Jeremy Sherman Rambles Without a Due Look on Ultimates

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Jeremy Sherman Rambles Without a Due Look on Ultimates · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Jeremy Sherman PhD

Overcoming Science's Addiction to Unexplained Explanations
Understanding Us | 24 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAZEFSldFIE

"Then again, 4:35 since God is a supernatural being there isn’t great correspondence. Empirical evidence is 4:41 natural evidence, and God is assumed to be supernatural."

If God isn't the evidence, but what the evidence is about, what is the problem?

"Just posit a supernatural 4:59 being that explains everything, and no one can prove you wrong."

Not really to the point.

Our point is not just that God can explain everything, but that some of the things can be explained by nothing other than God.

Matter and mind being united in man is one of them, especially compared to a Big Bang ideology for the atheist alternative.

Man having language is one of them, especially compared to an Evolutionary ideology saying man and language did not exist 5 million years ago.

"Once we’ve explained how motivation emerged from the matter 10:32 in motion that preceded it, we can reduce our explanations to it."

There is a problem here. You won't ever do that. You have been doing that for decades and without success.

Dito for information.

It's however somewhat unsettling to see how, after all your talk about rejecting unexplained explanations, you are willing to just assume items of Big Picture science like Big Bang Cosmology or Evolution.

"Until then we have to remember 10:40 that motivation is an unexplained force that we’re using in our explanations. The same goes 10:46 for information, effort, interpretation, drives, even function or fittedness, 10:52 and all the other unexplained entities and forces that scientists and philosophers posit."

So are atom, particle, motion, space and time.

There is no such thing as explaning only from explained explanations, since so called primaries are what you explain with.

You can explain turquoise to someone who knows green and blue. It may not help him to immediately imagine turquoise, but it may help him to identify turquoise when he sees it, or it may even trigger a memory of having seen turquoise.

But you cannot explain turquoise, green or blue to a man born blind. It's natural that primaries are left unexplained.

This applies to formal explanation (I explained the "form" or "whatness" pf turquoise), to epistemic explanation (I can reduce proof to what I observe and what I can prove and what others observe and what I can prove from that, but I cannot prove why my observations are to be trusted), and, as obviously, it applies to causal explanation, in which God would be not just a primary, but if correctly assessed by Theists even the primary.

"He knew that his theory was built on unexplained assumptions 11:29 and that the burden was still on scientists to explain them."

On an atheistic view, which was his, this is correct. A theist can explain the drive to survive as coming from God's injunction on the appropriate creation day, but an atheist can't.

Overall, how he formulated it shows his obsession with avoiding a halt, accepting an unexplained in the explanations, an unproven in the proofs, an undefined in the definitions and an uncaused cause.

As for you, what is your motivation for regarding him as a great scientist?

I am assuming you have no actual proof his explanation was right.

"Life and its motivated information-interpreting 12:36 struggle for existence emerges within nothing but simple chemistry."

You are not the brightest bulb in the lamp when it comes to the abiogenesis debate.

You've bought the Atheist propaganda hook line and sinker and swallowed an offer to get monopoly on London Bridge!

Understanding Us

@jeremyshermanPhD

I always enjoy the tone-deaf incurious arrogance of commenters self-pleasuring to their own authority by decreeing from on high who is dumb compared to themselves.

The core question is how did mattering emerge from matter. There are four basic answers. The first three are often blurred by equivocation.

1. Panpsychism: It didn't everything always mattered (to God or to atoms).
2. Eliminativism: It didn't because mattering isn't real. It's just a figment.
3. Mysterianism: We'll never have an answer to that question.
4. Emergentism: Yes, that is the question and the burden is on science to answer it.

I have plenty of encounters with folks who are self-satisfied with those first three answers. I'm friends with a scientist/priest who was chief astronomer to the Vatican and I play in bands with plenty of Christians. I've taught religious psychology and history. I'm familiar with your solution. Everything matters to God who is a mystery. Combination of 1 and 3.

I've also written articles about how scientists who claim that DNA solves it need to heed the question posed by the religious. At least the religious don't fall for #2 which is prevalent among scientists.

Hey, thanks for watching my video!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@jeremyshermanPhD Reposting, in case my answer got quickly deleted:

@jeremyshermanPhD First, you are welcome, and thank you for giving me sth to refute, first the video, then your answer to one of my comments.

It's getting to my blog assorted retorts, if you are interested. Join the words, add a dot and the extension for blogspot.

"1. Panpsychism: It didn't everything always mattered (to God or to atoms)."

Panpsychism usually refers to another position.

Namely that atoms have conscience. For me, this is the only coherent position an atheist can hold.

Now, as you use the word, contrary to previous usage, a Christian would actually qualify as a "panpsychist" ... everything that ever existed at a given moment mattered to God, either because it was He Himself, or because it was something He had given existence.

However, because of how the word is usually used prior to you, it involves a heresy Christians reject, and you can get away with grouping part of what the Christians say along with panpsychism classic against other things Christians say (like rejecting the classic version of pansychism) to make Christianity look incoherent. (Or could, if that were what you wanted, a bit further down you seem somewhat less antichristian).

"2. Eliminativism: It didn't because mattering isn't real. It's just a figment."

Does mattering cover information? A figment presupposes a mind that can be (at least momentarily or "with half its mind") fooled.

So, what you have called eliminativism isn't coherent.

"3. Mysterianism: We'll never have an answer to that question."

I agree this is an unsatisfactory answer.

"4. Emergentism: Yes, that is the question and the burden is on science to answer it."

Which it so far hasn't. The hard problem of consciousness is still hard.

Not only that, but it's like imagining that two colours make a shape.

Two coloured lines may make a shape, but a line is in and of itself a shape.

Emergentism is as counterintuitive as two colours, without any reference to shape, creating a shape.

"I'm friends with a scientist/priest who was chief astronomer to the Vatican"

The Jesuit Consolmagno?

"Everything matters to God who is a mystery. Combination of 1 and 3."

Oh, OK, I see, you weren't trying to paint Christianity as self contradictory sorry, you were trying to paint it as a combination.

I would say:
1) you have misstated the question by trying to tie solution 4 to its terms ("how mattering emerges from matter")
2) and you forget that if God is a mystery, it's not mysterious that He was always a mind before He created matter.

So, how mind emerges isn't even a question. God is eternally mind. God creates both matter and other minds, including ours.

If anything is mysterious, it's how He combined mind and matter. Both are substances, distinct from each other, but both seem to be subjects of the same actions or states of mind. E. g. a mind experiences hypnosis and a brain acts in alpha waves or theta waves. A mind decides to talk, and a brainscan discovers activity in Wernicke's and Broca's area.

To a Christian it is clear, both are substances, and yet both are in this life correlated.

"At least the religious don't fall for #2 which is prevalent among scientists."

Thank you for that one. I did not even know #2 was prevalent among scientists, I thought it was #4.

PC Language, Enslavers, Shrinks

This Canadian University is Out of its Mind
Metatron | 16 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2g2oE0Q6fc

1:15 Is "racisé" in French (non-white) deemed offensive?

2:44 In Sweden I met the term [Caucasian] in an Illustrated Classics from a work possibly American and very probably far older. [By decades]

It was old fashioned when I was a young boy.

6:33 I think "visibility minority" may refer to a minority that is stamped as belonging to itself by visible factors.

Certain noses will say Jews. Certain skin tones, lipp thickness, hair curls will say Black People.

Outside Israel and outside Black Africa, both are visibility minorities. If I'm right that is.

9:26 "enslaver" = "slave owner"?

It's even factually incorrect.

Enslaver is anyone who is pushing someone towards having a slave owner.

Slave owner is sth someone has while peacefully a slave.

Catholic moral theology has at least since Gregory XVI condemned slave hunters and slave traders, but not slave owners, as such.

A secret slave owner in US post 1865 or Brasil post 1888 would certainly also be condemned, but Pope Pius IX would not condemn the Confederacy, which on a legal level (de facto it went down the hill from a certain time on) was not promoting slave hunt or slave trade, just accepting continued slave ownership and buying and selling individuals between people who were such.

I love to make the distinction, because, if you ask me, psychiatrists are not slave owners as much as enslavers, as long as someone doesn't accept the diagnosis and treatment.

So, when I think I have a right to resist them, if they should bump into my life again, is, Exodus 21:16. To me, this verse refers to enslavers proper.

But if some people call every slave owner an enslaver, they might take that reproach on my part as a reproach against continued owning of me already constituted as a slave. They might then cite Ephesians 6:5.

No, I think Ephesians 6:5 would be very inappropriate about someone who's trying to stay free from psychiatry and having his freedoms attacked, like Kunta Kinte on an all too sunny day in West Africa. Defending one's still legal and morally righteous freedoms from enslavers would even fall under 1 Corinthians 7:23. And Exodus 21:16 tells me the offense goes far beyond a slap on the cheek, it is indeed one that deserves capital punishment, therefore sth I have a very huge panoply of rights in chosing my means of resistance.

10:31 Slave owner or master = Lat. dominus.
Enslaver would properly more refer to venalicius or lanista or sth, not to mention I don't know the Latin for slave hunter.

16:32 I'm so reminded of how psychiatrists work ... (also known as legalised enslavers).

Turek Ill-Informed on More than One Controversy Around S. C. "Apocrypha"

Catholic Student Presses Frank on Biblical Inspiration
Cross Examined | 23 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3B2IWN3xcY

1:57 Correction on St. Jerome.

He was a strict loner about these books not belonging, and he did back down to the Church in large and he did translate them.

You are correct that his gut reaction was not to include them, but on that one, he was one against the Christian world, and unlike St. Athanasius, he didn't carry the day, and unlike St. Athanasius, he did back down.

2:04 Correction on quotes.

Esther and Ruth are not quoted in the New Testament.

A Catholic has brought to light that Jesus, when He argued with Sadduccees, only used a much narrower canon. Like no prophets, perhaps just the five books of Moses. That would explain why He didn't use Maccabees when arguing with Pharisees, who had their canon from Ezra, and had resisted updates of it in Maccabean times.

2:35 You are abusing an oral occasion, where he can't look up sources.

Hearing the video, I can.

Judges
Ruth
Ezra
Esther
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Lamentations
Obadiah
Jonah
Zephaniah

None of these are explicitly quoted in the Old Testament.

Source: 10 Old Testament Books Never Quoted in the New Testament
MARCH 27, 2013 BY PETER KROL
https://www.knowableword.com/2013/03/27/11-old-testament-books-never-quoted-in-the-new-testament/

He goes on to say:

They’re mostly short books, except for Judges. Also, Ezra & Nehemiah were on one scroll (in Hebrew) and were likely to be considered a single book with a unified literary structure. Thus, since Nehemiah is quoted (John 6:31), we could possibly take Ezra off this list. For the same reason, we could potentially remove Obadiah and Jonah, as the twelve minor prophets were on one scroll, considered one book (named “The Twelve”).

The one speaking is not a Roman Catholic:

My name is Peter Krol, and I’ve taught the Bible since 1996. I am the President of DiscipleMakers campus ministry and the Preaching Pastor at Grace Fellowship Church of State College, PA.

https://www.knowableword.com/about-us/

So, ten minus three = seven books that are really never quoted, among the undisputed canon ones. Precisely as your Roman Catholic interlocutor actually said there were.

3:04 If Jesus never quoted from "Apocrypha," He didn't take them as authoritative, that's a challenge.

1) Much of what we have of Jesus is His arguing with Pharisees and Sadducees, see previous comment on time stamp 2:04.
2) On top of that His words in the New Testament could have been, as far as volume is concerned, spoken in a week or two to the disciples. He spent 3 and a half years with them.
3) We know the NT texts do not have a complete recapitulation of all He taught anyway, since Luke 24 says every OT book (with or without the seven disputed books) in every part has a Christological implication, also confirmed in II Tim. 3 (verse 14 I think). This means we can't use what He didn't quote (in the books) as an indication He didn't quote it (at all).

4:13 So, third criterium, if nearly all of the early Church did accept the seven disputed books, that would indicate that it was "accepted by the people of God" — unless you are trying to pretend the Jews remain formally his people, not just olive branches, but an olive tree, even after denying Christ.

That was not a position held by the early Church.

5:50 The people of God decides some way.

Why did the Jews trust Ezra about the 22 books? Because he was kind of the OT Pope, back then, the Cohen Gadol.

So, set aside what you think about the papal authority of Pope Damasus I, and consider that when he and Valerius of Hippo (predecessor of St. Augustine) held two synods, the canon was accepted as valid by the New Covenant people of God.

Whether they were right to trust the Pope is not the question. The questions are:

• are the Christian Church the people of God;
• did it accept II Maccabees as last OT book before Gospel of St. Matthew as first NT book?

The answer to the latter is indubitable. Just on a common sense historical level. If you deny the former, you are not a Christian.

6:46 Rome's unique authority is not the question.

You have synod of Rome under Pope St. Damasus I. You have the synod of Hippo, which is too early to be under St. Augustine, it was under his predecessor Valerius, and the synod of Carthage.

From these synods on, it is clear that the NT has 27 books. And from these synods on, that the OT has 45 to 46 books, depending on how you count Baruch, as part of Jeremias or a separate book.

We have no indication that the result of these three concurrent synods were not taken as authoritative lists by the Church.

First, even you admit that the NT canon was fixed here, second, you couldn't point to any part of the Church, just an individual, who brought into doubt whether Syrach or Maccabees belonged.

Roman Catholics do not believen infallibility of the Church as a corrollary to the infallibility of the Pope, we believe the infallibility of the Pope as a corrollary of the infallibility of the Church, and of the fact that the Pope is supreme judge in the Church on earth. So, exactly how people at this time considered that the Church exercised its infallible authority is not the question. The point is the Church certainly did imagine it had infallibility in its common decisions Or, if something is not likely to be corrected by another part of the Church, because there is no "other part" of the Church than the whole church, nothing outside this whole is Church, it means it does not need to be corrected, because it is not wrong.

The Orthodox would point to the same synods as authoritative and say they were accepted all over the Church. They will dispute what certain terms mean.

I and II Esdras would be to us, Ezra and Nehemia, to them, First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah.
I and II Maccabees would be to us, I and II, to them I-II and III-IV.

As you may be aware, they do not do this for acceptance of the papacy, by now at least.

6:56 Council of Trent 1545

• came more than a millennium after synods of Rome, Hippo and Carthage;
• was independently confirmed by two orthodox councils, Iasi and Jerusalem (the latter under Dositheus), on the point of the OT canon, or at least, if they pretended we had the wrong canon, it was more like it lacked books.

7:15 Correcting once again on Sts Augustine and Jerome.

Yes, Augustine was for, Jerome was against the inclusion.

But Augustine was also kind of his supervisor, as a bishop, Jerome the one doing a task as required, hence he did translate them.

And, again, Augustine and Jerome seemed to agree that Augustine spoke for the "bishopS" of the Church, and that was good enough for Jerome.

7:28 "But now, at the time of correspondence, only "Luke alone is with (Paul)" (4:11). Because Paul speaks of Onesiphorus only in the past tense, wishes blessings upon his house (family), and mercy for him "in that day", some scholars believe that Onesiphorus had at this point died.[5] Towards the end of the same letter, in 2 Timothy 4:19, Paul sends greetings to "Priscilla and Aquila, and the house of Onesiphorus", again apparently distinguishing the situation of Onesiphorus from that of the still-living Priscilla and Aquila. Paul's reference to Onesiphorus, along with 2 Maccabees 12:40–46, is cited by Catholics as one of the early examples of prayer for the dead,[6] while some Protestants opposing this practice reject such an interpretation.[7]"

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

But apart of whether II Maccabees is inspired or just good history, it means the idea of praying for the dead is there among the Jews before Jesus comes along.

So, if He didn't reject it, this approves it.

Calvin tried to pretend that prayers for the dead only came among Jews since rabbi Akiba, but II Macc. doesn't need to be Scripture, it only needs to be history, to prove that wrong.

People also tried to pretend the idea came in from paganism, which is total BS, Greco-Romans offered sacrifice to the dead, which Jews and Christians never did, while Osiris worshippers provided the dead with a prayer.

J. Bradley Bulsterbaum

@infinitelink

I hate to break it to you but Augustine distinguished the Apocrypha from Scripture... where he didn't he later learned and wrote of books not being as he'd thought.

Inclusion of them was likely done for the same reasons Protestant Bibles traditionally included them as well: knowing these were books of literature that ancient Jews, though not considering them Scripture, read or referenced in religion, just not in worship assemblies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@infinitelink "Augustine distinguished the Apocrypha from Scripture"

I distinguish Apocalypse of Peter from Scripture. I distinguish book of Henoch from Scripture.

Can you show me an exact quote showing he was not referring to sth Catholics would call Apocrypha?

Plus, council of Hippo in 393, back when St. Augustine was a monk, not yet priest or bishop, explicitly included II Maccabees, which makes your claim, if meant to refer to the seven disputed books, highly doubtful.

"these were books of literature that ancient Jews, though not considering them Scripture, read or referenced in religion, just not in worship assemblies."

That's not how the Church has treated these books since the Fourth Century synods.

The most common form to hold Mass on a Martyr's feast, as Epistle reading has an OT reading which is Wisdom 5, verses 1 to 5.

Then shall the just stand with great constancy against those that have afflicted them, and taken away their labours. These seeing it, shall be troubled with terrible fear, and shall be amazed at the suddenness of their unexpected salvation. Saying within themselves, repenting, and groaning for anguish of spirit: These are they, whom we had some time in derision, and for a parable of reproach. We fools esteemed their life madness, and their end without honour. Behold how they are numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints.

The text is known as "stabunt iusti" from its beginning in Latin.

I think the Mass for the Dead involves a reading from II Macc. 12.

These things are not novelties introduced by Trent, they were there all along.

7:49 There are parts of the four canonic Gospels that talk of works being necessary for salvation.

Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. ...
Matthew 25:41f,
read the whole passage.

7:53 "that contradicts just about everything Paul says"

Not in Ephesians 2:8—10 or Philippians 2:12,f.

Those are great support for all of Trent Session VI, the canons on Justification.

See my part two of a series, the defense of, in this case:

Great Bishop of Geneva! | 130 Anathemas, Session VI, Justification
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2024/04/130-anathemas-session-vi-justification.html

Two Language Related

Q I

Were the languages in Tolkien's books original creations or were they based on existing languages?
https://www.quora.com/Were-the-languages-in-Tolkiens-books-original-creations-or-were-they-based-on-existing-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

23.IV.2024

St. George's Day

Both.

None of them was based on a single already existing language, so in that sense they were all original creations.

All of them took into account knowledge Tolkien had and used subconsciously perhaps also familiarity he had with several different languages.

Q II

About what time, can we assume, the last (non-immigrant, obviously) native speaker of a celtic language would have died in central Europe? Like around 700 AD?
https://www.quora.com/About-what-time-can-we-assume-the-last-non-immigrant-obviously-native-speaker-of-a-celtic-language-would-have-died-in-central-Europe-Like-around-700-AD/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Dear son I Have [a question for you]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

23.IV.2024 (updated)

St. George's Day

I would say, probably earlier.

By 700 AD, Austria and Bohemia were involved in Germanic and Slavic languages.

In the time of Odoacar, there were Roman citizens surviving under St. Severine of Noricum, they were then transposed to Naples. If anyone of them still spoke Celtic, which is doubtful, they would have lost it in Naples, or if remaining also lost it, to Germanic, later also Slavic.

However, the Vita Sancti Severini does not suggest any bilingualism in Celtic / Latin for the native population, as far as I can recall it.

When Irish monks arrive, they adapt to Latin, but even if they had been meeting speakers of Celtic, it would not have been the same Celtic, as the Irish monks were speaking Goidelic while Gaulish (and other Continental Celtic) was more like Brythonic.

UPDATE:

Noric is attested in two inscriptions. The one from Ptuj is dated as “provincial Roman” and the one from Grafenstein is dated as 2nd. C.

Noric language - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noric_language

Indogermanistik Wien: Quellentexte: Ptuj (Pettau, Poetouio)
https://web.archive.org/web/20070504161616/http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/quellentexte.cgi?49

Indogermanistik Wien: Quellentexte: Grafenstein
https://web.archive.org/web/20070504162317/http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/quellentexte.cgi?3

A Third to go with the First:
and even a Fourth, now

Q III

Did J.R.R. Tolkien create a written language for his elvish characters, such as Quenya and Sindarin?
https://www.quora.com/Did-J-R-R-Tolkien-create-a-written-language-for-his-elvish-characters-such-as-Quenya-and-Sindarin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

avid reader back when I had better sleep than now

25.IV.2024

No, he created two written languages, Quenya and Sindarin, in earlier stages Qenya and Goldogrin, and then he created elvish characters for them.

Btw, Noldor like Fëanor ceased to be the main carriers of Goldogrin (later Sindarin) and became instead the easternmost speakers of Quenya.

He was largely language first, characters and stories to fit their mood.

Q IV

What is the real-life term for "Elvish"? Is it the same as Sindarin or Quenya from The Lord of the Rings, or is it a distinct language?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-real-life-term-for-Elvish-Is-it-the-same-as-Sindarin-or-Quenya-from-The-Lord-of-the-Rings-or-is-it-a-distinct-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

25.IV.2024

Elvish or Eldarin is a language family, to which Sindarin and Quenya both belong.

Elvish is how they are referred to in this fiction, since the populations supposed to speak either Quenya or Sindarin or some other related natively are mostly elves.

There are no populations outside that fiction to speak either of them natively yet.

Kim Iversen was overall pretty correct, wrong on some detail, though, Naftali Bennet was wrong

Israeli Prime Minister Admits Jews Didn't Originally Come From Israel
Kim Iversen | 19 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuqLB_8HcRk

1:36 He's placing the Exodus too recently.

Some liberal Christians and many Jews would place the Exodus in the time of Ramses II.

For liberal Christians, it's a question of mythologising the Joshua and Judges timeline, prior to King David.

But for Jews, it's a question of compressing the timeline of Daniel's weeks, so that the relevant one of them could fall in Bar Kokhba's time rather than in Jesus' time.

So, if you are familiar with Ussher, Creation would be 4004 BC. You would expect this year to be 6028 on a Jewish calendar. It's 5784 instead. This is because of this compression in favour of Bar Kokhba.

It can be mentioned that while there are longer timelines, those are not in Jewish Bibles, only Christian and Samarian ones.

2:04 Now note, it would be very unfair to Palestinians to consider them as Canaanites or Philistines.

They sometimes in the PLO narrative make that claim, comparing Joshua to the Zionists. This is wrong. Whatever remains of Canaanites or Philistines might have survived to the times of the Exodus, by the time of Our Lord it was already (except the borders of Lebanon, in Matthew 15, Jesus is in Lebanon, that's where he meets the Canaanean or Syrophoenician woman, Tyre and Sidon are in Lebanon), assimilated to Israelites.

The Israelites that lived on in the land after Jesus' time were three groups, Samaritans being a tiny minority, then Jews, then Christians. Palestinians descend from Christian Israelites.

The conquest by Omar has not left too much traces in Palestinian DNA, perhaps 7 % is peninsular Arabs, so Muslim Palestinians are those of the Christian Palestinians and of the Jews who were forced to become Muslims then. Or who chose to.

2:22 I would rather go with local Jewish and Muslim tradition from East Turkey, stating that Ur Kasdim was Urfa, not very far from Göbekli Tepe. Now it's called Şanlıurfa.

373 miles SE of Ankara. Or 289 miles North North-East of Damascus.

In Upper Mesopotamia.

2:59 Abraham in total had 8 sons.

1) Ishmael, by Hagar, 2) Isaac, by Sarah, "And the sons of Cetura, Abraham's concubine, whom she bore: 3) Zamran, 4) Jecsan, 5) Madan, 6) Madian, 7) Jesboc, and 8) Sue." [1st Paralipomenon 1:32, except for my inserted counting]

12 boys and one girl sounds more like his grandson Jacob.

3:40 = 2:16 in the Naftali Bennett clip.

"few Jews stayed in Israel"

He means Jews of Jewish confession. Most Israelites in the Holy Land after Titus and after Bar Kokhba were Christians.

Obviously, a chronicler of Jewish confession would consider them as Goyim, after they ceased to keep kashrut even on an irregular basis, even in Jerusalem.

That's where "there were few Jews in Israel" comes from.

4:53 When I look up Gozan, I find two alternatives.

Gozan may refer to:

Jazan, Saudi Arabia (not relevant)
The ancient River Gozan, Amu Darya, the River Amu or Oxus, a river in North Afghanistan and Central Asia.
the Five Mountain System, a Japanese network of Zen temples (Gozan Seidō) (not relevant)
Tell Halaf, a Syrian archeological site near the city of Guzana or Gozan

The Medes can be looked up, and that's only sites within Iran.

So, the immediate destination of the Ten Tribes would either have been split between Tell Halaf and Iran, or pretty contiguous, Iran and Afghanistan.

However, there is evidence ten tribes tribesmen came to Jerusalem in the post-exile era, and there is at least some possibility the Samarians in Jesus' time had ten tribes ancestry.

Especially as the Samarians today (not many left, 777, I've heard a few years ago) are the most pure Israelite population, followed by Christian Palestinians, if you compare to the DNA of an Iron Age skeleton from Galilee. Between Christian Palestinians and Muslim Palestinians, you will find two Druz populations as well as some Oriental Jewish and Karaite populations.

Shepharad and Ashkenazi Jews are less pure.

5:58 "pretty lousy 2000 years, pogroms, holocaust"

What a lousy historian.

But it is true that Jews for most of the era have been second rate citizens over both Christian and Muslim countries, and have sometimes been targetted.

So, if you believe Deuteronomy 28, how do you explain this?

The most obvious answer is, rejecting Jesus means disobedience to the God that Moses espoused Israel to.

7:27 You mean Queen Poppaea and Nero?

Helena is St. Helen, the mother of Constantine. She was obviously a Christian and recovered the Holy Cross.

8:09 That Jabotinsky could have some Khazar ancestry is probable, less so for Herzl.

But actually, East European ancestry seems more common than Khazar ancestry.

Jabotinsky was born in Odessa, modern Ukraine.

8:44 Their Jewishness actually has partial ties to the region.

Back when AncestralBrew was still making genetic breakdowns of ethnicities, I found this for Ashkenazi Jews:

South Europe 31 %
North / Central Europe 26 %
NW Asia + Mesopotamia 20 %
Levant 19 %
North Africa 2.5 %
Proto-Turkic 1.5 %

Levant is an average of 19 % that can vary, and means historic Israelites. Khazars would be Proto-Turkic, and therefore account for only (a much more stable) 1.5 %.

9:01 NB "the term Palestine was coined by the Romans to dissociate it from Judaea, it had no connection to Arabs"

Two bloopers.
Palaestina refers to a collection of smaller provinces, Judae, Samaria and Galilaea, perhaps some others too.
AND Palestinians aren't Arabs. They are Mustariba. This means, they have adopted the Arab language and partially the Muslim religion in response to Islamo-Arabic Conquest, like Muslim Palestinians spoke Aramaic to the IX C. or X, 200--300 years after the Conquest of Omar, while the Christian Palestinians still used Aramaic until some decade or century after the Crusades had been lost.

That Muslim Palestinians have Shareefs that descend from Muhammed, yes, that is ancestry from the Arabian Peninsula, but calling the overall population Peninsular Arabs because of that is like calling Robert Bruce a Norman, because his ancestor was one:

"Robert I de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale (c. 1078–1141) was an early-12th-century Anglo-Norman lord and the first of the Bruce dynasty to hold lands in Scotland."

That's a Norman. Robert the Bruce would in relation to Annandale be the 7th Lord. He was a Scotsman. Shareefs among Palestinians are even more remote from Omar's time than Robert the Bruce was from the Norman arrival.

9:11 The Conquest by Omar certainly doesn't explain even Muslim Palestinian ancestry to 100 % (more like 7 %), and even less so Christian Palestinian ancestry.

It's an idiocy, though my family believed it and I believed it myself, to consider the Palestinians as descending from those conquerors other than very marginally.

9:34 The Jews of the area under Roman rule were mainly Christians, and would identify as Christians. In the 1860's the Palestinian population identified as Muslim, Christian, Jewish.

The then Jewish part would be Mitsrahi Jews. Some of them were expelled by the Ottomans, and have mingled with Jewish or Judeo-Christian families in Europe.

13:20 Full equal rights may be correct on the paper, but depending on the place you live in it's not true in practise.

Bethlehem has military watchtowers, East Jerusalem is not better, rather worse.

However, he can state that if an Israeli citzen of "Arab nationality" (a Christian Palestinian or a Muslim Palestinian) chose to live in Haifa or sth, he would even in practise have equal rights, but he would have left his ancestral home. There were Palestinians in modern Tel Aviv, who were expelled, they are not citizens, they do not enjoy the right to return to their ancestral home. If he stays in Bethlehem or East Jerusalem, sure, he has equal rights on the paper, but in practise he is discriminated against, not just because of partiality for the Ashkenazi, but simply for the fact that those areas are military sensible areas, as the Israeli army counts them.

"an Arab Israeli 13:49 who meets you know there's two million 13:51 of them but they go outside to maybe the 13:54 West Bank they meet a nice girl they 13:56 cannot bring her back in to live in 13:58 Israel 14:00 the process is extremely difficult to 14:01 try to get permission for that the the 14:05 Israeli government is not looking to 14:07 import Arabs into Israel so they highly 14:10 discourage this and they don't give out 14:11 permits very often that means that that 14:14 Arab is forced to then move to the West 14:16 Bank which is what Israel wants"

Did not know this.

Horrible.

Spiritually Egypt, like it says in Apocalypse 11. We are not far from the return of Henoch and Elijah if you ask me (spiritually Sodom is true of Jerusalem since 2002 if not 1997).

15:59 "all the way back to the Canaanites"

More like the Palestinians can prove their existence all the way back to the Israelites.

Angels, Hierarchies, Tradition, Resurrection

When an Anglican asks a Catholic priest about the ranking of the angels, is that all in the Bible?
Christians on Youtube | 20 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFREKMNot2s

"this has been my mission in 2:55 the last couple of years to try and 2:58 discover what is what is is true what is 3:00 God's will what is the kind of 3:03 accretions of various you know people 3:05 who've come after Christ to some of 3:08 invented stuff for political reasons you 3:09 know what's real and what's not real"

This is kind of a Protestant obsession.

There is a pretty simple shortcut. If all the Churches that have come from the Apostolic Church in what would seem seamless ways to at least some localities (Monophysites of two or three obediences, Nestorians, even more Orthodox and Catholics), it has to be either real, or so compatible with what is real that it is unimportant in what ways it isn't.

Suppose the nine choirs were somehow not real, I think that would be kind of unimportant. I don't know the passages from diverse books that Fr. Lampert is referring to, so far neither has mentioned the Elephant in the Room. Celestial Hierarchy (Περὶ τῆς οὐρανίου ἱεραρχίας) by Dionysius the Areopagite.

Now, the Protestants have their agenda in calling these writings Pseudo-Dionysus, denying the author was the disciple of St. Paul. But if he was the disciple of St. Paul, the work would be what St. Paul taught St. Dionysus, mentioned in the last verse of Acts 17 and so obligatory. Whether St. Paul had it from a vision or from pre-Christian and good rabbinic tradition.

The Protestant agenda would be very clear insofar as Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱεραρχίας) would refute quite a lot of Protestant Church structures, and also would refute some Protestant ideas of what a priest exactly is.

3:52 "early Christians"

This is not all there is of tradition.

You do have the consensus of post-Nicene Fathers too.

"the third leg"

The magisterium is not quite on par with the other two, it's a means for them.

Jimmy Akin did an excellent breakdown on what traditions we are confident as Apostolic and from God:

How Do You Know Which Traditions Are of God?
Jimmy Akin | 23 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkzhFZnnpBk

On Slavery

Original video:

A Short History of Slavery | 5 Minute Video
PragerU | 23 August 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO_wmixXBdE

Reaction video A:

WHITE PEOPLE Didn't Invent Slavery They Ended It!? - Candice Owens
CartierFamily | 15 July 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auxY8GT8cqk

3:41 Actually, the Frankish Kingdom, back then spanning France, BeNeLux, parts of Germany, had a queen (over parts of that area) called Bathildis. She died in 680, is a saint of the Catholic Church, and abolished slavery.

When French held slaves, that was an exception for Louisiana Dominion and Islands. France and Québec were places where no one could be held as a slave against his will.

Benjamin Frankling was sent to France and was advised to take an old slave, devoted to himself, who couldn't speak French ..

3:45 The French abolition in 1848 was only about the Islands, because that was the only place where France held slaves by then.

It's inspirer Schoelcher was from Alsatia, [actually his father was, he was born in Paris] a part of France which had been Germany (therefore non-colonial) prior to the 1600's.

"yeah we ain't doing that no more 6:50 either we gonna fight for and you know 6:51 they have revolutions for all that stuff 6:53 too so it was some bloodshedy before 6:55 them Acts were signed"

Actually, the American Revolution wasn't made by Abolitionists.

Wilberforce, an Evangelical, was canvassing for abolition since the 1780's, and before 1833, Britain had done a few other acts, starting in 1807.

"The Slave Trade Act 1807, officially An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade,[1] was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom prohibiting the slave trade in the British Empire. Although it did not abolish the practice of slavery, it encouraged British action to press other nation states to abolish their own slave trades. It took effect on 1 May 1807, after 18 years of trying to pass an abolition bill.[2]"

Wikipedia, Slave Trade Act 1807
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807

Reaction video B:

Prager U - A Short History of Slavery - Historian Reaction
Vlogging Through History | 9 August 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_oZICJb0A

4:06 In Byzantium, some kind of slavery was ongoing to the end, you will find Venice having castrato singers (in Austria proper the practise was illegal, but unfortunately tolerated), and Venice had some Byzantine heritage.

Confer the Frankish Kingdom.

680, Queen St. Bathildis of Neustria and Burgundy dies. She had not technically freed all slaves, but she had done so in practise. At worst, they were now serfs, if as much. The idea spread over the Frankish world, and slaves didn't come back into it prior to the conquest of Saxony (which had slaves), not sure about Bavaria, but it adhered little before Saxony (though under very unlike circumstances, Tassilo III and Widukind — at first, at least — had very different attitudes to the Franks).

Benjamin Franklin was advised that he did best to bring a slave to France who was old and who didn't speak French, otherwise France would free the slave on his request. Slavery was only tolerated in Louisiana and the Islands (so, not Québec, not mainland France).

England had a similar system as the abolitionist poet Cowper noted.

We have no slaves at home – Then why abroad?
Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs
Receive our air, that moment they are free.
They touch our country, and their shackles fall.
That's noble, and bespeaks a nation proud.
And jealous of the blessing. Spread it then,
And let it circulate through every vein.

4:28 I think she missed how some Jewish communities were profiting from slave trade illegally in Europe.

I'm speaking like Carolingian times ... (in Prague)

5:28 I've seen her video, that's not what she's saying.

She's giving credit to Wilberforce, Schoelcher and "John Brown's body lies a mouldring in his grave" / Abe Lincoln to prove to her fellow Black Americans, that White people ar not the enemy.

6:22 Well, not in control of all countries that held slaves.

What about the Ottoman Empire? Or the Ashanti KIngdoms? (Different religions by the way, Ashantis were doing human sacrifice).

6:43 Well, they were not the only ones who held slaves.

I think she's asking for the Brownie points, by the way.

6:50 Na, she missed the acts by Queen St. Bathildis.

But perhaps she's going off the fact that Neustria and Burgundy are no longer countries in the world?

7:10 Yeah, all over the Middle Ages, from Neustria and Burgundy to Ragusa in the 1400's over Sweden abolishing thraldom in 1351 or sth ...

Who was in control in the Middle Ages? Culdees? Waldensians? Perhaps more like Roman Catholics, after all!

(Btw, do you know if slavery was eliminated soon after St. Patrick or only by Strongbow?)

7:35 If you speak of quantity of slaves, you may be right. UK, US, France, Brasil / Guinea Bissao may have been the places with most slaves (Spain tried to concentrate their slaves on Cuba or sth), but they were probably not the ones using the most cruel practises.

You know the Y-chromosomes of Black Iraqis? Yes, the Y chromosomes are pretty purely Arabic.

In Black Americans, you do find Y-chromosomes from actually Africa.

7:51 Not too few actually did want to:

• end slavery and
• send ex-slaves to Liberia.

They didn't like the competion from cheaper slave labour.

They were also often from parts (Kenosha comes to mind) where one didn't own slaves.

9:41 There actually were US Americans who were held captive by Ottomans (in Morocco, I think) and then liberated through diplomacy.

They had been held in slavery, one of them had gone blind, perhaps through diabetes.

9:57 Sir, I don't know that you look like an Afro-American.

She may be talking about certain rumours going on among Black Americans.

10:23 Arguably, some who did live like pharaos financed that by precisely selling slaves, first to other Africans, then to Arabs and Europeans, depending on where in Africa.

Plus getting rich on slave labour, by owning slaves themselves.

11:08 It's true that some White Nations, as well as Arabs and Ottomans, were providing a market.

But an indigenous market already existed, if on a somewhat smaller scale.

11:50 You said "Europeans created the market"?

"A series of walls marked the incremental growth of the city from 850 AD until its decline in the 16th century. To enclose his palace he commanded the building of Benin's inner wall, and 11-kilometre-long (7 mi) earthen rampart girded by a moat 6 m (20 ft) deep. This was excavated in the early 1960s by Graham Connah. Connah estimated that its construction if spread out over five dry seasons, would have required a workforce of 1,000 laborers working ten hours a day, seven days a week.[citation needed] Ewuare also added great thoroughfares and erected nine fortified gateways. Excavations at Benin City have revealed that it was already flourishing around 1200–1300 CE.[15]"

Noting, some wikipedian inserted "reference needed" here, but I think the "Kingdom of Benin" (that's the article on wiki) is pretty good evidence there was an indigenous market for slaves too.

12:26 I think her phrase "to our ancestors" means part of those other people.

Are you trying to strawman her into sth she didn't say?