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
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.


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

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



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)

Kenites: A History

"And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab." (1 Chronicles 2:55)

Who are the Kenites?  They are the sons of Cain, of course.  And who was Cain's father?  Why Satan of course.

"1The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying, 2Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink."  (Jeremiah 35)  It takes discipline not to drink alcohol.  Alcohol somewhat deters mental capacity.  The Kenites are very intelligent--they have to be, if they are to rule this world system on the behalf of their father.

  "3Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites; 4And I brought them into the house of the LORD, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door: 5And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine. 6But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever: 7Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers. 8Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters; 9Nor to build houses for us to dwell in: neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed: 10But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us. 11But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians: so we dwell at Jerusalem."  Note that the Rechabites say that they are not to engage in any kind of farming and neither are they to tend vineyards.  What does that remind you of?  Why Genesis 4:12 of course: "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth."

Skipping to the end of Jeremiah 35 we get: "18And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you: 19Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever." (Jeremiah 35)  So this is how the Kenites joined themselves to Israel--Judah specifically. 

And it would be the remnant of Judah who would retain the law and the prophets: King Hezekiah requested of Isaiah: "4It may be the LORD thy God will hear all the words of Rabshakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the living God; and will reprove the words which the LORD thy God hath heard: wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left." (2 Kings 19)  You see most of the Judahites had been removed from the land earlier by the Assyrians: "3Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them." (2 Kings 18)  Only the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Lachish remained. The rest of Judah would eventually end up in Europe and become known today as Germany (Think Jutes.).  I've heard that the word "Jew" did not come into existence until after the original (authorized) edition of the KJV was published in 1611.  I can see how the introduction of this word into the vernacular and the literature has only served to further cause confusion (babel--Babylon, the city founded by Cain in the 4th millennium BC) concerning the whole matter of the Jews.

"33Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet." (Matthew 21)  Satan hates God and wants to take his place; Lucifer's children the Kenites (Pharisees, most of them) want to take the place of God's children (Israel: Germany, England, USA (those Americans of Anglo-Saxon/European descent), Canada, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Russia, and a few other nations of Europe).  The sons of Cain have succeeded in deceiving the world into believing that they are the Jews--that the Edomite Jewish "State of Israel" is the re-gathering of Israel.  And they have garnered sympathy for having survived a holocaust that never happened. 
"24Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." (Matthew 13)  The Kenites (tares) would be enter-twined with (true) Israel until Jesus' return.


Sunday, March 9, 2014

The Aryans: On the Wrong Side of History

(Sometimes you may--like the masked man (Spokesman) above--lose your cool because you've come to realize that you're on the "wrong" side--and that the vast majority of the rest of the world has been ensorcelled.  That and then there are those who don't care.  And it's damn near impossible to wake them up.  Of course the ones who do care only think they're awake!)

To continue from where I left off in my last post, if it is true that the Noachides (Aryans) possessed atomic weapons--how come they didn't use them on the Kenite Babylonian Empire proper?  Well you have the case of the US (which was on the "right" side) during World War II.  America only had two atomic bombs at the time.  So it could be that the Noachides had only enough uranium and/or plutonium for one or two such weapons--and they used said weapons already (one of them on Mohenjo-daro).

The right side--the actual right side--has come to be painted as evil by history.  Perhaps we can go all the way back to the fourteenth millennium BC?--when the war between Atlantis and the Rama Empire was fought, which is spoken of in the Mahabharata.  At this time two of the sections of Triple Town were floating in the sky--above the third section that was on the land.  (Atlantis at one of those advanced eras in the course of its existence.)  Since both sides here can be considered as "Aryan," this conflict will not be pertinent to this discussion.

Not long after this we move ahead to the thirteenth millennium BC (when we still have thawing ice) when the Ramayana war occurred.  Rama was an Aryan.  If his enemy, the "demon" Ravana, was not Aryan--then he was at least an Aryanized king.  So neither is this war pertinent.

After that we have the Atlantis/Athens War recounted by Plato in Timaeus (about 9600 BC).  (Atlantis at this time was still recovering from the above major war with Rama (Bharata)--therefore the Atlanteans were not as advanced technologically but were becoming a superpower again.  Elohim judged them and their island disappeared under the Atlantic waves.)  Again both sides may be considered as Aryan.  So no pertinence. 

Next we have the Mahabharata war (5561 BC).  The Pandavas were Aryans and these Aryans were losing ground in Northern India; the Kauravas were mostly not Aryans, but their leadership may very well have been Aryans.  So the Pandavas were the newer Aryans in Bharata (dwelling along the Yamuna and Ganges Rivers), if you will.  Thus this war is not pertinent.

Further on we come to the Noachide/Kenite War.  Here at least the Babylonian leadership (Kenites) were Aryans.  Today people would probably judge the Noachides wrongly for having resorted to atomic warfare against the Kenite-controlled Harrapans: Noah and his progeny only acted out of self-defense.

Let us move on to the Great Conquest of Canaan by the Israelites (circa 1400 BC).  Many people today believe that YHVH is a cruel God because he commanded his elect angels (Israel) to annihilate the Canaanites.  People today (most of whom are under a glamour), who do not identify themselves as "Christian," do not understand the context in which this war was executed.  And most Christians defend the actions of those ancient Israelites from the (false) moral high ground of Zionism: the [fake] Jews are God's people, and therefore we are to support them (the State of Israel)!

Now we arrive at the Great War for Survival of the True Jews, that being Germany (the re-gathered Tribe of Judah) during World War II.  No it was not the "Great Patriotic War."  Adolf Hitler and the rest of the German leadership realized the grave threat they faced.  That's why the German people voted the Nazi Party into power in the 1930s.  These who were among the fairest of the volk may not have fully comprehended the esoteric or recondite nature of the threat (that being the Synagogue of Satan--Revelation 2:9 and 3:9), but they could perceive that things just were not right somehow--what with high unemployment that followed upon the horrendous loss of life amidst the trenches of the Western Front (and the subsequent humiliation that was the Treaty of Versailles).

The Soviet power was raised up by the Bankers to crush the growing might of Germany.  Hitler was doing something blasphemous: he had outlawed usury.  And he had the audacity to rebuild the military into the Wehrmacht (Defense Force).  Unfortunately Hitler made some disastrous decisions.  In that Blitzkrieg into the USSR (1941) the road to Moscow lay wide open.  He let that window of fantastic opportunity slip out of his and the German people's hands.  (The Reichsvolk had organized themselves along military lines, for they had to take extreme measures (prejudice) against the immense Kenite/Edomite/Communist endeavor to end their happiness.)  The atrocities that the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS committed were justified.  And we know that millions of Germans (both soldiers and civilians) were murdered in the end.

Sunday, February 16, 2014

The Ukraine

The Soviets murdered about 10 million Ukrainians, for the former coveted the fertile farmland of the latter. This holocaust was then blamed on the invading Nazi army. The Wehrmacht, in truth, entered the Ukraine to free that country from the Soviet onslaught. (Many of these deaths were the result of an artificially created famine from 1932-33.)

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Sauron, the Harrapans and the Last Aryans II

In my last post I touched on a very possible meaning for Abraham's name.  I would like to discuss another very possible meaning for "Abraham."  Around 2000 BC when the Noachides took leave of Northern India (upon their obliteration of the Harrapans)--for they saw the First (Kenite) Babylonian Empire as the threat--they resolved to move westward into the heart of the territory of their archenemy to neutralize this grave threat.

Yet it appears that Nimrod (aka Gilgamesh? or Hercules? or Hammurabi) arrived first in Babylon, in advance of his fellow Aryans.  He of course, being a son of Cush who was a son of Ham, would've desired to take the throne of Babylon for himself: the reason may very well be that he had some of Cain's blood in him.  Let me explain.

  For some reason scripture mentions Naamah, a daughter of Cain  (Genesis 4:22).  We know that there is always a reason for the Bible to make mention of someone or something; just as there is a reason that scripture would remain silent concerning somebody's name or an event (by skipping over a particular event).

(This pic is courtesy of

When it comes to Naamah, it's quite possible that Noah took her to be his wife--after he had Shem, Ham, and Japheth with his first wife (who may have died).  Right after the (local) flood in the Tarim Basin, Ham lusted after his father's exotically beautiful Kenite wife.  The former, when his father became drunk, took advantage of the situation by satisfying his urge to bed Naamah.  Then he boasted to his two brothers about what he had done.  So that is what scripture means when it says that Ham "saw the nakedness of his father" (Gen. 9:22).  Thus Cush was half Kenite, and it follows that Nimrod also had Kenite blood in his veins (He was of Cain's "genea," which was translated as "generation" by the King James scholars--in an effort to obfuscate (Matthew 12:39).  (And Ham's other sons were with his own wife, who was a full-blooded Adamite (Sethite).)  We have the following from Genesis 9:

25And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.   
27God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
28And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

(Canaan, a son of Ham, would later engage in sexual perversion--like his father.)
The above could explain why "Abraham"--besides meaning to be against Brahma or all the brahmans (brahmanas) who came before--would then also mean to be against Ham.  I. e. the patriarch's name has encoded in it God's opposition to what Ham had done.  

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Sauron, the Harrapans and the Last Aryans


Let me propound a new theory (new to me anyways) about Cain, the Harrapan civilization, and the last of the Aryans (Noah and his progeny).

We know (or should know) that Cain aka Sargon lived in the 4th millennium BC.  But first let's go back to before the rise of this terrorist Sargon (Sauron).  It is said that the Harrapan cities may very well go back to 5000 BC.  This is plausible: accepting that the Great Rebellion (Mahabharata War) occurred in 5561 BC (This is near the height of the epoch of Arundhati--11091 BC to 4508 BC--when the star Arundhati "walked" ahead of the star Vasistha.  Today the inverse is the case.  (To get a better understanding of this astronomical phenomenon, go to this link:, we can postulate that some 450 years elapsed before anybody could build any new cities along the Indus River. 

The reason for this being the prolonged recovery time for Northern India--resulting from all the destruction (including radioactive fallout?) that is the outgrowth of such a stupendously horrific war.  The people who constructed these new cities (such as Mohenjo-Daro and Harrapa) were an aboriginal people known as the Dasyus.  (The later Rig Vedas describe them as having black skin and having wide, flat noses.  And they are said to have been an offense to the gods of the Aryans, for the former did not honor the pantheon of the latter. I'd also like to stress that these Dasyus were not the Dravidians of Southern India.)  The question then is this: how did these bushmen acquire the faculty for building cities? Perhaps they were given it by some Aryans who were the children of the survivors of said war--for whatever reason.  (I've read that the Yadavas--who were of mixed race and one of whom was Krishna--were predominant in Western India.  Maybe it was the Yadavas (who were living in Western India) who showed the Dasyus how to construct well-planned streets and houses.)

Next we move forward to about 3300 BC, when it is said that the early phase of Harrapan society arose.  By this time Cain had established a world empire.  He seemed to have had little interest in India, and so his involvement with Bharata was limited.  Seeing that the land was still recovering from the devastating display of weapons from back in the eighteen days of the war in Kurukshetra.  Thus Cain limited his involvement to Northwest India.  The Indus script, which has to do with trade and religious observances, was developed at this time.  This Indus society was not a literate (literary) one, based on the primitive nature of the language--as attested to by the basic level of the Harrapan seals found.  What culture they had was (ostensibly) imposed upon them by their Kenite (Babylonian) overlords: such as the bull symbol and goddess worship--this really being the worship of Eve, the mother of Cain.  The local priest-king of the Harrapans had to have been a Kenite or a Babylonian (Sumerian) representative of Sargon's throne.

(Between 5000-1900 BC some if not all of the Harrapan cities were built over, for they show levels of habitation.  The lowest and therefore oldest levels have the skeletal remains of the aboriginal Dasyus or Nisadhas.  The upper levels (after 1900 BC) show a mix of Aryan and aboriginal skeletons--this being evidence of the original inhabitants becoming enslaved by their Sarasvati-dwelling Aryan neighbors--the Harrapan centers becoming the abode of the Aryans, once the Sarasvati became desiccated circa 2000 BC.  This was the cause for these last of the Aryans to abandon India and emigrate westward--this and most likely the radiation levels in some areas of the Indus Valley, which currently comprises Southern Pakistan.  And another major reason for going west was to deal finally with the 1st Babylonian/Kenite Empire.)

The Harrapans reached their peak between 2600 to 1900 BC, some say.  Lord Davenport said that Mohenjo-Daro was brought low by an atomic explosion.  This view is still quite controversial, but I'm open to it.  As for the date of this detonation, Davenport said that it occurred circa 2000 BC.

I'm convinced that Noah and his progeny were in Northern India at this time.  Could it be that the Noachides possessed the capability for assembling atomic/neutron weapons?  If so why would they have used such a weapon on the urban center of Mohenjo-Daro?  Most likely the Noachides, who were dwelling along the Sarasvati, felt threatened by the Harappans.  After all the Indus Valley cities were part of the Babylonian Empire of Cain (and his Kenite successors).  The Noachides may have made an example of Mohenjo-Daro because the Harappans were numerically superior--and that city was a military center of the enemy.  (Many of the Noachides may have been pagans by this time, for I've read a passage from the Rig Vedas in which the Aryans ascribe their victory over the Dasyus (Harrapans) to one of their gods, Indra.)

(Abram--later Abraham--was a young man at this time.  His name is symbolic of the rebuke of the previous paganism of all the Aryans who ever came before: there would be a new henotheism established, or rather the long lost one--since the long distant days of Manu or Yahveh's first dealing with Adam (Genesis 1:27)--would be reestablished. The letter "a" affixed before a word means to be against or in place of whatever that word means.  The brahmans of yore--going all the way back to the time of the Ramayana, at the end of the Pleistocene (and even further back in prehistoric time)--had an imperfect understanding of the most High, as witnessed also by the Mahabharata.  Yahveh Elohim was going to use Abram to begin to turn things around.  His name (in his later life) would be changed to "Abraham," a refutation of the Brahmans' corruption of the true religion of Brahma.  Thus Abram was a minority among his own people, who had turned from the Creator.  Now this is change we can believe in.)


Friday, January 31, 2014

Cain, Son of Lucifer

Below is a transcript of my debate with a friend of mine, named Efrain, a while back.  He believed that Cain was not Satan's literal son.  I know the truth is otherwise. You can read below or you can go to Facebook (at the link below) and read it there.  (All the paragraphs that are Efrain's part of the dialogue will be preceded by his name.)

Or if you prefer, you can read it at my Facebook page by clicking on the link below.

Efrain:  I dont see the sex part in any of that. The knowledge the frut is refering to is a specific knowledge and it referes to the ability of decleare between good and evil. This only can be done by God The idea that sex is what happen there is an example of of the efects of that. We say that there is evil pleasure and because or we have already decleare sex as evil we push the idea into a text that in no way gives you the tools to come up with that.

Tom:  I used to believe that the tree of knowledge was an actual tree & that Adam & Eve ate actual fruit from said tree. Both the Tree of Life & the Tree of Knowledge are symbolic of Jesus & Satan, respectively. (The other trees in the garden were literal trees.) The serpent deceived the couple into receiving Luciferian enlightenment (Kundalini awakening). I guess you could also call it gnosis. One way to achieve awakening (opening the 3rd eye) is through anal sex--which the Illuminati/Satanists love to practice--the Kenites being the children of Satan. Again, that's how Cain came about: he was the offspring of the sexual union between Satan & Eve. Partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge means that 1st Eve had sex with Satan & then Adam engaged in same (with the serpent). Thus God would not place a tree in the garden in order to tempt the couple (with its fruit). "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." (James 1:13-14) That is God would not create a situation in which man can be tempted. He was warning Adam & Eve to stay away from Satan.

Efrain:  Tom all that is a good argument in it self but lacks one very important ingredient which brings the complete srgument to the ground. Freedome. Eve has nothi.g to do with our condition exept, she was used by Satan to tempt adam. When she ste the fruit nothing happened. This is not a third eye thing. For crying out loud Tom, I was a satanist. You dont think I would have knowned. That is not what it is. Satan ofered them to be like God, who determines what is good or evil. That kind of knoledge belongs only to God, who knows all things and is acompanied with power. This is not my opinion. What Im telling you is the result of studies and research. You have to examine the account as a whole and then throught the whole general biblical message.

Adam & Eve had free choice in the garden. As I said, God warned them to stay away from Satan. Thus they had the choice to obey God or turn to Satan. Eve's sin has no bearing on my sin or your sin, of course. Everybody's responsible for their own sin. (Jesus being the ransom for all of us sinners.) However, there's 1 way in which Eve's sin affects us. From her sexual union with Satan came Cain. The Synagogue of Satan--who rule this world system--know that Cain is their father. From the beginning--in the garden--this has been a war (a struggle) between 2 seedlines: the woman's (being Jesus) & the serpent's (Cain & his posterity). Opening the 3rd eye is not of God. Thus it is of Satan. There is no middle ground. Jesus said it himself: you are either for him or against him. The practice of Yoga, Kundalini (serpentine energy moving up the spine), & opening the 3rd eye--all these are of Lucifer. Again, saying that God put the tree of knowledge in the garden to trip up Adam & Eve is not biblical. God is not a man that he should tempt people.

Efrain:  They lie and they are lied to. You cant trust their info.

Who do you mean by they? My standard for truth is the word of God. I have backed up my argument by appealing to the Bible. Everything I read--everything I come across--I look at in the light of the scriptures.

Efrain:  Look Tom the story is symbolic but you have to study it in parameter that are resposible. You have to see that there is no sexual analogy in the story. That the tree's fruit claims a specific knowledge which at that point is not for man and is described as the knowledge or science of good and evil. Only someone who can judge then could use that knowledge. Look what happens after. The first human judgement: they judge nakedness evil. God then asked who told you that. He is asking like he was asuming they didnt have that knowledge. This overthinking of the seeds is part of the puritan mentality that ruin the church. In Jesus leneage there was a prostitute who lied in order to save herself from been a casualty of an invation. You are reading into the text things that are not there. Trying to explain satans intro to the world as the father of cain dammages the theology that you are trying to defend.

Ah, the garden story is a mixture of the symbolic with the literal. The way the Kenites/Synagogue of Satan/Sons of Cain/Zionists operate today can be traced back to what happened in the Garden in Eden.

You do realize that the Synagogue of Satan--those who say they are Jews & are not but do lie--they are the rulers of this world (Babylon) system? The Bankers control the world & their father is Satan. These Kenites are the sons of Cain, whose father was Satan.

Efrain:  Dude you use one portion of the scripture an separate that from the rest of the story.

What I'm doing is I'm reading every verse--every passage--in light of the whole of the scriptures. From Genesis to Revelation it all matches up. Jesus mentioned the Synagogue of Satan twice in Revelation 2:9 & 3:9. They go back to Genesis. Again, the war between the 2 seedlines over the millennia.

Efrain:  Tom, Cain does not have to be literaly the son of Satan for that. Jesus said to the Sanhidrim who was obsesed with leanage that God could create sons of Abraham from the rocks. Hes argument was that lenage didnt have the importance that they gave to it. Now im giving you two biblical acounts from the old and new testament that tells you the same thing.

Efrain:  I can keep going. Studing the bible is kind of like drawing. You have to look the general outlook before geting in the details. Also you have to study the figurative language of the bible. Synagoge of satan was a description commonly used for false doctrines by the other jewish denomination and is used in that context in the bible.

Of course God can do the impossible. Cain is the son of Satan. The Pharisees of Jesus' day were--most of them--Kenites. These were Edomites/Kenites who had slyly moved themselves into the position of leadership within the REMNANT of Judah that was left (after both the Assyrian & the Babylonian deportations). These Pharisees were working hand in hand with the moneychangers in the temple. And so their descendants are the Edomite Jewish Banking Families of today: those who say they are Jews & are not but do lie. (Of course a minority of the Pharisees were not Kenites, such as Joseph of Arimathea.)

Efrain:  There is no way that christian anthropologist missed that but you somehow got everyones genealogy so specificly right.

Jesus was talking about a certain group of people when he spoke of the Synagogue of Satan. There are Bible teachers who say that the apostate pastors today are the SOS, but they're wrong. Again Genesis 3:15 speaks of the war between the 2 seedlines. Yes many false teachers--wolves in sheep's clothing--who've infiltrated the church work for the SOS/Kenites/Bankers.

I don't put any stock in what any anthropologists--Christian or otherwise--have to say. I don't put any stock in what science has to say. Science is greatly compromised. Science is a religion--with its devotees. The Illuminati/Kenites have thoroughly taken over & corrupted science--just like they have done to the church. Most people who call themselves Christians are deceived--as Paul said whould happen: 2 Thessalonians 2.

Well all those who are false teachers work for the Synagogue of Satan. That is they work for Satan.

Efrain:  That comment is an example of you comiting the sin of judging people you dont even know including dear friends of mine that had done nothing but serving God, people, and help people in need. I am not defending bankers because i dont have to take that rute to see their evil, but you are making judgement calls using the bible out of context. Some of the people you just insulted are friends of mine. So i'll stop arguing about this. Good night.

It is clear that the Banking families--such as the Rothschilds & the Rockefellers--run the world (Babylon system). They are the Synagogue of Satan. That's who I'm speaking of--& all who serve them. When we come across somebody who claims to be a Christian, we can determine if they are speaking the truth by examining their fruit--as the Bible tells us to do. I'm not saying every scientist is Satanic. Most of them are deceived. There are levels of deception. Some are more deceived than others. I'm sure some of them know they serve Satan. My standard for truth is the word of God. Anything the sciences have to say--archaeology, anthropology, physics, history--I look at in the light of the Bible. Rightly dividing the word of truth.

 Efrain:  Lets see the fruit of this conversation. By coming up with your vertion of the Genesis acount you implied that your research is the true interpretation of the text. So my bible teachers are wrong, I am wrong we may serve satan, because if your interpretation of the text is truth all who opose that interpretation is of satan. Im saying that the text implies that the knowledge of good and evil comes only from God and anyone who exercise judgement is going to do it from his own point of view and comite idolatry making themselves as if they were gods. Think about that for a second and tellme wich message goes more witb Jesus teachings. Remember what He said about the mentality we needed to have when he said you study the scriptures to gain eternal life, but what they do is tall about me.

Efrain:  Talk, not tall. Sorry for the grammar.

 I am going by what scripture says. You must interpret scripture by using scripture. It's prettty clear who the Synagogue of Satan is. It is not the apostate church. They serve the SOS, who are Edomite Jews. These Jews who are not truly the descendants of Judah are of Edomite lineage & Kenite lineage. The whole of the scirptures points this out. From Genesis to Revelation--the scriptures are not broken.

The knowledge of good & evil does not come from God. The tree of knowledge is SYMBOLIC of Satan. Adam & Eve eating from that tree is a METAPHOR for them having been enticed by Satan (sexually). By doing that the couple brought death upon themselves, as God had warned them. Adam & Eve were/are real people. The 2 trees--the tree of life & the tree of knowledge--are figurative. Cain resulted from Eve's union with Satan. And you can trace his progeny all the way through history. The REAL history. Do you ever wonder why God put a mark on Cain? So that others would be warned about killing him? God was going to use him & his progeny (Kenites/SOS) to work something out-through time. Something grand that would bring glory to him (the God).

Who did Jesus speak out against with vigor? Who did he call call a brood of vipers? These Jews who were Edomites/Kenites. Judahite leader John Hyrcanus forced the Edomites whom he had conquered to convert to Judaism. These Edomites became Jews, meaning they became followers (practitioners) of Judaism. It is these Jews who insinuated themselves into the leadership (Sanhedrin) over time--so that in Jesus' day they had gained control of Judean (Judahite) society--which was under Roman domination of course. And then you have the Kenites (sons of Cain). These can be traced back to Genesis. They are already in Canaan when Abraham & Sarah arrive in that land. And they became the servants of Israel--& served in the 1st Temple. If memory serves, Saul (before he became Paul) participated in putting to death those who had turned from the Jew's religion to the Way.

Saul (who became Paul) was a Judahite of the tribe of Benjamin. He was operating in deception & serving these Kenites/Edomite Jews who dominated the Sanhedrin. It is these Jews who came up with the Talmud: the vilest piece of writing to exist, from what I can tell.

Efrain:  Non of that proves your sexual theory of genesis. In the flod God erased the nefilin. Is the only story about angels having sex with humans. You dont need that to prove the other stuff. Thats my point. You are gooing beyond the passsge. You cant do that because thats how false doctrines start.

Efrain, you have to know how to piece the evidence together. You must interpret scripture with scripture. Question all your Bible teachers. Do not go by the interpretations of men. And just because they went to seminary does not mean they'e any more qualified to teach the Bible; in fact just the opposite. Seminaries are brainwashing/indoctrination centers. Question everything you've been taught about the Bible. Did not Paul say to question everything? Even to question him? The Bereans searched the scriptures (daily) for themselves to see if what Paul & the other teachers were saying was backed up by scripture. Also, we do not read the Bible in a vacuum. We come across other books, other writings, other websites. And like detectives we piece together the evidence--always with the word of God as our standard--the final arbiter of what is true and what is not. The universities (all academia) have been severely corrupted.

False doctrine? You haven't refuted anything I've said. And you haven't addressed what I said about God not tempting people: it's not in him to do that. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the garden story is entirely allegorical--even seeing it that way you still are saying that God was tempting Adam & Eve (setting them up for a fall) when you say that God placed the tree of knowledge in the garden & then warned Adam not to eat from it. Why would God place a forbidden tree in the garden? If that interpretation is true then it contradicts the rest of scripture--concerning God's nature. As for the eyes of Adam & Eve being opened & them knowing that they were naked: that is speaking of how they lost their innocence, once they received enlightenment from Satan. We all have a choice. Jesus of Nazareth or Satan. Life or death.

As Moses said (Deuteronomy 30:19): "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live..."

Seminaries are actually SEMEN-aries. You need to realize how the sons of Cain/Illuminati operate. Sodomy is a major part of their rituals.

God cannot do evil. Satan knows how to do both good and evil. He was once the covering cherub for the Holy One. Satan led Adam & Eve into experiencing evil.

Efrain:  Tom, what is your intention here. You can prove anything missusing the scriptures. Im not arguing that the bankers are part of a conspiracy group. My srgument is that non of what you said proves your sodomy theory. Because your evidence needs to be in the text at hand. I dont need to prove you wrong, because your only link is that you see the seduction by the serpent about sex when the text clearly implies a specific kind of knowledge. Because this does not conect with a theory that you are working for some time, you have two options. Push it in or not. Why you are doing this? You tend to go for hidden meanings. Not a bad thing as an investigative tool. But not good for conclusions. Im not trying to desmember your findings is just that it worries me that you are atrivuting evil and goodness to blood lines. That invalid salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. Im not arguing mad but concerned. You are a great researsher and I love your work and concern for things and details. I studied Genesis and descovered that this tree was really representation of Gods knowledge of good and evil. This account is not an account made to be historical. Its intention is to give a general perseption of how humanity became independent of God and guilty of separation. I care about you. I truly hope you see what my intention is.

It's not my theory. Your interpretation of the garden story is a theory. The question is: which interpretation is true? Again, you have not addressed what I brought up about God not tempting people. Why don't you address it? I'm waiting. As for my agenda, it is this: to get to the truth. We have been lied to in the churches. The vast majority of churches--including so-called Christian schools & Christian universities (in fact all of them)--are in apostasy, if you haven't realized. They all teach heresies. Again Adam & Eve having sex with Satan is not my theory. It has been taught throughout the centuries, but it has been suppressed--because the Kenites don't want the truth to get out. That's why you have false teachings like the rapture, eternal security, eternal hellfire (& some ogthers) that are popular. The tares have come in and are indistinguishable from the wheat. Which is why both Jesus & Paul emphasized to not let ourselves be deceived.

I know you mean well, but you do not have knowledge. Paul said that his fellow Judahites had a zeal for God but without knowledge.

Humanity is in a fallen state. The garden account is about how Jesus would come through the Adamic line. The Gospel of Luke traces Jesus' lineage all the way back to Adam. You keep saying that I hold up my research as being the truth. Everything I come across I hold up to the light of the word of God. The scriptures are the standard for truth. Whereas you have appealed to anthropology (your scientist friends) & your Bible teachers. You have appealed to the traditions of men--the interpretations of men. If you're going to refute me, then do so from the Bible.

Yes, those who have taught you the Bible are working for Satan. I do not condemn them when I say that. We are called to judge the fruit of others. With the same Judgment I use on others, the same will be used to judge me. So I judge the fruit of others according to the word of God. Therefore I expect others (who have a beef with me) to use the word of God to judge the fruit that I've produced--whether my own fruit is good or evil.

Those who turn away from the truth condemn themselves.

I have not invalidated salvation coming by faith in Jesus Christ. There are certain people who--like many of the Pharisees in Jesus' day--will not turn to God.

Efrain, you bringing up Jesus saying that God could raise up sons of Abraham from the rocks is actually Jesus saying that the stones would cry out--if the multitude were to hold their peace. You need to accept that the matter of bloodlines is crucial. Jesus came through Adam's bloodline. The Kenites came through Cain's bloodline--thus they came from Satan. Jesus came for his own--Israel--he said that he was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

The Christian/European/Germanic/Celtic/Anglo-Saxon nations are the Christian nations. Paul was called to carry the Gospel to Scattered Israel (the "Gentiles" in the Book of Romans) in Europe. That is not to say that today there aren't Christians who are not Israelites--there are. But the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians (anyway) are of European/Caucasian heritage. They are the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

Efrain:  The teachers I had are kind, mercyfull, loving and people of great record of service to the Lord. That is what this is all about been Christlike. Im really sory for bodering you. It wont happen again.

We are told in Genesis that 2 tribes of the Whole House of Israel would become preeminent in all the world. Those 2 tribes were Eprhaim & Manasseh. That's why Jacob adopted them directly. Those 2 tribes have become the greatest of all Israel. Ephraim is England today & the USA is Manasseh today. Both are in rapid decline now. This is what Paul meant when he spoke of the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. We are the generation that is going to see all things fulfilled.

Your teachers may be kind, but they're deceived. Paul said that there would be a falling away from the truth in the last days. Do you not think that he was speaking of our day? I see apostasy everywhere. Again, question every teacher. Question every pastor. Question every prophet. Of course question what I say. Do not accept right away what I have said about Genesis. But on the other hand do neither dismiss it right away (what I've said). Search the scriptures for yourself. Question all that you've been taught about the Bible. You said it yourself: you have to be able to see the broad picture being painted before you can go in & study the details. The grand picture is of the enmity between the seed of the woman (Jesus) and the seed of the serpent (Kenites/Synagogue of Satan).

Don't be sorry, Efrain. You haven't bothered me. The only way we can get to the truth is by reasoning with each other about the word of God.

Efrain, you brought up the Puritans. The Puritans were Calvinists. Calvinists are Satanists, whether they realize it or not. You saying that the knowledge of good and evil comes from God--this is a Calvinist position. Verily you are standing for Calvinism. Do not the Calvinists believe that God is responsible for every action of every man/woman? The millions of Russians who died at the hands of the (Jewish) Bolsheviks was caused by God? Lenin was funded by the Bankers (Synagogue of Satan/Kenites/Edomites) by the way. Another thing: how many pastors do you know of speak out against usury? Usury is against God's law. You see how far gone the church is today.

The Turks perpetrated a holocaust against the Armenians in the early 20th century. About 1.5 million Armenians were tortured and murdered. This horrendous campaign was engineered by the Bankers (House of Rothschild).