"Course of Abiah" — I am referring to a Defense of Christmas, Defending the Sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin

I

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/21/2023 at 1:48 AM

Course of Abiah

I prefer Kurt Simmons' take over yours:

Answering Tovia Singer on December 25 · Sharing on December 25, Kurt Simmons

However, I find it interesting that you said this on a related topic:

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.

There is another "Gideon" connexion.

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" ...

1) Jael (Judges 5)
2) Judith (Judith 13, lacking in 66-book Bibles)
3) The Blessed Virgin Mary (twice in Luke 1, by Gabriel and by Elisabeth).

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.

If your mother had been ever greeted with words like "congratulations for killing Sisera" ... how would she have reacted.

I bet she might have been a bit ... puzzled.

So, when the cousin tells Her the same again, but this time involves Jesus, the Genesis 3:15 reference is very much more apparent.

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.

So, how could She, even without yet having been with child with God inside Her, have already "killed" Satan?

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.

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.

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Edward Bromfield to me

12/21/2023 at 6:42 AM

Re: Course of Abiah

Greetings Hans-Georg Lundal, and thank you for reading my studies and for your email/comment. Lord bless you.

You said: “I prefer Kurt Simmons' take over yours:” with the link, Answering Tovia Singer on December 25 · Sharing on December 25, Kurt Simmons

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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).

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.

III

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/21/2023 at 7:01 AM

Re: Course of Abiah

"You seem to be replacing Jael with Mary"

The angel and Elisabeth seem to be doing that!

Blessed among women be Jahel the wife of Haber the Cinite, and blessed be she in her tent.
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

"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"

Can you give an example?

And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

Note the future tense.

The "blessed among women" is a title up to then belonging to one or two heroines who had already killed an enemy of Israel.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Edward Bromfield to me

12/21/2023 at 3:53 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Good morning Hans-Georg,

Concerning replacing Jael with Mary, you said: “The angel and Elisabeth seem to be doing that!”

I don’t think so. This is how you interpret the two events, which, by the way, are not similar events.

I said: “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.”

You said: “Can you give an example?”

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 “already killed an enemy of Israel?”

V

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/21/2023 at 8:26 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

In Judges 5:24
a) the phrase (very rare in the Bible, only parallels in Judith and in Luke 1) "blessed among women" is used
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

"I did give an example from scripture"

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.

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.

Good evening, by the way, from my pov!

VI

Edward Bromfield to me

12/21/2023 at 11:12 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

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…”

We agree that the phrase occurs only three times, if we include the extrabiblical, Judith.

“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…”

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.

“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.”

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.

“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.”

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?

Lord bless you, Hans-Georg, as you think upon these things.

VII

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/22/2023 at 9:50 AM

Re: Course of Abiah

Satan is not a mortal.

He was / will be crushed three times:

1) By the sinlessness of Mary prior to the pregnancy
2) By the sinlessness of Jesus and Mary up to the Cross and to Jesus descending into Hades
3) By the triumph of the Church after Harmageddon, which seems to be what St. Paul is referring to.

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.

I think that answers your question.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VIII

Edward Bromfield to me

12/22/2023 at 1:11 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Thank your Hans-Georg, and may the Lord bless and protect you always.

Your brother in Christ,

Eddie

IX

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/22/2023 at 3:54 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Thank you.

May I feature our correspondence on a blog of mine, each mail marked out separately for the correct limits?

And, best wishes for the day that actually is the real day when Christ was born!

Hans Georg Lundahl

X

Edward Bromfield to me

12/22/2023 at 4:45 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

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.

XI

Me to Edward Bromfield

12/22/2023 at 7:03 PM

Re: Course of Abiah

Thank you very much!

Richest possible blessings, and Merry Christmas, whenever you celebrate it!

Hans Georg Lundahl

QQ to Those Accepting Pope Francis, so called, as being that

I

Me to

Where Peter Is, Reason and Theology, Mercedarian Friars

11/3/2023 at 11:57 AM

QQ to three full accepters of "Pope Francis" (not directly on his supposed papacy)

The first I have already posted on snail mail to FSSPX, more precisely St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.

It's this.

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,

can I, without disrespect to the papacy, hold that

30 June 1909, Q 8, stating that "days" could mean periods of time and interpreting this as longer ones consider:

1) this was not the fullness of orthodoxy
2) it was even than somewhat heterodox
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.

The second I did not pose them, since they don't accept CCC. It's this:

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?

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Me to

Decrevi, Dominican Friars

11/3/2023 at 11:57 AM

Fw: QQ to three full accepters of "Pope Francis" (not directly on his supposed papacy)

Forwarding to two more.

[+ identical to previous]

Tomasello Not Answering

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Tomasello Not Answering · New blog on the kid: How did human language "evolve from non-human"? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Adam Reisman's Response, Mr. Flibble's Debate · Andrew Winkler's Response and Debate · Creation vs. Evolution: Odd Perfect Numbers? Less Impossible than Abiogenesis or Evolutionary Origin of Human Language!

I

From: Hans-Georg Lundahl (hgl@dr.com)

To: scholars@duke.edu

Monday, September 18, 2023 at 8:14 PM

Subject: For Tomasello, please ...

// 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.
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] //

So ... in apes, we find phoneme = morpheme = phrase.

In man we find phonomeS => morpheme, morphemeS => phrase.

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 ?

Do you admit there is such a thing as notionality and that it is lacking in apes, but present in man?

That man can and apes can't say "I ate riz-au-lait instead of yoghurt today at noon"?

That this makes for making the double subdivision (or double articulation to use the standard term) interesting, but also needs it ?

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.
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.

Hans Georg Lundahl

[When this is published, he'll have had 10 days.]

With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Radiocarbon and Tree Rings with Ken Wolgemuth · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration

wed 13.IX.2023 22:30

Ken Wolgemuth

Hello Hans-Georg,
Here is our paper about Lake Suigetsu.

thu 14.IX.2023

Holy Cross

12:07

HGL

ok, where

14:29

Ken

Oops. Sorry about that.

[attached, but can apparently not be shared by a url accessible to the public here?]

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.

20:59

HGL

ok, I just found it

21:16

Ken Wolgemuth

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?

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?

21:42

HGL

I don't know where you get Switzerland from, unless Sweden and Switzerland are synonyms to you.

Or Austria and Switzerland. I am a Swedish national, and I was born in Austria.

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.

HGL

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.

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).

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.

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).

To turn a measured carbon-14 value into an age, independent methods are employed to first provide realistic assessments of past atmospheric production rates.

Mine is Biblical chronology.

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.

Mine are:

• 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;
• possibly also more carbon dioxyde in the pre-flood world, as pmC is a value in relation to the overall (atmospheric, especially) carbon content
• just after the Flood, when the atmosphere had been reduced, a much higher production rate, than now, through higher incoming radiation, producing:
  • 1) 10 times faster production of C14
  • 2) lowered lifespans
  • 3) cooler weather, resulting in the ice age.

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.

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.

Also, varves are usually laminations. How fast supersaturated water flows will determine if these form.

One way to establish these limits is using beryllium-10 concentrations in sediments that contain carbon-14 above background levels.

My model does not presume carbon-14 was present ABOVE background levels, but BELOW them.

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.

Exactly how is unclear. Recall my model.

• 1) starts out with radically LOWER carbon-14
• 2) presumably the higher production of carbon-14 would involve a higher production of beryllium-10
• 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.

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.

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.

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).

I'd expect exactly the same things from my model.

40 000 - 10 000 BP, a higher concentration, supposing beryllium-10 produces more in proportion to cosmic rays than carbon-14.

10 000 - 5 500 BP, a medium high concentration.

5 500 BP to 3 500 BP, lowering down to today's concentration.

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

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.

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

95 pmC was reached and slightly bypassed in the year 1610 BC, which is therefore dated as 2020 BC.

It's in my table V-VI, which starts out with 87.575 pmC in 1700, and ends in 97.0681 pmC in 1588.

1700 - 1588 = 112 years, normal decay 98.654 % and normal replacement 100-98.654 pmC, i e 1.346 pmC.

98.654 * 87.575 = 86.3962405 pmC remaining
97.0681 - 86.3962405 = 10.6718595 pmC actual replacement
10.6718595 / 1.346 = 7.9285731797919762 times FASTER production

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.

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:

New blog on the kid : Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/raffiner-et-finir-ma-table-de-fibonacci.html

[1.) 50% du "carbone récent", quel âge? Si on divisait une demi-vie en "demi-notes" ....? · 2.) 25% du "carbone récent"? Divisons la distance en 48 parties? · 3.) Trêve de Maths pour l'instant : a-t-on des restes antédiluviennes d'Européens ou non? · 4.) 12,5% du carbone présent : au paléolithique tardif · 5.) Encore "plus bas" dans le paléolithique : 6,25 % restent · 6.) Paléolithique inférieur, alors? · 7.) Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci? · 8.) Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori]

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?

Ken Wolgemuth

It was obviously my mistake about your nationality.

When you are going into this detail, I would prefer email for east of printing to read. My email is [omitted]

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?
Ken

HGL

Mistakes happen, I'll be back on your mail.

But as it is your turn to respond in defense of previous, you get my email first, it's hgl@dr.com* ...

"Do you read this type of geochemistry papers?"

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.

* note:

it is my official public correspondence email.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl — If you wish to correspond with me
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

HGL

one more thing, as I am sharing this debate with the public, I'd like to share the pdf with them, is that possible?

22:20

Ken Wolgemuth

Yes, of course.

23:36

HGL

the problem is, I don't have a functioning url for sharing it?

Malentendus ou pire ?

I

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Sébastien Antoni et Jacques Arnould

Jeudi, 17 août 2023 à 12:27

Je me souviens un jour que Sébastien Antoni me qualifia de terre-platiste

Est-ce que j'ai réussi à éliminer ce malentendu ou non ?

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

De Jacques Arnould à Hans-Georg Lundahl et Sébastien Antoni

Jeudi, 17 août 2023 à 12:42

Re: Je me souviens un jour que Sébastien Antoni me qualifia de terre-platiste

Bonjour.
De quel malentendu parlez-vous?
Avec mes sincères salutations,
Jacques Arnould

III

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould et Sébastien Antoni

Jeudi, 17 août 2023 à 13:36

Re: Je me souviens un jour que Sébastien Antoni me qualifia de terre-platiste

Celui évoqué dans le titre.

Ses mots exacts :

"Bonne balade sur la terre plate à vous"

Et le prendre pour malentendu est charitable de ma part.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Sébastien Antoni et Jacques Arnould

Vendredi, 18 août 2023 à 20:28

Re: Je me souviens un jour que Sébastien Antoni me qualifia de terre-platiste

En me concentrant sur qui j'avais devant moi en France, j'ai peut-être oublié mon propre pays.

Hier, quelqu'un alléguait avoir lu mon blog il y a environ un an · Ces jours, j'ai été un peu plus que prévu sur Quora en suédois

Est-ce que vous auriez, les deux, peut-être cultivé le contact avec des Suédois me concernant ?

Mauvaise idée, au moins pour mes intérêts, sinon pour les vôtres.

Ici Sébastien :

Sébastien Antoni à moi

devant Anne le Pape et Abbé VB

Tuesday, May 04, 2021 at 3:57 PM

Réfutation de l'hérésie prononcée par Sébastien Antoni (envoyé devant deux témoins)

Merci de cette information très utile.

Bonne balade sur la terre plate à vous

Cordialement

S

Autour de Sébastien Antoni qui a nié l'individualité d'Adam et d'Ève

Est-ce que vous aviez l'idée que je sois platiste de quelque Suédois ?

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 ...

Entretemps, pourquoi c'est important et pas juste une question d'obéissance nue ou quasi aveugle devant le Concile de Trente, regardez ceci :

L'humanité ne commence pas avec des singeries

et en anglais ceci :

"Adam was not an individual, the fall was collective" - Evil or Just Wrong? · What About The Jimmy Akin Solution?

Hans Georg Lundahl

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl à Sébastien Antoni et Jacques Arnould

8/21/2023 at 11:46 AM

Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Il semble qu'un homme que vous considérez comme ayant été pape dit ceci :

A vous aussi, qui représentez l'Eglise qui est en Amérique latine, j'ai la joie de remettre aujourd'hui idéalement mon Encyclique Deus caritas est, 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.

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/fr/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20070513_conference-brazil.html

Dans cette perspective, pas beaucoup d'espace pour l'apologétique, n'est-ce pas ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

De Jacques Arnould à Hans Georg Lundahl et Sébastien Antoni

8/22/2023 at 1:46 PM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Monsieur,
Merci pour votre long message...
Je ne vois pas très bien en quoi il me concerne directement.
Je vous souhaite une belle fin d'été,
Avec mes sincères salutations,
Jacques Arnould

VII

Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould

Cc: Sebastien Antoni

8/22/2023 at 2:52 PM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

"long message"

2 mins 23 secs selon
https://thereadtime.com/#google_vignette
(à moins que vous lisiez à vive voix)

"Je ne vois pas très bien en quoi il me concerne directement."

Puisque je considère vous comme Sébastien Antoni comme collègues en tant que publicistes et comme possible compétition.

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.

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.

C'est clair comme résumé? C'est clair pourquoi je vise vous deux?

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, "belle fin d'été," 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 ...

VIII

De Jacques Arnould à Hans Georg Lundahl (seul)

8/22/2023 at 10:11 PM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Bonsoir, Monsieur.
Je ne "machine" absolument rien. Je vous rappelle que c'est vous qui avez pris contact avec moi.
Je vous souhaite une bonne soirée.
Avec mes sincères salutations,
Jacques Arnould

IX

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould et Cc Sébastien Antoni

8/23/2023 at 2:10 PM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Bonjour, Monsieur le Chercheur!
Merci pour la réponse, je vous ai contacté cette fois pour le demander. J'en suis très bien conscient.

Une semblable réponse par Sébastien ne serait pas de trop, s'il le peut honnêtement.

Je ne suis pas un grand ami d'accusations ou de soupçons exprimés, mais avouez que :

• nous sommes trois écrivains qui prétendent tous être catholiques
• moi je suis en conflit avec vous sur le plan de l'évolution
• donc, si je raisonne bien, vous avez un intérêt, soit de me refuter, soit de me marginaliser.

Si vous voudrez, prenez pour une vanité de ma part de penser que je raisonne bien. Donc, de mon point de vue,

• soit vous avez un intérêt de me réfuter
• soit de me marginaliser.

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.

Salutations,
Hans Georg Lundahl

X

De Jacques Arnould à Hans Georg Lundahl

Cc Sébastien Antoni

8/24/2023 at 5:17 PM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Monsieur,
Je ne tiens pas absolument pas à vous marginaliser ; quand d'ailleurs aurais-je (eu) l'occasion de le faire?
Je n'ai par ailleurs jamais refusé de débattre sur la question de l'évolution, dans des ouvrages ou dans des échanges publics.
C'est pour cette raison que j'accepte cet échange de courriers.
Je vous souhaite une excellente fin de journée ; je suis actuellement en déplacement professionnel et n'ai guère de temps libre.
Avec mes sincères salutations,
Jacques Arnould

XI

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould

8/24/2023 at 7:17 PM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Ah, excellente nouvelle !

Désolé pour les soupçons dans ce cas !

Auriez vous de temps libre avant la Sainte Croix ?

Le thème : comment Adam aurait pu avoir une langue humaine s'il était né de non-humains, directement ou à travers n'importe quel nombre d'intermédiaires.

Pour rappel :

• 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) ;
• la phrase est une description complète de la situation qu'on veut décrire ;
• 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) ;
• 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 ;
• la phrase peut être pas seulement une demande ou un reconfort, mais bel et bien une description (le cas le plus typique)
• et peut porter sur des choses niées, conditionnelles, passées, futures, éloignées dans l'espace.

Aucun singe ou grand singe a un seul de ces charactéristiques dans son système de communication, sonore ou autre.

La correspondence sera publié sur un blog de moi, et vous êtes libre à en faire un publication parallèle.

Vous êtes bien d'accord ?

Hans Georg Lundahl

XII

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Sébastien Antoni

8/24/2023 at 7:18 PM

Fw: Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Pardon, j'avais oublié à vous faire une Cc !

[+ identique à XI]

XIII

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould et Sébastien Antoni

8/25/2023 at 3:49 AM

Re: Est-ce que vous détestez l'apologétique ?

Je n'ai par ailleurs jamais refusé de débattre sur la question de l'évolution, dans des ouvrages ou dans des échanges publics.
C'est pour cette raison que j'accepte cet échange de courriers.

Pour rendre notre échange encore plus publique - est-ce que Sébastien serait volontaire de le republier en Pèlerin ? /HGL

XIV

De Hans-Georg Lundahl à Jacques Arnould et Sébastien Antoni

8/26/2023 at 6:40 PM

juste une très brève clarification

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
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
3) qu'on peut donc commencer une édition imprimée ...

Je suis en train d'avoir encore un débat sur quora anglophone, le premier volet se trouve ici : James Ussher in Catholic Apologetics.

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 ...

Hans Georg Lundahl

XV

De:Hans-Georg Lundahl

À: Jacques Arnould et Sebastien Antoni

9/1/2023 at 12:24 AM

...

La cancel culture existe ... y compris de la part de néo-catholiques vis-à-vis des créationnistes jeune terre.

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 ...

Voici comment il fait de la cancel culture ...

Theo Fessenden Debate ... un peu comme je commence d'avoir peur que vous le fassiez, chaque fois que vous n'avez pas une réponse .../HGL

XVI

De:Hans-Georg Lundahl

À: Jacques Arnould et Sebastien Antoni

Cc. Forum Jésus Messie

9/4/2023 at 4:26 AM

Jacques Arnould et Sébastien Antoni - peu avides à me débattre ...

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.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Ussher III · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Numeric Symbolism in Genesis 5 Patriarchs? · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Number Symbolism in Genesis 5? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Ages or Names Symbolic?

Did Muhammad Perform Miracles?
Apologetics Roadshow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ5Vd4-5SVg

XVII

De:Hans-Georg Lundahl

À: Jacques Arnould et Sebastien Antoni

9/14/2023 at 2:36 PM

la correspondance est publiée

[lien à ce post]

XVIII

De Jacques Arnould à Hans Georg Lundahl

Cc Sébastien Antoni

Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 3:45 PM

Re: la correspondance est publiée

Bonjour. Je ne comprends pas. Belle fin de semaine, beau dimanche. Bien sincèrement. Jacques Arnould

XIX

De:Hans-Georg Lundahl

À: Jacques Arnould

9/14/2023 at 4:38 PM

Re: la correspondance est publiée

Si vous aviez cliqué le lien, vous auriez compris.

Merci bcp./HGL

XX

De:Hans-Georg Lundahl

À: Jacques Arnould et Sebastien Antoni

Cc. Forum Jésus Messie

9/16/2023 at 12:00 AM

J'avais oublié

J'ai un autre qui prend le débat :

• premier hic - c'est aux États-Unis que se trouve mon co-débatteur, c'est facile à ignorer ici en France
• deuxième hic - il n'est pas plus préparé pour ce débat qu vous, Jacques Arnould :

Pas avec des singeries, débat avec Laurent Dupont
https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2023/09/pas-avec-des-singeries-debat-avec.html

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

Will This Be Answered? (B)

New blog on the kid: Documented by a Psychiatrist? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Will This Be Answered? (B)

I

From: Hans-Georg Lundahl
To: Mark Greenwald

6/2/2023 at 7:34 PM

It seems my name is mentioned by you?

Academia tells me:
__________________

Dear Hans-georg,
“H. Lundahl” mentioned by “Mark Greenwald”.
__________________

I do not write on psychiatry, except the evils of the superstition?

II

From: Hans-Georg Lundahl
To: Mark Greenwald

7/9/2023 at 2:36 PM

Wait, did you write with one "Leslie H. Lundahl"?

Without Academia plus, I could not directly view the mentions. When I found "H. Lundahl" mentioned in a paper by you again, I figured out, I could so indirectly.

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.

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.

Sorry for the angry letter I sent last time.

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.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Will This be Answered?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Yes, Homosexual People Already Had the Right to Marry · New blog on the kid: Has Introibo Discredited the Orthodoxy of Fr De Pauw? · Is Trent 24, canon 10 a warrant for arranging someone else's celibacy? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Will This be Answered?

I

Marriage as Vocation - pre-modern

From: Hans-Georg Lundahl

To: info@stjosemaria.org

5/19/2023 at 6:31 PM

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:

• he had prematurely tried monasticism
• he had very late been talked into the marriage which was his vocation for saving mankind on the Ark.

In this case, marriage would have been his vocation against his inclination.

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.

For the opposite position on Noah, I have nothing directly patristic, I don't think the Fathers looked often into it.

However, I have Biblical about the last days:

• Jesus said : "as in the days of Noah"
• St. Paul said "heeding doctrines of demons ... forbidding to marry"

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.

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.

Hence, I would like sth going back further than Josemaria or Fr DePauw or anything after Vatican II.

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:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei: Choosing A Marriage Partner In Today's World
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/05/choosing-marriage-partner-in-todays.html

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.

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).

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" ...

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.

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?

Hans Georg Lundahl

* 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.