 ft) wide.[2]
<br /><br />
In 1994, human remains were found accidentally in the cave. They were initially suspected to be from the Spanish Civil War because Republican fighters used to hide there; however, later analysis shows that the remains actually belong to Neanderthals.[3]</blockquote>
<br /><br />
So, if a cave is 12 thousand feet deep, how much sediment does the mountain above contain?
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_Cave">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_Cave</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Located in Altai Krai, near the border with Altai Republic, both in Russia, the cave is near the village of Chorny Anui (Чёрный Ануй), and some 150 km (93 mi) south of Barnaul, the regional capital. The cave, which is approximately 28 m (92 ft) above the right bank of the Anuy River (a left tributary of the Ob), has formed in upper Silurian limestone and contains a floor area of about 270 m2 (2,900 sq ft). The cave is composed of three galleries. The central chamber, the Main Gallery, contains a floor of 9 m × 11 m (30 ft × 36 ft) with side galleries, the East Gallery and the South Gallery.[9][10] It has been described both as a karst cave[2] and as a sandstone cave.[10]</blockquote>
<br /><br />
It would seem that here the Anuy River did the digging, or cutting, or some post-Flood stream did so, otherwise the Denisova cave would have been inaccessible.
<br /><br />
Goreham cave on Gibraltar contains no Neanderthals, only Mousterian tools. It contains charcoals dated to after the Flood, but ... nearby you have caves where Neanderthals have actually been found and carbon dated to before my Flood date.
<br /><br />
Show me one item of the things I call pre-Flood archaeology, anything containing a Neanderthal or a Denisovan, is as shallow beneath the surface of a plain as Göbekli Tepe is under the "potbelly hill" that gave the site its name. THEN you'll have a case.
<br /><br />
Other wager that you might want to check: I have presumed the "very high mountain" on top of which Noah built the Ark was lifted up above the now flattened by the Flood Meseta. If this is true, no Neanderthals or Antecessors / Denisovans / Heidelbergians should be found there, since the present level is one that in pre-Flood times were covered by a no longer extant mountain. My other alternative for where he built the Ark would be in the vicinity of Denisova cave, another site where both Neanderthals and Denisovans were in pre-Flood times, since the eight on the Ark involved were mainly of the Cro-Magnon or Sapiens sapiens race, but included "half breeds" both Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry. That's why we find those genes today.
<br /><br />
By the way, kudos to Wellington's men for defending the last homestead of Noah (if I'm right) against the Revolutionaries.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>VI
<br /><br />
<dt>Damien Mackey to me
<dd>2/7/2024 at 4:17 AM
<dt>Re: Who's the astute commentator?
<dd><i>Henoch in Nod East of Eden is probably buried under the Himalayas.</i>
<br /><br />
I hope that was meant to be funny, H-G.
<br />I always appreciate a good joke.
<br /><br />
If it was not a joke, then I think that you might be better occupied doing something you are good at.
<br /><br />
<dt>VII
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Damien Mackey
<dd>2/7/2024 at 10:19 AM
<dt>Re: Who's the astute commentator?
<dd>I am good at spotting people who prefer snobbery over actual argument.
<br /><br />
You just made it to that list.
<br /><br />
I am also good at spotting people who don't really believe the Bible.
<br /><br />
You gave me a reminder you are on that list too.
<br /><br />
I am extremely good at spotting people who want censorship in Academia (de facto, none with hard rules they might actually find applied to themselves, of course) and do that by pretending to give vocational advice.
<br /><br />
I'm actually a magnet to those. If everyone who had done me that "favour" (in his own view) had done me the favour of finding me a reader, perhaps a publishing company even, I'm not saying I'd have the income to buy something in Beaconsfield, like Chesterton, but it's not all that far off.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>VIII
<br /><br />
<dt>Damien Mackey to me
<dd>2/7/2024 at 8:34 PM
<dt>Re: Who's the astute commentator?
<dd>It's not a case of snobbery or not believing in the Bible, H-G.
<br /><br />
Your comment about Cain's city would have to rank as one of the silliest I have ever read. Please don't buy a publishing company, at least for that.
<br /><br />
Wishing you all the best for the future,
<br />Damien.
<br /><br />
<dt>IX
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Damien Mackey
<dd>2/7/2024 at 9:20 PM
<dt>Re: Who's the astute commentator?
<dd>The etymology of "silly" is "sælig" ... I am obviously not intending to put all my carreere or success on hold until I happen to please you.
<br /><br />
The silliest thing I have seen in this debate is a tendency on one of the parts to decide things by "it's silly" rather than by an argument.
<br /><br />
Perhaps you have misunderstood what "miles of sediment" means. It's not like one single flood layer which is equally high everywere, it's like (according to the Flood geologists I have seen) six different layers, all over the world, deposited in unequal intensity and left in place in unequal depth for each as abrasion events would succeed each other.
<br /><br />
What would a) get buried rather than swept away in smaller and smaller scraps, and b) get buried so shallow, or have the depth shallowed by abrasions, would be an extreme lottery.
<br /><br />
As for a post-Flood rise of the Himalayas, my mathematical model is supported by the fact that all the time from Flood to Babel and some more, no human occupation is visible even in the lower hills.
<br /><br />
Care for a look?
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/05/himalayas-how-fast-did-they-rise.html">Himalayas ... how fast did they rise?</a> · <b>Himalayas,</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/05/himalayas-bis-and-pyrenees.html">bis ... and Pyrenees</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/05/himalayas-ter.html">ter</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/05/himalayas-quater.html">quater</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/06/himalaya-quinquies-double-checked.html">quinquies ... double-checked</a>
<br /><br />
And, like for the widening of the Atlantic (more recently), the overall destructivity and violence is less than what many other Flood Geologists (who actually are Geologists), count it as.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/width-of-atlantic.html">Width of the Atlantic</a>
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>X
<br /><br />
<dt>Damien Mackey to me
<dd>2/8/2024 at 3:29 AM
<dt>Re: Who's the astute commentator?
<dd>All the best with your writing endeavors.</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-67184321298289946032024-02-05T07:05:00.000-08:002024-02-05T07:05:00.169-08:00Challenge to Bishop (if such?) Robert Barron<br />
<b>Before the actual letter exchange:</b>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/01/bishop-barron-against-rad-trads.html"><i>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads</i>
<br />https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/01/bishop-barron-against-rad-trads.html</a>
<br /><br />
<b>Was sent to Word on Fire Institute, on the 8.I.2024.</b>
<br /><br />
<b>Also, that day, a letter was sent to Dr. Holly Oardway, as associate of that institute, to to Dr. Stephan Borgehammar, friend of myself, but on the other side of the question, to David Palm and to Michael Lofton. If responses are made to my challenge, and if I am free to read them and answer them, you should have more than just these lines on the 5.II.2024.</b>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-74376144505503553182023-12-24T10:09:00.000-08:002023-12-24T10:09:00.237-08:00"Course of Abiah" — I am referring to a Defense of Christmas, Defending the Sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin<br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Edward Bromfield
<dd>12/21/2023 at 1:48 AM
<dt>Course of Abiah
<dd>I prefer Kurt Simmons' take over yours:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/12/answering-tovia-singer-on-december-25.html">Answering Tovia Singer on December 25</a> · <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/12/sharing-on-december-25-kurt-simmons.html">Sharing on December 25, Kurt Simmons</a>
<br /><br />
However, I find it interesting that you said this on a related topic:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>The first greeting was given to Gideon, whom God called to be a deliverer of Israel, while the second was used by Boaz who was to act as a kinsman redeemer for Naomi and Ruth, and such was to be the case of Jesus especially for Israel, but also for the world.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
There is another "Gideon" connexion.
<br /><br />
There are exacly 3 women in a full Bible (or 2 in a 66 book one) who are called in some sense "blessed among women" ...
<br /><br />
1) Jael (Judges 5)
<br />2) Judith (Judith 13, lacking in 66-book Bibles)
<br />3) The Blessed Virgin Mary (twice in Luke 1, by Gabriel and by Elisabeth).
<br /><br />
Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
<br /><br />
I take that as referring to the words, not to hearing a voice without seeing anyone.
<br /><br />
If your mother had been ever greeted with words like "congratulations for killing Sisera" ... how would she have reacted.
<br /><br />
I bet she might have been a bit ... puzzled.
<br /><br />
So, when the cousin tells Her the same again, but this time involves Jesus, the Genesis 3:15 reference is very much more apparent.
<br /><br />
Note, Mary had "killed Sisera" even before being pregnant, and as per Luke 1:42 -- Genesis 3:15, the only "Sisera" that would qualify was Satan.
<br /><br />
So, how could She, even without yet having been with child with God inside Her, have already "killed" Satan?
<br /><br />
Well, the one possibility that comes to mind is, She must have been sinless. Reversed already in Her person the agency of Eve and Adam.
<br /><br />
Remark the difference in mood between being told She is Mother of God and being told She is sinless (second time, and getting it this time). She was obviously happier at always having done the will of the Father, than at Her breasts were going to suckle God in the Flesh. On a famous occasion, Her Son echoed that sense of priorities.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Edward Bromfield to me
<dd>12/21/2023 at 6:42 AM
<dt>Re: Course of Abiah
<dd>Greetings Hans-Georg Lundal, and thank you for reading my studies and for your email/comment. Lord bless you.
<br /><br />
You said: “I prefer Kurt Simmons' take over yours:” with the link, Answering Tovia Singer on December 25 · Sharing on December 25, Kurt Simmons
<br /><br />
That’s fine; we don’t have to agree on everything. Then you thought it interesting that the greeting that Mary received from Gabriel may also be found in Judges 6:12 and Ruth 2:4, which you used to point to another ‘connection’ in Judges. In a similar form the phrase: “blessed among women” can be found in Judges 5:24, but since I do use the accepted 66 books, I didn’t find the ‘Judith’ connection.
<br /><br />
Then you said: “Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.” – “I take that as referring to the words, not to hearing a voice without seeing anyone.
<br /><br />
I agree with you that Mary was troubled by the angel’s words, and I believe what I said later in the study shows that. My point here was to differentiate between what troubled Mary and Zechariah. He was troubled over the “appearance” of an angel, which according to Daniel was a fearful thing to behold. Mary, however, wasn’t troubled with an “appearance” according to the text but with what she heard. Words, yes, but my point here was to show Mary did not have a vision. She had to deal only with what the angel said, and his saying did trouble her.
<br /><br />
You lose me with the mention of “Mary had "killed Sisera" even before being pregnant, and as per Luke 1:42 -- Genesis 3:15, the only "Sisera" that would qualify was Satan.”
<br /><br />
At first, I found you hard to follow at this point and was about to send for clarification, but before I sent the email, I had a thought. You seem to be replacing Jael with Mary and making this point to Genesis 3:15. How you can say that Mary slew Satan prior to her pregnancy is troubling. I don’t see that. However, I have two points to make here. Genesis 3:15 doesn’t point to “Mary” Jesus’ mother. Instead, it points to the “Woman” in Revelation 12 who brought forth the child. The “Woman” is a **sign** or a constellation in the heavens, Virgo. The mother of Christ was the Jews, believing Jews, and as Paul said to the Roman church: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20).
<br /><br />
Genesis 3:15 has more to do with the Church than it does with Mary. Both are considered to be Jesus’ “mother,” according to the scriptures.
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Edward Bromfield
<dd>12/21/2023 at 7:01 AM
<dt>Re: Course of Abiah
<dd><i>"You seem to be replacing Jael with Mary"</i>
<br /><br />
The angel and Elisabeth seem to be doing that!
<br /><br />
<b><u>Blessed among women</u> be Jahel the wife of Haber the Cinite, and blessed be she in her tent.</b>
<br /><b>And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: <u>blessed</u> art thou <u>among women.</u></b>
<br /><br />
<i>"Genesis 3:15 has more to do with the Church than it does with Mary. Both are considered to be Jesus’ “mother,” according to the scriptures"</i>
<br /><br />
Can you give an example?
<br /><br />
<b>And the God of peace <u>shall</u> bruise Satan under your feet shortly.</b>
<br /><br />
Note the <i>future</i> tense.
<br /><br />
The "blessed among women" is a title up to then belonging to one or two heroines who <i>had already</i> killed an enemy of Israel.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>IV
<br /><br />
<dt>Edward Bromfield to me
<dd>12/21/2023 at 3:53 PM
<dt>Re: Course of Abiah
<dd>Good morning Hans-Georg,
<br /><br />
Concerning replacing Jael with Mary, you said: “The angel and Elisabeth seem to be doing that!”
<br /><br />
I don’t think so. This is how you interpret the two events, which, by the way, are not similar events.
<br /><br />
I said: <i>“Genesis 3:15 has more to do with the Church than it does with Mary. Both are considered to be Jesus’ “mother,” according to the scriptures.”</i>
<br /><br />
You said: “Can you give an example?”
<br /><br />
I did give an example from scripture, but you don’t accept it. Nevertheless, you don’t seem to play by the rules you set for me. What is your example that Mary’s name should be applied to Judges 5:24, 26? Where is the evidence in scripture that she had “<i>already</i> killed an enemy of Israel?”
<br /><br />
<dt>V
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Edward Bromfield
<dd>12/21/2023 at 8:26 PM
<dt>Re: Course of Abiah
<dd>In Judges 5:24
<br />a) the phrase (very rare in the Bible, only parallels in Judith and in Luke 1) "blessed among women" is used
<br />b) in Judges 5, as well as in Judith, this highly rare phrase was only applied to a woman who had already killed an enemy of Israel, not to someone who was going to
<br /><br />
<i>"I did give an example from scripture"</i>
<br /><br />
You didn't explicitate that you meant the occasion of Mark 3.
<br /><br />
And in Mark 3:35, I hold, with the Church that Christ founded, that "my mother" actually <i>does</i> refer to the Blessed Virgin.
<br /><br />
If you meant Romans 16:20, the glaring difference is tense.
<br /><br />
"shall bruise ... <u>briefly</u>" is not the same as "<u>has already</u> killed" implicit in the parallels (the only ones) for the title twice given the Blessed Virgin, namely blessed among women.
<br /><br />
Good evening, by the way, from my pov!
<br /><br />
<dt>VI
<br /><br />
<dt>Edward Bromfield to me
<dd>12/21/2023 at 11:12 PM
<dt>Re: Course of Abiah
<dd>Good evening Hans-Georg; you said: “the phrase (very rare in the Bible, only parallels in Judith and in Luke 1) "blessed among women" is used…”
<br /><br />
We agree that the phrase occurs only three times, if we include the extrabiblical, Judith.
<br /><br />
“in Judges 5, as well as in Judith, this highly rare phrase was only applied to a woman who had already killed an enemy of Israel, not to someone who was going to…”
<br /><br />
I’ll take your word for the ‘Judith’ occurrence, the phrase in the Old Covenant text concerns a woman who had already slain a man.
<br /><br />
“You didn't explicitate that you meant the occasion of Mark 3. And in Mark 3:35, I hold, with the Church that Christ founded, that "my mother" actually does refer to the Blessed Virgin.”
<br /><br />
I’m getting the impression that you are Roman Catholic. If this is correct, I don’t mean to attack what you believe. I was born Roman Catholic, but I’m not now. Most of my family is Catholic, so I don’t make a point to put Catholicism down, nor would I seek to embarrass anyone who holds to the beliefs of Catholicism. That said, I disagree with your interpretation of Mark 3:35. However, as I mentioned in the beginning, we don’t have to agree on everything to be brethren.
<br /><br />
“If you meant Romans 16:20, the glaring difference is tense. "shall bruise ... briefly" is not the same as "has already killed" implicit in the parallels (the only ones) for the title twice given the Blessed Virgin, namely blessed among women.”
<br /><br />
We agree that the tense is future in Romans 16:20, but why would you think otherwise for Mary, if, indeed, she were to crush the head of Satan? Moreover, if your interpretation is true, what does Paul mean in Romans 16:20: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly,” if Satan’s head was already crushed by Mary?
<br /><br />
Lord bless you, Hans-Georg, as you think upon these things.
<br /><br />
<dt>VII
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Edward Bromfield
<dd>12/22/2023 at 9:50 AM
<dt>Re: Course of Abiah
<dd>Satan is not a mortal.
<br /><br />
He was / will be crushed three times:
<br /><br />
1) By the sinlessness of Mary prior to the pregnancy
<br />2) By the sinlessness of Jesus and Mary up to the Cross and to Jesus descending into Hades
<br />3) By the triumph of the Church after Harmageddon, which seems to be what St. Paul is referring to.
<br /><br />
Satan as said is not mortal, and does not disappear from existence just because he's crushed, but he can be defeated even if already damned, and these three crushings are beyond how St. Michael threw him into Hell.
<br /><br />
I think that answers your question.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>VIII
<br /><br />
<dt>Edward Bromfield to me
<dd>12/22/2023 at 1:11 PM
<dt>Re: Course of Abiah
<dd>Thank your Hans-Georg, and may the Lord bless and protect you always.
<br /><br />
Your brother in Christ,
<br /><br />
Eddie
<br /><br />
<dt>IX
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Edward Bromfield
<dd>12/22/2023 at 3:54 PM
<dt>Re: Course of Abiah
<dd>Thank you.
<br /><br />
May I feature our correspondence on a blog of mine, each mail marked out separately for the correct limits?
<br /><br />
And, best wishes for the day that actually is the real day when Christ was born!
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>X
<br /><br />
<dt>Edward Bromfield to me
<dd>12/22/2023 at 4:45 PM
<dt>Re: Course of Abiah
<dd>Merry Christmas, Hans-Georg, and Lord bless you. I have no problem with what you wish to do with our discussion. You may do whatever you please with it.
<br /><br />
<dt>XI
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Edward Bromfield
<dd>12/22/2023 at 7:03 PM
<dt>Re: Course of Abiah
<dd>Thank you very much!
<br /><br />
Richest possible blessings, and Merry Christmas, whenever you celebrate it!
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-60025115376431097632023-11-11T02:58:00.000-08:002023-11-11T03:07:51.546-08:00QQ to Those Accepting Pope Francis, so called, as being that<br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to
<dt>Where Peter Is, Reason and Theology, Mercedarian Friars
<dd>11/3/2023 at 11:57 AM
<dt>QQ to three full accepters of "Pope Francis" (not directly on his supposed papacy)
<dd>The first I have already posted on snail mail to FSSPX, more precisely St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.
<br /><br />
It's this.
<br /><br />
Given that Pope St. Pius X was a Pope and a good Pope, and enjoyed papal authority even when not speaking infallibly, and given that he endorsed the Pontifical Biblical Commission,
<br /><br />
can I, without disrespect to the papacy, hold that
<br /><br />
30 June 1909, Q 8, stating that "days" could mean periods of time and interpreting this as longer ones consider:
<br /><br />
1) this was not the fullness of orthodoxy
<br />2) it was even than somewhat heterodox
<br />3) it has since then accumulated heterodoxies in the light of more recent scientific data to the point of now amounting to an implication of heresy or even apostasy.
<br /><br />
The second I did not pose them, since they don't accept CCC. It's this:
<br /><br />
given YOU consider "John Paul II" as having been in full exercise of papal authority in the early 90's, do you find it compatible with the respect for papacy to be opposed to §283?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to
<dt>Decrevi, Dominican Friars
<dd>11/3/2023 at 11:57 AM
<dt>Fw: QQ to three full accepters of "Pope Francis" (not directly on his supposed papacy)
<dd>Forwarding to two more.
<br /><br />
[+ identical to previous]</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-68844344545713466292023-09-28T03:50:00.042-07:002024-03-08T10:12:40.021-08:00Tomasello Not Answering<br />
<b>Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl:</b> <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2023/09/tomasello-not-answering.html">Tomasello Not Answering</a> · <b>New blog on the kid:</b> <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/11/how-did-human-language-evolve-from-non.html">How did human language "evolve from non-human"?</a> · <b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/12/adam-reismans-response-mr-flibbles.html">Adam Reisman's Response, Mr. Flibble's Debate</a> · <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/12/andrew-winklers-response-and-debate.html">Andrew Winkler's Response and Debate</a> · <b>Creation vs. Evolution:</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/03/odd-perfect-numbers-less-impossible.html">Odd Perfect Numbers? Less Impossible than Abiogenesis or Evolutionary Origin of Human Language!</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>From: Hans-Georg Lundahl (hgl@dr.com)
<dt>To: scholars@duke.edu
<dd>Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:14 PM
<dt>Subject: For Tomasello, please ...
<dd><blockquote>// Tomasello also resorts to an evolutionary two-step scenario (see below), and to philosophical concepts borrowed from Paul Grice, John Searle, Margaret Gilbert, Michael Bratman, and anthropologist Dan Sperber.
<br />At one point in time, after the emergence of the genus Homo two millions years ago, Homo Heidelbergensis[9] or other close candidate became obligate foragers and scavengers under ecological pressures of desertification that led to scarcity of resources. Individuals able to avoid free-riders and to divide the spoils with collaborative partners would have gained an adaptive advantage over non cooperators. The heightened dependence on joint effort to gain food and the social selection of partners are supposed to account for an evolution toward better skills at coordinating individual's roles and perspectives under a common attentional frame (that of the hunt or scavenging) and under a common goal, giving rise to joint, interpersonal intention. Later, around 200,000 years ago,[10] new ecological pressures presumably posed by competition within groups put those in "loose pools" of collaborators at a disadvantage against groups of coherently collaborative individuals working for a common territorial defense. "Individuals ... began to understand themselves as members of particular social group with a particular identity".[11] //</blockquote>
<br /><br />
So ... in apes, we find phoneme = morpheme = phrase.
<br /><br />
In man we find phonomeS => morpheme, morphemeS => phrase.
<br /><br />
Human speech is subdivided not just once but twice in relation to ape communications, so, which subdivision came first and how does it correspond to your two steps of human evolution ?
<br /><br />
Do you admit there is such a thing as notionality and that it is lacking in apes, but present in man?
<br /><br />
That man can and apes can't say "I ate riz-au-lait instead of yoghurt today at noon"?
<br /><br />
That this makes for making the double subdivision (or double articulation to use the standard term) interesting, but also needs it ?
<br /><br />
If you first subdivide phrase into morphemes, as each morpheme is still just one phoneme, you can't get enough notions to have an interesting playfield for phrases.
<br />If you first subdivide phrase/morpheme into phonemes, the increase in phrases will be negligible, since there is no true notionality without a judgement structure, predicating X of Y, and you can't have that without phrase subdivided into morphemes.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl</dl>
<br /><br />
[When this is published, he'll have had 10 days.]Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-62123770891781555382023-09-21T12:49:00.031-07:002023-09-23T10:03:23.819-07:00With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration<br />
<b>HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS:</b> <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2023/09/radiocarbon-and-tree-rings-with-ken.html">Radiocarbon and Tree Rings with Ken Wolgemuth</a> · <b>Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl:</b> <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2023/09/with-ken-wolgemuth-on-carbon-dating-and.html">With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dd>
<dt>wed 13.IX.2023 22:30
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dd>Hello Hans-Georg,
<br />Here is our paper about Lake Suigetsu.
<br /><br />
<dt>thu 14.IX.2023
<dd>Holy Cross
<br /><br />
<dt>12:07
<dt>HGL
<dd>ok, where
<br /><br />
<dt>14:29
<dt>Ken
<dd>Oops. Sorry about that.
<br /><br />
[attached, but can apparently not be shared by a url accessible to the public here?]
<br /><br />
Were you able to download it? Please note that this describes the foundations of radiocarbon dating, and hiccups of understanding by young earth creationists. This does not have the calibration curve used by the radiocarbon research community.
<br /><br />
<dt>20:59
<dt>HGL
<dd>ok, I just found it
<br /><br />
<dt>21:16
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dd>Good. I understand from your profile that you live in Paris, and are from Switzerland. Is that correct? What is your viewpoint about how these American young-earth creationists handle this geochemistry data?
<br /><br />
I see a reference to a paper that gives "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kya B.P. Are you the type of person who wants to pursue these questions about creation to find the truth?
<br /><br />
<dt>21:42
<dt>HGL
<dd>I don't know where you get Switzerland from, unless Sweden and Switzerland are synonyms to you.
<br /><br />
Or Austria and Switzerland. I am a Swedish national, and I was born in Austria.
<br /><br />
Now, I have started my refutation of your article, it's a bit long for an answer here, I'll make it several answers instead.
<br /><br />
<dt>HGL
<dd><blockquote>The primary requirements for determining age are (1) a constant radioactive decay rate, (2) knowledge of the original carbon-14 content, and (3) quantification of any old carbon that may have been incorporated into the specimen. The last requirement applies mostly to marine samples, in which oceandwelling organisms, even today, extract carbon from seawater that has been “pre-aged” by long isolation from the atmosphere.4 Terrestrial samples, such as tree rings and lake sediments, are less susceptible to this complicating factor, limiting the primary requirements to the first two.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
The reservoir effect can also apply to men, who have eaten lots of marine food, or drunk water with lots of old calcium (which isn't the pure element, but involves carbon).
<br /><br />
In fact, when it comes to Mladec cave people dating back too close to the flood for it to be believable so many so big people had died, I rely on the reservoir effect, there is chalk in those caves.
<br /><br />
As you mentioned "(2) knowledge of the original carbon-14 content," this is where I differ from both you and CMI, or most of them, I think that barring reservoir effect and contamination, the C14 content can be known very well year by year between Flood and Fall of Troy, and was radically rising (1.625 to 100 pmC in 1772 years).
<br /><br />
<blockquote>To turn a measured carbon-14 value into an age, independent methods are employed to first provide realistic assessments of past atmospheric production rates.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Mine is Biblical chronology.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>The conventional geologic model gives us specific expected outcomes for how much carbon-14 should be present in tree rings or varves of particular ages. This is a natural outgrowth of assuming constant radioactive decay rates, and annual production of tree rings and varves. The young-earth model (also known as flood geology), in contrast, does not have any inherent expectations, for purported fluctuations in natural processes during and after the flood could produce virtually any outcome.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Mine are:
<ul><li> bigger atmosphere with lower percentage of nitrogen before the Flood (part of the oxygen was reacting with high layer atmosphere hydrogen to form Flood water), and probably also lower incoming cosmic radiation, even than now;
<li> possibly also more carbon dioxyde in the pre-flood world, as pmC is a value in relation to the overall (atmospheric, especially) carbon content
<li> just after the Flood, when the atmosphere had been reduced, a much higher production rate, than now, through higher incoming radiation, producing:
<ul><li> 1) 10 times faster production of C14
<li> 2) lowered lifespans
<li> 3) cooler weather, resulting in the ice age.</ul></ul>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>For the conventional model, the plot will assume (1) carbon-14 decay rates have been constant, (2) sampled trees grew one ring per year, (3) cross-dating of tree rings was done correctly, (4) sampled sediment layers are varves (one per year), (5) terrestrial tree rings and varves are free of “pre-aged” carbon, and (6) variation in atmospheric production of carbon-14 over the period of interest was limited within a discernable range.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
We generally presume, the further back you go, the likelier it its, that cross-dating was done incorrectly and enters into a de facto circular proof along with C14.
<br /><br />
Also, varves are usually laminations. How fast supersaturated water flows will determine if these form.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>One way to establish these limits is using beryllium-10 concentrations in sediments that contain carbon-14 above background levels.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
My model does not presume carbon-14 was present ABOVE background levels, but BELOW them.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Beryllium-10 is also produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays, but unlike carbon, it readily falls to the ground, potentially preserving a record of variations in cosmic flux. From this record of flux, we can calculate proportional carbon-14 production.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Exactly how is unclear. Recall my model.
<ul><li> 1) starts out with radically LOWER carbon-14
<li> 2) presumably the higher production of carbon-14 would involve a higher production of beryllium-10
<li> 3) BUT this would be interpreted over a stretched out chronology, since the higher production of carbon-14 results in a drawn out carbon chronology.</ul>
<br /><br />
E. g. if between 2607 BC (death of Noah) and 2556 BC (birth of Peleg) carbon 14 rose from 43 to 49 pmC, this means that the 51 real years are interpreted as a stretch of 1000 years, since the extra years diminish as carbon-14 goes up, from 7000 extra years to 6000 extra years.
<br /><br />
This means, if ten times more beryllium-10 is produced during the actual stretch of 51 years, it is to "the observer" spread out over a 20 times longer period, namely 1000 years.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>In general, however, the lower concentrations (lower flux) tend to be found in layers containing higher current carbon-14 (deposited in the recent past), and the highest concentrations (higher flux) tend to be in layers containing lower current carbon-14 (deposited in the more distant past).</blockquote>
<br /><br />
I'd expect exactly the same things from my model.
<br /><br />
40 000 - 10 000 BP, a higher concentration, supposing beryllium-10 produces more in proportion to cosmic rays than carbon-14.
<br /><br />
10 000 - 5 500 BP, a medium high concentration.
<br /><br />
5 500 BP to 3 500 BP, lowering down to today's concentration.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Given conventional expectations, even if atmospheric carbon-14 was double today’s level, the low carbon-14 samples should be on the order of 50,000 years.14</blockquote>
<br /><br />
But the problem with this reasoning is, my model presupposes exactly NO higher concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. It only goes up from 1.625 to 100 pmC, not higher or significantly.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>For the lower boundary, we will start at 95 pMC to accommodate lower rates in the recent past, and allow it to increase linearly to 120 pMC.15</blockquote>
<br /><br />
95 pmC was reached and slightly bypassed in the year 1610 BC, which is therefore dated as 2020 BC.
<br /><br />
It's in my table V-VI, which starts out with 87.575 pmC in 1700, and ends in 97.0681 pmC in 1588.
<br /><br />
1700 - 1588 = 112 years, normal decay 98.654 % and normal replacement 100-98.654 pmC, i e 1.346 pmC.
<br /><br />
98.654 * 87.575 = 86.3962405 pmC remaining
<br />97.0681 - 86.3962405 = 10.6718595 pmC actual replacement
<br />10.6718595 / 1.346 = 7.9285731797919762 times FASTER production
<br /><br />
<blockquote>We are then ready to apply the radioactive decay equation (2) to each point along the upper and lower boundary to determine how much carbon-14 should still be present today for a sample of a particular age, up to 50,000 years.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
I think these blogposts of mine (the one linked to and the ones it links to) are doing the corresponding type of work for YEC:
<br /><br />
<a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/raffiner-et-finir-ma-table-de-fibonacci.html"><i>New blog on the kid : Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci?</i>
<br />http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/raffiner-et-finir-ma-table-de-fibonacci.html</a>
<br /><br />
[1.) <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/01/50-du-carbone-recent-quel-age-si-on.html">50% du "carbone récent", quel âge? Si on divisait une demi-vie en "demi-notes" ....?</a> · 2.) <a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/01/25-du-carbone-recent-divisons-la.html">25% du "carbone récent"? Divisons la distance en 48 parties?</a> · 3.) <a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/01/treve-de-maths-pour-linstant-t-on-des.html">Trêve de Maths pour l'instant : a-t-on des restes antédiluviennes d'Européens ou non?</a> · 4.) <a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/01/125-du-carbone-present-au-paleolithique.html">12,5% du carbone présent : au paléolithique tardif</a> · 5.) <a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/01/encore-plus-bas-dans-le-paleolithique.html">Encore "plus bas" dans le paléolithique : 6,25 % restent</a> · 6.) <a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/paleolithique-inferieur-alors.html">Paléolithique inférieur, alors?</a> · 7.) <a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/raffiner-et-finir-ma-table-de-fibonacci.html">Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci?</a> · 8.) <a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/table-modifiee-analysee-par-convergence.html">Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori</a>]
<br /><br />
As you are now going on to step 2, I propose a pause so you can have time to defend your step one, against my alternative reading, is that OK?
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dd>It was obviously my mistake about your nationality.
<br /><br />
When you are going into this detail, I would prefer email for east of printing to read. My email is [omitted]
<br /><br />
I have identified a paper with this title: "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kya B.P." Do you read this type of geochemistry papers?
<br />Ken
<br /><br />
<dt>HGL
<dd>Mistakes happen, I'll be back on your mail.
<br /><br />
But as it is your turn to respond in defense of previous, you get my email first, it's <a href="http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html">hgl@dr.com</a>* ...
<br /><br />
<i>"Do you read this type of geochemistry papers?"</i>
<br /><br />
I haven't read that one, and am not sure yet whether it's the kind of thing I can read or not. We'll see.
<br /><br />
<dt>* note:
<dd>it is my official public correspondence email.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html"><i>Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl — If you wish to correspond with me</i>
<br />http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>HGL
<dd>one more thing, as I am sharing this debate with the public, I'd like to share the pdf with them, is that possible?
<br /><br />
<dt>22:20
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dd>Yes, of course.
<br /><br />
<dt>23:36
<dt>HGL
<dd>the problem is, I don't have a functioning url for sharing it?
</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-33350017977790869262023-09-14T05:32:00.341-07:002023-09-15T15:10:13.984-07:00Malentendus ou pire ?<br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Sébastien Antoni et Jacques Arnould
<dd>Jeudi, 17 août 2023 à 12:27
<dt>Je me souviens un jour que Sébastien Antoni me qualifia de terre-platiste
<dd>Est-ce que j'ai réussi à éliminer ce malentendu ou non ?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>De Jacques Arnould à Hans-Georg Lundahl et Sébastien Antoni
<dd>Jeudi, 17 août 2023 à 12:42
<dt>Re: Je me souviens un jour que Sébastien Antoni me qualifia de terre-platiste
<dd>Bonjour.
<br />De quel malentendu parlez-vous?
<br />Avec mes sincères salutations,
<br />Jacques Arnould
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould et Sébastien Antoni
<dd>Jeudi, 17 août 2023 à 13:36
<dt>Re: Je me souviens un jour que Sébastien Antoni me qualifia de terre-platiste
<dd>Celui évoqué dans le titre.
<br /><br />
Ses mots exacts :
<br /><br />
<i>"Bonne balade sur la terre plate à vous"</i>
<br /><br />
Et le prendre pour malentendu est charitable de ma part.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>IV
<br /><br />
<dt>De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Sébastien Antoni et Jacques Arnould
<dd>Vendredi, 18 août 2023 à 20:28
<dt>Re: Je me souviens un jour que Sébastien Antoni me qualifia de terre-platiste
<dd>En me concentrant sur qui j'avais devant moi en France, j'ai peut-être oublié mon propre pays.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/08/hier-quelquun-alleguait-avoir-lu-mon.html">Hier, quelqu'un alléguait avoir lu mon blog il y a environ un an</a> · <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/08/ces-jours-jai-ete-un-peu-plus-que-prevu.html">Ces jours, j'ai été un peu plus que prévu sur Quora en suédois</a>
<br /><br />
Est-ce que vous auriez, les deux, peut-être cultivé le contact avec des Suédois me concernant ?
<br /><br />
Mauvaise idée, au moins pour mes intérêts, sinon pour les vôtres.
<br /><br />
Ici Sébastien :
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Sébastien Antoni à moi
</dt><dd>devant Anne le Pape et Abbé VB
</dd><dd>Tuesday, May 04, 2021 at 3:57 PM
</dd><dt>Réfutation de l'hérésie prononcée par Sébastien Antoni (envoyé devant deux témoins)
</dt><dd>Merci de cette information très utile.
<br /><br />
Bonne balade sur la terre plate à vous
<br /><br />
Cordialement
<br /><br />
S</dd></dl>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2021/07/autour-de-sebastien-antoni-qui-nie.html">Autour de Sébastien Antoni qui a nié l'individualité d'Adam et d'Ève</a>
<br /><br />
Est-ce que vous aviez l'idée que je sois platiste de quelque Suédois ?
<br /><br />
Parlant d'où on a des idées, la mienne que vous niez l'individualité d'Adam et Ève semble venir de vous, de votre propre colonne en "Croire + 7222" - mais si vous avez reconsidéré cette position, n'hésitez pas à vous innocenter. Je ne suis pas juge, mais je dois faire des jugements prudentiels pour moi-même si par exemple je peux vous considérer comme prêtre parfaitement catholique, et mon jugement prudentiel exprimé dans le blog pourrait influencer celui d'autres. Donc, si vous avez reconsidéré, n'hésitez pas ...
<br /><br />
Entretemps, pourquoi c'est important et pas juste une question d'obéissance nue ou quasi aveugle devant le Concile de Trente, regardez ceci :
<br /><br />
<a href="http://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2023/08/lhumanite-ne-commence-pas-avec-des.html">L'humanité ne commence pas avec des singeries</a>
<br /><br />
et en anglais ceci :
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/08/adam-was-not-individual-fall-was.html">"Adam was not an individual, the fall was collective" - Evil or Just Wrong?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/08/what-about-jimmy-akin-solution.html">What About The Jimmy Akin Solution?</a>
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>V
<br /><br />
<dt> Hans-Georg Lundahl à Sébastien Antoni et Jacques Arnould
<dd>8/21/2023 at 11:46 AM
<dt>Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?
<dd>Il semble qu'un homme que vous considérez comme ayant été pape dit ceci :
<br /><br />
<blockquote>A vous aussi, qui représentez l'Eglise qui est en Amérique latine, j'ai la joie de remettre aujourd'hui idéalement mon Encyclique <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/fr/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html">Deus caritas est,</a> par laquelle j'ai voulu indiquer à tous ce qui est essentiel dans le message chrétien. L'Eglise se sent disciple et missionnaire de cet Amour: missionnaire uniquement en tant que disciple, c'est-à-dire capable de se laisser toujours attirer avec un émerveillement renouvelé par Dieu qui nous a aimés et nous aime le premier (cf. 1 Jn 4, 10). L'Eglise ne fait pas de prosélytisme. Elle se développe plutôt par "attraction": comme le Christ "attire chacun à lui" par la force de son amour, qui a culminé dans le sacrifice de la Croix, de même, l'Eglise accomplit sa mission dans la mesure où, associée au Christ, elle accomplit chacune de ses œuvres en conformité spirituelle et concrète avec la charité de son Seigneur.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/fr/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20070513_conference-brazil.html">https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/fr/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20070513_conference-brazil.html</a>
<br /><br />
Dans cette perspective, pas beaucoup d'espace pour l'apologétique, n'est-ce pas ?
<br /><br />
Ce qui pourrait expliquer un manque assez évident d'intérêt pour mon projet, médiatique et apologétique, et ce que ça coûte à celui-ci si par example on me donne la réputation de platiste.
<br /><br />
Je pense que dans la caricature populaire d'un platiste chrétien, il y a trois éléments "croire que la terre est jeune, stationnaire et plate" - et je pense aussi que, par raisonnement ou intuition, il y a une de ces trois qui semble plus absurde que les autres - plate, puisque ça contredit ce que nous avons vu par les voyages.
<br /><br />
Me tamponner comme platiste serait donc un élément clef pour quiconque voudrait m'empêcher de faire une apologétique pour une terre jeune et stationnaire, comme étant des donnés bibliques pour les deux, ou d'expérience directe pour le second.
<br /><br />
Ça me prive de lecteurs, donc d'intérêt d'éditeurs, donc d'une source de revenu possible - chose à laquelle autrement vous devriez avoir quelque sensibilité. Je ne suis pas en train de me dire "oh, il me prend pour platiste, qu'il est méchant avec moi" - je calcule simplement que ceci est loin de prôner mes chances de réussite.
<br /><br />
Autre chose, quelle que soit la raison pourquoi il semble que vous soyez capables de prier pour que quelqu'un d'autre m'explique les choses en anglais, ce n'est pas exactement d'une grande honnêteté d'espérer qu'on m'explique les choses sans de vérifier quelles explications je fournis à mon tour. Quand je prenais "Benoît XVI" pour le pape, j'aurais dit "puisque vous êtes des prêtres catholiques, et même si vous maltraitez la foi, vous avez d'autorité et de sacrements valides à votre disposition" mais que ceci soit erroné ou vrai, l'explication ne justifie pas l'usage.
<br /><br />
C'est moins compliqué psychologiquement de se décider de republier un bloggueur dans le même pays, dans la même ville, qu'on peut consulter, que de le faire avec un tel à la distance de l'Atlantique et encore quelques km à chaque côté, une réussite dépendrait donc moins probablement des États-Unis que de la France, de Paris avec alentours, et puisque les deux vous avez un intérêt pour garder vos lecteurs que je n'en ai pas trop, et au moins un de vous (Sébastien) a été sinon la source au minimum au courant de la rumeur que je sois platiste, j'aimerais vos informations là-dessus et si vous faites quelque chose pour l'éliminer.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>VI
<br /><br />
<dt>De Jacques Arnould à Hans Georg Lundahl et Sébastien Antoni
<dd>8/22/2023 at 1:46 PM
<dt>Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?
<dd>Monsieur,
<br />Merci pour votre long message...
<br />Je ne vois pas très bien en quoi il me concerne directement.
<br />Je vous souhaite une belle fin d'été,
<br />Avec mes sincères salutations,
<br />Jacques Arnould
<br /><br />
<dt>VII
<br /><br />
<dt> Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould
<dt>Cc: Sebastien Antoni
<dd>8/22/2023 at 2:52 PM
<dt>Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?
<dd><i>"long message"</i>
<br /><br />
2 mins 23 secs selon
<br /><a href="https://thereadtime.com/#google_vignette">https://thereadtime.com/#google_vignette</a>
<br />(à moins que vous lisiez à vive voix)
<br /><br />
<i>"Je ne vois pas très bien en quoi il me concerne directement."</i>
<br /><br />
Puisque je considère vous comme Sébastien Antoni comme collègues en tant que publicistes et comme possible compétition.
<br /><br />
Je vous posais une question sur ce que vous auriez pu machiner ou savoir sur mon renommé dedans, notamment en ce qui concerne des rumeurs de platisme.
<br /><br />
Je vous posais aussi la question si c'était moins telle ou telle position que la démarche d'apologète en général qui pourrait vous gêner.
<br /><br />
C'est clair comme résumé? C'est clair pourquoi je vise vous deux?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
PS, <i>"belle fin d'été,"</i> est une chose, mais c'est plutôt une chose à souhaiter à une cigale qu'à une fourmi, si vous suivez ce que je veux dire ...
<br /><br />
<dt>VIII
<br /><br />
<dt>De Jacques Arnould à Hans Georg Lundahl (seul)
<dd>8/22/2023 at 10:11 PM
<dt>Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?
<dd>Bonsoir, Monsieur.
<br />Je ne "machine" absolument rien. Je vous rappelle que c'est vous qui avez pris contact avec moi.
<br />Je vous souhaite une bonne soirée.
<br />Avec mes sincères salutations,
<br />Jacques Arnould
<br /><br />
<dt>IX
<br /><br />
<dt>De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould et Cc Sébastien Antoni
<dd>8/23/2023 at 2:10 PM
<dt>Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?
<dd>Bonjour, Monsieur le Chercheur!
<br />Merci pour la réponse, je vous ai contacté cette fois pour le demander. J'en suis très bien conscient.
<br /><br />
Une semblable réponse par Sébastien ne serait pas de trop, s'il le peut honnêtement.
<br /><br />
Je ne suis pas un grand ami d'accusations ou de soupçons exprimés, mais avouez que :
<br /><br />
<ul><li> nous sommes trois écrivains qui prétendent tous être catholiques
<li> moi je suis en conflit avec vous sur le plan de l'évolution
<li> donc, si je raisonne bien, vous avez un intérêt, soit de me refuter, soit de me marginaliser.</ul>
<br /><br />
Si vous voudrez, prenez pour une vanité de ma part de penser que je raisonne bien. Donc, de mon point de vue,
<br /><br />
<ul><li> soit vous avez un intérêt de me réfuter
<li> soit de me marginaliser.</ul>
<br /><br />
Ensuite, de fait je me trouve marginalisé, de fait je ne vois pas une grande énergie de votre part de me refuter en débats, donc, je me suis permis à ajouter 2 à 1 et possiblement encore 1 et de conclure possiblement 4.
<br /><br />
Salutations,
<br />Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>X
<br /><br />
<dt>De Jacques Arnould à Hans Georg Lundahl
<dt>Cc Sébastien Antoni
<dd>8/24/2023 at 5:17 PM
<br /><br />
<dt>Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?
<dd>Monsieur,
<br />Je ne tiens pas absolument pas à vous marginaliser ; quand d'ailleurs aurais-je (eu) l'occasion de le faire?
<br />Je n'ai par ailleurs jamais refusé de débattre sur la question de l'évolution, dans des ouvrages ou dans des échanges publics.
<br />C'est pour cette raison que j'accepte cet échange de courriers.
<br />Je vous souhaite une excellente fin de journée ; je suis actuellement en déplacement professionnel et n'ai guère de temps libre.
<br />Avec mes sincères salutations,
<br />Jacques Arnould
<br /><br />
<dt>XI
<br /><br />
<dt>De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould
<dd>8/24/2023 at 7:17 PM
<dt>Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?
<dd>Ah, excellente nouvelle !
<br /><br />
Désolé pour les soupçons dans ce cas !
<br /><br />
Auriez vous de temps libre avant la Sainte Croix ?
<br /><br />
Le thème : comment Adam aurait pu avoir <i>une langue humaine</i> s'il était né de non-humains, directement ou à travers n'importe quel nombre d'intermédiaires.
<br /><br />
Pour rappel :
<ul><li> chaque langue humaine a trois niveaux, phrase, morphème et phonème (notons, "mot" veut pour le linguiste dire un morphème ou groupe de morphème ininterrompu qui ne peut pas changer des places entre eux dedans, mais dont le tout peut changer de place dans la phrase) ;
<li> la phrase est une description complète de la situation qu'on veut décrire ;
<li> le morphème a un sens ou méta-sens qui aide à composer le sens de la phrase (sujet et prédicat ont normalement du sens, copula du méta-sens) mais ne suffit pas pour décrire la situation concrète à lui seul (sauf des sous-entendus évidents) ;
<li> le phonème, le son, n'a pas du sens de dout, mais aide dans sa combinaison avec d'autres pareilles à distinguer les morphèmes et ceci dans un ordre inchangeable par morphème ;
<li> la phrase peut être pas seulement une demande ou un reconfort, mais bel et bien une description (le cas le plus typique)
<li> et peut porter sur des choses niées, conditionnelles, passées, futures, éloignées dans l'espace.</ul>
<br /><br />
Aucun singe ou grand singe a un seul de ces charactéristiques dans son système de communication, sonore ou autre.
<br /><br />
La correspondence sera publié sur un blog de moi, et vous êtes libre à en faire un publication parallèle.
<br /><br />
Vous êtes bien d'accord ?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>XII
<br /><br />
<dt>De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Sébastien Antoni
<dd>8/24/2023 at 7:18 PM
<dt>Fw: Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?
<dd>Pardon, j'avais oublié à vous faire une Cc !
<br /><br />
[+ identique à XI]
<br /><br />
<dt>XIII
<br /><br />
<dt>De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould et Sébastien Antoni
<dd>8/25/2023 at 3:49 AM
<dt>Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?
<dd><b>Je n'ai par ailleurs jamais refusé de débattre sur la question de l'évolution, dans des ouvrages ou dans des échanges publics.
<br />C'est pour cette raison que j'accepte cet échange de courriers.</b>
<br /><br />
Pour rendre notre échange encore plus publique - est-ce que Sébastien serait volontaire de le republier en Pèlerin ? /HGL
<br /><br />
<dt>XIV
<br /><br />
<dt>De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould et Sébastien Antoni
<dd>8/26/2023 at 6:40 PM
<dt>juste une très brève clarification
<dd>1) quand je parle de marginalisation, je ne parle pas d'un refus de me parler, je parle d'un refus de faire parler de moi
<br />2) quand je cherche le débat, ce n'est pas pour avoir l'occasion de mentalement digérer des questions qui me rendraient confus ou désorienté et dans lesquelles j'aurais besoin d'aide, c'est pour montrer, idéalement à des gens dans la France où je me trouve, dans le quartier où j'ai mon bagage, que je maîtrise les sujets et que "mon" point de vue tient ET
<br />3) qu'on peut donc commencer une édition imprimée ...
<br /><br />
Je suis en train d'avoir encore un débat sur quora anglophone, le premier volet se trouve ici : <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/08/james-ussher-in-catholic-apologetics.html">James Ussher in Catholic Apologetics.</a>
<br /><br />
Mais je n'ai pas encore entendu mot de Sébastien ici, ni confirmation que vous (Jacques) comprendriez les échanges entre nous comme quelque chose à montrer le public ...
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>XV
<br /><br />
<dt>De:Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dt>À: Jacques Arnould et Sebastien Antoni
<dd>9/1/2023 at 12:24 AM
<dt>...
<dd>La cancel culture existe ... y compris de la part de néo-catholiques vis-à-vis des créationnistes jeune terre.
<br /><br />
Mr. Fessenden fait semblant de savoir en se laissant guider par les documents les plus modernes, sans de se soucier du critère de Trente (sess. IV) quam ecclesiam tenuit atque tenet, et cet informaticiens sans formation classique imagine que je ne pourrais ni avoir une meilleure compréhension des Pères de l'Église, ni des procédés par lesquels les théorèmes modernistes sont soutenues ...
<br /><br />
Voici comment il fait de la cancel culture ...
<br /><br />
<a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/08/theo-fessenden-debate.html">Theo Fessenden Debate</a> ... un peu comme je commence d'avoir peur que vous le fassiez, chaque fois que vous n'avez pas une réponse .../HGL
<br /><br />
<dt>XVI
<br /><br />
<dt>De:Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dt>À: Jacques Arnould et Sebastien Antoni
<dt>Cc. Forum Jésus Messie
<dd>9/4/2023 at 4:26 AM
<dt>Jacques Arnould et Sébastien Antoni - peu avides à me débattre ...
<dd>Entretemps, j'ai eu des débats en anglais, dans lesquels, les gens qui voudraient prétendre que les âges en Genèse 5 et 11 auraient des significations symboliques ont autant de mal à les trouver, que Farid à trouver un verset du Coran qui affirme que Mahomet fit un quel-conque miracle.
<br /><br />
<b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/08/ussher-iii.html">Ussher III</a> · <b>Φιλολoγικά / Philologica:</b> <a href="https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2023/08/numeric-symbolism-in-genesis-5.html">Numeric Symbolism in Genesis 5 Patriarchs?</a> · <b>HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS:</b> <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2023/08/number-symbolism-in-genesis-5.html">Number Symbolism in Genesis 5?</a> · <b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/09/ages-or-names-symbolic.html">Ages or Names Symbolic?</a>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ5Vd4-5SVg">Did Muhammad Perform Miracles?
<br /><i>Apologetics Roadshow</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ5Vd4-5SVg</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>XVII
<br /><br />
<dt>De:Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dt>À: Jacques Arnould et Sebastien Antoni
<dd>9/14/2023 at 2:36 PM
<dt>la correspondance est publiée
<dd>[lien à ce post]
<br /><br />
<dt>XVIII
<br /><br />
<dt>De Jacques Arnould à Hans Georg Lundahl
<dt>Cc Sébastien Antoni
<dd>Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 3:45 PM
<dt>Re: la correspondance est publiée
<dd>Bonjour. Je ne comprends pas. Belle fin de semaine, beau dimanche. Bien sincèrement. Jacques Arnould
<br /><br />
<dt>XIX
<br /><br />
<dt>De:Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dt>À: Jacques Arnould
<dd>9/14/2023 at 4:38 PM
<dt>Re: la correspondance est publiée
<dd>Si vous aviez cliqué le lien, vous auriez compris.
<br /><br />
Merci bcp./HGL
<br /><br />
<dt>XX
<br /><br />
<dt>De:Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dt>À: Jacques Arnould et Sebastien Antoni
<dt>Cc. Forum Jésus Messie
<dd>9/16/2023 at 12:00 AM
<dt>J'avais oublié
<dd>J'ai un autre qui prend le débat :
<ul><li> premier hic - c'est aux États-Unis que se trouve mon co-débatteur, c'est facile à ignorer ici en France
<li> deuxième hic - il n'est pas plus préparé pour ce débat qu vous, Jacques Arnould :</ul>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2023/09/pas-avec-des-singeries-debat-avec.html"><i>Pas avec des singeries, débat avec Laurent Dupont</i>
<br />https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2023/09/pas-avec-des-singeries-debat-avec.html</a>
<br /><br />
Je commence d'avoir le sentiment qu'il pourrait être un lycéen, ou tout juste sorti d'un lycée où il avait été très indoctriné dans l'évolutionnisme .../HGL</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-28413627093713962382023-06-16T01:41:00.045-07:002023-07-09T05:41:10.663-07:00Will This Be Answered? (B)<br />
<b>New blog on the kid:</b> <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/06/documented-by-psychiatrist.html">Documented by a Psychiatrist?</a> · <b>Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl:</b> <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2023/06/will-this-be-answered-b.html">Will This Be Answered? (B)</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>From: Hans-Georg Lundahl
<br />To: Mark Greenwald
<dd>6/2/2023 at 7:34 PM
<dt>It seems my name is mentioned by you?
<dd>Academia tells me:
<br />__________________
<br /><br />
Dear Hans-georg,
<br />“H. Lundahl” mentioned by “Mark Greenwald”.
<br />__________________
<br /><br />
I do not write on psychiatry, except the evils of the superstition?
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>From: Hans-Georg Lundahl
<br />To: Mark Greenwald
<dd>7/9/2023 at 2:36 PM
<dt>Wait, did you write with one "Leslie H. Lundahl"?
<dd>Without Academia plus, I could <i>not directly</i> view the mentions. When I found "H. Lundahl" mentioned in a paper by you again, I figured out, I could so <i>indirectly.</i>
<br /><br />
I logged in to Academia (base package) normal, looked for you, looked for your latest pdf, and F searched "H. Lundahl" ... first hit was "Leslie H. Lundahl" who obviously is not myself.
<br /><br />
I think we risk overestimating the "intelligence" of AI. Just because I went onto Academia when I was Orthodox and had "Hans" as sole name in the Orthodox confirmation, and thence signed on as Hans Lundahl rather than more usually Hans Georg Lundahl, I have a profile with the former name and still user URL of "H. Lundahl" / HLundahl ... which so happened to coincide with a part of your colleague Leslie's name.
<br /><br />
Sorry for the angry letter I sent last time.
<br /><br />
Even after seeing C S L's dog Jacksie run over a car in the google translate from his wikipedia article in Ukrainean, rather than the car running over the dog, I could so rely on AI that I thought you had mentioned me, when you hadn't. My bad.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-47660384087914651962023-05-28T06:20:00.026-07:002023-06-03T01:38:16.644-07:00Will This be Answered?<br />
<b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/05/yes-homosexual-people-already-had-right.html">Yes, Homosexual People Already Had the Right to Marry</a> · <b>New blog on the kid:</b> <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/05/has-introibo-discredited-orthodoxy-of.html">Has Introibo Discredited the Orthodoxy of Fr De Pauw?</a> · <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/05/is-trent-24-canon-10-warrant-for.html">Is Trent 24, canon 10 a warrant for arranging someone else's celibacy?</a> · <b>Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl:</b> <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2023/05/will-this-be-answered.html">Will This be Answered?</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Marriage as Vocation - pre-modern
<br /><br />
<dd>From: Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>To: info@stjosemaria.org
<dt>5/19/2023 at 6:31 PM
<br /><br />
<dd>On the one hand, for the position it is a vocation, one can cite the Greek commenter on Genesis who considered Noah had children so late as at age 500 because:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> he had prematurely tried monasticism
<li> he had very late been talked into the marriage which was his vocation for saving mankind on the Ark.</ul>
<br /><br />
In this case, marriage would have been his vocation against his inclination.
<br /><br />
I do not find many different patristic commenters saying this, but then, I haven't had the time to read Migne. St. Augustine, to the best of my memory, doesn't say so in City of God.
<br /><br />
For the opposite position on Noah, I have nothing directly patristic, I don't think the Fathers looked often into it.
<br /><br />
However, I have Biblical about the last days:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> Jesus said : "as in the days of Noah"
<li> St. Paul said "heeding doctrines of demons ... forbidding to marry"</ul>
<br /><br />
So, if so, some in the days of Noah were forbidden to marry. Some people in Sweden for instance seem to think, from my experience, a man who has not slept with a woman cannot really know if he wants to marry her. Plus waiting with sex up to marriage to avoid mortal sin would be to them works salvation. I say seem, I am not intimately familiar with those persecuting me in Sweden. Ergo, the prophecy in 1 Tim 4:3 can refer to, among other things, blocking the righteous from marrying. If this happened in Noah's days, and Noah was righteous, this could also very well explain why he had his three sons at age 500.
<br /><br />
On the other hand, Our Lord told St. Bridget about those damned, that they were ungrateful to Him, among other benefits, that of being able to "enjoy sex moderately" = in marriage, not before or beside, not unfruitful, probably not on nights to Sundays or Holidays of Obligation, as per the Church law back then, perhaps even divine law, even if Pius XII didn't seem to bother.
<br /><br />
Hence, I would like sth going back further than Josemaria or Fr DePauw or anything after Vatican II.
<br /><br />
Since, IF marriage were only licit as per vocation, that would argue the position I already have stamped as heretical elsewhere, that "homosexuals are called to chastity" (i e perfect chastity or celibacy), and also positions enumerated by the Introibo blogger, here:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/05/choosing-marriage-partner-in-todays.html"><i>Introibo Ad Altare Dei: Choosing A Marriage Partner In Today's World</i>
<br />https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/05/choosing-marriage-partner-in-todays.html</a>
<br /><br />
Specifically, "Be honest with yourself-- if any of these reasons are your motivation for marriage, it is not your vocation: ... You want to experience sex without sinning" - which directly contradicts what Our Lord told St. Bridget.
<br /><br />
Also specifically, "Do not seek marriage if: ... You have an unresolved serious vice, such as porn addiction, drinking too much, using recreational drugs, or gambling." This contradicts my dictum, for what it is worth, that homosexual people can marry (someone of the opposite sex, obviously).
<br /><br />
Both of them also seems to involve a Lutheran idea or Calvinist idea, anyway Protestant idea, of marriage as vocation, making marriage available - not just as per the other party involved and his or her relatives, but as to the parish or congregation overall, even before getting started - only as the reward for virtuous living. This contradicts the Catholic doctrine of the three goods of marriage, one of which is "in remedium concupiscentiae" ...
<br /><br />
Both of them also open up to what is already since long ongoing in the Protestant world, namely intrigues blocking certain people from marrying, this by exaggerating their faults and by painting "addictions" which don't* exist, at least not as abuse, and therefore fulfilling the prophecy of 1 Tim 4:3.
<br /><br />
So, for the idea that marriage is only licit as vocation, and not at least also as the 30-fold fruit that St. Thomas mentioned (minimal level of virtue, below which one is damned), do you have a pre-modern source?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
* The idea homosexuals cannot marry is obviously also open to this kind of abuse by calumny or by hysterically "seeing things as they are" when they aren't like that.</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-64627217777795550212023-03-09T05:33:00.012-08:002023-03-09T08:14:33.446-08:00About the Late Craig Lampe, His Son, His Book<br />
<b>Great Bishop of Geneva!</b> <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2013/02/good-news-about-protestants.html">Good News about Protestants</a> · <b>Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl :</b> <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2023/03/about-late-craig-lampe-his-son-his-book.html">About the Late Craig Lampe, His Son, His Book</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to GreatSite
<dd>3/8/2023 at 6:40 PM
<dt>three questions
<dd>1) Is Craig Lampe still alive?
<br />2) If so, why is The Forbidden Book still available?
<br /><br />
<a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2013/02/good-news-about-protestants.html">Good News about Protestants</a>
<br /><br />
3) Are you all Young Earth Creationists?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>John Lawton Jeffcoat III
<dt>for GreatSite to me
<dd>3/8/2023 at 8:16 PM
<dt>Hans: three questions
<dd>Hans,
<br /><br />
Regarding your three questions...
<br /><br />
1.) Craig Lampe died on August 5, 2021. I had a great business partnership with Craig for over 25 years, selling all of The Bible Museum’s materials on my website at GREATSITE.COM from 1996 until January of 2023.
<br /><br />
2.) His son, Joel, took over their end of the business and very recently made it impossible for me to continue to work with him.
<br />For this reason, their materials (The Forbidden Book, leaves, facsimiles) are no longer available on my website at GREATSITE.COM
<br /><br />
3.) Why do you care whether we believe in a literal 7 astronomical day creation, versus a 7 figurative “day of the Lord” creation… as long as we believe God created everything as described in Genesis… what does it matter which side if that argument we fall upon? That discussion does not enter into our dealing in antique Biblical materials in any way, nor is it a topic of discussion in “The Forbidden Book”.
<br /><br />
John L. Jeffcoat
<br />director@greatsite.com
<br />1-800-422-6243 or 407-704-5776
<br />GREATSITE.COM
<br />World's Largest Rare Bible Dealer
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to John Lawton Jeffcoat III
<dd>3/9/2023 at 2:20 PM
<dt>Re: Hans: three questions
<dd>2) I am happy that Joel is no longer providing you that erroneous book;
<br />3) I am fairly glad to have proven, contrary to the expectations of Trent Horn, that to have your view of Church history is not an exclusive prerogative of Fundamentalists.
<br /><br />
Thank you!
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>IV
<br /><br />
<dt>John Lawton Jeffcoat III to me
<dd>3/9/2023 at 2:47 PM
<dt>Hans: questions
<dd>Hans,
<br /><br />
I really do not understand what you are saying.
<br /><br />
You have stated that the book our organization published for 25 years, “The Forbidden Book” is erroneous? How is it erroneous?
<br /><br />
You have stated that our “view of church history” is apparently bad and you are pleased that it is not exclusive to “Fundamentalists”? What does that mean?
<br /><br />
What are all these negative comments about?
<br /><br />
Who are you… what do you want… why are you emailing me to tell me that we are wrong about everything… but not explaining specifically what you are talking about?
<br /><br />
<dt>V
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to John Lawton Jeffcoat III
<dd>3/9/2023 at 3:01 PM
<dt>Re: Hans: questions
<dd>OK. Some explanations are in order.
<br /><br />
I came across The Forbidden Book in the format of a video, a film documentary.
<br /><br />
I then wrote a refutation:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2013/01/answers-about-forbidden-book.html">Answers about "The Forbidden Book"</a> (my arguments why The Forbidden Book is erroneous).
<br /><br />
I then had the idea to get in touch with Craig Lampe.
<br /><br />
I did, and got an email from him, as you would have seen if you had clicked the previous link.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2013/02/good-news-about-protestants.html">Good News about Protestants</a> (it now also links to our correspondence).
<br /><br />
And, as I am a Roman Catholic with a Fundamentalist view of exegesis, I am happy to show fellow Roman Catholics that your view of the Middle Ages is not coupled with Fundamentalist views about Genesis 1 to 11.
<br /><br />
Does this explain things a bit better?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>VI
<br /><br />
<dt>John Lawton Jeffcoat III to me
<dd>3/9/2023 at 3:11 PM
<dt>Re: Hans: questions
<dd>Hans,
<br /><br />
What you have written in response to The Forbidden Book is a rambling bunch of nonsense.
<br /><br />
John
<br /><br />
<dt>VII
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to John Lawton Jeffcoat III
<dd>3/9/2023 at 4:36 PM
<dt>Re: Hans: questions
<dd>Hope Joel had the good sense not to agree.
<br /><br />
What's your main problem ...?
<br /><br />
<dt>VIII
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to John Lawton Jeffcoat III
<dd>3/9/2023 at 4:57 PM
<dt>Re: Hans: questions
<dd>Was perhaps your main problem taking only ten minutes* to read it?
<br /><br />
<dt>* note
<dd>I sent the link at 3:01 PM, he replied at 3:11 PM, same day. His opportunity to read a fairly long piece - 8431 words - was thus at the most 10 minutes.</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-55393216116431819152023-02-27T05:53:00.009-08:002023-03-02T02:00:23.818-08:00While the Debate May be Over, It is Yet to be Reviewed<br />
<dl><dt>Paris time
<dt>sam
<dd>= Samedi / Saturday 25.II.2023
<dt>dim
<dd>= Dimanche / Lord's Day 26.II.2023, Quadragesima
<br /><br />
<dt>sam 15:37
<dt>from Hans Georg Lundahl
<dt>to James Bogle
<dd>You recall how you argued using the withholding or royal assent was in your view a kind of rebellion?
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy36g9ocE7s">What Happened The Last Time The Monarch Vetoed A Law?
<br /><i>J. Draper, 23 Jan. 2022</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy36g9ocE7s</a>
<br /><br />
It was done in 1937 and 2001. Canada and Oz ...
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Like the presidential assent under Art. 13.3 of the Irish Constitution, it does not present any kind of real assent (or dissent) but is a mere certification that the Bill has passed through the Houses of Parliament. That is all.*</blockquote>
<br /><br />
The example of 1937 seems to say the opposite.
<br /><br />
I looked up 13.3.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>1° Every Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas shall require the signature of the President for its enactment into law.
<br /><br />
2° The President shall promulgate every law made by the Oireachtas.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
The second very explicitly makes the first a formality.
<br /><br />
The one thing a president could do would be to abdicate in order to avoid assenting. But that, even in Ireland, he could.
<br /><br />
<dt>* Note
<dd>cited from his wall.
<br /><br />
<dt>dim 10:44, 10:59, 11:15
<dt>from James Bogle
<dt>to Hans Georg Lundahl
<dd>I am not sure what you are trying to argue, Hans-Georg, but you need to get your facts straight.
<br /><br />
First, the Irish president has no more right to refuse legislation than the British King does. That is precisely why I drew the parallel. All you have done is reinforce my point. If you read my articles you would see that I quoted the relevant article of the Irish Constitution verbatim. You are not the only person who "looked it up". I did so before you.
<br /><br />
The President can resign if he wishes but that will make no difference at all. Another President will simply be elected and he will certify. Just as the British Monarch certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses, so does the Irish President. He has NO discretion to withhold his "assent" because it is not an assent in the sense of a free discretion but no more than a certification that the Bill has passed both Houses, i.e. the exact same mere duty to certify that the British monarch has. There is no difference between them save that the Irish president does have the power to refer a bill to the Irish Supreme Court to decide its constiutionality a power that the British monarch does not have because we have no written constitution and no constitutional court.
<br /><br />
Get your facts straight, sir.
<br /><br />
As to 1937 and 2001, perhaps because you are Germanic, you do not understand the relationship between the Crown and other member states of the Commonwealth.
<br /><br />
Australia and Canada are not part of the United Kingdom. They are separate, free and independent countries and they both have written constitutions.
<br /><br />
My comments relate only to the United Kingdom.
<br /><br />
In Australia and Canada, the Monarch has even less power than in the UK i.e. none at all. All the powers of the head of State are exercised by the Governors and Governors-General and in accordance with a written constitution which, in turn, is subject to a constitutional court in both countries.
<br /><br />
In the case of australia, in 200, all that the Governor-General was doing was withdrawing a certification that the bill had passed both Houses for the simple reason that it had NOT so passed. That is not exercising a free assent or anything like it. It is preu certification, exactly as I adumbrated it.
<br /><br />
In Canada, the Lieutenant-Governor was exercising a power given to him by the Constitution of Canada and thus DOES entail some free exercise of discretion.
<br /><br />
But that is a power of the lieutenants-governor of Canada, not the British monarch. The British monarch has ZERO power to veto Canadian legislation.
<br /><br />
If you think she has, then you need to read the actual sources of constitutional law, rather than relying upon an amateur Youtube production.
<br /><br />
Although the production is accurate in parts, it is quite inaccurate to say that the British monarch retains a power to refuse assent. He does not. It is no longer part of his constitutional power and all constitutional authorities agree on that.
<br /><br />
The only exception - and most authorities agree on this - is that he may veto a bill that attempts to abolish democracy. That is a vitally important power. If there had been a German King in 1933 with that power alone, he could have vetoed Hitler's seizure of power and abolition of democracy and forced him to an election. World history might then have been very different.
<br /><br />
You would have done better to cite the example of Australia in 1975. In that year the Governor-General sacked the Prime Minister, not for attempting to abolish democracy, but merely for attempting govern without supply (i.e. money voted in), it having been blocked by the Upper House.
<br /><br />
But the Australian Governor-General has MUCH more power than the British monarch does.
<br /><br />
Indeed, the Australian Constitution gives the GG real power to refuse assent and veto legislation.
<br /><br />
Indeed, the Constitution gives the British monarch power to veto legislation (ss.58-60). However, it is now a matter of constitutional convention that such power no longer exists and in the Common Law system, constitutional conventions have the full force of constitutional law.
<br /><br />
What the true position is as regards the GG will be a matter for the constitutional court to decide, ultimately, i.e. the High Court of Australia.
<br /><br />
What we DO know is that the GG has power to sack the PM and government under ss.57 because he did so in 1975, the decision went unchallenged in the High Court and the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, had already given his view that it was constitutional, in an Opinion commissioned by the Governor General before he acted.
<br /><br />
The sacked PM tried to consult the Queen but her private secretary wrote back saying that it was entirely a matter for Australia and the Queen had no power to intervene.
<br /><br />
Accordingly, as I argued, the British monarch has no power anywhere to veto legislation, save in the vital exceptional case I mentioned.
<br /><br />
Ergo.
<br /><br />
<dt>dim 13:24
<dt>from Hans Georg Lundahl
<dt>to James Bogle
<dd><i>"First, the Irish president has no more right to refuse legislation than the British King does."</i>
<br /><br />
He explicitly as per the second part of 13.3 has no such right. So, if he would want to refuse, his one constitutional option would be to step down and say "look, I am no longer president, signing that is not my job" ...
<br /><br />
On top of that, I find "no more ... than" misleading. It's more proper to speak of "a lot less than" ... I have seen no British legislation amounting to that second part of 13.3.
<br /><br />
<i>"That is precisely why I drew the parallel. All you have done is reinforce my point."</i>
<br /><br />
Except that the parallel doesn't hold in the absence of a similar text in the English law. 1967 there was a new royal assent act, what it definitely didn't change was the nature of royal assent by adding a "13.3 part 2" clause. It only changed how the monarch was able to express his assent.
<br /><br />
<i>"If you read my articles"</i>
<br /><br />
I read only one of them. "James Bogle: was Queen Elizabeth to blame for the Abortion Act?" on Rorate Caeli. That one didn't quote 13.3, since an F search on "13." gave nothing.
<br /><br />
<i>"The President can resign if he wishes but that will make no difference at all. Another President will simply be elected and he will certify."</i>
<br /><br />
First, the one who has resigned will have cleared his conscience.
<br />Second, the election campaign could involve debates that might end up nullifying the proposal.
<br /><br />
<i>"Just as the British Monarch certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses, so does the Irish President. He has NO discretion to withhold his "assent" because it is not an assent in the sense of a free discretion but no more than a certification that the Bill has passed both Houses, i.e. the exact same mere duty to certify that the British monarch has."</i>
<br /><br />
That is no doubt your opinion, but I don't think there is a law to that effect.
<br /><br />
On parliament . UK I found an informal text stating that the assent "is considered" a formality, i e backing your view, but weakly, as this may simply be a bad habit.
<br /><br />
<i>"save that the Irish president does have the power to refer a bill to the Irish Supreme Court to decide its constiutionality a power that the British monarch does not have because we have no written constitution and no constitutional court."</i>
<br /><br />
If you have no written constitution, and no constitutional court, that makes the proposition that "royal assent is a formality" very moot. In 2001 in Australia, it was used on that precise point, to recapitulate skipped formalities, but in 1937, in Canada, there were three laws that were blocked by the refusal of royal assent, because the royal assent was used in lieu of a constitutional court - the Lieutenant General deemed it unconstitutional to legislate:
<ul><li> for banks to be controlled by local government;
<li> for papers to be obliged to print rebuttals required by the government against stories they didn't like.</ul>
Two withheld royal assents for the first type of proposal and one for the latter.
<br /><br />
<i>"As to 1937 and 2001, perhaps because you are Germanic,"</i>
<br /><br />
Are you Welsh or Gaelic? Otherwise you are as Germanic as I. Norse and Anglo-Saxons are very close culturally when starting out in history.
<br /><br />
<i>"Australia and Canada are not part of the United Kingdom. They are separate, free and independent countries and they both have written constitutions."</i>
<br /><br />
And their written constitutions, while putting royal assent in other hands than that of the actual monarch, give it a content, in at least Canada other than as formality?
<br /><br />
A UK constitutional lawyer might argue in favour of the Canadian model rather than the Australian one, should it be a simple formality "down under". I perfectly got the memo that the Australian case would fall within your view of "royal assent" = "vetting of formalities" ...
<br /><br />
<i>"But that is a power of the lieutenants-governor of Canada, not the British monarch."</i>
<br /><br />
Was this already the case in 1890 or so? The year when Ottawa voted that infamous duty for Amerindians and Esquimeaux to send children to residential schools? Back in 2013, I debated against Annett, that he'd be wiser to sue Ottawa than the Crown. Back then I just assumed that the Monarch really had no power whatsoever, was not even aware of royal assent. I'd be happy if I didn't make a fool of myself in saying "Ottawa is more to blame than Balmoral, and Methodists more than Catholics" (while Catholics administered Residential schools, at one point they tried to save a girl from TB, and were stopped by Canadian authorities, and Catholics did not administer forced sterilisations, unlike Methodists, Calvinists, United Church of Canada) ..
<br /><br />
<i>"then you need to read the actual sources of constitutional law,"</i>
<br /><br />
Which are available where?
<br /><br />
<i>"and all constitutional authorities agree on that."</i>
<br /><br />
Including texts that do not exist?
<br /><br />
<i>"If there had been a German King in 1933 with that power alone,"</i>
<br /><br />
Jews in the Germanies have suffered in two circumstances. a) Alemannic area (mostly very pro-Jewish these days); b) periods of unrest - First Crusade, and two periods without a German King. Rex Rintfleisch and Hitler had that in common.
<br /><br />
However, the problem in 1933 was not abolishing democracy. I e multipartisan parliamentarianism. They did that in Austria too with much better results, initially backed against "Rintfleisch II" by Il Duce, who later, unfortunately, in 1938, greenlighted Hitler's second attempt against the "second but better German country" ...
<br /><br />
<i>"However, it is now a matter of constitutional convention that such power no longer exists and in the Common Law system, constitutional conventions have the full force of constitutional law."</i>
<br /><br />
Well, the problem is - do such conventions actually oblige? I recall a statement in a novel by GKC - "keep the commandments, break the conventions" ...
<br /><br />
<dt>dim 18:21
<dt>from James Bogle
<dt>to Hans Georg Lundahl
<dd>You are merely repeating yourself and your arguments do not improve with repetition. Certifying that a Bill has passed both Houses IS precisely the job of the Irish President and he should not shirk it. What is NOT his job is to claim the right to veto a Bill. He has no such power.
<br /><br />
I frankly don’t really care what YOU “find” since you are not an expert on the British or Irish Constitutions. The fact you think the British Constitution is a creature of legislation shows how little you understand it. The fact that you think the British Constitution is to be found in “a similar text in the English law” shows that you have no understanding of the British Constitution.
<br /><br />
The British Constitution is governed chiefly by conventions, not statute. And you can stop kidding yourself that you have read the entire statute book of British legislation – it would take half a lifetime to do so. So, stop pretending.
<br /><br />
It is a very long-standing convention of the British Constitution that, like Article 13.3 of the Irish Constitution, every Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Parliament shall require the Royal Assent for its enactment into law and the Monarch shall promulgate every law made by both Houses of Parliament (or of the lower House alone, where the Parliament Acts are properly invoked).
<br /><br />
Where do you think the framers of the Irish Constitution got the idea for Art 13.3 from, for goodness sake? From their former Anglo-Irish monarchical Constitution, of course. Where else?
<br /><br />
So, I was entirely right, and remain right, to say, as I did, the Irish President has no more right to refuse legislation than the British King does. Fact. Get used to it.
<br /><br />
Your ramble about the 1967 Act again shows that you simply do not understand the nature of the British Constitution. I repeat: it is chiefly a creature of convention, not statute. If you don’t understand this then further discussion is pointless because you simply do not know what you are talking about – literally. There is no need to “add a 13.3 part 2 clause” by statute because it is already established by convention.
<br /><br />
If you have only read one of my articles then read the others. You might then begin to have some idea what you are talking about.
<br /><br />
Possibly the most stupid form of argument is to say “well, I read one of your articles and X did not appear in that one”. The obvious retort is “well, then, read the other ones, you great clot!”.
<br /><br />
Surely you can do better than that? And, in any case, you’ve heard the arguments now.
<br /><br />
You then repeat your original failed argument and, as I said, your argument does not improve with repetition. No, an Irish President who resigns will NOT “have cleared his conscience” since his conscience is not engaged when he certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses. There is nothing immoral in certifying such passage. It is a morally neutral act and thus does not engage his conscience. It would only engage his conscience if he had the discretion to veto a Bill but, for the third time, he does NOT have such a power.
<br /><br />
On the other hand, he would have created a wholly unnecessary, damaging and pointless constitutional crisis by resigning and would have failed in his duty, something that no responsible president should do. And, no, the election of a new president will not make any difference to the Bill which, having passed both Houses, would, by the Constitution, HAVE to be certified by the incoming President.
<br /><br />
And, no, this is not merely MY opinion but the opinion of the British and Irish constitutional authorities as you would know if you knew anything about them which you so obviously don’t. Indeed, I cited some of them in footnote 7 to my Rorate Caeli article which you obviously failed to see.
<br /><br />
Instead, you merely again publish your total ignorance of the nature of the British Constitution by ignorantly saying “I don't think there is a law to that effect” when, if you had any idea what you are talking about, you’d know that the Constitution is not chiefly a matter of law but of binding convention.
<br /><br />
You have found that the Parliament website backs my view but, as if you were some kind of expert (which manifestly you are very far from being), you pretend that you are in a position to call this “weak”. If you had read the constitutional authorities, you would know that it is simply fact and not “weak”.
<br /><br />
With even more profound ignorance of the British Constitution, you next claim that because Britain has “no written constitution, and no constitutional court” that this “makes the proposition that ‘royal assent is a formality’ very moot”. No, it does not. That is the very ill-informed and ignorant opinion of someone who knows very little about the British Constitution. Constitutional conventions are recognised as binding by the British Crown, the British government, the British Parliament, the British courts and the British people - and that is enough.
<br /><br />
You then repeat your failed arguments as regards Australia and Canada in 1937 and 2001 both of which I have rebutted and you have not even addressed. Merely repeating your failed arguments does not improve them and so I merely refer you back to my rebuttal of them.
<br /><br />
And the head of a province in Canada is called a “Lieutenant Governor” not a “Lieutenant General”. Get your facts straight, sir.
<br /><br />
And whether you regard yourself as Germanic, or not, you have as little understanding of the British Constitution as do most persons of non-British origin. The Norse are equally, for the most part, unfamiliar with the British Constitution. You are no exception.
<br /><br />
If you knew anything about the British Constitution, you would have read the relevant authorities and would know that no UK constitutional lawyer would be stupid enough to argue that the British Constitution is the same as the Canadian Constitution on the issue of the royal assent. That is the sort of non-argument that a Norseman ignorant of British constitutional convention might try to argue. Whatever “memo” you might think you “got”, it was clearly not a memo that had anything to do with the British Constitution, given your woeful ignorance of that same Constitution. And, as a result, you have very successfully “made a fool of” yourself. And, in case you have overlooked the fact, we are living in 2023 – not 1890.
<br /><br />
You then ask some questions which underscore, if there were still any scintilla of doubt, that you have not the faintest clue what you are talking about and have no idea whatever about the nature of the British Constitution and constitutional conventions.
<br /><br />
Your response to my pointing out the simple fact that a German King, even with no more than the power of the British monarch, could have stopped Hitler from abolishing democracy (which he certainly did) is so ramblingly incoherent that it does not merit a response.
<br /><br />
Finally, that you need to ask whether constitutional conventions “actually oblige” proves even further how little you know about the British Constitution.
<br /><br />
If, however, you think that a novel by G K Chesterton is the final arbiter to interpret the British Constitution then your reliance on an amateur Youtube presentation by a lady in a fake Greek helmet holding a broom, in place of a trident, seems entirely apposite tothe kind of material that you seem to prefer as your sources rather than the real constitutional authorities. It perhaps explains your serious inability to understand even the basic elements of the British Constitution.
<br /><br />
<dt>dim 19:20
<dt>from Hans Georg Lundahl
<dt>to James Bogle
<dd><i>"What is NOT his job is to claim the right to veto a Bill. He has no such power."</i>
<br /><br />
I did not claim he did. That's where 13.3 is explicitly different from what is explicitly stated in English laws, as many as I have been given access to.
<br /><br />
<i>"I frankly don’t really care what YOU “find” since you are not an expert on the British or Irish Constitutions."</i>
<br /><br />
No, I am on the subject an amateur moderately knowledgeable. It was actually only through your essay (which I found last year) that I even found out there was such a thing as royal assent.
<br /><br />
<i>"The fact you think the British Constitution is a creature of legislation shows how little you understand it."</i>
<br /><br />
I think the entire legal system of all of the Commonwealth is based on both written laws and precedent.
<br /><br />
1708 and 1937 certainly do give precedent for withholding royal assent at discretion.
<br /><br />
But 1937 was another country? Yes, but in for instance trust law, you can invoke with some discretion, precedent in other countries, obviously as long as they don't contradict either written law or precedent in your own.
<br /><br />
<i>"And you can stop kidding yourself that you have read the entire statute book of British legislation – it would take half a lifetime to do so."</i>
<br /><br />
Never claimed that. Only claimed to have one specific knowledge of two statutes that relate to royal assent. 1541 and 1967.
<br /><br />
If you know of another statute that absolutely nullifies what I observed, fine, produce it.
<br /><br />
<i>"Where do you think the framers of the Irish Constitution got the idea for Art 13.3 from, for goodness sake? From their former Anglo-Irish monarchical Constitution, of course. Where else?"</i>
<br /><br />
Or, from one specific understanding of it. An anti-monarchic one.
<br /><br />
<i>"So, I was entirely right, and remain right, to say, as I did, the Irish President has no more right to refuse legislation than the British King does."</i>
<br /><br />
I still think "no more" should be vastly improved to "lots less" - that's still some, as he could abdicate.
<br /><br />
<i>"If you have only read one of my articles then read the others. You might then begin to have some idea what you are talking about."</i>
<br /><br />
Which one should I start with?
<br /><br />
<i>"The obvious retort is “well, then, read the other ones, you great clot!”."</i>
<br /><br />
I am fortunately a foreigner who doesn't know the exact nuance of "clot" ... and again, the obvious retort to that is, which one should I start with?
<br /><br />
Where do I find them? Do you have a blog of your own, or do you exist in the blogosphere only as contributor to Rorate Caeli?
<br /><br />
<i>"No, an Irish President who resigns will NOT “have cleared his conscience” since his conscience is not engaged when he certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses."</i>
<br /><br />
I thought you were a lawyer, not a moralist ...?
<br /><br />
You pretend to have some monarchist loyalties, are you aware there was a bill where a king of Belgium or a Prince of Luxemburg (forget which) actually did abdicate for a day to avoid signing it?
<br /><br />
<i>"On the other hand, he would have created a wholly unnecessary, damaging and pointless constitutional crisis by resigning"</i>
<br /><br />
Stability of régime is a higher obligation than all content in laws and what the régime actually does? Doesn't sound Catholic to me. I think Carlists and Falangists both rejected that in 1936, for instance.
<br /><br />
<i>"And, no, the election of a new president will not make any difference to the Bill which, having passed both Houses, would, by the Constitution, HAVE to be certified by the incoming President."</i>
<br /><br />
W a i t ... even if he were elected on the promise of not doing that? Sounds like you have very little grasp on the concept of epikeia.
<br /><br />
<i>"Indeed, I cited some of them in footnote 7 to my Rorate Caeli article which you obviously failed to see."</i>
<br /><br />
It so happens, as I recall it, the article was cluttered with footnotes. Each of them prone to contain quotes. Made reading the footnotes somewhat of a chore. But perhaps being readable (to other than a specific corps d'expertise) is not a top priority to you as a writer ...
<br /><br />
<i>"you’d know that the Constitution is not chiefly a matter of law but of binding convention."</i>
<br /><br />
A very good question for moral theology is "when is a convention binding" ... I think I'll try to seek answers in Escobar or Aquinas before consulting you. Just as a matter of my Catholic taste.
<br /><br />
<i>"You have found that the Parliament website backs my view"</i>
<br /><br />
Not entirely:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1708, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/royal-assent/"><i>UK Parliament Site information Glossary Royal Assent</i>
<br />https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/royal-assent/</a>
<br /><br />
The sentence "nowadays this doesn't happen" is clearly weaker than "has the right to refuse" ...
<br /><br />
I think I'll finish this round here. Where an actual source proved you wrong.
<br /><br />
<dt>added
<dt>22:23
<dd>Went after footnote 7, as you mentioned it.
<br /><br />
Ah, there is after all an exception:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>The exercise of the Royal Assent is not purely formulaic in the sense that the Crown, acting on the advice of ministers, might, in very rare circumstances (e.g. a minority government, or a colonial or devolved government), theoretically be advised to withhold assent but such a situation is highly unlikely. What we are considering here is not such a scenario but rather the Crown refusing assent against the advice of ministers or acting alone. That, it is agreed by the relevant constitutional authorities, would only be lawful in the situation where the whole Constitution were about to be vitiated e.g. by extending the life of Parliament indefinitely or gerrymandering the electorate so that the government could never be ousted – that is to say, permanently destroying democracy. Otherwise, the Monarch, acting alone, no more has such veto power than do any of his subjects.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Erskine May, Thomas, - a Whig
<br />Bagehot, Walter, - a Liberal
<br /><br />
The remainder would be moderns who presume that the Whig and the Liberal got it right.
<br /><br />
<dt>dim 23:40
<dt>from James Bogle
<dt>to Hans Georg Lundahl
<dd>Given that you are not a lawyer, let alone a British lawyer, let alone a British constitutional lawyer (as I am), you again simply succeed in making a fool of yourself. I am not interested in debating with someone who can only argue by repeating his nonsense again and again in the vain hope that it will somehow improve with repetition.
<br /><br />
So this is the last time I shall be responding to your pointless repetition. It seems clear that you have some kind of autism because you seem incapable of even hearing arguments that you do not like or do not agree with and so you just ignore them, repeating your errors again and again.
<br /><br />
I have told you before, and do so now for the last time, that the British Constitution is governed chiefly by convention rather than statutes. But for you to claim that it is not “explicitly stated in English laws, as many as I have been given access to” is simply ridiculous. You think that an understanding of the British Constitution is limited to what you “have access to”? That is sheer nonsense.
<br /><br />
And, no, you are not “an amateur moderately knowledgeable” on the subject nor anything close to it. You have revealed this by your basic and elementary errors. The fact that you only found out about Royal Assent through my essay also proves this. Een British school children know about Royal Assent.
<br /><br />
If you think that the British Constitution is “based on both written laws and precedent” then you further advertise your ignorance.
<br /><br />
The Constitution is not primarily based upon law or legal precedent but upon convention which develops over time and is very different from what it is was in1708 as even a 4th form constitutional law student could tell you.
<br /><br />
For the very last time, what happened in Canada in1937 has nothing whatever to do with the exercise of Royal Assent in Britain. Canada is a separate country and has a written constitution. The British monarch has no power over it and it is the Lieutenant Governors and Governor-General who exercise such reserve powers under the Canadian Constitution, not the British monarch.
<br /><br />
Have you finally got that?
<br /><br />
You keep ignoring this like some sort of autistic child.
<br /><br />
To compare constitutional convention with trust law (and I am also a Chancery lawyer dealing with trusts) is, once again, to advertise your extensive ignorance of the British Constitution. There is no comparison. You are simply talking complete nonsense.
<br /><br />
You said “I have seen no British legislation amounting to that second part of 13.3” which is quite clearly your inferring that you have read the entire corpus of British statute law since otherwise you could not possibly know that there was nothing like Art 13.3 in it. You could not possibly have read the whole corpus, so your response was ridiculous. Sheer nonsense.
<br /><br />
Neither did you claim to be limiting yourself to two statutes that relate to royal assent, 1541 and 1967. You are now making things up to cover the sheer nonsense of your earlier claim.
<br /><br />
For the very last time, the British Constitution is governed by convention, not statute law. Asking for “another statute that absolutely nullifies what I observed” shows conclusively that you have simply not yet understood this but are, instead, simply ignoring what is being said to you, like some autistic child. Convention is not statute law and you will not find all the conventions comprehensively contained in any statute law.
<br /><br />
Have you finally got this?
<br /><br />
You keep ignoring this like some sort of autistic child.
<br /><br />
The fact that you still have not got it proves conclusively that you have completely failed to understand the British Constitution.
<br /><br />
It matters not whether the framers of the Irish Constitution were anti-monarchic since the issue at stake here is the same for a republic as it is for a monarchy. It is a matter of historical fact (and anyway obvious from the Article) that the framers got the idea of presidential assent from the Anglo-Irish Constitution that preceded the Free State and later republican constitutions. You again advertise your ignorance in not knowing this.
<br /><br />
You next seem to be claiming that there is a difference between the Irish President resigning and the British monarch abdicating. This has but to be stated for its obvious absurdity as an argument to be fully demonstrated.
<br /><br />
You also totally fail to address the argument.
<br /><br />
For the last time, there is no issue of conscience either for the Irish President or the British monarch in certifying that a Bill has passed both Houses. It is not immoral to do so. The action is morally neutral. Neither of them has a power of discretion to exercise a veto and so there is no moral issue at stake.
<br /><br />
Have you finally got this?
<br /><br />
You keep ignoring this like some sort of autistic child.
<br /><br />
The fact that you still have not got it proves conclusively that you have completely failed to understand the British Constitution.
<br /><br />
What was done by King Baudouin was done in Belgium not the UK, even if you were unaware of it. Your assumption that the Belgian and UK constitutions are identical is yet more evidence of your total ignorance of the British Constitution. They are far from identical. There is no provision in the British Constitution for the Monarch to abdicate for a day, nor is there any need for him to do so.
<br /><br />
For the last time, the British King has no discretion to exercise a veto over legislation. Having no such power means that the issue is not a moral one. No-one can be held morally responsible for exercising, or failing to exercise, a power he does not have. One does not need to be a professor or Moral Philosophy to understand that.
<br /><br />
Have you finally got this?
<br /><br />
You keep ignoring this like some sort of autistic child.
<br /><br />
The fact that you still have not got it proves conclusively that you have not only completely failed to understand the British Constitution but you seem incapable of understanding basic morality, either.
<br /><br />
And, no, I do not “pretend” to have monarchist loyalties – I openly avow them and always have done.
<br /><br />
Furthermore, I do not regard Falangism as the last word in either morality or constitutionalism, even if you do. But you have once again completely failed to understand not only the British Constitution but basic and fundamental morality.
<br /><br />
Ends do not justify means – basic morality.
<br /><br />
One may not do evil that good may come of it – basic morality.
<br /><br />
To breach the Constitution is a grave evil. Since the British Monarch does not have any power to veto legislation, if he were to attempt to do so then he would be breaching the Constitution, staging a coup d’état and would be attempting to rupture and destroy that same Constitution.
<br /><br />
That would be a very grave evil since the King, of all people, must obey the Constitution. Even if he thought good would come of it (which it would not since it would not prevent the Bill becoming law and would only rupture the Constitution pointlessly), he may not do evil that good may come of it.
<br /><br />
If this doesn’t “sound Catholic” to you then you clearly do not understand Catholicism.
<br /><br />
As to ἐπιείκεια or epikeia (equity, fairness or reasonableness, from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics) I have a much better grasp than you do since I do not confuse the principles of equity with those of constitutional convention as you do.
<br /><br />
Equity cannot be used by a court (or anyone else) to amend a morally neutral constitutional convention – at least not in England. Even in countries with a written constitution, the latter can only be amended by the rules contained within it.
<br /><br />
So, in Ireland a presidential, candidate can promise what he likes at the election, he will not be able to change the Constitution save by a referendum held in accordance with the Constitution itself.
<br /><br />
Epikeia will not allow him to change the Constitution on his own authority. Thus, once he becomes President he will be obliged to certify the Bill regardless – unless and until a referendum changes the Constitution (and it is highly unlikely that Art 13.3 would be changed anyway since it works perfectly well).
<br /><br />
But thank you for admitting that you were either too dull or too lazy to bother to read the footnotes to my article. Perhaps you will try harder next time?
<br /><br />
When a convention is binding is not a matter for moral theologians but for constitutional lawyers and depends upon each country’s own constitution. This seems to be a point you find beyond your ability to grasp.
<br /><br />
Finally, you have found no authoritative source at all to contradict what I have told you.
<br /><br />
The Parliament web site itself has no expertise to be the last word on constitutional convention and does not claim it. Indeed, it expressly denies it.
<br /><br />
But in any case it does not claim what you think it does. First, it expressly states that Royal Assent is a “formality” and secondly when it says “the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament” it means agreement to certify that the Bill has passed both Houses of Parliament, not moral agreement to the content of the Bill as to which the Monarch has no power at all.
<br /><br />
When it says that “the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent” this, today, means that he has the right not to certify a Bill as having passed both Houses if, as a matter of fact, it has not passed both Houses, not that the Monarch has a moral right to refuse agreement to the content of the Bill.
<br /><br />
Your example from Australia in 2001 is a case in point. The Governor-General withdrew “assent” because it transpired that the Bill had not passed both Houses and thus he could not, and should not, have certified it as having done so. That is what is there meant by refusing “assent”.
<br /><br />
The source of constitutional authority is not the Parliament web site but, as is testified to by those authorities I cited in footnote 7, the British Crown, the British government, the British Parliament, the British courts and the British people and the content thereof is set out in the scholarly authorities that I cite.
<br /><br />
You have now looked at one of them and found – as if it were a novelty – that there is one exception.
<br /><br />
Indeed, there is – the very exception that I told you about. Clearly you were, once again, not listening when I told you but had your head buried in the sand.
<br /><br />
Refusal of assent on the advice of ministers (which in our Constitution means “on the orders of” since the Crown is always obliged to follow such “advice”) again means the Monarch has no discretion and is thus merely certifying - a morally neutral act.
<br /><br />
As to the Monarch acting on his own discretion, the author states the exception just as I did: “What we are considering here is …the Crown refusing assent against the advice of ministers or acting alone. That, it is agreed by the relevant constitutional authorities, would only be lawful in the situation where the whole Constitution were about to be vitiated e.g. by extending the life of Parliament indefinitely or gerrymandering the electorate so that the government could never be ousted – that is to say, permanently destroying democracy. Otherwise, the Monarch, acting alone, no more has such veto power than do any of his subjects.”
<br /><br />
Exactly what I said – a veto over “permanently destroying democracy” otherwise the Monarch has no more veto power than do any of his subjects.
<br /><br />
Precisely!
<br /><br />
Let me remind you what I said: “the only exception - and most authorities agree on this - is that he may veto a bill that attempts to abolish democracy. That is a vitally important power. If there had been a German King in 1933 with that power alone, he could have vetoed Hitler's seizure of power and abolition of democracy and forced him to an election. World history might then have been very different.”
<br /><br />
Did you forget that already?
<br /><br />
You must have a memory like a sieve if you had forgotten that I said this.
<br /><br />
Now that is all I am prepared to say on this subject. I am not interested in debating with someone who arrogantly refuses to listen or debate properly but instead behaves like a petulant, autistic child.
<br /><br />
So – please do not bother to respond any further. The debate is OVER.</dl>
<br /><br />
So, the review has BEGUN - a first question - do you find Bogle unfittingly obsessed with being dismissive rather than actually arguing in detail why an analysis of mine is wrong? I think he repeated a slur about a mental diagnosis and an age group six times in total.
<br /><br />
A second one, does he remind more than just me of The Emperor's New Clothes in H. C. Andersen? (Quibblers may say this is the first point) ...
<br /><br />
Third, he misreads the parliament's site as saying "royal assent is a formality" while it <i>actually</i> says "and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality."
<br /><br />
Fourth, will any fourth form student in constitutional right read this?/HGL
<br /><br />
PS, let's not forget whom we are talking about:
<br />Legitimist, Cavalier, Jacobite, Carlist, Miguelist, Bourbonist, πρό παντός Ρωμηός... (from James Bogle's FB profile)
<br /><br />
A Jacobite stating Royal Assent <i>is</i> a formality because conventions formed by Liberals and Whigs like Erskine and Bagehot have made it so?
<br /><br />
A Carlist forgetting who joined the Falangists in 1936?/HGL
<br /><br />
PPS - a <i>Catholic</i> forgetting what Pope approved the Falangists and Carlists and the Junta?/HGL
<br /><br />
Illustration of previous from wiki:
<br /><br />
<blockquote><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI_and_Spain#The_speech_at_Castelgandolfo,_14_September_1936">The speech at Castelgandolfo, 14 September 1936</a>
<br />In the first bloody months of the Civil War some ecclesiastics managed to escape to Marseilles, Genoa, or Rome and these brought news reports with them, with which they sought to apply pressure to the organs of the Vatican Curia with whom they maintained regular relations. (Hilari Raguer, a Benedictine writer on religious history, points out that they necessarily delivered a biased report – bishops and aristocrats carry more weight than peasants and workers – and poor workers had no means of escape to take them from the Francoist zone to Rome). Father Ledóchowski, the superior general of the Jesuits, ordered the Jesuit press all over the world to support the rebels. It became known that Pius XI would grant an audience, at his summer residence at Castelgandolfo, to a large group of Spanish refugees and deliver an address to them. Expectation rose amongst the Spanish clergy in Rome. Though it should have fallen to Cardinal Francisco Vidal y Barraquer to lead the group of Spanish clergy, there was great animosity to him from the majority of Spanish ecclesiastics and the Pope instructed him to say he judged it wiser not to attend. Some 500 Spaniards, mostly priests and religious, as well as some secular supporters of the Uprising, did attend. The content of the speech disappointed the more fanatical among the supporters of the military rising. He read it in Italian and a Spanish translation was distributed as a leaflet. Entitled La vostra presenza (Your Presence Here), it began with lamentation for the fate of the victims and condemned communism. This part of the speech was used from this point on in Francoist propaganda. He quoted from the Book of Revelation, telling the refugees they came out of great tribulation (Rev 7:14). Yet whilst some hoped and expected that the Insurgent cause would be declared a Holy War or Crusade – it had already been so designated by various bishops and generals – Pius XI expressed horror at fratricidal war and exhorted the insurgents to love their enemies. He thanked those who had tried to alleviate the miseries of war, though their effect had been minimal. This too may have displeased the fervent supporters of Franco who were present, for the insurgents had always obstructed intervention of this kind by governments or neutral organisations such as the International Red Cross[11]</blockquote>
<br /><br />
PPPS - on epikeia:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3120.htm"><i>Summa Theologiae, II-II, Question 120. "Epikeia" or equity</i>
<br />https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3120.htm</a>
<br /><br />
PPPPS - on Carlism and 1936:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Dos conmemoraciones de hoy son bien conocidas. Una, la del comienzo de la Cruzada de Liberación 1936-1939, a la que el Requeté y toda la Comunión Tradicionalista fueron por orden dada por el padre de S.A.R. Don Sixto Enrique de Borbón, el entonces Jefe de la Junta Suprema Carlista de Guerra, Don Francisco Javier de Borbón Parma, en nombre de su tío el Rey Don Alfonso Carlos. La otra, la muerte en el exilio en Varese, en 1909, de S.M.C. el Rey Don Carlos VII, hermano mayor de Don Alfonso Carlos y tío abuelo también de Don Sixto Enrique.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/sixtoenriquedeborbon/posts/10152534759941772/">S.A.R. Don Sixto Enrique de Borbón
<br /><i>18 juillet 2014</i>
<br />https://www.facebook.com/sixtoenriquedeborbon/posts/10152534759941772/</a>
<br /><br />
(Don Sixto Enrique de Borbón is of the Carlist succession)./HGL
<br /><br />
PPPPPS - I simply notified Bogle, see what happened:
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAo7gxDGuWaDmrXPZP6GUS_b9Q13Kn85rfssDaEjAhysjEAgiFdQvyWVRmy66fnN1sP_pOfb5z18BY4ShuLBDJjpUUrSrLg8GT0cnuVLTtSZtmuGJlGF02EpsDb8yjIq6TF6VPEqqVWg22WQy0wvr_0gL14nDADn0Pd-hv-f6VkPQ_EQ3Gscn8qkaS/s454/Sans%20titre.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="454" data-original-width="333" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAo7gxDGuWaDmrXPZP6GUS_b9Q13Kn85rfssDaEjAhysjEAgiFdQvyWVRmy66fnN1sP_pOfb5z18BY4ShuLBDJjpUUrSrLg8GT0cnuVLTtSZtmuGJlGF02EpsDb8yjIq6TF6VPEqqVWg22WQy0wvr_0gL14nDADn0Pd-hv-f6VkPQ_EQ3Gscn8qkaS/s320/Sans%20titre.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
If one is an academic with no cyber presence, one can certainly have one's presence everywhere on actual social media a purely private one.
<br /><br />
But as James Bogle actually wants more readers than he can get on papers and internally circulated pdf's or compact discs, he actually wants people to read what he writes on for instance the referred to blog post on the Rorate Caeli blog, it stands to reason, he is apt to get responses from people less exclusively like his own circles, and to get them by way of internet. If he wants his FB left alone, it is perfectly possible to have a public email for contact on what he publishes, so that when he opens that inbox he can brace himself, and when he goes to Facebook, he needn't worry.
<br /><br />
My own public email is hgl@dr.com - if he has a lawyer representing his interests of privacy or copyright issues, he can ask the lawyer to contact me there./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-12360076155187566782022-12-26T17:07:00.003-08:002022-12-27T15:26:33.536-08:00An exchange with Lauren Bass, on Pope Michael<br />
<b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/12/on-late-pope.html">On the Late Pope</a> · <b>Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl:</b> <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2022/12/an-exchange-with-lauren-bass-on-pope.html">An exchange with Lauren Bass, on Pope Michael</a>
<br /><br />
First, her documentary:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5zs1Ir-5E0">Vatican in Exile (Pope Michael Short Documentary)
<br /><i>Lauren Bass | 17 Dec. 2019</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5zs1Ir-5E0</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>me to Lauren Bass
<dd>12/26/2022 at 8:14 PM
<dt>Good and Merry Christmas Octave!
<dd>Can I ask you a few things about the Pope Michael documentary?
<br /><br />
And, can I share the correspondence on my blog? <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/">Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl</a> - which is where I share for instance questions and answers like this.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Lauren Bass to me
<dd>12/26/2022 at 9:14 PM
<dt>RE: Good and Merry Christmas Octave!
<dd>Hello Hans,
<br /><br /><br />
Thank you for reaching out. I met David Bawden/Pope Michael in 2019 while filming a short documentary about him for a university class along with four other classmates. While I was not personally acquainted with him, I will try to answer any questions you may have to the best of my knowledge.
<br /><br /><br />
Best regards,
<br /><br />
Lauren Bass
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>me to Lauren Bass
<dd>12/26/2022 at 9:19 PM
<dt>Re: RE: Good and Merry Christmas Octave!
<dd>One thing - was there any indication to you or anyone you know, that His Holiness was under some kind of psychiatric treatment or juridic constraints due to mental incapacity?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg
<br /><br />
<dt>IV
<br /><br />
<dt>Lauren Bass to me
<dd>12/27/2022 at 12:03 AM
<dt>RE: RE: Good and Merry Christmas Octave!
<dd>At the time of filming in 2019, I was unaware of any psychiatric treatment that he was taking, and he did not appear to have any other juridical constraints. He seemed of sound mind during interactions with the film crew. No one else he was familiar with was present when filming and he seemed to have full agency and mental capacity at the time, though I am unaware how that may have changed before his death this year.
<br /><br /><br />
Lauren
<br /><br />
<dt>V
<br /><br />
<dt>Lauren Bass to me
<dd>12/27/2022 at 1:47 AM
<dt>Re: RE: RE: Good and Merry Christmas Octave!
<dd>Apart from his having a stroke about a month before he died on August 2:nd, his status didn't change.
<br /><br />
I find it unsettling that so many of those who take someone other than him for the Pope (notably Bergoglio) have spoken out and suggested he was mad.
<br /><br />
I did not find him that either.
<br /><br />
Thank you very much.
<br /><br />
And best wishes!
<br />Hans Georg Lundahl</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-25571131227079795632022-12-08T12:45:00.007-08:002022-12-08T12:45:35.150-08:00Writing to an ex-JW<br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Jack Grey
<dd>12/6/2022 at 10:48 AM
<dt>Fw: Good Day, I never was a JW ...
<dd>I could not get in touch with Vevian Vozmediano, but you will do too:
<br /><br />
<dt>Fw what I had sent her:
<dd>... but I value some who still are - or in one particular instance, who was on the edge.
<br /><br />
"When the truth that used to be truth has become truth again" - he was no fan of the new light theory.
<br /><br />
This said, I never wanted to be part of JW's, as I have no wish to deny the Divinity of Christ or the Blessed Trinity.
<br /><br />
Now, may I ask you, and put your answer, perhaps our discussion, on a blog of mine ... <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/">Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl</a> ... what do you think I should do IF:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> a) I am not a member of a high control cult (at least not one that worked out that way with me)
<li> b) lots of people THINK I am
<li> c) THEIR worries and efforts to get me out of it actually work like a high control cult pushing me into a kind of social prison?</ul>
<br /><br />
Also, as you are an ex-JW, you may confirm, towards any Catholic favouring Day-Age over strict YEC, that far from my YEC being due to influence from the JW, it is actually their position that is if not from the JW, at least JW-compatible, and highly so?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Jack Grey to me
<dd>12/6/2022 at 1:33 PM
<dt>Re: Good Day, I never was a JW ...
<dd>Not sure why this was sent to me. Is there a question?
<br /><br />
Jack Grey
<br />Empoweredmindstm@gmail.com
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Jack Grey
<dd>12/6/2022 at 4:33 PM
<dt>Re: Re: Good Day, I never was a JW ...
<dd>Yes, to either or both of you.
<br /><br />
A) Supposing I am NOT where you were when you were convinced JW's, and therefore, if I got you right, controlled, what should I do if a network thinks I am and goes on ambushing my life without convincing me, and don't say "go to the police" if the police would be involved themselves;
<br />B) As I am a YEC and some "fellow Catholics" tend to present this as my being unduly influenced by JW's, can you confirm JW's are actually (like those people!) Old Earth, namely Day Age;
<br />C) and hope you don't mind putting answers or discussion on my blog.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>IV
<br /><br />
<dt>Jack Grey to me
<dd>12/6/2022 at 6:45 PM
<dt>Re: Good Day, I never was a JW ...
<dd>I think you are using google translate. Not sure if english is your first language but the questions are very difficult to understand.
<br /><br />
A) If JWs come to your home and you want them to stop simply say: thank you for coming please put me on your: DO NOT CALL list. If they are your friends simply ask them not to discuss religion with you. - very quickly you will find out if they are your friends or they are there to convert you.
<br /><br />
B) From my perspective JWs are using most of the techniques of undue influence. Eg: Shunning of ex members, fear mongering, believing they are special and the only ones that will be saved, stay with us or you will die, you are with us or you are against us, Governing Body is the only channel of communication with God etc.
<br /><br />
C) You can copy and paste my answers wherever you wish
<br /><br />
Hope that helps
<br /><br />
<dt>V
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Jack Grey
<dd>12/6/2022 at 8:33 PM
<dt>Re: Good Day, I never was a JW ...
<dd>While my English is indeed not regionally anchored and not my first language, I am NOT using google translate.
<br /><br />
And your guessing I were doing that is probably the reason why your answers are at least to point A (fortunately not to point C) adressing something other than what I actually asked.
<br /><br />
A, my words:
<br /><i>"if a network thinks I am and goes on ambushing my life without convincing me, and don't say "go to the police" if the police would be involved themselves"</i>
<br /><br />
It should be clear from this, the network are not JW's. For instance, they are not usually admitted into the police.
<br /><br />
A, your answer:
<br /><i>"If JWs come to your home and you want them to stop simply say: thank you for coming please put me on your: DO NOT CALL list. If they are your friends simply ask them not to discuss religion with you. - very quickly you will find out if they are your friends or they are there to convert you."</i>
<br /><br />
But my question was not actually about what to do about JW's. While they may legitimately be trouble to some, most notably ex-members, they are not to me.
<br /><br />
B) The guys who are that to me are guys who tried no undue influence of my own perspectives, but are influencing others unduly about me. I am referring to people in Trad Catholic parishes who are telling their young or generous parishioners about me <i>"he's influenced by JW's, otherwise he would be day age like we and not Young Earth Creationist like they are."</i> So, I was asking you to confirm that in fact JW's - like them, not me - favour the Day Age reading of Genesis 1.
<br /><br />
C) Thank you very much.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-50891109391527321942022-11-11T07:42:00.069-08:002022-11-11T07:42:00.180-08:00Contacts pris avec Rivarol et Galia Ackerman<br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Moi à Rivarol
<dd>11/4/2022 at 10:55 AM
<dt>Est-ce que Vincent Reynouard m'en veut de ne pas avoir choisi un champ de bataille illégal, parce que l'endroit est hormis la feu Soviétique?
<dd><a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/11/351-432-avant-hier-matin.html"><i>New blog on the kid : 3:51 à 4:32 avant-hier matin</i>
<br />https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/11/351-432-avant-hier-matin.html</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Moi à Galia Ackerman
<dt><a href="https://desk-russie.eu/">Via le site Desk Russie</a>
<dd>11/4/2022 at 12:53 PM
<dt>Bonjour, à propos l'FSB
<dd>Selon Galia Ackerman - je viens de lire l'express hier - l'équipe de l'auparavant nommé KGB a réussi de reprendre le pouvoir en Russie.
<br /><br />
Pour moi, j'ai connu très brièvement la droite française en 1991, à l'époque, elle était solidamment anti-soviétique, mais est-elle encore anti-FSB?
<br /><br />
J'ai sympathisé avec Marion Maréchal comme parlementaire - mais ensuite, ISSEP, ça me déroute. Considérez-vous que la droite française pourrait être une <i>nouvelle</i> conquête de l'FSB?
<br /><br />
Quand Stéphane Courtois a sorti Le livre noir du Communisme, il a eu un interview en Présent - l'a-t-il eu aussi quand le cible principale est plus récent?
<br /><br />
Si je pouvais partager une éventuelle réponse ou encore mieux discussion sur le blog ...
<br /><br />
<a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com"><i>Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl</i>
<br />https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/</a>
<br /><br />
.... "that would be great" comme on dit en anglais.
<br /><br />
Tout réactionnaire que je suis, et je me qualifie de fasciste (notons, le mot sonne autrement en Espagne, Autriche et Italie qu'en Europe de l'Est ou dans les pays de l'Europe Centrale ayant appartenu au pacte de Warsowie), je n'aime pas stalinisme doublé de la ploutocratie, ce que je vois sous Poutine (avec, bien entendu, beaucoup moins de perspective que vous).
<br /><br />
<b>Exemple,</b> trouvez-vous réaliste de soupçonner que, pour Rivarol, pour St. Nicolas du Chardonnet ou les gens qui donnent le la, là-bas et encore quelques a) je viens d'un pays de l'Est (genre Autriche et Suède, c'est à peu près la Pologne sous Gomułka + les mises à jour après 1990), b) donc les gens des pays de l'Est (Pologne, Hongrie, Czequie, Russie, Ukraine, cette fois) sont des experts sur l'éducation que j'ai dû recevoir, c) ce qui les conduit à les permettre d'interpréter ce que je veux réellement dire avec une chose, genre avec un blog dont l'URL contient "nov9blogg9" ce qui devrait être du polonais ou quelque chose (en fait, le latin - novus bloggus est latin, et je boycotte "ephemeridium electronicum" pour blog! - a été langue officielle de la Pologne - mais quand le polonais l'était en Lithuanie, Grand-Duché, pas état-national), donc a eux de me décrypter, et d) dès par là des gens directement appartenant ou indirectement apparentés à l'FSB peut leur dire et convaincre que i) je fais le coq, donc suis pédé, ij) j'ai tout raté (ils l'auraient répéré dans des conversations en polonais* avec moi), iij) je suis manipulé, iu) je protège mon manipulateur en cachant son identité, u) et en fond, je manque très la sécurité, sur tous les plans, y compris intellectuel, comme on peut s'en attendre d'un ado ou d'un ado attardé, uj) description parfaite malgré mes 54 ans, <i>vu que</i> je ne me défais pas de Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, une compréhension fondamentaliste de la Bible, une confidence illimitée dans l'Église catholique** et une confidence illimité dans le sens litéral historique de la Bible ... uij) et que certaines choses sont résumés comme "il croit des théories de complot totalement délirantes" ce que pourrait viser Florian de Rouanet?
<br /><br />
Ou <b>en général</b> que l'FSB, avec un certain pro-Poutinisme, soit devenu en état de manipuler de ce genre de manières la droite nationale française?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris, St. Charles Borromée, 4.XI.2022
<br /><br />
* Studiwalem jezyk polski tylko jeden termyn, pol czas, niestetny! Et c'était en 2003 plus un examen au début de 2004. Donc évidemment que j'aurais des meilleurs réussites de parler en polonais qu'en français, non?
<br />** Les Protestants et Orthodoxes que ça agace, avec des Juifs, n'ont pas à dire à leur interlocuteurs que ce qui les agace comprend de justifier le rôle de St. Pie V dans la St. Bartholomée 1572 ou son expulsion des Juifs hormis ceux de Rome et Ancone à une distance d'une centaine de km max sur 90 jours de délai - pourquoi ça intéresserait
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>Moi à Galia Ackerman
<dd>11/4/2022 at 4:42 PM
<dt>Un ajout sur mon example ... numéros uiij et ix
<dd><b>Exemple,</b> trouvez-vous réaliste de soupçonner que, pour Rivarol, pour St. Nicolas du Chardonnet ou les gens qui donnent le la, là-bas et encore quelques a) je viens d'un pays de l'Est (genre Autriche et Suède, c'est à peu près la Pologne sous Gomułka + les mises à jour après 1990), b) donc les gens des pays de l'Est (Pologne, Hongrie, Czequie, Russie, Ukraine, cette fois) sont des experts sur l'éducation que j'ai dû recevoir, c) ce qui les conduit à les permettre d'interpréter ce que je veux réellement dire avec une chose, genre avec un blog dont l'URL contient "nov9blogg9" ce qui devrait être du polonais ou quelque chose (en fait, le latin - novus bloggus est latin, et je boycotte "ephemeridium electronicum" pour blog! - a été langue officielle de la Pologne - mais quand le polonais l'était en Lithuanie, Grand-Duché, pas état-national), donc a eux de me décrypter, et d) dès par là des gens directement appartenant ou indirectement apparentés à l'FSB peut leur dire et convaincre que i) je fais le coq, donc suis pédé, ij) j'ai tout raté (ils l'auraient répéré dans des conversations en polonais* avec moi), iij) je suis manipulé, iu) je protège mon manipulateur en cachant son identité, u) et en fond, je manque très la sécurité, sur tous les plans, y compris intellectuel, comme on peut s'en attendre d'un ado ou d'un ado attardé, uj) description parfaite malgré mes 54 ans, vu que je ne me défais pas de Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, une compréhension fondamentaliste de la Bible, une confidence illimitée dans l'Église catholique** et une confidence illimité dans le sens litéral historique de la Bible ... uij) et que certaines choses sont résumés comme "il croit des théories de complot totalement délirantes" ce que pourrait viser Florian de Rouanet?
<br /><br />
uiij) et que géocentrisme est résumé comme "terre plate" (ce qui est contraire à la connaissance géographique obtenu par des témoins, donc exigerait - contrairement au géocentrisme - un complot de cacher observations pour être vrai
<br />ix) et que mes preuves de Dieu ne seraient pas preuves sauf pour ceux qui croient déjà en Dieu (Communisme de KGB classique, véhiculé par Kirill) ...
<br /><br />
Raison de l'ajout, quelques heures après de vous avoir contactés, cette vidéo m'est suggérée:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVHsJ3S1Joc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVHsJ3S1Joc</a> (ix)
<br /><br />
qui me conduit à celle-ci:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBqxhdrjDfs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBqxhdrjDfs</a> (uiij)
<br /><br />
Que ce soit fait humainement directement envers moi, ou que des hystériques contactés (par exemple par vous) se seraient mis à prier pour que je "découvre mon erreur ridicule" ... sans de jamais vérifier eux-même si j'avais fait l'erreur exacte attribué à moi, ou si ce que j'avais répondu était vraiment ridicule ...
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-17046636884631965282022-09-29T06:06:00.001-07:002022-09-29T06:06:14.801-07:00Aeslin Bard of Sacratus Apologetics Does No More Believe the Book of Mormon<br />
<b>So, I am asking him, if he was giving it a similar status as historic knowledge of George Washington. As I read his answer, it is no. But read the correspondence for yourselves.</b>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Aeslin Bard
<dd>9/26/2022 at 12:57 PM
<dt>Consistency of Criteria
<dd>As you are a former believer of the Book of Mormon, I'd like to ask you if you ever considered it secure knowledge the same way as (not as much as, but known the same way as) :
<ul><li> George Washington being the first President of the United States
<li> or Joseph Smith being first in the "Restoration"?</ul>
<br /><br />
If you don't mind, I would be very happy to post the correspondence to this blog of mine:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/"><i>Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl</i>
<br />https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Aeslin Bard to Me
<dd>9/27/2022 at 7:55 PM
<dt>RE: Consistency of Criteria
<dd>I never considered belief in the Book of Mormon of the same type of secure knowledge as knowing that George Washington was the first president of the United States. At the time I did see it as a type of secure knowledge. Though, even at the time I didn't see it as the same type of secure knowledge. On the other hand, in Mormon theology one can achieve a level of knowledge above faith that is secure and sure knowledge in things of the spirit that is more secure than the kind of knowing that George Washington lived. However, I personally find that this doctrine undermines the importance of faith and hope in our lives, and misunderstandd it. The foundation of faith and hope is trust in and love of God. I know, a type of secure knowledge (and I use that word 'know' purposefully), that even in my difficult moments I can depend on God. This is still backed by my own experience and the experiences from Sacred Scripture and church history at how God has always upheld and supported those who trust in him. In short, the Mormon Church does frequently say that they don't have the Gold Plates because belief in the Book of Mormon should be based on faith. But, faith is what God gives to us. Faith is from God and not physical evidence. St. Thomas the apostle is evidence for that point. Archaeological proof isn't the cause of faith. The physical Gold Plates wouldn't cause belief anymore than the mountains of biblical archaeology is the cause of faith for those scholars who still are atheist and agnostic and are biblical scholars. Though, the lack of the plates and the numerous unanswered questions in regard to Mormon history does call into question the claims of Mormonism.
<br /><br />
In Christ,
<br /><br />
Aeslin Bard
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Aeslin Bard
<dd>9/27/2022 at 8:04 PM
<dt>Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria
<dd>Thank you very much!
<br /><br />
The position I have is, to Moses, Joseph in Egypt, to Joseph Abraham and to Abraham the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 leading back to Adam and to Genesis 3 were the very same type of secure knowledge that we have of George Washington - spirit or not.
<br /><br />
And the position of a certain Mr. Henke is, this could have come about by means such as Joseph Smith's forgery of the Book of Mormon.
<br /><br />
I disagree on the ground you state, namely that the Book of Mormon does not have the simple status of "history" but of "history first lost and then spectacularily recovered" ...
<br /><br />
What would you say to this?
<br /><br />
<a href="http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/09/what-henke-responded-up-to-henke2022aa.html">What Henke Responded - up to "Henke2022aa" (with ab and ai looked up in advance, since referred to in previous)</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/09/ah-some-new.html">Ah, Some New</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/09/back-to-philosophy.html">Back to Philosophy</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/09/beginning-on-henke2022az-nope.html">Beginning on Henke2022az? Nope.</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/09/why-catalogue-supernatural-why.html">Why Catalogue the Supernatural? Why Catalogue Fiction?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/09/henke2022bi-starts-it-today-but-i-only.html">Henke(2022bi) Starts It Today! But I only get to Henke(2022bk) For Now.</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/09/new-batch-of-henke-essays.html">New Batch of Henke Essays</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/09/resuming-at-henke2022bl-after.html">Resuming at Henke(2022bL) after Interruption, up to 2022br.</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/09/why-did-i-bring-up-greek-myth.html">Why Did I Bring Up Greek Myth?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/09/historicity-of-certain-religious.html">Historicity of Certain Religious Stories, Notably Genesis</a>
<br /><br />
Which ones contain the Book of Mormon back and forth?
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/search?q=Mormon">https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/search?q=Mormon</a>
<br /><br />
Read at leasure or answer without much reading, as you wish.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>IV
<br /><br />
<dt>Aeslin Bard to Me
<dd>9/28/2022 at 12:23 AM
<dt>Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria
<dd>I think that comparing faith, especially religious faith, to the kind of knowledge that we know George Washington lived or that I'm typing on a computer, misses the central understanding of faith. True, faith does increase our intellect. However, the importance of faith is that it moves our will so we can say yes, essentially, to truths revealed supernaturally by God and thereby put those truths into practice (to paraphrase the Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1814-1816). In other words, hope focuses our vision, faith lightens our path, and love for the things of God moves us.
<br /><br />
<dt>V
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Aeslin Bard
<dd>9/28/2022 at 11:51 AM
<dt>Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria
<dd>With that Atheist, I was not discussing faith. I was discussing the natural evidence for historic truths.
<br /><br />
Genesis 3 to Moses was both naturally known history and a truth of faith.
<br /><br />
It was naturally known history insofar as he was heir of the tradition.
<br /><br />
It was a truth of faith, insofar as he believed the words of God, to the serpent, to Eve, to Adam.
<br /><br />
These two are distinct. Just as one can accept historically that Our Lord rose from the grave before accepting He is God, in faith, so also for the historic truths of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (well, chapter 1 was arguably a vision given to Moses)./HGL
<br /><br />
<dt>VI
<br /><br />
<dt>Aeslin Bard to Me
<dd>9/28/2022 at 1:17 PM
<dt>Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria
<dd>I assume calling me atheist was a typo. We must be having a miscommunication because I don't see any natural for the book of mormon or their claims. The Mormon church has even said that natural evidence doesn't promote faith. However, if you want my position on natural vs. revealed faith I'll be more than happy to ablige.
<br /><br />
God Bless!
<br /><br />
<dt>VII
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Aeslin Bard
<dd>9/28/2022 at 4:48 PM
<dt>Re: Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria
<dd>Sorry for the annoyance, I did not call YOU an Atheist.
<br /><br />
I called Kevin R. Henke one, though technically incorrect as he insists on Agnostic rather than Atheist. So, in a sense it was even so a "typo" ... but culturally, he's very close to them.
<br /><br />
If you had looked up the links, you would have seen I was having a debate with him.
<br /><br />
"I don't see any natural for the book of mormon or their claims."
<br /><br />
Exactly. And especially : the closest they come to believing Book of Mormon "as history" is very distinct from believing (naturally) George Washington as history.
<br /><br />
That was the support I wanted FROM you and FOR the debate with Mr. Henke.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>VIII
<br /><br />
<dt>Aeslin Bard to Me
<dd>9/28/2022 at 5:02 PM
<dt>Re: Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria
<dd>No annoyance at all. I'm glad I was able to assist. Anything else, don't hesitate to ask my friend.
<br /><br />
In Christ!
<br /><br />
<dt>IX
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Aeslin Bard
<dd>9/28/2022 at 5:11 PM
<dt>Re: Re: Re: RE: Consistency of Criteria
<dd>Thank you very much.
<br /><br />
I'll put this up on my blog when I get a better computer than at this library (with full functions).
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-24048223536228124602022-09-28T04:06:00.005-07:002022-09-28T04:09:19.621-07:00Stephan Borgehammar Brushing Up My Greek a Bit<br />
<b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/09/my-ancient-greek-may-be-rusty-but-not.html">My Ancient Greek May Be Rusty, But Not Inextant</a> · <b>Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl:</b> <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2022/09/stephan-borgehammar-brushing-up-my.html">Stephan Borgehammar Brushing Up My Greek a Bit</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>I
<dt>Me to Stephan Borgehammar
<dd>9/27/2022 at 1:34 PM
<dt>peri pleistou, Critias (in English as I ask to get your answer/s to my blog)
<dd><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0Sp8P02zdBNvpsbxpIRvM37j4MVP-eccS6Ntd_q573rm14NQp1mJcDyb5ER7ajz_BW2uBkK3G9xl8Xh34P60QtORGrB_xfGI6ATp60tRcoj41QImsmcQmM02OVbIUVrhoZoZtAPRZqpP6A6aBR6dIbViv8mxh-Vybb94PLaCBKeF8lg30J1PvnK4X/s320/greek.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="92" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0Sp8P02zdBNvpsbxpIRvM37j4MVP-eccS6Ntd_q573rm14NQp1mJcDyb5ER7ajz_BW2uBkK3G9xl8Xh34P60QtORGrB_xfGI6ATp60tRcoj41QImsmcQmM02OVbIUVrhoZoZtAPRZqpP6A6aBR6dIbViv8mxh-Vybb94PLaCBKeF8lg30J1PvnK4X/s320/greek.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://deref-mail.com/mail/client/bSPOiygqTjY/dereferrer/?redirectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fassortedretorts.blogspot.com%2F2022%2F09%2Fmy-ancient-greek-may-be-rusty-but-not.html">Am I right or is Athina right?</a>
<br /><br />
Me:
<br />For the most, that which is to be made is not to live, but to live well.
<br />(Me, not noted alternative) :
<br />That which is to be made for the most is not to live, but to live well.
<br />Athina:
<br />One should not live to gain more things but to live well.
<br /><br />
You may also be interested in Neanderthal démise:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/09/so-far-confirming-my-theories.html"><i>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : So Far Confirming my Theories</i>
<br />https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/09/so-far-confirming-my-theories.html</a>
<br /><br />
The latest updates from it are from today, with tbitfiddler!
<br /><br />
Ha det så godt!
<br />Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>Answered twice
<dd>II a and II b
<br /><br />
<dt>II a
<dt>Stephan Borgehammar to Me
<dd>9/27/2022 at 10:01 PM
<dt>Re: peri pleistou, Critias (in English as I ask to get your answer/s to my blog)
<dd>I checked a few places where Plato writes περί πλείστου ποιείν and it seems to mean “value most highly”. So I would translate: “To live should not be valued most highly, but to live well.”
<br /><br />
Bästa hälsningar,
<br />Stephan
<br /><br />
<dt>III a
<dt>Me to Stephan Borgehammar
<dd>9/28/2022 at 11:47 AM
<dt>Re: peri pleistou, Critias (in English as I ask to get your answer/s to my blog)
<dd>Thank you!
<br /><br />
<dt>II b
<dt>Stephan Borgehammar to Me
<dd>9/27/2022 at 10:03 PM
<dt>Re: peri pleistou, Critias (in English as I ask to get your answer/s to my blog)
<dd>PS: A similar English expression is “to make the most of”.
<br /><br />
Idem
<br /><br />
<dt>III b
<dt>Me to Stephan Borgehammar
<dd>9/28/2022 at 11:48 AM
<dt>Re: peri pleistou, Critias (in English as I ask to get your answer/s to my blog)
<dd>Ah, not bad!
<br /><br />
The kind of thing I miss with too little sleep!
<br /><br />
Thank you again!/HGL</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-62918207214387941712022-08-03T06:32:00.002-07:002022-08-03T06:45:26.103-07:00Condolances to the Vatican in Exile<br />
<b>New blog on the kid :</b> <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/08/hh-pope-michel-rip.html">HH Pope Michel - RIP</a> · <b>Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl :</b> <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2022/08/condolances-to-vatican-in-exile.html">Condolances to the Vatican in Exile</a>
<br /><br />
<b>It seems their contact form is malfunctioning, but this site is well read, so maybe someone may get it through by snail mail.</b>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Website Contact Form
<dt>8/3/2022 at 3:22 PM
<dd>From: vaticaninexile
<br /><br />
<dt>Name:
<dd>Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>Email:
<dd>hgl@dr.com
<br /><br />
<dt>How May We Help You?:
<dd>I heard His Holiness just passed away.
<br /><br />
RIP.
<br /><br />
I am definitely not a candidate for succession.
<br /><br />
<dt>A copy of this email transmission was sent to:
<dd>hgl@dr.com</dl>
<br /><br />
Their site is:
<br /><a href="https://www.vaticaninexile.com/">Vatican in Exile
<br />https://www.vaticaninexile.com/</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-79402873019007575272022-06-03T04:14:00.012-07:002022-06-03T04:45:33.296-07:00Le premier chef d'état finlandais parlait le suédois (avant le finnois)<br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Moi à l'Institut finlandais
<dd>6/2/2022 at 3:05 AM
<dt>Urhon Kekkosen ou Uron Kekkosen?
<dd>Non, ce n'était pas le vrai sujet.
<br /><br />
Je dirais que "finlandais" correspond au suédois "finsk/finländsk" mais jamais à "finne" puisque un Finnois diffère d'un Suéco-Finlandais ...
<br /><br />
Quelqu'un à Rivarol (qui prétendait en plus la Finlande disputée entre Suède et Russie depuis très longtemps avant 1809!) parlait d'un "finlandais parlant le finnois" et je dirais qu'un Finnois parle le finnois et apprend le suédois, un Suéco-Finlandais parle le suédois et apprend le finnois, sauf sur Åland, et que les deux sont Finlandais, comme un Wallon et un Flamand sont, les deux, également des Belges.
<br /><br />
Or, il pourrait avoir prié pour que je reconnaisse mon erreur, d'où la trouvaille sur Päivi Räsänen. Très évidemment une Finnoise, à mon avis.
<br /><br />
Päivi Räsänen, ex-ministre de l'intérieur finlandaise
<br />la procureure générale finlandaise
<br />députée finlandaise
<br /><br />
Je suis bien entendu d'accord avec le mot "finlandais" ici, comme je le serait avec le mot "belge" si c'était à Bruxelles dans ce genre de context, mais on est d'accord qu'en plus d'être citoyenne finlandaise, elle est une Finnoise, comme Hergé en plus d'être citoyen belge était un Wallon, non?
<br /><br />
Qu'en pensez-vous, et est-ce que Urho Kekkonen a du "stadievexling" dans le prénom ou non, et est-ce que Mannerheim parlait le finnois, ou juste le suédois et l'allemand (en plus du russe)?/HGL
<br /><br />
PS, en cas de réponse, j'ai le plan de republier sur <a href="http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/">Correspondence de / of / van Hans-Georg Lundahl</a>/LM
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://nyborjarfinska.blogspot.com/2013/03/lektion-13-stadievaxling-del-1.html">"stadievexling"</a> - nom. Ruoka (nourriture), gen. Ruoan (de la nourriture, sans k), ainsi Katto, Katon (toît ou plafond, un seul t au gen.), Kunta, Kunnan (municipalité, nt remplacé par nn).]
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>L'Institut finlandais à moi
<dd>6/2/2022 at 5:17 PM
<dt>Re: Urhon Kekkosen ou Uron Kekkosen?
<dd>Bonjour Hans-Georg,
<br /><br />
Merci pour votre message et votre intérêt pour l'Institut finlandais.
<br /><br />
Les Finlandais suédophones sont des Finlandais qui parlent le suédois comme langue maternelle et sont enregistrés comme suédophones. Les Finlandais suédophones appellent tous les Finlandais finländare (Finlandais) et les Finlandais finnophones finnar (Finnois). Avec tout cela, en Finlande, ceux qui parlent le finnois comme langue maternelle et ceux qui parlent le suédois comme langue maternelle sont tous deux des Finlandais.
<br /><br />
Pour le prénom Urho il n'y a pas de "stadieväxling" dans ce cas. Le suédois était la langue maternelle de Mannerheim et il a également appris le finnois, l'anglais, l'allemand, le français et le russe.
<br /><br />
En espérant que notre réponse puisse vous aider.
<br /><br />
Très bonne journée à vous !
<br /><br />
Bien cordialement,
<br />L'équipe de l'Institut finlandais
<br />+33 7 68 44 07 66
<br />info@institut-finlandais.fr
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.institut-finlandais.fr/">Institut finlandais</a>
<br /><a href="https://www.institut-finlandais.fr/">60, rue des Écoles, 75005 Paris</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>Moi à l'Institut finlandais
<dd>6/2/2022 at 10:42 PM
<dt>Re: Urhon Kekkosen ou Uron Kekkosen?
<dd>Merci beaucoup!
<br /><br />
Le premier chef d'état de la Finlande libre (après la brève république des Tavastes au nord d'Uusimaa, protectorat de la Suède avant Birger Jarl) était donc un Finlandais suédophone, un finlandssvensk.
<br /><br />
Et Finlandais se réfère aux deux ethnies, comme Belge aux Wallons et aux Flamands.
<br /><br />
Et, si jamais je suivrai le bon exemple de Mannerheim, d'apprendre votre noble langue, Urhon Kekkosen.
<br /><br />
Hyvvää kiitos!*/HGL
<br /><br />
<dt>*
<dd>C'est bien hyvää, avec <i>un</i> v, "my bad" comme on dit ...</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-4135323870944239982022-05-10T01:49:00.000-07:002022-05-10T01:49:00.339-07:00Lesquels sont le plus anti-avortement?<br />
<b>Il faut finir avec ce carnage. Pour les présidentielles, je n'ai pas donné des consignes, je ne suis pas un Français. Mais je suis Chrétien, pour les législatives, faites bloc contre l'avortement !</b>
<br /><br />
Ma première missive à Nicolas Dupont-Aignan manque, son contenu peut être deviné par sa réponse.
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>II
<dt>Nicolas DUPONT-AIGNAN à moi
<dd>12/6/2021 at 2:49 PM
<dt>Clause de conscience
<dd>Cher Monsieur,
<br /><br /><br />
Vous avez bien voulu me faire part de votre inquiétude, pour ne pas dire votre profonde indignation, concernant l’allongement du délai de l’Interruption Volontaire de Grossesse (IVG), tel qu’il figure dans la proposition de loi déposée par un certain nombre de mes collègues Députés éco-féministes, notamment au regard de la clause de conscience.
<br /><br />
Permettez-moi tout d’abord de vous rappeler les principes qui guident mes convictions dans ce domaine : il m’apparaît indispensable que soit mise en place une politique familiale qui permette aux parents (un papa et une maman, cela va sans dire, mais cela va mieux en le disant) de fonder un foyer au meilleur des intérêts de l’enfant.
<br /><br />
Cela passerait notamment par l’instauration du salaire parental permettant à l’un des deux parents de disposer d’un revenu décent, de cotiser pour la retraite et de prendre en charge l’éducation de leurs petits jusqu’à leur entrée en maternelle.
<br /><br />
Ce faisant, nous replacerions l’interruption volontaire de grossesse dans l’esprit originel de la loi Veil : un acte d’ultime recours quand aucune autre solution n’existe. A ce titre, je m’oppose fermement à l’allongement du délai légal de l’IVG de 12 à 14 semaines ! Il faut en effet considérer la gravité de cet acte pour ce qu’il est (ce n’est pas un banal moyen de contraception) et permettre aux mères de disposer de toute la palette des solutions pour garder leur enfant, afin que l’IVG ne soit envisagée qu’en dernier ressort.
<br /><br />
Enfin, l’article 2 de cette proposition de loi, qui retient particulièrement votre attention, préconise en effet la suppression de la double clause de conscience, ce qui m’apparaît condamnable à deux égards : d’abord parce qu’il s’agit d’un verrou permettant à un praticien d’exprimer ses convictions éthiques dans ce qui relève de sa conception intime de la vie humaine ; mais également parce qu’il y a lieu de s’interroger sur l’intérêt à légiférer pour des situations qui correspondent à moins de 5% des demandes annuelles d’IVG ! Aussi, n'aurai-je évidemment aucun mal à revenir sur cette disposition si elle devait être adoptée.
<br /><br />
Vous assurant de mon entier soutien, je vous prie de croire, Cher Monsieur, à l’expression de mes salutations distinguées.
<br /><br /><br />
Nicolas DUPONT-AIGNAN
<br />Si vous souhaitez connaître mes prises de position,
<br />je vous invite à vous rendre sur le site internet <a href="http://www.2022nda.fr">www.2022nda.fr</a>
<br />et sur ma page Facebook <a href="https://www.facebook.com/nicolasdupontaignan/">https://www.facebook.com/nicolasdupontaignan/</a>
<br />où j’interviens tous les jours en direct
<br />Vous pouvez aussi retrouver mon discours de présentation de mon
<br />programme présidentiel pour 2022 en <a href="https://2022nda.fr/discours-de-nicolas-dupont-aignan-conseil-national-de-debout-la-france-27-novembre-2021/">cliquant ICI.</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<dt>moi à Nicolas DUPONT-AIGNAN
<dd>12/6/2021 at 6:39 PM
<dt>Re: Clause de conscience
<dd>Merci beaucoup pour la réponse.
<br /><br />
Je vais bien entendu voir s'il y a quelqu'un qui voudra même abolir la "loi" Veil, mais en attendant, vous avez mon attention.
<br /><br />
Puis-je vous poser encore une question? Seriez-vous d'accord de ramener l'âge nubile vers plus jeune en vue de remettre certaines grossesses sur les bons chemins? J'y ai réfléchi ici:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2021/12/le-droit-de-ne-pas-avorter.html"><i>New blog on the kid : Le droit de ne pas avorter</i>
<br />https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2021/12/le-droit-de-ne-pas-avorter.html</a>
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>IV
<dt>moi à Présent, Critias, Rivarol, Chiré
<dd>3/20/2022 at 7:31 PM
<dt>en réponse à Bruno Mégret
<dd><a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/03/pas-daccord-bruno-megret-pas-daccord.html">http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/03/pas-daccord-bruno-megret-pas-daccord.html</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>V
<dt>Salon Beige (Guillaume de Thieulloy) à moi
<dd>5/2/2022 at 6:11 PM
<dt>Un procès qui pourrait bien se retourner contre le Grand Orient…
<dd>Chers amis,
<br /><br />
Je savais que le procès du Salon beige avec le Grand Orient sur la question de l’avortement intéresserait beaucoup et ferait beaucoup parler. Mais je ne m’attendais pas à ce que ce soit à ce point.
<br /><br />
J’ai reçu énormément de messages. Y compris des messages étonnants de francs-maçons se désolidarisant du Grand Orient et me disant qu’eux-mêmes refusaient les agressions anti-chrétiennes et la promotion du massacre des innocents.
<br /><br />
Cela achève de me convaincre que nous tenons là une merveilleuse occasion de faire progresser les idées pro-vie bien au-delà des cercles cathos que nous avons l’habitude de toucher.
<br /><br />
Il faut absolument intensifier notre communication.
<br /><br />
[Liens de don, accessibles pour ceux qui s'abonnent à leur lettre, omis ici]
<br /><br />
<dt>VI
<dt>moi à Guillaume de Thieulloy
<dd>5/3/2022 at 10:26 AM
<dt>Re: Un procès qui pourrait bien se retourner contre le Grand Orient…
<dd>Parlant d'agressions antichrétiennes ...
<br /><br />
<a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/04/aggresse-avant-hier-matin.html">Aggressé, avant-hier matin</a> · <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/05/apres-lattaque-jai-eu-des-problemes-de.html">Après l'attaque - j'ai eu des problèmes de virilité</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>VII
<dt>moi à Bruno Gollnisch, Présent
<dd>5/6/2022 at 6:21 PM
<dt>6, clarifier votre message
<dd>Bonjour, M. Gollnisch.*
<br /><br />
J'ai essayé de contacter Marine Le Pen pour savoir combien le RN est contre l'avortement. Pour ce qui est de Dupondt-Aignan, il a déjà répondu (avant le premier tour), qu'il veut abolir Gaissot**, mais pas aller plus loin.
<br /><br />
Au moment que je le contactais, je croyais, par erreur, que le délai jusqu'à 14e semaine n'avait pas été retenue, seule l'abolition de la liberté de conscience pour les médecins, et étant le fils d'une étudiante de cette faculté qui était interne en gériatrie, parce que sa spécialité préférée, la gynécologie, lui était bloquée par un dispositif suédois de ce type (d'ailleurs identique, je pense, à ce qui se passe chez Poutine), j'avais demandé comme si la seule chose à faire (contre Gaillot) était de reconstituer la liberté des médecins de refuser. Mais bien entendu s'il voulait aller plus loin aussi.
<br /><br />
Je suis assez d'accord avec Allie Beth Stuckey*** : quelle vue qu'on porte sur l'immigration, comment on en veut combattre certaines dérives, c'est une question politique, dont des Chrétiens peuvent être de diverses opinions. Je ne vois donc pas l'intérêt de conseiller les Français là-dessus, quand je suis immigré moi-même; par contre, être contre l'avortement est une obligation non négotiable pour toute politie non seulement de Chrétienté, mais compatible avec le Christianisme. Je peux donc, en simple Chrétien résidant en France, avoir mon mot à dire.
<br /><br />
En 2012, j'aurais fait entrisme pour vous élire, plutôt que Marine, ce qu'on m'avait demandé à St. Nicolas du Chardonnet : parce que, pour vous, la lutte contre l'avortement était plus importante que la lutte contre clandestins, ou si j'avais bien compris. Ceci ne veut pas dire qu'en votant la présidentielle, j'aurais forcément préféré vous élire plutôt que le feu Axel de Boer.° Si j'avais été un Français.
<br /><br />
Donc, j'essaie d'avoir des réponses, à républier sur mon blog de correspondance, quel est le parti qui lutte le plus contre l'avortement. J'aimerais publier les correspondances dessus avant les législatives.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
* Si éventuellement sa boîte mail refuse d'accepter un mail de la mienne, je prie la rédaction à transmettre.
<br />** J'ai reçu un coup sur la tête, si je suis contre une "loi plus sotte que gaie" c'est la "loi" Gaillot que je vise ici.
<br />*** Sa vidéo et le post qui contient mes commentaires:
<br /><a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/05/seeing-tim-keller-through-allie-beth.html">Seeing Tim Keller through Allie Beth Stuckey : Reflections on the Evil of Abortion, and Related Issues</a>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYaRYJ7QXps">Responding to Tim Keller’s Terrible Abortion Take | Ep 609
<br /><i>3rd May 2022 | Allie Beth Stuckey</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYaRYJ7QXps</a>
<br /><br />
° Voir
<br /><a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/non-la-ste-jehanne-darc-nest-pas-une.html">Non, la Ste Jehanne d'Arc n'est pas une manif raciste ...</a>
<br /><b>...et Pie XII n'a pas interdit le créationnisme ...</b></dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-32742715085873036992022-05-07T05:56:00.000-07:002022-05-07T05:56:01.458-07:00Chabad on Vera Cheberiak and St. Simon of Trent, feat. Luther and St. John Chrysostom<br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Chabad.org to me
<dd>3/10/2022 at 8:10 PM
<dt>Contact Confirmation { Ref. No. 5588688 }
<dd>B"H
<br /><br />
Dear Hans Georg Lundahl,
<br /><br />
Thank you for writing to Chabad.org.
<br /><br />
We wanted to confirm that we received your message.
<br /><br />
If at any time, you would like to clarify your message further – or if you've found the answer yourself – please reply to this email to let us know.
<br /><br />
A copy of your note appears below for your records.
<br /><br />
Sincerely,
<br /><br />
Chabad.org
<br /><br />
P.S. Please consider partnering with us! To contribute to our vital work, visit https://chabad.org/donate
<br /><br />
<dt>A Copy of Your Message Appears Below:
<dd>Date: 03/10/2022
<br />Incident ID: 5588688
<br />IP Address: [undisclosed]
<br /><br />
<dt>Message:
<dd>Vera Cheberiak - was she of Jewish origin?
<br /><br />
Is it possible she knew sufficient of ritual slaughter to imitate the proceding with a human object and simply was herself the one trying to blame Jews?
<br /><br />
As for Beilis being "the Tsar's" scapegoat, it seems to me, he was rather, like the Kaiser in the Xanten case, trying to make a point of exonerating reasonably suspect Jewish collectivities.
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Simcha Bart to me
<dd>3/11/2022 at 7:20 AM
<dt>Chabad.org: Feedback { Ref. No. 5588688 }
<dd>B"H
<br /><br />
Hi Hans Georg,
<br /><br />
I think it is important to see the case in the context of how Russian people, as well as the Tsars, had been treating Jews during the century preceding the Beilis case, to get an understanding of the motivations of all the people involved. Tsarist Russia throughout those years had used pogroms and other oppressive means to distract their restive populace from expressing their discontent with their poor lot in other ways.
<br /><br />
To just lay the blame on one individual, is not taking into consideration all the oppression and pogroms instigated by the Tsars and the Russian government that caused mass immigration from the Russian empire in the 1800s.
<br /><br />
Further to suggest that that one individual was of Jewish origin - sounds like blaming the victim for his own persecution. Such an attitude only adds insult to injury.
<br /><br />
Please don't hesitate to write back if I can be of any further help.
<br /><br />
Best wishes,
<br /><br />
Simcha Bart
<br />Chabad.org
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Simcha Bart
<dd>3/11/2022 at 5:29 PM
<dt>Re: Chabad.org: Feedback { Ref. No. 5588688 }
<dd>There are other cases where I am very positive that the "blood libel" actually covers a misdeed done by Jews.
<br /><br />
Let's take St. Simon of Trent.
<br /><br />
There was a small Jewish community there, he went to play with them, he reappeared dead with the blood emptied as with a Jewish slaughter and with the throat slit accordingly, and I think that the latter was also the case with the boy in the Beilis case.
<br /><br />
That's why I'm concerned about the origins of Vera Cheberiak.
<br /><br />
In one other case, there seems to be an exoneration - Bl. Andrew of Rinn. No cut throat, but hung, and the only one to have seen the Jews (if any) was the uncle who is somewhat suspect to me.
<br /><br />
With the boy from Bloys, I think we may have had to do with a kidnap, and the Christian boy taken away from Christian parents to be raised Jewish.
<br /><br />
My theory of why this happened has something to do with whether the boys themselves (perhaps not Bl. Andrew, where Jews may have not been involved) had Jewish origins. No Sanhedrin, however rogue, would in a non-Hebrew country condemn any boy to death for the "crime of Christianity" if he were a goy. Or would they? I think such reactions can only be explained for Holy Land and if the boy was of Jewish origin.
<br /><br />
You see, I don't see that the Jews were just helplessly taking persecution and not retaliating. Whether the persecution was real or apparent, merited or not.
<br /><br />
So, I'd agree with you, killing a Christian boy is not a regular part of the Jewish religion. But it could nevertheless have been a recurring part of Jewish politics against Christians.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>IV
<br /><br />
<dt>Simcha Bart to me
<dd>3/11/2022 at 6:16 PM
<dt>Chabad.org: Feedback { Ref. No. 5588688 }
<dd>B"H
<br /><br />
Hi Hans Georg,
<br /><br />
There is no evidence for that blood libel either - that's why it's a libel, a complete fabrication. Just because a Christian institution decided to make the child a Saint - does not mean anything historically or factually.
<br /><br />
The fact that you are "very positive" is not proof. I'm sure all of those who murdered and maimed thousands, if not tens of thousands of Jews throughout history - were "very positive" that Jews were guilty of all sorts of terrible things.
<br /><br />
It is normal when looking back at history to try to justify what occurred then - but that tendency to whitewash and excuse terrible attacks against innocent men, women, and children is in itself bowing to evil.
<br /><br />
That is how people come to justify and whitewash the murder of six million Jews by the Germans and their cohorts in other countries. People can't believe that there's such cruelty in the world - so they find it easier to blame the victim, especially if the victims are Jews, than to blame those who hate Jews.
<br /><br />
The Church has instituted Jew hatred on an unprecedented scale.
<br /><br />
Rome and christianity has been responsible for more deaths and displacements, tortures etc. of Jews throughout Jewish history, than any one other group or nation!
<br /><br />
I never knew my grandparents, or most of my parents' families - because they were Jewish the vast majority of my fathers' family were placed against a wall by Nazis, who were practicing christians, and shot. Except for my father, only 2 cousins in his huge family survived their persecution!
<br /><br />
No one nation or culture, whether ancient Egypt, Babylon, or Rome, to 20th century Germany, has killed as many Jews as christians and christians churches have!
<br /><br />
To begin this journey of discovery of the macabre history of christianity, please see James Carroll's Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History, written by a former christian clergyman.
<br /><br />
You may also want to read The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism by Edward H. Flannery - another clergyman. I have not read this book but I picked up the following about it.
<br /><br />
At the beginning, the author states that most of even well educated Christians have been in the dark about what has happened to the Jews throughout history and the Church's responsibility. The book covers anti-Semitism in all it's many forms, including persecution, torture, pogroms, massacres, social degradations, forced baptisms & conversions throughout the many periods of the Diaspora.
<br /><br />
You are also encouraged to look at the book of John, and his hatred of the Jews. Then read the Homilies of Chrysostom. And here is something from Martin Luther as well:
<br /><br />
"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we cannot tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. . . . .We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity. . . . .
<br /><br />
"Let me give you my honest advice:
<br /><br />
"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our LORD and of Christendom.
<br /><br />
"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.
<br /><br />
"Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
<br /><br />
"Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.
<br /><br />
"Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. [We might well ask "What home?", since they were all presumably burned in point two!]
<br /><br />
"Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them, and put aside for safe keeping.
<br /><br />
"Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hand of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow."
<br /><br />
Please don't hesitate to write back if I can be of any further help.
<br /><br />
Best wishes,
<br /><br />
Simcha Bart
<br />Chabad.org
<br /><br />
Sent from my mobile device, please excuse any typos.
<br /><br />
<dt>V
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Simcha Bart
<dd>3/12/2022 at 1:04 PM
<dt>Re: Chabad.org: Feedback { Ref. No. 5588688 }
<dd>Look at the attack of the Synagogue of York.
<br /><br />
Then look at who killed the children inside - yes, the fathers, to spare them the "horror" of being baptised. They also killed their wives and themselves / each other Masada style.
<br /><br />
<i>"The Church has instituted Jew hatred on an unprecedented scale."</i>
<br /><br />
Very much on the contrary, Jews have instituted the first hatred of the Church and have continued, and the Church has not been generous with retaliation./HGL
<br /><br />
<dt>VI
<br /><br />
<dt>Simcha Bart to me
<dd>3/13/2022 at 3:10 AM
<dt>Chabad.org: Feedback { Ref. No. 5588688 }
<dd>B"H
<br /><br />
Hi Hans Georg,
<br /><br />
Please read the two books which I told you about by people from within the Church.
<br /><br />
Please don't hesitate to write back if I can be of any further help.
<br /><br />
Best wishes,
<br /><br />
Simcha Bart
<br />Chabad.org
<br /><br />
Sent from my mobile device, please excuse any typos.
<br /><br />
The joyous holiday of Purim begins this Wednesda evening, March 16 through Thursday, March 17 (March 18 in Jerusalem).
<br />Check out https://chabad.org/purim for everything need for Purim!
<br /><br />
<dt>VII
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Simcha Bart
<dd>3/14/2022 at 8:53 PM
<dt>Re: Chabad.org: Feedback { Ref. No. 5588688 }
<dd>As for St. John Chrysostom, he lived in a time when Jews were bad.
<br /><br />
As for Martin Luther - <i>he</i> was bad. He got expelled from the Church for it.
<br /><br />
<dt>VIII
<br /><br />
<dt>Simcha Bart to me
<dd>3/15/2022 at 12:44 AM
<dt>Chabad.org: Feedback { Ref. No. 5588688 }
<dd>B"H
<br /><br />
Hi Hans Georg,
<br /><br />
We won't get anywhere like this, as there's no way to settle such an argument.
<br /><br />
Just as you think that Luther was bad - I think that about anyone in the Church who said, and ultimately caused, pogroms, ghettos, and the Holocaust. Regardless of the Church considers them a "saint".
<br /><br />
I say Luther and John are all wrong about the Jews - period.
<br /><br />
Please don't hesitate to write back if I can be of any further help.
<br /><br />
Best wishes,
<br /><br />
Simcha Bart
<br />Chabad.org
<br /><br />
Sent from my mobile device, please excuse any typos.
<br /><br />
The joyous holiday of Purim begins this Wednesday evening, March 16 through Thursday, March 17 (March 18 in Jerusalem).
<br />Check out https://chabad.org/purim for everything need for Purim!
<br /><br />
<dt>IX
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Simcha Bart
<dd>3/15/2022 at 11:16 AM
<dt>Re: Chabad.org: Feedback { Ref. No. 5588688 }
<dd>There is a kind of Jews I think you won't frequent. The kind who get into astrology, sexology and give Christians or secularised such lots of bad tips on living, or good tips on sex life, depending on your point of view.
<br /><br />
Those are THE exact kind of Jews St. John Chrysostom had in mind.
<br /><br />
Sure, he used hard language about rejecting the true Messiah as well, but he did not have to do with The Black Hundreds, and it's not his fault that some of the people who actually did commit pogroms were quotemining him.
<br /><br />
Luther is something else, he was against Jews, rebellious farmers, and Catholic clergy remaining faithful to the Church. And he did foment violence (directly with rebellious farmers, by clumsiness at least in the other cases) in his own lifetime. Blaming Catholics for <i>his</i> faults is like blaming you on Chabad for <i>Baruch Spinoza's</i> heresies ...
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>X
<br /><br />
<dt>Simcha Bart to me
<dd>3/16/2022 at 6:00 AM
<dt>Chabad.org: Feedback { Ref. No. 5588688 }
<dd>B"H
<br /><br />
Hi Hans Georg,
<br /><br />
I think we will just be going around in circles, as you have your convictions and I have mine.
<br /><br />
I believe that even though Luther broke away from Catholicism - he was drawing on his what he grew up with. You will most probably disagree with me.
<br /><br />
I believe that the Spanish Inquisition, as well as the Crusades, and various pogroms were all created by Church teachings - you may disagree.
<br /><br />
So where does that leave us? You can read the books I recommended, or not. But until you do, I do not see how we can have a productive dialogue.
<br /><br />
At the moment then, it looks to me that our conversation about this topic is at an end.
<br /><br />
Best wishes,
<br /><br />
Simcha Bart
<br />Chabad.org
<br /><br />
Sent from my mobile device, please excuse any typos.
<br /><br />
The joyous holiday of Purim begins this Wednesday evening, March 16 through Thursday, March 17 (March 18 in Jerusalem).
<br />Check out https://chabad.org/purim for everything need for Purim!
<br /><br />
<dt>XI
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Simcha Bart
<dd>3/16/2022 at 3:04 PM
<dt>Re: Chabad.org: Feedback { Ref. No. 5588688 }
<dd>I think you just gave those books a very scathing review:
<br /><br />
<i>"I believe that the Spanish Inquisition, as well as the Crusades, and various pogroms were all created by Church teachings - you may disagree."</i>
<br /><br />
If this is what you get from these books, you and they have a problem.
<br /><br />
If I recommended you read "Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique" and its articles on the Jews, would you?
<br /><br />
I believe the Inquisition and the Crusades were very well created by Church teachings - and that neither of them targetted Jews as Jews (crypto-Jews are another context).
<br /><br />
I also believe no pogroms were created by Church teaching, note well, Roman Catholic one. They were indeed punishable by the Church authorities, and most notably by the Inquisition.
<br /><br />
A book that ties Crusades, Inquisition, Spanish or other, to pogroms, or even two of them, is, to my mind, out of court.
<br /><br />
Crusades targetted non-Christian political powers, as per Church doctrine, and in the first crusade, some of the popular support came to target Jews as an Ersatz for actual Sarrasins, despite it (and Peter the Hermit left the Crusade after he had seen this happening), but this was not the cause with the lords' crusade or later crusades.
<br /><br />
The Inquisitions before the Spanish one had no task of targetting crypto-Jews, and even the Spanish one wasn't targetting open Jews (while at a certain moment, the political power, drawing on history about the Moorish invasion, did).
<br /><br />
Pogroms are rare in the West outside certain precise contexts:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> in response to at least purported killings of children, early on in England
<li> in the Germanies when no Kaiser was around (both Rex Rintfleisch and Hitler)
<li> in the Germanies in the Alemannic area, which came, like Luther, to mostly leave Catholicism.</ul>
<br /><br />
<i>"I believe that even though Luther broke away from Catholicism - he was drawing on his what he grew up with."</i>
<br /><br />
Yes and no.
<br /><br />
What he believed about Jews may have been 100 % what Catholics then and there believed, and perhaps as much as 90 % of it actual Church doctrine.
<br /><br />
How and when he expressed it (in 1536) was however not a question of Catholic pastoral.
<br /><br />
He was actually drawing on what he grew up with in 1514 (while still a Catholic) and saying:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Conversion of the Jews will be the work of God alone operating from within, and not of man working — or rather playing — from without. If these offences be taken away, worse will follow. For they are thus given over by the wrath of God to reprobation, that they may become incorrigible, as Ecclesiastes says, for every one who is incorrigible is rendered worse rather than better by correction. (1)</blockquote>
<br /><br />
And even just after the break, 1519 and 23:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>"Absurd theologians defend hatred for the Jews. ... What Jew would consent to enter our ranks when he sees the cruelty and enmity we wreak on them—that in our behavior towards them we less resemble Christians than beasts?" (2)
<br /><br />
"If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian. They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and mockery...If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles ... When we are inclined to boast of our position [as Christians] we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are...If we really want to help them, we must be guided in our dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love. We must receive them cordially, and permit them to trade and work with us, that they may have occasion and opportunity to associate with us, hear our Christian teaching, and witness our Christian life. If some of them should prove stiff-necked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians either." (3)</blockquote>
<br /><br />
His book Of the Jews and their Lies is from 1536, believed to be influenced by Anton Margaritha, a convert from Judaism who (like the parents of Cantor and Marx) became a Lutheran.
<br /><br />
I'm giving the source wikipedia and the sources it gave:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism</a>
<br /><br />
<ul><li> 1. Martin Luther, "Luther to George Spalatin Archived 2007-07-02 at the Wayback Machine," in Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporaneous Letters, trans. Henry Preserved Smith (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1913), 1:29.
<li> 2. Luther quoted in Elliot Rosenberg, But Were They Good for the Jews? (New York: Birch Lane Press, 1997), p.65.
<li> 3. Martin Luther, "That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew," Trans. Walter I. Brandt, in Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962), pp. 200–201, 229.</ul>
<br /><br />
<dt>XII
<br /><br />
<dt>Me to Simcha Bart
<dd>3/16/2022 at 3:09 PM
<dt>Re: Chabad.org: Feedback { Ref. No. 5588688 }
<dd>Here Luther was NOT drawing on what he had learnt as a Catholic before the break:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[2] afforded no legal protection,[3] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[4] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them".[5]</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies</a>
<br /><br />
It was more probably popular demand, of the type that Luther had equally pandered to when denouncing Catholic beggar monks (as early as 95 theses)./HGL</dl>
<br /><br />
<b>Epilogue:</b>
<br /><br />
It seems I either forgot to answer or lost my mail to Simcha about "the book of John".
<br /><br />
I celebrated St. Patrick and not Purim. This was perhaps the reason why certain things happened./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-66049465140633067712022-03-27T02:15:00.072-07:002022-03-27T02:15:00.184-07:00Über Claesemanns Theorien mit Tradis in Hamburg<br />
<dl><dt>I
<dt>Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX
<dd>2/5/2022 at 1:59 PM
<dt>Ist Stefan Claesemann ein Gläubiger des Priorats Hl. Theresa von Avila, Hamburg?
<dd>Wenn nicht, dann warscheinlich Sedevacantist, auch Hamburg.
<br /><br />
Wir theilen einen Einsatz für die Historizität der Bibel, aber sie sieht bei uns verschieden aus, ich denke der Seine ist aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht nur schlecht möglich, wärend meiner noch keine Widerlegung fand.
<br /><br />
Aber, entscheiden Sie selbst, hier sind unsere Auseinandersetzungen:
<br /><br />
<b>HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS:</b> <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2021/10/somewhat-sectarian-style-semel.html">Somewhat Sectarian Style, Semel</a> · <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2021/10/somewhat-sectarian-style-bis.html">Somewhat Sectarian Style, bis</a> · <b>Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl:</b> <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2021/10/no-answer-from-dr-liebi-so-far.html">No Answer from Dr. Liebi, So Far?</a> · <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2022/02/stefan-claesemann-tries-to-take-it-in.html">Stefan Claesemann tries to take it in private with me</a> · <b>Creation vs. Evolution :</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/02/lets-carbon-test-stefan-claesemanns.html">Let's Carbon Test Stefan Claesemann's Chronology</a> [· <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/02/correcting-test.html">Correcting the Test</a>]*
<br /><br />
Er behauptet zwar nicht, aber impliziert einen Aufstieg des C-14-Halts von 1,4 bis 100 pmC in höchstens 507 Jahren oder sogar noch nur 367, wenn es ihm ernst ist um Mentuhotep III als Pharao Abrahams, ich behaupte direct einen solchen Aufstieg in 1772 Jahren.
<br /><br />
Er hat die Masoretisch-Vulgate Chronologie, Abraham geboren 292 nach der Sintflut, ich den kürzeren LXX (ohne 2. Kainan), Abraham geboren 942 nach der Flut.
<br /><br />
Er identifiziert den reellen Alter Sesostris III mit dem C-14-Alter, und macht ihn zum Pharao Josephs, ich identifiziere erst den Fall Trojas C-14-Zeit mit reeller, and mache Sesostris III zum Pharao gestorben 1590 v. Chr. - um die Geburt Mosens.
<br /><br />
Einzelkeiten dazu in dem letzten Theil obiger Serie.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>* Fußnote
<dd><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/02/correcting-test.html">Correcting the Test</a> wurde später zugefügt. Siehe nächsten Brief.
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<dt>Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX
<dd>2/18/2022 at 2:35 PM
<dt>Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung
<dd>Ich entdeckte einen Rechenfehler in mein <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/02/lets-carbon-test-stefan-claesemanns.html">Let's Carbon Test Stefan Claesemann's Chronology</a> - Von Sintflut an Joseph in Ägypten habe ich 292 + 215 Jahre Masoretische Chronologie gerechnet, es sollte aber sein 292 + 75 + 215.
<br /><br />
Mit der Berichtigung nahm ich den Entschluß die mathematische Überprüfung zu wiederholen, mit der Berichtigung berücksichtigt. Hier : <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/02/correcting-test.html">Correcting the Test</a>
<br /><br />
Auch wenn Stefan Claesemann nicht ein Gläubiger des Priorats hl. Theresa von Avila ist, finde ich, Sie sollten es auch mal lesen.
<br /><br />
Daß ich ihn für entweder FSSPX oder Sedevacante halte, schließe ich von hier, seinen Worten:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>I have become traditional catholic and get bloody eyes reading the 2004 Martyrologium as proving evidence for the by Paul prophecised fall away from faith by my church in the end times.
<br /><br />
I love the Latin Mass and know that the old Martyrologium is partly very near to the unfalsified biblical dates.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Daß er in Hamburg wohnt steht auf sein FB-Profil.
<br /><br />
Und die Ursache Ihres Schweigens, was soll ich daraus schließen?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<dt>P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich
<dd>2/23/2022 at 7:35 PM
<dt>Re: Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung
<dd>Sehr geehrter Hr. Lundahl,
<br />Vielen Dank für Ihren Hinweis. Sie haben Recht, dass Sie nachfragen, warum ich Ihnen erst jetzt - auf Ihre bereits zweite Email - antworte. Ich bitte um Verzeihung, dass ich Sie so lange warten ließ.
<br />Die Ursache, erst heute mein Schweigen zu brechen und Ihnen eine Antwort zu schreiben, resultiert aus der Größe der Gemeinde, die ich zurzeit betreue, und meiner weiteren Aufgaben in der Gemeinde an meinem Wohnort. Mein Schweigen war und ist kein Zeichen von Desinteresse an der Frage, sondern schlicht und ergreifend meine aktuell mich sehr in Anspruch nehmenden Aufgaben. Ich hoffe, Sie können mir noch einmal verzeihen.
<br />Über ein persönliches Kennenlernen würde ich mich sehr freuen - falls Ihnen genehm.
<br />In jedem Fall Ihnen alles Gute und Gottes Segen,
<br />Ihr P. Roling
<br /><br />
<dt>IV
<dt>Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX
<dd>2/24/2022 at 11:35 AM
<dt>Re: Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung
<dd>Herzlichen Dank!
<br /><br />
Ich weiß nun mal nicht wo Stefan Claesemann wohnt, außer auf FB steht "Hamburg". Selbst lebe ich in Paris.
<br /><br />
Ich hätte nichts gegen einen Briefewechsel, aber würde mich dabei vorbehalten gelegentlich bei einer Uneinigkeit (und auch bei Einighkeit wenn Ihnen genehm, aber da ist kein Vorbehalt in dem Fall) den Briefewechsel auf meinen Blog copiieren zu können.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/">http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/</a>
<br /><br />
Ich bin ehemahliger der FSSPX, immer noch einfacher Gläubiger, und will es bleiben, jetzt Anhänger an Pabst Michael (auch ehem. der FSSPX).
<br /><br />
Was wollen Sie näher wissen?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>V
<dt>P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich
<dd>2/24/2022 at 2:34 PM
<dt>Re: Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung
<dd>Sehr geehrter Hr. Lundahl,
<br /><br />
Vielleicht können Sie Hr. Clasemann über FB direkt fragen, wo er zur Kirche geht? Wäre zumindest eine Idee...
<br /><br />
Ich muss Ihnen auch gestehen - das habe ich dann in der Email doch noch vergessen, klar zu sagen - dass ich seinen und Ihren Text noch nicht gelesen habe, sodass ich gar nicht in der Lage bin, in dieser Sache Fragen stellen zu können. Sobald ich mich näher damit befasst haben werde und noch Fragen offen sind, würde ich mich dann wieder bei Ihnen melden. Bis dahin bitte ich Sie, keine Emails oder Briefe von mir zu veröffentlichen. Vielen Dank.
<br /><br />
Alles Gute und Gottes Segen,
<br /><br />
Ihr P. Roling
<br /><br />
<dt>VI
<dt>Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX
<dd>3/1/2022 at 11:31 AM
<dt>Re: Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung
<dd>Ist Laetare-Sonntag eine gute Frist?
<br /><br />
<dt>
<dt>P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich
<dd>
<dt>
<dd>
<dt>
<dt>Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX
<dd>
<dt>
<dd>
<dt>
<dt>P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich
<dd>
<dt>
<dd>
<dt>
<dt>Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX
<dd>
<dt>
<dd>
<dt>
<dt>P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich
<dd>
<dt>
<dd>
</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-47051982551320512672022-03-04T07:27:00.001-08:002022-03-04T07:27:16.506-08:00With Hugh Owen, Mainly on Improving Catholic Creation Research, but Also on My Situation<br />
<dl><dt>I
<dt>HGL to Hugh Owen
<dd>12/27/2021 at 5:57 PM
<dt>Kennedy Report
<dd>I am watching Forrest Valkai trying to debunk a section of The Kennedy Report. Here is were I stopped Forrest Valkai's video.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJnhRQjPD9U&t=1106s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJnhRQjPD9U&t=1106s</a>
<br /><br />
Random mutations do not all look like what he saw on the orphanage.
<br /><br />
a) Some mutations, while indeed losses of information, are nevertheless beneficial. FV could very easily give the example of lactase persistence, eye colour, skin colour, speed for accumulating fat and muscle ...
<br />b) What he saw would normally have been not locus mutations, but "chromosome mutations" - things that change the karyotype, one of the best known examples of which is Downs, three chromosomes 21 instead of 2. And chromosome mutations are indeed handicap, cancer, death before birth (three examples of the latter : trisomy 1, trisomy 3, tetraploidy all over the karyotype - mortal unless mosaical, or chimeral). However, the guy from The Kennedy Report seemingly has no idea how this could be exploited in the question of rising number of chromosomes, among mammals, which is one of the implications of evolution.
<br /><br />
To me it seems, the Catholic creationist movement is - as far as the human reason aspect is concerned - a joke. It's like picking Ray Comfort over Jonathan Sarfati - or the preachy over the exact.
<br /><br />
I am not saying that the points in the video by the Kennedy report are in and of themselves bad, but the guy seems unable to properly defend them. They can perhaps not be disproven by good analysis, but they are easy to debunk by nitpicking and the guy is not ready to nitpick back or even better forestall nitpicking by actually giving a not just coherent, but also detailed and informed reason for his points.
<br /><br />
Meanwhile, there is a Catholic creationist apologist whom you are boycotting. Me.
<br /><br />
You will excuse me for not wishing you a blessed Christmastide, you knew me years ago, and your boycott has blighted part of mine, through the poverty I'm going through.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<dt>Hugh Owen to HGL
<dd>12/27/2021 at 7:37 PM
<dt>Re: Kennedy Report
<dd>Dear Hans,
<br /><br />
Christ is born! Glorify Him!
<br /><br />
Thank you for getting in touch.
<br /><br />
Kennedy Hall does not represent the Kolbe Center, so we cannot take responsibility for any weaknesses in his presentation. On the other hand, it sounds as if some of the main points he made are correct, even if he was not able to defend them against "nit-picking." I have not seen his video so I do not know. For example, to show that there are "beneficial" mutations does not disprove the truth of the claim that there are no examples of mutations that add <i>new functional information</i> to the genome of any plant, animal or human. If that claim is true--and it is--then all the nit-picking in the world cannot save biological evolution from bankruptcy.
<br /><br />
In short, your statement that "the Catholic creationist movement is - as far as the human reason aspect is concerned - a joke," is unjust, since the materials on our website and the content of our DVD series have held up very well under criticism. For examples, please see the "Replies to Critics" section of our website, especially the Trialogue with the two Dominican priests, to see that our team defends the traditional teaching of the Church on creation much better than the Catholic defenders of progressive creation or theistic evolution, from the perspective of theology, philosophy and natural science.
<br /><br />
Through the prayers of the Mother of God, may the Holy Ghost lead us all into all the Truth and may we all be saved souls together in Heaven!
<br /><br />
In Domino,
<br /><br />
Hugh Owen
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<dt>HGL to Hugh Owen
<dd>12/28/2021 at 10:50 AM
<dt>Re: Kennedy Report
<dd>A few replies:
<br /><br />
<i>"For example, to show that there are "beneficial" mutations does not disprove the truth of the claim that there are no examples of mutations that add new functional information to the genome of any plant, animal or human."</i>
<br /><br />
Very true. But unfortunately not what Kennedy was saying.
<br /><br />
Some people have tried to figure out how mutations could do that. Jacques Monod in the early 70's conceded that one mutation would not bring about a new functional gene. But he was optimistic, it could happen if an offspring inherited a mutation from father and one from mother. I have pointed out that this cannot happen, since the mutations will be on two different chromosomes, therefore two different and non-combining versions of the old gene. I am reminded of how Rev. Houghton mentioned that the mention of chromosomes was banned from French science for c. 50 years, because they understood how it undermined evolution - something which I also used in context with chromosome numbers being different.
<br /><br />
I decided to make two thought experiments on it and here these are:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/12/what-could-irregular-deletions-do.html">What Could Irregular Deletions Do?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/12/what-about-pseudo-genes-starting-to-code.html">What About Pseudo-Genes Starting to Code?</a>
<br /><br />
<i>"If that claim is true--and it is--then all the nit-picking in the world cannot save biological evolution from bankruptcy."</i>
<br /><br />
There is bankrupcy and bankrupcy. In the final three and a half years before Harmageddon, two men will be soundly bankrupt intellectually, but they won't quite be so mediatically - you know the two who get thrown alive into a lake of fire. I want a Catholic Creationist movement that is able to show itself able to nitpick and therefore bankrupt any nitpicker like Forrest Valkai. Here is how I come up against him, btw:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/12/watch-forrest-valkai-on-his-video-from.html">Watch Forrest Valkai on his Video from 17:00 to 18:00</a> · <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/12/debate-with-shane-wilson-and-reiperx.html">Debate with Shane Wilson and ReiperX</a>
<br /><br />
and <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/11/forrest-valkai-to-rescue-of-radiometric.html">Forrest Valkai to the Rescue of Radiometric Dating (Or Not?)</a> · <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/11/l-m-and-comparative-religion-to-rescue.html">L M and Comparative Religion to the Rescue of Forrest Valkai?</a> · <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/11/subductionzone-to-rescue-of-forrest.html">subductionzone to the rescue of Forrest Valkai? Or Keith Levkoff? Deus-Stein?</a> · <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/11/how-carbon-dating-is-done-why-my.html">How Carbon Dating is Done, Why My Calibration is Possible</a>
<br /><br />
<i>"For examples, please see the "Replies to Critics" section of our website, especially the Trialogue with the two Dominican priests"</i>
<br /><br />
Ah, I found "answer to second question" on it ... I sent one of the two an answer on "fittingness of evolution". Do you have any similar with secularists? I have, not due to them agreeing in advance, but due to my hijacking our dialogues onto my blogs (like the one linked to).
<br /><br />
<i>"In short, your statement that "the Catholic creationist movement is - as far as the human reason aspect is concerned - a joke," is unjust,"</i>
<br /><br />
I must admit I have omitted looking at your work, since you decided to overlook mine on carbon dates, when you defended a Vulgate-Ussher timeline instead of a timeline with Roman martyrology for December 25th, which is what I use. It should therefore be taken, as perhaps excepting not just me, but also you.
<br /><br />
Still, I think you could improve if you took a bit of my materials too.
<br /><br />
That said, in a more charitable mood, this time: Merry Christmas!
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>IV
<dt>Hugh Owen to HGL
<dd>12/28/2021 at 5:09 PM
<dt>Re: Kennedy Report
<dd>Dear Hans,
<br /><br />
Christ is born! Glorify Him!
<br /><br />
First things first: How is your mother doing? I have been keeping her in my prayers.
<br /><br />
Thank you for your replies.
<br /><br />
Please forgive me for not getting back to you about your work on C-14 dating. If I could trouble you to send it to me again, I will ask the member of our team who is in charge of that project to look at it carefully.
<br /><br />
After we have looked at your work on C-14 dating, we can take up the pros and cons of the chronology derived from the Septuagint vs. the one derived from the numbers in the Hebrew text of the Bible that St. Jerome used in the Vulgate.
<br /><br />
I am going to recommend to Kennedy Hall that he ask one of our leadership team members who has expertise in biology to do an interview with him and answer the critics. Hopefully, he will do so.
<br /><br />
In Domino,
<br /><br />
Hugh Owen
<br /><br />
<dt>V
<dt>HGL to Hugh Owen
<dd>12/28/2021 at 6:09 PM
<dt>Re: Kennedy Report
<dd>She was sending me a letter a few weeks ago, and I haven't received it.
<br /><br />
Material on C-14, perhaps not identic to previous: <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/have-you-really-taken-all-factors-into.html">Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html">New Tables</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/why-should-one-use-my-tables.html">Why Should one Use my Tables?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/and-what-are-lineups-between.html">And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/bases-of-c14.html">Bases of C14</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-example-of-using-previous.html">An example of using previous</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/difference-with-carbon-14-from-other.html">Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods</a>
<br /><br />
LXX / Roman martyrology vs later Hebrew texts (Vulgate, Masoretic), see my answer to CMI : <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/09/resp-to-carter-cosner-in-lifetime-of.html">Resp. to Carter / Cosner : In the Lifetime of Josephus</a>
<br />As well as my background story for Roman martyrology of December 25th, credits to my friend Stephan Borgehammar, a Church historian : <a href="https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/background-to-christmas-martyrology.html">Background to Christmas Martyrology</a> · <a href="https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/11/what-martyrology-by-way.html">What Martyrology, by the way?</a>
<br /><br />
So, St. Jerome is equally responsible for the chronology of the martyrology (LXX without second Cainan) and for the Latin text with another chronology.
<br /><br />
Your recommendations to Kennedy Hall are very appreciated.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#karyogrammata-i">Chromosome numbers, first published on Communities dot com</a> · · · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#facts">Undisputed facts</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#hypoth-i">Hypothesis I</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#hypoth-ii">Hypothesis II</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#hypoth-iii">Hypothesis III</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#hypoth-iv">Hypothesis IV</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#overall">Overall criticism</a><br /><br /><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#update">Update on Chromosome numbers</a> · · · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#human-chimp"><i>Talkorigins explains on human-chimp situation</i></a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#footnotes-update"><i>my footnotes on this post</i></a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#excursus-french-language"><i>a little excursus on French language history</i></a><br /><br /><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#speciation-observed">Speciation observed - but not in mammals</a> · · · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#awannaread"><i>a wannna-read</i></a><br /><br /><a href=https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html"#non-replies">Non-replies</a> · · · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#nonrepliescomments"><i>comments part on non-replies, mostly links about chromosomal polymorphism</i></a><br /><br /><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#chromosomenumbers">Chromosome numbers - the summing up</a> · · · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#kenthovindslist"><i>Kent Hovind's list of chromosome numbers of different species, plus one other link</i></a> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#commentson chromosomenumbers">Comments part</a>
<br /><br />
Updated : <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/03/was-i-wrong-on-karyograms.html">Was I wrong on Karyograms?</a>
<br />Other : <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/03/microbes-to-man-happening-before-our.html">Microbes to Man - Happening Before Our Eyes?</a>
<br /><br />
Would that be some help?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>VI
<dt>HGL to Hugh Owen
<dd>12/28/2021 at 7:04 PM
<dt>Re: Kennedy Report
<dd>Dear Hans,
<br /><br />
Pax Christi!
<br /><br />
That is a very rich collection of information!
<br /><br />
We will try to be systematic and work our way through the various articles.
<br /><br />
We will begin with the articles on C-14 which I will forward to our main expert in that area.
<br /><br />
Please be patient with us, but we will get back to you this time!
<br /><br />
In Domino,
<br /><br />
Hugh Owen
<br /><br />
<dt>VII
<dt>Hugh Owen to HGL
<dd>12/28/2021 at 7:08 PM
<dt>Re: Kennedy Report
<dd>Dear Hans,
<br /><br />
Pax Christi!
<br /><br />
When we try to open the files on C-14, Webroot tells us that the site is dangerous. Have you had any problems with site security?
<br /><br />
Can you suggest another way to access the C-14 material?
<br /><br />
In Domino,
<br /><br />
Hugh Owen
<br /><br />
<dt>VIII
<dt>HGL to Hugh Owen
<dd>12/29/2021 at 6:36 PM
<dt>Re: Kennedy Report
<dd>No, I can't suggest any other way to access it.
<br /><br />
Try to go to a cyber, ignore webroot and try there.
<br /><br />
Either way, get used to such things abusively warning for sites that are NOT dangerous.
<br /><br />
I have had the cyber site of a city near Paris block all of blogspot.com because it contains the letter sequence blogs pot .com and in French "pot" is not often used for flower pot or chamber pot, it's just slang for "weed".
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>IX
<dt>Hugh Owen to HGL
<dd>12/29/2021 at 11:22 PM
<dt>Re: Kennedy Report
<dd>Dear Hans,
<br /><br />
Pax Christi!
<br /><br />
I have asked my webmaster to help me access the content of your website safely.
<br /><br />
I am sure that he will be able to do so.
<br /><br />
In Domino,
<br /><br />
Hugh
<br /><br />
<dt>X
<dt>HGL to Hugh Owen
<dd>12/30/2021 at 12:43 PM
<dt>Re: Kennedy Report
<dd>Thank you in advance!
<br /><br />
You might be saving me a lot of trouble, if you get to it soon./HGL
<br /><br />
<dt>XI
<dt>HGL to Hugh Owen
<dd>1/7/2022 at 3:10 PM
<dt>Hello, have the IT specialists resolved the problem, yet?
<dd>I should have been hearing some from you or the carbon experts, I feel?
<br /><br />
If they are confused about sth, it could be the thing I deal with here:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/01/my-c14-calibration-has-it-any-stability.html">My C14 Calibration, Has it Any Stability?</a> · <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/01/670-actual-years-32-000-or-4000-carbon.html">670 Actual Years = 32 000 or 4000 Carbon Years? Both.</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>XII
<dt>HGL to Hugh Owen
<dd>1/7/2022 at 3:44 PM
<dt>webroot
<dd>look at this form:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.brightcloud.com/tools/change-request.php">https://www.brightcloud.com/tools/change-request.php</a>
<br /><br />
I found it on the site of webroot.
<br /><br />
Someone manually would have put my blog URL on a "dangerous" category./HGL
<br /><br />
<dt>XIII
<dt>Hugh Owen to HGL
<dd>1/7/2022 at 6:34 PM
<dt>Re: webroot
<dd>Dear Brother Hans,
<br /><br />
Pax Christi!
<br /><br />
I finally had to have our webmaster send me the files. I then forwarded them to our expert in C-14 dating. He has a lot of irons in the fire, so please be patient. We will get back to you as soon as we can.
<br /><br />
Your Mom is in my prayers. Are you able to visit her?
<br /><br />
In Domino,
<br /><br />
Hugh Owen
<br /><br />
<dt>XIV
<dt>HGL to Hugh Owen
<dd>1/7/2022 at 7:20 PM
<dt>Re: webroot
<dd>My mom is in Malmö. I am in Paris. 1249 km.
<br /><br />
Travelling is restricted with mask and perhaps now even pass mandates.
<br /><br />
I don't have a friend with a car who's willing to go, as far as I know./HGL</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-63871064003401535742022-03-02T11:19:00.011-08:002022-03-15T02:07:20.366-07:00Kevin R. Henke's Essay: Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3: History?<br />
<table><tr><th>Kevin R. Henke <td><th>Hans Georg Lundahl
<tr><td><a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2022/03/kevin-r-henkes-essay-alexander-great.html">Kevin R. Henke's Essay: Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3: History?</a>
<tr><td><td><td><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/03/four-hypotheses-of-kevin-r-henke-for.html">Four Hypotheses of Kevin R. Henke for Historicity of Genesis 3</a>
<tr><td><td><td><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/03/on-verifying-supernatural.html">On Verifying the Supernatural</a>
<tr><td><td><td><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/03/several-types-of-supernatural-featured.html">Several Types of "Supernatural" Featured in Stories Believed to be True</a>
<tr><td><td><td><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/03/two-arguments-for-alexander-that.html">Two Arguments for Alexander that Atheists (and Likeminded) Should Not Use - Or Three</a>
<tr><td><td><td><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/03/undecisives.html">Undecisives</a>
<tr><td><td><td><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/03/real-confirmation-too-late-and-too.html">Real Confirmation : Too Late and Too Little Outside Greco-Roman Sphere</a>
<tr><td><td><td><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-real-reason-why-we-can-and-could.html">The Real Reason Why we Can and Could All the Time Say we Know Alexander's Carreer</a></table>
<br /><br />
<b>Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3: History?</b>
<br /><i>Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. March 1, 2022</i>
<br /><br />
BACKGROUND
<br /><br />
<u>My Standards on Evaluating History: Both Human and Natural</u>
<br /><br />
I recognize that past events really can’t be proven. Proof is more in the realm of mathematics rather than history or science. Nevertheless, I tend to rank claims about historical events as: 1) highly probable or beyond a reasonable doubt, 2) probable, 3) plausible, 4) unlikely or 5) highly unlikely (probably false or myth). My level of skepticism of events and individuals varies and would be classified in the categories of plausible, unlikely or highly unlikely. In these situations, I tend to ask myself: which is more probable that the event actually occurred or that someone just made it up?
<br /><br />
As I previously stated, I do not automatically reject secular histories that were written centuries after the described events. However, until I receive good external confirmation, I tend to be skeptical of a given claim in an ancient history, such as Arrian’s The Anabasis of Alexander. Similarly, I tend to be skeptical of the historical claims in the Bible and other religious works until I get external confirmation. For a given claim in these documents, I want to see external evidence that is contemporary with the event or in the lifetime of the individual, such as inscriptions or documents. Depending on the circumstances, I might carefully give some credence to evidence from artifacts from a few decades after the event or the death of individual. For example, if an artist or writer knew the subject of his work and did a painting or sculpture within a few decades of the subject’s death that might be acceptable enough evidence.
<br /><br />
Of course, a document, inscription or other written record must be accurately dated to ensure that it was written at the time of the event or when the subject lived. This is usually not easy. The verb tense or other indications in the text may indicate that it’s an official record that was written at or during the time of the event or the reign of a king. Paleography is usually not very accurate and requires other well-dated written documents as standards. With standards that have fixed dates, paleography can restrict the date of a document to within a century or perhaps a few decades (e.g., Orsini and Clarysse 2012 – New Testament paleography). Radiocarbon dating is a destructive process and often does not give precise enough results for historians anyway.
<br /><br />
External evidence will vary with the century, culture and technology. In the past 200-300 years, potentially suitable external evidence to confirm the existence of an individual or an event could include tombstones, contemporary paintings and photographs, other artifacts and a variety of contemporary and official public documents, such as census records, birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, tax records, real estate transactions, wills, etc. Because of the possibility that some of these records could be forged, multiple public records should be available to verify the existence of an individual or event. I fully recognize that these types of public records are either totally or nearly absent in ancient history, but multiple examples of these types of records are valuable for verifying the existence of an individual and his/her migrations in the US from the 17th to 21st centuries. As I stated earlier, family records (trees) and DNA evidence are also important in confirming these records.
<br /><br />
In the remote past of centuries or thousands of years ago, the quality and quantity of data become far less common. However, for kings and famous military leaders, there still may be inscriptions in temples and other buildings; contemporary statues, paintings, coins and mosaics; and other evidence that demonstrates that they existed or were present at a specific location.
<br /><br />
If multiple claims in an ancient document, such as <i>Anabasis of Alexander</i> or 2 Kings in the Bible, have been reasonably verified by external evidence, then my skepticism of the document is reduced and I’m more likely to think that other claims in these documents are plausible. For example, the inscriptions in the Annuals of Sennacherib confirms King Sennacherib of Assyria’s successful attack on Judah during the reign of King Hezekiah as described in 2 Kings 18:13 (<a href="https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/10/04/king-hezekiah-an-archaeological-biography/">https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/10/04/king-hezekiah-an-archaeological-biography/</a>). Although this does not mean that I should automatically trust everything in 2 Kings, it does indicate that I would take other claims in 2 Kings more seriously. I could then look for additional evidence that either collaborates or fails to support other statements in 2 Kings. Thus, for an unsupported claim in Anabasis of Alexander or 2 Kings, I would still want additional external evidence before I would be willing to elevate my classification of the claim from plausible to probable or even beyond a reasonable doubt.
<br /><br />
While one individual, Arrian, may have written <i>The Anabasis of Alexander</i> over a short period of time, the Bible was written by numerous authors over a much longer period of time. So, just because archeologists have discovered inscriptions that confirm the existence of Hezekiah and other kings mentioned in 2 Kings that does not mean that events and people mentioned in Exodus and Genesis can be trusted.
<br /><br />
In geology, we are more fortunate than most archeologists and historians. If there are controversies about a basalt in an outcrop and as long as it’s not on the Moon, North Korea or some other inaccessible location, we can usually gather more samples, look at the rocks below and above and laterally from the basalt, run more tests, and perhaps answer the questions. Unless new discoveries are made, historians and archeologists are often stuck with what they’ve got.
<br /><br />
I fully recognize that my standards for accepting claims about natural or human history are probably too stringent for the official procedures used by archeologists, historians and definitely for apologists of the Bible. But that’s too bad for them and I’m not going to lower my standards to appease their religious, political and academic agendas. My standards are high and based on the scientific method and those used by geologists. My standards work for natural history and I see no reason to lower them for human history. Yes, my approach is very conservative and would lead to more false negatives than other approaches; that is, I would have the tendency to be more skeptical of a lot of historical claims that historians, Christian apologists or archeologists would accept as “fact.” However, I think that this is the right approach to avoid accepting bad claims as “history.” I also recognize that very little human history will ever reach my standard of confidence, but I think quality evidence is better than quantity of claims. Most human history is never recorded anyway.
<br /><br />
<u>The Supernatural</u>
<br /><br />
I define a supernatural act or “magic” as a feat that violates the laws of chemistry and/or physics. Such a supernatural feat could also be called a miracle. For our everyday macroscopic world, the laws of physics would include Newtonian physics for the most part rather than Einsteinian Relativity. The laws of Chemistry are based on atomic theory. Obviously, as our knowledge of chemistry and physics grows, my views of what is supernatural, artificial and natural might change. However, even with the advent of Einsteinian physics, Newton’s laws still widely apply in our Universe.
<br /><br />
I would define a supernatural being as an individual or thing that is capable of performing supernatural acts or has bodily structures that are inconsistent with biology. Examples would include gods, angels, the Talking Snake, fire-breathing dragons, and trees that produce fruit that can increase lifespans and mental abilities with one bite. Also, if a “prophet of God” actually and demonstrably turns lead into gold in violation of the laws of chemistry or levitates against the law of gravity, I would accept that as evidence of the supernatural, and I would have to recognize that this individual has real supernatural abilities. Unlike other secularists, I’m unlikely to move the goal posts to redefine a truly verified miracle, if it ever occurs, as part of a new still totally naturalistic worldview. So, from what we know about the intelligence and the inability of snakes and other reptiles to speak, if a snake starts having a conversation with me and other witnesses, I would have to change my skeptical views of Genesis 3. We also don’t expect the fruit of trees to immediately and substantially increase the mental abilities and lifespans of humans beings with just one bite. If science verifies that such trees exist, I would again have to reduce or even eliminate my skepticism of Genesis 3. Until I actually have definitive evidence of the supernatural, I will not say that miracles are impossible. However, I will automatically classify <u><b>any</b></u> supernatural claim as highly unlikely; this would include the Talking Snake of Genesis, as well as the claim that Romulus was born of a virgin. Again, I’m not saying that miracles and supernatural beings are impossible, but I’m saying that they’re highly unlikely until we get good evidence for them. I have yet to see any definitive evidence of any supernatural event or being, but I’m open-minded as long as my standards are met. I will not lower my standards for any religious, political or other agenda. I fully recognize that this is very difficult for my opponents to meet. However, that’s too bad for them. I won’t lower my standards to help them. They must find some way of meeting my standards if they want me to accept their claims. If they meet my standards, I will change my mind and admit that I’m wrong. Again, these are my standards and I don’t speak for other secularists.
<br /><br />
In addition, there are claims of natural and not necessarily supernatural creatures where the evidence of their existence is either inadequate or nonexistent, such as Bigfoot, Nessie or the Cyclops. Claims for their existence are either based on personal testimony or ancient written records, which, so far, have been untrustworthy. Although their existence is naturally possible, we currently have no physical evidence of their existence. The presentation of a living example or a dead body that can be examined for authenticity, such as a Bigfoot, would be enough to demonstrate that they exist.
<br /><br />
<u>My Agnosticism</u>
<br /><br />
Although I don’t believe in Zeus, Thor and other specific gods, I am an agnostic about generic God(s). Although I don’t find the evidence totally convincing, I see some evidence in Intelligent Design arguments, which may indicate that one or more Gods could have created the Universe and possibly life on Earth. If these God(s) exist, I suspect that they are totally or largely Deistic. In other words, if they exist, they are probably impersonal. I see no evidence for answered prayers or an afterlife. However, if someone actually demonstrates that prayer can raise the dead or restore a severed limb, then I must recognize that one or more personal Divine Beings exist.
<br /><br />
My willingness to consider the possibility of God(s) creating the Universe or life is not a god-of-the gaps (i.e., God did it!) fallacy because I’m only saying that it’s a possibility and not definite. Nevertheless, I see the origin and geological history of the Earth as being totally explained by natural processes without the need for supernatural intervention.
<br /><br />
I am also a “weak” and not a “strong” agnostic. That is, I only speak for myself. I recognize that others may have had a definite vision or personal encounter with God or gods. I don’t know if their personal experiences with God or gods are real. I suspect that Kat Kerr is delusional or lying when she says that she has seen Jesus’ Candyland in Heaven.
<br /><br />
As for the existence of other supernatural beings, such as fairies, a Talking Snake, Tiamat, witches with supernatural powers, sirens, fairies, ghosts, angels, and other magical creatures my doubts are even stronger. I see absolutely no evidence for them. Until a claim about them actually has some evidence, I won’t accept their existence. However, if someone eventually comes forward with evidence for demons, Talking Snakes, fairies, witches, and other supernatural beings, I’ll simply change my mind and admit that I’m wrong. Until at least some evidence that can be totally verified under strict scientific conditions, I will not accept their existence. Eyewitness testimonies under uncontrolled conditions are not good enough evidence for me. I totally recognize that this could mean that I end up rejecting valid claims for the existence of a supernatural event or being, but that’s not my problem. It’s the problem of those that advocate for their existence. I also fully recognize that believers in the supernatural will find my standards essentially impossible to meet or, as you have said, no one can locate and excavate the Garden of Eden. However, that’s your problem. You have the burden of evidence for claiming that supernatural beings exist and that supernatural events occur or have occurred. You will need to somehow produce evidence for a Talking Snake. Even if it’s essentially impossible for you to do so, I will not lower my standards.
<br /><br />
INVESTIGATION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT
<br /><br />
<u>My Proposal on Alexander the Great</u>
<br /><br />
My proposal or hypothesis for testing the existence of Alexander the Great is very conservative. I simply propose that Alexander the Great was:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>1. a human being that lived in the 4<sup>th</sup> century BC and not a mythical or fictional being.
<br /><br />
2. he was a military leader that had an extraordinary political effect over a wide region of at least the Middle East.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Again, I don’t expect to “prove” these statements, but only show that they are either probable or beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, as a scientist, I don’t claim ultimate proof. However, some claims are so well verified that I would identify them as demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. If these two claims are demonstrated to be probable or even beyond a reasonable doubt, then I could look at other claims made about Alexander in the works of Arrian, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch, etc. and possibly test them with external evidence. I also fully recognize that my very conservative and cautious approach will at least initially overlook many of his detailed accomplishments and underestimate Alexander the Great’s influence in his society. But, I want to be slow and cautious.
<br /><br />
<u>McDaniel (2019)</u>
<br /><br />
McDaniel (2019) at <a href="https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/14/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-existence-of-alexander-the-great-quite-a-lot/">https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/14/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-existence-of-alexander-the-great-quite-a-lot/</a> is a response to archskeptics that claim that Alexander the Great never existed at all. She presents some relevant evidence that Alexander the Great was an actual military leader and king, which is exactly what I want to demonstrate. If her claims actually had been thorough and totally reliable and if she had properly referenced her claims with peer-reviewed science journals, I could have just linked to her essay and declared that archeology effectively supplements the Roman histories and demonstrates my proposal to be probable or even beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, no one is perfect and I have found a number of errors and inadequacies in her article. First of all, it’s poorly referenced. Wikipedia links aren’t good enough. We don’t know if she got her statements from reliable sources or not. Thus, her claims need to be verified with other sources and even if she had referenced her claims, I would still have needed to check those references to make sure that she properly cited them. Furthermore, it’s possible that other researchers have proposed opposing and alternative explanations to her claims. Secondly, when I checked her claims, I found that she had made some errors. Now, I fully recognize, as she stated in her essay, that she could not discuss all of the evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great in a brief article. Yet, I found some important details about the artifacts and the life of Alexander the Great that she did not discuss, which I think deserve mentioning. Although I don’t see any need to comment on some of her claims, there are cases where I will further discuss the issues that she raises, correct her errors when I can, and present additional relevant information that she did not mention. Nevertheless, McDaniel (2019) made a good start and her essay is a valuable guide on where to start looking for contemporary evidence about the life of Alexander the Great.
<br /><br />
<u>Ancient Histories</u>
<br /><br />
McDaniel (2019) lists five ancient historians that produced works that discuss Alexander the Great, which are (various spellings): Diodorous Siculus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Arrianos (Arrian), Plutarch, and Justin’s work based on an earlier work by Trogus. In her opinion, the works by Arrianos and Diodoros are most reliable. If it could be shown that these historians were independent of each other and if they had reliable sources, then we would have reason to place greater confidence in their claims even without any external evidence. Furthermore, if one author writes a positive biography on a leader and another writes a negative one, we might have more confidence if they both agree that the leader was involved in a battle at particular time and location. So, independent or competing written accounts can certainly improve the confidence that an event occurred or an individual actually existed. However, demonstrating that two accounts are truly independent is not easy unless they are well-dated records, such as any observations of a comet from 10th century China and central Europe.
<br /><br />
Nevertheless, too often ancient authors fail to list their sources. Furthermore, they may be relying on each other or burrowing information from the same erroneous sources. So, in most cases, we will need external evidence to confirm their claims. Again, once several claims made by a particular historian have been confirmed by reliable external evidence, I can have greater, but not absolute, confidence in their other statements.
<br /><br />
Although these five works were written centuries after the lifetime of Alexander the Great, they can still be used as guides to test their accuracy with archeology and other scientific results. For example, when Arrian says that Alexander the Great saw a lunar eclipse within the month of the Battle of Gaugamela, as discussed below, we could look for Babylonian tablets and use archeoastronomy calculations to confirm the time and date of the eclipse. Thus, statements in these histories might give us value clues on where to dig (sometimes literally) for more evidence about Alexander the Great.
<br /><br />
At the same time, we have to be initially skeptical about written documents. As you know, any literate individual can write anything. Just because something is written down does not mean that it happened. As I’ve stated before, the history of the Mormon Church teaches us that it’s very possible for large numbers of people to believe in fabrications in a short period of time. I also see no reason to be superstitious and invoke demonic activity to explain the origin of the Mormon Golden Plates, especially when human lies and deception are adequate enough explanations. Thus, documents, like the book of Mormon, have the capability of deceiving thousands or even millions within a few decades after the fabrications. Certainly, claims in the literature must be verified with external evidence.
<br /><br />
<u>Contemporary Administrative Document from Bactria</u>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.khalilicollections.org/collections/aramaic-documents/khalili-collection-aramaic-documents-a-long-list-of-supplies-disbursed-ia17/">https://www.khalilicollections.org/collections/aramaic-documents/khalili-collection-aramaic-documents-a-long-list-of-supplies-disbursed-ia17/</a>
<br /><br />
This is a link that shows an administrative document, identified as sample C4, which states that it was written starting on 15 Sivan in the 7<sup>th</sup> year of “Alexandros” and then extending over the next three months. This date, which is June 8, 324 BC, is based on when Alexander ascended the throne in Babylon and not Macedonia (Naveh and Shaked 2006, pp. 199, 206). The document deals with the distribution of supplies. It is one of 30 administrative documents all written in Official Aramaic from the province of Bactria in central Asia. Some of the other documents in the collection mention Artaxerxes III, Artaxerxes V, Bessus, and Darius III. Naveh and Shaked (2006, pp. 15-19) discuss the paleography of this and the 29 related documents and the cities in Bactria where they might have been written. Naveh and Shaked (2006, p. 15) indicate that the Official Aramaic script is from the late Achaemenian period and into the time of Alexander the Great. Of the 30 documents, 29 are confirmed to be from the 4<sup>th</sup> century BC. The 30<sup>th</sup> document is fragmentary, but the writing suggests that it may be from the first half of the 5<sup>th</sup> century BC (Naveh and Shaked 2006, p. 16).
<br /><br />
Document C4 by itself indicates that it was written in Bactria during the 7th year of the reign of “Alexandros” – a king with a Greek name. The paleography of C4 and associated documents confirms that they were written in the 4<sup>th</sup> century BC. This is an excellent example of a contemporary document.
<br /><br />
<u>Gaugamela Campaign and a Lunar Eclipse</u>
<br /><br />
Although they rely on the writings of Arrian, Plutarch, Curtius Rufus, and other ancient accounts to partially understand Alexander the Great’s route to Gaugamela and Arbela, Marciak et al. (2020a) is also a good example of a research team using archeological and other scientific evidence to provide specific dates for Alexander the Great’s campaigns when the accounts in the ancient histories of Arrian, Plutarch and others are inadequate and even contradictory. The second article by Marciak et al. (2020b) is an erratum for Marciak et al. (2020a). However, it only deals with some omitted affiliations of the authors and omission of their acknowledgements, and nothing serious.
<br /><br />
In their investigation to determine the exact date for the Battle of Gaugamela, Marciak et al. (2020a, p. 537) state:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>“The exact date of the Battle of Gaugamela has long been contentious because it cannot be unambiguously fixed based only on information proved by classical writers. Only two classical sources about the Battle of Gaugamela provide us with relatively detailed chronological references – Arrian and Plutarch. However, upon consideration, they turn out to contradict each other.”</blockquote>
<br /><br />
So, Arrian, Plutarch and other ancient histories aren’t good enough by themselves to specifically date this battle. They need archeological and other scientific evidence to provide details and clear up contradictions.
<br /><br />
Arrian (3.15.7) states that Alexander’s victory at the Battle of Gaugamela occurred in the same month as a near-total lunar eclipse (Marciak et al. 2020a, p. 538). To resolve the dating inconsistencies and contradictions in the works of Arrian and Plutarch, Marciak et al. (2020a, pp. 538-539) reviewed the dates of the events from two cuneiform tablets in the British Museum and results from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries for that time (Hunger and Sachs 1988). In the Astronomical Diaries, the Babylonians made daily astronomical observations and noted celestial events. Now, the two tablets are not ideal and were probably not contemporary with Alexander, but they were closer to the events than the ancient histories. Marcia et al. (2020a, p. 539) refer to the tablets and state:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>“The tablets in question were definitely written after the described events (as their narrative continues until Seleucid times). The tablets refer to the battle as ‘raising the standard’ by Alexander (who is named ‘king of the world’) and date it to the 24<sup>th</sup> day of the sixth month (Ululu) in the fifth year of the reign of King Darius (III). This reference can be transferred into the modern Gregorian calendar as October 1, 331 BC. Furthermore, the tablets also record two other interesting events directly preceding the battle – an outbreak of panic in the camp of the (Persian) king on the eleventh day of the sixth month (Ululu) and a lunar eclipse on the thirteenth day of that month.” [reference numbers omitted]</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Using the two Babylonian tablets and the <i>Astronomical Diaries</i>, Marciak et al. (2020a, pp. 538-539) were able to derive more precise and consistent dates than what could be derived from Arrian and Plutarch alone. Their results are September 18, 331 BC for the panic, which they think probably coincided with Alexander’s crossing of the Tigris River, the lunar eclipse was on September 20, 331 BC and the Battle of Gaugamela occurred on October 1, 331 BC. Marciak et al. (2020a, pp. 539-543) then correct and reconcile the accounts in Arrian and others with their results. In another study, Polcaro et al (2008) used an astronomy computer program to confirm that the lunar eclipse would have been visible in the region where Alexander the Great, his troops and his opponents were located shortly before the Battle of Gaugamela and that it would also have been observed by the Babylonian astronomers on the evening of September 20, 331 BC.
<br /><br />
<u>Babylonian Cuneiform Tablets</u>
<br /><br />
McDaniel (2019) mentions two other Babylonian cuneiform tablets associated with Alexander the Great: The Chronicle Concerning Alexander and Arabia and the Alexander Chronicle. According to McDaniel (2019), the tablets are contemporary and describe the last few years of the reign of Alexander the Great, including a description of Alexander’s victory at Gaugamela about one year after it happened.
<br /><br />
However, the contents of the two tablets are not very well preserved and the conclusions are not as definitive as McDaniel (2019) claims. The content of the Chronicle Concerning Alexander and Arabia, also called BCHP 2 and BM 41080, is especially not very well preserved.
<br /><a href="https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/bchp-2-alexander-and-arabia-chronicle/#:~:text=The%20Babylonian%20Chronicle%20concerning%20Alexander,Macedonian%20king%20Alexander%20the%20Great">https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/bchp-2-alexander-and-arabia-chronicle/#:~:text=The%20Babylonian%20Chronicle%20concerning%20Alexander,Macedonian%20king%20Alexander%20the%20Great</a>
<br /><br />
The reverse side of the tablet is not preserved at all and the above website admits:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>“This fragment probably deals with the second entry of Alexander the Great into the city of Babylon in 323 BCE, but the condition of the tablet hardly allows firm conclusions.”</blockquote>
<br /><br />
The contents of the <i>Alexander Chronicle</i> are more definitive. The <i>Alexander Chronicle</i>, also identified as ABC 8, BCHP 1 and BM 36304, clearly refers to Alexander and his troops and king Darius (<a href="https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/bchp-1-alexander-chronicle/">https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/bchp-1-alexander-chronicle/</a>). Nevertheless, parts of the tablet are damaged and some details are difficult to follow.
<br /><br />
<u>Alexander’s Letter to the Chians</u>
<br /><br />
The letter from Alexander the Great to the people of Chios is an inscription on a limestone slab. It’s currently in a museum on the Greek island of Chios. McDaniel (2019) does not discuss this artifact. The inscription is in the present tense and refers to Alexander as the king (Heisserer 1973, p. 192). Heisserer (1973) discusses the dating of the slab. Some scholars think that the slab refers to events recorded by Arrian and should date to the late summer of 332 BC. Heisserer (1973, pp. 192-193) also uses Arrian and other ancient references, but disagrees. He thinks that it’s more consistent with Alexander’s attitude towards the city of Ephesos in 334 BC.
<br /><br />
Certainly, Heisserer (1973) and his references depend on Arrian’s work. However, this is an example of where an artifact helps to confirm the claims in Arrian about Alexander. Heisserer (1973) also discusses some of the characteristics of the Greek lettering on the slab. So, potentially, the Greek vocabulary and paleography might also confirm the age of the slab. However, Heisserer (1973) and his colleagues seem confident that the slab dates from 334 to 332 BC and was from Alexander the Great.
<br /><br />
<u>Priene Inscription in the Temple of Athena Polias</u>
<br /><br />
McDaniel (2019) mentions the Priene inscription in the Athena Polias Temple. The inscription says that “King Alexander dedicated this temple to Athena Polis” ( https://www.livius.org/pictures/turkey/priene/priene-temple-of-athena-polias/priene-temple-of-athena-polias-alexander-inscription/ ). McDaniel (2019) states that the inscription dates to about 330 BC. However, other references state that its date is not that exact. The livius website linked above dates the inscription to 332-323 BC. Others have dated the inscription from 334 to 306 BC (Paganoni 2017). Sherwin-White (1985) is a researcher that thinks that the inscription was created after the death of Alexander during the reign of Lysimachus. Lysimachus lived from about 360 to 281 BC. That is, he lived during and long after the lifetime of Alexander the Great.
<br /><br />
<u>Contemporary Egyptian Inscriptions</u>
<br /><br />
McDaniel (2019) mentions the Egyptian hieroglyph showing Alexander the Great addressing the god Min in the Luxor Temple in Egypt. According to McDaniel (2019), the inscription dates to about 332 BC. Additionally, Bosch-Puche (2013) and Bosch-Puche and Moje (2015) lists numerous examples of contemporary Egyptian inscriptions referring to Alexander the Great during his reign. Dates for the inscriptions are often included. For example, Bosche-Puche and Moje (2015) list the dates of the 22 inscriptions. One inscription has an uncertain range of dates from 332-323 BC. The other 21 inscriptions tend to have dates that are quite specific and range from about 331 BC to 12 April – 11 May 327 BC.
<br /><br />
<u>Coins Minted during the Reign of Alexander the Great</u>
<br /><br />
McDaniel (2019) mentions that numerous coins were minted during the reign of Alexander the Great and after his death. Kontes (2000) further states that the posthumous minting of the coins continued for about two decades after Alexander died. Thousands of the coins still exist today (Kontes 2000).
<br /><br />
McDaniel (2019), however, incorrectly states that the coins show Alexander’s face on them. Most experts think that the faces on the coins, such as those shown in the figures in McDaniel (2019), represent Hercules wearing a lion skin. The seated figure on the reverse side is Zeus (Kontes 2000; Gatzke 2021, pp. 98-99). Gatzke (2021) suggests reasons why Alexander the Great used the image of Hercules on his coins. Gatzke (2021, p. 103) concludes:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>“Because Alexander’s extensive minting and distribution of the beardless Heracles-type had established it as the most recognizable and acceptable currency of the period from the eastern Mediterranean to India, it is no surprise that in the years following Alexander’s death, as his successors struggled for political dominance and control of his empire, they maintained this coinage. The widespread and recognizable coin type provided them with the appearance of economic and political continuity in an otherwise unstable new world.”</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Scholars discovered that the minting patterns and other characteristics of the coins allowed them to distinguish early from later coins, establish a general chronology and determine where the coins were minted (Kontes 2000). Kontes (2000) further discusses how the patterns and scripts on the coins changed during the years of the reign of Alexander the Great and with the mint. Price (1991) presents further details on the characteristics of the coins. I also fully recognize that mythical beings, such as Hercules or Harry Potter, sometimes appear on coins. My point is - it’s often not the image on the coin that is important, but who had the power and wealth to issue the coins.
<br /><br />
As discussed by Kontes (2000), Price (1991) and their references, there are certainly controversies over when Alexander began minting his coins during his reign, exactly when certain mints began to operate, and other details. However, they all agree that Alexander the Great had a large number of coins minted in his lifetime. Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. (2000, p. 342) states that Alexander the Great established at least 31 mints in his Empire between 334 and 323 BC.
<br /><br />
Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. (2000) performed trace element analyses on silver coins minted in Macedonia during and after the reign of Alexander the Great. As a comparison, analyses were also done on two Babylonian coins. The analyses used energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF), which has the advantages of being non-destructive of the coins and it can simultaneously and accurately measure low concentrations of trace elements that are common in silver coins (Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. 2000, p. 343). The concentrations of trace elements, especially bismuth and copper, are important in identifying the location where the silver was mined, in distinguishing the coins from different mints and it can also provide evidence in identifying posthumous coins (Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. 2000, pp. 346-348). Initially, the dates and minting locations of the coins were determined by numismatists Price, Le Rider and Troxwell. A bismuth to copper plot was able to distinguish the coins into two groups. The high bismuth group were mostly associated with the Amphipolis mint in Macedonia and 13 of the 14 posthumous coins formed as distinctly separate high bismuth and high copper subgroup (Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. 2000, pp. 346-347). The low bismuth group contained four coins from Amphipolis and two from Babylon. Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. 2000, p. 348) then conclude:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>“For most of them [the coins] the [analytical] results agree with the archeological attribution of the coins. In cases, where there is ambiguity in the archeological characterization, the bismuth-copper data can be used as further evidence.”</blockquote>
<br /><br />
I won’t go into further detail about the discussions in these various documents. If you’re interested, you can read them for yourselves. The point is, that science helps to confirm that numerous coins were minted in Macedonia and throughout Alexander’s empire during his lifetime, which further indicates that he was a real and wealthy leader with extensive power and influence. He was not just a local ruler in Greece.
<br /><br />
<u>Alexander Sarcophagus</u>
<br /><br />
McDaniel (2019) states:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>“Another piece of archaeological evidence of Alexander the Great’s exploits is the famed Alexander Sarcophagus, a remarkably well-preserved Hellenistic marble sarcophagus from Sidon dating to the fourth century BC, within a few decades of Alexander the Great’s lifetime. The carvings on the sarcophagus depict Alexander the Great’s conquests.”</blockquote>
<br /><br />
She further mentions that the Sarcophagus is currently located in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum.
<br /><br />
McDaniel’s statements on the Alexander Sarcophagus are generally accurate and Heckel (2006) presents additional information on it. Heckel (2006, p. 385) states that the style of the artwork on the Sarcophagus dates to the last third of the 4th century or as McDaniel (2019) states “…within a few decades of Alexander the Great’s lifetime.”
<br /><br />
Although the Sarcophagus is decorated with scenes involving Alexander the Great (Heckel 2006), it did not contain the body of Alexander. The ultimate fate of Alexander the Great’s body is unknown, although scholars like, Chugg (2002), have their convictions. The Sarcophagus gets its name from its artwork of Alexander the Great’s achievements.
<br /><br />
Traditionally, most scholars thought that the sarcophagus was the resting place of Abdalonymus, who was installed as King of Sidon in late 333 or early 332 BC (Heckel 2006, p. 385). However, there are a number of controversies associated with Abdalonymus. First of all, we’re not certain if Alexander the Great himself or someone else installed Abdalonymus as king (Heckel 2006, p. 385). Secondly, Heckel (2006, pp. 386-388) is skeptical that Abdalonymus is represented in any of the artwork and that his body was placed in the Sarcophagus.
<br /><br />
<u>Tyre Land Bridge</u>
<br /><br />
McDaniel’s statements on the Tyre land bridge are brief and generally accurate. Marriner et al. (2007), Marriner et al. (2008) and Nir (1996) further discuss the geology of the land bridge, how Alexander and his troops probably constructed it, and how nature has modified it over time. Marriner et al. (2008) contains numerous radiocarbon dates, but none of them appear relevant to when Alexander the Great constructed the land bridge.
<br /><br />
<u>Conclusions about Alexander the Great</u>
<br /><br />
The ancient histories on Alexander the Great by Arrian, Plutarch, and others are extremely valuable. However, these histories cannot be taken at face value. Marciak et al. (2020a) and other researchers demonstrate that these histories are not infallible and that archeological and other scientific evidence is often required to supplement, correct and clarify their claims. The scientific data confirms that Alexander the Great had great influence over a wide region, including Greece, Central Asia and Egypt. The enormous number of coins minted in his name further demonstrate his wealth and economic power. The evidence overwhelming confirms my hypothesis on the existence of Alexander the Great and refutes any archskeptics that might say that he did not exist.
<br /><br />
TALKING SNAKE IN GENESIS 3
<br /><br />
Unlike the archeology and other evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great, there’s not a shred of external evidence for the existence of the Talking Snake in Genesis 3. Now, I’m not going to wade into the controversy about the authorship of the Pentateuch and the Documentary Hypothesis. Any proponent claiming that Genesis 3 is history would have to deal with that.
<br /><br />
We simply don’t know who wrote Genesis 3 and when they wrote it. As I mentioned before, there are scraps of Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they don’t appear to include chapter 3. Now, several hypotheses could be proposed to explain the origin of the Talking Snake story:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>1. The Talking Snake existed and the account in Genesis 3 was accurately passed down by Adam to Moses. Moses then wrote it down in Genesis. There would have been no human eyewitnesses for most of the events in Genesis 1-2:14. If Genesis 1-2:14 is history, God would have to have given the information in these verses as visions.
<br /><br />
2. Moses saw Genesis 1-3 and perhaps most or even all of everything else in Genesis through visions given by God. There didn’t need to be a continuous human transmission of information from Adam to Moses. Visions from God would not be open to errors unlike written or oral transmissions from Adam to Moses.
<br /><br />
3. The Talking Snake of Genesis 3 was part of a made-up campfire story, a parable or based on a pagan myth that eventually was taken as fact by the ancient Israelites, like how President Reagan and his fans mistook fictional stories from World War 2 as real. William Tell (<a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-william-tell-2198511/">https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-william-tell-2198511/</a> ) and a number of Roman Catholic saints (<a href="https://listverse.com/2014/05/17/10-beloved-saints-with-fictitious-biographies/">https://listverse.com/2014/05/17/10-beloved-saints-with-fictitious-biographies/</a> ) are probably also myths. Of course, in the United States, pro-abortionists regularly use fictional TV shows to convince Americans that abortion is a good thing. Even though they are fiction, many people believe the propaganda. Right now, a lot of Russians are believing the fictional propaganda their government is inventing about Ukraine. People also often pick and choose parts of fictional stories that they want to believe and ignore the rest, such as individuals believing in the existence of “The Force” from the <i>Star Wars</i> movies, while recognizing that the rest of the movies are fiction. A lot of people are gullible and believe fictions are real.
<br /><br />
4. “Prophets” or others claimed to have visions from God about events that supposedly happened thousands of years earlier. These visions were delusions or outright lies, but a lot of people came to believe them. Joseph Smith also did this and Kat Kerr continues with this nonsense in the US.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
No doubt, other hypotheses could be proposed and you are certainly welcome to add to this list. From your email on February 14, 2022 at 7:27 am Eastern US time and again on February 21, 2022 at 9:44 am Eastern US time, you claim that Genesis 3 was passed down from Adam to Moses and to others. Thus, you seem to support Hypothesis #1 rather than #2-4. Until I see good evidence for #1-2, I think that #4 or maybe #3 are far more probable.
<br /><br />
While Alexander the Great was just a normal human being, a Talking Snake would be a supernatural being and not an ordinary snake. That means that you have to demonstrate with positive evidence that a supernatural Talking Snake is even possible. I’m open to receiving any valid evidence that you may have in your upcoming response, but at this point, as I discussed above, I give the Talking Snake a low probability of existing. To be exact, I think it's safe to call the Talking Snake a myth until demonstrated otherwise.
<br /><br />
Because there’s absolutely no evidence for the origin of the Talking Snake, Hypotheses #3 and #4 are consistent with reality unlike #1 and #2 that depend on groundless speculation about supernatural beings and visions. As I said earlier: which is more probable that someone made up a story that was later believed or that Genesis 3 is actual history? Furthermore, conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews would have a serious problem in choosing between Hypotheses #1 and #2. Yet, there’s a problem with consistency in Hypothesis #1. While advocates of Hypothesis #1 would have to admit that Genesis 1-2:14 came as a vision from God, why exclude Genesis 3 from the same set of visions? Why should any conservative Christian or Jew believe Hypothesis #1 rather than #2?
<br /><br />
Even if you could ever demonstrate that Moses wrote about the Talking Snake story, you still would have to somehow demonstrate that Moses had access to accurate historical information about Genesis 3 that supposedly occurred thousands of years before he was born. Just saying as you do in your Tuesday February 22, 2022 email at 8:51 am US Eastern time that the earliest known audience believed that Moses existed is no evidence that Moses actually existed. The oldest claim that we have for Moses was still centuries after he supposedly lived. We don’t know if Moses and Exodus were originally a work of fiction, borrowed from other myths, obtained in “visions” by prophets, distorted history, or actually history. Considering the archeological work discussed in Finkelstein and Silberman (2001), there’s no evidence of a mass Exodus from Egypt. The ancient Israelites were probably just Canaanites.
<br /><br />
REFERENCES
<br /><br />
Bosch-Puche, F. 2013. “The Egyptian Royal Titulary of Alexander the Great, I: Horus, Two Ladies, Golden Horus, and Throne Names”: Journal of Egyptian Archeology, v. 99, pp. 131-154.
<br /><br />
Bosch-Puche, F. and J. Moje. 2015. “Alexander the Great’s Name in Contemporary Demotic Sources”: Journal of Egyptian Archeology, v. 101, pp. 340-348.
<br /><br />
Chugg, A. 2002. “The Sarcophagus of Alexander the Great?”: Greece & Rome, v. 49, n. 1, April, pp. 8-26.
<br /><br />
Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts: The Free Press: New York, USA, 385pp.
<br /><br />
Gatzke, A.F. 2021. “Heracles, Alexander, and Hellenistic Coinage”: Acta Classica, LXIV, pp. 98-123.
<br /><br />
Heckel, W. 2006. “Mazaeus, Callistthenes and the Alexander Sarcophagus”: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, v. 55, n. 4, pp. 385-396.
<br /><br />
Heisserer, A.J. 1973. “Alexander’s Letter to the Chians: A Redating of SIG3 283”: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 2nd qtr, v. 22, n. 2, pp. 191-204.
<br /><br />
Hunger, H. and A.J. Sachs. 1988. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia: I: Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C.: Austrian Academy of Sciences: Vienna.
<br /><br />
Kallithrakas-Kontes, N., A.A. Katsanos, and J. Tourastsoglou. 2000. “Trace Element Analysis of Alexander the Great’s Silver Tetradrachms Minted in Macedonia”: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research v. B 171, pp. 342-349.
<br /><br />
Kontes, Z.S. 2000 “The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great”: The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great | Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology | Brown University (accessed February 27, 2022).
<br /><br />
Marciak, M., M. Sobiech and T. Pirowski. 2020a. “Alexander the Great’s Route to Gaugamela and Arbela” Klio, v. 102, n. 2, pp. 536-559.
<br /><br />
Marciak, M., M. Sobiech and T. Pirowski. 2020b. “Erratum: Alexander the Great’s Route to Gaugamela and Arbela” Klio, v. 103, n. 1, p. 408.
<br /><br />
Marriner, N., C. Morhange, and S. Meulé. 2007. “Holocene Morphogenesis of Alexander the Great’s Isthmus at Tyre in Lebanon”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 104, n. 22, pp. 9218-9223.
<br /><br />
Marriner, N., J.P. Goiran, and C. Morhange. 2008. “Alexander the Great’s Tombolos at Tyre and Alexandria, Eastern Mediterranean”, Geomorphology, v. 100, pp. 377-400.
<br /><br />
McDaniel, S. 2019. “What Evidence is There for the Existence of Alexander the Great? Quite a Lot.” https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/14/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-existence-of-alexander-the-great-quite-a-lot/ (last accessed February 27, 2022).
<br /><br />
Naveh, J. and Shaked, S. (eds.) 2006. The Khalili Collection: Ancient Aramaic Documents from Bactria (Fourth Century B.C.E.): The Khalili Family Trust: London, UK, 288pp.
<br /><br />
Nir, Y. 1996. “The City of Tyre, Lebanon and Its Semi-Artificial Tombolo”, Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, v. 11, n. 3, pp. 235-250.
<br /><br />
Orsini, P. and W. Clarysse. 2012. “Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, v. 88, n. 4, pp. 443-474.
<br /><br />
Paganoni, E. 2017. “Decreto di Priene in onore di Antigono figlio di Filippo” (in Italian, English abstract), Axon, v. 1, n. 2, December, pp. 103-110.
<br /><br />
Polcaro, V.F., G.B. Valsecchi, and L. Verderame. 2008. “The Gaugamela Battle Eclipse: An Archaeoastronomical Analysis”: Mediterranean Archeology and Archaeometry: v. 8, n. 2, pp. 55-64.
<br /><br />
Price, M.J. 1991. The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus: A British Museum Catalogue: Volume 1: Introduction and Catalogue: The Swiss Numismatic Society in Association with British Museum Press: Zurich and London, 509pp.
<br /><br />
Sherwin-White, S.M. 1985. “Ancient Archives: The Edict of Alexander to Priene, a Reappraisal”: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, v. 105, pp. 69-89.Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-74148317871426865242022-03-02T06:00:00.001-08:002022-03-02T11:27:41.985-08:00Continued XXIX and On to XLVI<br />
<dl><dt>XXIX
<dt>Me to David Phillips Ph.D.,
<dt>Classical Studies, University of Michigan, 2000
<dd>2/21/2022 at 3:58 PM
<dt>Here is the debate to which I would love to invite either you or one of your students to continue with us
<dd><a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2022/02/correspondence-with-gutsick-gibbon.html">Correspondence with Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) and with Kevin R. Henke</a> · <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2022/02/continued-correspondence-with-kevin-xv.html">Continued Correspondence with Kevin : XV - XXVIII</a>
<br /><br />
As explained in a mail also there (second link), my Greek studies were insufficient to correctly place Polybius in time. Hence the "fake news" about Hannibal no earlier sources than Livy./HGL
<br /><br />
<dt>XXX
<dt>Kevin R. Henke to me
<dd>2/22/2022 at 1:44 AM
<dt>Re: And I missed the 1830 Tax Record
<dd>Hi Hans,
<br /><br />
I hope that you get some needed rest. I love sugar too, especially chocolate. However, I have high blood sugar (not diabetic yet) and I should watch how much sugar I eat.
<br /><br />
I appreciate your honesty about Hannibal. Again, we can discuss Hannibal later, if you wish. I don't understand the Swedish academic system that you mentioned in your previous email, but for now, it probably isn't critical. I hope that you can eventually finish your degree.
<br /><br />
Again, we're getting off on the New Amsterdam/genealogy topic. Yet, I confess, I find it far more interesting than the Alexander the Great topic that I should be working on. As we can discuss later, the parish, marriage, real estate transactions, etc. records of my mom's Dutch ancestors are originals. The originals are often photocopied and the photocopies are released to the public. Depending on state regulations, people might also be able to personally inspect the originals if they're willing to travel to the archives. So, they're not handwritten copies of copies of copies of copies, etc. like the Medieval manuscripts. We are fortunate in the US not to have had extensive wars and many of our original records going back to the 17th century still exist.
<br /><br />
You say: "Dutch genes exist independently on whether New Amsterdam existed or not. Your genealogy was known before your chromosomes were." Certainly, there was a good document trail hidden in various U.S. state and other archives before my cousins and I had our DNA analyzed and compared. However, the DNA was absolutely essential in allowing us to identify each other, compare our family trees, track down the right family documentation and it was an important confirmation that our documentation as a whole was correct. The point is, the DNA along with the documentation actually confirmed that these DNA sequences in our bodies were once in our ancestors in New Amsterdam. DNA analyses are also absolutely essential in confirming biological relationships that may not be correct on birth or adoption certificates. For example, there were rumors in my family going back over 100 years ago that my great aunt cheated on her husband and got pregnant from the farm hand. By checking the DNA of the descendants of the resulting child and the descendants of the husband, we confirmed that the dreadful rumor was false and that the husband was the father. As another example, I got a DNA match with an individual named Madeline. After checking her family tree and some documentation, I discovered that Madeline's great, great grandmother Dorothy supposedly married a Henke. After checking other documentation and most of all comparing the amount of matching DNA for Madeline and me, it was obvious that Dorothy was not an in-law of my Henke family, but my great grandfather Henke's older sister. I won't discuss it, but I think I know why Dorothy lied about the identities of her parents. So, both contemporary documentation and DNA are important in confirming genealogical relationships.
<br /><br />
We may not be able to cross-examine the dead, but for individuals back to about the 17th century we can compare their original documents for consistency and get DNA matches from their other descendants. This is suitable forensic evidence. I accept that. You can't do that with the Genesis genealogies. You have no contemporary evidence of any kind that Moses even existed. Yes, there's no doubt that the ancient Hebrews and modern Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians sincerely believe that Moses existed, or as you say "the earliest known audience" believed in them. But, so what? What ancient people sincerely believed about people or events that supposedly occurred thousands of years before them is no evidence that their beliefs were real or their long held traditions were accurate history. People always want their ancestors to be great heroes that overcame great challenges possibly with the help of their gods, so they make up stories. As I've stated before, both modern and ancient people had all kinds of erroneous beliefs and long-held myths. We actually have to find some sort of contemporary evidence for Moses or Adam. Otherwise, the opinions of the "earlier known audience" are groundless and worthless speculation. This is especially true when the traditional beliefs involve magical creatures, like a Talking Snake. Again, both Eve and Joseph Smith claim to have seen magical creatures, where's the forensic evidence that we should believe either of these stories? At least, we know that Joseph Smith existed, we have no evidence whatsoever for Eve. A million sincere believers in the ancient Middle East can be absolutely wrong. Now, if we were to find some ancient contemporary tablet that indicated that Moses and several hundred thousand Israelites passed through Succoth, then great. We have evidence that Moses lived and he was a leader of the ancient Israelites. We can then take other statements in Exodus more seriously, like we do for 2 Kings. But, right now, you don't have any evidence for Adam or Moses, and just because people in the 1st century AD or some other early known audience believed that they were real, there is no reason at all that they actually existed.
<br /><br />
At the time of my ten year discussion, the individual and I had no agreement to make our emails public. So, I'll keep them private. Because you weren't involved in our exchange, I've now changed my policy and I'm willing to release our emails to the public as I state on my website but only if you are willing. Obviously, I would delete your email address to protect your privacy, but I would expect that nothing else would be deleted and nothing inserted. All emails, no matter how brief and trivial, must be included. No additional commentaries should be added to the collection without the other knowing. Just all of the complete raw emails without your email address. Nevertheless, I don't think that very many people will be interested in wading through what could end up as thousands of pages of unedited emails.
<br /><br />
Best
<br /><br />
Kevin
<br /><br />
<dt>XXXI
<dt>Kevin R. Henke to me
<dd>2/22/2022 at 1:45 AM
<dt>Re: a proposal : get in a qualified person in the field of Ancient History
<dd>No. Unless Dr. Phillips is an expert on the Talking Snake of Genesis 3 or has good evidence that the Talking Snake is actually Greek mythology, I have no interest in having another individual possibly provide more tangents and diversions. However, when we discuss Alexander the Great, if you need his help, feel free to consult with him and cite any relevant publications that he may have on the historical record of Alexander the Great.
<br /><br />
Kevin
<br /><br />
<dt>XXXII
<dt>Kevin R. Henke to me
<dd>2/22/2022 at 1:46 AM
<dt>Re: And I missed the 1830 Tax Record
<dd>No, Hans. I'm just asking you to stay on topic. If you have some <b>direct</b> evidence for the existence of a Talking Snake, I welcome your comments <b>at any time</b> and next month we'll discuss Alexander the Great. I just don' t want you skipping from topic to topic and introducing new topics all at once. Stay on topic. You'll have your chance to comment on New Amsterdam, dinosaurs, Hannibal etc. in the upcoming years, but not all once. Be patient.
<br /><br />
Kevin
<br /><br />
<dt>XXXIII
<dt>Kevin R. Henke to me
<dd>2/22/2022 at 2:37 AM
<dt>This Weekend
<dd>Hi Hans
<br /><br />
I normally compose my emails during the day and send them out after 6pm Eastern time.
I'm not going to email you from Thursday February 24, 6:00 pm Eastern US time to Monday, February 28, 6pm Eastern time. This will give you a quiet weekend to get some needed rest and allow me to make some needed progress on investigating Alexander the Great. If you email me on Thursday, I'll respond after 6pm on Monday, my time. Sound Ok?
<br /><br />
Take care
<br /><br />
Kevin
<br /><br />
<dt>XXXIV
<dt>Me to Kevin R. Henke
<dd>2/22/2022 at 1:52 PM
<dt>Re: This Weekend
<dd>Hello to you!
<br /><br />
First, rest on a weekend is fine, but won't necessarily mean I get rest on Monday, and in fact sometimes the street I sleep is less quiet on the weekend.
<br /><br />
Second, I have stated direct evidence, you have dismissed it, and I answer : then you'd have to dismiss lots more as well. The only way to get on with the discussion is discussing the lots more. So have you done, by introducing Joseph Smith. I haven't complained. Except that he is less apt a comparison than Alexander (or, not Hannibal but Brennus). I have no idea what could resolve this except a discussion of the lots more.
<br /><br />
Third, I don't think my level is so bad I would regularly have to consult David Phillips at each step. I was inviting him mainly for an occasional correction (Hannibal was corrected bc I looked up the wiki article and Polybius resurfaced). And for the sake of your questions on my competence. I have not been studying at University since March 2004. I said for joke on my FB profile that I had "studied at Méjanne" - but that's a library - though a good one and one that has texts in Greek, like Photius Bibliographia. Hence my knowledge (on quite another debate) that if Photius did not per se believe angelic movers (of celestial bodies), it was still not a novel theory in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, but one which had been discussed among Christians before Photius (who lived about 400 years earlier). I don't think completing a degree would add much to my competence, some bad habits (like sloppiness in references) are already too well set to change at a supplementary study. I am an essayist with some academic competence, not a full-blood academician.
<br /><br />
Fourth, you are obviously welcome to mirror my publications or even to make a parallel documentation, and to link to it from your site, thanks for the clarification.
<br /><br />
Fifth, enjoy the time off.
<br /><br />
The one thing I'd like to answer even before you get time to see Alexander is, the data you can check with gene tests and documents are important for accuracy - not for your basic knowledge that your family's past in New Amsterdam is history rather than fiction. If you had had no "Dutch" genes, the ancestors from there could have been genetically atypical for Dutch ethnicity or they could have been your legal ancestors with some adoptions involved (though adoptions do tend to stay within ethnic group until recently). It would not have meant you had to reassess that ancestry as Spiderman and Menaechmi.
Let's make clear that when I argue historicity rather than fiction from "first known audience took it as history" this does not mean necessarily complete accuracy. Was there a Battle at Ravenna at which Theoderic of Verona beat Ermaneric? Yes and no. There were two battles of Ravenna, Ermaneric was involved 100 years earlier than Theoderic. But the Battle of Ravenna is not a role playing game that Theoderic and Ermaneric played around a drink of wine. Battles in real historic fact is what gives battles in legend.
<br /><br />
A historic account can be challenged - if there is <i>specific</i> reason for it. But the fact that fictions and frauds exist is as it happens not a specific reason.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>XXXV
<dt>Me to Kevin R. Henke
<dd>2/22/2022 at 2:51 PM
<dt>To think about before Alexander
<dd>Please wait with the answer to when you are prepared to bring on Alexander the Great.
<br /><br />
<i>"We may not be able to cross-examine the dead, but for individuals back to about the 17th century we can compare their original documents for consistency and get DNA matches from their other descendants."</i>
<br /><br />
Yes. But even that involves narrative from the past.
<br /><br />
<i>"This is suitable forensic evidence. I accept that."</i>
<br /><br />
For most of the past, you can't do that.
<br /><br />
<i>"You can't do that with the Genesis genealogies. You have no contemporary evidence of any kind that Moses even existed."</i>
<br /><br />
I have no contemporary evidence as you define it Julius Caesar existed. OK, coins, so Pallas Athena and Harry Potter exist ....
<br /><br />
<i>"Yes, there's no doubt that the ancient Hebrews and modern Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians sincerely believe that Moses existed, or as you say "the earliest known audience" believed in them."</i>
<br /><br />
The main thing for the discussion is:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> ancient Hebrews
<li> and no earlier known audience for whom Moses would have been known if real but was denied.</ul>
<br /><br />
The criterion is earli-EST KNOWN, not just an earl-Y, and also not a hypothetical earli-ER but UNKNOWN.
<br /><br />
<i>"But, so what? What ancient people sincerely believed about people or events that supposedly occurred thousands of years before them is no evidence that their beliefs were real or their long held traditions were accurate history."</i>
<br /><br />
For "accurate" you have a point. But for history vs fiction, not so.
<br /><br />
<i>"People always want their ancestors to be great heroes that overcame great challenges possibly with the help of their gods, so they make up stories."</i>
<br /><br />
You have given no example that I find convincing. Your principle would involve Alexander being suspect of fictionality bc battle of Issos was a great challenge overcome, and with no contemporary evidence.
<br /><br />
<i>"As I've stated before, both modern and ancient people had all kinds of erroneous beliefs and long-held myths."</i>
<br /><br />
How many of these clearly involve taking fiction for normally transmitted history?
<br /><br />
<i>"We actually have to find some sort of contemporary evidence for Moses or Adam. Otherwise, the opinions of the "earlier known audience" are groundless and worthless speculation."</i>
<br /><br />
I did not say "earli-ER known" but "earli-EST known".
<br /><br />
<i>"This is especially true when the traditional beliefs involve magical creatures, like a Talking Snake."</i>
<br /><br />
I thought you claimed to be an agnostic. As such, you have no ground to single out stories that if true would need either divine or angelic, and for angelic either good or fallen intervention to work. Please note, a cultural preference shared with the Atheists you claim not to be one of, is not a valid ground.
<br /><br />
<i>"Again, both Eve and Joseph Smith claim to have seen magical creatures, where's the forensic evidence that we should believe either of these stories?"</i>
<br /><br />
We do not have forensic evidence for the battle of Issus. Or even Waterloo.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/archaeologists-to-unearth-ancient-town-of-issus.html">http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/archaeologists-to-unearth-ancient-town-of-issus.html</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>"Die offizielle Website der Gemeinde Erzin vertritt die Auffassung, dass die antike Stadt Issos auf dem Kreisgebiet belegen ist 4. Ein langes Aquädukt mit rund hundert erhaltenen Bogen durchquert die Ebene und endet an einem Standort 7 km westlich der Stadt. Dieser Fundort hat durch die intensive Bodenbearbeitung über Jahre hinweg schwere Beschädigungen der oberflächennahen archäologischen Zeugnisse erfahren. Es handelt sich zweifellos nicht um Issus, das sich am Meer 5 oder unter Berücksichtigung der Anschwemmungen seit der Antike in einiger Entfernung von der Küste befinden müsste, aber die hier gefundenen Zeugnisse finden sich auf mindestens 40 m Höhe."
<br /><a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzin">https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzin</a></blockquote>
<br /><br />
<i>"At least, we know that Joseph Smith existed, we have no evidence whatsoever for Eve."</i>
<br /><br />
Or for Brennus? Or Alexander?
<br /><br />
<i>"A million sincere believers in the ancient Middle East can be absolutely wrong."</i>
<br /><br />
About their religion, granted. About claims of recently di[s]closed much more ancient history, or secret societies reaching back long in time, equally granted. But about claims of what seem to them normally transmitted history, not so.
<br /><br />
How come a million sincere believers in your approach to history can't be wrong?
<br /><br />
<i>"Now, if we were to find some ancient contemporary tablet that indicated that Moses and several hundred thousand Israelites passed through Succoth, then great. We have evidence that Moses lived and he was a leader of the ancient Israelites. We can then take other statements in Exodus more seriously, like we do for 2 Kings."</i>
<br /><br />
We have no ancient contemporary tablet that indicates Alexander invaded Babylon, as far as you have so far presented.
<br /><br />
You mentioned a Babylonian account, I suppose this would be by Berossos. We cannot prove he wasn't born after Alexander died, and only parts of his Histories are preserved.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>"BEROSSUS, in the first book of his history of Babylonia, informs us that he lived in the age of Alexander the son of Philip. And he mentions that there were written accounts, preserved at Babylon with the greatest care, comprehending a period of above fifteen myriads of years: and that these writings contained histories of the heaven and of the sea; of the birth of mankind; and of the kings, and of the memorable actions which they had achieved."
<br /><a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/af/af02.htm">https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/af/af02.htm</a></blockquote>
<br /><br />
In the <i>first</i> book? Doesn't sound like he was telling the battle of Issus, more like giving an intro to himself. And stating Babylonians had 150 000 years of written history. This is insufficient to show what the situation of Alexander was. And the words are not by him, but by Alexander Polyhistor, who lived c. 100 to c. 40 BC. No doubt Alexander Polyhistor may have cited Berossus on that too, but on your principle, a citation by Alexander Polyhistor is insufficient, since not contemporary.
<br /><br />
<i>"But, right now, you don't have any evidence for Adam or Moses, and just because people in the 1st century AD or some other early known audience believed that they were real, there is no reason at all that they actually existed."</i>
<br /><br />
Your ancestors in New Amsterdam arguably believed Calvin was a real person ... now, we arguably do have real evidence from Genève, but what if that were gone?
<br /><br />
How <i>long after</i> an event is past and participants are dead can the now available evidence reach and the evidence <i>still</i> be good?
<br /><br />
How <i>far</i> from the ideals of forensic evidence can history go and still not be myth?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
PS, I wanted to schedule sending time to beginning of March, but that is a premium feature, so I send it now .../HGL
<br /><br />
<dt>XXXVI
<dt>Kevin R. Henke to me
<dd>2/22/2022 at 6:12 PM
<dt>Re: This Weekend
<dd>Hi Hans
<br /><br />
I'm so sorry to hear that you are homeless, especially during the winter. I hope your situation improves soon. I noticed that you had previously made a reference in passing to being homeless, but I thought you meant something else.
<br /><br />
I think it's important to have a narrow topic in depth at one time. If we're discussing a wide variety of topics at once, such as: Joseph Smith, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, etc. we're more likely to make mistakes and not catch the other's mistakes.
<br /><br />
I will spend this weekend concentrating on Alexander the Great. Otherwise, my wife and I have a very hectic life. My daughter needs a lot of support. We have the grandkids after school, I drive my son to work at 10:30 pm on certain days. Walking the dogs 5 km per day. I'm researching a book on the New Testament, etc. It's certainly not as bad as your situation, but still it doesn't give me much spare time.
<br /><br />
I have detected no evidence of adoptions or other irregularities in the Dutch branch of my family tree. The DNA analyses for my cousins and I are consistent with our family trees for every generation going back to New Amsterdam. As I mentioned in one of my last emails, both the DNA and the documentation detected an inconsistency in Dorothy Henke's claims about her parents. So other branches of my family tree are not as simple.
<br /><br />
I now see from your second email from today that you want me to wait until next week before replying. That's fine. This is my last email until next week.
<br /><br />
Have a good rest of the week and weekend.
<br /><br />
Kevin
<br /><br />
<dt>XXXVII
<dt>Kevin R. Henke to me
<dd>3/1/2022 at 1:44 AM
<dt>This Week
<dd>Hi Hans,
<br /><br />
I hope that you are doing well.
<br /><br />
I will probably send my report on Alexander the Great and the Talking Snake to you tomorrow evening or maybe Wednesday evening my time (Easten US). If you decide to respond, I would like you to take two or even more weeks and construct an essay that is well referenced, coherent and thought out. Certainly, respond to my comments and certainly feel free to check my references to make sure that I've properly cited them. I expect you to use at least some peer-reviewed references and not just Wikipedia. I also don't want to watch videos. I only want to see written references in your response. Unfortunately, I'm only literate in English and I don't trust computer translators, so your references will have to be in English if you want me to be able to read them. I apologize for my language limitations. Also, as stated on my website, you're going to have to track down the references that I use and get your own copies. I will not violate copyright restrictions by sending you copies.
<br /><br />
I really want you to construct a good response, as if you were submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal. Also, to make sure that you're not distracted, I will not email you until you finish your response and I ask that you not distract yourself by sending me emails while you're working on your response. I'll have more to say about this when I send my report.
<br /><br />
Sincerely
<br /><br />
Kevin
<br /><br />
<dt>XXXVIII
<dt>Me to Kevin R. Henke
<dd>3/1/2022 at 10:40 AM
<dt>Re: This Week
<dd>I'm fairly fine with this, but if I give a reference in French, German, Latin, will you trust my translation for the quote?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
PS - a lack of an actual <i>paper</i> stating that Berossus did not survive to us as to battle of Issos will not stop me from using it./HGL
<br /><br />
<dt>XXXIX
<dt>Kevin R. Henke to me
<dd>3/1/2022 at 2:24 PM
<dt>Re: This Week
<dd>Hi Hans,
<br /><br />
If you could just quote the French, German, Latin, etc. from the reference with your translation that would be great.
<br /><br />
If a work is lost, such as Berossus or Papias, just cite the source that quoted the work (Eusebius, Syncellus, etc.) and briefly remind me that the original author's work is lost. I tend to overreference my statements. For example, if I write: "Conservative Christians generally believe that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John", I would still cite a conservative reference or two to back up what most people consider obvious. I recognize that what I find obvious, the reader may not.
<br /><br />
I have others needing me to help them with some projects and paper reviews. If you could wait to get back to me with your response and any other emails until March 15 or even later, that would be great . If you get done early, please just wait until March 15 before responding. That would give me a couple of weeks to catch up on some other urgent projects that people want me to work on and that will leave you undisturbed to work on your response and deal with any other issues.
<br /><br />
Thanks,
<br /><br />
Kevin
<br /><br />
<dt>XL
<dt>Me to Kevin R. Henke
<dd>3/1/2022 at 4:28 PM
<dt>Re: This Week
<dd>There are however Conservative Christians who think that the Apostle John was not one of the Twelve, when we talk of the Gospeller.
<br /><br />
THE great reference being:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.editions-beauchesne.com/product_info.php?products_id=353">TH n°010 L'ÉNIGME DU DISCIPLE QUE JÉSUS AIMAIT, Jean COLSON
<br /><i>EAN/ISBN : 9782701000442, Nb de pages : 128 p, Année : 1969</i>
<br />https://www.editions-beauchesne.com/product_info.php?products_id=353</a>
<br /><br />
Long story short, the gospeller arguably was a Cohen (could host the Mother of God from Good Friday on, so arguably had a house in Jerusalem, was known to the Priests, while not one of the Twelve - absence of Eucharistic institution - was nevertheless present at the last Seder, and memorised the speech about the Holy Ghost), the beloved disciple doesn't rhyme too well with being one of the Boanerges whose mother asked about favours and who were going to die martyrs both of them.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>XLI
<dt>Kevin R. Henke to me
<dd>3/1/2022 at 5:04 PM
<dt>Re: This Week
<dd>I agree. Here in the US, fundamentalist Protestant Christians insist that John the son of Zebedee was an apostle and that he must have written the Gospel of John, Revelation, and 1-3 John. They think that only the 11 apostles had permission from God to write the New Testament. That's exactly why it's important to include references for statements that many would think was obvious. See Hodge (2008). You can argue that with them if you wish. Now, I'll get back to my report.
<br /><br />
Hodge, B., 2008, A Look at the Canon: How Do We Know that 66 Books of the Bible are from God?: Answers in Depth, v. 3, pp. 1-12, <a href="https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/a-look-at-the-canon/">https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/a-look-at-the-canon/</a>.
<br /><br />
Best Kevin
<br /><br />
<dt>XLII
<dt>Me to Kevin R. Henke
<dd>3/1/2022 at 7:54 PM
<dt>Re: This Week
<dd>John the Son of Zebedee was an apostle, one of the twelve apostles. Like his brother.
<br /><br />
<i>"They think that only the 11 apostles had permission from God to write the New Testament."</i>
<br /><br />
They can't, since Sts Paul, Marc and Luke weren't among them, and according to many not St James of the Epistle either.
<br /><br />
However, the 12 Apostles were not the only set known as Apostles, we also consider the 72 Disciples as sometimes also known as Apostles. Arguably St. John the Beloved, the Gospeller, was among these as well as being a Cohen.
<br /><br />
Since these guys think the Bible has "66 books" they get the answer to the question wrong. If they went by the local or regional Councils of Carthage and Rome (between Nicaea I and Constantinople I) and their confirmation by Trent, they would get "72 books, or 73 if Baruch is counted separately from Jeremiah" and "as the Church, relying on Her tradition, tells us".
<br /><br />
The mistake about what John wrote the Johannine books doesn't change it is by the disciple who witnessed the Crucifixion and took God's Mother home, as being now Her stepson. And it is also not in the universal tradition of the Church, but contradicted, arguably, by some Church Fathers and martyrologies, as Fr. Colson dug up./HGL
<br /><br />
<dt>XLIII
<dt>Kevin R. Henke to me
<dd>3/1/2022 at 8:08 PM
<dt>Re: This Week
<dd>Hi Hans,
<br /><br />
Interesting perspective. You can debate this with the US fundamentalist Protestants because I don't agree with their position either. Because these fundamentalists are a strong political and religious force in the US, I encounter them all the time. They also dominate young-Earth creationism in the US. Meanwhile, I have to pick up my granddaughter from school and I want to get my essay to you in about 6 hours, so I won't email you further until I see your response in a couple of weeks. Then you can share more with me on the origin and inspiration of the New Testament, if you wish.
<br /><br />
Best
<br /><br />
Kevin
<br /><br />
<dt>XLIV
<dt>Kevin R. Henke to me
<dd>3/2/2022 at 1:41 AM
<dt>Alexander the Great and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3
<dt>PDF attached.
<dd>Hi Hans,
<br /><br />
My essay is attached as a pdf. Again, I would like you to take until at least March 15 to think about the issues as you respond. Certainly, respond to my comments and feel free to check my references to make sure that I've properly cited them. But, I also want you to thoroughly promote and defend, with the best evidence that you have, that the Talking Snake is just as historical or even more so than Alexander the Great. Please deal with all four hypotheses that I have raised for the Talking Snake story and why or why not you accept them. Feel free to add your own hypotheses. Don't just say that the story should be accepted because the earliest known Hebrews believed it. That doesn't work for hypothesis #4.
<br /><br />
I also don't want you to chop my essay and make comments after every sentence or two as you often do in your responses. That's not acceptable. Your essay will eventually be released to the public at both of our websites, and no one would want to read through such a chopped up mess. Our readers would want a coherent, well thought out and well-referenced essay. So, I really want you to construct a good response, as if you were submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal. After I see your response on March 15 or later, I'll either respond to it or we can go onto the next topic.
<br /><br />
Feel free to simply acknowledge that you received this email and that you can open and read the pdf. However, otherwise I don't want you emailing me until March 15. I want you to concentrate undistracted on your response like I concentrated on mine over the last week. (Plus, I was working on my essay part time earlier than that.) So, two weeks or more seems appropriate for a good response. If you happen to finish your response early, please wait until March 15 to send it. I have other urgent commitments.
<br /><br />
Finally, this essay is 100% my work. No one reviewed or coauthored it.
<br /><br />
Thanks and Best to you,
<br /><br />
Kevin
<br /><br />
<dt>XLV
<dt>Me to Kevin R. Henke
<dd>3/2/2022 at 12:44 PM
<dt>Re: Alexander the Great and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3
<dd>In response : I have read it through.
<br /><br />
I won't make a pdf, and I don't know how to link to it from my blog, so unless you give permission to copy it, I can't show it from my blog - or you could make it into a link that ends in pdf, it would be included.
<br /><br />
My response will be a blog post and I will link to Spencer McDaniel from it.* When you provide a link that ends in .pdf, I will add that in a footnote.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>*Spencer McDaniel
<dd>wrote: <a href="https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/14/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-existence-of-alexander-the-great-quite-a-lot/">Tales of Times Forgotten : What Evidence Is There for the Existence of Alexander the Great? Quite a Lot.
<br /><i>Spencer McDaniel Posted on June 14, 2019</i>
<br />https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/14/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-existence-of-alexander-the-great-quite-a-lot/</a>
<br />
<dt>XLVI
<dt>Kevin R. Henke to me
<dd>3/2/2022 at 2:24 PM
<dt>Re: Alexander the Great and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3
<dd>Hi Hans,
<br /><br />
I've included a copy of my essay below.* Hope this helps. I'll talk to you in a couple of weeks.
<br /><br />
Best
<br /><br />
Kevin
<br /><br />
<dt>*Kevin R. Henke
<dd>wrote (mirrored on my blog) <a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2022/03/kevin-r-henkes-essay-alexander-great.html"><i>Kevin R. Henke's Essay: Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3: History?</i>
<br />https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2022/03/kevin-r-henkes-essay-alexander-great.html</a></dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7726935339486613206.post-41508816150254640652022-03-01T02:05:00.004-08:002022-03-01T02:05:34.225-08:00Thomistic Institute Doesn't Answer?<br />
<dl><dt>I
<dt>Me to Thomistic Institute
<dd>1/28/2022 at 5:49 PM
<dt>was already sent to Fr Nicanor Austriaco, OP
<dd><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/01/more-thorough-answer-to-rev-nicanor.html">https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/01/more-thorough-answer-to-rev-nicanor.html</a>
<br /><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/12/niche-argument-revisited.html">https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/12/niche-argument-revisited.html</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<dt>Me to Thomistic Institute
<dd>2/1/2022 at 1:31 PM
<dt>I get a somewhat iffy feeling, if you are the ones recommending those videos
<dd>Apart from the one for Evolution, not bad ones.
<br /><br />
I get the feeling, you are perhaps (or someone else is, but using you) avoiding the actual debate on the relative weight of Genesis 5 and 11 versus samples with 25 pmC (implying as uncalibrated raw carbon dates an age of 11460 years).
<br /><br />
You seem to - or someone else seems to be trying to foist hours of prolegomena on me, as if it were some kind of given I was not as yet qualified to discuss either aspect, as long as I don't agree with you.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSUfieX401Q">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSUfieX401Q</a>
<br /><br />
The video on Sola Scriptura includes the observation that the Protestants had a great optimism about exegesis. Fine. They would obviously (some to this day) say "if a truth had been lost to all of the Church from lack of reading, it could easily be restored by reading" - and I'd agree, but I'd just answer that such a case could not happen, there is a proof text against it, for the Catholic system. This would perhaps to some seem as if I were guilty of "sola scriptura" heresy, but the thing is, "sola scriptura" is the Protestant (more Calvinist than Lutheran, as said) catchword. It is not the exact wording of what the Catholic Church de facto and de jure condemned at Session IV of the Council of Trent. Prof. Michael Root never actually says that the Catholic Church condemned exegetic optimism. But it is left to the imagination.
<br /><br />
Then I get this recommendation:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AgfgDmgogA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AgfgDmgogA</a>
<br /><br />
Now, we must keep in mind, "shadow" and "reality" are here not used in the perspective of humdrum epistemology, as Aristotle would in the Organon. On the contrary, they have a highly Platonic flavour. BOTH are what Aristotle would consider realities, but one of them is a higher one, of a type that Aristotle would dispute on the Tritos Anthropos argument, and the other is a participation in it. Like the Aaronite and even (though less so) Melchisedecian priesthoods were participations of a shadowy type, in the priesthood of Christ, in which Catholic priests have a more direct share.
<br /><br />
In other words, the idea of "shadow" doesn't warrant Adam being some kind of metaphor or genealogies from him to Noah or Shem to Abe some kind of mythology.
<br /><br />
But even more, the argument I made against Fr Austriaco was in fact that pretending Evolution is before sin a fitting process subservient to creation is turning upside down what St. Thomas meant by God giving creatures the dignity of being real causes. That (as some observations on impossibility of human language evolving from non-human oral communications and so on) really has no side open to questions of exegesis. It means Evolution is rotten in sound Thomistic Philosophy even before being in historic narratival conflict with the Bible.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<dt>Me to Thomistic Institute
<dd>2/3/2022 at 6:31 PM
<dt>Can't Fr. Simon Gaine make up his mind to be Catholic?
<dd>I watched his video here:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKcwCpWOZhk">Did Christ Die For Neanderthals? | Fr Simon Gaine, OP
<br /><i>14th Febr. 2020 | The Thomistic Institute</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKcwCpWOZhk</a>
<br /><br />
I answered at time signatures under video, and the comments are also here:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/02/neanderthals-were-human-and-lived-after.html">https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/02/neanderthals-were-human-and-lived-after.html</a>
<br /><br />
The extremely implicit and unargued dependance on the dating methods, the "we must enlarge our understanding of the Bible" and "we can't enlarge our understanding of dating methods, they aren't just by God, you know, they are by S C I E N T I S T S" is annoying to an actual Catholic Christian, and on top of that, in Paris I have to do with an actual apostate who openly wrote he doesn't believe Adam and Eve existed as you and I do, and he hasn't been censured by his hierarchs either of Assumptionist order or of the Archdiocese.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2021/07/autour-de-sebastien-antoni-qui-nie.html">Autour de Sébastien Antoni qui a nié l'individualité d'Adam et d'Ève</a>
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0