Tag: LXX

Ezekiel Chapters 38-39

Posted on

Ezekiel Chapters 38-39

This video (Ezekiel Chapters 38-39) is part two and follows on after Ezekiel 36 and 37 (part one). Part three will attempt to explain what is currently happening in the Middle East and will demonstrate how prophecy is being abused for geopolitical reasons. I intend to expose the historical roots of the false prophets and the aim of their false ideology in which they coopt and distort the word of God. They may be using His word as a script to achieve their wicked ends but God will not be mocked and it is impossible to run controlled opposition against the one who knows the end from the beginning. God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Numbers 23:19).

This is the link to my article: https://www.biblaridion.info/resources/Ezk1.pdf
After part three has been produced all links and show notes will be placed in the final article.

Part three will expose centuries of lies and manipulation.

Ezekiel Chapters 38-39 (60 mins)

 

Ezekiel chapters 36-37 (Part 1) –  50 min

They all expose themselves

Posted on

They all expose themselves

In the end they all expose themselves.  By that I mean that they end up (metaphorically) naked  which is ironic when we are talking about Ammon Hillman who uses the text about a naked young man fleeing to “prove” that Jesus is a pederast and drug user.  This is the “shocking” verses:

Mark 14:51-52 NKJV

Now a certain young man followed Him, having a linen cloth thrown around his naked body. And the young men laid hold of him,and he left the linen cloth and fled from them naked.

The Greek:

 

Apparently every single translator through history, from time immemorial was wrong (except Hillman) and  Jesus was actually a pederast and drug user. It is all in the translation you see. It has been covered up for thousands of years. And Yahweh is a demon. All you have to do is look at how Israel is behaving to know that what they say is true.😂 I have got to say that this is a fantastic psychological operation and has taken more than a hundred years of planning.

They purposefully planted a Rothschild colony in the Middle East and brainwashed the Zionist settlers. Turned them into monsters. This is ontological spiritual warfare. These lies cannot stand. But it is good to know who your enemy is and I am finally seeing through the clever charade. Yes the Zionists are bad (very bad) but they are just useful idiots for these slime-balls. The strategy is destroy the Jews and you destroy Yahweh (and therefore you destroy Jesus and Christianity). That leaves the way open to complete collectivist enslavement by the tenochracy. Disappointing that Ken from Theoria Apophasis Channel supports this nonsense without even expounding the Greek.  It is the argument from authority. They are the “experts” (where have we heard that before?) and despite having failed his dissertation Hillman the Satanist is going to tell you how this should be understood.

Leaving aside arguments about Greek words the allegorical intention of this passage is clear.  Jesus is in a garden being tempted (like Adam) as to whether he will be obedient and follow the path of suffering or grasp power. In fact, in the fourth gospel (John 20:15), Jesus is mistaken for the gardener (Adam). Adam is found naked (vulnerable)  after the temptation in the garden he was afraid and hid himself (Gen 2v7-11).   This young man  is also afraid and flees naked and his garment is snatched off his body as he flees.  The parallels with Genesis are obvious.

I have previously pointed out that Church tradition has it that the young man was John Mark (the writer of the gospel and biographer of Peter) and this is his signature as he inserts himself into the narrative as a sort of mea culpa.   In other words, John Mark is admitting that he failed Jesus and fled….just like Peter failed Jesus….and it is this John Mark who Paul refused to take with him on his missionary journey because of his attitude to the gentiles.   So now, in his gospel account, Mark demonstrates how miserably he failed (not just Jesus but he failed Paul also).  Now let us look at the word in question:

 

The same word is used in a different book (Acts 7:58) to describe the apostle Paul who as a young man witnessed the trial of Stephen. But seeing as Hillman is a “classicist” let us use the Perseus search engine to search for contemporary use of νεανίσκος (neaniskos)  outside the Bible and in colloquial or Koine/Attic Greek.  Here are two references from Josephus:

Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae book 5, section 191: δοὺς οὖν τὰ δῶρα τῷ Ἐγλῶνι ὁ νεανίσκος, διέτριβε δ᾽ ἔν τινι δωματίῳ δεξιῶς πρὸς θέρος ἔχοντι, Translation here: 191 So the young man, having offered his gifts to Eglon, who was staying in a special chamber to avoid the heat, got into private conversation with him, as the king had sent his attendants away in order to talk with Judes.

 

Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico libri vii (ed. B. Niese) book 1, section 55: προγνοὺς δὲ τὴν ἔφοδον ὁ νεανίσκος παραγενέσθαι εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἠπείγετο, πλεῖστον τῷ λαῷ πεποιθὼς Translation here: 055 But as the young man was forewarned of their coming, he hurried to the city, having great confidence in the people ...

There are dozens of other references from classical Greek so knock yourself out, but the above examples should suffice. These were young men.  They were not boy toys or sex slaves.  Hillman suggests that a young man mentioned in Mark 14:51, was wearing a medicated bandage, may have been a child assigned to Jesus. 😂 (this is cited directly from…Summary of Ancient Language Expert: Jesus Christ Used Children as Drugs | Ammon Hillman)

Once again we turn to Josephus for contemporary usage of σινδόνα (sindonain) using the Perseus search engine we find Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae (ed. B. Niese) book 3, section 129: ... παρέμεινε τὸ ἔθος καὶ τὸν ναὸν οἰκοδομησαμένων ἡμῶν, ὥστε τὴν σινδόνα τοιουτότροπον περικεῖσθαι ταῖς εἰσόδοις. Translation here: From this comes our custom, once the temple was built, of having a fine linen veil drawn over the entrances.

Now it is quite possible that fine linen was sometimes soaked by ancient Greeks in drugs to form a bandage but what Hilman is suggesting is absurd and dishonest.  It was a fine linen cloth wrapped around his body. The same word is used only five times in the New Testament Matt. 27:59; Mk. 14:51;14:52; 15:46; Lk. 23:53 twice for the linen garment of the young man and three times for the linen garment in which the body of Christ was wrapped for burial.   This could well be the  Turin shroud.  The lesson is clear, if you are not wrapped in the burial cloth of Christ you are naked. If you are not buried together with him in baptism you have no garment.

Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.(Revelation 16:15)

So, you foul Satanist, keep your filthy blasphemous mouth off of my Lord.  You project the practices of the pagan Elysian mysteries with their orgies and drugs onto Jesus even suggesting that when he complained that he thirsted (on the cross) he was referring to the serpent king Ericthonius  and given drugs.  Your ignorance is astounding. Jesus recited Psalm 22 on the cross, “My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws” (v.15).   The Romans handed him a sponge with vinegar to stop him passing out (not out of kindness).

Further, on the nonsense that the Greek Old Testament was prior to the Hebrew and not a translation I have demonstrated comprehensively that he is wrong  by using gematria but that is not even necessary because any half decent Bible student who has the slightest inkling of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek can easily demonstrate it as does this lady Chrissy in the article with the brilliant title:  THE LXX IS A TRANSLATION AND DAVID HILLMAN NEEDS TO SHUT UP 😂

Here are my previous debunks of over the hillman  and his exaggerated pronunciation (and twisting) of the Greek.

Babylon is Fallen

Sacred Sodomy

 

Conclusion

Hillman is a psychological operation made to appeal to the gullible and ignorant and the fact that they have to wheel out another Gnostic to promote him with an appeal to his authority as an expert without any credible evidence besides waffling for an hour says it all.

These people are not your friends because they want to introduce the technocratic world order.  In order to do this they have to convince you that you have no freewill, no natural rights gifted from God. You are not made in his image (because he is an evil demiurge) and his blessing to be fruitful and multiply is actual a curse because you are nothing more than a virus that is killing the planet and therefore you need to be controlled.  You can ascend without the help of God, after all you are divine.😂

The next Psyop has already started.  It is long standing Christians explaining (on YouTube) why they are leaving Christianity.  Meanwhile, all sorts of celebrities are suddenly getting baptized.😂 This is all coordinated and very clever.  If it were possible even the very elect will be deceived.

As for me, I have had a belly full of these liars and manipulators. They open their mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven (Rev 13:6 ). But God will not be mocked and these filthy dreamers will have their day. These filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;  Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Whoever loves not the Lord let them be Anathema Maranatha.

 

 

 

 

Are you listening to a pied piper?

Posted on

Are you listening to a pied piper?

This video is a rebuttal of the after analysis of the debate with Christopher Bjerkness moderated by Dr Kevin McCairn.   I was rather disappointed at the assessment with phrases like “Christopher won the debate” and “Paul was trounced” and the charge that I was not polite.  I believe that whereas Christopher resented  John Brisson sarcastic tone he actually thanked me and said he would look into some of the things I suggested because they were interesting.

Do I sometimes go on?   Yes, because that is necessary when people make sweeping claims about things they do not understand.  Kevin complained about the back and forth over the academic  minutiae because it is about pointing out who is the enemy and who is the useful idiots. Well you can’t do that unless you understand the the academic  minutiae otherwise you are at a disadvantage when false claims are made. If the foundation is built on sand the house collapses.

Christopher presents a deluge of information that he strings together but they come from different sources and different contexts on which he places equal weight.  How can you place the same weight on the Old Testament as on the Zohar that appeared in 13th century Spain?  He makes sweeping claims (without evidence) that the Greek Bible (LXX) is not a translation but that it is the original Old Testament (which they presumably translated back into Hebrew scrolls some even written in paleo-Hebrew and scattered around everywhere.)   He even points to the Massoretic Text (MT)  being written about 1000 AD as a “gotcha” moment (lolz).

This demonstrates to me that he has no understanding of textual transmission and his Biblical knowledge (inter-textual hermeneutics) is poor.  I think I remained very polite and I had to bite my tongue and show restraint on numerous occasions.   The problem is that there is some truth to what he is saying and it needs to be honestly examined but we cannot throw the baby out with the bath water.

I do not have to answer for other Christians nor do I carry the same burdens.  Just because Tertullian and Origen misunderstood the typology of the scapegoat does not mean that I do.  Just because some Christians may believe in Ransom theory and a bet with the devil does not mean that I carry that burden and it does not mean that Scripture even teaches it.  As to burning in hell Christians would do well to remember that Jesus went to hell and came back on the third day.  Moreover, who are we to judge another man’s servant?  The Lord makes one vessel to honor and another to dishonor.   The clay cannot cry out to the potter..why have you made me thus?   Understand the meaning of the Lord’s name:

"And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy" (Exodus 33:19).

Some men’s hearts will be hardened, other will fall by the wayside and yet others will bring forth tares. Some will die in ignorance and some will be as if they had never existed.  Your lot is not to judge but to do what is right towards your neighbor and love the Lord they God with all they heart, soul and mind. Amen.

Are you listening to a pied piper? (1:10)

Resources:

Psalm 82 in the Fourth Gospel

Soteriology and Atonement Theory

The Language of Atonement

See the original debate for more links:

Are You Being Punked?

Are You Being Punked?

Posted on (Updated: )

Are You Being Punked?

This stream is 5hrs 16 min in which I join Dr Kevin McCairn, Christopher Jon Bjerknes,  and John Brisson to discuss metaphysics.  Christopher Jon Bjerknes advocates for the position that the current circumstances that we are facing is a result of self-fulfilling Jewish prophesy.  According to this view the Old Testament and therefore Christianity owes its grounding in platonic and Gnostic thought. We are being trained by the Bible (both the OT and the NT) to extinguish ourselves and destroy our earth.   We have been punked.  Oy, Vey!    I have probably oversimplified Christopher’s position. Christopher has a Jewish Grandfather on his mothers side (https://www.bitchute.com/video/dATWlHyqN3t3/) so he is not antisemitic but I find it amusing that so many dissidents who are critical of Judaism also want to destroy Christianity and replace it with scientific rationalism.  I can imagine that working out real well (lolz).

I believe that faith and science are not in opposition but that true scientific inquiry should be ethically guided.  Finally, I find myself in agreement with Christopher’s assessment of the Talmud and the Zohar as they are basically a rewriting and supplementary “interpretation” of the Old Testament, what Jesus calls, the traditions of men.   The Jews have turned pilpul into a fine art and can argue that black is white.  So, while  I agree that the Jews are using the basis of their holy book (the Torah) as an agent to dominate the world….as a playbook, I reject the notion that the outcome is inevitable or that the OT is somehow presenting a different malevolent God.  The NT cannot be divorced from the OT and this can be demonstrated by proper intertextual reading.  Any perceived contradictions is a failure in hermeneutics.   I have placed links to some of the subjects that we touched upon underneath the video (more can be found on the main website).

In the final analysis the enemy of the primitive first century church (which was predominately Jewish) were fellow Jews.  They persecuted Jewish Christians and killed them. The  same pattern holds for the Bar Kochba rebellion. Talmudic  Jews killing Christian Jews.  Through the centuries Jews have subverted the Christian church.  The Jews perceived the church as their enemy.  Why do you think that the Bolsheviks tried to exterminate Christianity?   Western democracy and sovereignty is rooted in Christian principles. After the 2-3rd centuries Jewish Christianity virtually disappeared and Christianity became a (predominately) a Gentile religion as the apostle Paul indicated;

"And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?" (Rom 11:9-12)

It certainly did provoke them to jealousy because they lost their special position. The inclusion of the Gentiles into the predominantly Jewish church was a major problem in the first century and many Jewish believers resented the fact that Gentiles should have equal status. In many circles the apostle Paul is hated even more than Jesus.  (Paul was a rabbi….for goodness sake…a self hating Jew who let those scummy goy into the tent).The story in the Gospel of Mark demonstrates that even Jesus had to adjust his opinion of the Gentiles who were considered dogs.    

 "And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.  But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.  But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.  And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.  Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour".  (Matthew 15:22-28)

On this see Food for Thought  http://www.biblaridion.info/Anthology/food_for_thought.pdf

Jesus certainly extended the Gospel to the Gentiles  when he declared that he had other sheep:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd"(John 10:16).

And he declared that he would draw all men (Jew and Gentile) denoting the universality of his sacrifice:

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me" (John 12:32).

 

This stresses the human nature of Christ as a litmus test for Christianity contra Gnosticism which views material existence as flawed or evil, Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity Yahweh of the Old Testament) who is responsible for creating the material universe. Jesus is therefore not material (flesh) which in their view is intrinsically evil.  Scripture depicts flesh as weak and fallen and estranged from God.   Jesus bore the Yahweh name – Yah saves.

( The spirits here are prophets who proclaim to testify through the spirit the figure of speech is  a synecdoche i.e. it stands for teachers who profess what they claim is a divine, inspired message they emphasised personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) above the orthodox teachings).

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world" (John 4:1).

The quote in Deuteronomy is not a plan to dominate the world but an ethical guide on how to treat strangers. The Hebrew word used here is for foreigners or aliens (nekar) outside the land (usually hostile) not a stranger (ger) dwelling among them.

"Unto a stranger (nekar) thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it" (Deuteronomy 23:20 )

The above quote has to be balanced with this from the same book:

"He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger(ger), in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger (ger): for ye were strangers(ger) in the land of Egypt" (Deuteronomy 10:18-19).

The Israelite had themselves been strangers living in Egypt and were never to forget that lesson.  The Palestinians are “strangers” (some would argue the original inhabitants) dwelling amongst them and they are extorted to love the stranger.  So, it is selective quoting to go to one passage and refer to it as a plan for world domination of the goy.  I do not see any divine instructions for establishing a central bank or the divine imprimatur to rob, steal and cheat.   The fact that the Jews would use such a text to justify their wrong doing is just more pilpul. In the eschatological vision of Isaiah foreigners are given a positive relationship (56:3,6) and role (60:10,61:5), when God has reversed the old orders.

Dark Sayings
Stylometrics on the Hebrew etc a summary of 7th-8th century writings and the book of Proverbs. https://www.biblaridion.info/html/dark.html

Scapegoat

The  Scapegoat
https://www.biblaridion.info/Anthology/Jewish_goat1.pdf

Cain as the scapegoat sent away bearing his sins
http://www.biblaridion.info/Anthology/cain.pdf

Zodiac and the tribes: cosmogony
https://www.biblaridion.info/Digressions/zodiac.pdf

Jacob the cheater and deceiver:Wrestling with God; Jacob as a paradigm for the nation of Israel  http://www.biblaridion.info/resources/jacob.pdf

Wickedness in Shinar: The Babylonian Talmud
https://www.biblaridion.info/resources/shinar.pdf

Witnessing prototypes (Apocalypse) based on Moses and Elijah
https://www.biblaridion.info/html/ch11.html#P219

The LXX (Septuagint or SEVENTY) Greek version of the OT

Christopher maintains that there was no OT prior to the Greek version and that the Greek version was influenced by Greek philosophy etc. In other words, the Greek version was not a translation it was the first version.  Modern scholarship holds that the Septuagint was written from the 3rd through the 1st centuries BC, but nearly all attempts at dating specific books (except for the Pentateuch, early- to mid-3rd century BC) are tentative. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated to a range from the third century BC to the first century AD. That means that the oldest scrolls in the collection might have been as old as the Septuagint, which dates to the third century BC. A big, big part of what the Dead Sea Scrolls showed us is that both the LXX and the MT trace back to very old Hebrew sources which must be related at some point in the distant past prior to the composition of the LXX.

The position presented by Christopher is a gross oversimplification of a very complex field. Very skilled scholars can reconstruct from word choice that they are mistranslated from original Hebrew Aramaic sources.  It is a misconception to think that scribes were translating from a set canon. Only the Pentateuch was a stabilized text the prophets etc were still in flux and all on different scrolls in different parts of the empire.  The next  links should give some idea of the complexity that we are dealing with:

Septuagint

 

https://academic.logos.com/the-origin-of-the-lxx/