Monday, August 29, 2022

More than One Brand of Fascism

Wrangel - or What's Right With Fascism · Jasenovac - or what is wrong with "Fascism" · More than One Brand of Fascism

Between Austrian members of NSDAP and Austrian members of the Austro-Fascist Régime, a coalition between the Christian Social Party and the Heimwehr, who killed Bettauer?

Maximilian Hugo Bettauer* (18 August 1872 – 26 March 1925) was a prolific Austrian writer and journalist, who was murdered by a [??] follower on account of his opposition to antisemitism. He was well known in his lifetime; many of his books were bestsellers and in the 1920s a number were made into films, most notably Die freudlose Gasse (The Joyless Street, directed by Georg Wilhelm Pabst, 1925), which dealt with prostitution, and Die Stadt ohne Juden (The City Without Jews, directed by Hans Karl Breslauer, 1924), a satire against antisemitism.

I have omitted the party designation.

The Nazis branded Bettauer* a "Red poet" and "corruptor of youth", and an Austrian party member published a series of articles calling for "radical self help" and "lynch justice against all polluters of our people".[3] On 10 March 1925, a dental technician named Otto Rothstock shot Bettauer several times.[3] He was taken to hospital in Vienna with serious injuries and died on 26 March 1925. He was cremated at Feuerhalle Simmering, where also his ashes are buried.

Seems some of both wanted people like Bettauer lynched. On the one side THE Nazis, on the other side ONE member OF the "Austrian Party" - here a misnomer for back then Christian Social party, of which Austrian Party is a post-War successor. But what was the loyalty of Otto Rothstock?

As a young member of various different political parties, Rothstock** was enraged by Bettauer's newspapers that he claimed to be pornographic. On March 10, 1925, Rothstock entered Bettauer's office and shot him five times at point-blank range. Hugo Bettauer died on March 26, 1925, from his wounds.

At his trial, Rothstock justified what he had done as necessary to save European culture from the menace of degeneration. His lawyer, Walter Riehl, (himself a National Socialist functionary) argued that his client was guilty but insane, with which the jury agreed. However, within twenty months Rothstock was released as “cured” from a mental hospital.[3] A fair amount of money was collected from the general public for him.[4]

Rothstock was an unrepentant Nazi. In a 1977 interview on the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation, Rothstock reportedly boasted of Bettauer's "extinction".[5]

In other words, the killer was a National Socialist.

Heinrich Schenker died 1935, under Austrofascism. His widow Jeannette died 1945, under National Socialism. How did each die?

Schenker*** died on 14 January 1935, age 66 at 2 AM, the cause of death listed as diabetes and arteriosclerosis. He was buried on 17 January at the Wiener Zentralfriedhof, Gate 4, Group 3, Series 4, number 8.[55] The inscription on his grave reads: "Hier ruht, der die Seele der Musik vernommen, ihre Gesetze im Sinne der Großen verkündet wie Keiner vor ihm" (Here lies he who examined and revealed the laws concerning the soul of music like none other before him).

Jeanette Schenker stayed in Vienna after the Anschluss. She was rescued twice from the Nazis before being arrested and transported on 29 June 1942. She died in Theresienstadt on 8 January 1945.[56]

I think it is pretty safe to say, Austrofascism was lots healthier for Jews than National Socialism was.

But which one of them did Jews like better?

In einem Brief an seinen° Schüler Felix-Eberhard von Cube begrüßte er am 14. Mai 1933 den politischen Aufstieg Hitlers als Zeichen einer kulturellen Umkehr.

In a letter to the pupil Felix-Eberhard von Cube, on the 14th of May 1933, he saluted the political rise of Hitler as a sign for a cultural revolution.

On the other hand, the one occasion in which Austrofascists on a larger scale got "physical" with Jews were fistfights where Heimwehr punched Jews for insulting the memory of Dollfuss. So, Jews had insulted Dollfuss, so probably were not as fond of Austrofascism.

And as for doctors ...

"Nach einer wochenlangen Medienkampagne gegen Bettauer schoss der 21-jährige Zahntechniker Otto Rothstock"
"On 10 March 1925, a dental technician named Otto Rothstock shot Bettauer several times."

Or the tombstone of Hans Tita Probst in Graz:

New blog on the kid : I thank the Cemetery of Graz

Please note, I did not thank the cemetary of Graz most for honouring the probable last wishes of HTP, but - here is my reason:

Thanks to this, it may at last be known outside Austria too that this man, who has a Swastika and not any Cross on his grave, whose headstone features no Cross even for the date of his death (and no star for the date of his birth, just "24.3.1897 - 27.7.1934", no star and no cross), who died in the July Putsch of 1934, who was a comrade thus with the other Nazi who killed Dollfuss, who was an SA Sturmbannführer, and who was called Hans Tita Probst, was a Medical Doctor and thus likely to have been in life an Atheist or Pantheist, but at least no Catholic Christian. Unless there was a cross above the piece shown in the picture. Even so, it is likely as with Georges Lemaître he was getting more of his worldview from non-Christian, non-Catholic sources than from orthodoxly Catholic ones.

In Austria, Nazis were progressives, precisely like Social Democrats. Austrofaschists were Reactionaries.

As a Reactionary Austrofaschist, I am thankful it be known that Hans Tita Probst, Sturmbannführer and Medical Doctor, was shot by Austrofaschist either police or military or Heimwehr. Thanks for proving I am not a Nazi! Es war sehr schön, es hat mich sehr gefreut!

Unfortunately, the article I linked to in 2014, is down. You will have to trust my honesty as to not have invented the parts I now cite, and my judgement as to not have extrapolated Hans Tita Probst as being medical doctor for no reason at all.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Decapitation of St. John the Baptist

PS, as I mentioned medical personnel, how about this, here:

Schenker's*** father was a doctor who had been allowed to settle in Wiśniowczyk, a village of only 1,759 inhabitants, according to the 1869 census.





Friday, August 12, 2022

Three are the things, I thought of in Tolkien lore

Well, actually lots more than three things as per my entire life, but these three lately, from my rereading of LotR.

1) Apparent double plot hole - but just apparent.

Let's take four scenes, which do not quite seem to add up, at a certain glance:

a) In Lothlorien, when leaving, the company are given cloaks, with the fairly obvious impression it is one per person, not more.
b) When Sam and Frodo leave, one of them says to destroy the boats, and the other says to leave one for themselves.
c) When Boromir is "buried", both cloaks are used to make him a bier and a boat (not leaking) to get him downstreams the river, hoping his corpse makes it to Gondor.
d) When the three runners, an elf and a dwarf and a man, make a certain pause, their elven cloaks are mentioned.

Now, this is the kind of thing that an editor would spot as plot holes and badger Tolkien to change, if they were of the modern kind that Jenna Moreci loves. And they would certainly not have allowed him plurals like "elves" and "dwarves" or an adjective like "elven" or a sentence like "helms too they chose" ... and as back then conlanging was not a thing, they might have cut down text blocks in Quenya or Sindarin very drastically. But back to the plot hole. One on which the editors would have concluded "why the epic burial scene - that's where the contradictions cluster!"

The most glaring part is the boats, and I can frankly find no better explanation than Frodo or Sam saying they were going to make holes and yet not doing that, and Tolkien forgetting to mention they changed their mind or forgot in the hurry.

Leaves the cloaks. I had thought of the fact, all of the company already had other cloaks before arriving in Lorien, so, they used the other cloaks for Boromir's burial. But the more obvious solution is, they didn't leave the cloaks with Boromir in the boat, except his own, they took them off the bier once the burial was done, and back onto their backs.

One use of Tolkien fandom is obviously a training ground for apologetics in the face of supposed Bible contradictions.

2) Between Middle-Earth and Narnia ...

I once made a list of 40 parallels between Tolkien and CSL, specifically Narnia. It included Etten Moors and Ettinsmoor, it included giants throwing stones for fun, and the travelleRRRs being a lot safer if they had been aiming at them, and quite a lot more.

Here are two. That the Wood between the Worlds owes something to Lothlorien, is pretty obvious - it may even have been on my list of fourty, one which I have long since lost.

But consider what would have happened to Galadriel if she had taken the ring - I'm sure I missed this one : it's Jadis. Galadriel even is kind of a giant, compared to Aragorn and Boromir ... Jadis is specified as being 7 foot tall (English feet). And Jadis is, three times over, "Galadriel, but having taken the ring" ... the last and most obvious time being when she stole an apple of immortality, but before that, in the world of Charn, she was so at least twice over, both when acquiring a secret and when using it - the secret of the Deplorable Word.

3) What is Tom Bombadil again ...?

Precisely as the (sometimes dreaded) Susan-fiction is the big fanfic in Narnia related fanfics, so what Tom Bombadil is, is arguably the great fan debate.

Now, let's start with a clue outside the lore of Middleearth, but close to Tolkien. Some guys have figured, The Green Knight was what was considered by anthropologists of religion a genius loci or some such stuff, and that Tom Bombadil was the same type of not quite defined in Christian theology supernatural. I am not denying that. Or the inlore idea he (like Ungoliant) could be parts of the music taking bodily shape (he for music of good ainur, Ungoliant for Melkor's discords) ... but there is another point.

The shapeshifter Beorn was very close to a genius loci too. See his relation to the Carrock.

And there are more parallels. There are hospitalities that are so simply earthy they are mundane. Bilbo's to the dwarves, Merry's and Fatty's to the three from Hobbiton, Farmer Maggott's and Butterbur's to the hobbits ... then there are those that are, if not elven, at least elfin, though in an earthy manner, in as much contrast with Rivendell or Lorien as Farmer Maggott to that of King Theoden. And there are two of these, Beorn and Tom Bombadil. I am now going to suggest, that as much as the bear was Beorn's "totem" so Tom Bombadil had another animal, whether or not he was shapeshifter or even mortal (Beorn had died before the main action of LotR, Tom Bombadil seems immortal).

There is an animal that can have its fur described by sometimes "yellow boots" and sometimes "blue coat" ... it doesn't wear hats, but on the head something can tickle like a feather. And the soles of what it has instead of feet certainly feel like leather.

It has different sounds, but one of them is a somewhat earthy, not at all aetheric, "song" which can send listeners to sleep.

It can bring the loved ones gifts that are decidedly not to normal human tastes. Confer how Tom Bombadil brings waterlilies - that means nenuphars, a flower bigger than most, but a small part of a plant, most of which is wet and muddy if you take it from one pond to another alive - the big leaves that lie on the water are wet on the lower side and the root of each is a yard long or more, reaching down to the muddy bottom of a pond.

The animal is decidedly "master" - if it jumps, it's not likely to land stumbling. But also prefers a territory with fixed limits and even witdrawing into limits even more fixed. Also known for great agility, like Tom and Goldberry show when serving. It is also known for being more casual than faithfully attached - it's perhaps from fidelity to Goldberry that he refrains from shapeshifting.

It is good at surviving getting wet but doesn't opt for the experience, and that is very harmonious with what Adventures of Tom Bombadil tells us, and at least two of the three animals he teases there are animals that this animal would also tease.

And Tom Bombadil is decidedly the happiest couple with Goldberry, even the happiest as an individual - as well as longlived - take an animal with a folklore reputation for longevity (veterinarians need not agree) and where in one language, its name is nearly homophonous with happy ...

On top of that, a poem about the animal says each individual has three names - a practical name (I think Tom is mentioned) and a bombastic name (Bombadil is not mentioned, but clearly fits styles like Quaxo), and a secret name (we don't get Tom Bombadil's secret name, because it is secret).

Hans Georg Lundahl
St. Claire of Assisi

PS - I had forgotten a third earthy-elfin hospitality that was not elven in Tolkien's sense : how Merry and Pippin are received by Treebeard and Quickbeam in Fangorn. So, Beorn to bears, Treebeard to trees, Tom Bombadil to x - or else x just was an inspiration for his character ...

Thursday, August 11, 2022

Do We Need Other Editors?

I on and off listen to Jenna Moreci, and the last video I heard, she displayed some lack of culture on part of the editors she knows.

Let's take a less big deal first, just to warm us up. She denies that an author can honestly and competently arrive at his book being more than one genre. She claims those who think so are taking everything rather than the basic plotline into account.

However, cross-over genres exist. Fantasy, for instance, is a recent cross-over between modern novel and romance / epic. Especially in the stages where supernatural elements were added for fun, rather than because they were believed to be historical (in this sense, closer to certain Arthuriana than to Homer, for instance).

If you decided to make a novel sized and novel style managed version of Camaralzaman, would you define it as fantasy, because the love interest is a Jinn, or as a love story, because what he does with the Jinn is fall in love with her? I'd go for both. Similar observations can be made about the European stories where the bride is not completely human ...

But, to the main point, and I am doing a detour, by 9th City District of Vienna, Alsergrund. There is a certain stair that is called Strudlhofstiege there. It is a monumental stair. Now, imagine a very modern architect, imagine he was building some time in the 70's (a fairly low ebb for architectonic beauty), but he was building a stair on a fairly broad hillside. He replicated the general form of Strudlhofstiege, but exchanged every detail that was harmonious for something more of a broken harmony, and on top of that painted the whole shebang in rainbow colours. Could he claim to have completed a piece of monumental architecture? Yes. It has nothing to do with whether he succeeded in making it beautiful or even deliberately tried to make it ugly. It is not a totally utilitarian stair, but one with bigger and more symmetric arrangements than a stair actually needs to allow people to get up and down. Hence, it is a monumental stair, he is a monumental architect. However ugly he managed to deprave this genre of architecture in this case.

Some may guess where this is going.

Jenna Moreci (it's not just a private person, it's a published author, THE SAVIOR'S CHAMPION, THE SAVIOR'S SISTER, soon upcoming, THE SAVIOR'S ARMY) took an example (again, not a private conversation, but a public video on advice on how to become a published author, or in this case more how not to spoil your chances), and this example was a man who considered his works as being similar to Homer and Beowulf. She found two faults. A, claiming to be an "epic" writer is self praise, so totally arrogant, B, if the claim is anywhere near true, the genre is dead.

I'll deal with both, and first A.

What does it take for a narrative poem to be in the ballpark of Homer and Beowulf?

  • 1) It should be written in self-similar, variedly repeating, verses, of a sufficient number - the Odyssey is over 12 000 hexameters long and Beowulf is, while much shorter, at least 1/4 of that, but counted in Anglo-Saxon verse (3182 long verses*) - each versification, like the Sloka and the Catafractic verse, being capable of lots of variation, while still being recognisable, as you are doing a specific thing to the speech rhythm;
  • 2) It should describe recurring characters and situations in recurring formulas (the genre was originally meant for oral recitation, and while bis repitita placent, they also stick into memory better);
  • 3) It should, whether the ending be happy or horrible for the character of sympathy, deal with people high up like royalty and with serious situations, like such occurring at war, at voyages among dangers, possibly monsters, and with murderous intrigues, and it should kill off someone horribly, at least a baddy);
  • 4) It should have a unity of action that allows for a diversity of episodes, contrasting with the main action (if it just features the main action, it's an epyllion);
  • 5) It should avoid psychoanalysis, except perhaps at a level that can be easily comprehended in terms of supernatural influences (the setting should also be pre-modern or at least an archaic setting within the modern world).

If all these requirements are met, yes, it can very arguably be an epic. It can very arguably be close to Homer, close to Virgil or close to Beowulf.

And it can still be bad. There are several reasons why a project to make an epic could fail:

  • 1) author is more steeped in another genre than the epic (note, Tolkien and CSL never actually tried writing full length epics, they preferred the fantasy novel, which is another genre, perhaps because they were aware of ultimately owing more to George McDonald and to William Morris than to Homer and the anonymous Beowulf poet) and it shows too much;
  • 2) author takes a theme that doesn't really fit epic poetry, like a too recent war still arousing partisan passions;
  • 3) author takes a theme that is at least at a tension with epic poetry and prefers doing justice to the theme over doing so to the genre;
  • 4) author has no sense of rhythm, and only counts syllables, not even noting where the mid-line pause should be;
  • 5) author starts off well, and from the first parts of the story, by the time he reaches the end he is in a time pinch and rushing the narrative into bare outlines.

Or the setting could be a specific historic one which he hasn't at all mastered, like he is giving Vikings helmets with horns on them - and everyone who knows Viking helmets will bite their tongue over reciting a passage where he considers a Viking has a horned helmet.

Or he is trying to do away with history as a basis - that's more Romance than Epic.

Or he's too goodnatured to do the obligatory dastard really well. Yes, both Homeric epics, the one by Virgil, and Beowulf feature some major dastards, and Mahabharata and Ramayana are no exception.

So, claiming it is "like Homer and Beowulf" doesn't mean claiming it is good as they are good, it is just the description of the genre. Precisely as the modern architect who mistreated the Strudlhofstiege as a model for sth very non-baroque, has the right to call it monumental architecture, without that being self praise.

The other claim was, it is a dead genre. Verse drama, verse romance (usually rhymed and with shorter lines than the epic) and verse epic are indeed what one could call "non-current" forms. Verse drama was recently revived in French, by an author loving Catafractic verses, and dealing with the Second Siege of Vienna. I'm not sure whether it has or ever will be performed. But it is there in print.

Now, just because a form is non-current, one cannot conclude it is dead. If a form was current two years ago, and suffered 4 flops and no success since then, yes, in that case the form may be for the moment not just non-current, but dead as a doornail. An inept author or two or three just beat it to death. But for non-current forms to be revived is rather a kind of staple in the history of literature, drama, music and related, even architecture and sculpture. Heard of the Renaissance?

So, there are some culturally challenged people that Jenna Moreci is adressing as editors. I'm not saying her editors need to go, just, we need other ones. Fortunately, in a free society, becoming an editor does not require a specific licence from the ministry of culture, it requires the licence from your town to open an enterprise.

If you are interested, you can be the next editor tomorrow ... and if you don't know whom you would edit, try asking Jenna about the guy who described the genre of his work as close to Homer and to Beowulf.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St. Clare of Assisi

* It can be noted, Tolkien actually didn't quite class Beowulf as an epic, but more like an elegy - a poem of grief or mourning. The shortness may have contributed.

Saturday, August 6, 2022

If "The First Resurrection" is spiritual and from AD 33, is all of Apocalypse 20 true?

War of 14 a Rehearsal for Harmageddon? · Do Macron and Merkel Know the History of World War I? · If "The First Resurrection" is spiritual and from AD 33, is all of Apocalypse 20 true?

And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand.

Until He assumed His human nature, any appearance of Him, as when He had a boxing match with Jacob, and finished calling him Israel because he had "fought with God" - the key we are told is in Christ's hand and I do not know what the chain is.

And he laid hold on the dragon the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

Before Calvary, the dragon could offer Him all kingdoms, before Assumption, He could say He had all power in Heaven and on Earth.

The Earth's rightful spiritual king has already ended the power of Satan to usurp the earthly kingdom. However, this is not quite still the case the last 3 and 1/2 before He returns.

And he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should no more seduce the nations, till the thousand years be finished. And after that, he must be loosed a little time.

Romans didn't get worse in religion after AD 33, Jews didn't end up worse than the Pharisee generation Jesus had to oppose, and one nation after another, first a few thousand Jews making the Church grow from a club to a nation, then Romans in 313, Armenians a bit earlier, and a chain reaction of nation conversions after that means Satan had much less power than after Babel, when he introduced idolatry.

And I saw seats; and they sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not adored the beast nor his image, nor received his character on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

The endtimes beast and its image could be morally identical to lots of other seductions of powers, by which evil rulers before the Antichrist will have tried to give Satan back some of the power he lost.

Also, we could be talking of some OT saints who had been martyred before Satan was bound, like when he made some powerful Jews too certain Isaiah was a false prophet - or too certain they could bear a true prophet even less. Back then, Satan had "full powers" and equal or greater to when he gets loosed "at the end of the thousand years"

But if this is "a stretch", (meaning too much of one) the alternative is, the Millennium is upcoming, the ones on the thrones are bodily resurrected.

The rest of the dead lived not, till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

1) The rest of those who died didn't really live, didn't enjoy reigning in Heaven, before the thousand years were over - the martyrs could include all saints, and the hesitation to accept non-martyr saints was very probably reasoned from this one - the rest endure rather than enjoy, even if they are not damned, namely in Purgatory;
2) the martyrs could in fact include all saints and all faithful departed - except the part that stay in Purgatory up to the general resurrection, and then go to Heaven, after the thousand years. Not only do non-martyr saints, but also uncanoniseable ones that spend a few days in Purgatory share the essential dignity of the martyrs, and therefore when the non-canonisables leave Purgatory they are added to this number - the rest of the dead refer then to very sad cases who will "remain in Purgatory to the end of time" (one of them c. 105 + years ago, from the Fatima region, forget which of the seer children asked Our Lady, and also the damned, who will not really be living even after their bodies are permanently raised;
3) or, again, if this is too much of a stretch, the Millennium could be upcoming.

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection. In these the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ; and shall reign with him a thousand years.

This verse was totally the go to point for St. Augustine arguing we are in the Millennium, not waiting for it.

First death bodily, second death (a few seconds later? or however long it takes before God judges!) damnation.

Obviously as long as a man is in a state of grace, he is not going to be damned, and if he dies in a state of grace, he cannot get damned.

Reigning with Christ, like souls of martyrs under the altar of heaven, are doing now.

And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go forth, and seduce the nations, which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

Some might argue the process of seduction here described began in AD 1033 when Normans and Byzantines quarrelled over Sicily, Byzantines believing they could hire people to do hard, bloody things that take a lot of getting used to before you do them well and that not leaving them unscathed, and yet not pay them, because they had enjoyed the honour of fighting for the Basileus and for Christendom. If so, the process of the loosing of Satan is slow, and still ongoing, and I am seeing both results of it and efforts to make it worse.

Gog and Magog at the four corners of dry land (Eretz in Hebrew is called the same as Eretz meaning earth - when you are welling to make statements like "the earth floats on the waters" you are telling us how dry land looks from the sea and limiting "earth" to just dry land and considering big seas as "outer space" ... a comprehensible terminology, if not the common one), very definitely was not yet in 1033. In our times there are some ethnic entities that can be described as existing in (beginning from North East corner, clockwise for them that look at the map) 1) Kamchatka, 2) Singapore-Sydney or Hobart, 3) Cape Horn or the more inhabited nearby lands in the South tip of Chile and Argentina, 4) and facing 1: Alaska. These groups are: 1) Whites, 2) Indo-Europeans, Yamnaya heritage, 3) Russians, 4) Anglo-Saxons or Germanics, 5) Ashkenazi Jews.

It is certain from another passage Jews will be at the four corners, namely where conversions are coming from, Apocalypse 7. Will converted Jews be Israelites and unconverted Christianity haters Magog? Or will they just be neighbours of and misunderstood or overpampered abetters or pseudo-abetters for some other nation doing the persecution inwards from the corners?

Unconverted Jews are besieging Christians and Muslims in East Jerusalem.

This verse is a fairly overwhelming argument that yes, the Millennium began in 33, because we see signs of its end!

The 3 and a 1/2 years could well be what Magog seduction is the general preparation of.

So, this verse is definitely compatible with us being not waiting for Millennium, but for general resurrection and judgement.

And they came upon the breadth of the earth,

The ethnicities described are not just present at Kamchatka, Hobart, Cape Horn and Alaska, but many other parts of the inhabited lands as well. A place where all are lacking could be termed wilderness. This process has gone on - if St. Augustine read well - since Columbus. Part of its meaning was of course Apocalypse 7 (understanding original inhabitants of Alaska as spiritual Israelites, once converted), but part of its outcome is what follows:

and encompassed the camp of the saints,

Don't you say so, Calvin! And Gustav Wasa, some Swedish Catholics have felt very encompassed since you! Guess St. Thomas More felt very uncomfortable a few weeks in the vicinity of Henry VIII.

And Voltaire, what atrocities have they not committed in your name!

Darwin, some clear non-Magogians felt both encompassed and naked since you changed the view one had on them.

Marx, falsifier of social justice, Brecht, falsifier of King Solomon's judgement ... some of your readers are clearly encompassing ... for instance Catholics.

and the beloved city.

Well, yes, East Jerusalem has had this feeling since ... 1947, 48? Perhaps 67?

And there came down fire from God out of heaven, and devoured them; and the devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast And the false prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Not happened yet, but since close to previous chapter content, again a point for St. Augustine. SHALL BE. If this came 1000 years after these two were cast there, it might have been "were already" for "shall" - but for those disagreeing with St. Augustine, it could be a clumsy Greek translation of the Hebrew "imperfect" which is "past continuous, present continuous, future continuous" in main clauses and in subsidiare ones takes on added nuances of "contemporary action, subsequent action" and the meaning would have been that Hell wasn't over yet for those two guys.

And I saw a great white throne, and one sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was no place found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works. And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.

All of this is equally true whether the "end of the thousand years" comes at or 1000 years after the "end of the 1260 days" - whether the general judgement coincides with the second coming (St. Augustine) or arrives 1000 years later. But it is also a truth to ponder - not just to use as probe between Augustine and Justin.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Transfiguration of Christ