The Mother of All Causes: the Father of Lies

Red Sky at Morning

Mar 15, 2017
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. --- Real Jesus

John 8;14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true:
--- Real Jesus

Which one are you going to believe?

I am put in mind of Proverbs by your point - Solomon writes two apparently contradictory statements right next to one another - why someone who primarily asked for wisdom would do that started to bother me...

Check out these two verses that follow on from one another...

Proverbs 26

4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

5Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

These verses were penned immediately after one another! I guess you have to start by defining terms...

Psalm 14:1

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

When the Bible describes a person who says in his heart that their is no God, it apparently makes an ad hominem attack on such folk by describing them as fools.

To the apparent contradiction, you might think that Solomon had drank one too many Royal wines that evening and lost his thread, or you may consider that those words applied to particular fools (those who say there is no God) and specific contexts.

Here you might be called to exercise wisdom in dealing with such people, when to reply and when to simply leave it. Perhaps a potential respondent might consider the wider perception of the words spoken by this person and trade off adding fuel to the fire, set against appearing not to have good answers to questions.

Case in point has been the "discussions" you have had over the last few days on this forum. Your comments have been plentiful but your likes have been few.

Accordingly, I will no longer be spending time replying (even if in doing so I might be accused of failing to follow the advice of Proverbs 26:4) as I think that Proverbs 26:5 is more correctly applied here.



Mar 15, 2017
I am put in mind of Proverbs by your point - Solomon writes two apparently contradictory statements right next to one another - why someone who primarily asked for wisdom would do that started to bother me...

Check out these two verses that follow on from one another...

Proverbs 26

4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

5Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

These verses were penned immediately after one another! I guess you have to start by defining terms...

Psalm 14:1

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

When the Bible describes a person who says in his heart that their is no God, it apparently makes an ad hominem attack on such folk by describing them as fools.

To the apparent contradiction, you might think that Solomon had drank one too many Royal wines that evening and lost his thread, or you may consider that those words applied to particular fools (those who say there is no God) and specific contexts.

Here you might be called to exercise wisdom in dealing with such people, when to reply and when to simply leave it. Perhaps a potential respondent might consider the wider perception of the words spoken by this person and trade off adding fuel to the fire, set against appearing not to have good answers to questions.

Case in point has been the "discussions" you have had over the last few days on this forum. Your comments have been plentiful but your likes have been few.

Accordingly, I will no longer be spending time replying (even if in doing so I might be accused of failing to follow the advice of Proverbs 26:4) as I think that Proverbs 26:5 is more correctly applied here.

Mockers and scoffers have developed extremely hardened hearts. It is pointless trying to reason with those determined to disbelieve.
God knows whose are His. If GCF does ever become a genuine Christian it will be a wonderful display of the power and grace of the REAL God (of the Christian Bible).

Red Sky at Morning

Mar 15, 2017
Mockers and scoffers have developed extremely hardened hearts. It is pointless trying to reason with those determined to disbelieve.
God knows whose are His. If GCF does ever become a genuine Christian it will be a wonderful display of the power and grace of the REAL God (of the Christian Bible).
Excellent article! On the Proverbs "wisdom scale", has our recent contributor descended from GCF to GCS/M?

Oct 30, 2017
I am put in mind of Proverbs by your point - Solomon writes two apparently contradictory statements right next to one another - why someone who primarily asked for wisdom would do that started to bother me...

Check out these two verses that follow on from one another...

Proverbs 26

4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

5Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

These verses were penned immediately after one another! I guess you have to start by defining terms...

Psalm 14:1

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

When the Bible describes a person who says in his heart that their is no God, it apparently makes an ad hominem attack on such folk by describing them as fools.

To the apparent contradiction, you might think that Solomon had drank one too many Royal wines that evening and lost his thread, or you may consider that those words applied to particular fools (those who say there is no God) and specific contexts.

Here you might be called to exercise wisdom in dealing with such people, when to reply and when to simply leave it. Perhaps a potential respondent might consider the wider perception of the words spoken by this person and trade off adding fuel to the fire, set against appearing not to have good answers to questions.

Case in point has been the "discussions" you have had over the last few days on this forum. Your comments have been plentiful but your likes have been few.

Accordingly, I will no longer be spending time replying (even if in doing so I might be accused of failing to follow the advice of Proverbs 26:4) as I think that Proverbs 26:5 is more correctly applied here.


Thanks for an early morning chuckle.

Do you think Jesus cared how many likes he got?

A fool will believe his assumptions to be true on faith without facts.

A Gnostic Christian will go with what he knows by evidence to be true, otherwise we would just be bearing false witness which is what you do as you have no evidence for your faith or what you say. This was a recognized fact in the beginning.

Faith without facts is for fools.

That aside, I gave you a reply elsewhere that you might answer on a cosmic consciousness.

That is sure better than discussing the meaning of well defined words that would just waste our time.


Oct 30, 2017
Mockers and scoffers have developed extremely hardened hearts. It is pointless trying to reason with those determined to disbelieve.
Give this man a listen on honesty and tell me who has been more honest in our discourse and who is resisting belief in the truth.

Bear in mind the words false witness and what you guys have said compared to what I have put.


Oct 30, 2017
Excellent article! On the Proverbs "wisdom scale", has our recent contributor descended from GCF to GCS/M?
Note where your bible says wisdom is perfected.

Hebrews 6 King James Version; 1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

When you are ready to perfect yours, we might chat.



Apr 25, 2017
Did he not make himself known as YHVH for the first time, to Moses?
Did he? I dont believe so, and I believe these Posts give the best answer to the question you are leading to:

The Meaning of the Names
YHWH is a proper noun referring to the God of Israel. It is often translated "LORD" (with either all caps or with small caps to keep it distinct from occurrences of "adonai"). Elohim is the generic term for god or gods that only later became a proper name.

As such, YHWH is used whenever the Bible stresses God's personal relationship with His people and the ethical nature of His character. Elohim refers to God's power, His creating all things, and how He is the ruler of all life and all things. Psalm 19 is one of the best examples of how these names are used. The first 6 verses speak of Elohim and His relation to the material world. However, beginning in verse 7, YHWH appears and the focus of the Psalm shifts to the law, precepts, and His relationship with humans who know Him.

The name YHWH is used to show the personal nature of God and how He relates to human beings. On the other hand, Elohim refers to the transcendent creator of the universe, who shaped it. YHWH is appropriate when emphasizing the relationship with Him in personal and ethical matters. Elohim connects deity with existence and humanity.

Accordingly, Genesis 1 uses Elohim to show God's power in creating all things. Genesis 2:4-3:23 uses YHWH-Elohim to show the very intimate and detailed relationship between God and Adam and Eve. Both names are used to show that the same Elohim who created all things maintains a personal relationship with those who walk in His ways. Note that in the very first "J passage," (who is supposed to know God as YHWH) the name is YHWH-Elohim.

Exodus 6:3
However, a complication comes in the verse in question. In Exodus 6:3, God states, "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name [YHWH] I did not make myself known to them.” YHWH is used some 150 times in the patriarchal period. How is this to be made sense of?

The Beth Essentiae
However, a technical point of Hebrew grammar, known as beth essentiae, renders the contradiction moot.* This refers to how a name in Hebrew may not just be a construction of pleasing sounds but refer to a person's essential character and nature. The beth appears at the front of the name El Shaddai, meaning "in the character of the Almighty I appeared to them." Thus, Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac certainly heard and used the name YHWH but it was not until Moses that the essence of the name was revealed. As summarized by Kaiser, "'By the name' is better translated 'in the character [or nature] of Yahweh [was I not known]'" (Kaiser, W. C. 1997, c1996. Hard sayings of the Bible . InterVarsity: Downers Grove, Il). However, Kaiser has now changed his mind about and reads the verse as a rhetorical question, "By my name YHWH was I not known to them?" (Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant, 142).

Kaiser has changed his stance based on the fact that the Hebrew has the beth only on El Shaddai. He argues that a beth essentiae should be on both names if the second is also to be read as such. However, Motyer argues that the first use sets the stage and it should be understood as on the second. He uses Isaiah 48:9 ("For the sake of My name I delay My wrath, And for My praise I restrain it for you, In order not to cut you off." [NASB]) as an illustration. The governing preposition, "for the sake of" makes better English (and something is required). However, "for the sake of" only appears on the first phrase in Hebrew. We add the "for" to the second for clarity in English. Thus, we do the same for the beth essentiae in Exodus 6:3.

Beth essentiae appear also in Exodus 3:2, 18:4, Isaiah 66:15, and other places. What is perhaps most significant to our study here is the usage in Exodus 3:2. The beth essentiae will be in bold below.

Exd 3:1 Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. Exd 3:2 The angel of the LORD appeared to him as a blazing fire from the midst of [fn]a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. [NASB with a modification by this author to show the beth essentiae. NASB transs. it as "in."]

Just as the beth essentiae on flame here shows the nature of God, we can similarly conclude that the same construct is being used in Exodus 6:3 and carry it over to both nouns. Motyer translates the verse 'I showed myself ... in the character of El Shaddai, but in the character expressed by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known.'

Likewise, the Hebrew understanding of shem includes a person's reputation and glory (Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon s.v. shem. See Gen 11:4, 12:2; 2 Sam 7:9; Isa 63:14; Dan 9:15; and others.)

Jewish Commentators
The Targum of Pseudo Jonathan and medieval Jewish commentaries take it similarly. TPJ says that the name was known to them, but it was just sounds as the Shekinah glory had not appeared to them. Rashi said that El Shaddai was God's characteristic of giving promises and YHWH showed the fulfillment of said promises. However, Rambam said that El Shaddai demonstrated the providential power of God while YHWH showed the miracle-working power. Umberto Cassuto said El Shaddai referred to God as the giver of fertility (because El Shaddai is connected to Gen 17:1-2 and other passages with being fruitful) while YHWH is the One who carries out those promises. The patriarchs knew the name but they had no experience of what was entailed in the name.

W. J. Martin has suggested this translation.

I am YHWH. I allowed myself to appear to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai. My name is YHWH. Did I not make myself known to them?

Martin argues that the translation of the key clause as a question is demanded by verse 4 beginning with "And also I established my covenant." That would seem to imply that the preceding clause ought to be taken in a positive sense and not a negative sense, such as "by YHWH I was not known to them."

My understanding of Exodus 6:3 is that they knew the name but now they would experience the character of YHWH.
And another understanding that goes along with the above:

Duane A. Garrett (coauthor of A Modern Grammar for Biblical Hebrew) writes on Exodus 6:2c-3:

But the Hebrew text, as Francis I. Andersen points out, contains a case of noncontiguous parallelism that translators have not recognized: “I am Yahweh...and my name is Yahweh.” The “not” is therefore assertative in a rhetorical question rather than a simple negative, and it should not be connected to what precedes it (1974:102). In fact, the whole text is set in a poetic, parallel structure beyond what Andersen notes (see fig. 1).

Figure 1
The Structure of Exodus 6:2c–3

A I am Yahweh.
B And I made myself known to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai.
A' And My name is Yahweh;
B' Did I not make Myself known to them?

Unlike modern poetry, which is typeset in very conventional and often obvious ways, Hebrew poetry was often indicated through parallelisms. It would be rash to say that the Garrett's interpretation is certain, since parallel thoughts can occur in prose and would not force B' to be a rhetorical question. But by the same token, it does provide a reasonable doubt that the author of Exodus asserts that Moses was the first to hear the Tetragrammaton.

He further quotes Andersen:

There is no hint in Exodus that Yahweh was a new name revealed first to Moses. On the contrary, the success of his mission depended on the use of the familiar name for validation by the Israelites—The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (1974:102).

A portion of the NET Bible note on this text addresses the question directly:

[The] texts of Genesis show that Yahweh had appeared to the patriarchs (Gen 12:1, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:24, 26:12, 35:1, 48:3), and that he spoke to each one of them (Gen 12:7, 15:1, 26:2, 28:13, 31:3). The name “Yahweh” occurs 162 times in Genesis, 34 of those times on the lips of speakers in Genesis (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:340-41). They also made proclamation of Yahweh by name (4:26, 12:8), and they named places with the name (22:14). These passages should not be ignored or passed off as later interpretation.

The verb נֹודַעְתִּי (noda'ti) is exceptionally rare. It is conjugated in binyan Nif'al, 1st person, singular number. It only occurs twice in scripture, the other instance being in Eze. 20:9 which actually has a similar context.

In Eze. 20:9, it is written,

And I did for the sake of My name, in order to prevent it from being dishonored in the eyes of the Gentiles whom they were among, which was made known to them in their eyes when I brought them forth from Egypt.

וָאַעַשׂ לְמַעַן שְׁמִי לְבִלְתִּי הֵחֵל לְעֵינֵי הַגֹּויִם אֲשֶׁר־הֵמָּה בְתֹוכָם אֲשֶׁר נֹודַעְתִּי אֲלֵיהֶם לְעֵינֵיהֶם לְהֹוצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

According to this scripture, the name יהוה was made known to the Israelites when they were brought forth from Egypt. Therefore, it is possible to say that it was not known to them before they were brought forth from Egpyt. What is it about the exodus from Egypt that had the ability to make the name known to the Israelites?

The name יהוה reveals God's faithfulness to His promises, including the covenants He makes.

In Deut. 7:7-9, it is written,

"YHVH did not set His love upon you nor choose you because you were more in number than any people. For, you were the fewest of all people. Because YHVH loved you, and because He would keep the oath that He had sworn to your fathers, YHVH brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. And know that YHVH (יהוה) is your God. He is God, the faithful God (הָאֵל הַנֶּאֱמָן), who keeps covenant and mercy with those who love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations."

YHVH made a host of promises to the fathers, but the fathers never saw those promises fulfilled. In fact, they still will not have experienced their fulfillment until they are resurrected from the dead. The fathers — such as Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov — "these all died in faith without having received the promises" (Heb. 11:13). Yes, they knew of the name YHVH, but they did not see it made known to them or revealed to them like the Israelites, for יהוה is הָאֵל הַנֶּאֱמָן, "the faithful God."

The name YHVH was made known to the Israelites when YHVH brought them forth from Egypt because it was fulfillment of God's promises to the fathers (cp. Gen. 15:7-21).

In Exodus 6:8, it is written,

And I will bring you into the land, concerning which I swore to give to Avraham Yitzchak, and Ya'akov, and I will give you it for an inheritance. I am YHVH."

So, in summary, the meaning is that YHVH, which represents God in His faithfulness to His promises and covenants, was not realized by or made known to the patriarchs who died in faith without having received the promises. Rather, it was made known to the Israelites when God brought them forth from Egypt because that was the fulfillment of God's promises and covenant (in part).
Each of these answers which build upon themselves and demonstrate via Grammatical understanding of the Text along with context of the past narrative, show that the direction and/or point you wish to lead the conversation towards is moot and useless. In short, no this isnt a New God to Moses, nor did the Patriarchs not know who YHWH was. In fact as shown above in the quotes, YHWH is the fulfillment of the promises made to the Patriarchs, and YHWH makes that clear immediately.

Ex 6:8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord.

Gen 15:18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Why would God do that?
God didnt do what you accuse Him of, also inclusive of the previous understandings I have given, we see exactly why God declares a Personal name to Moses, its right in the text, you should try reading the whole of the Old Testament if you are going to argue as tho you are and expert on its subject matter:

Ex 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

He gives a Personal name because Moses asks for one so he can tell Israel whom it is that sent him, its also very telling what YHWH says immediately after this:

Ex 3:16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:
17 And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.

YHWH, the God that appears to Moses says I am going to fulfill the Promises I made to Abraham Isaac and Jacob, and guess what Art, He does just that!!! So can you explain how you perceive these things? It seems to me that you would have others believe that EL a wholly separate God, appeared to Abraham and I guess Isaac and Jacob(?) and made these promises that He EL would lead them and give them Canaan, but then YHWH randomly shows up and literally fulfills to the letter the promises EL made to Abraham. Is this what you are trying to say?

See man your ideology is nothing but confusion from beginning to end, its inconsistent and makes absolutely no sense in light of the entire Old Testament. Sometimes its really God talking, other times its the Devil. Jesus quotes the Scriptures assigned and from the mouth of the Devil to combat the Devil, or to say He is fulfilling the Prophecies given about Him by the Devil. God tells the Patriarchs prophecies but its really the Devil that makes them come to pass, and on and on and on goes your illogical nonsense. Nothing but confusion, and God is not the Author of Confusion which is what you speak, BABEL...

Why would he hide his identity from the patriarch, or change his identity to Moses?
He didnt, IDK why you keep insisting this is the case, from the beginning of the Old Testament to the end God is YHWH, there is no change, not once. The titles that other Canaanite groups used of their gods, the writers used to display that YHWH the God of Israel was above all of their gods. We see here with Melchizedek that EL and YHWH are identified as the SAME GOD, there is no distinction at all. Why oh why are you blind to this?

Why would God go by a name anyway? A name is given to you by your parents. Does God have parents? A name is given to you to set you apart from your equals. Does God have equals?
Where in the world do you get this idea? So does that mean that EL who identifies Himself as EL, isnt really God? That is His Name correct? So is EL equal to the rest of the Pantheon? Or is EL given this title which is also His name to distinguish Him? YHWH is EL lets not forget this...

I'm going to say this for the LAST TIME. Remember it if you want to move forward. The OT is not written by Satan, it is not written by God. It is mythology written down by scribes who have blurred the lines, muddied the waters between:
So you are going to believe in "God" written by people just making up things? Gotcha, sorry I dont view it in that manner, and again the biggest problem in all of this, is that everything that gets quoted is YHWH speaking. I love how you now always have this cop out of well I think the ones that I like are EL speaking vs YHWH even when the text outright say YHWH. Again I know you have lots of hoops to jump through to keep that cognitive dissonance away every time these things are brought to your attention.

1. the MOST HIGH (EL!!!!), Supreme of the Divine Council (!!!!!!), Lord of the Heavens (!!!!!), God of Eden (!!!!!!!!)


2. SON of the MOST HIGH (!!!!!), BAAL (!!!!!!), FALLEN ANGEL (!!!!!!), PRINCE OF THIS WORLD (!!!!!!) YHWH (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) YHWH from the semitic root HWY = "To FALL" (interesting!!), "To BLOW" ("He who blows"; weather god, storm god, like BAAL) (interesting!!!!), "To DESIRE" (interesting!!)
No that again makes zero sense, what exactly is the point in doing such things? And again how is this supposed different EL making promises and how is YHWH fulfilling them exactly. Or how is YHWH making promises and Jesus fulfilling them exactly?

As for this semitic root, whats really interesting is why you refuse to acknowledge what it really means:

To fall, happen, be, become.

1. Yahweh, from Hebrew yahweh, assumed ancient pronunciation of the name of the God of Israel, perhaps meaning "he sends down (the hosts of heaven)" causative derived stem of hāwâ, hāyâ, to fall, happen, be.
2. Jehovah, modern mispronunciation (since the 16th century ad) of Yahweh, in which the Hebrew consonants Y(J)-H-W(V)-H were pronounced with the vowels of the Hebrew word ʔădōnāy (see ʔd), which were added to the Hebrew consonantal text of the Bible to indicate that the latter word was to be read instead of the divine name.
II. Various short forms of Hebrew yahweh (see I above), found mostly in personal names.
1. Jah, from Hebrew yāh, short for yahweh, Yahweh, also appearing in the following personal names: a. Jedidiah, from Hebrew yədîdyāh, beloved of Yahweh (see dwd);; b. Matthew, from Hebrew mattayyāh (< *mattan-yāh), gift of Yahweh;; c. Nehemiah, from Hebrew nəḥemyāh, Yahweh comforted;; d. Obadiah, from Hebrew ʕōbadyāh, servant of Yahweh;; e. Tobit, from Hebrew ṭôbīyāh, my good (is) Yahweh;; f. Uriah, from Hebrew ʔûrîyāh, my light (is) Yahweh (ʔûrî, my light; see ʔwr);; g. Zechariah, from Hebrew zəkaryāh, Yahweh has remembered;; h. Zephaniah, from Hebrew ṣəpanyāh, Yahweh has hidden, Yahweh has treasured..
2. a. Hezekiah, from Hebrew ḥizqîyāh(û), my strength (is) Yahweh (see ḥzq);; b. Isaiah, from Hebrew yəšaʕyāhû, salvation of Yahweh;; c. Jeremiah, jeremiad, from Hebrew yirməyāhû, Yahweh has established;; d. Elijah, from Hebrew ʔēlîyāhû, my God (is) Yahweh (see ʔl). a-d all from Hebrew yāhû, short form of yahweh, Yahweh..
3. a. Joab, from Hebrew yôʔāb, Yahweh (is) father (see ʔb);; b. Joel, from Hebrew yôʔēl, Yahweh (is) God;; c. John, from Hebrew yôḥānān, Yahweh has been gracious;; d. Jonathan, from Hebrew yônātān, Yahweh has given (see ntn). a-d all from Hebrew , short form of yahweh, Yahweh..
4. a. Jehoshaphat, from Hebrew yəhôšāpāṭ, Yahweh has judged (šāpāṭ, he has judged; see ṯpṭ);; b. (i) Joshua, from yəhôšûaʕ, perhaps "Yahweh (is) lord" (*šûaʕ, lord; see ṯwʕ) or "Yahweh is salvation" (*šûaʕ, salvation; see wṯʕ);; (ii) Jesus, from Hebrew yēšûaʕ, shortening of yəhôšûaʕ, Joshua (see above). Both a and b from yəhô, short form of yahweh, Yahweh..

So its understood much more so as TO BECOME, TO BE. I am going to show even more uses of these Roots that go directly against your ideology and support what the Text clearly say of God, but what I'd love for you to address is why is the name Jesus a shortened form of YHWH is Salvation? Yeah buddy Jesus means YHWH is Salvation, doesnt bode well for you to reject YHWH when Jesus literally means He is Salvation... Dont think that is how Jesus name is understood, well lets look at what Paul says:

Acts 7:44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.
47 But Solomon built him an house.

That is Joshua, but Jesus and Joshua are synonymous in name, both mean what again Art? Thats right YHWH is Salvation...

As for the "Blow" interpretation, in Hebrew its understood better as:

hava': breathe
Original Word: הָוָה

Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: hava'
Phonetic Spelling: (haw-vaw')
Short Definition: breathe

Like breathe life or breathe into your lungs. This would change the understanding dramatically wouldnt it? Meh...

Yahweh does not appear to have been a Canaanite god
Ok so YHWH wasnt worshiped by those who Israel came from WITHOUT and conquered, pretty much lines up with Scripture doesnt it? Where was Abraham from again? Was it Canaan? No sir, it was Ur.

I have seen Yahweh's Wiki-page change in front of my eyes, from not having the Kenite Hypothesis, to having the Kenite Hypothesis, to removing the Kenite Hypothesis, to now being unthinkable of having it removed.
Is Moses a real person? Did he really exist?

It's not in defense of my ideology.
Clearly not, it negates your entire ideology, good job...

This text is by far more prophetic than any other text in the OT, so why is it not in the Masoretic version? Why do Christians not know this text?
Everything in that text is from the Old Testament, this doesnt do anything to address what I stated, all it did was show that what YOU see as prophectic texts of Christ all derive from the Old Testament and all come by way of the mouth of YHWH. How do you hold these two contradictions in your mind and tell others to believe as you do again?

Lol, this is priceless. "Did I not just quote ... ?" Man, that passage has been in the article for 5 YEARS!!! And I'm saying it's EL who reigns in the Divine Council first, and it's BAAL / YAHWEH who rebels against him and takes his place after defeating the sea serpent. And all the reasons why it is YHVH (scriptural, archeological, mythological, comparative, linguistic, etc) who takes EL's place are given in the preceding and succeeding chapters.
Well your ideology is incorrect, and your logic continually contradicts itself, the Sons of God who rebelled against YHWH came to Earth and they are the origins of the Pantheon and Greek Mythology you worship. Gnosticism is simply the Religion of Babylon, with Christian names on top, just like Kabbalahism is the Religion of Babylon with Jewish names on top ect ect ect. What exactly do you think is meant in the Word of God about the Ancient Mystery Religions? Clearly it can not be the Worship of YHWH as YHWH opposes the Ancient Mystery Religions. What you follow Art, is the Ancient Mystery Religions which is the Religions formed by the sons of God who rebelled against YHWH.

Where the F did I say that? I believe Jesus is of the line of Melchisedek. I believe Melchisedek is priest of the MOST HIGH. I believe Abraham's God was the MOST HIGH (although I favour allegorical interpretation of Genesis). I believe Jesus (the MAN) is the SON of the MOST HIGH (EL). NOT YHVH!

Last time I'm explaining this to you btw. If you can't get this straight then you're simply arguing in bad faith.
More confusion and nonsense, the God of Abraham is the God of Moses and Israel. What is the promise of the God of Abraham Art? To bring them into Canaan and defeat all the other peoples and gods of that land. To make Abraham the father of many nations, and to rise up his seed to fulfill everything! Your perspective is conflicting is it literally insanity, again its just BABEL, you know the place from which it started...

Jesus is probably quoting EL against the Devil.
Haha wow, more BABEL from you. No, I just quoted verbatim what Jesus was quoting and it was from YHWH. You know this, its evident, but you throw on blinders because to admit the Truth is to admit your ideology is false, which it is...

The entire OT is a struggle between EL (the Most High, father of the man Jesus) and Baal (Yahweh). The scribes have merged two, at first co-operative entities, later two competing entities, into one. They put all scripture in a jar together with EL and Baal, they gave it a good shake et voilà: The Old Testament.
SMH again this makes zero freaking sense, YHWH is the Most High and He literally is opposed to Baal and ALL the other false gods that are apart of the Babylonian Pantheon. You have YHWH as Baal fighting Himself but not really, again its all BABEL...

How - Where does it literally say YHVH?
Alright man, enough with the willful ignorance, I truly believe you to be an intelligent man, but when do this, it makes me wonder. Do I have to break it down for you as tho your 13? Jesus quotes Scripture when He is being Tempted by the Devil, I showed you the EXACT Scripture that Jesus quotes, it is:

Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

From whose mouth does the Word come from that Jesus says we live by? Oh yeah thats right, YHWH's mouth. So the big read LORD that is YHWH in the Text, and Jesus quotes THAT to defy the Devil, it literally says YHWH. You can make up whatever BABEL you want but its clear that Jesus tells the Devil that we dont live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of YHWH.

The fact is, it is not me or anyone else you truly have a Problem with at this point, your real contention lies with Jesus, you dont Trust or Believe Him at all bro...

I'm not gonna do your homework.

No Art you are asking me to do YOUR homework, if YOU want to know how Jesus fulfills the Passover then YOU study it, YOU do YOUR homework. I know the Truth, I gave you plenty of links and knowledge, I wont do YOUR homework buddy.

You know Passover (to Pass Over) celebrates YHVH "passing over" the Jews to kill Egyptian babies, right?
Yes Art I know exactly what the Passover celebrates, see I have actually studied everything about it, where as you havent, not one thing in relation to Christ. You should probably try it, it will open your eyes to how amazing God is, the God you reject and hate and how amazing the Christ is, the Christ you reject and hate...

As for the babies, what was going on again?

Ex 1:15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

Oh thats right, the Pharaoh was commanding to kill all the Hebrew babies. Man I wonder if there is a Parallel to Jesus at all with this?

Matt 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

Weird, the King of Egypt tries to kill all the Hebrews, but Moses is spared, King Herod kills all the children of Israel but Jesus is spared, surely this is a coincidence...

What happened to Nimrod?
Well he surely isnt YHWH as we see clearly that YHWH hates Nimrod, again you should try reading the Old Testament:

Ez 8:14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
15 Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
16 And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.
17 Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.

Surely you understand that Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz to be the deities worshiped in Babylon and that the women weeping for Tammuz are worshiping these false gods correct? I mean since you are so well versed on this, you must know weeping for Tammuz is a pagan practice and holy day for those caught up in the Babylonian Ancient Mystery Religions. Yet YHWH calls it an Abomination and that He hates it, why would YHWH hate the supposed holy day to Himself in your BABEL ideology?

The fact is, it is you who practices the Ancient Mystery Religions and worship false gods, just like the Babylonians...


Nov 12, 2017
Part 2:
Wow, not sure how you missed the part of Satan being a deceiver. Twist truth and logical lies to make a good story but if you would read the first book of Enoch, you would understand it is a race war between fallen angels and human dna or “seed.” The watchers are also the source of your fairy tale and you clearly have not read the Bible. Pray to know the truth and you will have it, just try nothing to lose if it doesn’t work.
7. Ba'al, Son of El

Yahweh is Ba’al, Conqueror of the Primordial Dragon

That Yahweh is the son of El is only absurd to those who do not reckon with the contributions of archeology, nor the fact that translations of the Bible can change the meaning of troublesome passages.

For starters, it is necessary to return to the Ugaritic religion because it is the origin of the gods mentioned in the Bible. Archeologists have found in Ugarit the Cycle of Ba’al (or Ba’al Cycle), which tells the story of how Hadad dethrones his father El and becomes Ba’al-Hadad. The Cycle of Ba’al is the Ugaritic version of Return of Ninurta to Nippur, one of the biggest myths about the exploits of Ninurta.

Before the 13th century BC, the patron deity of Ugarit was El, the god of creation. The court of El, consisting of his 70 sons and daughters, was named Elohim (literally: “the divine assembly”).

Another site at Ugarit mentions Yahweh as a son of El. We know this from a tablet, KTU 1.1 IV 14, on which is written: “The name of the son of El, Yahweh.”

The Old Testament has clearly retained the traces of this embarassing past, where Yahweh was the most important son of El, and was thus Ba’al: And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. – Hosea 2:16

Or the presence in the Bible of the theophoric name Bealiah (1 Chronicles 12:5) meaning “Yahweh is Ba’al” (Jewish Encyclopedia).

That biblical writers disguise these familiarities of the Hebrews toward Ba’al is evident, as for example, when the sons of Saul and Jonathan, respectively called Eshbaal and Meribbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33-34) are renamed Ishbosheth (2 Samuel 2:8) and Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9:6), Boshet meaning “shame”.

To hide this embarassing past further, the Masoretes changed, whenever necessary, the meaning of an entire verse. For example the Hebrew version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 that reads:

When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

While in the LXX (the Septuagint), a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, made around 270 BC, hence approx. 900 years prior to the Masoretic texts, reads:

When the most High divided to the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance.

That the latter reading was the original version and the Masoretic text a fraud is definitively confirmed by the Qumran manuscripts written between the 3rd century BC and 1st century AD (manuscript 4QDEUT), manuscripts that contain the same version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 as the Greek Septuagint.

The Rebel Son Ba’al-Hadad / Yahweh replaces El in the Divine Council

The identification of Yahweh with Ba’al-Hadad becomes blatant when comparing the Cycle of Ba’al with the biblical psalms. In the Cycle of Ba’al, El presides (at first) at the Divine Council. We can locate this supremacy of El in the Psalms of the OT:

God (El) standeth in the congregation of the mighty (Elohim); he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. - Psalms 82

In a second time, the Cycle of Ba’al describes the ascension of Ba’al-Hadad in the Kingdom of Gods, after his victory against the dragon Yam, who symbolizes the ‘primordial ocean’. Ba’al-Hadad will thenceforth reign over a divine assembly impressed by his “terrific” victory, dethroning his father El. In an identical manner do the Sumerian texts describe how Ninurta dethrones his father Enlil at the divine council, following his victory against (among others) the primordial dragon (see eg. Return of Ninurta to Nippur).

In parallel with Ba’al-Hadad and Ninurta, the rest of the biblical psalms no longer represent a peaceful, regnant El in the divine council, but Yahweh ruling the assembly which is at awe for the conqueror of the primordial dragon, the son of El:

And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints. For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him. O LORD God of hosts, who is a strong LORD like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about thee? Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them. Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm.

– Psalms 89:6-10

(Rahab originally means “the primordial ocean” or “primordial dragon” as clarified by the Jewish Encyclopedia, which wonders why Jewish exegetes deprived this name of his mythological character by explaining it as equivalent to “noise” or “tumult”.)

And isn’t the same hero addressed in the following stories?

For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. Thou didst divide the sea [Yam in the Hebrew texts] by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons [Tanninim in the Hebrew texts] in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness. Thou didst cleave the fountain and the flood: thou driedst up mighty rivers [nahăr-ōwṯ in the Hebrew texts].

- Psalms 74, 12-15

What foe does rise against Ba´al, enemy against the Rider on the Clouds? Did I not demolish the darling of El, Yam the Sea? Did I not finish off Nahar the River the great god divine Rabim? Did I not snare the Dragon [tannanu], vanquish him? I did demolish the Wriggling Serpent, the Tyrant with Seven Heads;

- Baal Cycle (KTU 1.3 V 35)

8. The Synagogue of Satan

Ambitions of the Wicked One, Its Temple and Its Clergy

After having unmasked Yahweh, who is actually the latest avatar of Ninurta / Nergal, “the god of this world” behind which the Wicked One lurks today, we can, thanks to Christian writings (Gnostic or canonical), archeological discoveries and the latest developments in biblical exegesis, identify the actual temple and clergy of the Wicked One and thereby make the mystical connection between the ambitions of the Wicked One and the New World Order.

The Representatives of the Wicked One on Earth

First Murderer and Liar: Cain, the Offspring of Yahweh/Satan

First, adultery came into being, afterward murder. And he was begotten in adultery, for he was the child of the Serpent. So he became a murderer, just like his father, and he killed his brother.

- Gospel of Philip

For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that evil one, and slew his brother.

- 1 John 3:11-12​

Cain is considered by the Gnostics, as well as by Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions, as the origin of evil on this earth, Cain being the first murderer and liar of the biblical narrative. Many know the episode of the first murder in the Old Testament, committed by Cain against Abel: And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him (Genesis 4:8) – followed by the first lie: And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? (Genesis 4:9)

In Judeo-Christian tradition, Cain is designated as the firstborn son of Adam while the Gnostics were often ridiculed or scoffed at for saying that Seth was the only descendant of Adam and that Cain was the illegitimate son of the biblical serpent, the snake actually being Yahweh/ Satan. The Gnostics designated the descent of Cain as the embodiment of the Wicked One on Earth, and accused the Pharisees, who are at the origin of Rabbinic Judaism today, to be the clergy, the representatives of Cain/Yahweh here below.

That Cain was the illegitimate son of the Serpent seems to be an old tradition and traces of that tradition are found in apocryphal texts that are not Gnostic.

In the Gospel of James (145 AD), Joseph, surprised to find Mary pregnant, says: Who hath done this evil in mine house and hath defiled the virgin ? Is not the story of Adam repeated in me ? for as at the hour of his giving thanks the serpent came and found Eve alone and deceived her, so hath it befallen me also.

The Kebra Nagast, written about the year 1300, a book esteemed by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Rastafarian movement, describes the sadness of Adam who notes the devilish appearance of Cain at birth, following a conspiracy of the serpent/demon.

The Apocalypse of Moses, believed to have been written in a Semitic language and environment about the year 100 AD, says that Satan disguised as an angel of light seduced Eve, who gave birth to Cain, who was shining and running from the moment he was born.

Moreover, the Talmud and the Zohar, in fact the entire Jewish tradition itself confirms that Cain is the son of the serpent. Rabbi Louis Ginzberg summarizes the Jewish traditions in his book The Legends of the Jews where we can read about Cain:
  • “But after the fall of Eve, Satan, in the guise of the serpent, approached her, and the fruit of their union was Cain, the ancestor of all the impious generations that were rebellious toward God, and rose up against Him. Cain's descent from Satan, who is the angel Samael, was revealed in his seraphic appearance. At his birth, the exclamation was wrung from Eve, "I have gotten a man through an angel of the Lord."
Many readers will probably be thinking that all these Gnostic writings, apocryphal texts, Jewish traditions, are worthless because in our good old Bible it says in Genesis 4:1: Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." (NIV)

Ah … For a moment we set off reassured, except … one may only read the NIV in order to continue to believe that Cain is Adam’s firstborn, because the “Darby Bible” gives us a translation which is more than suspicious: And Man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have acquired a man with Jehovah.

… With Jehovah??

The English translation (KJV) of the Hebrew text is at least equally disturbing: And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. I have gotten a man from the LORD? We can still hope that these Englishmen have mistaken, but that hope evaporates once we read the Hebrew Bible: קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־ יְהוָֽה׃ ... Translation : « I have gotten a man (a son) from Yahweh. » (See here)

The Targum Onkelos gives exactly the same translation as the Hebrew Bible : I have gotten a man from Yahweh. (See here): And Adam knew Havah his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Qayin, and she said, “I have acquired the man from before YeYa.”

* 'from before' (מִן קָדָם) is regularly used in the Targums to render simple “from” in divine context.

The Targum of Jerusalem, Aramaic version of the Bible, the language of Jesus’ time, is also intriguing: And Adam knew that Eve was conceived by Samael, the angel of Yahweh. (Onkelos on the Torah: Understanding the Bible text, p.408)

Guy Stroumsa, Professor of Comparative Religion at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, gives another version of the Targum: And Adam knew that Eve his wife had conceived from Sammael, the angel of the Lord, and she became pregnant and bore Cain, and he was like those on high, not like those below; and she said: " I have acquired the angel of the Lord as a man." - Another seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology , Guy Stroumsa (Nag Hammadi Studies 24; Leiden: Brill, 1984.)

We see that the translators end up losing control …

The theologians are confronted with a problem they would like to pass undetected: some translations have Yahweh as the progenitor of Cain. Others have Samael, the angel of death. Proponents of the theory of two “seeds” or “bloodlines” never exactly know how to interpret Genesis 4:1: I have gotten a man from Yahweh [or Samael/Angel of Death]. But the first to make this revelation 2000 years ago, the Gnostics, understood why such a confusion existed between these two fatherly beings. Also, the editors of the Old Testament have forgotten to cloak the parallel in the story of the numbering of Israel, once attributed to Yahweh, another time to Satan:

2 Samuel 24:1

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

Whereas …

1 Chronicles 21:1

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Thus, Cain was born of the Union of Eve with Samael, the angel of death, of Eve with Yahweh.

And that Cain is the carnal aspect of Yahweh is understood in the Secret Book of John:

And the chief archon saw the virgin who stood by Adam... And Yaltabaoth was full of ignorance...

And the chief archon seduced her and he begot in her two sons; the first and the second (are) Eloim and Yave. Eloim has a bear-face and Yave has a cat-face. The one is righteous but the other is unrighteous. (Eloim is righteous but Yave is unrighteous.) Yave he set over the fire and the wind, and Eloim he set over the water and the earth. And these he called with the names Cain and Abel with a view to deceive.

That the Gnostics considered Yao/Yahweh, the Rebellious Son of the Demiurge, the Fallen Angel and the serpent of Eden as the same entity, becomes obvious when comparing the following texts of Irenaeus and the Secret Book of John:

1) The Demiurge inducts the Serpent Yao/Yahweh over the Heavens:

And Saklas commanded that seven kings should rule over the heavens and five over the chaos of Hell. The names of the glories who are over the seven heavens are these: The first is Iaoth, the lion-faced. The second is Eloaios, the donkey-faced. The third is Astaphaios, the hyena-faced. The fourth is Iao [Yahweh], the snake-faced with seven heads. The fifth is Adonaios, the serpent-faced. The sixth is Adoni the monkey-faced. The seventh is Sabbataios, whose face is a flame of fire that shines. This is the hebdomad of the week. These are those who rule the world.

- Secret Book of John

Reminder: Bernard Barc, Professor at the University of Lyon III, internationally recognized expert on Jewish hermeneutics and Gnostic literature, says here: “Saklas, the Demiurge, gives Yao/Yahweh the central position [4th out of 7] in this system with three authorities on his left and three on his right side to indicate that he is the unifying name of this “hebdomad of the week, which is confirmed by his appearance of a seven-headed snake.”

2) The Serpent/Yahweh is cast from Heaven and fallen onto Earth:

Ialdabaoth, however, through that oblivion in which he was involved, and not paying any regard to these things, cast Adam and Eve out of Paradise, because they had transgressed his commandment. For he had a desire to beget sons by Eve, but did not accomplish his wish, because his mother opposed him in every point, and secretly emptied Adam and Eve of the light with which they had been sprinkled, in order that that spirit which proceeded from the supreme power might participate neither in the curse nor opprobrium [caused by transgression]. They also teach that, thus being emptied of the divine substance, they were cursed by him, and cast down from heaven to this world. But the serpent also, who was acting against the father, was cast down by him into this lower world; he reduced, however, under his power the angels here, and begat six sons, he himself forming the seventh person, after the example of that Hebdomad which surrounds the father. They further declare that these are the seven mundane demons, who always oppose and resist the human race, because it was on their account that their father was cast down to this lower world.

- Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter XXX. 8

We are hence not surprised when we read the different accounts of the biblical translations and fail to find Cain (or even Abel) in the genealogy of Adam:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: …

- Genesis 5:1-4

Theologians of all religions understand and explain the heterodox currents from their own “theological corpus”. Here, the Old Testament, the Torah, would be the trunk of the tree, and all other traditions would be its branches. While the passages used by the Gnostics to remind us that the Torah didn’t hide the true tradition very well, passages used to convert the Judaizers, the “God-fearing”, … theologians skillfully responded that Gnosticism was precisely formed from poorly interpreting those incoherent passages of the Torah. Beautiful rhetorical acrobatics if you ask me, by these worthy descendants of the Father of Lies.

It must be said that there are beliefs in which a book has ultimate authority. But what makes a book ultimately authoritative? One that is inspired by God himself? … Nah … there’s better than that. One that God himself would have written? … Pfff … still not good enough: up until now, God transcends the book. But there is a book that has existed before the creation of the world, a book that even God himself consulted to create it (he doesn’t know all too well what’s inside …). A book none other than the Torah! (Midrash, Gen. R. 1:1)

Rabbi Louis Ginzberg, in The Legends of the Jews (I. The Creation of the World) specifies about the first counsel given by the Torah to Lord Yahweh:

When God resolved upon the creation of the world, He took counsel with the Torah. Her advice was this: "O Lord, a king without an army and without courtiers and attendants hardly deserves the name of king, for none is nigh to express the homage due to him."

The Torah’s first counsel to God: to build an army.

9. Good vs Evil

The struggle between the descent of Seth and the descent of Cain

According to the Gnostics, the true descendant of Adam, down to his likeness, his image, is Seth. The Gnostics taught that Gnosis, the Knowledge, the distinction between Good and Evil, would be spread, sown in this world by the descendants of Seth.

The Targum of Jerusalem already informs us that from Seth descend those who have the wisdom to distinguish Good from Evil: Behold, Adam whom I have created is sole in my world, as I am sole in the heavens above. It is to be that a great people are to arise from him; from him will arise a people who will know how to discern between good and evil.

The Jerusalem Targum repeatedly points out that it’s about the wisdom to distinguish Good from Evil, as for example, in the narrative of Eden: … of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden the Lord hath said, You shall not eat of it,… for it is manifest before the Lord, that in the day that you eat of it, you will be as the great angels, who are wise to know between good and evil.

The Gnostics believed that this primordial discord between these two principles can be transposed here on Earth through a struggle between the descendants of Cain, representing the Wicked One, and the descendants of Seth, bearers of knowledge of Good and Evil. And this is the great weakness of religions, of not knowing and teaching that “Evil is incarnate”, organised, “represented” on Earth. It is the loss of the Church to have forgotten that the Wicked One has ambitions in this world that are real and material.

This Gnostic teaching of the two antagonistic bloodlines was recently rediscovered and brought back into fashion. Misunderstood, this theory can serve the worst of ideologies, like those of “white supremacists” contending to be the sole descendants of Seth; or Kabbalah, borrowing, yet inversing its principal themes from Gnosticism (see Gershom Scholem) and turning the “chosen people” into the sole descendants of Seth and the only human beings.

Valentinian Gnosis taught a tripartite division of mankind, composed of:

  • - The spirituals or pneumatics, few in number, descendants of Seth, therefore the Father.
    - The psychics, the vast majority of mankind, descendants of Abel, therefore the Demiurge.
    - The hylics, few in number, descendants of Cain, therefore Yahweh.
Never was a “human race” in its entirety designated by Valentinian’s classification of mankind: both Jews and Greeks consisted of spirituals, psychics and hylics. It is through actions, works and fruits that the belonging to one of these categories is manifested.

But those who are from the seed of Adam are manifest by their deeds, which are their work

- The Testimony of Truth

Mankind came to be in three essential types, the spiritual, the psychic, and the material, conforming to the triple disposition of the Logos, from which were brought forth the material ones and the psychic ones and the spiritual ones. Each of the three essential types is known by its fruit.

- The Tripartite Tractate​

A struggle between Good and Evil, the seed of Cain against the seed of Seth, has left traces in Scripture:

And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. - Genesis 3:15

In the first translation of the Bible in common language, Wycliffe’s Bible, John Wycliffe explains in his comments that this verse announces a struggle between the descendants of the seed of the serpent, representing the kingdom of evil, and the seed of the woman (Eve). Attentive readers will notice that the serpent’s seed should also be the offspring of Eve. In fact, the Gnostic texts agree with this Bible verse, saying that the serpent has “obtained” a shadow of Eve’s carnal aspect. It is this aspect of Eve that Kabbalah calls Lilith, Adam’s first wife.

Jesus spoke in parables, and a parable about the three categories of mankind and the seed of evil is revealed by Jesus in the Gospels.

Parable of the Sower:

And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

- Matthew 13:3-11

Jesus reveals the three categories of hearers:

Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

- Matthew 13:18-23

Jesus reveals the seed of the Wicked One to those who were given the ability to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven:

Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

- Matthew 13:36-39

When it becomes clear that Jesus never referred to a race when talking about the son of the Devil in the Gospel of John, He clearly indicates what priesthood and which church represents Cain here on Earth. Jesus, taken to task by the Pharisees after the episode of the adulterous woman, made revelations that coincide perfectly with the Gnostic revelation of the Heavenly Father of the original Fullness (from which Christ originates) and the descendants of Cain.

John 8:

12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. 13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. 14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. 15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come. 22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come. 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye [the Pharisees] are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer [Cain] from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar [Cain], and the father of it.

Small reminder: For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. - 1 John 3:11-12

If the role of Cain’s descendants, the seed of the Serpent, and their relationship with the Pharisees was well known by the Gnostics, it’s because Jesus taught it to “those upon whom it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven”. Reread these passages in the gospels Matthew 13 and John 8 and you will see that the Gnostic revelations are not contradictory, but complementary to the canonical Gospels.

But what else do we know about the descendants of Cain? Would there be traces of his descent outside Christian revelation? Where or who were they before Jesus unmasked the Pharisees?

10. The Kenite Hypothesis

The most difficult part to swallow about the thesis of the Serpent seed, even for proponents of the theory, is the relationship between Yahweh and Cain. Nonetheless, an increasingly prevalent hypothesis in academic biblical exegesis, and supported by archeology, sweeps away all remaining doubts about the link between Cain and Yahweh: the (Midianite-)Kenite Hypothesis.

It first appeared in the 19th century in a writing by F.W. Ghillany under the pseudonym Richard von der Alm, published in Theologische Briefe an die Gebildeten der deutschen Nation, I (1862). Written under a pseudonym, probably a prudent and necessary judgement on behalf of the author, he argues that prior to being the God of the Jews, Yahweh was the God of the Kenites, the descendants of Cain.

The hypothesis caused quite a stir and was heavily opposed before becoming somewhat forgotten. But recent developments in archeology and exegesis support this theory. It circulates adequately in anglophone countries and the vacancy of this topic in French has recently been filled by the lectures of Thomas Römer at Collège de France.

Thomas Römer, Professor of Biblical and Ugaritic Hebrew at the University of Geneva, Professor of the Old Testament at the University of Lausanne, confirms the validity of the Kenite hypothesis in his lectures at Collège de France, which can be accessed on the internet on audio/video files or PDF (in French). You can hear his thoughts concerning the Midianite-Kenite theory in his three-hour long lecture from February 17 to March 3, 2011. That said, all his lectures are interesting and enjoyable.

Also validating the Midianite-Kenite theory, is the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Summarized in short, the hypothesis consists of following points:

1. In the Bible, a tribe exists by the name of “Kenites”. The name “Kenite” signifies the eponymous ancestor of that tribe: Cain.

2. The Kenites are identical to the Midianites, and the land of Midianites, “Midian”, can be found in the region of Edom, south of Judea. The Midianites/Kenites worked the copper mines. Excavations at Khirbat en-Nahas show an intensive production of metals and copper mines on Edomite territory (Ninurta is the god of copper, the descendants of Cain worked metals) and commercialized art objects from the 10th and 9th centuries BC onward. The Jewish Encyclopedia says that they were more advanced in the arts than the Hebrews and that the latter developed their art through contact with the Kenites. Several documents dating from the 17th and 19th dynasties mention the Shasu (= nomads) of YHW of the region of Edom.

3. Biblical exegesis reveals that YHVH comes from the desert, the region of Edom. Although the Old Testament contains very negative passages concerning the Edomites, there are also positive ones that are very telling. For example:

Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken. – Isaiah 62:11-12

Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. – Isaiah 63:1

4. The Midianites/Kenites had a priest and sacrificer: Jethro the Kenite.

5. Moses was married to Zipporah, Jethro's daughter. It was Zipporah who saved Moses’ life with an initiation ritual when Yahweh tried to kill him:

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet [read: “touched Moses’ member”], and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. – Exodus 4:24-25

6. Jethro, sacrificial priest of the tribe of Cain, was thus Moses’ stepfather: Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian. – Exodus 3:1

Or: Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab [different name of Jethro] the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh. – Judges 4:11

Moses lived for 40 years in Jethro’s presence and learned of Yahweh during his stay with the Midianites/Kenites. (Ex. 2-4)

Statue of Moses at Champmol, France​

7. As explained by Thomas Römer and the Jewish Encyclopedia, a critical exegesis demonstrates that Exodus 18 reflects an ancient tradition which tells how Jethro introduced Moses into the worship of Yahweh:

And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent. And Moses told his father in law all that the LORD had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel's sake, and all the travail that had come upon them by the way, and how the LORD delivered them. And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which the LORD had done to Israel, … - Exodus 18:7-9

And Jethro declares the installation of Judges of Israel:

Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to Godward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons, … - Exodus 18:19-22

8. Thomas Römer explains the most prevailing theory since the 90s: the Israelites worshipped El first before being converted to Yahwism by the Midianites/Kenites. It were therefore the descendants of Cain who were behind the Yahwist cult. Another example of such a cult are the Rechabites, a nomadic and strictly Yahwist tribe of Kenite origin (1 Chronicles 2:55).

9. It was Jethro who initiated the sacrifices to Yahweh even before the sacrificial laws were established in Leviticus 1-8.

And Jethro, Moses' father in law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God: and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses' father in law before God. – Exodus 18:12

10. The Kenites were incorporated into the tribe of Judah during their journey to Palestine:

And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people. – Judges 1:16

Midianite sanctuary with copper snakes as votive offerings​

The presence of the gold-headed, copper snakes in this Midianite/Kenite sanctuary irresistably reminds us of the Gnostic revelation denouncing the connection between Yahweh, the serpent and Cain.

The Gnostic teaching about Cain: “First, adultery came into being, afterward murder. And he was begotten in adultery, for he was the child of the Serpent. So he became a murderer, just like his father, and he killed his brother.” – Gospel of Philip

The Gnostic teachings on the relationship between the descent of Cain and the Pharisees are not just some Gnostic fantasy as some try to make us believe, but constitute the unveiling of the deeper meaning behind Jesus’ words when He called the Pharisees and Sadducees “an evil and adulterous generation” (from Greek γενιά πονηρα, genea ponera = “progeny of evil ”) – Matthew 16:4, or: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous” [Matthew 23:29] “You serpents, you brood of vipers [ὄφεις γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν : serpents, evil brood of vipers], how will you escape the sentence of hell? [Matthew 23:33]

Even if it’s the Gnostic texts that reveal the link between Yahweh, the serpent and Cain by the unveiling Jesus reserved for “those to whom it was given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven”, the canonical gospels also designate the Pharisees as the serpent’s descent, progeny of the Wicked One. In addition, we have seen that contemporary biblical exegesis and archeology take the Kenite hypothesis very seriously, if not validate it, and state that the tribe of Cain was incorporated into the tribe of Judah. Which reminds us of the following mysterious passage from the Apocalypse of John: I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. – Revelation 2:9

Remark: historian of antiquity, Flavius Josephus, whose work is a major source for events and conflicts between Rome and Jerusalem dating from his time, provides an astonishing precision in “The Jewish War” about the Essenes: For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essens. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have. – “The Jewish War”, Book II

So, the latter are Jews by birth, but the first two are not? The Sadducees nor the Pharisees? To be verified …

11. Satan's City & Temple

The Devil demands that his City and Temple are Restored

Others have demons dwelling with them, as did David the king. He is the one who laid the foundation of Jerusalem; and his son Solomon, whom he begat in adultery, is the one who built Jerusalem by means of the demons, because he received power.

- Testimony of Truth

But leave Jerusalem. For it is she who always gives the cup of bitterness to the sons of light. She is a dwelling place of a great number of archons.

- The (First) Apocalypse of James​

The Gnostics considered the earthly Jerusalem and its Temple as the Devil’s lair, a reversal of the Heavenly Jerusalem. Jerusalem, the city that is more than holy to Judaism and later on Judeo-Christianity, would be the City of Demons? We understand better now why the Gnostics didn’t release all their teachings at once to just anyone.

We have seen that it’s important not to settle for the simplistic explanation that Christian Gnosis was developed by reversing the teachings of established religion, motivated by some perverse pleasure, at risk of taking some heavy backfire after analysis.

For a long time courageous men have denounced the goal of secret societies, particularly Freemasonry: the disappearance of religion, the rise and dissolution of nations and the creation of a New World Order. Those familiar with the subordination of these secret societies to international bankers and Kabbalists and who understand that Catholic and Orthodox Christians have the most to fear, know that this New World Order will have Jerusalem as its capital and that the apotheosis of this project will become the restoration of the Temple of Solomon.

Why do Freemasons who define themselves as the descent of Cain have the ambition to rebuild the Temple of Solomon? Why do the descendants of the Pharisees, unmasked as the descent of Cain by Jesus Christ, have as their omegapoint, the reconstruction of the Temple?

The antagonism of views between the Gnostics and Judaism regarding Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon, Lair of the Devil for one, Holy City and Temple for the other, does indeed spring from an inversion. But who has inversed the Truth? What was Jerusalem’s original status? To whom was the Temple initially dedicated?

Temple of Shulman/Ninurta at Ur-Shalim/Jerusalem

The Gudea cylinders, dating from the early third millennium BC, exhibited at the Louvre, Paris, describe the temple of Ninurta. Professor Victor Avigdor Hurowitz (dept. of Bible, Archeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) remarks a striking resemblance between the temple of Ninurta and that of Solomon. Another article will focus on the parallels between them, but is their resemblance really a surprise? Not quite:

In the Amarna letters, tablets of a diplomatic character, dating from -1350 BC, found at the site of Amarna which is the modern name of Akhenaten, no. 74 and 290 are a cry for help of the King of Jerusalem to the Egyptian Pharaoh. After complaining that his country was invaded by the Habirus (the Hebrews) the King says: “the capital of Jerusalem, the city of the Temple of Ninurta [Ninurta = Ninib] has already fallen.” (In the Amarna letters, Jerusalem is more like a country or district rather than a city). Paul Haupt (Orientalistische Literaturzeitung XVIII, 1915, cols. 71-72) translates the letter EA 290: “Die Landeshauptstadt Namens Jerusalem, die Stadt des Ninib-Tempels, die Königsstadt.” (="The capital of Jerusalem, city of the tempels of Ninib, the king's city.")

In an article entitled “The Sulman Temple of Jerusalem” which appeared in The Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940), pg. 519 ff, Professor Julius Lewy, a prominent Assyriologist, specified that the cuneiform script denotes that the god Ninib/Ninurta is known in Jerusalem under the name Shulman. The correct translation is thus: “… the capital of Jerusalem, the city of the Temple of Shulman.” It is therefore to Shulman/Ninurta, god of death and hell, that the Temple of Solomon, to whom the god Shulman gave his name, was dedicated to.

The etymological root of the names of Solomon and Jerusalem:

‘s’l’m : Shulman, Shalman, Salem or Shelam/Shalim, once thought to mean “peace” or “peaceful foundation” is today widely accepted as a reference to the god Shalim, Shulman (see Jewish Encyclopedia – Jerusalem - ; or ‘Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible’ pg. 757 – Shalman - ; or ‘The Interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible' Vol. II pg. 844 – Jerusalem -). Jerusalem is Yerushalem in Chaldean, Yerushalaim in Hebrew: both names mean “founded by Shalem”.

Shalem, the Canaanite Shulman (s’l’m), founding god of Jerusalem, son of the Demiurge El, avatar of Ninurta, - s’l’m meaning death, corpse, dusk (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 15 pg. 23) – god of death, war and plagues, invoked to escape death, disease and war and so became the god of victory and healing.

Mondher Sfar, Tunisian in exile in Paris, Doctor of Philosophy at the Sorbonne and researcher in Anthropology and History of Thought, beautifully summarizes the link between the demon Ninurta and Jerusalem (translated from French):

“The bloody rite practiced in the valley of Hinnom seems to trace back to the origins of Jerusalem, which takes its name Shalem, god of the Underworld as well. The root sh-l-m means in Canaan: finish, death, corpse, dusk … It has the same connotation in Ras Shamra/Ugarit in the pair shhr/shlm. In a Lihyanite inscription, Shulman appears as a god of death and hells associated with Abû-Îlaf. It is believed that Shalem is an Arab deity of the desert that had spread throughout Canaan and Syria as well as Mesopotamia prior to the time of exile. The Assyrians have known the goddess of Jerusalem, Ishtar of Urusilimma, whose name is Sulmanîtu, known in an Assyrian inscription of the thirteenth century BC. She has a temple at Assur. Her consort and patron of Jerusalem is Salmânu, epithet of Ninurta, “nergalian” god of war, meaning “the Peaceful” … This warlike characteros Shalem is clearly stated in the Psalms where the expression: cîr Yahweh sebâcôt = the city of Yahweh of hosts, refers to Shalem. The concept of peace in the ancient Middle East is synonymous with war and submission. Shalem/Nergal is presented as the Peacemaker par excellence because he is the Warrior par excellence. Jerusalem is one of the cities patronized by Nergal/Ninurta, where he is broken down into Shalmânu and Yahweh.”
Should we still regard the Gnostic verse of the Testimony of Truth as a reversal of Jerusalem’s status?

Others have demons dwelling with them, as did David the king. He is the one who laid the foundation of Jerusalem; and his son Solomon, whom he begat in adultery, is the one who built Jerusalem by means of the demons, because he received power.

Honesty compels us to admit that we’re still dealing with a revelation of Gnostic Jesus.

12. Moloch & Child Sacrifice

Cult of Horror

The similarities between Ninurta and Yahweh and between the Temple of Ninurta and the Temple of Solomon are such that it is no longer possible to doubt that we’re dealing with the same god, and still, all these similarities continue to cause endless controversies. One of the most controversial points is the Sabbath of Ninurta: the sacred day of Ninurta was considered a bad day, a day of calamity during which many activities were prohibited. The number of Ninurta/Ninib, being synonymous with Saturn, was Seven, his day of prohibitions was the seventh day. On that day in Babylon (Saturday = Day of Saturn) dedicated to Nergal/Ninurta, it was forbidden to make vows, to dress in white, to heal the sick, … That day in Babylon was called the sabbatu (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol 20 – sabbath -), but countless “experts” maintain that the Jewish sabbath has nothing to do with it …

This general outcry is hence not surprising when provoked by the evidence of child sacrifice in the cult of Yahweh. Another article will be devoted to this gruesome subject, but we cannot leave it out of our main thesis. And the Gudea cylinders may serve as an introduction to this abominable aspect of the cult dedicated to Ninurta, Ba’al, the so-called Moloch, or Yahweh.

One of the most central rituals in Judaism is the washing of hands, Netilat Yadayim, during which a blessing is recited with raised hands: “Blessed are you, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, who sanctifies us with his commandments, and commanded us regarding washing the hands.”

The Gudea cylinders evoke rites of purification practiced by the priest of the Temple of Solomon/Ninurta. The ritual washing of hands is omnipresent and the words of the Gudea priest have a peculiar resemblance to those of the Judaic cult: “I lay the ritual table and perform correctly the hand-washing rites. My outstretched hands wake holy An from sleep.”

Another similarity with the evocation in the Gudea cylinders is the sacrifice of the perfect cow, which is in many ways analogous to the Judaic blood sacrifice of the Red Heifer, a flawless cow (two black hairs are enough to disqualify):

The cow must be perfect in the rite dedicated to the Demon Ninurta.

The Red Heifer in Judaism must be perfect.

The ritual involves taking a ritual bath by the priest who performs the sacrifice to Ninurta.

The sacrifice of the Red Heifer obliges the priest to take a ritual bath (Mikveh).

Cedarwood is essential to burn the sacrificed cow in honour of the Demon Ninurta.

Cedarwood is essential for burning the Red Heifer after sacrifice.

Flawless children, ritually pure, are involved in the bloody cult dedicated to Ninurta.

The Judaic sacrificial ritual of the Red Heifer equally included flawless children, children completely isolated from the world since birth to ensure their complete state of purity on the day of sacrifice. A Mishnah concerning said sacrifices explains this point:

There were courtyards in Jerusalem built over [the virgin] rock and below them a hollow [was made] lest there might be a grave in the depths, and pregnant women were brought and bore their children there, and there they reared them. And oxen were brought, and on their backs were laid doors on top of which sat the children with cups of stone in their hands. When they arrived in Shiloah [the children] alighted, and filled [the cups with water], and mounted, and again sat on the doors. - Mishnah Parah 3:2

What purpose did these flawless children have on the day of sacrifice in the cult of Ninurta? They were sacrificed as well, together with the flawless cows.

What purpose did these flawless children have in the sacrifice of the Red Heifer? “None”, a rabbi answers, “They only carried the water”. Another one replies: “It is probable that children, because of their young age, had no part to play in these sacrificial ceremonies." (Actual answers found on the internet ...)

There’s absolutely no reason to believe them … The scribes of the Old Testament have poorly disguised child sacrifice ordained by Yahweh. This is ratified by the Jewish Encyclopedia, by the Encyclopaedia Biblica, by many scholars including Thomas Römer who in his lectures at the Collège de France confirms that Moloch is actually “Melek”, a title designated to Yahweh.

This subject, like many others, is too long to be developed here, but the sacrifice of the firstborn was required by Ba’al, the Son of the Demiurge, and certain passages in the Bible have clearly kept the traces of the sacrifice of the firstborn, ordained by Yahweh:

That thou shalt set apart [Hebrew: Kadesh] unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD’s. – Exodus 13:12


For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine, both man and beast: on the day that I smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them for myself. – Numbers 8:17

That the god of death Ninurta was loved by the Mesopotamians who sacrificed children for him, burned them alive, is easily recognized by atheists and rationalists as by believers of all stripes. But the notion that this same Ninurta is revered today under the name of Yahweh seems unthinkable to the majority of believers, especially the most sincere, while leaving indifference or an occasional good reception among atheists and rationalists.

The idea that the banking elite, dominated by the descent of Cain, has subordinated international politics to the establishment of their New World Order and the recovery of the Temple of the Angel of Death, the demon Ninurta, can only seem like a total delusion in the eyes of rationalists, which is quite normal. But they are wrong anyway.

Among those now most amused are probably, and ironically, the followers of Marx’s historical materialism, to whom it was “forgotten” to clarify that the master of Marx' and Engels' Communism was in fact Moses Hess (Encyclopedia Universalis).

Moses Hess, the first true theorist of Zionism (prior to Herzl), believed that the mystical sense of history is played out in a race war that would lead to the victory and reign of Jerusalem and specifies with regard to the Third Temple of Solomon that the issue of reintroducing blood sacrifices should be settled later: The cult [sacrificial or not] that we are going to introduce in the New Jerusalem can and must, for the present, remain an open question. Rome was not built in a day, and the New Jerusalem must, needs take time for its Construction. (Rome and Jerusalem, pg. 145).

It is from him that originates the phrase “religion [of others] is the opium of the people.” The religions of others, of which Moses Hess believed that the most effective way was to use Freemasonry to merge them into a new world religion: More reasonable are the attempts of those fusionists who, like my friend Hirsch, of Luxemburg, are utilizing freemasonry as a means to amalgamate all the historical cults into one. (ibid pg. 114).

The followers do not always know the ambitions of the master. But that’s another topic.

“Al cap dels sèt cent ans, verdejera lo laurel.“

After seven hundred years, the laurel will be green again.

Prediction from the year 1309 of Guilhèm Belibasta, last of the Cathars who burnt at the stake of the Château of Villerouge-Termenès.​
The End
Sorry for the delay. I'm just not a frequent visitor to these forums anymore.

I have nothing to say about Jude's reference to the LORD saving his people from Egypt. I doubt it's legitimate for the simple reason that it supports the thesis that the Father of Christ is the LORD of the OT. I can't argue why it is illegitimate or corrupt, which part is corrupted or who did it, none of that. If I could that would be great, but I will probably never know.

The thing is, your thesis that both gods from the NT and the OT are the same is generally implied in the Bible and by the religion and faithful who put their belief in that Bible. This thesis should be taken for granted when one decides to join the fold. It's thus not shocking to see bits in te scripture alluding or "proving" this to be true, since that's the purpose. It is however, unsettling to see bits in scripture that actually say the opposite of what we're told.

I'll give an example of Jude's people fleeing Egypt in to the desert, saved by their LORD:

Numbers 11:4-5: And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a hunger: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely;

Numbers 21:4-6: And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way. And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

Jesus, not Jude:

Matthew 7:9: What man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10: Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11: If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Another example of Jesus condemning the LORD of the OT. First, the OT:

1 Kings 18:37-40: Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God. And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

2 Kings:1:10: And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

The New Testament:

Luke 9:54-55: And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But Jesus turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

Revelation 13:13: And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. (Talking about the beast / deceiver)

What the Lord of the NT teaches here, is the exact opposite of how the LORD of the OT behaves. This is problematic for the position that defends the thesis that they are one and the same. A thesis' validity is based on its coherence. "But Jude says ..." So what. Maybe Jude was wrong. Or maybe the reference was inserted by Judaizers to stop Christians from believing the OT god is the beast / deceiver.
okay msmsmmsmdemsksk


Dec 8, 2017
God is absolutely not a pagan Sumerian storm god. [Fallen] Angels (Sumerian gods/demons, Egyptian gods/demons, Hindu gods/demons) can manipulate the weather that does not make them God. This is way too simplistic, don't have enough information. And Moses came from an Egyptian background and in the Egyptian spells and texts you can find references to Eden and Adam and Eve only just under different names and Moses was able to know that because he had that knowledge having grown up in Egypt. Clouds, storms and thunder are not specific to God, God can use these things to illustrate a point but he can use any aspect of nature.


Jun 4, 2017
God is absolutely not a pagan Sumerian storm god. [Fallen] Angels (Sumerian gods/demons, Egyptian gods/demons, Hindu gods/demons) can manipulate the weather that does not make them God. This is way too simplistic, don't have enough information. And Moses came from an Egyptian background and in the Egyptian spells and texts you can find references to Eden and Adam and Eve only just under different names and Moses was able to know that because he had that knowledge having grown up in Egypt. Clouds, storms and thunder are not specific to God, God can use these things to illustrate a point but he can use any aspect of nature.
Welcome to the forum, ohneta.

Good points on the weather, and the one who has power over the air.

.. the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience
-- Eph. 2:2


Oct 2, 2017
Fascinating read. I have always felt that a lot of those differently named Gods were actually the same, but could only find bits of information on that.

Good for you for differentiating the Demiurge from Yahweh, which is not what most Gnostics do.

I was not aware of this Valentinian Gnosticism that you have mentionned, but your post made me want to research it more. Seems like it has a more balanced view of the situation, even though I do not totally agree with it.

As for who the Kenites are, they actually are Freemasons, and do not practice Judaism at all:

Jehovah created Eve, a human being.

The Lucifer Spirit Samael united with Eve and begat a semi-divine son, Cain. As he left Eve before the birth of the child, CAIN WAS THE SON OF A WIDOW, AND A SERPENT OF WISDOM.

Then Jehovah created Adam, a human being like Eve.

Adam and Eve united and begat a child, human like themselves, whose name was Abel. Jehovah, being the Lunar God, is associated with the water, hence there was enmity between CAIN, THE SON OF FIRE, and ABEL, THE SON OF WATER. So Cain slew Abel and Abel was replaced by Seth.

In time and through generations, the Sons of Cain became the CRAFTSMEN of the world, skilled in the use of fire and metal. Their ideal was MALE, Hiram Abiff, the Master workman.

The Sons of Seth, on the other hand, became the CHURCHMEN, upholding the FEMININE ideal, the Virgin Mary, and ruling their people by the magic WATER placed at their temple doors.

Lots more here:

A lot of people on this board like to go after Jews because of that same belief that you have developed there, though. Judaism is merely an exoteric religion pretty much like Catholicism. The esoteric, and the real source of this Evil, is hiding inside the Freemasonic elite. Those know everything that you have exposed here, and Knowingly choose to worship this creator of the cosmos, who they call the "Great Architect Of The Universe". The Demiurge is to blame for the origin of evil in this world, while his son Yahweh is only his puppet. So, these Freemasons are actually Gnostics, and not "Judaic", since they know who is really in charge and choose to worship this deity anyway.

Apr 13, 2017
Jupiter & Saturn

“Al cap dels sèt cent ans, verdejera lo laurel.“

After seven hundred years, the laurel will be green again. - 1309, Guilhèm Belibasta


May 11, 2020
The glaring problem Artful is that there are just too many passages of scripture that indicate God the father who Christ revealed is the same figure of whom Moses and the Israelites served. The lord and God the father are the same.