Strange God, Strange Flesh

The subject of this post was treated in an earlier post on this blog entitled 'The Most Disturbing Scripture'. This earlier post was written in the ecstatic, first- blush passion of new discovery. The subject deserves more.

The revelation which immediately preceded the writing of 'The Most Disturbing Scripture' and indeed prompted its writing was: The first mention in scripture concerning the existence of evil comes in the negative sense-- inasmuch as the text cites the absence of good, not the presence of evil (which is thoroughly the same thing)-- and imprecates the LORD God as the 'original sinner': responsible for creating the 'no- good man', Adam, "not good [Genesis 2:18b]."

Some say the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist. The same can be said in many ways of God: too many ways to begin enumerating, here. In scripture, one of the ways God 'hides' is by allowing 'the children of the devil [John 8:44]' to write 'the word of God'.

In Genesis 1, it's "God" in the beginning: speaking; observing; working; etcetera. This remains so three verses into Genesis 2. In verse 4 of chapter 2, "the LORD God" appears, and passages mentioning the aforementioned "God" are too- few- and- far- between until the Gospels, for my comfort. "God is love [1 John 4:8b, et. al.]," after all. A world without love is a worse fate than hell, where, "behold, thou art there [Psalms 139:8d &e]."

So, who is "the LORD God?" According to Alexander Hislop, this word 'the Lord' deserves some attention. In 'The Two Babylons' (Chapter 2; Section 2: 'The Mother and Child, and the Original of the Child'), Hislop cites the Roman poet Publius Ovidius Naso's [a.k.a. "Ovid"] (ca. 43 B.C. to A.D. 18) poem, 'The Fasti' (ca. A.D. 8), saying: "The Greek Belus, as representing the highest title of the Babylonian god, was undoubtedly Baal, "The Lord."" Later (in Chapter 2; Section 2; Sub- Section 1: 'The Child in Assyria'), Hislop cites this earlier citation: "Baal, as we have already seen, signified "The Lord"; but Bel signified "The Confounder.""

One thing scripture is clear about is that, in the mind of David the patriarch-- and perhaps in those of the Philistines who made him 'holy [1 Samuel 29:9]' before Samuel's annointing 'took effect'-- both these terms "the LORD"; and "God" refer to Baal:

2 Samuel 5:20 records: "And David came to Baal-perazim, and David smote [the Philistines] there, and said, The LORD hath broken forth upon mine enemies before me, as the breach of waters. Therefore [David] called the name of that place Baal-perazim." Accordingly, it's been noted that: as far as 'father' Davey is concerned, "the LORD" and "Baal" are 'One';

1 Chronicles 14:11 records the same event, thus: "So [the Philistines] came up to Baal-perazim; and David smote them there. Then David said, God hath broken in upon mine enemies by mine hand like the breaking forth of waters: therefore [the Philistines] called the name of that place Baal-perazim." Otherwise, the final "they" bracketed above as [the Philistines] is one of a very limited number of scriptural usages of the term "they" to indicate Jewry.

It's always 'Us and Them' to Jewish scribes. We-- speaking as a Gentile and child of God-- are "they," and they are "us," as a rule, in Hebraic scriptural references. When it's otherwise, it's usually a heavenly speaker whose words are recorded, as in "the song of Moses [Revelation15:3]" recorded in Deuteronomy 32.

Nonetheless, the above anecdote from 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles raises the question: why didn't [the Philistines] call it 'Dagon-perazim'? Perhaps "they," in this case, is a shibboleth covering all-- Jew and Gentile-- who knew Davey's "LORD" and "God" as Baal. Certainly, to David, "the LORD" and "God" are interchangeable terms at "Baal," according to the Doctrine.

Therefore it should be no big surprise if the 'One' Moses (who wrote Genesis) calls "LORD God" in Genesis 2 is Baal; or his confounding father Bel; whatever. The point being: this is not the One of Genesis 1. Moses' "LORD God" is not God the creator. The syntactical difference is broadly significant.

In the last verse of Genesis 1, God says of all God had made: "it was very good [Genesis 1:31e]." In Genesis 2:18, the LORD God admits to being the 'Father of evil' in his own estimation of his own work. This is a fundamental difference between God and the LORD God.

Obviously the difference is significant in the 'things' created by God and the LORD God, respectively. Beyond the plural nature of the term "Elohim," God refers to God's self contextually in the plural for the first-- and perhaps only-- time in the canon in Genesis 1:26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion.... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he them; male and female created he them [Genesis 1:26a - d & 27]."

Notice: The first mention of man is in multiple pluralities: "them"; and "male and female." Notice also: man is a product of 'procreation'-- by God. The text of Genesis 1:26a - c answers perfectly to the description, four chapters later, of Seth's procreation by Adam (and "his wife"). "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth [Genesis 5:3]." Adam didn't procreate Seth alone. He had "an help meet" for that venture: his own 'spare rib'. Though the text of Genesis 5:3 makes no direct reference to Eve, she is insinuated explicitly by necessity.

So also, when God says, "Let us make man": it's more than 'pillow talk'. It's not a proposition of sex. It's the act itself; or sweet- talk over a cigarette, post- rut. Apparently, spiritual conjugation precedes thought, which conversation lags behind chronologically, as demonstrated by Jesus in Matthew 5:28. Though the Lady God isn't specifically mentioned in the text of Genesis 1:26, she is, like Eve in 5:3, understood to be present by virtue of the necessities of procreation and by the conspicuous plural tenses (which are peculiarly absent in 5:3 regarding Adam) of Genesis 1:26.

The 'man' Adam is, however, a creation altogether. Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man become a living soul." Notice: both the LORD God and the 'man' are referred to only in singularity; and, unlike God, the LORD God is a 'doer', not a 'speaker'. He says nothing while creating Adam. Even "the breathe of life" rings hollow compared to "the Word of God [John 1:1 - 14]." Also, there's no indication as to the origin of Adam's 'form'. Where did the LORD God's 'inspiration' for it come from? the sons of God? his own reflected image? graven imagery?

Though the text of Genesis 2 says nothing about why the 'man' Adam was made the way he was, the truth is he may have been more like his maker than is immediately apparent. He was, after all, evil and alone, and perhaps in love only with himself.

Genesis 2:18: "And the LORD God said, It is not good [evil it is, that is to say] that the man should be [as created] alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Again: by whose example, or 'inspiration', cometh this insight? Does this come by way of observing the sons of God in their natural state: male and female [Genesis 1:27]?

Either way, the point is clearly made that the method of the LORD God's 'creativity' is strange. Love is not the inspiration. Envy or slothfulness might be. He-- in loneliness and alone-- 'creates' the 'man' Adam (and "his wife," Eve) in a manner altogether similar to the way in which a man 'creates' a graven image: especially in Eve's case. He requires no mate. He requires no procreation. Perhaps he finds procreation dirty, messy, and distasteful altogether. Maybe he, like Big Daddy Davey, considers 'man- love' "wonderful, passing the love of women [2 Samuel 1:26]." Be that as it may: the LORD God's way is certainly not God's way. Not even close.

My guess is the LORD God of Genesis 2 prefers "witty inventions" to procreation, at any rate, (only because I believe the text to some extent.) Perhaps the LORD God made his own 'man' out of a desire to indulge his own 'bestial [Ecclesiastes 3;18]' proclivities. The text of Genesis 2:19 expressly implies the LORD God expected his 'creation' Adam to be predisposed to bestiality for his own part.

Genesis records (as if one followed immediately-- or even naturally-- upon another) that, when the LORD God [2:18, above] identified the solitary condition of his 'man' as evil, he attempted to rectify the situation by making beasts to accompany the lonely 'man' Adam. "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof [Genesis 2:19]."

Verse 20 goes on to say, "but [though the 'man' named all the birds and beasts of the field] for Adam there was not found an help meet for him [Genesis 2:20d]." Apparently, Adam named none of them-- including the LORD God-- "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh [Genesis 2:23]." Perhaps Adam is the fool Solomon wrote of in Ecclesiastes 4:6: "The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh [Ecclesiastes 4:5]." Perhaps he was a narcissistic megalomaniac.

Chapter 6 of Genesis informs that the 'man' Adam and his family were not always the only inhabitants of the earth. The sons of God [male and female] were here, also; though it is possible Adam- and- family preceded them in arriving at this particular outpost in God's staggeringly large 'creation'-- like weeds breaking surface before crops.

Genesis 6 tells the story of the meeting of the sons of God and the sons of Adam; and the violent fallout which resulted from that encounter. There was a flood which purportedly only a descendant of Adam named Noah; his three sons; and their four wives survived, among mankind.

The implication of the flood narrative [Genesis 6 - 9] is that the sons of God were all wiped- out in the deluge. Only Adam's line remained thereafter. Where did the sons of God go? Were they 'raptured'? evacuated in spacecraft? The text does not explicitly say. Nonetheless, the Gospel of John does say: "as many as received [the Word of God], to them gave [God] power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on ["the Word of God"]: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but [-- like the Word--] of God [John 1:12 & 13]." This implies the inferior of the two extant races of mankind on earth prior to the flood was its sole 'survivor'; though also it's only victim.

The apostle Peter tells us God's temple is made of his children: not only 'in the heart of the earth [1 Corinthians 6:19]', but in the holy city New Jerusalem. "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ [1 Peter 2:5]." If the stones of the temple of God are the children of God, I expect the rest of the stones in the city of God to be of the same: one way or another.

It naturally follows that New Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven is-- as perceived by the earth unto which she comes-- a population: not a spaceship or metropolis. The birth of Christ seems to back this, inasmuch as he did not depart earth in like fashion to the manner in which he came. Christ-- as Elijah presumably did-- left by means of space travel of some sort (Perhaps he was 'beamed- up'); though he came by way of the 'creative' processes of the Blessed Virgin's womb. Likewise, Elijah presumably had a mother, and left no bones at his departure.

The birth of Christ is readily recognizable as immaculate inasmuch as Mary was a virgin when the 'matrix opened [Exodus 11:12a].' Hence, only God could have done it/her. If the term 'immaculate' were to apply only to seedless impregnation, science could brag of someday maybe 'reproducing' an immaculate birth. Be that as it may: God's collusion is explicitly implied in the event, as the term is applied here. How many less- virginal (i.e. less- noticeable), though otherwise equally 'immaculate' ['of God' that is], births occur in sexually- active women? This would be be much more difficult to determine. Nonetheless, the birth of Christ illustrates the hyperdimensional nature of the womb. Who knows how many sources feed the matrix at the opening thereof.

The Word of God said we are not all of God. In particular, he told two parables demonstrating this data point and the difference between the respective 'creations' of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2: the 'parable of the sower'; and 'the parable of the tares of the field'. Both of these parables are found in Matthew 13, et. al., wherein the Word likens the sons of God to wheat; the children of God's enemy to tares; the earth to a cultivated field; and the kingdom of heaven to a man 'knocking- up' a 'Dirt(y) Girl' through 'conversational sex' [i.e. "Let us make man..."].

In explanation of 'the parable of the sower' Christ says: "The sower soweth the word [Mark 3:14]."; and "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man [Matthew 13:37b];" thus identifying himself as "the Word of God." Consider for a moment the definitively transubstantial nature of the Word of God: God speaks; and everything we know of materializes out of nothing we know of. If something as wonderful as the Word of God enters the 'heart of the earth' through the hyperdimensional matrix of the womb: doesn't this indicate the womb as the vehicle of choice by which the sons of God do the same? even if there were spaceships in Genesis 6?

'The parable of the tares' begins so: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field [Matthew 13:24c]." This obviously refers to 'the parable of the sower', told immediately beforehand; but it is also the simplest whole exegesis extant on Genesis 1, that I'm aware of.

The next verse is likewise the simplest description of Genesis 2 I know of: "But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way [Matthew 13:25]." Simply stated, this implies the LORD God of Genesis 2 is: a 'Sabbath- breaker'; God's enemy; and the original "thief in the night [1 Thessalonians 5:2, et. al.]."

Genesis 2:3 says, "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." In the next verse, the LORD God makes his debut: seemingly just in time to take credit for and defile God's work; and to supplant God's Sabbath- observing children [the 'sleeping men' of Matthew 13:25] with his own alchemical wizardry, commonly referred to as tares.

The conflict between the sons of God and the sons of Adam is endemic to the relationship of each with their respective creators. In particular, the dilemma resides in the disparate words and works of God and the LORD God. Where God blesses his children, the LORD God curses his own.

Of God we read: "And God blessed [the sons of God], and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that [-- like Adam--] moveth upon the earth [Genesis 1:28]." This describes a gift without reservation. Inasmuch as God sanctified the seventh day to rest, we can safely assume this blessing came at the beginning of the eighth day, at the earliest: in light of the fact that acceptance of the gift requires action other than sanctified rest at the inaugural 'family reunion picnic and camp- out'.

Whereas God blessed and gave, "the LORD God took the man [hostage, shall we say?], and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it [Genesis 2:15]." This describes servitude, not bestowed dominion.

Likewise, the first- recorded words of the LORD God are not a blessing or gift; but rather a limitation on the garden freely gifted by God to the sons of God in Genesis 1:29; and a threat of death [first mention]. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [Genesis 2:16 & 17]."

In comparing the words and works of God and the LORD God, it becomes readily apparent that there must have been great confusion in the encounter between the sons of Adam and the sons of God. After all, to this day preachers quote Luke's assertion that "Adam... was the son of God [Luke 3:38c & d]" in all agreement with Luke. What are the chances that, so many thousands of years before Luke's ministry, the consensus concerning Adam's lineage differed from Luke's prognosis of the same among the sons of Adam extant in the epoch described in Genesis 6? --even though the text of Genesis 6 clearly sets a difference between the respective families? The confusion of our own times is clearly the same as theirs.

The profusion of 'Christian' church denominations, and the animosity of most of these for all others is indicative of the fact that there exists to this day great consternation among those who 'claim the name' as to whose name they've claimed; and the end thereof. "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints [1 Corinthians 14:33]." To this day, the consensus that the LORD God of Genesis 2 is God is ubiquitous throughout the 'Christian' world. Most Protestant denominations are, for all intent purposes, only differenriated from Jewry by the clothes they wear.

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the totality of the apostasy of this time than same-sex marriage: if not out- and- proud queers in 'Christian' pulpits. It's the lobbying efforts and monies of these same queer preachers which is rightfully to be credited with delivering this litigious abomination of desolation to the world, after all. Satan is still allowed to 'hide behind the pillars of the temple', as it were: as per Job 1:6, et. al.

If not for queer congregations of 'Christians', there would be no out- and- proud queers in 'Christian' pulpits. The false witness of God which these congregations promulgate is that the same God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah saved Zoar, and compelled the apostle Peter to say of Lot (who vouched for Zoar) that he was a "righteous man" with a "righteous soul [2 Peter 2:8]." Such false witness is most commonly excused and even extolled as 'blind faith'.

The fallacy of blindly believing every word of a book-- altogether unread, by most of them-- as 'the absolute truth', and that of God, is: the words of God are not the only words therein. When 'Christian' preachers refer to the 'Absolute Authority' and 'Absolute Truth' they hold in their hands as "containing not one lie," they reprove the LORD who said of roughly half the words of the book of Job: "ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath [Job 42:7 (& 8)]." Who're you gonna believe: Eliphaz the Temanite; or God? Peter the apostle; or Jesus Christ? your preacher; or the scriptures? the words of 'godly' men; or your own conscience? someone else's God; or your own?

"Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees [Matthew 16:6b]," for little Zoar hath leavened the whole world with Sodom, thanks to the Jews and their doctrines of devils.

I think the greatest trick the devil pulled was to convince the world that he is God: and God is Satan. Likewise, I think one of the greatest 'tricks' God ever pulled was allowing him to do so. There is really no better 'cheese' to bait a strange- flesh 'mousetrap' with than a strange 'LORD God', creator of the same strange flesh: like flamer moths for flaming flames [Hebrews 12:29]. It's a marriage made in Abraham's bosom: Strange God, Strange Flesh.

The Headless Horsemen of Protestantism

Protestants are fond of fear. You could even say Protestants are 'in love with fear'. Protestants love-- no, worship-- Moses and the 'LORD' of whom he wrote: "Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath [Psalms 90:11]." A wrathful people 'loves' a wrathful 'God' as their appetite 'likes' their 'belly' to do.

Though The Law came from God out of the mount, John the Divine writes: "the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ [John 1:17]." Simply stated, this means Christ came to undo what bloody Moses and the patriarchs 'did' to The Law in replacing it with Moses' law; and to undo the damage done to God and neighbor by the same bloody Moses (and the general assembly of bloody patriarchs) by loving God and neighbor-- rather than envying the same.

The difference between the Jews and Jesus is therefore the same difference we observe contemporarily between Protestants and Roman Catholics: Blood Magic versus Love respectively. A cursory examination of Roman Catholicism is sufficient to satisfy the curious- minded that Roman Catholics believe it is our duty, as followers of Christ, to fulfill The Law and the prophets in the same way Jesus did: by loving God and neighbor.

Protestants, on the other hand, have always told yours truly this latter is a thing "only Jesus" can do. Contrary to Roman Catholics and "The Word of God," Protestants lust after Jesus' cross: refusing to embrace their own [Mark 8:34]; while gaily singing out "nothing but the blood of Jeeezus." Roman Catholics understand we who follow Christ have our own crosses to embrace; our own blood to spill.

Jesus of Nazareth properly identifies the currency of the divine economy as God, and John the Divine identifies God: "God is love [1 John 4:8b]." Moses and the patriarchs improperly identified the divine currency as God's mercy; or God's forgiveness; or God's wisdom; or God's blessing; or God's grace, etc. These are merely God's 'things'-- not God. The 'divine' economy preferred by Moses- and- company consisted in the things they could pillage from God and his children; not in a loving relationship with God and neighbor.

Jesus 'took "the people of God" back to the mount of God', as it were, to hear the words of that bloodless [Exodus 20:13, et. al] counsel they forsook [Exodus 20:19, et. al.] in favor of serving the bloody, murderous precepts of murderous Baal 'in the name of the LORD [Isaiah 48]'. The book of Revelation thus describes the 'cage match' between Jesus-- whose name is called "Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us [Matthew 1:23d - f];"-- and the 'asGod [2 Thessalonians 2:4c]' Moses, who gave the 'curse of the law' "instead of God [Exodus 4:16d]."

Revelation is 'fear porn' for the copious perverts of Protestantism. As previously stated, the Protestant 'champions' of sodomy [Revelation 11:8] love Moses to worshipful death, who is the adversary of Christ in the 'Smack- Down' described in the book of Revelation. 'Loving' the 'world' they can know-- in abject terror of the God they can't know-- titilates perverts for reasons 'all Greek to me'. Verily, "the devils also believe, and tremble [James 2:19c & d]."

The sixth chapter of Revelation describes four 'horses'. The riders of these four 'horses' are commonly referred to by 'scholars' as 'the four horsemen of the Apocalypse'.

Protestants envision these four horsemen as 'headless', inasmuch as they aprehend them as godless. He who knows no 'higher power' is, after all, headless according to the word of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." Godlessness is headlessness.

The four 'horses' of Revelation 6 are of various 'colors'. The first is white. Verse two says, "And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering and to conquer."

Protestants say this horseman's 'bow' is a devilish device meant to contemn the 'sword' in the mouth of the fifth principal 'horseman' of Revelation (chapter 19), whose "name is called The Word of God [verse 13, ibid.]." They contend that the 'horseman' on white 'horse' of Revelation 6:2 conquers by means of something other than the word of God in the mouth of "The Word of God." Therefore the 'horseman' of Revelation 6:2 must be a devil, they 'reason'.

However, Habakkuk 3:9 says of this 'bow', "Thy [the LORD's, verse 8, ibid.] bow was made quite naked, according to the oaths of the tribes, even thy word." Protestants must think "the oaths of the tribes"-- not the bow of the LORD-- is the word of God in Habakkuk 3. Otherwise they would know the word of God is sometimes likened to a bow. Either this, or they've never so much as read Habakkuk 3. Either way, their 'thinking' is stinking.

Likewise, Protestants contemn the 'color' of the horseman's horse (in Revelation 6:2) as devilish. After all, "The Word of God" also rides a white horse, in chapter 19, they contend. Therefore, this 'horseman', they say, is an attempted 'counterfeit' of "The Word of God": rendering him the Antichrist; the devil; or the false prophet. Thus, by their 'reasoning': "the armies which were in heaven [Revelation 19:14]" must also be devils; for they also ride white horses. For some, the more like Christ one is, the more devilish he must needs be.

Inasmuch as this first 'horseman' "[goes] forth conquering and to conquer": Protestants make of this more devilishness yet. They say Christ is not a conqueror: he's The Lord; and an overcomer; not a conqueror. The fact that these two terms-- overcomer and conqueror-- are synonymous is beside the point, given the surfeit of conviction with which Protestants-- in chorus with Moses, Aaron, and Miriam-- loudly and positively proclaim, "the LORD is a man of war! [Exodus 15:3a]." Again: The more like their Master the servants of Christ appear, the more devilish they must be, according to Protestants. Yet these same Protestants claim to believe Christ himself is not a devil.

At any rate, the second 'horse' in Revelation 6 is red: "and power was given unto him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword [Revelation 6:4]." Protestants make a devil of this 'horseman', also. Likewise, this 'horseman' is markedly Christ- like.

Jesus said, "34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household [Matthew 10:34 - 36]." The 'red rider' is obviously the messenger of the Lord, with the sword sent by the Lord to "take peace from the earth"-- not a devil. 'Peace' with sodomy and sodomites is The Enemy of reason and God's kingdom; the rider of the 'red horse' is not. As for the rider's "great sword": why would the Lord "send [Matthew 10:34]" a sword of any lesser sort?

The third 'horse' of Revelation 6 is black; "and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine [Revelation 6:5f - 6]." Protestants make a devil of this rider, also.

The first cause for offense in the mind of a Protestant concerning this rider is the color of his mount. Black is the devil's color of choice, according to the superstitious. That's why rock 'n' roll musicians and bikers wear black: rock 'n' roll is 'the devil's music'; and bikers are 'the riders on the devil's range,' according to Protestants. Black is as devilish as all things Christ- like are, in their eyes.

It's altogether ironical what Protestants make of the balances in the hand of this rider, in light of their esteem of Jewry. I'm no commodities broker, and therefore have no professional knowledge of the meaning of the utterance of the voice in the midst of the four beasts concerning the price and security of the commodities it references. My guess is that the price of wheat and barley forms the baseline of the commodities market pricing index, and informs the values attributable to all other commodities on the market.

Be that as it may. The text does not refer to these balances as false, oppressive, or deceitful. Yet this is exactly what Protestants infer here: economic oppression. They speak of devices such as "price- fixing" and "price- gouging" in regard to 'black rider' and his balances. They somehow see this rider as the enforcer of the economy of the beast and false prophet as described in Revelation 13. Even so, they perceive not the seed of Jacob in him.

Protestants esteem Jews as "The People of God." Jacob is a Prince in God's court-- in spite of the word of God in the mouths of the prophets concerning him-- according to Protestants. One especially salient example of God's esteem of Jewry comes from Hosea: "[Jacob (verse 2)] is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress [Hosea 12:7]." This answers perfectly to the Protestant apprehension of 'black rider' and his balances; and yet Protestants don't perceive the likeness of 'Israel' in their comprehension of the false prophet of Revelation 13. Clearly, they know not their own mind on a matter any more than they know the mind of Christ or the word of God.

Scholars point to the "measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny" language of the verse in question to validate their theories of economic oppression. They're welcome to their opinions; but the problem with this theory is that, while the size of a measure of wheat has stayed roughly the same throughout history, the value of a penny has steadily declined since the first penny was stamped. These same scholars adamantly assert Revelation 6:6 speaks of a future (relative to the present) economy. When was the last time you bought a day's dietary provision for a penny? Would you consider it oppression to be charged so much? Would you consider it a miracle [2 Kings 7:2]?

The fourth 'horse' of Revelation 6-- unlike the other three-- is described by hue rather than 'color'. This 'pale rider' passage is the penultimate evidence that the subject of Revelation 6 is the 'kingdom of Antichrist', in the minds of Protestants. "And I looked, and behold a pale horse; and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth [Revelation 6:8]." This rider is the only one of the four identified by name.

It is, in fact, the names of the 'pale rider' and his fellow pilgrim which, to a Protestant, irrefutably proves the godless nature of all four 'horsemen' of Revelation 6. Death doesn't work for God, and Hell is the devil's playground-- not God's-- they say, in characteristic ignorance of the word of God. In Revelation 1 [et. al.], this assumption is roundly refuted. "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death [Revelation 1:18]." In wrestling jargon, this is referred to as a 'reversal'.

Isaiah 28:18 addresses the "scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem [verse 14]," thusly: "And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it." Jesus took the keys to the Jews' 'Free Ride' away, and now it's their turn to reap the whirling of the 'wind' they sowed the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world [Revelation 13:8b]" with.

As to the 'horses' of Revelation 6: perhaps they represent the peoples of the world. Yellow is a pale color, after all. If yellow is understood to be the 'color' of the pale 'horse', the 'colors' of the 'horses' would then answer to the colors of the peoples: "Red and yellow, black and white: They are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world."

How do you 'read' John 3:16, now? "For God so loved the world [the Jews despise (Acts 10:28)], that he gave [the world] his only begotten son, that whosoever [contrary to Jewry] believeth in [God] should [unlike the Jews] not perish, but have everlasting life." (Note: 'Protestant' is synonymous with 'Jew'; and "only begotten son" is synonymous with 'Roman Catholic'.) So I read.

Salvation Damnation

If salvation isn't "of the Lord [Jonah 2:9]," as the Jews say it is, but is instead "of the Jews [John 4:22 ]," as the Lord says it is: What is salvation, if not one more lie from the "children of the devil [John 8:44]" meant to make of Christians "twofold more the [children] of hell [Matthew 23:15]" than the Jews who proseletyzed them are?

Did Adam and Eve think fig leaves could save them [Genesis 3:7]?

Did Lamech think murder saved him and Cain [Genesis 4:23 & 24]?

Is salvation damnation? "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it [Matthew 16:25]."

Is "[calling] upon the name of the Lord [Genesis 4:26]" instead of reading the word he "magnified above all [his] name [Psalms 138:2]," a death sentence? You decide, for yourself (of course), but smart money says God doesn't look any more favorably on being harassed by strangers than your average alpha bull looks favorably on the beta bulls 'plowing with his heifers'. That's damnation, not salvation, "...and all the remnant of Judah... shall know whose words shall stand, [God's], or theirs [Jeremiah 44:28]."

Samuel's Hypocritical Honor

If there's one word that describes the children of Israel we encounter in scripture, it's "hypocrites." Isaiah isn't "whistling 'Dixie,'" when he writes of them, "Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly [Isaiah 9:17a - d]." The always- venerated judge of Israel, Samuel, is no exception.

1 Samuel 1:1 informs us that Samuel's father was a man named Elkanah. 1 Samuel 1:1 says of Elkanah that he "was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim, of mount Ephraim... an Ephrathite." As per normal, this is muddy water, and one more reason it's exceeding difficult to find any authoritative sources of information about any element of Jewry besides the liars themselves. 'Dictionary of the Bible' by John L. McKenzie, S.J. says Ramathaim-zophim is a 'shibboleth' for Ramah (#2 at "Ramah" entry).

Ramah was apparently contiguous with Gibeah, and was therefore sometimes called Gibeah, perhaps indicating Gibeah was the principal city of the two. Scottsbluff and Gering, Nebraska present such a dilemma, as an example. Of the two, Scottsbluff is the county seat, and is therefore often cited when Gering is more precisely correct. Only local Nebraskans are aware Terrytown rests between the two. 1 Samuel 22:6 says parenthetically of the relationship between Gibeah and Ramah, "Saul abode in Gibeah under a tree in Ramah." Therefore Ramathaim-zophim is also a shibboleth for the sodomite city of the Benjamites: Gibeah.

A quick comparison of Elkanah's lineage in 1 Samuel 1:1 and that of 1 Chronicles 6:33 - 35 (watch out for the shibboleths) makes it clear that Elkanah-- and therefore Samuel ("Shemuel," in 1 Chronicles 6:33) by extrapolation-- is a Levite of the sons of Kohath. If you believe Moses' pedigree, this makes Samuel a 'cousin' of Moses', of the line of Izhar, Amram's (Moses' alleged father's) younger brother. This means Samuel was not an Aaronite-- not a priest. It also means Hannah's 'lending' of the boy Samuel to the LORD is a canard. He belonged to the LORD by virtue of his birthright.

Given his lineage, the reference to Elkanah being an Ephrathite, at the end of 1 Samuel 1:1, indicates place, as opposed to maternity. Ephrath is a shibboleth of Bethlehem, which is the nearest city to Gibeah/ Ramah. This could indicate that Bethlehem was the principal city of the three, and Ramah-- like Terrytown in the Nebraska analog, above -- is only mentioned, or even known perhaps, by the locals.

One of my mother's favorite scriptural quotations was spoken by Samuel in addressing king Saul, and she used it the same way he did. When Audrey said, "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft [1 Samuel 15:23a]," she spoke of defying her will; not God's. Whether she-- also like Samuel-- indicted herself as a witch in so speaking is perhaps beside the point. Maybe she was simply confessing to being a poor, unsuspecting Gentile, confused by the things Jews claim to know of a God they never could know.

Either way, Samuel certainly blew his own head off, speaking in this manner to the king he ordained and annointed. The evidence of this is copious throughout 1 Samuel. Samuel was nothing, really, if he wasn't-- like Eli before him-- rebellious. Jesus of Nazareth said of Samuel and David and Solomon and many others (Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Moses, etc.) "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets [Luke 6:26]." This really is the best evidence of a given 'prophet's worthlessness. Many who call him "Lord, Lord," like the apostles before them, simply don't believe Jesus, however.

Where Samuel is concerned, it doesn't matter if you believe Jesus, or not. Samuel told on himself too many times to miss it. Because there's so much evidence against Samuel, the scope of this article will be necessarily limited.

Early in his reign, Saul ran into a dilemma concerning a sacrifice to be made preparatory to war. Saul and the Israelites he could muster were in Gilgal, where the children of Israel were ever wont to gather. This desire to gather in Gilgal is a 'strange' obsession of that people. The LORD said of this, "All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters [Hosea 9:15]." They just kept going back to Gilgal, even when this meant actually going backwards.

At any rate, Saul was there in Gilgal with ten or fifteen of the most valiant of Israel: all others having left their king for the presumed safety of anywhere else. Samuel had, according to 1 Samuel 13:8, instructed Saul to wait for him in Gilgal seven days. Samuel was a bit jealous of chef duty at the barbecue pit. It seems no one else was allowed to offer sacrifices while he was alive.

Seven days had passed, and no Sammy. So Saul offered the sacrifice. As soon as Saul had offered, Samuel-- like Count Dracula, as a bat-- suddenly materializes to rebuke Saul for so trespassing on his 'turf'. "And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee [1 Samuel 13:13a - c]." Samuel then proceeds to 'forecast devices' against Saul's kingdom, proving himself a foolish and incontrovertible hypocrite.

Notice how Sammy did not say, "thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded me." This makes Sammy the LORD Saul's God, in his own esteem of himself. This is indicative of his own rebellious attitude, though I only mention this in passing.

The rub is that Samuel was never legally allowed to offer any of the sacrifices he daily offered. As already stated, Sammy was not a priest. Only the priests were authorized by Moses' law to offer sacrifices. In chastising Saul for this presumption, he likewise indicts his own honor as a judge of the nation. Every word he thus spits in Saul's face is therefore his own shame foaming- out like waves in a raging sea. In Sammy's own words, "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams [1 Samuel 15:22d - f]."

"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things [Romans 2:1]." It's no wonder the witch of Endor could find Sammy after he was dead, considering his piss- poor attitude towards his king and the way he scoffed the law by which he judged others.

Isaiah 61:7

If doubt as to the context the first six verses of Isaiah 61 lend to the seventh exists: read them; or be left in doubt about it, if you'd rather. But especially if you desire to discover America's place in prophecy, you should read the first six verses of Isaiah 61.

Isaiah 61:7- "For your.... [you who it's ''all about'-- the oppressors of the people: house of David; house of Levi; house of Benjamin; house of Simeon; etc.; etc....]

"For your shame ye shall have double [Shame in-- a.k.a confusing the Gentiles with your crucifixion of 'confusion': shame out, times two; signed, sealed, and notarized by the bank, banker, and economy of the divine; whose many names is just One]; and for confusion they [the Gentiles and any Jews who do mourn (assuming any do) under the robbery and thievery of your fathers Davey, Moe, and the rest of the troop of false prophets, false Gods and stooges of strangers-- in a word: those who it's 'not all about' and doesn't have to be because they are me; and it's all about me....] they shall rejoice in their portion [as opposed to envying and rejoicing in someone else's]:... "

Thus, we-- those who it's 'not all about'-- shall rejoice for confusion. In confusion, we seek clarity, and God gives comfort, and we rejoice in and enrich others with the same gift. It follows that if we're not 'confused' (about the Doctrine, especially), we should seek to be so 'confused' as to be in search of clarity, if we ever are 'confused'. Confusion with God beats envy with the devil for instruction in righteousness.

Envy is one place we won't find God, if not for the devil and his angels, as such, in counterfeit economies of counterfeit divinity. God does not envy. Perhaps, in spite of the apparent abundance of all "riches," God has no comfort to lend those who do envy. Speaking of envy, it's germaine to mention that envy-- like nuclear war and "forecast devices"-- can be a 'preemptive' assault. Some will do all they can to provoke envy in others. Some call those things they do for envy-- like murdering Jesus, for example-- earnest tokens of their love for him who is love. It doesn't have to make sense. "Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before [weapon of mass destruction] envy [Proverbs 27:4]?"

Jewry and other 'Christ- murderers' prove that some find only multiplications of confusions (thanks to the 'revelations' of their 'fathers,' in large part, ironically): turning 'spiritual truths'-- like Sodom in pulpit and pew-- into physical encounters when they get 'confused'. They shall only find the "shame" their fathers were-- like themselves-- so proud of. By their 'fruits and nuts' ye shall know them.

"...therefore in their land they [that's us who it's 'not' all about in Isaiah's time] shall possess the double;...." Assuming these things are as they appear: Does Isaiah 61:7c describe the conquest of Elysium as Star Wars against confusion for custody of the economies profane and divine?

"...everlasting joy shall be unto them [us is 'them']." -Isaiah 61:7

Onus of the One Us

The apostle Paul, in his second pastoral epistle to Timothy, wrote: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth [2 Timothy 2:15]." At first blush, this latter seems an odd exhortation.

In the zeitgeist of American jurisprudence, we have the dictum that "United we stand; divided we fall." Alongside this, we have the words of Christ that, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand [Matthew 12:25c & d]." If unity is so good, and division so evil: why would one want to 'divide the word of truth'; much less actually do so? Should the "word of truth" then fall?

Obviously, if we believe Paul, this 'exhortation to divide' requires a more in- depth view than 'face value' allows. What should "the word of truth" be divided from? According to the 'Chicago Doctrine,' it can only be divided from the false perceptions of faulty men concerning it: for, according to those who sealed (and continue to so seal) their imprimatur to this incredible 'doctrine' of belief in the Doctrine, there is nary a word in the entire canon of scripture-- from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21-- which isn't absolutely, unequivocally, one- hundred- percent- unabashedly true. According to those who adhere to such pretensions of 'pseudo- Jewry [Acts 28:22]': taken as a whole, the Judaic scriptures are 'Absolute Truth,' altogether.

However, there are many lies in 'the word of God.' This, I suppose, makes yours truly a heretic of the highest order in the 'eyes' of those 'august, learned, inspired men of God' who say otherwise; whose mammon speaks for them, saying, "In God We Trust." Breath mints are they; and that of Jewry's charlatans: not men of God. If it were otherwise: they would read, study, and search the scriptures-- not the 'Cliff's Notes' of 'scholarship' about the scriptures-- in preparing [Luke 12:47] themselves for the ministry they feel 'called' to. "How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart... What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD [Jeremiah 23:26 & 28e & f]."

The dilemma which arises when men tell lies in the name of the LORD is, naturally: what is there to believe? Is all 'word of God' nought but chaff? Can scripture be received-- even in part-- as true? This, as I read Paul's exhortation to Timothy, is what is meant by "rightly dividing the word of truth." I believe there are truths in scripture. But these must be culled from the many lies; for of the latter there certainly are many.

And it's not only scripture which must be so winnowed. It's also the false teachings of men who know not the truth from lies which needs likewise a 'parting of ways' to achieve something resembling clarity on the Doctrine.

For instance: every denomination of professing Christianity I know of believes in, and positively affirms, the 'Doctrine of the Trinity.' This 'doctrine' holds that the Godhead is comprised-- in entirety-- of three distinct- though- unified personalities: the Father; the Son; and the Holy Ghost (a.k.a. the 'Holy Spirit of God'). As a generic apprehension of things essentially beyond the power of human reasoning to firmly 'grasp': this is, perhaps, acceptable as a 'rule of thumb.' There are some doctrinal difficulties with this, 'rule of thumb,' however.

For example, if the Holy Spirit of God is a member of the triune Godhead: are the "seven Spirits of God [Revelation 4:5c]" which John the Divine says burn as lamps before the throne of God entirely extemporaneous to the Godhead? Also: how-- if only three constitute the fullness of the Godhead-- does one make sense of the statement, by Paul, that "[we] are dead, and [our] life is hid with Christ in God [Colossians 3:3]," considering Christ and God are respective members of the same Godhead?

At any rate, such questions seem never to end. But where is the Rock a man may faithfully build his eternal home upon? I thank God for the Romans. Under the auspices of no other body of believers have I ever heard it said that a man could-- much less that he should-- like Christ, fulfill "the law and the prophets [Matthew 22:37 - 40]." Indeed-- in all other congregations I've 'rubbed elbows' with-- this is vehemently represented as a thing "only Jesus" could do. Why-- if these Protestants believe any part of the scriptures-- do they so stolidly protest against their own ability to 'love- God- and- neighbor?' Why attend church, if such is your piss- poor attitude towards love?

Again, John the Divine wrote: "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love [1 John 4:8]." This amounts to an unequivocal rejection of the 'profession' of those who say they 'love' one another, but conversely "only Jesus" could fulfill the law and the prophets. Love is not an exercise of the will, for God's children. Nor is it a choice to be made. Love is rather the cross on which we daily 'die to ourselves': not to 'game the system' and reach heaven; not because it's 'the right thing to do'; but rather because of our inexorable need to be ourselves. It is at once our integrity and also our undoing. There is no love where there is no sacrifice; but love's sacrifice is self- sacrifice: not 'scapegoat' sacrifice. Sacrificing another for one's own is self- preservation; not love.

Love is the family imprimatur of the sons of God: not an external institution or imposition. It's common sense that, without love: all other attributes of God are perverse. Justice without love- inspired forgiveness is desolation. Righteousness without love- inspired goodness is utter loneliness. A good man is necessarily evil in a wicked environment, because loving goodness necessitates hating wickedness. Mercy without love is oppression. Grace without love is endless scapegoating. Peace without love is Sodom. Vengeance without love is envy. Jealousy without love is a farce. The most comforting word I know of in all of scripture is this: "God is love [1 John 4:8b, et.al.]."

Behold the Imagination of the Beast

If there's one certainty about our post- modern world which the recent and ongoing Covid- 19 scam-demic renders unavoidable, it's the fact that we live in 'The Land of Confusion.' We-- like Moses in the wilderness-- herald our confusion of face by covering our faces with it, and-- also like Moses-- we consider it a virtuous thing to do so. Today, the only thing more omnipresent than confusion is God, and he's relatively unknown to humanity-- in spite of ubiquitous omnipresence and churches on nearly every street corner proclaiming him-- compliments of worldwide confusion.

The most popular President in American history is made to work eighteen- hour days protecting himself from endless frivolous harangue, instead of doing the job we elected him to do: and this in spite of the fact that he-- unlike the money- and power- grubbing thieves harassing him-- works for free, motivated by love of country; not by the "love of money [1 Timothy 6:10a]" which obviously animates his foes and ours on both sides of the aisle: passive and aggressive. These same thieves-- passive and aggressive-- steal the largest landslide election victory in American history from America's Most- Popular- President- Ever for all to see, while crying out against bullies and bullying in a screaming, screeching wail that reaches to heaven: and even the courts of the land-- i.e. the perverse judges-- deny any semblance of fraud or wrongdoing in this charade of election more thinly- veiled than the pasty faces of 'The Swamp' defending it, passively and aggressively.

Even biblical theology-- a thing which should seemingly be relatively simple and straightforward, if the purpose of prophesy is revelation; and not obfuscation-- is fraught with confusion; and for good reason. Biblical theologians agree: there's one true God. The problem is, which one is the One? There are many Gods in the scriptural canon-- a fact most believers seem completely unaware of. For instance: there's the "most high God" of Melchizedek [Genesis 14:19] who possesses the heaven and earth God created; the "God of the dead," spoken of by Jesus of Nazareth [Matthew 22:32]; the "God of forces" written of in Daniel 11:37; the "that God" of Genesis 22:1, who lost count of Abraham's sons at two; and Aaron's God, Moses [Exodus 4:16]. That's five off the top of my head: neither of which is the One. And the list goes on. It's simply not possible that humanity could be so confused about worldly things if our understanding of God and his word were as clear as the pastors and their congregations presume it to be.

Indeed, thanks entirely to confusion, Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' was turned-- by scientists and believers alike-- into something the author never intended it to be, and would likely have declined to write had he known it would be: the presumed bellwether of all authoritative, scholarly refutation of God and the creation narrative of Genesis. This is one- hundred- eighty degrees out- of- phase with the author's intent in writing this volume of singular scientific curiosity. 'Origin of the Species' was, in fact, Darwin's attempt-- not to prove or disprove the creation narrative, but rather-- to describe the way in which God creates.

Ironically, the weakness believers perceive in 'Origin of the Species' is the amount of time the author declares these creative processes required. They contend that each "day" of Genesis 1 & 2-- even the ones antedating Earth's existence-- was an earthly twenty- four hours; and this in spite of the fact that the Doctrine clearly states God's clock is uniquely his own. As the apostle Peter writes: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day [2 Peter 3:8]." Talk about "science falsely so called [1 Timothy 6:20d]." This sort of thing begs the question: Do believers read the Doctrine they profess belief in-- ever-- even when they read it? Are all eyes wide- shut? Why are there more laws for a presumably 'free' man to live by than a man can count in a lifetime; much less be cognizant of? Something is fundamentally flawed.

In all this murky void of confusion, one thing is obvious, stark, and clear: the North Star by which our leaders on every front set their compasses is the proverb, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? [Psalms 11:3]" and this in the negative sense, inasmuch as their chiefest desire is to destroy the foundations; not to protect them. When, as now, the reservoirs of truth-- science, law, and the prophets-- are confusion and altogether confounding, we should know the water is bitter; the reservoir wormwood. The fact that, in the present scam-demic, everyone is losing their temporal souls (i.e. their possessions and the means by which they obtained them) protecting their temporal lives from a threat that doesn't exist is clear indication-- in light of the fact that we murder the unborn in the name of Convenience and Quality- Of- Life For All-- that we're lost- in- the- dark concerning all things: eternal and temporal; is it not? If we're not going to burn the house down and raze the foundations thereof right now: we should at least revisit them, shouldn't we?

The oldest book in the canon of scripture is Job-- not Genesis. Genesis was written by Moses long after the earliest events described therein were faded memories. Besides the things recorded in the book of Job, we know nothing of Job personally, that I'm aware of. Some say the book of Job is an allegorical work, written about fictitious events and individuals: a lesson book; not a historical record. Be that as it may, the 'Rule of First Mentions' applies to the book of Job, if it applies to the canon at all. As such, the book of Job could be referred to as 'the canonical cornerstone', even if it makes us a bit squeamish to do so. Therefore, if we revisit the foundations of our beliefs, we must take a look at the book of Job, inasmuch as it almost certainly sets the tone of prophesy throughout history.

The book of Job begins with a conversation between God and Satan, after 'setting the table' with a short description of Job and his lifestyle. In this conversation between God and Satan, we see that Satan's principle concern is playing 'God' for the benefit of God's children: that he might, through great tribulation, manipulate them into damning themselves by cursing God. [If we curse 'God,' do we curse God? do we not rather condemn Satan as a false witness against God?] Through the 'miserable comfort' afforded Job in his great tribulation by his three friends, and the utter devilishness of the ever- enigmatic 'Elihu', we see how, through envy, malice, and ignorance, man is manipulated into playing 'Devil's Advocate' so that Satan might play 'God.'

We see some other trends asserting themselves in the book of Job, among them: the fact that Satan is not a son of God, though he companies with them. Also, God calls Job, "a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil," twice [1:8 & 2:3, respectively], a judgement echoed by the author of the book in the first sentence thereof. So it is possible for a man to be perfect, even though the North Star which guides his would- be judges says otherwise; and God accordingly lies: in their would- be judgement of him.

We also note the presence of lies in 'the word of God', inasmuch as the LORD tells Job's miserable comforters, "ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath" once for each time he called Job perfect [42:7e,f & 8g,h, respectively], though their words make up nearly half of the book in question. Furthermore, we understand that the end which those devils who lie in the name of the LORD have in view is to damn God's children from partaking in the divine economy-- i.e. from God himself-- and likewise to disallow God any- but devils for company. We also see in the book of Job the holier- than- thou nature of those who so take the LORD's name in vain as to 'help' him by telling the lies he presumably "cannot [Titus 1:2]." In short: in the book of Job, we encounter a worthy allegory for the only portion of history we may know intimately-- the present.

In the book of Genesis, the beginnings of many things are described; among them: prophecy and organized religion. Unlike Job, we know much of Moses, who wrote Genesis. One thing we can't possibly know about Moses is: who he is, inasmuch as Moses' pedigree is one of those lies told by 'the word of God.'

Moses' and Aaron's (and, most likely Miriam's) pedigrees are more counterfeit than Barry Obama's birth certificate. Moses, according to the scriptural account, was of the line of Levi through Kohath, Levi's second of three sons. According to Genesis 46:11 ["And the sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari."], Kohath and his younger brother Merari were already born when Jacob packed the family on the carts sent to him by Joseph, and moved to Egypt.

Moses' presumed father, Amram, is recorded in Exodus 6:18 to have been Kohath's first son, which Kohath lived a total of 133 years. It may safely be assumed Kohath was at least two years old at the time of the move to Egypt, inasmuch as his younger brother was already born when they moved. This allows perhaps as many as 131 years for Kohath to have begotten his sons while in Egypt-- if he was still procreating in his one- hundred- thirty- third year. However, being as Amram was his firstborn of four sons, it's safe- enough to assume Amram would have been born at least six years before Kohath's youngest son was born. This, in turn, indicates the very latest date at which Moses' father could have been born would have been 125 years into the Egyptian sojourn.

According to Exodus 6:20, Amram lived a total of 137 years. This means that, if Amram was begotten six years before his father Kohath died, and in turn begat Moses the last year of his life, Moses would have been born 262 years into the sojourn in Egypt.

We know, from Exodus 12:41 ["And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt."], that the sojourn in Egypt was exactly 430 years in duration. And we know that, after wandering 40 years in the wilderness, Moses died at 120 years of age [Deuteronomy 34:7a].

This means Moses was eighty years old when the children of Israel departed from Egypt. But if you add 80 to 262, the sum is 342: meaning the pedigree given for Moses and Aaron is impossible by no less than 88 years, and most likely much more than this-- well over a hundred years, almost certainly.

Therefore, one does well to be skeptical of Moses, and liberal with the "salt of the covenant of thy God [Leviticus 2:13b]" when partaking of his 'word of God.' In fact, Moses' 'word of God' is so chock- full of lies that, if I were to hazard a scriptural guess as to Moses' identity, my answer would be that Moses is the "lying spirit in the mouth of all [the king of Israel's] prophets" spoken of by the prophet Micaiah [in 2 Chronicles 18:21] in reference to a vision he saw in 'eternity.' Moses may also be the second beast spoken of in Revelation 13 [verse 11].

One of the revelations in Genesis has to do with what professing Christians call 'the rapture.' In his account of beginnings, Moses makes it clear-- only by implication-- that those who await rapture as a calendar event (like Christmas or a birthday, for instance) don't know what time it is, and never did: inasmuch as the rapture is, was, and presumably always will be extant and ongoing: "world without end. Amen [Ephesians 3:21b & c]."

When we encounter Adam, he's in Eden; and it is from Eden that he is driven in the day he dies. Genesis 3:23 states clearly that Adam's beginning was literally "in the earth [Job 1:8c, et. al.]," in that, when he "as lightning [fell] from heaven [Luke 10:18b]," it was to return to "the ground from whence he was taken." This means Adam was raptured before being cast out: perhaps as soon as he was created.

This, in turn, implies that, though one may "sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven [Matthew 8:11c, d, & e]," one is not necessarily staying; and the same applies to the aforementioned 'patriarchs.' After all, Abe's boys like to get naked in the presence of the LORD, as is attested to so many times in scripture as to make a listing of the proofs thereof prohibitive; but the most troubling and recent evidence would be in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the eve of his murder by crucifixion, which can be found in Matthew 21 and Mark 11. Peter at least put his clothes on in the presence of the Lord, once [John 21:7].

Though this may be beside the point, it bears mentioning, here-- concerning Adam, and Abe, and sitting down and staying at the table in the kingdom-- that Adam should have been clothed in Eden (of all places) if he were, as Luke alleged, "the son of God [Luke 3:38d], "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints [Revelation 19:8c]." Also, in the parable of "the marriage supper of the Lamb [Revelation 19:9b]," the Word of God spoke of one who-- like Adam-- "had not on a wedding garment [Matthew 22:11b]": and the king whose son was 'getting hitched' addresses that one by Abraham's name, saying, "Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? [Matthew 22:12b & c]." My guess is that the reason that particular 'Abraham' was "speechless [ibid.]" is because it's his family tradition to 'honor' God as Davey, "who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself [2 Samuel 6:20d - f]!" before the ark of the covenant.

Speaking of Adam's fall raises the specter of what Moses refers to as 'the serpent' in Genesis 3. We know that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy [Revelation 19:10g]," and we know that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life [John 14:6b, c, & d]," and we know the 'serpent' in the garden told the liar Eve no lies, inasmuch as his prophecy of divine revelation in it's entirety was "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil [Genesis 3:4b - 5]," all of which is testified to as truth by the LORD God in Genesis 3:22: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" meaning that if Adam and 'his wife' [Genesis 4:17a, et. al.] had ever had a stomach for the fruit of the tree of life (instead of fig leaves for sewing, for instance): they would have lived and not died. In so scorning the fruit of the tree of life, they scorned the Word of God, for "In him was life [John 1:4a]."

In contrast to the so- called "serpent's" truth, we have the lies of Eve. God had not said, "neither shall ye touch [the tree or its fruit (Genesis 3:3d)]." In saying he had, she bore false witness against the word of God. Nor can it be truthfully said that one who, like the 'serpent,' tells "the truth-- the whole truth-- and nothing but the the truth: so help me God" beguiles the hearer thereof. So, it follows that she bore false witness against the Word of God, also, when she said, "The serpent beguiled me [Genesis 3:13d]." We see in Eve's 'beguiling' protest the power of the statement, uttered by the Word of God, that "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God [John 8:47]."

We know this to be more than mere conjecture in that "Moses' disciples [John 9:28c]" called the Word of God "that deceiver [Matthew 27:63c]" because of his words. Is this not how serpents are referred to, et. al., in scripture: as deceivers? and vice- versa? Notice how the 'serpent' killed Adam and Eve with the "sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God [Ephesians 6:b & c]:" "which sword proceeded out of his mouth [Revelation 19:21b]." As far as I can tell, Jesus is certainly "more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made [Genesis 3:1a]." "Never man spake like this man [John 7:46b]." Thus, according to the 'Law of First Mentions,' the precedent of calling the word of God lies and the Word of God a deceiver is set in the third chapter of Genesis: one chapter before the establishment of organized religion is recorded.

In Genesis 4:1, we read that "[Eve] conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD." Notice: Eve did not call Cain a child, or a man child, but rather "a man": when he was yet but an infant. Does this-- as it seems to-- indicate that the 'his wife' with whom Cain procreates in verse 17 (ibid.) is the only "his wife" mentioned in scripture before it: his own mother, Eve? Notice also, that Eve-- not Adam-- is the first and only original progenitor to mention 'the LORD.' If Adam ever spoke [that is to say, prophesied] of the LORD, his words are not recorded in scripture.

Thus, according to the precedent- based 'Law of First Mentions': seductress Eve, as Adam's "mother of all living [Genesis 3:20b]," is the 'Seat of Wisdom' in his family. It is in defense of himself that the Word of God says, "wisdom is justified of all her children [Luke 7:35]," thereby confessing wisdom to be his mother, after all; and it is wisdom who "[leads] in the way of righteousness [Proverbs 8:20a]." This raises the question: If not Eve, who was it that got her 'man from the LORD' and his brother- from- another- mother worked- up to offer sacrifices to the LORD (or the 'LORD,' as the case may be)?

In verse 3 of Genesis 4, Cain-- most likely motivated by the voice of his 'wisdom, mother of all living'-- brings a sacrifice to the 'LORD,' followed by Abel in the next verse. Cain sacrifices from his belly: "of the fruit of the ground." Abel, in verse 4, sacrifices from his soul: "of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof."

Every Protestant I've heard speak about this beginning of religious practice says Cain was a bad boy for bringing fruit, and Abel was likewise a good boy for shedding blood. Thus: God could not respect Cain's offering, because it had no blood; and it wasn't possible for God to not have respect for Abel's sacrifice, because it was 'bloody.' While I can agree-- with some reservation-- that Cain's sacrifice was itself unpleasant; I find their hermeneutic on Abel's sacrifice-- in a word-- sacrilegious.

One can certainly say Cain's sacrifice was-- perhaps itself-- undesirable: inasmuch as it likely "[served] not [God], but [his] own belly [Romans 16:18a & b]," but the postulation asserting God was displeased with the lack of blood on Cain's offering is intellectually dishonest as an explanation-- especially from those who subscribe to the 'Law of First Mentions,'-- for the obvious reason that the text of verse 5 mentions Cain before it mentions his offering, saying, "But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." And again, it is written, "the plowing of the wicked is sin [Proverbs 21:4c & d].

As for Abel's 'bloody' righteousness: the only blood explicitly offered in Genesis 4 is Abel's. Not only is no blood or killing mentioned in respect of Abel's sacrifice: there's no mention of any altar besides. Not to mention: mutton wasn't anything a man was allowed to eat, at this time. Why would a man offer the LORD a thing had in abomination to God and man alike? and why would it please the LORD if he did? My guess is that the sacrifice offered by Abel was the thing that, peculiarly, Adam found not meet to help him in his nudist colony in Eden, and the only part of a sheep a man could use at the time: the fleece. Wool, to this day, is more valuable than mutton, after all.

All the above notwithstanding: we know Cain-- in a pouting [verse 6, ibid.] rage-- murdered his brother- from- another- mother in the 'field that is the world [Matthew 13:38],' and-- inasmuch as he was his mother's "man from the LORD"-- I sense his mother's 'worldly wisdom [1 Corinthians 2:6 - 8]' in this decision. It is this murder which, after all, became the cornerstone of organized religious observances thereafter.

Proving that-- as Paul said-- "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [2 Thessalonians 2:11]:" the LORD says to Cain [verse 15, ibid.]: "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark [Revelation 13:16] upon Cain, [presumably,] lest any finding him [out, perhaps] should kill him." The 'delusion,' in verse 15, as I read, is the second "him," which is generally 'understood' to indicate Cain's killer -- not the murderer himself-- perhaps 'simply' because the great- great- great- grandson of the murderer so apprehended it: as recorded in verse 24 [ibid.].

In verses 23 & 24 of Genesis 4, Lamech-- the aforementioned great - great - great- grandson of the 'murderer from the foundation of the world [Revelation 13:8]'-- describes for the benefit of his wives a religious epiphany of his 'own,' thus: "[LORD] Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."

It probably bears mentioning, here, that the prophetess Eve was likely still alive and conversant with the wives of her sons' sons: thus the plea of Lamech to be heard of his wives. At any rate-- and after what seems to me to be the parenthetical inspiration of Davey's 'calling home [2 Samuel 11;11]' of Uriah the Hittite-- we read, in the last word of chapter 4, of the establishment of organ-eyes'd [Ezekiel 21:21] 'religion': "then began men to call upon the name of the LORD."

Skip ahead, to the twenty- second chapter of the same book of beginnings: and we discover Abraham's soft, beastly underbelly of envy- driven religious homicide, inherited from his ancestors and passed on -- through his descendants -- as 'faith [Hebrews 11:17]' and 'good works [James 2:21];' when-- having argued vehemently for Sodom-- he quietly aquiesces to 'that' God's injunction to murder the child who displaced him as the one 'holding the bag [John 12:6]' of promises.

This brings to attention the central dilemma of scripture: redemption versus repentance. Abraham-- like Cain and Lamech before him-- sought redemption. In particular: Abe desired the redemption of the promises made to him [recorded in Genesis 12:2 & 3; and 15:18]; which were removed from him and passed on to Isaac [Genesis 17:21] before Isaac was born; immediately before "[God] left off talking with [Abe], and... went up from [him -Genesis 17:22]. Abe's willingness to murder his own son out of a desire to regain the promises of the covenants is akin to the way some beasts eat their young because of the threat they represent to the progenitors' power and control of territory.

In Exodus, we encounter Pharaoh's false god [Exodus 7:1], Moses; and his prophet, Aaron; and the facelift they gave this modus operandi of murdering the young and innocent to redeem the 'mature' wicked from responsibility for their wickedness: in what is referred to as the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law replaces-- or, at least, attempts to-- child sacrifice with the sacrifice of beasts; but the principle is the same: reject repentance; and sacrifice for redemption. "Baptize your sins in a Jordan River of blood," essentially.

The error in the 'Redemption Way' is exposed by Ezekiel, when he writes: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son [Ezekiel 18:20a - c]." Likewise, Zeke exposes the lovely truth of the 'Repentance Way,' when he writes: "But If the wicked will turn from ['repent' is what this means] all his sins that he hath committed... All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness which he hath done he shall live [Ezekiel 18:21a & 22]." Enter Jesus of Nazareth.

The first word in Jesus' hermaneutic-- as recorded by Matthew-- is, "Repent [Matthew 4:17c]." At no time does the Kid from Nazareth say, "Murder me, or no one gets into the kingdom of heaven." Quite to the contrary, he says-- before going to Calvary-- "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me [John 14:6b - f]."

John Baptist perverts this word, "Repent," as recorded by Luke, by turning it into a ritual-- like sacrifice -- "for the remission of sins [Luke 3:3]." Repentance doesn't require ritual. Nor does repentance require prayer. Repentance is a commission of omission. Repentance requires only the death of ritual transgression. No announcement needs be made for "thy Father, which seeth in secret [Matthew 6:18d & e]" to notice the repentance, and "reward thee openly [e, ibid.]," with remission of your sins. Just stop sinning: that's all that's required to fulfill every requirement of repentance.

I say John Baptist perverted the doctrine of repentance with the addition of baptism, for two reasons: 1) The ritual itself was apprehended and espoused-- even by the apostles of Christ-- as the act of repentance; which it is not. Repentance is an omission of wickedness: not a commission of righteousness. 2) "Jesus himself baptized not [John 4:2a]," and if it were the necessity it's been perverted into being perceived as being: he would have. "Trust Jesus;" not Johnny Beelzebub. Trust repentance; not 'beastly' sacrifice.

Whose Church Is It?

There's been a lot said (in the news and elsewhere) for a number of years, now, about perverse Catholic priests and what they do with children behind semi- closed doors; as well as the ritualistic, satanic reasons they have for engaging in such devious mischief. While this is a distasteful subject and one I would rather not broach, "For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret [Ephesians 5:12]," still it is a compelling subject; especially to one raised Protestant.

To begin with, I feel compelled to point out that I am catholic-- not Catholic-- and, as such, I really only understand the finer points of the Roman faith from the outside- looking- in. Notwithstanding my Protestant upbringing, I've been compelled to worship and fellowship with Catholics for some years, now, owing to the completely depraved condition of all Protestantism. The exceptions, here -- if they do indeed exist -- prove the rule to be the 'hard- and- fast' "rock of offence" it surely is.

Eleven years ago, the Lutheran church split due to the largest synod in North America being so queer as to demand out- and- proud gays and lesbians [and-- by implication-- pedophiles, of course] in their pulpits. And Marty's babies aren't the only ones. They're only the very top of the tip of the iceberg. 'The Gazette' reported 10 December, 2010: "The Presbyterian Church (USA), United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church and the American Baptist Church USA have experienced tremendous internal discord over the [queers- in- pulpit] issue."

Having said this much, I'm likewise compelled to confess my personal doubt that these "Roman" priests are anything but Protestant infiltrators, sent into the Catholic fold to condemn them with the same limp- wristed, light- loafered by which they've already 'possessed [Genesis 22:17d]' the gates of Protestantism. It is, in my experience, all- but- impossible to find a Protestant minister who isn't queer- as- a- three- dollar- Billy. Even the Protestant preachers who are lauded and chastised in their local communities for their "outspoken and public anti- gay views," are all- too- often, in my existential opinion, closeted queers; which is to say 'controlled opposition.'

Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by 'controlled opposition.' Controlled opposition is a device by which a body of people (usually a political action committee) attempts to monopolize a conversation or argument (and, thus, its fallout) by planting 'bad actors' on the side opposing their own. This works especially well when the subject matter discussed in a given debate is as distasteful as all things queer are.

By 'championing' the opposing case: the bad actor has the opportunity to make the side he or she is pretending to support look weak and beggarly-- being the first and loudest to voice opinions which the more modest adherents to the opposition point of view don't even want to talk about-- because of the bad taste such conversation leaves in their mouth.

Meanwhile, everyone on the proposing side knows John Baptist is queer. They know John Baptist's boyfriend's name is Mario. They know Mario works at Romeo's Kitchen. And they know the reason John and Jane Baptist always go to Romeo's to eat, whenever they eat out (in spite of the fact that Romeo's serves "spirits" of which John Baptist is deathly afraid) is, ironically, not because (as John Baptist is ever so fond of exclaiming from the pulpit) "The food is just to die for!"

The real reason John and Jane always eat at Romeo's is because Mario is just to die for, and even if Jane has to prey on the young men attending John's School of Divinity-- because Mario can't stand to swing from both sides any more than Johnny can-- she can always get the most insightful makeup tips from beautiful young Mario when they stop in at Romeo's. This sort of 'hammy' bad acting comforts the queers and lulls the sheeple to sleep. Why wake up and shout from the rooftops when it's Johnny's 'Job' to do so?

At any rate, this type of shenanigan is par- for- course in Protestant circles-- in my experience-- and frankly may be the reason so many Protestants poo- poo the Pope for not turning the miscreant priests over to the secular authorities. After all, if these priests are (as I suspect) Protestant infiltrators, the last thing their supporters in Protestant denominations want is for the Jesuits to get them alone in subterranean inquisition chambers and 'hammer out of them' the intelligence of who they really work for. And it's precisely because of such nefarious shenanigans that I chose to remove myself from Protestant fellowship and observances.

Now, Catholics have their own problems, and I'm not the first to admit this; but the quality of fellowship is far more commendable in Catholic circles than in the exceeding wickedness of Protestantism. Catholics don't believe in sacrificing their children to please God, like Protestants and the Jews who proseletyzed us all do. Catholics are far more family- oriented than Protestants, as a rule. There's more love and less perversion to be found in Catholic parishes than in Protestant churches. In fact, in Protestant churches, the only thing that goes for love is perversion. But Catholics have their problems, and their problems begin as far back as Calvary, at least.

I don't have a firm grip on Catholic history, but from what little I've read and heard about it: it seems to me the Roman controversy really begins at Peter being 'chosen' as the chief apostle of Christ; by what seems to me to be inference. In his gospel, Matthew records an exchange between Jesus and the apostle Peter. Jesus asks the disciples: "whom say ye that I am [Matthew 16:15]?" Peter-- more- or- less echoing every unclean spirit heard from in Matthew's gospel, previous to this exchange-- responds, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God [verse16b & c, ibid.]."

To this 'spirited' ejaculation of Peter's, Jesus says, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood [meaning: John Baptist] hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter [meaning: a stone], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [verses 17a - 18, ibid.]." Some say the "rock" on which the Lord promised to build his church is therefore the stone, Peter; though this is inferred.

If Peter were the "rock" upon which the Lord built his house [which is to say his church]: Jesus would have told us to 'pile on Pete,' wouldn't he? when did he do so? When did Pete ever say so? In Matthew 7:24, Jesus shatters this illusion thusly: "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock..." Peter likewise rebuffs this notion that the "stone" is the "rock."

In his first epistle general, stone Peter writes: "Ye also [with Pete, that is], as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed [1 Peter 2:5 & 6]." Of this "corner stone," which is Jesus Christ, he proceeds to say: it is "a stone of stumbling, and a rock [!] of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed [verse 8, ibid.]." So, it is, according to Pete, disobedient to God to stumble upon Jesus and choose Pete as the rock to build on instead.

The thing about this controversy that baffles me is the-- seemingly, at least-- superstitious nature of the misunderstanding. If Our Lady is the mother of Christ; and she is the mother of the church: why is John the Divine not the apostle whose remains (or lack of remains, for that matter) are venerated under St. Peter's? Why is the basilica not called 'St. John's?' It was to the apostle John, after all, whom Jesus of Nazareth said, "Behold thy mother!" referring to the Blessed Virgin.

In attending Mass with Roman parishes; I have been exposed, a number of times, to the doctrine that our principal duty-- as the mystical Body of Christ-- is to fulfill the law and the prophets in like manner to the way Jesus did: in loving God with all we are and have; and in loving our neighbors as ourselves. This is a thing considered impossible by Protestants, and therefore dismissed as 'rubbish' by them; though scripture agrees with the Romans on this, as do I.

This, however, again leads us to the apostle John, who is the only one scripture records as ever saying: "God is love [1 John 4:8b, et. al.]." It is John, therefore, who properly identifies the currency and exchange of the sacred economy; thereby defining the proper role for the church to play in acting as the central house of banking on that exchange. At least the Romans haven't-- as Protestants have-- venerated the 'Sodom [Revelation 11:8]' that murdered our Lord: yet; and hopefully never will. This, however, is academic.

Jesus is the rock on which to build: and this because he is founded on the Rock [Deuteronomy 32:4, 18 & 31] that is love. All others are 'shifting sand [Matthew 7:26 & 27],' and will lead to perdition.

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me [Deuteronomy 5:7]: not even Jesus Christ."

The Most Disturbing Scripture

There are many deeply disturbing scriptures in the canon. The one I find most disturbing-- most Satanic-- is Genesis 2:18: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

The reason I find Genesis 2:18 more Satanic than, say, Genesis 1:26: is because we don't really behold the countenance of rebellion [1 Samuel 15:23] until Genesis 2:18-- and this because it's not until 2:18 that the first mention of "not good" occurs in the canon. "Not good" is, after all, the simplest definition of the term 'evil.'

This doesn't mean Genesis 1:26 isn't 'not good.' In fact, it means 1:26 is 'not good': not because man was made; but because his he half was made before her she half, inverting-- which is to say, perverting-- the manner in which God creates. And the Father is supposed to be 'the help meet for her': not the other way around. God has a Mother- half. There is a Mother God, even if there isn't a Father God.

Considering how many sons of God were extant in the beginning [Job 38:7], I'd guess Mother is a 'cougar' who prefers marrying a 'Son' more than some 'old- timey' Mudcat 'bottom- feeder' Daddy. "So... male and female created he them [Genesis 1:27]." If-- as Paul wrote -- "the love of money is the root of all evil [1Timothy 6:10a]": the axe must fall at "not good," in Genesis 2:18 for the 'tree of all evil' to be altogether banished from the garden. What Genesis 2:18 has to do with the 'love' of money, I can only guess, at present. It is what it is.

In Genesis 1:1, 'God' is the beginning, and there's water, there, in the beginning with God-- though nowhere in Genesis is the origin of water even mentioned; much less explained. In fact, one must flip 'ahead' all the way to the oldest book in the canon -- Job-- to find any attempt to explain where water comes from.

The context of Job 38 is the time of earth's founding, as per verse 4. Notice how the 'LORD [verse 1]' takes credit for everything: though this contradicts his own testimony. In verses 28 & 29, we read: "Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?" If we apply numbers to these four questions, it's the odd- numbered ones which are most germaine to the subject.

"Hath the rain a father?... Out of whose womb came the ice?" This is pretty obvious, isn't it? If the Father-- minus the Mother-- has a womb: Why did Adam call Eve "woman (womb- man; man with womb) [Genesis 2:22]?" A man with a womb of 'his' own is a woman (or a worm)-- not a man. Therefore, such a 'God' would be referred to as 'LADY,' or, like Jacob, as WORM, not as 'LORD.' Also: when-- as in Genesis 1-- a life begins, where-- if not from the womb-- does the water issue forth? Thus, when a man is "born of water [John 3:5d]," it is understood he is born of woman.

What does NASA look for in their attempts to discover life outside of our atmosphere: if not water? The obvious reason for their reasoning is that: without water, there is no life. Hath water a father? A man 'makes water;' but a woman is the water that makes a man. If it were not so: What is the significance of the Immaculate Conception? The truth is: a woman doesn't require the services of a man to procreate. Why would the LADY need the LORD to create?

Thus, we understand the 'Battle of the Sexes' began in heaven; and he 'took' the first 'shot' at "not good [Genesis 2:18]": according to Moses, at least. Making a woman from a man, as the LORD God did, in Genesis 2:22, was de facto divorce from the LADY God, inasmuch as-- in so doing-- he deviated from her way-- the way of life and the living-- scorning her and her way for that which is not good: waterless birth. What is the LORD God of Genesis, if not a "Fat (Muddy)- Cat?"

Perhaps it was because he is a 'Cat, that he expected the man to 'marry' the beasts, as recorded in Genesis 2:19 & 20. When the man had more sense than he: woman was made to distract the man from 'crying out to God': the LADY obviously doesn't abide 'idolatry.' What is man, after all, If not the LORD God's graven imagery? I think a John- Cena- style death rhyme would make more sense of all this than I can, but I'll give it a 'try.'

And the LORD God formed 'Man'
Of the 'mud' in which he 'swam,'
Unmindful he wasn't a turd.
He thought the man he so misformed
As to be 'like' he, would be --
Like his Maker--
A "her- manfro- dighty" worm;
And
That a turd- eating- turd
Like himself
Was all he'd ever need.
But-- much to his chagrin--
The 'smile' left his shit- eating grin,
When he discovered in the Mudcat-
Mirror- imagery of 'his man':
A 'manlier' worm than he.
So, 'wisely' fearing LADY God,
And lest 'his man' should tell that 'Jealous' broad:
He made of his tranny 'man'
A 'lively' witch named Eve,
And then, with feline 'Grace,'
He worm- turned --
His dog- about- vomit- face--
From the 'stinging' disgrace of 'simple' sex
To the 'simpler, cleaner pleasures'
Of eating shit
And savouring the sophistication
Of magical- sorcery- sex
With Worm- [Prince Jacob's] wood.
Thus he uncovered his latter 'End.'

Hypocritical Hippocrates

Why would anyone-- much less somebody-- adore a wound it was in their power to heal? If this is done out of 'love' for the afflicted: what is such 'love' but the tender mercies of cruelty a sane man can only expect from the wicked [Proverbs 12:10b]? Is cruelty born of envy [Matthew 27:18], perchance? Why does it seem the overwhelming majority of professing Christians would rather "bear in [their bodies] the [five] marks of the Lord Jesus [Galatians 6:17b]"-- as stigmata-- than see the King they call "Lord, Lord [Matthew 7:21- 23]" made whole? Are the overwhelming majority of professing Christians perverts without any trace of "faith which worketh by love [Galatians 5:6c]?" What kind of jackass prefers a half- ass 'Lord' over a whole One? his "Lord's" enemy?

Jesus, while witnessing to the religious of his day in his 'hometown' of Nazareth, "said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country [Luke 4:23]," foreshadowing the egocentric cruelty of his disciples. To clarify: the text of this passage in Luke's gospel says nothing of his disciples being in attendance when the Word of God uttered these gracious words; but who else could this 'gun' have been aimed at? Who among the temple leaders of his day were healing any one of any thing?

Matthew 10 and Luke 9 record the fact that Jesus' twelve apostles were granted diplomas from 'The Renaissance School of Medicine and Jesus Christ;' receiving from him power and authority to, "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils:" saying, "freely ye have received, freely give [Matthew 10:8]." Yet, instead of glorifying God in freely giving: it seems like the apostles jumped back on the 'Jesus leash' before lunch. Matthew doesn't record their return, in particular; though Luke basically says they were gone long enough for Herod to form one thought; and then they returned with five thousand men (not to mention women and children, of course) who, like the apostles, were 'just dying for something to eat.'

According to Luke 10, Jesus then sent seventy others under the commission to do what the twelve had purportedly already done [Luke 9:6] (not that the twelve left anything undone, you know), saying, "heal the sick... and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you [Luke 10:9]." When the seventy then returned, they rejoiced-- not for being allowed by the power and blessing of God to accomplish their commission, but rather-- that they 'really knocked themselves out' playing 'Devil's Advocate' (i.e. 'Lording' it over the unclean spirits) saying, "Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name [Luke 10:17]." As near as I can make out: none of these eighty- two messengers "freely gave" anyone anything-- of the instruction they received in 'The Renaissance School of Medicine and Jesus Christ'-- but a hard time, while their Rabbi- physician lived. And when he died, they kept it 'all [Mark 8:36]' to themselves; giving none of his own back to him who gave them his 'all'-- freely or otherwise: without the commission of "a dispensation of the gospel [1 Corinthians 9:17d]."

While Jesus was in the tomb the two nights and one day between sunset 'Good Friday' evening and Sunday morning (before sunrise), the disciples 'elected' for voluntary 'protective custody' "for fear of the Jews [John 20:19c]," rather than going to the tomb and "[raising] the dead [Matthew 10:8c]" Jesus, who had given them the power to be so 'helpful,' had they had a stomach for such work. Perhaps it's on account of my 'simplicity,' that I think in such 'terms of endearment;' but if I were a professor of medicine at an 'accredited' university-- even if it weren't 'named' for me-- I should think one very good reason for teaching a dozen- or- eighty- two student 'physicians' the proper method of performing a triple bypass operation would be so I wouldn't have to do them all myself-- especially not my own. In Jesus' case, however, perhaps the reason the professor 'fell on infirmity' was to uncover the contents of his students' hearts [2 Chronicles 32:31]; not to uncover the contents of his own heart to us, as such. Indeed, though at least ten of them 'handled' the Physician, post- renaissance (unless they were disobedient, even to his face) [Luke 24:39], Jesus' 'corpus' was apparently none the better for "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery [1 Timothy 4:14c]."

And it wasn't 'only Jesus' they were unwilling to raise- up or heal. Not once is it recorded that any one of the eighty- two disciples who were awarded 'lambskins' from 'The Renaissance School of Medicine and Jesus Christ' ever raised or healed one of the other eighty- one alumni thereof [though they did raise and heal many who had not (before or after their 'handy work') this power and authority]; in spite of the fact that they did not all die simultaneously. Even poor Paul of Tarsus-- himself an 'outsider,' was 'left hanging- out to dry' (and that in "that great city" [ Revelation 17:18a]); in spite of a number of ill- advised trips to the only city the Dirty Dozen apparently cared the slightest whit for. Perhaps the apostles and disciples 'simply couldn't stop' arguing about "which of them should be greatest [Luke 9:46b, et. al.]." In which case, the 'Death Watch of the Dirty Dozen and the Disciples of Jesus' must have ended with one 'survivor' who, in 'due' process of time, died without any to raise him, thanks to his meager esteem of charity and 'great, swelling heart' of "love [of] the brethren [1 John 3:14b]."

Speaking for myself, I would rather have a whole, holy King [please, God] than a half- ass holy One; and the same goes for family in general. As long as we're all whole and holy: what does it matter who's the 'greatest?' Isn't it 'enough' that we all be great 'collectively?' I love my family-- not myself. Loving me is my family's concern-- not mine. It amazes me how quickly we forget the first word Jesus said when he began to begin to preach: "Repent [Matthew 4:17c]!" and, likewise, how easily we forget the lake of fire is at "hands [Psalms 90:17]."