This was brought to my attention and is typical of the sort of attacks that Christianity is under where the Old Testament is used in a “bait and switch” to cast doubt and confusion and drive a wedge between the testaments. The problem is that many Christians are ignorant of scriptures or only have a superficial knowledge of the texts and are easily swayed by those who are willing to conflate mythology and distort the texts for their own ends. There is a reason why they are trying so hard to destroy Christianity.

Anunnaki Ancient Mystery

This video refers to Zecharia Sitchin the author of several books proposing an explanation for human origins involving ancient astronauts. Sitchin attributed the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Anunnaki, which he stated was a race of extraterrestrials from a planet beyond Neptune called Nibiru. The Anunnaki are the Sumerian gods discovered on the clay tablets of libraries excavated at locations like Nineveh. The Bible story is said to depend on these older myths. Ironically, Nineveh and its prophesied Biblical destruction were thought to be exaggerated or fictitious until the ruins were discovered and subsequently excavated by Austin Henry Layard in 1846 and 1847. Now those very same texts are used to demonstrate Biblical dependence (sic).  We might ask what the most likely direction of influence and/or corruption is?   Myths always grow by accretion and become more epic in the telling, moreover they suffer from assimilation and syncretism. The further back in the past the historical event lies, the more likely that this has occurred.

Dating ancient flood narratives is often a complex and multidisciplinary task.   The techniques employed are linguistic analysis (syntax language development), historical context, cultural references, archaeological evidence, comparative mythology, radiocarbon dating (papyrus), documentary evidence (cross-references), oral tradition and folklore and carbon dating of geological evidence (sediment layers). There are many flood myths even among the Greeks, Indians and Chinese but concentrating on the Mesopotamian myths we arrive at the following agreed upon dating.

The Sumerian Flood Story – c. 2100 BCE or earlier.    One of the oldest known flood narratives, possibly dating back to around 2100 BCE or even earlier. Atrahasis Epic – c. 18th century BCE.   This is an Akkadian text that is believed to have been composed in the 18th century BCE, although it draws on older Sumerian sources. Epic of Gilgamesh – c. 18th century BCE.   The standard Akkadian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh that contains the flood story is dated to the 18th century BCE. Ziusudra (Sumerian) – c. 19th-17th century BCE.   Ziusudra is the Sumerian equivalent of Noah. The story of Ziusudra is considered one of the earliest known flood narratives.

The multitude of cross-cultural myths is evidence that something catastrophic happened and the scientific evidence points to a Heinrich-Bond event with rapid changes to the jet stream and glacial melt probably occurring approximately 6,000 years ago  which (if correct) is some  2,000 years before the oldest flood accounts appeared. This allows plenty of time for the account to be mythologised and to become an epic tale.     The biblical account of the Great Flood is found in the book of Genesis, which is generally believed to have been written down during the Babylonian exile in the 6th or 5th century BCE.  It is thought to be the most recent but that is based on several false assumptions the first one being the early date assigned to Genesis.  We know that Genesis predates the exile and was known to the prophets etc before 700 BC. Of course, that is nowhere near the 2000 BC date of the Mesopotamian accounts but the appearance of the other ANE myths occurred around the same time slot as the Exodus from Egypt which coincided with the development of the alphabet.  Unlike clay, papyrus documents leave very little trace ,compounded  by  the Jewish custom to destroy old scrolls when new copies were made.    The Genesis account has the least mythological elements giving us dimensions, time periods and the landing place of the ark on Ararat which happens to be located very near to the oldest vineyards in the world giving credence to the story that Noah planted a vineyard and got drunk (lolz).  There is no reason (except academic bias) that the Genesis account cannot be earlier than the other myths.  They probably developed independently from one another based on cultural memories and oral traditions.

The video makes the false equivalency that the Sumerian Anunnaki = Elohim and the basic error of employing the Book of Enoch (a late pseudepigrapha) to demonstrate that the offspring of the Anunnaki are the “sons of God”.  Using the book of Enoch written at the very  least a millennia after Genesis to explain the “sons of God” is like using one of Isaac Asimov’s books to interpret Scripture. (lolz). The video (@7.45) states that all the terms are translated as God (not true), as the KJV translates Yahweh as LORD and Elohim as GOD

Whatever explanation is offered, must consider that men and rulers are also referred to as Elohim in Scripture, so the delineation is at times ambiguous (Exodus 7:1; 21:6; 22:8,9,28; 23:20,21; Psalms 58:1(?); 97:7; 138:11; 1 Samuel 2:25; 28:13). I find myself in agreement with Michael Heiser  [i]

 Our Terminology IS NOT Adequate to Describe the God of the Bible (5 min)

Note the famous shema of Deut 6:4 (שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד)- Hear O Israel The LORD our God is one LORD (KJV) or, Literally: Hear O Israel, Yahweh our Elohim (’ĕ·lō·hê·nū) is one (echad) Yahweh and  compare Zechariah 14:9; And the LORD (Yahweh) shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one (echad) LORD  (Yahweh), and his name one (echad).

Moreover, just like Elohim the phrase “Sons of God” is also used to describe humans (and angels) adding to the ambiguity. The nation of Israel is described as God’s son (Hos.11:1). In fact, Solomon is called the “Son of God” and the account has intertextual parallels pointing back to the apostacy in Genesis 6:4 which I demonstrate in this article Solomon as the Son of God .  Moreover, the reference to “giants” in Genesis is literally “mortals of the name” or as some translations render it “men of renown” which are the “demi-gods” legendary hero figures of antiquity like Nimrod who established the city-states and hunted before Yahweh and is called a “mighty (גִּבֹּ֖ר gibbor) one.”  For example, although the Egyptians recognized that the pharaoh was human and subject to human weakness, they simultaneously viewed him as a god, because the divine power of kingship was incarnated in him. He therefore acted as intermediary between Egypt’s people and the gods. Many ancient Mesopotamian kings viewed themselves as living gods.

And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.   He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.  And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. (Genesis 10:8-10)

Another classic error (@ @8.45) is a failure to distinguish between names and titles.  El Elyon (Most High God) is not a name it is a title or epithet. Like calling someone a CEO or King of Kings. They are not names. in contrast with Yahweh (YHWH) which is a NAME. And the situation is further complicated by the concept of agency in which Yahweh places his name and authority in an angel (Exod 23:21) or in a human (cf. the king). The nation of Israel was told at Sinai that collectively they were meant to bear the Yahweh name and not take it in vain. The Hebrew word for “take,” nasa, means to bear or carry. God’s name had been placed upon the Israelites (Num 6:27), enter Jesus, whose name means Yahweh saves. He is one who fulfills the name bearing at which Israel (chosen to be a holy nation) so miserably failed. In fact, Jesus is able to use the name shown to Moses in Exodus 3:14 expressed in the Greek Septuagint as I AM [ii] when Jesus declares, Before Abraham was I AM” (John 8:58) this is a reference to manifesting the Yahweh name (not a reference to pre-existent equivalence) as the blind man is also able to manifest the I AM through being a recipient of healing power: Jesus answered, Neither hath this [blind] man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest (phaneroo) in him (John 9:3)….Some said, This is he [the blind man]: others said, He is like him: but he [the blind man] said, I AM (John 9:9).  So, Jesus bears the Yahweh name and manifests him, which is why he can say, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (John 14:9).  Jesus becomes the name bearer:

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name (Philippians 2:9).

The assertion that either Jesus or the NT is somehow confused about “which of the gods (plural) is his Father (lolz) is utter nonsense. As to the other assertion (@ 15 mins) that Abraham only knew God under the title El Shaddy but not under the Yahweh name, it is also based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Exodus 6:3: “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (Yahweh) was I not known to them. ” The context as demonstrated in my article El Shaddy is that the epithet is linked to blessing and fecundity [iii] and the irony is that it was the very fulfillment (Exodus 1:7) of the promise inherit in the title that caused the Egyptian genocide. The crux interpretum is the word “known” which is about revelation. It is about experiencing the full implication and meaning of the name and character. Abraham had a glimpse at the place he called Yahweh-Yireh (יהוה יראה) or Yahweh will be seen when he “saw the place afar off” [iv]– “Your father Abraham rejoiced [v] to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). However, the full implications of Yahweh manifesting himself as saviour was the Passover Exodus (Gen 15:13-14) and then later in history the Passover crucifixion of Jesus (Yah saves) when the full revelation of the name is made known.

The video is full of errors suggesting that the Elohistic (E) and Yahwistic (J) accounts of the flood denote different gods such as the Mesopotamian gods Enlil (destroyer) and Enki (the saviour). Not only is the Wellhausen Documentary hypothesis of differing sources (E, J and P) increasingly being rejected by many scholars (in favour of a holistic approach) but the theology of the Old Testament (and New) rejects the notion of dualism found in much of of the ANE mythology and religions (such as Zoroastrian). As the prophet says; “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7 ). There is not a God who brings good and a different God who brings evil circumstances. God both kills and makes alive; “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand” (Deuteronomy 32:39). This was even recognized by Job in all his misery: ” And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD” (Job 1:21).

Furthermore, syncretism  of proto-Indo-European “father gods” such as Dyauspitar the Ṛigvedic sky deity which is cognate with the Greek Διας – Zeus Patēr and the Latin Jupiter and the Proto-Italic djous “day, sky” and patēr “father”, thus “sky father” Greek: Δίας or Ζεύς), also known as Jove of ancient Rome is an expected cross cultural evolution but the Semetic tetragmaton (YHWH) is semantically a verb that is treated as a noun. Unlike the cosmogony of the pagan gods the Hebrew has a unique existential meaning and teleological projection and is therefore not derivative.


At one point the video states; Actually it is necessary to highlight here a great confusion is Jesus the Messiah or not is Jesus’ Father Yahweh or not?  We can have different interpretations and different readings as well as different theological explanations for this. But invariably, the truth is only one, even though we may not be able to fully grasp it….   the fact that we do not have access to the truth…

The only person who is confused is the producer of the video. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace (1 Cor 14:33).  Moreover, we have direct access to the truth, Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:16) and a promise to guide us into all truth and show us things to come (John 16:13). The video states that such knowledge is unobtainable, it is too far too high that it cannot be reached, which is contrary to the apostle Paul who says the opposite in Romans 10:6-8 that it is not too high or unobtainable. The video producer then levels the petulant accusation that “They (the gods???) blame our humanity for terrible and sinful acts” (Really?  Time for you to wake up and smell the coffee boyo.  Take a look around).  Man rebelled against God and is still in opposition to him with the Homo Deus transhumanist project. He continues by lamenting that “God is all powerful and we should fear him” (however the transhumanist and neo-Bolsheviks use fear as a programming tool).   I would rather fear the Lord than fear man. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom (Psalm 111:10, Prov 1:7) but not the end of Wisdom for perfect love rules out fear; There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.   We love him, because he first loved us (1 John 4:18-19). He ends the video by saying that he thinks we are divine, and he talks about “illumination of the darkness of ignorance” a sure sign that he is a gnostic (one with hidden knowledge that we do not have).  No, you are not illuminated, you walk in darkness (like the blind man in John 9//darkness Ps 82) and although you are gods in your own mind, you will die like Adam (Jesus quoting Ps 82 at the Sanhedrin “gods” in John 10).


[i] Although I disagree with Michael Heiser on his interpretation of Psalm 82:5-8:

They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.   I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.  But ye shall die like men (adam), and fall like one of the princes.   Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. (Psalm 82:5-8)

The question is whether Psalm 82 is talking about gods or men. Michael Heiser would argue for the Elohim here being gods, but gods are immortal and these elohim are threatened to die like men or more specifically to die like Adam, having failed the test as he did. Or — more precisely — having sought for higher position than God permitted. The reference to “arise” is to the resurrection because Hezekiah recovered from his mortal illness on the third day and addressed the council (the Sanhedrin or 70 Elohim).  They had rebelled and attempted to usurp power during his illness and the Assyrian siege. They attempted to betray him and cut a deal with Sennacherib. The prince Shebna was cast out (cf. Isaiah 22).  The parallels between the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 (King Hezekiah) and Christ are obvious. Christ quotes this Psalm when challenged about his status by the Sanhedrin refer to my article Psalm 82 in the Fourth Gospel. And further reading, see my analysis of Heiser’s critiques in the article Sons of God

[ii] Ego eimi (Ἐγώ εἰμι) is the transliteration of the LXX Greek in Exodus 3:14. The name of God expresses a past, present, and future tense. As such God is the ground of all being (I AM) but Yahweh is also constantly manifesting who he will be (WILL BE) the one who was, is and will be. On this see God Manifestation

[iii] The Stark Trek greeting “Live Long and Prosper” is based on making the Shin sign (the letter- Sh ש in Hebrew) with the hand the first syllable of Sh-addy in the El Shaddy rabbinical blessing.

[iv] Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off (Genesis 22:4).

[v] The name of his son Isaac (that he was told to sacrifice) means laughter or rejoicing.


Sledging the Prophets of Baal

Sledging the Prophets of Baal

Justin Sledge is an occultist, a Kabbalist and  Marxist involved in a school shooting in his youth.  These people purport to be academics and scholars but they are apologists for transhumanists whose ideology harks back to Hermeticism and Gnosticism of the ancient god Thoth. They believe that they can transcend and break the natural cycle through their secret knowledge (wisdom or illumination).  In the same fashion the eugenicists believe that they also can transcend by  improving the genetic quality of a human population and this entails child sacrifice (abortion,sterilization etc). Therefore the “modern” age harks back to solutions offered by Thoth and Baal. The revelation of Yahweh showed a different way.  Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, moreover, God himself provided the sacrifice for improving humanity. We cannot escape the coming natural cycle nor can we transcend either individually or collectively without God’s help.

The Yahweh of the Old Testament is under attack, but as Jesus said, He who confesses the Son has the Father also. … Whoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also (1 John 2:23).  And vice versa is also true, you cannot have the Son and deny the Father.  Here is a previous article where I addressed the attack against God.

War against Yahweh

Here is the full video by Sledge:

Here is the automatically transcribed text (full of spelling errors) taken from You Tube (with time slots). My response video is under the transcription (scroll down).

0 the birth survival Twilight and ultimate demise of divine being seems to follow
0:05 its own evolutionary patterns such that some Gods endure without significant
0:10 cultic or theological change for centuries While others Blaze onto the
0:16 world stage only to burn themselves up into Extinction almost as soon as they
0:22 appeared indeed a given God must perform a careful Balancing Act to persist much
0:28 through human time marked by seemingly unending upheavals on the one hand a
0:36 Divine being must have a definite enough quality to attract and maintain
0:41 worshipers and yet at the same time such a God cannot be so rigid or it’s cult so
0:49 conservative that it cannot endure significant adaptation and change the
0:54 only surety of our mundane world too far in One Direction makes a God unappealing
1:01 too far in the other Dooms them given religious fashion and change frankly and
1:07 surely through the eons some gods have adapted and many gods have gone extinct though
1:16 one God has proven to be rather successful bodily enough not that that
1:22 makes them a better God or even a real God beyond all reasonable historical
1:29 expectation in fact this God whose simple name means something like the one
1:34 that exists emerge from the Sands of Bronze Age obscurity to eventually
1:40 become not just a national God but in the end simply the God for the
1:48 overwhelming majority of the world’s population now but just how did a tribal Warrior storm
1:55 God Yahweh go from being a god a minor
2 God among God’s much more ancient and much more powerful enduring up till then at least to Simply becoming God the soul
2:09 God of all that is in the mythology of billions if you’re interested in Magic and
2:16 hermetic philosophy Alchemy or Kabbalah are the history of the occult make sure to subscribe and check out my other
2:21 topics on contents and other terrorism and also if you want to support my work of providing accessible scholarly and
2:28 free content on topics here and as a terrorism here on YouTube freely accessible I hope you consider
2:35 supporting my work on patreon or with a one-time donation with the super thanks option or perhaps you’d buy a shirt over
2:42 at our merch store on the channel but now let’s turn to a god that all of
2:47 us know of but none of us really know much about Yahweh or the one that exists the deity
2:56 at the core of the abrahamic faiths and Beyond I’m Dr Justin Sledge and welcome
3:03 to esoterica where we explore the Arcane and history
3:08 philosophy and religion
3:13 [Music]
3:20 [Music]
3:33 as you might imagine this is an episode I’ve been wanting to make for a long time and I’ve been absolutely dreading
3:40 having to make it for even longer the importance of an episode on Yahweh is basically self-evident but the challenge
3:47 is to making it should be equally self-evident the literature on this
3:52 topic is vast utterly vast it spread over a dozen or so languages performed
3:58 by ingenious Specialists with an encyclopedic grasp of the material and
4:05 yet an entire argument or series of arguments can hinge on a single suffix of an inscription I’m looking at you
4:13 contilit adrude pronomial suffix problem and of course with Yahweh being at the
4:20 core of the abrahamic religions historicizing such a being can easily be taken as an assault on the very core of
4:27 those religions if you distort Yahweh everything else might just
4:32 disappear into the air and yet that’s the task at hand so it should go without
4:37 saying that virtually everything I’m going to say in this episode Cam and would be taken
4:43 up taken to task by an army of Specialists and can in no way in no way
4:49 taken to be definitive because there is simply that little consensus among
4:56 the Specialists but I’d rather Hazard an episode on the topic than just throw my hands up and say oh it’s utterly
5:02 frustrated by the difficulty and the complicatedness and the specialization of the topic
5:08 better as a famous saying if Beckett goes ever tried ever failed
5:13 no matter try again fail again fail better so here’s to
5:20 failing better in the name of public education also on a personal note using the name Yahweh is just simply an
5:27 academic attempt to vocalize the name of the Israelite tribal God and not some attempt to actually utter a
5:34 magical Divine name much less take such a name in vain in fact public education
5:40 is just about the furthest thing from my mind when I think about doing something in vain and lastly this is an academic
5:48 Channel and I check my religious commitments at the door and historical
5:53 facts and evidence are what matter here not my personal beliefs and really when
6 we allow our faith to dictate our history we really just betrayed both
6:06 I guess I’ll just come out of the gate with it the origins of Yahweh are utterly unknown the name may appear
6:14 first in the 14th century BCE of an enemy list of amenotep III in a similar but later list in the 13th century BCE
6:21 by Ramses II as the shasu of Yahweh are the shasu of Yahoo it’s not quite clear
6:28 how that was pronounced the shasu were semi-nomadic pastoralists typically associated with rating and general big
6:35 brigandry the Egyptian name for their name actually indicates their nomadic existence to roam about while the name
6:42 taken up into Semitic and Hebrew means something like terrain or to plunder so
6:48 there’s a clue what they were while the name Yahweh does seem to appear here it
6:53 also seems to be functioning primarily as a toponym rather than as a Theon M but that other shasu in the list are
7 also associated with the region of Sears mountain range in the southwestern trans Jordan is probably going to prove
7:06 Salient here in just a moment whether the shasu were proto-israelites isn’t clear but it seems reasonable to think
7:13 that there was probably some connection and did it with the hyperoo and the social then ethnic groups the Hebrews
7:20 that begins as a social group not an ethnic group who were also associated with brigandry so this is a
7:28 fun origin story Israel first appears to enter history on the menoptos Delhi it’s
7:33 a son of Ramses II like his 13th son where he claims victory such that the
7:39 Canaan has been plundered into every sort of Woe ashkelan has been overcome
7:44 gazer has been captured yeah no aam is made non-existent Israel is laid waste and
7:52 his seed is not huru is become a widow because of Egypt it’s perhaps worth
7:59 mentioning here that the Egyptian determinative on ashkelanoam and gazer
8:04 indicate foreign city this is the triple Mountain determinative whereas Israel
8:09 has the foreign ethnic group determinative though to be sure the use of determinatives by
8:16 Egyptian scribes can be all over the place kinda arbitrary the
8:21 southernly geographic placement may also be important though note that the Israelites that mernepta claims to
8:27 annihilate aren’t actually Associated here with the shafsu so that’s interesting and of course their God the
8:34 god of Israel and none of these guys is mentioned here the first historical archaeological link
8:41 between Israel and Yahweh as the god dates to much much later in the Iron Age
8:46 where the 9th century BCE mesha steli Victory steli Braggs of dragging vessels
8:53 of Yahweh before hemosh as the malabye kingdom rebelled and escaped amrite
8:58 Israelite hegemony in the region thus it seems that southern levantine Nomads and
9:04 Raiders were associated with Yahweh perhaps as a kind of theological toponym and that by the 13th century BCE an
9:11 ethnic group known as Israel at least to the Egyptians existed in a similar area
9:17 and that by the 9th century BCE the Israelite House of Omri seems to have had Yahweh as an important probably as
9:24 their National God as opposed to the moabai before which the those vessels
9:31 the aforementioned vessels were dragged now given the paucity of the
9:37 archaeological record which is basically that what can we glean from our other surviving body of evidence that is to
9:44 say Israelite literature as edited and compiled into the Hebrew Bible about the origins of Yahweh or what we might call
9:51 primitive yawism are the cult of Yahweh before its assimilation into the Canaanite Heartland the Canaanite cult
9:58 and the Canaanite Pantheon more generally now to do this it appears that the best methodology would be to take
10:04 the earliest linguistic strata of the Israelite literature as it appears in the Hebrew Bible especially the song of
10:11 the sea at Exodus 15 1-18 judges 5 or Divorce Song Psalms 18 29 68 Genesis 49
10:19 among other scattered memories of very linguistically archaic mentions of
10:24 Yahweh in his cult from this a rough sketch of primitive Yahweh can be made it appears that the deities original
10:31 Heartland was Ser Edom teman with account signing actually probably originally lying in that region recall
10:38 the chassiser earlier that is to say the Northwestern Arabian Peninsula just east
10:44 of the Dead Sea it appears that Yahweh was probably originally a warrior God
10:50 perhaps associated with raiding and women warband prophets further the
10:55 central manifestation of Yahweh seems to have been storms specifically the catastrophic thunderstorms that result
11:02 in the deadly flash flooding which actually plagues that region down to this day Petra the same region where
11:08 Yahweh may have come from was engineered around managing just those thunderstorms
11:14 oh and you can see video of what those flash floods look like in that region and they are terrifying at some point in
11:22 the late bronze or probably the early Iron Age the Yahweh cult made its way into the Judean Highlands likely
11:29 settling at a cult Center in Shiloh this corresponds roughly to the biblical period of the judges the nomadic and
11:38 possibly Mercantile nature note The Mention Of Caravans and the song of devorah which is by the way probably the
11:44 earliest text in the Hebrew Bible of primitive yahwas might explain the diffusion of the cult that is to say it
11:50 was spread through Mercantile trade this diffusion is probably over determined however especially if rating were
11:57 involved of course the major historical backdrop of all of this is the Bronze Age collapse through the 13th century
12:04 BCE civilization in the Eastern Mediterranean Experience day cascading systems collapse real scary
12:13 resulting in Mass migration from the Aegean I.E the sea peoples Imperial border regression and local hegemony
12:19 collapse on the part of the various Empires especially the Egyptians Imperial collapse just full-blown
12:26 civilization collapse for the Hittites and the city-state of Garrett and generalized Urban disintegration note at
12:33 a site like the city of gazer in fact it may be that the conditions of the Bronze Age collapsed allowed for the power
12:39 vacuum in which one rating as a means of survival would have emerged and a rating cult headed by a warrior raiding God
12:47 like Yahweh might have proven pretty popular in the chaos I mean imagine what
12:54 kind of religions would emerge in the world of Mad Max or something like that though
13 this was just speculation and that disruption in the Bronze Age collapse was probably what allowed the various
13:05 states to revolt resulting him or Not by putting them down but also especially
13:10 the collapse of Egyptian hegemony in the region and this is very important this would have allowed de facto Independence
13:16 especially in the Canaanite Highlands because who wants to go up there and it isn’t surprising to me that yahweh’s
13:22 cult in its military political state-building Wing would settle in relatively remote Shiloh before
13:29 spreading North and South into the highlands and then pushing West down into the Shayla to contest eventually
13:35 with the sea people who also got a foothold in former territory of Egyptian hegemony this of course is the peleset
13:42 as we know them from the Egyptian literature or from the Bible as well
13:47 you guessed it the Philistines thus by Iron 1 or roughly around 1200 to
13:53 1000 BCE Yale had probably come to settle in the Canaanite Highlands thus
13:59 marking the end of primitive yawism in the beginning of an incredibly complex process by which elements of Canaanite
14:06 religious and cultic systems would be negotiated with both the cult but also
14:11 the very Divine person of ihawei through a process of theological convergence and
14:17 assimilation Divergence and cultic antagonism and especially early
14:22 monarchic syncretism to appreciate this process it’s best to
14:28 explore this complex dialectic on two axes one being the Canaanite Pantheon itself but the other being the
14:34 progression through time from the period of the judges and through the monarchy’s complex cultic relationships marked by
14:41 syncretism in the north primarily but more punctuated by yalu monolatry and
14:46 the South before the eventual transition to monotheism and the exilic and really the post-exilic period so let’s begin by
14:54 exploring the Dynamics of theological convergence and Divergence or cultic antagonism with the Canaanite Pantheon
15:01 and Yahweh most of our knowledge of the Canaanite Pantheon stems from the
15:07 discoveries of vast Royal libraries of the city of uguerita another victim of
15:12 the Bronze Age collapse what has emerged from this Center are significant collections of mythological and cultic
15:19 documents deeply detailing the nature personalities and Mythic Deeds of the
15:26 various Canaanite gods in that Pantheon though two caveats are perhaps an order
15:32 the first is that the just Trove may represent a specifically Royal specifically ugaritic expression of the
15:38 Canaanite Theology and its myth Cycles the second is that these documents date to the mid 12th century at the latest
15:44 you know the city itself was probably destroyed around 1185 BCE which is
15:51 hundreds of years and still quite a distance away from the Locust classicus of the development of the Israelite cult
15:57 down a good bit southerly in the highlands thus we don’t know to what
16:03 degree the Canaanite occult expressed itself specifically in that region down in the highlands and this is especially
16:10 true because the Canaanite written record in that area is remarkably poor it’s it’s basically
16:18 non-existent so to what degree can we take the ogreidic text to be representative of Southern Highlander
16:24 text Highlander cult Notch clear but those caveats aside the head of the Canaanite Pantheon was the grandfatherly
16:31 god L simply God indeed some theories actually have that Yahweh was a local
16:37 very far Southern manifestation of L but I think that’s probably doubtful though
16:43 Deuteronomy 39 seems to be an archaic recall when Elion a manifestation of L
16:49 parceled out the world providing Yahweh specifically with the lands of Jacob Israel this is probably a rare survival
16:57 from a period where Yahweh was still kind of subservient to El Yan and before
17:03 theological convergence with L more generally however it’s clear that the
17:08 yahwists were pretty comfortable enough with L to allow for significant amounts
17:14 of assimilation of L fissures onto Yahweh even when those features perhaps
17:19 stood and significant contrast to the strident Warrior of the Primitive cult one of the
17:27 more striking features of these is the assimilation of L as an elderly wise God
17:32 L is known as the father of years and any ugaritic myth cycles and it’s
17:37 perhaps this image of an elderly white bearded deity as assimilated onto Yahweh from Canaanite L that has probably
17:44 proved the most visibly enduring and popular perception in art if you imagine an old bearded dude as God you’re
17:52 imagining L attached to this elder character is also L’s wisdom a trait not
17:57 typically Associated again with a warrior God they don’t need to be wiser smart further you always partially
18:04 converge as a Creator deity but only partially converged the name Yahweh
18:09 probably just meant the one that is or he is and was primitively not associated
18:15 with creative Powers again Warrior gods don’t do much creating stuff and the verbal form to twist his
18:22 name yodehave of hey into a creative form the verbal form that we known as the Phil in Hebrew
18:29 it never appears in Israelite literature thus it’s unsurprising that a great deal of the creative work in the Bible is
18:36 typically associated with the Divine names like L and especially Elohim even note a name like El Cana El creates
18:43 never really appears with a yoistic Theo form we never get a yahwistic version of
18:49 that name thus we have a situation where not only are elements of L assimilated to Yahweh but that the early Israelites
18:57 or even comfortable enough with a theological identity made between the two
19:04 they combine El in Yahweh it’s very clear in the Hebrew Bible thus many
19:09 elements of Canaanite L though not all of them definitely not all of them as we’ll see in a moment are assimilated to
19:16 Yahweh or with the identity being established the powers and features of L de facto become those of Yahweh an
19:25 element of this transfer especially in the earlier period was Elle’s Divine Council including a retinue of Quasi
19:33 Divine bureaucrats such as the prosecuting attorney hassatam but also the military leader the Tsar Sava but
19:40 also including the 70 signs of el are El Yom of course these Sons would also
19:45 later become demoted to angels as monotheism took root before descending to Earth to mate with human
19:51 women and Genesis 6 and all that gets developed of course in The Book of Enoch though like creation this assimilation
19:59 of the Divine counsel was not total the Suns always appear as sons of el the
20:04 Divine Appalachian there never of the sons of Yahweh though along with these originally quasi-devine beings would
20:11 also come my entire retinue of celestial objects because the sky especially things like stars the
20:18 Sun and the Moon that were all worshiped in the region as well one of those beings are probably Venus appears in the
20:26 Divine Council as a kind of insurgent upstart cast down to Canaanite the
20:31 underworld of the Israelites in an oracle against the king of Babylon probably Nebuchadnezzar of course this
20:38 character would later go on to become modified in Christian mythology to
20:43 become the satanic Lucifer in that tradition showing just how long of a
20:49 half-life these beings can have that being goes all the way back to ancient Canaanite Celestial mythology another
20:57 interesting instance has a deceptive Spirit of ruach Shakir being recruited by Yahweh to fool some of prophets to
21:05 ensure the death of King akhav of course Psalm 82 also captures this assimilation
21:10 of Elle’s Divine counsel very clearly he’s speaking to members of the Divine
21:16 Council that cult Gods perhaps the most peculiar assimilation of this to the
21:21 warrior God Yahweh are actually else trait says merciful and compassionate this is a
21:29 outstanding trait and sensible for the grandfather Lee l who even has a bit too
21:34 much to drink from time to time there are some great stories in the ugaritic myth Cycles about that and it is an
21:39 interesting but reasonable assimilation onto a god whose prehistory of warfare and brutal rating must transition
21:47 it has to transition when you go into a more sedentary cult where you know you can’t solve all your problems through
21:53 violence anymore even most of your problems through violence thus this
21:58 results in contemporary readers Whiplash reading the Hebrew Bible where the deity there seems to absolutely Delight
22:06 in waiting and blood of his foes and killing people and then you turn a few
22:11 pages later and this is a god whose mercy and compassion never fail that’s because you have two Gods being
22:17 welded together here who have very different traits of course not all elements of Yahweh were assimilated equally by the
22:24 Israelites one of the important epithets of L was Bull L and bull iconography
22:29 eventually all iconography especially in the South whilst apparently the
22:34 polarizing among the Israelites it appears that the northern variants of the cult accepted El Yahweh bull
22:41 iconography with jeroboam the first setting up very distinct bull imagery at his Yahweh shrines Yahweh shrines at
22:48 Bethel the name there House of L and Don the actually Don is the only surviving
22:55 Yahweh Shrine in the world from Antiquity at least along with tell a rod
23:01 in the South but it’s mostly then deconstructed and put in the Israel Museum these are the only two Yahweh
23:06 shrines that survive into the archaeological record now while this bull imagery might have been primitive
23:12 to Yahweh it’s much more likely that it was a northern assimilation from the El cult that the southern cult by the way
23:18 preferring the arcs cherubim as its major cult symbol but it was actually
23:23 just more generally anaconic in its disposition generally grouped to detest especially as the northern kingdom grew
23:30 in power and Prestige and well the am rides were very powerful and the southerners probably felt jealous of
23:36 them and hated their cows indeed the golden calf narrative itself may be a southern polemic against the Norse
23:43 assimilation of this dimension of Elle’s cult the importation of this bull imagery
23:48 finally L had a Divine consort a theoret but I’ll come back to her when I discuss
23:54 ashirah in just a moment if the relationship of Yahweh and Elle
24 was assimilation to convergence then the relationship with the Canaanite Warrior and storm God but all literally the Lord
24:07:00 is going to be characterized by assimilation to not only Divergence but
24:12:00 also just straight up cultic antagonism the discovery of the ugaritic bile cycle
24:18:00 has done more to inform our understanding of the local ancient mythology of that region than perhaps
24:23:00 any other group of texts outside of course from the Hebrew Bible here but all is famous for his triumphs over the
24:30:00 chaotic forces of the sea or yam his fight with death to the death when he
24:36:00 subsequently resurrected and achieved the taunt with moat or the god of death with the aid of the
24:41:00 Fierce fertility Warrior goddess anat thus providing for the life-giving winter range in the region before being
24:48:00 exalted as virtually the king of the entire world virtually every element of
24:54:00 the Baal cultists will intercept with Yahweh in his cult very probably because
24:59:00 of just how similar the deities were and how very
25:05:00 popular but all must have been compared with the relative upstart Yahweh in the
25:10:00 region as I mentioned both gods were associated with storms especially for their life-giving Reigns in the region
25:16:00 however they’re both associated with storms of very different kinds Yahweh
25:22:00 was likely associated with the terrifying thunderstorms and flash floods of the Southern Arava regions
25:27:00 whereas ball was Associated primarily with the coastal winter storms without which the Arid region would struggle to
25:35:00 bloom both storm gods very different kinds of storms however as Yahweh
25:41:00 settled into the region the motif of him as a writer upon the clouds one virtually shared with ba’al would be
25:47:00 extended not just to the thunderstorms of the South but also the coastal rains as well this element becomes assimilated
25:55:00 easily onto Yahweh numerous evidence of these storm theophonies abound though
26:02:00 Psalm 29 conforms so much with Baal imagery that some Scholars have just
26:08:00 kind of argued that it’s a literal Yahweh for all substitution him it’s like cut and paste Yahweh four but
26:15:00 although it’s a little simplistic further elements of all’s contests with the c
26:21:00 are yam and it’s Dragon loton are mirrored in early Israelite yawism with
26:26:00 a similar contest most notably in the third creation story of the Bible found in Psalm 74 and of course in job where
26:34:00 the defeat of sea monsters specifically Leviathan were a necessary aspect of forging the world from watery chaos to
26:41:00 order this is a pretty common myth cycle in the ancient New Year East ironically
26:46:00 this defeat of Leviathan would be later transposed into a world-ending apocalypse and later mutations of the
26:52:00 myth both in Judaism and in Christianity for their ball contest with death or
26:57:00 moat is often just demythologized in general such that Yahweh has control
27:03:00 over both life and death and in some passages you always even described as swallowing up death this is a very big
27:11:00 Flex an ironic Flex over yahweh’s power over life and death because it’s exactly
27:17:00 death best described in the great myth as having a gaping Mall it does the swallowing not
27:24:00 Gods further The Dwelling Place of Baal on Mount zafon modern-day Jebel Akra
27:30:00 became autonomized into Hebrew as just the word for North with Yahweh also
27:35:00 primitively associated with mountains especially Sinai Mariah the title El Shaddai probably is just another
27:41:00 reference to how a mountain L was assimilated over to Yahweh from the Acadian word for mountain though
27:48:00 eventually Mount Zion is eventually going to be substituted out for mount zathon for pride of place but the
27:55:00 metonymy zephon is the word for North it continues into Hebrew to this very day
28 of course with both being Warrior and storm Gods it’s unsurprising that Yahweh would be pitted against by all in cultic
28:07:00 combat it seems to be a video game but all’s popularity can be seen in the numerous over a dozen theonomic place
28:15:00 names associated with them these are probably local manifestations of Baal akin to the way that Roman gods were
28:21:00 locally manifest or even the way you get sort of avatars of Mary in various
28:26:00 places Our Lady of so and so and further the horror baal’s worship seems to have inspired in certain Israelite writers
28:32:00 and Prophets and further it’s also pretty clear that at least the first half of the monarchy there was a pretty
28:39:00 strong attempt to syncretize Yahweh but all worship which seems reasonable with
28:44:00 but all Coptic objects placed in otherwise specifically holistic shrines probably to please both the local
28:50:00 population but also the exogamous wives for whom ball was the central native God
28:57:00 in their religion the Israelites would marry outside of the Israelite group in order to basically secure
29:03:00 International relationships like everyone else thus this was very likely an attempt to assimilate Baal to Yahweh
29:09:00 just as with L in the north however the southern cult was never quite this comfortable and purges by several
29:16:00 Southern Kings such as by Hezekiah jehu and most famously Josiah sought to
29:22:00 completely duracinate non-yahweh worship and even non-jerusalemite Yahweh worship I didn’t
29:29:00 want you Worship in Yahweh somewhere else however it appears that by the 8th Century BCE that the Israelite prophets
29:35:00 such as Elijah and Elisha really really rejected any form of syncretism
29:42:00 and the narrative describes multiple contests like ordeals between the Israelite Yahweh partisans and the Baal
29:49:00 cult and the Ashera cult especially as backed by Ahab and his Phoenician wife
29:55:00 Jezebel who gets an unwarrantedly evil reputation you can hear by the way
30:01:00 the all theonm and her name in fact the scribes of the Hebrew Bible so hated by
30:06:00 all that theonimics employing his name underwent taboo replacement with the Hebrew word for shame thus
30:15:00 names like even the goddess astarta becomes
30:22:00 ashtareth using the vowel pattern from the word for shame to
30:28:00 muck about with her name further the phrase principal or bowel’s bull
30:33:00 famously becomes the Lord of the Flies and even Daniel’s term for the
30:39:00 abomination of desolation may become actually a pun on Baal Shaman
30:46:00 or ball of the heavens thus that the Heavenly is thrown down thus but all in
30:52:00 Yahweh are probably of mutual victims of what Freud called the narcissism of minor
30:57:00 difference they’re just that similar the stage of ancient Canaan of ancient Israel just being well too small for two
31:05:00 Warrior storm gods and with only a minor exception but all basically vanishes from the religious record and Canaan by
31:12:00 the post-exilic period though of course but all would go on to continue to function in The Phoenician deity system
31:18:00 as melkart as late as the rise of Christian hegemony in the late Classical period so
31:25:00 one God had to go and at least in that region it ended up being ba’al
31:30:00 though while not directly bearing on the development of Yahweh as a God but more
31:35:00 so on yahuism as a cult is a question of how else consort a theraat would or
31:40:00 would not be incorporated Ashira she appears in the Hebrew is mentioned some 40 times throughout the Hebrew Bible
31:47:00 though overwhelmingly in reference to a kind of wooden ritual poll that probably
31:53:00 represents a sacred tree of fertility which in turn of course represents the goddess herself though there are a
32 couple times where she’s mentioned as a peso Asha ra set up by Menasha this is probably an engraved representation of
32:06:00 her maybe like those ones from the Bronze Age of her cupping her breath so
32:12:00 we don’t know unsurprisingly the cult of asherah was very popular and it seems
32:17:00 reasonable for many reasons fertility is popular that Yahweh L assimilation
32:22:00 convergence would also result in consort exchange such that El athirat would
32:28:00 become Yahweh ashirah and that seems to be precisely what happened
32:33:00 though of course not without some hella theological controversy several Israelite and Judean Kings seem
32:41:00 to have placed her cultic symbol in Yahweh temples and equally stridently Elijah contested with her prophets and
32:47:00 the prophets of Baal and murdered them all at least according to the text and Josiah targeted her cult in
32:54:00 his Inquisition reforms indeed it’s the deuteronomists particularly that have
33 the most deeply concerned worries about the elimination of her cult her exact status
33:06:00 in this period is contested while the two famous inscriptions at kuntalit adrude and kirbat elkom seemed to
33:13:00 indicate that her status was as consort of Yale despite that
33:19:00 pesky pronomial suffix which no one quite seems to know just what to
33:24:00 do with and there is 50 000 volumes on that one polynomial suffix the
33:30:00 overwhelming concern about her is the Adoration of her cult object itself especially in Yahweh shrines they may
33:37:00 have been okay with Yahweh having a wife but not her occult object in the same Shrine
33:43:00 while we have to acknowledge the policy of evidence here it seems reasonable to me that she did function as you always
33:49:00 consort but that this ill assimilation was heavily theologically contested especially in the South with the more
33:56:00 emergent Yahweh monoliters the cult object probably represented the Goddess that seems
34:03:00 almost ipso facto true it clearly became associated with Yahweh the deuteronomous
34:08:00 constantly complained about it and the logic of L convergence seems likely that the two were conceived together despite
34:14:00 again the general anaconic and Yahweh monology parties eventually that would emerge and obtain cultic hegemony
34:21:00 especially in the south now to what degree asherah and astarte Ishtar were assimilating this period is
34:28:00 unknown the answer is probably maybe and further there’s a vague reference to a being called the Queen of Heaven very
34:35:00 disdained by Jeremiah who this is is also unknown though the term for the cakes that are offered to the Queen of
34:41:00 Heaven and that text there are actually Acadian loan words they’re coming over from the Acadian language so it seems
34:48:00 like a nod in the direction of Ishtar a start day assimilation but we don’t know with the exception of a few names
34:54:00 especially in very archaic sources there in the song of devorah the fertility and
34:59:00 Warrior goddess anat seems to play basically little to no role in this period of the development of yahwism and
35:06:00 maybe just in the whole cultic environment of Canaan though the Bloodshed imagery associated with
35:11:00 ugaritic are not her wading through blood and gore and decapitated heads rolling about her feet and dismembered
35:18:00 hands flying into the air about her like locusts
35:23:00 this needs to be metal song why isn’t there a bang metal band called anat you see very similar kinds of depictions of
35:31:00 Yahweh delighting and warfare and Carnage in the song of devorah but honestly I would just suspect that
35:37:00 primitive Yahweh and I’m not actually would just have made a better couple than Yahweh and asherah given their
35:43:00 proclivity to massacring people you get kind of Natural Born Killer vibes from that
35:49:00 couple but I suspect the similarities are probably just endemic to ancient total warfare hacking people to death on
35:55:00 the battlefield than any actual theological convergence or assimilation between Yahweh and anat
36:02:00 of course your wisdom would undergo further assimilation to Canaanite mythology especially the the
36:08:00 mythologizing of the plague God’s reshef and devair literally burning and plague
36:14:00 terrifying Gods who come to serve as nightmarish steeds pulling the Divine Chariot that is an image in the Hebrew
36:21:00 Bible or metal or the literary transfer of the mighty Regal dead of the Rapa Uma
36:27:00 of the ugaritic mythology to the refaim as Giants defeated by biblical figures as a show of force in the Hebrew Bible
36:34:00 in fact I’ve done an entire episode tracing out just the development and history of the refaim from ancient
36:41:00 Canaanite into ancient Israelite mythology if you want to check it out that’s a fascinating development with
36:46:00 the refahim all in all what we have is a complex non-linear process whereby
36:52:00 primitive yawism and Yahweh become implanted into the post Bronze Age collapse of the area of the Canaanite
36:59:00 Israelite Highlands becoming the chief though not the sole god of the immersion
37:04:00 Israelites again this is a famous henotheism of the period and he becomes a core aspect of their emergent National
37:12:00 hegemony in the region the earlier period is marked by theological convergence and Divergence assimilation
37:19:00 and conflict all with the local Canaanite Cults and their gods with a tendency towards syncretism and
37:26:00 originally the more affluent northern areas but this earns the ire of both the southern Yahweh
37:33:00 partisans who have may have been already on the path or developing in the direction of monolatry and anachronism
37:39:00 along with a small fraction of Northern Prophet shamans with the destruction of
37:45:00 the north and 722 BCE the northern Yahweh refugees would be absorbed into the more anti-syncretistic anaconic in
37:52:00 Yahweh monolatres Southern cult this would develop in fits and starts until
37:57:00 the rule of Josiah and the deteronomists whose reforms are
38:03:00 better Inquisition not only sought out to eliminate non-yahweh worship from
38:08:00 this Kingdom but also non-jerusalemite Yahweh worship again
38:13:00 Theology and politics are the same thing here in centralizing one centralizes the other by necessity hence the destruction
38:20:00 of even Yahweh shrines in the region like that one that was torn down there at Tel a rod with the 6th Century BCE
38:27:00 Exile of the Judean Elites who are probably majority Yahweh monoliders or
38:32:00 even early monotheists maybe the Theology of the Exile and the post-exile would represent a massive shift from a
38:39:00 parochial Judean God to a singular Cosmic god with a clear expression of
38:44:00 monotheism first emerging in texts like trito Isaiah monotheism would Mark the
38:50:00 post-exilic period yaw wism went into exile Judaism came back and that’s the
38:56:00 point I’d like to drive home in my mind the transition to the universal monotheism of Judaism would come at a
39:03:00 price and that price would be the particularism of Yahweh
39:08:00 as Yahweh far from the Primitive Warrior storm god of the desert Wilds of the
39:14:00 Arava or even the Quilted together deity Forge in the religious Crucible of
39:20:00 contestation and assimilation of the period of the judges in the northern and southern kingdoms the theological
39:25:00 tension would now be between the god of Judaism as a people both Sovereign and diasporic with a truly Universal being
39:33:00 transcending all differences responsible for even the cosmos itself even
39:39:00 abstracted to utter Transcendence by both apocalyptic mysticism and
39:45:00 Hellenistic philosophy the distinction now would be what kind of universal God are you going to get a parochial Judaism
39:51:00 one or a more philosophical abstract one and it would be the promise of universal salvation reserved once only for the
39:58:00 judeans Matched by this Cosmic apocalypticism and escotherological fervor in which Yahweh
40:07:00 would become a father to a sacrifice son for the Salvation of both Jew and
40:12:00 Gentile that would set the stage for the next part of this epic Story the
40:18:00 transition of Yahweh from a Judean God to Simply God for billions and billions
40:25:00 of human beings as I mentioned the literature in this field is vast and highly technical
40:32:00 however I’d like to recommend a few volumes if you want to dive deeper into this topic and if this episode interests
40:37:00 you you need to by all means the early history of God and the origins of biblical monotheism by Mark Smith is
40:44:00 fantastic John day’s Yahweh and the gods and gods of Canaan is a classic Frank
40:50:00 Moore crosses Canaanite myth and Hebrew epic along with the religions of ancient
40:55:00 Israel by sioni zevitt are all both and great for a diplomatic history of Israel from a
41:01:00 archaeological point of view rather than just the text the aptly name book by devair beyond the text and
41:07:00 archaeological portrait of ancient Israel in ancient Judah it’s very diplomatic in a fine text although his
41:14:00 book has archeology buried the Bible it’s kind of like the too long didn’t read it version of the book I just mentioned so
41:20:00 if you want to read another one that one’s a good one it’s kind of a digest of the more specialized text
41:25:00 Theodore Lewis’s more recent the origin and character of God ancient Israelite Israelite religion through the lens of
41:31:00 divinity is also just a beast of a text a magisterial approach and well worth
41:36:00 the effort as I said this episode is a testament to not letting the perfect
41:42:00 be the enemy of the good this episode is incomplete it throws way too fast over a
41:47:00 lot of topics and honestly this could just be an entire semester class at the
41:52:00 very least and require sophisticated knowledge of ancient near East history and several ancient languages not to
41:59:00 mention just an encyclopedic grasp of the Hebrew Bible and Canaanite myth more generally
42:06:00 despite the Myriad shortcomings of this episode I hope it’s still useful for
42:11:00 grasping at some level where Scholars are on the mysterious origin and
42:17:00 development of Yahweh a God we all know and yet
42:22:00 we still have to admit we know so little of until next time I’m Dr Justin Sledge and
42:30:00 thank you for watching esoterica where we explore the Arcane in history
42:35:00 philosophy and religion o is underneath:


Moses and Elijah sledge the false prophets (1:38min)

The prophets of Baal died from the thrash metal (lolz).



Craig Davis, Dating the Old Testament, (RJ Communications, 2007)

27 E. E. Elnes and Patrick D. Miller, “Elyon,” DDD, 296.

See the chapter on Stylometrics in the Dark Sayings Commentary:


War against Yahweh

War against Yahweh

Article as a PDF: PDF download

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.

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:
Gematria calculator here:


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).


Nothing new under the sun

Nothing new under the sun

Article as a PDF: PDF download

This article is in response to a trend that is emerging on the internet to drive a wedge between the Old Testament and the New Testament and to portray the God of the OT (Yahweh) as somehow different to the Christian God.  It is in essence an attack on the roots of Christianity, and it starts by casting doubt on Yahweh which if unchecked develops into an full on attack against Christianity itself as a Jewish plot to convince the “goyim” to passively accept the Jewish takeover of the world and turning of the “goyim” into a slave race.

This sort of attack is often coupled with a form of Gnosticism.  The Gnostics emphasize personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis). Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity.   As the preacher says, there is nothing new under the sun as in the first century Marcion of Sinope preached that God had sent Jesus Christ who was an entirely new, alien god, distinct from the vengeful God of Israel who had created the world. He rejected the Old Testament and wrote his own gospel. He was of course kicked out the church in 144 AD.

Directly or indirectly the Jews are behind many of the attacks to subvert the gospel.   The apostle Paul warned against false brethren transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ and adds that Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light (2 Cor 11:13-14).  The Masons and the illuminati believe that Satan is the “illuminator” the bringer of light and knowledge (gnosis) that the cruel Yahweh of Eden wanted to prevent.  So we see that there really is nothing new under the sun and these heresies are ancient. Christians were warned in the epistle of John to “test the spirits” which means that they should test those who claimed to have the Holy Spirit but yet were preaching a gospel that declared that Jesus was not come in the flesh (human nature). The Gnostics with their “hidden knowledge” and claims that the material world was inherently evil were in fact the spirit of antichrist. (1 John 4:1-3).

Historically, wherever the Jews obtain power through Bolshevism and revolution they seek to persecute and abolish Christianity.  The Jews subvert every society and every religion (even their own) in their goal to become “gods”.  They attempt to undermine all Christian values regarding family, ethics, and norms. Christian values are themselves based on a proper understanding, development, and application of OT principles. For centuries Christianity has been  the bulwark against Jewish supremacy and narcissism.  And yet we have certain people claiming that Christianity is a “Jewish plot” and should be removed. They are doing the Jews bidding and one must assume that they are either compromised or lacking discernment.

The Yahweh of the Old Testament was the God that Jesus prayed to, and Jesus’ name means Yah Saves (yahshuah). In the Old Testament Yahweh promised a way back (messianic redemption through Eve), stopped human sacrifice and provided his own means of redemption (story of Abraham) delivered his people from the land of death (Egyptian Passover) and revealed himself as the one who, “will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy” (Exod. 33:1). The ontological telos of creation is God manifestation or “becoming” which is solely the divine prerogative (He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth,  Rom 9:18) and not an act of self-deification the Causa sui of our predicament and something that Jesus refused to do. So much so, that he put ego to death and claimed no hidden gnosis only an ultimate trust and love for the Father that overrode even his instinct for survival.He learned obedience through the things he suffered (Heb 5:8).

 Child Sacrifice was an abomination to Yahweh and the Jews were castigated by the prophet Amos for bearing the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of their god (Amos 5:26) which they still honor with the black box tied on the forehead (cf. Muslim black stone and black Kaaba) which is all of course linked to the occult worship of the black cube of Saturn.  So, Yahwehism rejected child sacrifice, occult practices, and cannibalism.

Jesus himself has been accused of promoting cannibalism by his hard saying in John 6:53;Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”.   Many of Jesus disciples left him after this shocking pronouncement and the Catholic Church has turned it into the ridiculous dogma of Transubstantiation.   This is due to the curse of literalism that is prone to strike those who are not spiritual.  The saying is clearly about identifying with him in such a manner that we are baptized into his death (and resurrection) and our flesh and blood (human nature) become like his flesh and blood.  In other words, it is about adopting a new identity (ironic in this age of identity politics) in which Jesus represents us and we become like him (which is to say that we put self-to death) in being completely subject to the Father. The eucharist is a symbolic expression of the church becoming one body united in Christ.  It is the ultimate “identity politics” because individually and collectively we recognize that we must put sin to death and subject ourselves to the Father and this can only be done through the means that Yahweh provided because Yah Saves (Jesus or Yahshuah). Now we turn to the supposed quotes that prove that Yahweh is a vengeful, cannibalistic God in contradiction to all that both the New and Old Testament teach:

Jeremiah 19:9: "And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege..." (Yahweh caused this)

The comment in parenthesis has been added as proof that a prophetic pronouncement delivered by the prophet Jeremiah as a warning of what would happen for continued disobedience was somehow God’s fault.   It obviously turns on the phrase “I will make them” which is true because God would create the circumstances that would force them to be confronted with the consequences of their actions. God creates both light and darkness: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (Isa 45:7).  God is in control  there is no dualism.  The God who brings the blessing of rain also brings droughts.  Does that mean that God takes pleasure in suffering and “wants” them to eat their sons and daughters? Ezekiel who was contemporary with Jeremiah and who speaks for Yahweh says this: Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezek 33:11).  God did not desire them to endure this horror but they would not accept correction. The Prophet Jeremiah moved by the spirit of Yahweh wept for the people. “But if ye will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride; and mine eye shall weep sore, and run down with tears, because the LORD’S flock is carried away captive” (Jer. 13:17). They refused to listen and sat down to a banquet of consequences which included eating their own children. Yahweh took no pleasure in this and wanted repentance. Likewise, Jesus: Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam (the one who is sent) fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?   I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:4-5).  Whoever has the Father (Yahweh) also has the son.  Whoever does not have the Father, does not have the Son either. Repent.

And now we come to the “gotcha” moment. A text which demonstrates a complete lack of “gnosis”  discounting intertextuality, source and form criticism, textual-criticism or any attempt at contextualization people rush to fit the surface meaning of a text that they do not understand to establish their pet theories.

Judges 11. The judge Jephthah had just won a battle over the Ammonites, and vowed that he would offer the first thing that came out of his house as a burnt offering to Yahweh. However, his only child, an unnamed daughter, came out to meet him dancing and playing a tambourine (v. 34). She encourages Jephthah to fulfill his vow (v. 36) but asks for two months to weep for her virginity (v. 38). After this period of time Jephthah fulfilled his vow and offered his daughter. (a human sacrifice to Yahweh to which Yahweh did not stop or command Jephthah to stop in pursuing this action)

Once again the Parenthesis has been added by way of “clarification” reading into the text things that are simply not there and assigning motives and actions that we are not told about.  This is a classic example of poor exegesis.

Jephthah is mentioned in the roll of honor as a man of faith in Hebrews 11:32. So whatever else he might be, he is also a Christian hero of faith.  Does this mean that Yahweh wants Christians to slaughter their virgin daughters? (lolz).  Remember this is the same God that forbade child sacrifice in Israel and who stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac.  That was a turning point in religious history. All cultures practiced human sacrifice.   Some two thousand years later when Jesus hung on the cross Mesoamericans were still sacrificing humans. In fact, the Aztecs were ripping out human hearts until the time of Columbus which is only a relatively recent 500 years ago.  Why would the God that halted human sacrifice want Jephthah to offer his virgin daughter? Jephthah was no stranger to such passages as the following: “Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 18:21).

“Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters have they burnt in the fire to their gods” (Deut. 12:30,31).

“There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch” (Deut. 18:10).

Exegetes who want this to be about human sacrifice are the ones with the problem.  Watch them squirm as they attempted to reconcile the blatantly obvious because it contradicts what Yahweh unambiguously states elsewhere.

The phrase: “And I will offer it up for a burnt offering” is ambiguous in the Hebrew. It may mean what this AV rendering says. Or it may be read: “And I will offer to him (to the Lord) a burnt offering”. (Other examples of this grammatical construction are to be found in Zech. 7:5; Josh. 15:19; Neh. 9:28; Job 31:18; Isa. 22:20.) This second alternative gives the idea that besides the dedication of a person Jephthah was also vowing a sacrifice.

That this is the correct reading is established by another grammatical detail — the AV reading: “offer it up for (or, as) a burnt offering” would require a prepositional prefix to represent “for”, and this is not there in the text. Other passages combine to reinforce the interpretation offered here. If Samuel could be dedicated to the service of the sanctuary for life, why not Jephthah’s daughter? The Hebrew word for “offer a burnt offering” is used for going up to the sanctuary of the Lord and for personal dedication there (1 Sam. 1:7,21,22,24; 2:19).

And now it makes sense.  His daughter mourned her virginity because she was dedicated to a life of celibate service in the tabernacle. Jephthah was expecting to have to give to God, in fulfilment of his vow, a person and not an animal; or to be more precise, both a person and a burnt offering. His words were: “Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me….shall surely be the Lord’s.” There is no point in stressing “whatsoever (as distinct from whomsoever) cometh forth”: the word “whatsoever” is a Hebrew masculine, for in such a sentence the masculine would cover all genders.  The burnt offering consumed completely by fire represented complete dedication and consecration thus Jesus could declare; “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up” (John 2:17) his whole life consumed like a burnt offering.  Repent.

And now the final quote:

Deuteronomy 13:16: "Then you shall gather all its booty into the middle of its open square and burn the city and all its booty with fire as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God; and it shall be a ruin forever. It shall never be rebuilt." (As spoken in in the later verse of 18, it states that "because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.")

I fail to see the problem with this text. A city that has apostatized and followed children of Belial (v.13) and false prophets (v.1) who encouraged them to serve “other gods” (like Molech).  Cities that had degenerated into permissiveness (like Sodom and Gomorrah) were to be destroyed. Utter destruction is akin to a whole burnt offering.  Some things cannot be fixed and need to be burnt down.  Destruction is coming to this age as well. Repent.


The people perish due to lack of understanding and pride. The truth has been swamped by a deluge of syncretism and a deliberate attempt to confuse and obfuscate especially by those who want to induct us into a “new age” (religion). Very fitting that the last quote comes from a chapter that speaks of the “dreamer of dreams” (v.1) and false prophets with their dreams and hidden knowledge (gnosis) encouraging them to abandon faith;  “Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;   Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (v.2-3).

The Jews and their Shabbos goy want us to either reject Christianity or adapt it to Noahide precepts or they want to change it into some all-encompassing mishmash of new age consciousness gnostic gobbledygook. The lesson from Scripture is that man cannot transcend through his own efforts. The altering of mind, body and spirit is only something God can do. Anyone who tells you otherwise is repeating the lie of the serpent.

Finally, the Christian is not to be passive.  That does not mean we should start a revolution but we must speak up and bear witness to the truth without fear or favour. Only God will defeat this enemy (and in truth already has on the cross) but we must play our part for it is important that the truth be heard and that we overcome the world.  This is a spiritual battle and will be won with spiritual weapons. Citing the apostle Paul who was filled with the Spirit of Yahweh and who preached the gospel of Yahshuah:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." (Galatians 5:22-23).

There are many out there who “wrest Scripture” (2 Pet 3:16) to their own destruction, they are unstable and unlearned; Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof: from such turn away (2 Tim 3:5).

Good Friday

Good Friday

It is Good Friday the start of the Christian holiday known to most people as Easter. Of course, Easter itself is based on the Jewish Passover and is the feast associated by Christians with the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is interesting that Victoria police should use Easter to put out a PR message to placate a public that they have brutalized during the lockdowns.  Even though their message is deliberately anti-Christian and pagan they inadvertently do us a favor by highlighting important issues.

We have two “bunnies” and the mention of Lucifer and Azazel in this tweet. Many Jews would equate Azazel (Lev 16:8) with Lucifer and the choice of two bunnies is a deliberate play on choosing two goats for the Day of Atonement feast.  One goat (known as the scapegoat) was released and sent to Azazel (sent to the devil) and the other goat was sacrificed. I have written extensively on the scapegoat phenomenon but essentially the goat that is sent away into exile is the nation of Israel and the goat that was sacrificed is Christ.  The Gospels relate the passion scene as a combination of both feasts (Passover and Atonement) with Jesus (the son of the Father) sacrificed (Goat for Yahweh) and the other son of the father (Barabbas the goat for Azazel) released.   

The Passion of the Christ (2004) – Free Barabbas (3 min)


Indeed, it is speculated by some that Barabbas might have been one of those who abandoned discipleship (John 6:66) because Jesus refused to be crowned King (John 6:15) and to lead a violent revolt against the Romans.  If that is the case, then Barabbas as an ex-disciple would have been tried for insurrection and murder (Mark 15:7) not just for robbery.


John 6, the chapter in which many disciples abandon the Christ is the famous “hard saying” (John 6:60) which is about “eating him” (John 6:57).   This deliberately proactive saying was an abomination to the Jews with their kosher food laws and is also misunderstood as the doctrine of transubstantiation by some Christians.


It is something more “modern” that has been taken up by “identity politics”.  In the present clown world of cultural Marxism, you can choose to identify as male/female or whatever you may wish.  In Contrast by the act of the eucharist and eating bread and drinking wine Christians are making a statement that they identify with Christ (John 6:54-56).  In other words, the Christian is demonstrating that his flesh and blood has become joined to the flesh and blood of Christ. Our humanity becomes like his humanity which is dead to ego expressed as sin.  This does not mean that we are sinless but that we (like Abraham) are counted as righteous because of faith. The two ritual instructions given to us by Christ (baptism and the eucharist) are both concerned with identifying with him.    Jesus becomes the fulfilment of the two critical Jewish feasts.  He is both the goat slain for Yahweh on the Day of Atonement and the Lamb of God (John 1:29) killed on Passover and celebrating the deliverance out of the land of death (Egypt with its Pyramid tombs).

Pagan Easter or Christian Easter?

Many Christians point out that the Christian celebration of the Lord’s Passover has been paganised with “chocolate eggs” etc which are ancient symbols of fertility rites.  They are of course correct because there is an element of syncretism just as there is with the celebration of Christmas.

On these matters I take the advice of the apostle Paul (Rom 14:5-6) and although I do enjoy my chocolate eggs and easter buns I believe it is incumbent that Christians understand the importance of feast and if they are not running around naked worshiping a fertility goddess no harm no foul. It is however very interesting to understand the origins of Easter or Astarte in ancient Canaanite religion and how this relates to ancient Israel. Serious biblical scholars have known for some time that the Canaanite Baal had a consort (wife) called Astarte.  We should not be surprised that this carried over to ancient Israelite religion where Yahweh was worshipped with a consort and that this was condemned by the prophets.   Abraham was a former inhabitant of Ur where polytheistic religion was practiced when he received his revelation and was told to leave.  The point is that the Old Testament depicts God as having a consort, but that consort (wife) becomes the people of faith (in the first place Israel) which was made to drink the waters of jealousy (Ex 32:20, Num 5:22) and given a bill of divorce for her whoredoms (cf. Hos 1:2).  I recommend watching this video by William Dever who mentions Margret (I believe that is a reference to Margert Barker who I have corresponded with) and at about 54 minutes Leen Ritmijer (Who some of you may know).   In any case the setting up of cult centres at Dan and Beersheba should be familiar to any Bible student as that was instigated by Jeraboam (1 Kings 12:27-33). Moreover, the centralization of the cult was undertaken by the reformers Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4-5) and Josiah (2 Kings 23:5-25).

William Dever on “Did God Have a Wife? Folk Religion in Ancient Israel” (1:13)

Is Yahweh Male or Female?

In the NT God is depicted as male and addressed by Jesus as a Father.  Of course, we are dealing with anthropomorphic symbology because God is depicted as both male and female, but at the same time he is neither male nor female.  God does not need to reproduce because he is eternal, and we are his offspring (Acts 17:28) made in his image (Gen 1:26). The El Shaddai epithet used in the OT denotes the female aspect of divine nature, namely “breasts”, denoting fertility and blessing epitomised in the promise to Eve (whose name means mother of the living Gen 3:20) that through pain and suffering the messianic ideal would be birthed. The point is that Yahweh is calling out a consort (wife) as a bride for his son with the Baptist depicted as the bridegroom (John 3:29) and the church as a bride (John 21:2) being invited to a wedding feast (the messianic banquet Matt 22:8-14, it is wedding garments/done Luke 14:22, garments (Rev 16:15-17) the banquet is Armageddon the Super of the Great God (Rev 19:17)) where the water for purifying the Jews (John 2:6) is transformed into the wine (blood) of the covenant.  So, the ancient, corrupted symbols are being repurposed and demythologised to reflect their original intent.


Transhumanist (Jews) are trying to deify themselves and undo the blessing of fertility by becoming androgynous. Shekhinah, the ‘cloud of Yahweh’ in the Bible, a synonym for God’s presence in the rabbinic tradition, and a feminine hypostasis in the Kabbalah, is a popular theological image in contemporary Jewish feminist circles.  The Kabbalists want to unite Yahweh with his consort the Shekinah:

Shekhinah, the tenth sefirah, represents God’s presence in the world of “material reality” in which humans live. Shekhinah, the daughter of Binah, is a feminine sefirah whose role is to channel all the energies of the upper nine sefirot into the everyday human world. Without Shekhinah, humans would have no concrete understanding of divinity. Kabbalistic literature typically portrays that Shekhinah as an outcast, a lone sefirah. Her separation from Ein Sof and the other sefirot parallels the exile of the Jewish people from their homeland of Israel. Because Shekhinah is a part of Ein Sof, Ein Sof can never be whole or healed until Shekhinah returns from exile, just as Jews can never know peace until all Jews can return to Israel. Kabbalistic literature symbolically represents this return in the sexual union of Shekhinah and Tiferet, the sefirah that represents God’s beauty. Kabbalists all share the same aim: to unite Shekhinah with Tiferet through faithful devotion to Kabbalah, and in turn bring about the restoration of Ein Sof.

The failure of the church

The Christian church has failed miserably in opposing transhumanism, tyranny, and war.  There is only one Church and one body composing of Jews and Gentiles over the ages. No churches are without fault (doctrinal or otherwise) and yet Jesus is able to redeem faithful individuals even from the most corrupt churches (Rev 2:24).

The Good Shepherd

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
One God and Father of all, who is above all,
and through all, and in you all
(Ephesians 4:5-6)

There is only one flock and one shepherd.

The Cacodemon

The Cacodemon

Christopher Jon Bjerknes discusses his book Satanic Secrets of Jesus Christ which basically sees the whole Bible including the NT as a plot by the Jews to take over the world.  The Gentiles have been fooled into believing in Yahweh who is a Cacodemon and taken in by Jesus who is really a Satanic Serpent.    No, I did not make that up…that is what he is putting forward and he lends it credibility by conflating numerous myths and presenting a pseudo-intellectual argument that falls apart as soon as you start pulling on the threads. It is only superficially plausible because so few people are familiar with Scripture or with hermeneutical techniques. The stream is about four and a half hours and my video response is bellow.

Running Order

The running order is taken from the Dojo website. If you watch it there the time stamps will take you to the relevant section.

  • 00:14:31 Start
  • 00:20:30 Jon Bierknes call-in, modern bolshevism
  • 00:49:18 Arimanius in DuckDuckGo, Google
  • 00:50:20 Yaltabaoth in DuckDuckGo, Google
  • 00:51:50 Alexander Dugan, Kabbalah, “national socialism is national bolshevism”
  • 00:55:10 1962 David Ben Gurion “in the future, the Soviet Union will expand into a Eurasian empire”, Putin, Chabad Lubavitch
  • 01:00:18 Gnostic Christianism, Jesus as serpent on the tree of good and evil
  • 01:04:40 Story of Noah, olive branch, vineyard, Noah as Satan drinking the venom of the snake, archetipes, opposites
  • 01:18:00 Stealing the knowledge from the first born, unripe knowledge, Moses, serpent on a stick, Plato’s Atlantis
  • 01:22:42 Why be concerned about Russia? Jens Stoltenberg, Norvegian communist in charge of NATO
  • 01:24:45 SARS, dual-use research, advantageous polymorphisms, ties between Israel and South Africa, George Galloway
  • 01:30:20 Religious aspect will be pushed very hard
  • 01:33:00 “Adam was a single man, he was actually an androgyne”, “all humanity, with the exception of Noah’s family, was exterminated”, androgynous and immortal jews
  • 01:41:00 Justinian Deception
  • 01:41:36 Chabad Lubavitch, Sabbateans, Rothschild, jews killed their first-borns, use of the word “goyim”
  • 01:46:06 Israel pushed through technocratic conversion, “the big jews are going to kill them all too”, “the poision is unripe technology”
  • 01:49:00 Tree of life in Kabbalah, Tikkum Olam
  • 01:51:00 Historic evidence of Jesus
  • 01:56:30 Greeks, Egyptian, Hitite biological warfare, scape goating process, poisoning the wells
  • 02:00:10 Hiding knowledge, controlled opposition, troll farms, Castillian kabbalists in the 1200s
  • 02:11:00 “Ham sodomized Noah” Sahnedrin 70a.18
  • 02:12:00 Reappearance of Satan, Zohar Bereshit, Drunk on D’vine, The Cup of God’s Wrath, Deuteronomy 28 “You will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. The lord will make you the head, not the tail”, gentiles responsible for making Jews usurers?
  • 02:29:50 Orthodox Christianity, Jesus is Satan, Christians turned agains their own God, “Christians celebrate this mutilated corpse hanging off a cross”
  • 02:32:00 Tikkum Olam, technology used in a destructive way, freeing the sparks from the body of gentiles, Hesiod, metallic ages
  • 02:35:00 Christianity is the Leviathan, Islam is the Behemoth, Middle-Eastern War, Aristotle and Plato on usury, Thomas Jefferson
  • 02:46:07 “Those Christians who opposed usury relied upon the Pagans, upon Aristotle and Plato”
  • 02:52:01 Deuteronomy 15, “At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts.”, Deuteronomy 15.3
  • 03:12:00 Zecharia 14, soul and matter, neoplatonism
  • 03:24:00 Paracelsus: “The poison is the cure”
  • 03:50:33 End Jon Bjerknes call-in

The Cacodemon conquers the world (1:02 min)

My video response:

The blog article below includes my previous video response and a link to CJB ‘s previous stream (Are you being punked?) with Dr Kevin McCairn in which CJB demonstrated a complete lack of understanding regarding the function and origins of Scapegoat typology on the Day of Atonement.  Despite explaining the scapegoat ritual and leaving links to articles (See: Are you being punked?) Christopher continues to ignore the evidence.

Are you listening to a pied piper?