Thursday, January 31, 2013

Identity of The 144,000


a) It is now used today in the sense of offering a tithe. The firstfruits is the offering we make to the treasury from the product of our labor. Google provides a wealth of information here.

b) Firstfruits of the Lamb


"These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb."

c) The law speak to firstfruits as well

Leviticus 19:23-25
And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of. But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the Lord withal.  And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am the Lord your God.


Who are the firstfruits in Rev 14? Most all agree they are 144,000 Jewish men. They are actually virgin men. They are firstfruits, they are not to be touched, that is they "were not defiled with women" in intercourse.

They were not the spouse Paul spoke of in 1 Cor 7 who was more interested in pleasing their spouse and less occupied with the things of God, rather than virgins who are not concerned for the cares of their husbands but rather the things of God.

These 144,000 are virgins and not Jewish. What Jewish are they?

The tribe of Judah makes up 12,000 of the ranks of these men. The other tribes are presumably unknown but many have speculated that early Europeans were settlers emerging from the Middle East, thus making many whites biblical Jews. There are also Africans which are Jewish. Linguists understand Amharic, a language of Ethiopians, to be a Semitic language and so presumably there could be a Semitic heritage in Ethiopia and other African regions. I think the 144,000 will be a blend of races but will they be Jewish in the sense we understand in the case of someone being of the tribe of Judah, ethnically Jewish? No.

Succubus and Incubus

Succubus and Incubus

Kesha says she had sex with a ghost

A lot of people thought Kesha was crazy when she said this. She wasn't kidding. The succubus (female spirit) and incubus (male spirit) were known in medieaval and early Church times. They were spirits that many times attacked the sexually celibate including priests to draw them into debauchery. They are real and they still attack today. I was attacked by one. Because of this experience and having the confidence to confide in a few people who I really trust their word on things, I was confided in by them that they were attacked by such demons as well.

My suspicion is that because of the stigma surrounding mental health and things nowadays that many who have had this experience will not tell even the people they trust the very most. It is one of the biggest taboos. But the truth is that many people have this experience. Not everyone has sex with the spirit because God allows them supernaturally to be protected and to know what the nature of that spirit is, as happened with me. No, Kesha is not lying when she says she had this experience but she is revealing something about her spiritual state of depravity. The succubus and the incubus are real and the early Church knew this.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Animal Theology

Here are my basic foundational principles of animal theology.

  1. All animals have souls.
  2. All animals are required to obey the laws of God which He has established.
  3. Because they have souls, they therefore have free will.
  4. Because they have free will, they can choose to obey God's law for orderly living, or can likewise choose to obey the will of the Adversary, Satan.
  5. All animals can be possessed.
  6. Animals may have spiritual gifts insofar as it is not required to speak for them to be in operation.
  7. All animals must have salvation in order to inherit eternal life and live on in Heaven after death.

"All animals have souls"

Because they possess the ability for rational and intelligent thought, they therefore must have a soul accompanied by conscience.

"All animals are required to obey the laws of God which He has established."

Because animals were created by a Creator, God, they are therefore bound by the same commands which God gave Moses and those which came from Jesus. For instance, cannibalism is a very rare instance in the animal kingdom. Because God has commanded us not to eat our own kind, we see this in action even within the animal kingdom. The animals have not considered cannibalism in a rational mode of thinking (the human mode of thinking), but being born with a soul accompanied by conscience, this could be considered taboo even amongst animals. One example of animals eating their own kind is when no other sustenance is available. Likewise, that animal which chooses to become a pest and disturbance, swift and harsh judgment will be exacted against it by man or wild. Animals are bound by the laws of God.

"Because they have souls, they therefore have free will."

Animals having souls therefore have ultimate say-so in their eternal resting place. Reverse engineering it, we see they have motivation for action, thus a will, and with the will uncontested we further surmise that the soul, of which the will is a component, an animal must have. However, it having free will then, therefore, must have a choice in whether it should do what is right in the eyes of God or right in its own sight. Hence,

"Because they have free will, they can choose to obey God's law for orderly living, or can likewise choose to obey the will of the Adversary, Satan."

"All animals can be possessed."

Finally one with a biblical basis. In casting out the Legion, Jesus commanding them to leave the man, the demons cried for mercy saying, "Lord, please cast us into the pigs," which Jesus did. Animals can therefore be possessed and can be brought under demonic influence sufficient to cause them to commit acts contrary to the laws of God.

"Animals may have spiritual gifts insofar as it is not required to speak for them to be in operation."

I have talked to numerous dog owners who were deeply religious and they mostly agreed: Dogs can sometimes "discern" strangers and warn their owners of danger. In this respect, dogs can be gifted in discernment. Another gift which I recognize in many animals is a ministering spirit. We've known for some time that animals have tremendous therapeutic effect and can prolong life. But what I have noticed is a little different. A notable instance in my life was the story of one cat whose name is not known. I had been depressed for several days and one day took a walk to the gas station. Along the path by my neighbors' apartments a cat ran out and greeted me. Our eyes made contact and somehow I knew within my heart that this cat had been sent to me like an angel. I approached him and sat with him a while talking to him. So many people I had met the previous weeks had discouraged me and brought me into a state of depression but something about that cat spoke to me and said, "You are special." I visited the cat on a regular basis for months, 2-3 times a week and he was always prepared to spend time with me. He was my friend. I told different people about him and how he had encouraged me and referred to him as my friend. That cat was able to reach out to me in a way that no human ever could or did at the time and for this I firmly believe that animals can be ordained by God to do a special work in our lives.

Sadly, the neighbors grew increasingly upset with the wandering around of this particular neighbor's cats and a fence was constructed around her patio to enclose them, though sometimes I still drop by.

"All animals must have salvation in order to inherit eternal life and live on in Heaven after death."

This one may be most controversial of all. How do animals receive salvation if they cannot speak?

Luke 19:37-40

When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:

"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"

Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"
"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

Jesus said that even the rocks would cry out. How can we presume to know that in some way that animals do not testify to the Lord and though they cannot speak glory to His name, that in their very actions they do not glorify God?

How can we as humans be washed in the blood of the Lamb, but animals cannot be washed in the blood of Jesus?

Animals can do right by God or they can do evil. There have been numerous stories in recent years of dogs who warned their families of a fire in the home, saving entire families. These animals have been used in the grand orchestration of God's creation to save lives, to prolong lives, and for those whose lives are riddled with despair to improve them. Animals, like humans, left to the elements and the forces of nature can all become vicious beasts but Sigfried and Roy have showed us that even the lions can open their lives to human involvement.

What I'm sharing is nothing new. The ancients knew these things. The more advanced a society gets the less it remembers about past accomplishments. We forgot how the pyramids we built because the Egyptian society went on to other projects. Pyramid builders were in less demand and it came to an era where  pyramids were unnecessary. We forgot of the Stonehenge, Easter Island, Aztec pyramids and other feats of architecture, how those things were built because society evolved. We stopped caring and this knowledge was lost.



I will take the time now to identify my dialectic of preference in my demonstrations. It opposes the Hegelian

Thesis + Antithesis ---> Synthesis

and the conspiratorialist

Problem + Reaction ---> Solution

For lack of a better term, let us call this the Johnian dialectic

positive extrema + negative extrema ---> middle
+ extrema/- extrema ---> middle

It starts with a controversial question. I will begin to paint the extremes for the reader. I will show the absurdity of either position, let us say as if on a continuum <--x----|----x-->

My proposition then turns to the absurdity, indeed, the equality of the common position or of my opponent's position with the absurdity which I have painted. It is a rhetorical slight of hand that is predicated on the idea that any position which is contrary to reality is an absurd position, and if this is true, it is a simple extension of principles of logic to show how absurd it is.

The middle then is the white rabbit produced from my little hat, the embodiment of the middle of the road. It's not the ideological answer I present, but one which relies most heavily on the evidence provided, a liberal answer. By representing any view which is contrary to what is revealed through the Word as absurd and unrealistic, that is, showing its overlap with what is agreed to be absurd by reasonable persons, then the approach I offer to the debate with that person is to show that logically there is no less absurdity in the incorrect notion they cling to. Simply put, what is false is absurd because it lacks correspondence to the reality to which it speaks to. My middle is irresistible and seductive, anything in opposition is absurd.

Put in terms of an actual situation or controversy arising from the church: It makes no difference whether you believe one's laughing uncontrollably or barking like a dog is somehow a more believable manifestation of the Spirit than those who say gold teeth appears in peoples' mouths or gold dust falls from Heaven when a "prophet" walks in the room. They are both ridiculous for anyone to say and I will tell you that. I won't cede that one makes more sense than another as neither are plausible and neither correspond.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Pre-Catholic introduction

Protestant Christians are half-hearted in their rejection of Catholic tenets. They decry the relics of paganism, while during the month of December Christmas trees can be found in nearly every church. They decry the formality but in its stead they offer worship utilizing the principles of Mesmerism. They like Hell, Trinitarianism, and other aspects, and while Protestantism was predicated on the idea of offering a biblical perspective on crucial issues they saw Catholicism as having abused, they clung rigidly to orthodoxy in almost every sense of the term, and their corresponding religion has tended to look more Catholic than the Catholics look now.

I hold, contrary to mainstream churchgoers and thinkers, that orthodoxy is the very definition of heresy. It is so because the teachings of the early Church were systematically uprooted and voted against in the several councils, which Protestants hold in no esteem mind you, but bear an ominous resemblance to. Therefore, what I propose is that to arrive at the faith once delivered unto the saints by the Messiah Himself, then we must consider that faith which was pre-Catholic and that was pre-orthodox, which includes us setting aside all orthodox prejudices and considering that when the quote-unquote orthodox tenets of faith were established, that they were established in contravention to what the earlier body of believers believed, and indeed, had received from the Christ Himself.

Therefore, the faith they had received is the faith we want to adopt, despite what well-meaning Catholic bishops centuries later thought prudent to clarify and abolish.

Introduction, the world's reality and God's reality


As a foreword to the things which I will be talking about, I want to make a few observations on reality. Society's view of reality is a convoluted mess. In the eyes of our society, reality is determined by consensus. It held true going back to Galileo, further back at the Council of Nicea, back to the Pharisees and the Christian controversy, back to Babylonia and before. Therefore, society has tended to view the outlying perspective as non-reflective of reality, e.g. delusion. So the true reality has been pre-defined as a philosophy to avoid. The Bible makes clear on multiple occasions that God would give the people over to strong delusion, Solomon said there was a way that seemed right unto a man (Proverbs 14:12), and Yeshua even criticized the world view of charity, saying, "Peace I give unto you. Not as the world gives give I unto you..."

What the world has defined as reality is THE delusion itself and it is in the absurd that one finds order and coherence. The many things I have to say to you are things the world would like to tarnish as being absurd, but in it one will find the nourishing bread of the word of God and they can be fed.

The first tool that we need to weed through the true story (the event as it happened) from the official story (what the experts want you to believe happened) is to first consider the source. Another one, follow the money. Not every source can be believed. Not every source can be rejected on the basis of the inverse of what another may be qualified on. Some sources can not be trusted on account of what bases we may have already considered the validity of their testimony to have been founded upon.

All this means, to be clearer, is that there is not an equal validity in trusting one man because of the letters after his name (and that he is credible, also that many value his opinion, that it seems to be sound observation) and then rejecting on that same basis the case of a man who has no letters, no audience, or who otherwise does not seem to offer a sound observation. The lack thereof doesn't seem to do anything to discredit the latter man. We have no reason to think for any of the above reasons to think the man is not credible as well. One who is credible is one who is esteemed as credible and one who lacks an audience couldn't be esteemed to be credible.

The only basis by which to test a speaker is using the correspondence view of reality. Does what is being said corresponding to the reality to which it speaks to?

In the matters of faith I will discuss here, we need to conform our view of the matter to what God's view is. 

So I test you here. Shake off the prejudices of the world and what the world thinks. Be willing to lay down all prior notions you may have had about reality and open yourself to the perspectives shared here. Only accept the part of it which corresponds to reality, and to the extent that my correspondence is poor, then reject it to that extent. Yeshua had hard lessons for a hard people, but they were hardened to the core of their hearts and were steadfast in their rebellion. I come bringing an unpopular message, but it is because the hearts of the people have been hardened for so long that these messages have not been heard before.

Test it against the Word. Test it in your personal life to see if it is true. I challenge you because I have nothing to hide.

So if we want to conform our view to God's view, then we must first consider pre-Catholic faith and why through a pre-Catholic lens can ultimate truth be uncovered. What did the early Church believe and how does it differ from orthodoxy? Let us consider pre-Catholic faith.