100 Proofs The Israelites Were White Parts 81-90

81) The True Identity of the Family of Faith


Throughout the Bible we frequently see the terms house, nation and family used in relation to the children of Israel. It never changes, even in the New Testament it does not come believers or a spiritual Israel as denominational churches will insist. Christ himself explicitly stated: “I come only for the Lost Sheep of the house of Israel.” Note here that a house is referring to a family. Therefore if Christ had only come for the family of Israel, every over statement he made throughout his ministry must line up, be consistent and interpreted through this statement. When Christs says “Anyone” or “All who believe” it must be within the scope of the family of Israel. In other words any from the children of Israel who believe. If not Christ’s would be contradicting himself as he would have come for other people besides only the house of Israel. Few people consider these implications. Of course Paul quoting Isaiah, in Romans explains that: “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” Ultimately every Israelite in this life or the next, they will bow and they will believe in Christ in the end.

As for Christ’s seemingly universal statements. Imagine for example if your boss at your work says “Everyone come in tomorrow early at 8am.” Obviously this statement does not include the whole world, rather it a specific statement including only the workers at that company, even if your boss said everyone. But a better example would be if your father states, speaking to you and your siblings “Everyone in the family will receive an equal inheritance.” You can’t possibly imagine that someone else might be able to claim they are spiritually your sibling and therefore deserve a share of your inheritance, your father is leaving you. This would be fraud and stealing. All churches do believe this. If we go through the Bible, will see this view can not be upheld.

In Jeremiah chapter 33, we see that Yahweh has divorced two families, Israel and Judah: “The two families which the Lord hath chosen, he hath even cast them off?” But a little later he promises to reconcile those two families. In Amos chapter 3, Yahweh declares he has only known the family of Israel: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” In Jeremiah chapter 31, Yahweh promises a new covenant specifically with the two families: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” Then in Ezekiel chapter 37, we again see a promise of a new covenant with Jacob, i.e. exclusively the physical family of Israelites: “Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them.” Finally in Hosea chapter 1, we see that the two families will be reunited and appoint Christ as their head voluntarily: “Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.” There are many more verses that show Christ came for Israel. In these verses we explicitly see Israel is a family, a house and always will be.

If all of these prophecies were made explicitly for one particular family, house or nation. We should check the Hebrew meaning of the word house. A house could be a literal house, but it is also defined in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon as a “home, house as containing a family… household, family… those belonging to the same household… [or a] family of descendants, descendants as organized body”. In Greek, the word for a nation, ἔθνος (oikos) was used in the time of Christ. It is properly a people of a particular tribe, and therefore a nation is a nation whether or not it all occupies the same contiguous geographical area. In Roman times, Romans had lived in all parts of the Empire, and so did Greeks, but they never lost their national descriptions of Dorian, Athenian, Macedonian or Roman, or even Judaean, as in the case of Paul of Tarsus. Israelites scattered abroad would always be of the house of Israel regardless of how long they were scattered, and regardless of whether or not they remembered from whence they came.

So where Paul of Tarsus used words such as οἰκεῖος (oikeios), which is a household, or οἰκονομία (oikonomia), which is the management of a household, how could we possibly imagine that he was referring to the management of some church organization or mere body of believers which is made up of some substance other than those subjects of the original promises and prophecies? In chapter 8 of his epistle to the Hebrews, Paul of Tarsus quoted the promise of a new covenant from Jeremiah chapter 31 verbatim, and there is no indication that he used the words of Yahweh to signify of describe anything other than what Jeremiah understood and intended when he recorded those words. Paul must have been using the words in the same sense in which Jeremiah recorded the promise. Neither would Paul have had the authority to change the meaning of the promises, even if he intended to do so, but Paul’s own words demonstrate that he never had such an intention. Therefore we shall examine Paul’s use of the terms οἰκεῖος and οἰκονομία.

First, from Galatians chapter 6, from the King James Version: “9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. 10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” The word for household or family here is the Greek word οἰκεῖος (Strong’s # 3609). According to Liddell & Scott, οἰκεῖος means “in or of the house” and, ostensibly for that very same reason, they add that “of persons, [it means] of the same family or kin, related” and also “belonging to one’s house or family”. Paul does not mean believers in Christ, but is referring to the house, nation or family of Israel. Clearly, all men are not of the household of the faith if there are some who are especially of the household of the faith. Just as Paul had prayed in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3 “that we should be protected from those disgusting and wicked men, since the faith is not for all.” If the faith is not for all, then there are certain people Christianity is not intended for.

Going back to the promise of a new covenant found in Jeremiah chapter 31, where it states that the covenant would be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah, which is what Paul was quoting in Hebrews chapter 8, the word for house in that passage is οἶκος, which is literally a house, but also a household, or family, the sense in which the equivalent Hebrew word appears in that same passage in the Masoretic Text. From that word οἶκος the words οἰκεῖος and οἰκονομία are derived, for family and management of a family.

So for that same reason, twice in chapter 3 of his epistle to the Ephesians (vv. 2 and 9) Paul had used the similar Greek word οἰκονομία, which according to Liddell & Scott is “the management of a household or family”. He also used it in 1 Timothy 1:4 and 1 Corinthians 9:17 where he said that he “had been entrusted with the management of a family”. But on every occasion the King James translation absolutely ignores the primary meaning of οἰκονομία, and translates it in some general manner.

First, from Ephesians chapter 3, “1 For this cause I, Paul, captive of Christ Yahshua on behalf of you of the Nations, 2 if indeed you have heard of the management of the family of the favor of Yahweh which has been given to me in regard to you, 3 seeing that by a revelation the mystery was made known to me (just as I had briefly written before [so we also see that there seems to have been an earlier epistle to the Ephesians which is long missing], 4 besides which reading you are able to perceive my understanding in the mystery of the Anointed,) 5 which in other generations had not been made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed in His holy ambassadors and prophets by the Spirit [so we must look to the prophets to find what Paul had meant by using the term οἰκονομία, which means management of a family, and for that same reason he now says:], 6 those Nations which are joint heirs and a joint body and partners of the promise in Christ Yahshua, through the good message 7 of which I have become a servant in accordance with the gift of the favor of Yahweh which has been given to me, in accordance with the operation of His power. [So the nations which are the intended recipients of the Gosepl must also be identified in the prophets.] 8 To me, the least of all saints, has been given this favor, to announce the good message to the Nations – the unsearchable riches of the Anointed, 9 and to enlighten all concerning the management of the household of the mystery which was concealed from the ages by Yahweh, by whom all things are being established.”

Now we shall move on to 1 Corinthians 9:16-17: “16 Therefore if I announce the good message, it is not a subject of boasting to me; in necessity it is laid upon me, since woe to me it is if I would not announce the good message! 17 For if I do this readily, I have a reward; but if involuntarily I had been entrusted with the management of a family.” Here Paul stating that he was entrusted with a task of managing a particular family and spreading the Gospel to that family which can only be the children of Israel. Once again, the King James Version translated οἰκονομία in a general manner as “a dispensation of the gospel.” However in chapter 10 of that same epistle, Paul went on to explain to the Corinthians that their own ancestors were with Moses in the Exodus, and that they and the surrounding nations of the Greeks were “Israel according to the flesh” who were practicing the worship of idols and pagan rituals in disobedience from God.

Paul uses this word in the same manner on one other occasion, in Colossians 1:25, where he wrote in part: “I have become a servant in accordance with the administration of the household [οἰκονομία] of Yahweh which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of Yahweh, 26 the mystery which has been concealed from the ages and from the races, but now has been made visible to His saints…” Here once again, the King James Version and others only translate οἰκονομία in a general manner “according to the dispensation of God.” But the administration which Paul had, he certainly thought was the administration of that same family which was promised a New Covenant in Jeremiah chapter 31, as he said here that it was meant “to fulfill the Word of God”. Going back to what Paul was given, as we translate Acts 9:15, he was instructed by Christ to “bear My Name before both the Nations and kings of the sons of Israel.” There is no promise of a New Covenant for anyone but the children of Israel. They are the family which Paul was managing by bringing them the Gospel and organizing them into local Christian assemblies.

In the Septuagint the same word οἶκος appears repeatedly, of the ancient people of Israel taken captive, in Ezekiel chapter 39, where the history of the people of Israel ever since the captivity is summarized in a prophecy: “23 And the nations shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: so fell they all by the sword. 24 According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions have I done unto them, and hid my face from them. 25 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name; 26 After that they have borne their shame, and all their trespasses whereby they have trespassed against me, when they dwelt safely in their land, and none made them afraid. 27 When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies’ lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations; 28 Then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the nations: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there. 29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.” We still have that promise, and await its fulfillment.

As always when you clear up the mistranslations and misconceptions due to those mistranslations. The Gospel and mission of the Apostles is very specific in relation to only the children of Israel. Paul believed the European were the family of the faith, the children of Israel which all the promises were intended for. He uses that language because that’s what he believed. There is no Church of believers, there is just one family Christ came for. That is us the Europeans.

82) What "Church of God" really means


When people imagine what a Church is, they imagine some form of Priest in a Christian Building belonging to an organization. This however was never the intention of the Apostles when they spread Christianity to Europe and Christ certainly never authorized any official Church. Priests, in the sense of an officer of a church organization, are not found in Christian writings until the 4th century AD. In the New Testament, every man is a priest of God in the sense that he serves God by loving his brethren and keeping Yahweh’s commandments. This is why Peter, writing to the Europeans stated: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people…” Every European man should be dedicated to God, and thus a priest of his household. By default then, his household, his wife and children should follow him and be Christian.

This teaching was gradually lost once Christianity began to be accepted by Rome starting in the early 4th century. During this time a new class of Christian priests developed, and pagan temples began to be converted for use into church buildings. Then once the emperor Justinian created the office of pope, eventually nuns, orders of monasteries, a college of cardinals, and a hierarchical, centralized organization which conducted or supervised the ordination of priests and bishops all gradually developed. While many of these institutions proved to be useful or helpful in medieval society, and did do things which are useful to us today such as aiding the maintaining scriptures. None of the hierarchies or organizations are necessarily Biblically or required by Christianity. It may surprise people to hear, that they are actually antichristian in several ways, because they set up authorities over men which the Scriptures do not advocate or support, and in some cases even refute or condemn.

As for the word Church, it never originated meant a building. It originates from the Old English cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce, which is related to the Dutch kerk and German Kirche. They are based on the Greek word κυριακός (kuriakos) which simply means “of a lord” or “for a lord” and nothing more. So in essence, it can pertain to other things and not a mere building. It really describes the people, not any organization. It is derived from a Genitive form of the word κύριος (kurios), which means master, lord but can also merely describe a ruler, guardian, owner. The word was a common Greek word and used frequently pre Christianity. interestingly. If you search the term online, the results are full of propaganda to make it seem like the word origin refers to some building or structure. This is to justify the Churches idolatry and false authority.

As a digression, the word church comes into English through German, but was derived from the Greek word kuriakos, a Genitive form of the word kurios, or lord, which means “of the Lord”. In the sense of the children of Israel, the application may not be incorrect. But it is certainly wrong if it is applied to peoples other than Israel or to some building or organization. A church may possess a building, but a building cannot ever be a church.

What is also important to understand is that when the King James Version was translated. The British King’s had broken away from the Catholic Church. However they had merely replaced it with the Anglican Church. Thus in essence nothing changed, except for the all powerful Pope was replaced with the King himself. All bishops, cardinals and other parts of the hierarchical structure remained virtually the same except now under the authority of the King. Therefore the KJV translation was careful to maintain the propaganda of an official Church structure. This we see in the mistranslations.

The word “church” or Greek equivalent was never used in the New Testament. Instead, where ever the word church appears in the King James Version and other translations of the New Testament, the Greek word is ἐκκλησία (Strong’s # 1577, ekklesia). This also does NOT mean a building or structure. The Apostles were not founding Churches, instead they were founding groups of Christians and assemblies and there is a big difference. Under the the false perception a different picture is painted all throughout the New Testament.

The ἐκκλησία is, according to Liddell & Scott, “an assembly of the citizens regularly summoned”. By itself the word does not signify or describe a building or any organization with a systematized hierarchy, but is rather simply the assembly itself, which in the Bible refers to those of the children of Israel who are summoned by Yahweh their God. This mistranslation is significant because when we continuously read in the book of acts and Paul’s Epistles that Paul travelled, or went to the assembly (ἐκκλησία) simply meaning fellow Christians. It is clear that Paul is merely communing with fellow Israelites, who would be the Europeans and teaching them the Gospel. These assemblies could be anywhere, in a persons house, in the street or even in a field. There was no need for some form of official building or temple and this elucidates the words of Christs “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:20). Wherever His people are, that is Christ’s church. With the mistranslation of assembly to Church, one might imagine this is the Catholic Church Paul and the Apostles are setting up, which didn’t exist yet for many centuries. Additionally that this Church is universal and officially given authority by Paul or the Apostles. That a meeting is not Christian communion unless it is within a church which is contrary to Christianity.

The word ἐκκλησία first appears in the Greek Septuagint in Deuteronomy chapter 4 where in Brenton’s translation it is appropriately rendered as assembly and we read: “10 even the things that happened in the day in which ye stood before the Lord our God in Choreb in the day of the assembly; for the Lord said to me, Gather the people to me, and let them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days which they live upon the earth, and they shall teach their sons.” But the word ἐκκλησία was commonly used in Greek society.

The word ἐκκλησία developed from a similar noun, ἔκκλητος (ékklētos). In turn, ἔκκλητος is derived from the verb ἐκκαλέω (ekkaleo), and ἐκκαλέω is a compound word derived from the preposition ἐκ (ek), which is of or from, and the verb καλέω (kaléō), which is to call or summon. This is a pattern typical in the development of Greek words. Likewise the word κλητός (klētós) is primarily defined by Liddell & Scott as invited, and then as called out, chosen. So ἔκκλητος (ékklētos) is an assembly of those who are invited, called or chosen for some purpose or reason, and that is the word which also gives us ἐκκλησία (ekklesia). So Liddell & Scott primarily define ἐκκλησία as an assembly of the citizens regularly summoned, the legislative assembly. This also reflects the political systems of the various Greek states, and even if the reason for calling in the Bible is slightly different, the meaning of the word is the same. In Athens only a male citizen could vote and would be counted as part of the Athenian ἐκκλησία. An outsider from another continent could not have expected acceptance in an ἐκκλησία in Sparta or in Athens, just as he happened to venture into the city, if he even got that far. Neither has Christ invited non-Israelites to Christianity and he will never accept non-Adamites in the kingdom to come as He explains “he never knew them,” even if they can claim “‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’”

There is another related word which causes confusion we should bring up. That is συναγωγή (synagogue). Most people have no idea this a Greek word. συναγωγή (synagogue) is a place of a gathering for religious purposes related to the ceremonial readings of the law. But in a Christian context, the word chosen to describe the gathering of Christians for those same purposes, as well as for purposes of community, is always ἐκκλησία (assembly). The word συναγωγή (synagogue) is a secular word which merely refers to the place itself, as it is a compound formed from three Greek words, σύν (syn) which is properly a preposition meaning in company with or together with, ἄγω (agō) which is primarily to lead, carry, fetch, or bring, and γῆ (gê) which is earth, and in this context it means land or ground. So συναγωγή (synagogue) is a secular word which can be interpreted to refer to any group of people which are led together to a particular place for some reason or another. That more accurately describes the purpose of Christian churches throughout recent history. But in contrast, an ἐκκλησία (assembly) is comprised of people who assemble because they are invited, having been chosen.

So overall to summarize the words. A Church really means a gathering for a lord or master, in Christianity this would be in Christ. An assembly means a gathering of particular chosen people meeting together. A synagogue would be more like the modern meaning of church, a particular designated place, or building for a meeting. Through out the New Testament assembly is mistranslated to church and church has evolved to a meaning of a building. As for synagogue it has evolved to mean a place the people in Judea would meet. Despite being a common Greek word.

So in order to establish the identity of the invited, we shall read a series of passages found in Messianic prophecies from Isaiah, beginning with chapter 42: “1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the [Nations]. 2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. 4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law. [The children of Israel was scattered into the isles, or coastlands.] 5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: 6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the [Nations]; 7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.” We have already explained at length in these presentations that these are the children of Israel in captivity, and at the beginning of His ministry, as it is recorded in Luke chapter 4, Christ had announced that this is what He had come to fulfill. Then, a little further on in that same chapter of Isaiah we read a verification of that: “16 And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them…. 18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. 19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD’S servant? 20 Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not. 21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable. 22 But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore.” These are the called and the chosen: the children of Israel in captivity. There may be many other assemblies, in the sense of the word συναγωγή, which call themselves churches. But only the children of Israel can comprise the ἐκκλησία.

The context for this chapter is set in chapter 41, and there were no chapter breaks when Isaiah wrote. So there we read where it is addressing Israel, “ 8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. 9 Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away. 10 Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.” Then a little further on Israel is challenged concerning their idols and we read “26 Who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know? and beforetime, that we may say, He is righteous? yea, there is none that sheweth, yea, there is none that declareth, yea, there is none that heareth your words. 27 The first shall say to Zion, Behold, behold them: and I will give to Jerusalem one that bringeth good tidings. 28 For I beheld, and there was no man; even among them, and there was no counsellor, that, when I asked of them, could answer a word.” Israel had no counselor, so here in chapter 42 Yahweh answers by stating “1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the [Nations].” This is a Messianic prophecy promising that Israel would have God as their counselor, in Christ.

So again, we read from Isaiah chapter 43: “1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.” So who else is called in the words of the law or the prophets? If no other race is called, then no other race is of Christ. Next, we read a promise of Israel’s preservation in captivity: “2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.” Now as we proceed, we also see that Israel would be preserved at the expense of other nations: “3 For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. 4 Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.” Finally, we see that Israel will ultimately be regathered to God: “5 Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; 6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; 7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. 8 Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears.” Once again, this gathering is in Christ, as it is He who shall make the blind of Israel to see and the deaf of Israel to hear, speaking only of the children of Israel.

Then, from Isaiah chapter 44: “1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: 2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen….” Then, Yahweh describes pouring water onto the dry ground, which is actually a prophecy of the Gospel of Christ, where we read: “3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring: 4 And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.” So the water poured onto the dry ground is also a promise reserved to the children of Israel, to their offspring, and Christ spoke of such water in John chapter 4 where speaking to the woman at the well, who professed to being an Israelite, He compared it to literal water: “13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” Now Isaiah reaffrims the identity of the children of Israel in relation to this Messianic prophecy: “6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. 7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.” So once again, even in relation to Christ, only the children of Israel are the appointed, the chosen, the called and the Gospel is the metaphorical water which was promised to them alone.

The theme continues throughout Isaiah, now from chapter 48: “12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. 13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.” So when the call comes, it is intended only for Jacob, for the children of Israel to whom Yahweh promised that call here. That is the call of Christianity. Then, after prophesying the destruction of Babylon nearly a hundred years before the start of the Babylonian empire, a few verses later in the chapter we read: “15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.” So here, in a Messianic prophecy, Yahweh appealed to the children of Israel in captivity to “Come ye near unto me, hear ye this” and declares that “I have not spoken in secret from the beginning”, but this is all still a mystery to the organized so-called churches, even after Paul of Tarsus had attested that it was revealed in the apostles and prophets.

If you call your children for some reason, you are not going to accept and take any other child, who is not of your children, as they are someone else’s children. What if you call six children to dinner, and six strangers answer first, so you feed them instead? Then when your own children arrive there is nothing for them to eat? What mother would do that to her own children, simply because they were late coming home? Neither shall Yahweh allow dogs to eat the bread of His Own children.

In Isaiah chapter 49 we see yet another address to Israel in captivity, in another Messianic prophecy of Christ: “1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. 2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me; 3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. [His glorification came when the children of Israel accepted the gospel of Christ.] 4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God. 5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered [because they were scattered abroad in captivity], yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.” Next we see another prophecy of the purpose of Christ: “6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the [Nations], that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. 7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful [Yahweh is faithful because He keeps promises which He made to to the patriarchs], and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee [Israel].” These nations and kings are the nations and kings of the children of Israel, the twelve tribes scattered abroad to whom Paul was purposed to bring the Gospel of Christ, in accordance with the promises which He had made to Abraham.

So Finally, we read in Matthew chapter 15 the words of Christ where He said: “24… I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Then, in John chapter 10: “2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.” How can men replace the sheep, those whom the Shepherd had said that He would call, with animals of other sorts, or with people of other races?

But the true ἐκκλησία is that body of true Israelite Christians either in the world or in any particular community, depending on the scope of the context in which the word is used. They are called the ἐκκλησία whether or not they happen to be currently assembled together. As we saw in Isaiah chapter 49, that Israel was the called even “though Israel be not gathered”, in the New Testament there are references to the ἐκκλησία when they were not gathered. First, in Acts chapter 8 we read: “3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.” The word church there is ἐκκλησία, but Saul, which is the name Luke had used for Paul when he was still working for the temple rulers in Jerusalem, had found the ἐκκλησία at their homes, in their houses. So the ἐκκλησία is not a church in the sense of a building or organization. A better translation would be “Then Saulos outraged the assembly, entering into each of the houses, dragging away men and women he delivered them into the prison.”

Continuing our examples where the word ἐκκλησία describes a class of people, and not an organization or building, in Acts chapter 9, it speaks of Paul after his conversion: “29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. 30 Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. 31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.” A better translation would be “So then the assembly throughout the whole of Judaea and Galilaia and Samareia had peace.” There were no buildings that were called churches in those days, and no organization called a Church, so the word ἐκκλησία was used to describe the body or assembly of Christians even though it was scattered in diverse places.

Finally, in 1 Corinthians chapter 14 Paul wrote: “23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place…” and therefore it is evident that they are the church, or ἐκκλησία, even when they are not gathered anywhere. So it should be evident, that the modern so-called churches, buildings owned and operated by large incorporated organizations who allow anyone of any race to participate, are really just συναγωγαί, or synagogues, while the true ἐκκλησία consists of the children of Israel, and the word does not describe a building or organization. It describes those who were called and chosen. Those who were predestinated and foreknown can only be the called and chosen. It is true, however, that a local ἐκκλησίαι should be organized as it is described in the New Testament, but not in the way of the popes of Rome. The pope cannot call anyone to Christ, as Yahweh has already done the calling, and has assured us that He has only called the children of Israel.


83) What "Saint of God" really means


Perhaps one of the most misunderstood words in Christianity is the meaning of a Saint. It is commonly believed that a saint is some form of heroic deceased Christian who lived a pious life, perhaps performed a miracle or two and therefore has earned the right be called a saint. Generally the sainthood is authorized by the Pope. This all is complete nonsense. Every single European Israelite, who is a Christian, meaning they are keeping the commandments is a saint. Whether they are great or small and regardless of what type of life they are living. Yahweh sanctified all the Israelites to be a separate people dedicated to Himself, and so long as they keep their separate apartness and obey his commandment they are His saints. Furthermore with Christ’s sacrifice he re-sanctified and cleansed the dispersed Israelites wherever they were. To once again bring them back to him and to be His separate people once more dedicated to Him. Therefore no man has the authority to make anyone into a saint, for God has already done that. Additionally no man can “excommunicate” another man or remove one’s sainthood. As Christ said speaking of His Israelites: “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” (John 10:28) The Israelites are his people and nothing will ever change that.

The word saint is typically translated in the Old Testament from one Hebrew word qadesh or qadosh, קדש or קדוש, and it refers to someone or something which has been sanctified or separated for a particular reason. Sometimes, unfortunately, another word translated as saint is chaciyd or חסיד, but that word really only describes someone who is merely faithful or pious. In the King James Version of the New Testament, the word translated as saint is always from the Greek word ἅγιος (hagios), which Liddell & Scott define primarily as “devoted to the gods”, although in the Bible we would say God, or properly, Yahweh. But after that definition, even they go on to provide the typical Church definitions of the word, sacred or holy, without any further explaining those definitions in relation to the primary meaning.

In Exodus Yahweh explained to Moses that Israel was being sanctified and why: “3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” In the phrase “holy nation” the word for holy is also qadosh, which is a separated, sanctified nation. This same passage was later cited by Peter in chapter 2 of his first epistle, where addressing the Christians of the provinces of Anatolia he wrote: “9 But ye are a chosen generation [race], a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light…” In the verse which followed, he cited a passage from Hosea which is relevant only to the scattered children of Israel. The word Peter used for holy is also ἅγιος, so he was describing a people separated, or set apart, not a people who merely acted piously.

So there may be pious people, people described with the words chaciyd or ὅσιος. But one does not have to be pious in order to be a saint. The children of Israel were certainly not sanctified because they were pious, as they were clearly stiff-necked sinners. Shortly after they were sanctified, Moses went up to Mount Sinai, and the children of Israel sinned with the golden calf. But in spite of that, in Deuteronomy chapter 33 they are still described as saints, in the blessing of Moses upon Israel where he spoke of Yahweh God and we read: “3 Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words. 4 Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.”

This same thing we also read much later in a prayer of Solomon, in 1 Kings chapter 8: “50 And forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee, and give them compassion before them who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them: 51 For they be thy people, and thine inheritance, which thou broughtest forth out of Egypt, from the midst of the furnace of iron: 52 That thine eyes may be open unto the supplication of thy servant, and unto the supplication of thy people Israel, to hearken unto them in all that they call for unto thee. 53 For thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to be thine inheritance, as thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy servant, when thou broughtest our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord GOD.” So we see in that prayer that the children of Israel could sin and be in need of forgiveness, but they were nevertheless the people of Yahweh, and by Him they were still considered separate from all other peoples, even if they disobeyed Him.

Now we shall see similar circumstances described in two of the Psalms of David. First, from the 16th Psalm: “1 Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust. 2 O my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD, Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to thee; 3 But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight. 4 Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips. 5 The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.” There, even though the saints in the earth are called saints, David speaks of the multiplication of their sorrows on account of their idolatry.

Then from the 30th Psalm: “1 I will extol thee, O LORD; for thou hast lifted me up, and hast not made my foes to rejoice over me. 2 O LORD my God, I cried unto thee, and thou hast healed me. 3 O LORD, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit. 4 Sing unto the LORD, O ye saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness. 5 For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.” In verse 4 of that passage, the word for saints is actually chaciyd, which is pious, but the word for holiness is from the same Hebrew word qadesh, which is separateness or apartness. Even if Yahweh has cause to be angry with His saints, His pious ones will give thanks when He remembers His holiness, because He favors them. Where David continues in the Psalm he offers himself as a model for repentance, but here it is clear that the saints are nonetheless saints even when they sin, and even when they suffer His wrath for their sin.

Anyone can be pious, but in the ancient world, if one has been sanctified on the altar of a god, then one has been accepted by a priest of that god, and becomes the property of the god. When ancient Greeks set something apart, or dedicated something to a god by placing it upon an altar in the temple of that God. Once that was done, the object, or even the person, became the property of the god of the temple, and fell under the authority of the priests. So as it is described in Genesis chapter 22, when Abraham placed Isaac on the altar at the command of Yahweh, Abraham was surrendering his authority over his son, and dedicating him to Yahweh whereby Isaac became the only man ever dedicated to God by the explicit will and at the explicit command of God. In the ancient world, a man truly could not sanctify himself to a god unless he went through a priest. In the Bible, one cannot truly devote himself to Yahweh unless Yahweh demands it or unless it is in accordance with His law.

The children of Israel were therefore sanctified to God in the loins of Isaac, as He demanded it. Then they were purified for His purposes and set apart by Him once again through the Levitical priests, and after they sinned, Christ became their priest, and He sanctified them, as the Scriptures had announced. If Christ had not cleansed a man, if he is not of Israel, then he cannot announce himself cleansed. After Christ washed the feet of His disciples, He announced that “Ye are not all clean”, referring to Judas Iscariot who was the race of Cain.

So all of the children of Israel were dedicated to God in the loins of Isaac, and when they separate themselves from the world and turn to Christ they are accepting that fact and expressing their obedience. That is the call of the Gospel, as we had discussed here recently, and that is what it means to be holy, sanctified or a saint in the New Testament. This we can also read in the promise of a new covenant in Ezekiel chapter 37: “27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28 And the heathen [or properly, nations] shall know that I Yahweh do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.” Once again, that word for sanctify is the same Hebrew word qadesh (Strong’s Hebrew # 6918).

The popes cannot designate a saint. Only Yahweh has already designated the saints. In Matthew chapter 27, of the very moment of the Passion of the Christ, we read in part: “52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” Those were Old Testament saints who had never heard of Jesus before they died, yet they were nevertheless saints. There was no Pope at that time to declare them saints.

Roman Catholic sainthood is heresy, and absolutely contrary to everything which we have just presented from Scripture. According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, we read: “All Christians are called to be saints. Saints are persons in heaven (officially canonized or not), who lived heroically virtuous lives, offered their life for others, or were martyred for the faith, and who are worthy of imitation.” They did not state that all Christians are saints, as Paul of Tarsus wrote to all of the assemblies in his epistles. Rather, they followed the same thinking reflected in the added words of the King James Version, claiming that Christians are merely called to be saints. That perpetuates the lie, so that the Church can claim to have the authority, but that authority was never granted to the apostles by Christ, and the apostles never claimed to have any such authority.

So the popes pretend to make saints based on certain criteria. Where the bishops continue we read: “In official Church procedures there are three steps to sainthood: a candidate becomes ‘Venerable,’ then ‘Blessed’ and then ‘Saint.’ Venerable is the title given to a deceased person recognized formally by the pope as having lived a heroically virtuous life or offered their life. To be beatified and recognized as a Blessed, one miracle acquired through the candidate’s intercession is required in addition to recognition of heroic virtue or offering of life. Canonization requires a second miracle after beatification. The pope may waive these requirements. A miracle is not required prior to a martyr’s beatification, but one is required before canonization.”

From Hebrews chapter 2: “11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. 13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

First, if it were not important to be an Israelite, why would it be important that Christ took upon Himself the seed of Abraham, so that He could be one of the brethren? The statement serves to prove that it certainly is important, and for that reason He took part in the same flesh and blood since only they are His brethren. The word for sanctifieth in that passage is ἁγιάζω (hagiazó), the verb form of ἅγιος (hagios), the word translated as saint which we had discussed earlier. So here we learn that it is Christ who sanctifies, who makes saints, and here Paul informs us that He sanctifies the seed of Abraham, who are the children of Israel, just as it is promised in the law and the prophets.

So again the Pope or any man can not make a person a saint. Neither is there such as thing as holy water, or holy ground. The only Holy things in this world are those who God has made Holy, or sanctified, or saints, which are His people. Only Yahweh can do this, he has only done this to the children of Israel. Likewise Christians can only be Israelites who Christ has cleansed. Nobody else can become a saint, or a Christian because Yahweh has only chosen one peculiar people for himself. The Europeans are those people and nobody else.

84) The People Christ Cleansed on the Cross


In the Book of Acts, the Apostle Peter was in the city Joppa praying, where Peter was shown a vision, which helps clarify to us which people had been cleansed on the cross and were therefore now clean. Unfortunately it is often misunderstood to instead imagine it is relating to the dietary and food laws. That Christ was somehow showing Peter that eating pork and thereby all other forbidden animals for consumption such as shellfish etc, have now been cleansed are perfectly fine to eat. To put it bluntly, Christ did not die so some fat Baptist can eat a bacon sandwich. Christ’s vision to Peter was showing that the dispersed Israelites in Europe were now cleansed by the blood of Christ and therefore His Ministry of the good news of the Gospel could be preached to them.

Israelites were not supposed to commune with uncircumcised people. The returning Israelites, from the Babylonian deportations, who became known as the Judeans still followed this custom. Therefore if you think about it, how could the Apostles from Judea spread the Gospel to the Europeans, if they were not allowed to commune with uncircumcised people. Would they stand off far in the distance and try to preach without coming to close? Obviously they needed to interact and socialize with the Europeans. Under Christ the circumcision was no longer required. Now dispersed Israelites who had long ago giving up circumcision, would be “circumcised in the heart” with the Gospel. Therefore there would not be two separate bodies of Christians, one circumcised and one not. Rather there would simply be, one body of Christ. The European people who descended from the Israelites.

Furthermore for over 100 years prior to Christ’s coming, the Judean had begun converting their neighbors. If they were willing to be circumcised they could join the Judeans and from then on even be counted as Judeans. Thus the entire point of the circumcision to create a barrier between Israelites and non-Israelites had become useless. Now the race of Cain were also circumcised and amongst the Judeans. But Christianity would be the new barrier to separate God’s people once again from the rest of the world. Only Europeans would ultimately accept it, and thus we see that the circumcision of the heart really did work and the result was Christendom. Now we must explain how the law describes clean and unclean.

Under the laws Yahweh gave to the Israelites, there are two distinctions which must be clarified and sadly are not properly understood by most Christians. Something could be either profane aka “common” or it could be unclean. The Greek word κοινός means common, or profane, whilst the Greek word ἀκάθαρτος means unclean. Profane and unclean included both animals and people. If something was profane it could be cleansed and made clean, but if something was unclean it could never be made clean. An example would be meat, such as beef from a cow which is normally perfectly fine for consumption. However if it had been sacrificed to a Pagan god on an altar, or mishandled in some manner it would be made profane. But it could be made clean again if a Levitical Priest ceremonially purified it. On the other hand pork, which was always considered unclean. No matter how many times a Levitical Priest cleansed it, it can never be made clean.

Another examples would be non-Adamites. As we read in the law “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever.” They are always considered unclean and can never be made clean. An Israelite however, who had sinned and was in need of cleansing would be considered profane, but could atone by a Levitical Priest purifying him. At this point he or she would be considered clean again.

In the Old Testament, we see that the children of Israel were made clean from their sins on the Day of Atonement, in Leviticus chapter 16: “30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD. 31 It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever. 32 And the priest, whom he shall anoint, and whom he shall consecrate to minister in the priest’s office in his father’s stead, shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen clothes, even the holy garments: 33 And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation. 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he [Aaron] did as the LORD commanded Moses.”

Christ’s sacrifice was following these laws. Exactly like a Levitical sacrifice to cleanse his people, he cleansed the Israelites and made them clean. However Christ’s sacrifice was forever, it would never need to be repeated. But it must be understood that Christ’s sacrifice can never nor did he intend to ever cleanse non-Adamites. They are unclean, not merely profane. They are a walking breathing sin as they are made in corruption from the Fallen Angels. The law that non-Adamites can never enter Yahweh’s congregation still stands and will always stand forever. This is why Christ warned that on his second coming, some “men” will say “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” Here it is evident that non-adamites may have tried to live Christian lives and perhaps even did things which might be perceived in our eyes as good. How does Christ respond? He simply remarks: “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” He will never accept them. This is also why Christ will divide the nations into Sheep’s and Goats. All Goats are cast into the lake of fire regardless of their works or beliefs.

Returning to the Book of Acts, elaborating on Peter’s vision, he was shown a vision of beasts. A the vision is completed and in what had happened to Peter immediately thereafter, it is revealed that where Peter was commanded to arise and eat certain unclean beasts, the actual signification was that he should not reject certain men who were considered unclean by the Judaeans. So we read in verse 14: “But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” And then we see the response in verse 15: “And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”

So even though Peter was concerned with things both common and unclean, but in the answer we see that Yahweh God was only concerned with what is common. This is an important distinction which is missed by denominational churches and translators, especially as it relates to men. This is where Christians imagine that Peter received this vision to signify the old food laws were done away with. That Peter could eat a bacon sandwich. This is all to do with spreading Christ’s Gospel to the dispersed Israelites. In the ancient kingdom, if an Israelite had descendants who never got circumcised, then they would be considered profane. They would not be allowed into the kingdom. Here Christ’s was building a new kingdom of Christendom.

Once the children of Israel were put off in divorce in the captivities, the priests could not any longer make such an atonement. Yet in the words of the prophets, we see the promises of God to cleanse the children of Israel in the lands of their captivity. One place this is found is in Jeremiah chapter 33 where we read: “7 And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first. 8 And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.” They were not called to return to Palestine, but to return to God.

This interpretation of Peter’s vision is supported in the verses later. Where Peter does not say the food laws have now been put away with. Rather he explains: “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew [Judean] to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” The Romans were part of the dispersed Israelites, so Peter could now commune with him and teach him the Gospel.

Peter’s vision shows us that certain men are still unclean, but the dispersed Israelites have been cleansed. Christ’s sacrifice reunited His people again, who were scattered in Europe and eventually became one Christendom. But importantly the Gospel is not for non-Israelites. Whilst the Judeans could commune with dispersed Israelites thanks to Christ’s sacrifice. We as a whole should not commune with non-Israelites. That has not changed and never will.

85) Which "Men" Can NEVER be Cleansed?


During Christ’s ministry, there is continuous contention with a certain group of people in Judea, particularly the Pharisees and Sadducees. This group stalked and hounded Christ where ever he went. What is important to observe, is that Christ never tried to convert this group. Rather he continuously referred them, if properly translated as a wicked race (not generation). If we understand Judea had been infiltrated and subverted by the descendants of Cain, then this make prefect logical sense. The majority of the real Israelites heard Christ’s message and accepted it, whilst the race of Cain amongst them and who were ruling over Judea, would never accept Christ’s message.

But Christ does not step with the term wicked race, he also refers to those people as devils! This is not simply a pejorative, Christ meant they were literal devils as opposed to Adamic or Israelite men and woman. All descendants of the Fallen Angels, would be non-Adamic and therefore a corruption of Yahweh’s creation. In old Hebrew these “men” were called the Nephilim (the Fallen Ones), but in Greek the word Nephilim did carry over and instead the word devil accurately described them. Therefore if there were devils walking around in Judea in Christ’s time, then are devils walking around in our time.

Crucially, even amongst Christ’s own twelve apostles, Judas Iscariot was singled out as a devil. As he told His Apostles “Have I not chosen you, yet one of you is a devil.” Additionally, towards the end of Christ’s ministry, upon washing the feet of all the apostles, Christ remarks that the Apostles were now clean, but not all of them. This must again be a reference to Judas Iscariot. Here we see there are devils or Nephilim amongst us, who may even pretend to be Christian, as Judas had followed Christ for several years. Judas must have even witness many of Christ’s miracles, yet his true nature prevailed in the end. Devils will always be unclean and Christ did not and can not cleanse them. Their destiny is set for the lake of fire. Paul told as you are even a “son or a bastard,” there is no in between. Christ explained there are “sheep and goats,” again there is no in between. All bastards and goats will be separated from his sons and sheep, meaning the Israelites upon his return.

Now going through the verses, In John chapter 13 there is a detailed description of the event which is popularly called the Last Supper, and the apostle explained how Christ had washed the feet of all of the disciples. So as He proceeded to do that, we read in part: “8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. 9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. 10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.”

Saying that, there is no indication that Christ did not wash the feet of all of the disciples who were present, including those of Judas Iscariot. Yet John made a parenthetical remark in the next verse and said: “11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.” But how could Judas not have been clean, even if it was he who had betrayed Christ? The same Christ had said, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 12, speaking at an earlier time: “31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” Therefore, if Judas were an Israelite under the law, he would have been forgiven for having betrayed Christ, for having spoken a word against the Son of Man.

So there must have been another reason why Judas could not have been clean. An indication of that reason is found in John chapter 6. There we have an account where many of those who had been following Christ had departed, and we read: “65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.”

Here it is evident that Christ had purposely chosen as one of His apostles a man who was not one of His Own sheep, so that His betrayer would be one of His enemies, and therefore none of His Own would have to live forever with the burden of guilt that would accompany the task which Judas had performed. This becomes more evident in the 41st Psalm where that very event is prophesied: “9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. 10 But thou, O LORD, be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that I may requite them. 11 By this I know that thou favourest me, because mine enemy doth not triumph over me. 12 And as for me, thou upholdest me in mine integrity, and settest me before thy face for ever.”

Ostensibly, Judas was from the south of Judaea, from Kerioth, which seems to be the meaning of the word “Iscariot”, a Hellenization of the Hebrew words ish and Kerioth. In the 2nd century Diatessaron of Tatian, Simon the father of Judas is called Simon Iscariot. When Christ called Judas a devil, Judas had not yet done anything of which he could be accused, and he remained a disciple until the time would come when he betrayed Him. Yet even in the betrayal of Christ, Judas was not breaking the law. He was only leading the authorities to a man whom they considered a heretic, and indicating which of the men in the garden that evening was Christ. None of that is a transgression of the law, even if it is a violation of trust and fidelity one would expect of a disciple. But at that earlier time Christ could not have been merely slandering him, so there must have been a deeper and more substantial reason which provided a basis for the accusation that he was a devil.

Ancient Kerioth was a town of Judah on the border of Edom, which is evident in Joshua 15:21-25. It was not one of the towns resettled by those of Judah who returned in the days of Zerubbabel, Nehemiah or Ezra, and there is good reason for that. After the Babylonian deportations of Judah, the Edomites had migrated northwards and took most of the southern portions of Judah and Israel for themselves, as well as the cities of the coasts. But Jerusalem and the surrounding villages, as well as most of Galilee, apparently remained unsettled and the people of Judah who returned in the Persian period, seventy years after the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians, had settled in those places. So Judas, being from Kerioth, certainly must have been an Edomite while the other apostles, all of whom were from Galilee, were all Israelites. Evidently, Judas was one of the Edomites who were forcibly converted to Judaism in the time of the Maccabees, a process which took place from the time of John Hyrcanus to that of Alexander Janneus, from about 134 BC to about 76 BC.

Now if we move to a future prophecy in Revelation 18 we read “And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.” Here we see that eventually this economic enslavement system will collapse one day. Even though they are trying to push a one world government and currency etc. It will all fail. But importantly the prophecy also predicts all of our cities to have become overrun by devils, who are also described as foul spirits and unclean birds. These are literal people. In the past century or so, especially from the 1960’s onwards our nations have been flooded, such as never been seen before ever in history. This is how our cities have become full of devils.

Christ himself warned that in the end times: “It will be like the days of Noah.” In Noah’s time the Adamic race had become overrun by the descendants of Cain and the Nephilim. It had reached a point were only his Adamic family remained pure. If Yahweh only spared Noah and his family, and not the rest of the Adamic race. To make an example for us, why would things be different now? If Christ warns us that the End Times will like that once more, we should comprehend exactly what has happened to your nations.

The truth is Nephilim or devils, who are unclean and can never be cleansed. Christ only cleansed His people. Christ does not want you to try to convert devils to Christianity. In fact he commands you to separate from them and even “sinners” amongst our own people. Therefore you should have nothing to do with them. You should be looking forward to Mystery Babylon’s collapse, which Yahweh God has promised He will cause. Christianity is not for everyone it’s only for His people. That is the view and mindset we must have.

86) What is the Unforgivable Sin?


Once you understand the nature of Adamites and non-Adamites in the Bible. Only then can you grasp the meaning of the separation or holyiness that Yahweh demands for his people. This is explicitly commanded repeatedly throughout the Old Testament. When the Lost Tribes came to Europe they were separated at least for a while. As the new Europeans nations formed and grew and prospered, it not take long for them to be infiltrated by the race of Cain once again. Now centuries later as a result we are being flooded.

We should therefore understand Paul’s warnings to Christians of remaining separate. We should understand the prophecies of Jeremiah, that one day far in the future, the seed of man or Adam would become mixed with the seed of beast. Additionally Isaac’s blessing to Esau that one day he would end up ruling over Jacob. Which would coincide with another prophecy of Jeremiah, namely the time of Jacob’s trouble. Which is also why Christ warned of, that in the end times it would be once again like the days of Noah, where all Adamites were mixing with non-Adamites aka Nephilim. Which is why in Yahshua’s Revelation, towards the end we read, that his people, are commanded to come out from amongst them. Now of course he wants us to repent, but first and foremost the separation is the priority.

So now starting with Paul’s teachings, In the later half of 2 Corinthians chapter 6 Paul of Tarsus began to warn his readers not to have fellowship with those who are outside of the faith. So we read in the King James Version “14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” This translation, which we would assert is wrong, causes a serious conflict. Earlier, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, Paul was discussing the dilemma of men and women who became Christians but whose spouses did not accept the Gospel and he wrote “10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband… 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.” So if Paul is merely speaking of unbelievers here, is he contradicting himself? Certainly not. Paul defined the faith in Romans chapter 4. The faith is not what an individual believes. Rather, the faith is what Abraham had believed, and as we have also just discussed here recently, it is the promises to Abraham, not to individuals, that Christ had come to assure.

The verse in 2 Corinthians, contains only four Greek words, but is very difficult to translate in as few words. So the Greek phrase μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις could be better rendered “Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens”. The King James Version has here “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers”, and the denominational churches and their translators generally interpret this to be a “religious” admonition: which would have Paul conflict with his own statements such as those in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, which we have just explained, where he advised men and women already married to unbelievers to continue in their marriage. Doing that, the churches make Paul out to be a liar, contradicting himself.

The verb ἑτεροζυγέω (heterózugos) appears nowhere else in the New Testament, nor in the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament. However the corresponding adjective, ἑτερόζυγος (heterozugeó), which does appear in the Septuagint, at Leviticus 19:19, where the King James Version itself has “Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind”. The Septuagint Greek is: τὰ κτήνη σου, which is “your cattle”, οὐ κατοχεύσεις, which is “do not let gender”, where the verb implies the act of sexual intercourse, ἑτεροζύγῳ, which is “with a diverse kind” and since the idea of being “yoked” was already implicit, the English translators did not repeat it. So Brenton’s English as it was translated from the Greek varies little from the King James Version English, which was translated from Hebrew, where he has the verse to read in part: “…thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with one of a different kind…”

So while the Liddell & Scott definition for the verb ἑτεροζυγέω that appears here in the New Testament follows the King James Version: “to be yoked in unequal partnership” the Liddell & Scott definition for the adjective ἑτερόζυγος which appears in the Septuagint is “coupled with an animal of diverse kind”. In reference to people that can only mean to be coupled with someone of another race, and therefore it is evident that both the King James Version and Liddell & Scott are attempting to convince us that the verb form of the word somehow has a totally different meaning than the adjective!

Furthermore, this word being a compound word from ἕτερος, which is another or different, and ζυγός, which is a yoke, it means to be yoked to something different, and not merely to be unequally yoked in some philosophical or religious sense. It does not refer to being coupled with people of different beliefs, but to people of other kinds. The word ἕτερος describing flesh in the epistle of Jude was translated as “strange flesh” in the King James Version, in the context of people of other races.

But all this only helps us to understand what Paul had meant in the rest of the passage, and especially a few verses later, in 2 Corinthians 6:17, where the King James Version unjustly adds the word thing to the text. The Christogenea New Testament reads this passage as follows: “Come out from the midst of them and be separated,’ says the Prince [or Lord], and ‘do not be joined to the impure, and I will admit you’.” Here we must assert that the reference to “the impure” is a direct reference to the subject earlier in the statement, which is “them”, and therefore no added words are necessary in order to understand this verse. So if we read this passage without the added word thing, in the King James Version it would say “ 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean; and I will receive you…” and unclean describes the “them” from whom the children of Israel are commanded to be separate. Not all are clean.

This passage is a paraphrase from Isaiah chapter 52 where it says “10 The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. 11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.” Once again in that translation of Isaiah the King James Version had added that word thing to the text. The Brown, Driver Briggs Hebrew lexicon acknowledges that the form of the Hebrew word, Strong’s # 2931, is a masculine adjective, and that it describes someone unclean, ethically or religiously, citing Isaiah 6:5, Ezekiel 22:5 and Job 14:4, or someone unclean ritually, again speaking of of persons, citing Deuteronomy 12:15, 12:22, 15:22, Leviticus 22:4 and Ecclesiastes 9:2.

In this same light, there is another adjective which is mistranslated in this epistle, in 2 Corinthians 13:5 where Paul beckoned his readers and the King James Version has: “5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” The word ἀδόκιμος (adokimos) is an adjective, translated as a noun here in the King James Version where the word is rendered “reprobates”. It should rather have been rendered as an adjective, and it means spurious. Spurious people are considered bastards in Scripture. Spurious people cannot be clean.,

The intermediate Liddell & Scott lexicon defines the word ἀδόκιμος to mean “not standing the test, spurious, properly of coin, metaphorically of persons, rejected as false, disreputable, reprobate… etc.” But a coin is spurious when it is not pure, when it is mixed with base metals, and therefore we would cross-reference this verse to Hebrews chapter 12 where Paul wrote “8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” Only bastards are spurious in that sense, when they are not properly sons. Chastisement is punishment for correction, and Yahweh had promised to punish the children of Israel for their correction. This brings us to evoke what we had already said in our last presentation concerning what Yahweh had cleansed, and His admonition to Peter in Acts chapter 10.

Bastards are not being cleansed. Only those that Yahweh had promised to cleanse in the words of the Old Testament prophets are being cleansed, which are the children of Israel. If there are men whom Yahweh had not cleansed, then they must be the unclean from whom Paul had warned his readers to separate themselves, and in all the promises of the prophets Yahweh had said that He would cleanse the children of Israel alone. This leads us to discuss the entire purpose of the blood of the Lamb.

Babylon come out from amongst them
Not it, not the system, but THEM

So whilst Paul was warning our people 2000 years ago, there are also far off prophecies warning that eventually it’s going to happen anyways. In Jeremiah 31 we read in a future prophecy “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.” Note here it is specifically both houses or all the children of Israel which are going to become mixed. This can only be the present as only one people in the world are experiencing this.

In the previous chapter we also see that one time in the future the children of Jacob would experience a dire time like never before. A time so horrific he describes it as: “Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it.” Again this can only be the present time where we are being overrun. But in Isaac’s blessing of his two sons we realize how this has happened.

When Isaac blessed Jacob in the place of Esau had received the blessing, which was passed down from Abraham to Isaac. So when Esau realize this and asks for another blessing. Now the King James actually messes this one terribly so we’ll use the New American one “Behold, away from the fertility of the earth shall be your dwelling, And away from the dew of heaven from above. And by your sword you shall live, And you shall serve your brother; But it shall come about when you become restless, That you will break his yoke from your neck.”

In Christ’s Revelation we read that Satan would first be bound for a 1000 years, but then one day we unleashed from this pit. Upon being released Satan would immediately go out to gather all nations against the children of Israel. If you understand Esau intermarried with the race of Cain. Therefore his descendants would be the adversary, the opposition or Satan. Then can you realize when Europe Christianized, it shackled the race of Cain. But eventually by Napoleons time he emancipated them and what has happened as a result? With their banks and usury they have subverted our nations are are flooding us or as Revelation puts it gathering all nations against us.

This is also why Christ warned that in the End Times it would once more be like the days of Noah. In the days of Noah one Adamic family remained which remained separate not mixing with the Nephilim. Seeing what is transpiring in all of our nations right now you should put the pieces together and realize what he means. But also just like in Noah’s time why we are commanded to separate and come out from amongst them.

Towards the end of revelation, Christs tells us that eventually Babylon will fall. This great economic world central bank system is going to collapse. At present we are stuck and shackled inside it. Once Babylon falls then we are commanded to come out from amongst THEM. So are them? That can only be all the nations that Satan is gathering against us. Evidently a lot of our people will not obey and not hear this call.

87) Who are the Israelites Commanded to Come Out From?


From all of Christ’s many teachings, he makes one remark which is startling. That is, that whoever blasphemes against the holy ghost or holy spirit, it will not be forgiven. Not in this life, nor the life to come. Evidently there is one type of sin that is unforgiveable. However how can this be? As at the same time, Christ had promised to cleanse ALL of the sins of his people. So we seem to have a contradiction, or do we? We must wonder what is this unforgiveable sin? What is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. It must be something that once done can never be undone!

Most Christian teachers, come up wild emotional theories to try to explain this. They will use modern humanist views, which do not having anything to do with Christianity or the Bible. In order to understand any bible verse, the key is the context and also reading the surrounding passages and even entire chapters. Fortunately the verses prior to this verse gives us some context and in the verses that follow Christ explains what he means. In short blasphemy against the holy spirit is Adamites mixing with non-Adamites. Upon doing this the holy spirit within them, the spirit God himself breathed into Adam will be mixed and corrupted, i.e. the offspring from this unholy union will not inherit that Adamic spirit. Therefore it is blasphemy against the holy spirit. With this understanding, the two statements Christ made no longer contradict each other. Christ has cleansed all of our sins, but he will not cleanse or forgive the sins of non-Adamites that we produce.

So firstly the context, prior to this statement Christ had been healing people, most notably the sick and blind on the Sabbath. Whilst the normal Judeans, the Israelites were amazed and saw Christ for what he was, the Messiah or “the son of David.” The Pharisees completely ignored all his miracles, they were not interested in Christ’s ministry and only sought to destroy him. As the majority of them were the race of Cain who had infiltrated and usurped power in Judea. They continuously sought for ways to undermine Christ and attempted to accuse him of breaking the Sabbath.

As the chapter proceeds Christ goes on from merely healing people, to casting out demons. This is where the context begins to take form and one must pay attention closely. The Pharisees once again attempt to undermine Christ, claiming: “This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” Beelzebub was a false god the Philistines worshipped and is associated with the Canaanite god Baal. Christ counters with: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?”

Here you must understand that, when a non-Adamite, aka a Nephilim or devils dies, their spirit lingers in this world and would be classified as a demonic spirit. On the other hand, all Adamic spirits, return to Christ, their creator. But non-Adamites do not go to Christ, since Yahweh did not create them. This is why as Christ explained, when he returns all the goats and goat nations go into the lake of fire with the Devil and his angels. The goats get no choice in this. Whatever life they lived is irrelevant. Their origin is their destiny. Therefore, where the Pharisees are accusing Christ of essentially casting out devils with the authority of a Devil, that would be a house against it self. A devil casting out a demon, would be a devil casting out potentially his own ancestor. As that demonic spirit once upon a time, however long ago, was a devil walking and roaming the earth. If Christ was a devil, why would he be cast demons. This is what Christ means by Satan casting out Satan.

In Christ’s next statement we learn that some of the Pharisees had been performing exorcisms, or at least attempting to: “And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” Only Christ can cast out demons. This is further verified much later in Paul’s ministry, where again evidently this same group are attempting to cast out demons. This time they try to use the power of Christ: “Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.” However it did not work out for them: :And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.”

Continuing with Matthew chapter 23: “29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.” By the Spirit of God, Christ warns that He will overcome His enemies. “30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.”

Again returning to the words of Christ in Matthew: “31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” It is not about mere belief. If a man speaks against Christ, he certainly cannot believe Christ. So there is something more to speaking “against the Holy Spirit” than disbelief in Christ.

But now Christ Himself tells us what that something is, and His words in verse 34 help prove the veracity of our interpretation of verse 33: “33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” How does a man make a tree good or evil? By race-mixing, as the Word of Yahweh God says in Jeremiah chapter 2, speaking to the remnant of Judah that “20 For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; [a reference to the Exodus from Egypt and the promises that Israel would keep the law] when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot. 21 Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me? 22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.” The Baal religion of the ancient world was a sexual fertility cult which compelled people to commit fornication, and its purveyors were the Canaanites.

Verse 34 proves that we are correct about verse 33 because where Christ told His adversaries that they were a “generation of vipers”, the Greek word γέννημα properly means offspring. Christ was calling their parents vipers. So they themselves must have been, at least in part, descended from an evil tree. Earlier, in Matthew chapter 7, Christ had spoken of wolves among the sheep and said “16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [Men do not gather wolves from sheep, and the Canaanites were once described as thorns and thistles.] 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.” Therefore vipers can only produce vipers. His adversaries must have come from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which was represented by the serpent in order to be evil, and not be able to do good as He said to them here “can ye, being evil, speak good things?”.

The language at Mark 3:28-29 is even stronger: “28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.”

So if blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is mixing with non-Adamites. How could one speak against the Holy Spirit? One could teach other Israelites to mix their seed and therefore encourage them to blaspheme their Holy Spirit and destroy themselves. In heaven, the afterlife this will always be remembered. As we read in Daniel “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” So all Adamites will be resurrected to enteral life, for some however there will be contempt for the lives they lived. Christ’s words make it clear, mixing with non-Adamites and teaching that sin will especially be condemned for ever. If you think about it, if one is to mix and produce non-Adamite descendants, bringing them in your community. It is likely that later generations of your people will mix with your corrupted offspring, so your actions have not only destroyed your line but also your peoples line forever.

Paul warned against this at 2 Corinthians 6:14-17: “14 Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens; for what participation has justice and lawlessness? And what fellowship has light towards darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Beliar? Or what share the faithful with the faithless? 16 And what agreement has a temple of Yahweh with idols? For you are a temple of the living Yahweh; just as Yahweh has said, ‘I will dwell among them, and I will walk about; and I will be their God, and they will be my people.’ 17 On which account ‘Come out from the midst of them and be separated,’ says the Prince, and ‘do not be joined to the impure, and I will admit you’.”

As Christ Himself said, in Revelation chapter 2: “18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; 19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. 20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.”

Why, if the parents sinned, would Christ kill the children? There is only one reason which is evident throughout Scripture: Because fornication produces bastards. That is the only reason why Jesus Himself would kill children. In this instance, denominational Christians surely should ask themselves, What would Jesus do? He tells them right here, and they ignore His warning.


88) The "World" according to Christ and the Apostles


Many people presume that where Christ had told the apostles to take the Gospel to however is is translated, “all the world” and to “all nations” that means it was meant for every single person and nation on the geographical world. But in truth, there is a definite article in the Greek accompanying the word for nations, and it should have been translated as “the nations”, referring to particular nations and not just any nations. The same circumstance exists where we read at the end of Matthew chapter 28: “19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” It should have said “teach all the nations”, and from the use of the word world in the last verse, we see it could not have referred to the geographical world. Rather the society at that time.

Let us imagine that we are in a library and I said to you, “pass me the books.” Would you imagine I am referring to every single book in the library? By stating “the books,” with a definite article, I must be referring to specific books, not all books. But, even if I added “pass me ALL of the books.” Again I must be referring to specific books, even if there are a lot of books. I would not mean the entire library. In order to know which particular books I’m referring to, you would need to know the context. In order to understand Christ’s context, one should read the Bible. Now as it goes, the whole Bible is about the children of Israel alone. Even the first eleven chapters of Genesis, are simply there to explain how we get to the call Abraham. They explain the history and ancestry leading up to Abraham. Genesis was written by Moses, to give the children of Israel the history and foundation of the world. From chapter twelve in Genesis onwards The Bible is exclusively only about Abraham’s family, leading to the children of Israel. So why do people imagine that Christ suddenly was for everybody?

So who could do “the nations” be that Christ and the Apostles referred to? These must be the Israelites who had been continuously dispersed amongst the Adamic nations. Additionally, even though the children of Israel were divorced and deported around 720BC. They were promised mercy and to once again become a great people again. Therefore 700 years later, by the time of Christ, the dispersed Israelites prior to the deportations combine with the deported Israelites had certainly become many nations. These, specifically are “the nations” Christ and the Apostles are referring to. The nations to whom the Gospel was intended for. Let us now examine the verses.

In Mark we read another version of the two passages which we cited from Matthew. First, in chapter 13, we read: “10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.” But once again, there is a definite article and it would be properly read as “all the nations”. The last 11 verses of Mark chapter 16 are spurious, and exist in none of the oldest manuscripts. We shall nevertheless read a relevant portion of this spurious passage: “15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” The last phrase is singular, and the word for creature, which is also, and more frequently, translated as creation, is also accompanied by a definite article. So the phrase, πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει, would have been better translated as “all the creation.”

Then, in Acts chapter 1, immediately prior to the ascension of Christ, He tells His apostles: “8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” This evokes the blessing of Joseph, as Moses had promised in Deuteronomy chapter 33, that “17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people [of Israel] together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.” The children of Israel were prophesied to eventually spread across the whole world. This was the European colonial period. They took Christianity with them and that is how Christianity came to the uttermost parts of the earth.

Finally, there is the favorite quotation of Scripture by Judaized Christians who insist that the Gospel is for all peoples, and just about the only verse in Scripture that most of them seem to remember is John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” But does this verse really describe anyone of the entire geographical world who claims to believe in Jesus as being loved by God? If so, why did Christ deliberately not try to convert the Sadducees and Pharisees. Who was Paul referring to when he said there are disgusting and wicked men who could not be clean?

But the words translated as world did not mean the geographical world to the apostles, and neither did the words translated as earth. In fact at that period time, nobody knew of all the continents and the sheer size of the world. In Isaiah chapter 14, the king of Babylon is described as “16… the man that made the earth to tremble… 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof…” yet the king of Babylon only ruled over a relatively small part of the geographical world, a portion in Mesopotamia and parts of Anatolia, the Levant, Arabia and northern Africa. Later, Jeremiah used the term world in the same narrow way where he wrote in Lamentations chapter 4: “12 The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem.”

Here we should go over the various meanings of the Greek terms frequently translated as world. Of these there are three: αἰών (aeon), κόσμος (cosmos), and οἰκουμένη (oikoumene). The word αἰών describes a length of time, an aeon or eon in English. The word κόσμος means order. It can refer to the overall natural order of creation, but not merely to the geographical world and not in a merely physical sense. To imagine that it means all peoples on the whole geographical world is completely removing the word from its original meaning, as it never described such a thing. In that general sense, it more appropriately described the order of the heavenly bodies, seasons, stars, sun and moon. But it can also refer to the society, as the order and organization of the governments and dwelling places of men. Finally, the word οἰκουμένη refers to the physical dwelling place of men, to the land upon which the society is organized, but not necessarily the entire geographical world. Greeks writers such as Strabo described the οἰκουμένη and its borders, and also expressed the understanding that there were other lands and peoples outside of their οἰκουμένη. Strabo for example knew of the lands in India and China, but they were not part of his world.

Back to the Gospel, Luke wrote in chapter 2 of his gospel that “1… there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” There the word for world is οἰκουμένη, and we see that his concept of “all the world” was equivalent to all of the Roman empire, the portion of the world which Caesar had the power to tax. We see a very similar use of the term for world in Isaiah chapter 62, where the very purpose of declaring the gospel to the world is explicitly for the benefit of the children of Israel: “11 Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion [which can only be the children of Israel], Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. 12 And they shall call them [Israel], The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.”

It is described in the Wisdom of Solomon that only the children of Israel were the world of which the Scriptures and Yahweh, the God of the scriptures, was concerned. This is found in Wisdom chapter 18 where we read: “ 24 For in the long garment was the whole world, and in the four rows of the stones was the glory of the fathers graven, and thy Majesty upon the diadem of his head.” The giving of the law at Sinai was indeed the “foundation of the world” which is often referenced in Scripture. That is how Christ is the “lamb slain before the foundation of the world.” Paul of Tarsus must have felt this same way. Paul used the phrase “foundation of the world” in that very manner in Hebrews chapter 9, in verse 26 where he was speaking of the sacrifices made by the Levitical high priest and he said that “25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

Furthermore, in his epistle to the Romans Paul was citing from the Septuagint version of the 14th Psalm, which is actually Psalm number 13 in the Septuagint, and the citation is verbatim from the Greek in verses 12 through 17 of Romans chapter 3 where he wrote: “12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”

But once again, only the children of Israel were under the law so only their sins could be imputed to them, and therefore all the children of Israel, who were all of the world of the Scriptures, were guilty before God. Paul had written similarly to the Galatians, in chapter 4 of that epistle, of the circumstances under which Christ had come: “4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” So here he spoke in that same manner to the Romans, and since only the children of Israel were under the law, and since Paul himself had written in that same epistle, in chapter 5, that sin was not imputed where there was no law, then “all the world” who are guilty before God can only describe those same children of Israel who were under the law, and that is what Solomon had also described.

This is also how Paul of Tarsus saw the promises of the Gospel and the commission given to the apostles by Christ to bring the Gospel to “all the nations”, and to go to “all the world”. So in Romans chapter 10 Paul was citing a prophecy of the going out of the Gospel from Isaiah and wrote: “15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?” Then Paul had attested that “17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” Therefore, according to Paul of Tarsus, the Gospel had already been announced “unto the ends of the world”, and he wrote that epistle in 57 AD.

This is confirmed later in the same epistle, in Romans chapter 16, where we read: “26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever.” Again, there Paul had used a past tense, indicating that the Gospel had already reached all the nations, the nations which it was intended to reach.

This was also “all the world” of Martin Luther fifteen hundred years after Paul of Tarsus. For example, in Chapter 13 of writings, after citing Isaiah 53:11 he stated: “The proof of this is before your eyes, namely, that the apostles used no spear or sword but solely their tongues. And their example has been followed in all the world now for fifteen hundred years by all the bishops, pastors, and preachers, and is still being followed.”

In the early 16th century, the colonial period was just beginning, and there were no Christian bishops in any part of the planet save Europe, and perhaps a few of the Spanish and Portuguese colonies. The English, French and Dutch had not yet established any North American colonies of their own. The oldest European colony in North America, St. Augustine, was not founded by the Spanish until 1565. The Dutch founded the first European colony in Africa in 1652. The first Spanish colony in South America, Cumaná in Venezuela, was not permanently established until 1569. There were no surviving Christian nations anywhere in the East, as they were all absorbed by Islam. So when Luther wrote that treatise in 1543, “all the world” to him was Europe, and while he often wrote of the turks in other places and their wars in Eastern Europe, they certainly were not a part of his “all the world”.

To Luther, the “gentiles in all the world” were only White Europeans in the European world, the same world which was taxed by Caesar. That is also the world of the apostles, as no other people had heard the Gospel when Paul explained that all the world had already heard the Gospel.

89) What the Book of Enoch Can Teach Us


Through out the Bible there is a continuous theme of Yahweh’s creation, His Adamic race in an ensuing struggle against non-Adamic races created by the fallen angels from their rebellion against God. These corrupted beings are described under various terms such as the Tree of Knowledge of good and Evil, the Serpent, the Nephilim, Satyrs, Shades, Devils and Demons. With that in mind, the Book of Enoch elaborates and gives us further insight into their creation. Which was from the grievous sins of the fallen angels, who are described as having corrupted the creation of God with the mingling of kinds, or species, even with their own. This may sound absurd, but today the powers are be are doing the exact same thing, crossbreeding and genetically modifying everything in existence. Even going as far as splicing animals DNA with our own.

We shall start with an example of such passage in the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Enoch. This is quite fragmentary in nature, in one translation of some of the fragments. There it explains that the fallen angels had taken: “1 [… two hundred] 2 donkeys, two hundred asses, two hund[red … rams of the] 3 flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [… beast of the] 4 field from every animal, from every [bird …] 5 […] for miscegenation […]”. That fragment is from the so-called Book of Giants, which would be more properly titled the Book of the Nephilim or Fallen Ones. If Fallen Angels mixed creation, what was the result of all this hybridization?

A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, on page 291, there is a translation of 1Q23, fragments 1 and 6

Other fragments explain the terrifying repercussions. In another fragment, we read in part: “they defiled [… they begot] giants and monsters […] they begot, and behold, a[ll the earth was corrupted…] with its blood by the hand of [… giants] which did not suffice for them and […] they were seeking to devour many […] the monsters [destroy]ed it.” Other Enoch fragments contain other similar instances, but this is how the ancients saw the sin of the fallen angels, and this is also alluded to by the apostles of Christ.

Whilst those are fragments of the Dead Sea Scroll version of Enoch. It is crucial to understand, that there are also various other books attributed to Enoch. That being the Ethiopic version of Enoch which we must be cautious with as it contains many interpolations, and even entire chapters and books, which were evidently not even a part of Enoch originally and which are often in conflict with established Scriptures. The Ethiopic version was split into several books. The first book called 1 Enoch is the most note worthy, which is also known as the Book of Giants. . Certain passages from it are very similar, to passages preserved to the Enoch fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the ones we just citied. So we have a matchup between the two, but they are not entirely identical. The Ethiopic 1 Enoch is far larger and more complete than the mere surviving fragments from the Dead Sea Scroll version.

Before we go over the verses, is the book of Enoch legit some may ask? The Apostle Jude cited Enoch explicitly, and there are allusions to passages in Enoch throughout the other writings of the apostles and even Christ’s teachings. Therefore the apostles at that time must have had access to what they believed were legitimate writings by Enoch. Unfortunately now two thousands years later we don’t. We merely have the fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the dubious Ethiopic version. None the less, when you line it up with certain passages in scripture, those passages make far more sense.

Firstly, the apostle Jude, in his short epistle, described the sins of the fallen angels thusly: “6 and the angels not having kept their first dominion but having forsaken their own habitation are kept under darkness in everlasting bindings for the judgment of the great day, 7 as Sodom and Gomorra and the cities around them in like manner with them committing fornication and having gone after different flesh are set forth an example, undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” So Jude described fornication as at least one of the sins of the fallen angels, and also as one of the sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and he defined that fornication as the pursuit of strange, or different flesh, ostensibly for sexual gratification – the same sin which is evident in Genesis chapters 3 and 6. For this same thing Adam and Eve found death, and nearly all of the children of Adam were destroyed in the flood of Noah. It’s no surprise Yahweh destroy Sodom and Gommorah.

When he wrote those things, Jude went on to warn his readers further, speaking in regard to those same fallen angels, and writing in the present tense for his own time he said “12 These are the spots in your feasts of charity, feasting together without fear, tending to themselves, clouds without water being carried away by the winds, late-autumn trees without fruit, twice dead being uprooted, 13 stormy waves of the sea foaming up their own shame, wandering stars for whom the gloom of darkness is kept forever!” Following that, Jude then cited the writings of Enoch in regard to their ultimate destruction. Jude us saying there are people descended from those Nephilim roaming around even today.

The apostle Peter had also written of the “angels that sinned” in chapter 2 of his second epistle where he said: “12 But these, having been born as natural irrational animals into destruction and corruption in which blaspheming they are ignorant in their corruption they also shall perish, 13 doing injustice for the wages of injustice, regarding luxury a pleasure by day, stains and disgraces reveling in their deceits feasting together with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery and unable to cease from sin…” Here we see those Nephilim, don’t even realize their origin and would never accept the truth anyways. Peter is warning they would infiltrate Christianity in order to corrupt it. Today they certainly have suceeded.

To understand the allegories and description the Apostles used such as Jude and Peter’s epistles. As well many others found scattered through out the Bible. One must understand that when Yahweh created Adam, he breathed a part of himself into Adam. That being the immortal spirit of Yahweh. Therefore the Adamic man and woman is not complete without the spirit of Yahweh dwelling inside them. This is also why Adam is immortal, because of that spirit. When we die we return to our creator. Originally we awaited in Hades, the underworld, or Shoal the Hebrew name. But with Christ coming Hades and death have been destroyed and now all Adamic men and woman go to Christ.

But what about the Nephilim? Do they return to Yahweh. No, Yahweh never breathed and immortal spirit into Nephilim, since he didn’t create them. Therefore there is no afterlife for them and certainly no place in heaven. This is why Christ again and again in his parables makes it clear, that they are two camps, the sheep and the goats. If you are a goat i.e. a Nephilim your destiny is ultimately the lake of fire with the devil and his angels. This is nothing new as we see in the Enoch literature, the same fate is promise for all the descendants of bastards from the Watchers.

Going back to Jude, where he described these devils as “clouds without water,” he means they don’t have an Adamic spirit, therefore allegorically an empty cloud. The same can be said with “late-autumn trees without fruit,” Nephilim are like trees without fruit, or again no spirit. Christ himself said “you will know them by their fruits.” Where Jude said “wandering stars for whom the gloom of darkness is kept forever.” They will always be blind and never accept the truth of the Gospel.

As for Peter, where he described these devils as “natural irrational animals into destruction and corruption,” since the Fallen Angels mixed with animal kind, many of these devils would have who knows what genetics in them. Therefore Peter likened them to animals who are doomed into destruction or to be destroyed. As Yahweh had announced all the descendants of the Watchers will be destroyed at the end, or Christ’s second coming. Again where Peter says “regarding luxury a pleasure by day, stains and disgraces reveling in their deceits feasting together with you,” he is describing how they naturally only live day to day, for the enjoyment of this life. Not for heavenly rewards in the next life.

Now we shall walk through some of the verses in the Ethiopic Enoch and match them up with the Dead Sea Scroll if possible. Firstly just having a look at the opening you can see that this book is intended for the children of Israel in the last days: “The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed.” Only the children of Israel are the elect and only they went through the tribulation. Which began from the Assyrian deportations on wards, the seven punishment of seven times 360 years of 2520 years. This brings us to the Age of Liberty after the French Revolutions, which emancipated the race of Cain all across Europe. Now we are in the time of Jacob’s troubles and we are being flooded and overrun by Nephilim once again. So this book is particularly relevant to the Europeans, the children of Israel in the last days.

The whole first chapter is about the vengeance of Yahweh, who we know is Christ and will executed on his second coming, his imminent return we look forward to. Here we see the vengeance is destroying the Watchers and ALL their descendants and to save his elect which are the children of Israel. There is a part which the apostle Jude quoted (cf. Jude 14; 1 Enoch 1:9), “And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” Think about this clearly, if in Enoch he’s returning to destroy the Nephilim or descendants of the Watchers. Then in Revelation and Christ’s Gospel, it’s explained Christ is returning to wipe out his opponents. The two parties must the same. In other words there are Nephilim all around us today.

Continuing where Jude earlier in his epistle had mentioned: “the angels which kept not their first estate” (Jude 6). We read for instance, where the angels have asked Enoch to beg for mercy on their behalf to Yahweh and Enoch returns with Yahweh’s response to the Watchers in 1 Enoch 15:1-3: “1. And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: ‘Fear not, Enoch, thou righteous man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice. 2. And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: ‘You should intercede for men, and not men for you: 3. Wherefore have ye left the high, holy and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons …’”

This correlates heavily with the events in Genesis 6 where the Angels began taking wives of the daughters of Adam. Another earlier passage describes this in detail in 1 Enoch 5:9-6:4 and 6:7-8:1, from TDSS: “1 [al]l the [d]ays [of their life …] 2 It happened that wh[en in those days the sons of men increased,] 3 pretty and [attractive daughters were born to them. The Watchers, sons of the sky, saw them and lusted for them] 4 and sa[id to each other: « Let’s go and choose out women from among the daughters of men and sire for ourselves] 5 [sons ». However …”. The reconstructions in this translation are corroborated in the Dead Sea Scrolls, such as 4Q201 and 4Q204 et al. 13. “[They (the leaders) and all … of them took for themselves] wives from all that they chose and [they began to cohabit with them and to defile themselves with them]; and to teach them sorcery and [spells and the cutting of roots; and to acquaint them with herbs.] And they become pregnant by them and bo[re (great) giants three thousand cubits high …]

The offspring which resulted from these unions, apart from being called Nephilim are later also called bastards, for instance in 4Q204,“Exterminate all the spirits of the bastards and the sons of the Watchers”, which seems to have been speaking prophetically. That “Watchers” is a word used of certain angels is evident from the Biblical book of Daniel at 4:13, 17 and 23, where it is without doubt used of angels. The word also appears in a similar context in a very unlikely place (to the casual observer and to those unschooled in Israel Identity), in the Greek poet Hesiod’s Works And Days, lines 252-255: “For upon the bounteous earth Zeus has thrice ten thousand spirits, watchers of mortal men, and these keep watch on judgments and deeds of wrong as they roam, clothed in mist, all over the earth.”

Yahshua Christ Himself tells us at Luke 10:18: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”, and at 10:19 relates this “Satan”, or adversary, to “serpents and scorpions”. An illustration of this same thing is provided to us in the Revelation at 12:7-9: “7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” 1 Enoch 15:4-12, from where we left off while discussing Jude above, continues thusly: “‘… 4. And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also who do die and perish. 5. Therefore I have given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. 8. And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. 9. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men, and from the holy watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. [10. As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] 11. And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but nevertheless hunger and thirst, and cause offences, 12. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from them …’”

With this in mind, it is now possible to understand how a “serpent”, a member of this fallen race, the Fallen Angels, could have seduced Eve, as the account in Genesis chapters 2 and 3 relates. How they and their offspring, can all be called the “tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Everything Yahweh created in Genesis was good genetically, including the Angels as well. But once some of the Angels began to mix creation and fell as a result, they created evil corrupt beings.

Furthermore, it is also now possible to understand how Paul of Tarsus could blame angels for the world’s false religions, as is apparent at Col. 2:18 and 1 Cor. 10:20. Col. 2:17-19 reads in part: “… Whereas the body is of the Anointed, 18 let no one find you unworthy of reward, being willing with humiliation even in worship of the Messengers [angels] ; stepping into things which one sees, heedlessly inflated by the mind of one’s flesh, 19 and not grasping the Head …”, and the “worship of angels” can in context only refer to the pagan religions which the Greek Colossians had at one time followed. 1 Cor. reads thusly: “18 Behold Israel down through the flesh: are not those who are eating the sacrifices partners of the altar? 19 What then do I say? That that which is sacrificed to an idol is anything? Or that an idol is anything? 20 Rather, that whatever the Nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to Yahweh. Now I do not wish for you to be partners with demons.” Parallel to this, from 1 Enoch 19:1: “1. And Uriel said to me: ‘Here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their spirits assuming many different forms are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray into sacrificing to demons as gods, (here shall they stand), till the day of the great judgement in which they shall be judged till they are made an end of’.” The Greek word rendered “demons” in 1 Cor. 10:20 is daimonion, a diminutive of daimon, Strong’s #1140, for which Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament has: “2. a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men … elsewhere in the Scripture used, without an adjunct, of evil spirits …” Thayer’s says at daimon, #1142: “1. In Greek authors a god, a goddess; an inferior deity … 2. In the N.T. an evil spirit …” All of these ancient writings, together with so many passages of both the New Testament and the Old (i.e. Mic. 4:5; Mal. 2:11), create one consistent picture when the apocryphal literature is employed to help understand Genesis chapters 3 and 6. Otherwise, all of the Scriptures cited here seem to be nothing but a mishmash of mysterious statements which shall forever remain in obscurity, as organized religions surely would prefer it. This interpretation of Scripture also gives greater insight to another obscure passage, Luke 4:5-6, where a satan’s claim of sovereignty over all the world’s kingdoms is not disputed. That the serpent was the symbol of rulership in the ancient world is evident in both Assyria and Egypt, and the records of those nations tell us as much. See, for examples, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pp. 263 and 276.

Some people may try to argue that the Nephilim all wiped out in the flood. They will use the Enoch literature to prove this. So lets read two passages, the first one does seem to indicate this: “And to Gabriel said the Lord: ‘through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.’ Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy [the children of fornication and] the children of the Watchers from amongst men [and cause them to go forth]: send them one against the other that they may destroy each other in 10 battle: for length of days shall they not have. And no request that they (i.e. their fathers) make of thee shall be granted unto their fathers on their behalf; for they hope to live an eternal life, and 11 that each one of them will live five hundred years.’ 1 Enoch 10:9-11

“From the days of the slaughter and destruction and death of the giants, from the souls of whose flesh the spirits, having gone forth, shall destroy without incurring judgement -thus shall they destroy until the day of the consummation, the great judgement in which the age shall be 2 consummated, over the Watchers and the godless, yea, shall be wholly consummated.” And now as to the watchers who have sent thee to intercede for them, who had been aforetime in heaven, (say 3 to them): “You have been in heaven, but all the mysteries had not yet been revealed to you, and you knew worthless ones, and these in the hardness of your hearts you have made known to the women, and through these mysteries women and men work much evil on earth.” 4 Say to them therefore: “You have no peace.”‘ 1 Enoch 16:1-4

Here we see that the Nephilim will always be here on earth, as a plague to Adamkind, reeking havoc. Until the consummation of the age, i,e. when Christ returns as Jude quoted with 10000’s of his saints to wreak vengeance. to save his people the Israelites from them. So the Nephilim survived the flood, if not why would Yahweh say they will be here, he did He not realize the flood wouldn’t wipe out? Of course he knew that. During the conquest of Joshua’s invasion to the land of Canaan, we see entire tribes related to the Nephilim, additionally the Kenites or race of Cain are still alive. So the flood was local it wiped out the Adamic race, except for Noah’s family and no doubt some Nephilim got wiped out as well, but not all of them.

So overall Enoch confirms and helps us understand many passages in the Bible. It cements that Fallen Angels did indeed mix creation, even with Adamkind and that is the origin of the Nephilim who are still here today. We understand why Christ said to his adversaries that they originated from the first murderer i.e. Cain who was of the wicked one, one of the Fallen Angels. We understand why the Apostles kept talking of so called “men” infiltrating their Christian assemblies trying to corrupt it. That they were linked the Fallen Angels, because they were Nephilim. We understand why Christ explicitly told us when he returns, he divides people into two camps. The sheep and the goats. The sheep are His people and the goats are these Nephilim. Which we see in Enoch have already been condemned to destruction. Christianity is not a world religion for everyone, it’s for His people to save them against His adversaries. When he returns he will save us, may that day come soon.

90) What the Apocrypha Can Teach Us


During the Protestant reformations, when large swathes of Europe began to break away from the Church. When Europeans nations began practicing Christianity how they believed it should be practiced, without the overarching authority of the Catholic Church. One question which inevitably arose, was which books should be included or not included in the Bible? When translating the Old Testament books into local languages, there were generally two primary sources. Those were the Hebrew and the Greek manuscripts. The majority of the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. However, the Old Testament was translated into Greek from the Hebrew around 300 BC. Therefore by Medieval times, the Greek manuscripts were quite ancient themselves. We shall cover the differences between the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in a later proof. One primary difference was some books were either not in the Greek or not in the Hebrew. So which manuscripts was correct? The Hebrew or the Greek? Which books were authentic? This would fall to the new forming protestant demonization’s to decide for themselves.

It was Martin Luther, in his translation of the Bible, who first began placing some of the books into a separate “Apocrypha” section. These books were therefore, set apart from the Old Testament and New Testament. This practice was generally followed by subsequent Protestant Bibles. The Catholic and Orthodox churches have differing views on which are authentic. To give some context to perhaps why Martin Luther did this, he seems to have generally followed the Hebrew manuscripts. The books he placed in his Biblical apocrypha are ones included in the Greek manuscripts, but not in the Hebrew. As for most modern Bibles, the original 1611 King James Version of the Bible did include the Apocryphal books. A few decades later, by the time of the Westminster Confession of 1647, the Anglican Church officially excluded the Apocrypha from its canon. Then later, the Puritans were the first to print Bibles excluding the Apocryphal books, but evidently not until after 1666. Therefore most Bible translations do not include the Apocrypha books and most Christians today are completely ignorant of there existence or at least what we can learn from them. We will focus on the Apocrypha books that should still be in the Bible.

Firstly the book known as 2 Esdras, continues from 1 Esdras and we learn specifically the direction and region the dispersed Israelites from the Assyrian deportation would begin migrating to. Would it not be useful to know this? “Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land. 41 But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt, 42 That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. 43 And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow places of the river. 44 For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over. 45 For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth.”

In East Europe, there is there Sareth river, flowing through Romania and the Ukraine. Ar in Hebrew simply means a high point, a mountain. So the Israelites were heading to the mountainous region of the Sareth river. Since they were called Cimmerians as this point, it’s no surprise Cimmerians began appearing here shortly after the Assyrian Empire was destroyed from 612 BC onwards. The Israelites travelled over the Caucasus Mountains, that’s why we are called Caucasians after all. The whole region above the Caucasus got named the Cimmerian Bosporus. Even to this day, the region in the Ukraine is called the Crimea after our Cimmerians Ancestors. The extra portion of Esdras give us further proof the Israelites went to Europe.

Next the book of Susanna is very much like a prequel to the book of Daniel. This shows us that after the Babylonian deportations, there were Canaanites pretending to be from the time of Judah. They were already doing this in the 6th century BC. No wonder this book was removed! To give a brief summary of the book. This is the story of a woman of great beauty who lived with her wealthy husband Joakin in Babylon where he held court in his house. About Joakin’s house was a large garden where Susanna strolled and bathed herself during the heat of the day. One day, after the litigants had left, two Canaanite-Jew elders inflamed with desire for Susanna plotted among themselves to force her affections. Preparing to bathe, after her maids had departed, they confronted her with the alternative of either submitting to them, or being exposed as having an affair with a young man. Upon this, Susanna chose to be unjustly accused rather than submit. Upon this these Canaanite gave their false testimony at the court the following day, and she was found guilty. But there was a judge by the name of Daniel who was not swayed by their false testimony and requested a new examination of the witnesses. After parting the witnesses, Daniel examined them separately, demanding them to identify the tree in the garden where Susanna and her alleged lover were seen. Their contradictory answers betrayed their treachery, and Daniel said to them as quoted in verse 56 above, “O thou seed of Chanaan [Canaan], and not of Juda, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thine heart.”

Therefore not only does the book of Susanna reveal the infiltration of the adversary and posing as us. But importantly Daniel the prophet also attributed the evil behavior of these men to the fact that they are the “seed of Canaan, and not of Judah” who were posing as men of Judah. In other words their corrupted genetics determined their behavior. We would assert that for this reason the story of Susanna was oppressed.

Moving onto the book of Tobit. Tobit probably should not be in the Bible, but it is still worth reading, more as a historical book. Tobit was an Israelite of the Assyrian captivity in Nineveh. The book must date from the first century of the Assyrian captivity, from before the fall of Nineveh. In chapter four, Tobit’s father gives Tobit advice which stills stands to this day. He warns his son not only not to commit fornication, but that when one does so, he hates his own people. This we read in Tobit 4:12-13: “12 Beware of all whoredom [fornication], my son, and chiefly take a wife of the seed of thy fathers, and take not a strange woman to wife, which is not of thy father’s tribe: for we are the children of the prophets, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: remember, my son, that our fathers from the beginning, even that they all married wives of their own kindred, and were blessed in their children, and their seed shall inherit the land. 13 Now therefore, my son, love thy brethren, and despise not in thy heart thy brethren, the sons and daughters of thy people, in not taking a wife of them: for in pride is destruction and much trouble, and in lewdness is decay and great want: for lewdness is the mother of famine.”

Where in that passage it was Tobit’s father who was giving him that advice, and he said that it was because “we are the children of the prophets,” not literally, but they were the people for and about whom the prophets were writing. If one mixes with non-Adamites he is destroying his family tree forever. However his later descendants will inevitably also marry his own people down the line. Therefore someone who commits fornication hates his own people. A few verses later Tobit’s father gives some more advice: 16 Give of thy bread to the hungry, and of thy garments to them that are naked; and according to thine abundance give alms: and let not thine eye be envious, when thou givest alms. 17 Pour out thy bread on the burial of the just, but give nothing to the wicked.” Help the poor among your own people, but never help evil people. By this he means non-Adamites. As with your help they will rise and turn on you and your people. They will never remember the help you gave them, rather they will destroy you without mercy.

Christ also gave similar advice, although this is more to do with spreading His gospel: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” We should not be trying to convert and Christianize the world. Rather we should remain a separate Holy people. When we try to help, we are only destroyed for our kindness. Looking at our nations today, we can see the evidence of both Tobit’s and Christ’s warning all around us.

Now the book of Maacabees. We should offer some further historic background. These books cover the inter-testamental Biblical peroid, There are two books called Maccabees, known as I and II Maccabees. First, Maccabee is the English spelling of a Hebrew word meaning hammer, and it was given as a nickname to the high priest Judas, son of Matthias, when he prevailed in battle over the Greeks of Syria and ultimately gained independence for the people of Judah at Jerusalem, perhaps around 165 BC. He was succeeded by his brother Simon, from whom descended the Hasmonean dynasty of high priests sometimes referred to as the Maccabees. These books overlap one another, rather than following one another. Evidently they were written independently, as one is apparently a chronicle of the time, perhaps made by the priests, and the other is a history of the same time attributed to one Jason of Cyrene. However neither of them explains what happened after the ascension of John Hyrcanus to the office of high priest around 129 BC.

Once the Maccabees gained independence, as the books illustrate, the policy of the priests was to burn and drive the inhabitants from out of all of the cities of ancient Judah and Israel, reclaiming the Holy Land for themselves. But after Hyrcanus came to power, that policy was changed and the inhabitants of those cities would be forcibly converted to follow Israelites laws and be circumcised. Writing of events around this same time, the historian Josephus first mentions the emergence of the parties of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and we can only conjecture that these parties arose due to divisions over this policy, as Pharisee is from a Hebrew word which essentially means separatist.

So, speaking of that Hyrcanus who came to the high priesthood around 129 BC, Josephus wrote in Antiquities Book 13 that “Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumaeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would submit to circumcision, and make use of the laws of the Judaeans…” (13:257) But that is not all, as it is evident that the successors of Hyrcanus continued in that new policy. So a little later in that same book, speaking of the time of Alexander Janneus a few decades later, Josephus described the taking and forced conversion of the non-Israelite, and ostensibly Edomite and Canaanite populations of 30 additional cities throughout Judaea, informing us that out of them all, only Pella was destroyed because its inhabitants refused to convert to Judaism (13:393-397). When the Romans conquered Jerusalem from about 63 BC, the people were all treated as Judaeans and as equal subjects of Rome no matter their original tribe, and they all fell under the jurisdiction of Herod, the Edomite who sold out the Hasmonaeans and was made king of Judaea by the Romans. The descendants of these people who were forcefully converted have claimed to the be people of the Bible to this day.

During this period of Judaean history the substance of Judaea and the religion of the people suffered drastic changes. No longer was it the faith of Moses, Ezra and Nehemiah. From this time it was open to anyone who would undergo circumcision, and it became absolutely antithetical to the ancient faith of Israel. From this time the Judaeans sought to be a religiously separate sect in the midst of the pagan Hellenistic world, while its true and original exclusivity based on race was lost forever, and even today the word Pharisee is now interpreted by historians in that context. Their opponents, the Sadducees, were always the party of the wealthy minority, and evidently the Edomite Herodians favored them since from the time of the first Herod most of the high priests were appointed from that party.

So in the books of Maccabees there are no more warnings concerning mixing, or accounts of priests taking wives from other tribes. The mixing of the priests in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra is described explicitly, and it troubled those prophets greatly, and therefore it was condemned. But in Maccabees it is not even mentioned.

Finally the three books attributed to Solomon. Beginning with the Song of Solomon. The poem it a love poem between Solomon and his wife. However itself is also an allegory which represents the love which Yahweh God has for the children of Israel as a nation, His Bride, and which the Bride is portrayed as having for her Husband, which is Yahweh her God. This adds further weight to exclusive relationship Yahweh only has with His Bride, His people the children of Israel. This is why Christ who is God, continuously described himself as the bridegroom. Yahweh had divorced Israel but as Christ he would remarry them, which is the the wedding supper of the lamb described in Revelation.

Christ himself said that there should be one man and one wife. Therefore we cannot imagine that Christ will have multiple wives. If the children of Israel alone are the wife of Yahweh, then Chris tis only going to remarry the children of Israel. There is no room for anyone else. People can rant and rave all they want, but they will never be welcome unless they are the children of Israel. Christ himself described in an allegory where a great feast is held for the wedding. This is Yahweh marrying His people. Only for someone to have snuck in, who is not wearing the brides dress. For this is thrown out. Here Christ is reinforcing that he will not accept other people.

But that’s not all. Through out Solomon’s poem several allegories which describe sexual activity between lovers are the eating of fruit from trees, and also from a garden. So for example the Bride had described her Husband as an apple tree and professed eating of his fruit, where it was explicit that the couple had been in the act of embracing one another in a bed, the Husband having fallen asleep. Then, in a subsequent encounter in Song chapter 4, the Husband described the Bride as his garden, he described the wonder of her fruits, and the Bride explicitly invited him to eat of them.

With that, we made assertions that the identification of these similes and metaphors as euphemisms for romantic sexual activity is irrefutable. Therefore, further comparing the similar metaphors which are found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a work which is approximately contemporary to the time of Abraham and which was still known to Judaeans at the time of Christ, and which also explicitly employs such metaphors in reference to sexual activity, and then also comparing the account of the temptation in Genesis chapter 3, it clearly becomes manifest that Genesis chapter 3 is describing an illicit act of sex in the garden of Eden as having been the cause of the fall of man. So we may conclude that here in this romantic and even erotic love poem, the wisdom of Solomon gives us the understanding by which we may honestly interpret the otherwise enigmatic allegories of trees and fruit in Genesis chapter 3, as Solomon had also done in different ways in his other writings, in Wisdom and in Proverbs. There has long been debate in Christian Identity circles over the language and allegories of Genesis chapter 3, and in the Song of Songs, the debate is settled.

Moving onto the Wisdom of Solomon. Solomon gives us some amazing further details into the history of the children of Israel, such as the Exodus and the conquest of the land of Canaan. In one passage he says speaking of the Caananites: “10 But executing thy judgments upon them by little and little, thou gavest them place of repentance, not being ignorant that they were a naughty generation, and that their malice was bred in them, and that their cogitation would never be changed.” Here the phrase “naughty generation” is ridiculous and should be wicked race. Likewise, the clause “their malice was bred in them” may have also been rendered “their malice is natural to them”. Where it says “their cogitation would never be changed” more literally translated it would be “their reasoning would not change forever.” In other words, their reasoning cannot possibly ever change because they were a corrupted, or wicked race, and for that reason their wicked behavior was an inherent part of their character.

So Yahweh commanded the children of Israel to wipe the Caananites out, but the Israelites decided to put them under tribute instead. So Yahweh preserved the Canaanites after the children of Israel failed to obey Him, and that their preservation would be a scourge, pricks and thorns to the children of Israel. So the Caananites were preserved not for their own benefit, but so that Yahweh would use them to chastise Israel. We are still being chastised to this day for our ancestors failure.

The children of Israel were warned many times not to worship or respect the gods of Canaan. We read in Deuteronomy chapter 8: “19 And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish.” But even Solomon himself was warned of this, as we read in 1 Kings chapter 9: “6 But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them: 7 Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people.” So rather than turning the Canaanites away from their evil ways, the Israelites did indeed forsake Yahweh and turn to worship the gods and partake in the evils of Canaan.

But there is another lesson from history which Solomon is illustrating here. That is the fact that even living in proximity of the children of Israel for many centuries, the Canaanites failed to depart from their wicked ways and seek to do good. The delay in their destruction evidently afforded them the opportunity to consider the judgment which came upon many of the other tribes of Canaan, and perhaps even a chance to change. But Solomon also attests here that they were a wicked race, and that it is for that reason that they could not change. So even if Solomon omitted aspects of the relationship in the history between the Canaanites and the Israelites in his illustration here, he apparently did that purposefully so that he could better illustrate this important lesson from history: that behavior good or evil must be attributed to nature as well as to nurture. This is an important lesson our people need to learn, you cannot make a wolf into a sheep.

Next as we’ve quoted numerous times, Solomon explain what the whole world it. After explaining how Yahweh had destroyed Egypts first born as the final punishment before the Exodus, he says: “24 For in the long garment was the whole world, and in the four rows of the stones was the glory of the fathers graven, and thy Majesty upon the diadem of his head.” So the context here is the emergent world: the children of Israel who had inherited the promises to Abraham, which included the promises that his seed would be innumerable and inherit the earth. So we read in Isaiah chapter 27: “6 He shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root: Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit.” But of course that had not happened so soon as the time of the fiery serpents, as the world, the children of Israel, had not even yet emerged from the wilderness after the Exodus.

Some translations make innovations when rendering this verse, attempting to leave the impression that the garment of the high priest contained an illustration of the world, or as they often state, the universe, and also the four rows of stones which represent the twelve tribes of Israel. But they all create a lie in doing that. So, for example, we read in the translation of this passage in the New English Translation of the Septuagint: “For on his full-length robe the whole world was depicted and the glories of the fathers were engraved on the four rows of stones…” Then in a footnote it is admitted that there is no word for “depicted” in the Greek text, but the damage is already done in the translation. Likewise, in the Contemporary English Version of the Bible we read “And his long robe symbolized the entire universe, while the four rows of precious stones on his breastpiece stood for our glorious ancestors…” Of course, neither is there any word for “symbolized” in the Greek text, so that version also leaves the reader with the wrong impression of the meaning of the verse.

So perhaps it is fitting to see what the so-called “long garment” did contain, so that we can better understand Solomon’s description here. From the instructions for the making of the priestly garments, in Exodus chapter 28, we read: “15 And thou shalt make the breastplate of judgment with cunning work; after the work of the ephod thou shalt make it; of gold, of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine twined linen, shalt thou make it. 16 Foursquare it shall be being doubled; a span shall be the length thereof, and a span shall be the breadth thereof. 17 And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be the first row. 18 And the second row shall be an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond. 19 And the third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. 20 And the fourth row a beryl, and an onyx, and a jasper: they shall be set in gold in their inclosings. 21 And the stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet; every one with his name shall they be according to the twelve tribes. 22 And thou shalt make upon the breastplate chains at the ends of wreathen work of pure gold. 23 And thou shalt make upon the breastplate two rings of gold, and shalt put the two rings on the two ends of the breastplate. 24 And thou shalt put the two wreathen chains of gold in the two rings which are on the ends of the breastplate. 25 And the other two ends of the two wreathen chains thou shalt fasten in the two ouches, and put them on the shoulderpieces of the ephod before it. 26 And thou shalt make two rings of gold, and thou shalt put them upon the two ends of the breastplate in the border thereof, which is in the side of the ephod inward. 27 And two other rings of gold thou shalt make, and shalt put them on the two sides of the ephod underneath, toward the forepart thereof, over against the other coupling thereof, above the curious girdle of the ephod. 28 And they shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof unto the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, that it may be above the curious girdle of the ephod, and that the breastplate be not loosed from the ephod. 29 And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the LORD continually. 30 And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually. 31 And thou shalt make the robe of the ephod all of blue. 32 And there shall be an hole in the top of it, in the midst thereof: it shall have a binding of woven work round about the hole of it, as it were the hole of an habergeon, that it be not rent. 33 And beneath upon the hem of it thou shalt make pomegranates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, round about the hem thereof; and bells of gold between them round about: 34 A golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, upon the hem of the robe round about. 35 And it shall be upon Aaron to minister: and his sound shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the LORD, and when he cometh out, that he die not.”

That is the full extent of the long robe, and while its border was decorated with bells and pomegranates, the breastplate contained only the four rows of stones with stones for each of the tribes of Israel, and the Urim and Thummim by which the answers from the inquiries which the priest had made to God were received. Aside from these, all the other attachments on the robe were functional, not decorative. There was no separate depiction or any illustration symbolizing the universe, or the world. Rather, here in Wisdom Solomon is informing us that the four rows of stones themselves are the world. So if Solomon says that the whole world was upon the long garment of the high priest, and in the description of the making of that garment, the only things which were placed upon it were the four rows of stones representing the twelve tribes of Israel, along with the Urim and Thummim representing the Word of God, then the only valid conclusion is this: In the eyes of Solomon, the children of Israel under the Word of God are the whole world, and there is nothing else.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
(Visited 853 times, 1 visits today)
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x