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.