Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. That religion later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping his throne, to become first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon their henotheistic system wasn't good enough. Influences from Zoroastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember mostly where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region that were there before these "new" Judeans (or perhaps Israelites/Samaritans) arrived were originally from Israel (somewhere from the area we call "Israel" today), i.e. they were the “Magogians,” AKA the “lost tribe of Israel” who had set up shop in that region a thousand years (or so) before these "new" Jews came. I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. That religion later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping his throne, to become first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon their henotheistic system wasn't good enough. Influences from Zoroastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember mostly where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region that were there before these "new" Judeans (or perhaps Israelites/Sumerians) arrived were originally from Israel (somewhere from the area we call "Israel" today), i.e. they were the “Magogians,” AKA the “lost tribe of Israel” who had set up shop in that region a thousand years (or so) before these "new" Jews came. I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. That religion later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping his throne, to become first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon their henotheistic system wasn't good enough. Influences from Zoroastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region that were there before these "new" Judeans (or perhaps Israelites/Sumerians) arrived were originally from Israel (somewhere from the area we call "Israel" today), i.e. they were the “Magogians,” AKA the “lost tribe of Israel” who had set up shop in that region a thousand years (or so) before these "new" Jews came. I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. That religion later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping his throne, to become first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon their henotheistic system wasn't good enough. Influences from Zoroastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region that were there before these "new" Judeans (or perhaps Israelites/Sumerians) arrived were originally from Israel (somewhere from the area we call "Israel" today), i.e. the “Magogians,” a thousand years before, i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. That religion later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping his throne, to become first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon their henotheistic system wasn't good enough. Influences from Zoroastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region that were there before these "new" Judeans (or perhaps Israelites) arrived were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” a thousand years before, i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. That religion later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping his throne, to become first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon their henotheistic system wasn't good enough. Influences from Zoroastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region that were there before these "new" Judeans (or perhaps Israelites) were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” a thousand years before, i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. That religion later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping his throne, to become first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon their henotheistic system wasn't good enough. Influences from Zoroastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. That religion later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping his throne, to become first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who those people were (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

I think after Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, usurping that throne, first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This was done to put "the people of Israel" first among their peers, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion. It later became an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This was done to put "the people of Israel" first among their peers, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) is so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion. You can’t find it by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) is so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) is "what's really going on" is, I think, naive. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion. You can’t find it by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) is so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion. You can’t find it by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) is so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythians dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion. You can’t find it by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) is so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythians dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion. You can’t find it by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) is so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing it with YHWH.

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythians dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion. You can’t find it by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) is so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can piece together very likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing it with YHWH.

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythians dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion. You can’t find it by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) is so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can piece together very likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing it with YHWH.

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythians dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion. You can’t find it by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) is so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the forth or fifth century BC.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can piece together very likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing it with YHWH.

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythians dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion. You can’t find it by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) is so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites demanded a push for a monotheistic religion.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can piece together very likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing it with YHWH.

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythians dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion. You can’t find it by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) is so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.

Elohim is the plural form of El

ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.

the actions of God are always in the singular form

ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, all gods) into a monotheistic one (only one god). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, double conflicting creation stories, etc.

The order of events is, I think, an effort to change YHWH into El, first among many gods (which I think was done before Babylon), thus putting "the people of Israel" first among their peers. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "the son of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El."

After Babylon this henotheism wasn't good enough. Influences from Zorastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites demanded a push for a monotheistic religion.

If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities of specific regions.

if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.

We do not

On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or earlier, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember vaguely where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.

Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.

Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).

It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people

It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can piece together very likely origins of the Torah.

who came up with their own similar stories.

Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing it with YHWH.

 Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.

It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.

However, those are not the people who wrote the books

There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.

You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.

My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that came from Khazaria went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel, I think around the time of the “Roman diaspora”. They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy). But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region were originally from Israel, i.e. the “Magogians,” i.e. the “lost tribe of Israel.” I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)

I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), of the Scythians. You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythians dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.

If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.

The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion. You can’t find it by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.

he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.

Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.

There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) is so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.