MAG768720 1 point ago +2 / -1

I've never heard that [jews are Edomites] before. Very interesting if true.

One-minute video on this about what the jews themselves claim:


The Greek word translated as "fornication" in John 8:41 is porneia,


which can refer to both illicit sexual intercourse, including marital unfaithfulness, and idolatry including marital unfaithfulness, and idolatry in a figurative sense (being unfaithful to God). As such, I don't think they were talking about "race-mixing" here.

In our modern English versions, we see that the original words are translated differently. Not all the versions use the same English words. So, which is correct?

John 8:41, King James Version --

We be not born of fornication

John 8:41, Young's Literal Translation --

We of whoredom have not been born

The Expanded Bible is useful because it often gives more than one version of the various English translations.

John 8:41, Expanded Bible --

We are not like children who never knew who their father was [illegitimate children; born from/of fornication].

This tells me that various translators over the centuries had different understandings of how "porneia" should be translated into English in John 8:41.

I notice that all of these definitions that you state are very VAGUE.

"illicit." What does that mean EXACTLY?

"Marital unfaithfulness." What does that mean EXACTLY?

"Idolatry." What does that mean EXACTLY?

Regarding illicit, that is a general, vague term, that has no specific meaning.

Regarding marital unfaithfulness, I assume you mean adultery.

Whatever the words mean, they would have to be consistent between the OT and the NT. They cannot be different because the story and The Law did not change. The NT merely added more information.

Matthew 13:35, KJV --

I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Same verse, but Expanded Bible --

I will tell [announce; utter] things that have been secret [hidden] since the world was made [creation/foundation of the world.

In the OT, the English "adultery" was translated from the Hebrew "naaph." Naaph means "Woman who breaks wedlock."

Notice, it is not "man" or "person" who breaks wedlock, but "woman."

In John 8:37, Jesus agrees with these Edomite jews that they were the SEED of Abraham. So, he was in their genetic family tree (just not decended from Jacob).

Jesus then said that although He knew they were of the seed of Abraham, nevertheless, Abraham was NOT their FATHER.

Are you saying that their response to Jesus was about who their MOTHER was -- that their mother had sex with someone who was not Abraham, or something similar in their family tree?

That would mean that they were NOT the seed of Abraham, but Jesus already acknowledged that they were. So, that can't be it.

There is no mention of anything about their mother, so we cannot conclude that adultery is what was referenced here.

The translation from "porneia" to "adultery" is wrong, and your claim that "fornication" means "adultery" in this passage cannot be correct.

The concept of "idolatry" gets closer to the truth.

When we think of the word "father" we can think of (a) genetic father, grandfather, great grandfather, etc., or (b) go ALL the way back to "the Father," as in the very beginning.

God was the Father of the Israelites, while Abraham was the first in the genetic line who received a special covenant from God.

The Edomite jews in John 8:41 are claming to be of Abraham because they knew that Abraham was in the direct genetic line going all the way back to God/Adam.

But in John 8:44, Jesus tells them:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

He told them, yes their seed is through Abraham's family tree, BUT their Father is Satan.

He was a murderer FROM THE BEGINNING.

Who was the first murderer all the way back to the beginning?


Cain was the seed of Satan, the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

Eve did not eat an apple. That is the washed and cleansed (and falsified) version we are told today.

Eve was seduced by the Serpent/Satan and their offspring was Cain, the murderer from the beginning.

Cain was expelled from the Garden of Eden and went off to find a woman to marry and other people to build a city.

Where did those people come from?

They could not have been from Adam. They had to be adults who were already living at that time.

Adam had a genetic family tree, one branch of which can be traced down to Abraham, via Seth. His grandson, Jacob, was the original patriarch of the Israelite branch of this family tree.

The Edomites were of Esau, who race mixed with Canaanites (of the cursed Caanan, grandson of Noah, who was also a direct descendent of Adam). Both Noah and Abraham were loved by God. But both Canaan and Esau/Edom were hated.

Their family trees had mixed with the Kenites, who were the descendents of Cain, who was the seed of Satan, represented by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, and all those other people were created by the Fallen Angels, that we do not learn about until Revelation 12:7-12.

There is MISSING INFORMATION in the OT, and some FALSE TRANSLATIONS throughout.

But read the OT/NT in context with each other, and go back to the original meanings in the scripture, and the story starts to come together and make sense.

What does God tell the Israelite people to do? One thing was to remain "holy." Holy means to be SEPARATE from the others.

Jude 1:7, KJV --

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jude 1:7, EXB --

Also remember the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah [destroyed by God for their evil; Gen. 19; 2 Pet. 2:6] and the other towns around them. In the same way they were full of sexual sin and people who desired sexual relations that God does not allow [pursued sexual perversion; departed after different flesh]. They suffer the punishment of eternal fire, as an example [warning] for all to see.

What is this "strange flesh" or "different flesh" that are described as "fornication" that is something that "God does not allow?"

In Genesis 1, a phrase is repeated, "kind after kind." That applied to animals and plants, and it would also apply to those who God created, and not who the Fallen Angels created by their corruption.

The concept of race mixing being a sexual sin has been removed from the Bible via (a) false translations and (b) modern changes in definitions to words.

Examples: "Gay" meant happy, but modern definitions include homosexuality (a specified sin in the Bible); and "Adultery" meant woman who breaks wedlock, but modern definitions include male or female who "cheats."

But these modern definitions are irrelevant because the Bible does not change with the times. The original scriptures in their original languages tells us just how much the modern pastors are lying about what the Bible really says, and what the story is really about.

Deuteronomy 23:2, KJV --

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

But what does "bastard" mean here?

Same verse, but EXB --

No one born to parents who were forbidden by law to marry [of a forbidden marriage] may come into the meeting to worship [assembly of] the Lord. The descendants for ten generations may not come in either.

What is a "forbidden marriage?"

Something forbidden by God, right?

It might include incest, certainly, but it also included those who did not keep to the "holy" dictate of "kind after kind."

Their offspring would be "bastards," because their parents were of different races, not "kind after kind," and therefore not according to God's Law.

It is the bastard who cannot enter the assembly of God. Why, if not because he is the result of breaking God's law?

What law, if not race mixing?

Adultery? How would you know?

Idolatry? How would you know?

Unmarried sex? How would you know?

Race mixing? You KNOW because you can SEE it with your own two eyes.

And you can STILL see the result 10 generations later.

Like it or not, it is the only explanation that makes sense.

In John 8:41, Jesus was saying that, while these Edomite jews did have Abraham in their ancestry, and therefore God, they ALSO had Satan in their ancestry, which makes them MIXED, and due to their satanic blood, they would do what their Father, Satan, would have them do.

I know it is hard to get an understanding of this perspective, but we have been lied to about everything else, why not the Bible, where most people turn to for morality and perspective, as well?

This perspective also explains why jews were kicked out of 100+ countries over 1,000+ times (mostly White European) over many centuries, and why it is jews (not all, but most who are involved are jews) who are behind the destruction we see in Western White Christian society tody -- foreign invasion of non-Whites, destruction of our wealth via central banking, promotion of degeneracy, control of the media, control of aspects of government, among many others.

The term "Jew" is derived from Judahite, thus if they were not really Judahites or Israelites they were in fact "fake Jews."

You are close, but not quite there.

They CLAIM to be Hebrews/Israelites/Judahites.

But they are not.

Their false claim does not make them "fake jews."

It makes them "fake Judahites," "fake Israelites," and "fake Hebrews," who are real jews and are real LYING jews -- some of them don't know that they are promoting a lie; others do.

"Jew" was not in the Greek or Latin languages. It was a made-up English word when the Bible was being translated into English, and used to describe those fake Judahites that Jesus was dealing with in the Roman province of Judea.

They WERE Judeans, for sure, just like illegal alien Mexicans and Venezuelans who are currently living in Texas could be called "Texans," but they are not the REAL Texans. They are invaders.

Same concept, more or less.

MAG768720 2 points ago +2 / -0

Look up a couple of books:

"The Case Against Statins" by Larry Hobbs

"Lipitor: Thief of Memory" by Duane Graveline

Graveline also wrote "The Dark Side of Statins" --

The full range of statin side effects includes cognitive dysfunction, behavioral and emotional disorders, chronic nerve and muscle damage and an ALS-like neuromuscular degenerative process, as major categories of damage.

Thousands of statin users, like myself, have been afflicted with peripheral neuropathies with a tendency to be resistant to all traditional medical treatment.

Statins inhibit not only dolichols, corrupting our DNA damage correction, but CoQ10 as well, increasing our damage load. Predictably the inevitable effect is increased mitochondrial DNA damage β€” considered by many authorities to be the mechanism of our aging process as well as that of many chronic diseases.

Many of the statin side effects are permanent and weakness and fatigue are common complaints. Many statin victims say that abruptly, almost in the blink of an eye, they have become old people.

Statins block the synthesis of CoQ10 and dolichols, thereby contributing directly to the premature common chronic ills of aging. Since this involves normal physiologic processes, it is silent. By the time we become aware of it, it is already far too late and the damage has been done to those susceptible. This, in my judgment, is the truly Dark Side of Statins.

MAG768720 1 point ago +1 / -0

I thought it was interesting to learn when I found out we can do autophagy while eating.

Yes, but ONLY if you are eating nothing but meat, or maybe meat and eggs.

Eat anything else, and the insulin will spike, and the autophagy will stop.

Most people can't/won't do it.

And that is why we see land whales waddling around everywhere, when that was never a "thing" until the propaganda against meat and eggs.

MAG768720 3 points ago +3 / -0

The English translations of the Bible have been CORRUPTED in many areas.

When you go back to the original Hebrew and Greek scripture, you find some differences in what we think we understand about the Bible today.

Today's jews are an ethnicity, whether or not they follow Judaism.

As an ethnicity, it means they have common genetic ancestors, and this is genetic, not spiritual.

Todays jews are the genetic desendents of the Edomites of the Bible, who themselves were a mixed race with the Canaanites and the Kenites.

None of them were Hebrews, and none of them were Israelites.

By the time of Jesus, the Kingdom of Judah (Israelites of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) no longer existed. It had been taken over by the Romans during the rise of the Roman Empire, during the time of the Babylonian capitvity.

This land area had become the Roman province of Judea.

In John 8, Jesus was speaking to the Edomites who had political control of Judea, subject to Roman authority.

The Edomites were part of Abraham's family tree, and they were part of Isaac's familty tree, BUT they were NOT part of Jacob's family tree. They were a part of Esau's tree, and his name was changed to Edom. His desendents were the Edomites, when he mixed with the Canaanites, who had previously mixed with the Kenites.

The Pharisees were mostly these Edomite jews, but it was a mixture of people. Judea at that time was a "diverse culture" like we see today. Some of them were true Israelites, but most were not.

They followed the Tradition of the Elders, which was the forerunner to the Talmud, because that is what the Edomite jews were pushing, and they had control of the area.

Jesus said that He knew they were "seed" of Abraham (part of his genetic family tree), but Abraham was NOT their father. They had a different father.

They protested, "But we be not born of FORNICATION."

Why did they make this claim?

Because "fornication" means RACE MIXING. It does NOT mean pre-marital sex, which is what modern churches falsely promote.

Jesus then immediately told them that their father was Satan (the "Adversary").

The only way you can reconcile what might seem to be contradictory in certain parts of the Bible is to understand that our modern English versions have been CHANGED in some aspects, and that changes what we think the story means.

But when you realize these jews were claiming to be JUDAHITES, and therefore Israelites, and they were NOT, then what Jesus said makes sense.

They were not "fake jews." They were real jews, claiming to be something they were not: Israelites.

MAG768720 2 points ago +2 / -0

Jews today (all of them) are NOT the Israelites or Hebrews of the Bible.

They have been lying about that for centuries.

They are, and have always been, name-stealers.

MAG768720 3 points ago +3 / -0

I will give you a little more detail:

First time, I just wanted to fast for 3 days. But after 3 days, I felt great, so I kept going. I stopped after 7 days, not because I was hungry, but I just was bored with not eating (not a good reason, but that was why). During this time, I did not exercise at all because I thought I might be somehow using "too much energy."

Also, this was zero food, only water, and then only when I felt like I needed it, so mostly dry fasting.

I used an online bodyfat calculator, which takes weight and waist measurement to calculate lean weight, fat weight, and bodyfat percentage. It might not be the most accurate tool, but it is quick and easy and free to do it, and as long as I am consistent with my method, I figured it was good enough to know what was going on with my body.


Fast: 7 days Total Weight: -15.0 lbs Lean: -12.08 lbs Fat: -2.92 lbs Bodyfat: +0.40%

Months later, I started wondering what would happen if I did the same thing, but this time did a fullbody, brief workout, every other day.


Fast: 7 days Total Weight: -15.0 lbs Lean: -8.97 lbs Fat: -6.03 lbs Bodyfat: -0.70%

Finally, I wondered what would happen if I did my workout every day during the fast. Unfortunately, I had a last minute change of plans and had to go out of town, so I ended the fast after 4 days. But there are some interesting results, nevertheless.


Fast: 4 days Total Weight: -9.2 lbs Lean: -4.67 lbs Fat: -4.43 lbs Bodyfat: -0.80%

Notice, in 4 days, the bodyfat loss was equal to the lean loss.

Also, when I did not workout at all, the drop in bodyfat was fairly steady during the 7 days.

But when I did the 2nd experiment, the bodyfat drop was quick during the first 4 days or so, and then less so after that.

This is consistent with the 3rd experiment, where the first few days had a very sudden drop, but then I stopped.

Also, "lean" means everything that is not fat is included in the lean. That means that water weight is included in the "lean." Since I lost 4+ pounds of "lean" in 4 days, that might have merely been water and I might have actually maintained all lean. But I can't be sure because I did not use a more sophisticated scan to measure. IOW: That 3rd time might have been 100% fat loss with no lean muscle loss, but only some fluctuation in water.

I suspect this might be the fastest and healthiest way to lose excess bodyfat, but it is an aspect of fasting that nobody seems to know about.

An optimal strategy might be a series of 3-day fasts, lifting weights every day (7 days per week), and eat one meal every 3rd day (72 hours), and then repeat that process. Maybe even don't workout on that Day #3.

Anyway, I found it suprising and interesting.

MAG768720 1 point ago +1 / -0

Also, original letters and contracts were released showing that Ancel Keys got paid $6,500 by the sugar industry to create a fake study showing that saturated fat caused heart disease.

It was actually sugar and smoking, both of which had been on the rise for 20-30 years when heart attacks were suddenly on the rise in the 1950's.

MAG768720 7 points ago +7 / -0

Rockefeller = Oil industry = Fake foods = Fake pharmaceuticals = Fake medical schools = Fake media = Fake government = Fake money.

Any questions?

MAG768720 2 points ago +2 / -0

HDL/LDL is a scam.

It is all cholesterol.

But each has a different role.

The body creates cholesterol because it is CRUCIAL to human health. Every cell membrane in your body is made of cholesterol. Every hormone in your body is made of cholesterol. Blocking cholesterol will result in dis-ease in your body.

When any part of your body needs cholesterol (such as new cells that need a membrane), the liver sends cholesterol to those areas of the body that need it. This is the LDL.

When various parts of your body have more than needed, then the body sends the excess back to the liver for recycling. This is the HDL.

The only real difference between the two is directional. Neither is harmful. Both are helpful -- and necessary.

MAG768720 2 points ago +2 / -0

You will find this lecture by David Diamond interesting.

He goes through much of the history of how Big Medicine, Big Pharma, Big Media, and Big Government have purposely lied to us about cholesterol and heart disease:

"How Bad Science and Big Business Created the Obesity Epidemic" --


MAG768720 3 points ago +3 / -0

The real Jews are anyone who is in Christ.

Jews do not believe in Christ.

They HATE Christ.

MAG768720 2 points ago +2 / -0

They sure do fight a lot harder over fake eyelashes than they do over violation of the rights of the People.

MAG768720 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's a lot less pathetic and embarrassing than the $35 TRILLION in debt that these assholes have racked up, or the $200 billion gifted to Ukraine with ZERO oversight on where the money went, or muh Israeli dual citizenship, or Covid lies, or ... or ... or ...

MAG768720 4 points ago +4 / -0


"Are your feelings hurt? Aww."

MTG to AOC: Why don't you debate me?

AOC: I think it's self-evident.

MTG: Yeah, you don't have enough intelligence.

I wanna see THIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXmPDLRt6hA

MAG768720 8 points ago +8 / -0


I have written about this before, and it is the House's authority to hold him in the Capitol jail, until he answers fully and provides the documents he has a duty to provide.

It's just that the members of Congress, for decades now, have not had the balls to do it.

They are not without authority. They are just gutless cowards and blackmailed wimps.

Also, they do not need the Senate's approval. They can do it on their own.

MAG768720 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, I think it does because (a) the digestion process is VERY easy on the body, and (b) it happens quickly, allowing the body to spend less time/energy on digestion and more on cleansing.

MAG768720 2 points ago +2 / -0

If the body can do this clease without any energy input. WHY DOESNT IT DO IT AROUND THE CLOCK?

It does. But, it does not kick into high gear until several hours of no food.

The digestion process takes a MASSIVE amount of the body's energy. If you are constantly stuffing your face all day, your body's energy is directed at digestion, absorption, and assimilation of that food.

If the food also causes a spike in insulin, then the body SHUTS OFF the ability to store fat or cleanse, until that insulin gets back down again.

From the body's perspective, it is important to self-cleanse, BUT it is more important to get that sugar OUT of the bloodstream and DO SOMETHING with it. What it does is: (a) burn some for energy, but that amount is limited, (b) convert some to glycogen, but that is also limited, and (c) convert the rest to fat and shove it into the fat cells to get it out of the way.

During this time, the body CANNOT cleanse.

People who eat constantly get sick over time because their body never has time to heal, other than during sleep. And some people even get up again in the middle of the night to eat something. Those are the ones who REALLY get sick.

You will notice that whenever someone complains about being sick (Covid or anything else), they NEVER tell us their lifestyle habits. Probably because they do not realize that their lifestyle habits are what most likely made them sick.

Doctors NEVER consider this, other than smoking, because doctors are taught WRONG information, and therefore don't even think about asking.

And that means that most doctors are INCAPABLE of healing anyone. They can only push drugs and surgery.

The vax was a sinister bioweapon since the damage is GENETIC. Its far too ingrained for a diet clease to wipe that.

That could very well be true, but we just do not know. I doubt that the doctor in the OP article has ACTUALLY researched this. It's just a guess that sounds good.

OTOH, a fast might not be a bad idea, just to see if it can help.

If your body is capeable of wiping its own genetic mistakes enough to cure the vax, we could also cure our own cancer (after the cancers taken hold).

Cancer is not a genetic thing, the way you are thinking. The doctors have this wrong, too.

Cancer is caused by disruption in the healthy function of the mitochondria of the cells. This disruption occurs primarily due to toxins. The #1 source of these toxins is in the plant foods we eat.

All plants have toxins for thier own protection, and they cause harm to animals that eat them, with very few exceptions for specific species of animals and specific species of plants.

A fast eliminates these from the body and allows the body to cleanse. There ARE people who have been cured of cancer via fasting, or even a zero carb diet.

As a society, we eat like pigs, which causes constant elevation of insulin, which causes increased obesity, which causes all sorts of health problems, AND we "eat our healthy fruits and vegetables," which also cause increases in insulin (fruits) and toxins (vegetables) in our body, which causes even more dis-ease.

The lies are what perpetuate the health problems, and 90%+ of people are still in the dark, along with 95% of "experts."

MAG768720 2 points ago +2 / -0

Cutting weight cuts the number of cells.

Actually, losing bodyfat reduces what is inside those fat cells (fat, glycerol, and water), but does not get rid of the fat cells themselves. Doesn't really matter, because you will still get lean. But that is how it works.

A compound called Grelin is what is responsible

Ghrelin is a hormone that kicks in when your body thinks it is TIME to eat, not that you SHOULD eat. If you are used to eating multiple times throughout the day, ghrelin will kick in around those times, and you will feel hungry. But that hunger will pass in an hour or so. After several days of fasting, you don't get hungry anymore. Obiously, it cannot be purely a hunger signal if it goes away completely.

But the body obviously doesnt want you to be HAPPY that your STARVING.

Probably true, generally, but a fat bastard DOES need to "starve" for a period of time, to correct the overindulgence they have been abusing their body with for years and years to get into that situation in the first place.

The longest fast on record was something like 382 days. He was Scotsman in the 1970's/1980's, and he started fasting at 426 pounds. He kept going for more than a year, and ended his fast at around 180 pounds.

He had no health complications whatsoever, and kept the fat off for the rest of his life.

MAG768720 2 points ago +2 / -0

Try this for a week:

Eat the same way you do now, but dry fast for the rest of the day, and only have a sip of water here or there if you really need it.

Humans never drank water all day long. That is a new fad.

MAG768720 3 points ago +3 / -0

Maintaining a low insulin level in the body, most of the time, is THE #1 KEY to good health, and especially to lean body mass.

When a person eats 5-6 meals per day, especially if those meals/snacks are high in carbs or dairy, insulin spikes. Those multiple insulin spikes throughout the day disrupt the body's natural hormone signals and cause bodyfat storage.

Obese people eat not only junk food, but they eat frequently throughtout the day. This is WHY they become obese.

Like you said, far too many people eat for entertainment, rather than health. The results speak for themselves.

The "graze like a cow" advice is probably the single worst advice that mainstream knuckleheads preach (i.e. doctors and "licensed, certified dieticians" -- yeah, licensed and certified via education that is 180 degrees opposite of how the body actually works).

MAG768720 2 points ago +2 / -0

Calories, per se, have nothing to do with health or fat/lean.

Calories are a unit of heat measurement, and was invented back during the steam engine days to figure out how much wood or coal to put into the engine to generate the power needed.

A "calorie" is the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of water.

That has nothing to do with the biochemistry of the human body.

What matters is the macronutrient content, since the body processes (via digestion, absorption, and assimilation) the protein, fat, and carbohydrate taken in.

Each of these macros is processed differently and has a different effect on the hormones of the body.

There was a man who did several self-experiments where he proved that eating a set number of "calories" would have different effects on lean mass vs. bodyfat, if the types of food were different, even thought the amount of total "calories" was the same.

He ate different diets of 5,000 calories per day, which the mainstream advice says would make him fat. Eating a meat-based diet, he did not get fat. Eating a vegan diet, he did. Eating a junk food diet, he piled on the fat. These were all the same 5,000 calories/day for 21 days.

He did another diet of 3,500 calories. Meat-based, he lost bodyfat. Plant-based, he got a little fat.

So, the amount of food ("calories") does have some importance, but it is the amount of WHAT foods that matters most.

Fasting is the total absence of food, and can have a dramatic effect on overall heath and function of the body -- especially good for healing the sick.

MAG768720 7 points ago +7 / -0

fasted workouts are incredible

The first time I did a workout in a fully fasted state, I thought it would be horrific. But it turned out to be fantastic. Energy through the roof and strength fantastic.

Now, I never eat before a workout.

view more: Next ›