New blog on the kid: de fide

Are Claims Evidence? · Why Wouldn't Every Claim be Sufficient Evidence? · Visual Experience is Prima Facie Evidence · Relevant Expert? · "In the Beginning God Created Heaven and Earth"

What is the evidence? Dillahunty asked this. Well, I'll answer.

Moses had God tell or show him this on Mount Sinai.

Moses had good reasons to believe it was God he was speaking to.

After all, He had helped a whole people out of Egypt.

So, the evidence is a vision, like the Apocalypse. This is different from evidence for some verses of chapter 1, for much of chapter 2, for all of subsequent chapters, where people were involved and could observe what happened.

In chapter 3, chapter 4, chapters 6 / 7 and also 8 / 9, again chapter 11 verses 5—7, we have God speaking, we need to assume theophanies or prophetic views of what happened.

But surrounding that, we have normal human observation of material factors, like a tree of knowledge, identified in advance, a tree of life, also so, an angel with a burning sword, a city, a genealogy, a wooden vessel, a lot of water, relatively sudden reappearance of dry land, mountains in identifiable geography, more genealogy, and two ill boding societies with human projects. Things that could be observed.

None of these chapters are simply what Moses saw in a vision on Sinai. But chapter 1 is.

Again, what evidence do we have for Moses?

The people saw him divide the waters of the Red Sea, before walking through. They saw him walk up to Sinai.

It is not credible that a people who had a very different origin should have forgotten it and started attributing its existence to a story it had never heard of.

Just as with Acts not credibly being an innovation of the second century.

Again, miracles for both founders and successors.

Now, I will grant, for Moses the moment we see a manuscript comes later in relation to the fact, and the miracles are darker.

But for Jesus, the manuscripts come earlier and the miracles heal.

But in fact, Dillahunty isn't just asking for the specifics of why Theists believe God created rather than keeps an eternally created universe, he isn't asking just whether God created Earth at the same time as the whole expanse of space around it, he's asking about Creation as opposed to other kinds of grounds for being.

Here, philosophy can help. More specifically, refuting Evolution. Let me illustrate once again the difference between human and ape communications, this time with a song:

Narnia: Isle of Hope
narniagirl11 | 12 Jan. 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpC3kPfJpTo

In the refrain, the subtitles give:

I love hope I love tears

But from the title, we know it should be:

isle of hope, isle of tears

What we have witnessed is a pun.

Phrase a:
(A) ail (B) ov ho:p
Phrase b:
(A) ai (B) lov ho:p

I hope you love both hope and tears too, but the song actually is about an isle that offers both hope and tears. Statten Island.

Now, a beast could never make such a pun. Because each sound directly means something, and usually means something on the semantic spectrum of a smiley or a traffic sign. Human speech however, usually has meanings like phrases, one concept being about another. [ov ho:p] qualifies [ail] and [ai] is qualified by [lov ho:p] wherein [lov] also qualifies [ho:p] as the opposite end of the action that unites [ai] and [ho:p], namely [lov]. And crucially, [ail] + [ov ho:p] has the exact same sounds, but not in the same groupings as [ai] + [lov ho:p]. That's why the computer misanalysed. [ho:p] is actually the same word, but [ai] | [lov] and [ail] | [ov] very much aren't. This is only possible, because [ai] [l] [o] [v] each sound doesn't mean anything by itself (except [ai] in the context as subject pronoun "I"). To a beast, each sound would mean something specific. And it would mean an emotion or injunction (ranging from request to command) so worth insisting on, that it wouldn't rapidly be followed by another sound, since that other sound would mean something different.

Man developing this while developing from ancestors that communicated like apes, no. Doesn't work. But God having it from eternity (or something to which it is closely analogous, at least), and then giving it, by act of omnipotence, to the very first man, so he could speak within minutes after being created, well, that does work.

This doesn't settle whether Earth was created the same time as the surrounding space to its limits or billions of years later, but it does settle man was created rather than developed. There are other reasons (which Dillahunty would partly agree on) against man always being around.

Again, there is another authority too.

Another way of knowing from testimony.

Man was around his marriage to Eve, and was around his fall, coming after Eve's. From chapter 2 on, Genesis continuously relies on the participants, who can be counted on as having recorded it, presumably in a form suitable for oral transmission. Here is what Haydock has to say about Genesis 3:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

I differ in detail, but agree in principle. I call this "minimally overlapping generations" ... what my grandmother told me, I need not take my mothers word for, as I have grandmother's (for instance about a couple they met abroad and mother didn't go along). This means, not just mother and I, but also grandmother and I are overlapping generations. Minimally so, I haven't directly accessed by great-grand-parents. Back in this day, the overlaps spanned more generations, so fewer ones are minimally overlapping.

And while we are at patriarchs with long lifespans, let me answer. We agree there are conditions that will end human life earlier than normal, and some of them are even hereditary. This means, in principle, the current humanity could well have descended from a bottleneck having conditions we see as normal, but which weren't so before, and which taken together have shortened our lifespan.

The experience of Adam and Eve, Cainites, Sethites like Henoch and Noah, of Heber seing Babel, was accessible to Moses too, and involved, at various points, a God who does judge sin, and who does work miracles, making the line quoted above very credible. That helped Moses know what God he was dealing with and helped him confide in the vision he was granted of creation.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Martyrs of Troyes
7.IX.2026

Trecis, in Gallia, sancti Nemorii Diaconi, et Sociorum Martyrum, quos Attila, Rex Hunnorum, interfecit. (Nemorius is called Mesmin or Mémiers in French, and he was a deacon).

Sunday, 6 September 2026

Why Wouldn't Every Claim be Sufficient Evidence?

The claim is not evidence. And if it were, then why wouldn't every claim be sufficient for you to accept it?

Matt Dillahunty seems to lack a nuance between "no evidence" and "evidence as strong as to constitute a sufficient proof" ...

In context, why wouldn't I believe a friend stating he had gone to another galaxy in a space ship and come back?

If a very honest friend made such a claim, and didn't specify he had himself driven the spaceship, I would presume abduction by aliens, and I would presume the real story is demons showed him things which weren't true.

Real sense information to him, but from faked stimuli.

But if he did specify to building the spaceship and driving it, the friend would need to answer on points where his credibility would break down:

why did no one see you building things in the garage?
how did the speed work?
how with such a speed did you avoid getting the spaceship perforated at the first collision with simple dust?

I wouldn't ask this kind of question about the Ascension, because it wasn't a spaceship and because the omnipotence of God, by definition, is a sufficient answer to the other two problems. But I would ask it about the spaceship, because it's definitionally human technology and so, definitionally, not divine omnipotence.

And, in general, I would not ask the question "how did God acquire omnipotence in a universe otherwise determined only by finite powers in vectors" etc. because that question would not be adressing the God that the miracle is being referred to. The more appropriate question is "how did the universe come to be determined by finite powers in vectors, given that God is omnipotent?" and the question would first ask "is the universe in general only determined by finite powers" (no, God's omnipotence is involved every day-and-night) and second "insofar as that is partially true, it's because wanted it and being omnipotent, He had no problem in having it."

This means that the only question I find relevant for the Ascension is, do we have sufficient testimonial evidence?

With a sufficient number of people who knew Jesus sufficiently well ...

Until the day on which, giving commandments by the Holy Ghost to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God
[Acts Of Apostles 1:2-3]

[The detailed account of what they saw and heard]

And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James
[Acts Of Apostles 1:13]

... we can rule out "simple mistake" including the version "hallucination" ... with supernatural healings, we can also rule out that they were deceived by demons. And with the fact of this being a claim, and not an entertainment story, we can rule out "entertainment stories can invent anything" (from Peter Parker getting genes from a spider to his working on Daily Bugle).

The only two remaining questions are:

Is it possible they deceived their audience?
Is it possible this was invented as a later deception?

Both hypotheses can be infirmed.

Deceived people may die as martyrs for things they have been deceived to believing, but deceivers don't die as martyrs for things they know to be deceptions, because they were behind the deceptions.

A Christian movement that originally didn't contain any of this would not have accepted a new story as what they had always remembered. On this issue, I take issue with C. J. Cornthwaite who pretends that this was all invented in the Second Century.

Now, I believe him, the earliest evidence he has found and there is for the book of Acts being cited by some early Christian writer is indeed in the Second Century. But given the brevity of First Century information other than Bible books (for which he grants some Pauline Epistles and Apocalypse to be First Century), the absence of citation of Acts is not remarkably significant. Clement has no more need to cite it than St. Paul has when writing to the same Corinthian Church earlier, since most of it is irrelevant or already known to the recipients. Revelation or Apocalypse only for two churches, Ephesus and Smyrna, coincides with Churches Paul founded. Wait, Acts doesn't mention Smyrna. Make it Ephesus and Thyatira. However, Acts doesn't show in detail how the Church of Thyatira was founded, it gives as prequel two baptised households, Lydia's and the Centurion's, after which Paul and Silas are expelled before founding any actual Church. Colossians mentions Laodicea, in a context making it probable that Laodicea was at this time just one housechurch, that of Nymphas, while the main Church was as yet in Colossae. None of the seven Churches is given much text, so citations of or coincidences with Acts would not be expected. Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if presence of evidence would be a logical expectation from reality of sth.

In other words, his observation gives me no ground on which to criticise the historicity of Acts. Which leaves us with the general probability, a community doesn't cease to believe in its remembered origins in order to instead adopt a new-old and newly invented one.

The story of Acts was not tacked onto Christianity in the Second Century. Just as Sacrifice of the Mass was not tacked onto Christianity in the time of Constantine.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra

Monday, 31 August 2026

Two Queen Mothers Against Tuberculosis

Netherlands:

She Was 20. He Was 61. The Marriage That Shocked Europe
Framed by History | 22 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnzkhwyKtSg

Emma relocated to the palace on Lange Voorhout in the Hague, retaining only the modest title of Queen Mother. Yet her battle was not over. She merely turned her attention to a new adversary. Emma channeled her formidable energy and personal wealth into combating tuberculosis, the disease that had claimed her sister, and was devastating thousands of workingclass families.

Heaven, and Lourdes, Mary:

Jeanne Fretel
Visited Lourdes: 10 May 1948.

Age 31, a student nurse from Rennes, France. Tubercular peritonitis with complications for seven years, extreme emaciation and oscillating fever. Comatose when brought to Lourdes, was given a tiny fragment of the Eucharist and awoke. Reported being "instantly and permanently cured" later that night while lying in her wheelchair beside the spring. She had not yet bathed in or drunk the water. Her cure was recognised officially on 11 November 1950.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau

Emma, Queen Mother of the Netherlands disposed of a good fortune, but before antibiotics, all her fund could not heal tuberculose peritonitis.

Mary, Queen Mother of Heaven, disposes of the filial respect of God. He could./HGL

Sunday, 30 August 2026

Fr. Jason Charron on Europe and Ukraine

THE DEATH OF EUROPE: AND UKRAINE AS ITS LAST HOPE
Fr. Jason Charron | 30 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cjVN_9CHvg

Friday, 28 August 2026

Robert Sungenis Graciously Answered my Question in the Livestream

I didn't know that.

I left early, bc of the library's closing hours.

Here is the livestream:

Geocentrism and Spacecraft, Mary's Vow, Usury, and What John 1:1 Really Says
Robert Sungenis | 26 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2udV5yiQZTk

I have reservations on some things he said, like denying the Mediatrix of all Graces, but I'm happy he answered./HGL

Wednesday, 26 August 2026

Christ's Cross, for Christians of Yore

How the Early Church described what happened at the Cross
ChristianStory | 7 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL4CG4MaY-4

Sunday, 16 August 2026

Si Sola Scriptura est une erreur ... peut-on comprendre la Bible sans l’autorité de l’Église catholique ?

Tout d'abord, est-ce que sola scriptura est une erreur et en quel sens ?

Un certain Occam, très connu pour son "rasoir" (entia non praeter necessitatem multiplicanda), écrivit un dialogue.

Selon ses réponses au disciple (dont la contribution est donc de poser des questions), il y a deux écoles.

L'une disait "le Chrétien est tenu de croire tout ce qui est dans la Bible" et l'autre "le Chrétien est tenu de croire tout ce qui est dans la Bible, la tradition depuis les Apôtres, les chroniques fiables, les conclusions logiquement strictes de tout ceci et encore dans les prophéties privées si authentifiées par l'Église" ... le disciple notait que la référence au magistère manquait (sauf pour authentifier les prophéties), par contre Occam répondit que les décisions du magistère n'ajoutent pas à ce que la Bible ou la Bible et les autres choses contiennent. Ces décisions si correctement faites ne font que trancher qu'une chose est dans les sources de la foi qui sont à croire.

Cru dans ce sens "sola scriptura" n'est pas tellement une erreur qu'une inexactitude. Les choses de la tradition depuis les Apôtres sont normalement des précisions comment ils ont cru la Bible, notamment l'Ancien Testament selon l'instruction de Notre Seigneur. Les chroniques exactes (par exemple disant que Georges de Lydda ait subi un martyre ou que Carlo Acutis ait fait une site, qui élargissait une exposition sur les miracles eucharistiques, ou qu'il a subi sa leucémie avec de la grâce) sont à croire en tant que des applications de ce qui est dans la Bible. Item des chroniques exactes sur une bulle en 1854 ou un concile en 1869&mash;70. La logique n'ajoute surtout pas à ce qui se trouve dans les prémisses, elle ne fait que montrer ce qui est déjà là. Les prophéties privées (comme les Extravagantes de Ste Brigitte étaient et comme mes écrits ne le sont pas) sont à scruter selon la Bible. Dans ce sens on peut dire que tout ce que le Chrétien doit croire est dans la Bible avec quelques petites annexes. Le magistère fait figure de l'homme de Dieu mentionné par St. Paul :

Pour toi, demeure ferme dans ce que tu as appris, et dont tu as la certitude, sachant de qui tu le tiens, et que, dès ton enfance, tu as connu les saintes lettres, qui peuvent te donner la sagesse qui conduit au salut par la foi en Jésus-Christ. Toute Écriture est divinement inspirée, et utile pour enseigner, pour convaincre, pour corriger, pour former à la justice, afin que l’homme de Dieu soit parfait, apte à toute bonne œuvre.

L'enseignant (voir Jacques 3:1) qui utilise la Bible pour enseigner (formellement dans l'Église) est très probablement l'Évêque diocésain. Il détient (sur un niveau à lui seul subordonné à celui de l'Église universelle) le pouvoir d'enseigner de manière de lier les consciences, donc il est magistère.

La Bible a en soi besoin du magistère pour être utile en toutes ses dimensions. Donc, à Paris, je me soumets à ce que définissait l'Évêque Étienne II Tempier, sauf s'il y avait un soupçon contre l'orthodoxie de Frère Thomas de Sicile ou St. Thomas d'Aquin, car si ce soupçon existait, il était levé 48 ans plus tard par Étienne III avant la canonisation de ce docteur de l'Église.

Ce qui nous ramène à Session IV du Concile de Trente. Doit être puni, non celui qui a osé se fier sur ses propres moyens intellectuels (proprio ingenio) mais celui qui ayant osé se fier (proprio ingenio innixus) fait encore une autre choses, ceci étant d'interpréter la Bible :

contre le sens qu'a ténu et tient l'Église
ou encore contre (littéralement "autrement que selon") le consensus des Pères de l'Église.

Alors, qu'est ce qui se passe si un fidèle ou un religieux et craignant Dieu (comme Corneille avant son baptême) lit la Bible et l'interprète sans d'avoir recours au magistère ?

Bien, ça dépend très bien du pourquoi il n'a pas du recours au magistère.

Et encore de quoi il fera le jour qu'il trouvera une interprétation contredite par celui-ci.

Et pas moins, bien entendu, s'il lui arrive de contredire le magistère du passé et du présent.

La bonne réponse est, s'il n'a pas d'intention d'ériger son interprétation contre celui de l'Église, sa tradition exprimé dans le consensus des Pères (ou le consensus des Pères ayant traité de la question) ou son magistère du passé et du présent, alors il est au moins pas coupable.

Ensuite, aura-t-il tombé dans une erreur intellectuelle, sinon damnante ?

Possible, et s'il persiste dans la docilité, il va s'en sortir s'il a besoin.

Ce qui est par contre pas du tout certain est sur quel niveau il va se trouver en erreur.

Les erreurs du protestantisme ne sont que des idées qu'étaient à la mode à l'époque des réformateurs*, ce n'est pas du tout le sens très littéral de la Bible tel qu'il apparaît nécessairement sans la "correction" du magistère, tout comme les erreurs du Judaïsme ne sont pas du tout pris du sens très littérale de l'Ancien Testament non "corrigé" du Nouveau Testament.

Et donc, il n'y a aucune certitude que quelqu'un laissé à ses propres moyens intellectuels devant la Bible, sans le magistère, va tomber dans des erreur.

Notez, s'il vous plaît, j'ai parlé du magistère du passé et du présent. 1277 n'est pas dépassé à Paris, sauf pour l'innocence de St. Thomas d'Aquin, qui n'est plus mise en cause. Une position que le magistère tenait partout, soit directement par magistère unversel, soit par l'universalité des évêques ordinaires qui enseignaient la même chose, ne peut pas, contrairement à un acte local par Étienne II, être dépassée.

On n'est pas tenu à croire une position que le magistère du présent promeut et qui contredit le magistère du passé. Au Concile de Trente, on n'avait pas encore défini les pouvoirs entre pape et évêques locaux comme dans le Concile du Vatican, l'Église tient un sens peut très bien être tenu pour l'Église local tient une chose. Et si l'Église locale, prise pour ayant un évêque siégeant, à Upsale, à Skara et j'en passe, "maintenant" (en 1547) que la Messe est une superstition, le Concile de Trente veut bien entendu que les Suédois préfèrent le sens que l'Église (même à Upsale et Skara) avait tenu dans le passé avant 1520 et 1527.

Certains voudraient prétendre que l'Immaculée Conception serait un exemple du contraire, parce qu'il y a une grande prépondérance contre dans l'Occident, St. Augustin est contre et pas mal d'autres, jusqu'au St. Thomas. Mais c'est oublier que l'Église de l'Occident et enfin à partir de 1854 l'Église universelle doit la doctrine à l'Église d'Orient. St. Jean de Damas était explicitement pour, les formes grecques et coptes de Sub tuum praesidium finissent avec un privilège unique mariale** de pureté qui doit être autre que juste la virginité, car il y a plein de vierges. Et ceci avant que les persécutions de Dioclétien finissent. Après, il y a divers explications comment la doctrine est rentrée en Occident. Certains disent par les Croisés (et donc après que des Orientaux étaient déjà en Schisme ... mais pas tout à fait, Antioche et Jérusalem ne coupent pas les liens avec Rome avant la Croisade). On peut évoquer St. Simon Stock qui avait été à Mont Carmel. Et j'aime évoquer Ste Anne de Kiev parce que de racine suédoise par sa dynastie et aussi parce qu'elle est reine de France avant le Schisme.***

Donc, non, pas d'exemple génuine de ce côté là qu'une position magistrale postérieure ait pu primer sur une position antérieure, si la position antérieure était universelle.

Et voici le truc. Le créationnisme jeune terre et le géocentrisme, ils étaient un sens très bel et bien tenu par toute l'Église. Certains ont voulu ériger Galilée comme exemple contre, il était Catholique mais pourtant (à un moment donné) pas géocentrique. Or, il n'était pas le magistère, ni son représentant et il a fini condamné à abjurer des thèses pour lesquelles il était soupçonné. Et quand dans sa lettre à la grande-duchesse il cite un ecclésiastique de haute position anonymisé dans cette lettre, certains y ont voulu voir l'homme très en odeur de sainteté et très proche du magistère qu'était le Cardinal César Baronius. Nenni. Au moins pas dans ce contexte.

Catholic Answers, aux États-Unis, sont en train de promouvoir que Baronius aurait dit la phrase écrite par Galilée. Quel "gefundenes Fressen" pour un Héliocentrique catholique, si c'était vrai. Il était un grand ascète et pénitent. Il était ami de St. Philippe Neri. Il était le grand défenseur de l'Église catholique sur le plan historique, car un Luthérien ou quelques-uns avaient écrit une histoire très faussée (Les Centuries de Magdebourg) et l'histoire ecclésiastique par Baronius s'appelle Réfutation des Centuries de Magdebourg. Quel homme plus catholique pour promouvoir l'idée que l'Héliocentrisme soit anodin, s'il l'aurait dit, s'il avait dit les mots dans ce sens ? Il n'en est rien. L'affaire Galilée débute en 1611 ou quelque et Baronius est déjà mort depuis le 30 juin 1607. Galilée ne le nomme pas. Le fait que Galilée l'anonymise, c'est à dire sa source, non Baronius, pointe davantage à un autre cardinal. Barberini, proche ami de Galilée, intéressé dans la question. Comme on sait, pour Barberini, s'il l'a dit, un autre point de vue prévaudra. Dieu a pu créer le monde de n'importe quelle manière qu'Il ait voulu. Dieu a pu créer le monde de manière à nous paraître de n'importe quelle manière qu'Il ait voulu. On pourrait le parodier "est-ce que Dieu nous cache le Géocentrisme réel par ce qui apparaît aux astronomes ?" mais ce qui paraît est justement le Géocentrisme, et l'Héliocentrisme n'apparaît pas aux astronomes, il leur paraît vrai pour d'autres raisons, dont en partie athéisme et en partie déisme. Dieu a créé le monde géocentrique et Il l'a fait apparaître à nos sens da manière géocentrique, car Il est véridique.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XIIe dimanche après Pentecôte
16.VIII.2026

* Pardon, la bonne orthographe est bien entendu avec un d- au début. Mais l'orthographe avec un r- est tellement commune.
** συ μονη αγνη, συ μονη ευλογημενη
*** Et parce que ça fait un lien entre la France et l'Ukraine.

Wednesday, 5 August 2026

On a Youtube Comment, someone asked what I answer here (see link)

Weaker Vessel and Stronger Vessel

Problem: if Jesus should be fully human and sinless, He needed a sinless human parent, but if so, why didn't Mary need sinless parents?

Solution: Jesus needed more assurance as the "stronger vessel"./HGL

Friday, 24 July 2026

This is not to exonerate Wojtyla, but ...

... on one item, it seems I was too dissatisfied with his lack of precise scholastic language, which is also not that of Dei Filius.

I spoke of "faith and reason is like saying blonde and hair" ... blonde being a certain quality of hair and faith being a certain quality of reason.

OK, I seem to have to eat my words:

Verum etsi fides sit supra rationem, nulla tamen umquam inter fidem et rationem vera dissensio esse potest: cum idem Deus, qui mysteria revelat et fidem infundit, animo humano rationis lumen indiderit; Deus autem negare seipsum non possit, nec verum vero umquam contradicere.*

Nope, speaking of faith and reason as two distinct things is not a modernist confusion. The usage already exists in clergy above any possible reproach of heresy.

One can still ask whether the simile of "two wings" is well chosen insofar as it might imply equality, but the simple fact of distinguishing like two quasi separate items is not per se reproachable./HGL

* https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/i-vatican-council/documents/vat-i_const_18700424_dei-filius_la.html

Friday, 17 July 2026

Refeaturing

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: John Lennox' Failure to Show He's Christian
Monday, February 5, 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 10:27 AM
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/02/john-lennox-failure-to-show-hes.html

Wednesday, 15 July 2026

Aucun de mes blogs ne s'appelle "blogspot" et pour aucun ce n'est l'adresse complète

Je ne change pas d'URL sur mon blog · Aucun de mes blogs ne s'appelle "blogspot" et pour aucun ce n'est l'adresse complète · Est-ce que les Noirs du quartier croient en Dieu ? · Imaginons que certains voudraient boire leur bière à l'endroit où j'ai mes choses · Quelques gens me prétendraient l'égal social de l'sdf qui m'appelait "ouf" hier

Si quelqu'un me vient de dire qu'elle avait regardé mon blog "blogspot", pas seulement je ne sais pas lequel, je ne suis même pas sûr que ce soit le mien. Il y a des millions d'utilisateurs.

Si quelqu'un en plus dit que c'était le dernier [donc, dernier post] sans de préciser quel jour, encore une fois, même si j'avais sû quel blog, ça ne m'aurait pas aidé. Ce n'était pas hier ni avant-hier que j'avais vu la dame et je ne peux pas non plus savoir sur mes blogs les plus fréquents quel était le dernier post il y a deux ou trois semaines ou davantage.

Et si elle disait qu'il y a eu un propos sur Jésus qu'elle n'avait pas compris, j'aurais aimé lui aider de comprendre si elle avait été juste un peu plus spécifique, mais non ... pour certains, déjà dès que c'est un propos sur Jésus, ils ferment le cerveau. Puisque je suis Catholique, je ne suis pas d'accord qu'un propos sur Jésus soit intrinséquement incompréhensible, et puisque mes blogs ne sont pas une fonction publique d'une République très laïque (j'ai dit préférer les Rois très chrétiens, non ?) je ne vois pas non plus un devoir d'esquiver le sujet.

Je ne peux pas garantir que ce que je vais présenter soit en référence au même post ou au même problème de compréhension, mais voilà. Hier, un post était effectivement en partie sur un propos de Jésus.

Il a bel et bien dit à Simon Bar-Jonah "tu es Pierre et sur cette pierre je bâtirai mon Église et les portes de l'Enfer ne prévaudront pas sur elle" et Il n'a par contre pas dit à Ferdinand Euler "tu es Pie et sur ce π je bâtirais la communauté des matheux, et l'ignorance ne prévaudra pas sur elle" ...

En d'autres mots, le commmunauté des mathématiciens peut très bien ignorer, par exemple pas mal de nombres parfaits (ou les dérivées, si elle sont des quantités réelles et non un simple outil de mathématicien*) ou même se tromper en imaginant un nombre premier, juste parce que le dénominateur en est assez grand, et ça ne contredit nullement les promesses du Christ.

Ce qui les contredirait, par contre, c'est si une erreur aurait prévalu dans l'Église qu'Il avait fondé. En toute l'Église. En 1500, l'Église suédoise était catholique, en communion avec le pape, pas en erreur. Entre 1520 et 1527, la communion avec le pape est brisé sur une querelle de personne, et en 1527 on décide, en 1593 on redécide de mettre l'Église de Suède dans l'erreur de Luther. Donc, l'erreur peut prévaloir dans une partie de l'Église. Mais pas dans toute l'Église.

Mais en plus, à Son Église Il a aussi promis la visibilité. Matthieu 5:14—15 dit :

Vous êtes la lumière du monde. Une ville située au sommet d’une montagne ne peut être cachée ; et on n’allume pas une lampe pour la mettre sous le boisseau, mais sur le chandelier, et elle éclaire tous ceux qui sont dans la maison.

Il ne suffit pas pour une doctrine, celle discutée étant "sécurité éternelle"** (connue en avance, ici-bas), pour qu'elle soit vraie, qu'elle ait été souténue par au moins quelques Chrétiens pendant les siècles II à XV, si l'opinion adverse ait été documenté et soit parvenu à nous de ces siècles. Il faut que la doctrine au moins alors soit aussi documentée et parvenue à nous.

Donc, la doctrine que la sécurité éternelle d'un élu soit généralement connue avec sécurité comme de foi ici-bas par chaque vrai croyant, cette doctrine est à rejeter, puisque absente des siècles considérés.*** Mais ceci est aussi le cas de vouloir conjuguer la Bible avec Cosmologie moderne (Copernicienne à Kapteynienne et si plus moderne) plutôt qu'avec une terre stable, ou avec les 13 milliards d'années et quelque pour le cosmos et 4 milliards et demi pour la terre et origine évolutionniste pour Adam et Ève ou pour une humanité qui ne débuterait pas littéralement avec ... ça aussi est à rejeter.

L'article que je viens de résumer est : Historic Christianity is Not Derivatives in Mathematics.

Il est sur le blog : Great Bishop of Geneva!

Et son URL ou adresse est :

https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/

Vous n'êtes pas obligés à taper "https://" car la barre d'adresse le fait automatiquement. Vous êtes par contre obligés de taper toute l'adresse, sans d'oublier un point ou de mettre un point de trop. Et, sans d'oublier la partie de l'adresse qui précède "blogspot" ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
L'Empereur St. Henri I
15.VII.2026

13.VII Bambergae natalis sancti Henrici Primi, Imperatoris Romanorum et Confessoris, qui cum sancta Cunegunde, uxore sua, perpetuam virginitatem servavit, et sanctum Stephanum, Hungarorum Regem, cum universo fere ipsius regno, ad fidem Christi suscipiendam perduxit. Ejus autem festivitas Idibus mensis hujus celebratur.
15.VII Sancti Henrici Primi, Imperatoris Romanorum et Confessoris, cujus dies natalis tertio Idus mensis hujus recensetur.

* Je différencie entre arithmétique, géométrie, musique, astronomie comme disciplines qui décrivent des quantités réelles, et algèbre qui est un outil simplifiant pour calculer plus vite en passant parfois à côté du réel. (a - b)² = en géométrie : a² - ab - (a - b)b. Mais (a - b)² = en algèbre : a² - 2ab + b². ** OSAS en anglais = once saved, always saved. Ou, seuls les élus seraient vraiment pardonnés, seraient vraiment justifiés et croyants. Et comme un élu ne peut pas louper son salut, ce ne serait pas non plus possible pour un vrai croyant ayant réellement eu ses péchés pardonnés. La doctrine semble assez absente des siècles avant Calvin et avant le synode de Dordrecht. *** St. Augustin dit autre chose. Le don de persistance n'est pas une qualité que j'ai illico en tant que croyant, c'est un objet pour lequel je suis obligé de prier. Et si la prière est exaucée ou non, je le sais généralement quand je meurs.

Wednesday, 8 July 2026

Marinella is Wrong

THE POPE'S NEWSPAPER Publishes a SHOCKING Statement: The FAITHFUL Are Left SPEECHLESS!
Faith and Tradition | 6 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu4hqGlay-o

The author of the article.

Monday, 29 June 2026

And Suppose It's NOT a Gift on the Altar?

If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift
[Matthew 5:23-24]

I got this cited in an email. The main adressee was "undisclosed recipients" and then there was a BCC to myself. I don't know how many others.

I don't know how realistic or unrealistic it is to suspect I was a target of the remark.

Now, some would say, and this I'm statistically pretty certain of after a few years, that I would still be a very apt target for this.

He wants to offer up his blogs to God, but takes petty revenge on CPS? He wants to offer up his blogs to God and condones a racist remark? (Religious equivalent of WTF)

In a sense, I have certainly offered up my blogs to God and Mary, and for one it means the online content as online is for free. A printed version is an extra, welcome to me, as it would generate income for myself and for others.

But it is still not the kind of Korban where I say and look at only holy things. Or where the reverence takes away the curiosity or the social justice ambition.

Second, I'm not taking petty revenge on either CPS nor on Muslim second and third generation immigrants, as well as some non-Muslim Black Africans. I'm civically warning of an actual danger. This is not an unchristian thing, and if these instances have hurt myself, it is not a question of forgiving not to write what I write, but to be lame as a journalist and ignore first hand evidence of evil-doing. I don't have the right not to take sides against such people in some cases.

Third, lots of what I do is a very goodnatured revenge. I don't go after Science as a bunch of enemies I want to insult as deeply as possible by being Young Earth Creationist or Geocentric. I go after bad evidence as bad evidence. And anyone pretending the contrary is calumniating me. I'll cite one more thing from that letter:

The Baltimore Catechism backs this up plainly. The Fifth Commandment forbids not just murder, but fighting, quarreling, and injuring our neighbor. It commands us to live in peace and union with one another. And the teaching of the Council of Trent extends this even further — sins against the Fifth Commandment include the interior movements of unjust anger, hatred, and contempt. The commandment doesn't stop at your hands. It reaches into your chest.

Now, one form of quarrelling* is looking for occasions to correct someone. Not on theory.

I actually relish exchanges when people try to find a fault in my argument.

But on my actions and inactions.

So, I'm presumed to be neglecting my work. I'm working every day, including Lord's Days and today a feast day of Sts Peter and Paul in a non-menial or non-servile** work, of writing. This writing is supposed to be on my part intended as a "gift on the altar" or a korban. This "korban" is supposed to be impure because I'm not living in peace with my enemies. Hence it's worthless, and I'm not doing any work, etc.

What if my enemies are the people who have stopped me from living in peace? I was sewing on Friday evening, after dark. So, when the Jews have their Sabbath. When 7DA pretend all Christians should have theirs. And I lost the needle, whether someone's hypnosis or an actual supernatural act, I lost it. I had lost two miraculous medallions before, found one again, and then lost it again. Such events, however you explain them, are disruptive to my peace.

Someone was giving a bag of food, pretty fat and sugary such, and I found also a grasshopper. Like as if someone wanted to allude to La Fontaine's The Ant and the Grasshopper. And that someone was probably not*** French, because in the French, it's not a grasshopper (sauterelle) but a cigale (a true cicada). La cigale et la fourmi. I ate some, I left much uneaten to somewhere else where anyone could pick it up. Both having to stand up instead of resting after the return from my actual work and finding a reference to La cigale et la fourmi by this very famous poet of both poems and of jokes as is, not La Fontaine, but "Anon." (as usual) is obviously also disruptive to my peace.

Dito for people who are walking by loudly late in the evening, early in the morning (before 5 AM today), or sometimes even verifying I'm alive in the middle of the night.

Dito for people who make toilet lamps unusable, lest I should overdose. My wounds on the legs are from lice, not from syringes.

Dito for people who make it harder to get rid of lice in any way other than eating fat food, which has already provoked gout.

I don't pretend to be a monk, and I think I'm not the one to take a first step after all the steps I've already taken to resolve this peacefully, whether by writing or by trying the police. Some people seem to like saying I do nothing, and if my blog, at least my blog has no readers, and the morning after I published evidence to the contrary° I find the park where I go to the toilet (which is open) also visited by an Arab who is insulting an absent person ... or me, while not looking my way. The police have no problem with people going after me for Austro-Bavarian cultural traits°° but if I give an indication that such and such a community could be the one they should look into, hey, I'm told that I can't go after a community. If I don't know who did it, they refuse to look even into long term bullying.

Some rejoice at my gout, because it took away one of my uses of alcohol. Now, nycturia is an ally against gout ... but it's still not ideal for a good night's sleep. Before gout, I fought it with 3 + cl. pure alcohol, alias a pint of beer, one hour before bed, or so, as a diuretic.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts. Peter and Paul
29.VI.2026

Romae natalis sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, qui eodem anno eodemque die passi sunt, sub Nerone Imperatore. Horum prior, in eadem Urbe, capite ad terram verso cruci affixus, et in Vaticano juxta viam Triumphalem sepultus, totius Orbis veneratione celebratur; posterior autem, gladio animadversus, et via Ostiensi sepultus, pari honore habetur.

* My correspondent uses US spelling, me more like British. The school book standard in both Sweden and Austria. ** Menial or servile works are forbidden on Lord's Days and Feasts of obligation, unless necessary. Writing isn't. *** The English language is not the only one that replaces the cicada with a grasshopper, consider Semut dan Belalang in Indonesian. Ukrainean nominally has a cicada (Мурашка і Цикада) but wiki illustrations on the fable show a grasshopper. Same ones as for Finnish, where heinäsirkka actually means grasshopper. As German Heuschrecke. Swedish "syrsa" refers to a related animal that's somewhat dissimilar in looks, a cricket. But illustrations would tend to be borrowed from German, Heuschrecke. Other possibility, that someone knew I was not French and didn't know if I would recognise a true cicada. I wouldn't have. ° Derniers trois mois aux 15—18.VI.2026 : Les Pays · 1—18 vues · 19—24 vues · 25—29 vues · 30—34 vues · 35—42 vues · 43—57 vues · 58—4310 vues · en général °° Not adding up to integral Austro-Bavarian culture, I presume, I left Vienna too early.

Sunday, 28 June 2026

"Don't Worship a Person" (Said a Jew)

Not sure how the religion now called Judaism defines "person" or "God" if they think they can worship God without worshipping at least ONE person ...

I answer that, "Person" signifies what is most perfect in all nature—that is, a subsistent individual of a rational nature. Hence, since everything that is perfect must be attributed to God, forasmuch as His essence contains every perfection, this name "person" is fittingly applied to God; not, however, as it is applied to creatures, but in a more excellent way; as other names also, which, while giving them to creatures, we attribute to God; as we showed above when treating of the names of God (I:13:2.

Question 29. The divine persons | Article 3. Whether the word "person" should be said of God?
Summa Theologiae | First Part
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm#article3

I'd answer, we are told several times not to worship a non-person ... like stone or wood. Like a passage in Jeremias that some misuse when they want to speak about Christmas trees.

I beheld till thrones were placed, and the Ancient of days sat: his garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like clean wool: his throne like flames of fire: the wheels of it like a burning fire
[Daniel 7:9]

If the Ancient of Days has a head, He's presumably a person. Here is another one:

I beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and lo, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented him before him And he gave him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes and tongues shall serve him: his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed
[Daniel 7:13-14]

Serve sounds quite a bit like worship, and receiving worships sounds quite a bit like power and glory.

It's the same thing in Aramaic. "Son of man" (Bar'nash) is how you say "human being" in Aramaic. That's all it means. It's just a way to say "person." The verse in Daniel is in reference to a series of visions of various allegorical beasts. The last vision is "one like a bar'nash, meaning "one like a human." It's just a way of saying the last vision looked like a man as opposed to a beast. This figure was interpreted Messianically, but "son of man" did not mean "Messiah." The normal usage was just for a person. It might denote the Messiah in a high context way (like calling him "the Man"), but the meaning of bar'nash is still "human being."

Quoting a reddit.

So, that second person clearly is even called "a person" ... but how is he spoken of back before the schism of AD 33? Here is another view:

In a branch of Jewish belief around the time of Jesus, called "apocalyptic" thought, thought that the world was ruled by wickedness and that God would soon send someone to sweep all of it away and establish a new kingdom of righteousness or whatnot. At the time, they believed the one who would bring this change was the "Son of Man" as foretold in Daniel. ... Jews who did believe in the coming of the Son of Man thought that this would be an impressive, divine figure of untold greatness, knowledge, and power.

An impressive divine figure ... who should perhaps even be worshipped?

Well, Caiaphas didn't see that, or didn't want to see that. However, it was soon upcoming at Resurrection, and will be upcoming in even more public display when He arrives at the battle of Armageddon and as judge in the Valley of Josaphat. The second quote is from someone calling Jesus "a bum" ... not sure about the exact connotation, dynastically Jesus would have had the qualifications and miracles He had worked. A week before, Caiaphas was worried because a crowd had shouted Hosanna, and within that week, Jesus was no more devoid of authority, no more unimpressive than to be able to make a second cleansing of the temple. I think that Jew was retroprojecting his own prejudices about Jesus, rather than dealing with what Caiaphas was facing.

Or what a more recent Jewish photographer faced, when examining a Shroud.

Barrie Schwortz’s FINAL INTERVIEW: Shroud of Turin SECRETS REVEALED
Adrian Milag TV | 6 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFyQVlSSo04

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
V L. D. after Pentecost
28.VI.2026

Pages

Sunday, 18 October 2026

Saturday, 10 October 2026

Monday, 28 September 2026

Saturday, 26 September 2026

Friday, 25 September 2026

Monday, 7 September 2026