Monday, May 25, 2015

The Achaeans and the Trojans (Redacted (Improved))





The question of the tribe of Dan in relation to the Last Days is an interesting one.  Dan is not included with the other tribes of Israel--listed in Revelation 7.  An impression you get from reading scripture is that Dan (for the most part) never truly wanted to be a part of Israel; they wanted to be on their own, as witnessed by Deborah who asked: "...and why did Dan remain in ships?" (Judges 5:17)  At a time when they could have helped the rest of their Israelite brethren against their enemies, they chose not to.  Another indicator that Danites tended to think of themselves as being a people separate from the rest of Israel was their propensity to name places, rivers and towns after their father Dan.  Witness Judges 18:28-29, " And they built a city, and dwelt therein.  And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel..."

The Mycenaean Greek civilization came into existence around 1600 BC.  They originated in Egypt.  You see, the first Mycenaeans or Achaeans were Israelite colonists (of the tribes of Dan and Judah) who left Egypt in ships and came upon cities of the Greek peninsula (Mycenae, Pylos, Sparta, etc.).  These cities most likely dated back to the Upper Paleolithic era (45,000-10,000 BC as About.com says), as witnessed by Plato in his account of a war between Atlantis and Athens--after which Atlantis was finally swallowed up by the ocean waters around 9600 BC.  The Athenians of that time were proto-Greeks.  These Proto-Greeks occupied Athens in the days of Atlantis. 

Now the Danites who left Egypt before the Exodus (under their leader Danaus) took the majority of the "Greek" cities: Argos, Pylos, Sparta, Mycenae and others.  The Judahites who left Egypt before the Exodus--were under the leadership of two brothers named Chalcol and Darda, whose father was Zarah, who was one of the two sons of Judah--took the city of Athens (in Attica, which is in eastern Greece) and the city of Troy (along northwestern Turkey).  Chalcol took Athens and Darda took Troy.  These two probably originated from the city of Sais in Egypt. 

The Greek cities at the time were occupied by the Prehistoric "Greeks" (who were once part of the Atlantean empire).  The Danite voyagers took over their cities.  They most likely also intermingled with the the natives.  In time these Danites came to call themselves "Danoi" or "Danaan" or "Achaeans," having completely forgotten that they were of Israel.  (We call them Mycenaeans, since Mycenae was the chief city among the Achaean Greeks.)  Apparently the Judahites who took Athens came to identify themselves with their Danoi brethren. 



And the Judahites who took over Troy probably mixed with the original inhabitants of that city--this probably happened about 1477 BC (time of the Exodus?).  You see, Darda (Dardanus) and his people were living on the island of Crete at first--after sailing from Egypt.  In time they too came to forget that they were Israelites.  (They probably arrived there after 1600 BC and then left for Troy contemporaneous with Moses leading Israel out of Egypt--or maybe some time after that (circa 1300 BC).)  It is plausible that these Judahites intermingled with the Cretans or Minoans of mainstream history--with their capital at Knossos--who dominated the Aegean Sea area.  The early Minoans were an advanced civilization (with household plumbing to rival our day).  Around 1700 BC they suffered an earthquake, which drastically affected their society.  It was sometime in the early 1400s that Dardanus and the people with him came upon the Minoans and helped them to become the dominant power in the eastern Mediterranean: Crete--from this time onward until the tsunami that hit the island (some time between 1477 BC to 1453 BC?)--entered the era in which it flourished the most.  The brethren of the Judahites on Crete--the early Mycenaean (Danaan) Greeks--were subservient to their fellow Israelites on Crete: as witnessed by the story of Theseus and the Minotaur.  The "Minoan" kingdom came to an end abruptly, resulting from the major volcanic explosion on Mount Thera around the date(s) given above (this info courtesy of Hope-for-Israel.org) that gave rise to a gigantic tidal wave. These Minoans (children of the Judahites who settled there under Dardanus) then sailed for Troy.  What could have made possible the Judahite conquest of Troy was: this same giant tsunami also severely devastated this city.  Now, this area of Northwest Turkey has been prone to earthquakes, so it may have been an earthquake that destroyed the Sixth Settlement of Troy.  According to Dr. C. Brian Rose of the University of Pennsylvania, Troy suffered a major earthquake about 1300 BC.  This disaster levelled the upper portions of the defensive wall (around the most important buildings) of the excavated level known as the Sixth Settlement (Troy VI).  (This was the Troy of Paris, also known by his political name, Alexandros--for he, being in his fifties (most likely), was the defacto ruler of Troy--since his father, Priam, was advanced in age, no longer having the stamina to preside over the affairs of state.)  Well, there is doubt as to an earthquake being responsible for the collapse of Troy VI.  And just as important, there is doubt as to the date of this destruction (of Troy VI): that it was not circa 1300 BC, but rather much later.  Now, if Troy VI was ruined by an earthquake, then that would leave the later level known as Troy VIIa as the candidate for the Troy of Homer's Iliad--for it too experienced a fiery end.  But now we have a discrepancy: Troy VIIa corresponds to the decline of the Achaean cities: the Mycenaeans of this time could not have carried out a military operation of such magnitude, seeing as they were in such decline.  So, Troy VI has no animal and human remains, which usually accompany an  earthquake.  The Sixth Settlement then must be the Troy of the Trojan War.  As for the chronology, it is becoming more obvious--with each passing day--that the events of the epoch in question have been pushed back in time, by a matter of 300 or more years.  What happened was that the dynasties of pharaonic Egypt were padded, so to speak: a given dynasty was made to last longer than it actually did, and all of this served to make every event appear to have occurred earlier on the timeline than it actually did.  You see, everything else was pegged by historians to the (erroneous) dating of the Egyptian dynasties.  This explanation for the mistake will have to suffice, seeing as I'm too lazy to elaborate any further on it.  The upshot--as far as the Trojan War is concerned--is that, more accurately, it was fought around 800 BC; this siege did not occur in 1184 BC, as the scholar Eratosthenes (of the latter half of the third century) said.  Furthermore, this posterior dating of the Trojan War explains how Homer could be so vivid in his portrayal of Troy and its surroundings (the land of Wilusa, as the Hittites called it).  The poet was a contemporary of Achilles, Agamemnon, Hector, Paris (Alexandros), Helen et al.  At most he lived a few decades after the events. 

The levels of settlement on Hissarlik Hill go back to around 3000 BC.   According to Manfred Korfmann's book, "Troy and the Trojan it was "Greek colonists" who settled Troy VI (whose end we now date to about 800 BC). If  this is true, in the sense that the Achaeans and the Trojans were brethren.  The ten-year long Trojan War commenced about 800 BC, a few hundred years later.  Though the Mycenaeans won this conflict with the Trojans (by way of stealth: Odysseus' brilliant idea for the Trojan horse), they paid a heavy price for their triumph.  All the great Mycenaean leaders had been gone from their Greek homeland for ten years by the time Troy finally fell.  A theory says that Mycenaean society collapsed due to the great stress placed upon it because it had to support a siege of a major city that was on the other side of the Aegean Sea.  After all, legend has it that the Achaeans launched a thousand ships to recover Helen for Menelaus King of Sparta: the Achaean army that landed along the shore of Troy numbered around 500,000 men, according to speculative fiction author Dan Simmons--and were not 50,000 warriors as we were taught in school.  This was no minor war: it would have massive consequences for the centuries of European history to come: for one thing the Romans were descended from Trojan refugees making their home along the banks of the Tiber River on the western side of Italy and establishing a settlement--along with some of the local people of Latium--that would later become known as the city of Rome.  Another group of Trojan refugees settled along the northern shore of the Black Sea.  They founded a city called "Asgard" (the City of Iron).  They were the people of iron: the "Aesir" and from which the Sea of Azov gets its name (the Sea of Iron).  In the 2nd century AD, in advance of the approaching Roman army (their brethren of Trojan descent), the Aesir--under their leader Odin--immigrated to Scandinavia.  These Aesir (Trojans) founded Sweden, to simply put it.  And from Sweden came the Varangians who settled among the Slavs to the east (in the 9th century AD)--forming the early Russian nation, around the city of Novgorod. 

Getting back to the Trojan War, the weary Danaan army returned to their homes, but they would soon find that peace was not to be their reward for their hard-won victory.  (Something that should be noted is that this was a society whose top men had an attitude of machismo.  These great "heroes" felt that they had to prove themselves, and they believed that they could achieve immortality through having their names persist--by way of martial accomplishments--through the centuries: Achilles, Hector, Odysseus and others.)

So not long after the occurences narrated by Homer in the Iliad and the Odyssey the Mycenaean cities underwent a major upheaval.  All the Mycenaean citadels were destroyed (by slaves revolting? along with the Dorians swooping in?).  It's not totally clear what happened.  Well, all of them were destroyed except for Athens.  Apparently the Achaeans living in the Peloponnesus fled into Attica (to Athens) for refuge--to escape the onslaught of the Dorian invaders.  (Centuries later, during the Classical era of the Greeks, the Athenians would claim that of all the Greeks they were the only ones left who were of pure Achaean stock.) 

Also at this time we have the rise of the Sea Peoples (Whenever there were catastrophic deluges, earthquakes, and comet strikes (the Phaethon Event of 3,102 BC) you got the after-effect phenomenon of the movement of "Sea Peoples."  Social/political chaos throughout the centuries in the Mediterranean also led to major displacements of peoples, as was the case this time: shortly after the Trojan War.).  The Sea Peoples who came into being after the Trojan War were predominantly Israelites.  It was they who attacked and crushed the Hittite empire in central Asia Minor.  My thinking is that the Mycenaeans or Achaeans (including veterans of the Trojan War?) were the greatest constituent of the Sea Peoples: 1) Mycenaeans fleeing the collapse of their cities (citadels) (and thus for a while the Greek peninsula was sparsely inhabited), 2) possibly Trojans and their allies likewise leaving behind their collapsed cities, 3) Danites living in the north of Israel (in the Bashan area) who decided to take to the sea and maybe other peoples looking for new coastal areas to plunder.  (Egypt at this time became an irresistable target for these piratical Sea Peoples.  The Egyptians were successful at repulsing this attempted invasion.)  These Sea Peoples claimed that their homeland was called "Ahhiyawa"--meaning Achaea (Greece) most likely.  Note how the "yawa" in "Ahhiyawa" resembles the Tetragrammaton: YHWH, which becomes Yahweh.  It could be that the name "Achaea" was pointing to the God of Israel: YHWH may mean "being" in that the Creator is the true being, for the Godhead is the only one who must exist--has to be. 

And what may have also begun at this time was the invasion of the Dorians--as touched on above--who came into Greece from the north.  Also around this time a group of Trojans--led by Helenus, son Priam (a form of "Ephraim"), elderly king of Troy--fled the destruction of their beloved city on ships and came upon the coast of Epirus (northwest of Greece).  They mingled with the natives (Illyrians).  And it is from Helenus that Greece got the name "Hellas," and the Greeks started to call themselves the Hellenes: starting in northeast Hellas, known as Thessaly.  (It was these Trojans or Dardanians, in combination with other Trojan refugees along the western shore of the Black Sea, who would move westward into Europe to become the federation of tribes known as the Franks.  But that is for another post perhaps.)  Going back to the Dorians--where did they come from?  Scripture gives the answer.

Over in Canaan--from around 1413 BC to about 1050 BC--was the time of the Judges.  We are told of Dan's predicament in Judges 1:34, "And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley."  Further on in Judges 19:47, "And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them: therefore the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father."  Judges 18 tell us this about Dan in the land of Israel: "27And they took the things which Micah had made, and the priest which he had, and came unto Laish, unto a people that were at quiet and secure: and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire. 28And there was no deliverer, because it was far from Zidon, and they had no business with any man; and it was in the valley that lieth by Bethrehob. And they built a city, and dwelt therein. 29And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first. 30And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land."  (What Micah had made were idols: the Danites showed quite a willingness to embrace paganism.)  Previously in Deuteronomy 33:22 we have Moses saying: " And of Dan he said, Dan is a lion's whelp: he shall leap from Bashan."  "Leshem" appears to be the same as "Laish."  Part of the Danites living in the Bashan area left for Greece, where their Danite brethren the Mycenaean Greeks were living.

These Danites that left Bashan most likely were the Dorians that are spoken of as moving into the Greek peninsula from the north, in the wake of the decline of the Mycenaean cities.  (Apparently the name "Dorian" comes from an area north of the collapsed Mycenaean empire called "Doris": which means "woodland." (Thanks to Wikipedia.)  More likely "Dorian" is related to the Gaelic (The Irish are of Greek origin.) word "doran," which means "exile" or "wanderer."  Danites from the upper Levant (Bashan) had migrated to this mountainous area full of trees.  They may have mixed with the locals, thus becoming the "Dorians."  And they may have come into the Mycenaean lands both by land and by sea--and may very well have had been closely involved with the Sea Peoples.  These Dorians took over the city of Sparta and most of the Peloponnesus (the southern part of Greece connected to the north by the isthmus of Corinth.  (It was Dorian Sparta that would later send out about 300 Spartans (aided by a few thousand auxiliary troops from some other cities) to withstand Xerxes' Persian army at the narrow pass called Thermopylae in 480 BC.) )

As for the Mycenaeans (who became the Sea Peoples) and their fellow pirates, what became of them?  Some of these Mycenaeans probably settled along the southern coast of Canaan and changed their name to the "Philistines."  Other Mycenaean raiders probably settled along the western shores of the Black Sea--later taking the name of the "Vanir" because they hooked up with a group of Gauls calling themselves the "Veneti" (Tribwatch.com): the same Vanir who, along with the Aesir (the Trojan refugees who settled along the northern shores of the Black Sea), immigrated to northern Europe in the centuries to come.  These Vanir would become the Daner of Denmark: again the name of "Dan" morphing through "Danaan" and into "Denmark."  And that's where the Danube River got its name: The Vanir (Danaans/Achaeans) named it after their father, Dan, when they traveled up that river to reach Northern Europe.


Another branch of the Dorians became the northern Greeks of Macedonia.  And Alexander became king of Macedon in 336 BC. 

 

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Yahveh Wants Human Sacrifice?

Someone anonymously said:

"Most Christians are probably familiar with the story of the patriarch Abraham being called by God to sacrifice his son Isaac on top of a mountain. Here, God at the last minute stopped the sacrifice and placed a lamb in Isaac’s place. (Genesis 22:1-19). The main theological point here is that Abraham withstood the ultimate test of God and hence showed his faith. An implicit part of this story is that God does not allow human sacrifices. This is far f...rom the truth. The Old Testament has many instances where human sacrifices were called by God: [2]

"Leviticus 27:28-29
But no devoted [c] thing that a man devotes to the Lord, of anything that he has, whether man or beast, or of his inherited field, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy to the Lord. No one devoted, who is to be utterly destroyed from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death.

Notice the statement that is being made in the passage above. It is saying that no one which has been offered to God can be replaced-ransomed-by something else; that person must be killed. It is an obvious sanction and demand for human sacrifice!"

Well, let's look at Leviticus 27:29 in the original Hebrew. The transliteration reads: "Käl-chërem ásher yächóram min-häädäm lo yiPädeh môt yûmät." The key word here is "min," which is an expression of separation. What this verse is actually saying is something like this: all devoted that are to be destroyed--to be separated out are those who are of mankind (adam)--shall surely be killed. Note that the word signifying man here is "adam" and not "iysh," the other word that signifies man. You see, "adam" emphasizes that man (both men and women) was created in the image of God.

 

Friday, May 23, 2014

What Actually Occurred in the Garden?

 
 
The following is more exegesis on the garden story in Genesis.  Here is where the war--between the two bloodlines (Jesus and Satan)--began, which is headed for a denouement (of course).

 Genesis 3:6 says: "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the... eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Earlier God had told Adam (and Eve) not to listen to anything that Satan had to say: they were to avoid the adversary.

Eve was the one who brought up the idea of sex when we read (3:2), "And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Notice that she added the last part about touching, which God had said nothing about. You see, sex was on her mind. She found Satan to be quite attractive. (In a context like this, when someone brings up the idea of "touch," it has to understood as pertaining to things sexual.)

The trees in the garden are symbolic of people.

Ezekiel 31 says: "2Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness?

3Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

4The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.

5Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.

6All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.

7Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.

8The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.

9I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

10Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast lifted up thyself in height, and he hath shot up his top among the thick boughs, and his heart is lifted up in his height; 11I have therefore delivered him into the hand of the mighty one of the heathen; he shall surely deal with him...

18To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden?"

The above passage from Ezekiel 31 is speaking of Satan and explains why Eve would have been physically drawn to him.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

The Trinity

 
 
(The following was taken from http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p088.html.)
 
Many of the Patristic writers denied the equality of the Son with the Father. Similarly their logic denies co-eternality. The relevant passages are as follows.

Justin

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is therein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. (Apol. I, xiii)
And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word [or logos], who is also the Son. (Apol. I, xxxii)
It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God, as anything else than the Word [or logos], who is also the firstborn of God. (Apol. I, xxxiii)
 
Thus Justin thinks of the Logos as an emanation of God, which is capable of individuation to embrace the concept of the Spirit in general and Christ in particular.
 

Hippolytus says and most significantly:

Now, that Noetus affirms that the Son and Father are the same, no one is ignorant. But he makes his statement thus: "When indeed, then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly styled Father; and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not another's." For in this manner he thinks to establish the sovereignty of God, alleging that the Father and Son, so called, are one and the same (substance), not one individual produced from a different one, but Himself from Himself; and that He is styled by name Father and Son, according to vicissitude of times. (Hippolytus repeats this opinion in his summary, Book X.) (Con. Noet, n. 14, "The Refutation of All Heresies", Bk. IX, Ch. V, ANF, Vol. V, pp. 127-128);

 
It is with this writer that we first develop the error that Christ was the only emanation of the Father. The other elements of the heavenly Host are said to be creations of the Son and thus do not share in the divine nature as does the Son. Now this is the basic error upon which the doctrine of the Trinity began to be built. The elohim as was demonstrated from the biblical context are a multiple Host of which the Lamb is the High Priest. He is one of them as a fellow or comrade, even though all of the hierarchical structure was created by, or in him and for him (Col. 1:15).
 
The saints likewise become companions to Christ from Hebrews 3:14 and hence brothers to the Host (Rev. 12:10) and co-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17). The heavens, all things that were, referred to as being created by the Son, are the spiritual and physical structures. This is the intent of the references at John 1:3 regarding the creation and 1Corinthians 8:6 regarding the universe (or ta panta) and humans. Colossians 1:15-17 specifically allocates the creation of all things visible and invisible. The creation of thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities, through him and for him, cannot refer to the Council of the Elohim. The creation by Christ of the lordships (or kuriotetes) is not of the entities.
 
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (N.C.E.) article Trinity, Holy, Vol. XIV, McGraw Hill, N.Y., 1967, p. 296 makes the most extraordinary assertion concerning the doctrine of Hippolytus.
Hippolytus in his refutation of Noetus (10) and the exaggerated identification of Christ with the Father, insists that God was multiple from the beginning.
 
This is simply false from a comparison with the actual text of Hippolytus (C. Noetus 10) above.
The first instance of a reference to the Christian Godhead as three entities was by Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 CE) who used the term trias of which the Latin trinitas is held to be a translation. The term was used where he spoke of the trias of God, His Word and His Wisdom (Theophilus to Autolycus. The ANF here translates the word trias as trinity). The next instance of the use of the term is by Tertullian (De Pud, c. xxi, P.G., II, 1026). Tertullian was the first to directly assert the essential unity of the three 'persons', but his logic and arguments are essentially subordinationist (see Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, p. 570). The nearest equivalent to the Nicene doctrine did not occur until proposed by the Roman Bishop Dionysius (CE 262) who was a Greek by birth. He was concerned to eliminate the process of reducing the three entities to separate Gods (Schaff, ibid.).
 
The assertion that God is an entity comprising two beings and a persona as a spirit or power, which emanates from one or both is a later fourth, fifth and sixth century Trinitarian assertion. The assertion was made in modification of an original trias (above) and abandoned as inadequate. Both the triune cosmology and the Trinity, as it is now understood are biblically unsound.
The concept of the trinity may be defined in two ways as
1. "Three Persons who are equally possessed of the divine nature". This is held to have been the dominant view since the Councils of Nicæa and Constantinople.
2. The Son and the Spirit as deriving from the Father who is the sole source of Godhead. This was the prevalent view of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Church generally up until Nicæa (c. 325 CE) (see G.H. Joyce, The Catholic Encyc. (C.E.) article ‘Trinity’, Vol. XV, p. 51).
 
The doctrine of the Trinity rests on a series of false assumptions made contrary to biblical evidence. The two major false assumptions, which are evident from the quotes herein, are:
· that the terms translated God are confined to one, two or three entities or hypostases; and
· that Christ is God co-eternally and co-equally as God the Father is God.
 
The formation of Islam was inevitable. By 632 CE, the groundwork was set for a division of theology and Monotheism that would gradually become so estranged that the greatest Holocaust in history is shortly to burst upon us. The perpetrators are the Trinitarian, Hadithic and Talmudic Scholars, who have lied and distorted the history of religion for their own ends and killed everyone who spoke the truth about the original faith and tried to follow that faith once delivered to the saints.
 
Irenæus says of God:
For He commanded, and they were created; He spake and they were made. Whom therefore did He command? The Word, no doubt, by whom, He says, the heavens were established and all their power by the breath of His mouth [Ps. 33:6]. (Adv. haer. III, viii, 3)
 
Irenæus held that:
It is clearly proved that neither the prophets nor the apostles did ever name another God, or call [him] Lord, except the true and only God.... But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things, which have been made by Him (ibid.).
 
Irenæus extended the capacity to become God (theos or elohim) to the Logos here as distinct from the other things established (ibid.). He had already established the position of God and the Son and those of the adoption as theoi or elohim and all sons of God from Book III, Chapter VI.
 
Tertullian holds from Against (Adv.) Praxeas that:
This one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made...All are of one, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons- the Father, the Son and the Holy [Spirit]: three however, not in condition but in degree; not in substance but in form; not in power but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power inasmuch as He is One God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy [Spirit]... (II);
 
Tertullian also says that the Father raised the Son from the dead (II). Thus Tertullian makes important distinctions in the interrelationship of the three entities, which are aspects of the operation of God in degree. The Son and the Spirit are processions from the Father and subordinate aspects of His manifestation. Tertullian gave the Trinity a numerical order and distribution (III). He also held that the Monarchy of God came from the Father (III). But that it was equally the Son's being held by both (III) being committed to the Son by the Father (IV).
 
Tertullian held that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son. Tertullian holds (IV) that the Father and the Son are two separate persons. Thus, it might be asserted that true Binitarianism commences with Tertullian.
 
It has been seen from earlier development, and above, that the Bible and the early Church theologians were subordinationist and Unitarian. God the Father was the God and Father of the Messiah who was the firstborn of many brothers (Rom. 8:29). The Holy Spirit is the mechanism by which all the Sons of God, the angels included, reach this position of unity with God. Christ was one of a multitude of the spiritual Sons of God, but he was the only born (monogenes) (Son of) God, the first begotten (prototokos) of the heavenly Host as the high priest of the elohim.
 
This understanding began to be lost through the syncretism of the early Church.
 
The major assumption of modern day Christianity is that God exists as three entities or hypostases. The three entities are described as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, whether or not they are described as persons. The three entities are said to form a Trinity.
 
Another equally false assumption is that the early Church was Binitarian rather than Trinitarian. This is to say that Christ, while being subordinate, was nevertheless co-eternal. There were thus two true Gods existing side by side as Father and Son. This is what is known anciently as the Dual Power Heresy. This contravenes the testimony of John (17:3 and 1Jn. 5:20) who holds that there is only One True God and that Jesus Christ is His son. Also the writings of Paul hold that only God is immortal from 1Timothy 6:16. The understanding of John and Paul and the other apostles was also held by the disciples of John and their heirs.
 
The assertion that God is confined to three entities each being co-eternal and co-equal was not the understanding of the Apostolic and early Church. The concept of a Godhead of three beings preceded Christ by many centuries. There is no doubt that the triune god is found among the earliest civilisations and is known to extend east into Asia. These concepts entered Christianity largely through the Greeks and their influence on the Romans.
 
 
 
There is no doubt that Irenæus had a subordinationist view of the Godhead. The loyal Host are also included in the council from the understanding in Revelation 4 & 5 – thus the loyal Host are also the Ecclesia of God. There is no doubt that the term elohim or theoi was held to extend to the Church. This was the understanding of the first century Church both from John to Polycarp who taught Irenæus and on into the second and subsequent centuries. (unquote)
 
I would conclude by saying that Jesus Christ is God.  However He is not an hypostasis--that is he is not a person separate from the Father.  He is YHVH, as the Father is YHVH.  He is Eloah: the Son is his "express image."  He will be subject to the Father "that God may be all in all" (2 Corinthians 15:28).
 
The Kenites love that most Christians worship the Trinity; for the Trinity points to Lucifer their father, Cain his son, and Eve (Cain's mother) .  Thus the Trinity (in the popular sense of that word) is a corruption of God revealing himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
 
Jesus is often identified as the "angel of the LORD" (Exodus 3:2).  And we have in Isaiah 63:9, "In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old."

Jesus and God are a monad.

 
 
 
 
 

"Arianism" Vs. Trinitarianism





"(4.) We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full God, the only-begotten, unchangeable. (5.) Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest." (a quote from one of Arias' letters)

The passage below I lifted from patmospapers.com.

In actuality, by the year 508, it had been more than a century since the term "Arian" meant a follower of Arius. At this point "Arian" simply meant "non-trinitarian."
So the year 508 brings us to a showdown between Trinitarianism and non-Trinitarianism."For the first time the diffusion of belief in the nature of the Godhead became the avowed pretext for the invasion of a neighboring territory." Henry Hart Milman, History of Latin Christianity, p.353.It was in the year 507 that Clovis and his Frankish army met the army of the Visigoths under their king, Alaric II. Alaric, realizing his weakness, tried to delay the confrontation, hoping help would come from Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths. But no help came, and soon the Visigoths were in flight, and Alaric was slain."The victorious Franks pursued them as far as Bordeaux, where Clovis passed the winter, while Theoderic, his son, was overrunning Auvergne, Quincy, and Rovergne. The Goths, whose new king was a minor, made no further resistance; and in the following year the Salian chief took possession of the royal treasure at Toulouse. He also took the town of Angouleme." Walter C. Perry, The Franks, p. 87."A. D. 508. A short time after these events, Clovis received the titles and dignity of Roman Patricius and Consul from the Greek Emperor Anastasius." Walter C. Perry, The Franks, p. 88."In 508 Clovis received at Tours the insignia of the consulship from the eastern emperor Anastasius." Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., art. "Clovis," Vol. VI, p. 563.Historians who give only brief treatment to this war generally focus on the year 507, during which Alaric was killed. Yet, as the above references correctly indicate, the Franks continued their conquest of Visigothic territory until well into the year 508. The conclusion of the war, and the imperial recognition of it, occurred in the year 508."Nor was his a temporary conquest. The kingdom of the West Goths and the Burgundians had become the kingdom of the Franks. The invaders had at length arrived, who were to remain. It was decided that the Franks, and not the Goths, were to direct the future destinies of Gaul and Germany, and that the Catholic faith, and not Arianism, was to be the religion of these great realms." Richard W. Church, The Beginning of the Middle Ages, pp. 38, 39."Thus in A.D. 508 terminated united resistance to the development of the papacy. The question of supremacy between Frank and Goth, between the Catholic and Arian religions, had then been settled in favor of the Catholics." Daniel and the Revelation, 1944 ed., p. 330."Thus when Clovis and the Franks defeated the Arian Visigoths and drove them into Spain, it was also a theological victory for the bishop of Rome." William H. Shea, Bible Amplifier - Daniel 7-12, p. 220."Thus was the bloody course of Clovis glorified by the Catholic writers, as the triumph of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity over Arianism." A. T. Jones, The Two Republics, p. 528.

A distinction must be made between the teachings of Arius in the early fourth century and the so-called "arianism" of the fifth and sixth centuries. Arius, whose views were rejected by the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, taught that Jesus, being totally and essentially distinct from the Father, "does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God." The prevailing position at Nicea, on the other hand, taught that Jesus was begotten of the Father's substance. See a summary of the Nicene controversy. During the half-century following the Council of Nicea, the theological politics experienced a gradual evolution, culminating in the Creed of Constantinople in 381, which declared the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be three separate, identical beings, "truly distinct one from another" (Handbook for Today's Catholic), yet forming one God. Those who continued to hold that the Son is begotten "of the substance of the Father" as had been declared at Nicea, were now labeled as "Arians." The Goths and other Germanic Christians of the fifth and sixth centuries, although they were not a part of the 4th century debates, were classified in this category.

Clovis' object was to establish the Creed of Constantinople throughout Europe through the armed conquest of all territories held by the "Arian" Goths. The most decisive point in his campaign was the defeat and expulsion of the Visigoths from Gaul in the war of A.D. 507/508. (unquote)

Anybody who worships a Triune God (the Trinity) is worshipping Satan.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Jews

 
 


Dwight Eisenhower (known in his West Point days as the "terrible Swedish-Jew") was responsible for the deaths of about 1,250,000 German prisoners of war. General Eisenhower deliberately deprived these men of food, so they starved to death. Apparently the Allied soldiers--who were the guards--did not question the order to deny them nourishment. (Whereas there were never more than 600,000 Jews in Europe when the Nazis came to power in Germany.)

"God, I hate the Germans..." --Dwight David Eisenhower
in a letter to his wife in September, 1944

The city of Gotha is mostly known to Americans, if at all, as the first headquarters of the American Army, set up by General Eisenhower in April 1945, and as the site of one of the Prisoner of War camps where captured German soldiers were treated in a barbaric fashion with total disregard to the rules of civilized warfare. Eisenhower mentioned Gotha in his book "Crusade in Europe," as the nearest city to the "horror camp" at Ohrdruf-Nord, the first concentration camp to be discovered by American soldiers in April 1945, but he failed to mention his own notorious POW camp located near Gotha.

The impressions of a British sailor given here without alteration:

"I took part in the evacuation of Dunkirk. Our soldiers felt very badly. I helped to fish out Germans from the sunken Bismarck, which received the greatest number of torpedoes in history. I saw the population of Malta sitting in the cellars for many weeks. I saw Malta being bombed incessantly and deafened by explosions of bombs and shells. They were exhausted from constant explosions and alarms. I lived through the sinking of my own ship. I know about jumping into the water at night, dark and without bottom, and the terrifying shouts for help of the drow- ning, and then the boat, and looking for the rescue ship. It was a nightmare. I drove German prisoners captured during the invasion of Normandy. They were almost dying from fear. But all that is nothing. The real, terrible, unspeakable fear I saw during the convoying and repatriation of people to Soviet Russia. They were becoming white, green and gray with the fear that took hold of them. When we arrived at the port and were handing them over to the Russians, the repatriates were fainting and losing their senses. And only now I know what a man's fear is who lived through hell, and that it is nothing compared to the fear of a man who is returning to the Soviet hell."

Old General [Ernst] Koestring, in a conversation with an American colonel, had allegedly said:

"We Germans, owing to our lack of reason, our limitless appetite, inability and ignorance, have lost the greatest capital that existed and can exist in the fight against Bolshevism. In the imagination of countless Russians we have thrown the picture of European culture into the mud. And yet, we have left certain capital which in future could grow. You will not understand me today when I tell you that during the last few weeks you have destroyed this capital for the second time, not only in the material sense, but also in the souls of all those who had counted on your help and understanding after the Germans let them down. It may easily happen that in the near future you will be calling for what is now perishing."(79)