Jesus' Queer Husbandman

Spiritual truths are revealed in manifold ways. The heart of the devil [John 8:44] the Jews (and consequently the sect [Acts 28:22] of Jewry referred to as Christianity) call "God" is revealed by the 'Holy Bible'; which they call "the word of God." As Jesus of Nazareth said, "of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh [Luke 6:45]." Thus, the Bible is referred to by scholars as "God's special revelation of himself."

There is also a "natural revelation"-- referred to et. al.-- in the special revelation of scripture. For instance, Psalm 19 says, "1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. 4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world [Psalms 19:1 - 4b]."

Jesus of Nazareth says of his 'body', the church, that it-- like the special revelation of scripture-- "is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart [Hebrews 4:12f]" of his Father. According to John the divine, Jesus said of this ecclesiastical revelation: "1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit [John 15:1 & 2]." I have existential knowledge of this ecclesiastical revelation.

Several years ago, the Protestant denominations of the globalist government referred to as "the church" and "the body of Christ" began schisming due to the exceeding abundance of queer Christian congregations who consider it necessary-- for righteousness' sake-- to openly include queers in their membership rolls and in their pulpits.

The fact that these denominations officially had-- like stock on Wall Street-- to split to "come together" in Christ doesn't mean the denominations from which the queer congregations fell out aren't, as a rule, queer. It only means that some cockroaches don't consider "coming out" of their queer prayer closets necessary to sharing their prayers and closets with out- and- proud queers; furthermore, the schisms make it possible for them to do so without being labeled as queers themselves. This tactic is sometimes referred to as "running a test- flag up the pole" to see how it's received before going "all- in," or withdrawing from it.

In respect of the resultant financial windfall of these schisms, this tactic is called "controlled opposition." They've "opposed themselves [Acts 18:6a]" with the intent to divide and conquer those elements of the world's populations which remain skeptical of the 'moral rectitude' of the 'divine' economy of blood magic and sorcery the churches of Christ's beastly globalist empire make suit to for their power and authority. I've "got their number."

Their number is 666 [Revelation 13]. As religions go, they are the one which excludes all others [Revelation 13:15], and-- according to them-- the only door by which anyone might enter the economy of the divine is cannabalistic vampirism notarized by the cold- blooded murder of "the only innocent man, woman, or child who ever lived or ever will": Jesus Christ the cockatrice [Isaiah 14:29]. All others "should be killed [Revelation 13:15c]" and-- according to Christians-- will, by 'God', be killed forever. This form of religious practice is termed "Kenite," meaning "of Cain (and Moses' father in law [Judges 1:16, et. al.] and mentor [Exodus 18:7 & 24])."

The fact that the ecclesiastical revelation of Jesus' heavenly Father's character is of a markedly perverse nature is nothing new. In fact, it's really the "same old shit." When Joseph told Pharaoh's dream to him, he said that Pharaoh saw the same revelation in two visions as proof of its inescapable veracity. So also the ecclesiastical revelation of Jesus' heavenly Father's deviant proclivities comes to us twice as a matter of historical verity: in two bodies of believers.

We presently know the sodomite nature of the church simply by virtue of casual contact with it. If Christian pastors hadn't been the chief lobbyists countenancing it, same- sex union wouldn't have been a subject of conversation much less a legal concern. Likewise, Revelation 11:8 states clearly that the spiritual nature of the Jewry of which Christianity is a sect has always been sodomite, saying the spiritual name of the heart of Jewry-- Jerusalem-- is Sodom.

Of the things which Jesus' husbandman Father "took away [John 15:2]" from the "true vine" of his vintage, when Jesus schismed the same, the indulgence of strange flesh wasn't one of them. This indicates Jesus' heavenly Father never considered sodomite proclivities a wickedness to be "done away in Christ [2 Corinthians 3:14, et. al]": whereas the law of Moses which states unequivocally such behavior is abomination [Leviticus 18:22] is, in Jesus of Nazareth, done away (presumably).

When the children of confusion (Israel) were wandering in the wilderness, Moses was given a song to "teach it the children of Israel [that is to say]: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel [Deuteronomy 31:19]"; and according to this "song of Moses [Revelation 15:3]," the vintage of Jesus' heavenly Father's vineyard [Matthew 21:33 - 44]-- which is to say, the spirit of his church-- changed in nought but name in Jesus. In Jesus, the spirit which distinguishes the true Jew [Romans 2:28 & 29] remains the same.

"32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: 33 Their wine [the Spirit] is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps [Deuteronomy 32:32 & 33]." This succinctly captures the Holy Ghost of Christianity, as well, if the twice- told ecclesiastical revelation is to be believed. The sodomite nature of the 'God' of the Jews is a matter of historical fact. To argue with the facts-- especially those of the 'current events' variety-- would be foolishness.

The essential nature of the special revelation of scripture is a narrative of the history of Envy. Perhaps it is for this reason the dictionaries tend to pervert the definitions of the terms envy and jealousy to the point of espousing them as synonyms: "for the LORD, whose name is Jealous [Exodus 34:14b & c]," is the God of envy. After all-- by his own admission-- he is "the former of all things [Jeremiah 10:16, et. al.]," meaning he claims to have consciously existed before all things; but he did not bring us all things.

God gave us all things, according to Genesis 1. The LORD God pretends he is the source only God could be. This is envy-- or covetousness-- in the language of the Bible. In Genesis 2, the LORD God claims he is able to make his own children of mud- patties and his magical breath: no sex necessary.

John the Baptist, believing this to be true, said, "That God [the pretender] is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham [Luke 3:8e];" notwithstanding, until God made the sons of God, the LORD God obviously had no use for Adam or any other children. Sodomy is after all sorcery [Revelation 18:23, et. al.]; not sex. The LORD God made his things in the thick darkness of death. Now, he would feign ownership-- with enmity [James 4:4, et. al.]-- of the land of the living only because he had a filthy imagination before God was conscious.

Nothing Private About Moses' Property

In the book of Numbers, Moses writes of himself that he "was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth [Numbers 12:3]," so bearing false witness of himself. Thanks to the convoluted nature of the Doctrine, we know Moses' self- witness is false-- according to  his own law-- inasmuch as Jesus of Nazareth said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true [John 5:31]." Therefore, perhaps it's no real surprise if Moses' presumption of your private property is that it's the prerogative of his law to dispose of as he sees fit.

In Deuteronomy, Moses says of estate inheritance: "15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: 16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: 17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his [Deuteronomy 21:15 - 17]." Prima facie, this seems innocent enough: but is it as innocent as it seems?

As historical context, Genesis informs of Jacob's decision to prefer Joseph above Reuben. "21 And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers. 22 Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow [Genesis 48:21 & 22]." Even Jesus of Nazareth, who unequivocally venerates Moses [Matthew 23:1 - 3, for instance], takes exception with Moses' doctrine concerning inheritances.

As recorded in Matthew 20, Jesus of Nazareth told a parable concerning inheritances in the kingdom of heaven. As he was often wont to, Jesus-- in this parable of inheritances-- likened the kingdom to a vineyard, saying the owner of the vineyard went out early in the morning and hired workers who agreed to a day's work at the rate of a penny.

Likewise, the owner of the vineyard goes out the 'third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours' of the day, and hires whomever will go to work. (Notice: those he speaks to in the third hour of the day may have turned his offer down inasmuch as the narrative reads of them, "they went their way [Matthew 20:4d].") When the day is ended, the owner of the vineyard starts an uproar among those he hired early in the morning by paying those hired in the last hour of the day the same as they receive. His response to them is "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? [Matthew 20:15a]?" No. According to Moses, it's not.

Reading the 'Holy Bible' to Discern

When reviewing the blogs I've posted, I often find myself wishing I had written things I didn't write and wishing I had written some things differently. This is unavoidable given the fact that, on the one hand, a blog post isn't supposed to be a tome. Nobody wants to read a blog post that takes days to read through. I don't know that anyone desires to read a post that takes more than one minute to read-- especially about something so boring as the 'Holy Bible'. Therefore a blog post is not a viable format to comprehensively expound any subject from a doctrine as convoluted and subtle as the 'Holy Bible'. 

On the other hand, one's understanding of the 'Holy Bible' changes as one reads it more and more; and this is nothing compared to how dramatically one's understanding of it changes as one writes about it. As such, I can't write anything about it entirely the way I want to, and I certainly can't write anything about it the way I will always want a thing I write about it to read. Such is the nature of the beast with which I so wrestle.

It's not really as annoying as it may seem, however. After all, the point of writing these blogs is not to solve all the riddles for the reader. Nor do I write to assuage my own vanity. The point of this exercise, as I see it, is to impress upon the reader the value of reading the Doctrine for oneself: so that the quality of the conversation surrounding the Doctrine might improve generally-- hopefully in this lifetime.

As much as I avoid it, I complain about charlatans more than enough, I think, for any notice afforded them to be ought but annoying here. Suffice to say: I find that those who have never been to church or Sunday school and yet, for whatever reason, read the Bible are less "blinded... in their minds [2 Corinthians 4:4]" than those who have the preconceived notions attendant thereupon. 

That is to say: the savant is less fearful, and thus more perceptive of the inconsistencies the fearful would be more prudent to fearlessly take notice of. It is best to cleanse one's mind of all such fear. "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love [1 John 4:18]." If you love the Bible, love it perfectly.

In loving the Bible perfectly, read it enough to notice all the subtle nuances. Don't let slothfulness or prevailing 'wisdom' talk you out of the revelations the spirit inside you is talking you into. To accomplish this, you must read it in it's entirety. You will most likely need to do this more times than you want to believe is possible in order to merely begin to find the subtler nuances, but often the less subtle nuances are the most salient. Remember: if the Bible were the word of God, 'obscure passages' would be a misnomer. Nothing about God-- except our understanding of God-- is obscure. 

Always do the math. Don't simply trust the numbers as you read them. There are numerical inconsistencies in the 'Holy Bible'. No one seems to enjoy math, but when looking for the integrity or lack thereof in the Bible, simple math will open your eyes more than you think possible.

If there is more than one account of a given event in the Bible, compare the various accounts with each other. This is sometimes arduous, but it's worth it to the mind which won't be satisfied without the knowledge necessary to discern. The differences in these various accounts will often surprise you.

Finally: always assume the Bible is the work of the devil. This may seem counter intuitive. Those who claim to believe it say it is the word of God, after all, and certainly it might, in some convoluted manner, be; but if the Bible is the word of God, don't forget it was written by 'the children of the devil [John 8:44].'

If you follow this advice-- part of which is to read the Bible in it's entirety many, many (this is to say, hundreds of) times-- you won't need to read things like my blogs to discern anything consequential about the Doctrine. And you will be shocked to find out how very little of it is consequential. Keep reading. Godspeed.

Brokeback Mount Zion

The woman my birth certificate credits with bearing yours truly was a good Christian. The family assures me she died some years ago, though, inasmuch as they all likewise assure me "she gave her body to science," some saintly part of her may remain. Audrey was such a good Christian, that she once admitted vehemently and repeatedly to me, in the presence of at least one witness, that she never made any mistakes raising my siblings and me: no not one.

I could spend seemingly limitless time and energy refuting Audrey's plea of spotless innocence, but what use would that be? Anyone who's ever been a parent or had a parent knows parents make mistakes. People make mistakes. Parents are people. Suffice to say, in Audrey's case, the mistakes made in raising her children are more numerous and more grievous than in most cases. The fact that she could plea infallibility with a straight face is clear- enough indication that such is the case.

One of Audrey's methods of bullying her children was the prayers she prayed concerning us. Not only did she pray offensive prayers "in secret [Matthew 6:6, et. al.]"; she openly admitted her praying of them to us.

When I was no less than twenty- three years old, she told me, "I've been praying for you, Tom. I'm praying God will break you to make you a tool fit for his service. And I shall continue to do so." Mind you: this from a cunt who never allowed me to be whole: no not for one moment.

In the thirty years since, I've wondered over and over again, "What could this word "break" mean, as Audrey so used it?" How could I be more broken? I've never been whole. To this day, I'm homeless, penniless, and my own family-- immediate and extended-- refuses to know me. How am I not broken? Furthermore, what use does one make of a broken tool? a paperweight? a doorstop? Since when does a broken tool do work? Suddenly, a day or two ago, it occurred to me what Audrey meant by 'broken to serve God.'

All my life I've been exposed to sodomites. This came about, in the beginning, as consequential to living a 'sheltered life.' My siblings and I attended only Christian academies, until I at last flunked a grade-- my seventh-- in protest. This I did in a year which was particularly painful for the family, financially.

The Old Man was, for the entirety of said year, working for a good Christian and fellow member of the church we attended, who therefore didn't find it necessary that we should eat and pay our bills by normal means; but only miraculously. The sting of my failure and the subsequent waste of our money was therefore especially accute. But it was the only way I could find to get out of the exceeding wickedness of Christian education.

At any rate, my exposure to queers began in kindergarten. There was a seven- year- old pupil who I was made to nap the entirety of every afternoon-- in a closed room-- with, because he was still trying to get passed kindergarten himself. His Christian father had taught him sodomite ways of expressing affection: which he attempted to further pass- on to yous truly. From there, it's a long story, and one my stomach would rather I didn't elaborate on. Suffice to say, I never observed anyone living morally until I attended public education. Even there, my Mother did all she could to poison the water.

It surprises me, in retrospect therefore, that it should have taken so long to understand what Audrey meant by 'broken to serve God.' To be fair to myself, however: 'Brokeback Mountain' was still some years in the future when Audrey shared her prayer for me with me; and the vernacular of queerdom has always been "all Greek" and unknown to me, in spite of my pious upbringing. But there's the rub.

Christians believe Lot was "righteous [2 Peter 2:7 & 8]" to save the sodomites of Zoar, and the children of Confusion (that is to say, Israel) were justified in saving the remnant of the sodomites of Benjamin [Judges 21]. I've witnessed Christian preachers loudly and proudly proclaiming from their pulpits, that: if you don't begin as a devil, you can't end as a born- again Christian; implying-- or, rather, admitting-- that their 'God' has no children he hasn't stolen from another. My own eldest sibling is exceeding proud of being "depraved; saved; and eternally great- full."

Existentially, it's clear to me: the God and Father of Jesus of Nazareth is the King of Sodom's kings; Jesus is his man- boy- loving Sonshine; and Mount Zion is Brokeback, en toto; and I could never serve such a broken God and family.

Prayer request denied, Mommy. I hope it's exceeding warm and dry where you're at, and that I never see you again, you Baal- dike cunt. In my own name I pray: Amen.

All for One?

Those who adore the Son of man as the Son of God miss, perhaps, a point of the Doctrine they would be better worth noting well: Jesus of Nazareth never says unequivocally about himself: "I am the Son of God;" and the spirits which said this of him he called unclean. When dealing with "Satan," and "the devil" about his own pedigree, perhaps he-- exactly as Moses before him-- offered a derivative deviation.

Moses' own pedigree is false altogether; and of all the wrestling of 'temptation' between Jesus and "the devil/ Satan," in the wilderness, the match is entirely over the words of Moses; who Jesus himself says perverted the law, "For the hardness of [Jewry's] heart [Mark 10:5b]." Notice: Jesus would later say, "45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words [John 5:45- 47]?" What about being vouched for by the accuser Moses, who couldn't tell the truth about who his own progenitors were, makes Jesus credible?

In "the Revelation of Jesus Christ," John goes on to imply this accusatory function of Moses' makes him at least akin to the "dragon" of Revelation 12: "9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night [Revelation 12:9 & 10]."

So, who but the accuser Moses could it have been 'tempting' Jesus in the wilderness? and why did Jesus adjure all who called him "the Son of God"-- including his own disciples-- that they should not repeat that thing? According to the angel Gabriel, Jesus' father is-- not God, mind you-- but David; and his kingdom is-- not the universe-- but "the house of Jacob:"

"26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end [Luke 1:26- 33]."

Likewise note this: David, Jesus' father, as per the angel Gabriel-- like Moses before him, and Solomon and Jesus after-- answers to the apostle Paul's description of "that man of sin... the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God [2 Thessalonians 2:3e & 4]." All speak well of David, as they do of the "son of David, preacher in Jerusalem," Solomon; and of the "Son of David," Jesus Christ. Jesus himself warned of all such as himself and his fathers David and Moses as "false prophets," saying, "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets [Luke 6:26]."

But, as Moses built a tabernacle of shittim wood, so David-- as Solomon after him-- thought a 'Central Bank'- style temple a more amenable dwelling prepared for God than the hearts of the people; and David-- as Moses before him, and his son after, and, presumably, Jesus forever-- "sat on the throne of the LORD [1 Chronicles 29:23a]," as God. According to the apostle Paul, "[God] hath made [Jesus, the man of sin] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him [2 Corinthians 5:21]." How maketh sin righteousness? Why was he not rather made repentance?

Where is Jesus of Nazareth right now? Contemporary scholarship says he waits, at the right hand of the power in heaven-- with all power in heaven and in earth delivered unto him-- to gather the sons of God to the "marriage supper of the Lamb," but what saith his own words? In explaining the "parable of the tares of the field," Jesus describes his own role in the eschaton as being the gatherer and disposer of the wicked, thusly: 

"40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear [Matthew 13:40 - 43]." While Revelation 14 says, "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb [Revelation 14:10]." Is the place Jesus prepares for you not the lake of fire?

As Moses was "instead of God [Exodus 4:16c]," so David-- and his son, Jesus-- is (and are) "as God, as the angel of the LORD before them [Zechariah 12:8c & d]," not only in the 'prophecy' of Zechariah, but also in the eyes of the Philistine king of Gath [1 Samuel 29:9], and in Joab's 'flattery' of the "sweet psalmist" of Israel sent by word of the 'wise woman of Tekoa's [2 Samuel 14:2:17 & 20]' mouth. None of them is, however, God; and the only 'God' they seem aware of is a plastic- banana counterfeit, who himself seems unaware of, or in denial about, God.

Jesus himself tells on his father in the most well- known verse in the canon: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life [John 3:16]," implying "that as many as would not worship [Jesus Christ] should be killed [Revelation 13:15c]." Whose sons these: "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy [Job 38:7]" mentioned in the oldest book of the canon? Why is the name of the only bona- fide "Son of the morning" mentioned anywhere in the 'Holy Bible'-- Lucifer-- the most maligned name in the 'Holy Bible?'

What kind of 'God' has one son? In the case of Jesus' father: a cockroach, with an evil eye, running from the light of Lucifer, according to scripture and common sense. "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness [Matthew 6:23c & d]," oh, 'God!'

Behold the Hypocritical Homewrecker

Is Jesus of Nazareth a hypocrite? Would it matter if he is? Those who follow him care little or nothing for his words; they would much rather drink his blood and eat his flesh than hear his words; they would rather sin and believe in him than repent and believe in themselves. Nonetheless– in spite of the fact that it will only make more enemies for me to so say– I must confess, in respect of his words, Jesus Christ must be a hypocrite.

How is a family formed? Is it by man's device? Can a man and woman build a family of their own desire, simply by wishing it into existence while they copulate hopefully together? Does it not require God's cooperation to bring children into their life? "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD [Proverbs 16:33]." How much more are the elements which make a family the disposition of God to ascertain?

The truth is, Jesus Christ is– by his own admission– a curse. According to Matthew, Jesus Christ 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]." Behold the homewrecker.

This curse is foretold by Malachi in the final word of the Old Testament canon. Malachi wrote, "5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse [Malachi 4:5 & 6]."

We know Jesus Christ is this curse, inasmuch as he said, (immediately following the passage from Matthew 10 cited above) "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me [Matthew 10:37]."

This last citation from Matthew is problematic. Should we disdain the namasté encountered in the countenances we may behold for fear of offending someone we've never met? How could "God [who] is love [1 John 4:8b]" be satisfied therewith? "God is a spirit [John 4:24a];" not a dead man's name. Again, John writes, "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen [1John 4:20]?" Is a curse a "perfect gift [James 1:17a]?" If so, to whose children: God's? or the devil's? To the point:

Jesus Christ, by his own admission, came to destroy families. Does this not make a hypocrite of him? It was none other than Jesus Christ, after all, who said, "What therefore God hath joined together [families being one such thing], let not [the Son of] man put asunder [Mark 10:4- 9]." What, but a hypocrite, could he be?