Tag Archives: bible

Circumcision and the Bible

In May (although it became hot topic on the internet a couple of weeks ago) a Jewish man, Eric Clopper, held a presentation at Harvard titled Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story. In his presentation he decries circumcision as a barbaric and evil blood sacrifice, and wants to abolish this Jewish covenant. Clopper describes how the foreskin is an integral part in generating pleasure in the sexual act, and cutting it off replaces pleasure with rage. I recommend watching the two hour presentation. It did inspire me to write this.

In recent years I’ve grown interested in Christianity, but circumcision is one of the details that makes is very difficult to accept the possibility that the biblical God is the true and righteous one. Although the New Testament seems to reject the notion of circumcision, whereas the Old affirms it. Does it mean God updated his Terms of Service with the coming of Jesus Christ and rendered circumcision obsolete, or is circumcision a heretical practice that creeped into the Old Testament? However, if the former is true, it would contradict the biblical claim that God is unchanging, such as James 1:17: “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow”, or Malachi 3:6 “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed”. Of course you could argue that God doesn’t change, but his rules do, but that still makes God sound fickle. If the latter is true, it detracts from the reliability of the Bible.

 

Circumcision

What is circumcision? As has been practiced by Jewish rabbis for centuries, it entails cutting off the foreskin of a baby on their 8th day, sometimes with sharpened claws, and then the rabbi sucks the blood from the penis with his mouth. Sounds like an evil pedophillic blood sacrifice to me. This is called the metzitzah b’peh. Nowadays this practice is not always used, but I still don’t find modern or “medical” forms of circumcision much better. Circumcision is likely to instill some sort of trauma in the baby. In fact Eric Clopper points out in his presentation that certain rabbis commit circumcision for this very purpose, to associate sex with pain.

As far as I know, the Bible does not describe the exact circumcision procedure, such as the metzitzah b’peh, so I suppose it’s possible circumcision worked differently in the time of Abraham. Genesis 17: 9-14 states:

“And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.”

It appears that cutting the foreskin is still clearly mentioned in Genesis, even if they did do it in some more humane manner. Another interesting detail is that slaves bought with money by Jews should be circumcised. This not only suggests that God condoned slavery, but that in modern days the goyim, such as in America, who are circumcised are slaves of the Jews.

Why would God require the faithful to cut of the foreskin of their children and slaves as his covenant? One explanation that I’ve heard is that it represents dedication to spirit instead of the corrupted flesh. If circumcision hinders one’s ability to enjoy sex, and sex is the foremost method of engaging in pleasures of the flesh, cutting off the foreskin would signify dedication to spirit instead of flesh. I can understand as an abstract concept, but I cannot accept in practice. Moreover it sounds like a member of organized crime cutting off a finger to show loyalty to the Don. Also as Michael Glass wrote in his article Answers from the Bible to Questions about Circumcision that the foreskin wasn’t a mistake of nature as “The Bible says that God pronounced creation ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and that humans were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). The Apostle Paul also said that God made every part of the body as he wanted it. (1 Corinthians 12:18).”

 

Circumcision in the Bible

Let’s have a look at some passages from the New Testament on circumcision. Certain passages are vehemently anti-circumcision such as Galatians 5: 1-3:

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

Paul calls circumcision a “yoke of bondage”, and apparently if you are unable to “profit” from Christ if you are circumcised. Galatians 5: 5-6 sort of contradicts it though:

“For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

According to it circumcision seems irrelevant, whereas faith in Jesus and love are necessary. First Paul had described circumcision as harmful, but then he goes to say it’s irrelevant. While I agree with his motives, it does not sound like he preaching the word of God, but spouting his own political views.

Philippians 3: 2-3 (also featuring Paul, or Timotheus) states:

“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision [mutilation or cutting]. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

It describes circumcision as act of “evil workers” and encourages Christians to worship God in the spirit. For the Christian circumcision seems to be more of a symbolical act, cutting oneself off from earthly concerns, rather than mutilating one’s genetalia literally. In fact, Romans 2: 25-29 (also from Paul) mentions the circumcision of the heart:

“For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

This seems to be basically the letter of the law vs spirit of the law argument. If you are circumcized, you have to adhere to the letter of the law, but if you are not, you have to follow the spirit of the law. However, this does suggest that originally God cared only about the letter of the law, he wanted total obedience from his followers, but he softened up later and loosened his demands with Jesus.

What I see with Paul, is a liberal political pundit who is rebelling against the old, strict traditions of circumcision, and not as much a holy prophet spreading the word of God. However, the same could be said about the promoters of circumcision in the Old Testament, not them being liberal rebels, but political pundits. Let’s take a look at what Jesus has to say about circumcision in John 7: 22-24:

“Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

Michael Glass writes on this passage the following: “the Greek expression for making a man completely well could also be translated as making him completely whole.” It could even be interpreted to say that Jesus cure and uncircumcized the man, i.e. grew back his foreskin. Whatever the case, it appears Jesus was not overly concerned about circumcision, or the Sabbath for that matter.

Also in John 7:22 as can be seen above, Jesus said “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers)”. It would suggest that Jesus claims Moses did not teach circumcision, as is often believed, but it’s an older tradition. As Michael Glass writes:

“the Children of Israel abandoned circumcision during Moses’ leadership (Joshua 5: 4-7). Exodus 4: 24-26 tells us that Moses had not circumcised his own son.

This suggests several scribal traditions. In the first, Moses did not practise circumcision, and the custom was abandoned under his leadership (Joshua 5: 4-7).”

Joshua was Moses’ assistant who took over after Moses died. When he was in charge, he started circumcizing children again. So there is some anti-circumcision sentiment even in the Old Testament, and not merely from a random dude, but from Moses himself.

While Paul’s anti-circumcision rhetoric seems personally or politically motivated, it also does seem to follow Jesus’ approach as well, where a person’s health is more important than ancient religious customs. However Jesus did state in Matthew 5: 17-19 the following:

““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Shouldn’t that contradict Jesus and his followers’ assertions against circumcision? It is part of the law, after all? Perhaps he is referring the Ten Commandments only, or perhaps the law employed by people, including passages in the Old Testament had been corrupted doctrines conjured up by men? Michael Glass makes similar suggestions:

“Jesus himself criticized the scribes and their traditions. (e.g., Matthew 15: 1-9, also Isaiah 29 :13). Jeremiah’s assessment of the Law must also be pondered.

How can you say, “We are wise,
and the law of the LORD is with us,”
when in fact, the false pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie?
(Jeremiah 8: 8, New RSV)”

 

Conclusion

I am still asking Christians, or anyone else, how do reconcile the disconnect between the contradictory positions on circumcision in the Old and New Testaments? Genesis 17 claims God told Abraham to circumcize his offspring, but in the New Testament Paul especially is vehemently against it. Did the omniscient and unchanging God change his mind on the content of his decrees, even his covenant, with men? Are there errors in the Old Testament where the word of God has been replaced with the word of men? Or was Paul merely a heretic speaking selfishly against circumcision?

Personally I would not have a problem had God changed his mind, although it would sort of suggest he is not all-knowing. Let’s take a hypothetical description of God. He is the Creator of all life and the world, and compared to human beings he might as well be described as all-powerful, yet even he has his limitations. He wants humans to have free will, but also to direct them to live their lives properly. First he makes a certain kind of policy or a decree in hopes of directing humanity in a certain way, but over the course of years he notices it’s not working. Then like a king, he makes a new policy which he hopes will be more succesful. I have no problem with such a concept of God, but it would probably go against Christian dogma as it implies God is flawed in some manner.

Another possible interpretation of this circumcision hassle is that, as is according to Christian belief, the Bible describes historical events from Eden up to the time of Christ from various different authors. While the events underneath the words of men have been true, but many of the smaller or even bigger details are up for revision. This would explain how when the Book of Genesis was written, circumcision was seen as a decree from God, but in the time of Jesus it was seen as a yoke. Both are merely views held by men. This view also makes sense to me, but it goes against the dogmatic view that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

I should note that my purpose is not to attack Christianity or the Bible, but to questionsthem. After all, if Christians wish to convert me, or others with similar views, they should have an answer to these questions. Christians who believe in Jesus and all that, should have asked themselves these questions as well. Why did God demand circumcision as the holy covenant with his followers back in the old days, but now you just need faith in Jesus? If your answer is: ‘it doesn’t matter. You just have to believe in Jesus.’ Then what’s the point in having the Bible in the first place? You know the book that describes what Jesus did and said. Ignore what the book says, just believe. Believe in what?

 

Links:

Sex & Circumcision: An American Love Story by Eric Clopper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCuy163srRc

Answers from the Bible to Questions about Circumcision: http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/

Advertisements

Division is a natural thing to any movement

There is nothing wrong wanting to separate yourself from dishonest, disingenuine or otherwise harmful people. This is an idea I understood a while ago, but it’s particularly relevant to today. Last night I was reading the comment sections on ODD TV 2 and Flat Earth Asshole’s Youtube channels. I’m of course referring to the recently appeared divide among flat earthers that I’ve written about in my last two previous posts.

Initially it might seem like the “good guys” would always want unite people, they would never want to exclude anyone from them. They will always try to find common ground and so forth, whereas the “bad guys” want to separate themselves from others. Our contemporary culture certainly promotes this ideology, where everything is about unity. Ultimately though it is a globalist and even a Satanic idea.

Speaking of Satan. Say you have a group of good angels and bad angels. Initially they are divided and at odds with each other, and you might think the way to rectify the situation is for the good angels to offer an olive branch to the bad ones. If the bad ones find it in their hearts to accept it, everything will be fine again. However this is a deluded liberal idea. It is the good angels who have more to lose if they were to intermingle with the bad ones. They stand to be corrupted. Sure, there is a possibility some of the bad angels might see the error of their ways and repent, but more likely is that the bad ones will convert some of the good ones to their depraved ways. It is easier to destroy than to heal, or it is easier to succumb to depravity than to escape it.

Let’s have a more earthly example of this. You have a group of healthy people and group of people with HIV or the plague. It would only make sense to separate the healthy from the sick to protect them. Sure, some of the healthy people might want to help the sick if they are able to protect themselves, yet they should not do it at the expense of the healthy. The difference between this and the angel example is that the people, possibly, did not become sick due to their own actions or iniquity.

Let’s say you know a person who is a drug addict and a compulsive liar. He lends money from people and doesn’t pay it back. It’s natural that at first you want to try to help them mend their ways and show compassion to them. Yet if they refuse to change, at some point you simply have to make the decision not to associate with them anymore to protect yourself. It is a harmful delusion to think you can fix everything and all of the world’s problems. Sometimes the best you can do is simply walk away.

Speaking of the flat earth “movement”. As I was reading the comments on ODD TV’s and Flat Earth Asshole’s channels I found most of them supportive of their decision to call out falsehoods and shills among flat earthers, but some people accused them of being “divisive”. Sure, they are divisive and that’s a good thing. You do not want to associate with dishonest or severely deluded people. FEA mirrored a video on his channel where David Weiss rambled about ODD and FEA being stuck in “low vibration” and pointless New Age BS like that. His argument was basically that the reason Flat Earth Asshole and ODD called out the shills, or FEA attacked the AE model of flat earth, is that they are possessed by demons. I don’t know whether Weiss actually believes in what he is saying or is simply trying to manipulate people to do as he says, but he is certainly acting like a cult leader, which is exactly what the Flat Earth Asshole claimed the flat earth movement has become. The main stream of flat earth is a cult, dominated by dishonest or deluded cult leaders. Genuine people are better off leaving them to their circle jerk and focus on the actual scientific facts for and against flat earth and on people who provide proper arguments, not on people who are trying to “unite” everyone.

I hope the flat earth movement dies, and when I mean the movement, I mean this controlled echo chamber of e-celebrities. Genuine flat earth research will be better off without the egos and the mind control. I hope the flat earth conference burns, figuratively. Some comments I read said that Mark Sargent and Patricia Steere brought so many people to the flat earth, so how can they be shills? Does it make any difference if people are mindlessly repeating “the earth is a sphere” or “the earth is flat”, if they don’t understand the contents of what they are saying? Haven’t these people understood the phrase “quality over quantity”? I’d rather have a few fringe websites and Youtubers discussing the flat earth from a critical perspective than a huge bunch of Yes Men and Women using the flat earth as their latest source of entertainment.

Even the Bible has several passages describing division as a good thing:

Matthew 13:49 So will it be at the end of the age: The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous

Matthew 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats

Matthew 10:34-36 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Regardless of what you think of the Bible or Jesus (I myself I am still unsure what to make of it), you should be able recognize the wisdom in these words. Those who seek truth will become divided from those who prefer lies and comfort.

Most of the prominent people in the flat earth movement are in it either for attention or simply to mislead people. You have to have discernment to see this.

 

Links:

Flat Earth Potato Clues | Mark Sargent & Patricia Steere | Shills: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWK1pmti54&t=2s

Flat Earth Psychosis MIRROR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVjf6uhyDWI

How about DNA, is it another occult hoax?

Previously I wrote about the occult connections of the Copernican heliocentric model and the Big Bang. I’ve seen and heard others discuss them previously, but there’s one thing I haven’t seen questioned, at least not much, that is DNA.  We’ve all seen cartoon images of the double helix of DNA, or as the U.S. National Library of Medicine website writes: “The double helix has not only reshaped biology, it has become a cultural icon, represented in sculpture, visual art, jewelry, and toys.”

It’s commonly understood that the DNA double helix resembles the ancient symbol of the Caduceus with intertwined twin serpents around a pole with wings. The symbol is called the staff of Hermes, the Greek god. It is associated with astrology and alchemy. It is also associated with medicine, but according to Wikipedia that is an incorrect use. The Rod of Asclepius, a Greek god of healing, has only one serpent around a pole and no wings, is what they should be using.

 

This obvious similarity between the DNA and the Caduceus suggests one of three things: it’s a co-incidence, the ancients somehow knew about DNA, or modern science purposefully inserted this occult symbol of a pagan god into our minds as being part of our very flesh. I don’t think it is a co-incidence.

 

Discovery of DNA

James Watson and Francis Crick “discovered” the DNA in the fifties. The U.S. National Library of Medicine website, interestingly, writes as follows:

“Drawing on the experimental results of others (they conducted no DNA experiments of their own), taking advantage of their complementary scientific backgrounds in physics and X-ray crystallography (Crick) and viral and bacterial genetics (Watson), and relying on their brilliant intuition, persistence, and luck, the two showed that DNA had a structure sufficiently complex and yet elegantly simple enough to be the master molecule of life.”

They didn’t conduct their own experiments, but they managed to discover the double helix structure? Moreover it’s commonly known that Francis Crick was inspired by LSD to make his great discovery. It sounds more like something an artist or a weird religious person would do, get an epiphany by doing drugs. That’s hardly the scientific method. Cracked.com even mentions that Crick was a fan of Aldous Huxley’s, a well-known or well-alleged transhumanist-globalist mastermind, Doors of Perception.

The phrase double helix is interesting too. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary a helix is “a spiral thing”. It comes from the “Greek helix (genitive helikos), a word used of anything in a spiral shape (an armlet, a curl of hair, the tendril of a vine, a serpent’s coil)”. A serpent’s coil, you say? The DNA resembles the coiled twin serpents of the Caduceus. Notice a pattern yet?

 

The Enmity with the Serpent seed

Things like these make me go, hmm, maybe the Bible was right all along. Genesis 3:15 states:

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

Maybe God intended humans to have a single helix DNA, but because of the serpent’s genetic involvement now we have double: seed of the woman and seed of the serpent.

Another thing is that the DNA is sometimes called a ladder, and is associated with Jacob’s ladder. The ladder is also a part of Masonic iconography. Perhaps they knew something, or perhaps they wanted to insert their occult beliefs into our biology.

The person in the center in the picture below is holding a key. The Cracked.com article writes: “LSD. Yes, when not discovering the key to life, and winning the Nobel Prize for it, Crick spent the 50s and 60s throwing all night parties famous for featuring that era’s favorite party favors: LSD and nudity.” DNA is the key to life. Looks like Crick just was pushing Freemasonry for the uninitiated.

 

Referring to the Caduceus, or staff of Hermes, Wikipedia writes: “It is said the wand would wake the sleeping and send the awake to sleep. If applied to the dying, their death was gentle; if applied to the dead, they returned to life”

It basically reverses things. I wonder if the staff could turn men into women and vice versa? Freedom into slavery? Victims into aggressors? If we take the wand to refer to modern science, it has certainly put many rational people to sleep by conving their spiritual beliefs are nonsense, and it has awakened people who lack reason to acknowledge we cannot explain the existence of the world and life itself without some sort of creator to think themselves rational.

 

How does DNA look like?

I suppose I had always assumed that Crick and Watson managed to look at human tissue samples with a powerful microscope and saw DNA, or something to that extent. Now it does not seem like that was the case. I tried to find pictures of DNA on the internet, but much like pictures of outer space from NASA, they are cartoons or CGI images.

For example, Kaspi.tv has this image and a four second video showing the DNA double helix. At first I thought it might be actual video of DNA taken through a microscope, but it says it’s computer generated.

 

The New Scientist website has an article from 2012 titled “DNA imaged with electron microscope for the first time”. So DNA was discovered 60-years ago but that was the first time it was imaged? So all of the scientists and medical students who were taught in universities that DNA is shaped like that were just basically told to take their word for it? Or they were able to see it microscopes themselves, but they just couldn’t take photographs of DNA prior to 2012?

The article has these pictures:

 

The first one resembles the double helix slightly, but certainly is not identical to the images we are used to seeing. The second one looks like CGI to me, and it has two pillars like Jachin and Boaz of Freemasonry. The article seems to suggest though that they are actual images, not CGI: “Now an electron microscope has captured the famous Watson-Crick double helix in all its glory, by imaging threads of DNA resting on a silicon bed of nails.”

The electron microscope capturing the double helix presumable means they took a photo of it.

 

Conclusion

I find the DNA double helix hokey as heck. I am not saying it’s definitely a hoax, but I am highly skeptical. I do think that modern science has a real understanding of genes. I do think GMO manipulation is real, and supposedly DNA tests can reveal whether two people are related and so on. I don’t think that it is all fake. The makeup of the DNA though, looking allegedly like the Caduceus, I think is an occult hoax. Just the lack of pictorial evidence, and these occult themes, drugs, references to Aldous Huxley, around the concept of the DNA suggest that it is not science, but religion.

Much like outer space, it seems that the inner space too is a fabrication of talented scifi-authors masquerading as scientists.

 

I should give credit where it’s due. The reason I wrote these last three articles was partially inspired by videos by Youtube-channel the Truth is stranger than fiction. He has said some of the arguments in his videos I’ve used here, but I cannot link to any specific video since I don’t recall what he said and where. Just check out his channel if you haven’t done so already.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2aFQcGgRoVuEWfx2AM0H-A/videos

 

 

Links:

The Francis Crick Papers: https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/Views/Exhibit/narrative/doublehelix.html

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

The 5 Greatest Things Ever Accomplished While High: http://www.cracked.com/article_16532_the-5-greatest-things-ever-accomplished-while-high.html

DNA strain: http://www.kaspi.tv/files/dna-strain.html

DNA imaged with electron microscope for the first time: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22545-dna-imaged-with-electron-microscope-for-the-first-time/

Big Bang is an occult concept known as the Cosmic Egg

Last time I wrote about the Kabbalistic ideas behind the Copernican model of the solar system, and how the Catholic church did not seem to have a problem with these un-Biblical theories. This time I’ll look at the Big Bang.

Although the Big Bang is supposedly a theory, it is commonly heralded as scientific fact in our modern society, and if you question it, people look at you as an uneducated bumpkin or a religious nut. This is quite silly since purely by reason can debunk the claim the Big Bang is a fact, since the event supposedly occurred billions of years ago when there was no life, no-one to observe it. It is at best a far-fetched theory that we can never falsily. At least by comparison the Copernican heliocentric model is more scientific since we should at least be able to verify if it’s true or not; does the earth revolve around the sun, or vice versa? It is not based on non-sensical theorizing of something that might have happened before anything even existed. However, I don’t want to discuss the ridiculousness of the Big Bang any further, since plenty of people have already done it, instead I’ll focus on the occult or religious aspect of it.

 

Georges Lemaître and the Cosmic Egg

The Big Bang theory was coined by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest. According to main stream history he attended a Jesuit secondary school, and according to many others, he was a Jesuit. Whether or not he was one is not as relevant as the fact that he was a Catholic priest.

The Physics of the Universe website “Lemaître himself called his [Big Bang theory the] ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’ or the ‘Cosmic Egg’.” Cosmic Egg, that sounds intriguing. What is it? In the Greek Orphic tradition there is the Orphic Egg, another version of the cosmic egg. According to myth, the hermaphroditic deity Phanes hatched out of it. Hermaphroditic, i.e. male and female at the same time, reminds me of the LGBT agenda, Conchita Wurst in the Eurovision song contest and so on.

 

Wikipedia describes Phanes as having had golden wings, he was male-female deity of light and goodness, his name means “to bring light” or “to shine”. Does it sound like Lucifer yet? Wikipedia also refers to a tradition according to which Phanes had been hatched from the World Egg of Chronos (or Saturn).

 

“The Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians” says the following: “The Germ within the Cosmic Egg takes unto itself Form. The Flame is re-kindled. Time begins. A Thing exists. Action begins. The Pairs of Opposites spring into being. The World Soul is born, and awakens into manifestation. The first rays of the new Cosmic Day break over the horizon.”

 

Un-Biblical Catholics

The Cosmic Egg clearly is an ancient occult, pagan and/or religious concept. It has nothing to do with science, i.e. gathering evidence by observation of natural world. Ever since I was a child had bought the narrative that there is tug-of-war between scientists and fundamentalist Christians, or science and the Bible. The conflict, in fact, is between two religious systems: occult and the Bible. Science itself seems to have been pushed to the side.

And what is of course interesting is that it is the Catholic church that has been pushing these unscientific, pagan notions as science. This is curious for two reasons: the Catholic church is allegedly a Christian organization that believes in the Bible. That is an old and debunked allegations. Second is that the Big Bang, and many other pillars of modern scientific thought, such the Copernican model and Evolution, are not scientific, are religious notions at best, complete lies at worst.

My point is not to argue that the Biblical account of history and cosmology is the correct one. It’s more that if the Catholics want to pretend Christian, they should not be pushing these non-Christian religious ideas. Moreover, I’d like to see more of actual scientific observations related to cosmology, alas we have very little as the concept of Dark Matter pretty much proves all of modern cosmology as pointless theorizing. So far, the Bible does seem more reasonable than most of modern science, but that does not prove the validity of the Bible either.

 

Links:

Georges Lemaître: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

The Physics of the Universe: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html

Orphic Egg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphic_Egg

Phanes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanes_(mythology)

Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians: http://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/sdr/sdr04.htm

 

Does Astrotheology actually make any sense?

I just finished watching a video (edited) by Eric Dubay titled “Jesus Christ Never Existed”. I wasn’t convinced by the argumentation of the video. In fact, seeing blatant anti-Jesus propaganda like that makes me think that maybe he did. I’ve always been contrarian like that. Ever since I was child I’d thought the story of Jesus is just a silly myth, but around ten years ago when I saw the documentary Zeitgeist, which was trying convince the viewer that Jesus did not exist, because there were allegedly numerous other Gods and heroes in the ancient world whose exploits paralleled those of Jesus. He was supposedly just another version of an older story, so we should just discard him, and possibly focus on the older myths. I however entertained seriously for the first time the notion that maybe Jesus did exist if there were these alleged parallels in the ancient world.

Though now it seems much of these alleged connections between pre-Christian deities and Jesus are fabrications or exaggerations. I am not 100% convinced on these connections either way, but the video by Eric Dubay certainly did not manage to convince me to see it his way since, as usual, they don’t properly cite their sources to show that Jesus was plagiarized from earlier deities. They state a lot of claims, with little proof. Moreover listening to people in the documentary like the late Acharya S. (who interestingly allegedly died December 25, 2015) is a chore. Her smugness and how she despises Jesus and those who believe in him are unbearable. This bothered me even back when I was more receptive to her ideas, but not her attitude.

This isn’t supposedly to be a critique of Eric Dubay or his video, but I wanna mention one thing before I move onto astrotheology. I recently discovered a Youtube-channel, La verdad Absoluta, that claims to expose several inconvenient truths about Dubay. I cannot attest that all of the channel’s claims are totally accurate (and I haven’t watched every video), or that the person making the videos isn’t just on a personal vendetta against Dubay, but I do think it’s worth having a look.

 

Astrotheology

Let’s get to the main event. This is something that been gnawing my mind for a while now. Over the course of many years I’ve seen plenty of videos by people like Jordan Maxwell and Santos Bonacci who claim that the Bible is just allegory for astrotheology, Jesus is merely a reference to the sun, and so on. At first it sounded very profound, but I never really just got it. I didn’t understand what’s the actual significance in veiling stories about the heavenly bodies as events taking place on earth. I thought maybe I’m just dumb, I’m not spiritual enough. Yet now I think that’s actually the point of astrotheology: to make the people who espouse it look smart like veiling fact and mythology among the convoluted BS to confuse you and intrigue you at the same time.

While there are some verses in the Bible that might be interpreted to refer to astrology, such as Genesis 1:14-16:

Gen 1:14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The “lights in the firmament” presumably refer to stars. Them being for “signs and seasons” might certainly have an astrological reason behind it, since according to astrology doing certain actions on certain days can be more beneficial than on others. The Book of Job refers to the Mazzaroth, that supposedly means the Zodiac. Ultimately I don’t know what is meant by these things, but I mention them to point out that there seems to be some grain of truth in astrotheology.

 

Jesus and Sun

However, I’ve never really understood the claim about Jesus being an analogy for the sun. First of all, I don’t get how it is supposed to be a great esoteric secret? How does is empower you to “know” that Jesus is actually just the sun? All I see it makes Jesus into something banal. He was supposedly a man who did miracles and rose from the dead. That is quite unique and extraordinary, whereas the sun is something quite ordinary. The sun is important for life on earth to be sure, but it is quite mundane in my opinion, and it is not the way to any kind of salvation. Moreover, what need is there to turn the sun into a man in the form of a myth? If you want to describe the behaviour of the sun during different seasons, why don’t you describe what the sun does? How is it beneficial to come up with stories of a virgin birth, turning water into wine, betrayal by Judas, death and resurrection and so on? It just seems like needlessly convoluted nonsense to me.

Let’s look at Jesus dying for three days and coming back to life and how it is supposedly related to the sun. Jesus died and was resurrected around Easter, i.e. March or April. Astrotheologists claim that the sun dies in December and is resurrected three days later. Notice the difference in months? Jesus does not die in December, his birth is celebrated then, although scholars tend to dispute that Jesus was born in December. Nevertheless the sun “dying” and Jesus dying are at two completely different times. Even if Jesus being born on December 25 represents him being reborn, he would have to be dead 8 months or so, if he died in April.

Even more nonsensical is the claim that the sun dies in December for and is resurrected three days later. Even here in Finland the sun does not “die” for three days in winter. The days get short, but there are 4-6 hours of daylight even during the darkest days. Sometimes in the very far north in Lapland they might have dayless days. We have the concept of “kaamos”, the Polar Night. During that time the sun does not rise above to horizon. It only affects the very north, though. So you might say that the astrotheologists are talking about kaamos in Lapland then. Not really. First of all the Bible was written in the Middle-East and Mediterranean region. I don’t think they have kaamos down there. Why would they be describing the behaviour of the sun in the far north? Even if they for some reason thought the way the sun behaves in the arctic circle is of the utmost importance, Jesus’ death and resurrection is not applicable here.

I found a newspaper article from 2016 marking how long kaamos lasted in Lapland. It says in the northernmost municipality, Utsjoki, kaamos started November 26th and they got to enjoy sun’s rays again in mid-January. Apparently the sun was dead for 52 days last winter, not three days. The article also mentions that it’s not pitch black even during kaamos. Although the sun is under the horizon, it still shines from underneath and some of the light is reflected down via the atmosphere.

 

Try replacing Son with Sun

One more thing before I finish. The Eric Dubay documentary has Michael Tsarion (whose both names are numerologically 33) saying how you should replace the “son of God” with the “sun” or “sun of God”. I think I’ve heard him say it before, and it sounds smart and mysterious when he says it, but this time I actually decided to heed his advice. For example:

Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

This would be: “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Sun, Today I have begotten You.

Matthew 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

This would be: and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Sun, in whom I am well-pleased.”

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Propitiation apprently means “appeasing a god” or “atonement” so God sent the sun to atone our sins. How does that work exactly? By giving us a tan?

John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

This would be: Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Sun can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Sun also does in like manner.

First of all, if we take Tsarions’s advice we see the sun speak these words. Moreover, the sun is copying the actions of his father. It sounds like nonsense.

Sorry MTSAR, this sounds like nonsense to me.

 

Conclusion

The claim that Jesus is just an allegory for the sun is utter nonsense. I feel silly for taking it seriously for a long time. I suppose it was due to the Emperor’s New Clothes -syndrome. When you first “wake up” to the fact that there are conspiracies and that we’ve been lied to about most things, then you find these alternative researchers and they seem so smart and edgy, you don’t dare dismiss their claims, especially since some things they are saying you recognize as true. However, it seems that most of the alternatives we are given are pushing lies, just different lies from the mainstream. The difference between main stream and the alternative is that the latter mixes truth with lies.

When it comes to Jesus, I don’t know if he existed or not. But seeing that there is seems to be an agenda to convince you that he did not exist, or that he’s not important, makes me think the establishment is worried about him for some reason. I wonder why?

 

Links:

Jesus Christ Never Existed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-k2glNuwLI&t=3435s

La verdad Absoluta: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCKQeXoqLfTkFYhPbi3qixw/videos

Polar Night: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night

Kohta alkaa kaamos – näin pitkään se kestää eri paikkakunnilla: http://www.is.fi/matkat/art-2000004877281.html

What is the Origin of the Elite Bloodlines?

It seems to be an established fact that there is an elite bloodline, or a mix of bloodlines, that rule our world. Many conspiracy theorists have described 12 Illuminati bloodlines, while I don’t know if the number is accurate or not, I haven’t seen anyone really dispute the existence of these bloodlines. Even main stream society seems to submissively accept that these bloodlines are a fact. For example most US presidents have been related to each other and to European royalty. The main stream media has even dicussed how Dick Cheney and Barack Obama are related.

The question then is why is this royal bloodline significant? What makes them different, why do they always seem to be in power? From what I see, among conspiracy theorists the prevailing theory is that they have descended from the Nephilim, fallen angels, or possibly the serpent from Eden through Cain. There are variations to this, such as they were descended from Annunaki aliens or reptilians, but in the end the narrative is that the elite bloodlines are evil because they descended from evil non-human entities. And I don’t think it’s a bad theory, but it’s still just a theory, so I will propose another one.

 

Seed of Abraham

Genesis 17:4-8 states:

Gen 17:4  As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Gen 17:5  Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
Gen 17:6  And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen 17:7  And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8  And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

God formed “an everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his seed to make him “a father of many nations”, and “kings will come out of” Abraham, which presumable means he will be the progenitor of many kings. Perhaps the seed of Abraham still is ruling many nations through his kings. If this is true, and the elite bloodlines of today are the seed of Abraham, then it would imply two different possibilities: either the God that came to Abraham to make a covenant with him was an evil one, or it was the true God and the only way for anyone to rule over the earth is through the seed of Abraham.

In Genesis 17:1 God, or LORD, says Abram (as he was still known) was perfect (or complete, whole, sound, without blemish, or entirely in accord with truth and fact).  This is why God chose to make the covenant with him. Then why are the elites of today so evil and corrupt then? Perhaps that is reason for their generational Satanist, MK Ultra mind control rituals. That is why the Illuminati trannies seem to exist. God had decided that the seed of Abraham will be kings over nations, and the other side cannot change that, but if they manage to control the seed, they can control the world. This might be what has happened. I’m not saying this necessarily true, but I am putting it out there as an alternative.

If my theory is correct, it would be utterly pointless to try start a revolution to oust the elite bloodlines from power. It would be pointless to hate them. The only way to free ourselves would be to free the elites from the mind control.

 

Canaan and the Goys

Before I finish, I’d like to take a look at a couple of interesting words from Genesis 17. The word “nations” is used a few times. The original Hebrew word is “goy”, which is certainly familiar as the Jews tend to call non-Jews that, and it supposedly refers to cattle. According to Brown-Driver-Briggs dictionary the word has the following meanings:

1) nation, people (noun masculine)
1a) nation, people
1a1) usually of non-Hebrew people
1a2) of descendants of Abraham
1a3) of Israel
1b) of swarm of locusts, other animals (figuratively)
1c) Goyim? = “nations” (noun proper masculine)

Goy means nation, non-Hebrews, Israel, and descendants of Abraham. Does this mean that all of us non-Jews are the true descendants of Abraham and the true Israelites, and the Jews envy us for this?

Another interesting tidbit in Genesis 17 is: “And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession”.

What is Canaan then? According to Ancient.eu “Canaan was the name of a large and prosperous country (at times independent, at others a tributary to Egypt) which corresponds roughly to present-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel and was also known as Phoenicia.”

The Brown-Driver-Briggs dictionary gives the following definitions for Canaan:

Canaan = “lowland”
1) the 4th son of Ham and the progenitor of the Phoenicians and of the various nations who peopled the seacoast of Palestine (noun proper masculine)
2) the land west of the Jordan peopled by the descendants of Canaan and subsequently conquered by the Israelites under Joshua (noun proper locative)
3) merchant, trader (noun masculine)

God promised Canaan as an everlasting possessions to the non-Hebrew seed of Abraham. Canaan was inhabited by the Phoenicians, which was conquered by the goy-Israelites, and became known as Israel. It would seem to me that the modern day Jews are the descendants of Canaan, or the Phoenicians, Brown-Driver-Briggs even mentions how Canaan can mean “merchant” or “trader”. If the information presented above is correct, even the Bible itself would seem to state that the Jews have no right to Israel, Syria or other adjacent locations. In fact, the land was held by the Jews a long time ago, but God decided it should go to the goyim, for an eternity.

It would appear that the Cananite/Phoenician/Jews that pretend to be Israelites want their old land back. That is why Zionism was invented to “return” Israel to the Jews under false pretenses, and why there is a war in Syria right now.

I am not trying to twist this into any kind of “anti-Semitic” narrative. I am merely describing what I see.

 

Links:

Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended from a medieval English king: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html

History and Purpose of the Freemasons and other Secret Societies: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masons.htm

Canaan: http://www.ancient.eu/canaan/

 

The LORD, God and the Book of Job

I was watching Rob Skiba’s latest video, and in it he mentioned a passage from the Bible how there are supposedly “storehouses of snow” (Job 38:22). Skiba suggested the possibility that this should be interpreted literally. I had a look of it, although I had no great insight on its meaning. I did notice something else that is quite interesting in the Book of Job though.

Before I get to it though, I should point out something else. In the Old Testament God is referred to by a few different names. Sometimes it’s God, or Elohim in Hebrew, other times it’s LORD, Yehovah in Hebrew. I think sometimes it’s also LORD God, Yehovah Elohim. The word Elohim is plural, which has led some to interpret it to mean a multitude of gods, or perhaps a pantheon. This may or may not be accurate. Another possible interpretation is that God/Elohim and LORD/Yehovah refer to two different characters.

In Genesis 1, the word for God is always Elohim, and it continues until the beginning of Genesis 2. This starts with God creating the world and ends with him resting on the seventh day. After that starts the story of Eden with Adam and Eve. From then on God is called LORD God, Yehovah Elohim. Possibly these two Gods are two different characters.

Let’s jump to the Book of Job. The story should be familiar, but I’ll recount it quickly. Satan and the sons of God (presumably the same ones that had offspring with the daughters of men in Genesis) came to God, or rather the LORD (Yehovah). Job was a wealthy and happy man with a big family who was righteous, praised God and all that. Satan said to the LORD then that Job only praises God because he is so well off. The LORD granted Satan the power to take away Job’s wealth and eventually even to give him hideous boils. Job lost almost everything and got terribly ill. After a while his friends come to see him. They discuss the reason for Job’s predicament, and Job laments him state, and basically says it’s unfair what has happened to him. He claims to be sinless. Eventually the LORD comes to talk to him as well.

The Book of Job sometimes refers to God as Elohim, and sometimes as LORD or Yehovah. When Satan and LORD have discussions together, the discussion is always with the LORD, not God. Job 1:20-22 says as follows:

Job 1:20 Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped,
Job 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
Job 1:22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

 

Here it would seem that LORD and God are synonymous. However, when Job refers to God, he says LORD, but when the narrator of the Bible refers to God, he says God. Maybe Elohim and Yehovah are two different beings, but Job doesn’t know it. I’ll get back to that later.

Job 19:21 recounts Job lament his condition:

“Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me. ”

According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs dictionary that is in the e-Sword Bible software that I am using, the word which has been translated “touched” is “naga”, and can also mean “to strike”, i.e. “hand of God hath struck me”. However, more interesting is the notion of hand of God. The word for God here is not Elohim, nor even Yehovah, but “eloahh”. According to the above-mentioned dictionary it has two meanings:

1) God

2) false god

Was Job struck by a false god or God? Or perhaps the phrase “hand of God” refers to a person, like in the Game of Thrones there is a person with a high rank known as the Hand of the King, or King’s Hand. He is sort of like Prime Minister who takes care of important affairs of the king. Might the LORD or Yehovah be a powerful angel who takes care of affairs for God such as Lucifer or Metatron?

The LORD arrives on the scene in Job 38. It is said he “answered Job out of the whirlwind”. First of all, I find this entrance curious. Why would God need a whirlwind or a hurricane to travel? Moreover Ephesians 2:2 says that Satan, or another malevolent character, is “prince of the power of the air”. Using whirlwinds to travel around, power of air…

After that the LORD starts exclaiming how dare Job claim he has been treated unfairly, and the LORD brags about the various feats he can do far beyond the scope of mortals. This goes on for a while. It sounds very prideful to be frank. Now what was Lucifer’s sin, I wonder?

Job 38:6  says:

“Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;”

Isn’t cornerstone something the Freemasons are harping on about? This LORD sounds like the Grand Architect or the Demi-Urge of the world, not the real God.

Let’s continue to Job 38:7:

“When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

Morning stars, many Lucifers? The LORD seems to have impressed the sons of God, who are, according to my understanding, the angels who rebelled against God.

Another interesting, although somewhat unrelated piece of information I found was in Job 38:32:

“Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?”

According to e-Sword dictionary Mazzaroth refers to the 12 signs of the Zodiac. Christians tend to think that astrology is of the devil. Maybe they are right, and the LORD is the devil, or if the LORD is actually God, he seems to be proud of the Zodiac.

The last chapter of the Book of Job stars as follows:

Job’s Confession and Repentance
Job 42:1  Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
Job 42:2  I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
Job 42:3  Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
Job 42:4  Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
Job 42:5  I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
Job 42:6  Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. 
The Lord Rebukes Job’s Friends
Job 42:7  And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

The key phrases are: “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite…”

Does not the LORD here admit he was wrong, and say he abhors (alternative meanings: reject, despise, refuse) himself? Maybe I interpret this wrong, but this is how I see this. Basically the LORD fell for Satan’s trick, and allowed Job to be tortured. After Job complains about it, first the LORD makes a grandiose show of how dare he, but in the end he admits his mistake. This is not the infallible God.

My interpretation is that the LORD, at least in the Book of Job, is a fallen angel, possibly Lucifer or Metatron, who used to be God’s right hand man, but now pretends like he is running the whole show. Job possibly does not know this, and might be under the impression that whatever the LORD does has been sanctioned by God. Satan appears to be a different character than the LORD though, since they have conversations together.

 

 

Links:

The goals of our high altitude weather balloon test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeQJfImIZ3E