Mani sought to unify Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and a form of Christianity. Mandaeans saw Jesus as a false Messiah. They saw John the Baptist as the Messiah and did not care about Jesus teachings. Tell me how Manichaens could be Mandean when they believed in Jesus. Read Faustus of Mileve, he was a Manichaean.
@pandirasbox You're still referring to "Jesus" as though he was the historical person of the gospels, which even the Manichaeans distinguished. I've elaborated on this point in the videos, so I'm not going to belabor it here.
@malakhhatzadik HAHA. No! Ialdabaoth originally meant Lord of Hosts man. It is tranliterating Hebrew words. That is something Mani stole from Valentinus and the Sethian Gnostics.
@pandirasbox Do you even speak Hebrew? Obviously not. You're arguing just for the sake of it, making a fool of yourself in the process.
The most probable derivation of the name “Yaldabaoth” is that given by Johann Karl Ludwig Gieseler, “Son of Chaos,” from Hebrew yalda bahut,ילדא בהות. -Wikipedia: Demiurge
manicheans were a blend of buddhist, zoroasterianism and christianity. manicheanism is where augustine got his idea of original sin forever changing the course of latin, north african christiainity known by 1100 as Roman catholicism? you study manicheanism by reading the works of their enemies. If were to do this with christianity had it died out and read the roman sources then you who be saying the christians held orgies, commited incest and drank blood of slaughtered first born males, right?
@JohnTheHutDweller No, of course not. And why would I study the works of the Manicheans' enemies to know about the Manicheans when I can just read the Manichean literature (which I did many years ago)? And if you don't think all that stuff goes on in the upper echelons of the Church, I wonder what you think all the Satanic ritual sex abuse is about.
@JohnTheHutDweller I'd be happy to answer your questions, but I see no point in talking with you if you're going to demonstrate ambivalence to the glaringly obvious with comments like "I think SRA is something in the minds of fundamentalists." Tell that to the thousands of children that are murdered by priests every year and the millions more that are raped. I'm not a fundamentalist just because I don't approve of it. It's called being a human being, having a conscience.
@JohnTheHutDweller Why? What purpose would be served by me bowing to your demands? What communion does light have with darkness, and the sons of Elohim with the sons of Belial?
@pandirasbox No, you're confusing Jesus with Yahshuah. Manichaeism is a branch of Mandaeism. Manes was Mandaean. The Manichaean texts were written in Mandaean. Nice try. ;)
@wattsnick30 What are you talking about? Who said anything about anything pertaining to Theosophy or Neo-Platonism, or Neo-Gnostic churches?? We were talking about Manichaeism ...
Your ad hominem arguments are pathetically weak. I've more than rid myself of the burden of proof, and won't be doing it again unless you address the main points you yourself have raised. peace
@wattsnick30 I did, numerous times. Pay attention! There are over 200 references in each of the two books I am reading from here (which I wrote). The Other Bible's chief editor is also the author of The Gnostic Bible, The New Covenant, The Restored New Testament, and Essential Gnostic Scriptures, as well as being a Guggenheim fellow. And you say "no scholar would ever agree with them being gnostics"? It seems to me the burden of proof is on you, my friend.
@wattsnick30 Did I quote Wikipedia? Or did I quote the people who are universally regarded as the most avid scholars on this particular subject, who are all in agreement? ;)
I agree with Marcion. Two testaments, two Gods. One cruel, one loving. One just, one merciful. The old Testament contains the law of this world, inspired by the God of this world. The old Testament God is natures god, which is the god of the Masons and the Jews..
@wwood14 Nonsense. If you understood the Bible, or anything about God for that matter, then you wouldn't say that. The God of Masonry and Judaism is Lucifer. The God of the Old Testament and of Israel is YHWH, the God of the universe, the same one you'll find in the New Testament. e.g., "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son"... (Hebrews 1:1-2).
@malakhhatzadik I don't see how hebrews 1:1-2 contradicts my opinion at all.?? The God of love has in past times spoken though prophets.. So?? The God of this World is still Sator/Saton/Kal/Janus/Jehovah/Universal Mind/Saturn/Chronos.. The God of love who sends the Christ into this world is the Hidden God, the merciful God..
@wwood14 Soooo.... the God of the (Old Testament) Hebrew prophets was not the God of the Old Testament then? Rrrriiight. Looks like I won't be arguing this one, as the absurdity is self-evident. It's a shame you didn't watch the videos and educate yourself though. Oh well.
@pandirasbox What on Earth are you talking about? Haven't I been clear enough on this point? Jesus is not YHWH's son. YHWH is not even part of the Babylonian pantheon. It's the name of the god of the HEBREWS.
I'm struggling with the concept of Christ as God due to phrases like "All that I do comes from my father"
Sorry, but I'll never get my head around killing innocent women and children or designated 'heretics'. [or a metaphor that uses humanity in the position as food. :)]
How many times were the Jewish masses made to pay the price for the deeds of their leaders?
Too often is was about resources and had zero to do with heresy as determined by fools.
I'm not talking about "innocent women and children or designated 'heretics.'" I don't think you understand how utterly wicked the Canaanites were, or what would have become of the world had they been allowed to persist. God can't possibly be so unjust as to not protect the innocent. It's a wonder Noah was spared, or that Lot's family was, considering they were incestuous Sodomites.
It wasn't the Jews' leaders that were evil; it was/is the whole society. It's their paradigm, upbringing.
@malakhhatzadik The OT Lord of Hosts did those things. He is more righteous than Jesus? You really are lost on this issue. The Lord of Hosts is Satan.
@pandirasbox I don't even know what you're talking about. I can't remember ever once having used the term "Lord of Hosts" in my life. Are you just looking to get the troll treatment or what?
You must not know many people with blue eyes. Maybe you should read up on what causes pupil dilation rather than resorting to these kinds of theories.
Have blue, raised two Polish blues and was married to one; the information came out of mind control BOOKS and first hand exp. watching my two beautiful daughters get whacked w/MK.
One still in the hands of organized crime, aided and protected by Cali/US agencies.
In America this is more common that most are aware.
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
The recent knowledge gained as to this symptom in two of my family combined with almost every other symptom e.g. OCD/PTSD[trauma], triggered self destructive, or just plain 'weird' behaviors, dramatic emotional/physical overreactions, sudden extreme anxiety.
Been the target of what appear to be Satanists in a very patient program to isolate the children from their nets, then me; including fls arrest/disabling my back.
Are there any Christian groups that espouse the beliefs you're putting forward?
Christianity looks much like the faith of Egypt, except fewer Commandments; they were clearly very civilized and not "animal worshipers" as I was taught.
While I appreciate your thoughts as interesting, you seem to me to make a lot of... how do I say this softly... verbal acrobatics and assumptions to come to your "logical" conclusions. It seems quite reminiscent of what christians do and you despise. If you "believe" that the Jesus of modern christianity is distinct from a historical figure, you can claim this easily without the use of the presumptions.
I think it is a presumption/ assumption for you to assume that I have made assumptions/ presumptions 20% of the way through the videos. Hear the arguments before calling them verbal acrobatics, or at least tell me what you think I've done wrong specifically in trying to communicate the ideas.
The Ebionites followed after the teachings of James and denied Yashua's physical resurrection. This is the same reason the Muslim's deny it to this day. You see when Mohammad supposedly received his "vision", he had to ask his wife's cousin, Waraquah, an Ebionite priest, to interpret it. Thus, the Quran was written according to Ebionite doctrine.
@mithro21 The entire early church before 100 AD believed Christ was spiritually resurrected and saw Satan in a different way, along with Hell. Mohammad misunderstood the Docetic beliefs.
You'll notice that the Quran claims that "Isa" was not even crucified, but that another was crucified in his place! This, I believe, is due to the fact that James was referred to as "Jesus Barabbas" (son of God). Therefore, when Yashua was brough before Pilate, James was there as well, and Yashua was crucified in James' place. However, the true Yashua and James' characters were confused in time due to the titles.
-Keep up the excellent work Malakhatzadik! Peace and Blessings upon you.
Thanks! Got a passage from the Qur'an you can cite, in case anyone wants to investigate? (People do read these comments...) The thing is, Yahshuah WASN'T crucified... he was hung on a σταυρός (a stake). :-) Same thing, really, if you can get past the shape of the gibbet...
You're right about James... not only was he a Nazarite like his brother, but he was also head of the community of Christians in Jerusalem.
@mithro21 That is Basilidian. The Basilidians said Simon of Cyrene was crucified. The Gnostics knew it was his flesh though. Coptic Revelation of Peter.
He isn't. Jesus (the imaginary god-man worshiped by "Christians" as Apollo/Mithras, an emanation of Lucifer) is an imposter of a real (natural) person named Yahshuah ben Yosef, who was the anointed (christ) priest-king of Salem. Nothing I haven't said in the videos...
OK, I get you now. You use a lot of names that I am not familiar with.
Sounds like I need to do some research on this Yahshuah ben Yosef.... so basically your saying to throw the Bible out the window? Or just replace the name of Jesus with Yahshuah ben Yosef in the scriptures?
No. The very first thing I have said in this series is that it is my intent to PROVE the Bible against the false doctrines of the Christopagans. Replacing "Jesus" with "Yahshuah" is a start, but ultimately if you're a "Christian" and you want to be free (saved, so to speak) what you need to do is replace your conceptions of the Trinity and other "mysteries" (absurdities) with the truth.
Exactly where does the word "Trinity" or the phrase "Triune God" or something like it appear in the Bible? Or better yet, where does it say that Yahshuah is the "same substance" as God the Father Almighty? Chapter and verse please.
How do you justify claiming that the Bible says something that it clearly doesn't when it also says of itself: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"?
@pandirasbox If by "Gnostic" you mean the people who made or make things up to gratify their egos and sound cool, then thanks. God forbid Valentinus would agree with me. Wow.
I know nothing about Marcionism or Manichaeism? Have you even been listening? I've read everything I've been able to find on the subject by the ancient sources. If you mean Mithras when you say "the real Jesus," then I agree. If you mean the historical person of Yahshuah ben Yosef, then obviously you're more than a little mistaken. There WERE no Manichaeans back then.
You heard me. You know nothing about Marcionism or Manichaeanism. Your idiotic claim that Manicaeans "completely rejected Jesus" is contradicted by the fact that Christ is constantly mentioned in Manichaean writings and poems.
You have, presumably, consulted the Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis?
OK, calling me an idiot for educating you on the subject about your Christ being the Antichrist is not just highly ironic but also troll bait that doesn't need to be addressed.
Sin is not merely the absence or negation of good. Murder is not the absence of "not murder". It's a tangible act with a tangible effect & consequence. The absence of good is nothing- it has no effect. To deny the existence of evil & sin is to deny the existence of Satan. And that would place the blame for all the misery pain and suffering in this world on Elohim because He is the Creator. But Satan is the author of sin. Paul refers to the "law of sin" Rom7:23. It is tangible and it is a choice.
Sin is not absence nor is it something you can see or count. It is PRIVATION. Murder IS the privation of life ("not murder" constitutes a double negative, not any thing in itself). To say that Yahshuah wasn't murdered is literally to say that he didn't lose his life. And Satan is just God's agent, not the opposite of God. God is the author of sin because he is the author of the law. I've already addressed all of these Christopagan/Luciferian beliefs. That's exactly the point of the series.
@malakhhatzadik God the Father is not the source of evil. It is the sun worshipers' concept of God that is the source of evil because it requires sacrifice.
BTW, there is no such things as pain and suffering either. Emphasis on "such things," as opposed to how you probably read that, which would imply that they do not exist. That is to say that they are a state of mind only. What brings one person pain may bring another pleasure. It's all relative. The only exception is physical suffering, but only humans suffer when they are not under great pain, and then it still falls under the category of privation since it is unnatural to lose one's health.
@malakhhatzadik To some degree, I agree with you. The Cosmos is an illusion, it is the old garment. That is why ppl who r concerned with this are odd to me. Religion is not about this.
I used to be 7th Day Adventist (raised Catholic though) and I wasn't aware of the idea that Jesus didn't really die or that there was a different Christian messiah than Jewish messiah. So, if he didn't die as a sacrifice for our sins then why did he die? Didn't Moses receive the law from Elohim (YHWH)?
Yes, he (Moses) did. But that doesn't mean that Moses' law was the divine law or that it's any better than Hammurabi's code et al. Yahshuah was preaching the divine law. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that he was killed because the Jews didn't like his message. To say that he was "sacrificed" as opposed to murdered is to exonerate the Romans and Jews by making God the culprit.
The difference is that YHWH Elohim created the heavens and the earth, so the law which comes from Him is Spiritual. Man however is carnal and so YHWH had to give the divine law in a carnal format in order for man to understand it, identify sin and understand the precepts of enforcement and punishment. Romans 6:23 states that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of Elohim is everlasting life in Messiah Yahushua, our master. Death is a natural consequence of sin, not a demand made by YHWH.
I double checked- chapter 1 (Genesis) only says Elohim. Chapter 2:4 identifies YHWH Elohim as the one which made the earth and heavens. The rest of the creation account in chapter 2 identifies YHWH as well, as He formed man, etc.
Elohim means "the gods", or "the Els". I don't like the terms "God" or "gods" because I believe those are false terms or names. In your Bible, The Scriptures, look up "Gad" in the index/dictionary in the back, you'll see what I mean.
No. YHWH has no title. The name "YHWH" was only given to the nation of Israel because they insisted, because people are incapable of conceptualizing existence without representative form (hence all creation).
To say that Yahushua was murdered by the Jews or the Romans misses the point. He was impaled (crucified) but that's not what killed him. In John 10:17-18 He says "Because of this the Father loves me, because I lay down My life, in order to receive it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to receive it again. This command I have received from my Father." He gave Himself as a sacrifice to pay our debt to sin, not YHWH.
And the idea that Yahshuah is/was a sacrifice also misses the point and is one of the most abominable beliefs of the whole Christian paradigm since it makes him out to be a scapegoat of Judaism. No matter how you look at it, he WAS killed by a third party. Yes, he made the choice to lay down his life (i.e., throw himself at God's mercy), but not to kill himself. Look at his prayer at Gethsemane. He didn't want to die. Yet Christians who make Jesus God insinuate that Yahshuah killed himself.
No He didn't kill himself- he died because of sin, but not his own- he had none. He died for the sins of the world. See Romans chap 5- sin came into the world and death through sin and spread to all men because all sinned. Sin is a "law" of itself that demands death, yet YHWH did not introduce it. Sin came into the world through one man. Hebrews 9:26-28 says the Messiah was offered once to bear the sins of many. He put away sin by the offering of Himself. Sin is the third party that killed him.
Sin had nothing to do with it because sin is not an agent, it has no consciousness. Obviously killing Yahshuah was a sin, so using your logic you could say that "killing" is the third party that killed him. That makes no sense. You are perpetuating the Luciferian idea that sin is a thing in itself, which I have debunked here and elsewhere. You need to break away from the Christopagan doctrines of devils if you want to understand this properly.
I used the terms "killing" & "third party" in response to your usage of the terms. My point is that he was not "killed". He died. The idea that the "crucification" is what killed him masks the nature of sin, that sin results in death- as a result of the source of life, the Spirit of Elohim being withdrawn from the sinner. Yahushua was not a sinner, he bore our sin- that is why he died. The crucification made a spectacle of that death in order for all to bear witness to the true nature of sin.
If you want to be technical, what killed him was the spirit's departing him on the cross/stake, because the spirit is life. And this privation does not constitute a sin, unless of course you want to go along with the Luciferian dogma and hold God accountable for Yahshuah's murder. Whether he bore it all or not, no amount of sin could have overcome the spirit, because sin is just the finite negation of good, and God's goodness is infinite. Humans do not have that kind of power over God.
@malakhhatzadik which he can't be because he did not die on the day of atonement. John says Caiaphas was the first to believe this judiciary atonement.
Technically he wasn't, because he was hung on a STAKE, not a cross. But there is no accurate word in English since "impaled" implies something else, so "crucified" is as good as any. Yahshuah was executed but Jesus wasn't, because Jesus is not real.
Yahshuah = Son of Man, Christ, God
Jesus = Antichrist, God-man (Nimrod Horus Mithras etc.), same substance as YHWH (Athanasian or Nicene Creed)
yes, I have already watched your Secrets of Lucifer series. But that's interesting, because I learned that "Jesus" is Latin for "Issa", who was a prophet of Buddha.
Indeed, very perceptive. However, "Buddha" signifies an ideal, not a man. It is almost identical to "Christ" except that "Christ" is more exclusive. The man we call "Buddha" was not the first one any more than Yahshuah was. Yahshuah's ministry represents a definite integration of the Eastern and Middle Eastern traditions that carried the divine legacy of the "true believers" for thousands of years, though it has left little impact on East Asia since preference is still given there to Gautama.
Since Buddhists have always known about the "messiah" as we call it/him, it is actually through the Buddhist traditions that the Theosophists have given us the modern name for their Christ (our Antichrist, Maitreya aka Mitra/Mithras). That's because the Mahayanans are dualist apostates just like the mainstream Christians, as I have hinted in the Luminari Message video. Dualism actually comes from Aryanism (and therefore Tibetan religion) since that is the basis of Zoroastrianism.
So basically, what you're saying is that Buddhists, Theosophists, Mahayanans, Dualism, Aryanism, and Zoroastrianism are all roots from where Luciferianism evolved? Zoroastrianism was an ancient Persian religion from which Judaism, Christianity, and Islam evolved from. It was the "father" of all three Abrahamic religions.
Zoroastrianism antedates Persia by well over a millennium. (Some people think by as much as two.) There is no direct, linear descent of the major religions. Each one is an amalgamation of several others, because religions are CULTURAL systems. A better way to look at it is by identifying their cultural origins.
Aryan = dualism
Hindu = animism
Chinese = spiritism
Babylonian = legalism
Aramaic = henotheism
Egyptian = gnosticism
ie, Every dualist religion has been influenced by Aryanism.
Read Wikipedia's article on Dualism. Even then it's too complicated for me to explain the fallacy of dialect here. Hence our need for religion to repair the ruins of our first parents (the so-called "original sin," knowledge of good and evil, ie dualism).
I've defined henotheism in the vids. Basically it's Abrahamic religion... pantheism is metaphysical truth, but don't worship the gods, only the One ineffable God. Same thing in Buddhism. Monotheism = wrong wrong wrong.
Are you for real bro? 50 videos trying to disprove God's truth!?
Wow man, I really hope you can get out of this place you're in. It sounds really depressing!
Blessedj01 2 weeks ago
@Blessedj01 "trying"?
malakhhatzadik 1 week ago
@Blessedj01 "God's truth"?
maybe you should listen ;)
malakhhatzadik 1 week ago
because I want to know what manuscripts are you using. I want to read them. What are they?
JohnTheHutDweller 2 months ago
I actually do distinguish between Jesus the man and Christ. I know the difference. I am a Valentinian Gnostic.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
Mani sought to unify Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and a form of Christianity. Mandaeans saw Jesus as a false Messiah. They saw John the Baptist as the Messiah and did not care about Jesus teachings. Tell me how Manichaens could be Mandean when they believed in Jesus. Read Faustus of Mileve, he was a Manichaean.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
@pandirasbox You're still referring to "Jesus" as though he was the historical person of the gospels, which even the Manichaeans distinguished. I've elaborated on this point in the videos, so I'm not going to belabor it here.
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
@wattsnick30 They called him the King of Darkness, or Ialdabaoth, which means 'Son of Chaos.'
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
@malakhhatzadik HAHA. No! Ialdabaoth originally meant Lord of Hosts man. It is tranliterating Hebrew words. That is something Mani stole from Valentinus and the Sethian Gnostics.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
@pandirasbox Do you even speak Hebrew? Obviously not. You're arguing just for the sake of it, making a fool of yourself in the process.
The most probable derivation of the name “Yaldabaoth” is that given by Johann Karl Ludwig Gieseler, “Son of Chaos,” from Hebrew yalda bahut,ילדא בהות. -Wikipedia: Demiurge
Oops.
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
@wattsnick30 yep
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
@malakhhatzadik Mani was not a Gnostic pal
pandirasbox 2 months ago
manicheans were a blend of buddhist, zoroasterianism and christianity. manicheanism is where augustine got his idea of original sin forever changing the course of latin, north african christiainity known by 1100 as Roman catholicism? you study manicheanism by reading the works of their enemies. If were to do this with christianity had it died out and read the roman sources then you who be saying the christians held orgies, commited incest and drank blood of slaughtered first born males, right?
JohnTheHutDweller 2 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller No, of course not. And why would I study the works of the Manicheans' enemies to know about the Manicheans when I can just read the Manichean literature (which I did many years ago)? And if you don't think all that stuff goes on in the upper echelons of the Church, I wonder what you think all the Satanic ritual sex abuse is about.
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
@malakhhatzadik I think SRA is something in the minds of fundamentalists. What 'manichean scripture' are you using?
JohnTheHutDweller 2 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller I'd be happy to answer your questions, but I see no point in talking with you if you're going to demonstrate ambivalence to the glaringly obvious with comments like "I think SRA is something in the minds of fundamentalists." Tell that to the thousands of children that are murdered by priests every year and the millions more that are raped. I'm not a fundamentalist just because I don't approve of it. It's called being a human being, having a conscience.
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
@malakhhatzadik just give me one work we still have written by manicheans
JohnTheHutDweller 2 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller Why? What purpose would be served by me bowing to your demands? What communion does light have with darkness, and the sons of Elohim with the sons of Belial?
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
@malakhhatzadik Because he wants to read it to see your viewpoint and see if it is compatible with older Manichaens, obviously
pandirasbox 2 months ago
@pandirasbox Any idiot that listens to me speak for a whole minute can plainly see my whole world view is opposed to everything Manichaean.
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller I agree, that's the delusions of idiots like David Icke.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
Manichaeism did not reject Jesus. Read Faustus of Mileve. You are confusing Manichaeism with Mandeanism. Nice try.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
@pandirasbox No, you're confusing Jesus with Yahshuah. Manichaeism is a branch of Mandaeism. Manes was Mandaean. The Manichaean texts were written in Mandaean. Nice try. ;)
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
@malakhhatzadik If Mani (not Manes) was Mandean then why would he give a crap about Jesus? Mandeans hated Jesus like Leonardo da Vinci.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
@pandirasbox He was called Manes in his own day, and his followers were called Mania. Get over it.
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
@pandirasbox and FYI because he was an Elkasaite, genius
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
@wattsnick30 What are you talking about? Who said anything about anything pertaining to Theosophy or Neo-Platonism, or Neo-Gnostic churches?? We were talking about Manichaeism ...
Your ad hominem arguments are pathetically weak. I've more than rid myself of the burden of proof, and won't be doing it again unless you address the main points you yourself have raised. peace
malakhhatzadik 3 months ago
@wattsnick30 I did, numerous times. Pay attention! There are over 200 references in each of the two books I am reading from here (which I wrote). The Other Bible's chief editor is also the author of The Gnostic Bible, The New Covenant, The Restored New Testament, and Essential Gnostic Scriptures, as well as being a Guggenheim fellow. And you say "no scholar would ever agree with them being gnostics"? It seems to me the burden of proof is on you, my friend.
malakhhatzadik 3 months ago
@wattsnick30 Did I quote Wikipedia? Or did I quote the people who are universally regarded as the most avid scholars on this particular subject, who are all in agreement? ;)
malakhhatzadik 3 months ago
I agree with Marcion. Two testaments, two Gods. One cruel, one loving. One just, one merciful. The old Testament contains the law of this world, inspired by the God of this world. The old Testament God is natures god, which is the god of the Masons and the Jews..
wwood14 1 year ago
@wwood14 Nonsense. If you understood the Bible, or anything about God for that matter, then you wouldn't say that. The God of Masonry and Judaism is Lucifer. The God of the Old Testament and of Israel is YHWH, the God of the universe, the same one you'll find in the New Testament. e.g., "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son"... (Hebrews 1:1-2).
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik I don't see how hebrews 1:1-2 contradicts my opinion at all.?? The God of love has in past times spoken though prophets.. So?? The God of this World is still Sator/Saton/Kal/Janus/Jehovah/Universal Mind/Saturn/Chronos.. The God of love who sends the Christ into this world is the Hidden God, the merciful God..
wwood14 1 year ago
@wwood14 Soooo.... the God of the (Old Testament) Hebrew prophets was not the God of the Old Testament then? Rrrriiight. Looks like I won't be arguing this one, as the absurdity is self-evident. It's a shame you didn't watch the videos and educate yourself though. Oh well.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik So you think YHWH is a bad God and Jesus is his bad son? Sounds Mandean
pandirasbox 2 months ago
@pandirasbox What on Earth are you talking about? Haven't I been clear enough on this point? Jesus is not YHWH's son. YHWH is not even part of the Babylonian pantheon. It's the name of the god of the HEBREWS.
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
Could you expand on your view of the law of Moses?
codeeish 1 year ago
@codeeish Could you be more specific?
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
When the OT was first read it was very hard to wrap my head around all the genocide of children and what had been learned and loved about Christ.
Have you been able to understand the stark contrast between the God of the OT and Christ of the NT?
Sorry if this is a stupid question and thanks in advance.
GotExitPolls2 1 year ago
Yes. The contrast is that the God of the OT, as you put it, is more righteous than the Christ of the NT, as you put it.
"there is none good but one, that is, God" -Matthew 19:17
It's really not difficult to understand at all if you have the mind of God. When a plate gets dirty, do you not wipe it clean before using it again?
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
I'm struggling with the concept of Christ as God due to phrases like "All that I do comes from my father"
Sorry, but I'll never get my head around killing innocent women and children or designated 'heretics'. [or a metaphor that uses humanity in the position as food. :)]
How many times were the Jewish masses made to pay the price for the deeds of their leaders?
Too often is was about resources and had zero to do with heresy as determined by fools.
GotExitPolls2 1 year ago
I'm not talking about "innocent women and children or designated 'heretics.'" I don't think you understand how utterly wicked the Canaanites were, or what would have become of the world had they been allowed to persist. God can't possibly be so unjust as to not protect the innocent. It's a wonder Noah was spared, or that Lot's family was, considering they were incestuous Sodomites.
It wasn't the Jews' leaders that were evil; it was/is the whole society. It's their paradigm, upbringing.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@malakhhatzadik The OT Lord of Hosts did those things. He is more righteous than Jesus? You really are lost on this issue. The Lord of Hosts is Satan.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
@pandirasbox I don't even know what you're talking about. I can't remember ever once having used the term "Lord of Hosts" in my life. Are you just looking to get the troll treatment or what?
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
May I ask as to what religion or faith, if any, that you espouse?
UnoRaza 1 year ago
My doctrine is truth. My way is love.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
Have you noticed your eyes are dilated?
This is a symptom of many things, but one is the hypnotic trance state of a mind control victim.
Who do you suppose planted these spikes in the Bibles?
UnoRaza 1 year ago
You must not know many people with blue eyes. Maybe you should read up on what causes pupil dilation rather than resorting to these kinds of theories.
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
Does your faith must include crystal balls?
Have blue, raised two Polish blues and was married to one; the information came out of mind control BOOKS and first hand exp. watching my two beautiful daughters get whacked w/MK.
One still in the hands of organized crime, aided and protected by Cali/US agencies.
In America this is more common that most are aware.
What does the scripture say about ego?
UnoRaza 1 year ago
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
malakhhatzadik 1 year ago
@UnoRaza You are so full of shit
pandirasbox 2 months ago
Drugs? No.
The recent knowledge gained as to this symptom in two of my family combined with almost every other symptom e.g. OCD/PTSD[trauma], triggered self destructive, or just plain 'weird' behaviors, dramatic emotional/physical overreactions, sudden extreme anxiety.
Been the target of what appear to be Satanists in a very patient program to isolate the children from their nets, then me; including fls arrest/disabling my back.
The intent of the msgs is headzup, not insult.
UnoRaza 1 year ago
Let me rephrase.
Are there any Christian groups that espouse the beliefs you're putting forward?
Christianity looks much like the faith of Egypt, except fewer Commandments; they were clearly very civilized and not "animal worshipers" as I was taught.
UnoRaza 1 year ago
While I appreciate your thoughts as interesting, you seem to me to make a lot of... how do I say this softly... verbal acrobatics and assumptions to come to your "logical" conclusions. It seems quite reminiscent of what christians do and you despise. If you "believe" that the Jesus of modern christianity is distinct from a historical figure, you can claim this easily without the use of the presumptions.
lokiraccoon 2 years ago
I think it is a presumption/ assumption for you to assume that I have made assumptions/ presumptions 20% of the way through the videos. Hear the arguments before calling them verbal acrobatics, or at least tell me what you think I've done wrong specifically in trying to communicate the ideas.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
The Ebionites followed after the teachings of James and denied Yashua's physical resurrection. This is the same reason the Muslim's deny it to this day. You see when Mohammad supposedly received his "vision", he had to ask his wife's cousin, Waraquah, an Ebionite priest, to interpret it. Thus, the Quran was written according to Ebionite doctrine.
mithro21 2 years ago
@mithro21 The entire early church before 100 AD believed Christ was spiritually resurrected and saw Satan in a different way, along with Hell. Mohammad misunderstood the Docetic beliefs.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
You'll notice that the Quran claims that "Isa" was not even crucified, but that another was crucified in his place! This, I believe, is due to the fact that James was referred to as "Jesus Barabbas" (son of God). Therefore, when Yashua was brough before Pilate, James was there as well, and Yashua was crucified in James' place. However, the true Yashua and James' characters were confused in time due to the titles.
-Keep up the excellent work Malakhatzadik! Peace and Blessings upon you.
mithro21 2 years ago
Thanks! Got a passage from the Qur'an you can cite, in case anyone wants to investigate? (People do read these comments...) The thing is, Yahshuah WASN'T crucified... he was hung on a σταυρός (a stake). :-) Same thing, really, if you can get past the shape of the gibbet...
You're right about James... not only was he a Nazarite like his brother, but he was also head of the community of Christians in Jerusalem.
malakhhatzadik 2 years ago
According to Peter in the book of Acts Jesus was hung on a tree, again I say the religion of confusion and contradictions.
caddy1010 2 years ago
My two cents worth are that those are spikes planted by someone; perhaps Masons/Rabbis:Luciferians?
How could G-d make this many "mistakes"?
What a perfect modality for corrupting powerful political leaders?
Pointing out all the errors in the faith of choice, not to mention the genocide in His name.
How do you "boil" a Freemason?
Same as a frog, one degree at a time.
UnoRaza 1 year ago
@UnoRaza The schools of Justin Martyr put all that stuff in the Bible.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
@mithro21 That is Basilidian. The Basilidians said Simon of Cyrene was crucified. The Gnostics knew it was his flesh though. Coptic Revelation of Peter.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
Wait!! Your saying that Jesus Christ is the AntiChrist???
How can he be against or in place of himself?
If Jesus is the AntiChrist, who is the REAL Christ?
wichitadisciple 3 years ago
"How can he be against or in place of himself?"
He isn't. Jesus (the imaginary god-man worshiped by "Christians" as Apollo/Mithras, an emanation of Lucifer) is an imposter of a real (natural) person named Yahshuah ben Yosef, who was the anointed (christ) priest-king of Salem. Nothing I haven't said in the videos...
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
OK, I get you now. You use a lot of names that I am not familiar with.
Sounds like I need to do some research on this Yahshuah ben Yosef.... so basically your saying to throw the Bible out the window? Or just replace the name of Jesus with Yahshuah ben Yosef in the scriptures?
wichitadisciple 3 years ago
No. The very first thing I have said in this series is that it is my intent to PROVE the Bible against the false doctrines of the Christopagans. Replacing "Jesus" with "Yahshuah" is a start, but ultimately if you're a "Christian" and you want to be free (saved, so to speak) what you need to do is replace your conceptions of the Trinity and other "mysteries" (absurdities) with the truth.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
I find the Bible to be very evident in what it is saying.
The Bible says there is a Trinity.. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
But you say there isn't a Trinity? How do you justify claiming that when the Bible clearly contradicts what you claim?
wichitadisciple 3 years ago
Exactly where does the word "Trinity" or the phrase "Triune God" or something like it appear in the Bible? Or better yet, where does it say that Yahshuah is the "same substance" as God the Father Almighty? Chapter and verse please.
How do you justify claiming that the Bible says something that it clearly doesn't when it also says of itself: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"?
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
@malakhhatzadik The Trinity comes from "On the three natures", a lost work of Valentinus.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
@pandirasbox How can that possibly be, when the concept had been well established a full three millennia earlier?
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
@malakhhatzadik You are not remotely Gnostic. Valentinus was a Gnostic and he would disagree with you. Almost every 2nd century Gnostic would.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
@pandirasbox If by "Gnostic" you mean the people who made or make things up to gratify their egos and sound cool, then thanks. God forbid Valentinus would agree with me. Wow.
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
Is it a coincendence that the name jesus in spanish sounds like zeus?
hoogys 3 years ago
ok I will say that Im learning a lot here.
ryeroe1975 3 years ago
My favorite part of this video is the kitty meowing.
hoogys 3 years ago 2
You obviously known nothing about Marcionism or Manichaeanism. You can't even pronounce the latter.
Neither of them "completely rejected Jesus." They knew the real Jesus, and he was the central figure in both religions.
algabal 3 years ago
I know nothing about Marcionism or Manichaeism? Have you even been listening? I've read everything I've been able to find on the subject by the ancient sources. If you mean Mithras when you say "the real Jesus," then I agree. If you mean the historical person of Yahshuah ben Yosef, then obviously you're more than a little mistaken. There WERE no Manichaeans back then.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
You heard me. You know nothing about Marcionism or Manichaeanism. Your idiotic claim that Manicaeans "completely rejected Jesus" is contradicted by the fact that Christ is constantly mentioned in Manichaean writings and poems.
You have, presumably, consulted the Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis?
algabal 3 years ago
OK, calling me an idiot for educating you on the subject about your Christ being the Antichrist is not just highly ironic but also troll bait that doesn't need to be addressed.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
@malakhhatzadik lol and there WERE no Marcionites who would agree with you, just like there were no Jewish-Christian who would agree with Marcion.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
Sin is not merely the absence or negation of good. Murder is not the absence of "not murder". It's a tangible act with a tangible effect & consequence. The absence of good is nothing- it has no effect. To deny the existence of evil & sin is to deny the existence of Satan. And that would place the blame for all the misery pain and suffering in this world on Elohim because He is the Creator. But Satan is the author of sin. Paul refers to the "law of sin" Rom7:23. It is tangible and it is a choice.
SeekerTx7 3 years ago
Sin is not absence nor is it something you can see or count. It is PRIVATION. Murder IS the privation of life ("not murder" constitutes a double negative, not any thing in itself). To say that Yahshuah wasn't murdered is literally to say that he didn't lose his life. And Satan is just God's agent, not the opposite of God. God is the author of sin because he is the author of the law. I've already addressed all of these Christopagan/Luciferian beliefs. That's exactly the point of the series.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
@malakhhatzadik God the Father is not the source of evil. It is the sun worshipers' concept of God that is the source of evil because it requires sacrifice.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
BTW, there is no such things as pain and suffering either. Emphasis on "such things," as opposed to how you probably read that, which would imply that they do not exist. That is to say that they are a state of mind only. What brings one person pain may bring another pleasure. It's all relative. The only exception is physical suffering, but only humans suffer when they are not under great pain, and then it still falls under the category of privation since it is unnatural to lose one's health.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
@malakhhatzadik To some degree, I agree with you. The Cosmos is an illusion, it is the old garment. That is why ppl who r concerned with this are odd to me. Religion is not about this.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
I used to be 7th Day Adventist (raised Catholic though) and I wasn't aware of the idea that Jesus didn't really die or that there was a different Christian messiah than Jewish messiah. So, if he didn't die as a sacrifice for our sins then why did he die? Didn't Moses receive the law from Elohim (YHWH)?
SeekerTx7 3 years ago
Yes, he (Moses) did. But that doesn't mean that Moses' law was the divine law or that it's any better than Hammurabi's code et al. Yahshuah was preaching the divine law. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that he was killed because the Jews didn't like his message. To say that he was "sacrificed" as opposed to murdered is to exonerate the Romans and Jews by making God the culprit.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
The difference is that YHWH Elohim created the heavens and the earth, so the law which comes from Him is Spiritual. Man however is carnal and so YHWH had to give the divine law in a carnal format in order for man to understand it, identify sin and understand the precepts of enforcement and punishment. Romans 6:23 states that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of Elohim is everlasting life in Messiah Yahushua, our master. Death is a natural consequence of sin, not a demand made by YHWH.
SeekerTx7 3 years ago
"YHWH Elohim created the heavens and the earth"
Are you sure about that? I mean, which one was it--YHWH or the Elohim?
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
I double checked- chapter 1 (Genesis) only says Elohim. Chapter 2:4 identifies YHWH Elohim as the one which made the earth and heavens. The rest of the creation account in chapter 2 identifies YHWH as well, as He formed man, etc.
SeekerTx7 3 years ago
There is a difference between YHWH and YHWH Elohim.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
"There is a difference between YHWH and YHWH Elohim."
What's the difference?
ebedelohim 3 years ago
Good question. YHWH Elohim = "the god Yahweh" or "Yahweh the Mighty."
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
In that case YHWH Elohim is YHWH's full title?
It's still the same El, right?
Elohim means "the gods", or "the Els". I don't like the terms "God" or "gods" because I believe those are false terms or names. In your Bible, The Scriptures, look up "Gad" in the index/dictionary in the back, you'll see what I mean.
ebedelohim 3 years ago
"YHWH Elohim is YHWH's full title?"
No. YHWH has no title. The name "YHWH" was only given to the nation of Israel because they insisted, because people are incapable of conceptualizing existence without representative form (hence all creation).
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
If YHWH is not his real name, am I supposed to refer to him as "I have been" of "Ancient One"? And is YHWH = Ra?
What term do you use when referring to "YHWH"??
ebedelohim 3 years ago
@malakhhatzadik Elohim means sons of God, aka Angels.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
@pandirasbox No it doesn't. That would be BENE Elohim, which is actually a scriptural term. Elohim = shining ones, mighty ones, gods.
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago
To say that Yahushua was murdered by the Jews or the Romans misses the point. He was impaled (crucified) but that's not what killed him. In John 10:17-18 He says "Because of this the Father loves me, because I lay down My life, in order to receive it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to receive it again. This command I have received from my Father." He gave Himself as a sacrifice to pay our debt to sin, not YHWH.
SeekerTx7 3 years ago
And the idea that Yahshuah is/was a sacrifice also misses the point and is one of the most abominable beliefs of the whole Christian paradigm since it makes him out to be a scapegoat of Judaism. No matter how you look at it, he WAS killed by a third party. Yes, he made the choice to lay down his life (i.e., throw himself at God's mercy), but not to kill himself. Look at his prayer at Gethsemane. He didn't want to die. Yet Christians who make Jesus God insinuate that Yahshuah killed himself.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
No He didn't kill himself- he died because of sin, but not his own- he had none. He died for the sins of the world. See Romans chap 5- sin came into the world and death through sin and spread to all men because all sinned. Sin is a "law" of itself that demands death, yet YHWH did not introduce it. Sin came into the world through one man. Hebrews 9:26-28 says the Messiah was offered once to bear the sins of many. He put away sin by the offering of Himself. Sin is the third party that killed him.
SeekerTx7 3 years ago
"Sin is the third party that killed him."
Sin had nothing to do with it because sin is not an agent, it has no consciousness. Obviously killing Yahshuah was a sin, so using your logic you could say that "killing" is the third party that killed him. That makes no sense. You are perpetuating the Luciferian idea that sin is a thing in itself, which I have debunked here and elsewhere. You need to break away from the Christopagan doctrines of devils if you want to understand this properly.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
I used the terms "killing" & "third party" in response to your usage of the terms. My point is that he was not "killed". He died. The idea that the "crucification" is what killed him masks the nature of sin, that sin results in death- as a result of the source of life, the Spirit of Elohim being withdrawn from the sinner. Yahushua was not a sinner, he bore our sin- that is why he died. The crucification made a spectacle of that death in order for all to bear witness to the true nature of sin.
SeekerTx7 3 years ago
If you want to be technical, what killed him was the spirit's departing him on the cross/stake, because the spirit is life. And this privation does not constitute a sin, unless of course you want to go along with the Luciferian dogma and hold God accountable for Yahshuah's murder. Whether he bore it all or not, no amount of sin could have overcome the spirit, because sin is just the finite negation of good, and God's goodness is infinite. Humans do not have that kind of power over God.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
@malakhhatzadik which he can't be because he did not die on the day of atonement. John says Caiaphas was the first to believe this judiciary atonement.
pandirasbox 2 months ago
Are you saying that Yeshua was never crucified? I don't get it...
OutlawWolf1800 3 years ago
Technically he wasn't, because he was hung on a STAKE, not a cross. But there is no accurate word in English since "impaled" implies something else, so "crucified" is as good as any. Yahshuah was executed but Jesus wasn't, because Jesus is not real.
Yahshuah = Son of Man, Christ, God
Jesus = Antichrist, God-man (Nimrod Horus Mithras etc.), same substance as YHWH (Athanasian or Nicene Creed)
See my Secrets of Lucifer #6 video.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
yes, I have already watched your Secrets of Lucifer series. But that's interesting, because I learned that "Jesus" is Latin for "Issa", who was a prophet of Buddha.
OutlawWolf1800 3 years ago
Indeed, very perceptive. However, "Buddha" signifies an ideal, not a man. It is almost identical to "Christ" except that "Christ" is more exclusive. The man we call "Buddha" was not the first one any more than Yahshuah was. Yahshuah's ministry represents a definite integration of the Eastern and Middle Eastern traditions that carried the divine legacy of the "true believers" for thousands of years, though it has left little impact on East Asia since preference is still given there to Gautama.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
Interesting as in my search a Christian Gnostic church was attended and studied and no holes could be found due to their belief in reincarnation.
They did not believe in the OT; very Cathar like and a statue of Mary was prominent which triggered a polarity due to I was not Catholic.
UnoRaza 1 year ago
Since Buddhists have always known about the "messiah" as we call it/him, it is actually through the Buddhist traditions that the Theosophists have given us the modern name for their Christ (our Antichrist, Maitreya aka Mitra/Mithras). That's because the Mahayanans are dualist apostates just like the mainstream Christians, as I have hinted in the Luminari Message video. Dualism actually comes from Aryanism (and therefore Tibetan religion) since that is the basis of Zoroastrianism.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
So basically, what you're saying is that Buddhists, Theosophists, Mahayanans, Dualism, Aryanism, and Zoroastrianism are all roots from where Luciferianism evolved? Zoroastrianism was an ancient Persian religion from which Judaism, Christianity, and Islam evolved from. It was the "father" of all three Abrahamic religions.
OutlawWolf1800 3 years ago
Zoroastrianism antedates Persia by well over a millennium. (Some people think by as much as two.) There is no direct, linear descent of the major religions. Each one is an amalgamation of several others, because religions are CULTURAL systems. A better way to look at it is by identifying their cultural origins.
Aryan = dualism
Hindu = animism
Chinese = spiritism
Babylonian = legalism
Aramaic = henotheism
Egyptian = gnosticism
ie, Every dualist religion has been influenced by Aryanism.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
What is Ayanism, what is dualism, what is henotheism?
OutlawWolf1800 3 years ago
Read Wikipedia's article on Dualism. Even then it's too complicated for me to explain the fallacy of dialect here. Hence our need for religion to repair the ruins of our first parents (the so-called "original sin," knowledge of good and evil, ie dualism).
I've defined henotheism in the vids. Basically it's Abrahamic religion... pantheism is metaphysical truth, but don't worship the gods, only the One ineffable God. Same thing in Buddhism. Monotheism = wrong wrong wrong.
malakhhatzadik 3 years ago
@malakhhatzadik what is your take on heaven?
pandirasbox 2 months ago
@pandirasbox please clarify
malakhhatzadik 2 months ago