All posts by Henry Thoureau

Melchizedek Part 9 Where Did Jesus Come From

Hello, and welcome to another video from the only source of information that you need to not only survive the current apocalypse, but actually enjoy it, and today’s video is the final part in my Melchizedek Video Series.

If you are a long time subscriber than you know that any time that I produce one of these series, I always start off by sharing very basic information, and then build up to the main point. It is not a way of holding your attention, but simply the only way that I know of revealing long hidden sacred secrets to mankind.

Our culture has a well established religious system that has been poisoning the minds of humanity for nearly 6,000 years. I don’t have that much time available for deprogramming everyone. However, I understand that if I wish to announce to the world the true identity of the single most important man who has ever lived, then I am going to have to first overturn a few basic Church Doctrinal teachings. Hopefully the previous videos in this series, have given you confidence in my authority to do so.

If you have not watched the first eight videos, I ask that you do so before watching this video. At the very least, I ask that after watching this video you go back and watch the previous videos, rather than simply dismissing what you are about to hear.

Most religions recognize that Jesus was alive and active, long before he was born of a virgin in 1st century Judea. There are many Bible verses that seem to support this concept. Unfortunately most religions use such passages in support of doctrinal teachings that are unscriptural, unprovable, and in fact illogical.

At John 3:13 Jesus said:

No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.”

Saying that he descended from heaven is understood by everyone to mean that Jesus was in heaven, but that he somehow descended down to Earth. Heaven and Earth are consistently referred to as above and below throughout the Bible. Even the Churches willingly admit that this is the case. With that understanding then we have no choice but to recognize the fact that prior to Jesus descending to Earth, he at some point ascended up into heaven from Earth. It would be nonsensical to debate this. According to what is recorded at this verse, there is no denying that at some point Jesus lived here on Earth, lived out his life and ascended into heaven, eventually returning to Earth to be born of the virgin Mary.

In Chapter 3 of the Book of John, there is a perfect example of a verse about Jesus’ preexistence that has been used by the churches in support of a religious doctrine that is completely unrelated to what Jesus was actually trying to communicate.

A man named Nicodemus goes to Jesus in the night to find out how he is able to perform miracles. He is not asking Jesus how to get to heaven or how to join his church. He specifically wants to know how he can acquire the power to do the seemingly impossible things that people were witnessing Jesus doing. Jesus responds at John 3:3 by saying:

“Truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

The two words that Jesus used don’t actually translate into our English words born and again. Gennao (Strong’s G1080) does mean to be born, but the Greek word anothen (Strong’s G509) can mean a lot of things, such as from the top, from the beginning, from above, all over, or anew. The Greek word anothen is used 13 times in the New Testament, and all of the ways of rendering this word that I just listed can be found at the 13 verses where it appears. For want of a better way to render this phrase “Born Again” will suffice.

The churches teach that being born again is something spiritual. In other words a person who is alive can become something different in a spiritual sense by accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior. However, as Jesus described it, Nicodemus would not be able to perform miracles until after he died, and was raised from the dead.

The response of Nicodemus is further proof that the Greek words translated as “born again” can only mean returning to life in the flesh. At John 3:4 Nicodemus said:

“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb?”

Jesus responded to Nicodemus’ question in a way that can only be described as cryptic.

“I am telling you, that unless someone is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of spirit is spirit.”

Fortunately for us the things that Jesus told Nicodemus are explained in greater detail by Paul, later, in chapter 15 of first Corinthians, which is the part of the Bible that clearly declares who Jesus was in his previous life.

Jesus himself declared that he had lived at some time in the distant past. In his own words as recorded at John 8:58 Jesus said.

“Before Abraham was, I am.”

According to the grammar of the ancient Greek language, this single line of text expressed the very simple idea that Jesus came into existence, before Abraham came into existence. I shouldn’t have to explain this, but Christendom has fabricated a very complex web of deceit around this verse, based on the strange way that it is rendered into English. There wasn’t anything strange about it as it was originally written in Greek, thousands of years ago, but at some point translators decided to word it this way, and by tradition they still do so to this day.

Basically what the Churches teach is that God called himself “I am” at Exodus 3:14, and Jesus called himself “I am” at John 8:58. Hence, according to the doctrinal teachings of Christendom, Jesus and God are the same person. By tradition both passages are intentionally mistranslated in all modern language Bibles in support of the Trinity doctrine. To an ancient Hebrew or Greek speaker, neither of these passages would be considered indicative of any such nonsense.

The deceptive way in which priest, preachers, elders, and ministers present this passage takes most people’s attention away from it’s true significance. Jesus was simply stating that he was alive in some form, somewhere before Abraham was born. The only reason that he used the present tense form of “I am” was to indicate that his existence to that point had continued uninterrupted. Whoever he was in the ancient past was who he was in the first century.

Quite a few Christian religions teach that Jesus was here from the very beginning, because he is either God Almighty, or a part of God Almighty. Seemingly Genesis 1:26 supports this belief.

“Let us make man in our image. Let us make him in our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all of the Earth and over ever creeping thing that creeps on the Earth.

In this verse, it really is obvious that there was more than one individual God involved in the creation process. I don’t believe that this is a translation error. Seemingly God really said “Let us make man in our image.” He did not say let me make man in my image. So just like everybody else, I want to understand how multiple gods could have been involved in the creation process. Some religions teach that one of the Gods was Jesus.

There are other verses recorded in the Bible that seem to support this belief, but under scrutiny that doesn’t actually seem to be the case. Since I really don’t understand what is meant by this verse, and don’t believe that anyone else does either, I just accept that the Bible does state that in some way there were multiple gods involved in the creation process, and Jesus in fact could be one of those gods. I will not be addressing that issue in this video, because I wouldn’t know how. The Bible simply does not explain in any detail who those gods were, or how they created our world.

As confusing as this information may be, it really doesn’t change anything about our worship. At 1Corinthians 8:5,6 Paul explained it this way”

“Even though there are many that are called gods in heaven and on Earth, and indeed there are many gods and lords. For us there is only one God, the father from whom all things are, and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and through whom we exists.”

Obviously Paul made a clear distinction between the one true God, and all of the others that are called gods. And he also made a clear distinction between the one true God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. So regardless of whether Jesus was involved in the Creation process somehow, to us there is only one true God, and that god is not Jesus, but his God and father, who in fact is our God and father.

At Philippians 2:5,6 Paul and Timothy encouraged the congregation to avoid selfishness and ambition using Jesus as an example.

“Keep in mind that Christ Jesus, who although he was in the form of a god, never considered himself to be equal to God, and in fact, never even thought about trying to be equal to God. But instead emptied himself as a servant being born in the likeness of men.”

Much of what is recorded in the Bible is about Jesus’ preexistence. Most people would not recognize or understand such verses because of the misdirection that has been created by the doctrinal teachings of the churches. The religions of man have dedicated so much effort into convincing us that Jesus is God, that most people never even imagine that he could be anything else.

The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus could not possibly be God. And yet millions of people around the world believe that he is. This belief is what Christendom calls the trinity doctrine. The trinity doctrine states that even though there is only one God, he is made up of three parts. The father, the son, and the holy ghost.

Isaiah 9:6 is one of the verses that is used by the religions of man to prove that Jesus is God.

“To us a child is born. To us a son has been given. The government shall be on his shoulders, and he will be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace.”

Calling Jesus “mighty God” is easy enough to explain away. Anyone reading the Bible with an open mind would recognize that the word god is not just used to describe the creator. People other than the one true God are called gods. Material things such as statues, and money are called gods. Even concepts such as logic are called gods. So obviously calling Jesus a mighty god does not prove that he is the creator. But in this verse Jesus is also called our everlasting father.

Calling Jesus our father leads many to believe that Jesus must be God. As the creator, God could rightly be called the father of us all. Some believe that this phrase is figurative. In other words Jesus as our savior deserves to be called our father because we all owe him our lives, just as we owe our lives to our biological fathers.

In Part 1 of this series, I explained that according to Matthew 23:10 Jesus said that only God is deserving of being called our father, while Jesus himself is the only one that would be deserving of being called Kathegetes which means one appointed to the position of father. In other words. It is possible that God somehow, after the fact, decided to make Jesus our father, in some way that we don’t currently understand. But if that is the case we are going to have to reconcile this teaching with two basic Bible premises that may not be reconcilable.

According to God’s law, as recorded in the Old Testament, at Exodus 20:12:

“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.”

This verse was later repeated in the New Testament at Ephesians 6:1-3:

“Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise, that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life on the earth.”

To many members of the religions of Christianity and Judaism, the commandment to honor your father and mother, is presented in such a way as to make it seem as if this law is about things like saying ma’am and sir when addressing our parents, but as recorded in the original languages of Hebrew, and Greek, this commandment is much more significant.

These two verses found at Exodus and Ephesians indicate that our very lives depend on obedience to this law. As Paul points out, honoring our parents is the first command to make this promise. That being the case we need to understand what God would consider to be appropriate honor.

Ephesians 6:1 starts off with the word children. This is an accurate rendering of the original Greek word that was used in the original text. Children is the word that we use in English when speaking of offspring. However, this verse can be made to seem as if it is specifically addressing little boys and girls. Having participated in several of Christendom’s religions, I have witnessed preachers interpreting this verse in this way.

However, that is not the case at all. Ephesians 6:1 is about the only human hierarchy ever approved by God. The family. Not just families with young children.

The significance of this one command can not be over stated, there would have been a time when no one’s parents had ever died. Every parent of every person alive would have themselves still been alive. Even Adam and Eve.

After the flood it was Noah, and his wife that would have been the recognized heads of the entire human family. Noah himself lived even longer than Adam. After the flood, Noah would have been the father of everyone alive on the Earth, up until he died at 950 years old.

According to the commandment to honor our father and mother, prior to his death, Adam would have been the recognized governmental ruler of the entire planet. And likewise, after the flood, Noah would have been the recognized governmental ruler of the entire planet.

The Bible makes this concept very clear. Church doctrine makes this concept almost imperceptible.

Ephesians 6:1 includes one very important detail about God’s hierarchy that indicates just how important acknowledging the family is:

“Children obey your parents, because it is right.”

Since this verse was originally recorded in an ancient language that is no longer spoken, we really need to examine exactly what was said in that language to get the full meaning of what God is trying to communicate to us.

The word that is translated as right (Strong’s G1342) is also translated as righteous in many other verses. Most understand the basic concept of what it means to be right as opposed to being wrong. And, there isn’t any difference between the two concepts of right and wrong and the two concepts of righteous and wicked. Giving honor to any hierarchy other than the family is wicked.

In our day many believe that it is might that makes right. In other words whoever has the most weapons and soldiers gets to determine what is right and what is wrong for those who do not have the most weapons and soldiers. However, as cute as that phrase might seem to those who belong to the religions of patriotism, nationalism, and racism, it is not at all cute to those of us who live according to God’s religion, as spelled out at James 1:26,27.

“Those Men’s religions are worthless. The only religion that is pure and undefiled in the sight of God is this, to take care of orphans and widows who are being afflicted, and to keep ourselves pure and unstained by civilization’s filth.”

Once again, “children must be obedient to their parents in order to be righteous in God’s eyes.” Obviously, all of our parents are flawed in some way, and not really worthy of the right to rule over us with absolute power. Some of us have parents that are so evil that we can’t even go anywhere near them. Jesus addressed this at Matthew 10:34-37.

“Don’t think that I came to bring peace. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against a mother. A person’s enemies will be those of his own family. Whoever loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Currently many of our family members have made themselves enemies of truth, but in a perfect world obedience to parents would be a perfect law.

As I said earlier, the word children that is used in this verse is not the same as words used in other verses to describe babies, and preteens. The children mentioned could actually be of any age.

When Abraham died he was 175 years old. At the time, his great great great great great great great great grandfather Shem was still alive. Abraham would have owed due obedience to Shem all the way up to the day of his death. Prior to that he would have also owed the obedience written about at Ephesians 6:1 to Noah himself. Noah died when Abraham was 58 years old. The same understanding would apply to us in regard to any living grandparents, or great grandparents. But as I said before, wicked parents make this law nearly impossible to obey. We are all children of someone, who are themselves children of someone. And if you go back far enough we are all children of God. Obedience to parents, as difficult as it may be, is obedience to God.

The word obey, as used at Ephesians 6:1 linguistically means the honor that a man must give to anyone above him in any hierarchy. Whether by God’s natural hierarchy of the family, or Satan’s unnatural hierarchy of civilization. The word obey as used at this verse is translated from the ancient Greek word hypakouo (Strong’s G5219) and consistently means obedience to those who outrank us.

At Matthew 8:27 The Bible says that the weather was obedient to Jesus. And when Jesus was casting out demons, Mark 1:27 says that people were amazed at the fact that even the unclean spirits were obedient to him.

As I said in part 1 of this series, according to the Bible, abandoning the family hierarchy and replacing it with civilization’s governmental hierarchy was a terrible sin on the part of mankind, because it broke God’s commandment to honor our biological father and mother. So we need to try to understand if God is suggesting that we ignore our biological family hierarchy in favor of some kind of replacement spiritual family hierarchy. After all, as I’ve already said, some of our parents are really bad.

There is another concept that is repeated throughout the Bible, that is very important, and that is hard to miss. As Malachi 3:6 says:

“For I am the lord, I do not change.”

Numbers 23:19 says:

“God is not a man, that he would lie, or a son of man that would change his mind.”

Psalms 102:27 says:

“You oh LORD are the same, and your years have no end.”

And likewise at Hebrews 6:18:

“It is impossible for God to lie.”

If it was God’s plan all along to replace the family hierarchy, those people who initially received the Ten Commandments would have had no way of knowing. It would be as if God commanded them to honor their biological parents and then hundreds of years later changed his mind. Something that God is not suppose to be able to do.

I’ve been a member of several religions over the course of my life, and don’t remember any of them ever addressing this issue at all, with one possible exception. The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Adam, our original father, committed the unforgivable sin by eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, and as a result experienced everlasting destruction.

The verse that this teaching is based on can be found at 1Corinthians 15:45.

“It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” the last Adam became a life giving spirit.”

In other words according to the doctrinal beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, our father Adam sinned and had to be destroyed for that sin. Since all of mankind inherited sin through Adam, a replacement had to be sent to die a sacrificial death in order to atone for mankind’s sins. As foolish as this may sound, similar religious doctrines, based on this passage, are part of the teachings of many so called “Christian” religions. According to the religious doctrines of quite a few religions, Jesus is said to be a second or replacement Adam.

As a young man, I was willing to accept this explanation at face value. Having read the Bible on my own, I never imagined that this verse was about Adam being replaced by Jesus, but it seemed to me to at least be plausible at the time.

In support of this doctrinal belief most religions use Romans 5:12, which says:

“Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, so all men die because all men sin.”

The problem with this line of reasoning is that Romans 5:12 actually says:

“Sin came into the world through one person, and death through sin, so everybody dies because everybody sins.”

The word that gets mistranslated is anthropous (Strong’s G444) The Greeks had words that mean the same thing as our English words man and woman, but those are not the words that are used at this verse. Anthropou means person, actually human being.

A religious person might be willing to fight in defense of their religious doctrines, but there really isn’t anything to support those doctrines. The Bible very clearly says that Eve was the one approached by Satan and offered the opportunity to become like a god, and she accepted that offer. Adam was not involved in any part of the deal between Satan and Eve.

1Timothy 2:14 supports what I am saying and disproves the Adam sin doctrine.

“Adam was not deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”

It is important that you understand this concept before I explain the Bible teaching about the first Adam, and the second Adam. Although Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, it was Eve who did it first. Just as Romans 5:12 says “Through one person sin entered into the world.” And because sin entered into the world through that one person, everyone sins. Including all of us, and including Adam. Adam was every bit as much a victim of original sin as we are. Adam was a sinner, but it was not he who brought sin into the world.

Something else that I need to point out, is that Eve was not actually the originator of the deal. It was Satan who enticed Eve, and hence he alone that can be accused of being the originator of sin in this world. The only reason that I highlighted Eve’s roll is because Romans 5:12 uses the word Anthropou (Strong’s G444) which means human being. In the account Satan is not called a human being, but a serpent. Even though all human beings are currently being made to pay for the original sin, it is obvious that Satan’s sin was much greater. The point that I am trying to bring out, is that Adam is not the person who brought sin into the world.

Even though what Jesus said to Nicodemus about being born again, or born from above is confusing, Paul gave an explanation that clears up much of that confusion. The most significant verse in his explanation is the passage that we have been discussing as found at 1Corrinthians 15:45:

“So it is written, the first man Adam became a living soul, the last Adam became a life giving spirit”

This simple statement is only a small part of the Bible. It cannot be taken out of context. Especially when we consider that this verse was translated into our modern languages by people working directly for the religions of Christianity.

All of chapter 15 of 1Corinthians is about the resurrection of the dead. And as part of that, Paul explained what happened to Jesus body after he was resurrected, and declares that the same thing will happen to us when we are resurrected. What Paul said closely resembles what Jesus said earlier at John 3:3-6.

“Truly I say to you, unless a person is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh. That which is born of spirit is spirit.”

Jesus was responding to a question, asked by Nicodemus, about acquiring the power to perform miracles, but he also clearly was telling Nicodemus that what happened to him was eventually going to happen to others. At Chapter 15 of 1Corinthians Paul is explaining the same thing. Verses 12-14 describes the connection between Christ’s resurrection and our resurrection this way:

“If Christ has been declared raised from the dead, how can some say that there isn’t any resurrection of the dead? If there isn’t any resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain.”

Obviously Paul isn’t addressing the life that Jesus lived while growing up in first century Judea. He was specifically speaking about Jesus life after the resurrection, as well as the life that we might enjoy after our own resurrections.

When Jesus told Nicodemus about being born again, he had not as of that time died or been resurrected. Somehow Jesus was able to perform miracles before he was resurrected, just as were many others.

In the ancient past men called prophets were able to do many miraculous things without being resurrected, as were Jesus’ apostles. However Jesus knew that Nicodemus would never have such powers, personally, until after the resurrection. Jesus simply gave Nicodemus the information that he was actually interested in, without a lot of extra details that Nicodemus didn’t need to know. Jesus and his apostles obviously were able to perform miracles. There isn’t anything recorded in the Bible about any of the other men who performed miracles dying and being brought back to life.

According to Paul, his own ability to perform miracles was limited. At Acts 20:7-12 there is an account of Paul bringing a man named Eutychus back to life after he had fallen out of a window. But at 2Corinthians 12:6-9 Paul spoke of a thorn in the flesh that he prayed about three times, but even still, he was never able to get relief. According to Paul the Lord said to him: “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Paul’s miraculous abilities were completely dependent on God. It wasn’t he that brought Eutychus back to life, it was God.

One of the things that Paul said about the resurrection at 1Corinthians 15:42 is this:

“This is how it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.”

In other words people die, but after the resurrection some people won’t die. This verse matches many verses found throughout the bible that say similar things. Paul obviously did die at some point after writing this. In fact all of the apostles eventually died. The prophets that came before them died. Even Jesus Christ died. So obviously the abilities that Jesus and others had, of performing powerful works, were significantly less than those that we can all possess, after the resurrection of the dead.

Paul went on to describe one exception to the rule, from verses 50-52.

“I tell you this. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. But behold! I’m going to tell you about something mysterious. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. In a moment. In the twinkling of an eye. At the final trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be brought back imperishable, and we shall be changed.

Paul was simply repeating what Jesus had said at John 11:25,26.

“I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes me, though they die, yet shall they live. And everyone who lives and believes me, shall never die at all.”

The point that I am making is that the entire fifteenth chapter of 1Corinthians is about the changes that will take place in a person when they are resurrected. It is not about allowing someone to die, so that they can be replaced by someone else. Paul clearly stated in no uncertain terms that those who die will be resurrected. Hopefully everyone listening to what I am saying will take the time to read 1Corinthians 15. After hearing what I have to say, this part of the Bible will mean much more to you than it did before.

There are many verses found throughout the Bible that indicate who Jesus was before he was born of the virgin Mary in the first century. However only one clearly states who that person was by name.

Once again, 1Corinthians 15:45 says:

“It is written, the first man Adam became a living soul, the last Adam became a life giving spirit.”

If you actually take the time to read chapter 15 of 1Corinthians, you will see for yourself, that for a fact, every verse really is about the changes that take place when an individual is resurrected. Verse 45 is no different. Paul is not telling us about Adam being replaced by Jesus, he is clearly telling us about what happened to Adam after he was resurrected.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about anyone being resurrected in the same way that Christ was. As Paul said, “flesh is flesh, and spirit is spirit.” And flesh is corruptible. In other words we fleshly beings get sick, grow old, and die. Each and every person in the Bible that was ever raised from the dead, eventually died again. The man that Paul brought back to life eventually died, just as Paul did.

If you go back to 1Corinthians 15:22-24, Paul explained how the resurrection would eventually take place.

“Just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ, all shall be made alive. With each in their proper order. Christ as the first of those to be resurrected. Then, at his coming those who belong to him.”

This verse clearly states that Jesus was the first to be resurrected, and no one else is spoken of as being resurrected in the same way, until after Christ returns, which as of yet, has not taken place. If Adam has been raised as a life giving spirit, then Jesus would have to be Adam. There is no linguistic way around what Paul was saying. Adam and Jesus are the same person. Jesus was called our everlasting father, because he is our everlasting father.

Whenever religious people read any verse in the Bible about Jesus being first, or Jesus being our father, or about everyone alive coming from Jesus, or everyone being created through Jesus, they automatically default into the trinity doctrine, which specifically states that Jesus is God.

The problem with that false belief is that the Bible clearly states over and over again, that Jesus in not God. 1Corinthians 15:45 clearly states that Jesus is Adam. There is no denying the fact that God created Adam. There is no denying the fact that God created Jesus. Many verses confirm this. Genesis 1:26,27 clearly states:

“Let us create Adam in our image, so God created Adam in his own image. In the image of God he created him.”

All modern translations of the Bible say that God created man at this passage, however, all of the ancient Hebrew texts, clearly state that God created Adam. 2Corinthians 4:4 is a direct reference to this verse.

“The god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from understanding the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

Adam and Jesus are the only two individuals specifically said to be made in the image of God. Verses such as these make perfect sense to anyone who can see that Jesus and Adam are the same man. Religious people are the ones spoken of at 2Corinthians 4:4 who cannot understand the gospel of the glory of Christ.

After comparing Jesus to Melchizedek, the Book of Hebrews made several statements about Jesus that would logically associate him with Adam.

Hebrews 1:5 says:

“For to which of the angels did God ever say, You are my son today, I have begotten you”? Or again, I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

Here Jesus is called God’s firstborn son. By the time that Jesus was born, in the first century, millions of other humans had already been born, including Adam. The only explanation for why Jesus would be called God’s firstborn son, would be that he was in fact God’s first born son. Adam is the only other named individual in the Bible that is specifically called the son of God.

In the beginning the Bible clearly describes Adam as a son of God, but also describes other individuals existing at the same time, and in the same place, who were also called sons of God. Genesis 6:2 says:

“The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair and they took them wives of all which they chose.”

Most religions state that these sons of God were not humans but angels. However, there aren’t any scriptural references to support this belief. Nowhere in the Bible are angels called sons of God. In fact, the only two named sons of God in the entire Bible are Adam and Jesus who were both fleshly humans. It is likely that each of the sons of God spoken of at Genesis 6:2, like Adam, were fleshly beings directly created by the hand of God as well. In other words, like Adam, they probably didn’t have fleshly parents. But that is only speculation. The Bible does not record any details about the creation of, or significance of, these other sons of God.

Before the creation of Adam the Bible says that God created other creatures such as birds, fish, and land animals. But no mention is made of God creating any other people. We do know that after Adam was created from the dust of the Earth, God created Eve from a part of Adam. There are absolutely no details given about how the other sons of God were created.

Knowing that God created multiple sons of God, we have to conclude that each and every one of them might be one of our ancestors. However, none of them have, as of yet, been born again. Jesus is the only one mentioned in the Bible as returning to life in a fleshly form. And it is because of this that Jesus could say at Matthew 23:9,10:

“Do not call anyone on Earth, your father, for only one is your father, he who is in heaven. And do not be calling anyone your appointed leader for only one is your appointed leader. Christ.”

Potentially each of the men called a son of God could be one of our ancient ancestors. However, nothing is recorded in the Bible about any of them being called our appointed leader. That does not alter the fact that we are to honor our fathers and mothers. If those sons of God, and daughters of men, are our ancestors, then after the resurrection we would still be bound by God’s law to honor them. In any case, the one true father of everyone alive on Earth is God. And is it through him that we all exist and live.

Noah himself had four sons, and each of them would be an ancestor of the human family, and equally deserving of similar honor. However it is only Canaan that is called the rightful king.

Even though Satan is the ruling king of civilization. Our true king is Jesus Christ. We may, by necessity, have to live by civilization’s laws, but since those laws are not God’s laws, we need not fear punishment from God if we fail to be strictly obedient to those laws. In fact many of mankind’s laws are so vile that, we by necessity may have to break mankind’s laws in order to be pleasing to God.

Something to keep in mind about Jesus, is that the Bible clearly states that Jesus was the first to be resurrected and that no one else will be resurrected until Jesus returns. There is nothing about any of the other sons of God being resurrected prior to Jesus’ return. Revelation 1:5 declares Jesus to be the first born of the dead.

“A revelation of Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of Earth’s kings.”

Since every human who has ever ruled over any part of the Earth, would be a descendant of Adam, Jesus would by default be the father and hence ruler over all of them.

Hebrews 1:8,9 says:

“Your throne O God is forever and ever. The scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your god, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

This verse is a reference to the blessing that Jacob gave to his son Judah at Genesis 49:10.

“The scepter will not depart from the tribe of Judah, and the rulers staff will not depart from between his feet, until the one to whom it belongs comes, and the nations become obedient to him.”

As I said earlier, most people believe that Jesus had to come from the Tribe of Judah, and in a sense he did. His father was a descendant of the tribe of Judah, and so was his mother. However as I covered in part 7 of this series, Jesus had no claim to the throne or scepter through either of his family lineages.

However, if we can believe that Adam was Jesus, many passages about Jesus’ association with the Tribe of Judah start making much more sense. At Revelation 5:5 we are told:

“One of the elders said to me, do not weep, for behold, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has triumphed to open the scroll and it’s seven seals.”

Christendom teaches that these verses are about Jesus descending from Judah, when in fact that is exactly the opposite of what is being said. The lion is often used as a symbol of rulership. This verse is not about Judah ruling over Jesus, but Jesus ruling over Judah. According to 1John 5:19, James 4:4, and 2Corinthians 4:4 Satan is the current ruler of civilization. At 1Peter 5:8 Satan is compared to a lion.

“Be sober and vigilant. Your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion seeking to devour someone.”

Calling Jesus the root of David is not about Jesus being a descendant of David, it is very obviously about David being a descendant of Jesus. David obviously descended from Adam, through Judah. If you can believe that Jesus is Adam many previously confusing passages, like these, begin to make perfect sense. Those who continue to believe church doctrine will continue to remain confused.

Adam our father lived out his life and died. In the first century, God miraculously placed the life of Adam in the woman Mary in order that Adam might be born again. After being executed Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Soon the entire human family will be resurrected when Adam returns to the Earth. Like Canaan who became Melchizedek the rightful king in Abraham’s day, Adam has become Jesus, our rightful king.

Keeping in mind that Canaan the son of Noah is Melchizedek who was the rightful king in Abraham’s day, we can compare Melchizedek’s rulership with that of Jesus. What I am about to tell you about Canaan may make you uncomfortable. I will not conceal it from you. I am only making the information available so that you can form your own opinions.

I believe that many books of the Bible in their original form were pure truth. The ancient Hebrew and Greek texts that we have available are obviously more accurate than our modern day translations. If we still had access to the original copies of the first Bible books ever written, I believe that they would be even more accurate than the ancient books that still exist. Many of the inaccuracies that are found in our modern Bibles were put there intentionally, by the wicked religious leaders of Christianity. Fortunately with the help of the internet we can study the most ancient copies of the Bible and compare them to our modern Bibles, in our search for truth.

I believe that much of what I just said about the Bible can also be said about the Koran. Unfortunately I can not prove it, because I was not raised in an Islamic culture. I do not read Ancient Arabic, and I do not have access to any dependable internet resources for researching the oldest existing texts of the Koran.

Obviously high ranking members of the religious hierarchy of the Muslim faith are every bit as wicked as high ranking members of the religious hierarchy of the Christian faith. Nothing that comes from any religion can be trusted. That doesn’t mean that nothing in the Bible can be trusted, and in like manner it does not mean that nothing in the Koran can be trusted.

However, I do have access to some very basic teachings of Islam, that probably accurately represent what is recorded in the Koran. When researching information about specific Bible characters I will often do internet searches of information from the so called Lost Books of the Bible, The Deuterocanonicals and Apocrypha, The Talmud, and the Koran.

Amazingly, much of what is written in the Koran matches perfectly with what is written in the most ancient copies of the Bible. In other words whenever I discover a passage from the Bible that has been mistranslated into English, I will often find that what is recorded in the Koran more closely matches the ancient texts of the Bible than my own personal translations of the Bible.

However what is written about Canaan in the Koran does not match what is written about Canaan in the Bible, in a very shocking way. The Koran says that Canaan was a son of Noah, which confirms what is recorded in the most ancient copies of the Bible, but instead of being born of the wife of Ham, the Koran says that he was born of the wife of Noah. And unlike the Bible which says that Canaan was born after the flood, the Koran says that Canaan was born before the flood, and actually died in the flood. This deviation is rather bizarre. This conflict with the Bible is not at all typical.

Being raised in a Christian religion, I have been told all of my life that Mohamed created the Koran by simply altering stories that he had read from the Bible. If that is so, we have to ask ourselves why would he alter the story of Canaan in this way? How would doing so benefit Islamic culture? What if both stories are true?

In the Bible Jesus is compared to Melchizedek several times. The comparison between Melchizedek’s lack of pedigree, and Jesus’ own lack of pedigree can not be denied. Neither received the right to rule based on their lineage. However the circumstances surrounding the birth of Canaan and the birth of Jesus may be even more similar. If we combine the Bible narrative with that of the Koran, we have two stories of birth, death, and rebirth.

The first time that Canaan was born he would have been a pure blood. His father would have been Noah, and his mother would have been the wife of Noah. Just as his brothers Shem, Ham, and Japheth were. Adam being a son of God, having no fleshly father or mother would have been a pure blood as well.

At his rebirth Canaan’s father once again was Noah, but instead of being born of Noah’s wife, he was born of Ham’s wife. The circumstances of Adam’s birth, death, and rebirth are very similar. In the Beginning Adam’s father was God alone. At his rebirth, as Jesus, his father was still God, however in the first century he had a human mother. Specifically Mary the wife of Joseph.

Since my audience so far, is comprised mostly of Westerners with a Christian background I suspect that most will not be comfortable with the information that I just shared with you. Perhaps I should have just kept this information to myself. However I did confess to the fact that I do not have the same resources available to check the facts of what is actually in the oldest versions of the Koran. In fact some versions add details that are rather ridiculous, and probably were not part of the oldest versions.

You who are listening to this information are the first people on Earth in nearly 2,000 years to learn that Jesus is Adam. Hopefully you recognize just how special that makes you. Our father is about to return and rescue us from the father of civilization. Knowing the true identity of Jesus is not essential for survival through what is about to take place. When he arrives, we who belong to him will instantly know who he is, and what we need to do. As Jesus said at John 10:27,28:

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them everlasting life. They shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.”

Between now and then, the members of mankind’s various cults will be searching desperately for a savior. They will not patiently await the return of their father, but instead will involve themselves in the political process, protest, armed uprisings, military campaigns, and other such wicked nonsense. Humanity has a way of ignoring the lessons of history.

It is important that you understand that such behavior will soon result in the destruction, of anyone foolish enough to continue engaging in such behavior. According to Romans 6:23, the wage that sin pays is death. Even still all hope is not lost, as the Bible clearly states at Acts 24:15:

“I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.”

Knowing that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked might lead some to believe that it doesn’t really matter how we live our lives. However, all resurrections are not the same. As John 5:28,29 points out:

“Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out. Those who have done good to a resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to a resurrection of judgment.”

Daniel 12:2 says:

“Many who are dead will awake. Some to everlasting life, but others to everlasting shame and contempt.”

Revelation 20:6 says:

“Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! Over these the second death has no power.”

Evidently the resurrection of the righteous will be much more prized than the resurrection of the wicked. Seemingly, the greatest difference between the two is that those of us who reject Satan’s Empire, like Jesus, will be resurrected incorruptible. Brought back to life, in bodies that never get sick, grow old, wear out, or die.

Those who continue to selfishly seek their own interest will be brought back to life, but just like all of those brought back to life in the ancient past, they will continue to be subject to death.

When Christ returns, our Earth will once again get a fresh start. In the beginning the tracking of time was according to the Anno Mundi Calendar. Anno Mundi means year of the world. The Anno Mundi Calandar is based on the day of the Creation of Adam. In other words, Adam was created in year zero of the Anno Mundi Calendar.

Our current calendar is called the Anno Domini Calendar. Anno Domini means year of the lord. The Anno Domini Calendar is based on the day of the birth of Jesus. In other words, according to the Anno Domini calendar Jesus was born in Year Zero. There is no way for us to confirm when Adam was created, or when Jesus was born, however we can know that when Jesus returns our solar system will be reset, and once again Earth’s calendar will become obsolete.

Think about what that means. Earth’s first calendar was based on the day that Adam was created. Earth’s second calendar is based on the day that Adam was born again. And the final calendar that is about to be set in place will be based on the date when Adam returns to Earth and the dead are resurrected. All three of the Earth’s most historic events involve the appearance of Adam.

The religions of the Earth have spent nearly 6,000 years concealing basic truths from mankind. Primarily basic truths about the difference between right and wrong, and about our Salvation. Understanding how Melchizedek’s life compares to Jesus’ life, is a huge part of what has been hidden. From the day that the Book of Hebrews was written until now, no one alive has ever fully understood how Melchizedek’s rulership was similar to Jesus’ rulership. There can be no doubt that when Christ returns and the dead are resurrected, Melchizedek will be right there with him. We can be there as well. As Mark 4:9 says:

“Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

When Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born again in order to see the kingdom of heaven, he was talking about the same Kingdom of Heaven that he told his followers to pray for at Matthew 6:9,10.

“When you pray, pray like this: Our father in the heavens, your name is above all others. Let your kingdom come, and let your desire take place, in Heaven and on Earth.”

At Luke 17:21 Jesus said something else to indicate that The Kingdom of Heaven was not to be found at some other location, when he said “nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘there!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is yours inside.”

Many Bibles render this verse as the kingdom of God is within you, some render it as within your midst, so there is some debate. But the fact remains that if we are praying for God’s kingdom to come, we are not praying to be taken to some other location.

Ephesians 1:5 says:

“God predestined us as for adoption as children to himself, through Jesus.”

If we were children of God, then we would have no need of adoption. Keep in mind that only those created directly by God are called children of God. The Bible consistently calls humans born through biological reproduction children of men. When Adam was created he was called the son of God, when he was reborn as Jesus in the first century, he continued to be called by this title, however, after his birth through a female human he also became known as son of man.

Romans 8:22-23,29 says:

“We know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, as we eagerly await our adoption as children through the redemption of our bodies. For God foreknew, he also predestined us to be conformed to the image of his son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brothers.”

Once again this idea of being born again is presented as coming back to life as children of God through the redemption of our bodies.

The time is getting short. Our suffering will soon be over. All of creation has been groaning until now. Civilization’s false fathers are about to be destroyed. Those who continue putting their faith is such wicked political leaders, economic leaders, and religious leaders, will be destroyed along with them.

In the beginning, Eve caused injury to herself and all of mankind by foolishly seeking autonomy. Autonomy means self rule. When Satan told her that she could be like God, simply by rebelling against his law, she selfishly chose to do so, despite the warning that she would surely die.

In Abraham’s day the rightful ruler was Melchizedek. Unlike Eve Melchizedek did not rebel against God. According to the Bible Abraham recognized him as both a king and a priest. In other words Abraham could show love, loyalty, and respect to God, by showing love, loyalty, and respect to Melchizedek, his chosen ruler.

But in Abraham’s day there were many engaged in carnal warfare as a means of taking Melchizedek’s position by force. The chosen political rulers who were engaged in the struggle for world domination are listed by name. Within a short amount of time Abraham was able to put an end to the war by defeating and exterminating half of those involved.

The struggle for world domination continues on. Despite the fact that Jesus, like Melchizedek, has been chosen as our rightful king. As civilization nears it’s imminent demise, and the basic foundations of human society crumble into oblivion, before it’s citizen’s very eyes, mankind in general is foolishly continuing to choose sides in Satan’s war against God. Just like Eve, they will surely die.

It should be more than obvious that biologically, humanity is a single family. Sadly, most refuse to recognize this very basic fact. The citizen’s of the Empire are currently forming up into opposing teams, in preparation for the final and greatest war in all of human history. America verses China. Black verses white. Conservative verses Liberal. Each and every one knowing in their hearts that God is on their side. It should be more than obvious to anyone with any sense at all that he is not. Most who foolishly choose to participate in this war will not survive.

In Melchizedek’s day the situation was very similar. It could be said that the wars being fought today are nothing more than a continuation of the war started when Noah died. The motivation for each and every war ever fought has been selfish ambition.

When Abraham defeated Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, most would have thought that all disputes had been settled. However, that was not the case. The kings that Abraham assisted, demanded to be recognized as the rulers of the Empire.

Shortly after Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek. God sent his angels to Abraham to inform him that they would be bringing destruction upon Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboim, and the king of Bela. Which they did, by calling down fire and brimstone upon them. Most people are aware of the fates of Sodom and Gomorrah, but are not aware that there were three other cities involved.

The churches teach that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for engaging in sexual sins, but Jude 1:7,8 records another sin that they engaged in that the churches never talk about.

“Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities indulging in sexual immorality, and unnatural desires, serve as an example by being eternally destroyed by fire, they also defiled the flesh and rejected authority and blasphemed the glorious ones.”

The sin of rejecting authority and blaspheming glorious ones is never discussed by any of the churches, because the glorious ones that Sodom and Gomorrah blasphemed were Melchizedek and God. The authority that those kings rejected was that of their biological father. The Bible clearly states that all of the kings destroyed were direct descendants of Canaan.

By rejecting the authority of their father Melchizedek, and instead following the kings of their own choosing, the citizens of those cities, by default, were rejecting God.

Our chosen king is Jesus. He was chosen directly by God. Of all of the sons of God spoken of in the Bible, he is the only one spoken of by name. He is the firstborn of the dead.

By participating in the political systems of the nations, millions of people living today, are themselves, by default, rejecting authority and blaspheming glorious ones. Very soon everyone alive who actively supports this filthy system called civilization, will be destroyed just as Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding cities were destroyed thousands of years ago. Those who choose to follow the political leaders of the nations today will die just as those who followed the political leaders of the nations in Abraham’s day.

When Adam died, he was the father of thousands of people. When he returns he will be the father of millions. The laws of the nations will be gone forever. The only law that will remain will be God’s natural law. The only hierarchy that will exist will be the family.

In the paradise that awaits us there will be no political system, economic system, or religious system. All unnatural hierarchical systems will be dismantled and replaced. As our eternal father, Jesus will serve as both our king and priest. Only those willing to be obedient to his rule will be given everlasting life in incorruptible bodies.

If you don’t want to survive, don’t listen to me.

Melchizedek Part 8 The Desciple Whom Jesus Loved

Hello and welcome to another video from the only source of information that you need to not only survive the current apocalypse but actually enjoy it and today’s video is going to be part eight in my Melchizedek video series.

Thus far, every video in this series has revealed sacred secrets that have not been shared with mankind for thousands of years, and what you are about to hear is going to be no different.

This video will not be the final video in this series. Neither will it be the most shocking. However as you are about to find out, this information will solve a riddle that has been perplexing the members of the Christian faith ever since Satan put it into the hearts of man to pervert God’s word. As recorded at Mark 7:13:

“By handing down your traditions you have made God’s word void.”

What I am about to conclusively prove, will overturn many so called “Christian” traditions currently held as sacred, by billions of religious people around the world.

What I have been revealing in this series, is only a small part of a vast library of knowledge directly from our heavenly father that will soon be made available to every man woman and child on this planet.

This recent flood of knowledge is unprecedented in all of human history, and will soon culminate with the return of God’s chosen ruler, his most precious child, Jesus Christ. Currently we are experiencing what the prophets of old dreamed about, and wrote about, but never got to experience themselves. This current flood of knowledge is one of the most significant signs that the final days of civilization are quickly approaching. As Daniel 2:4 said in regard to this time:

“Conceal these words, and seal up this book. In the end time, knowledge will increase while many are running around lost.”

There is a person spoken of in the Bible as “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved”. College trained theologians have been debating nearly nonstop over the identity of this disciple ever since the Bible was first translated into Latin by the Roman Empire.

In 382 AD Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to provide a definitive Latin version of the Bible. Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire. As Rome’s dominion over Europe grew, the number of people who spoke Latin grew as well.

Prior to that, the only versions of the Bible available to mankind, were in the ancient Greek dialect spoken in first century Palestine. Many recognized that ancient Greek was quickly becoming a dead language, and began to create their own versions of individual books of the Bible in what at that time was the common language of the people. Hundreds of years prior, the same thing took place with the Old Testament, when Hebrew became a dead language, and was replaced by Greek.

Pope Damasus determined that it was in the best interest of the Catholic Church to produce a standardized version, of the Bible in Latin. Damasus realized that accurate Bibles translated directly from the original language text, posed a significant threat to official Church doctrine. The truth of God’s word the Bible had to be kept concealed from mankind if the Empire was to maintain control over the population.

The process of creating, altering and perfecting a complete standardized Latin Bible, took over a thousand years, culminating in what has become known as the Versio Vulgata of 1592. In our day, contrary to popular belief, all versions of the Bible produced, in the many languages of mankind, are directly translated from the Versio Vulgata. What that means for us, is that all modern language versions of the Bible preserve the deceptions originally fabricated by The Catholic Church. In our day, the Versio Vulgata is referred to as the Latin Vulgate.

One of the reasons that scholars have put so much effort into identifying the disciple whom Jesus loved is because as documented at John 21:20-24:

“This disciple is the one who told us these things, and wrote these things down, and we know that his testimony is true”

The book in question is the Gospel of John. Most who are familiar with the Bible simply take it for granted that the writer of the Book of John must have been John, which is understandable. The churches have been printing the book of John for hundreds of years, always putting a title at the top of the first page, clearly declaring the book to be “According To John”, “The Book of John”, “The Gospel According To John” or simply “John”.

Prior to the Greek and Roman Empires, taking over control of the publication of Bibles, the only title that many Bible books would have had, would have been the first line of the individual books as they appeared in ancient Hebrew and Greek. Many books of the Bible did not receive their official titles until many hundreds of years after they were written.

Most people who profess a love of the Bible probably are not even aware of the fact that there has been an ongoing debate for hundreds of years, as to whether or not the Book Of John should have even been included as part of the official Bible canon. The word Canon means “a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.

The other gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are very similar to one another. So much so, that many theologians have written treatise explaining how these three books came about and in what order. The stories are so closely related that some have concluded that all three must have been based on an original gospel account that has been lost to time.

Others argue that at one time only one of the three existed. After the other two writers read that single unique account of Jesus life, they wrote their own version of the story, taking out details that they didn’t personally witness, while adding information about events that they did witness. The three books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptic gospels, because they are similar to one another. The words synoptic and synopsis both mean basically the same thing. A brief survey, or general summary of a subject.

The Book of John on the other hand is nothing like the other three gospel accounts. The stories are so different that some argue that the Book of John is in conflict with the other three. Even the writing style is unique. Many who have studied the gospel accounts have expressed confusion about how such a book came about. Even those with deep faith in the word of God are uncomfortable with this very unusual version of Jesus’ life and ministry that is so unlike the other three gospels.

I only stumbled upon what I am about to tell you because of part 7 in this Melchizedek series, which is all about Jesus’ Mother, Father, Brothers, and Sisters. I knew that as Jesus was dying he declared to his mother that one of his disciples was her son. I had always heard that this disciple was John. I thought that I could add one more child by adoption to the list of Jesus’ family members, so I researched the appropriate verses to determine if that was the case. The passage that I am talking about is found at John 19:26,27.

“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, woman behold thy son. Then saith he to the disciple, behold thy mother. And from that hour, that disciple took her into his own home.”

I had read this verse many times, and always wondered why Jesus would remove his mother from her family. It never sounded right, but up until now, I just accepted that for some reason Jesus felt the need to assign his friend the task of caring for his mother.

Several religions teach that Jesus simply did not feel comfortable leaving his mother in the care of his unbelieving family, but from my own personal reading of the Bible, I had already discovered that that could not possibly be the case. Seemingly all of Jesus family were strong believers in him throughout their lives. There are several poorly translated verses that say things like Jesus brothers did not believe in him, but under scrutiny all such passages simply say that his brothers did not believe certain things that he was saying to them at that time. Nowhere in the Bible is it ever suggested that they did not believe that he was their savior. All of his brothers and sisters knew from childhood, that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. The Bible testifies that they all recognized and acknowledged that Jesus was the son of God.

I was hoping that somehow, using nothing more than the Bible, I could discover, the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved, and why Jesus would hand over the care of his mother to this person.

It is easy to research individual Hebrew and Greek words using Concordances, Lexicons, and Dictionaries of Bible Hebrew and Greek words. But it isn’t as easy to research phrases, because even though in English this person is always described as the beloved disciple the Bible does not. consistently refers to this person as the beloved disciple, the Bible itself does not use the same series of words to do so in each passage. In other words, as originally written down, some verses might say the beloved disciple, others might say the disciple that Jesus loved, or the disciple whom jesus loved. Fortunately, as I said earlier, the identity of the “disciple whom Jesus loved” has been debated by many people over the years. So it wasn’t very difficult to locate a Wikipedia article with a complete list of the verses that are pertinent to this subject.

According to the article, there are only 6 occurrences of this phrase found in the entire English translation of the Bible. All 6 are found in the Book of John. Probably because, as I said earlier, it was the beloved disciple who wrote the Book of John.

Over the centuries the theologians that have supposedly been trying to identify the writer of the Book of John, have always based their research on this single fact. Most would agree that if we could somehow conclusively identify the disciple whom Jesus loved, we would by default be able to identify who wrote the book of John. Thankfully as I am about to show you, the Bible does in fact clearly identify the writer of the Book of John by name, and it is without a doubt not the Apostle John.

A very obvious first step towards solving this ancient mystery, for me was to simply read every verse found in the Gospel of John about the Disciple whom Jesus loved, and compare the accounts of these events to the accounts of the same events as recorded by Mathew, Mark, and Luke. If the writer only referred to themselves as the disciple whom Jesus loved, we just need to find out how the other writers referred to this person.

Even though The Book Of John is very different when compared to the Synoptic Gospels they are all still about the same small group of people, and in some cases, the same events.

Before trying to identify the disciple whom Jesus loved, we really need to clear our heads of all preconceived notions about their identity. If we take on this challenge as a means of proving that the disciple whom Jesus loved was the apostle John, then that is the answer we will find. No matter what we think we know, it is essential that we approach this problem convinced that we know nothing.

When theologians engage in debates about the identity of the writer of this book, they always start with the assumption that the disciple whom Jesus loved had to have been one of the twelve apostles. But there are serious problems with this line of reasoning.

First off, the disciple whom Jesus loved is never even called an apostle. Second, the word apostle is just an ancient Latin word meaning one sent out. Apostlols itself is simply a transliteration the Greek word apostolos. (Strong’s G652) We living in the modern English speaking world no longer use this word in our language when speaking of someone sent out, because it is not an English word. Had Bible translators actually rendered this word into English as they were suppose to do, our Bibles today would likely use the word envoy or emissary instead of the word apostle.

Third, the word disciple, which also comes from an ancient Latin word, simply means a learner, or one who is taught, or one who is being taught. In English we would call such a person a student. The fact that our English translations of the Bible use so many Latin words is further evidence that our modern English Bibles were for a fact not translated directly from the ancient Greek manuscripts, but instead from the Latin Vulgate produced by the Catholic Church in 1592. The ancient Greek word that has been rendered as disciple in our English translations of the Bible is mathetes. (Strong’s G3101) Mathetes is not similar in pronunciation to the Latin word discipulous in any way.

In our Bibles many are called apostles, and many more are called disciples. Neither word was ever used as an exclusive title for the small group of men, that Jesus traveled with or sent out, which is always referred to in the Bible, simply as “The Twelve”. Obviously Jesus loved the twelve that he chose, but that doesn’t mean that he could only love the twelve, or that he loved the twelve more than all of his other disciples.

The apostles are spoken of in several parts of the Bible but each list is slightly different. Some scholars have attempted to resolve this problem by determining if the Apostles were known by multiple names. Which in some cases, we know that they were.

At the beginning of his ministry Jesus chose twelve men, who would stand out. The books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all included a list of these men, and each of those lists, are obviously the same. After Jesus died, was resurrected and ascended into heaven Luke’s account recorded a list of the same men, with the exception of Judas who had committed suicide after betraying Jesus.

The fact that all three of the synoptic gospels carefully recorded the names of the twelve, means that it is important for us to understand, that there were indeed twelve apostles that in some way were different from the rest. However the Book of John treats the subject of the apostles much differently. It is almost as if the writer of John was not all that concerned with the organizational arangement, or historic details of what Jesus was doing.

The Gospel of John does mention the twelve, but it is almost as if in passing. It list several of the apostles by name, but some of the names are not the same as the names given by the books of Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts. For theologians this is problematic. All of Christendom’s religions are based on organizational hierarchies. As recorded by the writer of the Gospel of John, the apostles, and disciples of Jesus are presented more like a loose group of friends than a Christian Church.

The twelve men that were chosen at the beginning of Jesus ministry remained unchanged all the way up until Judas committed suicide. After Judas died another was chosen to replace him, in order to bring their number back up to twelve. At one time Jesus sent out 70 men, who themselves would have been considered apostles. Later, Paul was called an apostle even though he was not one of the twelve. At Hebrews 3:1, even Jesus is called an apostle.

It is likely that at least some of the apostles, who’s names are unlike the names on the official list of the twelve, are simply apostles who were not chosen to be part of the twelve.

Another assumption that theologians usually start with is that the writer of John must have produced other writings.

Even if that was true, it certainly isn’t any kind of set rule. The Apostle Paul is thought by some to have written 12 books in total. Quite a few writers are thought to have only written one.

What we think we know about the writers of the books of the Bible is not actually known at all. As I said earlier most of the titles of the different Bible books were assigned to those books by theologians hundreds, or in some cases perhaps thousands of years after they were written. Most books of the Bible do not make any claims about authorship within their texts.

Just so you know what I am talking about, nowhere in the Book of Matthew are we told “this book was written by Matthew”. It is believed by most people that Matthew and Levi are just two different names of the same man. But once again, nowhere in the Book of Matthew are we told that this book was written by Levi. Nowhere in any other book of the Bible are we ever even told that Matthew or Levi ever wrote anything. In most cases we have no way of knowing who wrote what.

All that we know about the writer of the Book of John, is that it was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved.

At some point Church leaders made the determination that the Gospel of John was in the same writing style as the three epistles of 1st John, 2nd John, and 3rd John. The problem with that assumption is that most authors living in the same part of the world at the same time, could obviously have had similar writing styles. Another major problem with relying on this line of reasoning, in determining who wrote the Book of John is the fact that we don’t even know who wrote those three epistles. And worst of all, under academic scrutiny, it has been determined that the style of the Gospel of John is nothing like the style of the three epistles. Seemingly, even the three epistles had more than one author.

The Book of Revelation declares itself to be a revelation of John, but once again, we don’t know which John, and it’s writing style is unlike the other books attributed to John. Some of the passages seem to be direct quotes of the Gospel of John, but that is common in all books of the Bible.

Much of what makes the Book of John so unusual, is what is recorded about the disciple whom Jesus loved. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, but just prior to Jesus’ ascension into heaven, a conversation between Jesus and Peter highlights just how unusual his relationship was with this particular disciple.

As Jesus and others are walking along, Peter asks Jesus an extremely unusual question. This account is found at John 21:20-23

“Peter turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, so Peter asked Jesus: “What about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I return, what is that to you?” Therefore this saying went out among the brothers that that disciple would not die, but that isn’t what Jesus said. Jesus did not say that he would never die but only “If I want him to remain until I return, what is that to you?”

Jesus’ response raises quite a few questions. Just the fact that Peter would ask such a thing raises quite a few questions. This account took place during Jesus’ final moments before ascending into heaven. His apostles had already been told by Jesus that he was going to ascend, and likely told them exactly when. Jesus’ disciples understood that at any moment, Jesus was going to disappear into a cloud, return to where he came from, and not be seen again for nearly two thousand years. This is the context that we need to understand before we can grasp exactly what Peter was asking and why.

Jesus’ ascension into heaven is recorded in a fashion very similar to two other stories recorded about the Old Testament prophets Enoch and Elijah. None of the stories explicitly describe the experiences of the three, but what is recorded seems similar in many ways. Some religions argue that neither Enoch nor Elijah actually ascended into heaven, and there is considerable validity to those arguments. Others argue that in fact Enoch and Elijah did ascend into heaven and there is considerable validity to those arguments as well. None of those religions argue about whether or not Jesus ascended into heaven. After Enoch and Elijah ascended, neither of their asensions are ever spoken of again. In contrast, the ascension of Jesus into Heaven is a repeating theme of the final books of the Bible.

Peter did not ask Jesus if his mother was ascending with him, or if the remaining ones of the twelve were ascending with him. He specifically asked about the disciple whom Jesus loved. For some reason it was not just the writer of the Gospel of John that considered the disciple whom Jesus loved to have a special relationship with Jesus. Apparently there was something unique about the relationship between Jesus and the writer of John, that was common knowledge. Those who knew Jesus, seemingly understood that there was something unique about this particular disciple. So much so that Peter, and likely everyone traveling with Jesus was expecting this disciple to ascend into heaven with Jesus.

Jesus by his response to Peter acknowledged for a certainty that in fact the relationship between him and the one whom he loved was unique. As recorded at this passage, there were only three options presented. The disciple whom Jesus loved would either die at some point, remain alive on Earth until Jesus returned thousands of years later, or perhaps ascend into heaven with Jesus right then and there.

What Jesus said as he was dying also confirms that Jesus had a very special relationship with the writer of John, that he did not share with the others. Once again as recorded at John 19:26,27:

“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, woman behold thy son. Then saith he to the disciple, behold thy mother. And from that hour, that disciple took her into his own home.”

Right now I know that everyone listening to this information is learning things that they previously were not aware of. You are all probably trying to use that information to figure out the identity of the person consistently referred to as the disciple whom Jesus loved. Which is a good thing. However I must warn you in advance that the identity of this person is much more significant than you know.

All of the verses about the beloved disciple have been intentionally mistranslated in such a way as to completely change the entire story of the Bible. Very early on, the Catholic Church recognized that the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved, had to be kept concealed in order to preserve and protect their religious traditions. It would be impossible for us to solve this ancient mystery using nothing more than an English translation of God’s word. We are going to have to study the original language documents that existed before Damasus and Jerome produced their Latin version of the Bible. What has been presented to us in English is nothing like what was originally recorded.

Some of the verses about this person are not quite as dramatic as others. At John 21:1-14 a group of Jesus followers is fishing, when Jesus appears to them from shore. At first no one knows who it is standing on the shore calling out to them, except for the disciple whom Jesus loved. At verse 7 it is this disciple who tells them “It is the Lord”. This person was not just exceptionally observant. Their relationship with Jesus gave them insight that the others simply did not have.

Once you are made aware of all of the facts about the disciple whom Jesus loved, you will discover that they were involved in most of the major events that took place during Jesus’ ministry. As recorded in the Bible the disciple whom Jesus loved was with Jesus on many occasions when none of his other disciples were present.

In all honesty, my first glimpse into what the churches had done to God’s sacred word came to me while reading the account of what is called, by some, “The Last Supper” or what others call “The Lord’s Evening Meal”. This account can be found at John 13:21-26.

“After saying this Jesus testified “Truly I say to you, one of you will betray me” The disciples did not know who he was talking about so Simon Peter motioned to the disciple whom Jesus loved, who was reclining next to Jesus side to ask him who he was speaking about? So the disciple who was leaning against Jesus said, “Who is it Lord?” and Jesus revealed that it was Judas.”

I found out about 30 years ago that there was some question about whether or not this verse was accurately translated, but never really thought about whether or not that was true. At the time, I simply was not ready to question the accuracy of the English translation of the Bible. I felt that all I needed, was the version of the Bible that I was reading at that time, in order to learn everything that I needed to know.

What I had read was an article published by homosexuals using the teachings of the Bible to defend their life style. They claimed that John’s behavior at the last supper was not normal for a heterosexual man.

In question was the verse at John 13:23, which in their opinion described John as sitting in Jesus’ lap. Since I had decided to try to identify, this person I thought that it might be important to take a look at an ancient copy of this verse in Greek to see if there was any validity to those claims.

The first word that we need to look at is anakeimai (Strong’s G345) which means to lie into. It is formed from the two words ana (Strong’s G303) which means into. And keimei (Strong’s G2749) which means to lie down. The next word in the verse that we need to look at is kolpos (Strong’s G2859) Which simply means the front of the body between the arms.

Obviously with this basic understanding of what was said in Greek, we can see that translating this verse to indicate that John was sitting, and leaning at a table next to Jesus, would not be accurate at all. But I also don’t believe that anybody was sitting in Jesus’ lap either. The Greek phrase “anakeimai kolpos could only describe two people lying down, in a tender embrace. Jesus lying on some piece of furniture such as a bed or sofa, or perhaps on the floor, with his arms wrapped around the disciple. Likely in a position that we today in English call spooning.

John 21:20 describes the embrace of Jesus and the disciple whom he loved using two completely different words. Anapipto (Strong’s G377) and Stethos (Strong’s G4738). As presented to us in an English translation of the Bible what is said at this passage is:

“This is the one who leaned back against Jesus at the evening meal and asked who was going to betray him”

The word anapipto actually means “laid upon” and the word stethos actually means chest. The Greek word stethos is where we get our English word stethoscope. Understanding what these two words actually mean, allows us, for the first time in nearly 2,000 years to know what was actually recorded at John 21:20:

“This is the one who laid upon Jesus’ chest at the evening meal and asked who was going to betray him.”

With just this small correction to the translation, we can know two things for a certainty. At some point during the night of the last supper, as Jesus and the disciple whom he loved were cuddleing, they became uncomfortable, and had to shift position. We can also know for a certainty that the relationship between Jesus and the writer of the book of John was much more intimate than the churches are willing to admit.

As I am about to prove conclusively, the writer of the Gospel of John was definitely not the apostle John. Hopefully everyone listening to this information understands that the disciple whom Jesus loved had to have been a woman. Fortunately everyone who has an internet connection has accesses to copies of the original language text of the passages in question.

Our salvation does not depend on our ability to read and understand ancient Greek and Hebrew. There really isn’t any requirement on God’s part for someone to be able to solve all of the secrets of the universe before receiving some kind of heavenly reward. But it’s really not all that hard to figure out what has been done to our English translations of the Bible, if that is truly what you want to do.

Every language on Earth works in a similar way. All languages require the same basic parts of speech in order for members of a culture to communicate. Nouns are the names of things such as birds. Verbs are words that we use to describe activity, such as to fly. Most languages use different words, but that isn’t the only thing that is different about the languages of man.

In some languages the order in which words are placed in a sentence might seem backwards to people speaking other languages. When someone learns a second language, this concept is usually much more difficult to grasp than learning the actual words. You may have noticed this if you have a friend that is from another country. How words are put together is called grammar.

Some words are singular but when the spelling is slightly altered they become plural. Some words describe things that are happening currently but in a slightly altered form can also be used to describes things that happened in the past, or things that will happen in the future. Some words have a male gender version and a female gender version. Some changes in the spellinng of words serve no purpose other than to allow a language according to the rythem and flow of the culture.

All of these concepts can be accomplished simply by changing the spelling of a word, but in some instances these concepts can be changed simply be a words position in a sentence realtive to other words. What you need to know, is that all languages are organic, so much so, that even people who only speak English, go to college, and get degrees in English grammar, will argue over English grammar.

Making our current quest for truth even more difficult is the fact that the original language of the New Testament is a dead language. In other words there is currently no one left alive who speaks it.

The reason that I am telling you this is so that you won’t be tricked by some fast talking holder of a college degree. Or some dedicated Fundamentalist Christian Religionist.

Over the years, I have heard some insanely ridiculous ancient Greek grammar rhetoric spew from the mouths of theologians. Particularly when it involves Church doctrine.

What I am telling you right now, is that every passage about the disciple whom Jesus loved, has been altered through the translation process. Each and every male gender noun and pronoun that is used in these verses is inappropriate. Any Greek speaker reading an original language text of these scriptures in 1st Century Palestine, would have instantly understood that the disciple whom Jesus loved was a woman. I suspect that those who translated the Bible from Greek into Latin understood this as well.

Over time, many ancient Greek copies of the original language text have been made available to modern day scholars. Quite a few new versions of modern language Bibles have been produced since these ancient documents have been made available. However, any time that a translator happens upon a passage of ancient Greek text that conflicts with established religious tradition, they always default to what is recorded in the Latin Vulgate.

Each and every modern language Bible that I am aware of begins with a general introduction explaining why a need was felt to produce a new translation of the Bible. Usually an explanation is included in those introductions as to how they went about resolving known conflicts that exist between the ancient the ancient books used to produce their versions of the Bible. Included in all of those lists are the Textus Receptus, and the Latin Vulgate. The Textus Receptus is nothing more than a Greek translation of the Latin Vulgate, which by default would make the Latin Vulgate nothing more than a Latin translation of the Textus Receptus.

Even though all of the truly ancient Greek documents usually support one another, they do not always agree with the Latin Vulgate of 1592, and by default the Textus Receptus produced around the same time. Translators have always chosen to err on the side of tradition rather than risk upsetting the status quo. Which is why the disciple whom Jesus loved has always been depicted as a man in every translation of the Bible ever produced.

As I said earlier, there are rules for ancient Greek grammar that are completely different from the rules for modern English grammar. If you simply look at any Bible verse in what is called an interlinear Bible, you will be able to easily see exactly what I am talking about. The words in Greek or Hebrew will appear scrambled when compared to the English translation that is posted directly above or below each line of Hebrew or Greek text. For an English speaker, it might be difficult or even impossible to determine which word is the subject of the sentence, or which noun is associated with which verb. This is also true of the pronouns.

In English we have male gender pronouns such as he, him, and his, female gender pronouns such as she, her, and hers, and neuter gender pronouns such as it and its. As straight forward as we might think the rules would be for using such words, often times they are not. To most people a dog would be an it. To a pet lover a dog would be a he or a she. To most people a ship would be an it. To a sailor a ship would be a she. To most people a person would be a he or a she. And for me that is often the case as well. However, I usually refer to people that are spiritually dead as its.

As I said earlier, the Latin word that gets translated into our English word disciple simply means student. In the ancient past, in Latin, anyone that was a student would be called a student regardless of their gender.

Using a male gender pronoun to describe a student might have been appropriate in ancient Greek or Latin regardless of the gender of the student. Keep in mind that the pronoun is being associated with the word student, not with the name of the student. However, whether that’s true or not, that is not how pronouns are used in English, it would be inappropriate to assign a male gender pronoun to a student who is known to be female.

Translators may feel justified in rendering a male gender Greek or Latin pronoun, as a male gender English pronoun, however there are quite a few instances in our Bibles where Greek male gender pronouns are not rendered as such. The evidence that translators willingly change genders of ancient language prounouns can be found in the Bible.

Matthew 5:15 says this:

“Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.”

The first use of the word it, is actually translated from the word autos (Strong’s G846). The second use of the word it, is not translated from anything. It has been inserted by the translators in order to make the passage conform to the rules of English Grammar.

According to the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance the definition of the word autos is “he, she, it, himself, herself, themselves, or itself”. However this isn’t entirely accurate. As spelled at this particular verse autos is in a form that is more often than not, rendered as our English gender pronoun “him”. It might not be necessary to use a male gender pronoun to describe a male gender person in ancient Greek. Sometimes as written a male gender pronoun might need to be used to conform to the male gender nature of the entire sentence. At this verse the word is not autos, spelled with an s but auton spelled with an n.

If translators were to preserve this passage according to ancient Greek grammar, it would sound like this:

“Nor light lamp and place him under basket but upon the lampstand and shines for all those in the house.”

As you can see, preserving ancient Greek grammar in a sentence made up of modern English words, would not be appropriate. Those of us who speak English would be confused if this passage were presented to us in this way. We would be especially confused if the entire Bible was presented like this.

The ancient Greeks would have understood that lamps do not have a gender. Assigning a male gender pronoun to a lamp would be no different than a sailor assigning a female gender pronoun to a ship. I use to live on a ship and we all referred to that ship as a she. However, I am reasonably certain that all hands knew that the ship we lived on was not female.

But once again we need to keep in mind that the auton spelling of this word may have nothing to do with gender anyway. Many times in many languages words that we might think of as having a male gender, may simply be the form that Greek grammar demands, based on the structure of the sentence.

The ancient Greek versions of the Bible would have effectively communicated very detailed, easy to understand ideas to an ancient Greek speaker, just as we are able to do when speaking in English to English speakers. In other words the parts that we might think are missing would actually be there represented by the spelling, or position of the surrounding words.

Auton, is the same male gender pronoun used in our Bibles to describe the human eye at Matthew 5:29.

“If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck “him” out.”

You probable recognize the passage and know that in our English translation of the Bible, what is actually said is:

“If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck “it” out.

This is also the same pronoun that is used at John 13:24.

The disciple whom Jesus loved was lying next to Jesus so “Simon Peter motioned to “him” to ask Jesus who was going to betray him.”

It may seem strange to an English speaker, but pronouns that are traditionally thought of as having a male gender are often used by people speaking other languages even when the person that they are speaking about is female. Often it is because of the females title in the sentence.

We know that Peter was speaking to Mary Magdalene, however, in the passage she isn’t called Mary Magdalene, but instead called disciple. Had she been called by her name, it is possible that a different pronoun would have been used. Or perhaps not. As I said earlier, the position and spelling of the surrounding words may have still demanded the use of the auton spelling according to the rules of ancient Greek grammar. In any case, it should be obvious that male and female gender pronouns did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks as they do to us. Changing the gender of the pronoun has more to do with sentence structure than it does with the physical gender of the subject.

Another thing that I have noticed, is that many languages still use genderless versions of pronouns. Whenever I am interested in a news story in another language, I’ll often copy and paste a line of text into a tranlation program. Many times the translations will come back as male gender or neuter gender pronouns in text that is obviously about a woman, or women. So, even in our day, there are languages where pronoun gender has little or nothing at all to do with the actual physical gender of the subject.

Another problem with pronouns is that in some languages they are often unnecessary. As a result many languages at times don’t even include pronouns that in other languages would be necessary. For such a passage to be effectively translated it has to follow the rules of grammar of the language that it is being translated into.

As an example we will go back and look at how this was done in the passage about Jesus’ execution found at John 19:26,27.

“When Jesus saw his mother with the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman behold you son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold your mother”, and from that very hour on the disciple took her into his own home.”

The word “his” in the phrase “his own home” was simply added to this verse to fill an empty space that according to the rules of English grammar would require the use of a pronoun. In the original Greek text there is no pronoun because according to the rules of Greek grammar the pronoun would be understood. Since the pronoun is associated with the word son, translators always render it as male gender pronoun. Another word that is not included in the original text is home.

Another male gender word used in this verse is son. However in Greek the word used is huios. (Strong’s G5207) Huios for a fact means child. Every Greek translator would know it means child. If you look up the word huios in a Greek language reference book such as a lexicon, concordance or dictionary, you will be able to plainly see that huios is always defined as child. Translators have simply taken it upon themselves to arbitrarily render this word as son.

It is not accurate to translate this Greek word into our English word son. By tradition, we call Jesus the son of God, but that isn’t what he is called in the original ancient Greek text of the Bible. In all of the ancient original language texts, Jesus is always referred to as the child of God. We know that Jesus was male, so calling him son of God accurately describes what Jesus was, but in a Bible translation it is not appropriate at all. Translating the phrase “child of God” as “son of God” introduces an inaccuracy into our modern translations of the Bible which is unnecessary and intentionally misleading.

The ancient Greeks had a word that meant son, and a word that meant daughter. Had God wanted to highlight Jesus’ gender, he could have easily had his writers use a male gender word. The word huios is used many times in our Bibles when it is obviously describing males as in the case of Jesus. However this word is also used when it is very obviously describing females.

Matthew 5:9 uses the word this way.

“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.”

Apparently Church hierarchy is willing to admit that women can be peacemakers, and as a result can be called children of God. Otherwise this verse would use the word sons instead.

Bible translators have no problem using the word daughter or child where it is appropriate for other less significant Bible characters. However, the disciple whom Jesus loved is perceived by the Catholic church as too important to be female. Catholic Church hierarchy is and always has been exclusively male. Allowing Church members to know that one of it’s precious Bible books was written by someone of the inferior gender would be problematic, to say the least. Most of Christendom’s cults are based on male dominated hierarchies.

Another problem with revealing the gender of the disciple whom Jesus loved is the Church teaching that sex is immoral. According to most Church doctrines, all sexual activity is wicked, unless it is done in accordance with Church rules. Whether it is the natural sexual activity of people who love one another, or the unnatural sexual activity of people who are not interested in natural sexual activity. The lower level members of Christendom could never be allowed to worship what could potentially be a sexually active savior.

What is especially revealing about John 19:26, is the fact that the name of the disciple whom Jesus loved, is revealed at John 19:25. The verse immediately before it.

“Standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and her sister Mary the wife of Klopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

In our English translations of the Bible, the punctuation has been rendered in such a way as to make it seem as if there are three named women at Jesus’ execution. Had the translators added another comma they could have made it four. But in Greek there are only two. His mother and Mary Magdalene. Once again I’ll read the verse with punctuation that is more appropriate.

“Standing near the cross of Jesus, were his mother, and her sister. Mary of Klopas and Mary Magdalene.”

As used in this verse, the word sister is not about these two Mary’s having the same parents. It is about the spiritual relationship between his mother and Mary Magdalene.

Even though the bible uses the words brother and sister to describe people that have the same human parents, it also uses these two words, quite regularly, to describe people who have the same Creator.

As followers of Christ, Jesus’ mother and Mary Magdalene would have thought of one another as sisters in the Lord. This tradition has even carried over into modern times. Many people still call one another brother and sister, out of respect for the fact, that in God, we all have the same father. This passage was written in this way to highlight the change that took place in the relationship between the two, when Jesus uttered the words:

“Woman look upon your daughter” and to the disciple whom he loved “look upon your mother”.

Another serious flaw in this verse is calling Jesus mother the wife of Klopas. First, the word wife does not even appear in this passage, and there really aren’t any rules of grammar that would indicate that the concept of a wife would be understood. Second, klopas is not a proper name. Klopas (Strong’s G3832) means exchanges. It is actually the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew word achab (Strong’s H256) which supposedly means father’s brother, or friend of a father or kin of a brother or kin of a father. There is no English equivalent to this word. Basically in English this word would mean someone who is related in two separate ways. What we today might think of as someone who is adopted, or an in law.

As I said before verses written using ancient Greek grammar often look scrambled when compared to the same verse translated into English. A much more accurate translation of John 19:25 might be more like this.

“Standing, and near the pole of Jesus, was his mother and her sister. Mary, and Mary Magdalene who were related in two different ways. Jesus having seen his mother and the disciple whom he loved said to his mother, “Woman, look upon your child” and then he said to the disciple “Look upon your mother” and from that very hour on, the disciple thought of Mary as if she was her own mother.

I inserted the word mother after the word own because this is the word that would have been understood. Jesus told Mary, “look upon your mother.” Had Jesus told her, “look upon your house”, than the word house would have been understood.

Were that the case then translators would be correct in placing the word house after the word own. Jesus never said anything about giving his mother Mary a house. The entire conversation was about giving Mary Magdalene a mother.

The account found at John is not the only record of the crucifixion. All four gospels record this event, and each one list who was present, and none of them mention the presence of any men. All four highlight the fact that at Jesus execution there were women present. Three of the Gospels specifically say that Jesus’ mother Mary, and Mary Magdalene were there. None of the other women, in any of the passages are named.

According to the religions of Christianity there were at least three women named Mary present, with a possible total of six. I am going to prove to you now that the New Testament only mentions two women named Mary at Jesus’ execution. Jesus’ mother, and Mary Magdalene. And in fact, these two women, are the only two women named Mary, in the entire New Testament.

Mathew 27:55,56 says:

“Many women were there watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph.”

From this account some might conclude that Joseph’s name was included because he was present. I assure you that as originally recorded Joseph’s name was simply part of a short list of Mary’s children.

Mark 15:40 says:

“There were women watching. Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less and Joseph, and Salome.”

At this verse, most Churches say that Salome was present. However as originally recorded in Greek once again, Salome is simply part of the list of Mary’s children.

Luke 23:49 says:

“All of the women who knew him from Galilee, stood at a distance watching.”

The Mary in all of these verses who is called a sister of Mary Magdalene, is the same Mary that is called the Mother of Jesus, is the same Mary that is called the Mother of James the Less, and Joseph, and is the same Mary that is called the mother of James, and Joses, and Salome.

And although no men are ever mentioned as being at the crucifixion, in each and every English translation of these verses that I have ever seen, either inappropriate punctuation has been added, or in some cases, words have been added or slightly altered, in order to leave open the possibility that men might have been present as well.

As originally recorded in Greek, none of these verses leave open the possibility of men having been present. Had even so much as one man been present at Jesus execution the verses would have said that some people were standing at a distance watching. Not that some women were standing at a distance watching.

In order for Jesus to have told John to take care of his mother, John would have had to have been there. He was not. Everyone present at the crucifixion was female. The only two who were spoken of by name were, his mother Mary, and the disciple whom Jesus loved, Mary Magdalene. Both are named at three of the four gospel accounts. And nobody else is named.

It would be proper to call Mary, the mother of James, and Joseph, and Salome, because according to Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55,56, We are told that Jesus had sisters. We are also told that Two of his brothers were named James, and Joseph or Joses (I explained why Joseph was sometimes called Joses in part 6 of this series). Neither account list any of his sisters by name, however according to these verses we can conclude that one of his sisters was named Salome.

If you do any research into what I am telling you about Salome, you will find that the mythology surrounding her goes way beyond anything that you will find in any Bible.

According to the Bible, Salome was just the name of one of Jesus’ sisters. She is mentioned as a daughter of Mary, and said to have brought spices for embalming Jesus’ body. Nothing else is known about her. However at another account we are told that a man named Joseph came with a man named Nicodemus bringing the spices. In the previous video in this series I explained that the Joseph in these passages is the Husband of Mary, the father of Jesus, and the father of Salome.

After the crucifixion, Mark 16:9 says that Mary Magdalene was the first person that Jesus appeared to.

Some would argue that there was at least one more Mary spoken of in the New Testament. That Mary being the sister of Lazarus. At Luke 10:38-42 we are told:

It came to pass, as they went that he entered into a village and met a woman named Martha who received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary. Mary is the one which sat at Jesus’ feet, and listened to him speak. This made Martha upset because she was doing all of the serving by herself. Jesus said to her, “Martha Martha, you are concerned with many things, but only one thing is necessary, and Mary has chosen that thing. And I shall not take it away from her.

I have heard quite a few sermons about this incident. Most are based on the belief that Martha shouldn’t have cooked so many things to impress Jesus, but instead should have cooked just one thing, in order to be able to pay better attention to his teachings.

As recorded in the Bible, the “cooking too much stuff” theory makes no sense at all. What Jesus was telling Martha is that he and Mary were not concerned about eating food at that time. The one thing that Mary was concerned about, which is the only thing that is necessary above all others is, love.

The reason that Martha went directly to Jesus to complain about having to cook everything herself, was likely due to the fact that it was Jesus who dragged Mary away from her chores.

Other gospels speak about Jesus visiting with Mary and her family. At John 11:20,21 we are told that when Martha found out that Jesus was coming, she ran out to greet him, but that Mary stayed sitting in the house. In this account their brother Lazarus had died, and Jesus had come to resurrect him.

After meeting Jesus and talking with him, Martha immediately returned to Mary, and at verses 28 and 29, we are told that she went to Mary in private and told her, “The teacher is here and is calling for you. And when she heard this she immediately went to him.

Including the English words “in private” at this verse is significant. This Greek word lathra (Strong’s G2977) is rendered as secretly, in some translations. It could also be rendered as discretely. There would have to be a reason for Martha to speak privately, secretly, or discretely to Mary about Jesus’ desire to speak with her.

At John 11:2 we are told that it was Mary that anointed Jesus’ feet with oil, and wiped them off with her hair. Details about this event can be found at Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, Luke 10:38-42, and John 12:1-8. If you take the time to read these 4 accounts it is quite likely that you will be emotionally effected. She not only poured expensive oil on his feet, but also on his head, crying on his feet the entire time and wiping away her tears with her hair.

Theologians debate about whether or not these 4 accounts are of the same event, because each records different details. Whether they are or not, it is obvious that all four accounts are about Lazarus’ sister Mary. There is no denying that this Mary, is the same person as Mary Magdalene, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 8:1,2 indicates that Mary had been following Jesus for quite some time, and in fact had been possessed by seven demons prior to the accounts that are recorded in the Bible. As recorded, it seems very likely that Mary Magdalene was with Jesus from very early in his ministry.

If you are a spiritual person, then you likely recognize this simple truth that I am sharing with you for what it is. However, there is another group of people who love church doctrine, and they are going to demand that I explain every mistranslated verse in the Bible that is related to this subject.

With that in mind, I will share with you one more verse that has been intentionally mistranslate in such a way as to discredit any claims that Mary Magdaline and the disciple whom Jesus loved were one and the same. The original Greek version of this verse is nothing like what is avialable in any of the modern language Bibles currently available to mankind. This verse has been altered in such a way as to prove that Mary Magdalene could not possibly be the disciple whom Jesus loved.

At John 20:1-3 we are told:

On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away. So she ran to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have laid him.” So Peter and the other disciple went forth.”

As translated into English, this verse says that Mary Magdalene ran to the disciple whom Jesus loved. But in Greek this verse does not say that at all.

All 5 of the other verses about the disciple whom Jesus loved use the two Greek words “mathetes and agapeo” (Strong’s G3101 and G25) The verse at John 20:2 also uses the word, methetes, but it does not use the word agapeo, which means love. It instead uses the word phileo. (Strong’s G5368) This kind of love would be more like the feelings that we would have for a pal, best friend, or buddy.

The Greek word phileo is where we get the name of the city Philadelphia. That is why Philadelphia is referred to as the “City of Brotherly Love”. Phileo basically means preferred. It is something that a person can feel for a friend, or for things, such as money. Unlike phileo, agapeo is like our modern concept of love. The best description that I can think of for agapeo is natural instinctive love. However in the context of being used in the phrase “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” it signifies a romantic relationship.

Mary Magdalene did not run to Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved. She ran to Peter and Jesus’ best friend. The Disciple who was Jesus’ best friend at this verse is very likely Mary Magdalene’s brother Lazarus.

Earlier at John 11:1-3 Mary and Martha sent word to Jesus that Lazarus was sick.

“Lord! He whom you love is sick.”

By the time that Jesus arrived Lazarus had died, so Jesus brought him back to life. Most will be familiar with what happened next as recorded at John 11:35:

“Jesus wept.” And the Jews who witnessed it said, “look how much he loved him.”

The version of love that is used at these two verses is once again ephilei. The same kind of best friend love that is used at John 20:2. The disciple who ran to the tomb with Peter, was almost certainly Lazarus.

I am sure that Jesus was very fond of John and all of the rest of his disciples and apostles. Probably either word would be proper to describe the relationship that he had with many of his disciples. But the Book of John does not state that it was written by Jesus’ best friend or any other male friend. It clearly says that it was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Although the word disciple is used in our Bibles 268 times it is only spelled two ways. As disciple singular, and disciples plural.

In the Bible the Greek word which means disciple, is methetes. Methetes is spelled 13 different ways. I have looked at the spelling and usage of each occurrence of the word and cannot see any pattern related to the gender of the person or persons that are being called a disciple or disciples.

I am constantly warning my listeners to get out of religion. The cults of Christendom have spent the better part of 2,000 years concealing the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved. Mary Magdalene’s roll in the Bible narrative can not be overstated. If you add up all of the women named Mary that are actually Mary Magdalene, and add up all of the verses about the disciple whom Jesus loved, you would discover that she is specifically mentioned more times than nearly all of the other disciples and apostles in the entire New Testament.

Keep in mind that according to John 21:20-24 it was the disciple whom Jesus loved that wrote the Book that by tradition has come to be known as “The Gospel According To John”. That disciple, for a fact is Mary Magdalene. It was the woman that Jesus loved who wrote one of the most significant and detailed accounts of Jesus life.

The very first Bible book that I ever read was the Book of John. It was sometime around 1977. I was only about 15 years old at the time, but from that moment on, my life was changed forever. I instantly knew that I had found the truth. At the time I was a Catholic Altar Boy.

Over the many years that have passed since then, I have explored dozens of the religions of man, looking for anything I can find that more closely follows the teachings of Jesus. Thus far, I have not found anything that even remotely sounds like the simple truth that I just shared with you.

The reason why the Gospel of John is so unlike the Synoptic Gospels is because it isn’t the Gospel of John. It is for a fact the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. It should be obvious to everyone that a book written by Jesus’ girlfriend would stand out as unusual when compared to three historic accounts of his life recorded by three people who were not his girlfriends.

In the next video in this series, I will be revealing the true identity of Jesus. Earlier in this series I proved that Jesus was not Melchizedek. However, Jesus’ first appearance on Earth did not take place in 1st century Judea, but thousands of years earlier. Jesus’ true place in human history has not been spoken of for nearly 2,000 years, but the time is finally right, and we can all be there together when God finally shares this sacred secret with humanity. You do not want to miss the next video in this series.

The reason that I am finally being allowed to reveal the identity of Jesus to mankind, is because his adversary, Satan the devil is about to be revealed to mankind. And as Thessalonians 2:9 highlights:

“The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie”

Lord Satan will be doing things that no other human ruler has ever done. Finally, after thousands of years of mankind’s abysmal failure at self governance, all human governmental systems will seemingly start to function as the citizens of the Empire believe they should. The hierarchical system of resource management called the world economy will seemingly be rescued from the greedy fools that currently run it. All of mankind’s religions will finally seem to be able to work together to make the world a better place.

As this is happening everyone who has faithfully held out hope that civilization could somehow be made to work, will get down on bended knee to welcome back their chosen savior. The God of civilization. It will be a time of great confusion for mankind.

Nobody needs to hear my words in order to have everlasting life. My only purpose for being here, and providing this information is to bring comfort to those who are unwilling to worship the pathetic gods of this world. We don’t have to do this alone. We have one another. And soon we will all have the help of the Holy as well. As the Bible very clearly says at Joel 2:28 and Acts 2:17:

“Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your old men will dream dreams. Your young men will see visions.”

As powerful as mankind’s chosen ruler may seem, I promise you, that we will be far more powerful. Until then, I will do all that I can to keep you encouraged and informed about what is really going on. My assignment here is only temporary. Shortly after civilization’s savior makes his appearance, our savior, the true savior sent by God, his precious child, Jesus Christ will make his appearance.

All that we have to do in order to survive what is about to come upon this Earth, is stay out of their way. When the time comes for Satan’s citizens to kill one another off, we will all be able to safely watch from the sidelines. However, we cannot get involved. Anyone wishing to actively engage in making the world a better place, will, by default, have to go to war with those who seem to be making the world a worse place. Jesus will lead us all to everlasting life shortly after Lord Satan leads his followers off to their imminent destruction.

In conclusion I will read John 21:24 one more time as it would have been understood thousands of years ago when it was first written down.

“We know that this disciple is the one who testified to us about these things. It was she who wrote them down. And we know that her testimony is true.”

Among those who testified as to the truthfulness of the Gospel according to Mary Magdalene, would have been the writers of the other three gospels. Whoever they were.

If you don’t want to survive……….. don’t listen to me.

Melchizedek Part 7 Everything That We can Know About Jesus’ Family

Hello, and welcome to another video from the only source of information you need to not only survive the current apocalypse, but actually enjoy it, and today I’ll be presenting part seven of my Melchizedek video series. In this particular video I will be presenting much more information about Jesus’ mother, father, brothers, and sisters as it is recorded in the Bible. I promise you that what you will find out today, is like nothing that you have ever heard before.

If you haven’t already watched the previous videos in this series, I suggest that you do so before watching this video. The churches have been presenting lies about Jesus family for nearly 2,000 years. It is very important that you understand what they have done to God’s word the Bible through the translation process, as well as how the ministers of mankind’s religions have perpetuated their doctrines, through false stories about Jesus life that are not found anywhere within the pages of the Bible.

Most of the books of the New Testament speak very openly about Jesus’ brothers. The Gospels of Matthew, and Mark each list four of them by name in verses about his father, mother, brothers, and sisters. It would seem obvious to anyone reading the Bible that information about Jesus’ family life is important to the Bible narrative.

Another thing that is obvious is that each of the four brothers has the same name as four of Jesus most significant disciples. Three of those disciples are specifically listed as members of the group of twelve that are called apostles. The fourth brother, Joseph has the same name as a disciple that was nominated to be a replacement for Judas, after his death.

The churches in general refuse to acknowledge the significance of Jesus’ family members. Some religions worship his mother Mary as “The Mother Of God” who remained a virgin for her entire life. Other religions recognize Jesus brothers as his actual biological brothers, but declare them for the most part to be insignificant. None of the religions of man are willing to acknowledge the obvious connection that exists between Jesus’ brothers and Jesus’ apostles.

Fortunately for us, the doctrinal teachings of the various religions as to why Jesus brothers could not possibly have been the same men that are called Jesus’ apostles, are very easy to prove false. What is recorded in the Holy Scriptures is true. Jesus’ brothers, James, Judas, and Simon truly were three of the same men named James, Judas, and Simon, that were called apostles. Even Joseph who was not chosen to be part of the twelve went on to become one of the most significant figures in the entire Bible.

The last video in this series concluded by revealing that one of the two apostles named Judas could possibly be one of Jesus’ brothers. By the end of this video, I will conclusively prove that this is the case.

However the Bible also reveals that neither of the men named Judas was the son of Joseph. One is called the son of James. The other is called the son of Simon. For anyone who was raised in a so called “Christian” religion, this information might be difficult to deal with, which is why the churches of Christendom have put so much effort into concealing it.

There are multiple possible solutions as to why Judas the brother of Jesus would be called the son of someone other than Joseph. However, the most obvious and most likely reason for such a thing is that Mary had children by someone other than Joseph. Anyone reading the Bible with an open mind would be able to see this quite easily. It is only religious doctrine that keeps people from figuring this out.

Please be patient, and hear me out. What I am about to tell you is going to overturn every rule of conduct that the cults of man have set in place. There really isn’t any logical way around the fact that Mary had children by at least one man other than Joseph.

According to the social norms of civilization, woman who have sex with more than one man are wicked. Women who have children by more than one man are considered even more wicked. Hopefully, if you are here listening to this material, you understand that it is not the mother of Jesus who was wicked, but instead, the arbitrary, nonsensical, religious rules of civilization that are wicked.

Since the Bible clearly states that Judas, James, Simon, and Joseph were all brothers of Jesus, then we have to understand that they had to have all been children of Mary as well.

Those of us who live in the modern world know that selfishness is wrong, and yet, each and every one of us has been trained from infancy to believe that where romance, and human sexuality is concerned, selfishness is totally acceptable. In fact this false belief is so prevalent that sexual jealousy is considered a righteous emotion. This is almost understandable, but not quite. We have all been trained from infancy to believe that people are only allowed one life partner. Another well established social norm which supports this false belief is the fact that love is in such short supply that when we actually think that we have found love we automatically assume that we will never find it again. Our human emotions were not designed to function in an evil world devoid of love. To perceive someone as a threat to what we may consider to be our only source of love can be unbearable.

However, if we lived in a culture where everyone loved and respected everyone else, those same feelings of jealousy would never be experienced by anyone. Human beings were made to love everyone. That love would include the kind of love known as romance.

If we can accept that the father of Mary’s son Judas was someone other than Joseph, then there are going to be other things that we have to accept as well. There are quite a few verses about the twelve men that are called apostles, and each verse gives us more clues about the biological relationship that existed between each of the twelve and Jesus.

Each little bit of information about the apostles needs to be examine closely. It is as if God’s word the Bible left us just enough clues to solve this mystery, but not enough clues for the college trained theologians who are paid large amounts of money to do so. The fact that we are doing so today, is evidence that the end of civilization is near. The Cults of the Empire are about to be exposed in a way that they have never had to deal with before. Their grip on God’s flock is about to be substantially weakened. It is my hope that the information in my videos will help millions to find the strength that they need in order to separate themselves from Satan’s propaganda systems.

Since everyone knows that Judas Iscariot is the apostle who betrayed Jesus, not too many people would be willing to believe that he was the biological brother of Jesus. That being the case, it is probably best, if we simply ignore Judas Iscariot for now, and examine verses about the other apostle named Judas. We are going to have to create a list of facts about Judas, James, Simon, and Joseph, before we can determine how they were related to Jesus, as well as how they were related to one another. As we compare this information we will also be able to figure out which of the brothers of Jesus were also his apostles.

At acts 15:22 this son of James named Judas is called Judas Barsabbas. At Acts 1:23 Joseph, one of Jesus other brothers is call Joseph Barsabbas. At this point most people automatically decide that Joseph and Judas were both sons of a man named James Barsabbas. However as I already stated, in the previous video, Jesus’ brother Joseph was named after his father Joseph.

You should now be asking yourself: “How can Jesus have a brother named Judas Barsabbas who is a son of James, while also having a brother named Joseph Barsabbas who is a son of Joseph?” Without a doubt we can conclude that the name of Judas’ father had to have been James Barsabbas. We can also state without hesitation that the father of Joseph Jr. was named Joseph Barsabbas.

The doctrinal teaching of every so called “Christian” religion is that Joseph and Judas were in fact both sons of a man named James Barsabbas. It is this understanding that is the basis of the doctrinal teaching that Jesus’ biological brothers could not possibly be his apostles. This teaching is false, and does not have the support of the Holy Scriptures. As you are about to find out the Bible clearly explains how Judas and Joseph were able to both be named Barsabbas while having two different fathers.

Since Judas and Joseph are both called Barsabbas it is obvious that this is an actual last name. Barsabbas is not a Greek word, and it wouldn’t be very useful as a nickname. Calling these two men, Bar Sabbas which, means sons of Sabbas would not be logical. There is no one in the Bible named Sabbas.

Barsabbas when translated means son of the will, as in “the will of God”. At this point a pattern is starting to reveal itself that will allow us to make a connection between the Joseph nicknamed Justus, but called Barsabbas at Acts 1:23, and this Judas that is not Judas Iscariot, who is also called Barsabbas.

Every verse about Judas Iscariot makes it clear that he is the one who betrayed Jesus. It is obvious that this was done to distinguish Judas Iscariot from the other apostle named Judas, and Jesus’ brother named Judas. However, there really aren’t any Bible verses that make such a distinction between Jesus’ brother Judas and Jesus’ apostle Judas. It should be obvious to anyone reading the Bible with an open mind that Jesus’ brother named Judas, and Jesus’ loyal apostle named Judas are both the same individual.

The Book of Jude starts off by introducing the writer. “Jude a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James.”

The writer of the book of Jude was Judas the brother and apostle of Jesus. In the original Greek language the spelling of the writer’s name is actually identical to the spelling of the names of both apostles. Calling the Book “The Epistle Of Jude” is done by tradition. Apparently so as to not confuse Christians into thinking that the book was written by Judas Iscariot.

The apostle Judas started his book in this way for our benefit. He was not making a distinction between himself and the apostle who betrayed Jesus. The contents make that obvious. He simply wanted to leave a written record for all time, that he and James were the same two brothers of Jesus written about at Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55,56.

The book of James introduces it’s author this way:

“James a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations.”

I don’t really know of anything recorded in the Book of James that we can use to confirm who the writer was. The New Testament records that there were three individuals named James, and all three were spoken of as important figures in the first century congregation.

In The New Testament, the English name James is actually rendered from the Greek name Iakobos which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word Iakob. Iakob is usually translated as Jacob, but Iakobos is usually translated as James. This way of rendering the two names is misleading. I am certain that this was done by the translators to be intentionally misleading. Both versions are obviously the same name. Much as Jacob and Jake are the same name in English. Iakob, Iakobau, and Iakobos, when properly translated into English should all be rendered as Jacob. Rendering any of these ancient names as James is inappropriate, and misleading. However, in order to keep from confusing my listeners, I will adhere to the traditional rendering of Iakobau, by referring to all three as James.

According to Jesus’ genealogy as found at Matthew 1:16 Joseph’s father was named Iakob, which is the Hebrew version of the Greek name Iakabos. Later in the Bible this name appears in yet a different form. Iakabou. The Jacob, or James that was Joseph’s father would have been Jesus’ grandfather. In our English translations Joseph’s father is usually listed as Jacob, although a few translations do render his name as James. The Epistle of James would be more accurately represented if it were called the Epistle of Jacob.

Rendering the name of Jesus grandfather as Jacob while rendering the name of Jesus’ brother as James is very misleading. If all that we had to go by was an English translation of the Bible. We would never be able to figure out that Jesus’ brother was named after Jesus’ grandfather.

At this point we know that Jesus had at least four brothers, and at least two sisters. We now know that Joseph was a son of Mary and Joseph. We also know that Judas was a son of Mary by a man other than Joseph, but we really don’t know for certain if the remaining siblings were children of Mary and Joseph, or once again children of Mary by someone other than Joseph.

Since it is almost certain that Mary’s husband, Joseph, must have been the father of Mary’s son, little Joseph, and that little Joseph had the last name of Barsabbas, we can assume that Big Joseph also had the last name of Barsabbas. We are now confronted with a truth that may be uncomfortable for the vast majority of people that consider themselves to be Christians. Jesus had a last name. Keep in mind that the Bible clearly states that although Jesus was the son of God, his neighbors wouldn’t acknowledge it. As Luke 3:23 says:

“When Jesus was about 30 years old he began his ministry. Being, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph”

Since people would have known that Joseph’s last name was Barsabbas, and they believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, then, there is no getting around the fact that Jesus’ last name would have been Barsabbas. This information is actually quite important.

When Jesus was brought before Pilate on the day of his execution, it was a Great Passover. According to the Law of Moses, two rams had to be brought before the priest, and both had to be without flaw, as close to identical to one another as possible. One was to be executed, and the other was to be exiled into the wilderness. In English we call the one that was set free a scapegoat.

By the first century, according to the Bible, the Jews were no longer performing this sacrifice using goats alone. For quite some time they had been using humans for their Passover rituals. As Matthew 27:15 says:

“It had been the custom of the governor at the festival to release to the crowd a prisoner of their choosing”

Most people are familiar with the account. Pilate offers the people a choice of which prisoner to release, and which prisoner to sacrifice. With one voice the crowd yells out Barabbas. However, very few people know the first name of Barabbas, even though it is plainly revealed at Matthew 27:16:

“At that time they had a well known prisoner who’s name was Jesus Barabbas.”

If you read this verse from an English translation of the Bible you will likely find that the name Jesus has been left out at this verse. I checked this verse in thirty different versions of the Bible, and only found it in three. That’s one out of ten.

The name Jesus Barabbas is found in every ancient Greek version of this verse that has ever been discovered. The tradition of removing it did not begin until the Bible was translated into Latin by the Catholic church. I did a bit of research to see why this was done, and although the translators are all obviously aware that the first name of Barabbas was Jesus, they claim that it would be wrong to let Barabbas have such a glorious first name. The original Bible writers obviously believed that it was an important part of the story that had to be recorded in order for us to be able to understand what was actually going on during the Passover festival.

Please think about what I am telling you. The Demonic cults of Christianity have not only spent the last two thousand years hiding the last name of Jesus from humanity, but they also spent that time hiding the first name of Barabbas. The only possible explanation for doing such a thing would be to conceal the fact that, in Jesus’ day, the Jewish Passover Festival had become nothing more than an excuse for ritual human sacrifice. While at the same time concealing the fact that in God’s eyes, according to these verses the execution of criminals can be defined as ritual human sacrifice.

According to many verses that are found throughout the Old Testament, the nation of Israel had already been sacrificing their citizens as part of their worship for a very long time. Psalms 106:37 records it this way:

“The people were sacrificing their sons and daughters to demons.”

It is safe to assume that the Jews, as a whole, had been engaged in ritual human sacrifices long before the Romans ever arrived in Judea. And the Jews were not the only nation of people doing this. Even in our day, around the world, thousands are being sacrificed to Lord Satan, the god of civilization. In the Creator’s eyes all unnatural deaths are nothing more than ritual human sacrifice. Whether it be war deaths, criminal executions, or any other human death that takes place in support of Civilization’s infrastructure. Activities such as transportation, construction, and routine maintenance, usually take in accidental death rates as projected acceptable losses. To the god of civilization and his worshipers, human death tolls amount to nothing more than the cost of doing business.

To the local government of Judea, and the Roman empire Jesus’ death was necessary in order to maintain the peace. To those in charge, the sacrifice of Jesus’ life would have been nothing more than an official entry, on some official government document, carefully recorded, filed away, and never again brought out into the light of day to be read by anyone, ever again.

When Pilate stood those two men before the crowd, he was offering them the choice of what would have seemed like two nearly identical victims. Jesus Barabbas, and Jesus Barsabbas. In ancient Greek Iesoun Barabban(Strong’s G912) and Iesoun Barsabban.(Strong’s G923) A difference of only a single letter of the Greek alphabet.

The epistle of Jude (actually Judas) introduces it’s writer as Jude the brother of James. Jesus had two apostles named James, but in most verses a distinction is made between the two. By process of elimination we have to figure out which is which. At Matthew 10:2,3, the way that the two are described so as to distinguish between them, is by naming their fathers. One of the two is called the son of Zebedee, and the other is called the son of Alphaeus.

It is at this point that we can start understanding the social structure of the family of Jesus. As I have been reminding you throughout this video, some names in the Bible are first names. Some are last names. And some are nick names. And because of this, it is not unusual for Bible characters to have multiple names. It is also true that more than one person can have the same name. This is especially true of the small group of men that in popular culture have come to be known as the apostles.

Making this mystery even more difficult to solve is the linguistic history of the nation that Jesus was born into. Just 700 years prior to the first century Israel had been an independent nation. It’s language in the beginning was Hebrew. However, when God allowed the Babylonians to conquer the nation and carry it’s people off into exile, they were forced to learn the language of the Babylonians. Not too long after that the Persians conquered Babylon. Greece conquered Persia, and by Jesus’ day Greece had been conquered by the Romans. Each of these cultures had introduced a different language, and bits and pieces of all of those languages were part of the language that Jesus and his apostles spoke.

Many churches teach that Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic. This is not true. What he actually spoke was for the most part Greek, combined with a mixture of all of the languages of all of the nations involved in the history of first century Judea. Aramaic has also been called Chaldean, which was the language of the Babylonians. To say that Jesus spoke Aramaic or Chaldean, is just a polite way of saying that he spoke Babylonian. In our day, the modern language that we call Hebrew, is actually much closer to Babylonian than it is to the Hebrew language of men like Abraham.

Every ancient language New Testament document ever found has been linguistically similar to every other ancient language New Testament document. The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin words that are used in one text are always recorded in the same unique language from one ancient document to the next. However those Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin words are usually nouns, with the vast majority of each text being primarily Greek. In other words in verses where Jesus actually used an Aramaic noun, it is always rendered in Aramaic in every ancient document of that bit of text. I say this to expose a teaching of some religions that the Catholic Church rounded up and destroyed all of the original Hebrew or Aramaic language versions of the New Testament, and replaced them with Greek versions of the New Testament. If that were the case we would have to wonder why they would convert all of those ancient books into Greek and yet leave the same Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin words in the same places in every copy?

Most if not all of the men, women, disciples, apostles, sisters, and brothers of Jesus had multiple names in multiple languages, like Simon who was sometimes called Peter, which is based on the Greek word meaning rock, but sometimes called Cephas, which is based on the Babylonian word meaning rock.

Even though the Bible records enough information to know who is who, in many instances, it seemingly does not. To make matters even worse, many modern language translations do not consistently use the same spellings for the modern language versions of those names. And in many cases different names of different people are translated into the same English name.

The only reason that I am explaining this to you is so that you can have confidence in what I am about to tell you. As confusing and often times misleading as our modern language translations of the Bible can be, I have done my due diligence. I am reasonably certain that I am aware of all of the things that I have to look out for. I have been careful not to allow myself to use the information available in support of some kind of personal agenda or belief.

In my struggle to determine who is who in the Bible I have researched what others have determined, and used that information as a reference. However, every time that I do so, I see things that are obviously inaccurate because of preconceived unscriptural religious doctrines that are obviously false. As an example in my own personal reading of the Bible I have been able to determine that for a fact, there are only two women named Mary in the entire New Testament. It is obvious that there are only two women named Mary. There is no possibility that any of the verses about a woman or women named Mary are about some third woman named Mary. The churches claim that there are six. Those claims are easily proven to be false.

As obvious as it is that there are only two women named Mary, the churches are forced by religious doctrine to make those two, into more than two. If the churches were to acknowledge the actual identities of all of those Marys, by default, they would be forced to acknowledge the fact that Mary had quite a few children by men other than Joseph.

At least one of the men named James in the passages that we are discussing is without a doubt Jesus’ brother. I have already proven conclusively that this is the case. At this point we have to exhaust every other possibility before declaring James to be a child of Mary by yet another man other than Joseph. Two thousand years of Christian propaganda is not something that I want to take a stand against without making sure that I have not overlooked something. I do not want to make bold declarations about the Bible without first confirming that I have the support of the Bible.

The first father, Zebedee is mentioned twelve times in the New Testament. The meaning of his name does not seem pertinent to his character or any of the situations involving him. In other words his name does not mean father of two boys, or fisherman, or anything like that. There is at least one other man from the Old Testament that had the same name in Hebrew, but he was not a major character in any significant Bible stories. I am comfortable stating that for a fact Zebedee was a real person and his name was the one that he was born with. Each of the twelve times that he is mentioned, reference is made to his two sons James and John. Never once is he said to be the father of any other apostles. Zebedee is definitely not Joseph.

The second father is named Alphaeus. This is not a proper name. It is a title. The churches say that it is a proper name and that it means changing, when there really isn’t anything to support that assumption linguistically. This name is made up of the Greek letter alpha combined with a few other Greek letters. In Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance this name is (Strong’s G256) and is rendered as Halphaiou. The Hebrew word which means changing is cheleph. (Strong’s H2501) Although the Greek word Halphaiou and Cheleph may seem similar, at least in spelling, so is the Greek word alpha. (Strong’s G1) Since alphaeus is a New Testament word and is in recorded in the Greek language it does not make sense to attempt to force this Greek title to have a Hebrew origin.

Four times in the Book of Revelation God is called the Alpha and the Omega, which were the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Revelation also calls God the first and the last. The beginning and the end. Having the title of Alphaeus would be like calling someone the alpha male in our modern society. Just as it is used to mean the first one in Revelation, it also means the first one when speaking of the father of James.

Several Latin names are formed in this way. At Luke 2:1 we are told that Caesar Augustus issued a decree to take a census. In Latin August means exalted. Augustus means exalted one. His family name was Octavius meaning eighth one. Augustus Caesar is the reason that the eighth month on our calendar is named August. Augustus was an honorary title given to him later in life. For a fact Alphaeus is the Latin title meaning first one. This is definitely a title, and not a proper name.

The Latin title of alphaeus would be very similar in meaning to the Hebrew word iysh. (Strong’s H376) which means male tribal leader. As I said in part 6 of this series, iysh is the bases for the name of David’s father Yishay (Strong’s H3448) The name which is usually transliterated as Jesse.

As soon as I figured this out, I automatically began to think that the alphaeus might possibly be Joseph, the father of Jesus. However there is another person mentioned in the Bible who’s roll in the family would have outranked Joseph’s and been more worthy of the title of alphaeus. As you are about to find out, Joseph was not the male tribal leader of his tribe.

Mark 2:14 says that the alphaeus was also the father of another disciple named Levi. Levi is one of the names of the disciple who later became Matthew.

The verses that allow us to identify these two men named James reveal to us for a certainty that one of the men named James was the brother of Levi, and the other man named James was the brother of John. So, no matter which one of these men was the brother of Jesus, we can know that Jesus had at least one more named brother. That brother being either John or Levi.

The evidence is overwhelming that The alphaeus James Barsabbas, the father of Jesus’ two brothers, James and Levi was in fact Jesus’ grandfather James. This is not a joke, or an effort on my part to shock you. Mary had children by Joseph, but she also had children by Joseph’s father James. That is why James the son of James, is also called James the son of the alphaeus. It is also why he is called James the Less. At the time, Jesus’ grandfather James would have been the oldest surviving parent of Jesus’ extended family. That is why he is referred to in several verses as the alphaeus.

All Christian religions teach that there are five men in the New Testament named James. They base this teaching on the many titles given to the three men that are named James. Jesus brother is called The son of the alphaeus, because alphaeus means male tribal leader. Joseph’s father according to natural law would have been the recognized family head of Jesus’ family. Since Jesus’ grandfather and Jesus brother were both named James, it only makes sense that his brother be called James the Less. In ancient Greek, calling someone the less would have nothing to do with their size, or age, or significance, as the Theologians claim. James the less in Greek means the same thing as James Jr. in English.

Since James Alphaeus was the father of Joseph, it is likely that Joseph was not James first born son. Joseph probably had an older brother named James. It is possible that James Sr. had two sons named James, but since there is no brother of Joseph with that name mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, it is very likely that either Joseph’s father had broken from tradition and not named his first born son James, or that he did in fact have two sons named James, or that his oldest son James had died. I am only telling you this because I want to make sure that you have all of the information that is available on this topic.

Keep in mind that in the ancient past mankind lived in tribes, and the kinds of behaviors that we have come to accept as normal have not always been considered normal. As civilization has been working to exterminate everyone who refuses to live according to it’s demon inspired standards, millions of people living like Jesus and his family have been hunted down and driven to extinction. Only those who have been willing to reject their natural instincts and conform to civilization’s unnatural standards have been allowed to survive.

In part three of this series, I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Melchizedek was Canaan the son of Noah. According to the Bible, even though Canaan was called the son of Ham, his biological father was actually Ham’s father, Noah. It only makes sense that Jesus’ family live in a manner similar to that of Melchizedek’s family. Melchizedek was the rightful king over the promised land, just as Jesus is now our rightful king.

Even though we now know that James the son of the male tribal leader James Barsabbas, was the brother of Jesus, we still need to investigate whether or not James the son of Zebedee was the brother of Jesus as well. As you are about to find out, he was. Jesus’ mother Mary is specifically called the mother of the sons of Zebedee at Matthew 27:55,56.

“Many women were there watching from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”

Every gospel account says that only women were present at the execution of Jesus. Three of the gospels specifically name two of the women who were there, without naming any of the other women. All three accounts state that Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Jesus were there watching. This account at Matthew is no different than the other two.

Even though there are only two named women at this verse the Churches always present them as three in order to conceal the fact that Mary was the mother of children by yet another man, other than Joseph. All of Christendom’s religions claim that the mother of Zebedee’s children is a third woman.

As written in Greek this verse is not about three women, it is about two. The Bible specifically lists both James and Joseph as brothers of Jesus at two separate passages. The mother of James and Joseph in this account is obviously the mother of Jesus, but also obviously the mother of the children of Zebedee. According to Greek grammar Mary the mother of James, Mary the mother of Joseph, and Mary the mother of Zebedee’s children, are all the same woman. It is only religious doctrine that demands that they be two. Linguistically there is nothing written in this passage that would suggest that the mother of Zebedee’s children was a distinct individual.

The verses at Mark 2:14 which state that the alphaeus was also the father of the apostle named Levi, are very compelling evidence that Levi was also a son of Mary. The Bible records two conflicting genealogies for Jesus. Seemingly one of the genealogies traces Jesus’ family through the line of Joseph, while the other traces Jesus family through the line of his mother Mary.

Joseph’s lineage as found at Matthew 1:1-17 records that his father James was a member of the tribe of Judah. Most of his ancestors through this lineage are spoken of in the Old Testament. We know that each named ancestor that can be identified was part of the Tribe of Judah, or an ancestor of the Tribe of Judah. David and each of his descendants in the line of Kings is listed as part of Joseph’s lineage. In fact, as recorded, Jesus’ grandfather James as well as his father Joseph, would have likely been the legitimate rulers of Judea had the nation of Israel not been conquered by Babylon 700 years earlier.

Mary on the other hand was from the tribe of Levi. According to the law, All priest of Israel had to be members of the tribe of Levi, and had to be married to women who were members of the tribe of Levi. No Levite could ever be a king over Israel. No member of the tribe of Judah could ever be a priest of Israel.

Theologians state emphatically that both of Jesus’ lineages are through the Line of Judah because, as our rightful King Jesus had to have descended from Judah. But if you examine both lineages with an open mind you will find that this claim isn’t true. Stay with me and I’ll show you why.

Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, meaning that biologically he could not make any claims based on Joseph’s lineage. Don’t let this worry you. Jesus is in fact our rightful king, just as Melchizedek was the rightful king of the promised land in his day.

The second lineage can be found at Luke 3:23-38. This lineage starts with Adam, and works it’s way through Judah all the way through to Nathan, the son of King David, but then it diverges. This lineage also ends with Joseph. However the passage clearly states that Joseph was only imagined to be the father of Jesus. As originally recorded in the Gospel of Luke, this lineage seemingly is through Jesus’ mother Mary.

Before I go any further I need to let you know that there is another theory out there. Over the centuries some theologians have taken the stand that Joseph was adopted, and that one of the lineages is through Joseph’s biological father, and the other is through his adoptive father. There isn’t any kind of linguistic argument against this theory, but please take a moment to think about this:

Quite obviously God knew that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. It would not make any sense for God to ensure that a written record of Joseph’s lineage be included in his word the Bible, while completely omitting any reference to the actual lineage of Jesus. To imagine that God would record two different lineages for Joseph, who was not Jesus’ father, while completely omitting a lineage for Jesus would make even less sense.

If we look at the conclusion of Joseph’s genealogy as recorded at Matthew 1:16 it is obvious that this is Joseph’s lineage and that the only reason that Joseph’s lineage is recorded is because of public perception.

“And James begot Joseph, who was the man of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus.”

If you notice Matthew’s lineage ends with Joseph. It does not end with Jesus. This for a fact is Joseph’s lineage. The verse specifically states that Joseph’s only connection to Jesus is the fact that he was in a relationship with Jesus’ mother Mary at the time of Jesus’ birth.

The lineage at Luke was recorded in a different way, it starts by stating at Luke 3:23:

“Jesus was thirty years old when he began his ministry, being the son as was imagined of Joseph, the son of Heli.”

At this passage it is once again made clear that Joseph was only imagined to be the father of Jesus. However it continues straight into the lineage of Jesus as if this is Jesus actual lineage. Which it is, because it is his mother’s lineage. Calling Joseph the son of Mary’s father would make perfect sense in first century Judea. At Jesus’ birth, Joseph in fact would become the son of Mary’s father according to indigenous tribal law.

There is an argument against this theory based on the fact that the ancient Greeks had a word that means the same thing as our modern English concept of son-in-law. That being the case the verse according to Christian Theologians should say:

“Jesus was thirty years old when he began his ministry, being the son as was imagined of Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli.”

This teaching, just like most of the others that I have pointed out in this video, is once again based on the false belief that Joseph and Mary were in a legally binding monogamous relationship. Hopefully by now you understand that they were not.

Heli as the biological grandfather of Jesus, would have become the father of Joseph at Jesus’ birth. I’m not making this up. In part 8 of this series, I will be showing you from the New Testament, that even Jesus used the word mother when speaking of someone that we in the modern world would think of as a mother-in-law. He also very overtly used the word daughter in a passage which was very obviously about someone that we living in the modern world would recognize as a daughter-in-law. Please remember to watch the next video in this series.

Calling Joseph the son of Heli, when he was obviously Mary’s father would have been totally appropriate in first century Judea. The lineage recorded in the Gospel of Luke for a fact is Jesus’ lineage through his mother Mary.

Now that I’ve explained all of this, I’ll get back to explaining how Levi’s name change might explain the divergence of Mary’s family from the line of Judah, to the line of Levi.

There is nothing recorded in the Old Testament about Mary’s ancestor Nathan, other than the fact that he was born. According to the Gospel of Luke, Nathan’s son was named Mattatha, but that information was not recorded in the Old Testament. The Old Testament does not state that Nathan died childless, it simply does not record anything about Nathan’s family.

Mattatha is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Mattathayah. (Strong’s H4993) According to the Old Testament, there was a man named Mattathayah who was the right age, at the right time to be the son of Nathan, however he was not in the line of Judah, but instead a member of the tribe of Levi. He is specifically called the son of Shallum the Korahite.

If this particular Mattatha really was a son of Nathan, it would have had to have been by adoption. There is absolutely nothing recorded in the Old Testament about Nathan’s son Mattathayah, so this is just speculation. Nathan and Shallum may very well have both had children named Mattatha at the same time, however we can confirm that Mary was a member of the tribe of Levi, and Luke’s lineage which definitely originated with Judah, does seem to shift to the tribe of Levi with the introduction of Mattatha.

Leui (Strong’s G3017) is a Greek transliteration of Leviy (Strong’s H3878) Both words are rendered as Levi in our English translations of the Bible. According to the Bible Mary was very obviously a member of the Tribe of Levi. Luke’s lineage includes two ancestors named Levi. None of Joseph’s ancestors in the line of Kings was named Levi.

All Christian religions recognize that the apostle named Levi was also called Matthew. There is no denying it. In the earliest stories of the Gospel he is always referred to as Levi. In the later stories he is always called Matthew. The gospel of Matthew always refers to him as Matthew. It is likely that Jesus started calling him Matthew, after he began his ministry. Levi’s name change is very likely based on the odd arrangement of Jesus’ genealogy as recorded in the Gospel of Luke.

The story of Mary visiting Elizabeth once again is going to be an important clue as to why Levi’s name was changed to Matthew. Luke 1:26 begins by telling us:

“And behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.”

The word that is translated as our English word cousin is actually syngenis (Strong’s G4773) which means relative, but does not necessarily mean cousin. As used in our Bibles the Greek word syngenis is always used to distinguish citizens of the nation of Israel, according to their tribes.

Even though the Bible never states directly what tribe Mary was from we can know from Luke 1:26 that she had to have been from the tribe of John The Baptist’s parents Zachariah and Elizabeth. Luke 1:5 clearly states:

“In the time of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah. His wife Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron.”

According to the definition of the Greek word syngenis there is no getting around the fact that Mary, Zachariah, and Elizabeth were all from the same family. At the very least, they were all from the same tribe. It is an undeniable fact that the division of Abijah was part of the tribe of Levi, and that the family of Aaron was part of the tribe of Levi as well. Zechariah served as a priest at the temple, and according to law, that privilege was only assigned to members of the tribe of Levi who were married to women from the tribe of Levi. Mary the mother of Jesus had to have been from the tribe of Levi. There is no way around this very basic fact.

If we examine the lineage found at Luke 3:23-38 there is a pattern that would seem to suggest why the apostle Levi’s name was changed to Matthew. Mary’s great grandfather was named Levi. Twenty seven generations earlier she had another ancestor named Levi.

Even more curious than that would be that both of those men named Levi had sons named Matthat. A slight variance of the name of the son of Nathan.

What that means in modern English is that there are two verses in Mary’s lineage as found in the Gospel of Luke that specifically say “Matthew son of Levi”.

Levi changed his name to Matthew, (Strong’s G3156) which is the Greek transliteration of Mattathat, or Matthat. Mattathat, Matthat, Mattathayah and Maththaios are simply the Hebrew and Greek versions of the same exact name, meaning “Gift of Yah”. It would seem that Levi’s name change to Matthew was based on Nathan’s son Mattathat transitioning from the tribe of Judah, to the tribe of Levi. I am certain that Mary’s lineage transitioned from the tribe of Judah to the tribe of Levi because of this adoption. Jesus changed his brother’s name from Levi to Matthew for a reason.

I hope that you are able to keep all of this straight in your heads. Hopefully as I continue, you are going to start asking yourselves why you didn’t figure this all out on your own. A more important question might be, how did an undeducated, long haired, worthless, old man, who hasn’t been to church in eighteen years figured all of this out. Theologians have had 2,000 years to carefully study each and every word of the Bible in order to unlock it’s secrets but as of today’s date have had no success whatsoever.

Please know this. Christianity, just like all of the other religions of man, has been weighed in the balance, and found wanting. Our father will not be sharing any spiritual insight with any of the representatives of those filthy cults. Just as God gave over King Belshazzar’s kingdom to the Persians, so God is now giving over Christendom’s kingdom to us. But only if you are willing to walk away from the nonsense of religion and take hold of the Kingdom that God is offering.

I am absolutely certain that both men named James were brothers of Jesus. James the son of the alphaeus also known as James The Less, more properly rendered into English as James Jr, would have been a son of Mary by Joseph’s father James. James the son of Zebedee would have been his brother due to the fact that Mary is specifically called the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Since Judas was also a son of James, he and James Jr. would have been brothers. Since both Levi and James Jr. were both called sons of the alphaeus, Levi would also have been a brother of Jesus. Hopefully by now, you can understand just how important Jesus’ family was. Not just to Jesus, but to the early work of evangelizing and organizing the earliest congregations of those who followed the teachings of Jesus.

At Jesus’ death, entombment, body preparation, and resurrection, many people are said to be present. However, only a select few are identified by name. The others are only mentioned in passing. All four gospel accounts record parts of these events. All say that a man named Joseph of Arimathea claimed Jesus’ body from Pilot, and provided the tomb for his burial. At the preparation and burial all four accounts mention the same three people. Joseph of Arimathaea, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Jesus. The only other person mentioned by name is Nicodemus who brought spices for embalming, and helped Joseph place Jesus’ body in the Tomb.

The Churches have intentionally hidden the true identities of each of the people mentioned in each of these accounts. In particular they have seriously muddled the identity of his mother. Most churches teach that there were at least three women named Mary at all of the major events in Jesus execution, burial, and resurrection. Some teach that there were as many as six women named Mary involved. There were only two. Mary Magdalene and Jesus mother.

One means of concealing the truth at the disposal of the Churches is the placement of modern language punctuation, where it does not belong according to the original Greek language text. In each verse about Jesus’ mother Mary, a distinction is made between her and Mary Magdalene by naming her children. In some verses she is called the mother of James, or the mother of Judas, or the mother of Simon, or the mother of Joses.

Obviously according to Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55,56 all of these women would be the same woman, because all of the children named are specifically called Jesus’ brothers.

Even though the churches want us to believe that Jesus’ mother would never have had children by other men, and that Jesus would never approve of such a thing, the Bible makes it quite clear that in fact Mary had quite a few children with men other than Joseph and all were spoken of as important disciples of Jesus, including Joseph, Mary, and several of the fathers of Mary’s other children. Quite a few were appointed as Apostles and given the extraordinary ability to perform miracles.

One other child of Mary is spoken of at Mark 15:40:

“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James the younger, and of Joseph and Salome.”

This is not the only verse that says that Mary had a daughter named Salome. Mark 16:1 mentions her as well.

“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Salome brought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.”

Once again, as presented in our modern language translations of the Bible, Salome is made to appear as if she is present, or as if this Mary is someone other than Jesus’ mother, but in the original language texts, once again that is not the case at all. Salome is simply part of yet another list of Mary’s children. Meaning that Salome was one of the sisters of Jesus mentioned at Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55,56.

Both times that Salome is mentioned it is right after the phrase “Mary, the mother of”. Theologians have had nearly two thousand years to figure out this very basic, easy to understand fact. Mary is called the mother of Salome twice. Two other verses say that Jesus had sisters. A child reading these verses could figure this out.

Since all three of the people present at the burial of Jesus and the preparation of his body are named, we can be certain that all three were very close family members. One of the most significant attendees, as I said earlier, was Joseph of Arimathea who claimed Jesus body, and provided the tomb where his body was originally placed.

The churches have been describing him as Joseph of Arimathea for nearly two thousand years without once revealing what Arimathea means.

The Greek word Arimathea (Strong’s G707) is a transliteration of the Hebrew word Ramah. (Strong’s H7414) I knew as I read the account of Jesus’ death, and burial, that the only person that could make a legal claim for Jesus’ body, would be his next of kin. It was obvious to me as it should be to anyone reading the account that Joseph’ had to have been Jesus’ father. Placing Jesus in Joseph’s family tomb was also a dead giveaway. However, I also knew that Jesus’ father was living in Nazareth of Galilee at the time of Jesus birth.

If you look at a map of the Holy Land, it is obvious that Nazareth is hundreds of miles away from Ramah. I obviously was not going to simply trust a map produced by some church, but at the same time the distance between the two seemed too great to allow Nazareth and Ramah to be the same place.

I did everything that I could to try to figure out directly from the Bible where these two cities actually were, but eventually gave up. Not because I think that it is impossible to know, but because it would require that I first figure out where every other city mentioned in the bible was. A task that would take decades of work. Most of the locations on Holy Land maps are there by tradition, and have very little to do with archaeology or the descriptions that are recorded in the Bible.

Even though it is difficult to know what this verse is about Matthew 2:18 gives the explanation in a way that is easy to understand. We are told that after Jesus was born, wise men were able to locate him by following a star. Herod told these wise me to report back to him as soon as they found the child. When they found him, he was in Bethlehem. However, before they can report back to Herod, they are warned in a dream, not to do so. At the same time Joseph is also warned in a dream to flee to Egypt, because Herod is intent on killing Jesus. And as the story goes, Herod orders that all male children in Bethlehem, younger than two years old be killed. Mathew 2:18 says that these events are the fulfillment of the prophecy found at Jeremiah 31:15.

“A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation. Rachel is weeping for her children, and she refuses to be comforted because her children are no more.”

At this verse the Bible clearly associates Herod’s attempt to kill Jesus with Arimathea. No matter how many conflicting Holy Land Maps are produced. No matter how much effort the churches put into disassociating Jesus’ father from Joseph of Arimathea. There is no denying that Joseph of Ramah, Jesus’ father was Joseph of Arimathea. This really is the only explanation that makes any sense. Jesus’ body was claimed by Joseph, and was wrapped in cloth, and laid in Joseph’s tomb, because Jesus was Joseph’s son.

There is no denying that Jesus grew up in a large family. Most religions are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge this. I know that I have never heard a preacher, priest, or elder ever speak on the subject. Not even once.

For a fact there is absolutely nothing available anywhere online about Mary having children by any man other than Joseph. But just knowing that she did, and that Joseph seemingly did not object, leaves open the possibility that Joseph also had children by other women. In fact all of the men Mary had children by, as well as all of the women that Joseph had children by, probably had children independently of Joseph and Mary as well, and all would have been considered part of Jesus’ extended family or tribe. The tribe of James, the patriarch of Jesus’ family would have been very large indeed.

Many of the verses in the Bible refer to Jesus’ inner circle as the twelve. However, at times the twelve are simply referred to as the brothers. As I said earlier, there are quite a few verses that seemingly use the word brother figuratively, but linguistically the ancient Greek word that we render as brother would still primarily mean biological brother.

In verses where the Bible lists the twelve apostles by name, James, and Judas, are always on the list. Both of these men are specifically called the biological brothers of Jesus.

James and Levi are both called sons of the alphaeus, meaning that Levi is very likely also one of the biological brothers of Jesus.

Also on every list are the sons of Zebedee, John and James. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is specifically called the mother of Zebedee’s children.

Another one of the brothers of Jesus mentioned at Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55,56 is called Simon. Jesus had two apostles named Simon. Simon Peter, and Simon the zealot. What that means is that it is very likely that either Simon Peter’s brother Andrew, or Simon the zealot’s brother, Judas Iscariot were brothers of Jesus as well.

What we can know for certain is that at the very least Joseph Jr, James Barsabbas Jr, Judas Barsabbas, James the son of Zebedee, and his brother John were all fleshly brothers of Jesus. There is no getting around this very basic fact.

It is also very reasonable to believe that Levi, and at least one of the Apostles named Simon were brothers of Jesus.

However there are some things that need to be taken into consideration about Jesus twelve apostles before deciding which ones were his biological brothers and which were not.

First off, the twelve apostles represented the same thing that the twelve sons of Jacob represented. Luke 22:28-30 explains it this way:

“You are those who have stayed with me during my trials, so I am assigning you a kingdom, just as my father assigned me a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink with me at my table and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

The twelve tribes of Israel were made up of the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob. Jacob’s twelve sons had four different mothers. It would only be logical that the twelve apostles of Jesus all be brothers as well. It is likely that all of Jesus apostles had the same mother by multiple men, just as all of the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel had the same father by multiple women.

In the past I posted several videos about Jacob’s family. Never once has anyone ever taken offense at my claim that Jacob’s children had multiple mothers. However since I began posting information about the children of Mary, lots of people have taken offense.

There is quite a bit of evidence that men like Abraham who had multiple wives and girlfriends, traveled with groups of men who were the husbands and boyfriends of Abraham’s wives and girlfriends. Just because such behavior isn’t clearly described in the Bible does not mean that it didn’t happen. The preponderance of evidence says that it did. It would certainly fly in the face of current social norms, but ask yourself this. What doesn’t? The clothes that we wear, the food we eat, the rituals we are forced to participate in are all completely different from anything that Jesus and his apostles would have worn or eaten or participated in.

In Chapter 11 of the book of Hebrews a long list of faithful people who’s examples we are suppose to follow, includes many men and one woman who are known to have had multiple sex partners. The Bible very clearly states that they all had multiple sex partners. At Hebrews 12:1, this group is called the Great cloud of witnesses. If God was displeased with their sexual behavior it would have been quite easy for the Bible to clearly state, that we were to follow their example closely, in everything except for their sex lives. But that is not the case at all. No mention is ever made anywhere in the Bible about God being angry at any of them for their sexual conduct.

There is more that we need to consider in regard to whether or not Jesus’ apostles were in fact his brothers.

Most people will argue that Jesus never once broke the law, which actually makes sense. His mission here on Earth was to expose the law for what it was, a means by which powerful men controlled and manipulated the populations of the nations.

The Jewish law code just like the law codes of every other nation was an actual legal system. It was not some kind of religious law as some would have us believe. It was not a means by which mankind could appease the creator of the universe. The law of Moses dictated what a person could and couldn’t do, as well as what a person was required to do. Along with those laws, it listed punishments for those who broke the law. And the men who had been placed in charge were constantly watching to see if Jesus would break the law, so that they would have an excuse for arresting, convicting, and executing him.

At Numbers 9:13 the punishment for not properly observing the Passover is recorded.

“If anyone who is clean and is not on a journey fails to keep the Passover, they are to be cut off from their people.”

Had Jesus not been observant of the Passover law it would have given the Pharisees and Saducees the perfect excuse for having him executed. Had Jesus broken a law that was punishable by death, his execution would not have accomplished anything.

The laws regarding the Passover can be found at Exodus 12:1-14.

“On the tenth day of this month, every man shall take a lamb according to their father’s house, a lamb for a household. If the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons. According to the amount that each one can eat, you shall calculate the number who are to eat the lamb. On the fourteenth day of the month, all of Israel shall slaughter their lamb, and put it’s blood on the doorpost and lintel of the house where they eat it. Nothing is to remain over till morning. Everything that is left over is to be burned in the fire. This day shall be a sacred holiday for you and you shall keep it as a feast.”

For our purposes today, what is important, is who was to celebrate the Passover with who. According to these verses the entire family had to celebrate the Passover according to their father’s house. Since Jesus was required to celebrate with his father’s household, we can know for a fact that Joseph would have been present. We can confirm that this was the case because several of Jesus’ biological brothers were present. However two of Zebedee’s sons were also present meaning that by law, Zebedee would have had to have been there as well.

Acts 1:12-13 list by name many who were in attendance.

“ Peter, John, James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of the alphaeus, Simon, the Patriot, and Judas son of James together with the women and with Mary the mother of Jesus with his brothers.

Since all of the apostles were present, there had to have been some kind of family connection. Obviously we cannot compare the family structure of our modern Western world, to that of the family of Jesus. However a look at the historical records of that particular place and time would make it appear as if Jesus’ family didn’t even fit in with the standard social order of first century Judea.

We can know that Joseph was not the biological father of everyone present at Jesus final Passover. We don’t even know if Jesus’ grandfather James was still alive. And even if he was, we can’t know if he was the biological father of Zebedee and the others. We can know that somehow, Jesus’ family fulfilled the letter of the law of the Passover.

This list is obviously not exhaustive since several individuals and groups that would have had to have been there are not mentioned. In particular Joseph who was very obviously still alive. and the children of all these people. Since each of the twelve apostles are listed by name, we can know for a fact that they all had to have been close relatives. The only exception of the law that would allow outsiders to eat the Passover lamb with Jesus family as stated earlier is this:

“If the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons. According to the amount that each one can eat, you shall calculate the number who are to eat the lamb.”

As you have probably already figured out, Jesus family could easily have consumed a lamb without any help from their next door neighbor. It would not surprise me if over a hundred people were present at this particular meal.

As I have already said, the word brother can be used in a figurative sense. But I also said that the surrounding text will reveal if that is the case. Most of the verses that are about the brothers, may seem to be figurative to us because we have been trained to perceive them as such, however if you read the Bible with an open mind, you will find that nearly all Bible verses about the brothers are specifically about the biological sons of Mary.

I said earlier that all of the named brothers of Jesus went on to become very important leaders in the early work of evangelizing, and organizing of the early congregations of Jesus’ followers. To many it may seem as if Joseph was left out. He was not one of the original twelve, as his other three named brothers. And when Judas died he was passed over as a replacement in favor of a man named Matthias. However, what you need to know about Jesus’ brother is that Joseph was not passed over because of some kind of shortcoming on his part. God was saving him for a much more important work.

When Saul was blinded while traveling on the road to Damascus, and converted into an apostle to the nations, the brothers recognized that he needed a mentor. Someone to teach him the truth, and try to keep him out of trouble. They assigned this task to Joseph Barsabbas, the brother of Jesus. The only reason that nobody knows this, is because before sending him out to watch over Paul, they gave him yet another nick name. This is recorded at Acts 4:36.

“The apostles gave Joses the nick name of Barnabas, which when translated means son of consolation. He being a levite from the island of Cyprus.”

Theologians will argue that this particular Joses can not possibly be the same Joses that was Jesus’ brother because as a son of Joseph he would have been from the tribe of Judah and not from the tribe of Levi. Also as a son of Joseph he would have been a citizen of Judea and not a citizen of Cyprus.

All religions Earth wide have some kind of teaching about superior races and inferior races and separation of the races. Christianity is no different. I have been hearing all of my life about the differences between God’s chosen people and the wicked people whom they had to live amongst. Separation of the tribes and the outsiders is a major part of the Christian religion. However to anyone reading the Bible with an open mind it quickly becomes apparent that none of that religious nonsense has the support of God.

There were rules about who could live amongst the citizens of Israel, and who could not, but all of those rules were very easy to follow. For the most part any outsider could migrate into Israel as long as they were willing to perform a few initial rituals, and not stir up any trouble. And those rules were for people like the Philistines, Babylonians, and Egyptians. For Israelites migrating from one tribe to another only required that they pack up their stuff and move. If Joses had decided to take up permanent residence on the Island of Cyprus amongst a group of Levites, then all that he had to do was move to Cypress and live amongst a group of Levites. He would probably not be allowed to serve in any official capacity at the Temple, but if he remained long enough to raise a family, eventually his sons or grandsons probably could.

Jesus’ brother Joseph was mentioned many times as Joseph or Joses up until he was given his name change. After that there are no more mentions of anyone named Joseph or Joses again. The reason being that from that moment on, he is always called by the nickname given to him by the Apostles. Joses is spoken of 29 times as Barnabas after receiving his assignment to accompany Paul.

Jesus father Joseph continued preaching and teaching as well. likely till the day of his death. Shortly after Jesus’ was executed, he appeared to two of his disciple who were walking along the road, on their way to meet with the eleven remaining apostles, and the brothers. The entire twenty fourth chapter of Luke is about this encounter between Jesus and his two disciples. After questioning his two disciples about a conversation that they were having about Jesus verse 18 says:

“One of them having the name of Cleopas responded to him saying: How is it that you are the only visitor to Jerusalem that doesn’t know about what has happened here in recent days?”

Cleopas is suppose to be the proper name of some character that isn’t spoken of anywhere else in the Bible. But in fact this person is Joseph. Jesus’ father. Cleopas is another descriptive title. It means the one with the reputation of a father. Which would fit in perfectly with Joseph’s reputation of being the father of Jesus, even though he wasn’t. This name is not a personal name, it is for a fact, a description.

I have posted many videos where I extolled the virtues of men such as Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and David, without anyone taking a stand against those videos based on the sex lives of those men.

However since beginning to tell people about the children of Mary, I have been met with much resistance. One viewer of the last video that I made on this subject told me: “God holds us accountable for the things that we say. Even if you are just joking, I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes.” Another viewer had this to say: “You are a deceiver.”

Had that video been about the twelve sons of Jacob instead of the twelve sons of Mary, they probably would have simply thanked me.

For some reason Satan’s Empire seems to be obsessed with ownership of women. I understand that Satan’s laws are wicked, and that human beings in general will follow those laws no matter how wicked they are. But, what I don’t understand is mankind’s love of such laws. It is almost as if beating, stoning, and beheading women for having sex is instinctive.

In my part of the world this isn’t done, but the ostracism and emotional scaring that a woman has to endure for having a child without a license is still pretty terrible.

The belief that Men are allowed to have as many sex partners as they can afford, but women are only allowed to have one doesn’t make any logical sense whatsoever. The population of Earth is made up of 50% men, and 50% women. If you do the math, there simply are not enough women to allow for such a foolish social order.

I have been a member of several Christian religions, and have studied many more. It is a standard teaching that even though God allowed men to have multiple wives at one time, it was only to increase the population of the promised land at a faster rate. Once again, the numbers simply don’t add up. One man with ten wives will not produce more offspring than ten men with ten girlfriends. The teachings of the religions of Christianity sound like nonsense because they are suppose to sound like nonsense. Truth is suppose to be easy to recognize.

Mary the mother of Jesus, who just so happened to be the mother of many other children as well, did not simply disappear from the scene at the death of her son. She, like Joseph, continued to be an inspiration to the brothers. At some point long after Jesus’ death Paul wrote a letter to the congregation at Rome. He concluded that letter at Romans 16:6 by saying:

“Greet Mary who bestowed much labor on us.”

According to every so called “Christian” religion on the planet nobody can know who this woman is because there isn’t enough information about her. However as recorded in Paul’s letter, Paul felt that her name alone was more than enough information. At least enough information that he could simply mention her first name, and everyone would automatically know who she was. There were only two women mentioned throughout the entire New Testament named Mary, and Mary Magdalene was no longer around. I’ll cover that later, in another video.

Jesus’ mother Mary was also mentioned at Acts 12:12.

“When he realized this, he went to the home of Mary, the mother John Mark, where many were gathered for prayer.”

Once again the Satanic cults of Christendom declare this woman to be yet another random woman named Mary. According to the doctrines of Christianity she can’t possibly be identified because once again, there simply isn’t enough available information. How much information can they possibly need?

Since we know that Jesus’ mother is specifically called the mother of the children of Zebedee, and that Zebedee had a son named John, it isn’t all that difficult to conclude that John the son of Zebedee could be surnamed Mark. John the son of Zebedee is yet another brother of Jesus who was a leader in the early work of evangelizing and organizing the earliest congregations of those who followed the teachings of Jesus.

We can know that John Mark was in fact Jesus’ brother John the son of Zebedee because at Colossians 4:10 our English translations of the Bible describe him this way:

“My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas.”

The Greek word used here does not mean the same thing as the English word cousin. Anepsios (Strong’s G431) is only used once in the entire New Testament. It is formed from the obsolete word Nepos which means brood. This word would not normally be used to describe any kind of relationship that people today would normally acknowledge, but obviously for the family of Jesus it would be appropriate.

The young of birds are normally called a brood. A single female bird will usually lay many eggs at one time fathered by multiple males. When the eggs hatch, they as a group would be called a brood.

Since we know that Mark was the name used by Mary’s son John, who was fathered by Zebedee, and that Barnabas was Joseph Barsabbas, the son of Mary fathered by Joseph. Calling the two of them members of the same brood would be appropriate.

There are quite literally dozens of unique names, titles, and nicknames of people that are referred to as the brothers in the New Testament. Most of them are descriptive, and over time we will know who all of them were. I am certain that all of them were family members of Jesus. If not sons of Mary, perhaps sons of Joseph.

As you research this information for yourselves you are going to come across many verses that make what I’m telling you seem impossible. Just as an example, I’ll tell you about something that initially caused me to doubt that Jesus’ apostles were his brothers.

When he initially gathered together the group of twelve that he called apostles, each one instantly dropped what they were doing and followed Jesus. Their eagerness to join themselves to Jesus, without even questioning why, could easily be explained by the fact that they all grew up with him, and were obviously prepared for the day when Jesus would begin his ministry.

However each individual seemed to be surprised to find out that the savior of Israel had been located. A good example of this can be found at John 1:45.

“Philip went to look for Nathanael and told him, we have found the very person Moses and the prophets wrote about! His name is Jesus, the son of Joseph from Nazareth.”

To me this really sounded like Philip was amazed that he had located this person that he had previously only read about in the Bible. Obviously each and every one of the apostles was shocked to find Jesus, but most of the wording of the verses has been colored in ways that are not part of the original Greek manuscripts. When Philip found Jesus what he actually said would have sounded more like this in English:

“The one written about by Moses in the law, and by the prophets has been found. Joseph’s son Jesus of Nazareth.”

Hopefully you can see, that as originally recorded in Greek Philip did not tell Nathanael “We have found the savior and his name is Jesus”. He simply told him, “We have found Jesus.” There is a difference. In fact quite a few translations leave out the idea that Philip was unaware of Jesus’ name. But even still, if a person did not know that Philip and Nathaniel already knew Jesus, as translated into English it would seem as if they didn’t.

Chronologically Jesus chose his apostles shortly after returning from being tempted by the devil in the wilderness. The synoptic gospels all mention that Jesus did this. Seemingly, he either fasted for 40 days, and was tempted after fasting, or he was tempted during his fast. The Bible also says that he was ministered to by angels, but does not say when or for how long.

The fist thing that the Bible says Jesus did when he went into the wilderness was to get baptized by John. The Bible really doesn’t describe how far the wilderness was from his home, but it does make it clear that the wilderness was not where his family lived. Mark adds to the account by stating that while in the wilderness, Jesus stayed with the wild animals. I just want you to know that Jesus did not just go on a 40 day trip. He was led into the wilderness by the Holy spirit and the time that he spent there was probably much longer than just the 40 days that he spent fasting. In fact, Jesus may have stayed in the wilderness for several years.

The apostles were not shocked to find out that Jesus was the Messiah. As his brothers, they had known that for years. They were simply shocked to see him again after such a long absence. Seemingly, when the spirit led Jesus out into the wilderness, it did not inform his family about where he was going or how long he would be gone. The reaction of his brothers at his return is what we should expect.

The stories taught in Church about Jesus just randomly offering strangers the opportunity to become apostles are not accurate.

In the next video in this series I will be revealing the identity of the writer of the Book of John. If you are not a college trained theologian, then you are probably not aware of the fact that nobody really knows who wrote it. At one time the identity of the writer was common knowledge, but when the Bible was translated from Greek into Latin, that knowledge was intentionally concealed and over time, eventually lost.

As is the case in most of my videos, I will be exposing lies that have been told and retold millions of times over the course of the last two thousand years. As we get closer to the end of this series I promise that I will be telling you things that will be more shocking than anything that you are currently expecting.

As always, if you don’t want to survive, don’t listen to me.

Melchizedek Part 6 Basic Information About Jesus’ Family

Hello, and welcome to another video from the only source of information that you need to not only survive the current apocalypse, but actually enjoy it, and today’s video is going to be all about the early family life of Jesus.

Explaining who Jesus is, as well as who he was, is going to require more than a single video. Please follow along from beginning to end. I promise that you will not be disappointed. Hopefully once you discover how much the Churches have been misleading you about the life of Jesus during the first century, you will be willing to listen to what I have to say in the videos that will follow.

Today, I will only be revealing basic information about Jesus parents brothers and sisters, directly from modern translations of the Bible. When this video is done, you will know more about Jesus’ family than anyone has know in nearly two thousand years. In the video that follows I will be going even deeper to reveal some very important details about Jesus’ family that the Churches have been desperately struggling to hide from mankind. In the final video in this series, I will be revealing the actual identity of Jesus. In other words who he was the first time he lived on Earth.

Most Christian religions teach that very little is known about the life of Jesus prior to the beginning of his ministry when he was about 30 years old. The Bible tells us that he was born from a virgin named Mary, and that she was in a relationship with a man named Joseph.

According to the oldest ancient texts of the account, Mary was a woman of Joseph, and Joseph was a man of Mary. Over time and through the translation process words like husband, wife, and married were added to the story in support of the social norms of the Catholic Church.

Using nothing more than an original language text of the Bible we can know that although Joseph and Mary were in a relationship, Joseph did not have sex with her until after Jesus was born. (This information can be found at Matthew 1:25)

There are several stories about the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus. Another story about Joseph and Mary having to flee to Egypt because of an infanticide conducted by the Roman Government. And a story about wise men seeking out Jesus because of some kind of celestial phenomenon. All of these events took place, before Jesus was born, or while Jesus was still an infant or toddler.

The only other incident recorded in the Bible about his life before beginning his ministry, involved his family traveling to the Passover festival in Jerusalem. Jesus was only 12 years old, but stayed behind after it was all over to talk to the teachers. According to Luke 2:41,43 Joseph and Mary were referred to as Jesus’ parents. Verse 48 specifically calls Joseph, Jesus’ father.

“And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been searching for you in great distress”. Jesus replied, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I would be in my father’s house?””

After referring to Joseph as Jesus’ father, Jesus responded by telling Mary that he was with his father. Most English translations of the Bible say that Jesus responded by saying that he was in his father’s house, but the word house, does not appear in any ancient text of this verse. A more accurate rendering of this passage into modern English might sound like this:

“Why were you searching for me? didn’t you know, that I was with my father?”

Even though most people believed that Joseph was Jesus’ father, Jesus understood that he was adopted, and thought of God as his real father. In Jesus’ case, God truly was his biological father.

The passage ends by telling us that Mary treasured what Jesus said in her heart. Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that Jesus was the son of God, and she believed it, but according to this verse she took great pleasure in the fact that Jesus knew it as well. There is no reason to question when Jesus figured this out. According to this passage, he very obviously knew it at least by the time he was twelve, and likely knew it from birth.

Something else that is revealed by these verses is that Jesus had a very large family. The group that Jesus was traveling with was so large in fact, that Jesus was able to get lost in the crowd. In our English Bibles, we are told at Luke 2:44:

“Supposing him to be in the group, they went a days journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances.”

The Greek word that is translated as acquaintances at this verse is gnostois. (Strong’s G1110) The ancient Greek word Gnostois is where we get our English word knowledge. Normally I would say that the word acquaintance would be appropriate, since people that we know would be our acquaintances. However, the meaning of the ancient word gnostois would be indicative of much more than a simple knowledge of someone or a mere acquaintance. The people that Jesus was traveling with would have been as close as family members. And as you are going to find out they in fact were all family members in one way or another. Jesus was traveling with his tribe. What we today might call his extended family. Many of the people that traveled with Jesus to that Passover when he was twelve years old would eventually be spoken of by name in the New Testament.

Most churches admit that Joseph was still alive and still acting as Jesus’ father up till he was 12 years old. However, many churches say that sometime after that Joseph died, leaving Mary a widow, and Jesus an orphan. There is absolutely nothing to support such an assumption, found anywhere in God’s word, the Bible.

In the course of Jesus ministry, he revealed to others that he was sent from Heaven. However those around him refused to believe it. Their line of reasoning, as to why they refused to believe can be found at John 6:42:

“Isn’t this the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then does he say, I have come down out of heaven?”

At least one English version of the Bible translates this verse in support of the belief that Joseph was dead. Specifically.

“And they said, Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, who’s father and mother we have known?

There is nothing in the original text to suggest that the word know should be translated in the past tense. But aside from that, is the fact that according to this particular translation, the people would be saying that they use to know Joseph and they use to know Mary.

Mary was very much alive and often spoken of at major events in Jesus’ life. If you read the Bible with an open mind you will be able to discern that she was seemingly in constant attendance. She was probably standing right there when this conversation took place. There would be no reason for the crowds to be speaking of Mary in the past tense.

As this series continues I will be showing you passages from the Bible that prove that Joseph was in constant attendance as well.

Even though there are no other stories about the early life of Jesus, found in the Bible, there are several recorded in other ancient books. I won’t be talking about them because they are too controversial. Many people believe that those stories were fabricated centuries after Jesus died. Many others believe that they are true. I do not know if either opinion is correct, or if perhaps both are partially correct.

I rarely speak about the Bible unless I have something significant to say, and as is also normally the case, today, I will be revealing sacred secrets to mankind, that have not been spoken of by anyone for nearly two thousand years. Already, just knowing that Jesus had a father and mother throughout his life means that you now know far more than anyone else about Jesus’ family.

According to the teachings of many so called “Christian Churches”, members of Jesus’ family did not put their faith in him, until sometime after his death and resurrection. Many even teach that Jesus’ mother, brothers, and sisters all openly opposed him throughout the course of his ministry.

Some churches teach that his mother Mary, remained a virgin all the way up to her death, meaning that according to those religions, Jesus had no biological brothers and sisters at all.

As you are about to find out, nearly everything that the churches teach, is utter nonsense. Our Bibles are quite literally filled with information about the members of Jesus’ family. And contrary to the doctrinal teachings of Civilization’s religions, Jesus’ mother, father, brothers, and sisters closely followed the teachings of Jesus, for their entire lives. After Jesus’ death, the Bible clearly states, that it was in fact, his family that took the lead in spreading his teachings around the world.

Most of what has been hidden about Jesus family probably has to do with the Churches hatred of sexual pleasure. The Catholic religion, which first translated the Bible into Latin taught that neither Joseph nor Mary ever had sex after the birth of Jesus. It should be no surprise to us that the cults of man would not want us to know about the brothers and sisters of a man that supposedly came from sexless parents.

The means by which people identified themselves in the first century was not much different than it is today. In our day, in most countries people have what is called a last name. With millions of people having similar first names, our last names make it easier to distinguish us from others that might have the same first name as us.

However, if we think about it, that may not have always been the case. If we look back into the ancient past, and look at stories about the men and women that lived at that time, the characters are often only mentioned by first names. As presented by the religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, this even seems to have been the case with Bible characters.

The man and woman that we today in English call Adam and Eve, seemingly did not have last names. It is not likely that anyone living at that time would have gotten Adam and Eve confused with some other couple sharing the same first names. However that may not actually be true.

The word Adam which was the first man’s actual name means reddish, or to be reddened, but later on it was consistently used in the Old Testament to mean human being. The word that we translate into our English word Eve actually was the same as the Hebrew word meaning egg. However there are two words that seemingly were unique to Adam and Eve at the time, that when translated into English mean male tribal leader, and leader of the male tribal leader. In the beginning any of these four words would have been recognized as names or titles for Adam and Eve.

Eventually the population grew to what over time would become supposedly, over seven billion unique individuals. That is why people in our day often have a first name, middle name, or multiple middle names, a last name, and often, even a nickname. In recent times the Empire has enacted laws Earth-wide requiring that people be given unique numbers as part of their identities.

Obviously such a thing did not just happen overnight. In the early days of the population explosion people very likely began to identify one another using descriptive titles.

Just as an example, there are thousands of people alive today with the last name baker. Probably only a small percentage actually make a living as bakers. People are usually given a last name at birth, and rarely change their name after becoming adults, to more accurately describe their occupations.

In the ancient past, a person would not have been called a baker, unless that was his actual occupation. The tradition of passing down last names, such as Baker, likely got it’s start due to the tendency of parents to pass down their professions to their offspring.

As in our day, a very easy way to distinguish people from one another, would have been to explain what family they came from, and as you are about to discover, it is likely that most of the people spoken of in the Bible had last names just like we do.

In the Bible there is only one man named, David, and yet the Bible often refers to him as The Son Of Jesse. Son of Jesse may not have been David’s official last name, but then again, it very probably was. David is referred to as the Son of Jesse many times. In the oldest manuscripts of the Bible this title would not have been recorded in the English language, as son of Jessie, but instead in the Hebrew language, as Ben Yishay.

By tradition, English translators always rendered passages containing the word or words ben yishay as Son of Jesse, even though in our day many people still have the last name Benishay, and they render their name as a single word. It could be said that even thought benishay is a Hebrew word meaning son of Jesse, it has become an accepted English word when used as a proper name.

There is good reason to believe that many if not all benishays Earth wide are descendants of the man who was David’s father. Many Benishay’s spell their last name as two distinct words as it is rendered in our Bibles, while others do not. Of those who spell it as a single word many spell the name hyphenated, which means with a dash between Ben and Ishay, while others spell the name with two capitols, both forms indicate that the single name Benishay had it’s origin as the two unique words. Ben and Yishay.

In the ancient Bible language known today as Hebrew, the words Ben and Yishay have meanings. Ben Strong’s (H1129) means son, and Ishay (Strong’s H376) means “male tribal leader”. You won’t find this definition in any concordance, or Hebrew dictionary, but that is for a fact what it means.

What I am telling you is that BenIshay, literally means “Son of the male tribal leader”. David’s father is always called Jessie in our English translations of the Bible. Jessie is an English transliteration of the ancient Hebrew word Iyshay or Iysh. But according to the way that this name is used, David’s father was very much the recognized male tribal leader over a very large, well established, tribe. He was very likely the leading elder of the tribe of Judah.

A prophesy recorded at Hosea 2:16 reveals why David’s last name is significant.

“In that day, declares the LORD, you will call me My Ishay, and you will no longer call me My Ba’al.”

Literally as translated into English this is what Hosea 2:16 actually means.

“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me “My Male Tribal Leader” and you will no longer call me “My God by legal agreement”.

Ba’al is the word used throughout the Bible to describe local rulers. Ba’al means god by contract, or god by legal agreement. What our Bibles might call a god by covenant. In effect, the chosen gods of the people, what we today would call politicians. The distinction being made is a reference to the commandment to honor our father and mother. Our obedience and love of God should be based on the fact that he is our father, and not based on the observance of some written law code, such as the law of Moses, or any of the laws of any of mankind’s religions or governments today.

Even though Benishay in it’s Hebrew form, is still being used as a last name in our day, many people have names from the Bible that we may not recognize because they have been translated, or transliterated into modern languages.

Several Bible characters have similar names. In particular several of Jesus’ apostles had the same first names. This is actually quite fortunate for us. In several verses, Jesus, likely to avoid confusion, referred to his apostles by their last names, but sometimes by nick names, giving us clues about the character traits, and family relationships of the men within Jesus’ inner circle.

Since we are trying to figure out who is who, we are going to need to determine which names were given at birth, as first names, which names were nick names earned over the course of people’s lives, and which names were family names. What we today call last names.

At Matthew 16:17 Jesus uses what might be a last name of Simon, one of his apostles, to distinguish him from another of his apostles who was also named Simon.

“And Jesus answered him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”

Jesus gave Simon Barjona the nickname of Peter which means stone, but he sometimes called him Cephas which also means stone. The English name Peter is based on the Greek word petros, and the English name Cephas is based on the Aramaic word Kaphas.

Barjona is Strong’s G920 and can be translated as “son of the dove”. Since the New Testament was not originally written in Hebrew, but in Aramaic and Greek, the Hebrew word ben is not used. Instead the first part of this name is bar, (Strong’s H1247) which means son in Aramaic.

The word Jonah which means dove is Strong’s H3124. In Greek the proper pronunciation would likely be yona. The word Jonah is the same as the name of Jonah the Old Testament prophet, who was famous for being swallowed by a large fish or whale.

In the New Testament, by tradition the Churches usually translate the Greek word Ioannas (Strong’s G2491) as John. Supposedly Ioannas is a transliteration of the Hebrew word Yowchanan (Strong’s H3110) To me that doesn’t sound right at all. A better choice would probably be Yonah (Strong’s H3124) which is usually translated as Jonah. The word Ioanass is much more similar to Yonah than it is to Yowchanan. Possibly all three words are related. The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek versions of this name are all a little different and mean different things due to the differences in the languages, but they are, for a fact, probably all the same.

As an example, the name John in the Book of John 1:32 uses the word this way:

“John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.”

In this verse the English word John, is a translation of the word Ioannes (Strong’s G2491) which I believe is a transliteration of the Hebrew word yona (Strong’s H3110) meaning dove, and the word dove is translated from the Greek word peristeran (Strong’s G4058) which also means dove. The association between John’s name which means dove and the Greek word peristeran which also means dove, is not just a coincidence.

The point that John was trying to make, was that he saw the holy spirit enter into Jesus just as it had previously entered into him. Using the Greek word for dove as a substitute for the Hebrew word for dove was very likely meant to highlight a change that was coming in the way that God would be dealing with people from that time forward.

John 16:16 describes it this way:

“The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.” By tradition John was to be named Zachariah on the day that he was dedicated, but God directed his parents to break from tradition and name him John instead.

The Hebrew language was pretty much used exclusively by the Hebrew people, Some of which would eventually became the Israelites, and some even later becoming the Jews. In Jesus’ day, the universal language of the Empire was the language of the Greeks.

For thousands of years the words of God had always been recorded in the language of the Hebrews. The Jews very likely reasoned within themselves that they were somehow superior to their neighbors. To them, having God’s word recorded in the tongue of their ancestors, might have felt like God was using a secret code, only understood by his chosen people.

This transition would have made it more than apparent to both Jews and non Jews, that from that moment on, God’s sacred secrets would be available, not just to the Jews, but to the whole world. God was not discarding the Jews. They all knew how to speak Greek. In fact, by the time of Jesus, the Hebrew language had nearly been forgotten. Most of the common people of Judea spoke Greek as their native tongue, and likely only would have known a few words of Hebrew. If they refused to read God’s word in the language of the inferior races, that was their choice.

By Jesus’ day, Greek was universally spoken by many of the nations mentioned in the Bible. Greek was the language of trade. Greek in the first century was much like English today. Recording the remaining books of the Bible in a language that was understood by nearly everyone, was just one more way of God showing the world, that the free gift of salvation was not just the possession of a chosen few. In our day, many religious people are still arguing that Hebrew, is the language of God, and that the Jews are still God’s chosen people. There is absolutely no evidence to support either belief.

Knowing that the ancient Aramaic name Jona is the same as our modern English name John, makes it clear that the modern English name Johnson is the same as the ancient name Barjona. It is likely, that at least some of the Johnsons who are alive on the Earth today, are named after Simon Peter. Johnson and Barjona are the same exact word, in two different languages.

This understanding highlights an important fact about such names. Even though King David really was the son of a man named Jessie, not everyone named Benishay is the child of someone named Jessie. It is now a standard practice to use and reuse the same last names generation after generation. Many of the last names used by people today have been around for hundreds or even thousands of years. We have to keep this in mind as we examine such names within the pages of The Bible.

In many cases, such names as found in the bible are associated with men who’s fathers are actually named in other verses. In the case of Simon the identity of his father may have actually been John, or Jonah, but not necessarily. He is called Simon Son of Jonah, at Matthew 16:17, Simon Child of Jonas, at John 1:42 and at
John 21:17 simply Simon of Jonas.

Since this description is different in each of these verses, and the name Jonah itself is spelled differently, it is not likely that Barjona was Simon’s officially recognized last name, at least not before Jesus assigned it to him. If Barjona had been Simon’s actual last name, it likely would have had a recognized standard spelling. It is altogether possible that Jona was not even the name of Simon’s fleshly father. Calling him Simon Barjona might be due to the fact that when Jesus returned from being tempted by Satan, Simon and his Brother Andrew were listening to the teachings of Jona Which of course we know today as John The Baptist. (This information can be found at John 1:35-42).

The Churches have had 2,000 years to figure out who is who in the Bible, but have either not really been trying, don’t care, or they do know, and simply are not willing to share that information with the rest of us. However, a more likely reason for the ignorance of the churches, is that Satan the God of Religion, has blinded them to truth. As 2Corinthians 4:4 says:

“The God of this age has blinded the minds of those who won’t believe, in order that they will not perceive the light of the good news that teaches us about the glory of Christ, who is made in the image of God.”

I think that we could probably figure out quite a bit more than what I will be sharing with you in this, as video, as well as the one that will follow, but I don’t really know how beneficial that would be. Civilization is soon to meet it’s end, and we have much more important tasks to attend to. After the resurrection of the dead, all of the men named Simon in the New testament will be alive somewhere. When we meet them, we can talk to them about their lives in first century Palestine, if we are still interested. I’m sure that it will be much easier for them to tell us, than for us to try to figure it out.

As we read about New Testament Characters, we can often tell who is related to who, simply by comparing their last names, however we must keep in mind, that in many cases, last names may not actually be last names.

Within several of the religions that claim to be based on the Bible, there are doctrinal beliefs that require members of the religions to ignore the fact that the names of some of Jesus’ apostles are identical to the names of some of Jesus’ biological brothers. In fact, since some so called “Christian” religions teach that Jesus’ mother remained a virgin for her entire life, members of those religions are not even suppose to acknowledge the men called Jesus’ brothers, as actually being his biological brothers.

Matthew 13:55 says, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?”

Some religions teach that the word brother as used here is some kind of honorary title. But in context this verse isn’t just about his brothers. It’s about his mother Mary, and his brothers James and Joses and Simon and Judas. Since this single line of text is very obviously about his biological mother, it would be illogical to believe that James and Joseph and Simon and Judas were not his biological brothers.

This incident was also recorded at Mark 6:3:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

If we look at the differences between the two accounts as originally recorded thousands of years ago in Greek, there is a difference in the spelling of the name of one of these men. The Joses, literally Iosetos, of Mark’s account is rendered as Joseph, literally Ioseph in Matthew’s account. In our English Bibles, the individual translators have taken the liberty of rendering these two versions of the same name according to whatever religious tradition they are attempting to preserve. By doing so, they have made it difficult to recognize this Joseph at other verses where he is mentioned. Even the Greek Textus Receptus mistranslated this name according to the Catholic, and then later the Protestant agendas. Fortunately for us these two words have been cataloged separately as Strong’s G2500 and G2501.

It is likely that Joses, or Iosetos is used as a means of distinguishing him from his father Joseph. In our day we might call them Big Joseph and Little Joseph, or perhaps Joseph, and Joe. In Jesus’ day his adoptive father was consistently called Ioseph, and his son would have been called Ioseph or Iosetos, depending on the situation. In any case Jesus’ father and Jesus’ brother were both named Joseph. With his brother often being called Joses, literally Joe, or Little Joseph.

At this point I am going to reveal something that is recorded in our Bibles that is going to be very helpful in deciphering who is who. In Ancient Judea it was a standard practice to name a firstborn son after the father. Some still do this today. However, in our day this is done by choice. In the first century this was a social norm that the Jews rarely strayed from. There is a passage recorded in our Bibles that illustrates just how ingrained this practice had become. At Luke 1:57-63 we read:

“The time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she had a son. Her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child and they were calling the child Zachariah after his father, but his mother said, no he is to be called John. But they said to her, none of your relatives are called by this name. So they signed to the father inquiring what he wanted the child to be named, so he made signs asking for a writing tablet, and wrote, his name is John, and everyone was amazed.”

The people who were present could not believe that Zachariah would break from tradition by naming his son John. As recorded, at this verse, it is obvious that such a thing simply was not done.

This is one of the reasons why so many New Testament characters have the same name. In fact after naming the firstborn after the father, each following son would be named after other male ancestors. Naming the first born son of Joseph after his father would have been a standard practice. Naming all successive children after other ancestors would have been standard practice as well. Because of this we are going to be able to see a pattern that will reveal something very significant about the relationship between Joseph and Mary that the Churches do not want us to know.

Recorded in our Bibles are two Chronological lists of Jesus’ ancestors. We have a list of all of Mary’s ancestors recorded in the third chapter of Luke, as well as a list of all of Joseph’s ancestors recorded in the opening chapter of Matthew.

At Acts 1:23 The Joseph who is called Jesus’ and who is also called Joses is called by his first name, and nickname, but also called by his last name Barsabbas. In every English translation of the Bible that I have access to, this information is presented in a confusing way. This is how the verse is worded in the King James Bible, and most translations closely stick to this tradition.

“And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.”

A much more accurate way of rendering this verse into something that an English speaker would understand would be like this:

“They appointed two men. Joseph Barsabbas who was nicknamed justus and Matthias.”

The verse found at Mark 6:3 uses the Hebrew or Greek word Iosetos which when translated means Joe, while the verse found at Acts 1:23 uses the Latin word Ioustos, which when translated means just person. It seems very likely that Joseph was called Justice because the Latin ioustos is very similar to his Greek name Iosetos.

Paul had a friend named Titus who was also called Justice, and a friend named Jesus who was also called Justice. This may have been a single individual, or two unique men.

We can confirm that this Joseph is Jesus’ brother because his last name is the same as one of Jesus’ other relatives. Acts 15:22 says:

“It seemed good to the apostles and the elders and the entire group to choose men from among them and send them along to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. Those who were sent were Judas named Barsabbas and Silas.”

Since both Joseph and Judas shared the same last name, it would seem to most people that they were brothers and that they were the same Joseph and Judas that are called Jesus’ brothers.

According to many religions the four brothers of Jesus mentioned at Matthew 13:55, and Mark 6:3 are not mentioned again, with the possible exception of James and Jude, sometime after Jesus death. But if we read the Bible with an open mind, it quickly becomes apparent that these four men are mentioned numerous times throughout the New Testament.

As I said earlier, if the Bible says that Mary was Jesus mother, and James and Joses, and Judas, and Simon are Jesus brothers there is no reason to believe that calling them brothers was some kind of honorary title. However, there are Bible verses where words such as father, mother, brother, sister, child, son, and daughter seem to be more like terms of endearment, honorary titles, or a religious tradition, rather than descriptions of a biological relationship. In most cases, the surrounding text indicates if the words are literal or figurative.

There are more than enough verses that are definitely about these men to confirm that all of Jesus’ brothers were actively involved in the early congregation.

Most people recognize that many characters in the Bible shared the same names. We are able to distinguish most of those folks because they lived hundreds of years apart. But in Jesus’ day, many shared similar names and lived at the same time. In many of those cases, the characters are distinguished from one another by descriptions or last names.

The Apostle that betrayed Jesus was named Judas, and most people know that his last name was Iscariot. Mark 14:10 highlights this.

“Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.”

The name Iscariot would be what we call a last name today. Iscariot means man of the city, so someone named Iscariot might have simply had the reputation of being a city dweller, but we know that that is not the case with Judas, because at John 13:26, Judas is specifically called Judas the son of Simon Iscariot.

At Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18,19 one of the apostles is called Simon the Canaanite and is also called Simon the Zealot. He is listed at both verses in sequence with Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon Iscariot. There is also a man called Simon the Leper, and one called Simon the Pharisee. All of these men, are very likely only two men. More than one of them lived in the same city, and more than one of them seemingly were present at the same events as recorded by the four gospel accounts.

This Simon is not the same man as Simon Peter, also known as Simon Barjona. Keeping in mind how astonished Zachariah’s neighbors were that he did not name his first born son after himself, is further evidence that this other apostle named Simon was likely the oldest son of Simon Iscariot, and the brother of Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus. As far as I am aware, no teacher of any of mankind’s religions has ever shared this information with humanity. It is not absolute, but somewhere somebody should have seen this information and questioned if in fact Simon and Judas were brothers.

There are actually nine men named Simon that are identified as unique individuals by the Churches of Christendom, however it is much more likely that most of the descriptions of the men named Simon are simply different ways of describing the same men. All nine could potentially be Simon the father of Judas, and the two apostles named Simon, one of which was likely the brother of Jesus, however I’m pretty sure that there were at least four. But, it is extremely unlikely that there were nine.

It is obvious that Judas was referred to by his last name as a means of distinguishing him from another apostle named Judas, who is quoted at John 14:22.

“Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

Stating that this Judas was not Judas Iscariot makes it obvious that, Iscariot was the name that those who knew him, would have known him by. The writer of the Book Of John understood that we would recognize the difference. The person who recorded this account, obviously did not want us to be confused about who was talking. One betrayed Jesus, the other did not.

We are also told the name of the father of this other Judas. At Acts 1:13 he is called Judas, the son of James. Since Judas Iscariot was specifically called the son of Simon Iscariot, we can know for a certainty that Judas the son of James was a different person.

Once again, this same Judas is the one spoken of by his own last name at Acts 15:22:

“The apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to select men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, who were leaders among the brothers.”

Anyone who may have stumbled across this information would probably find it confusing. Especially if they believed that this Judas was the same Judas that is called Jesus’ brother. Most of the problem comes from the fact that this same Judas that is called Barsabbas is also called the son of James.

There are several possible solution to this mystery, and most are problematic. Either due to Greek grammar, or due to the false doctrinal beliefs of the religions of Christianity.

Some religions teach that the verse says James the brother of Jude. This is unlikely, but not impossible. As written in Greek the verse actually just says Jude of James. According to the rules of Greek grammar it would be proper to speak of a parent child relationship in this way, but would be unheard of, to speak of a sibling relationship in this way. It would be unusual according to the rules of ancient Greek grammar if this verse were to be about Judas and James being brothers.

Another possible solution is that Judas learned the truth from James, just as Simon Peter had learned the truth from John the Baptist. Calling him Judas of James, would be similar to calling Simon Peter, Simon of John, based on the fact that he was mentored by John The Baptist. Calling him Judas of James would be appropriate if James was a mentor to Judas. Greek grammar would allow for such an interpretation. Other similar verses like this are found in the New Testament. However the probability of this being the case would be low. Even if James had mentored Judas, he would likely still be called Judas, the brother of James rather than Judas of James. Plus, there isn’t anything recorded in the Bible to indicate that Judas’ was a student of his brother James.

So far I have explained in the best way that I know how, some very basic information about Jesus’ family that has been disputed for nearly 2,000 years. Much of what I have revealed is already recognized as truth by a small portion of the Earth’s conflicting Christian religions. But please don’t associate me with any of those cults.

It may seem like I am taking sides with the religions that teach that Jesus actually had fleshly brothers and sisters. That is not what I am doing at all. I only made this video as a means of establishing the basic facts that nearly anyone should be able to figure out using nothing more than a modern translation of the Bible. What I have explained so far is only going to be a foundation for what I will be telling you in the next video in this series.

Here are some of the facts that I have revealed thus far. Joseph was recognized as Jesus’ father and held that position for Jesus’ entire life. Jesus obviously had at least four named fleshly brothers, and at least two sisters.

In first century Judea it was it was a common practice to name first born children after their parents and all children that followed after other ancestors. Which is why so many New Testament individuals had the same first names.

People living in first century Judea had first names, last names, middle names, and nicknames just like people today. The Bible used those names to distinguish people with the same first name from one another.

The Churches have used the fact that multiple people shared the same first name as a means of keeping us confused about who is who in the Bible. Although relatively few people actually had similar first names, Church doctrine often presents those few as many.

As an example, even though the religions of man teach that there were nine men named Simon, it is much more likely that there were only three or four. This may seem insignificant, but once I show you how those men named Simon were related to Jesus, you will be shocked at just how much the churches have been hiding.

This is just a single example. Sorting out the many people named Joseph, Jesus, and Mary will be more revealing to you than you are currently able to know. After the next video in this series, you will understand what I am talking about.

If you are a regular subscriber, you recognize that this video is not quite as revealing as other videos that I have produced. Initially this video was about 2 hours long. I have learned through trial and error that two hour videos are not beneficial to my viewers, to me, or to this channel. The information that I will be presenting in the second half of this video will be both shocking and indisputable. You will be glad that you listened to this video first.

However, if you were unaware of the facts presented in this video, you probably are just as pleased with what you have learned today, as with what you usually learn from my videos.

Although I have not yet proven that some of Jesus’ brothers are the same men that Jesus’ chose to be apostles, I have declared them to be so. However I have also shared a few Bible verses that the Churches use to prove that I can’t possibly be right. While you are preparing to watch the next video in this series, I want you to be thinking about the things you just heard.

In the following video I will be overthrowing many doctrinal teachings of the churches in ways that will surprise you. I will not be using deception, manipulation, pep talks, or false reasonings. I will be using nothing more than the Bible itself and a few readily available reference materials on the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages that our modern language Bibles were translated from.

Once you discover how much the churches have been concealing about Jesus’ father, mother, brothers, and sisters, you may find that you have the strength and courage to take the necessary steps to separate youselves from any of mankind’s religions that you may currently be involved with. Learning truth is much more satisying than sitting in an uncomfortable chair listening to some paid clergyman spewing the same lies that you listened to the week before.

I cannot stress how important it is that you watch each video in this series in order. If you have not watched the previous videos, I highly recommend that you go back and do so. We have all been lied to for so many years in so may ways that learning anything from the Bible now, just about requires that we learn everything from the Bible. The religions have had 2,000 years to carefully weave together their story. We don’t have as much time left to dedicate to repairing the damage that they have done.

Earth-wide things are going to start taking place that mankind in general is not going to be able to comprehend. The dedicated citizens of Satan’s Empire are not going to be able to understand what is happening or why. You do not have to share with them in their ignorance of what is coming upon the Earth. I can help you and promise to do so.

If you don’t want to survive……….. don’t listen to me.

Melchizedek Part 5 The Book Of Melchizedek

Hello, and welcome to another video from the only source of information that you need to not only survive the current apocalypse, but actually enjoy it, and today’s video is going to be the fifth installment in my Melchizedek Video series.

Earlier in this series I explained that at 1Corinthians 4:9 Paul felt that he, as well as other Bible characters were somehow being used as actors in a great theatrical exhibition. As recorded in the Bible:

“For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as men sentenced to death, as the final part of a great theatrical exhibition, to the world, to angels, and to humans.”

The repeating pattern of similar stories found throughout the Bible often make it easy to see which Bible personalities were participating in Paul’s theatrical production, as well as what they represented. However in many instances, who is portraying what, is often difficult to determine.

But in the case of Melchizedek there is no ambiguity about what part he was portraying. All of Psalms 110 is a prophecy specifically about Jesus, and at verse 4 we are told that the messiah was going to be like Melchizedek.

“The LORD hath sworn, and will not take it back, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

Knowing that Paul thought that he was an actor in God’s great theatrical production, we can understand that this verse is telling us that Melchizedek was one of God’s actors as well. And unlike many bible characters, we are specifically told what roll Melchizedek was playing. Somehow, the details of Melchizedek’s life would be important keys to understanding Jesus’ life.

As I proved in part 3 of this series, Melchizedek the rightful king of the land of Canaan, was Canaan. If we take into consideration everything that is revealed in the pages of the Bible about Canaan, and everything that is revealed about Melchizedek, it shouldn’t be too difficult to determine how Jesus and Melchizedek were similar.

Most of the clues about what Melchizedek represents can be found in The Bible Book Of Hebrews. Over the centuries the Religions of man have written volumes of confusing information describing their gods and explaining their doctrines according to the Bible. The standard Church teaching about The Book Of Hebrews, is that it was written by Paul in the first century, addressed directly to Jewish Christians as a means of explaining Jesus’ roll in the Jewish religion.

Many of the books of the Bible, begin with some kind of introduction revealing the identity of the author as well as other background information. The book that has become known as Hebrews, in it’s original form, simply starts off by making the statement “To The Hebrews”, with absolutely nothing to reveal the identity of the writer.

Most Churches teach that the writer was Paul, which seems reasonable, but, since that information was not recorded in the Bible, we cannot know for certain.

The Greek phrase that is translated as “To The Hebrews” in English, is actually, “pros Hebraios”.

Although the Greek word pros (Strong’s G4314) can be translated as the English word “to” in some situations, it is not the same as our English word to. Pros can be used to indicate physical proximity, as in towards, or near. It can be used to indicate something beneficial as in “to the advantage of”. Or it can mean “with regard to”. If we take into consideration what the Book of Hebrews is really about, it would seem logical to conclude that the actual introduction to the book would not be “To The Hebrews”, but “About the Hebrews”.

In other words the Book of Hebrews was not written specifically to the Hebrew people, but instead about the Hebrew people. The many references to Hebrew culture, found in it’s pages, should not be considered as evidence that the book was primarily addressed to the Jews. Those of us alive today, who regularly read from the Bible would benefit much more from the Book of Hebrews, than a Jewish person living in the first century.

The claim that “The Book Of Hebrews” was specifically written for Jewish people is every bit as baseless as the doctrinal belief of most Christians, that the Old Testament was specifically written for the Jewish people.

In The New Testament, there are several forms of the word that we translate as Hebrew. Several represent the Hebrew language, but in this case the word represents the Hebrew people. It would be accurate to say that The Book Of Hebrews in it’s original language begins with the phrase, “About the children of Eber”. In other words Eber’s biological offspring.

In Part 3 of this series, I explained that Eber was the last of Isaac’s ancestors to die. For the 29 years following Shem’s death, Eber would have been the earliest distinct male ancestor of the Hebrew people. What we would call the patriarch. The table of nations found in Chapter 10 of Genesis, confirms this to be the case.

The information in the Book of Hebrews is unlike anything recorded anywhere else in The Bible. The subject matter is unique. The way that it is presented is unique. And how it describes the Hebrew people is unique.

Prior to the writing of the Book of Hebrews, those learning about God from the apostles might have thought that the Jews had a relationship with God that was superior to the relationship that other races and nations of people enjoyed. They may have felt that the form of religion practiced by the Jews, was the form of religion that God wanted everyone to practice.

The books of the Bible that were added after Jesus’ death were filled with quotes from the Old Testament which were mostly written by and about the Hebrew people. Much of the evidence that Jesus was the unique son of God came from those Old Testament books. Even in our day many who call themselves Christians refer to the Jews as “God’s chosen people”.

The Book of Hebrews just like other New Testament Books would be filled with quotes from the Old Testament. And once again, many of those quotes would be used as proof that Jesus was in fact the Messiah. While at the same time exposing the foolishness of the belief in racial superiority.

As the information is presented in the Book of Hebrews, even a Jewish person, who was humble enough to listen, was going to learn, that for a certainty, as a race, as a people, as a nation, and even as a religion, they were in no way superior to anyone.

Many of the confusing scriptures found in the Tanakh, where finally going to be explained. Things like Patriotism, Nationalism, and Zionism, were finally going to be exposed for what they were then, and what they still are today. Glorified Racism.

Hebrews 1:2 says,

“God has spoken to us in these last days through his son. Who was appointed heir.”

According to this verse, Jesus really is a child of God. The Greek word used here is the same word used many times throughout the Bible to describe the relationship between a parent and a child. According to Jewish social order only a son could be considered the heir of a father. Calling Jesus an heir confirms that according to the Bible, Jesus would inherit his standing amongst mankind directly from the creator.

As the father of everyone alive on the Earth, it would be God’s right to choose which of his children to place in a position of authority.

Much of the information found in The Book of Hebrews relates to genealogies.

As recorded in 1Timothy 1:4-7:

“Stay in Ephesus so that you may command people not to teach false doctrines and myths and to stop wasting time talking about genealogies. Such controversy and speculation has nothing to do with advancing God’s work which is by faith. Our goal, and the goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about.”

According to this verse, the genealogies of the Jewish people were every bit as worthless, and wicked, as false doctrines.

One of the primary pieces of evidence connecting Paul to the Book of Hebrews is a verse found in the book addressed to Timothy. Timothy traveled with Paul for a time, so, if in fact Paul was the writer of Hebrews, as many believe, Timothy would have understood the information regarding genealogy recorded in Hebrews, before The Book Of Hebrews was even put into written form.

During Timothy’s time with Paul, there can be no doubt that they would have spent many hours discussing the things that Paul was writing about. In listening to the teachings of Paul, Timothy would have recognized the insignificance of Jewish genealogies. The Book of Hebrews would firmly establish why.

As I said earlier in Part 3 of this series Melchizedek’s father was Noah. Since the Book of Hebrews in it’s original form was written about the son’s of Eber, and much of the subject matter concerns genealogy, we can expect that the relationship between Melchizedek and his father, Noah, is somehow related to the relationship between Jesus and his father, God.

At Hebrews 5:6 a direct reference is made to Psalms 110:4.

“As he saith also “in another place”, thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

According to the Churches, The Book of Hebrews was written as a means of helping the Jews to understand how Jesus’ sacrifice related to the Jewish faith. The title alone would seemingly support this assumption.

However as we examine the contents of Hebrews for ourselves, we are going to find that the entire book is basically a mockery of Judaism, and in fact a mockery of Civilization itself. The divisions of mankind based on religion, nationality, and race were about to be exposed as foolishness.

The word Melchizedek is only used 11 times in the entire Bible. Of those 11 instances, 9 are found in the Book of Hebrews. The name of Jesus appears 14 times in the Book of Hebrews. Anyone reading the Book of Hebrews with an open mind would recognize that it’s primary focus is on the family lineages of Jesus and Melchizedek.

There is more information recorded about this Old Testament Bible character in this one small New Testament book, than is recorded in the entire Old testament.

If this book had no name, we could call it the Book of Melchizedek. Naming this book “The Book Of Hebrews” or more accurately rendering it from the original Greek as “In Regard To The descendants Of Eber” is just another means that God has used for pointing out just how insignificant family lineage is in determining who God’s chosen people are.

I produced a video a while back called “The Ten Commandments And The Law Of Moses” that explains how and why the Jewish religion was established. Basically what occurred early in Jewish history is that Moses was used to deliver God’s natural law, to the nation of Israel, in the form that has come to be known as “The Ten Commandments”. When the Israelites rejected God’s natural law, he gave them a replacement law, more to their liking.

Understanding the difference between God’s law, and The Law Of Moses is going to be very important to anyone wanting to have a basic understanding of what the Bible is actually about. And for our purposes today understanding the roll that Melchizedek played in the overall theme of the Bible.

That theme, as I often like to point out is the War between God’s Kingdom and Satan’s Empire. This war can also be though of as the war between Creation, and Civilization, or as the war between, the righteous angels and the wicked angels.

In the very first mention of Melchizedek found at Genesis 14:18-20, the Bible says:

“Melchizedek, King of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was the priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, “Blessed Be Abram by God Most High, possessor of heaven and Earth, and blessed be God most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” and Abram gave him a tenth of everything.”

The Jewish people had been reading these verses for hundreds of years and yet seemingly no one ever questioned why Abraham, their founding father, would pay tithes to this man, nor why the Bible clearly called him the priest of God most high.

Rather than ignoring the details of Abram’s meeting with Melchizedek, as the Hebrew people had done for hundreds of years, The Book of Hebrews was going to reveal the undeniable significance of the account for what it is. Essential Bible Truth! Hebrews 7:1-3 highlights just how significant Melchizedek’s roll was.

“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first by interpretation being the rightful king, and after that also King of peace, without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abides as a priest continually.”

The Book of Hebrews was not the first mention of the significance of Melchizedek’s roll. At the verse that I spoke of earlier, Psalms 110:1,4, The Nation of Israel was told that their messiah would be like Melchizedek.

“The Lord sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies! The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”

This verse revealed to the ancient nation of Israel, that not only would their messiah be a priest like Melchizedek, but a king as well.

To anyone reading the Bible it is obvious that the Jews strictly adhered to every insignificant detail of their religious rituals. They took great pride in breaking down each and every word of the Jewish law code, and debating over how each detail was to be observed.

Jesus described it this way, at Matthew 23:23:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and yet omit the weightier matters of the law. Judgment, mercy, and faith ought ye to have done, without leaving the others undone.”

Being so observant of the Law of Moses, there is no way that the religious leaders of the nation would have missed the fact that Melchizedek was a King and a Priest. According to their sacred laws, that would be impossible.

After King David, all kings would be the sons of the previous king. David as well as all of the Kings who came afterward had been members of the tribe of Judah.

Near the end of his life, Jacob, also known as Israel blessed each of his sons, and in blessing his son Judah at Genesis 49:10, declared:

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the staff of rulership from between his feet, until the possessor of tranquility comes, and unto him shall the people gather obediently.”

As recorded in the ancient languages of the oldest existing copies of the Book of Genesis. This verse reveals a very important detail that the Churches have been concealing for thousands of years. Rulership of Israel would be based on family lineage, until the possessor of tranquility came, at which time, rulership of Israel would not be dependent on family lineage.

If you don’t get what I’m telling you, go back and read Genesis 49:10 one more time. “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the staff of rulership from between his feet, until the possessor of tranquility comes.” This verse is not about Jesus being the last king in Judah’s line. It’s about Jesus’ rulership replacing Judah’s line.

Jacob’s blessing came years after Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek. The Jews may not have had a problem with Abraham bowing to a recognized king outside of the lineage leading to the Jewish nation, because that was in the past. However, prophecies about a future king outside of that lineage would have been unacceptable. Zionist then were no different than Zionist in our day. All members of all races are racial supremacists. There are people like myself that do not think of ourselves as being members of a race, but we are few and far between.

Most people who are familiar with the Bible can figure out for themselves without any help from the Churches, that “The Possessor Of Tranquility” would be Jesus. What they would not be able to figure out is why Jesus did not have the legal right to rule based on his family lineage. One of Jesus’ titles as found at Revelation 5:5 is “Lion of the Tribe of Judah”.

In part 9 of this series, you will learn how Jesus earned the title “Lion of the Tribe of Judah”, even though he did not actually descend from the lineage of kings.

It is possible that the ancient people of Israel were as ignorant of the identity of Melchizedek, as the adherents of Christianity are today. But I don’t think so. Much of the confusion about Melchizedek’s identity was intentionally generated during the translation process. The identification of Melchizedek, as Canaan would have been very clear, and easy to figure out in the original language books that would have been available to the ancient nation of Israel.

After examining how the account appeared in the ancient Hebrew text and comparing it to our modern English translations, it seems more than obvious, that someone, at some point in time, realized that they did not want mankind to recognize the fact that Melchizedek, God’s chosen king at the time of Abraham was Canaan. All translations of the Book of Genesis depict Canaan as deserving of a curse. In fact the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all depict Canaan as some kind of villain.

It is very likely that the Hebrew, and Greek speaking people who had access to the Bible, as originally recorded, were very much aware that Melchizedek was Canaan, and that Canaan was not a Hebrew. Certainly they would have known that Melchizedek was not descended from Shem, and not of the tribe of Judah. To the patriotic members of the nation of Israel, these verses would have been unbearable to read. In fact most members of Christendom, Judaism and Islam, today, are every bit as patriotic, nationalistic, and racist as those members of the ancient nation of Israel. To that ancient nation of racial supremacists, the Canaanites who descended from Melchizedek would have been considered subhumans.

As is recorded at Genesis 49:10, Jacob himself declared that when the true King came, the king that would bring tranquility, he would have no legal claim to the throne based on his family lineage.

But according to Bible prophecy, Jesus would not only be a king, but a priest as well. As Hebrews 5:9,10 says,

“Jesus, being made perfect, became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. Called by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek”

And again, at Hebrews 6:20:

“Jesus the forerunner has entered, as high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

In comparing Jesus to Melchizedek, Hebrews 7:3 in most English translations of the Bible says:

He is without father, mother or genealogy. He has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues as a priest forever.

This verse is a favorite of Trinitarians. Since, only God can be said to not have a mother or father, they reason that Jesus must be God. And by default, Melchizedek must be god as well, meaning that Jesus and Melchizedek must be one and the same. Two human beings without fleshly parents.

But the words that get translated as without mother or father are actually apator, and amator. Strong’s G540 and G282. If you look up these two words, most reference works define them as “without legal claim based on father’s lineage”, and “without legal claim based on mother’s lineage”.

Also included in this run of text is the word agenaelogetos (Strong’s G35), which in most Bibles gets translated as without genealogy, lending further support to the fact that neither Melchizedek nor Jesus had any legal rights of inheritance through their family lines.

It should also be obvious to anyone familiar with the story, that Jesus most certainly did have a father, that being God, and a mother. That being Mary. Jesus also had an adoptive father, that being Joseph.

It is also obvious that Melchizedek had a father and mother. His father being Noah, and his mother being the wife of Ham. And just as in Jesus case, Melchizedek had an adoptive father that being Ham.

If we look at the story of Noah and his three sons, it is obvious that Shem stands out as unique. It is through Shem’s line, that Eber, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob descended. In fact, both Judah, the patriarch of Kings, and Levi, the patriarch of priest descended from Shem as well.

As the Bible points out, and as proven beyond a doubt, in part 3 of this series, Melchizedek, was Canaan. Since Canaan did not descend from Shem, but instead from Noah, through the wife of Ham, he was not in line to receive what the Bible consistently calls the inheritance.

According to tribal law, Canaan was considered to be the son of Ham because he was born in the house of Ham. Even though Ham would have received a land inheritance, he would not be the recipient of any other inheritance, which is a common repeating theme of several Bible books.

In any case, Melchizedek would not even receive a land inheritance through Ham, due to the fact that he was not the biological son of Ham. Canaan like his brothers Shem, Ham, and Japheth, would have received his inheritance directly from his biological father Noah.

At Genesis 9:26 the Bible says:

“Noah declared, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

The word that gets translated as servant at this verse is often translated as slave in other English versions of the Bible, but the Hebrew word, ebed Strong’s H5650 doesn’t really mean the same thing as our modern words servant, employee, or slave.

To a modern English speaking person this word would simply imply that Canaan was a member of the extended family, or tribe. The word ebed as used throughout the Old Testament, is always about male members of the tribe that are not the male tribal leader, or sons of the male tribal leader.

Even though everyone alive at the time probably knew that Canaan was the biological son of Noah, they most certainly would have also known that Canaan was born after the flood, and not involved in the construction of the ark.

Everyone would have known that Canaan, was from the house of Ham, but they also would have known that he was a member of Shem’s tribe.

Just using the information that is included in the Bible combined with the actual Hebrew language text found at Genesis 9:25,26 we can know that Canaan’s family lineage would not be the same as his brothers.

“And he said Cursed Be Canaan. A servant of Servants shall he be unto his brethren And he said Blessed be the Lord God of Shem. Canaan shall be his servant.”

A more accurate rendering of this information into English would sound like this:

“Canaan’s position in the family is unlike the position of his brothers. He shall be a member of all of their families. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem. Canaan shall be a member of Shem’s family”

In our day this distinction does not mean what it did in the ancient past. When Shem was alive, he lived under a system of tribal law, nothing at all like the legal systems that exists in our day. He would have been the family head of a very large family. Much larger than any family on Earth today. Shem lived 600 years. It is very likely that in his lifetime Shem would have been the recognized family head over thousands of descendants, representing many generations.

If we take into consideration that Noah declared Canaan to be a member of Shem’s tribe, then it could very well be said that Shem’s tribe combined with Canaan’s tribe would have represented one half of the entire population of the planet for most of his life.

Think about what these verses mean. Melchizedek was Canaan. The name Melchizedek means rightful king. Even though Canaan was declared to be the rightful king, he is also declared to be a lower ranking member of all three tribes of Noah’s sons. In other words he was not the king or prince over any of the other three tribes, even though the Bible specifically calls him the rightful king.

Currently our rightful king is Jesus. The Bible specifically calls Jesus the prince of peace. Calling Jesus prince indicates that he is the son of a king. As the only begotten son of God, that was alive in the first century, it would only make sense for God’s son to rule over the Earth. Instead he live out his entire life as a lower ranking member of humanity. In the first century, Jesus was never actually treated as a king or a prince, instead he was executed as a criminal.

In the days leading up to his death, Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey. This event is known as Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Crowds of people welcomed him as king, but neither Pilot nor Herod came out to greet him. They did not hand over their crowns, nor did they allow him to sit on their thrones. It was they who along with the Sanhedrin had Jesus executed.

Neither Jesus, nor Melchizedek were recognized as God’s appointed king or priest by the majority of humanity. In Abraham’s day, far from accepting Melchizedek’s rulership, the kings of the Earth were engaging in a war for world domination. In Jesus’ day the kings of the Earth were still engaging in the very same war.

Even now, as Jesus and his angels are preparing for their triumphal return, the kings of the Earth are still engaged in that very same war.

Being placed in Shem’s tribe by Noah, apparently had no effect on his right of inheritance either. Bible chronology clearly indicates that Shem outlived Abraham by 35 years.

It is altogether possible that when Abraham and Melchizedek met, Shem, Ham, and Jepheth were present. There is nothing anywhere in the Bible to indicate that Noah’s three sons, were ever involved in the power struggle that was being fought by their wicked descendants.

As recorded in the Bible, Noah was still alive when this war for world domination began. Try to imagine the significance of that. According to natural law as recorded in the Ten Commandments, everyone alive was given the instinctive understanding that they were to honor their fathers and mothers.

Earth wide the descendants of Noah were murdering one another over the right to rule the planet, likely while Noah was still alive.

Just like Canaan, Noah’s other sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth would have been keenly interested in how events would unfold. It is not all that far fetched to imagine that they might have traveled to the land of Canaan in order to bear witness to what was taking place. After all, by the time that Abraham met with Melchizedek, Noah was dead. At Noah’s death, rulership over the Earth would have gone to it’s family heads, Shem, Ham, Japheth and Canaan. Since Canaan is the only one called rightful king, it is likely that Canaan alone stood to inherit the position left vacant by Noah.

Just as Melchizedek was the only legitimate ruler of Earth in his day, Jesus is the only legitimate ruler of Earth in our day. As our king and priest forever Jesus’ position as head of the human family has for the most part been ignored. Human beings in our day are still engaged in mortal combat for world domination, and completely ignoring Earth’s rightful ruler.

In our day, the citizens of the nations continue to elect and support the political rulers of the Earth, even as they did back in Abraham’s day. Abraham was able to defeat several of the nations that were involved in the conflict, but even the ones that he didn’t defeat were eventually dealt with by God as he rained down fire and sulphur on Sodom and Gomorah.

God’s natural law would dictate that humans honor their father and mother. As written in the ancient past this verse would have been understood by everyone. Honoring father and mother would require that each and every person alive recognize Shem, Ham, Japheth, and Canaan as the oldest surviving members of each of the tribes of mankind. God’s natural law would dictate that no one take a stand against these four men.

The thing that is going to be important for us to understand is the reason why Melchizedek was compared to Jesus. According to mankind’s laws, Jesus like Canaan was not in line to inherit anything when he was born. Even though he was born in Joseph’s house, he was not the son of Joseph. According to mankind’s way of perceiving things, Jesus would have been the adopted son of Joseph.

According to Jesus Genealogy as recorded at Luke Chapter three, in fulfillment of prophecy, Jesus was a direct descendant of King David. However he was not a descendant of Solomon or any of the other kings that came after David. The Bible clearly records the entire history of Israel and Judah, so we know the names of every descendant of David that inherited the rulership of his kingdom.

David was promised that Jesus would come from his loins, but apparently was not told the details. The only lineage that Jesus had was through his mother Mary, a woman. Which would disqualify him from being king. And Mary’s lineage was not even part of the lineage of kings anyway.

Other than David, none of the ancestors in Luke’s genealogy ever held any positions of authority over any part of the nation. Most if not all are not even mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. That being the case, Jesus would have no basis for claiming the right of kingship over Judah through his mother’s lineage.

The other genealogy of Jesus recorded in the Bible is found in Matthew Chapter 1 Verses 1-17. Matthew’s account includes all of the Kings that descended from David, but even in this account, the right of rulership is brought into question. Matthew 1:6 says:

“Jesse was the father of King David. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah.”

Of all of the ancestors of Jesus, mentioned in Matthew, only Solomon’s parentage is recorded in this way. According to law, Solomon was legally the son of Uriah, having been conceived while Uriah was in a covenant relationship with Bathsheba. David may have been the biological father of Solomon, but according to the Bible it was David’s firstborn legitimate son, Amnon that had the legal right to take his father’s place as King of Israel.

Solomon’s rulership would have been illegitimate, and by default the rulership of every king that descended from Solomon would have been illegitimate as well. According to law, Solomon’s legal father would not have been David, but Uriah. Uriah was not an Israelite, but a Hittite. The land of the Hittites is now known as Turkey. The son of a Hittite could never be a king over Israel.

In any case, since Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father, Jesus could not claim the kingship thru Joseph’s family line. And since no King of Israel or Judah had ever been thru the mother’s line, Jesus could not claim the kingship according to the ancestry of his mother Mary.

What I am telling you is that contrary to popular belief, God can choose whoever he wants as our savior, king, and high priest. The only law that God is bound by are the natural laws that he himself set in place. Just because the Jews thought that they were God’s chosen people, and that only men from the tribe of Judah could be acceptable kings, and that only members of the tribe of Levi could serve as high priest, God’s choosing of both Melchizedek, and Jesus, to fill those rolls proves that they were wrong. No prophecy about Jesus having the right to rule based on his family line exists anywhere in the Bible. People over the years obviously thought that there was, but that is not the case at all.

In part 7 of this series, there will be an in depth discussion of the two conflicting lineages of Jesus that are found in the New Testament. As confusing as they may seem to us reading them in English, they were not confusing at all in the oldest Greek texts of the books of Matthew and Luke.

Several prophecies about Jesus family lineage came to pass, just as God said that they would, and since the vast majority of Christians and Jews believe themselves to be racially superior, or nationalistically superior, or members of a superior religion. It is probably to be expected that somehow those beliefs would become part of the prophecies about Jesus’ genealogy.

Abraham was told that the messiah would come through him. The same promise was made to his son Isaac, Isaac’s son Jacob, Jacob’s son Judah, and eventually the promise of a seed was associated with David, and his father Jesse. No such prophecy was ever associated with Solomon or any of his descendants.

The point being that neither Canaan, nor Jesus had any kind of legal claim to the right of kingship, based on ancestry. And yet, the Bible calls both of them Kings.

The Bible clearly declares that neither Melchizedek nor Jesus, could act as priests based on their genealogies, and yet, it is more than obvious that the Bible acknowledged both as being priest.

According to Hebrews 7:9-11 Abraham, not only acknowledged Melchizedek’s office of priest to God most high, but confirmed by his actions that Melchizedek’s priesthood was superior to the Levitical priesthood that would eventually serve the nation of Israel. As the book of Hebrews plainly explains it:

“If I may say so, Levi also, who received tithes, actually payed tithes through Abraham, due to the fact that he was yet in the loins of Abraham when Melchizedek met him. Therefore, if the Levitical Priesthood which officiated over the law and the people, were perfect, what need would there be for another priest? And why would that priest be in the order of Melchizedek? And why would that priest not be in the order of Aaron?”

The Book of Hebrews is pointing out a very important thing for us to consider. As special as the Levites may have thought they were, each and every one of them had been required to pay tithes to Melchizedek while they were still in the loins of Abraham. It could be said that every tithe ever paid to the Levites in reality had been payed years in advance to Melchizedek. Making the Jewish religion perpetually subservient to the priesthood of Melchizedek.

As I said earlier, the Jews were sticklers for every letter of the law, although they never really seemed to pay much attention to the more important things. Over the course of time thousands upon thousands of volumes have been produced about every aspect of the tiniest details regarding their religious rituals. There is no way that they could have missed the fact that Abraham the father of their nation, paid tithes to Melchizedek. The founding father as well as the biological father of the Canaanites.

Since according to the Law of Moses, tithes were only to be paid to the Levites, someone somewhere at some time in Jewish history had to have wondered why the father of their nation would pay tithes to someone that very obviously was not a Levite. Someone who was not a Jew. Someone who was not even of the Hebrew race. They had to have wondered why Abraham the father of their race would pay tithes to the Father of their enemies, the Canaanites.

How could a non Jew, who in fact was the father of a nation, that they considered to be their enemies, be referred to in their own copies of the Tanakh, as the priest of God most high, and the rightful king?

Hebrews 7:12-16 demands that we consider this:

“If there has been a change in the priesthood, then there would by necessity have to be a change to the entire law. The one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. It is evident that our Lord came to his end among the tribe of Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This is even more evident when the priest that arises, is in the likeness of Melchizedek, who receives his office, not on the basis of a legal requirement based on genealogy, but by the power of an indestructible life”

At Hebrews 7:4-10, before writing these words the writer wrote this.

“Do you see how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils? The descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office, have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their own brothers, even though these are descended from Abraham just as they are. But Melchizedek who did not descend from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had been given the promise. It is undeniable that the inferior is always blessed by the superior. In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives.”

When God delivered the Israelites out of Egypt, he offered them the opportunity to return to living by natural law. But when Moses brought them that law, which we today call the ten commandments they rejected it. Moses returned to the mountain to receive a different set of laws, more to their liking.

Ezekiel 20:11-25 puts it like this:

“I gave them my decrees and made known to them my laws, by which the person who obeys them could live. But they rejected those laws, so I gave them worthless statutes and laws through which they could not live.”

The two laws that Ezekiel was talking about were the Ten Commandments, and The Law Of Moses. Man was not made to live by unnatural rules and regulations. As created, man, just like all of God’s other creatures, was perfectly designed to live according to natural law. Every man made law that has ever existed has been wicked. According to the Bible, even the “Law Of Moses” was an unnatural system of wicked rules, by which no man could live.

Even so, many to this day believe that the Law of Moses, was somehow different or superior to the laws of the nations that surrounded Israel. But according to the Bible the only law that has ever been pleasing to God is natural law. The law that God personally carved into stone with his own finger.

In defense of religious doctrines, many will point to the words of Jesus himself. As recorded at Matthew 5:17 Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

The way that this verse is presented by many of the religions of man, makes it seem as if Jesus’ death would somehow fulfill one of God’s greatest desires. To witness mankind torturing and murdering his son. The gods of most of mankind’s religions are bloodthirsty. To the fools that believe in such gods, ritual human sacrifice somehow, makes perfect sense.

However that is not at all what Matthew 5:17 is about. In verse 18 Jesus specifically stated that the law would be done away with on the day that heaven and earth were done away with.

Since most people understand that heaven and earth are not going to be done away with they by default conclude that the law is not going to be done away with either. The problem with that theory is that there are many verses in the Bible which confirm for a fact that heaven and earth are going to be done away with.

Matthew 24:35 says: “Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The churches have no explanation for this concept, but it is actually quite easy to explain, using nothing more than a very basic understanding of the words that are translated as heaven and earth. Ouranos (Strong’s G3772) and Ge (Strong’s G1093).

Ouranos, which gets translated into our English word Heaven, actually means the part of heaven that we can see from our relative positions, here on Earth. Ge which gets translated as our English word Earth, isn’t actually related to our English word Earth in any way.

It is a commonly known fact that when Jesus was alive the stars that he could see from Judea were not the stars that can be seen from Judea currently. Mankind has been producing star charts for thousands of years as navigational aids for sea going vessels, and for the tracking of time. The star charts from Jesus day do not match star charts from our day. The religion of science states that the reason for the variation in star charts is based on a natural process knows as procession of the equinoxes.

It may be that Jesus was referring to this procession of the equinoxes, but according to the religion of science this process takes place slowly over thousands of years. However around the world cultures left evidence that the entire night sky changed right around the time of Jesus’ death. If that is the case, it would explain the earthquake that took place at Jesus’ death, and then again the one that took place three days later.

The word ge, that gets translated into our English word Earth, actually means “land” “the land” or “the land of” as in the land of Judea, or the land of Sodom. In other words how the land is divided up, or who is allowed to inhabit certain parts of the land. Once again, these verses are not about the planet disappearing but instead about changes to the lay of the land.

When Jesus said that the law would not be done away with until heaven and earth were done away with, it was not a promise that the law would remain forever as the Churches claim, but a sure promise that very soon God will restore his planet, and his solar system and destroy all of mankind’s wicked legal systems, including whatever remains of “The Law of Moses”. And he would accomplish this all in a single day. Keep in mind, that according to the law, only male members of the Tribe of Levi could officiate as priests. Legally, Jesus was not a Levite.

The offer held out thousands of years ago, to the nation of Israel to the people that God rescued from Egyptian servitude, will soon be held out to each and every one of us. The only way for mankind to return to God’s natural law is to do away with all unnatural laws.

Hebrews 8:13 records it this way:

“Just by speaking about a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.”

Although most associate the Law of Moses, with religion, that is not what the Law of Moses was about. For a fact, The Law of Moses was the recognized legal system of a nation. Just like our current legal systems, it dealt with things such as murder, theft, inheritance, taxes, also known as tithes, clothing, and food. Just like the laws of every nation on Earth today.

The law of Moses was no more of a religious law than the current legal systems that humans currently have to live by. Laws that allow someone to kill humans in a war, but do not allow people to kill during the commission of a crime are very similar to the legal systems of most nations. The law to build a parapet around any occupied, elevated, space that is found at Deuteronomy 22:8, is no different than similar laws found in current building codes. The law not to eat unclean animals is not really any different than laws set in place by the FDA.

When Jesus returns, he, just as Melchizedek, will become both the rightful king and priest of the most high God. He will not be establishing a new system of nonsensical religious rules and rituals to signify his appointment as High Priest. He will not rule over his subjects using any of the methods used by Satan’s, oppressive Kings, Prime Ministers, Presidents, Emperors, or other Bullies.

Hebrews 5:12 highlights just how important it is to understand the roll of Melchizedek, and how it relates to the roll of Jesus.

“At this time you should all be teachers, but instead you seem to once again, need someone to teach you the most basic principles of God’s truth. You are similar to little babies that have to drink milk because they can’t eat solid food.”

The words of this verse may seem harsh, but when the Book of Hebrews was written the Bible records that many in the congregation were still arguing over whether or not to get circumcised. What foods were kosher, and what foods were not. Which rituals to participate in, and which ones to avoid. People in the first century were struggling with the same nonsense that religious people continue to struggle with today.

Keep in mind what is written at Hebrews 8:13:

“Just by speaking about a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.”

Go back and read that for yourselves once again. As is recorded here in the Book of Hebrews “Just by God speaking of a new covenant, he does away with the old covenant” In other words, just knowing that God is soon going to rid the world of mankind’s wicked laws forever, makes us free from any religious observance of those laws.

We are all still under some form of human law, no mater where we live. We can choose to disobey those laws if we wish, but should we do so, we risk suffering the punishment associated with breaking those laws. However, there were many hundreds of laws that Jesus had to be obedient to in his day, that are no longer enforced in our day. Many Christian, and Jewish Religious laws are purely ritualistic now, and are no longer part of the legal systems of the nations. It is up to us to try to figure out how to live, so as to be safe, as we dwell amongst those who support Satan’s laws, whether religious or official.

2Peter 2:20 put it this way:

“For if after they have escaped the pollution of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the later end is worse with them than the beginning.”

The religions of Christianity present this verse as if it is about escaping “sex, drugs, and rock n roll” and then returning to those things. I can promise you that it is not. The entire 2 chapter of 2Peter is specifically about escaping religion, and then returning to it. It is no wonder that Christendom does not want us to know what these verses are really about. Christianity is every bit as much of a religion as 1st Century Judaism. In fact many Christian religions are nothing more than Judaism with a Crucified Messiah.

In comparing Melchizedek to Jesus we can get a much clearer understanding of basic Bible truth than any of the members of the various cults of man.

That being the case, it would be good to review all of the information available to us in the Bible about Melchizedek, and compare that information to what we know about Jesus.

First off, we need to understand that the only human government that God designed mankind to live under, is the family. That being the case, all of us should be able to figure out that the father of everyone alive on Earth is God. Hence, each and every one of us should look to God, our heavenly father, as the only one who truly has the right to be our ruler. No politician has ever done a better job of ruling the world than our creator.

Proof that the family is the only hierarchy ever approved by God can be found in the ten commandments. Exodus 20:12 says:

Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

That word honor in Hebrew is used to describe how citizens treat their those who outrank them.

Ephesians 6:2 which is part of the New Testament emphasizes the importance of this commandment.

Each of the sons of Noah had a human wife. Canaan was born of Ham’s wife. Biologically Ham was not the father of Canaan. Noah was. At the time, Noah was the father of everyone alive on Earth. According to God’s law to honor our father and mother, Noah would have been the rightful King over all of the Earth.

Joseph had a human wife named Mary. Jesus was born of Mary. Biologically Joseph was not the father of Jesus. God was. God is the father of everyone alive on the Earth. God is the rightful king over everyone alive on the Earth.

Noah was Melchizedek’s father through the wife of his son Ham.

God was Jesus’ father through the wife of Joseph.

Melchizedek was made a King and Priest because either his father Noah declared him to be a King and Priest, or because God declared him to be a king and priest. Noah had at least three other sons that could have been chosen.

Abraham the founding father of the nation of Israel and ruler of his tribe, paid tithes or taxes to Melchizedek. Melchizedek did not pay tithes or taxes to Abraham, who was the victor in the “War of Peleg”.

The founding fathers of the nations and rulers of those nations will be made to pay tithes or taxes to God. That tax will be in the form of their lives. As says:

“The wage that sin pays is death.”

Jesus will not be paying tithes or taxes to the leaders of the current world empire.

This is an important thing to know. When asked at Matthew 17:24-27 about the temple tax Jesus clearly explained that he was exempt because taxes are not collected from sons, but from others.

The words tithes, taxes, and tribute all describe the exact same thing. They are all payments made to an organization or individual based on nothing more than position in a hierarchy. People may perceive tithes taxes and tribute as payment for goods and services, but that is not at all true.

When the war of Peleg was concluded, Melchizedek provided nourishment in the form of bread and wine. After Armageddon our nourishment will be provided by Jesus.

In Abraham’s day there were many political leaders who stood in opposition to Melchizedek. They are all called kings, but only Melchizedek is called the rightful king.

In our day there are many political leaders. But The Bible consistently refers to Jesus as The Christ while referring to all others as false Christs.

In Abraham’s day Canaan’s position as rightful king was rejected by the citizens of Sodom and Gomorah in favor of selfish, aggressive, politicians. Jesus the rightful king was revealed to mankind in the first century and rejected just as Canaan was. Even now, nearly 2,000 years later, selfish, aggressive men and women continue to have the support of the citizens of Lord Satan’s Empire.

God’s Kingdom will soon replace Satan’s Empire forever. Even now, world leaders are working diligently to prepare for the return of Satan their chosen king. In a short while God will expose their chosen King for what he is, as billions follow him to their deaths. We will witness God’s Judgment with our own eyes.

Psalms 110:1,4 has this to say:

“The Lord sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies! The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”

Jesus was sent to rule in the midst of his enemies. Those enemies being the very people that he was sent to rule over. The Earth will still (for the most part) be populated by the enemies of Jesus when he returns.

According to the Book of Hebrews the Levites basically purchased their priestly office through Abraham, from the true ruler of their land Canaan. All of Israel was called the land of Canaan because the Israelites dwelt in Canaan’s land. Just as Abraham had been called an alien resident of Canaan, the Israelite priesthood which descended from Abraham by default would have been alien residents themselves. Their priesthood was by covenant agreement, and not according to natural law.

Currently all of Satan’s Kings and priest are acting as kings and priests over a land in which Satan their true ruler is an alien resident.

Keep in mind what is recorded at Hebrews 7:12.

“If there is a change of priesthood, by default there would by necessity have to be a change of the law.”

The law of Moses, and in fact the laws of all human rulers will be done away with forever when Christ returns. The only law that will be left remaining is God’s natural law. And according to that law, our only legal ruler, is and always has been Jesus Christ.

In Part 9 of this series, we will find out why no man, other than Jesus, can ever legitimately ruler over humanity.

Jesus’ priesthood would break the Law of Moses. Jesus kingship would break Jewish tradition. Jesus priesthood and kingship would actually break every human law and tradition that has existed ever since Satan tricked Eve into leaving off natural law in order to enter into his unnatural covenant law.

As 1John 3:10 says:

“In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.”

It should be obvious that all of us have been created by God, including Satan, however, it is also obvious that many of the people created by God choose to be followers of Satan and supporters of civilization.

No matter how much power Satan’s chosen rulers may seem to have they will never be anything more than alien residents of God’s Kingdom. Their rulership is not legitimate. They are invaders. They must be removed from the Earth and sent to where they belong.

Religious people often refer to being removed from the Earth a rapture. So it could be said that very soon all religious people are going to get raptured along with their father, the founder of religion.

Satan and the supporters of his civilization, do not belong here.

If you don’t want to survive, don’t listen to me.

Melchizedek Part 4 Identifying The Nephilim

Hello, and welcome to another video from the only source of information that you need, to not only survive the current apocalypse, but actually enjoy it, and today’s video is going to be the fourth in my Melchizedek video series.

We are not going to be able to fully understand the significance of the roll that Melchizedek played, unless we first understand who the nephilim are, and by the end of this video, you will know more about the nephilim than anyone else alive on the Earth.

To anyone reading the Bible it is undeniable that from the very beginning the subject of race, or ethnicity seems to be a big issue. The way that the Bible carefully records family lines and the way that God separated the Israelites from the Egyptians, and then later separated the Israelites from the Canaanites makes it obvious that something significant involving lineage had to have been involved.

Even the nation of Israel itself was divided up according to family lineage. Each of the 12 family lines was given very distinct areas of the promised land to inhabit once their 40 year journey was completed. Those 12 family lines being based on the families of the 12 sons of Jacob.

This entire series is based on explaining why these divisions were so important, but today’s video is going to focus primarily on identifying the nephilim. Those individuals that depending on what version of the Bible you are reading are often called giants.

Obviously to anyone with a pure heart, and the capacity to think things through, there is no way that our creator could possibly love one race of man more than another. If God truly had a race that he preferred over the others, then logically as the creator, it would have been within his means to simply not have created the ones that he didn’t like, to begin with.

But it is also obvious that the vast majority of human beings do not have pure hearts, nor do they have the capacity to think things through.

To a racist, every verse having anything to do with the separating of the tribes of man, becomes an excuse for hatred. To a racist every verse having anything to do with God’s chosen people is perceived as proof that those who are not chosen are not as valuable as those who are. And somehow, every racist familiar with the Bible believes that their race is the one that God likes.

As I go through the verses that prove that God does not have a preference for any particular race of mankind, most of the teachings of the race based religions will be overturned. The verses that say that God loves all of us, and that we are all to love one another, are impossible to miss, easy to understand, and obvious.

The Bible verses that are used to support the claims of those who believe in racial purity, never really seem to support any kind of separation of the races as a means of pleasing God. At least not in any solid way that we would want to base our faith on.

Such passages are often difficult to understand, but even if we carefully study each word of each verse, we would never be able to associate them with any kind of racial purity agenda.

Those who believe that the Bible supports racial purity, have to have been taught to do so. No one would ever be able to come to such a conclusion simply by reading the Bible.

But there is a particular line of reasoning associated with something called the Serpent Seed doctrine, that at least on the surface, seems to actually have the support of the scriptures.

If you have ever seen anything posted about the serpent seed, then you are likely already familiar with some of the information that I am about to share with you.

According to the Bible, Eve was told that she could eat fruit from every tree that was in the garden, with the exception of a single tree that has become known as the “Tree of Knowledge of God and Bad”.

According to the serpent seed doctrine this fruit was not a literal fruit, but a euphemism for sexual intercourse. If you follow the line of reasoning that is used to support the Serpent Seed teaching, then you will pick up on the fact that much of what these people believe makes much more sense than what is taught by the traditional religions.

The activities of mankind on this Earth for nearly 6,000 years are so horrible, that many simply cannot accept that those perpetrating such acts, can be genetically similar to themselves.

It would be very easy to simply accept the serpent seed doctrine as truth were it not for the fact that every race of man, and every nation of man, and every blood type of man has been directly involved in every atrocity of man.

Since none of us who has had experience with religion wants to be drawn back into the same trap under a different name, we must remain cautious about becoming too involved with any group of people that requires us to believe in some kind of doctrine, that is not clearly spelled out in the ancient text that have been given to mankind by God.

I myself have understood from very early in my life that reproduction was somehow involved with the fall of mankind, and in fact, even since becoming SustenanceNCovering I have spoken openly about this in several videos that I have produced, including one that I had previously posted about the identity of the nephelim.

A very important first step in figuring out who the nephilim are, and why they came about, was my study of the Ten Commandments.

I knew from reading the Bible that Gods law never changes, and yet, I also knew that the law given to Adam and Eve was not like the law given to Moses. Bible passages that are found at Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 13:8, and James 1:17 all confirm that the true God’s standards do not change. After researching each and every word of the Ten Commandments, I posted a video about just that subject.

After studying the commandment found at Exodus 20:14, and comparing it to the Commandment found at Exodus 20:17 I could see that those two commandments had almost nothing to do with what I had been led to believe by the churches.

“Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. And, Thou Shalt Not Covet Your Neighbors Wife”

Even before looking into the ancient Hebrew words used at these verses, I could see that these two commandments as understood in English obviously contradicted the lifestyles of men like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and David who are spoken of throughout the Bible as being good examples for us to follow.

Each of these men had multiple sex partners. Their relationships with these women are openly and honestly recorded in the Bible. And never once was there anything condemnatory recorded anywhere in the Bible about those relationships.

Very obviously the words found in the ten commandments that we translate into our English words adultery and wife could not possibly be anything like our modern concept of what is adultery, and what is a wife. Otherwise, these righteous men would not have been written about in such a positive way.

Throughout the Bible Slavery is strictly prohibited. It is often difficult to see just how much God hates slavery from reading an English translation of the Bible but in the original languages it is obvious. I have produced several videos addressing this issue.

In any case, most of what God hates about slavery would define our modern concept of marriage. It is obvious that humans were designed to fall in love. In most human sexual interactions romance is involved. It is also obvious that God intended children to have fathers and mothers. But it should also be obvious to anyone studying the Bible, that God never gave humans the right to own other humans.

The concept of coveting another man’s material possessions, livestock, wives, and children had to be about more than just human sexuality.

The Hebrew word that is translated as adultery is na’aph. (Strong’s H5003) Na’aph is used throughout the Old Testament, and in quite a few instances obviously means to interact with the gods.

The only way to harmonize the two concepts expressed by these two commandments, would require thinking of the gods as somehow different. A race of beings that did not have the right to claim ownership of humanity. A race of beings that was somehow different.

Since the Ten Commandments were obviously not given to the gods, but to Moses and the Israelites. I knew that it would be difficult to prove what I am talking about.

Over time these commandments became understood as we understand them today, for a reason. One of the first verses alluding to covetousness and adultery seemingly is recorded at Genesis 6:1-4. It is these verses that lend the strongest support for the Serpent Seed teaching.

“And it came to pass, when humans began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh, yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.”

“There were nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became the mighty men which were of old, the men of renown.”

Although I had never fully understood these verses until I forced myself to sit down and examine each and every word, I always had a basic understanding that these nephilim were somehow involved in most of mankind’s problems prior to the flood of Noah’s day.

I also understood that those nephilim were born as a result of those sons of God having sex with women. And I was 100% right about that.

But having spent my entire life involved with human religions, I had acquired a few beliefs that were not at all correct.

For many many years, I knew in my heart, that those sons of God were powerful spirit beings who came down from heaven to have sexual relations with fleshly mortals. I had heard as much from several Protestants over the years, and had seen an artist rendering of the sons of God staring down from the clouds, at some very attractive young ladies, apparently planning their next move.

Back at that time, I never even thought about trying to research whether or not the religions of man knew what they were talking about. I simply accepted that they were sharing some spiritual truth that someone, somewhere, at some time, had discovered as they were researching these verses for themselves.

As much as I believed that these sons of God were some kind of spirit beings, I eventually had to admit that I was wrong.

Perhaps after Christ’s return we will come to understand so much that we will wonder how we could have ever been so ignorant. But even now, using nothing more than the Bible, we can know much more than those who are involved in religion.

In fact, a very important first step, that I always try to highlight, for people wanting to learn any spiritual truth, is just how essential it is to separate ourselves from whatever belief system we may currently be involved in.

Figuring out any ancient mystery while studying nothing more than the truth is difficult enough. Attempting to do so while at the same time allowing ourselves to be exposed to religious doctrine, would likely be impossible.

Job 2:1 says:

“There was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD and Satan also came to present himself before the LORD”

Just this short piece of text reveals quite a bit about who these sons of God were. First off, the fact the the phrase “sons of God” is plural means that there had to have been more than one.

But if we take into consideration that Satan came in with them, in order to present himself before the LORD, just as those sons of God had come in, to present themselves before the LORD, there is a pretty good possibility that Satan himself may have been one of those sons of God. Linguistically it would at least seem that this is a possibility. But maybe not. In the creation account Satan is called a serpent.

His title of serpent may have simply been figurative, however it equally possible that it may have been literal. I won’t be debating the physical nature of Satan, because I simply do not know. The serpent actually spoke to Eve. Had I ever witnessed a serpent speaking with a human, I would say that certainly Satan was a serpent. But, I have never seen such a thing. The conversation between Satan and Eve took place thousands of years before the languages were confused at the tower of Babel so there is the possibility that Satan was in fact a serpent.

This would be the same Satan that was in the Garden Of Eden with Adam and Eve, and the same Satan that was present when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden.

To anybody reading this verse and other similar verses, these sons of God might seem to be spirits, likely the same spirit beings spoken of in other verses as angels. After all, many religions teach that these sons of God, in fact are spirits, and many accept this information as fact. After all, most of us would never suspect the churches of having any reason to lie about such a thing.

But since that information isn’t clearly spelled out in the Bible, we shouldn’t just take the Church’s at their word. All religions are made up of religious people. And religious people have a very bad reputation for being dishonest.

If we are willing to ignore the teachings of religion, and just concentrate on what is recorded in the Bible, we can get a much better understanding of just who these sons of God were.

If we look at every verse about a son of God, we should be able to at least get a basic understanding of what a son of God is, or what a son of God is not.

Jesus who was a fleshly man is often spoken of as the son of God. That doesn’t necessarily mean that all sons of God are fleshly beings, but at least we can confirm that a son of God doesn’t necessarily have to be some kind of invisible spirit creature. Another son of God that confirms that this is the case is Adam. At Luke 3:38 Adam is called the son of God.

Many religious people deny that Adam was a son of God in the same way that Jesus was a son of God, but linguistically the Bible speaks of Adam, Jesus, Those gathered before God in The Book Of Job, and the fathers of the nephilim, in exactly the same way.

Knowing that God’s word the Bible makes no distinction, indicates that as different as each of these sons of God may have been, they had to have shared some common traits. At the very least, we can know that each of them had the same father, in some unique way. That father being God.

There can be no denying that Jesus was obviously different from every other character in the Bible. Many if not all of Christianity’s conflicting sects recognize that Jesus’ roll makes him the focus of the Bible.

This obvious fact has led many of Christendom’s religions to adopt the doctrine that Jesus is in fact God Almighty himself. Many adherents of the cults of man can not accept that the title “Son Of God” can properly be assigned to anyone other than Jesus.

As obvious as it might be that the title “Son Of God” is not unique to Jesus, the religions of Christianity still attempt to make an artificial distinction, where one simply does not exist.

When speaking of Adam as an ancestor of Jesus, most English versions of Luke 3:38 say:

“the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God”.

In the original Greek, the actual words used here would translate literally as:

“of Enosh, of Seth, of Adam, of God”.

If you notice, in Hebrew, the word son is not actually present in this verse. The Churches teach that Adam was a sinner, and Jesus was not, so the official teaching of some churches highlight the missing word son at this verse as evidence to support that Adam would not qualify for the official title “Son of God”. In the same way that many religions try to say that Satan was not a son of God. As if, Satan had a different creator, or perhaps created himself.

This list runs all the way from verse 23 to 38, but it is all just part of a single thought. It is obvious that everyone on the list is the father of the previous person on the list.

This very long sentence begins by making the curious statement that people thought that Jesus was the son of Joseph. At this verse the word huios (Strong’s G5207) is used. Huios means child, and in context could be properly translated as son, due to the fact that Jesus was male. In other words technically verses 23 and 24 say that, Jesus was thought to be a child of Joseph, of Heli, of Metthat, etc.

Huios is the same Greek word that is used in the phrases “Son Of Man” and “Son Of God”. Meaning that as recorded in Greek, it would be more accurate to call Jesus “Child of Mankind” and “Child of God”.

Although it is obvious that the word huios (child) is not present anywhere, with the exception of the very first verse in this sentence, it is a well known fact that in Attic Greek, the word son would be understood at each use of the word “of” which is an accurate translation of the Greek word tou. (Strong’s G3588)

What is recorded in the Bible is reasonable. What is taught by religion is not. Other verses confirm that people would have likely thought that Joseph was Jesus’ father. After all, Jesus was born in Joseph’s house, to Mary, who was also a member of Joseph’s house.

Adam was created directly by God, so it should be obvious that Adam was a child of God.

Hopefully addressing the language used to describe Adam as a son of God, will mitigate much of the religious foolishness, that is normally directed towards me, whenever I make one of these videos.

It would only be logical to think of Adam as a fleshly being just like us. There is nothing to lead us to believe that Adam was some kind of invisible spirit creature. Jesus, at least during his time among mankind in the first century was also a fleshly being, although there is some debate about where he was and what form he was in prior to his birth, and what form he took after his resurrection.

Now we have to determine what kind of creatures the sons of God were at Genesis 6:4,5.

“The nephilim were on the Earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. They were the famous heroes of antiquity. And the LORD saw that humans were very wicked on the Earth. And every intention of mankind’s heart was only bad all of the time.”

When people say to me that the nephilim somehow survived the flood, or that the nephilim were giants, or that the nephilim were killed off when the sons of Israel entered the promised land, I usually just keep quite. People want details about things that they can not possibly understand without at least a basic understanding of what the Bible actually says.

Today is the day for making that basic understanding available to everyone.

In this video series, I will be revealing many things that the Churches have been successfully concealing for thousands of years. The information that I am sharing with you today, will include everything that a person needs to know about the nephilim. When you are finished listening to all of the information in this series, you will know more about the Bible, than has been known by anyone in at least the last 2,000 years.

I am reasonably sure that everything that we need to know is recorded in just Genesis 6:4,5.

The word that is rendered as nephilim, (nephiyl Strong’s H5303) actually means fellers. In our day men who cut down trees might be called fellers.

At Isaiah 14:8 the Bible says that after Satan is removed from the Earth, the trees will rejoice saying:

“Now that you are gone, no one comes to cut us down.”

It should be obvious to anyone reading this verse, that the cutting down of The Creators trees would have been enough of a sin, in and of itself, to cause our father to refer to those doing the cutting as wicked. According to this verse it was Satan that caused people to cut down trees, and once he is gone, the current practice of doing harm to God’s forest will cease forever.

I have heard religious doctrines that specifically state nephilim means fellers of men, in other words murderers.

Some Bible translations do not use the word nephilim at this verse, but instead render this word as giants. The religious belief that giants once roamed the Earth is so great, that anytime someone uploads a photoshopped picture of archaeologist unearthing a fossilized giant skeleton, it gets shared millions of times on social media as authentic.

There is no linguistic connection between the ancient Hebrew word translated as nephilim, and any ancient Hebrew word related to unusual height. That doesn’t mean that these nephilim, weren’t giants, it just means that there is no evidence for such a belief found in the Bible.

Simply put the Hebrew word nephiyl means feller. I think that the word nephilim could easily mean a feller of anything. Plant, animal, fish, bird, man, or tree.

After all, each of these living things belongs to God, just as the trees do. God entrusted mankind with the very special privileged of being responsible caretakers of his planet, and it should be obvious to any reasonable person, that mankind in general has betrayed that trust.

That being the case, it is more than possible that nephilim, or fellers is simply a title earned for causing the destruction of living things.

Some, reference materials state that the word nephiyl means fallen. In other words these nephilim did not cause others to fall, but instead fell themselves. Often it is implied that they fell from heaven, or fell from grace. But that seems very illogical when we take into consideration how the Hebrew language works.

At Isaiah 14:12 the bible uses the Hebrew word that means fallen:

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

It is the ancient Hebrew word naphal (Strong’s H5037) that is translated as our English word fallen at this verse. Naphal appears in the ancient Hebrew text of the Bible a total of 434 times.

Naphal and nephyl are obviously very similar, which is what we would expect. But, they are also very different, especially as originally rendered in ancient Hebrew.

At each verse where the Hebrew word naphal is used the concept of the subject falling, or being fallen, or being cast down, or even submitting to a more powerful being is undeniable. But in every piece of text that includes the word nephiyl it is obvious that none of the persons is being accused of falling, but instead, of causing others to fall. In fact, even outside of the Bible the word nephiyl is only used to denote those who cause living things to fall.

As Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance brings out. In the Chaldean language, the word nephiyl has been found in ancient Babylonian text about the nephiyl, or giant in the sky. In particular, the giant that we today call Constellation Orion.

There is no ambiguity about the identity of Orion. Orion The Hunter is absolutely, without a doubt, the same individual that the Bible calls Nimrod The Hunter. It is pretty much universally accepted by every authority on the ancient past, that the two are one and the same.

Nimrod was born after the flood, his father was Cush, the natural son of Ham, who was obviously a human, his mother was a human, and yet according to external sources, he was memorialized for all posterity as the Nephilim Constellation.

Obviously constellation Orion is very large. But that does not mean that Orion the man, Also known as Nimrod, was any larger than his peers.

This constellation was not named after Orion because he fell, but because he caused others to fall.

It has been pointed out to me many times by my viewers that giants such as Goliath and Og were nephilim, but within the pages of the Bible there really is no linguistic connection whatsoever between such men and the word nephilim.

I am not saying that Goliath and Og were not fellers, but singling them out as such, would be unfair. Their reputations as great heroes of the ancient past, are fairly inconsequential when compared to other Bible characters, who were never described as unusually tall, such as Nimrod.

According to the Bible the very first King chosen by the nation of Israel was Saul. Saul was not chosen to be king by God, but according to the account God allowed Saul to be king because the Israelites demanded it. According to 1Samuel 9:1 Saul was every bit as tall as Goliath and Og.

“Kish had a son named Saul, a handsome young man. There was not a handsomer man found in all of Israel. From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people.”

I am 6’3” which is rather tall, but not freakishly so. If we figure that quite a few people in Israel were probably the same height as myself, or likely much taller, and add another 12” to cover the extra height of Saul from his shoulders upwards,then Saul would have been at least 7’3” tall. I’m not making this up. 1Samuel 9:1 really is in the Bible. The description of Saul’s height means that he was likely as tall as Goliath and Og.

It should be obvious that Saul was likely chosen by the people, because of his height. Many today who are unusually tall, are admired for this very insignificant characteristic. Perhaps the surrounding nations all had unusually tall rulers. If that is the case, it is possible that those that are called nephilim in the Bible, were all very tall. But without any information recorded in our Bibles to confirm such a thing, we really wouldn’t want to put our faith in any such religious doctrine.

Those who believe that the nephilim survived the flood say that Numbers 13:33 clearly states that there were nephilim in the promised land long after the flood. But at Numbers 13:32 the verse just before that, the Bible says that the report about the nephilim was a lie. Most Bibles say that the report was evil, but the Hebrew word used is not the word meaning evil. It is dibbah (Strong’s H1681) which means lie.

Genesis 6:4 says that the nephilim were on the Earth in those days and also afterwards. Some argue that the nephilim were never done away with, while others say that they were done away with at the flood. Linguistically both could be correct. As worded this verse doesn’t definitively explain exactly what happened, nor does it define the length of time that would be understood by the words also after.

Some English translations of the Bible, incorporate the thought of the nephilim’s time on the Earth being limited, into their literal translations. The New Living Translation says that the nephilim were “in those days and for some time afterwards”. The International Standard Version says “The Nephilim were on the Earth at that time (and also immediately afterward)”. The God’s Word Translation says that the nephilim were on the Earth in those days and also later.

I’m only telling you this so that you can understand that there is some debate among translators as to the precise length of time indicated by the original wording.

I have spent a great deal of time looking at this verse as recorded in Hebrew, but as much as I would like to say conclusively just how long the nephilim continued to live after the days of Noah, I really can’t. Linguistically this verse doesn’t seem to reveal that information.

I believe that much of the disagreement concerning the length of time that the nephilim existed on the Earth is probably based on the fact that if we acknowledge that the nephilim are still here, then we have to somehow identify just who they are.

Since all Bible translators are certified directly by the state through the University system of degrees, and work directly for the religions of the Empire, they are not likely to produce anything that would implicate their leaders as being directly involved in the wicked acts that the nephilim are accused of. After all, if it was revealed that the nephilim Nimrod was nothing more than a political leader who led his men into combat, it would have to be acknowledged that all political leaders of nations with armies are Nephilim.

Perhaps God had this information recorded in this way so that we could form our own opinions.

According to this passage, as originally recorded, the nephilim could have continued on the Earth all the way up until they were killed at the flood. This is a doctrinal belief of some religions.

Others believe that they lived all the way up until the nation of Israel eradicated them. Some even believe that the nephilim are still alive and among us to this day. Linguistically, the length of time indicated by the scriptures could indeed have extended beyond the deluge of Noah’s day.

If the nephilim continued to live after the flood, the Babylonian belief that Nimrod was a nephilim, may be accuarate. Even the claims of the spies sent out by Moses, may have been correct. The Bible calls those spies liars, but it doesn’t actually tell us which part of their report was the lie.

We are going to have to go much deeper than the cults of Christianity and Judaism, if we want to come to an accurate understanding of what is meant by the wording of these verses.

Calling the nephilim famous heroes is more accurate than calling them men of renown, or famous men of old, as most English translations of the Bible traditionally do. The word enowsh (Strong’s H582) might be better translated in some other way. According to most Hebrew reference materials the word can only mean human men, but that is not how the word is used in the Bible.

At Genesis 19:1, the Bible says that two angels visited Lot in Sodom. At Genesis 18:2 these same angels are called enowsh. If we read further in the account, we are told that the men of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house in an attempt to abduct these angles. This is found at Genesis 19:4, but this time it is the men surrounding the house that are called enowsh.

If in this one account both men and angels are called enowsh, then obviously enowsh can not simply mean male humans, at least not as we currently think of angels. It is possible that both the men and the angels in this account are biologically humans, in a fleshly form.

If we refuse to believe that angels can exist in fleshly form, then it is likely that we have been trained to do so by religion. Religion as we know it, is any belief system that people subscribe too that is not supported by provable facts.

Nowhere in this account does the Bible specifically say that these angels were some kind of spirit creatures. Previously these same angels had met with Abraham and eaten food, which is another good indication that these angels were in fact fleshly beings.

There really are not any scriptures that I can think of that clearly define what an enowsh is. Many verses about enowsh are obviously about named men, so we can know for a fact that an enowsh can be a man, but that doesn’t mean that a woman can not also be an enowsh.

Just like the teaching that this word can only pertain to humans, the teaching that enowsh can only be male may be false as well.

There is a word that can only be used to describe women, which is never used to describe men that is formed from the word enowsh.

That word is ishshah (Strong’s H802). According to the teachings of religion this word means wife, and is made up of the two words iysh which we are told means man, and enowsh which we are also told means man.

The ancient Hebrew language is usually very logical. So we need to understand that something is not quite right with the current understanding of what this word means. There would be no logical connection between our modern concept of a wife, and two Hebrew words both meaning man. It simply does not make sense to define a wife as a man man.

I have posted many videos explaining that the word iysh has no English equivalent. Because it describes a position in society that is no longer part of our current social order.

Iysh means male tribal leader. Enowsh means leader. Iyshsha can only mean leader of the male tribal leader.

In other words, throughout the Old Testament, the word tribal leader is never used when speaking of a woman, because women are always referred to specifically as leaders of the male tribal leaders. The word ishshah is used throughout the Hebrew portion of the Bible.

The Hebrew title of iyshsha is always assigned to women who were the sexual partners of very powerful men. In our culture the wives of powerful rulers might be thought of as iyshsha.

But the word iyshsha can not simply be translated as wife due to the fact that many men in our day, who are married to wives, would not be considered powerful according to Bible standards.

But since very few people still live by tribal law, it could be said that every housewife is an iyshsha, a leader of a male tribal leader.

Another point that I think needs to be brought out is that the word enowsh which means leader is the root of the word anash (Strong’s H605). Anash means incurably sick.

Hidden in the Bible account of the fall of mankind, there is a very direct connection between the words enowsh meaning leader and anash meaning terminally ill, which is brought out at Romans 5:12:

“Sin came into the world through one human, and death through that sin, hence, death spread to all humans because all sinned.”

If you look at this verse in any English version of the Bible, you will not see the word human, but the words man, and men. Once again translation errors are to blame.

Many verses in the Bible similar to this verse seem to be about Adam bringing sin into the world, however there are also verses like this, that are very obviously about Eve bringing sin into the world. And there can be no denying that there are other verses about Satan bringing sin into the world.

The actual word that is used here is the Greek word anthropous. Anthropous is where we get our English word anthropology, which means the study of humans, not the study of male humans.

Mankind was promised by God that if obedient to his command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, we would live forever.

Satan told Eve that God was lying, and that she would live forever, weather she ate of the fruit of the tree or not. But Satan also promised Eve that she could be like the gods. In other words a leader.

But it was not God that was lying. As John 8:44 brings out, Satan was lying. Because as soon as Eve ate from the fruit she became terminally ill, just as God had said. The fact that Eve is no longer among the living, proves that what I am telling you is true. The moment that Eve ate of the fruit, she became both enowsh, a leader, and anash, terminally ill. The same could also be said about humanity in general. For a fact, according to the Bible, the root cause of human mortality is the perverted desire to be like gods.

In trying to determine if the Sons of the true God were indeed spirit creatures, or actually fleshly beings, just like ourselves, I diligently searched the scriptures for any passage that seemed to support the possibility that the sons of God were in fact some kind of beings that existed in the spirit realm. But I was unable to positively identify a single verse that seemed to support such a notion.

Nowhere in the Bible are the word angel and the phrase “son of God” used to describe the same individual. However, as I said earlier, the phrase “son of God” is used to describe both Adam, as a fleshly human being, and Jesus when he was alive on the Earth as a fleshly human being.

Since Satan and Adam, who are both spoken of in the Bible as living within the Garden of Eden, at the same time, it is only logical to conclude, that each and every person spoken of as a son of God in the Bible was a created being, made by God, without fleshly parents.

At Genesis 6:2 The phrase sons of God as written in ancient Hebrew, is plural, meaning more than one.

Job 2:1 reveals that the sons of God (plural) came to present themselves before God, which once again means more than one son of God would have been present, and then it says that Satan came in among them, meaning that his presence would be added to those who would already be there.

We cannot simply assume that Satan himself was a son of God, based on the fact that he entered in among the sons of God. But perhaps he was. Similarly, we can’t simply assume that there were more than two sons of God. Sons being plural simply means that there were more than one. But we do have to at least acknowledge that there were possibly more than two sons of God present, and that Satan himself may have been a son of God.

Up to this point, this entire video has been devoted to explaining some essential background information that is going to be useful in determining just who the nephilim are. But if we simply go back and read the verses that are specifically about the nephilim, we may possibly be able to figure out who they are without having to do any additional research at all.

Genesis 6:1 says:

“When human beings began to reproduce”

There is no confusion about what this means. Human beings had children. This is not about spirit creatures having children, it is specifically stated that these children were humans, born of humans.

As worded in English there is some confusion, about who had who, but that is easily cleared up simply by examining the original language text. According to our English language Bibles, “Men had daughters”. But a more appropriate understanding of this verse would be, “Men and women began to multiply”.

The excuse that translators use in explaining their rendering is based on the word that is translated as daughters of men. The Hebrew word bath (Strong’s H1323) is made up of the two words banah (Strong’s H1129) which means built. And ben (Strong’s H1121) which means sons. In other words the phrase, daughters of men, would be more accurately translated as beings built from the sons.

If you think about it, this is a very good description of Eve. According to the creation account, Adam, the son of god, was created from the dust, and Eve was created from Adam. In effect Eve was “built” from Adam.

Since Eve was made from Adam’s rib, it could be said that she was Adam’s daughter. But since both were created by God, a more appropriate way of thinking of Adam and Eve would be as brother and sister.

Within the pages of the Bible, the concept of brothers and sisters reproducing offspring is not unique to Adam and Eve.

Since Adam and eve would have been biologically similar, it would not be wrong to think of them as clones. But since they were of different genders, probably a better way to describe them would to be as twins.

In our day when close relatives reproduce, there is an increased risk of certain kinds of problems due to the fact that if both parents carry a genetic defect, it is more likely that their offspring will be affected by that defect.

But far from absolute, many brothers and sisters, over the course of history have reproduced healthy offspring. This even happens from time to time in our day. The only reason that I am mentioning this, is because it is a common misconception that as brother and sister, Adam and Eve could not have reproduced healthy children together.

Since all of the sons of God would have been genetically perfect without any defects at all, any offspring resulting from a mating of Adam and Eve would themselves have been perfect. Had Adam and Eve’s offspring remained faithful to their race, every single descendant of theirs would likely, to this day, look exactly like Adam and Eve.

Another very logical line of reasoning that can not be denied is the fact that those daughters of man. Those beings built out of the sons of God, as spoken of at Genesis 6:1 are spoken of in the plural.

If each of those sons of god was genetically distinct from one another, but Adam was genetically identical to Eve, Eve having been created from his rib, we would expect that those other women would have been created in a similar way. In other words each of the sons of God might have had a mate created from their ribs.

I know that none of this is recorded in the Bible, but we have to recognize that there is no other explanation as to who these multiple sons of God were, and that there is no other explanation as to who these multiple women built out of men would have been.

Another reason that we can believe that there were multiple races of man created and placed in the garden, is that the story of creation, which is very limited, starts to make perfect sense once we compare what we know about creation with other stories containing similar details that are recorded in our Bibles.

The two commandments of not to covet your neighbors wife, as translated into English, combined with the commandment not to commit adultery, as translated into English, would quite accurately describe any sex act between Satan and Eve, when combined with the covenant to break God’s law, that Satan and Eve entered into when they shared fruit from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad”. But as we are going to find out, that belief does not have the support of the Bible when taken as a whole.

Some may believe, and rightfully so that God’s commands still stand to this day. To many people reading the verses involving the nephilim, which many believe involves the mixing of angels and humans, or the mixing of the races, is closely associated with much of the suffering that mankind has endured over the centuries.

I posted a video not too long ago about what the ten commandments are actually about, and how none of those commandments can be followed in our day due to the changes that have taken place on the Earth, as well as in our solar system.

Very obviously in our day, any commandments that people may imagine to be associated with the mixing of the races would be impossible to observe.

No area of the Earth is currently inhabited by people that are identical in appearance. Each and every one of us is different from each and every other one of us, with the exception of those who just happen to be identical twins. But even in identical twins there are significant differences.

No matter how much time you devote to the study of the scriptures, you will never find any indication that God has a special love for any particular nation, race, skin color, or blood type. Obviously something else has to be involved.

In the first century when Jesus was here on the Earth, in the flesh, he said things that seemingly fit in very well with the Serpent Seed doctrine. At Matthew 23:33 Jesus accused the teachers of the law and the Pharisees, of being descendants of Satan.

“You Snakes! You children of the serpent! How do you plan on avoiding the judgment of Gehenna?”

Jesus was very clearly associating those religious leaders with the serpent seed. However, nowhere in the Bible are we given any information that would help us to identify any kind of genetic trait that Jesus would have used to help him to determine that those pharisees descended from Satan.

If those Pharisees shared some kind of character trait such as blood type, or a similar skin color, we will probably never know. Using every bit of information that is recorded in the Bible, we can’t even determine what color Jesus was. And contrary to what some religions teach we certainly will never be able to determine his blood type.

With every bit of information that is at our disposal we can get a basic understanding of just who those nephilim were that seemingly caused all of our problems.

Those nephilim are us. Kind of.

Lets look at the verses that tell us about the nephilim one more time, as found at Genesis 6:1-4.

“And it came to pass, when humans began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh, yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.”

“There were nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became the mighty men which were of old, the men of renown.”

Obviously the time when humans began to multiply would have been shortly after humans were created. Linguistically there isn’t really any indication that the title of nephilim was limited to the offspring of those sons of God. The Hebrew word Nephelim simply means fellers.

Since those sons of God were alive when men began to make a name for themselves as fellers, even the sons of God would have qualified as nephilim if they caused any of God’s plants, animals, fish, birds, trees, or fellow human beings to die.

Since the word nephilim in this verse is associated with those who had a well know reputation for killing living things, we can assume that this title as used in this verse was only being applied to those that were involved in the felling or killing of living things.

In the Bible Satan himself could be one of those accused of being a nephilim. John8:44 says:

“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 the institution of lying.”

It could be said that Satan was a murderer because he caused Eve to loose her life, and by default all of us as well. But, we don’t know everything about Satan.

It is possible that while in fleshly form, he eventually led military campaigns in his lust for power, directly engaging in carnal warfare, taking many human lives with his own hands.

Cain himself may have been considered by God to be a nephilim for the act of killing his brother.

According to the serpent seed doctrine the reason that Cain killed his brother was because Satan was Cain’s biological father. Initially I dismissed this teaching as utter nonsense. After all, I had always been told that Cain and Able were brothers, having the same father and mother.

But after discovering that much of what I had learned from religion over the course of my lifetime, was a lie, I felt that it would be best if I researched the passages dealing with the circumstances surrounding the birth of Cain and Abel thoroughly before declaring the “Serpent Seed Doctrine” to be untrue.

The account of Cain’s conception can be found at Genesis 4:1,2.

“Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of Yahweh.” And again, she bore his brother Abel.”

Linguistically this verse seems to explain in no uncertain terms that Cain’s birth resulted from Adam, knowing Eve. But since the Serpent Seed people refuse to acknowledge that this verse is about intercourse, I felt that I had to at least listen to why they might feel this way.

The word translated as knew, is yada (Strong’s H3045). Yada is properly translated as knew. In other words, this word is not specifically about sexual intimacy, but can be used just as our English words “know” and “knew” are used.

At Genesis 6:4 the word that is used to describe the sex acts between the nephilim and the daughters of men, is bow (Strong’s H935) which would be accurately translated as “came unto”, or “entered in” at this verse.

But this word, just like the word yada is not limited in it’s use to describing only sexual intimacy. Just a few verses later, At Genesis 6:20 God tells Noah:

“Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.”

At this verse the word bow is rendered as come unto thee.

Yada, the word that is translated as knew at Genesis 4:1 can be used to describe many things having nothing to do with human reproduction, but there is no denying that it is repeatedly used throughout the Bible as a way of telling us who the biological father was of who.

Just a few verses after the account of Cain’s conception and birth, at Genesis 4:17 the bible records the birth of Cain’s son Enoch.

“Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch”

At this verse the word yada is rendered as made love. Several English translations render this word in this way in both verses that I am discussing.

I have no agenda, hence, I would not choose to render this word in this way, even though I believe that doing so communicates exactly what the word yada means at this verse.

Another verse that confirms that the biological father of Cain was Abel is the description of the birth of his brother Seth who eventually became an ancestor of Jesus.

At Genesis 4:25 we are told:

“And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore another son and called his name Seth, for as she said, God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, because Cain killed him.”

If we look at Genesis 4:1 again, the word that is translated as “and she conceived” is watahar (Strong’s H2029). This word isn’t just using the word “and” as if it is transitioning into a separate thought. As originally recorded the word watahar is specifically pointing to Adam’s knowing Eve and the cause of Cain’s conception. There isn’t any room for any alternate understanding of how Cain’s conception came about. As originally rendered in ancient Hebrew, only Adam could be the biological father of Cain.

Even though genetic traits such as skin color, blood type, and height, are chosen for us, traits such as wickedness, and righteousness are often spoken of in the Bible as the result of personal choice.

It must also be acknowledged that according to the Bible we all descended from the sons of God, and the women built from those sons of God. In other words even though we all have only one biological father and one biological mother, we all have many thousands of biological ancestors.

In effect each and every one of us has descended from Adam, and any other sons of God that happened to have been in the Garden of Eden. Including any wicked sons of God. It could be said that we inherited the characteristics of righteousness or wickedness from both. However it could be argued that like skin color and blood type, we don’t get to chose what kind of person we are. And there may in fact be some truth to that. But there is more recorded here that makes that seem unlikely.

At 1John 3:12 the relationship between Satan and Cain is explained in greater detail.

“Let us not be like Cain, who belonged to the wicked one, and slew his brother. And why slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s works were righteous.”

According to this verse,it was not a biological inherited character trait that caused Cain to become wicked. It was a choice. The verse does not say that Cain was just like his father Satan, but that he belonged to Satan.

According to the Ten Commandments we are to “honor our father and mother”. Cain obviously did not kill because he was the biological son of Adam. Cain learned to be a murderer likely, from the only recognized murder that is spoken of as being alive on the Earth at the time. Satan.

Obviously Eve was not the daughter of Satan. She was created by God from one of Adam’s ribs, and yet she chose to join Satan in his rebellion against God. Many feel that it would be unfair to judge Eve for her actions, and the Bible agrees, somewhat.

As a result of her rebellion, she eventually died, so did Adam and all of their children. According to Romans 6:23 that was their punishment for their sins.

“The wage that we are paid for sinning, is death”

Eve was told that if she sinned she would die. God’s word came true when Eve eventually died, therefore she has received her punishment in full.

But unlike the gods of punishment and reward that are worshiped by those who practice religion, The True God does not falsely claim to be forgiving. According to Acts 24:15 our God, the True God, really is forgiving.

“I have the same hope in God that they themselves cherish, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.”

Once I was able to clearly see from the Bible account, that the nephilim were nothing more than humans with a reputation for violence, I had to try to determine if this phrase would be applied to all of mankind, or just to those with an exceptional reputation for killing living things.

After all we could all be called nephilim if all that is required is the killing of plants, animals, fish, birds, people, or trees.

In the beginning Adam was only given permission to eat the fruit, and leaves of trees. Not the trees themselves.

Such a diet would not lead to the death of anything. Many have chosen to live as close to that law as possible by only consuming vegetables. But with the advent of agriculture, even vegetarians are limited by the laws of civilization as given to man by Satan. Agriculture is nothing like what mankind would have eaten in The Garden of Eden.

Without the destruction of God’s forest agriculture would not be possible. Billions of acres of God’s planet have been destroyed in Satan’s quest for world domination. And that destruction continues to this day.

Plants, animals, birds, fish, trees, and even human beings die every minute of every day due to the process of converting this planet into agricultural projects.

Many greedily assist Satan and his demons, by fully devoting themselves to the expansion and preservation of his civilization.

Even thought it is undeniable that the word Nephilim, means fellers, and that the word fellers simlply means murderers. I believe that the verse is specifically about a certain type of murderer. Calling these Nephilim ‘the mighty men which were of old, the men of renown.” Indicates that they stood out, and in fact unlike common murderers, were admired for the killing that they were involved in. So much so, that they were considered to be heroes.

In our day, just as in the ancient past, the only murderers that are admired as heroes would be members of the world’s armed forces.

The Bible does not require that we take a stand against these sons of the serpent. Using nothing more than common sense, anyone can see for themselves that struggling against Civilization, by involving ourselves in the political process, carnal warfare, or judicial actions has never once had any effect whatsoever on slowing down mankind’s destruction of our father’s children.

We do not want to fall into the same trap that Eve fell into when Satan offered her the opportunity to improve her situation by making herself like a god.

God does not require us to attempt to elect leaders, that we feel may enact better laws designed to save the forest. God does not expect us to try to figure out, which agricultural products are produced in a sustainable manner. God does not even require us to plant a tree.

When Adam and Eve were created, they were placed in a garden that had already been planted, and very soon we too will find ourselves in such surroundings.

The last thing that we think about as we drift off to sleep every night, should somehow relate to how terrible civilization is, or how wonderful life is going to be once civilization is done away with forever.

The wicked never think about such things. They are so obsessed with their own selfish desires, that they never think about much more than dominating others that do not have the same religious beliefs that they have. People that do not have the same color of skin. People that live on the other side of some imaginary line.

Selfish people can’t even get along with those who are the same religion, same color, or citizens of the same nation.

Very soon all of the worlds military personnel, as well as the mindless, selfish, fools that admire them, will be exposed for what they truly are, Cowards. Revelation 6:15 puts it this way:

“ And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and their mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.”

Throughout the Bible stories about family lineage often involve disputes between children by birth and children by adoption. Jesus himself was considered to be a child of Joseph, even though we know for a fact that he was really a child of God.

Biologically, we are all children of the sons of God. However The Bible holds out the promise that we can all one day be adopted as Children of God.

The Greek word huiothesia (Strong’s G5206) translates as our English word adoption, and occurs 5 times in the New Testament. Ephesians 1:5 uses the word adoption this way:

“He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ for Himself, according to His favor and will.”

Nearly everything that we can learn about Adam, Satan,the nephilim, Noah, Noah’s sons, Abraham, Melchizedek, and Jesus usually relates to lineage.

However, since we have all descended from the same God, and since each and every one of us is unique, we can not logically conclude that everyone who is wicked has the same color of skin, or belongs to the same religion, or lives in the same country, or shares a similar blood type.

There are many stories from many cultures involving beings called gods, with extraordinary powers. The Bible itself contains many similar stories. Even Jesus exhibited such powers. He was able to heal the sick, raise the dead, miraculously feed thousands of people, and even walk on water. When asked about his extraordinary abilities by a man named Nicodemus, Jesus replied in a way that revealed a sacred secret that the churches have been concealing for thousands of years. I’ll be revealing this secret as this series progresses. In fact before this series concludes I promise that I will be revealing many sacred secrets.

The small amount of time that you will need to invest in watching this series from beginning to end will be well worth it.

Events are about to start taking place that are going to require you to make some very important decisions. You don’t want to be faced with those decisions unprepared. All of the propaganda being promoted by The Empire is poison. No political decision will ever lead to you, or anyone else ever acquiring everlasting life.

If you don’t want to survive, don’t listen to me.

Melchizedek Part 3 Revealing The True Identity Of Melchizedek

Hello, and welcome to another video from the only source of information that you need to not only survive the current apocalypse, but actually enjoy it, and today’s video is the next installment in the Melchizedek Video Series. And in this particular video, I will be revealing, just who Melchizedek is.

In part 1 of this series, I explained in no uncertain terms that according to the Bible Abram was born 60 years earlier than the Churches claim, and that when he was born, all of his ancestors were still alive, including Noah, the builder of the ark.

Since religious people hate truth and love lies, there is no possibility that any of them are going to use this information to increase their understanding of God’s word The Bible. It is more likely that they will simply continue doing as they always have, treating this essential Bible truth as inconsequential.

I can promise you that it is not.

Over time, Civilization’s religions have created a fiction that each and every one of us has come to accept as truth, without even being aware of it. We have all come to accept that the Bible is a collection of, for the most part, unrelated stories designed to teach us basic life lessons. When in fact, that is not the case at all.

The Bible is a single unified story about mankind’s struggle to overcome God’s natural law. The core theme of the Bible is “The war between God’s Kingdom, and Satan’s Empire.” These vital truths, which under normal circumstances would be self evident have been hidden from mankind for thousands of years, by the hierarchical demonic system know Earth wide as religion.

We can learn a great deal about how the Churches have been able to accomplish this as we unravel the mystery surrounding the identity of Melchizedek. Once you become aware of this one simple method that the churches use to confuse mankind, you will be much better equipped to recognize other lies that you may currently be unaware of.

Many events take place in The Book of Genesis. Just a few examples from Chapter 5 to 20 would be: The birth of what many English Bibles call nephilim, or giants, associated with the ruining of the Earth. God bringing a global deluge. Noah getting drunk and sinning. Nimrod building a tower and the languages of mankind becoming confused. Abram being called out of Ur to travel to the promised land. A great war beginning with the death of a man named Peleg. And Abram’s meeting with the rightful king, referred to in our Bibles as Melchizedek.

To the average person these incidents are called Bible stories (plural). Breaking up the Bible into individual unrelated events is not without purpose. Separating these parts of the Bible into individual stories is much more insidious than someone might think.

As children, we are exposed to Bible stories on TV, and are given Bible story books, as part of the process of learning to read. As adults, we hear these stories in Church. A preacher might get up in front of his worshipers and speak in great detail about the Tower of Babel. He may even give some kind of explanation of what that story means for us today.

At some other time he may choose to speak of how Jesus will be a king and priest in the manner of Melchizedek. But you will never hear any Representative, of any of the Empire’s religions, speaking in any way that would allow someone to figure out, that these two stories, as well as the others, are part of a single event. Doing so would, without a doubt, lead to revealing Precious Bible Truths which could potentially weaken religion’s hold on God’s children.

The Bible does not go into great detail about every aspect of life immediately following the flood. But we do know that up until the birth of Abram, not a single death had been recorded following the flood. In fact the very first mention of death after the flood, was the death of Peleg, which took place when Abram was 48 years old. The death of Peleg is much more significant than any of the cults of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam want you to know.

I am now going to be speaking about some seemingly unimportant dates and events, that at first might sound boring and confusing, but when I am done, I will put the whole story together so that you can go back, and confirm for yourself that everything that I am telling you today is accurate.

You will probably be shocked that your pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi, or imam never told you the truth about these precious Bible teachings. It is also very likely that you will rejoice, that after years of being lied to, you can now confidently walk away from whatever religion has been manipulating you into ignorance.

The Bible records very detailed information about the timing of events in the ancient past, however that information was written down long before our modern Ano Domini calendar was created.

Since there is no way for us to know for certain when events from the ancient past took place according to our modern calendars, it would be best if we study this information using the ancient Ano Mundi Calendar. I have already explained how that calendar worked in the previous video.

We are not told of exactly when Noah’s Grandson Nimrod began to build cities. In fact, we don’t even know when Nimrod was born, or when he died. But we do know that he was Noah’s Great Grandson, so as a contemporary of Noah’s other Great Grandson Salah who lived from 1693AM to 2126AM we can expect that Nimrod would have lived at roughly the same time as Salah. Although not precise, this information gives us a good basis for determining the general timing for the construction and fall of Babel.

We know that Abram met with Melchizedek in the promised land and we also know that Abram did not leave Ur to travel to the promised land, until he was 75 years old, meaning that his meeting with Melchizedek would have to have taken place sometime between 2023 and 2123AM.

The meeting between Abram and Melchizedek took place after Abram ended a war between the Kings from The East and the kings residing within the promised land, that had descended from Canaan. The Bible makes a point of telling us that immediately after the flood the Earth, was for the most part united, and that this was the situation for quite some time.

The details of the life and death of Abraham’s Great Great Great Grandfather reveal another clue to determining when this era of peace officially ended, and when the meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek took place. As the Bible says at Genesis 10:25 Eber had a son that was named Peleg, because in his days the Earth became divided. The Hebrew word peleg means irrigation canal, and is indicative of the division brought about by such a water feature. Peleg lived from 1757 to 1956AM.

The war that Abraham participated in could not have taken place prior to the birth of Peleg in 1757AM. But most likely would have taken place at the end of Peleg’s life in 1956AM.

When Peleg died, he was 239 years old. As old as that might seem today, at the time it was exceptionally young. As I said Earlier, the Bible does not record the dates of every birth and death of everyone involved, but of those that are recorded, none had ever died as young as Peleg. In fact prior to the Death of Peleg, the shortest natural lifespan of anyone that had ever lived was that of Noah’s father Lemech at 777 years old.

That means that Peleg’s life span was 538 years shorter than any other human that had ever Lived, with the exception of Enoch who God took prematurely. It is an undeniable fact that Peleg had to have died some kind of unnatural violent death. If we take into consideration that Peleg was named as a result of the war, we can safely assume that he got his name by being an especially significant casualty of that war, perhaps the first. Were we to give this war a name, it would not be wrong to call it “The War Of Peleg”.

A major event spoken of as part of this Bible account is reported to have taken place in the land to the East when people miraculously lost the ability to communicate with one another. Genesis 11:9 says:

“Because there the LORD confused the language of all the Earth and from there the LORD dispersed them over the face of all the Earth.”

That means, that for a certainty we can say that the Exodus from Babylon would have taken place sometime between 1757AM and 1956AM.

Since this account includes the Table of Nations as found at Chapter 10 of Genesis, we can expect that every single family line mentioned was somehow involved when these events began to take place. The Bible did not record the births and deaths of everyone on the list, so we can assume that the dates that are recorded, are the only ones that are important to understanding the chronology of the story.

Even for me, it is quite difficult to keep the story straight in my head. I had to carefully document every date, and event mentioned in the Bible, on a chart that is available on the website. It will make the story much easier to understand if you follow along on the chart while I am describing the details of this account. It may be even easier to understand if you listen to the whole story all the way through and then go back and follow along with the chart afterwards.

After the flood, humanity began to settle into a relatively small area of the Earth called Shinar, which means land of two rivers. Those two rivers are the Tigris and Euphrates. The entire area would eventually become known as the Babylonian Empire. According to Genesis 10:9, the first human ruler to rebel against Noah was his Great Grandson Nimrod, who is called a mighty hunter in the sight of Yahweh.

In our English Bibles we are told that the languages became confused at Babel, and later in the Bible we are told that the Jews were conquered and taken into captivity in Babylon. The distinction between Babel and Babylon only exists in Translations of the Bible. In the original Hebrew text, the names of the two are identical. The distinction made by the Churches is false. Babel is Babylon.

In 1948AM Abram was born there, in a world that was united. Everyone spoke the same language, and no one had ever died since the time of the flood. When Abram was 48 years old, his Great Great Great Grandfather Peleg died, what would have been an untimely death, likely as the first victim of the war that would disrupt Abram’s life.

Ten years after Peleg’s death, Noah died. It was at this time that Abram was called to go to a strange land. Abram’s tribe was called the Hebrews after his Great Great Great Great Grandfather Eber, who’s name means from the land beyond. Eber was Peleg’s father.

It is very likely that Babylon fell, and the languages of mankind were confused in 2006AM, the very same year that Noah died. In fact, from the way that the account is worded in the ancient Hebrew language, it seems more than likely, that the death of Noah was the actual event that triggered the confusion of the languages.

The scriptures support this assumption, and there are no scriptures that contradict it. To this day, linguist acknowledge that all of mankind’s languages can be divided into three primary branches, Hamitic, Semitic, and Aryan. These divisions follow the same pattern spoken of in “The Table Of Nations” found in Genesis Chapter 10.

Hamitic languages are spoken by the peoples who descended from Ham. Semitic languages are spoken by the peoples who descended from Shem. And Aryan languages are spoken by the peoples that descended from Japheth. Obviously those who study languages were influenced by the Babylon Story and it’s association with the table of nations.

That, in no way detracts from the fact that 3,500 years ago, while travel and communication were still extremely primitive, the Bible accurately recorded the origin and dispersion of every language spoken on this planet, and the three primary branches of those languages.

Linguist did not use the Bible account of the confusion of the languages as a pattern for creating some kind of fiction. The differences and similarities that exist between the languages of man are very real. The patterns that linguist associate with the three major divisions of the languages are very easy to perceive, even by those of us who are not trained to do so.

Abram left Ur in 2023. It is obvious that the languages of man had already been confused prior to his entering the promised land, because the names of the Kings involved in the war were not in the same language as that of Abram.

When Abram was called out of Ur he was not the only one that took flight. In fact the promised land was not his first stop. As recorded it is difficult to understand exactly what Abram was doing, but it seems as if he traveled around the outskirts of the land of Canaan for quite some time before finally making his way to Egypt, hundreds of miles past Canaan, to the South West. Only stopping on the outskirts of the promised land to make camp twice. It is possible that Abraham chose his route as a means of circumventing the war.

According to the account, Abram’s migration was motivated by a famine in the land. When he arrived in Egypt he encountered a people ruled over by a man called Pharaoh. The details of how these people had ended up in Egypt are not revealed, but it is likely that the death of Noah, the confusion of the languages, the famine in Canaan, and the ensuing war, drove them all to migrate at about the same time. In other words The Egyptians probably didn’t arrive in Egypt much earlier than Abram and Sari. Perhaps at the same exact time. This account can be found at Genesis 11:9, 12:2

In any case Abraham did eventually make the promised land his home, but we have no way of knowing exactly when. He left Ur when he was 75, but a lot of things happened between the time he left Ur, and the time he finally settled in Canaan.

This war took place in the very ancient past, which would explain why the kings Amraphel, Arioch, and Chedorlaomer have names of uncertain origin. Many cultures from the ancient past no longer exist. Being so short lived, it is likely that the nations that these particular kings represented did not have time to leave any trace of their languages in written form.

According to Hebrews 7:1, which was written hundreds of years later, Abram didn’t just defeat these kings, he completely exterminated them. Without political leaders or a military and probably without even any remaining men, these people likely ceased to exist as nations, and were absorbed by the surrounding nations very early in human history.

The Kings that Abram rescued were no better than the kings that Abram rescued them from. Even though the five kings of the promised land likely owed their lives to Abram, they still demanded that he give back their human property. As 2Peter 2:7 indicates, Lot did not wish to be returned to Sodom. But apparently the Kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela, were every bit as vile as the Kings that Abram had exterminated.

Genesis 14:4 explains in human terms why the Kings from Shinar were so obsessed with hunting down the Kings of the promised land.

“For twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer but in the thirteenth year they rebelled.”

Apparently Chedorlaomer was either in line to be the successor of Nimrod, or he was attempting to take that position by force.

Nimrod’s reputation for hunting was likely based on his prowess as a hunter of humans. The Bible clearly indicates that Chedorlaomer was in the promised land, engaging in the same behavior that had made Nimrod famous.

Both Nimrod, and Chedorlaomer, just like those who rule the world in our day, were engaged in the great contest that world rulers use to determine who is the most powerful man alive? The hunting, capturing, and killing of human beings is, and always has been Civilization’s way of determining the winner, in mankind’s quest for world domination.

Since Bera of Sodom demanded that Abram return Lot and the other people that he had rescued, Bera was very obviously a hunter of men as well. Since the death of Peleg, mankind has never once experienced so much as a single day of peace. Even on the days when no shots have been fired in any of the government’s officially declared wars, soldiers have always been busy preparing for the combat that their rulers are scheming for the following day.

Even the violent deaths brought about by civilian combatants, such as the deaths caused by armed robbery, drug deals gone bad, murders committed by jealous lovers, and every other murder whether sanctioned by the rulers of the nations or not, would qualify as combat deaths, according to Bible standards.

Even though mankind has a way of naming different parts of this war, as if they are different wars, it should be more than obvious that every soldier ever sent out to fight has been participating in the very same war. It is Peleg’s war that continues to rage on to this very day.

Chronologically the 12 year period in which the Kings of the Promised land would have served the Kings of Shinar would have to have occurred sometime after the death of Peleg, but prior to Abraham’s migration into Canaan. Abram wandered around the promised land for an extended time. Perhaps for the entire 12 years leading up to the rebellion.

When the languages became confused at Genesis 11:9 and the people fled from the East to spread across the face of the Earth, those who assumed power at Noah’s death, probably felt that they had the right to enslave any nation that was unable to defend itself. Just as Earth’s current world rulers feel today. It is obvious from the account that many powerful wicked men were taking advantage of the death of Noah in their bids for world domination.

When Abram met Melchizedek at the Valley of Shaveh, he acknowledged Melchizedek’s position as rightful king, by bestowing upon him a tenth of what he had taken in the war. The illegitimate kings were there as well, but instead of making offerings to Melchizedek, as Abram had done, Bera of Sodom demanded that Abram make offerings to him as well. Since Melchizedek means rightful king, the demands of these other kings would have been extremely disrespectful. Not just to Melchizedek, but to our creator as well. Another thing to keep in mind, is that Noah’s other sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth were still alive at the time of this meeting, and likely in attendance.

Shortly after the meeting between Abram and Melchizedek, God chose to exterminate all of the kings of the promised land personally, along with all of their supporters.

Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, were all completely wiped out when God rained down fire and brimstone, destroying everyone, and everything, associated with those cities.

The only city, that took part in the war, to be spared was Bela, because as the Bible says, they were insignificant. The name of Bela which means destruction was changed to Zoar, which means insignificant. (This information can be found at Genesis 14:8)

It is likely that the nation of Bela was not concerned with World Domination but simply doing as commanded by Bera, the King of Sodom. It is also likely that after Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, Zoar submitted itself to Melchizedek’s rule. Even in our day hundreds of nations that are too militarily weak to defend themselves have chosen to enter into alliances with more powerful nations as a survival strategy.

In 2047AM God changed Abram’s name which in Hebrew, means exalted father to Abraham, which is made up of the Hebrew word ab meaning father, and raham which is from an unknown language, perhaps meaning population. (This information can be found at Genesis 17:5)

Abraham’s name change is not as dramatic as other name changes recorded in the Bible. Both names mean basically the same thing just in different languages.

If Abraham was just intended to be the father of the Hebrews his name would have remained in Hebrew. His title of Father Abraham was indicative of an honor involving more than just the Hebrew nation.

As part of the incident involving the Birth of Canaan, Noah at Genesis 9:26 declared “Praise be to Yahweh, the God of Shem”. This statement declaring Shem’s relationship with God to be somehow different from that of his brothers, mirrors similar statements that would be made by Abraham when speaking of Isaac, and Isaac when speaking of Jacob.

As Jacob approached his death, he prophesied about each of his sons. At Genesis 49:8-10 Jacob declared that the rulers staff would not depart from Judah.

Throughout the Bible, there are many such statements made about members of this family line. As time progressed this line would produce David’s father Jesse, David himself, and eventually David’s descendant Joseph who was thought to be the father of Jesus.

Each person on this list would qualify as the recipient of what the Bible consistently refers to as the promise. But very few would actually receive it.

Prior to the death of Noah, no one would have received it. As the very obvious father of every one alive on the Earth, there would be no need to replace Noah. As long as he remained alive, he would be the head of the family. The land that would be under the control of Noah, would be the entire planet.

Peleg died in 1996AM, and Noah didn’t die until ten years later.

The thirst for power in and of itself is insane. However, when we take into consideration that this war was being fought while Noah was still alive, we have to assume that wicked spirit forces had to have been involved.

Every human on Earth would have known Noah, and known about Noah’s close relationship with God. Everyone would have known that he was their oldest ancestor, and that he was the builder of the Ark, which brought all living things through the flood.

Just as Eve had been fooled by Satan, hundreds of years earlier, those political leaders were being fooled by Satan in Abraham’s day. Not only that, but the soldiers and citizens that supported that system of unnatural governance, would also have to have been under the influence of Satan as well. No other explanation would warrant such wicked behavior.

Satan’s promise to the first woman that she could be just like the gods is still the only possible explanation for why any human being would lust after political power. After the flood, humans still craved the political power that Satan had offered to Eve, before the flood.

It is a commonly held belief of religious people, that God brought the flood as a means of ridding the world of evil. But according to the Bible, Noah’s life before the flood was not much different from his life after the flood. The evil that he experienced in the later years of his life, would not have been much different than the evil that led up to the building of the ark.

When Noah did eventually die, Natural law, according to Commandment number five, to honor your father and mother would still be the only hierarchical social structure, that God approved of, but since no living person would have been the recognized father of everyone alive, natural law would no longer be possible. A suitable replacement would have to be chosen by God himself.

Genesis 9:26 indicates that of the three sons of Noah that were born prior to the flood, Shem’s relationship with God was somehow unique. Shem is the only son of Noah on the the list of ancestors leading up to the birth of Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus. And although the promise of receiving the inheritance, or possession is held out to each and every one of us, those on the list are spoken of as receiving both in a unique way.

When Noah died, Shem was 448 years old. Shem as the son, in line for the inheritance, would, according to the laws of that time, have been the possessor of the inheritance for the remainder of his life, which would have ended 152 years later. As the recognized legal possessor of the land, the one in line for the inheritance, the only one of Noah’s sons, listed among those chosen as Noah’s replacement, there can be no doubt, that it was only Shem who would have the legal right to the inheritance. Shem would be the recipient of the promise. The possessor of the land.

This is not the only time in history when a replacement had to be chosen for the recognized head of the human family. After Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden of Eden, the next important event to take place involved their two sons Cain and Abel.

We are told that the two had appeared before the entrance in order to make offerings. Cain’s offering was rejected while that of his brother was accepted. Out of jealousy Cain killed Abel. Several verses later Eve gives birth to another son by Adam, and calls his name Seth. (This information can be found at Genesis 4:25)

In Hebrew, Seth means the same thing as our English word set, as in “set in place”. When Eve declared that God had given her a replacement for Abel, calling his name Seth, she was in effect declaring that Seth had been set in place as the heir apparent of Adam. In Egyptian mythology the name of the God Set is believed to have been pronounced Seth. It is likely that the stories about the Egyptian God Set, were based on the real life, human child, of Adam and Eve.

If you look at the chart on the website you can confirm this for yourself. Adam died at the age of 930. His son Seth although not the oldest male offspring of Adam was next in line for the inheritance, Cain having been rejected by God, and Abel having been killed. Seth lived for 112 years after Adam’s death.

Another line of reasoning for coming to this conclusion, is based on something that was told to Abraham at Genesis 12:7:

“I will give this land to your seed as an inheritance.”

Later Moses was told that God had made this same promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But at these particular verses, Abraham is not told that the land would be given to him as an inheritance.

This information has not been hidden by the Churches. There have been great theological debates about whether or not Abraham himself ever possessed the land. There are in fact verses that very clearly state that the land was given to Abraham, such as the ones at Genesis 13:15, 17:8. But in the original languages that is not the case at all.

Such verses would be more accurately rendered in ways such as this:

“I will give this land to your offspring because of you”

or

“I will give you this land for your offspring.”

In any case, these verses, just like many others that seem to contradict one another, do not contradict one another as originally written. Abraham personally was not to be the one that would inherit the land.

If we look once again at the chart, that is posted on the website, it is very clear that Abraham could never inherit the land because when he died in 2123AM, his ancestors Eber, and Shem were still alive. According to natural law, Abraham could not become the tribal leader of the land while his ancestors Shem and later Eber occupied those positions of authority. Abraham unlike those obsessed with world domination, very obviously would have been obedient to the natural law to “Honor his father and mother.

At Shem’s death Eber would have been next in line for the inheritance, but 29 years later he too would be dead, meaning that at the death of Eber, None of the men on the list of Abraham’s ancestors would be left alive. At Eber’s death, Isaac would become the oldest living male member of the tribe, that was included on the list found at Genesis Chapter 11. So now you know why it was Isaac who received the inheritance, and not his father Abraham.

Abraham was never the oldest living male member of the tribe. According to recognized tribal law, Abraham did not live long enough to inherit the land, but true to God’s word Isaac, Abraham’s seed, would.

It is a popular misconception that the prophecy about Abraham’s seed inheriting the land, would be fulfilled by the Nation of Israel, and that according to God’s law, they would possess the land in perpetuity.

It is true that there are verses that seem to support this belief. In fact when granting the land to the nation at Deuteronomy 1:8 Moses specifically associated the promise made to Abraham with their entry into the land.

Apparently the belief that the nation of Israel itself, fulfilled the promise made to Abraham was a common misconception even in the first century. At Galatians 3:16 Paul addressed this false belief.

“The promise to Abraham was not made to seeds (plural), but to the (seed), singular. As in your seed, the Christ.”

It should be obvious that each and every man that Jesus descended from would have been the inheritor of the land. Since each of those men was a member of the family that we today think of as the nation of Israel, or later, as the Jews, it makes perfect sense that each of those men would have lived in that land of their inheritance, with their extended families.

Another reason that so many people would have benefited from that original promise of an inheritance, would have been the fact that the promise originated with Shem. If we look at the details, we can see a pattern that can not be denied.

According to the Bible, the area that God promised to Abraham encompassed all of the land between the Nile, and the Euphrates. That would be a huge area of the Earth. An area extending all the way from Egypt to Babylon. Genesis 15:18 records the details of God’s covenant with Abraham.

“In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates”

If we read the entire Bible without any kind of Zionist agenda, we will see, that in fact all of Shem’s descendants ended up settling in this vast stretch of land. The only descendants of Abraham that settled in what we today consider to be the promised land are the descendants of Jacob also known as Israel.

Jacob was just one of Abraham’s Grandchildren, but he is the one that was the recipient of the promise, the others ended up settling in the surrounding area, along with all of Shem’s other descendants.

When Israel eventually settled in the land, the promise that God made with the Israelites was very similar to the one that he had made with Abraham hundreds of years earlier. But unlike the promise made to Abraham, this one would involve a much smaller partial of land. Exodus 23:31 describes it this way:

“I shall set your borders, from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, to the wilderness and to the river, for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.”

Most modern Bibles have inserted the word Euphrates into this verse. However there is no scriptural support for doing such a thing, whatsoever. In the original Hebrew copies of the text, the river is left unnamed. Since the only river ever mentioned as an entry point into the promised land, is the Jordan, it simply doesn’t make any sense to conclude that the river mentioned at this verse is the Euphrates hundreds of miles away deep into enemy territory.

Eventually Israel’s family grew in numbers so large, that it became divided into 12 tribes, based on the 12 families of his 12 sons. Jesus would be adopted by Joseph a man of the tribe of Judah.

By the time that Jacob, who became Israel, was born, he would have been part of an enormous family. If you look at a map of all of the land promised to Abraham, and compare that to the land that was promised to Israel, it’s pretty easy to see that God was very equitable in his distribution of the land.

Seemingly each of the families that descended from Shem received a portion of the land. Jacob’s family only being set apart from the others because one of his descendants was to be, what in Hebrew is called the Messiah, which in Greek, would be the Christ.

But once again a promise was made, and this time it was going to be to Jacob’s son Judah. But this time the promise would be different. As Genesis 49:10 says:

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he who possesses peace comes, and the people are obedient to him.

Many people falsely believe that Jesus would have to have been from the line line of kings who descended from Judah, but if you look at what is actually said, it is obvious that members the ruling family of Israel would only rule until they were replaced by the one possessing peace. Although Jesus was related to the man Judah as well as to King David, his biological lineage was not through Joseph, because Joseph was not his biological father. I will be explaining the two conflicting lineages of Jesus in part 8 of this series.

After the nation of Israel migrated into the promised land, the land was divided once again, this time into 12 parts, according to family heads, and even though Judah had died hundreds of year earlier, his descendants would inherit a portion of the land, but once again Judah’s portion was only going to be a small part of what was originally promised to Israel.

Please think about what I am saying. After the flood Noah would have been the recognized ruler of the entire Earth. At his death each of his son’s families would have occupied a portion of that Earth. But more important than the land was the leadership of the human family. Shem would have been the recognized father of his family. Ham would have been the recognized father of his family. And Japheth would have been the recognized father of his family.

However, without Noah, the human family would have had no family head. No recognized ruler. Without Noah, humanity would no longer function as a single unified global family. And in fact as we shall see, that is precisely what happened.

As you are about to see, all of the wars ever fought from the very beginning, up until now have been brought about by humanity’s inability to perceive itself for what it actually is. I single family.

Jesus’ father Joseph was born of the Tribe of Judah, which possessed only a small portion of the land that had been promised to Israel. Roughly 1/12 of that land. When David’s father Jesse died, David would have become the individual set to rule over Israel. It was his tribe that would eventually lead to the Messiah. Acts 2:30 explains something that David was made aware of during his lifetime.

“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.”

It could be said that at that point King David inherited the entire Promised Land being that he was the father of the nation. But according to the Bible, David’s entire extended family lived in a very small portion of the land that to this day is known as The City of David. Luke 2:4 mentions this area of the Earth in this way:

“And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David.”

Hopefully, you are understanding what I am saying. As the population grew, each of the men that is mentioned in the Bible as being in line for the inheritance, received smaller and smaller portions than their predecessors, By the time that the seed finally arrived, the portion of the land that came with the inheritance was much smaller than the land originally promised to the nation of Israel. As an adopted son, Jesus’ was not in line to inherit any of the land. At Luke 9:58 Jesus explained it this way:

“Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”

Jesus in fact was a descendant of David through his mother Mary, however Jesus was not a descendant of Solomon, who was the next king in line to rule over the land. Mary’s ancestor was David’s other son Nathan. After David, no other person ever received the promise that Christ would come from the fruit of their loins, until the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she had been chosen to give birth to Jesus.

Currently, Earth wide, a struggle is going on over control of this small area of the Earth, as if this land is the most significant spot on the Planet. According to the Bible, it isn’t the land that we are suppose to concern ourselves with. It is, and always has been the seed. That seed being Jesus.

When Jesus was alive, he ruled over none of the land. At Matthew 4:1-10 we are told that the ruler of the world approached Jesus with an offer that many would have greedily accepted:

“Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.”

It should be obvious that the promise was never about that particular piece of land. From the very beginning, the promise was about Jesus.

Since this family line began at Adam’s creation, and continued all the way to Jesus, nearly 4,000 years later, someone might wonder who the seed would be today? Just as Galatians 3:16 says, our seed is Jesus.

The Greek word used here is sou. (Strong’s G4771) There is no denying that the word sou, can only be translated as your. It is unlikely that you will find an English Bible that has the word your, as part of the text, but it is there in every ancient manuscript of this verse. Which of course is easy enough to confirm via the internet.

If we look at each and every person on the list, there isn’t any ambiguity about how they came to possess the inheritance. They all descended genetically, from the previous person on the list. None of those on the list were nephews of the previous person on the list. None were adopted sons. And as in the case of Canaan, Ishmael, and Lot, none were what we today would call illegitimate sons.

If the line of descent had continued, the Bible would have recorded the name of each of those next in line for the inheritance, but it doesn’t. When Paul referred to Jesus as YOUR seed, he was doing so long after Jesus’ death. If Jesus had an heir, Paul would have referred to Jesus’ legal heir as your seed.

In our day there are quite a few theories regarding the parts of Jesus’ life that are not recorded in the Bible. Many of those theories address his relationship with the women that followed him, as if it is impossible for a man to interact with women without producing children.

Obviously, as a man, Jesus would have had all of the same emotions, and sexual desires that any healthy natural man would have had. But since none of that is discussed in the Bible, we can rest assured that the details of Jesus’ sex life would not add to our understanding of anything in any significant way.

There is nothing in the Bible about Jesus having children, or Jesus not having children. But since Paul specifically referred to Jesus as your seed, years after his death, it should be obvious that the right of inheritance ended with Jesus death.

But even if Jesus had children, they would not have inherited anything. According to the pattern set in the Bible, any inheritance that Jesus would have gotten would have come through the line of Joseph. Joseph was not Jesus’ father. Jesus was adopted.

Over the years many have speculated about the identity of Melchizedek. Some religions teach that Melchizedek is Jesus himself. Certainly he could be called the King of Righteousness. And now that we understand that the actual title is rightful king, the association between Jesus and Melchizedek is even more profound.

A strong Jewish tradition exist that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah. Obviously he is on the list of Abraham’s ancestors, and is specifically spoken of as having a unique relationship with his God Yahweh, that his brothers did not have. It is also undeniable that Shem would have still been alive when Abram met with Melchizedek.

According to The Bible all religions are under the direct control of God’s enemy, Satan.(2Corinthians 4:4) That doesn’t mean that they never tell the truth. Religions often teach some truth as a means of tricking good people into joining their ranks.

At John 8:44 Jesus said that Satan had no truth in him because he was a liar from the very beginning, and yet 2Corinthians 11:14, says that Satan masquerades as an Angel of light.

It could be possible that one of the religions is telling the truth about the identity of Melchizedek. But unless he is both Shem and Jesus, at least one is teaching lies. And since neither Judaism, nor Christianity has a very good reputation for truth, the most likely scenario is that both are lying.

Just knowing that there are main stream religions teaching that Melchizedek is Jesus, or that Melchizedek is Shem, almost guarantees that he is neither.

The very first King mentioned after the flood was Nimrod. Since Nimrod’s name was not mentioned among the Kings invading the land from Shinnar, the possibility does exist that Nimrod was Melchizedek. It may not sound right, but at this point, we really need to be aware of all of our options.

Another possibility that exist is that one of Noah’s other legitimate sons is Melchizedek. After all, if Shem was still alive, it is likely that his brothers were still alive as well. Even though it is obvious that Shem stands out from the others, we can not automatically eliminate Ham or Japheth.

There are several significant Bible personalities that would have been alive at the time, but could not have been Melchizedek due to simple logic. God himself could not have been Melchizedek because Melchizedek is spoken of as a priest of God. Abraham could not have been Melchizedek, because he is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek. Neither Sarah nor any other woman could have been Melchizedek because Melchizedek is referred to by male gender words.

I have tried my best to describe every major character in the Bible that was alive at the time, in order to determine the identity of Melchizedek, but there is always the possibility that Melchizedek was not mentioned anywhere else in The Bible.

At this point we have to consider every possibility. Even if we know with all of our hearts who Melchizedek is, we need to prove to ourselves that there is no possibility that he could be someone else.

If you are a religious person, what I am about to reveal to you is going to sound preposterous. But if you are open minded and willing to hear me out, you will be surprised at just how logical, what I am going to tell you, actually is.

Although I am going to finish out this video by exposing the true identity of Melchizedek using nothing more than one simple verse, pointing out one simple, basic, undeniable fact, I promise you that I will be sharing much more information on this subject in the remainder of the videos in this series. And when I am done, you will know in your heart, that I am right.

You will know who Melchizedek is. You will know more about the Bible, than anybody anywhere, in any of Civilization’s religions. If you speak publicly about what I am about to reveal to you, you can expect to be ridiculed and abused by those who belong to Satan’s cults. Choose who you speak with about these things carefully.

Abraham spent his time in The Promised Land as what the Bible calls a Maguwr (Strong’s H4033) This ancient Hebrew word is rendered as Stranger in the King James Version of the Bible. The NIV renders this word as foreigner. The NWT renders it as alien resident. The point being that Abraham was never a citizen of the land that he entered.

At Genesis 12:1 it is revealed to us that God commanded Abram to leave his father’s house and travel to a land that he would show him. As worded this verse does not reveal any details as to where Abram would be going. But at the historical account found at Genesis 11:31 we are told

“They went forth from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan”.

Most of us have heard this story so many times, that we never stop to think about what it means. When Abram entered the promised land, he did so as an alien. Traveling from his home of Ur into the land of Canaan. His home was not just listed by name, but according to the people that it belonged to, Ur of the Chaldeans.

The Hebrew word that is here rendered as Chaldee, or in some Bibles as Chaldeans actually means “Clod Breakers”. A clod breaker would be anyone that breaks up the ground. Since the Babylonian Empire was known for building with bricks and bitumen, and also for relying on agriculture, clod breaker would be a very good description of the people that occupied the Chaldean Empire.

The point being that Abraham did not simply come from Ur. He came from Ur of the Chaldeans. And the description of the land that God would show him was just as detailed as the description of his home.

“The land of Canaan!”

Quite literally Canaan’s land. This is the location where the meeting between Abram the foreigner and Melchizedek the rightful king took place.

If Abram of Ur was a foreigner because he was a Chaldean, Then it is only logical to conclude that Melchizedek the rightful king, was not a foreigner. Since the meeting took place in Canaan’s land, it is only logical to conclude that the rightful king of Canaan’s land would have been Canaan.

Canaan’s older brother Shem was still alive. It should be obvious that Canaan would also still be alive. It is a provable fact that Canaan was born no earlier than 1656AM. If Canaan lived as long as his contemporaries Shem and Arphaxad, he would have likely died sometime between 2094 and 2266AM. Meaning that we have no reason to imagine that Canaan was not still alive when the meeting between Abram and Melchizedek took place sometime after 2023.

Think about what that means. If Melchizedek was Shem or Jesus why doesn’t the Bible refer to the area of the Earth over which Melchizedek ruled, as “The Land Of Shem”, or “The Land Of Jesus”, or simply as the “Land of Melchizedek”?

Psalms 110 Begins with the words:

“Jehovah says to my lord: sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Very powerful words obviously said by God to Jesus. Which eventually is confirmed in The Book of Hebrews. The Psalm continues at verse 4 with the words:

“Yahweh has sworn, and he will not change his mind, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

When this verse was written, it is likely that no one had any idea of how this prophecy would play out. Nearly a thousand years later, Jesus was born and yet no one was able to understand how his birth could have anything to do with the fulfillment of this prophecy.

But, years after Jesus’ death, a book was produced and given to mankind, fully explaining the words of Psalms 110, so that we today can know and understand just why Canaan’s roll was so important. That book, is known today as The Book of Hebrews.

According to 2Peter 2:10, the Kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, were destroyed for despising authority. Or as other versions of the Bible say “scoffing at supernatural beings” or “blaspheming glorious ones”. Obviously the glorious ones that they were despising were Melchizedek, their oldest living ancestor, and Melchizedek’s God, the creator of natural law.

The Bible clearly states that all of the kings of the promised land were sons of Canaan. By refusing to be obedient to Melchizedek, they were breaking the commandment to honor their father.

Genesis 10:15-19 clearly states that all of the kings of, Sodom, Gomorah, and the others, that God killed with fire and brimstone were descendants of Canaan.

Before I go on, I need to tell you something that I stumbled upon as I was producing this series. As many of you know, I don’t just learn about the Bible from reading the Bible. There are many ancient books about the origins and history of man, other than the Bible. Many of the details recorded in those ancient books contradict the details recorded in the books of the Bible. But often those details can be used to confirm the things that may not be clearly explained in the Bible.

The Quran says that Noah had a forth son that refused to enter the ark, and died as a result. His mother would not leave her son behind and stayed with him. She took him to the top of a mountain, and held him over her head to keep him alive as long as possible.

Some versions of the Quran name this fourth son as Canaan.

Another ancient book, containing a midrash called Chapter of Rabbi Eliezer records that Canaan was Noah’s forth son, and that it was he who discovered Noah naked and castrated him with a string. Ham saw that Canaan had castrated Noah, and went to the market laughing about it.

Obviously all three versions can not be correct, at least not as translated into English. However the two versions outside of the Bible narrative do confirm that some people from the ancient past believed Canaan was in fact the name of Noah’s fourth son.

When we hear something that goes completely against everything that we have ever been taught, we need that teaching to be based on much more than a couple of scriptures. After all, every lie taught by the churches can be supported by a couple of scriptures, and we certainly don’t want the foundation of our faith to be as precarious as that of Satan’s cults.

Abraham and his seed are very important to the Bible narrative, and yet, according to Hebrews 7:2, it was he who paid tithes to Melchizedek, and not the other way around. In part 5 of this video series, we will be closely examining every verse in The Bible specifically about Melchizedek.

In the mean time, the next video in this series will be about a group of beings that in many bibles are described as giants. Some Bibles call them Nephilim. The information that I will be revealing in part 4 of this series will positively identify who these mysterious beings are for the first time in thousands of years.

As mysterious as Melchizedek’s identity might be to the members of the varying sects of man, it need not be mysterious to us. Abraham’s seed would eventually lead to Jesus, a King and Priest in the order of Melchizedek.

If you don’t want to survive………. don’t listen to me.

Melchizedek Part 2 Religion Perpetuates A Myth

Hello and welcome to another video from the only source of information that you need, to not only survive the current apocalypse but actually enjoy it, and today’s video is going to be the second in this series about, Melchizedek, one of the most enigmatic figures in the entire Bible.

In Part 1 of this series, I talked about the difference between our biological parents and our spiritual parents. Genetically it can not be denied that we have all descended from a single source. Having God as our father we are all brothers and sisters. If we are able to recognize this fact, than it could be said that God is our biological father as well as our spiritual father.

But early on, Eve made the decision to be obedient to Satan, who was not her biological father, and to this day, as the Bible clearly states, Satan sits as the recognized ruler of civilization. Many scriptures such as 1John 5:19, and 2Corinthians 4:4 confirm this.

There are still those that look to God as their father, and struggle against the system in an attempt to do his will, but for the most part, when given the choice, most will reject God’s natural law, and fight to the death in defense of the unnatural laws of civilization’s feuding families.

Genesis Chapter 3 describes the conversation between Eve and Satan as if Eve was actually speaking with a fleshly being. In the conversation Satan offered Eve the opportunity to be like a god. Later at Matthew Chapter 4 Jesus seemingly spoke directly to Satan as well. In the account Satan offered Jesus rulership over all of the kingdoms of the Earth. The offer that Satan made to Eve was not much different than the offer that he made to Jesus.

Unlike Jesus, Satan offers few of us the opportunity to rule the world, but each and every one of us, in some way, on a daily basis is put to the test. Those who willingly support the very same social order that Jesus rejected, reveal the identity of their spiritual father by doing so.

It is not possible for us to say with certainty how Satan continues to rule over his civilization, whether in the flesh or in the spirit, but we do know that fleshly men, and women currently hold the positions that Eve accepted, and Jesus rejected.

There can be no doubt that all of the Kings, Presidents, Prime Ministers, and other such political rulers are still receiving direction from the one that has been in control from the day that Eve was deceived into breaking God’s law.(1Timothy 2:14)

By willingly supporting those who have been placed in powerful positions by Satan, the vast majority of mankind has by default rejected God and Jesus Christ. All of the nations’ political leaders stand in direct opposition to God and his anointed king.

Millions, willingly send their children off to murder the children of their neighbors, in carnal warfare. We are taught from infancy to believe that the wars that the nations engage in are individual events. But to anyone with an open mind, and the ability to see past the Empire’s propaganda, it is obvious that our world has been engaged a single uninterrupted war for world domination for the entire history of civilization.

Those in our day, who like Eve, have been seduced by Satan’s offer, must now compete with millions of others who have been similarly seduced.

Understanding Melchizedek’s roll in The Bible is going to be key to understanding one of the most important aspects of God’s promises to one day rescue mankind, and restore our Earth, to the original pristine paradise that it once was. By the time this series concludes each and every person that hears this information will have to deal with some very serious issues regarding their faith.

One of the biggest obstacles that we face in trying to determine who Melchizedek is, and what he represents is our exposure to Satan’s propaganda system.

All Civilizations throughout all of human history have been under the control of Satan. The three primary systems that have defined every civilized culture from the beginning of time all the way to our day have been The Governmental System, Economic System, and Religious System. A large part of which is represented by traditional religions. But which would also include such things as the religions of science, and the networks.

None of the three could exist without the other two. Any human being who stopped for a minute to think about things would instantly recognize that both the Governmental System and the Economic system, are wicked, unfair, and brutal.

Since it goes against human nature to participate in anything that is evil, Satan had to established a system dedicated to convincing mankind that evil is good, and good is evil. Isaiah 5:20 highlights the importance of this concept. Many people believe that religion is nothing more than a system of pointless rituals designed to appease the gods. But religion’s true purpose is much more insidious than just a means of wasting peoples time and resources. The primary purpose of all religions is to conceal basic truth from humanity.

A good propaganda system is essential in order for any human government to function effectively. Before human beings will allow others to rule over them, they, like Eve, must first be convinced that in fact, they are ruling over themselves. Just as Satan was able to convince Eve that her life would be better, if only she would free herself from the oppressive rulership of God. Fleshly human rulers in our day are still doing the same thing. Constantly manipulating their enslaved subjects into believing that they are free, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. In the English speaking world, propaganda is called public relations.

It takes quite a bit of convincing to get people to participate in civilization, because it goes against natural law. That natural law was spelled out thousands of years ago in what today has become known as The Ten Commandments.

Because the Ten Commandments have been so poorly translated many people never make the connection between The Ten Commandments and Natural Law. Most believe the Ten to be a list of religious rules.

The Commandment to honor our father and mother, as recorded in the original language of ancient Hebrew, would have been understood by those who lived in that ancient culture, as a commandment to recognize the only human hierarchy ever approved by God. The family.

In our day the world is not ruled by our family heads, but by a small ruthless group of very wicked people. According to civilization’s laws, Presidents, Kings, Prime Ministers, and other powerful men and women outrank fathers and mothers. An absolutely horrific perversion of “Natural Law”. A direct rebellion against God’s “Ten Commandments”.

The commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Steal”, word for word in Ancient Hebrew would be “Do not Carry away”. Many people who are familiar with the English version of this commandment would understand that it is wrong to rob a bank, but for the most part do not see transporting sales goods across vast oceans as any kind of sin at all.

Obviously as originally worded, “Thou Shalt Not Carry Away”, would identify civilization’s entire economic system as yet another horrific perversion of “Natural Law”. Another direct rebellion against God’s Ten Commandments.

Religion itself is the single most horrific perversion of all. As found at Exodus 20:2,3, the very first commandment states, “I am the LORD thy God, you shall have no God’s before me.” As translated this verse quite accurately represents the original thought. The only problem being the poor translation of the other commandments.

If we are only familiar with the modern language versions of the other nine, the first commandment to have no other gods, would sound to us like a commandment to have no god other than the “God Of Civilization”. “The God of Religion”. The god of the English translation of the Ten Commandments.

All religions Earth wide, support the concept of autonomy, human self rule, along with the governmental and economic systems necessary to give credence to the fiction of self rule. That being the case, it is reasonable to conclude that all religions Earth wide serve Civilization, and it’s God.

In The Bible, the God of Civilization is called the devil, which means false accuser, or slanderer. He is also called Satan, which means adversary, or enemy.

Many people falsely believe that the Bible is a rule book for how to achieve some kind of heavenly reward. But for anyone who would simply pick up a Bible and read it for themselves, without any preconceived notions, it is more than obvious that this is not true at all.

Far from being any kind of rule book, the Bible is simply a written account of the war between Creation and Civilization, which could also be thought of as the war between God’s Kingdom, and Satan’s Empire. Anyone putting their faith in Civilization’s Governmental Systems, Economic Systems, or Religious Systems. Would be breaking the most important of God’s laws.

By default anyone doing the will of Satan, would be fulfilling all of the requirements associated with Satan Worship. In effect breaking God’s commandment to have no other gods. Commandment Number 1. What most would consider to be the single most important of all of God’s natural laws. As Exodus 20:3 says”

“I am the LORD thy God, you shall have no God’s before me.”

The very first event to take place associated with this war occurred in Chapter 3 of Genesis. After promising the first woman that she could be like a god, Eve entered into what is called a covenant, a two way legally binding agreement, with Satan.

Prior to entering into Satan’s covenant, Adam and Eve lived in a paradise. But shortly after Eve convinced Adam to partake of the fruit, the couple was cast out, and God pronounced judgment on each of the participants in The rebellion.

Since then, millions have participated in The very same Satanic Covenant. Many having done so in protest. However, to this day the majority cannot resist the enticement of what the covenant promises.

Self Rule, the false belief that individuals can benefit from converting our planets resources into something that God never intended, and then dividing the spoils according to some artificial hierarchical contest, is so intoxicating to those who suffer from power addiction, that they simply cannot resist. They, just like Eve have fallen for the original deception spoken of at 1Timothy 2:14, which records that Satan’s promise to Eve was a deception.

That deception took place in The Garden of Eden,when Satan promised Eve at Genesis 3:4,5:

“For a certainty, you will not die, but your eyes will be opened and you yourself will be able to determine what is good and what is bad, just like gods.”

When God pronounced sentence on Satan, Adam, and Eve, the predictions that he made, eventually became the world that we find ourselves in today. The war between creation and civilization had begun. As described at Genesis 3:15:

“There will be animosity between you and the woman, and between your offspring, and her offspring. He will inflict injury upon your head, and you will inflict injury upon his heel.”

As dismal as our situation may seem, The account of the fall of mankind is not the only story told within the pages of The Bible. In fact much of the Bible is dedicated to the promise of one day making things right, so that those of us who want nothing to do with civilization, will not be forced to conform to it’s precepts.

In order to bring these conditions about, the Bible also repeatedly promises to remove the wicked angels from the vicinity of the Earth, so that those of us, who like Eve, are trusting by nature, will not have to cope with the deception of Satan and his Angels, ever again.

In the creation account recorded at the very beginning of the Bible we are told that when God completed his work, he looked and recognized that everything was very good. This information can be found at Genesis 1:31. At the very end of the Bible a direct reference to this verse is made at Revelation 21:5 which says, “Look everything is very good again.” In other words, God was pleased with the way things were at mankind’s creation, and at some point in the future God will be equally pleased.

Even though Mankind in general has been tricked into supporting Satan’s Civilization, the Bible repeatedly promises that God will one day rescue mankind and deliver us back into a paradise, just like the one that our ancestors were cast out of. Just like the one spoken of at Luke 23:43 that Jesus promised to the man executed along side of him. A paradise where natural law will once again be recognized as the only legitimate law.

The Earth will be completely restored. The trees of life will be restored, bringing about an end to the demonic practice of agriculture. The waters of life will be restored. Even the dead shall be restored as promised at verses such as Acts 24:15.

At that time, all living things will once again be obedient to natural law. There will be no more political system, economic system, or religious system. The unnatural hierarchy that currently oppresses mankind will be done away with forever. Satan’s Democracies will be replaced by families.

Please take a moment to think about what I just said. Our ability to understand, just what is required in order to restore our Earth, will be essential, if we want to understand the roll that Melchizedek played in the Bible narrative.

Each and every one of “The Ten Commandments” is absolutely essential to the restoration of paradise.

Most people understand that paradise could never be restored if people were to continue breaking Commandment number 6, which says that we are not to kill, but are not able to understand the significance of commandment number 5, which is the commandment to honor our parents.

Ephesians 6:1-3 which is part of the New Testament, highlights the significance of obedience to the fifth commandment, when it says:

“Children be obedient to your parents in the LORD for this is right. The first commandment with a promise is to honor your parents so that it may go well with you, and your life on the Earth, may be extended indefinitely.”

This is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 5:16, which is in the Old Testament.

Both of the words used at these verses, timao (Strong’s G5091), and kabad (Strong’s H3513), translate properly as “have deep respect”. These words are used to describe how we should feel about many people that are not our parents.

John 5:23 says:

“All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honor not the Son honor not the Father which hath sent him.”

But it isn’t just our God, our Savior, and our parents that we should honor. At 1Timothy 5:3 we are even told to honor widows.

But the honor that we are commanded to have for our parents is unique. This is emphasized at the beginning of the passage.

“Children be obedient to your parents.”

As translated it would seem that this verse is specifically intended for young children. But the original Greek word used here is teknon (Strong’s G5043), which can mean anyone under the authority of another.

This word is used throughout the New Testament to mean the citizens of a nation, or the members of a tribe, and very obviously, primarily, the adult citizens of a nation and adult members of a tribe.

The word that is translated as be obedient, is hypakouete (Strong’s G5219) which is used throughout the Bible in describing the obedience that we would give to a king, or the obedience that natural forces such as wind and waves give to God. Matthew 8:27 uses the word obedient this way.

“The men marveled, saying: What manner of man is this? Even the winds and the sea are obedient to him.”

If we stop and think about it, replacing Satan’s artificial hierarchical civilization, with God’s natural hierarchy, of the family would be every bit as important as any of the other 9 commandments. Over the course of this series, you will be shown just how important this commandment is, in ways that I promise you, will be absolutely shocking. What you are about to discover is going to be unlike anything ever presented by any of Civilization’s religions.

Once you hear what I will be revealing, you are going to be wondering why you didn’t figure all of this out on your own. The Religions of The Empire are very effective at disseminating lies, while at the same time concealing truth. This is why, other than myself, no one alive today understands the roll played by Melchizedek. But very soon that will change forever.

Satan realizes that if people were to be allowed to understand the sacred truths contained within the pages of the bible, his entire system of deception would be compromised. Satan’s goal is not to rule over the wicked alone. From the very beginning Satan has craved the devotion of everyone alive.

Hopefully you will be one of the privileged few who will take in this information in it’s entirety, recognize it for what it is, and understand completely the roll played by Melchizedek. I promise you, that you will not be disappointed once you finally realize that our father is revealing sacred truths to us, that The Churches have been struggling to keep hidden for thousands of years.

If we truly wish to observe the first commandment of only being obedient to The True God, then we must be willing to obey each and every one of the other commandments.

Unlike Eve who was tricked into craving self rule, we must be willing to reject that desire, and recognize the superiority of following our instincts, God’s natural law, the ten commandments.

God established family heads as his chosen rulers. Any form of hierarchical system outside of that arrangement would go against God’s natural law.

Only by tracing our ancestry biologically, can we be part of God’s family tree. As Luke 3:38 brings out, Adam’s biological father was God. All other hierarchical arrangements lead back to the serpent god Satan.

When Abraham encountered Melchizedek, he was living as close to that natural law as any man could. As parents Sarah and Abraham were the recognized heads of their family. In ancient Hebrew, they were called Iysh (Strong’s H376) and Ishshah (Strong’s H802). In most instances, our English translations of the Bible render these words improperly, as husband and wife, or man and woman.

The English language has no corresponding word for either of these two titles because in Western culture, what they represent no longer exists. However, it is possible to define these two words.

In English Iysh would translate as “Male Tribal Leader” and Ishshah would translate as “Leader of the Male Tribal Leader”.

Prior to being called out of Ur Abraham and Sarah would have been obedient to the leaders of their tribe. What we today would call an extended family.

These two titles are also used to describe the rolls of Adam and Eve, which is why Satan chose not to approach Adam, the Tribal Leader, but instead, Eve, the Leader of the Tribal Leader. As 1Timothy 2:14 records, it was not Adam who was deceived, but Eve.

Adam was simply doing as told by his Ishshah. Since Adam and Eve were in effect brother and sister, both would have been required to be obedient to their father, God. However it could be said that since Eve was created from Adam’s rib, that she should have recognized Adam as an important part of her creation. In effect, it could be said that Adam was her biological father. This information is recorded at 1Corinthians 11:8. In any case it cannot be denied that humans ruling over humans has caused much suffering, Even King Solomon near the end of his life admitted to the failure of human self rule at Ecclesiastes 8:9.

“I have contemplated everything that I have observed being done under the sun. During this time, humans ruling over humans has caused nothing but harm.”

Like Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister. And like Adam and Eve both were pure bloods. Although they had different mothers, both had the same father, and would have become the tribal leaders over their family group upon the death of their parents, or would have become family heads upon their separation from the tribe.

The death of Abraham and Sarah’s Grandfather Nahor is recorded at Genesis 11:25 and would have taken place when Abraham was about 49 years old. God asked Abraham to leave his father’s tribe and travel to the promised land, which he and Sarah did when Abraham was 75 years old. At Genesis 11:32 we are told that Abraham’s father Terah died. This would have taken place, when Abraham was about 135 years old.

Abraham’s social status within his tribe may not seem very significant to those of us living in this so called modern age, but as you are about to find out, what he represented would eventually lead to the salvation of all mankind, and within his lifetime would become part of one of the most significant events in all of human history, culminating in the meeting between himself and Melchizedek.

The area of the Earth where Abraham’s tribe resided was known as the land of Canaan. This land was named after one of the first children born after the flood. Canaan’s mother was the Ishshah, or female tribal leader, of Ham who was one of the son’s of Noah. According to natural law, Canaan would have automatically been a member of Ham’s tribe. But something happened that would make Canaan’s position according to tribal law unique.

The Bible records at Genesis 9:18-29 that while Noah was drunk, he engaged in some, sexual activity. Although we are not told the exact details, we do know that Ham’s wife, at some point, gave birth to a son named Canaan. The Churches always present this story in such a way as to make it seem as if Canaan was already an adult man when this event took place, but as originally recorded it is more than obvious that Canaan had not yet been born when Noah sinned.

Noah removed Canaan from the family of Ham, and placed him within the tribe of his second born son Shem. The only reasonable explanation for Noah’s decision would be that even thought Canaan was born into the house of Ham, Noah was Canaan’s actual father.

It may sound as if this is just conjecture on my part, but at Genesis 9:24 most English Bibles say “when Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done, he cursed Canaan.

If we are to assume that this verse is translated correctly, then we are going to have to be willing to accept that Noah was either very confused, or a very unjust man.

At the time, according to Genesis 10:21, his youngest son supposedly was Japheth, who according to the account had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any badness that took place. His only involvement in the incident was to help Shem to place a blanket over his father.

Fortunately for us, many ancient manuscripts of The Book of Genesis in the Hebrew language still exist. And when we compare our modern English translations to those ancient text, it quickly becomes apparent that the ancient version of this account, is nothing like our modern language versions.

Several of the original words used are not even remotely related to the words traditionally chosen by The Empire’s translation committees.

When properly rendered into English Genesis 9:24,25 says:

“When Noah sobered up from his wine and sex, he understood that he had made his youngest son Canaan.”

Far from cursing Canaan, the remainder of the account is simply the Bible’s explanation of how Canaan’s tribal affiliation would be unlike that of his brothers, due to the fact that even though, he was the son of Noah, his tribal standing by law, would be as that of the son of Ham.

According to the Bible, Canaan relocated to the promised land, which is why, over time that part of the Earth became known as The Land of Canaan. According to the Bible the people who occupied this area were collectively known as Canaanites. The Ancient Greeks referred to them as the Phoenicians. In our day most people are unaware that the words Phoenician and Canaanite are associated with the same exact people, just according to two different languages.

Natural law is the only law that God ever intended man to live by. The tribal law that Abraham lived by was much closer to God’s natural law than the laws that we live by today. Although Abraham is never called King, there were many living in close proximity to Abraham, that were. And on several occasions Abraham interacted with those kings. It is during one of these encounters that we are introduced to the character of Melchizedek.

Over time many men and women who were obviously not Abraham’s biological descendants joined Abraham’s group and acknowledged him as the family head. This arrangement may not have been based on a strict adherence to natural law, but since Abraham always acknowledged God as his father, it would have only been natural for others who acknowledged God as their father to want to leave their biological families to become part of Abraham’s tribe.

The timing of events in Abraham’s life that I am about to share with you, are not like anything that you will ever hear from any of The Empire’s religions.

At Genesis 11:26 The Bible says that at 70 years of age, Terah begat Abraham, Nahor, and Haran. This verse does not specify which child was born first, or how much time passed between the births of each child.

There are other verses like this recorded about other Important Bible characters and in each case all of the children mentioned are born in quick succession, one after the other. Likely within a year of one another. But in this particular instance every so called “Christian and Jewish” religion claims that Nahor was born first, and Abraham was born 60 years later. Misrepresenting Abraham’s birth by so many years makes deciphering most of Genesis nearly impossible.

When Abraham was about 58 years old one of the most important events in all of human history took place. But according to most of The Empire’s religions, by the time Abraham was born, this event had already uneventfully come and gone, years earlier. Understanding the significance of this Earth shattering event is vital if we ever hope to get a true grasp of just what The Bible is all about. Satan’s mandate to the churches to keep mankind in spiritual darkness, necessitates that the timing of events following the flood be kept hidden from mankind.

In the beginning there would have been no problem with being obedient to God’s law. Mankind lived in a paradise with everything needed in order to survive. At the time, God would have been the family head of Adam and Eve’s family. But, it’s obvious that conditions would have deteriorated rapidly after they were expelled from the garden of Eden.

The Bible doesn’t actually record much about what life was like prior to the flood, but one thing that would have been easy to recognize, would have been who to honor according to God’s natural law. All genealogies would have led back directly to God.

The Bible doesn’t reveal when Eve died, but it does record the death of Adam. It doesn’t record any of the details about the cause of his death, or how his global family reacted, but it does record that he was 930 years old at the time.

With Adam and Eve dead there would have been a noticeable gap in the family line leading back to God. Their descendants would have become divided into what basically would have been opposing teams. What we refer to today as nations.

There is no firm way of determining the exact date, according to our modern calendars, for events of the ancient past such as Adam’s creation and death, because there are simply too many gaps in world history. I feel that there are enough historic characters mentioned in the Bible to get pretty close, possibly within a hundred years, but for our discussion today it would be best if we use something called the Anno Mundi calendar.

Our current calendar is called the Anno Domini Calendar. Which is Latin for Year of The Lord. Prior to the birth of Jesus, there was the Anno Mundi Calendar, which is Latin for Year of the World. Between the Anno Mundi Calendar and the development of the Anno Donini Calendar was a period of many hundreds of years when no recognized calendar existed.

The Anno Domini Calendar is based on the dating of the birth of Jesus. The Anno Mundi Calendar is based on the dating of the Creation of Adam.

Adam would have come into the world in the year 0 Anno Mundi, and died in the year 930 Anno Mundi. Anno Mundi is usually abbreviated as AM.

According to the Anno Domini Calendar, Adam would have been created somewhere around the year 3965 BC. His death would have occurred somewhere around 3035 BC. But as I said earlier, there is no way to be sure, and in fact the dating of Adam’s creation varies wildly among the conflicting religions of mankind.

Within the Christian faith Adam’s creation is usually believed to have taken place somewhere between 4,000 BC and 10,000 BC. And even thought this allows for a 6,000 year period of uncertainty, the difference is nearly insignificant when compared to the differences that have been expressed over the years, by the conflicting sects of the religion of science, which date the appearance of mankind somewhere between 500,000 BC, and 3.5 million BC. A period of uncertainty of about three million years.

Since 4,000 years of human history passed before the time covered by the Anno Domini Calendar, we would have to date all events from the Old Testament as “Before Christ”, which would require us to count backwards. The AM calendar will make understanding the information that I am going to share, much easier to follow.

All of Genesis Chapter 14 is about a Great war that took place within the area known as The Promised Land. This war would have easily qualified as a world war, since such a large percentage of the Earth’s population at that time was involved. Many Kings who participated in the war are mentioned by name. We are told at verses 1 and 2

“In the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, these kings made war with Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar).

Abraham stands apart from the other participants in this war, in that he is never spoken of as a king, and in fact, initially, does not even seem to be interested in getting involved. But at verse 13 we are told that several of Abraham’s allies who had escaped the war, made their way to Abraham in order to inform him that his nephew had been kidnapped.

It is at this point in the story that all of the pieces start coming together, making it possible for us to start figuring out what is actually going on.

All of the first four kings are said to come from outside of the promised land, from an area of the Earth known as Shinar. The country of two rivers.

Ur, the city of Abraham’s origin was also located in that part of the Earth. Prior to leaving Ur, Abraham’s family would have been part of the same group of nations, that we today think of as The Babylonian Empire.

The 5 kings that are at war with the first four kings are all said to rule over nations within the promised land. They too would likely have come from Shinar. After Noah’s ark came to rest on dry ground, the very first mention of men building cities involves a man named Nimrod, who built several cities within the territory known as Shinar. The most well known being Babylon.

In The Bible all personal names are words that had meanings in the languages that the people named would have spoken. Abraham’s name when he left Ur was Abram, which means exalted father. After entering the promised land God changed his name to Abraham, which means father of many people.

Lot, the name of Abraham’s nephew means covering. The names of the men that brought the news of Lot’s kidnapping, also have meaning in the Hebrew language.

Abraham’s Great Great Great Great Grandfather was named Eber, and according to Genesis 10:25, it is from him that all Hebrew people descended. The word Hebrew, is an English rendering of the ancient Hebrew word Eber. According to Genesis 10:32 all of the nations that exist on Earth today had their origins from the list of patriarchs found at Genesis Chapter 10. This chapter of the Bible is often referred to as The Table of Nations.

That being the case, we can assume that the two men that told Abraham about his nephew being kidnapped were also descendants of Eber, because their names are in the Hebrew language, just like Abram’s name. Eber as he is called in most English translations of the Bible, was himself a descendant of Shem. Eber’s lineage is recorded at Gen 11:10-14.

Genesis 14:13 calls these men Abraham’s confederates, or allies, but the original Hebrew words used in this verse are Baal and Beriyth. Baal means dominant god, or god by agreement, and beriyth means covenant, or two way legal agreement. These Hebrew speaking men were in a covenant with Abraham by default, because they were all in a covenant with the same god. They were not really confederates, or allies, they were simply members of Abraham’s extended family. What in our modern day would be called a tribe or nation. They were all descendants of Eber.

The 4 Kings attacking the promised land from Shinar and it’s outlying provinces, all have names as well, but their names are of uncertain origin. It is obvious that they are not Hebrew.

Coming from the land of Shinar we would expect that their names would be according to the Chaldean language, what some reference works call Aramaic, or what we might refer to as Babylonian, but that isn’t the case either. These Kings coming from Shinar, are not speaking any language associated with Shinar. This fact is key to understanding just why this war is being fought, as well as the timing of this war.

The other King’s said to be living within the promised land have names that are similar to Hebrew words but not identical. According to the scriptures, these kings were descendants of Canaan. Which would explain the reason why their language is so closely related to the language of Abraham. Previously, Noah had removed Canaan from the family of Ham and assigned him to the family of Shem. Shem was Eber’s Great Grandfather.

This account is about a war between peoples speaking at least three different languages.

The differences in the languages of the people involved, as well as the timing of events, is going to be critical in revealing why everyone is at war. Abraham’s roll in this war. And the identity of Melchizedek.

Abraham was born after the global deluge known as Noah’s flood. When Noah and his three sons and their wives entered the ark there would have been no question as to who was the ruler of the ark. It was obviously God. It was he who instructed Noah to build the ark. It was he who brought the flood. And according to Genesis 7:16, it was even God who shut up the ark after everyone was on board.

But there was also an obvious hierarchy that would have been recognized. Everyone on the Ark was part of a family. And Noah was very obviously the head of the family according to natural law.

When Abraham was born, his father was Terah. Abraham lived within the tribe of his father all the way up to the day when he left his father’s house in order to travel to the promised land. Genesis 12:1 records that it was God who commanded Abraham to leave his father’s house.

Abraham’s Grandfather Nahor was also still living. And it is recorded in the Bible that Nahor, Terah, and Abraham all dwelt together making Nahor the actual family head, if in fact there were no older family members within the Abraham’s tribe.

Even if no older family members were dwelling within Nahor’s house, Natural law would dictate that Nahor have honor for his elders. After Noah’s family departed the ark, and separated into families, Noah would still have been the recognized family head, of everyone alive on the Earth.

Genesis Chapter 5 is a part of the Bible that along with chapter 11 is a list all of Abraham’s ancestors along with the timing necessary to determine when they were born, and when they died.

It is this list of Abraham’s ancestors that will allow us to determine what was happening when he entered The Promised Land. I have broken down this information into an easy to follow chart, including all of the verses necessary for anyone interested in looking up the information for themselves.

Every so called “Bible Based” religion that I am aware of agrees with my interpretation of the timing of events all the way up to Abraham’s birth with the exception of a 2 year disagreement at the birth of Shem, which is easy enough to straighten out by carefully reading the Bible account about the dates associated with Noah, Shem, The Flood, and the birth of Shem’s son Arphaxad.

At Genesis 11:26 we are told that “after Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran”,as I said earlier. But, the verse does not say which was born first, or how much time passed between their births. What I am about to tell you is pure Bible truth, but according to the cults of Judaism and Christianity, what I am about to tell you is utter heresy, but there are verses that expose the teachings of the Churches as outright lies even if we choose to ignore the vague chronology of Genesis11:26.

At Genesis 17:15-17, God informed Abraham that he was going to have a son. Abraham’s reaction was to “fall down on his face laughing, and saying to himself, can a child be born to a hundred year old man?”

Obviously, such a thing would be extremely unusual in our day, but what about in Abraham’s day. According to The Bible people did live much longer in the ancient past, but we really don’t have any direct scriptural references to how late in life a man could expect to continue producing offspring. But there are many references to the ages of many men when they beget children.

Prior to the flood Methuselah is reported to have had a son named Lamech when he was 187 years old. This is the oldest recorded age of any man to reproduce offspring, and the Bible says that Methuselah lived for a total of 969 years, during which time, he had other sons and daughters. (Genesis 5:25,26)

But it is common Bible knowledge that people born after the flood lived much shorter lives, than those who lived prior to the flood, so the age at which a man could expect to continue reproducing offspring would obviously have dropped off as well. Other than Abraham himself, after the flood, the oldest recorded age of any man in the entire text of the Bible, having offspring would be that of Abraham’s father Terah, at 70 years old. The varying sects of Judaism, and Christianity all teach that Abraham was not born in 1948AM, but in 2008AM, 60 years later. According to Civilization’s religions, Terah would have had to have been 130 years old when Abraham was born.

If Abraham’s own father would have had a son at 130, as is taught by the churches, there is no way that Abraham would have laughed at the thought of a man having a son at a mere 100 years of age. Scripturally there is no way around the fact that Abraham could not have been born when his father was 130 years old.

Melchizedek in the Old Testament is not so much a name as it is a title. In fact Melchizedek isn’t even a word, in the Hebrew language, but in fact two words. Melek (Strong’s H4428) meaning king, and tsedeq (Strong’s H6663) meaning rightful.

According to the religions of the Empire Melchizedek means King of Righteousness, whatever that is. But according to the Hebrew language Melchizedek means “Rightful King” or “My Rightful King”. This can be confirmed by comparing this verse to the Greek Text of Hebrews 7:2 which calls Melchizedek, Basileus (Strong’s G935) Dikaiosyne (Strong’s G1343) which once again, means Rightful King, only this time, in the Greek language. According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordence, Dikaiosyne means “The state of him who is as he ought to be.” Rightful. As in Rightful King. The one who is King because he ought to be king.

The reason that the Churches try to confuse us about the date of Abraham’s birth has to do with determining who the oldest living ancestor of Abraham would have been during his sojourn in the promised land. By lying about the date of Abraham’s birth, the Churches are able to put things just enough out of sync, to conceal the basic overall theme of the Bible. Which of course, once again, is the War between God’s Kingdom and Satan’s Empire.

I already said that Abraham’s father and grandfather were still alive when he was born, but even more amazing than that, the father of all Hebrews, Eber was still alive. When Abraham was born, Eber would have been 225 years old. In fact all of Abraham’s ancestors would have still been alive all the way back to his Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Grandfather.

Abraham’s oldest living ancestor would have been 892 years old at the time, and very obviously, the only man that could have been deserving of the honor and obedience due according to God’s natural law, to honor your father and mother. Abraham’s Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Grandfather was Noah.

Understanding that the Churches have been intentionally lying for thousands of years about the timing of Abraham’s birth, when he entered the promised land, and when he died, might not have seemed like a big deal initially. But once you realize that Abraham and Noah lived at the same time you should be able to come to the conclusion, on your own, that this information is not as trivial as one might think. The actual date of Abraham’s birth would have put him right in the middle of one of the greatest power struggles in all of human history.

Abraham was born in a world where no human had ever died, and yet, in the course of his life, he found himself thrust right into the middle of a world war. A war that would obviously have caused the deaths of thousands. That war would involve many significant Bible events that the Churches do not want you to find out about.

When the Churches tell you about the table of nations, Abram’s being called out of Ur, the fall of Nimrod’s Empire and confusion of the languages, The meeting between Abram, and Melchizedek, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, they always make it seem as if these events took place hundreds of years apart, as if they are all completely unrelated.

And even worse than that, the Churches completely ignore the deaths of Eber, and Noah. Two of the most significant events in all of human history. No one can understand all of the events that took place at that time if they don’t understand how they relate to the deaths of these two historic figures.

As you are about to find out, all of these individual Bible stories are actually different aspects of a single event. The true story of what happened at the meeting between Abram and Melchizedek is about to be revealed to mankind for the first time in many thousands of years.

If you don’t want to survive, don’t listen to me.

Melchizedek Part 1 Who’s Our Father?

Hello, and welcome to another video from the only source of information that you need to not only survive the current apocalypse, but actually enjoy it, and today’s video is going to be the first in a brand new series that I am producing called Melchizedek, and the topic of this particular video is going to be the meaning of the word father as used in our Bibles.

When Jesus was asked by the crowds to tell them how they should pray, at Matthew 6:9,10 it is recorded that he told them:

“Pray like this: Our Father who is in the heavens, your name is especially holy. Let your kingdom come. Let your will be done. As in heaven, also upon Earth.”

I know that this may not be how you are use to hearing this verse, but the thought that Jesus was expressing when he spoke can not be translated any more accurately into English.

The point that is going to be important for you to keep in mind as you listen to the remainder of this information, is that Jesus told those in the crowd to pray to God as “Our Father”. Not to his father, not to the father of the crowd, but to our father. The one who is the father of Jesus, as well as the father of those whom Jesus was addressing. At this instance, he made no distinction between his relationship with God, and the relationship of his listeners with God.

According to Mathew 23:9,10, Jesus gave further instructions about how we should feel about our relationship with God.

“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master. even Christ.”

At this verse, we are told that the only real father that any of us have is God, and according to the verse, the only master that any of us have is Jesus.

The word that gets translated as father in this verse is Pater Strong’s G3962. The Greek word pater is where our English word father comes from.

According to the King James Bible, only Jesus was deserving of being called our master. The word that is translated as master, is Kathegetes Strong’s G2519. Linguistically the word master, doesn’t accurately represent what the word kathegetes means in Attic Greek.

Kathegetes is made up of the two Greek words kata, and hageomai. Kata is one of those words that can mean quite a few things according to variances in the spelling and the surrounding text. It can mean, at, with, along side of, or quite a few other similar things. The second half of this word, hageomai means appointed one. Together the two words, as used at Mathew 23:10 mean one appointed to, as in one appointed to a specific position.

For right now, we don’t need to concern ourselves with the first part of this word, because for our purposes it doesn’t really change anything about the word hageomai which means the appointed one. Plus, quite a few verses use hageomai as a stand alone word to describe prominent people. At Matthew 2:6 the word hageomai is used to describe Jesus without the kata prefix.

“And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judea, art not the least among the princes of Judea: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

An appointed one, a hageomai, might be described as a governor, but according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, this word could be translated in several other ways. A leader, to lead, to go before, to rule, to command, a prince, or any person appointed by a king, or government, to have authority over others.

If we look at other verses where Jesus used the word father, we will see that he took his own advice. Nowhere in the Bible did he ever call any man his father or his leader, but only spoke of God as his father. That doesn’t mean that Jesus didn’t recognize the authority, or position of our Earthly fathers.

At Matthew 19:19 when asked by a rich man, what a person needed to do in order to have everlasting life, Jesus quoted from “The Ten Commandments” and as part of that, he said:

“Honor your father and mother, and love thy neighbor as yourself.”

Once again, he used the Greek word pater, only this time, he wasn’t talking about our heavenly father, God, but about our fleshly fathers here on Earth.

The Bible makes it clear that Jesus had no fleshly father. Joseph, took Mary in, even though she was already pregnant, because an angel had appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him that Mary was pregnant by Holy Spirit. In effect making God, Jesus’ actual father. According to Jesus’ genealogy many people thought that he was the son of Joseph. As recorded at Luke 3:22:

“The Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven saying, You are my beloved Son. With you I am well pleased. When Jesus began his ministry at about 30 years of age, people imagined that he was the son of Joseph”

Hearing God’s voice telling Jesus that he was his son, probably shocked those who heard it. As the verse points out, people had always thought that Jesus was Joseph’s son.

Jesus loved Joseph very much. Jesus very obviously would have thought of Joseph as his father. He very likely called Joseph, father. But throughout his ministry none of the writers of any of the New Testament books recorded him doing so publicly.

Every passage where Jesus speaks of his father, he is very obviously speaking of God. But that doesn’t mean that it would be wrong for us to use the word father when speaking of our fleshly fathers.

Jesus, telling the rich man to honor his father and mother, confirms that we are under no obligation to use some different word when speaking of our fleshly fathers. Jesus used the Greek word pater as a title for both our fleshly fathers, and our heavenly father.

But even still our obligations to our parents are not without limits. At Matthew 10:37 Jesus said:

“He that loves his father and mother more than me is not worthy of me.”

There are probably many ways that this teaching could be applied. Primarily, we would never want to do anything that would go against the teachings of Jesus, or our heavenly father, as a means of pleasing our fleshly parents.

Parents will often pressure their children into pursuing high paying careers that work against the divine will. They may expect their children to join some political group, or participate in the family religion. But knowing how God feels about such things, we have to understand that we are under no spiritual obligation to fulfill the desires of our parents, when those desires go against what we know to be right.

If we want to understand what Jesus meant, when he said “Call no man your father, and no man your master” all that we need to do is compare how Jesus, and other righteous men used the words father, and master, to how Jesus enemies and other wicked people used the words father and master. In particular how they used the Greek words pater, and hageomai.

We’ve already established that Jesus and his followers consistently used the word father for both their heavenly father God, as well as their biological, fathers, but the Bible records that others used the title of father when speaking about people that were neither.

At Mark 11:10 when Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a colt, the crowds shouted:

“Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest”

Here, the crowds are calling King David, father. King David was a righteous man, and is spoken of as an example to be held up for all who wish to please God. So it would not be wrong for the Jewish people to admire King David.

One of the ways that David set himself apart from other world rulers was by his associations with his heavenly father and his earthly father. Even though David’s Father Jesse was not a major Bible character, he is mentioned by name 42 times. Many of those occurrences as part of the phrase “David, son of Jesse”.

Jesse is Strong’s H3448 and means possessor. It is formed from the Hebrew word Iysh Strong’s H376 which means male tribal leader. In prophecy God himself is called iysh at Hosea 2:16.

“And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.”

If we break down this verse according to the definitions of the Hebrew words, Iysh and Ba’al, what is being said here is:

“On that day you will no longer call me your God by contract, but instead will call me your male tribal leader.”

Alternately, if we insert Strong’s definition for the word Jesse what is said here, would be more like this:

“On that day, you will no longer call me your God by contract, but instead will call me your possessor.”

Many Bible readers associate the word possession with demon possession. Jesus cast out demons during his ministry, and very obviously those demons did possess the people that Jesus cast them out of. The Hebrew word Cain, Strong’s H7014 means possession. The implication being that Cain was possessed by someone other than his rightful male tribal leader, who would have been his biological father Adam. But in a much broader sense his heavenly father.

Throughout the Bible we are constantly warned against associating with those who are filled with a wicked spirit, but encouraged to associate with those who are filled with the Holy Spirit. When speaking of the wicked we will not hesitate to use the word possession, but when speaking of those who are filled with the Holy Spirit, we never use such a word.

Possession is not a dirty word, it is simply part of the English language. Knowing that the same word is used to describe both, possession by the demons, and possession by God, helps us to have a better understanding of things that are going on in the invisible, spirit, realm.

As the crowds cried out, blessed is our father David, there may have been people among them that could trace their lineage through David, but it is unlikely that everyone present could do so.

As recorded it was not a portion of the crowd that was claiming King David as their father. The crowds were making this claim with one unified voice.

Later these same crowds would be shouting, with that same unified voice:

“Crucify him. Crucify him.”

Even though the prophets of old had repeatedly stated that the messiah would come through the line of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Jesse, and David, Jesus never once used the word father when speaking of such men. If you go back and look at Mark 11:10 one more time, you will see that what the crowds were specifically calling David, was the father of their kingdom.

At John 8:38-42 Jesus addressed the religious leaders of his day saying, that he was from his father, God, but that they were from their father the devil. They responded by claiming that their father was Abraham. Abraham was not a King, but he was obviously another person that the Jews would have thought of as a father. In particular “The Father Of Their Race”.

At Matthew 3:9 Jesus ridiculed such a claim by stating that God could turn rocks into “Children Of Abraham”.

Jesus was not speaking about the genealogy of the Pharisees. Most people understand that it was not the issue of family lineage that Jesus was addressing at this passage. Those rocks very obviously did not posses human DNA.

At Matthew 23:29-31 Jesus used the word father as it would have been used by the scribes and Pharisees:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.”

If we look at these verses and think deeply about what is said, as well as what is not said, it becomes obvious that the use of the word father here, has nothing to do with biological family lineage.

Since both the prophets, and those who killed them were descendants of Jacob, both groups would have been the biological ancestors of the Pharisees. There would be no way around it.

The events that Jesus was speaking about had taken place hundreds of years earlier. Every member of Jewish society would have been somehow related to those prophets, as well as to those who killed them.

When the Pharisees claimed that they would not have killed the prophets if they had lived at the time of their fathers, it established that those Pharisees felt that they had an emotional bond with those political leaders of Israel, whom they called father that they did not have with those that they referred to as the prophets.

Referring to the founders of their race and government as fathers while ignoring the fact that biologically the prophets were equally deserving of that title, indicates that those Pharisees were ignoring God’s law to honor their biological fathers, while instead honoring their founding fathers. Such an act would have qualified as a rejection of God’s natural law. What many today call “The Ten Commandments”. Around the world, many still continue that tradition today by speaking of founders of races and governments, as founding fathers, while ignoring the fact that all of mankind, Earth wide come from the same father.

Cain did not kill Abel because he did something wrong, but because Abel always tried to do what was right.(This information is recorded at 1John3:12) Throughout the Bible, Abel is always held up as an example of a righteous person for us to emulate. Abel unlike Cain who was possessed by an unclean spirit, was obviously filled with a clean spirit. In the Bible, the words clean and unclean are used interchangeably with the words wicked and righteous. At least when speaking of spirits.

Those so called “fathers” killed the prophets for the same reason that Cain killed his brother. They killed the prophets, because the prophets made them look bad.

According to 1John 3:12:

“We do not want to be like Cain, who was of the evil one, and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s deeds were righteous.”

In this verse Cain is said to be of the evil one, Satan, the founder of civilization.

Jesus was pointing out a tendency of all people throughout all of human history to think of the founders of nations as fathers. Even those who are founders of institutions and crafts are called fathers in the Bible. Genesis 4:20-21 bears this out.

“ Adah gave birth to Jabal, who was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal, who was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.”

Obviously all of those who have ever dwelt in tents have not been the biological children of Jabal, and likewise, all of those who have ever played musical instruments have not been the biological children of Jubal. However, even in our modern society we recognize the founders of many institutions as fathers.

Genesis Chapter 10 is called the table of nations. It is a list of every nation that existed in Abraham’s day, and each of those nations has the same name as their founding fathers. In other words the nation that was called Mizraim was named after the father of everyone that lived there. His name being Mizraim as well. Initially Mizraim was not just the figurative father of his nation, but the actual father of everyone who lived there.

All the way through the Old Testament the name of the nation of Mizraim never changed’ even long after the founder had died, and even after many thousands had migrated out of Mizraim, and many thousand of others had migrated into Mizraim. Eventually many of the people that lived in Mizraim were not biologically related to it’s founder in any way, and yet throughout the Old Testament, the name of the nation never changed. In English Mizraim is translated as Egypt.

When Abraham fled into Egypt, he came into contact with a man that the Bible calls Pharaoh. (Strong’s H6547) In Hebrew, Pharaoh means Great family. However most Bible reference material says that pharaoh means “great house”. Even in our day the words house and family are often interchangeable. In the ancient past there was only one word for both.

The title Pharaoh is used throughout the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, but by Jesus day, the meaning of the word Pharaoh (Strong’s G5328), the exact same word spelled using the Greek alphabet, was not the same as the meaning of the word Pharaoh as found in the Old Testament, spelled using the Hebrew alphabet.

The word meaning great house in Hebrew, when rendered into Greek, means “His Nakedness”. Altering the meaning of this word in this way, in our Bibles, is not without purpose. Hundreds of years earlier at Isaiah 20:4, it was recorded:

“so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptian captives and the Cushite exiles, both the young and the old, naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered. The nakedness of Egypt.”

When Abraham met Pharaoh, it is likely that the Pharaoh that he met was in fact his distant cousin, Mizraim.

In the Bible at Genesis 4:1, Adam is specifically referred to as the father of Cain. While 1John 3:12 specifically refers to Satan as the father of Cain. The verse at Genesis is about Cain’s biological father, while the verse at 1John is about Cain’s founding father.

As this series continues I am going to be sharing information about family relationships that is going to be critical to our understanding of the overall theme of the Bible.

Noah, and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth would have survived long after the ark came to rest on dry land. Long enough to witness their descendants grow in numbers great enough to cover a large area of the Earth. As long as Noah was alive, he would have been the family head of everyone on the planet. According to natural law, also known by many as “The Ten Commandments” Noah should have been the acknowledged father of everyone alive on the Earth.

But according to to the Bible, Noah’s roll as family head was not respected as it should have been.

The births and deaths of many significant Bible personalities were recorded according to a very easy to understand system of dating. Bible chronology of major events is always associated with the lives of those men. In other words, it is very easy to determine the timing of major Bible events by simply looking at who was involved in those events.

According to the Bible, Abraham was involved in the first recorded war in all of human history. At the conclusion of a major battle in that war Abraham met with a man called Melchizedek. Most people are familiar with the account. But what most people are not aware of is that according to Bible chronology, the war that Abraham was involved in, probably began while Noah was still alive.

There can be no doubt, that if humanity had been obedient to God’s natural law, of honoring father and mother, there is no way that Noah’s descendants would have been fighting for world domination. As the father of everyone alive, it would have been common knowledge that Noah was the rightful family head of mankind.

If mankind had been obedient to God’s law, then by default humanity would have continued to honor Noah’s position even after his death. If there was any kind of governmental decision necessary, that decision should have been made by one if not all of Noah’s son’s.

As this series continues I will not only prove, from the Bible, what I am saying, but reveal that it was in fact, one of Noah’s sons that Abraham fought under. A very special son that in many ways prefigured Jesus.

By the time that the war concluded, Noah was already dead. We are not told about the cause of Noah’s death, but it is very likely that his death was related to the war. He may have been murdered by one of his descendants who was lusting after his position as the recognized leader of humanity, or he may have simply died of a broken heart at seeing his descendants murdering one another.

Those who were the recognized leaders in that war, are all mentioned by name. The Bible tells us who they were, where they came from, and who their parents were, and clearly says that each and every one of them was killed by God for refusing to honor their fathers and mothers. I will explain this in much greater detail in part 3 of this series.

Speaking of powerful world leaders as fathers is not a behavior that is unique to ancient Judea. As a child I was taught about the founding fathers of America. As a member of the US military, I traveled to many nations and witnessed personally that most countries refer to powerful political leaders from the past, as their fathers.

In particular, I remember talking to a man in Turkey, about their coins. I had noticed that every coin had an image of the same man on it. When I asked who he was, I was told, “That is our father Ataturk”. Ataturk is the recognized founding father of modern Turkey.

At a very young age, I was aware of Jesus’ admonition to call no man father, but until about 15 years ago, I was never really able to recognize the connection between what Jesus said, and the founding fathers of nations.

As far as I know, none of the men that are called founding fathers of this country are part of my family tree. But even if they were, I would still have to keep in mind what Jesus said at Mathew 23:9,10.

“Call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

Patriotism can be defined as the belief that a person should put the welfare of their own community, or nation above the welfare of others. In effect seeking their own self interest. Obviously there would be a major conflict with the teachings of Patriotism and the teaching of Christ to honor our fathers and mothers and love our neighbor as our self.

In the English language, those who follow the founders of their nations are referred to as patriots. The English word patriot comes from the ancient Greek word Pater which is Strong’s G3962. The word patriotism is never about following the father of all men, earth wide, which would be God, but about following the fathers of nations. That being the case the word patriotism, which means follower of the founding fathers, would be nearly identical in meaning to the English word Satanism.

I can not imagine following the example set by the Pharisees of calling wicked political leaders by the title of father. In the land of my birth, those who are considered the founding fathers, were very much like those whom the Pharisees considered to be their fathers.

Even if I were to find out that each and every one of the founding fathers of America were part if my family tree, I would feel no obligation to break God’s law as a means of honoring them. Keeping in mind the words of Jesus as recorded at Matthew 10:37, our feelings towards the wicked should not be affected by our genealogy.

“He that loves his father and mother more than me is not worthy of me.”

If we go back into the Bible and look at the word prophet as it is consistently used, it quickly becomes obvious that being considered a prophet is not limited to men such as Daniel, Elijah, and Samuel. Hundreds of people in the Bible are called prophet even though there is no evidence that they did the miraculous things that were accomplished by such men.

Most Bible prophets were simply people that rejected civilization and cared for God’s creation. Men and women that cared for the land and it’s animals. Those who are often spoken of by titles such as shepherd.

I produced a video a while back called “Rechabite Economy” about one family that refused to participate in Jewish society, and were miraculously spared destruction when Babylon conquered, enslaved, and executed many others. The story of that family as recorded in our Bibles bears a striking resemblance to the story of the Native peoples of North America.

Many of those that are considered to be the founding fathers of The United States, took the lead in conducting the North American Genocide. It was the founding fathers that initiated laws forcing the young men of this nation to engage in carnal warfare, often against their will. Many of the founding fathers enslaved their fellow human beings in their lusts for power and material wealth.

In our day if you ask a patriot about the undeniable vile behavior of the founding fathers, they, just like the Pharisees will explain how times were different, as if somehow, human beings have only recently discovered the difference between right and wrong. It is as if the patriots of our day, like the patriots of Jesus’ day are saying if we had lived at the time of our fathers, we would not have slaughtered the native peoples of North America. As Jesus said at Matthew 23:29-31:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.”

I love my father because he loved me and cared for my needs when I was unable to care for myself. If my father had dedicated his life to breaking God’s law in some kind of quest for world domination, it is unlikely that I would have developed the kind of relationship that I had with the man who dedicated his life to being my father.

I love my God for the same reason.

I speak of both my fleshly father who raised me, and my creator who gave me life as Father. If I had been lovingly raised by a man that was not biologically related to me, I imagine that I would have developed similar emotions for that man.

The title of father represents something too precious and holy to share with those who do not qualify. Giving parental honor to those who are not our parents would break God’s law to honor our father and mother.

By accident of birth I live within the the boarders of the land that those men stole. I do not live my life in such a way as to pay some kind of homage to them. But, at the same time, I don’t live my life in such a way as to pay homage to those that they killed.

I do however, try to live my life in a way that should be pleasing to my fleshly father and mother. But I especially try to live my life in a way that I feel would be pleasing to my heavenly father.

I recognize that the command to honor my father and mother, might require me to honor the fathers and mothers of my fathers and mothers, all the way back to Adam and Eve, the original father and mother of us all. As I understand the commandment to honor my father and mother, as repeated throughout the Bible, I feel safe in saying that this likely accurately represents the only human hierarchy ever approved by God.

When we take into consideration how the title of appointed one is used throughout the Bible, we see a pattern similar to that of the use of the word meaning father.

The word hageomai is repeatedly used to denote men who were appointed as high ranking government officials.

The Bible repeatedly tells us that all human beings have the same father. God did not create his children so that they would form up into teams, ruled over by wicked men with a lust for power, unlawfully claiming the titles of father, or master, for themselves.

Malachi 2:10 puts it this way:

Do we not all have one father? Did not one God create us all? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?

Somehow even Pilot recognized that Jesus had been appointed by God. As the Jews were demanding that Jesus be put to death at John 19:15, Pilot asked them:

“Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.”

As honorable as their decision may have seemed at the time, the Jews did not maintain their patriotic zeal all the way to their end. Only 40 years after rejecting Jesus, in favor of Caesar. God used the Roman empire to execute those who executed his son. The Romans did so in a way that was appropriate. Jerusalem was sacked by Rome, and most of it’s inhabitants executed at Passover, on the anniversary of Jesus’ death. Divine Justice, Indeed!

At Isaiah 9:6 in prophecy, Jesus is called prince.

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

The title of prince indicates that Jesus would be considered the son of the King. Since Jesus is the recognized son of God, this would be appropriate. But, in this verse, Jesus is also called everlasting Father.

How do we incorporate the idea of Jesus being our everlasting father, with our new understanding of Jesus words at Mathew 23:9,10, to call no man father?

“And call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ.”

Keeping in mind, that the word translated as master in this verse would be more accurately translated as appointed one, and that it is unique in this verse because of the prefix kata.

Hageomai means appointed one, but kathegetes means one who is appointed to.

This entire verse is primarily about who we should call father. Here, we are being commanded to call God our father because he created us, while at the same time being commanded to call Jesus our father because God appointed Jesus to be our father.

Should you chose to watch this series in it’s entirety, you will discover why God chose Jesus as our appointed father above every other human that has ever lived. I promise you that if you pay special attention to the true Bible teachings on this subject, you will not be disappointed. Currently, I am the only person alive on this planet that is teaching people about what is in the Bible.

The war between God’s Kingdom and Satan’s Empire is a war between two feuding families. Those who are children of civilization’s founding fathers, have been at war with the children of God for nearly 6,000 years. That war is nearing it’s end.

According to 1John 3:10, determining who someone’s father is, is actually quite easy.

“In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.”

Should you quote this verse to a patriot while attempting to share with them the information in this video, they will respond with a verse of their own, as found at John 15:13:

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

This verse has become somewhat of a motto for members of the armed forces who consider themselves to be Christians. Someone usually brings it up anytime I speak out against carnal warfare. The misuse of this verse in this way is a perfect example of the devil blinding the eyes of his children. Jesus said this while explaining to his disciples why he was willing to be nailed to a piece of wood and slowly tortured to death. It is obvious that Jesus was not explaining to his disciples that he had decided to enlist in the Roman army.

As the children of Satan continue to slaughter one another in their perpetual war for world domination, the children of God continue to patiently wait for God’s kingdom to be restored.

Each and every person alive on this Earth came to be, through a process known as sexual reproduction. In English this process is also known as sexual intercourse. Often when speaking of sexual reproduction, we will simply say intercourse.

In English this word can also mean communication or dealings between individuals or groups. interestingly enough, there seem to be similar words in many of the languages spoken by man.

Even in ancient Hebrew, words associated with communication are used to describe sexual reproduction. At Genesis 4:1 the Bible says:

“Now Adam KNEW his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”

The word translated as knew is actually the word yada (Strong’s H3045) At some verses this word is obviously about sexual intercourse, but at other verses it is not. Genesis 3:7 uses the word yada this way:

“Then the eyes of both were opened, and they KNEW that they were naked.”

We have purposely been trained from infancy to think of communication as being language, whether written or spoken, but it should be obvious to everyone that communication, involves much more. All of our senses can be involved. Our facial expressions are part of our communication. Embracing someone is a form of communication. Kissing is a form of communication. And very obviously sexual intercourse, is another form of communication.

Sexual intercourse not only allows a man and woman to very effectively communicate their emotions towards one another, but it also allows a man and woman to communicate to their offspring.

It is the sex act that communicates things such as hair color, skin color, height, and blood type into what makes us who we are physically. Only our biological parents can transmit these things into their children. Many times we can even perceive personality traits transmitted from parent to child.

Even though physical characteristics may be part of what defines us as a person, a much more important part of what makes us who we are would be our personality.

How much of our personality is inherited biologically is unknown. But it should be obvious that much of what defines us is a matter of personal choice.

It is through sexual intercourse that we inherit our physical characteristics. It is through social intercourse that we inherit our spiritual characteristics. When Jesus called the Pharisees children of the serpents, he was very obviously not speaking about their biological lineage. A person’s biological parents are quite often not their spiritual parents.

Many verses in our English Bibles may seem confusing because of the way that family lineages are recorded. However, if we keep in mind that the Bible records not only biological lineages, but spiritual lineages, much of that confusion can be deciphered.

As 1John 3:10 highlights. “This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are, anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brothers and sisters.”

Contrary to what is taught by the churches of Christendom, the brothers and sisters in this verse are not just those calling themselves Christians, not just those who are members of the same nation, and not just those who are similar to us in appearance, but all human beings Earth wide.

While the founding fathers of the nations were establishing their place in history through, military conquest, genocide, and violent revolution, many others put their hope in their heavenly father. Even now as the successors of the founding fathers of the nations, continue to send their soldiers out to engage in military conflict, there are many others who patiently stand by and watch the perpetual slaughter, knowing that their deliverance will come not through some pathetic mortal politician, chosen by man, but through the one that has been appointed by God.

God is our father. He appointed Jesus as our chosen ruler.
Satan is the father of civilization. He is the one who actually appoints all of the Earth’s other rulers.

I know that what I am telling you may sound strange. It may not even make sense to you for the moment. But I promise that by the end of this series, it will make perfect sense in a way that you are currently not even able to imagine. Please continue to watch this series all the way to it’s end.

If you don’t want to survive, don’t listen to me.

Sexual Sins

Hello, and welcome to another video from the only source of information that you need to not only survive the current apocalypse, but actually enjoy it, and today I’m going to be explaining a few things about why my Bible videos are taking longer and longer to produce.

I obviously understand things about the Bible that no one else does. But honestly, I only really know the basics. I think that it would be wonderful to have a deep understanding of each and every detail that is recorded in the Bible, but I really don’t think that we are going to be able to do that until after Christ returns.

When I first started to produce Bible videos words came to me quite easily. I had been going to church all of my life, and paying careful attention to everything that my pastor, priest, or elder was saying, and all the while I was reading my Bible. So I had an incredible database of knowledge to fall back on.

Before becoming what I am today, I spent 18 years as a Catholic, 9 years attending the meetings of different denominations of the protestant religion, and 13 years as a Jehovah’s Witness.

Being personally involved with so many versions of Christianity, I was made very much aware of the doctrinal conflicts that existed, but after examining all of the evidence for myself, I felt adequately qualified to declare which denominational teachings of which religions best represented what was actually recorded in the Bible.

Unfortunately, unbeknownst to me, all of the more significant stories that I was hearing from those religious leaders were lies. And when I would look up the verses to confirm what they were saying, the Bibles that I was using were mistranslated just enough to give credence to the lies that those religious leaders were speaking. In other words, I was not teaching truth. I was simply teaching the lies that best represented those mistranslated Bible verses.

Fortunately for me, I started to discover that verses from our English translations of the Bible often contradict those very same verses as found in other English translations of the Bible.

I was smart enough to realize that both renderings of such verses could not be correct. At least one had to be wrong, and if one could be wrong, perhaps both were wrong.

Up until that time, I had never imagined that anyone would be wicked enough to intentionally mistranslate the Bible. I initially believed that perhaps the mistranslations were the result of honest mistakes.

The videos that I originally produced were about 25% truth, combined with about 75% Church doctrine. Today, I am embarrassed anytime that I think about it. The churches themselves probably teach about 10% truth, meaning that what I was teaching back then was not all that much more accurate than what I had been taught.

You probably don’t know what I am talking about because you have never seen any of those videos. I produced them back before I became SustenanceNCovering, on a YouTube Channel that I no longer use.

Even though those old videos weren’t very accurate, the small amount of truth that they contained was enough to get me in trouble. Most of the people that watched them became filled with rage, because even though most so called “Christians” love to hear stories about the LORD Jesus Christ, they are not at all interested in truth.

2Timothy 4:3,4 puts it this way:

“The time is coming when people will not be able to endure healthy teachings, but seek out doctrines that support their lusts, surrounding themselves with teachers who say what their ears crave to hear. They will refuse to listen to truth, in their desperate search for fables.”

In any case, by the time that I started this channel, I had already begun to stumble upon many Bible verses that had been mistranslated in support of the doctrinal beliefs of the religions that I had been involved with.

I am not trying to make excuses, but, it is a fact that I am much more patient with people who believe in religious doctrines, as a result of believing in similar doctrines myself, at one time. I honestly think that it was divine direction that led me to believe in such things as a means of teaching me to be patient with my listeners today.

In any case, the experience caused me to be suspicious of everything, and as a result, my accuracy has increased dramatically. Since starting this YouTube Channel, I rarely say anything, based solely on English translations of the Bible. I’m rather obsessive about checking everything that I research against the original manuscripts.

If you are one of the people that has noticed that it is taking me longer and longer to produce videos, you may be wondering why.

The embarrassment that I experience whenever I discover that I have been teaching things that are not true, has made me extremely cautious about speaking before having all of the facts. And the longer that I continue doing this, the more false teachings I discover in my own beliefs.

I may seem filled with confidence from an outsider’s point of view, but from where I am standing there are many things that I am not confident about at all. Remember. I only know the basics. Understanding the details is a struggle. Even for me. Perhaps, especially for me.

Sometimes when I am writing a single paragraph I can spend several days researching each ancient Hebrew or Greek line of text involved. Any time that I think I have figured out every trick in the book that the Empire has used to manipulate our Bibles, I surprise myself by stumbling upon some previously undiscovered treachery.

To this day, I am still posting videos, completely satisfied that I have thought of everything, only to discover days, weeks, or months later that I got something wrong. In fact as time goes on, I am certain that I will find out that something about this video is wrong as well.

Before I reveal the purpose of this video, I want you to know that what I am about to say is going to seem fairly inconsequential, and boring, at first. But if you hang in there to the end, you are going to hear some things that are shocking. I am certain, that if you are a long time subscriber to my videos you are not going to want to miss what I am about to reveal.

In the early days when I felt like I knew everything, my beliefs about sexual sins were pretty much the same as everybody else’ beliefs on this subject. I rarely spoke of it because I knew deep down inside that I was sexually attracted to women, and I felt that if I spoke out against lust, I would be a hypocrite.

Once I began discovering just how many lies the Churches were teaching, I began to investigate everything. But,initially I never even thought about the wickedness of sex.

Some doctrines are so universally ingrained into every nook and cranny of our society, that it’s difficult to even recognize them as doctrines. God’s hatred of sexual activity is clearly and undeniably spelled out in our English translations of the Bible.

Or is it?

I soon discovered that the majority of the false teachings that I uncovered, were things that had never felt right to me in the first place. My instincts seemingly were always more in line with what was recorded in the Bible, than Church doctrine. I have since heard similar feelings expressed by my subscribers, leading me to believe that I am not alone.

As a natural man with natural sexual desires, I always felt bad, anytime that I came across a Bible verse that seemed to condemn people for having such desires.

Eventually the time came for me to pick up my Bible and start reading it once again. It would be the eighth time that I had done so.

As I started to come across the verses that made me uncomfortable, instead of quickly reading through them, I researched them using Hebrew and Greek reference material to confirm that the words used by the translators were true to the original language text.

I soon realized that none of the original language words that are translated as lust in our English Bibles, seemed to be related to the kinds of emotion that a man or woman would have towards members of the opposite sex.

I was beginning to sense that I may have stumbled on to another false doctrinal teaching, but this time what I was reading was so different from what I had always been taught, that my mind simply could not accept what I was discovering at face value.

I didn’t even have to look into any of the original language text where the word lust appeared, to determine that the word lust in most cases, as used in the Bible, could not possibly be about anything sexual.

Each verse that I came across while researching lust, was very obviously about bizarre, perverted, cravings, for unnatural things that God hates, such as power, prestige, and wealth. But rarely about anything that could be associated with natural human sexual behavior.

I was starting to feel much better about myself. I personally have never craved power over others. As a young person I use to dream about being rich or prestigious, but by the time that I started to understand what these verses were about, those cravings had long since past. Unlike the terrible struggle that I had been engaged in to overcome religion’s version of lust for members of the opposite sex, overcoming God’s version of lust for power, prestige, and wealth wasn’t going to be an issue at all.

As is to be expected, those who love religious rules will twist the scriptures any way that they can as a means of supporting those rules. In this video I am not even going to try to address each and every verse that the sex hating theologians like to promote, but I will speak a little about one of their favorites.

In the sermon on the mount recorded in Matthew chapter 5, Jesus taught about the superiority of truth over religion. What Jesus said that day is understood by many to be more profound than anything that had ever been taught before or since. One of the things that he said at verse 28 is supposedly this:

“Everyone who looks at a woman lustfuly has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Not only is this translation severely flawed, but it is taken out of context. As quoted in the Churches, this verse seems to be about the wickedness of any sexual desires that any man might have for any woman. But as originally recorded in the sermon on the mount, this verse is very obviously about a very specific form of perverted sexual behavior. Verse 27 and 28 together say this:

“You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I am telling you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfuly has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Obviously verse 28 is about applying verse 27.

The definition of adultery is not the same as the definition of sex. And looking at a woman lustfully according to the original Greek text, is not about admiring the the physical beauty of a woman. The original Greek word at this verse is epithymesai Strong’s G1937.

Epithymesai means planning out an attempt at actually having sex. A better translation of Matthew 5:27,28 would be:

“You have heard it said, that you shall not have sex with someone else’ woman. But I say to you that everyone who has the intention of doing so, is already guilty of adultery in his heart.” In other words, a failure to actually engage in sex with someone else’ girlfriend does not lessen the sin of the intention.

In our modern culture, we only apply the concept of adultery to sex with people who are legally married to someone else. But Jesus was very obviously quoting Exodus 20:14, which was writtten at a time when men still lived by tribal law. Rules regarding sexual behavior at that time were nothing like the rules that we live by today.

Love is real. It always has been. Having love certified by the state, does not make love more real.

Jesus was also making reference to Exodus 20:17:

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”

In other words, it is wrong to desire that which belongs to someone else. Any attempts at stealing away somone who is involved in any kind of romantic relationship, would be adultery according to The Ten Commandments.

Jesus’ admonition not to attempt to take away somone’s sex partner, has nothing to do with natural sexual desires. Being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex is an instinctive behavior, intentionally placed in man by God. Greed is not an instinctive behavior. Wicked intentions can only come from an unclean spirit. Those filled with God’s Holy Spirit, automatically reject any desires that would lead to causing harm.

Many of the words that we currently associate with human sexuality, as used in the Bible, don’t even seem to be about humans. When I would read verses such as Exodus 34:16, I found it difficult to understand the concept of having sex with gods.

“And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.”

Even the translators can’t agree on how to render these verses. Some render the Hebrew word zanah Strong’s H2181 as whoring, just like the King James version, which I just quoted. But others render it as worship. The official definition according to most reference material is fornication.

The English definition of these two English words are not the same. The words whoring, and worship are not normally interchangeable.

If I were to say that zanah, means basket, there would be no one that could question what I say unless they were willing to question every rendering of every English Bible, as well.

In English fornication is defined as any sex act between two people that are not legally married. From the verses where the word fornication is found in our Bibles, I could see that our understanding of fornication could not possibly be what the original writers were trying to communicate.

As it turns out, I eventually decided that the word zanah had to mean sex with people that were demon possessed, or sex with people who worshiped false gods. And I was content that even if my definition was not 100% accurate, it would still be more in line with how such words seem to be used in the Bible.

As time went on, I would carefully look up all of the words found in the surrounding text, anytime that I came across any word that ended up in our English Bibles as something sexual in nature.

I eventually realized that my definition of zanah could not possibly be correct in every verse where that word was used. At some point, I felt as if the word zanah must have been used to describe actual sex acts between humans and wicked angels. I think that at one time I actually said in one of my earlier videos that fornication was any sex act between a human and any other species, including angels.

At the time I was certain that humans and angels were not members of the same species.

Knowing that I had produced quite a few videos that were based on my previous understanding, I went back and took a serious look at what I had posted to YouTube to make a decision as to whether to take them all down and start over from scratch, or leave them up. I did not feel comfortable knowing that there were videos of me available to the public that were not accurate. Of course all of those videos are still up so you probably already know that I decided to leave them.

Even though I was not comfortable with the idea of people learning things from me that were not accurate, I knew that if I took them down all that my subscribers would have available to them was the vile filth produced by religious people.

I’m really picky about my videos. Obviously how I appear to the public, is going to be more important to me than it is to my listeners. But another factor that I had to take into consideration is that I had a whole lot more that I needed to share with people, and stopping my life to redo my older videos would very obviously keep me from making new videos.

Something else that was a really big consideration is the amount of work required to make or remake a video. The technology available to me meant that a single video could take up to a full 40 hour week to tape and edit. Not to mention the months that I sometimes dedicate to writing the scripts for those videos.

But recently I discovered something else about the words related to sexual sins, and this time it totally changed everything. And not in a small way. I was studying Galatians Chapter 5 and discovered a very easy to discern pattern that seemingly solved the mystery.

All of the information in Galatians Chapter 5 is about distinguishing between good people and bad people. All of the character traits used to describe good people are just what we would expect to see in anyone trying to live by God’s natural law.

All of the character traits used to describe bad people are what we would expect to see in social climbers. Those willing to do anything, to anybody, in order to get ahead.

The Greek word that gets translated as fornication in our English Bibles, porneia Strong’s G4202 simply means selling oneself. Whether sexually or otherwise. In this verse, porneia could only mean using sex or love, as a tool for improving ones social, political, or economic status. After checking every verse where the word porneia is used, I could see that I finally had a definition that would logically fit in, at every verse where it is used.

Since porneia is always translated as fornication in every English Bible that I have checked, I really feel as if the Hebrew word zanah probably means the same thing, as the Greek word porneia. As time goes on, I expect to get a better understanding of those words and hopefully figure out if in fact they can be defined in the same way.

The Bible as it has come down to us was not written in English. The most ancient copies that still exists are in Hebrew and Greek. Hebrew being the language of the Old Testament, and Greek being the language of the New Testament.

The reason that I am telling you this is, so that you will understand that figuring out the definition of porneia, does not necessarily reveal the definition of zanah. When Jesus was alive, the Greek empire had taken over the task of producing Bibles in Greek, just as the Roman Empire eventually took on the task of producing Bibles in Latin, and just as the British Empire eventually took on the task of producing Bibles in English.

Since the Jewish citizens of the Greek Empire had transitioned into speaking Greek long before Jesus was born, those Jews needed a Bible that was in Greek.

There are religions that teach that Jesus spoke Hebrew, but no evidence exists that Jesus knew how to speak any language other than the version of Greek that was spoken in Judea during the first century.

According to legend, Ptolemy II chose 6 men from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, to translate the Hebrew part of the Bible into Greek. There are some serious flaws in this story, but in any case, these men supposedly spoke both languages fluently. And yet, they seemingly never rendered the Hebrew word zanah as the Greek word porniea. Although both words supposedly mean the same thing.

The point that I am trying to make is that many words that are found in our Bibles having to do with human sexuality, may or may not be related to sex at all.

A car salesman who acts as if he is your best friend just so that he can sell you a car, or a politician who acts as if he is concerned for your well being, just to get your vote, would be considered fornicators, according to the definition of the Greek word porneia, and perhaps according to the definition of the Hebrew word zanah.

It cannot be denied that many occurrences of the word porneia in the Bible seemingly do involve sex. Since sex was created by God to be one of the most intense ways for two people to express their love for one another, sex by it’s very nature would be one of the most powerful tools that a wicked person could use to manipulate potential victims.

Porneia is the reason that so many old,unattractive, politicians and celebrities, are married to young, sexy, beautiful, healthy, men, and women. The wicked are masters at using love and sex as weapons.

The courts of most lands recognize this skill as a legitimate means of earning an income, and hence, the judicial systems of most countries richly reward such vile behavior. Earth wide many wealthy, powerful, people, have gotten where they are simply by having sexual relations with wealthy, powerful people.

Even a marriage between two relatively unimportant people would be considered fornication if one or both of the people involved got married for any reason other than pure love.

Using the law to lock someone into a legally binding contract in order to insure that a man or woman will fulfill their roll, as a caregiver, or provider, in a two person relationship, would qualify as selling oneself, which is the actual definition of the word that is rendered as fornication in the Bible.

That being the case, it must be acknowledged that sexual relations between two people that are legally married, in nearly every case, would qualify as fornication.

And although by definition, the English word fornication means sexual relations between people that are not married, according to the Bible definition of zanah and porneia sexual relations between two people that are not married would rarely qualify as fornication.

I am certain that my current understanding of the Bible definition of fornication, will noticeably improve the accuracy of every video that I produce from this time forward.

Right now. If you are a long time subscriber, you are probably trying to remember all of the videos that I have produced about sexual sins, and can’t think of any. That is because I am usually smart enough not to go into great detail about things that I don’t fully understand.

But sometimes we can be talking about something without even realizing it.

Genesis 6:1-4 says:

“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

Anybody who reads these verses will automatically recognize that the sons of God were angels that came down and impregnated human women, bringing about the birth of hybrid creatures called Nephilm. Some Bibles call them giants.

The reason that everybody knows this is because most of us are familiar with the verses and have heard this explanation from some source outside of the Bible.

But, if we were to read these verses in their original ancient language forms without anyone to tell us what they mean, we would only be able to conclude that there were people killing things from the very beginning of human history.

The word nephilim in ancient Hebrew simply means those who cause living things to fall. And nowhere in the Bible are we told that the sons of God are angels. The only two named sons of God in the entire Bible are Adam and Jesus. Both of these men were fleshly beings when they were called sons of God.

The words that are translated as “daughters of men” would more accurately be translated as “women built from men” a perfect description of Eve.

Since the phrases, daughters of men and sons of God are both very obviously plural, meaning more than one, it would make much more sense to understand these verses as saying,

“Destroyers were on the earth back when the men and women that God made, started having children.”

The Bible says that God made Adam and Eve, but nowhere does it say that they were the only two humans ever made by God. We simply accept that they were, based on the doctrinal teaching that they were. There are absolutely no verses in any original Hebrew or Greek Bible book, saying that God only made one man and one woman.

According to our English translations of the Bible, Acts 17:26 says:

“And he made out of one man every nation of man to dwell on the entire surface of the Earth”

A word for word literal translation would actually sound more like this:

“From out of one was made every ethnicity of human that lives on the face of the Earth.”

The point being that the word man is not to be found after the word one, in any original language text. Apparently someone somewhere felt that the word man belonged, but there really isn’t any scriptural support for this assumption.

At the time, Paul was making a very specific point to the people of Athens. If you read the entire passage, from verse 16, all the way to verse 31, you will see that Paul was addressing the number of idols surrounding the Areopagus.

Everything that Paul said to those people related to the number of gods being worshiped by the Greeks. The point that he was making had nothing to do with the number of men that god created, but the number of gods that created man.

As originally recorded in Greek, Acts 17:26 would be more accurately translated as:

“Out of one God was made every ethnicity of human that lives on the face of the Earth.”

What I am about to tell you may not agree with what you currently believe, but according to Genesis 6:1-4, as originally recorded thousands of years ago, these verses are not about illegal sexual relations between humans and angels at all.

A better understanding of these verses would probably sound more like this:

“When humans began to multiply on the face of the land, and women were born out of the sons of God, they saw that the women built out of men, were attractive. And they took any women that they chose.”

“Killers were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the women built out of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

If these sons of God, like Adam were fleshly male humans that God created, to populate the Earth, then there would be no sin involved when they began to populate the Earth.

Likewise if the women built of man were like Eve created from the ribs of those sons of God, there would be no sin involved in their mating with those sons of God.

A person might deduce that since Eve was created for Adam, that it would not be right for her to mate with any of the other sons of God. But after reading all of the verses involved, breaking them down into the original Hebrew, and studying them in depth, I cannot find anything to indicate that God was at all displeased with their sexual behavior.

In fact, Genesis 6:1-4 has very obviously been included in our Bibles, by God, to make one point, and one point only. To contrast the natural, acceptable behavior of creating life, with the unnatural, unacceptable behavior of destroying life. Nothing else.

Please don’t think that I have been holding back. I like you did not understand what a son of God was until about 6 months ago. I, like you, thought that a son of God was some different kind of being.

When I first came to realize what these verses actually said, it was very disturbing to me. The belief that the nephilim were the result of fornication had been the foundation of much of what I understood about the Bible. Many of the videos that I have produced were created before I understood what is and what is not fornication.

After years of abuse at the hands of civilization’s defenders, I have developed a rather good understanding of what to expect form the mindless religious drones that call themselves citizens.

From reading the Bible I have figured out that how people act today is no different from how they acted at any other time in human history.

The irrational behavior that people engage in today reminds me of the behavior of those that lived in Jesus’ day.

As Jesus was traveling from town to town, miraculously healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, and resurrecting the dead, his detractors were always present to scold him for performing such miracles on an official day of rest, or for not washing his hands before eating, or for not participating in the Jewish fasts, or for any number of other nonsensical religious ritualistic behaviors.

The point that I am trying to make is that as carefully as the Jews were at watching every move that Jesus made, and picking apart every inconsequential thing that he did, they were never actually able to disprove any of his teachings.

As time goes on, everything that I have been teaching about the restoration of our solar system is going to start taking place. I fully expect to start getting a lot of attention from the supporters of Satan’s current empire.

If they accuse me of not washing my hands before meals, or not resting on weekends or of not participating in any of the nonsensical religious rituals, of our current social order, such as pledging allegiance to flags, or watching the Superbowl, or going in debt at Christmas time, I won’t get upset. But I really don’t want them to be able to accuse me of teaching contradictory things.

I am really not comfortable having videos out there that clearly state that the Nephilim were the hybrid offspring of Angels and humans, knowing that I am now making videos about how the Nephilim were just people that killed things.

Figuring all of this out has dramatically increased my current understanding of the Bible in ways that are exciting. Many of the verses about family relationships are starting to have much deeper meaning for me.

For now, you are simply going to have to trust me when I tell you that our old understanding of Genesis 6:1-4 has stood in the way of our gaining an accurate understanding of many other basic Bible truths. But, from this moment on, we are going to be learning things that would have previously been nothing more than unsolvable mysteries.

Just as an example, a question that has been posted on my YouTube channel quite regularly by those wishing to discredit me, my God, or The Bible, has been, “Where did Cain get his wife?”

The Bible based religions have been addressing this question for hundreds of years using nothing more than philosophical reasoning that could never be proven from the Bible. Unlike the cults of Judaism and Christianity, we can answer that question by simply quoting Genesis 6:1-4, which clearly states that Adam and Eve, were not the only son of God, and woman built out of a man.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that sex was involved in mankind’s fall from grace. Genesis 3:14,15 clearly states that mankind’s fall was caused by a lie. God told Eve that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad would have dire consequences. Which as it turns out was a true teaching.

Satan told Eve that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad would be beneficial, which as it turns out was very obviously a lie.

Eve did not decide what to do based on logic, but instead based on her own selfishness. She listened to the teachings of God and the teachings of the serpent, and without even thinking about which teaching seemed reasonable, selfishly chose what she felt would best benefit her personally, without taking into consideration how her actions would affect her God, or anyone else.

To this day everything bad that happens in this world is the result of lying and selfishness. Just like Eve who demanded her right to be like God, Every citizen of the Empire demands the same rights as granted to them by the constitutions of the lands in which they reside.

Eve thought that she was freeing herself, by rejecting God’s law. When in reality all that she was doing was enslaving herself to Satan’s law.

It is a common theme for people who are enslaved, to falsely believe that they are free. Around the world the citizens of nations that are obviously nothing more than very large slave labor camps, have special days set aside specifically for celebrating their false freedom. To make their freedom seem more realistic, many of the slaves are allowed to take a day off from work, in order to celebrate their imaginary freedom.

The serpent promised Eve that she could be like god. And despite the fact that in the course of the conversation, he accused the creator of being a liar, she submitted herself to Satan’s authority.

Any reasonable person would have instantly recognized Satan’s words as nonsense. But at the time, Eve had never experienced being lied to. As 1Timothy 2:14 says, “The Woman was deceived.”

For many living today, it might seem reasonable to believe that sexual intercourse with the wicked one, might be an effective way to introduce wicked character traits into the human family, but nowhere in the Bible are we told that wickedness has to be inherited biologically. There are too many verses that speak of wickedness as if it is a choice.

Satan was wicked. Are we to imagine that Satan had a wicked biological father. Cain was wicked, but the Bible clearly states that Cain’s father was Adam.

It could be said that Eve was wicked because she listened to the serpent, but there is no denying that Eve was created from Adam’s rib. Adam was a son of God. Biologically Eve’s father would have been God as well.

While on Earth Jesus accused the leaders of the Jewish religion of being wicked. In fact he called them children of the serpents. Are we to believe that the Pharisees that Jesus was addressing were the biological offspring of a hybrid mating between reptiles and humans? Or perhaps that somehow the pharisees who were members of the Jewish race, had descended directly from Satan, in some kind of way that was different from all other Jews.

According to many verses, righteous people are said to be filled with the Holy Spirit, or filled with a clean spirit. Wicked people are often said to be filled with an unclean spirit, or unclean spirits.

1Corinthians 15:44 says: “If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” Perhaps as time goes on we will gain a better understanding of this verse. For now all that we need to know is that our natural body can only come to us biologically through our natural parents. How we get our spiritual body may have nothing to do with biological reproduction at all.

It cannot be denied that as we are reading our Bibles, it often seems as if a person’s spirit is an inherited trait, just like characteristics such as skin color or blood type.

In the Bible we are told that Satan was a destroyer of life. We are also told that Cain was a destroyer of life. In ancient Hebrew, the definition of Nephilim would be “destroyer of life”.

1John 3:12 clearly states that Cain belonged to the wicked one, and the language used is what we might expect if Satan was the biological father of Cain. In fact there is a religious belief that is gaining in popularity that Satan was Cain’s father.

The Bible does not specifically explain how Satan was able to instill into Cain a spirit similar to his own. It would be presumptuous for us to think that something biological had to be involved. After all Genesis 4:1 clearly says that Adam was the father of Cain.

In our Bibles there is no denying the obvious references to sex, conception, and birth, that are associated with wickedness. Our world today is ruled by members of a single elite family that seemingly has ruled over humanity ever since the time of the Pharaohs.

That does not mean that only members of the ruling family, have the capacity for wickedness.

In one of the oldest books ever written at Job 15:35 it says:

“They conceive trouble and give birth to evil; their womb prepares deceit.”

The words conceive, birth, and womb, used here are translated properly, and yet this verse, in context, does not seem to be about sexual reproduction.

Isaiah 59:4 says:

“No one calls for justice; no one pleads his case honestly. They rely on empty pleas; they tell lies; they conceive mischief and give birth to iniquity.”

And James 1:13-15 says:

“Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived, gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”

All of these verses are about wicked thoughts, and intentions, and yet the language used is similar to the language used to describe human reproduction. The Bible repeatedly refers to this time of trouble that we are experiencing as the time of Birth Pains.(Matthew 24:8, Isaiah 66:9)

According to the verses associating wickedness with sexual reproduction, Satan may have simply told Cain about the benefits that could be had from murdering his brother. Cain may have simply admired Satan, and imitated his example. The Bible doesn’t even say anything about Satan and Cain ever interacting. It is possible that Cain’s mother Eve passed along the wickedness that she received from Satan when she entered into his covenant and ate fruit from The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The seed within Satan that led to his rebellion seemingly was nothing more than his craving to be worshiped. The same could be said of Eve, Cain, or any other person that believes that it is his or her right to create and inflict upon others, any system of rules, separate and distinct from God’s natural law.

This pattern is spoken of at Ezekiel 28:15:

“You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you.”

In our day it is easy enough to observe that the wicked are nothing like the righteous. No righteous person would ever dream of world domination, and yet our world is currently run by men and women who have never dreamed of anything else.

As time goes on, I am certain that we are going to learn much more related to this subject. As I work through the process of correcting the information that I have posted in the past, civilization will be exposed for what it is, even more than it has been exposed already.

According to God’s law, we are to honor our father and mother. In this world many of us have parents that are our enemies, and enemies of our God as well. For many of us, the current social order makes obedience to God’s Ten Commandments impossible to keep. As Jesus himself said, our enemies will be those of our own household.

What I am about to say may sound impossible, but many of our seemingly bad parents may one day be resurrected as much nicer people. When and if that happens, honoring our parents may become much easier. The same could be said about our original parents. Regardless of what we may think about the actions of Adam and Eve, the day may come when we can similarly honor them. In fact as time goes on, I will be sharing information directly from the Bible that clearly states as much.

No sex would be involved in Satan becoming the founding father of civilization. Which he did. Since Cain became the world’s first city builder, he might have honored Satan as his founding father in much the same way that patriots today, honor the founding fathers of their individual nations.

When Jesus was alive he clearly warned against calling any man father. Obviously, Jesus’ warning was not against referring to our biological fathers as such, but against bestowing such an honor on men who are not our biological fathers. Regardless of what such men might be the fathers of.

As time has gone on, I have often thought of remaking all of my best videos. As the quality of my audio and video equipment has improved, the quality of the audio and video of my older material bothers me. This isn’t the first time that I have mentioned my desire to redo much of my older material.

Back when I first started thinking about redoing my older videos I could not in good conciseness shut down my channel for an extended time just to slightly improve on what was already there.

However, if I was to do so now, the quality would not just improve slightly. I am certain that if I were to produce new videos based on those old videos they would be so much better, that they would not even be recognizable to people that have seen the originals. In effect, any remakes of older material would be mostly new material.

Now that we have discovered the true meaning of words such as zanah and porneia, we no longer have to feel guilty about our natural sexual desires.

Knowing that many Bible verses seemingly about sex, conception, and birth have absolutely nothing to do with biological reproduction, we can stop wasting our efforts on the study of Bible genealogy, and start dedicating ourselves to figuring out the true meaning of such verses.

At 1Timothy 1:3-7 Paul said that his listeners were not to waste their time, trying to figure out fables and genealogies, but to instead devote themselves to learning about important things such as love. His reasoning was that those who study such things are only trying to be seen as great teachers of the law, when in fact, they have no idea what they are talking about.

I spent the first 40 years of my life desperately seeking someone that I could believe in. Someone that could lead me to learning the truth about God, the universe, and myself.

When I found out that the Catholic Church was teaching lies, I was emotionally damaged. The same thing happened when I found out that the Protestants were teaching lies. And the final organized religion that I was involved in, Jehovah’s Witnesses, was the worse, because once I realized that I had been lied to again, I felt as if I had nowhere to go.

If you have had an experience similar to mine, you may feel somewhat disappointment over finding out that some of what I have been teaching has been very inaccurate. Hopefully you are spiritual enough to understand the difference between what the churches have spent the last 6,000 years consistently doing intentionally, and what I do on occasion by mistake.

I said earlier in this video, that as time goes on, I am certain that I will find out that something about this video is wrong as well. As most of you know, I usually send out the transcripts of these videos to a small handpicked group that I trust to look them over, make corrections, and send them back before I post them to YouTube. This particular script was sent out to BMXION. The man that runs our second YouTube Channel.

He only found one discrepancy. At Genesis 6:2,4 the phrase “sons of God” in Hebrew is “ben elohiym” not “ben el”, in other word it was not the sons of God that came into the daughters of men, but the sons of the gods. Plural.

At this point, I still haven’t figured out why so many verses in our Bibles use the word gods, plural, as opposed to the word god singular. As time goes on, I may discover that the use of the word elohiym Strong’s H430 will require me to make further changes to the things that I teach.

When asked by the crowds how to pray, Jesus said that we were to pray to our father singular, so it is obvious that we are not to be praying to the gods plural.

We can be certain of one thing. The explanation given by the Churches is definitely wrong. And very likely intentionally wrong by design.

The hurt that I experienced at the hands of Christianity, was not based on the fact that were filling my head with inaccurate information, but on the fact that they were intentionally leading me away from learning the truth about my God, singular, and the gods, plural.

Please continue to pay attention to this channel. You are about to learn some very exciting things.

If you don’t want to survive…… Don’t listen to me.