Archive for Eden

Why Grains are Now Destroying the Health of Millions

Posted in 10 : Culling the Herd with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on 04/14/2013 by timenolonger

We are all familiar with the reasons that GMO foods, chemically treated foods and additives are bad for one’s health. Those things are easy to recognize with a little common sense, but there are some far more subtle and difficult to detect ways in which diet has been used against the consumer to degrade their health.

We are suddenly coming into an age where Celiac’s disease, irritable bowel syndrome and gluten intolerance are rapidly increasing health threats. This, like any disease which has increased (or even just recently came about) in the history of the human race should be warning signs. It means that something is fundamentally different (and wrong) with the dietary intake of those populations where the disease is growing. The US is leading the way in such illnesses and it can’t be a coincidence.

Anyone acquainted with the depopulation agenda of the ruling elite, also understands that their health is in their own hands.

Georgia Guidestones NWO Depopulation Agenda 21 UN

No doctor, medical or government institute is a reasonably trustworthy resource when it comes to defining what is healthy.

In fact, it is the outright goal of these establishments to promote disease causing diets and habits. It is the lucrative business of depopulation.

As people have become far more aware than they once were of the horrors awaiting them in the grocery store, more have turned to organic and natural source foods to avoid the onslaught of chemical and genetically engineered foods.

Perhaps one of the most consumed and trusted groups of “natural” food sources includes every manner of grain, nuts, legumes and other seeds. It seems completely reasonable that not only are these things healthy when grown organically, but even necessary for optimal health.

grains

These foods do contain a high value of nutrition, but we have failed to take notice of some very important elements in how they reach our tables.

Since the first humans left the garden of Eden, mankind has had to till the soil, sow seed and harvest his crop to eat. Since that time, humanity has been an agricultural race, with nearly every culture on earth growing some form of grain.

Who questions how grains go from seed to bread? Very few of us, I think.

They have been eaten for thousands of years without trouble and had not people around me begun to exhibit some very curious symptoms, I might have never considered how grains are treated before they are consumed in this modern age.

A seed is the future of a species of plant. It is their “offspring”. That being the case, it must be a hardy little thing, containing all it needs to not only develop a new plant but also to resist environmental adversity before the point of ideal germination.

One of the key ingredients to this process is something called phytic acid.

Phytic acid is present in a significant concentration in anything that is a seed, including nuts and legumes.

phytic acid

The problem with this acid is that human beings are not able to digest it.

Only ruminating animals are capable of breaking it down with an enzyme called phytase, which human beings lack.

The obvious result might be degrees of indigestion, but the more serious result is that phytic acid depletes the body of phosphorous and many other vital nutrients, resulting in malnourishment to some level when the dietary intake of the phytic acid is high.

Furthering the problem, the “bran” or hard shell of the seed is also indigestible and consuming great quantities of it results in the equivalent of passing shrapnel constantly through the digestive tract. The bran contains phytic acid in concentration.

Seeds such as nuts, sunflower seeds, sesame seeds, etc. would not be found in high concentrations in the diet of earlier civilizations.

Nuts and seeds to be eaten whole were not so commonly cultivated in great quantities, so the dietary intake of them would be more occasional and not used as a staple food source. Grains, however, were very commonly cultivated, but harvested, stored and processed much differently than they are today.

Since the idea of “whole grains” being healthy came about, many have turned to them as a staple food item, believing that the higher their intake of indigestible bran and fiber was, the better their health would be.

industrialgrain

A “whole grain” is only as healthy as the way it came to your table, though.

In the past, agriculture was an art of patience and prayer, waiting for rain at the right times and dry weather at the right times. It was a process of waiting, reaping and storing. Now agriculture is massive, fast and mechanized.

At one time, when the harvest was ready, the grain was cut and allowed to sit in the fields for long stretches of time before it was gathered (it takes a long time to harvest fields with scythes). As the grains sat, they were exposed to rain and sun and that naturally caused many of the grains in the field to begin the germination process.

Once a seed begins to germinate, the phytic acid content drops and the nutrient value goes up.

When those grains were then taken from the fields and they reached the consumer, they were not often used as they were, but soaked in water for a length of time which further reduced the phytic acid content.

Many cultures also fermented their grains before making them into bread, and this process resulted in a much more digestible and nutrient rich final product.

Soaking Grains

Fermenting Grains

In modern farming, not only do we have pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and GMOs to consider but also added hormone growth regulators which are sprayed on the crop. These hormone regulators can legally be called “natural” or “organic” because they are often derived from other plants, but that does not mean it is at all natural to spray them on a growing crop of plants.

Since crops are no longer harvested or stored in the traditional ways, those grains become subject to fungi and pests.

To combat this, even when the seed itself has not been treated, the storage facilities spray down the storage units with fungicides and pesticides.

The grains are exposed to temperatures which deplete their nutritional content and when they are moved to a milling facility, they are milled in a “dead” state. A seed that can’t germinate is dead and it isn’t fit for consumption.

A seed that is viable but still in its closed, dormant state, is also not ideal for consumption. Milled in this state, the phytic acid content is such that when you receive the flour of bread from which it was made, you are consuming something that is not feeding, but rather robbing your system of vital nutrients and setting your digestive system (and eventually your immune system) up for failure.

In considering what is best for your health, you must also consider than not all of us have exactly the same nutritional needs. Some ethnic backgrounds can tolerate seed food sources better than others. Some would do better to never eat seed products at all.

Those who exhibit the lowest tolerance for seed foods tend to have Rh negative blood types and those are also the people who are rapidly becoming the highest instance of autoimmune dysfunction.

If you or those around you have suffered from degenerative illnesses, digestive diseases, autoimmune diseases or estrogen dominant reproductive illnesses, i might recommend that you try life without conventional grain products. Whether by way of consuming only soaked and fermented seed products or by avoiding them entirely, you may find your health greatly improved.

View Author Profile : Prodigal Son

+ Author : Prodigal Son

+ Main Page : Home

+ Enter Forum : Culling The Herd

+ Enter Network : Time No Longer

Was There an 8th Day of Creation?

Posted in 02 : The Truth Is Out There... with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on 03/12/2011 by timenolonger

For most who read and believe scripture, the account of creation in Genesis is understood to have taken place in six days, the seventh day being that one which was set apart as a day of rest from all that YHWH made.

There are, however, some who do not believe that creation ceased on day six, but proceeded to day eight on which Adam, who is normally thought of as the first man, was created.

Those who have this view do not consider Adam and Eve to have been the first humans on Earth, but rather believe that those who were made on day six were a separate creation of human/ humanoid beings.

Often it is explained in terms of these first ones having been all the various races minus that one which was chosen to bring forth Messiah, who was Adam, created on day eight.

It would not be wise to choose either view simply on how the information impresses one at first thought.

Neither adhering to the more well accepted sixth day creation because of tradition, nor adopting the eight day view because of its novelty are good foundations for a clear answer.

Perhaps many who choose either one, having encountered both, do so on the grounds of one of those two reasons, but all interpretation should be tested thoroughly.

Support for the belief in an eighth day creation for Adam are often the following:

1. There is a clear distinction in the telling of the sixth day “humans” and the later telling of the creation of Adam. (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2)

2. The first people were created “in His image” both male and female, rather than Adam who was created alone (and androgynous) and later had a wife made for him out of his own flesh.

3. The first people were created, while Adam was “formed” out of the ground

4. There is a correlation between the first people created and the “beast of the earth” created on the sixth day.

5. The creation of the “eighth day” is evident in the pattern for all of human history – 7,000 years followed by the “eighth day” of the new creation.

6. The “breath of life” breathed into Adam is synonymous with a soul or spirit which the first created people did not have. The first people had YHWH’s likeness, the second had His spirit.

7. Cain mentioned “everyone” who found him would kill him for his crime against Abel and the only explanation for those others is that there were people created prior to Adam and Eve.

8. Cain found a wife and this wife must have been one of those of the people who had been made before Adam and Eve.

Knowing whether or not these points are a good support for the theory means addressing each one in the context of scripture, demanding that scripture make a probable, not just possible case for it.

The same is true of the conventional understanding. His word is not given in a way that requires us to guess. In the end, all correct interpretations will be those which add up to the simplest and most comprehensible answer according to literal language.

One Act or Two?

In Genesis chapter 1 there is a chronological description of creation, describing each day and what was made on that day. The first day describes the creation of the Earth, light, day and night. On the second day was the creation of the firmament of heaven. On the third day, dry land was made to appear and created plant life. On day four were the luminaries of heaven made, the stars, sun and moon. On day five were made sea creatures and birds. On day six, land animals were made, reptiles, mammals and finally people.

“Then ‘Elohiym said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind. Cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to its kind,” and it was so.

And ‘Elohiym made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind, and ‘Elohiym saw that it was good.

Then ‘Elohiym said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So ‘Elohiym created the man in His image, in the image of ‘Elohiym He created him, male and female He created them.”

– Genesis 1:24-27

The seventh day is then set apart for rest from all these things YHWH made, but after the description of the seventh day comes another telling of the creation of humans.

“And Yahuwah ‘Elohiym formed the man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living creature.

Yahuwah ‘Elohiym planted a garden eastward in ‘Eden and there He put the man whom He had formed”.

– Genesis 2:7, 8

Is this a continuation of the account proceeding in chronological order to the eighth day? There are two points which seriously hinder this being probable.

All other days described before this are done in such a precise way as to pointedly mention the beginning and ending of each “the evening and the morning” as in: “So the evening and the morning were Day One.”, also giving each day aclear number.

This is absent for an eighth day. There is no mention of an evening and a morning encompassing a certain day on which this occurred, nor is there any mention of “day eight”.

The second hindrance is an even more difficult one to justify. The proclamation of the end of the sixth day reads like this:

Thus the heavens and the earth and all (kol: whole, all, any every) the host of them were finished (kalah: end, to be finished, ceased). – Genesis 2:1

There is a clear statement that all things had been made at this point and that following this was cessation from the act of creation.

In His Image: Created or Formed?

Is there an indication that the first account describes a simultaneous “creation” of man and woman while the second describes a process of “forming” Adam alone from the clay?

The first account reads as follows:

“So ‘Elohiym created (bara: create) the man (adam) in His image, in the image of ‘Elohiym He created him, male and female He created (bara:create) them.”

– Genesis 1:27

Here there is the word “bara” which is pointed out as differing from the word used in the “forming” of Adam in Genesis 2:

“And Yahuwah ‘Elohiym formed (yatsar: mold, squeeze) the man (adam) of the dust of the ground”

– Genesis 2:7

If there is a point being made here referencing a different mode of creation employed between the first and second humans, it should by all means remain consistent. It is, however, not the case.

In Genesis 4 is the account of the birth of Seth, who is born in replacement of the slain Abel. We must be assured that Seth was the son of Adam and Eve, this being repeated throughout scripture many times, not the son of an earlier creation of humans.

Following this account is the use of the word “bara” (create) in reference to Adam and Eve as well as a reference to their creation “in His image”.

“And ‘Adam knew his wife again and she bare a son and called his name Sheth, “For ‘Elohiym,” she said, “has appointed me another seed instead of ‘Hebel whom Qayin slew.”

And to Sheth, to him also there was born a son and he called his name ‘Enowsh. Then men began to call upon the name of Yahuwah.

This is the book of the generations of man (adam) in the day that ‘Elohiym created mankind.

In the likeness of ‘Elohiym He made him, male and female He created (bara) them and blessed them and called their name ‘Adam in the day when they were created.”

– Genesis 4: 25, 26, Genesis 5:1, 2

Beast of the Earth connected to First Humans?

It is often believed among those who support an 8th day creation that the description of the creation of the “beast of the Earth” in Genesis is synonymous with those first humans created prior to Adam. This is also, many times, connected with the Beast of the Earth mentioned in Revelation.

Scripture gives the account of the creation of the “beast of the Earth” in Genesis like this:

“And ‘Elohiym made the beast (chay: life,living) of the earth according to its kind, cattle (behemah) according to its kind, and everything that creeps (remes:reptile) on the earth according to its kind, and ‘Elohiym saw that it was good. .”

– Genesis 1:25

There is perhaps little to be said of this as any connection to the creation of human or humanlike creatures. The word “chay” preceding a list of animals which were made on the sixth day could only logically be a collective statement before a more detailed list. It is not a word which is specific to any certain sort of living creature.

Where this connection is usually made, it is included within a doctrine that strongly supports the idea of a superior race and lesser peoples who are made fundamentally different by the manner of their creation.

It is often found in Christian identity and British Israelism cults and follows the ages old tradition of an idea which began in the rulership of nephilim over weaker humans.

Turned upside down, this idea is given a Christian face with which to tempt the pride of believers and alienate various ethnic groups from Christianity.

Is the Future New Heaven and Earth created on an “eighth day”?

It is said that one day is equal to a thousand years in the eyes of YHWH and though the precise days of creation are given in terms of 24 hour intervals, the whole of human history might be sensibly mapped out over a week of millennia.

It is completed, therefor, in the same time construct as the act of creation. It is theorized that if Adam was the new creation of the eighth day, his creation coincides with the new heaven and new earth to be created after the thousand year Sabbath of Messiah’s reign.

The difficulty with this idea is that the model we have been given to observe has no day eight. We are shown a seven day cycle, the last day of which is Sabbath and the following day is not day eight, but day one.

The concept of a day eight in the cycle is only applicable within an occult context where there is an emphasis on day eight being the day of the phoenix, the rebirth, the new age.

Sabbath, by it’s very nature, is special because it is the final touch on creation, it is the moment where the labors are enjoyed instead of toiled over, it is the sum reward of all things worked for.

When the millennial reign of Messiah ends, we should not expect and eternal rotation of the same patterns of time we now have. By being a new creation, even time itself will not be measurable by any present concept of it, that also, will be new. There can be no day eight in a new creation as eight proceeds from the prior series of numbers1-7 and is not, by definition, new.

Did Elohim impart His spirit to Adam but not to the first humans?

In Genesis 1:26 it is said that “man” is made in His image:

“Then ‘Elohiym said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

– Genesis 1:26

The later account describes the formation of Adam and how he became a living being:

“And Yahuwah ‘Elohiym formed the man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living creature.”

– Genesis 2:7

It is believed by many who see these as separate creations that this describes the difference between those first humans and Adam. While the first received the physical likeness of their maker, the second received His Spirit, indicated by the words “breath of life”.

The phrase “breath of life” and “living soul” is understood in this belief to refer to life in a spiritual or eternal sense. The words themselves, though, do not indicate a special or eternal sort of life which was exclusively given to Adam, but rather an animating force which is applicable to all things which live and breathe.

“And Yahuwah ‘Elohiym formed (yatsar: mold, squeeze) the man (adam) of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath (n’shamah: puff, wind, breath) of life (chay:life,living) and the man (adam) became a living (chay) soul (nephesh: breathing, living creature).

Yahuwah ‘Elohiym planted a garden eastward in ‘Eden and there He put the man (adam) whom He had formed (yatsar).”

– Genesis 2:7,8

Here “chay” is used, just as it is used earlier in Genesis to describe the sort of life which animals have. The word “nephesh”, which is often translated as “soul” cannot be understood in the sense of what people normally think of as a soul. It, also, is used to describe a creature, any creature, who is living and breathing as shown here:

“So ‘Elohiym created great sea creatures and every living thing (nephesh) that moves, with which the waters abounded according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind, and ‘Elohiym saw that it was good.”

– Genesis 1:21

Was the “everyone” Cain was afraid of an indication of multitudes of humans made before Adam?

Cain made this well known statement when he was cursed by YHWH to become a vagabond for the murder of his brother:

“And Qayin said to Yahuwah, “My punishment is greater than I can bear!
Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground.

I shall be hidden from Your face. I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me.”

– Genesis 4:13, 14

Anyone or “every one”, as it is given in the KJV, is seen as indicating a great number of people. That indication is not literally present, but thought to implied by the way it is often used in the context of the English language.

The word is translated from “kol” which properly means, any, all or every. It does not indicate a number, either few or many, but simply describes any or every of whatever certain group is in question. It would make as much sense if Adam and Eve were the only two others as much as it would if there were multitudes of others.

Jubilees is a helpful text in considering the theory of the eighth day creation as a whole and it gives a good idea of how many people were on earth as produced through Adam and Eve at the time of this event.

Without including possible grandchildren, there would have been approximately eleven children of Adam and Eve alive at the time conservatively. All of these would perhaps feel justified in seeking due vengeance for their brother’s murder.

“And in the third week in the second jubilee she gave birth to Cain, and in the fourth she gave birth to Abel, and in the fifth she gave birth to her daughter Âwân.

And in the first (year) of the third jubilee, Cain slew Abel because (God) accepted the sacrifice of Abel, and did not accept the offering of Cain”

– Jubilees 4:1, 2

Where did Cain find a wife?

It is often pointed out that Cain could not have gotten a wife anywhere if there had not been “other” humans present who were not of his own parents. There is no reason to assume this, however.

The command against incest had not yet been given, and for a good reason, all who were available for marriage in the beginnings were siblings. Jubilees also offers insight to Cain’s wife:

“And Cain took ’Âwân his sister to be his wife and she bare him Enoch at the close of the fourth jubilee. And in the first year of the first week of the fifth jubilee, houses were built on the earth, and Cain built a city, and called its name after the name of his son Enoch.”

– Jubilees 4:9

The introduction of the theory of two creations of mankind is an important indicator of the motive, reasoning and philosophy behind it.

If it were intended as the interpretation we should receive from His word, its teaching should bear the fruit of that and be identifiable in both ancient Judaism (before Babylon) as well as the early Christian church.

Where it has sprung up, though is not in either of these places, but in the mind of a Jewish man who lived in Alexandria and who was much more a student of Greek pagan philosophy than Judaism.

Philo of Alexandria was known for his writings which attempted to meld together traditional Judaism and Greek philosophy.

It is an attempt which is not unlike the goal the Catholic church worked toward in melding together Christianity and pagan religious systems.

He interpreted nothing in scripture as literally true, but believed in a symbolic and allegoric interpretation which in essence means nothing, as no symbol is meaningful without a clear object or truth which it symbolizes.

If YHWH meant to give us riddles which only a few could understand, why then can we easily recognize the message present in His word that demonstrates how He uses simplicity and lowliness rather than worldly wisdom and high estate?

“Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength because of Your enemies that You may silence the enemy and the avenger”.

-Psalm 8:2

Philo sought to”reveal” a cryptic and hidden meaning in the bible which was not there, the same snare which continually draws believers, even today, down a path of speculation which inevitably draws ever nearer a pagan religious system and away from a truth YHWH plainly gave.

One of these cryptic meanings he revealed to his followers was the theory of an eighth day creation, stating that the first men were made in a perishable physical image of their maker but the second were created as creatures with His spirit.

The very theory that makes it’s appearance in the beliefs of many seeking Christians today originated in a man who taught concepts which were derived out of Greek Mystery Religions.

We have a Creator who has given us a perfect representation of truth in a most logical, most common sense way. and I have never known anything written to have made as much sense as His word does when read just as it reads.

It is the persistent Author of Confusion, Satan, who seeks to make what was simple into something complicated, knotted and difficult to follow. There might be no better general rule of reading His word than “if it is not said, it was not meant.”.

View Author Profile: Prodigal Son

+ Author : Prodigal Son

+ Main Page : Home

+ Enter Forum : The Truth Is Out There, and It’s Not Subjective

+ Enter Network : Time No Longer

Just How Christian Is The Cross?

Posted in 02 : The Truth Is Out There... with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on 09/16/2010 by timenolonger

The cross… it is one of the most readily recognized symbols all over the world. It is emblematic of Christianity and understood by most anyone who sees it as a sign of Messianic sacrifice on behalf of a sinful world.

Believers wear it and display it in solidarity with their Savior and His people, but are believers making a serious mistake in their understanding of what this symbol really means?

At a time when many Christians are coming to understand that much of what they have been taught by their leaders throughout the years has been misleading and even deceptive, the symbol of the cross itself is brought into question.

Anyone sincerely determined to have the whole truth can not allow themselves to be in denial when it comes to the appearance of this symbol and where it is found in history.

It is without reasonable doubt that the symbol we know as being related to our Savior did not have its first appearance in religion at the advent of Christianity.

The symbol we are familiar with, having two lines bisecting one another in some form, roughly like a lowercase “t”, is an ancient one, the depictions of which make appearances in a wide variety of pagan traditions.

That being the case, we have a duty to know all the facts and find out: just how Christian is the cross?

The Cross in Pagan Cultures

What can be revealed with fairly little effort is that the symbol of crossing lines goes back thousands of years. One of the most well known of these symbols comes from Egypt.

Ankh

The ankh stood for fertility, eternal life and the act of Heaven intervening on Earth to the effect of producing “life”.

Whether these things can be simplified in an agricultural sense or not (the passing of seasons bringing seed-time and harvest, the flooding of the Nile, etc) it is hard to miss the definitive similarity the ideas connected with the ankh bear to those connected with the Christian cross.

Tau

A similar figure, known as the Tau (after the Greek letter it resembles: appearing like a Capital T) has been associated with like connotations.

Being related to a number of deities such as the Sumerian Tammuz, the Roman Mithras and his Persian counterpart Mithra.

Solar Cross Sunwheel

The symbol of the “sunwheel” or solar cross is yet another example, a derivation of which can be seen in what is known as a Celtic cross.

This symbol also correlates to cycles of rejuvenation… a returning “sun god” who resurrects life each spring, as well as celestial cycles of the “spheres” which return back to their beginning (bringing a “new age”) with each full turn, much like annual seasonal cycles.

The “Saviors” of Pagan Cultures

The similarity of the ideas embedded in the pagan cross symbols to what is understood as Christian exclusive beliefs does not end at the symbols themselves.

The “gods” which were often connected to these cross-like themes also bore a disconcerting resemblance to ideas we associate with Messiah.

Mithras, sometimes surnamed “Sol Invictus” is considered a confusing personality in the Roman pantheon, as there is very little extant information about the cult of Mithraism, and the deity seems remarkably out of place amongst the much more antiquated figures of the Roman-Olympian pantheon.

The Roman worship of this “Mithras” came about very late in game… well after the crucifixion of Messiah.

The puzzle is resolved in understanding that Mithras was not a Roman deity at all, but a borrowed Zoroastrian deity, originally named Mithra or Mithra-yazata.

The name Mithra means “binding oath”. He is also titled thus by his followers: the lofty, and the everlasting, the Yazad (divinity) of the spoken name, and “the holy,”.

With a little background information regarding the rebel angels, known in scripture as the Watchers, we can identify who Mithra actually is.

The 200 rebellious Watchers are recorded in 1 Enoch to have made a “binding oath” upon MT Hermon to seal their mutual culpability for their planned crimes against humanity.

It was also a widely held tradition in Hebrew lore than the leader of this faction, Shemyhaza, taught his own wife how to pronounce the “spoken Name” of YHWH.

Yazidi 1920sThe title which is attributed to such beings “Yazad”, can be seen to be mirrored in the strange cult known as the Yazidi, who worship a pantheon of angels.

Yazidi Melek TausThe top ranking among the Yazidi pantheon is Melek Taus (the peacock angel), who can also be identified with the same leader of the rebel Watchers.

Both Yazidi tradition and some Hebrew folklore claim this being regretted his errors and the Hebrew legends claim he voluntarily hung himself “between Heaven and Earth”… or is some state of limbo between the physical and spiritual realms.

There are no scriptural indications of his state of punishment being voluntary, but the same theme of this fallen angel being “hung” up on a tree or “cosmic pillar” in some manner of self sacrifice can be traced throughout multiple cultures and even in a modern deck of tarot cards.

The Manichaean equivalent – Mihr yazd, was regarded as a savior figure who was hung on a tree. Likewise the Norse Odin, who hung himself on the world tree. In Babylonian legend, Tammuz was killed by crucifixion at the hand of his own consort (and/ or mother), buried and resurrected. The act was memorialized in Phrygian culture by crucifying an effigy of a man on a “sacred” pine tree each year.

"Hanged Man" Tarot CardThe annual mourning for Tammuz was rampant among Semitic cultures. Krishna, Prometheus and multiple other instances also mirror the same idea… self sacrifice and hanging.

The theme can be seen reflected in the “hanged man” of the tarot deck as well… a card of the major arcana which is nicknamed, interestingly enough, both “the traitor” and ‘the martyr”.

The authentic background of this being would suggest that he was indeed hung (head down… not in a traditional cruciform pose) in a subterranean prison, but there is nothing to suggest that his sentence was voluntary or an act of self sacrifice.

1 Enoch is clear in saying that he and his subordinates were all imprisoned quite against their will by YHWH’s faithful angels, whether they had regrets or not.

All the same… there is a familiar theme here which often becomes an excuse for non-believers to dismiss the validity of what Yahushua did, claiming these legends as proof positive that neither the cross nor the act done on it was original to Christianity.

Chronology is the issue… that these tales and symbols precede the crucifixion of Messsiah seems to validate such claims of origin for them.

What non-believers (and many Christians) fail to understand is that:

1… the promise of a Savior was made to mankind immediately after their fall in Eden and before any written record or division of religious beliefs existed anywhere on Earth.

2… the angels, including the rebel angels, were also privy to the knowledge of the expectation of a Messiah and the element of self sacrifice which would be involved.

3… rebel angels and their offspring actively sought to counterfeit the position and the promises of the Almighty, and

4… the rebel Watchers have always held the position of representing the “right hand”, as Satan’s faction has always taken the position of the “left hand”… creating the illusion of rivalry, when in actuality, both oppose YHWH.

The Real Savior

Yahushua does not leave us in hopeless confusion over His uniqueness next to the look-a-like legends before Him.

He did not conveniently fail to address the fact that there were pagan traditions of “saviors” who had gone before. Yahushua clearly states the truth regarding the distinction between Himself and these heathen beliefs.

“Most assuredly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.

Iam the door.

If anyone enters by Me, he shall be saved and shall go in and out and find pasture.

The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.

I have come that they may have life and that they may have it more abundantly.

I am the good shepherd.

The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.”

– John 10:7-11

Though we may be used to thinking of Antichrist as the last, great, diabolical world leader… the term has a broader meaning as well.

The term anti-christ is more properly translated “pseudo-christ”… not an opposite… a counterfeit, and the spirit of pseudo-christ, we are told in scripture, has been here and will continue to be here until Messiah returns.

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits whether they are of Yahuwah, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

By this you know the Spirit of Yahuwah. Every spirit that confesses that Yahushua the Anointed has come in the flesh is of Yahuwah, and every spirit that does not confess that Yahushua the Anointed has come in the flesh is not of Yahuwah.

And this is the spirit of the anti-Anointed One that you have heard was coming and is now already in the world.

You are of Yahuwah, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.”

– 1 John 4:1-4

Was He Really Killed on a “Cross”?

An integral part of the debate about the “Christianness” of the cross symbol is whether or not the actual structure on which Yahushua was killed was, in fact, shaped like what we recognize as a cross.

After coming by information on the pagan usage of the symbol, it is often natural to then have doubts about whether our Savior would have been found hanging on something which resembled these symbols.

Roman crucifixion, contrary to popular assumption, was not always carried out on only one type of structure.

The “crucifix” went through phases of transition, and different forms of the structure were utilized for the various ways in which they would cause specific types of pain and death.

Crucifixion itself did not originate with the Romans, but reaches far back in antiquity and originates as literal hanging upon a live tree.

The mention of this type of crucifixion is made in Deuteronomy:

“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death and he is put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain overnight on the tree but you shall surely bury him that day.

Whoever is hanged is cursed by ‘Elohiym, so do not defile the land that Yahuwah your ‘Eloah gives you as an inheritance.”

– Deut 21:22,23

and revisited in Galatians…

“The Anointed has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)..”

– Galatians 3:13

Referred to in historical records as “arbor infelix” or the unfortunate tree… the custom was in heathen cultures, to hang a convicted person upon a tree which had been dedicated to a “god”.

This manner of execution, no doubt, has a similar origin as the legends of the “hanging god-savior”…  the difference in how this idea is treated between the Hebrew and pagan nations is illustrated in the fact that the pagan cultures were reverencing this false messianic being, whereas YHWH reminds His people that to be hanged on a tree in this way is to be cursed as the rebel angel was who defied Him.

Then why would Yahushua in this way be cursed and hung in like manner on any type of “tree”?

Because He came as the true Messiah to literally bear the curse of YHWH for all the world’s sins.

He bore a curse for our sakes.

The Roman manner of crucifixion in its various forms also had various names for the structures used to crucify victims. The “Crux Immissa” was in the form of what most recognize as a “cross”…the lowercase “t”. The “Crux Decussata” was in the form of an X. The “Crux Commissa” was in the form of the “Tau” cross… a Capital “T” form and the “Crux Simplex” was simply one pole in the ground.

It is debated in favor of the idea that Yahushua was crucified on a crux simplex, a single pole in the ground, on the basis of the word used for cross in the New Testament… which is “stauros”, literally meaning “a stake”.

It should be noted, though, that the Greek terminology which referred to a crux simplex was usually “mono stauros” (single stake), rather than stauros.

Evidence of Crucifix Form Used

Whereas the symbol normally used in Christianity is a crux immissa, and those opposing this form often favor the crux simplex, evidence has it that neither are right.

Historically and archeologically speaking… the form of the crucifix structure most often used at the time and place of Yahushua’s death was the crux commissa, the tau form crucifix.

Depending upon the type of structure it might take anywhere from a few hours to a few days for a person who was crucified to die. Scourging prior to crucifixion (which was normal procedure) would impact that length of time as well, due to shock and great amounts of blood being lost.

The hands by themselves would not support the weight of the victim, but a nail through the wrists would in any position. On a crux simplex, the hands would be brought together above he head, while on a form with a cross beam, the victim would be hung loosely by a wrist from each side, not so the arms would project straight out from the body but would be raised in a Y formation above the head.

Though it is often claimed that inhaling would be difficult crucified on a structure with a horizontal beam, this is actually not the case. Instead, the diaphragm is forced down and exhaling is what requires an active effort… making the victim unable to do so without pushing themselves up with their feet. Death was often hastened by breaking the legs of the victims, which could cause death by shock or embolism and not by asphyxiation alone, regardless of the cruciform structure.

The Roman soldiers overseeing the crucifixion of Yahushua and other victims on the same day, sought to hasten their deaths by breaking their legs, which might have come (for the other victims at least) hours or days later. The surprise with which they discovered Yahushua to already be dead implies a structure being used which should have taken more time than it had to kill Him.

It is reasonable that this was not a crux simplex form since this form, putting greater pressure on the diaphragm than the types with cross beams, would take less time to cause death. The real cause of His death is perhaps more accurately understood as one brought on by the severity of spiritual trauma which affected Him physically, rather than being purely physical in nature.

An entire crux simplex post, weighing anywhere from 200 to 300 lbs, would have been incredibly difficult if not impossible for a man to haul up a hill by himself after first being beaten.

A cross beam or “patibulum” was often carried by the victim, however… this weighing between 70 and 100 lbs.

Although the depictions of crux commissa and crux immissa forms are sometimes attributed to the highly paganized influence of Catholicism, the first specific descriptions recorded of the structure on which Yahushua was crucified were written down 200 years prior to Constantine’s rule. Those descriptions describe it as a crux commissa, a tau cross.

Should Believers Regard the Cross as Christian or Pagan?

The controversy surrounding what type of crucifix structure Yahushua was killed on is strongly influenced by the idea that Messiah could not be associated with any symbol which had been used in heathen cultures.

What we tend to forget in that line of thinking is that the Romans were, of course, pagan people. The practice of crucifixion was a pagan oriented form of execution, reminiscent of an event which was synonymous with the wrath of YHWH, but which pagan cultures spun their own messianic stories from.

The question of Christian or pagan becomes an issue of what came first.

What came first was the plan of YHWH of course… that predating anything which heathen people did, recorded or depicted in reverence to false messiahs.

If we must equate the cross form with heathen ideals, then what do we make of false elohim who have been called shepherds, fishers and crucified saviors? What form of crucifix would have been less pagan and a more comfortable fit with Christianity when nearly every imaginable shape and form (including every shape a crucifix could be) has been implemented at some point in ideographic reference to a pagan “god”?

The decision to wear, display or otherwise use the cross as identifying with Christianity might not be rightly decided based on whether or not one can find any non Christian usage of it, but rather a conclusion based on what the structure on which Yahushua was crucified really means.

Does it stand for the wrath of YHWH poured out on sin… or does it stand for the redemption from that sin which Yahushua provided?

Obviously, that can be a very complex question worth its own discussion… but we might think twice about displaying a cross if its true connotation is wrath rather than mercy.

As for how I might answer this, at least in my current understanding (which might always change and hopefully for the better) … I understand mercy as having the last word. The instrument of the cross has been the mode of YHWH’s wrath, and yet that wrath poured out upon the One True Savior has resulted in mercy… the result which no false shepherd has ever achieved.

View Author Profile : Cyprium

+ Author : Cyprium

+ Main Page : Home

+ Enter Forum : The Truth Is Out There, and It’s Not Subjective

+ Enter Network : Time No Longer

Of Serpent Seeds and Biased Doctrines: What is the Truth of It?

Posted in 03 : The Dragon with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on 08/19/2010 by timenolonger

The Shepherds Chapel… Christian Identity… Serpent Seed Doctrine. These concepts have attracted a lot of people in the recent years.

The greater familiarity with the Book of Enoch which has come about recently, has been piggybacked by theology like that of Arnold Murray and his brand of doctrine surrounding the intermingling of human and angelic kind.

The events concerning the nephilim and their fathers, the pre-flood history of the world as told in 1 Enoch, are subject matters which comprise a starting point to a solid thread of evidence throughout the canon.

There is certainly a great deal of discomfort involved for many Christians in coming to terms with the idea of human and angelic co-mingling, and of offspring of that sort of union.

All discomfort aside… the foundation of support for it is unyielding scripturally.

The pitfalls for those who come across this information in their early walks in faith, when their spiritual maturity has yet to develop, are certainly out there.

The Serpent Seed doctrine does an excellent job of filling a position of look-a-like theology with subject matters such as nephilim, but the root of this doctrine is very different and so too is the fruit it yields.

Understanding what went on before the flood, what many bible topics mean in light of it, and what the implications are for the end times greatly expands maturity in objective thinking and understanding of the biblical message on a wide scale.

The result is ultimately that you begin to understand Mercy for what it is… that there is no room for games of pride and racial “one-uping”… that grace encompasses all recipients of it, and that it is futile to debate the purity of one’s own family tree.

Accepting the Serpent Seed theory grows into the antithesis of all of this. Confusion is the foundation of it, and it breeds confusion in understanding the full message of scripture… it necessitates very creative interpretation of scripture to continually find ways of supporting it throughout.

The doctrine itself is not simply background information for those who hold it, but it is the axis on which their whole “faith” rests. It becomes of utmost concern to place oneself apart from those who are considered the literal offspring of Satan.

This group is always held to be one or more specific ethnic group, and the “true Israel” is held as being whatever racial group the adherent belongs to (for Murray followers… white).

The obvious hallmark of pride abounds… that this cult has factions in every ethnicity, only adjusting the claims of who belongs to the devil and who belongs to Israel is enough evidence to show that the beliefs held around the Serpent Seed doctrine are hinging on racism and produce fruit fit for the garbage pile.

The doctrine of the Serpent Seed says basically this… that Satan literally had sex with Eve, producing Cain… this was the original sin of mankind. That Cain’s descendants are still with us today… who they are will depend on the adherent of the doctrine you ask.

Murray-ites will say Jews, black and other “non-white” groups. Anglo-Saxon whites are presented as “true” Israel in the Murray school of thought, whereas other ethnic groups might be labeled as such in different versions of the same creed.

The outcome is a band-aid for an inferiority complex which bolsters ones self esteem by being a member of the “Real” Israel, with the justified ability to look down other ethnic groups.

The fact that angelic entities did arrive on earth, and did interbreed with humanity beginning in the days of Jared, seems to have not fit the bill for the purposes of the Cain Serpent Seed theory.

Perhaps that has a beginning in those who first pushed the theory itself. The Serpent Seed theology has it’s beginnings in gnosticism and kaballah, not Murray.

Both of these belief systems are ironically ones which Arnold Murray followers would deny.. yet there is the root of their central belief.

Kaballah is called a Jewish invention, but it is older than it’s Jewish application, and more resembles Babylon. Both of these belief systems, gnosticism and kaballah, are rooted in the corrupt teachings of the Watchers.

It would not behoove the agenda of the fallen Watchers or their students, ancient and modern, to instill a memory and understanding of how they corrupted the world physically or morally.

The Serpent Seed theory by necessity demands denial of a world-wide flood, which is very difficult to support throughout scripture. It demands negating and explaining away, in very convoluted ways, the simple statement of Eve… that she had gotten a son through the blessing of YHWH, and the very simple prelude of explanation about how she did: a normal marital union with Adam.

The worst blunder in this doctrine lies in the commandment concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. YHWH’s command was to leave that one tree alone, of all those in the garden… they were free to partake of the others.

If we must accept that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is representative of Satan, and taking it’s fruit is literally having sex with him… then what of the other trees?

Do Adam and Eve have licenses to fornicate with anything in the garden Other than Satan? What do we then make of the tree of Life?

The scene begins to degrade into a bizarre pornographic version of Paradise that I dare say we are not looking forward to as the future state of eternal perfection.

Satan has 10 lies to obscure everyone truth… and it is my hope that believers will not accept the things which “feel good” to believe, but rather judge them against evidence, against common sense and against simple desires to believe a certain way.

Judge all things in His Spirit and examine the fruit that beliefs produce. If those fruits do not resemble His nature… they are best dismissed accordingly, no matter how much you have grown to like them.

View Author Profile : Cyprium

+ Author : Cyprium

+ Main Page : Home

+ Enter Forum : The Dragon

+ Enter Network : Time No Longer