War against Yahweh
Article as a PDF: 
War has been declared against Yahweh and the the Old Testament (Torah) as a way of destabilizing the New Testament and Christianity. The attack is against the very character of God who is seen as a capricious, jealous narcissist. Many Christians are uncomfortable with sections of the Old Testament; therefore, it provides a favorable attack vector. While it is true that you cannot place new wine in old wine skins, the contrast in vintages allows appreciation of the “good wine” that is served last (John 2:10). Moreover, Jesus declared that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law (Torah), until it was all fulfilled (Matt 5:15) and in the final instance the very name of Jesus means Yah saves. Therefore, you cannot have the New Testament without the Old Testament. The tactic employed is “bait and switch” as many of these online influencers attract an audience by highlighting how Western culture and Governance has been captured by Jews. They usually focus on Talmudic Judaism (which is not the same as the Torah) and specifically on the Chabad sect and “Noahide Laws”. Once they have established their bona fides they switch to “proving” that Christianity is a Jewish hoax -que laughing Rabbis boasting that Jesus and Paul are a Jewish trick to convert the whole world to Judaism. However, they do not explain why Jews have attempted to undermine and destroy Christianity for the last two millennia. Western culture is mainly secular but has nevertheless imbued, as if by osmosis, some of the ethos and philosophy of Christianity which speaks of freewill, sovereignty and family. All these values are a hinderance to technocrats and tyrants. The article for analysis is by Laurent Guyénot, who holds many of the same views as Adam Green and Christopher Jon Bjerknes et al., although they go to even more extreme lengths by declaring that Jesus is a myth as, according to them, we have no historical evidence of his existence.
I will be dissecting and dismantling this article. https://t.co/tPwP4ugalJ
— Elijah (@CherithElijah) June 19, 2023
One added point to highlight is that many of the people engaged in this attack are Gnostics. Laurent Guyénot denies that he is a Gnostic:
Am I a Gnostic? Not in the strict sense. If we are to believe their detractors, the early Gnostics taught that the God of the Old Testament was the evil demiurge who created the world from which Christ came to free us. I do not take Yahweh that seriously….
Guyénot does not believe that the God of the Old Testament is a demiurge, yet Guyénot likens him to the devil and attributes narcissistic and psychopathic tendencies to God. It sounds like he is describing a demiurge to me.
The Mosaic covenant as Faustian pact
According to Guyénot the Mosaic Covenant is nothing other than a program for Jewish world domination as a reward for obedience to Yahweh who despises the other nations. In fact, Guyénot states that, Christian exegetes never seem to have noticed either that Yahweh’s covenant—domination over the nations in exchange for exclusive worship—is basically identical to the pact that the devil tried to lure Jesus into:
“the devil showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. And he said to him, ‘I will give you all these, if you fall at my feet and do me homage.’ Then Jesus replied, ‘Away with you, Satan!’” (Matthew 4:8-10)
Here Guyénot perpetrates basic hermeneutical errors, and we shall come to see that his approach throughout the article is tendentious, reductionist and contra any intertextual readings. He deliberately omits the latter half of the verse:
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
His argument that God and the Devil/Satan are one and the same falls flat because Jesus clearly distinguishes between the two. Before we investigate the relationship between God and Satan, let us first lay to rest the notion that this is about Jewish supremacism and global domination contingent on obedience to Law. The fact is that humanity (Adam) failed the obedience test concerning the Law (thou shalt not eat) as did the Jews with the Law that they were given. So, in the general case (humanity) and in the specific case (Jews) obedience to Law could only produce Law breakers, which in the Eden mythos leads to expulsion from the divine presence in both an individual (Adam) and national sense (The Jews expelled from the land/temple) leading to estrangement and existential angst. The master plan to obtain global dominance in exchange for exclusive worship was then an utter failure. Humanity failed and the Jewish race failed necessitating another approach and that was reconciliation through faith in the Messiah (seed) that Yahweh would provide. In fact, not just the Jews but all nations would be blessed: And in thy (Abraham) seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (Gen 22:8), Paul explains that the reference is to Christ; Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ…. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (Gal 3:16-8).
In the next paragraph, Guyénot goes on to note that Satan is hardly distinguished from Yahweh in the Tanakh. He is partially correct in this because Satan is acting as Yahweh’s agent. Satan simply means “enemy” and so any divine agent acting in an adversarial manner towards mankind can be described as a Satan. For example, Satan enters the divine presence to seek permission to test Job (Job 1:6-12). In this case some suggest that Satan is a human (seeking God in prayer) but many believe Satan to be an angel. Although Satan and Yahweh are clearly not the same entity, ultimately Satan acts as the divine agent. Guyénot is correct in noting the lack of dualism. Yahweh creates both light and dark, both good times and evil times. That is exactly what we would expect from an omniscient creator. We would not expect a God of good times and a God of bad times, a God who creates light and another God of darkness. We would not expect the creator to outsource his functions. Nor does the potter owe the pot an explanation as to why he makes one vessel for wrath and another for honour. The artist can do whatever he wants. Even so, God is constrained by his own righteousness. He does not act capriciously as he knows the beginning from the end, whereas our perspective is limited to time and space and therefore we are often unable to comprehend divine action (or inaction).
This is followed by a critique on the avaricious character of God which segues into a tangent regarding 666 talents of gold (Solomon’s annual revenue) associated with the Apocalyptic beast and a quip about Jared Kushner. This is interesting because it touches on Gematria and highlights the ignorance of Guyénot as the very first verse of the Torah (Gen 1:1) has a value of 2701 which is the triangular of 73 (T73) with the two sub clauses equating to 1998 (3 x 666) and 703 respectively. The number 666 being the 36th triangular number (T36) and 703 being the 37 th triangular number (T37). Of course, 37 happens to be the ordinal value of the Hebrew word for wisdom and 73 happens to be the standard value for wisdom. Geometrically this can be represented by a large triangle of 73 dots encompassing 3 small triangles of 666 dots surrounding a central triangle with 703 dots. In the Talmud Jesus (Yeshu) has a value of 703 (T37). Jesus is the wisdom of God but in 1 Cor 1:20c it states, wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God (σοφίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔγνω ὁ κόσμος διὰ τῆς σοφίας τὸν θεόν =6121) which when added to its mirror reverse gives the palindrome 7337. This is obviously not a coincidence and bridges both Old Testament Hebrew and the New Testament Greek. This is remarkable when we consider that the Proto-Sinaitic script is thought to have developed in Egypt between 1900-1500 years BC by Semitic peoples giving rise to the Canaanite, Phoenician, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek etc alphabets.
The alphabet first emerged when the first books of the Torah were written (not during the Babylonian captivity) yet we are led to believe that Hebrew Gematria only appeared in 78 BC and Greek isopsephy slowly emerged in the 6th century BC about the same time that the Greeks started to systematize geometry and mathematics. This is obviously not correct as the Pentateuch was being translated from Hebrew Vorlage into Greek in the 3rd century BC. This means the gematria and sacred geometry in Genesis is ancient and most certainly predates the Greek alphabet and Greek science. What does this have to do with Guyénot? Well, the slur that Hag 2:8 depicts Yahweh as “greedy” demonstrates a lack of understanding as the phrase: The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts has a gematria value of 2368 (Westminster Hebrew OT Morphology no initial yod) which happens to be the value of Jesus Christ in Greek (Ιησούς Χριστός). This is a witness that crosses the barrier between old and new testaments and between the Hebrew and Greek languages. Haggai is concerned with temple restoration and Jesus depicts his body as the temple (John 2:19) he is the “desire of nations” that Haggai speaks of (v.7) and the glory of the house (v.9). This explains the proprietary language used by Yahweh with regards to the messiah and indeed towards all faithful sons and daughters who are likened to precious adornments: And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels (Mal 3:17). Moreover, the fullness of the earth belongs to Yahweh (Psalm 24:1) as he is the creator, therefore ipso facto the material is already his possession and lastly, in a practical sense all the sanctuaries were built with the wealth of the nations. The tabernacle was built with Egyptian gold which was a fair payment for their use of the Israelite slave labour and the first temple was built largely with the spoils of war captured from hostile nations (gentile wealth accumulated by David) whereas the heavenly Jerusalem becomes the receptacle of a different kind of gentile wealth; And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations (ethnos) into it (Rev 21:26). The Gnostics profess knowledge (gnosis) calling Yahweh a demiurge, but Jesus transcends man (666) becoming the wisdom (703) or Sophia of God putting sin and ego to death through perfect obedience and thereby becoming the “express image” (Heb 1:3).
Gen 1:1 =2701
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ
Text from here: https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-1.htm
Gematria calculator here: https://777codes.com/index.php/gematria-calculator/
The next section The jealous and murderous God employs the war code in Deuteronomy and the conquests under Joshua to portray Yahweh as a genocidal, sociopathic narcissist. Once again Guyénot displays his tendentiousness by cherry picking texts and deliberately neglecting the fact that the Old Testament interprets history theologically. He employs the example of Assyria and their God Ashur stating that Yahweh appears unable to cope with the frustration and humiliation of defeat and that he is consumed with a lust for revenge. While it is true that the ten tribes of Israel were taken captive by Assyria, Judea was never conquered by Ashur. Moreover, the ten northern tribes (Ephraim) were warned by the prophets to repent because they would be exiled to Assyria (Hos. 9:3) but Assyria was admonished not to allow their conquest to make them prideful because Yahweh had wielded Ashur like an instrument to punish Ephraim. The axe should not boast against the one who wields it (Isa. 10:15). The central portion of Isaiah (36-37) which find their counterpart in the book of Kings relate the victory (not defeat) of Yahweh against the forces of Sennacherib during the Judean campaign against Hezekiah and that can be corroborated by the omission of the capture of Jerusalem in the Assyrian records. Guyénot is presenting a strawman argument devoid of historical and theological context. The Assyrians were known for their violence and cruelty. They ripped open the bellies of pregnant women, piled up mountains of hands. They cut off the limbs, gouged out the eyes, and then left those poor victims to roam around. They even invented crucifixion. The prophet Nahum pronounces an oracle against the bloody city (Nahum 3:1) the city of Nineveh, the capital city of Assyria. Although the prophet notes that Yahweh would exercise vengeance and wrath, he also notes that the LORD is slow to anger (3:3) which is manifested over a century later when Jonah is sent to preach repentance to Nineveh (and the people of Nineveh repent and are spared). Jonah camped outside the city waiting for divine punishment and was angry and disappointed that Yahweh had not destroyed the “bloody city” and was fuming that the bush offering him shade (which Jonah had not planted or watered) had shrivelled and died. The Lord answered by comparing Jonah’s concern for his bush (over which he had not laboured) with Yahweh’s concern for the city; “But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?” (Jonah 4:11). That sounds to me like a merciful and patient God, and it was for that very reason that Jonah had attempted to avoid the mission in the first place. He did not want the enemy of Israel to be forgiven. “And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore, I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil” (Jonah 4:2). In other words, Jonah ran away because he did not want to preach forgiveness to Nineveh because he feared that they would repent, and that Yahweh would be gracious.
Guyénot now turns to Yahweh’s struggle with Baal and the Elijah cycle, displaying his tendentiousness by stating that sacrifices to Baal are “an implausible situation since Baal, being the God of an agrarian society, never required holocausts”. Guyénot does not provide any evidence for this assertion and portrays the priests of Baal as innocent victims. However, he does note that the cult of Baal received royal support in the powerful kingdom of Israel under the Omrid dynasty (9th century BC) but does not elaborate on that important fact. The cult of Baal was imported into Israel by the Phoenician princess Jezebel who influenced Ahab, she imposed the worship of the Baal of Tyre, Melqart with her priests. This coincides with the establishment of Carthage as a Phoenician colony in North Africa. In other words, the Elijah-Elisha cycle appears during a period of Phoenician expansionism, when Phoenicia was exporting their culture, which included Baal worship and child sacrifice. According to Roman and Greek sources, Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed infants to their gods. The bones of numerous infants have been found in Carthaginian archaeological sites. Dr Josephine Quinn conducted extensive research on the burial urns. The famous Greek historian Plutarch charged, “with full knowledge and understanding they themselves offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds; meanwhile the mother stood by without a tear or moan; but should she utter a single moan or let fall a single tear, she had to forfeit the money, and her child was sacrificed nevertheless; and the whole area before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums took the cries of wailing should not reach the ears of the people.” The conclusion seems inescapable that the priests of Baal sacrificed children and that it was not anti-Phoenician propaganda by the Romans and Greeks. Not only did Jezebel import the Phoenician Baal cult and priesthood she circumvented Mosaic law regarding property rights and inheritance and dispossessed and murdered a prominent citizen in a land grab.
The exclusivity of Yahweh is attacked by reference to Assmann’s theory of “cosmotheism” or cosmic theism; inclusive or convergent monotheism: all gods are one, as the cosmos is one (hints of the gnostic Monad). It is true that many of the ancient religions were cosmogonic, and that syncretism was an ongoing development towards a one world religion where the “gods” were interchangeable, and that the revelation given to Abraham shattered this trend pulling humanity away from the obsession with death cults (Egypt) human sacrificial cults (Ur) and fertility and sex cults (Canaan) by grounding ontology in teleology. The Eden mythos depicted a heavenly sanctuary on earth, that formed the template for the tabernacle (and temple) based on the “heavenly pattern” shown to Moses (Exod. 25:9, Heb. 8:5). It was a cosmogony with the tree of life (menorah) mimicking the Pleiades (seven sisters) entrance on the East (rising of the sun) guarded by Cherubim (Eden and on the ark) with faces representing the four cardinal constellations surrounded by the twelve tribes (twelve constellations). In other words, heaven had come down to earth, and God dwelt with men. Moses was encouraged to appoint seventy judges (Elohim) by his Kenite father-in-Law Jethro to help administer the tribes. The seventy became the basis of the Sanhedrin (the council of seventy during the second temple period). The seventy, or more accurately the seventy-two (counting Moses and Aaron) were integral to Mesopotamian religion who had a pantheon of seventy gods (this explains Jethro’s choice), with a high god and consort but the motif is demythologized in Israelite religion. It is no coincidence that Genesis 10 has seventy-two nations (LXX) whose “bounds” are determined in accordance with the children of Israel (Deut 32:8). It is obvious that the seventy-two nations were meant to be ruled by the seventy-two Elohim, but they failed (which Yahweh knew); “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes (Ps 82:6-7). You cannot rule the world if you cannot rule your spirit and they were given the Law to teach them that very lesson. Why was the number seventy-two sacred to the ancients of all the major religions and why did all their religious myths have cosmogenic origins? That is because the ancients knew that it took 360 x 72 years for the axis of the earth to rotate full circle through the constellations. This is known as the Great Precession Year and was determined by Newton to be 25,920 years for a full rotation. So, every degree on the cosmic clock represents the average human lifespan. At the end of this period the earth is thrown into cosmic chaos as we traverse the galactic sheet causing geomagnetic disruptions resulting in volcanic, seismic, and climate chaos. The ancients knew this hence the uroboros symbology of the snake eating its tail. Endings and beginnings as one completed cycle results in a new cycle commencing. Behold, I make all things new. This probably explains why the Sun was such a prominent god in many religions. One that demanded human sacrifice as appeasement to prevent mass coronal ejection (CME) or Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) or Heinrich-Bond events of the type that resulted in Noah’s flood. Therefore, the Abrahamic revelation pulled humanity back onto the track from which it had wandered and which it had corrupted since the last reset, the Causa sui of the Eden mythos, namely that divinity cannot be achieved through human effort. Grasping at divinity like some sort of apple will not work neither will a technocratic epistemology driven by apple phones and neuralink make us the monad. That is gnostic nonsense.
The next criticism concerns the Deuteronomistic War Code and the conquests under Joshua. Guyénot believes these texts demonstrate the genocidal and psychopathic characteristics that he attributes to God. He focuses on the Deuteronomy War Code instruction to show them no mercy (Deut 7:2). Firstly, the Amorites and Canaanites had defiled the land and God had been very patient. To Abraham God said that “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure” (Gen 15:6) and it took at least another hundred years for that to happen and of the Canaanites God says; “The land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25). It seems quite straight forward then…go in and slaughter everyone. Show them no mercy. However, the first thing that happens is that they show mercy to the Canaanite woman Rahab (who was also a prostitute) and save her and her family. Not only that but contrary the prohibition to make covenants with the Canaanites or to marry them it seems that Salmon the prince of Judah was sent as a spy along with the other tribal chieftains and he ended up marrying her (Matt 1:4-5, 1 Chron 2: 10–11, Ruth 4:20,21, Luke 3:32). She is found in the messianic lineage as well as two other gentile women (Ruth and Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite in Matt 1:6) all of them with with dubious sexual histories. John A.T. Robinson calls this the scandal of divine love. Furthermore, on the question of Jewish supremacy Jesus is tested by a Canaanite woman (Matt 15:22). It’s highly anachronistic for Matthew to use the term ‘Canaanite,’ since it’s the only time that the term is used in the Gospels. The use must be deliberate. In fact, when Jesus encounters her, she asks for mercy, because her daughter was oppressed by a demon. Now, for Jesus/Joshua to meet a Canaanite asking for mercy (remember: ‘show them no mercy) sounds like a re-enactment of the conquest. The references to “dogs” a term used for Canaanite temple prostitutes (a reference to Rahab?). However, rather than applying Deuteronomy 7 literally, Jesus engages in a battle of wits about who’s in and who’s out. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table (v.27). In other words, Jesus negotiates with the enemy. Seeing the woman’s ‘great faith,’ he heals her daughter. By moving toward the one who his disciples wanted to ‘dismiss’ (Matt 15:23), he found a Canaanite ‘outsider’ with the faith of an Israelite ‘insider.’ The boundaries dividing insider and outsider identities is blurred when Rahab the archetypal Canaanite is included in the people of God. By contrast, we read in Joshua 6 that an Israelite named Achan dies the death of a Canaanite (in accordance with Deuteronomic law) because he sought to gain from the conquest. The book is designed to critique the ethnocentric and nationalistic assumptions on which a genocidal ideology depends. Guyénot’s reading is simplistic and unnuanced and demonstrates his biases and lack of understanding.
Guyénot commences this section by deliberately misinterpreting Numbers 31:40-41 as Yahweh demanding 32 virgins be burnt in a holocaust offering when it clearly refers to a wave or heave offering. In other words, the girls were presented before the Lord (tabernacle) and then allocated for the use of the priests as was wont with the heave offering. They were probably used as menial labour or perhaps in the choir for singing hymns etc. Guyénot reads the account of the fall of Ai as purely historical with scant regard to the theological context as Abraham’s first campsite in the land (Gen 12:8) was between Bethel (House of God) and Ai (destruction) and after the capture of Ai Joshua divides the people into two groups on Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim and reads them the blessing and curses from the Law (Joshua 8:34) giving them a clear choice between Bethel (blessings) and Ai(curses). Moreover, the first clause of Joshua 8:25 (And so it was, that all that fell that day) parallels Gen 6:4 (There were giants in the earth in those days). The Hebrew word for “giants” (Nephilim) and “fallen” (naphal) are related and the phrase “both of men and women”(ההוא מאיש ועד־אשה) is literally, he-the-man-from-unto-the-woman, possibly an indication that the daughters of men of Genesis 6:4 that “bare children unto them (Nephilim”) and those descendants were now the fallen (nephal) of Ai (destruction) which had terrified the spies forty years earlier (Num. 13:33 the Nephilim). So, this is not depicted as an ordinary war but as a fight between good and evil which is why in the next verse Joshua takes a similar stance to Moses in his war against Amalek (Exod. 17:11), a war which Yahweh would wage against Amalek from “from generation to generation” (Exod. 17:16), Amalek becoming a metaphor for human weakness (fallenness). The YLT renders Joshua 8:26 thus; “And Joshua hath not brought back his hand which he stretched out with the javelin till that he hath devoted all the inhabitants of Ai”. Note that the word destroyed is now translated as devoted in YLT from the Hebrew charam (חָרַם) and can carry the meaning of consecrated and accursed. Something accursed has been devoted or consecrated for a special purpose (destruction). Achan (troubler) who had taken and hidden the “accursed” thing suffered the same fate as Ai (burning with fire Josh 7:15). What is accursed must be rooted out and destroyed in both the Israelites and in the Canaanites without distinction. Thirty-six (6×6) Israelites were killed in the first attack (because of Achan). Joshua describes the outcome as 12,000 destroyed, literally they, devoted (charam) all the dwellers of destruction (Ai). The use of sacred numbers and intertextuality demonstrate a profoundly metaphysical recounting of history to which Guyénot is completely oblivious. He even makes basic reading comprehension errors when he attempts to suggest that David sawed people in pieces. Could he not at least have checked other translations? “And he brought out the people who were in it, and put them to work with saws and iron picks and iron axes, and made them cross over to the brick works. So he did to all the cities of the people of Ammon. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem” (NKJ 2 Samuel 12:31).
This brings us to the war with Amalek in which Guyénot repeats the same hermeneutical and methodological errors. Why was Yahweh so hostile toward Amalek? The Deuteronomist informs us that Amalek picked off the weak during the wilderness wanderings (Deut. 25:17-19). Like a pack of Hyenas targeting stragglers. Metaphorically Amalek represents sin picking on those who are weary and vulnerable during the wilderness wanderings of life. Moses takes up the position of a crucifix with outstretched arms and while he maintains this position the enemy is vanquished (Exod. 17:10-12). Agag or Gog is the King of the Amalekites who becomes the eschatological enemy at the end of time (Rev 20:8) a supra-historical archetype, as Satan deceives Gog who gathers all nations from the four corners of the earth to attack the beloved city. This explains the perpetual, unrelenting war from generation to generation against Amalek(sin). Balaam the prophet made a prediction concerning Agag (Gog) stating that Jacob shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted (Num 24:7). Here Jacob is depicted as the constellation of the water pourer. In the previous verses his tents are spread out like trees beside the waters. This is obviously a reference to the celestial river (Milky Way cf. Rev 22:1-2) Jacob coming out of Egypt had the strength of a bull (Ephraim constellation Taurus) and would crouch like a lion (Judah as the constellation Leo). Obviously, we have a cosmogony with the order of the constellations being Taurus (bull) Aires (goat) Pisces (fish) and Aquarius (water pourer) with each constellation approximating a 2000-year period which seem to follow the various dispensations, Pisces representing Christianity. The emphasis in the Balaam prophecy is that Jacob would be higher than Agag and exalted (lifted up) the ultimate irony being that the Agagite Hamon was lifted up on ridiculously high gallows of fifty cubits (Ester 5:14) which is as high as a six-story building (hence the expression “hang em high”). The story of Esther is about peripeteia or a sudden reversal of fortunes. The enemy is caught in his own devices. This is not history; it is sacred history and Agag/Amalek represents sin. The fact that the Jews fail to understand their own holy texts and misinterpret them to their own destruction puts them on a par with Guyénot.
The paragraph under the heading Accusatory Inversion attempts to portray the gods of Egypt and Assyria as benevolent and the Egyptians as a peaceful and spiritual people as opposed to the cruel Yahweh. Either Guyénot is completely ignorant of ancient Egypt and Assyria, or he is being disingenuous. I hope Guyénot does not invoke the Egyptian god Babi the “Bull of the baboons,” if he wants to have successful sex in the afterlife. Dangerously unhinged fertility is one of Babi’s characteristics, as he’s the alpha baboon with a never-flagging erection. On the other hand, he lives on human entrails and “murders on sight.” Guyénot needs to be careful (lolz). I could continue to elaborate on the Egyptian gods and myths, and we have not even started on the cruel Assyrians and their gods. In contrast Yahweh’s self-revelation is one of mercy and grace (Exod. 33:17-23,34:5-7). The concept of a merciful and gracious God was important to almost all the Old Testament writers (Moses: Num. 14:17-19, Solomon’s Prayer 1 Kings 8:27-30, David: Psalm 31:19; Psalm 57:10; Psalm 86:5; Psalm 86:15; Psalm 91:4; Psalm 103:8-13; Psalm 108:4; Psalm 111:4; Psalm 111:8; Psalm 112:4; Psalm 116:5; Psalm 138:2; Psalm 145:8; Psalm 146:6, Hezekiah: 2 Chron. 30:8-9, Neh. 9:17-18, Isa. 30:18, Joel 2:13, Jonah 4:1-2, Micah 7:18-19, Nahum 1:3) and this is concretized not only by Yahweh’s actions towards his people but also by the extension of grace towards humanity in general. Guyénot offers a false binary choice, namely that; Yahweh offers only two possible paths to Israel: domination, if Israel keeps Yahweh’s Covenant of separateness, or annihilation, if Israel breaks the Covenant. This is only true if the wider picture is neglected because Israel is employed as the vehicle for Yahweh’s redemptive purpose for all of humanity. As the apostle Paul states, “For if the casting away of them (Israel) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?” (Rom.11:15). In other words, the process of disenfranchising and then restoring Israel will result in benefits for all of humanity. Divine mercy extends beyond ethnic and national boundaries. Paul refers to this process as, “the goodness and severity of God” (v.22) because divine severity towards Israel resulted in the extension of mercy towards all of humanity. It was always the divine plan to move from the particular to the universal. As Paul says, “For as ye (Gentiles) in times past have not believed God yet have now obtained mercy through their (Israel’s) unbelief: Even so have these also (Israel) now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (Romans 11:30-33).
The observation by Guyénot concerning Wesley Clark, son of Benjamin Jacob Kanne that the neocons had plans for destroying precisely seven nations is interesting because he is correct in equating it with (Deuteronomy 7:1-2, 24) but just because the Jews misuse and abuse the Torah proves nothing about God. It is a fallacy, like saying God approves of child abuse because some priests are pedophiles.
Guyénot drops any pretense in the next section (the prohibition of moral conscience), and lifts the veil allowing us to see that he is a Gnostic and serpent worshiper. This explains his stance toward Egypt because Gnosticism can be traced back to Hermes Trismegistus and the Egyptian god Thoth. The early church expelled the Gnostics. He says that “Yahweh, the tribal god usurped the majesty of the Supreme God” which demonstrates that in his view Yahweh is the demiurge and the supreme god is the Monad. Guyénot is completely wrong in equating the “knowledge of good and evil” with gnosis or with moral conscious. They already had a moral conscious otherwise how could they be tempted? Good and evil are opposite extremes. The word good is used fifteen times in the first three chapters of Genesis and evil is used four times. Good is used in the context of what is beneficial to man, therefore evil is that which brings disaster and fear. The result of their newly acquired knowledge was vulnerability (nakedness) and fear. In the Hebrew the word for naked plays on the word for serpent. They were afraid of God and realized that they were mortal, dying creatures. Their knowledge brought existential angst. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in their quest for equality and divine wisdom they found fear of God. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Ps 111:10a). The lesson was that man cannot become divine through his own efforts.
Lucifer in Isaiah 14 is a reference to Tiglath Pileser (not Nabuchodonosor II) but the prophecy also anticipates the invasion by Sennacherib (701). More exactly it references the goddess (Ishtar) of the Assyrian kings who challenged the supremacy of Yahweh. Many of her myths involve her taking over the domains of other deities (as depicted in Isaiah). The Assyrians attributed their successes to the goddess who was at war with Yahweh. This was then “Holy War”(cf. Jihad) as in Joel 3:9 (YLT) “Sanctify war”. There was a religious element to these wars. The chapter mentions both Babylon (v.4) and Assyria (v.25) because the Assyrian King Tiglath Pileser conquered Babylon (729) and took the crown of Babylon as well as that of Assyria. Lucifer, Venus, or the Morning star was known by the Sumerians and Akkadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians as Ishtar (Inanna) the goddess of war and sex. She was especially beloved of the Assyrians, who elevated her to become the highest deity in their pantheon, ranking above their own national god Ashur. In one myth she is condemned to the underworld where the seven judges of the underworld deem her guilty and strike her dead (Isaiah 14 seems to be playing into these myths). Although female she was often of “ambiguous gender identification” and the cult involved sacred prostitution including transgenderism and homosexuality. Christians conflate Venus (Ishtar) or the daystar known as the light bringer with Satan (Lucifer), because the Serpent promised illumination and encouraged man to grasp at divinity. The Gnostics, Kabbalists and transhumanists also promise enlightenment as they grasp at divinity.
Guyénot is correct in his assertion that the scribes and particularly the priestly class of Sadducees rejected any belief in an afterlife. Their viewpoint was materialistic, and it is for this reason they were condemned by Christ:
“But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine”. (Matt 22:31-33)
The very name of God (Yahweh) is tied up with the meaning of living or existence and he is called the “Living God” because he is depicted as dwelling between the Living Creatures (Cherubim) depicted in Ezekiel as a double helix (wheels within wheels) with four faces (bases) and and an Apatite phosphorous backbone glinting and sparkling with cat’s eyes. The spirit of life is in the wheels (Ezek. 1:20,21;10:17) and in Eden the tree of life is guarded by the Cherubim. It is the code of life itself, for the double helix has 64 condons which is the gematria value of the names of the first two humans created in the image (as opposed any other humanoids). Adam (45) + Eve (19) =64 but the difference between their names is the value of Yahweh (26) or expressed thus 19+26=45. The name Eve is related to “living” which in turn is related to Yahweh. The common verb to be hyh (היה) has as its imperfect (יהיה) hyhy he will be this is obviously very similar to YaHWeH (יהוה). The difference is a change from a yod י (Y) to a waw ו (W) the same shift (from yod to waw) occurs when the verb living becomes the name of Eve (mother of the living). The difference between “Eve” and “Living” is a causal one: in being the mother of all “living”, there is no “living” not descended from Eve, and so it is because of her that there are living ones; she produced them. Hence, we see that “Yahweh” has the sense of “he will be”, together with a causal sense that Yahweh is bringing to pass the fulfillment of what “he will be.” The name is an expression of purpose, and that purpose is “God manifestation” in sons and daughters. It is through Eve that the messiah would appear and restore life; “Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me”(John 6:57). Jesus condemned the Sadducees (priests) because of their unbelief in such a fundamental teaching about the nature of God. On the other hand, the Pharisees, although castigated for their hypocrisy were not condemned for their belief in the resurrection. The apostle Paul was a Pharisee, and the resurrection was fundamental to his faith. Can we say then the Jewish (and Christian) view of the afterlife (resurrection) is materialistic, and earth bound as Guyénot asserts? There is certainly an element that is grounded in physical reality for the disciples are taught to pray for the Kingdom of God on earth and Abraham is given an unconditional land covenant but to limit the resurrection to materialistic existence is reductionist. Paul (a Pharisee) makes clear that the resurrection body is not a physical body; “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44). In some sense the patriarchs (even now) “live” before God because he is not a God of the dead but of the living. This does not necessarily imply the afterlife of an “immortal soul” (dying thou shalt die, Gen 2:17 YLT) in a detached heavenly realm, but all spirits return to God at death (even that of Jesus, Lk 23:46) and Yahweh can reanimate the essence of the person who is then outside of space and time (because Yahweh himself is the ground of all being). So, the last conscious moment of the faithful is the exhalation of the breath (spirit) that animates their being and in their next conscious moment they stand in the presence of Yahweh (life itself). For the faithful it is as if no time has passed, and death was a mere sleep. Time and space do not exist for the faithful because they are destined to become part of the Godhead which is the divine gift or grace. For an Omniscient and omnipresent being there is no such thing as time and space therefore the faithful live before him always. So, it is more complex than a life in heaven (as depicted by many Christians) but it is not a materialistic existence. The earthly kingdom is only a transition stage giving the remaining human population a chance to live in the presence of the divine (like Adam and Eve did) until all the rebellious are purged. It is a recapitulation of the Eden scenario until all that is left on earth is a population of immortals and God becomes “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).
The final character assassination by Guyénot comes with his twisting of Scripture to prove that Yahweh and Molech are one and the same. The whole point of the Akedah (the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22) is that God would provide the sacrifice. As proof of his thesis Guyénot uses Old Testament examples of apostasy (like Manasseh) or texts that he does not understand (Jephthah in Judges 11:29-40; see my explanation here). Once again, this is like asserting that God is a pedophile because some children are abused by priests. It is weak and sloppy polemics supplemented by dubious scholarship, etymologies, and biased theories by historians like Römer that the animal substitution for the first-born male was an innovation from during the exile (586 BC onward) when stylometrics and linguistic analysis dates the Pentateuch to the earliest pre-Monarchial strata of Biblical Literature. Guyénot has become an expert at making sweeping claims (Lord of the Foreskins) without evidence such as the assertion that circumcision was introduced during the Babylonian exile (Gen 17:12) when he himself states that circumcision was practiced in Egypt where the Hebrews had been slaves centuries before. It would have been far more realistic to argue that the Hebrews had adopted an Egyptian custom rather than invented one during the Babylon exile more than eight hundred years later. The tribe of Ephraim were descendants of Joseph (who married the daughter of an Egyptian priest). Hodges (Bulletin of the History of Medicine, volume 57, p. 375-405) argues there is evidence against the purported prevalence of circumcision in Egypt, proposing it was limited to priests, functionaries, and some workers. Circumcisions were performed by Egyptian priests in a public ceremony using a stone blade. The stone blade is an anachronism in the bronze/iron age, and this makes it almost certain that the the Israelites adopted an Egyptian custom (under instruction from Yahweh) because before Joshua entered the land the men “made” sharp flint knives to perform circumcision (Joshua 5:2-3 LXX/NKJ). Moreover, centuries before the Israelite became slaves in Egypt, Abraham had an Egyptian concubine (Hagar) with whom he had a half-Egyptian son (Ishmael). It is possible that his son Ishmael was already circumcised by his Egyptian mother. The promise (covenant) was made with Abraham and “his seed” (Gen 17:10) and the “seed” being literally ejaculated from the penis one can speculate that the rite of circumcision was introduced to re-frame any claims by Ishmael to be the rightful heir (a problem that emerged in Gen. 21) with Ishmael possibly being the only one circumcised at that point. In any case this is significant because in Hebrew, kārat berît means to seal a covenant translates literally as “cut a covenant”. So, the covenant was “cut” in the flesh signifying a reminder that this was a promise concerning “seed” and the removing of the “superfluity of naughtiness” (James 1:21) or the “excess” of the flesh by circumcising the “foreskin” of the heart (Jer. 4:4). A 2006 systematic review concluded that the evidence “strongly indicates that circumcised men are at lower risk of chancroid and syphilis. We will leave that argument to the scientists.
In the presence of the numinous we should express the humility of Job rather than the mocking and character assassination of Guyénot:
Then Job answered the LORD, and said, I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. 5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:1-6)
Guyénot needs to speak that which is right about God (Job 42:7) because if he believes Yahweh to be a cruel, narcissistic sociopath that is exactly how he will manifest himself to Guyénot (Matt 25:24):
“It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb.10:31).