A Note Regarding URLs

It's possible you came to the blog looking for a post at a particular URL, but nothing was found. This may be because I recently shifted the URLs of some posts. This reason for this is that recently, when looking at some older posts, I noticed something odd, which is that their URLs did not properly reflect their posting date.

Normally on blogspot, the way it works is this: The URL starts out with the name of the blog, followed by dot blogspot dot com (or in some cases, omitting the dot blogspot part), slash, the year, slash, the month, slash, the first few words of the blog post and then a dot html.

So for example, this blog post's should be https://sometotallyrandomthoughts.blogspot.com/2026/03/a-note-regarding-urls.html. After all, it was posted March of 2026, so you see the 2026 in the URL to show the year, the 03 to show the month, and then what comes afterwards which is taken from the title. Normally, this is automatically done. However, I happened to notice that a number of posts, while having the correct dates of publication, had the wrong URLs. So for example, it would have been as if this post's URL, despite the posting date of March of 2026, had 2025 in its URL.was instead https://sometotallyrandomthoughts.blogspot.com/2025/02/a-note-regarding-urls.html even though it was posted on March of 2026 rather than February of 2025.

I'm not sure exactly how that happened. My guess is that somehow, the Permalink option (in which you set what you want the URL to be) somehow got the "Automatic Permalink" off. Normally Automatic Permalink just sets it up the way I described before, with the applicable dates in the URL followed by the title. So I think what might have happened is that somehow the automatic part got turned off and it got "stuck" on an older URL date, even though it was posted later. Since posts often spend a lot of time in draft before ever getting posted, this can cause the URL to therefore reflect the old date of editing (one of the posts was actually years off in its URL). This bugged me a bit, so I went and corrected the URLs to correctly fit with the dates of publication. I think I got all of them.

 

The downside of this is that it means someone might then try to go to the old URL, which would then give you a blank page. So I thought I should write up this post to explain the matter. If this happens to you--you try to go to a post and it's missing--try doing a search for the title of the post (which you can see the early words of in the URL itself) and it should show up.

 

This change probably won't make too much of a difference to people, because I don't get many views on this blog anyway; most have no more than a few dozen, and the most popular post barely clears 300. Also, I'm pretty sure at least half of all views on this blog are from robots. Most of the views of actual people probably come from search engines rather than links. Fortunately, the posts people might have actually linked to directly, that is the more popular ones (well, more popular than than the rest of the blog, at least) didn't need to have their URLs changed. So the search engine thing is what is most likely to happen, but search engines can sometimes take a while to update things (and in the meantime link you to the wrong ones), so you might have stumbled across a page before they got the stuff updated, and I thought I should put up this post to explain that.

 

Of course, the problem with one of these is that it will inevitably get pushed off the top of the posts as new posts are made, meaning as time goes on its usefulness will be decreased; but as noted, the most key point here (search engines) should be getting themselves updated by then, so most likely by the time this gets pushed off due to new posts, anyone who actually stumbles across this blog via some kind of search engine will have the correct post linked by the search. In the off chance this actually caused confusion, I apologize, but I did want the URLs to be accurate. I believe I changed all of the links within the blog itself--that is, when one blog post links to another blog post--so that they link to the updated ones, but if there are any that don't work, feel free to leave a comment mentioning it.

Christian Gaviria Alvarez's Predictions (and Their Inaccuracies Thus Far)

The subject of this post is Christian Gaviria Alvarez, a Colombian who runs a website called "Wisdom of God". Although he has a number of beliefs that are uncommon among Christians (e.g. rejecting the Trinity, believing Christians must follow the Jewish Law), what makes him notable enough for me to make this post about him are his eschatological claims about the end of the world. 

Specifically, he claims that the Mark of the Beast described in Revelation refers to the usage of fiat currency, and that the Second Coming of Jesus will occur on September 4 of 2026. Indeed, he has offered a timeline of the things he thinks will occur before and after that event. Some of those things have already failed to come to pass. Here are some of the dates he has offered for events:

April 6, 2023: The two witnesses of Revelation will begin to prophesy, and they will prevent rain from falling for years, leading to droughts and famines.

February 27, 2026: "The United States of Europe" will be formed.

March 14, 2026: Vatican City will be destroyed by the aforementioned United States of Europe, causing financial chaos.

September 4, 2026: Jesus will return in the Second Coming

There is some that follows after that; Jesus will not immediately put an end to evil upon the return, and there is more that comes afterwards (he puts things like the 7 Trumpets of Revelation and 7 plagues after the Second Coming). However, the specifics of the dates at that point are less important. One can find these things here in a lengthy writing of his going into his claims; to my knowledge he has not edited this even after his failures other than to add in some extra images, but I link to an archive just to make sure the original is preserved should there be changes subsequently (other links will also be to archives for this reason).

I could go into some detail explaining the issues with his various assertions, but sometimes the easiest thing to do is to simply point out the lack of fulfillment of these things and how they turned out to be false. Obviously, no witnesses of Revelation appeared in April of 2023 to cause worldwide drought. The author has a separate "Messages" section of the website where he puts up periodic updates on things, and he had to acknowledge he was wrong about that; but as is common of people who make these kinds of predictions that turn out to be false, he simply changed the date and subsequently asserted that the witnesses emerged in April of 2023, but would not begin their drought (and destruction of the Dome of the Rock) until Yom Kippur in 2025 (October 1), at which point they will start the drought. See, for example, his message on message on July 26 2025 saying there will be drought (due to a complete lack of any rain) starting on Yom Kippur in 2025 and continuing until the Yom Kippur of the next year. He declared that "In just a few short months by Hanukkah in December global food products will quickly deplete by half."

Well, as is fairly obvious, Yom Kippur came and went without any worldwide droughts occurring. So what next? Well, the first message he put up after on October 12 (thus nearly two weeks after the drought was supposed to start) here didn't acknowledge his failure. Instead it just talks about how something big will happen right when people think the war in Gaza is over, and we'll see the Dome of the Rock destroyed (which he previously said was supposed to happen around the time of Yom Kippur, in conjunction with the worldwide drought).

About a month after that, on November 8 there was a new message here, again with no explicit acknowledgment of his failed prophecy on both Dome of the Rock and drought, but confidently saying "Anytime now the Dome of the Rock is going to be destroyed, and the third temple construction will begin." Next was here on December 4, which did appear to offer an explanation for the lack of the witnesses (although no acknowledgment of error) by saying "The two witnesses and third temple have not appeared yet, because God has cursed this evil generation, and had decided to give it very little warning. Once the two witnesses and third temple emerge, only a few months will be left until the return of Yeshua." So his new explanation is that this drought will not start until later.

The lack of admission of the failure of his prophecies on the droughts and the witnesses is notable to me. Yes, he admitted his error when they didn't show up in 2023, but after they again did not show up in October of 2025 to cause the drought, he did not make any admission of inaccuracy, instead simply saying they would not appear until the final months. He still seems committed to the idea of the United States of Europe being formed and destroying Vatican City in his messages, as he's reiterated that in subsequent posts, though I notice in more recent posts he is no longer giving the February 27/March 14 dates and instead simply asserts that Vatican City will be destroyed 15 days after the formation of the United States of Europe, without specification as to the date. See for example here in what is (at the time of this posting) the most recent message of his, from January 20 of 2026 where he once again reiterates the claim that the United States of Europe will be formed, and that "They will destroy Vatican City 15 days after it forms."

It is now February 28, the day after the United States of Europe was due to form. As of the time of this posting, he has not given any new message explaining this failure. Granted, as noted, he has for a while stopped giving specific dates for the formation of the United States of Europe or destruction of Vatican City as he did in the past (outside of his repeated declaration the latter would come 15 days after the former), so perhaps he has quietly abandoned those specific dates and just thinks they will happen at some point in 2026. Still, I can't help but be noticed he's been wrong in every date he's given so far that has passed, including the revised date of the beginning of the worldwide drought (again, he initially claimed it would be in 2023, then when that didn't happen said it would actually be in 2025, and when that didn't happen apparently is claiming it will be in 2026).

This post originally was going to be put up in late 2025, after the failed Yom Kippur prediction, but it ended up getting shelved for a while, as a lot of my posts tend to do. I considered waiting even further for this one, and posting it after the predicted March 14 end of Vatican City... but this has been waited on enough, and certainly any reader reading this after that point can see for themselves if that prediction happened. I can always either go back and edit this with updates or make a new post as needed for any future information.

So, should anyone come across him or his predictions, this post was made in order to let them know about the failed predictions he had made in the past, which is useful to know when evaluating his other predictions. We will see going forward if his remaining predictions, or any new ones he offers in the future, have a better accuracy rate than his prior ones.

A Quotation Citation Examination

There is a quote attributed to Pope Paul IV that one can find in various places, which goes like this:

"Even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him."

So, is this quote true? This post will be a discussion of that, but if someone wants just the quick version: While it is possible he said something similar to 

Well, as is often the case for these sorts of quotes, it's frequently given with no citation. But a few have offered some kind of citation, so I tried to look into them. One source given is Dairmaid MacCulloch's book "Reformation: Europe's House Divided" which was later published as "The Reformation: A History". On page 224 it reads:

"Now Carafa had a cast-iron case to persuade Pope III to set up a Roman Inquisition, modeled on the Spanish Inquisition, and with the cardinal-archbishop of Naples himself as one of the inquisitors-general. The papal Bull was promulgated on 21 July 1542. "Even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him," Carafa vowed."

Carafa was Paul IV's name before becoming pope, for reference. The bibliography offers "G. W. Searle, The Counter-Reformation (London, 1973), p. 78" as its source. This one tells me:

"As chief Inquisitor Carafa was authorised to appoint deputies wherever necessary, while he himself set an example of ruthlessness, decreeing that 'no man is to lower himself by showing toleration towards any sort of heretic, least of all a Calvinist', and proclaiming that 'even if my own father were a heretic I would gather the wood to burn him'."

No source is given for this. The work does have a bibliography listed at the end, but there are dozens of books listed, so I have no way of knowing which one the quote came from or where in it the quote is. So this one is a dead end.

Another source that gave the quote offered as a citation Owen Chadwick's 1990 work "The Reformation" on page 271. This does indeed say this ("'Even if my own father were a heretic,' said the Pope, 'I would gather the wood to burn him.'"), but again we see no clear citation offered for it, unless someone wants to check all of the works (more than 10) for the chapter listed in "Suggestions for Further Reading".

One thing that is notable here, however, is the divergences as to when this was said. MacCulloch's work (and his source) indicates that this was said before he became pope. But the Chadwick citation ascribes the quote to after he was made pope.

Another source, Constantine's Sword, makes the claim and cites Matthew Bunson's "Pope Encyclopedia" (which itself gives no source), and both identify it as occurring prior to becoming pope. Meanwhile, "The Pope and the World: An Illustrated History of the Ecumenical Councils" by Anton Henze refers to this on page 119, though it identifies it as an actual oath ("He [Paul IV] is supposed to have been the author of that horrible oath: "If my own father were a heretic, I would collect the wood with which to burn him."") No citation is cited, but as it is referring to the time he was pope, this indicates it was after he was pope, continuing our split with some references claiming it was before he was pope and some saying it was after.

At this point, I was ready to stop and say there didn't seem to be evidence, and the fact people disagreed on when it was even said was an extra sign of falseness. However, I did finally find the original source, thanks to Will Durant's "History of Civilization" which says on volume 6, page 213:

With impartial resolution the mad Pontiff pursued his own relatives with suspicions of heresy. “Even if my own father were a heretic,” he said, “I would gather the wood to burn him.”

This one identifies it as when he was pope. So what is the citation for this? It cites Volume 14, page 300, of "PASTOR, LUDWIG (C), History of the Popes, 14v., St. Louis, 1898, and London, 1910 f."

I was not able to find the specific 1910 printing above, but did find a 1913 one. The quote of that isn't on page 300, but rather 302; whether this was an error on the part of Durant or whether it was just on a different page in his edition is unclear. Anyway, what we read is (starting on page 301):

"Galeazzo Caracciolo had been a friend of Priuli, and at the mention of his name Paul IV. would get into a terrible state of excitement, for Caracciolo, a grandson of the Pope's sister, had fled to Geneva, leaving his family behind. "Let us be silent about him," exclaimed Paul IV., "even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him!"

The citation for this is:

"See the *report of Navagero of October 23, 1557 (State Archives, Venice), translated in BROWN, VI., 2, n. 1067; cf. BERTOLOTTI, Martiri, 20."

The asterisk was in the citation; I'm not entirely sure why it is there. But what is being cited? It tells us in the table of contents to look at volume 13. And so we do that, and we see the only Brown is "Brown, Rawdon, Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts relating to English affairs in the archives of Venice and in other libraries of Northern Italy. Vols. V.-VII. London, 1873-1890." And for Bertolotti, we have "Bertolotti, A." This has several works listed, but the one in question is clearly "Martiri del libro pensiero e vittime della Santa Inquisizione nei secoli XVI., XVII., e XVIII. Roma, 1891." Bertolotti's book does not seem to mention the quote as far as I could tell (my Italian is meager but I still see no trace of the quote), and seems to be cited not for the quote anyway. That means the quote comes from the Brown citation.

The "VI" clearly is saying this is in Volume 6 of Brown's work. Volume 6 is divided into several parts, so the 2 tells us it's in Part 2. The 1067 refers not to the page (it's found on page 1349), but the section number. The context here is that this is a report of Bernardo Navagero, an ambassador, of his meeting with Paul IV. It is mostly a conversation he had with Paul IV; well, maybe "conversation" is the wrong word because Paul IV monopolizes it with some lengthy speeches. This is a translation of an Italian document that it tells us is from the Venetian Archives; I have absolutely no way to access the original Italian, but the English translation is sufficient, particularly as in several places, including the most important one, it includes the original Italian.

At any event, here is the key quote, including what the work notes is the original Italian for part of it:

"Let us not speak about this matter, for were our father a heretic, we would carry the faggots to burn him (perché se nostro padre fusse heretico portassamo le fascine per abruciarlo)."

For those unaware: Although nowadays the term "faggot" is almost exclusively used as an insulting term, previously is was a term for a bundle of sticks bound together as fuel (the above work was from 1881, before the modern meaning was devised). One notices the quote offered by Ludwig Pastor is a little different than his source actually said. To put them next to each other for easy comparison, Ludwig Pastor quoted it as:

"Let us be silent about him. Even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him!"

But his source said:

"Let us not speak about this matter, for were our father a heretic, we would carry the faggots to burn him."

The substance is the same, but the wording is changed in several places; "about this matter" is changed to "about him", "for were our father a heretic" is changed to "even if my own father were a heretic", and "faggots" is changed to "wood". This changes little in the meaning, but it is odd this is changed at all. It does not appear to be a case of being more faithful to the Italian; "nostro padre" means our father, so it seems an error to change it to my father.

While these changes puzzle me, at any rate, we now have what seems to be the ultimate source of the quotation. Thus we know it didn't come completely out of nowhere. However, we now must consider the question of whether this was actually said by Paul IV.

This is not from a document Paul IV wrote, but instead a letter of someone describing a conversation with him. In the letter, the author relays a conversation with Paul IV, but as noted much of it is not so much a conversation as Paul IV giving a lengthy speech to him. Take a look at this portion that is attributed to Paul IV, with the Italian parentheses removed:

"We do not speak of a thing which we do not know for a certainty; we tell you that such is the fact and that there are many in the College who know it, and that we have witnesses omni exceptione majores, and we touch it with the hand; he is of that accursed school, and of that apostate household of the Cardinal of England. Why do you suppose we deprived him of the legation? You will indeed see the end of it; we mean to proceed, and shall use our hands. Cardinal Polo was the master, and Cardinal Morone, whom we have in the Castle, is the disciple, although the disciple has become worse than the master. Priuli is upon a par with these and with Marc' Antonio Flaminio, who were he not dead must have been burned; and we had his brother Cesare Flaminio burned in public at the Minera. The comrade and guest of Priuli was Galeazzo Caracciolo, son of the Marquis di Trivento our kinsman, for he is the son of a daughter of my sister who was here last year, and he has a niece of ours for wife, he having left his father, his wife, and nine children, and about 6,000 crowns annual income, and has gone to live with those rogues at Geneva, losing both soul and body. Magnifico Ambassador! let us not speak about this matter, for were our father a heretic, we would carry the faggots to burn him. Write to the Signory now that we are placed by God to have the care of the universal Church, that they be pleased for us to have the same care of it as was sanctioned by them when we were in a private capacity in that magnificent city, and reminded them so intrepidly of their welfare, persuading them to prosecute that Friar Galatteo, who at length died in prison, although he was released under pretence of indisposition; but as he then did worse than ever, going into the shops of the booksellers, apothecaries, and shoemakers, sowing his poison, the Signory was compelled again to have him seized, and he died in prison; and there having come into the little church of St. Nicholas a Chief of the Ten, whom we will not name, we had him driven out of it, he being told that he was excommunicated for not having done his duty against that heretic; so that his Serenity will do well not to proceed in the matter, as cognisance of this case stinks in the nostrils. For the honour of God we are willing to suffer any torment, and when we can do do more we will throw ourselves on the ground and submit to suffocation, but so long as we can walk, although lame and feeble, we will run on. Rely on this and assure the most illustrious Signory, that whatever we can do for their benefit and honour, we will do as willingly and promptly as any of you yourselves, for we were so courteously received and looked in on your city that we consider ourselves your citizen, and were the opportunity to present itself, we should not wait to be prayed like a foreigner; and thus on the other hand we beseech his Sublimity, in a matter of greater value than the whole world, viz. the entireness of the Catholic faith, to be content that we do our duty, to the honour of God, for the benefit of Christendom, and for the especial safety of your Republic."

The titular character of Shakespeare's Hamlet is notorious for going off on long monologues in the play, but I don't think even he had a speech that long! Either Bernardo Navagero has an astoundingly good memory to be able to recount that perfectly (in addition to the other parts of the conversation), or we can be confident there's some considerable paraphrasing going on here. Additional evidence for the paraphrasing explanation is given by the fact that it is very unlikely that in a normal conversation--even in a formal setting--someone would go on with a speech like that. This kind of talking we see here is the sort of thing we'd expect to see in a prepared speech or in a fictional work, not a statement made in a normal conversation in regular life. Certainly, "were our father a heretic, we would carry the faggots to burn him" is the sort of poetic statement one would expect to see in a written or rehearsed remark, not as an unrehearsed statement in a normal conversation.

While for the aforementioned reasons these are very likely to be the exact words of Paul IV, they may represent the substance of whatever he said. Paul IV was rather zealous in going after who he viewed to be heretics, so such a quote wouldn't necessarily be out of character. And I'm not aware of any reason to believe Bernardo Navagero was deliberately misrepresenting Paul IV's intent, though I admit I don't know much about Navagero, so he may very well have had reason to do so.

So what can we conclude? Ultimately, this whole quote comes not from a definite statement of his, but rather what someone else reported Paul IV saying. Worse, the quote comes in the context of a lengthy statement that is almost certainly considerably paraphrased. Even if he actually did in fact give the whole spiel word for word, this quoted statement was an offhand remark in a conversation, so people should not treat it like it was some kind of major statement or official vow he made.

Given these considerations, I definitely wouldn't list this as any kind of confirmed quote of his. At most, it should be listed with a disclaimer of something like "attributed to him by Bernardo Navagero" to make it clear we are dealing with a secondhand quotation that is likely to be at best a paraphrased version of what he said.