Constantine was the Emporer/Pope who implemented the laws that have bound us to Pagan traditions with the threat of torture and death. Horus??? That statement just supports everything I've been saying. Thanks and may Yahuwah bless and keep you safe from demon attack all the days of your life. Peace!!
@malakhhatzadik YaHuWah means the Eternal Loving Yah of all creation. Not sure where you got your meaning from but it's wrong and it makes me wonder why you do not want people calling on the name of The Almighty Creator. May Yahuwah bless and keep you safe all the days of your life. May he cast out any demons that plaugue you. Peace to you brother in Yah.
@Nikimar23 It most certainly does not mean that. I just told you what it means. The only other meaning that could be derived from the Hebrew would make it feminine. Anyone who knows anything about Hebrew can attest to this. Sugarcoat it all you want--your petty ad hominem retorts, irreverence, stubborn pride and implacable condescension will avail you nothing when you are judged. The truth is the truth. No unrepentant sinner will ever see the kingdom of heaven.
@malakhhatzadik What are you referring to the creator as?? God, this is derived from the pagan deity Gott, are you using Jesus. This is derived of iesus- hail zeus. This is a fact. I'm not sure why you are saying this but it's a fact, go research it. Lord - from Halourde also a pagan deity. I'm saying peace to you but you are not, that is telling enough for me. Yahuwah knows a persons heart. Meditate on that for a while.
"always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" 1 Peter 3:15
Answer my question instead of insinuating that I am somehow worshiping Jesus or whatever, which just makes you look stupid because you have to resort to straw man arguments which indict YOU. Answer it or drop your pretenses and admit that a man of Elohim has no cause for communion with a son of Belial.
@Nikimar23 1942: havvah 1) desire a) desire (in bad sense) 2) chasm (fig. of destruction) a) engulfing ruin, destruction, calamity 1943: hovah 1) ruin, disaster 5753: ‘avah 1) to bend, twist, distort a) (Niphal) to be bent, be bowed down, be twisted, be perverted b) (Piel) to twist, distort c) (Hiphil) to do perversely 2) to commit iniquity, do wrong, pervert a) (Qal) to do wrong, commit iniquity b) (Hiphil) to commit iniquity 5754: ‘avvah 1) distortion, ruin
@Nikimar23 Abaddon (Hebrew: אֲבַדּוֹן, 'Ǎḇaddōn, Greek: Apollyon, Latin: Exterminans, Coptic: Abbaton, meaning "A place of destruction", "The Destroyer", "Depths of Hell") in the Revelation of St. John, is the king of tormenting locusts and the angel of the bottomless pit.[1] The exact nature of Abaddon is debated, but the Hebrew word is related to the triliteral root אבד (ABD), which in verb form means "to perish."
And while you're at it, look up the meaning of Abaddon / ἀπολλυμένοις. Maybe it's time you stopped referring to Satan as "The Almighty Creator" and persecuting YHWH's messengers in his name. What do you say?
The first pope was Constantine who was a practicing Pagan until his deathbed. You have to keep in mind that The Roman Empire were predominantly Pagans. Constantines mother was a staunch Pagan. History has been rewritten in such a way to decieve the masses, to make them think that The Roman Catholic Church does the bidding of Yahuwah, not so, they are a Pagan Establishment. The whole concept of Church and Mass is Pagan. Read The Word of Yah. Roman Emp has removed and twisted scripture.
Esther is a true story though. The name YHWH was banned from use in Babylon, this romance was written there and was not intended to be sacred literature. It does not belong in the canon but should be read. It has the first Nazi in it too, lol.
@pandirasbox Thanks for your comments. As with 1 & 2 Chronicles, I do believe Esther to be an accurate portrayal of real-life events, albeit from the antithetical perspective than the one espoused by the majority of the Bible's authors. My contention here is that the Protestant canon would be perfect in the sense of no flaws without about half a dozen of its books, whereas with the pseudopigrapha and apocrypha, it would be perfect in the sense of complete.
all christians are the readers of the false book made up and given by the whore of babylon, remember the bible didn't fall from the sky, but protestants are even worse they modified the evil book following "scriptures..." Before reading the bible come out from your dark ignorance and read some church history.
Wait, so your stating Paul was a heretic? Ive seen some examples that have a decent premiss regarding that, but there are some problems. 1) Almost if not all early church fathers, including non-catholics state Pauls writings were divinly inspierd (Polycarp admired Paul and states his writings were part of the gospel *correct me if Im wrong*, and so did Clement of Rome). II) He met Peter and Luke and they mention him and acknoledged him as an apostle of Christ.
So what are your thoughts on Paul, and his testimony of seeing Yeshua on the road to Damascus (I dont know if you actually believe Paul was a heretic, but it seemd like you did)?
@Theonedue Not that I normally would, out of context, given its negative connotations, but to call someone a heretic is to allow for the possibility that he had/has a head on his shoulders. Each apostle who wrote any piece of scripture which has found its way into the New Testament, or preached the same, was/is a rampant heretic. Most (including Paul) died as martyrs. Re: your other question, what do you want me to say? I take it as a historical account of a wayward man's miraculous conversion.
@Theonedue Yes, Paul was a heretic. So were Peter, James, Jude, John, Luke, etc., and Yahshuah himself. Isn't it obvious? Heresy is the opposite of orthodoxy. You don't get killed for preaching orthodoxy. Maybe you just have it in your head that what the establishment preaches is what is divinely inspired, in which case I would have to say that the purpose of this and all my other videos has been lost on you. I couldn't care less about Clement's blatantly antichrist views.
@malakhhatzadik Forgive me, what you are saying is a little confusing. Are you saying that the Apostles added on to and Changed What God said? by whose authority are you speaking? What is your point of reference? Did not God Establish a Church? I am not understanding your angle. please clarify.
@hesicast "Are you saying that the Apostles added on to and Changed What God said?" Absolutely. "by whose authority are you speaking?" The baptism of Yohannan--was it of men, or of God? "What is your point of reference?" Truth is self-evident. In this instance, I am referring to the Bible. "Did not God Establish a Church?" God did not and would never do such a thing as counterproductive to his own agenda as that. God has sent prophets to denounce religious establishments for millennia.
@malakhhatzadik Forgive me again, Who are these prophets and how would anyone know that they are from God. For example you are telling me that the Apostles added on to and changed the Word, then who can I trust?
@hesicast What? I have said no such thing. The apostles DID NOT write the Apostles' Creed. The Church DOES NOT represent the will of the apostles or of the Father in heaven! Trust the Word, not in any manmade traditions. When someone claims to be, or you think they may be a prophet, you will know whether they are if (and only if) what they say is compatible with Scripture and incompatible with the Church, and whether they live as prophets: perhaps prone to sin, but not meaning to.
@malakhhatzadik forgive me if i offended u. the last anwer seem a bit confusing to me. What does the apostles creed have to do with the last question and answer.
@hesicast The original aramaic scripture has a mathematical code running through it that predicts many events throughout history very specifically. It is in my opinion that this was done by Yahuwah the almighty creator in order for people to be able to distinguish the true word. Through translation much has been added and taken away. Don't forget The first Pope was a practicing Pagan until his death bed and worshipped the sun God.
@hesicast The orginaly scriptures were written in Aramaic text. They were then translated to hebrew and then to greek. The first Pope was Constantine. Literary Scholars have translated the scripture and found that the true names of the Creator and Messiah have been replaced with names of Pagan Deities however Pagan Deitites such as Molech and Ishtar names have not been changed. Also many scripture has been twisted, added to or taken away from.
@Nikimar23 Scriptures have been altered to fit into the constructs of the Pagan Religion, not that of Yah's covenant. Also note that Constantine (First Pope) made it illegal for anyone to utter the name of The Almighty Creator - Yahuwah. Punishable by torture and death. So if the Catholic Church is doing the bidding of Yah, why would they kill you if you said his name? Pagans believe when you say a deities name you are invoking them. They did not want you calling Yah for salvation or help.
@Nikimar23 what is the sources for the first sciptures. where can i comfirm that constantine was the first pope and his mother. who are the literary scholars that you speak of. what sciptures exatly have been twisted.
@Nikimar23 I know you mean well, but apart from turning YHWH into a feminine case, when you render it as 'Yahuwah' you are literally saying "Yah is ruined" or "Yah is perverted," i.e. you are invoking Apollyon/Abaddon.
@hesicast The mathematical code that runs through the "original" aramaic text was actually studied by mathematicians from Harvard setting out to disprove the code. They were astonished by the accuracy and the entire project actually converted them into the faith due to the fact that the historical predictions were so accurate and specific, naming names and locations of events. They believed that no human could have written and coded those scirptures to predict history since the beginning of time
@lilmerboy I read books, many books that have been knocked out of publication, I wonder why??? But you can get a lot of that info from The Two Babylons, Come out of her my people, Too long in the Sun, The Nephilim and The Apocolypse of the Pyramid, The Word of Yah - Kings Covenant, The Bible Code, Fritz Springmeiers 13 Bloodlines of the Illuminati is a good book for basics, Also anything on MK-Ultra, Project Paperclip or Project Blue Bird. Happy Reading!!!
@hesicast Also Yahuwah's true name was removed as well as his son Yahuwshua. Those names were replaced with those of Pagan Deities. Jesus is derived of iesus it means Hail Zeus. Has nothing to do with Yahuwshua. The term God is derived from the Pagan deity Gott. Lord from the Pagan deity Halourd. You are calling or invoking Demons. This was done deliberately by those wanting to keep Yahuwahs people from being able to call on him for salvation and guidance.
@hesicast Get a strong's concordance. You have to get the most accurate translation of scripture. When you realize that The Creators name is Yahuwah and not God (Pagan deity Gott) and Yahuwshua is the Messiah (not Jesus/ iesus- hail Zeus) then you know you are on the right track. Don't you think that is suspect?? Why did all the Pagan Deities names remain the same but The Creator and Messiah's names. changed. Hmm doesn't seem to make logical sense. Read The Two Babylons.
@Nikimar23 Forgive me but zues is lattin. in greek it is othisias. I am fluent in Greek, as for iesus if u study phonetics you would realise this is the way the Greeks would of heard yahuwshua, just as the english pronounce iesus jesus and the latins heysus. In Orthodox Christianity yahuway is still yahuway. Just like easter is called pachwa(passover) i think your studys are a little revisionist. I think you should learn Greek it woulld help your studies.
@hesicast "It is known that the Greek name endings with sus, seus, and sous
were attached by the Greeks to names and geographical areas as means to
give honour to their supreme deity, Zeus." -Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend Professor J. C. J. Metford Further, the Greek "Iesus" comes from the name Zeus, the ruling God in the Greek pantheon." This is documented in many history books. Tarsus means Sweat of Zeus ...Dionysus means the Son of Zeus ...
@hesicast "Some authorities, who have spent their entire lives studying the origins of names believethat "Jesus" actually means - "Hail Zeus!" For Iesous in Greek IS "Hail Zeus." "Ie" translates as "Hail" and "sous" or "sus" translates as Zeus. The English
name "Jesus", therefore, stems etymologically from "Jupiter-Zeus" the chief god of the
ancient Greek Olympus."-"Yeshua" or "Jesus" -- Which? Biblical Research Institute; 1996 by Les Aron Gosling
@Nikimar23 1942: havvah 1) desire a) desire (in bad sense) 2) chasm (fig. of destruction) a) engulfing ruin, destruction, calamity 1943: hovah 1) ruin, disaster 5753: ‘avah 1) to bend, twist, distort a) (Niphal) to be bent, be bowed down, be twisted, be perverted b) (Piel) to twist, distort c) (Hiphil) to do perversely 2) to commit iniquity, do wrong, pervert a) (Qal) to do wrong, commit iniquity b) (Hiphil) to commit iniquity 5754: ‘avvah 1) distortion, ruin
@hesicast Church is a pagan concept "Yet they never told us there is no "church" at all in the Original Scriptures, did they? "EcclesiYA," which they translated "church" means "the called out of YAH"! "Church" comes from the pagan word "Circe" of Constantine in 321 AD, where we get "sorcery" and "seance" from! " This made sense to me because in scripture it says to worship behind closed doors. That never made sense until I discovered the truth.
Malakhhatzadik, God bless you. It's perfectly OK for you to reject these 3 books. The truth is that you are too young and God is holding you back from these books. God wants you to grow up a little bit first. These three books are the heart and soul of the Torah and the Bible. They are written for older people like me, who understand that the only thing I really have in life is God. I think God has a plan for you, a big one, and one day you will turn around a understand it. God's love .
@LoneMonk1 "Let no man despise your youth." 1 Timothy 4:12
I'm not the one who needs to grow up.
Although you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God, and are such as have need of milk, not strong meat. For everyone that uses milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe, but strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
@malakhhatzadik Nicely said, but still tradition remains, the deeper insights of the Torah are for older people. Your welcome to try and prove me wrong, but I didn't make up the tradition, the Jewish sages did. More to the point, I never said I "despised" anything about you, so that verse doesn't actually apply. You are the one who despises three great books in the Torah for whatever compels you to do so.
@LoneMonk1 I don't need to prove you wrong. I've stated my case. The burden of proof is on you to do something other than insult me for doing you a favor by taking the time to educate your unwilling ego-driven self. Take your troll-bait comments elsewhere. When you have a real argument and/or come to the realization of the truth (like for example the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS FACT that the whole of the scriptural tradition of Israel was written in direct opposition to Judaism), be sure to let me know.
@malakhhatzadik . You're missing the point. These books represent deep love and commitment with God. It's not about proof or education or ego. The books represent being in love with God, no matter what happens in this sometimes horrible life. Removing the Song of Songs from the Bible, is like going into a married couples house and deleting their marriage ceremony. Something that is very important to someone else may not have any meaning for you.
@LoneMonk1 PS It is God, and the holy scriptures which compel me. And also, the Jews never canonized the Old Testament. If you are one of the many dupes who believes the ROMAN CATHOLIC propaganda which says that the OT was formalized at the Council of Jamnia, then you are even more in need of instruction than I have previously let on. That council was convened specifically to discuss the fact that these three books didn't belong with the rest. The rest weren't even discussed. Case closed.
@malakhhatzadik Just wondering, have you read the Siddur, Jewish Orthodox Prayer book? The Song of Song is central to the Shabbat weekly service. Read the Siddur and you will understand better what I am trying to say. It's not a Roman Catholic conspiracy.
I just read all of the comments for this video, and all I can say is: WOW. I would like to be able to ask most of the commentors if the words "These trees are ruining my view of the forest!!!" mean anything to them at all?
Esther was not accepted because it did not contain the name of God, it has many allusions to God. This is a scholarly fact why they rejected the book. There is no reason to reject the book. No substantial arguments can be made against the book.
No substantial arguments can be made against the book??? If the fact that it was written by Babylonian JEWS who blatantly worshiped Marduk and Ishtar and made no apology over the fact, and that 1st century Christians accepted EVERYTHING ELSE doesn't constitute substance, than what would, in your estimation? The people who are praised in Esther are the same people who are condemned in the rest of the Bible. They were and are fundamentally and diametrically opposed to each other in the extreme.
@malakhhatzadik the early christians considered "1 Clement" to be Scripture, and 1 Clement was written in the 1st century and 1 Clement references Book of Esther as authoritative.
@carlsonap16 The Codex Hierosolymitanus (especially Ignatius but also Clement) is not representative of any early Christian canons. It is thoroughly Roman. Go figure; Clement was a bishop of Rome, i.e. Nimrod-worshiping Babylonian crypto-Jew. While I personally prefer the Codex Alexandrinus, it has been universally rejected as the product of heretics (Origen), and the consensus is therefore that it doesn't represent the "true" early Christian canon. So really, 1 Clement never had much support.
@smartwarlord Okay then in that case you do realize that Mordecai is Aramaic for Marduk, right? The fact that both of these Babylonian deities are celebrated rather than just one or the other, and that YHWH isn't, and that Esther and Mordecai are cousins, and Ishtar and Marduk are also cousins, means it is unreasonable to suggest coincidence, and therefore that it is pretty much a water-tight argument against the book in and of itself even disregarding the other arguments. No?
Mordecai is Hebrew, yes it has a Persian connection to Marduk meaning "servant of Marduk" However if we look in Daniel, we see that many Babylonian Exiles were giving names of Babylonian gods. However the name can just mean "servant of God". There is no reason to reject Esther if you accept Daniel's account of the name system of the Exiles.
The name Esther is a later name for her, her real name is Hadassah, which is a flower.
Look at the Talmud or Commentaries. This is not a Babylonian fable.
@smartwarlord Mordecai is NOT Hebrew. It is Aramaic, a.k.a. Chaldean, as I've said. Jews speak Aramaic, which is a Babylonian tongue. They may call it Hebrew, but it is not Hebrew--what people now refer to as paleo-Hebrew. The Babylonian Talmud is written in ARAMAIC. The majority of Israelites who spoke Hebrew and worshiped YHWH never even went to Babylon! Talmud explicitly confirms the rabbins' antagonism by saying Daniel wasn't a prophet, while Yahshuah says he was. Come on man. Think.
There is no way around this. These names were never EVER used in Israel prior to the return of the exiles who were basically the sworn enemies of the nation of Israel to the point that they had "no dealings" with each other (John 4:9) even though they inhabited the same lands.
@smartwarlord Close-minded? I'm the one exercising my cranial capacity and making valid points. Ad hominem attacks do not take the place of sound reasoning. De Nile isn't just a river in Egypt.
Well your arguments are very one way, and thus close-minded. I'm not saying you as an individual are close-minded, clearly you are open-minded. However, on Esther, you are being very close-minded. Bashing a book that shows God from the background instead of as the narrator or just as The Lord.
@smartwarlord "Well your arguments are very one way"
That's because I'm right, not because I'm close-minded. The case is closed, the verdict is in; there is no reason to appeal. That doesn't mean my mind is. You haven't even addressed the main points of the argument. Why was it left out of the Dead Sea canon? I want to know how you reconcile this with calling yourself a "Hebrew Christian." Jewish propaganda is for Romans and Jews, not Hebrews and Christians...
@smartwarlord To answer your question, it's because pseudo-Christian and pseudo-Hebrew Jewish circles are directly descended from the Pharisaism of the Babylonian Jews. The Jewish Encyclopedia has no trouble admitting it, and even the "Christians" would probably understand as much if they weren't just rampantly promoting the "doctrines of devils" of their overtly Satanic establishment which their own scriptures warned them about. I've only posted about 200 videos on this subject....
Pharisaism descends from the Egyptian Jews ! NOT the Babylonian Jews! Look at Paul for this! I am a descendant of the Pharisees! I've seen most of your videos. I do not disagree Gentile Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism is a mockery of the one true faith of Abraham, Moses and ultimately Jesus.
I'm not a Nazarene(or Nazarite) like you (I'm a Hebrew Christian) we stem from the same source, The Way.
@smartwarlord Either you have to admit that the word is the Aramaic cognate of Farsi/Parsi, meaning "Persian," or you have to stick your head in the sand and deny the well-documented 600-year history of the returned exiles but still invent a new history for the Sadducees which dissociates them from the Pharisees. I am aware that it means "set apart" in a way, but it should never be translated as that, or as "holy," (that would be NZR)--rather as "separated" i.e. separated from the Sadducees.
@smartwarlord In fact the word Essene is Josephus' way of saying Nazarene. If it wasn't for him the word wouldn't exist today, and we probably wouldn't know anything about the Essene either. But theirs is a hidden history, and Essene is not synonymous with 1st century Christian and/or Nazarite like Jew is synonymous with Pharisee or Babylonian-Israelite. You say you've seen most of my videos... did you miss the one where I pointed out that Zerubbabel means "seed of Babel"?
@smartwarlord The word "parsi" comes from the Old Persian "parsa" which has the same meaning. The Old Persian language DID exist then, and we're actually talking about Chaldean here, which developed (as a Babylonian language mind you--which NO ONE in the world that I know of disputes) side by side with Farsi.
Both owe their heritage to a bastardization of other languages (Chaldean of the type of Semitic/Aramaic that Abraham would have spoke, which was still influential in Babylon).
I would also point out that the word has the connotation of being cut off... in this case, the etymology would almost certainly imply that the Pharisees were either regarded by the Samaritans as cut off from their inheritance as legalistic Babylonian half-breeds (the Sadducees at least had stuck with some of the OT doctrines like resurrection/judgment) or a derogatory term used by the Sadducees whose name basically meant the same thing. No doubt the Samaritans invented both for the same reason.
To continue off from my last comment, I'm a Hebrew Christian. (no association with Gentile Christianity which spawns heresies faster than the speed of light)
Your faith descends from the Essenes.
Mine from the Pharisees.
I am a Hebrew, flesh and blood. Descendant of Shem to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
You seem very white (as am I), are you a Hebrew or just a Gentile?
I'm very open-minded. So if you want, send me a PM with all your arguments on the Bible both canonical and non-canonical. Thanks
Falo-Halstatt Nordic from Malmo and Prussia, 100% Dan/Yahudah on both sides, as well as patrilineal descendant of David. And as such I think I'm within my right to say that being a descendant of Abraham means nothing. Read John 8.
@malakhhatzadik could it not be that the pagan deities of Ishtar and Marduk resulted in a corruption by the Gentiles of the true Mordecai and Esther, and that originally they were never worshipped?
@carlsonap16 Absolutely not. The events of the book of Esther took place a good two millennia after the composition of the Enuma Elish and other references to the story of Ishtar and Marduk. These two Babylonian Jews were named after these Babylonian gods in veneration of them. There is simply no getting around this fact, or the fact that the Jews are evil Babylonian-Edomite half-breeds who are responsible for every single instance of subversion and perversion of the Christian religion.
@malakhhatzadik i found that out shortly after i posted that, you are right. HOWEVER, if you read Daniel, you'll see he was given a pagan name, just like Joseph in Genesis, but the king. So, could not Artaxerxes of the Book of Esther have given the names "Marduk and Ishtar" to Mordecai and Esther, noticing that they were cousins, and shared some similarities with their deities?
@carlsonap16 Yes that sounds plausible--if not the king then the Jews themselves, but post hoc. But it begs the question of why the author(s) didn't use their real names unless THEY were Jews. Why would they even write the story if they weren't?? The fact is that ALL of these Babylonian (Jews included) are the most despicable people that have ever lived. You might as well put the Talmud in the the Bible if you're going to keep Esther.
Daniel isn't a pagan name. It means "revealer of mysteries."
@malakhhatzadik we do know that the Scriptures themselves were corrupted by many of the Jews and Christians, out of their own personal agendas. One side was trying to corrupt the Jewish religion, while the other side was trying to corrupt the Christian religion, so, it remains a possibility that the names were a result of Christian corruption, though, I still think that the names were authentic, and written by Mordecai (not the pagan deity) himself. .
@carlsonap16 That is why I call it the book of Mordecai rather than the Book of Esther. Using the names "Esther" and "Mordecai" is a way of indicating just how horrible the conditions of the exile were, in that they were given pagan names. i am not sure about the languages, either, since I am not yet an expert. Marduka and Mordecai seem almost identical, but perhaps in the original languages, they were very far from each other.
@carlsonap16 I've heard that there are those that argue that the similarity isn't a plausible explanation. Its something worth looking into, but I can say their argument holds any weight or not.
@carlsonap16 The conditions of the exile? You seem to forget that the exile was well-deserved and a last resort to save the nation of Israel from the Jews, that they were already worshiping the golden calf a millennium earlier when they had just gotten out of Egypt, and had been in perpetual apostasy since the time of Solomon.
I happen to have studied Hebrew. I only talk about what I know unless I'm pressed. The names are simply the Chaldean/Aramaic form. Their hero Zerubbabel = Seed of Babel.
@malakhhatzadik i am merely suggesting that the Hellenization of the Jews in exile was brutal, and so, this could serve as a warning for future generations to repent, because of how bad the exile is, that they would be given names such as those after pagan gods.
@carlsonap16 I see. Well my point is that they, in the words of Christ, forsook the oracles of God for the traditions of men... long before the exile or the Hellenization process began (which was after the exile, FYI). So I guess we're saying the same thing two different ways. It pains me to no end that "Christianity" is just Judaism rehashed. The next place of exile will be the outer darkness. Such a punishment is just and fair, as it was in the days of the Jews, but I mourn for these people.
@malakhhatzadik I do appreciate your willingness to not believe something just because you are told to accept it. I completely reject the 66 canon in that I believe there are so many books that are Scripture which are not being included. I regard all 66 as Scripture, but many many more I also accept, so this puts me out of standing with the common protestant consensus as well. There are a very few number of people who actually evaluate the evidence open minded any more, its very sad.
SIGE DURO SU CORAZON NO LES BASTO LO QUE VIVIERON EN LA 2A GERRA MUNDIAL NO ES DE LO QUE HABLA ISAIAS NO LO DIJO EL ALTISIMO Y ASI FUE HASTA CUANDO DEJARAN DE ASER SU VOLUNTAD Y NO LA DE ADONAI TODO ESTA DICHO ASI COMO LO DIJO EL ALTISIMO ASI SERA creen usd que pueden dar testimonio cual testimonio jamas e visto que usd hablen de DIOS jamas e visto que usd prediquen a los gentiles de DIOS
It wasn't GOD that put those books in your Bible. It was the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN. And just who do you think has led me to the understanding that I have, if not the Holy Spirit? Thanks, that's quite a compliment, to suggest that I worked it all out myself, but I must deflect and give God the glory.
Argumentum ad hominem has never been, nor will it ever be, a valid substitute for logic and truth. And you say I'm the one that needs to grow up... I love irony.
Is Holy Spirit helpless that He needs your help...??
If G_d the All Powerful allow them to be there, you, the human, must pay attention and learn...
Or you think that you're better than G_d..??
Oh, so many well intentioned ppl, telling G_d what should or shouln't be...
He is in control, He decides, He is all powerful, and if He considers that those books should not be there...He will take them out, even if He has to use ungodly men...
Who said I was helping? The spirit blows wherever it chooses... Anyway you have failed to address the main point, which is that God expressly chose NOT to include these books in "his" canon, as I have already pointed out. You don't really think the Masoretic texts comprise GOD's choice of scripture, do you? "liars, fools, hypocrites," "generation of vipers," come to mind...
Again, insult and persecute me all you want. I'm used to it. It's your blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that concerns me.
Insulte...??Persecute..??? No, my friend.. I just have a problem with this expired issue. Your theory implies that men did whatever they wanted with the Holy Scripture....That this shuln't be or that that shouln't be ..etc... God allowed there, He must have a reason, period..that's it...finished... So much energy is spent telling G_d what ought to have been done.... Job comes to mind... Yehushua bless you... No persecution from here... Shalom Ariel
GOD DID NOT PUT THE BIBLE TOGETHER. It's not a theory, or an expired issue. It's a fact. It's incontestable. If you blindly assume that Esther is "Holy Scripture" just because the synagogue of Satan tells you it is, then you haven't read the rest of the Bible. You have traded the oracles of God for the doctrines of men. And worst of all, you persecute the messengers who try to teach you just like your fathers did.
These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
@hammerandnails777 SIGE DURO SU CORAZON NO LES BASTO LO QUE VIVIERON EN LA 2A GERRA MUNDIAL NO ES DE LO QUE HABLA ISAIAS NO LO DIJO EL ALTISIMO Y ASI FUE HASTA CUANDO DEJARAN DE ASER SU VOLUNTAD Y NO LA DE ADONAI TODO ESTA DICHO ASI COMO LO DIJO EL ALTISIMO ASI SERA creen usd que pueden dar testimonio cual testimonio jamas e visto que usd hablen de DIOS jamas e visto que usd prediquen a los gentiles de DIOS
3 more for your consideration: Haggai, Zechariah, Nehemiah
I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts... seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
I understand you consider yourself an emissary of the most high so either you must have had your mission revealed to you by god which means you must consider yourself to be very special, or, youre talking about smoking a lot of weed, Im guessing the first cos youre wound tighter than a gnats arse.
You know, I believe that if you were filled with the holy spirit, discernment, faith, and truth, that you wouldn't be leaving such rude comments and that you would be trying to spread the truth in the simplest terms possible.
That's nice. Thanks for sharing your subjective beliefs. Where exactly have I erred, according to your beliefs? What did I say that was rude? Even assuming that I care at all what you think of ME, how does that translate into you having a disregard for the truth which, whether you like it or not, tends to be rather discomfiting and give people "rude" awakenings?
If you want rude, open your Bible and read the words of the prophets. I've toned them down A LOT, to the point that the message is often lost on people.
Your broadstroking ( overgeneralizing).Be fair, not all Jews are evil and not all Christians are good. Read what Gods messanger Paul says in Romans 11.
Ummmmm YES all Jews ARE evil. If they weren't then they wouldn't be Jews now would they? Or have you just not read the Bible...?
Sure, there are many perspectives about the one path that leads to salvation, but Judaism is the exact antithesis of it. To say that Judaism is not evil is to invalidate the entirety of the law and gospel.
When i took Bible Literature we studied Ester. Your correct. Although it is a great story. We also covered Song of Songs. It seems to be describing a wedding. It doesnt seem to fit into the Bible. I do find Ecclesiastes to be an interesting book although i dont know its full history. I just read Romans and it opened my eyes in many ways. That there is more than 1 path that leads to salvation. Romans 11.
In Esther, Mordecai is the hero of the Jews, who are clearly and consistently depicted as being evil throughout the entire Bible start to finish. Mordecai = Marduk. Marduk = the Bel/Baal of the Babylonians. Almost every prophet of Israel, on the other hand, is named after YHWH. Seems pretty simple to me.
malakhhatzadik Mordecai means "silver dross" in Aramaic. Separately, the 3 books which you claim should be removed from the Bible are in the Aramaic and Greek Translation of the OT. Accepting or rejecting books from a canon is nothing new. The Jews at that time had to use discernment in choosing the authentic books. Ezra the Prophet and One of the Maccabees also helped establish the correct canon. Adding or removing books or text from Scripture is forbidden by God (Deut. 4:2).
If Deut. 4:2 applies here, then it applies retroactively to the fact that NO Nazarites and/or 1st century Christians accepted Esther.
Aramaic is for Jews. Hebrew is for Israelites. The OT was written by Israelites in Hebrew, not by Jews in Aramaic. The Maccabees were Jews/Satanists not to mention despised by their own people as Hellenists.
malakhhatzadik The Apostles wrote the New Testament books in Aramaic. The Greek NT is a translation of the Aramaic Peshitta NT. Peter writes his 1st letter from Babylon (1 Pe. 5:13), which was in Persia. The language there was Aramaic. The 1st century Aramaic speaking Christians accepted the Aramaic canon of Scripture which included Esther. The Greek speaking Christians accepted the Septuaginta (i.e. Greek OT canon) which also included Esther.
Who is the fool--the one who believes that an overtly Satanic book belongs in the Bible, or the one who discredits it by daring to point out that it clearly doesn't?
Just out of curiosity, when you say "God" do you mean Marduk, or Molekh? If Marduk, then how do you justify the notion that Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes belong? If Molekh, then how do you justify Esther? Or is it just because they're on the same side, and in your admittedly feeble mind "God" represents each emanation of Lucifer?
I would agree with you that Esther has nothing to do with spiritual enlightenment. And it's true, Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes when he turned to Gods that his wives worshiped, just as the OT itself states. However, much of the Bible is not a divine record of God's will. Much of it, as you know, is a record of human atrocities and perversions. Saying that a woman is unclean on her cycle doesn't sound like God to me. I also don't think James has much useful, except as a record about human work.
after all, James says that "faith without works is dead" and John's Gospel says that anyone who believes will be saved (3:16). James is a gnostic, never mentioning the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in his epistle, and insisting that people must save themselves , seriously posing the question to us: do you think your faith can have the power to save you? If faith alone doesn't save, then Christ died in vain.
You can't accurately judge a Book which claims divine inspiration from a perspective of limited understanding. To say it "doesn't sound like God" is, at best, anthropomorphizing God by confusing him with Moses, and coming up with a sophism which is based on irrational opinions rather than facts. Likewise utility is determined by circumstances of applicability. James may seem useless to you, but that doesn't mean it always has been to everyone.
Also every NT writer was a gnostic. Paul, for instance, spent a full 3 years studying the Essene texts at "Damascus" which is where he got all his info. John wrote an entire book (Revelation) from the perspective of a mystic visionary which was ALMOST thrown out of the canon with all the other gnostic apocalypses because it so closely resembles them. Fortunately someone had enough sense to keep it despite the influence of the Roman Luciferians.
if you believe ON HIS WORDS or teaching and DO them you WILL be saved. It is absolutely LUDICROUS to believe you will be saved or righteous without DOING what the most High says is right to do.. SIMPLY because you have some "FAITH".. LOL. You are assuming that everything needs to line up with Paul. Paul needs to line up w/ The law & Yahushua's teachings and he does NOT. The eternal covenant never mentions righteousness by FAITH without OBEDIENCE.. DOING.
Just because you haven't understood Paul's epistles doesn't mean they don't line up with the Torah. They are, in fact, a very very good explanation of the Torah's purpose, without which the pseudo-Christians and even many of us who know the truth would be entirely lost in our attempts to reconcile the law and the gospel. Before Paul came along the "Jews" didn't even want to spread the message to the rest of the world. God himself chastised Peter for feuding with him.
The point is that who are you to say that these books do not belong? Why would the LORD allow these books to be put into what he calls HIS word? WHich he breathed life into. I see where both of you are coming from. As a sister in Christ i give a third view of some things. Also, You read the WORD with the HOLY SPIRIT. malakhhatzadik, you make it sound like you are right and never wrong because you have the "spirit of truth"...
if that is the case then i guess you never have to repent of anything? Then you are perfect because you do and act and know nothing but the truth? I dont mean this to be said in any smart mouthed way, let that be known..this is out of love. i just want to understand some things.
Now the real question in MY estimation is why you would consider the Antichristian / Athanasian / Luciferian / Laodicean canon of scripture to be representative of God's choice of revealed literature when the Church has done nothing but perpetually try to destroy and inhibit the Word of God and its propagation... and while the Holy Spirit is speaking to you RIGHT NOW and telling you the truth RIGHT NOW.
These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
i am not ignoring what you say. I read everything with open doors for the Holy spirits conviction or truth. I live a life of fasting and praying for lord and striving for supernatural encounters with our holy and amazing father...im not speaking to you from biased standpoints. i used to be atheist and untill one day the lord used what you call"antichristian/luciferian etc.scriptures to break me and to become born again and a dramaticaly new person striving daily to live in spirit not in flesh
You don't understand. When I attack the pseudo-Christians' canonization of scripture I'm not attacking all 66 books. I'm only attacking the Luciferian books within the canon, and the lies of those who wish to uphold them despite the revelation of their Luciferian and Satanic infiltrations. If anything this can only be regarded as upholding the scriptures. I understand very well the need for being "born again" and congratulate you for having the sense to break free of the trap of atheism.
If your sole purpose of inflaming me is to ask by what authority I speak because you insist on focusing on the messenger rather than the spirit and/or logic of the message, and you demand an overly simplistic answer:
Then know that I speak by the authority of the Most High God YHWH. To say that I am wrong or that I do not have the spirit of truth in order to appeal to your irrational sensitivities would be to lie and to invalidate my message, therefore I cannot and will not do so.
my purpose is to out of love to fellowship with you and to get you to also keep an open heart because "And if any man think that he know anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know" Thats why we have an entire life. To follow christ and to strive for perfection. You say you are a perfectionist then you must be raising the dead and casting demons left and right!
"But if any man love God, the same is known of him." I don't question that you love God like I do, but to deny that God gives knowledge and discernment to some is to deny scripture. The same epistle calls knowledge one of the spiritual gifts no less than three times.
If you want to discuss miracles and exorcisms then here's another one for you: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do."
i understand that...and agree because there is more scripture than none that talks about the lord being and giving knowledge but i was stating to you that you have such a big FRONT that you are right about EVERYTHING and everyone else here is wrong. You put off as if you do not have the ears to discern conviction...u see?
I don't care. What's your point? Am I to give in to the unreasonable talk of foolish men, or to say what the Holy Spirit leads me to say? These videos are intended for people who already know who I am and that I speak the truth. If you go to the playlist on my page you'll see that this video comes after the 50 videos that you said you're watching.
Your argument is the exact same as the one which the Pharisees argued Yahshuah with. The difference is that I answered the question and he didn't.
"And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes."
"And they were all amazed...What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits"
You see? What amazes people is one who speaks with authority. It's as if the Holy Spirit has not been at work since the first century, in which case I can't even imagine how you reconcile that with your present religious leanings.
i have no religion..God hates it, Religion was man made for their own selfish manipulations of the lords truth. My lord is my god, is my holy spirit, is my jesus. Jesus is Lord! and it is written on my heart. i live by faith, in faith, supernaturally. seeking his presence daily.i live by the spirit &where it leads me, my knowledge is not based on mans words or teachings alone but mostly through Gods supernatural changing of heart..that only HE can do..no one or anything else has that authority.
You have no religion, but you go to church? Do you not see the conundrum?
We all have religion of some kind whether we know it or not and admit it or not. In your "authority," Jesus=Apollo, plain and simple. If you worship Jesus, you worship Apollo, period, end of story. I'm not saying this to be critical or judgmental, but you obviously don't even know what I'm talking about, and I really do think people ought to take more time investigating their beliefs before they push them on other people.
Anyway your blasphemy against the son of man will be forgiven you, but your blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (e.g. telling God's chosen witnesses that they have no authority to speak on his behalf when the Bible clearly clearly clearly says that they do) will not be forgiven you.
"I just said if you superstitiously believe in something which is plainly contrary to reason and scripture, then you do not have the spirit of truth." Then that (in this instance) would be pitting human reason against an all knowing God who is able to work with something we could never FULLY understand as He does. God's ability to use anyone is not against scripture in how He often used the least likely people to glorifiy His name.
Alright, you're unreasonable. You've made your point. I've only appealed to truth, logic, and scripture. I won't argue any further lest it becomes me doing more than God has called me to do. If you think your precious Satanic pornography belongs in the Bible, and hence that the Bible can't possibly be the product of God's divine and, more importantly, purposeful intellect, then that's your choice. I mean it's not like you're going to go to hell or anything just because you've chosen ignorance.
Umm, if you believe that some books of the Bible are Satanic and contain lies that goes against the Bible (God's word, mind you), which I consider to be infallible.
a) I didn't say they're "Satanic." b) It's the BIBLE that says Solomon was an apostate Luciferian. All I've done is quoted and/or referenced 1 Kings 11. If there's a contradiction here then the Bible is inconsistent within itself (i.e. not infallible), which is basically what you're alleging. c) To be "God's word" is not what you think it is. The Bible is MAN's canon. Within the Bible there are several books which have precedence over Esther that didn't make it in. Are they NOT "God's word"?
"You can assume all you want." Well that's what you leave me with. "Imagine if someone without reason or instigation started putting into question whatever it is you passionately devote your life to. Would you tell them "oh you're right, you know better than I do" just to let them save a little face? Well, that's not me. I'm not dishonest." I apologize if I offended you, but I honestly think you're wrong.
I think you are wrong in presuming that God cannot work through Solomon, b/c he was not (as you have expressed) a 'worthy vessle' (for lack of a better term). I have demonstrated thinking...why else would we be having this conversation? Feeling is a big part of it, yes, but I just can't get past the above and it's b/c of a reason not just emotion. Please answer my earlier question. Thanks.
Does it not seem unreasonable to you to assume that "God works in mysterious ways" when in fact God is the author and perfecter of TRUTH, which is self-evident to anyone and everyone endowed with the spirit of truth? If you have to resort to that (saying God works in mysterious ways) more likely than not you're just plain wrong. As I've soooo clearly demonstrated in my 50 videos on that subject...If you want answers, watch them. I've more than rid myself of the burden of proof.
God is more than the author and perfector of truth...He is Truth it's an attribute. But to say He CANNOT work in mysterious ways is putting limitations on Him. Which is why I still do not know why you believe He could not have used Solomon for His Glory.
Did I say God CAN'T work in mysterious ways? No, I just said if you superstitiously believe in something which is plainly contrary to reason and scripture, then you do not have the spirit of truth. If you think a practicing Satanist is responsible for contributing to the Bible then who's to say that the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon shouldn't be included in it too? cuz ya know a lot of people put more stock in them...
Also "If you think a practicing Satanist is responsible for contributing to the Bible then who's to say that the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon shouldn't be included in it too?... running out of space....
...cuz ya know a lot of people put more stock in them... " I'm not here to absolutely prove the books do belong, that would be as impossible as the opposite (if we are being entirely honest). I believe they do, but that is beside the point. However, I would like to know why you say, "Did I say God CAN'T work in mysterious ways?" and then say you believe He didn't.
No I just said the reason it seems mysterious to you is that it is contrary to reason (i.e. superstitious, stupid), and that THE TRUTH is never contrary to reason... as well as the fact that you were plainly warned by EVERY PROPHET OF YHWH that the subversion was already happening in Biblical times. I guess you just weren't paying attention when you read that part, and aren't paying attention now either.
"If you have to resort to that (saying God works in mysterious ways) more likely than not you're just plain wrong." Also, what do you mean exactly by 'endowed with the spirit of truth'? Do you mean once you are 'endowed' you know everything God knows about His ways? (That may seem harsh, but) I can't think of another way to word it, b/c it presumes (from that particular sentence) exactly that.
I don't completely understand "influence of the luciferian paradigm". I understand the writer is of importance towards the text, however scripture if full of examples were God exalts His Glory through the least, last and lost. The entire point of scripture is not that the author is inspired, but that God inspires the author. That is not to say your argument has no bearing, however it is imperative to include all aspects of argument when making such a bold statement on the validity of scripture.
What's your point? Your statements have no relevance to this issue. The God that inspired Romans and Hebrews did not also inspire Esther and Song of Songs. To deny this is to deny 1 Kings, for example. No matter what you either have to contradict yourself or insinuate that God contradicts himself in order to keep all 66 books.
"The God that inspired Romans and Hebrews did not also inspire Esther and Song of Songs." First of all, how could you possibly know this for certain?
"To deny this is to deny 1 Kings, for example." How is that?
"No matter what you either have to contradict yourself or insinuate that God contradicts himself in order to keep all 66 books."I would like to see the contradiction. "Your statements have no relevance to this issue." You've insinuated against Revelation. I could say the same about you.
Constantine was the Emporer/Pope who implemented the laws that have bound us to Pagan traditions with the threat of torture and death. Horus??? That statement just supports everything I've been saying. Thanks and may Yahuwah bless and keep you safe from demon attack all the days of your life. Peace!!
Nikimar23 2 weeks ago
@Nikimar23 You're wrong. Get over it. And stop breaking the Second Commandment!! Yahuwah = Hebrew for 'may Yah be ruined'
malakhhatzadik 2 weeks ago
@malakhhatzadik YaHuWah means the Eternal Loving Yah of all creation. Not sure where you got your meaning from but it's wrong and it makes me wonder why you do not want people calling on the name of The Almighty Creator. May Yahuwah bless and keep you safe all the days of your life. May he cast out any demons that plaugue you. Peace to you brother in Yah.
Nikimar23 2 weeks ago
@Nikimar23 It most certainly does not mean that. I just told you what it means. The only other meaning that could be derived from the Hebrew would make it feminine. Anyone who knows anything about Hebrew can attest to this. Sugarcoat it all you want--your petty ad hominem retorts, irreverence, stubborn pride and implacable condescension will avail you nothing when you are judged. The truth is the truth. No unrepentant sinner will ever see the kingdom of heaven.
malakhhatzadik 2 weeks ago
@malakhhatzadik What are you referring to the creator as?? God, this is derived from the pagan deity Gott, are you using Jesus. This is derived of iesus- hail zeus. This is a fact. I'm not sure why you are saying this but it's a fact, go research it. Lord - from Halourde also a pagan deity. I'm saying peace to you but you are not, that is telling enough for me. Yahuwah knows a persons heart. Meditate on that for a while.
Nikimar23 2 weeks ago
@Nikimar23 Yahuwah = "may Yah be ruined"
"always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" 1 Peter 3:15
Answer my question instead of insinuating that I am somehow worshiping Jesus or whatever, which just makes you look stupid because you have to resort to straw man arguments which indict YOU. Answer it or drop your pretenses and admit that a man of Elohim has no cause for communion with a son of Belial.
malakhhatzadik 1 week ago
malakhhatzadik 1 week ago
@Nikimar23 Abaddon (Hebrew: אֲבַדּוֹן, 'Ǎḇaddōn, Greek: Apollyon, Latin: Exterminans, Coptic: Abbaton, meaning "A place of destruction", "The Destroyer", "Depths of Hell") in the Revelation of St. John, is the king of tormenting locusts and the angel of the bottomless pit.[1] The exact nature of Abaddon is debated, but the Hebrew word is related to the triliteral root אבד (ABD), which in verb form means "to perish."
malakhhatzadik 1 week ago
@Nikimar23 Since you don't know Hebrew, look up the meaning yourself in Strong's:
1942: havvah / 1943: hovah / 5753: ‘avah / 5754: ‘avvah
And while you're at it, look up the meaning of Abaddon / ἀπολλυμένοις. Maybe it's time you stopped referring to Satan as "The Almighty Creator" and persecuting YHWH's messengers in his name. What do you say?
malakhhatzadik 2 weeks ago
The first pope was Constantine who was a practicing Pagan until his deathbed. You have to keep in mind that The Roman Empire were predominantly Pagans. Constantines mother was a staunch Pagan. History has been rewritten in such a way to decieve the masses, to make them think that The Roman Catholic Church does the bidding of Yahuwah, not so, they are a Pagan Establishment. The whole concept of Church and Mass is Pagan. Read The Word of Yah. Roman Emp has removed and twisted scripture.
Nikimar23 1 month ago
@Nikimar23 Constantine was not the first pope. Numa Pompilius lived 1000 years before him, and Horus/Nimrod lived 2000 years before that.
malakhhatzadik 2 weeks ago
I also agree that Jesus was a Samaritan and I hate the MT
pandirasbox 3 months ago
You speak truth about Jamnia. I agree.
pandirasbox 3 months ago
Esther is a true story though. The name YHWH was banned from use in Babylon, this romance was written there and was not intended to be sacred literature. It does not belong in the canon but should be read. It has the first Nazi in it too, lol.
pandirasbox 3 months ago
@pandirasbox Thanks for your comments. As with 1 & 2 Chronicles, I do believe Esther to be an accurate portrayal of real-life events, albeit from the antithetical perspective than the one espoused by the majority of the Bible's authors. My contention here is that the Protestant canon would be perfect in the sense of no flaws without about half a dozen of its books, whereas with the pseudopigrapha and apocrypha, it would be perfect in the sense of complete.
malakhhatzadik 2 weeks ago
Very scholarly approach. Seems convincing. Thanks.
tallliza 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
all christians are the readers of the false book made up and given by the whore of babylon, remember the bible didn't fall from the sky, but protestants are even worse they modified the evil book following "scriptures..." Before reading the bible come out from your dark ignorance and read some church history.
bobflo4243 1 year ago
Wait, so your stating Paul was a heretic? Ive seen some examples that have a decent premiss regarding that, but there are some problems. 1) Almost if not all early church fathers, including non-catholics state Pauls writings were divinly inspierd (Polycarp admired Paul and states his writings were part of the gospel *correct me if Im wrong*, and so did Clement of Rome). II) He met Peter and Luke and they mention him and acknoledged him as an apostle of Christ.
Theonedue 1 year ago
So what are your thoughts on Paul, and his testimony of seeing Yeshua on the road to Damascus (I dont know if you actually believe Paul was a heretic, but it seemd like you did)?
Theonedue 1 year ago
@Theonedue Not that I normally would, out of context, given its negative connotations, but to call someone a heretic is to allow for the possibility that he had/has a head on his shoulders. Each apostle who wrote any piece of scripture which has found its way into the New Testament, or preached the same, was/is a rampant heretic. Most (including Paul) died as martyrs. Re: your other question, what do you want me to say? I take it as a historical account of a wayward man's miraculous conversion.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@Theonedue Yes, Paul was a heretic. So were Peter, James, Jude, John, Luke, etc., and Yahshuah himself. Isn't it obvious? Heresy is the opposite of orthodoxy. You don't get killed for preaching orthodoxy. Maybe you just have it in your head that what the establishment preaches is what is divinely inspired, in which case I would have to say that the purpose of this and all my other videos has been lost on you. I couldn't care less about Clement's blatantly antichrist views.
malakhhatzadik 11 months ago
@malakhhatzadik Forgive me, what you are saying is a little confusing. Are you saying that the Apostles added on to and Changed What God said? by whose authority are you speaking? What is your point of reference? Did not God Establish a Church? I am not understanding your angle. please clarify.
hesicast 3 months ago
@hesicast "Are you saying that the Apostles added on to and Changed What God said?" Absolutely. "by whose authority are you speaking?" The baptism of Yohannan--was it of men, or of God? "What is your point of reference?" Truth is self-evident. In this instance, I am referring to the Bible. "Did not God Establish a Church?" God did not and would never do such a thing as counterproductive to his own agenda as that. God has sent prophets to denounce religious establishments for millennia.
malakhhatzadik 3 months ago
@malakhhatzadik Forgive me again, Who are these prophets and how would anyone know that they are from God. For example you are telling me that the Apostles added on to and changed the Word, then who can I trust?
hesicast 3 months ago
@hesicast What? I have said no such thing. The apostles DID NOT write the Apostles' Creed. The Church DOES NOT represent the will of the apostles or of the Father in heaven! Trust the Word, not in any manmade traditions. When someone claims to be, or you think they may be a prophet, you will know whether they are if (and only if) what they say is compatible with Scripture and incompatible with the Church, and whether they live as prophets: perhaps prone to sin, but not meaning to.
malakhhatzadik 3 months ago
@malakhhatzadik forgive me if i offended u. the last anwer seem a bit confusing to me. What does the apostles creed have to do with the last question and answer.
hesicast 3 months ago
@hesicast The original aramaic scripture has a mathematical code running through it that predicts many events throughout history very specifically. It is in my opinion that this was done by Yahuwah the almighty creator in order for people to be able to distinguish the true word. Through translation much has been added and taken away. Don't forget The first Pope was a practicing Pagan until his death bed and worshipped the sun God.
Nikimar23 2 months ago
@Nikimar23 What original Aramaic scripture? And who was the first pope? And who interprets these formulas?
hesicast 1 month ago
@hesicast The orginaly scriptures were written in Aramaic text. They were then translated to hebrew and then to greek. The first Pope was Constantine. Literary Scholars have translated the scripture and found that the true names of the Creator and Messiah have been replaced with names of Pagan Deities however Pagan Deitites such as Molech and Ishtar names have not been changed. Also many scripture has been twisted, added to or taken away from.
Nikimar23 1 month ago
@Nikimar23 Scriptures have been altered to fit into the constructs of the Pagan Religion, not that of Yah's covenant. Also note that Constantine (First Pope) made it illegal for anyone to utter the name of The Almighty Creator - Yahuwah. Punishable by torture and death. So if the Catholic Church is doing the bidding of Yah, why would they kill you if you said his name? Pagans believe when you say a deities name you are invoking them. They did not want you calling Yah for salvation or help.
Nikimar23 1 month ago
@Nikimar23 what is the sources for the first sciptures. where can i comfirm that constantine was the first pope and his mother. who are the literary scholars that you speak of. what sciptures exatly have been twisted.
hesicast 1 month ago
@Nikimar23 I know you mean well, but apart from turning YHWH into a feminine case, when you render it as 'Yahuwah' you are literally saying "Yah is ruined" or "Yah is perverted," i.e. you are invoking Apollyon/Abaddon.
malakhhatzadik 2 weeks ago
@hesicast The mathematical code that runs through the "original" aramaic text was actually studied by mathematicians from Harvard setting out to disprove the code. They were astonished by the accuracy and the entire project actually converted them into the faith due to the fact that the historical predictions were so accurate and specific, naming names and locations of events. They believed that no human could have written and coded those scirptures to predict history since the beginning of time
Nikimar23 1 month ago
@Nikimar23 what website did you read this pseudo-history lie?
lilmerboy 1 month ago
@lilmerboy I read books, many books that have been knocked out of publication, I wonder why??? But you can get a lot of that info from The Two Babylons, Come out of her my people, Too long in the Sun, The Nephilim and The Apocolypse of the Pyramid, The Word of Yah - Kings Covenant, The Bible Code, Fritz Springmeiers 13 Bloodlines of the Illuminati is a good book for basics, Also anything on MK-Ultra, Project Paperclip or Project Blue Bird. Happy Reading!!!
Nikimar23 1 month ago
@hesicast Also Yahuwah's true name was removed as well as his son Yahuwshua. Those names were replaced with those of Pagan Deities. Jesus is derived of iesus it means Hail Zeus. Has nothing to do with Yahuwshua. The term God is derived from the Pagan deity Gott. Lord from the Pagan deity Halourd. You are calling or invoking Demons. This was done deliberately by those wanting to keep Yahuwahs people from being able to call on him for salvation and guidance.
Nikimar23 2 months ago
@hesicast Get a strong's concordance. You have to get the most accurate translation of scripture. When you realize that The Creators name is Yahuwah and not God (Pagan deity Gott) and Yahuwshua is the Messiah (not Jesus/ iesus- hail Zeus) then you know you are on the right track. Don't you think that is suspect?? Why did all the Pagan Deities names remain the same but The Creator and Messiah's names. changed. Hmm doesn't seem to make logical sense. Read The Two Babylons.
Nikimar23 1 month ago
@Nikimar23 Forgive me but zues is lattin. in greek it is othisias. I am fluent in Greek, as for iesus if u study phonetics you would realise this is the way the Greeks would of heard yahuwshua, just as the english pronounce iesus jesus and the latins heysus. In Orthodox Christianity yahuway is still yahuway. Just like easter is called pachwa(passover) i think your studys are a little revisionist. I think you should learn Greek it woulld help your studies.
hesicast 1 month ago
@hesicast "It is known that the Greek name endings with sus, seus, and sous
were attached by the Greeks to names and geographical areas as means to
give honour to their supreme deity, Zeus." -Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend Professor J. C. J. Metford Further, the Greek "Iesus" comes from the name Zeus, the ruling God in the Greek pantheon." This is documented in many history books. Tarsus means Sweat of Zeus ...Dionysus means the Son of Zeus ...
Nikimar23 1 month ago
@hesicast "Some authorities, who have spent their entire lives studying the origins of names believethat "Jesus" actually means - "Hail Zeus!" For Iesous in Greek IS "Hail Zeus." "Ie" translates as "Hail" and "sous" or "sus" translates as Zeus. The English
name "Jesus", therefore, stems etymologically from "Jupiter-Zeus" the chief god of the
ancient Greek Olympus."-"Yeshua" or "Jesus" -- Which? Biblical Research Institute; 1996 by Les Aron Gosling
Nikimar23 1 month ago
@hesicast Act 2:(16,17,21) but this is that which hath been spoken by the prophet Joel;
.... in the last days, saith THE ALMIGHTY that whosoever shall call on the name of the YAH shall be saved. check out wwyd.org
Nikimar23 1 month ago
malakhhatzadik 2 weeks ago
@hesicast Church is a pagan concept "Yet they never told us there is no "church" at all in the Original Scriptures, did they? "EcclesiYA," which they translated "church" means "the called out of YAH"! "Church" comes from the pagan word "Circe" of Constantine in 321 AD, where we get "sorcery" and "seance" from! " This made sense to me because in scripture it says to worship behind closed doors. That never made sense until I discovered the truth.
Nikimar23 1 month ago
@Nikimar23 So if you are not going to church on Sunday (The Pagan Sabbath) good for you, you're making some progress.
Nikimar23 1 month ago
Malakhhatzadik, God bless you. It's perfectly OK for you to reject these 3 books. The truth is that you are too young and God is holding you back from these books. God wants you to grow up a little bit first. These three books are the heart and soul of the Torah and the Bible. They are written for older people like me, who understand that the only thing I really have in life is God. I think God has a plan for you, a big one, and one day you will turn around a understand it. God's love .
LoneMonk1 1 year ago
@LoneMonk1 "Let no man despise your youth." 1 Timothy 4:12
I'm not the one who needs to grow up.
Although you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God, and are such as have need of milk, not strong meat. For everyone that uses milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe, but strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik Nicely said, but still tradition remains, the deeper insights of the Torah are for older people. Your welcome to try and prove me wrong, but I didn't make up the tradition, the Jewish sages did. More to the point, I never said I "despised" anything about you, so that verse doesn't actually apply. You are the one who despises three great books in the Torah for whatever compels you to do so.
LoneMonk1 1 year ago
@LoneMonk1 I don't need to prove you wrong. I've stated my case. The burden of proof is on you to do something other than insult me for doing you a favor by taking the time to educate your unwilling ego-driven self. Take your troll-bait comments elsewhere. When you have a real argument and/or come to the realization of the truth (like for example the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS FACT that the whole of the scriptural tradition of Israel was written in direct opposition to Judaism), be sure to let me know.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik . You're missing the point. These books represent deep love and commitment with God. It's not about proof or education or ego. The books represent being in love with God, no matter what happens in this sometimes horrible life. Removing the Song of Songs from the Bible, is like going into a married couples house and deleting their marriage ceremony. Something that is very important to someone else may not have any meaning for you.
LoneMonk1 1 year ago
@LoneMonk1 PS It is God, and the holy scriptures which compel me. And also, the Jews never canonized the Old Testament. If you are one of the many dupes who believes the ROMAN CATHOLIC propaganda which says that the OT was formalized at the Council of Jamnia, then you are even more in need of instruction than I have previously let on. That council was convened specifically to discuss the fact that these three books didn't belong with the rest. The rest weren't even discussed. Case closed.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik Just wondering, have you read the Siddur, Jewish Orthodox Prayer book? The Song of Song is central to the Shabbat weekly service. Read the Siddur and you will understand better what I am trying to say. It's not a Roman Catholic conspiracy.
LoneMonk1 1 year ago
I just read all of the comments for this video, and all I can say is: WOW. I would like to be able to ask most of the commentors if the words "These trees are ruining my view of the forest!!!" mean anything to them at all?
7greenjeans7 1 year ago
Esther was not accepted because it did not contain the name of God, it has many allusions to God. This is a scholarly fact why they rejected the book. There is no reason to reject the book. No substantial arguments can be made against the book.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
No substantial arguments can be made against the book??? If the fact that it was written by Babylonian JEWS who blatantly worshiped Marduk and Ishtar and made no apology over the fact, and that 1st century Christians accepted EVERYTHING ELSE doesn't constitute substance, than what would, in your estimation? The people who are praised in Esther are the same people who are condemned in the rest of the Bible. They were and are fundamentally and diametrically opposed to each other in the extreme.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik the early christians considered "1 Clement" to be Scripture, and 1 Clement was written in the 1st century and 1 Clement references Book of Esther as authoritative.
carlsonap16 1 year ago
@carlsonap16 The Codex Hierosolymitanus (especially Ignatius but also Clement) is not representative of any early Christian canons. It is thoroughly Roman. Go figure; Clement was a bishop of Rome, i.e. Nimrod-worshiping Babylonian crypto-Jew. While I personally prefer the Codex Alexandrinus, it has been universally rejected as the product of heretics (Origen), and the consensus is therefore that it doesn't represent the "true" early Christian canon. So really, 1 Clement never had much support.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@smartwarlord You do realize that Esther is Chaldean/Aramaic for Ishtar, right?
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik
No. and it was written by Mordecai
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord Okay then in that case you do realize that Mordecai is Aramaic for Marduk, right? The fact that both of these Babylonian deities are celebrated rather than just one or the other, and that YHWH isn't, and that Esther and Mordecai are cousins, and Ishtar and Marduk are also cousins, means it is unreasonable to suggest coincidence, and therefore that it is pretty much a water-tight argument against the book in and of itself even disregarding the other arguments. No?
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
Mordecai is Hebrew, yes it has a Persian connection to Marduk meaning "servant of Marduk" However if we look in Daniel, we see that many Babylonian Exiles were giving names of Babylonian gods. However the name can just mean "servant of God". There is no reason to reject Esther if you accept Daniel's account of the name system of the Exiles.
The name Esther is a later name for her, her real name is Hadassah, which is a flower.
Look at the Talmud or Commentaries. This is not a Babylonian fable.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord Mordecai is NOT Hebrew. It is Aramaic, a.k.a. Chaldean, as I've said. Jews speak Aramaic, which is a Babylonian tongue. They may call it Hebrew, but it is not Hebrew--what people now refer to as paleo-Hebrew. The Babylonian Talmud is written in ARAMAIC. The majority of Israelites who spoke Hebrew and worshiped YHWH never even went to Babylon! Talmud explicitly confirms the rabbins' antagonism by saying Daniel wasn't a prophet, while Yahshuah says he was. Come on man. Think.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
Esther = Aramaic for Ishtar/Isis/Inanna/Asherah
Mordecai = Aramaic for Marduk, as in Bel-Marduk
There is no way around this. These names were never EVER used in Israel prior to the return of the exiles who were basically the sworn enemies of the nation of Israel to the point that they had "no dealings" with each other (John 4:9) even though they inhabited the same lands.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik
Wow ok. Be close-minded then.
Why is the book universally accepted in all Jewish and Christian circles?
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord Close-minded? I'm the one exercising my cranial capacity and making valid points. Ad hominem attacks do not take the place of sound reasoning. De Nile isn't just a river in Egypt.
Have a nice life.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik
Well your arguments are very one way, and thus close-minded. I'm not saying you as an individual are close-minded, clearly you are open-minded. However, on Esther, you are being very close-minded. Bashing a book that shows God from the background instead of as the narrator or just as The Lord.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord "Well your arguments are very one way"
That's because I'm right, not because I'm close-minded. The case is closed, the verdict is in; there is no reason to appeal. That doesn't mean my mind is. You haven't even addressed the main points of the argument. Why was it left out of the Dead Sea canon? I want to know how you reconcile this with calling yourself a "Hebrew Christian." Jewish propaganda is for Romans and Jews, not Hebrews and Christians...
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik
Like stated, it does not contain YHWH and thus was not accepted. That is the only reason.
I accept the Dead Sea canon, not the Masoretes.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord To answer your question, it's because pseudo-Christian and pseudo-Hebrew Jewish circles are directly descended from the Pharisaism of the Babylonian Jews. The Jewish Encyclopedia has no trouble admitting it, and even the "Christians" would probably understand as much if they weren't just rampantly promoting the "doctrines of devils" of their overtly Satanic establishment which their own scriptures warned them about. I've only posted about 200 videos on this subject....
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik
Pharisaism descends from the Egyptian Jews ! NOT the Babylonian Jews! Look at Paul for this! I am a descendant of the Pharisees! I've seen most of your videos. I do not disagree Gentile Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism is a mockery of the one true faith of Abraham, Moses and ultimately Jesus.
I'm not a Nazarene(or Nazarite) like you (I'm a Hebrew Christian) we stem from the same source, The Way.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord "I am a descendant of the Pharisees!"
I figured that out on my own, thanks.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik
Great. :)
smartwarlord 1 year ago
FYI - Pharisee literally means "Persian." You've got me rolling my eyes now.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik
The work means "set apart".
Not Persian.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord
word*
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord Either you have to admit that the word is the Aramaic cognate of Farsi/Parsi, meaning "Persian," or you have to stick your head in the sand and deny the well-documented 600-year history of the returned exiles but still invent a new history for the Sadducees which dissociates them from the Pharisees. I am aware that it means "set apart" in a way, but it should never be translated as that, or as "holy," (that would be NZR)--rather as "separated" i.e. separated from the Sadducees.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik
...... But the Hebrew word specifically means set apart.
Also Farsi/Parsi didn't exist in the 500s. They all knew Aramaic or Babylonian/Assyrian dialects.
This is like me claiming that Essene means Roman.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord In fact the word Essene is Josephus' way of saying Nazarene. If it wasn't for him the word wouldn't exist today, and we probably wouldn't know anything about the Essene either. But theirs is a hidden history, and Essene is not synonymous with 1st century Christian and/or Nazarite like Jew is synonymous with Pharisee or Babylonian-Israelite. You say you've seen most of my videos... did you miss the one where I pointed out that Zerubbabel means "seed of Babel"?
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@smartwarlord The word "parsi" comes from the Old Persian "parsa" which has the same meaning. The Old Persian language DID exist then, and we're actually talking about Chaldean here, which developed (as a Babylonian language mind you--which NO ONE in the world that I know of disputes) side by side with Farsi.
Both owe their heritage to a bastardization of other languages (Chaldean of the type of Semitic/Aramaic that Abraham would have spoke, which was still influential in Babylon).
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
I would also point out that the word has the connotation of being cut off... in this case, the etymology would almost certainly imply that the Pharisees were either regarded by the Samaritans as cut off from their inheritance as legalistic Babylonian half-breeds (the Sadducees at least had stuck with some of the OT doctrines like resurrection/judgment) or a derogatory term used by the Sadducees whose name basically meant the same thing. No doubt the Samaritans invented both for the same reason.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
To continue off from my last comment, I'm a Hebrew Christian. (no association with Gentile Christianity which spawns heresies faster than the speed of light)
Your faith descends from the Essenes.
Mine from the Pharisees.
I am a Hebrew, flesh and blood. Descendant of Shem to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
You seem very white (as am I), are you a Hebrew or just a Gentile?
I'm very open-minded. So if you want, send me a PM with all your arguments on the Bible both canonical and non-canonical. Thanks
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord "are you a Hebrew or just a Gentile?"
Falo-Halstatt Nordic from Malmo and Prussia, 100% Dan/Yahudah on both sides, as well as patrilineal descendant of David. And as such I think I'm within my right to say that being a descendant of Abraham means nothing. Read John 8.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik
Ah good. Just wanted to ask.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik could it not be that the pagan deities of Ishtar and Marduk resulted in a corruption by the Gentiles of the true Mordecai and Esther, and that originally they were never worshipped?
carlsonap16 1 year ago
@carlsonap16 Absolutely not. The events of the book of Esther took place a good two millennia after the composition of the Enuma Elish and other references to the story of Ishtar and Marduk. These two Babylonian Jews were named after these Babylonian gods in veneration of them. There is simply no getting around this fact, or the fact that the Jews are evil Babylonian-Edomite half-breeds who are responsible for every single instance of subversion and perversion of the Christian religion.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik i found that out shortly after i posted that, you are right. HOWEVER, if you read Daniel, you'll see he was given a pagan name, just like Joseph in Genesis, but the king. So, could not Artaxerxes of the Book of Esther have given the names "Marduk and Ishtar" to Mordecai and Esther, noticing that they were cousins, and shared some similarities with their deities?
carlsonap16 1 year ago
@carlsonap16 Yes that sounds plausible--if not the king then the Jews themselves, but post hoc. But it begs the question of why the author(s) didn't use their real names unless THEY were Jews. Why would they even write the story if they weren't?? The fact is that ALL of these Babylonian (Jews included) are the most despicable people that have ever lived. You might as well put the Talmud in the the Bible if you're going to keep Esther.
Daniel isn't a pagan name. It means "revealer of mysteries."
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik we do know that the Scriptures themselves were corrupted by many of the Jews and Christians, out of their own personal agendas. One side was trying to corrupt the Jewish religion, while the other side was trying to corrupt the Christian religion, so, it remains a possibility that the names were a result of Christian corruption, though, I still think that the names were authentic, and written by Mordecai (not the pagan deity) himself. .
carlsonap16 1 year ago
@carlsonap16 That is why I call it the book of Mordecai rather than the Book of Esther. Using the names "Esther" and "Mordecai" is a way of indicating just how horrible the conditions of the exile were, in that they were given pagan names. i am not sure about the languages, either, since I am not yet an expert. Marduka and Mordecai seem almost identical, but perhaps in the original languages, they were very far from each other.
carlsonap16 1 year ago
@carlsonap16 I've heard that there are those that argue that the similarity isn't a plausible explanation. Its something worth looking into, but I can say their argument holds any weight or not.
carlsonap16 1 year ago
@carlsonap16 The conditions of the exile? You seem to forget that the exile was well-deserved and a last resort to save the nation of Israel from the Jews, that they were already worshiping the golden calf a millennium earlier when they had just gotten out of Egypt, and had been in perpetual apostasy since the time of Solomon.
I happen to have studied Hebrew. I only talk about what I know unless I'm pressed. The names are simply the Chaldean/Aramaic form. Their hero Zerubbabel = Seed of Babel.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik i am merely suggesting that the Hellenization of the Jews in exile was brutal, and so, this could serve as a warning for future generations to repent, because of how bad the exile is, that they would be given names such as those after pagan gods.
carlsonap16 1 year ago
@carlsonap16 I see. Well my point is that they, in the words of Christ, forsook the oracles of God for the traditions of men... long before the exile or the Hellenization process began (which was after the exile, FYI). So I guess we're saying the same thing two different ways. It pains me to no end that "Christianity" is just Judaism rehashed. The next place of exile will be the outer darkness. Such a punishment is just and fair, as it was in the days of the Jews, but I mourn for these people.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik I do appreciate your willingness to not believe something just because you are told to accept it. I completely reject the 66 canon in that I believe there are so many books that are Scripture which are not being included. I regard all 66 as Scripture, but many many more I also accept, so this puts me out of standing with the common protestant consensus as well. There are a very few number of people who actually evaluate the evidence open minded any more, its very sad.
carlsonap16 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SIGE DURO SU CORAZON NO LES BASTO LO QUE VIVIERON EN LA 2A GERRA MUNDIAL NO ES DE LO QUE HABLA ISAIAS NO LO DIJO EL ALTISIMO Y ASI FUE HASTA CUANDO DEJARAN DE ASER SU VOLUNTAD Y NO LA DE ADONAI TODO ESTA DICHO ASI COMO LO DIJO EL ALTISIMO ASI SERA creen usd que pueden dar testimonio cual testimonio jamas e visto que usd hablen de DIOS jamas e visto que usd prediquen a los gentiles de DIOS
TEZMOLE 1 year ago
Dear friend, what you think or feel what should or shouln't be in the scripture is irrelevant...Subjective at best...
God is omnipotent and omniseeing...
If He allow them in there, that means that these books should be there...
As much as commend your enthusiasm, you still have some growing up to do...LOL
Follow the Holy Spirit....lean not on YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING...and you'll be ok..
Don't get out of balance.....don't get to the extreme....
Shalom
Ariel
hammerandnails777 2 years ago
It wasn't GOD that put those books in your Bible. It was the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN. And just who do you think has led me to the understanding that I have, if not the Holy Spirit? Thanks, that's quite a compliment, to suggest that I worked it all out myself, but I must deflect and give God the glory.
Argumentum ad hominem has never been, nor will it ever be, a valid substitute for logic and truth. And you say I'm the one that needs to grow up... I love irony.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
Is Holy Spirit helpless that He needs your help...??
If G_d the All Powerful allow them to be there, you, the human, must pay attention and learn...
Or you think that you're better than G_d..??
Oh, so many well intentioned ppl, telling G_d what should or shouln't be...
He is in control, He decides, He is all powerful, and if He considers that those books should not be there...He will take them out, even if He has to use ungodly men...
Let us be careful...
Shalom
Ariel
hammerandnails777 2 years ago
Who said I was helping? The spirit blows wherever it chooses... Anyway you have failed to address the main point, which is that God expressly chose NOT to include these books in "his" canon, as I have already pointed out. You don't really think the Masoretic texts comprise GOD's choice of scripture, do you? "liars, fools, hypocrites," "generation of vipers," come to mind...
Again, insult and persecute me all you want. I'm used to it. It's your blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that concerns me.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
hammerandnails777 2 years ago
GOD DID NOT PUT THE BIBLE TOGETHER. It's not a theory, or an expired issue. It's a fact. It's incontestable. If you blindly assume that Esther is "Holy Scripture" just because the synagogue of Satan tells you it is, then you haven't read the rest of the Bible. You have traded the oracles of God for the doctrines of men. And worst of all, you persecute the messengers who try to teach you just like your fathers did.
These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hammerandnails777 SOLO AY UN DIOS Y UN SALVADOR
DIOS EL CREADOR DE TODO LO HAVIDO
JESUS EL FUNDAMENTO DE LA MISMA VIDA
LA CUAL LA HONRRA Y LA GLORIA POR SIEMPRE JAMAS
Y ASTA HOY TODOS LOS PODEMOS ALCANZAR GENTILES HEBREOS ETC ETC SIEMPRE Y CUANDO CUMPLAMOS LA LEY Y DEMOS TESTIMONIOS
TEZMOLE 1 year ago
@hammerandnails777 SIGE DURO SU CORAZON NO LES BASTO LO QUE VIVIERON EN LA 2A GERRA MUNDIAL NO ES DE LO QUE HABLA ISAIAS NO LO DIJO EL ALTISIMO Y ASI FUE HASTA CUANDO DEJARAN DE ASER SU VOLUNTAD Y NO LA DE ADONAI TODO ESTA DICHO ASI COMO LO DIJO EL ALTISIMO ASI SERA creen usd que pueden dar testimonio cual testimonio jamas e visto que usd hablen de DIOS jamas e visto que usd prediquen a los gentiles de DIOS
TEZMOLE 1 year ago
3 more for your consideration: Haggai, Zechariah, Nehemiah
I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts... seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
you are warped
g0sabr3zzz1 2 years ago
mmmm k
you are blocked
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
I understand you consider yourself an emissary of the most high so either you must have had your mission revealed to you by god which means you must consider yourself to be very special, or, youre talking about smoking a lot of weed, Im guessing the first cos youre wound tighter than a gnats arse.
redjove2000 2 years ago
How is this comment supposed to be edifying to anyone including yourself, exactly?
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
You know, I believe that if you were filled with the holy spirit, discernment, faith, and truth, that you wouldn't be leaving such rude comments and that you would be trying to spread the truth in the simplest terms possible.
3zzzpmk 2 years ago
That's nice. Thanks for sharing your subjective beliefs. Where exactly have I erred, according to your beliefs? What did I say that was rude? Even assuming that I care at all what you think of ME, how does that translate into you having a disregard for the truth which, whether you like it or not, tends to be rather discomfiting and give people "rude" awakenings?
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
If you want rude, open your Bible and read the words of the prophets. I've toned them down A LOT, to the point that the message is often lost on people.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
Your broadstroking ( overgeneralizing).Be fair, not all Jews are evil and not all Christians are good. Read what Gods messanger Paul says in Romans 11.
journeyquest1 2 years ago 2
Ummmmm YES all Jews ARE evil. If they weren't then they wouldn't be Jews now would they? Or have you just not read the Bible...?
Sure, there are many perspectives about the one path that leads to salvation, but Judaism is the exact antithesis of it. To say that Judaism is not evil is to invalidate the entirety of the law and gospel.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
When i took Bible Literature we studied Ester. Your correct. Although it is a great story. We also covered Song of Songs. It seems to be describing a wedding. It doesnt seem to fit into the Bible. I do find Ecclesiastes to be an interesting book although i dont know its full history. I just read Romans and it opened my eyes in many ways. That there is more than 1 path that leads to salvation. Romans 11.
journeyquest1 2 years ago
In Esther, Mordecai is the hero of the Jews, who are clearly and consistently depicted as being evil throughout the entire Bible start to finish. Mordecai = Marduk. Marduk = the Bel/Baal of the Babylonians. Almost every prophet of Israel, on the other hand, is named after YHWH. Seems pretty simple to me.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
malakhhatzadik Mordecai means "silver dross" in Aramaic. Separately, the 3 books which you claim should be removed from the Bible are in the Aramaic and Greek Translation of the OT. Accepting or rejecting books from a canon is nothing new. The Jews at that time had to use discernment in choosing the authentic books. Ezra the Prophet and One of the Maccabees also helped establish the correct canon. Adding or removing books or text from Scripture is forbidden by God (Deut. 4:2).
Henok30 2 years ago
If Deut. 4:2 applies here, then it applies retroactively to the fact that NO Nazarites and/or 1st century Christians accepted Esther.
Aramaic is for Jews. Hebrew is for Israelites. The OT was written by Israelites in Hebrew, not by Jews in Aramaic. The Maccabees were Jews/Satanists not to mention despised by their own people as Hellenists.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
malakhhatzadik The Apostles wrote the New Testament books in Aramaic. The Greek NT is a translation of the Aramaic Peshitta NT. Peter writes his 1st letter from Babylon (1 Pe. 5:13), which was in Persia. The language there was Aramaic. The 1st century Aramaic speaking Christians accepted the Aramaic canon of Scripture which included Esther. The Greek speaking Christians accepted the Septuaginta (i.e. Greek OT canon) which also included Esther.
Henok30 2 years ago
You have got to be kidding me... lol
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
Who is the fool--the one who believes that an overtly Satanic book belongs in the Bible, or the one who discredits it by daring to point out that it clearly doesn't?
Just out of curiosity, when you say "God" do you mean Marduk, or Molekh? If Marduk, then how do you justify the notion that Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes belong? If Molekh, then how do you justify Esther? Or is it just because they're on the same side, and in your admittedly feeble mind "God" represents each emanation of Lucifer?
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Religion is for people who don't understand science.
mattbrooking12 2 years ago
Comments like that are an indication that you're a fool.
oziman1968 2 years ago 2
Science is religion and is ultimately derived from Khabbalistic Judaism.
WONDAWOMAN 2 years ago
I would agree with you that Esther has nothing to do with spiritual enlightenment. And it's true, Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes when he turned to Gods that his wives worshiped, just as the OT itself states. However, much of the Bible is not a divine record of God's will. Much of it, as you know, is a record of human atrocities and perversions. Saying that a woman is unclean on her cycle doesn't sound like God to me. I also don't think James has much useful, except as a record about human work.
coolkevin1985 2 years ago
after all, James says that "faith without works is dead" and John's Gospel says that anyone who believes will be saved (3:16). James is a gnostic, never mentioning the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in his epistle, and insisting that people must save themselves , seriously posing the question to us: do you think your faith can have the power to save you? If faith alone doesn't save, then Christ died in vain.
coolkevin1985 2 years ago
You can't accurately judge a Book which claims divine inspiration from a perspective of limited understanding. To say it "doesn't sound like God" is, at best, anthropomorphizing God by confusing him with Moses, and coming up with a sophism which is based on irrational opinions rather than facts. Likewise utility is determined by circumstances of applicability. James may seem useless to you, but that doesn't mean it always has been to everyone.
Your notions of faith and salvation are wrong.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
Also every NT writer was a gnostic. Paul, for instance, spent a full 3 years studying the Essene texts at "Damascus" which is where he got all his info. John wrote an entire book (Revelation) from the perspective of a mystic visionary which was ALMOST thrown out of the canon with all the other gnostic apocalypses because it so closely resembles them. Fortunately someone had enough sense to keep it despite the influence of the Roman Luciferians.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
if you believe ON HIS WORDS or teaching and DO them you WILL be saved. It is absolutely LUDICROUS to believe you will be saved or righteous without DOING what the most High says is right to do.. SIMPLY because you have some "FAITH".. LOL. You are assuming that everything needs to line up with Paul. Paul needs to line up w/ The law & Yahushua's teachings and he does NOT. The eternal covenant never mentions righteousness by FAITH without OBEDIENCE.. DOING.
WONDAWOMAN 2 years ago
Just because you haven't understood Paul's epistles doesn't mean they don't line up with the Torah. They are, in fact, a very very good explanation of the Torah's purpose, without which the pseudo-Christians and even many of us who know the truth would be entirely lost in our attempts to reconcile the law and the gospel. Before Paul came along the "Jews" didn't even want to spread the message to the rest of the world. God himself chastised Peter for feuding with him.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
The point is that who are you to say that these books do not belong? Why would the LORD allow these books to be put into what he calls HIS word? WHich he breathed life into. I see where both of you are coming from. As a sister in Christ i give a third view of some things. Also, You read the WORD with the HOLY SPIRIT. malakhhatzadik, you make it sound like you are right and never wrong because you have the "spirit of truth"...
religiondestroys 3 years ago
if that is the case then i guess you never have to repent of anything? Then you are perfect because you do and act and know nothing but the truth? I dont mean this to be said in any smart mouthed way, let that be known..this is out of love. i just want to understand some things.
religiondestroys 3 years ago
Now the real question in MY estimation is why you would consider the Antichristian / Athanasian / Luciferian / Laodicean canon of scripture to be representative of God's choice of revealed literature when the Church has done nothing but perpetually try to destroy and inhibit the Word of God and its propagation... and while the Holy Spirit is speaking to you RIGHT NOW and telling you the truth RIGHT NOW.
These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
i am not ignoring what you say. I read everything with open doors for the Holy spirits conviction or truth. I live a life of fasting and praying for lord and striving for supernatural encounters with our holy and amazing father...im not speaking to you from biased standpoints. i used to be atheist and untill one day the lord used what you call"antichristian/luciferian etc.scriptures to break me and to become born again and a dramaticaly new person striving daily to live in spirit not in flesh
religiondestroys 3 years ago
You don't understand. When I attack the pseudo-Christians' canonization of scripture I'm not attacking all 66 books. I'm only attacking the Luciferian books within the canon, and the lies of those who wish to uphold them despite the revelation of their Luciferian and Satanic infiltrations. If anything this can only be regarded as upholding the scriptures. I understand very well the need for being "born again" and congratulate you for having the sense to break free of the trap of atheism.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
If your sole purpose of inflaming me is to ask by what authority I speak because you insist on focusing on the messenger rather than the spirit and/or logic of the message, and you demand an overly simplistic answer:
Then know that I speak by the authority of the Most High God YHWH. To say that I am wrong or that I do not have the spirit of truth in order to appeal to your irrational sensitivities would be to lie and to invalidate my message, therefore I cannot and will not do so.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
my purpose is to out of love to fellowship with you and to get you to also keep an open heart because "And if any man think that he know anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know" Thats why we have an entire life. To follow christ and to strive for perfection. You say you are a perfectionist then you must be raising the dead and casting demons left and right!
religiondestroys 3 years ago
"But if any man love God, the same is known of him." I don't question that you love God like I do, but to deny that God gives knowledge and discernment to some is to deny scripture. The same epistle calls knowledge one of the spiritual gifts no less than three times.
If you want to discuss miracles and exorcisms then here's another one for you: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do."
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
i understand that...and agree because there is more scripture than none that talks about the lord being and giving knowledge but i was stating to you that you have such a big FRONT that you are right about EVERYTHING and everyone else here is wrong. You put off as if you do not have the ears to discern conviction...u see?
religiondestroys 3 years ago
I don't care. What's your point? Am I to give in to the unreasonable talk of foolish men, or to say what the Holy Spirit leads me to say? These videos are intended for people who already know who I am and that I speak the truth. If you go to the playlist on my page you'll see that this video comes after the 50 videos that you said you're watching.
Your argument is the exact same as the one which the Pharisees argued Yahshuah with. The difference is that I answered the question and he didn't.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
"And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes."
"And they were all amazed...What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits"
You see? What amazes people is one who speaks with authority. It's as if the Holy Spirit has not been at work since the first century, in which case I can't even imagine how you reconcile that with your present religious leanings.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
i have no religion..God hates it, Religion was man made for their own selfish manipulations of the lords truth. My lord is my god, is my holy spirit, is my jesus. Jesus is Lord! and it is written on my heart. i live by faith, in faith, supernaturally. seeking his presence daily.i live by the spirit &where it leads me, my knowledge is not based on mans words or teachings alone but mostly through Gods supernatural changing of heart..that only HE can do..no one or anything else has that authority.
religiondestroys 3 years ago
You have no religion, but you go to church? Do you not see the conundrum?
We all have religion of some kind whether we know it or not and admit it or not. In your "authority," Jesus=Apollo, plain and simple. If you worship Jesus, you worship Apollo, period, end of story. I'm not saying this to be critical or judgmental, but you obviously don't even know what I'm talking about, and I really do think people ought to take more time investigating their beliefs before they push them on other people.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
Anyway your blasphemy against the son of man will be forgiven you, but your blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (e.g. telling God's chosen witnesses that they have no authority to speak on his behalf when the Bible clearly clearly clearly says that they do) will not be forgiven you.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
"I just said if you superstitiously believe in something which is plainly contrary to reason and scripture, then you do not have the spirit of truth." Then that (in this instance) would be pitting human reason against an all knowing God who is able to work with something we could never FULLY understand as He does. God's ability to use anyone is not against scripture in how He often used the least likely people to glorifiy His name.
BACCSL 3 years ago
Alright, you're unreasonable. You've made your point. I've only appealed to truth, logic, and scripture. I won't argue any further lest it becomes me doing more than God has called me to do. If you think your precious Satanic pornography belongs in the Bible, and hence that the Bible can't possibly be the product of God's divine and, more importantly, purposeful intellect, then that's your choice. I mean it's not like you're going to go to hell or anything just because you've chosen ignorance.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
Umm, if you believe that some books of the Bible are Satanic and contain lies that goes against the Bible (God's word, mind you), which I consider to be infallible.
fmandwc 2 years ago
a) I didn't say they're "Satanic." b) It's the BIBLE that says Solomon was an apostate Luciferian. All I've done is quoted and/or referenced 1 Kings 11. If there's a contradiction here then the Bible is inconsistent within itself (i.e. not infallible), which is basically what you're alleging. c) To be "God's word" is not what you think it is. The Bible is MAN's canon. Within the Bible there are several books which have precedence over Esther that didn't make it in. Are they NOT "God's word"?
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
"You can assume all you want." Well that's what you leave me with. "Imagine if someone without reason or instigation started putting into question whatever it is you passionately devote your life to. Would you tell them "oh you're right, you know better than I do" just to let them save a little face? Well, that's not me. I'm not dishonest." I apologize if I offended you, but I honestly think you're wrong.
BACCSL 3 years ago
So far you've demonstrated feeling, but not thinking. WHY do you think I'm wrong?
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
I think you are wrong in presuming that God cannot work through Solomon, b/c he was not (as you have expressed) a 'worthy vessle' (for lack of a better term). I have demonstrated thinking...why else would we be having this conversation? Feeling is a big part of it, yes, but I just can't get past the above and it's b/c of a reason not just emotion. Please answer my earlier question. Thanks.
BACCSL 3 years ago
Does it not seem unreasonable to you to assume that "God works in mysterious ways" when in fact God is the author and perfecter of TRUTH, which is self-evident to anyone and everyone endowed with the spirit of truth? If you have to resort to that (saying God works in mysterious ways) more likely than not you're just plain wrong. As I've soooo clearly demonstrated in my 50 videos on that subject...If you want answers, watch them. I've more than rid myself of the burden of proof.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
God is more than the author and perfector of truth...He is Truth it's an attribute. But to say He CANNOT work in mysterious ways is putting limitations on Him. Which is why I still do not know why you believe He could not have used Solomon for His Glory.
BACCSL 3 years ago
Did I say God CAN'T work in mysterious ways? No, I just said if you superstitiously believe in something which is plainly contrary to reason and scripture, then you do not have the spirit of truth. If you think a practicing Satanist is responsible for contributing to the Bible then who's to say that the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon shouldn't be included in it too? cuz ya know a lot of people put more stock in them...
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
Also "If you think a practicing Satanist is responsible for contributing to the Bible then who's to say that the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon shouldn't be included in it too?... running out of space....
BACCSL 3 years ago
...cuz ya know a lot of people put more stock in them... " I'm not here to absolutely prove the books do belong, that would be as impossible as the opposite (if we are being entirely honest). I believe they do, but that is beside the point. However, I would like to know why you say, "Did I say God CAN'T work in mysterious ways?" and then say you believe He didn't.
BACCSL 3 years ago
"then say you believe He didn't"
No I just said the reason it seems mysterious to you is that it is contrary to reason (i.e. superstitious, stupid), and that THE TRUTH is never contrary to reason... as well as the fact that you were plainly warned by EVERY PROPHET OF YHWH that the subversion was already happening in Biblical times. I guess you just weren't paying attention when you read that part, and aren't paying attention now either.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
"If you have to resort to that (saying God works in mysterious ways) more likely than not you're just plain wrong." Also, what do you mean exactly by 'endowed with the spirit of truth'? Do you mean once you are 'endowed' you know everything God knows about His ways? (That may seem harsh, but) I can't think of another way to word it, b/c it presumes (from that particular sentence) exactly that.
BACCSL 3 years ago
I don't completely understand "influence of the luciferian paradigm". I understand the writer is of importance towards the text, however scripture if full of examples were God exalts His Glory through the least, last and lost. The entire point of scripture is not that the author is inspired, but that God inspires the author. That is not to say your argument has no bearing, however it is imperative to include all aspects of argument when making such a bold statement on the validity of scripture.
BACCSL 3 years ago
What's your point? Your statements have no relevance to this issue. The God that inspired Romans and Hebrews did not also inspire Esther and Song of Songs. To deny this is to deny 1 Kings, for example. No matter what you either have to contradict yourself or insinuate that God contradicts himself in order to keep all 66 books.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
"The God that inspired Romans and Hebrews did not also inspire Esther and Song of Songs." First of all, how could you possibly know this for certain?
"To deny this is to deny 1 Kings, for example." How is that?
"No matter what you either have to contradict yourself or insinuate that God contradicts himself in order to keep all 66 books."I would like to see the contradiction. "Your statements have no relevance to this issue." You've insinuated against Revelation. I could say the same about you.
BACCSL 3 years ago