"King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities" by Francesca Stavrakopoulou
This forum primarily exists to discuss a secret war between Q and an entity which Q refers to as "them". We are left with the obvious question: who is "them"?
Wild speculation on the identity of "them" (sometimes referred to as "The Cabal") pervade the community of followers of Q. Q's statements about "them" suggest that "them" is a secret and old (how old?) group identifiable by several practices, one of which being various forms of child sacrifice (rape, cannibalism, etc.). Various contradictory speculations about "them", abound, including of the age of "them". We find suggestions that (1) "them" is fairly recent in history, perhaps a banking cabal from the last few centuries, or (2) that "them" is older, perhaps being integrated into the Catholic Church from Roman times, or (3) that "them" is even older still. Q is vague on this point.
On the nature of time and human culture:
-
Do ancient organizations live now?: One question I would like the reader to consider: we know that there were terrible societies/organization/religions/practices in ancient times (BCE), but what happened to them? Did they just "die out"? Can we be sure that they all "died out"? If so, how would you be so sure?
-
Humans behavior is cultural: I would like to suggest that people who assume that such ancient terrible practices died out are making an unwarranted assumption about the nature of time and human beings. Most animals largely operate on instinct, but humans are different: humans learn. The behavior of humans is largely due to their learned practices, not their inherent biology (which is quite similar across the world, despite superficial appearances). Therefore, to best predict the behavior of humans, we should look at what they have learned; over the scale of large numbers of people, this is called their culture.
-
Cultural practices are largely timeless: In other words, when we look at the past and how people behaved, if we want to know if people still behave that way, we should not look at how much calendar time has passed, we should instead look at if they retain the same culture. Culture can change but it often stabilizes and then does not change at all, and then changes suddenly in a cultural discontinuity.
-
Therefore cultural time is fundamentally different from calendar time: I therefore suggest that measuring time in boundaries of cultural discontinuities is a much better way to make a map of human behavior than just looking at what year it was then and what year it is now.
An example: in the 1937 the Japanese government conducted a terrible rape of the city of Nanjing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre and around 1960 the Chinese government conducted the "Great Leap Forward" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward . Each action killed many innocent people.
-
We may conclude that the Japanese and Chinese governments are therefore bad. Why then would we today be allies of the Japanese and not of the Chinese?
-
Well the Japanese government underwent a cultural discontinuity, they lost WWII, whereas the Chinese government did not, they are still the same Chinese Communist Party as they were then. As we can see, even though similar amounts of calendar time has passed, in the government of China cultural time has not passed, whereas in the government of Japan, it has.
Conjecturing that such a terrible organization as the "them" of which Q speaks could arise today may seem implausible, and so many doubt it. But we know for a fact from historical record that many such terrible practices were part of the cultures of the long calendar-time past. Could "them" be an ancient culture for which still lives in ancient cultural-time? For which culture-time has not passed?
I suggest for your consideration the writings of a real researcher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Stavrakopoulou : "Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter. The main focus of her research is on the Hebrew Bible, and on Israelite and Judahite history and religion." In particular, I think it is important to note that "Stavrakopoulou was brought up in no particular religion and is a self-described atheist." In other words, her scholarship is not inclined to be distorted by identifying personally with the subject matter.
I think this work of hers is of particular relevance:
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110899641/html
The Hebrew Bible portrays King Manasseh and child sacrifice as the most reprehensible person and the most objectionable practice within the story of 'Israel'. This monograph suggests that historically, neither were as deviant as the Hebrew Bible appears to insist. Through careful historical reconstruction, it is argued that Manasseh was one of Judah's most successful monarchs, and child sacrifice played a central role in ancient Judahite religious practice. The biblical writers, motivated by ideological concerns, have thus deliberately distorted the truth about Manasseh and child sacrifice.
Further, from the book:
Indeed, a closer examination of the Hebrew Bible suggests that the offering of the firstborn to YHWH may well have included the sacrifice of human babies along with the offering of animals and crops. In spite of these text, the debate appears to have come full circle within modern scholarship with the relatively recent defence of the biblical concept of "Molek" as a foreign god of child sacrifice. However, contrary to this view, this study will argue that the identification of child sacrifice as a foreign element within Judahite religious practice is based on the distortion of the historical reality of child sacrifice within the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, it will be argued that the academic acceptance of this biblical distortion as a historical probability reflects a persistent and unself-critical ideological bias within modern scholarship. Unlike most other areas of academic enquiry, the subject of child sacrifice is particularly susceptible to misrepresentation within modern scholarship because of its sensitive nature. The historical reality of child sacrifice in ancient (and indeed modern) civilizations is an unpleasant reality, particularly, as van der Horst comments, if such a practice is attested within a culture that has played some role in the formation of one's personal world-view. This may well account in part of the apparent reluctance within biblical scholarship to apply the perspectives of ideological criticism to the examination of the subject of child sacrifice and the Hebrew Bible. As Bergmann suggests:
"We have a particular difficultly in understanding this phenomenon because the Judeo-Christian tradition has accustomed us to regard God as an ego-ideal. Therefore how could God tolerate human sacrifices?"
As observed above, ideological criticism suggest that ideology generally exists within a dynamic context of opposition. In seeking to distinguish between the biblical portrayal of child sacrifice and the historical reality of this practice, this discussion will argue that the biblical material concerning child sacrifice is generally opposed o the historical reality that children were sacrificed to Yhwh, and that an "ideology of separateness" governs the biblical insistence that child sacrifice was a Canaanite practice. Moreover, it will be argued that child sacrifice played an important role within the royal Judahite cult, and that "Molek" is best understood as a biblical character making the historical reality of the sacrifice of children to Yhwh.
The idea that the Lord demanded child sacrifice and this was covered up after the fact is insanity. How the hell did this get stickied?
The idea that "Yahweh" (the Lord) was one of many Gods and was only worshiped solely after the Babylonian Captivity is nonsensical and has no historical basis. The Biblical truth is that the Israelites worshiped pagan gods on the side in defiance of the Lord's commands.
Jesus Christ IS the God of the Old Testament. This is in made abundantly clear in John. Jesus would not demand human sacrifice.
👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼
Amen. Well said.
On the contrary, there is substantial evidence that points to purposeful manipulation of the text to promote YHWH (a son of El) to the creator (El, the Canaanite creator deity). For example, from the dead sea scrolls, Deut. 32:8-9:
This text was dated over two thousand years ago. The Masoretic text is much closer to the version we have:
But the earliest version of the Masoretic text is dated to around 1000AD, almost 1300 years after the quote from the dead sea scrolls. At some point in between, they changed it.
This is just the tip of the iceberg on this one. This is the best piece from the bible (most self-contained and easiest to show), but there are quite a few others that you can find. You have to look at actual archeological evidence (from Canaan and Sumer) for the very best stuff, but there is evidence literally all over the place.
Who told you that? Think about it. Who wrote the bible (original)? Who wrote the bible you read?
The answers to both of those questions are:
How do they rule the world?
Belief.
Who told you what the truth is?
So Jeremiah was talking out of his ass when he said that the pantheon of pagan gods shouldn't be worshiped? Moses was a fabrication created after the Babylonian Captivity?
The sheer number of new testament manuscripts are greater than any other document from antiquity. "Muh kaffiolikz and Jooz" doesn't fly in the face of the staggering manuscript evidence.
I don't know. Why don't you ask Jeremiah what his motives were? Oh, that's right, you can't, because at best he has been dead for millennia and at worst he never existed. The people who wrote every book in the OT belonged to an aristocratic Priest Class who ruled the tribes of the region. No one doubts that. We know which group of people wrote the OT because it's written in the bible, and all of the archeological evidence supports it. It was a Priest Class that sat at the top of society. For their writing efforts they got a tenth of everyone's income, all the best cuts of meat, and the underclass's first born as temple slaves or for sacrifice (or a cash payment if you could afford it). THAT is who wrote the entire OT.
They also happen to be the same people who rule the world today.
Maybe the reason they pushed a fundamental change in doctrine has something to do with the result of their efforts?
Moses was probably someone, but probably not the person you think he was. At the least, the oldest books (that we have found) that describe the stories you believe are the absolute truth about him were written at least a thousand years (oldest texts) after he lived. The versions you believe in (which are different than those oldest texts (DSS) in some key ways) were written 2500 years or so after Moses. There is substantial evidence of changes in the texts.
Even there, there are substantial discrepancies in the texts found. There is substantial evidence of edits over the years. There are more books left out than included in the version you believe is "the whole truth" and almost the entire present day Christian dogma doesn't come from the words of Jesus, but from the narrative and interpretation of Saul the mass murdering Pharisee agent. All he had to do was give some story about "I met Jesus and changed my mind" and everyone believes it and allows his interpretations to literally rule the world.
That's what actually happened. None of those statements are controversial. The present day Christian dogma requires changing the evidence to fit the beliefs. It has Cabal fingerprints all over every step and people ignore all the evidence.
So Jesus was fake and gay? If that's what you believe, whatever. But if you don't believe that, why?
If the Bible is bullshit then you cannot seriously claim to be a Christian based on what the Bible says about Jesus.
Your statements on the OT are ignorant. The people who wrote the OT were killed by the ruling class because they called out their hypocrisy. Read the prophets sometime (ahem Malachi) because you clearly never have. If you think the OT is pro-ruling class you never read the damn thing
Editing this comment to LMAO about "Saul muh false apostle" tell me when the shuttle lands champ. Getting lashed over 100 times, imprisoned and executed for bullshit. Sure.
How did you get that from what I said? I said nothing like that. I am talking about Today's Christian dogma.
The modern day version has some serious issues. Who Jesus was, what he said, what he did, why he did it are all questions worth looking into. There is far more evidence that gives potential answers to those questions than are found in the small version you believe in, and all it's apparent fuckery.
They are based on thirty years of study on the topic. If you would like me to dig in and provide evidence, ask specific questions.
Do you agree the Priest Class wrote the books? If not, then which class of people did? Who had the training to write? Who had the ability to push their work into the public sphere and create the religion? Do you think some random shmuck could do that? Of course not. That is not how society works. You have to be near the top to be heard. And that's today. It was far worse with respect to the allowed actions by the social hierarchy at the time.
Did the Priest Class ever have issues with the Kings? Sure, of course. That doesn't mean they didn't sit at the top of society. For the most part the Priest Class of every ancient society was beyond the reach of the King. The real Rulers of society generally sit behind the scenes creating beliefs, then as today. Sometimes the King decides otherwise. That doesn't change the fundamental social structure.
Who told you that story?
Even if it is exactly true as told, why do you think that means he wasn't an agent, controlled opposition? Do you honestly believe the PTB care about their agents? They throw their own agents under the bus all the time, it's a part of their religion.
Thanks for your measured replies and insightful questions. May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs? Mine remain firmly Christian, but I'm open to all challenges, scholarly research, and cordial debate.
Agree the Priest Class wrote the Biblical books and that there has been some drift in certain texts over the centuries. A pivotal question is indeed the trustworthiness of our current canon, both OT and NT. What are your favorite references on this topic?
Prompted by recent commentary by Clif High on the Elohim that I suspect most Christians would find heretical, I've been doing some research into the work of Zecharia Sitchin, Mauro Biglino, and now Francesca Stavrakopoulou. I find counters by Michael Heiser helpful in defense of more classic Christian beliefs: https://www.sitchiniswrong.com/ and https://drmsh.com/ , but Clif could very well be right that we see aliens openly in our midst within the next few years creating shockwaves throughout Christendom, Judaism, and Islam.
I was raised a Christian by a minister and theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate with some really intelligent and learned masters, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.
Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.
I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).
I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.
As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."
My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.
I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.
As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.
I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. Well, that and Secular Humanism ("The Science"), which was created by the same group, both two sides of the same coin designed to make us feel dependent on external sources ("The Lord your God", "Jesus Christ", "Allah" (another name for the Canaanite diety El), or "The Scientific Experts" take your pick). In the case of the Abrahams, they leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (or Allah and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.
I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in defiance of The Source of All Things.
First Yahweh is the name of the creator in the Judeochristian tradition, not the Lord or God. Second, Jesus was not the god of the Old testament. I don't know how to best illustrate this without making you look utterly stupid. You need to truly study divinity, comparative religion and cultural studies of the Middle East. Thirdly, the Jews set free after the Babylonian captivity were a mixed bunch and they brought a lot of religious ideas and traditions from Babylonian traditions, most notably Zoroastrianism.
"Jesus was not the god of the Old testament. I don't know how to best illustrate this without making you look utterly stupid"
Uh huh. Read John 1 sometime. Jesus is the WORD. The Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God. Trinity bee-otch. Can't get much clearer than that.
"Lord" is a rough translation of the tetragrammaton which is YHWH (Yahweh). I'm not the one who needs to study divinity lmao
Um...The book of John is in the NEW testament, not the Old Testament. Jesus is the central story of the NT, but the OT is essentially about the journey and history of the Hebrew people and their growing relationship with their God. Lord is not a rough translation of Yahweh. The word lord comes from the Old English word hlāford, which roughly translates to keeper of the bread. Sorry Man.
100%
Just my thougth on it all: Both God and Christ state Child Sacrifice is awful/bad, and a sin. Just so no one thinks it was something that was actually wanted. No I think “they, them, those guys 👹😈” wanted to persuade the Sheeple that child sacrifice as a good thing, though the truth is it is vile and evil.
Comparing the false and satanic Talmud to the authentic scripture of the old testament is night and day. The Talmud blatantly glorifies horrible sins like pedophilia and murder.
The Talmud is a manual of man made rules and traditions. It was written by those who Jesus called out in Revelation 3:9 - "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." The Torah, the first 5 books of the Old Testament written by Moses, is God inspired.
Yes that’s true. It does do that. Good addition Anon.
Exactly what one would expect from an atheist who hasn’t actually studied the Bible. Wish I could downvote this post. Why was this stickied?
What do you mean "study" the bible? Have you studied the bible? Can you read ancient hebrew? Stavrakopoulou can. Further she has actually read the hebrew bible and has to get her opinions on it past peer review.
If you cannot read ancient hebrew then you have not studied the bible, you have at best read a translation of the bible. If you think that is the same, then I guarantee that you only read English. Other languages are quite different and a translation says a lot about the opinion of the translator.
Yahweh even says "a practice so detestable I never even thought of it" so idk.
Sure ppl sacrifice babies to God but he doesn't want that
The Bible basically tells us to ignore our desires and to instead desire God.
This notion that the Bible and its effect on our cultural identity is what is keeping us from admitting child sacrifice was for Yahweh because it goes against what we want to be true or because it feels icky is frankly absurd. That's the first thing that especially the secular scholars who hate God would want to be true.
Also, look around today. We have people saying that Jesus Christ fine with homosexuality. That God made man woman and woman man. These people flagrantly ignore the book they claim to worship the God of. Nothing is new under the same.
Even if child sacrifice was done in the name of Yahweh, all it proves is that the people weren't listening to what they were told by their holy texts to do. Same as today, same as tomorrow, same as always. There is truly nothing new under the sun.
It is not absurd as it very well may be happening. What is potentially very dangerous is something happening right in front of people and people not being willing to admit it because of some book that they like.
It's not possible to get "sacrifice children to Yahweh" out of the Bible, nor out of even just the Old Testament.
No amount of intellectual contortions, desperate rationalization, nor absurdist interpretations of scripture will change this.
And the same goes to any supposed researcher who takes an "unbiased" position (i.e. the idea that God not being real is the default). If God IS real, starting from the position that He is not will inevitably lead to misunderstanding, particular in this context, since if you read a book that is infallible as a fallible recording, you will obviously come to a bunch of ridiculous thinking based on your own suppositions on what "this or that really means". Particularly so if you insert historical precedent as the basis for the writings (the secular view), rather than in spite of the writings (the religious view). In other words, sacrifice was for Yahweh and the Bible is partly a euphemism for that versus sactifice was in spite of Yahweh exactly as the text claims.
Further, being an Atheist means being biased against all religious claims, not being some perfect unbiased researcher who can be "trusted to discover the truth".
Now, with all that being said, even with a secular reading you still can't get "child sacrifice to Yahweh" out of the Old Testament.
(p.s. I wasn't the one who downvoted you)
Thanks for the reference and I've been listening to her online interview with three other Brits posted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Stavrakopoulou Interesting to hear their cordial exchange. She flat out admits that even if she had eyewitnessed the resurrection she still would not believe Jesus was the Son of God.
Our worldview and fundamental religious beliefs underlie and influence everything we do and say. My take is Stavrakopoulou's conclusions are exactly the kind of thing we would expect from an atheist Hebrew Bible scholar, but this does not make them neutral, unbiased, or necessarily the best research. See The Myth of Religious Neutrality by Roy Clouser.
That's the thing; if God is real, you can't be a "secular Bible scholar". That'd be like trying to be a physicist and not believing in matter. You can't study or learn about something if you don't believe in the foundation of the thing's existence. And when it comes to God, He is the foundation of the existence of everything. As such, belief in Him is a prerequisite to being able to successfully learn about anything.
It's absurd on it's face to believe that everything is the result of random chaos while simultaneously believing that there exists an innate comprehensibility to the universe that would allow for science and scholarship to be possible.
And as a side note,
"She flat out admits that even if she had eyewitnessed the resurrection she still would not believe Jesus was the Son of God."
That sounds like par for the course for a self-deluded, atheistic "Bible scholar".
You seem to have missed the point of empirical research: we let reality do the talking; the researcher just sets it up our view onto reality. Can that view have bias? Yes, but measuring reality is the ultimate source of truth.
Do you have a problem with non-Egyptians studying ancient Egyptian religion? Do you have a problem with non-Mayans studying ancient Mayan religion? How about non-Greeks studying the ancient Greek pantheon? How about non-Scandinavians studying the practices of the Vikings?
We see Americans of every kind making commentary on all of the above without being part of those traditions. No one says they should not. No one says that we cannot have an opinion on the Greek or Scandinavian traditions, even if they are not our traditions.
If someone said on this board that Scientology is abusive or crazy, is that invalid because that person is not a Scientologist? What if they have empirical evidence of their assertions about Scientology?
Why cannot we apply the same historical method to the history of religions of South-West Asia as we would to any other part of the world?
You have pointed to nothing of evidence that is empirical in nature. You lay all at the foot of your favorite researcher and your belief in that person's integrity and professionalism, of which most here have no knowledge. I don't take Francesca's word as fact until proven so. This post doesn't make the case.
To answer your questions: no, I have absolutely no problems with any of the cross-cultural pursuits you mention, and also agree that Stavrakopoulou's work is worth a look. My points, which I may not have communicated clearly enough, are that (a) atheists are in fact religious in the sense that they still view something to be divine (e.g. the cosmos) and (b) no empirical research is religiously neutral. It is thus valuable to learn of a scholar's worldview while studying and interpreting their work.
I'm going through the same process now with Clif High and his views on the Elohim.
Interesting. Yes Clif High has some interesting takes on God/Christ, and the angels.
It goes all the way back to Lucifer. Starts and ends there.
God NEVER condones child sacrifice.
“Saving Israel for Last”https://qalerts.app/?q=%23916 and child sacrifice?
Deleted by mod due to content and context. Try again.
Source of information unless otherwise specified. https://www.docdroid.net/nT0Shkt/version-2-majestic-messages-of-disclosure-pdf
The disclosure in the link provided is meant to be informative but if you’re easily disturbed proceed with caution.👽👶👼
Question. So MJ12 is the head of the Octopus? Head of Deep State?
Answer. Extraterrestrial intelligence.
Cabal worships ETs who feed on children.
Could be associated to the [Conspiracy] of the bloodline families, but the structure of control is 2 Cabals. You are not fighting one.
Correct. 2 Cabals. 3 parts to each. One agenda.
The Rothchilds are interdimensions HUMAN beings, not of the species with elongated skulls.
Would you believe us if we told you the ZIONIST STATE of ISRAEL is controlled by an ET "entity" reclaiming dominance over Earth in Jerusalem completely UNAFFILIATED with the JEWS. However the LEADER of ISRAEL is PERCEIVED to be the LEADER of the WORLD.
Is this ET entity a Reptilian? Yes.
Many rituals that occur, the cult members witness the "demon" (aka the extraterrestrial alien) consume the sacrifice and the members who join the Cabal must participate in order to prove their allegiance to this higher form of intelligence (from their own).
If the state of Israel is controlled by an "entity" does that mean THIS ENTITY CREATED ZIONISM? Yes.
The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British Government in 1917 during the First World War announcing its support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
Do the Zionists have a hold on the Federal Reserve currency currently? Yes.
The IRS has been a political weapon used by the Babylonian Priesthood in order to enforce compliance from all fronts financially essentially allowing the unchecked behavior of entities like the Clinton Foundation or the Gates?
ROTHSCHILD OWNED & CONTROLLED BANKS; The FED and the IRS https://qalerts.app/?q=%23135 https://qalerts.app/?q=%23136 https://qalerts.app/?q=%23137 https://qalerts.app/?q=%23138
Is the Rothschild Banking Empire Global Pedophile Network’s Link to Israel About to be Exposed? https://healthimpactnews.com/2023/is-the-rothschild-banking-empire-global-pedophile-networks-link-to-israel-about-to-be-exposed/
My Irrelevant Defence being Meditations Inside Gaol and Out on Jewish Ritual Murder https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Jewish-Ritual-Murder-by-Arnold-Leese.pdf
Jews Apoplectic Over New Painting Honoring Simon Of Trent, A Child Ritually Murdered By Jews In The 15th Century https://christiansfortruth.com/jews-apoplectic-over-new-painting-honoring-simon-of-trent-a-child-ritually-murdered-by-jews-in-the-15th-century/
Who invaded Earth 8,000 years ago? Why emphasize 8,000?
Comments Enki & Ea So Enki invaded 8,000 years ago. I'm guessing Enki was evil Sirian Annunaki LARPing as God so humans would worship him. End comments.
This is why religions have emphasized the importance of knowing that all inter-dimensional entities that exist in higher realms of consciousness who are not in the lower plane[t] of existence as you must be interpreted as being dangerous or demons.
Disclosure to work, we must dismember Christianity power players as a RICO organizations.
As we have said, we will destroy Christianity into a million pieces and expose it for what it really is. The good. The bad. And the ugly. Parts are very real and true. Others are why you are slaves. You must wake up or face complete destruction.
The Great Awakening.
I like this post look_thou_but_sweet. Thank you.
It is good for people to challenge their indoctrinated thinking. That, imho, is what the Great Awakening is all about. It is far, far more than merely election steal, cabal shenanigans, government tyrannies, abuse and trafficking awareness. It is the breaking of thousands of years of enslavement, Worldwide. One MUST challenge beliefs to truly be Awakened.
Just my take.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this post for I know nothing about this.
Didn't God command Abraham to sacrifice his son, Issac?
Gen. 22 Verses 1 to 19 [1] After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." [2] He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."
It was a test of devotion and a prefiguring of Christ.
Isaac was a miracle child born in Abraham's old age. God wanted to see how much Abraham really trusted him.
There's plenty of evidence that Abraham knew it was a test and never planned to sacrifice isaac