According to Kabbalah, God is perfect Unity he is referred to as the Holy One but he has two aspects and the first part of Creation in order to make two out of the Holy One God had to separate into its two aspects the one aspect is the left side of God which is primordial chaos which is the womb which is the darkness and the blood the blood is the soul the other aspect of God is light light is male the soul is female is chaos as the womb is blood the light is male it is seed that seed emanates into the darkness in the form of an ejaculation that fills the womb of chaos with male seed and the two co-mingle to establish creation so there is a mixture of the two to establish creation and the Holy One is divided by those two aspects of light and darkness of womb and of male seed female womb and male seed.
The Olive Tree is a perfect representation of that and it also represents the two serpents the holy Serpent and the evil Serpent. The Serpent of darkness and the Serpent of light. Very often as olive trees age they divide into these two main trunks coming from the same roots that provide them with the Waters of the underground primordial Waters of chaos. And they battle each other for the light and this is represented by the Serpent's curse of Genesis chapter 3 verses 14 and 15. one of the serpents can strike at the heel of the other Serpent and kill it off by blocking its nourishment from The Roots the other serpent can strike at the head of the other part of the tree and shaded from the light and the Serpent's curse is that there will be two peoples one descended from the evil serpent Satan and the other descended from the holy serpent Yahweh. And these represent Israelites and Gentiles and it is also represented in the battle between the twins Esau the darkness and Jacob the light.
the Nachash (serpent) messiah of the kabbalists will be the coming biblical antichrist
Maybe it's even worse than you think. Cabalists believe since human beings are escaping matter and obtaining their own ripened knowledge and their own will. They have gone into matter, met with Satan and freed themselves from God and become infinitely separated from God to the point where they are now each individual gods. and they can with their mind, with their will, with their magical powers impose their divine images of the order that matter ought to take. So human beings can now cause God to cease to exist by disbelieving in God. God is kind of an Egregore that only exists because the imaginations of human beings create it and bring it into existence through their belief. So the cabalists cease to believe in the gods, perceive themselves as gods, have gone and met with Satan and freed themselves from these gods and can now utilize the science and technology, the ripened fruit of the tree of knowledge to create vessels which are both androgynous and immortal to contain their souls.
And they have literally done this. They have created artificial wombs in which these full-grown homunculi can now be reared up from the DNA of males without the need of a female egg. They can take extract the DNA of the male to form both chromosomes to create androgynous beings. But instead having humanity cast off the gods and create its own garden which will be superior and perfected and greatly vastly better than what was originally created by the Demiurge.
The luciferians from the cabal believe that they themselves can become gods
That's what I just said.
Tikkun Olam aka repairing the world through wickedness and transhumanism
The first part you got right "repairing the world", but the last part is wrong. Let me explain what Tikkun Olam means in Kabbalah. The goal is the final end of death chaos entropy and evil personified by Leviathan in the World to Come (Olam Ha-Ba). That happens when the Moshiach has arrived. This means the extermination of the non-israelites, non-jews (goyim), as part of the process of Tikkun Olam of removing the darkness, the kelypot, the non-israelites the shells the husks the evil and Sitra Achra of the other side of Christendom from existence.
In the Talmud it says that the world has to become either entirely righteous or entirely wicked for all of this to be fulfilled and they had a dilemma because there are supposedly righteous men who keep the world in existence so the world cannot become entirely wicked and still exist. But, then on the other hand the evil inclination will exist for as long as Esau's descendants exist. So the resolution of this dilemma to make the world entirely righteous was proposed by Isaac Luria and Lurianic Kabbalah through the process of Tikkun Olam rectification of the world which is to remove the kelypot from existence to get rid of the shells of darkness and leave only the sparks of Divine Light. Extermination of the goyim.
The Garden of Eden wasn't created by the fake creator demiurge aka satan/saturn
Sorry, but I think you lost me here. In Jewish folkloric and mystical tradition Samael or Satan is the king of all demons, the angel of death, the husband of the demonic Lilith. To the Gnostics, in the Apocryphon of John, the Demiurge is the lesser god and creator of this world. Identified with Yahweh in the OT. He has three names: "Now the archon who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaldabaoth, the second is Saklas, and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come." - Apocryphon of John. But, nowhere the Gnostics Christians mention Satan or Saturn. You should read this text, Apocryphon of John, also called the Secret Book of John or the Secret Revelation of John. This text provides a sweeping cosmology, a vision of creation unlike anything in Orthodox Christianity. It begins in the fullness of the Pleroma, the realm of light where divine emanations, Aeons flow out from the source.
or by his mother sophia aka lucifer the false light bringer
Also from the Secret Book of John, among the Aeons in the Pleroma is Sophia, wisdom, who seeks to create without her partner. In doing so, she brings forth the Demiurge, a blind and arrogant creator who fashions the material world and declares, "I am God and there is no other.". But the Gnostics believe this false god is the explanation for the suffering, ignorance and oppression of the world. And they taught that Christ descended from the higher realms not to glorify this world but to expose its counterfeit nature and to awaken the divine spark trapped within humanity. One of the favorite rumors that fundamentalist Christians like to spread about the Gnostics is that they worship Lucifer the light-bearer. But, that is incorrect... Sophia is not Lucifer.
Tikkun Olam = Repairing the world through TRANSHUMANISM
Where do you get your information from? The term “transhumanism” was coined by the English biologist Julian Huxley in 1957. The term Kabbalah refers specifically to the form of Jewish mysticism that became widespread in the Middle Ages. But, Kabbalah is an ancient tradition that is over 4,000 years old. And according to many scholars is the oldest religion.
according to your satanic babylonian book
I have no idea what this means, or where you're going with this.
Kabbalism is Gnosticism and the demiurge is a fake creator god that's identified as Saturn, Satan, Samael
Again where do you come up with this nonsense. Like all of the planets, Saturn is named after a character in Roman mythology... It wasn't until 1655, when Christiaan Huygens pointed his much more powerful telescope at Saturn and the planet was identified. The earliest I can trace the word Satan in English is to the 10th century. Gnosticism originated in the Hellenistic period, that means Gnosticism is approximately 2,000 years old. I quoted you directly from the Secret Book of John where it clearly says the Demiurge has three names: "The first name is Yaldabaoth, the second is Saklas, and the third is Samael." - John, the brother of James – who are the sons of Zebedee
Gnosticism comes straight out of the wicked Babylonian Mystery Schools that worship fallen entities as gods
Again, just more nonsense. And again what is your source for this accusation? for Gnostics Jesus Christ is seen as a spiritual messenger his purpose is to bring hidden knowledge that awakens Humanity to their divine nature guiding them toward liberation. Have you read any of the manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi? how about the Gospel of Thomas (Apostle Thomas)? For Gnostics Christ is a revealer of Truth. Gnosticism flourished in the early centuries of the Common Era alongside early Christians and it profoundly influenced Christian theology and philosophy particularly through its focus on inner enlightenment and spiritual transformation. However as Orthodox Christianity began to solidify its doctrines Gnosticism was declared heretical, the church fathers including Irenaeus and Tertullian condemned Gnostic teachings as dangerous deviations from the faith that both the Catholic Church and Rome agreed upon. In other words it didn't serve the imperial interests.
I upvoted this, but note generally: Hebrews calls the real Creator of the Garden of Eden the actual demiourgos, which is why I stopped giving satan the title of demiurge; and Proverbs calls sophia (hochma) the offspring of God, so the actual sophia is not lucifer or the progenitor of satan. The whole problem with the gnostics, including one active here, is that they mix the real Demiurge and Sophia with other entities that assume those names and pretend those roles violatively.
But don't you reject this interpretation, Dot? Why speak of it favorably?
Reject? I question everything... and here I'm just stating what Kabbalah teaches. It's the symbolism of the Olive Tree. For instance we can often see the Olive Tree broken off into two parts with a hollow womb in between. There is also a serpentine nature of the two sides of the Holy Serpent and the Evil Serpent, representing the duality of our material world. This is very common among olive trees. Now in Kabbalah by exterminating the Gentiles that soul is released will return to the Holy Serpent and the two will become one. That's the significance of the hollow space between the two that represents in Kabbalah the womb of the sin that is the void that the einsof forms within itself. The contraction so that existence can be made of these two opposite things of the blood of the womb of chaos and the male seed of Light which is emanated into that womb to create life as the co-mingling of opposites.
All of this mythology derives from originally the Egyptians as passed along through the Orphic Greeks and their mythology of Phoenix protogenos as the sun, the silver Cosmic egg created by his parents Chronos (Time) and Ananke (Necessity).
These contain a number of easily debunked theses. For instance, in the table of alleged "contrasting religions" between Torah law and Talmud law in "Esau-Edom", actual review shows the Talmud was more lenient and merciful than the plain text of the Torah (unless its corresponding passages about mercy are applied to balance the plain commands); but the text treats the Talmud as the abusive and unjust version when the two actually harmonize on the points listed. Talmud misquotes generically are hoax #2 on my list. Since it appears my explanation of this table has been deleted from ConPro, I'll repeat it below.
This is an interesting one to focus on because (while the premise of this book is its own tangent) the table presents a case as if Talmudic religion is literally contrary to what real Torah faith should be (which both Judaism and Christianity aspire to). Talmud is supposedly to explicate Torah and set boundaries around it without contradicting it; like other explications, it can be casuistic at times, but this is not due to illogic. If there is a casuistry it's because it has broad support as a positive moral boundary in the original rabbinical community and afterward. So we need to find both what's misrepresented as contradictory and what's the degree to which Talmud takes improper liberties with Torah. (For instance, Jesus pointed out that "hate your enemy" was not in Torah but had gotten confused with it in the Talmudic Mishna period.)
Sanhedrin 54b-55a does not say "If one committed sodomy with a child of less than nine years, no guilt is incurred." It begins by quoting Lev. 18:22, the passage which it supposedly rejects, and continues: "With regard to what do disagree? Rav holds any that applies to one who engages in intercourse applies to one who engages in intercourse, and any that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse does not apply to one who engages in intercourse. And Shmuel holds: It is written: As with a woman. It is taught in accordance with of Rav: A male aged nine years and one day, ... liable." Also: "Rav says: Does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old like one who is nine years old." Unlike rape, homosexuality is being defined only as an adult state, and so the difference is that someone nine or under is regarded only as a victim of forbidden intercourse, which is treated separately under rape law as per Deut. 22:22-27, but someone over nine is also regarded as (at minimum) a passive sodomite. (Shmuel, the minority, wanted to count the child a sodomite if over three.) So the quote mistakenly infers that, because it is not tried as capital sodomy, there is no other punishment for the rapist, which is false. There is no statement about guilt not being incurred, there is only the silence about liability for adult sodomy.
Sanhedrin 64a does not say unqualified that "He who gives of his seed to Molech incurs no punishment." Actual text: "One who gives of his offspring to Molekh is not liable unless he hands over to the Molekh and passes through the fire. He handed over to the Molekh but did not pass through the fire, he passed through the fire but did not hand over to the Molekh, he is not liable, unless he hands over to the Molekh and passes through the fire." This is a straightforward definition of the crime (cited from Lev. 20:3-4 in 64b) having two parts, consent and injury. If one part is missing (the child was not committed to the fire despite parental intent to, or the child was committed to the fire despite parental intent against), the parent has not committed the crime. In the first case the parent has not crossed the threshold of injury, in the second case someone else crossed the threshold and can be tried as a kidnapper. To treat this simple legal definition as if a permission by cutting the text short is inappropriate. The Talmud doesn't condone generic "giving to Molekh" by defining a point at which the court takes action; if someone had ill intent but stopped short of the criminal boundary that person would still be both considered liable to heaven and triable for capital idolatry in other ways.
Sanhedrin 66a is accurately quoted: "One who curses his father or his mother is not liable unless he curses them with the name .... When he blasphemes the name he shall be put to death. Why the verse state The name? Taught concerning one who curses his father or his mother, that he is not liable unless he curses them with the name." The explanation of this dictum cites Lev. 24:16, which states twice the blasphemer of the name shall be executed. Menahem ruled that the repetition should be meaningful, and that therefore Moses is explicitly teaching that besides cursing God directly, it is also a capital crime to blaspheme the name indirectly; and so he ruled that the indirect form must be stated for the purpose of qualifying, or narrowing, or defining, the meaning of Ex. 21:17, cursing parents. This is clearly intended for the purpose of mercy, to make a capital crime harder to commit, especially one that has specific temptation for young adults. Should we object that the merciful application of a capital code, using a valid technicality, nullifies the code? I don't think so, since otherwise we'd be arguing that a teenager is at risk of execution for any single untoward statement that can be ruled a curse in a very broad way rather than the narrowly fenced way described here.
Sanhedrin 101a is accurately quoted: "One may whisper incantations of snakes and scorpions on Shabbat .... One may not consult the words of demons on Shabbat. Rabbi Yosei says: Even during the week, prohibited .... Demons of oil and demons of eggs, it is permitted to consult them; but due to that they deceive." The word for consulting is the same as in Deut. 18:10-11; the Talmudic word for demon here is first H7700 (meaning "shade" as in Deut. 32:17), and second H8269 twice meaning "prince", while in Deut. 18 it is H178 meaning a "murmurer". The type of incantation considered is the recitation of either a Bible verse or another formula to invoke healing power. Therefore the idea is that, though enforcement against demonism was very strict, certain practices were considered too minor (and probably widespread) to make significant issues, and these included speaking a formula over a snakebite on Sabbath (due to the emergency) and asking questions of the "princes" of eggs and oil (folk augury). The rabbis argued that the matters were merely "bad ideas" rather than enforceable. One of the known weaknesses of the Talmud is its frequent dependence on folk spiritism, so here the question is whether the exemption of minor lapses from capital crimes of idolatry was worth pursuing for the peace of those who practiced them. This question should not be answered from within our culture, but should be considered in light of the prevalence of the practice in its origin culture as indicated by the Talmud and other sources.
Yevamot 59b does not say "Women having intercourse with a beast can marry a priest, the act is but a mere wound." Actual text: "Rabbi Shimi bar Hiyya said: Had intercourse with an animal, fit for the priesthood. This is also taught: Had intercourse with one who is not a man, although stoning, fit for the priesthood. When Rav Dimi came he said: An incident, a certain girl in Hitlu who was sweeping the house, and a village dog sodomized her from behind. And Rabbi permitted her to the priesthood." This personal ruling is that it's anecdotally possible that intercourse with a male animal may not be intentional (later argument may apply this to demons as well). Stoning is still stated to apply if the act is intentional and forewarned against. This does not condone bestiality but cites a legal case where it was ruled unintentional; the quote makes it sound as if intentional bestiality was permitted, which is contradicted by the reference to stoning.
Avodah Zarah 62b does not say: "A harlot's hire is permitted, for what the woman has received is legally a gift." Actual text: "And in the corresponding payment, permitted. As it is taught: Gave but did not engage in intercourse with her ... permitted her payment. Since he did not engage in intercourse with her, it is merely a gift that he has given her." The text alludes to prostitute wages not being permitted as an offering (Deut. 23:19), and gives the general rule that if a person has not consummated an act of prostitution then an animal in payment would constitute a gift. The discussion into 63a raises various dilemmas such as whether the man intends to consummate the act much later than giving a gift, which might be offered in the meantime, and concludes that different rabbinical case laws are contradictory but "shall stand" as an unresolved dilemma. Does the discussion condone prostitution? No, that is judged elsewhere under Deut. 22:21, as the separable question is limited to when an offered animal is judged to be wages of prostitution.
Sanhedrin 65a does not say unqualified that "One can revile the Divine Name if mentally applying it to some other object." Actual text: "A blasphemer, what action is there? The twisting of his lips is an action .... Is liable only for a matter that involves an action .... And Rabbi Yohanan, what is different? ... A blasphemer is different, since is in the heart." Here Yohanan is the minority view, who believes that blasphemy should not be charged because it is essentially a heart matter (continuing into 65b). The majority view is that a blasphemer is liable for the action of speaking. The quote mistakenly enlarges on Yohanan's minority opinion as if final.
Nedarim 23b does not say unqualified that "One may declare: Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null." Actual text: "One who desires his vows not be upheld the entire year should stand up on Rosh HaShana and say: Any vow that I take in the future should be void .... If he remembers at the time of the vow and says: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, his vow has no substance. He did not say: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, he has uprooted his stipulation and upheld his vow. Rav Huna bar Hinnana intended to teach at lecture. Rava said to him: tanna conceals it in order that not treat vows lightly, and you teach it at lecture?" That is, including 23a, this practice was regulated such that a person who wishes a vow to apply to his "invalidation" context must explicitly state the context at the time of the vow, proving its invalidity and performativeness to the listener. The haggadah that follows shows that vows are to be treated seriously, and so the idea of intending the new year to be a clean slate should not be taught casuistically as an excuse to deceive later. The person who makes a separate annulment and then later vows without informing the audience of that annulment is condemned by the development of the discussion. Thus the context mitigates the then-current practice.
Sanhedrin 78a does not say unqualified that "If ten men smote a man with ten staves and he died, they are exempt from punishment." Actual text: "The Sages taught: Ten people struck with ten sticks and he died, whether simultaneously, whether one after the other, they are exempt .... Rather, in there is sufficient to kill, and another comes and kills him; that is liable." The ruling is disputed, and then the majority judgment is made that when the blows are sufficient to kill but the first did not finish the job, there is still liability under Lev. 24:17. Thus the sentence quoted is out of its context. It remains that if a man was struck simultaneously and it cannot be determined who killed him, it is not regarded as capital, but the men are still liable to his estate under tort law for having injured him.
So the chart presents a consistency that is unusual for those who miscite the Talmud: in each case there is an objection that the Talmudic judgment is too lenient compared to the apparent strictness of the Mosaic law in its brevity. Rows 3-4 are actually valid summaries of the Talmudic context, while others quote accurately but fail to consult the context. Here are the lenient judgments: 1. Sodomy of a boy nine or under is tried only as capital rape and not also as sodomy. 2. Giving a child to Molekh is defined only as including intent and application of fire, though other actions can be tried as generic idolatry. 3. Cursing parents is regarded by a technicality as limited to cursing by the explicit name of God and not capital otherwise. 4. Speaking a formula over a venomous bite on Sabbath, and performing augury on oil and eggs, are regarded as too minor to rise to capital idolatry. 5. Because it's possible for a male animal to rape a girl, as once happened, it is assumed (absent further evidence) that such an event is unintentional and not punished as either capital or prejudicial. 6. A man's gift to a woman is not ruled as prostitution if he doesn't have intercourse with her; if he does, there are unresolved and conflicting judgments about what circumstances might exempt the payment from being capital evidence, such as the gift long preceding the sex act. 7. The idea that verbal blasphemy might not be intentional in the heart is an overruled minority opinion from Yohanan. 8. The practice of asking forgiveness in advance if one should unintentionally break a future vow must be regulated by stating it again at the time a vow is made, i.e., by making clear to the audience that it is not to be taken as a vow. 9. The act of a group is not applied to the law about a single murderer if it is simultaneous (tort law would apply instead), but if there is a sequence of blows then it is capital.
In all cases the Talmud is the merciful text and the Torah if taken alone becomes the judgmental text by contrast! In all nine cases the rabbis are considering defenses that permit them not to apply capital charges (though in at least rows 1-2 they are cases where other capital charges would apply). And this is exactly the position Jesus took with the woman caught in adultery: he knew the crime was capital but he showed the way to extend her mercy by shaming her accusers (who had broken the law about bringing the male forward as well). The point of the Mosaic law was to demonstrate the gravity of sin by its capital charges so that we would learn to hate sin; it was never to create a gotcha environment. Just as in American law, the many defenses available against capital crimes allow us to sift until we are only executing those who have demonstrated for years they have no interest in learning to do right. We too try never to err in our use of capital punishment. Thus the conclusion that the Talmud is sinful in itself or contrary to legitimately merciful exposition of Mosaic law is not sustained by the chart given. We could criticize the Talmud for its irreverent jokes, its insular protectiveness against outsiders, or its extensive demonology and folk spiritism, but its legal judgments have not been evidenced anywhere as constituting permissions to obvious sins.
The Talmud infers routes of appeal for criminals from the Torah that are very similar to American routes today (American capital justice is even more lenient). Compared to other legislation of its time, yes, it was more lenient to criminals than Roman law, or even later interpretations like Vlad's. But it's no justice to forbid the accused from means of appeal, just as it's no justice to allow dilatory appeal. In its context, while it can be said to be an early means by which people "hid" their crimes by creating many loopholes, the fact that the crimes were recorded is better than the Roman system of bribing your way through violations of the Twelve Tables. So on that point it's got mixed character, but it does wrestle with the subject early in a way that American jurisprudence continues to work through, namely, the balance between rights of the accused and rights of the victim.
This is overshadowed, however, by the Talmud's recognition of victim rights unlike any of the time. Based on the need for enforcement without tyranny as shown by Ezra and Nehemiah setting up a board to review unnaturalized immigrants (the divorce list), the covenant people continued to develop standards, using individual cases, where mercy could be shown. Thus some passages objected to are actually the first to recognize the rights of child victims (such as to prevent their victimization from affecting their future reputation), the rights of young adults who have lashed out thoughtlessly against their families to have the benefit of their inexperience, the rights of women to produce personal admissible evidence, and the rights of an individual participant in a riot not to be tried for the crimes of the crowd, the rights of those entrapped by cults without full knowledge of the cult's crime, and even the rights of chaste suitors to give gifts without being accused of impropriety.
Now, we could object to declaration of refusal to vow as being very easy to abuse, and document that it has been abused. The text says that (a) a person has the right to refuse to be taken as making vows and that (b) such a person has the duty to inform people of that refusal; in that it should not be problematic. However, textual and historical indications show that, even to the present day, the declaration has become a thoughtless commitment (an annual liturgy) and the duty to inform has become "revelation of method", namely an underhanded admission that one is lying, framed in such a way that the framer makes himself believe that the audience is the one deceiving itself if it doesn't understand. This is deplorable whomever does it (Christians and Muslims have their ways to do the same), but this cannot be blamed on the text.
The wicked should be punished with objective justice and should be given rights of appeal with objective mercy. Those convicted of pederasty, murder, or adultery were executed according to the text of the Torah and the Talmud (albeit the Torah on pederasty is by inference). The OP and links do not recognize the place of these documents, or of the New Testament, in the history of jurisprudence, but instead take a shallow view based on cherry-picked misquotations.
Speaking to the thumbnail only and not to the 5.5 hours, these are not admissions that the Jews "are not" Israelites. The first quote is correct but is just the first shocker sentence of a long article in which it's pointed out that Jew, Israelite, and Hebrew, "strictly speaking", have different definitions and contexts; it's not an admission, just an attention-getting distinction. The second quote isn't really accurate, as the primary name being Jews (from Judeans/Judahites) didn't affect the fact that secondary names fluctuated in popularity. The third quote is patently false, as I've documented; it's a telephone-game version of quotes that actually appear in the encyclopedia with far different meaning. Details, hoax #6.
According to Kabbalah, God is perfect Unity he is referred to as the Holy One but he has two aspects and the first part of Creation in order to make two out of the Holy One God had to separate into its two aspects the one aspect is the left side of God which is primordial chaos which is the womb which is the darkness and the blood the blood is the soul the other aspect of God is light light is male the soul is female is chaos as the womb is blood the light is male it is seed that seed emanates into the darkness in the form of an ejaculation that fills the womb of chaos with male seed and the two co-mingle to establish creation so there is a mixture of the two to establish creation and the Holy One is divided by those two aspects of light and darkness of womb and of male seed female womb and male seed.
The Olive Tree is a perfect representation of that and it also represents the two serpents the holy Serpent and the evil Serpent. The Serpent of darkness and the Serpent of light. Very often as olive trees age they divide into these two main trunks coming from the same roots that provide them with the Waters of the underground primordial Waters of chaos. And they battle each other for the light and this is represented by the Serpent's curse of Genesis chapter 3 verses 14 and 15. one of the serpents can strike at the heel of the other Serpent and kill it off by blocking its nourishment from The Roots the other serpent can strike at the head of the other part of the tree and shaded from the light and the Serpent's curse is that there will be two peoples one descended from the evil serpent Satan and the other descended from the holy serpent Yahweh. And these represent Israelites and Gentiles and it is also represented in the battle between the twins Esau the darkness and Jacob the light.
Maybe it's even worse than you think. Cabalists believe since human beings are escaping matter and obtaining their own ripened knowledge and their own will. They have gone into matter, met with Satan and freed themselves from God and become infinitely separated from God to the point where they are now each individual gods. and they can with their mind, with their will, with their magical powers impose their divine images of the order that matter ought to take. So human beings can now cause God to cease to exist by disbelieving in God. God is kind of an Egregore that only exists because the imaginations of human beings create it and bring it into existence through their belief. So the cabalists cease to believe in the gods, perceive themselves as gods, have gone and met with Satan and freed themselves from these gods and can now utilize the science and technology, the ripened fruit of the tree of knowledge to create vessels which are both androgynous and immortal to contain their souls.
And they have literally done this. They have created artificial wombs in which these full-grown homunculi can now be reared up from the DNA of males without the need of a female egg. They can take extract the DNA of the male to form both chromosomes to create androgynous beings. But instead having humanity cast off the gods and create its own garden which will be superior and perfected and greatly vastly better than what was originally created by the Demiurge.
That's what I just said.
The first part you got right "repairing the world", but the last part is wrong. Let me explain what Tikkun Olam means in Kabbalah. The goal is the final end of death chaos entropy and evil personified by Leviathan in the World to Come (Olam Ha-Ba). That happens when the Moshiach has arrived. This means the extermination of the non-israelites, non-jews (goyim), as part of the process of Tikkun Olam of removing the darkness, the kelypot, the non-israelites the shells the husks the evil and Sitra Achra of the other side of Christendom from existence.
In the Talmud it says that the world has to become either entirely righteous or entirely wicked for all of this to be fulfilled and they had a dilemma because there are supposedly righteous men who keep the world in existence so the world cannot become entirely wicked and still exist. But, then on the other hand the evil inclination will exist for as long as Esau's descendants exist. So the resolution of this dilemma to make the world entirely righteous was proposed by Isaac Luria and Lurianic Kabbalah through the process of Tikkun Olam rectification of the world which is to remove the kelypot from existence to get rid of the shells of darkness and leave only the sparks of Divine Light. Extermination of the goyim.
Sorry, but I think you lost me here. In Jewish folkloric and mystical tradition Samael or Satan is the king of all demons, the angel of death, the husband of the demonic Lilith. To the Gnostics, in the Apocryphon of John, the Demiurge is the lesser god and creator of this world. Identified with Yahweh in the OT. He has three names: "Now the archon who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaldabaoth, the second is Saklas, and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come." - Apocryphon of John. But, nowhere the Gnostics Christians mention Satan or Saturn. You should read this text, Apocryphon of John, also called the Secret Book of John or the Secret Revelation of John. This text provides a sweeping cosmology, a vision of creation unlike anything in Orthodox Christianity. It begins in the fullness of the Pleroma, the realm of light where divine emanations, Aeons flow out from the source.
Also from the Secret Book of John, among the Aeons in the Pleroma is Sophia, wisdom, who seeks to create without her partner. In doing so, she brings forth the Demiurge, a blind and arrogant creator who fashions the material world and declares, "I am God and there is no other.". But the Gnostics believe this false god is the explanation for the suffering, ignorance and oppression of the world. And they taught that Christ descended from the higher realms not to glorify this world but to expose its counterfeit nature and to awaken the divine spark trapped within humanity. One of the favorite rumors that fundamentalist Christians like to spread about the Gnostics is that they worship Lucifer the light-bearer. But, that is incorrect... Sophia is not Lucifer.
Where do you get your information from? The term “transhumanism” was coined by the English biologist Julian Huxley in 1957. The term Kabbalah refers specifically to the form of Jewish mysticism that became widespread in the Middle Ages. But, Kabbalah is an ancient tradition that is over 4,000 years old. And according to many scholars is the oldest religion.
I have no idea what this means, or where you're going with this.
Again where do you come up with this nonsense. Like all of the planets, Saturn is named after a character in Roman mythology... It wasn't until 1655, when Christiaan Huygens pointed his much more powerful telescope at Saturn and the planet was identified. The earliest I can trace the word Satan in English is to the 10th century. Gnosticism originated in the Hellenistic period, that means Gnosticism is approximately 2,000 years old. I quoted you directly from the Secret Book of John where it clearly says the Demiurge has three names: "The first name is Yaldabaoth, the second is Saklas, and the third is Samael." - John, the brother of James – who are the sons of Zebedee
Again, just more nonsense. And again what is your source for this accusation? for Gnostics Jesus Christ is seen as a spiritual messenger his purpose is to bring hidden knowledge that awakens Humanity to their divine nature guiding them toward liberation. Have you read any of the manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi? how about the Gospel of Thomas (Apostle Thomas)? For Gnostics Christ is a revealer of Truth. Gnosticism flourished in the early centuries of the Common Era alongside early Christians and it profoundly influenced Christian theology and philosophy particularly through its focus on inner enlightenment and spiritual transformation. However as Orthodox Christianity began to solidify its doctrines Gnosticism was declared heretical, the church fathers including Irenaeus and Tertullian condemned Gnostic teachings as dangerous deviations from the faith that both the Catholic Church and Rome agreed upon. In other words it didn't serve the imperial interests.
Good review. John Gill is correct that Remphan comes from Rephaim and Remphis and not other places. However, there's not evidence that the hexagram was introduced in Israel until around 300 AD.
I upvoted this, but note generally: Hebrews calls the real Creator of the Garden of Eden the actual demiourgos, which is why I stopped giving satan the title of demiurge; and Proverbs calls sophia (hochma) the offspring of God, so the actual sophia is not lucifer or the progenitor of satan. The whole problem with the gnostics, including one active here, is that they mix the real Demiurge and Sophia with other entities that assume those names and pretend those roles violatively.
But don't you reject this interpretation, Dot? Why speak of it favorably?
Reject? I question everything... and here I'm just stating what Kabbalah teaches. It's the symbolism of the Olive Tree. For instance we can often see the Olive Tree broken off into two parts with a hollow womb in between. There is also a serpentine nature of the two sides of the Holy Serpent and the Evil Serpent, representing the duality of our material world. This is very common among olive trees. Now in Kabbalah by exterminating the Gentiles that soul is released will return to the Holy Serpent and the two will become one. That's the significance of the hollow space between the two that represents in Kabbalah the womb of the sin that is the void that the einsof forms within itself. The contraction so that existence can be made of these two opposite things of the blood of the womb of chaos and the male seed of Light which is emanated into that womb to create life as the co-mingling of opposites.
All of this mythology derives from originally the Egyptians as passed along through the Orphic Greeks and their mythology of Phoenix protogenos as the sun, the silver Cosmic egg created by his parents Chronos (Time) and Ananke (Necessity).
5 hours read along to meh music no thanks.
grey state was good though
These contain a number of easily debunked theses. For instance, in the table of alleged "contrasting religions" between Torah law and Talmud law in "Esau-Edom", actual review shows the Talmud was more lenient and merciful than the plain text of the Torah (unless its corresponding passages about mercy are applied to balance the plain commands); but the text treats the Talmud as the abusive and unjust version when the two actually harmonize on the points listed. Talmud misquotes generically are hoax #2 on my list. Since it appears my explanation of this table has been deleted from ConPro, I'll repeat it below.
Repost:
This is an interesting one to focus on because (while the premise of this book is its own tangent) the table presents a case as if Talmudic religion is literally contrary to what real Torah faith should be (which both Judaism and Christianity aspire to). Talmud is supposedly to explicate Torah and set boundaries around it without contradicting it; like other explications, it can be casuistic at times, but this is not due to illogic. If there is a casuistry it's because it has broad support as a positive moral boundary in the original rabbinical community and afterward. So we need to find both what's misrepresented as contradictory and what's the degree to which Talmud takes improper liberties with Torah. (For instance, Jesus pointed out that "hate your enemy" was not in Torah but had gotten confused with it in the Talmudic Mishna period.)
Sanhedrin 54b-55a does not say "If one committed sodomy with a child of less than nine years, no guilt is incurred." It begins by quoting Lev. 18:22, the passage which it supposedly rejects, and continues: "With regard to what do disagree? Rav holds any that applies to one who engages in intercourse applies to one who engages in intercourse, and any that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse does not apply to one who engages in intercourse. And Shmuel holds: It is written: As with a woman. It is taught in accordance with of Rav: A male aged nine years and one day, ... liable." Also: "Rav says: Does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old like one who is nine years old." Unlike rape, homosexuality is being defined only as an adult state, and so the difference is that someone nine or under is regarded only as a victim of forbidden intercourse, which is treated separately under rape law as per Deut. 22:22-27, but someone over nine is also regarded as (at minimum) a passive sodomite. (Shmuel, the minority, wanted to count the child a sodomite if over three.) So the quote mistakenly infers that, because it is not tried as capital sodomy, there is no other punishment for the rapist, which is false. There is no statement about guilt not being incurred, there is only the silence about liability for adult sodomy.
Sanhedrin 64a does not say unqualified that "He who gives of his seed to Molech incurs no punishment." Actual text: "One who gives of his offspring to Molekh is not liable unless he hands over to the Molekh and passes through the fire. He handed over to the Molekh but did not pass through the fire, he passed through the fire but did not hand over to the Molekh, he is not liable, unless he hands over to the Molekh and passes through the fire." This is a straightforward definition of the crime (cited from Lev. 20:3-4 in 64b) having two parts, consent and injury. If one part is missing (the child was not committed to the fire despite parental intent to, or the child was committed to the fire despite parental intent against), the parent has not committed the crime. In the first case the parent has not crossed the threshold of injury, in the second case someone else crossed the threshold and can be tried as a kidnapper. To treat this simple legal definition as if a permission by cutting the text short is inappropriate. The Talmud doesn't condone generic "giving to Molekh" by defining a point at which the court takes action; if someone had ill intent but stopped short of the criminal boundary that person would still be both considered liable to heaven and triable for capital idolatry in other ways.
Sanhedrin 66a is accurately quoted: "One who curses his father or his mother is not liable unless he curses them with the name .... When he blasphemes the name he shall be put to death. Why the verse state The name? Taught concerning one who curses his father or his mother, that he is not liable unless he curses them with the name." The explanation of this dictum cites Lev. 24:16, which states twice the blasphemer of the name shall be executed. Menahem ruled that the repetition should be meaningful, and that therefore Moses is explicitly teaching that besides cursing God directly, it is also a capital crime to blaspheme the name indirectly; and so he ruled that the indirect form must be stated for the purpose of qualifying, or narrowing, or defining, the meaning of Ex. 21:17, cursing parents. This is clearly intended for the purpose of mercy, to make a capital crime harder to commit, especially one that has specific temptation for young adults. Should we object that the merciful application of a capital code, using a valid technicality, nullifies the code? I don't think so, since otherwise we'd be arguing that a teenager is at risk of execution for any single untoward statement that can be ruled a curse in a very broad way rather than the narrowly fenced way described here.
Sanhedrin 101a is accurately quoted: "One may whisper incantations of snakes and scorpions on Shabbat .... One may not consult the words of demons on Shabbat. Rabbi Yosei says: Even during the week, prohibited .... Demons of oil and demons of eggs, it is permitted to consult them; but due to that they deceive." The word for consulting is the same as in Deut. 18:10-11; the Talmudic word for demon here is first H7700 (meaning "shade" as in Deut. 32:17), and second H8269 twice meaning "prince", while in Deut. 18 it is H178 meaning a "murmurer". The type of incantation considered is the recitation of either a Bible verse or another formula to invoke healing power. Therefore the idea is that, though enforcement against demonism was very strict, certain practices were considered too minor (and probably widespread) to make significant issues, and these included speaking a formula over a snakebite on Sabbath (due to the emergency) and asking questions of the "princes" of eggs and oil (folk augury). The rabbis argued that the matters were merely "bad ideas" rather than enforceable. One of the known weaknesses of the Talmud is its frequent dependence on folk spiritism, so here the question is whether the exemption of minor lapses from capital crimes of idolatry was worth pursuing for the peace of those who practiced them. This question should not be answered from within our culture, but should be considered in light of the prevalence of the practice in its origin culture as indicated by the Talmud and other sources.
Yevamot 59b does not say "Women having intercourse with a beast can marry a priest, the act is but a mere wound." Actual text: "Rabbi Shimi bar Hiyya said: Had intercourse with an animal, fit for the priesthood. This is also taught: Had intercourse with one who is not a man, although stoning, fit for the priesthood. When Rav Dimi came he said: An incident, a certain girl in Hitlu who was sweeping the house, and a village dog sodomized her from behind. And Rabbi permitted her to the priesthood." This personal ruling is that it's anecdotally possible that intercourse with a male animal may not be intentional (later argument may apply this to demons as well). Stoning is still stated to apply if the act is intentional and forewarned against. This does not condone bestiality but cites a legal case where it was ruled unintentional; the quote makes it sound as if intentional bestiality was permitted, which is contradicted by the reference to stoning.
Avodah Zarah 62b does not say: "A harlot's hire is permitted, for what the woman has received is legally a gift." Actual text: "And in the corresponding payment, permitted. As it is taught: Gave but did not engage in intercourse with her ... permitted her payment. Since he did not engage in intercourse with her, it is merely a gift that he has given her." The text alludes to prostitute wages not being permitted as an offering (Deut. 23:19), and gives the general rule that if a person has not consummated an act of prostitution then an animal in payment would constitute a gift. The discussion into 63a raises various dilemmas such as whether the man intends to consummate the act much later than giving a gift, which might be offered in the meantime, and concludes that different rabbinical case laws are contradictory but "shall stand" as an unresolved dilemma. Does the discussion condone prostitution? No, that is judged elsewhere under Deut. 22:21, as the separable question is limited to when an offered animal is judged to be wages of prostitution.
Sanhedrin 65a does not say unqualified that "One can revile the Divine Name if mentally applying it to some other object." Actual text: "A blasphemer, what action is there? The twisting of his lips is an action .... Is liable only for a matter that involves an action .... And Rabbi Yohanan, what is different? ... A blasphemer is different, since is in the heart." Here Yohanan is the minority view, who believes that blasphemy should not be charged because it is essentially a heart matter (continuing into 65b). The majority view is that a blasphemer is liable for the action of speaking. The quote mistakenly enlarges on Yohanan's minority opinion as if final.
Nedarim 23b does not say unqualified that "One may declare: Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null." Actual text: "One who desires his vows not be upheld the entire year should stand up on Rosh HaShana and say: Any vow that I take in the future should be void .... If he remembers at the time of the vow and says: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, his vow has no substance. He did not say: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, he has uprooted his stipulation and upheld his vow. Rav Huna bar Hinnana intended to teach at lecture. Rava said to him: tanna conceals it in order that not treat vows lightly, and you teach it at lecture?" That is, including 23a, this practice was regulated such that a person who wishes a vow to apply to his "invalidation" context must explicitly state the context at the time of the vow, proving its invalidity and performativeness to the listener. The haggadah that follows shows that vows are to be treated seriously, and so the idea of intending the new year to be a clean slate should not be taught casuistically as an excuse to deceive later. The person who makes a separate annulment and then later vows without informing the audience of that annulment is condemned by the development of the discussion. Thus the context mitigates the then-current practice.
Sanhedrin 78a does not say unqualified that "If ten men smote a man with ten staves and he died, they are exempt from punishment." Actual text: "The Sages taught: Ten people struck with ten sticks and he died, whether simultaneously, whether one after the other, they are exempt .... Rather, in there is sufficient to kill, and another comes and kills him; that is liable." The ruling is disputed, and then the majority judgment is made that when the blows are sufficient to kill but the first did not finish the job, there is still liability under Lev. 24:17. Thus the sentence quoted is out of its context. It remains that if a man was struck simultaneously and it cannot be determined who killed him, it is not regarded as capital, but the men are still liable to his estate under tort law for having injured him.
So the chart presents a consistency that is unusual for those who miscite the Talmud: in each case there is an objection that the Talmudic judgment is too lenient compared to the apparent strictness of the Mosaic law in its brevity. Rows 3-4 are actually valid summaries of the Talmudic context, while others quote accurately but fail to consult the context. Here are the lenient judgments: 1. Sodomy of a boy nine or under is tried only as capital rape and not also as sodomy. 2. Giving a child to Molekh is defined only as including intent and application of fire, though other actions can be tried as generic idolatry. 3. Cursing parents is regarded by a technicality as limited to cursing by the explicit name of God and not capital otherwise. 4. Speaking a formula over a venomous bite on Sabbath, and performing augury on oil and eggs, are regarded as too minor to rise to capital idolatry. 5. Because it's possible for a male animal to rape a girl, as once happened, it is assumed (absent further evidence) that such an event is unintentional and not punished as either capital or prejudicial. 6. A man's gift to a woman is not ruled as prostitution if he doesn't have intercourse with her; if he does, there are unresolved and conflicting judgments about what circumstances might exempt the payment from being capital evidence, such as the gift long preceding the sex act. 7. The idea that verbal blasphemy might not be intentional in the heart is an overruled minority opinion from Yohanan. 8. The practice of asking forgiveness in advance if one should unintentionally break a future vow must be regulated by stating it again at the time a vow is made, i.e., by making clear to the audience that it is not to be taken as a vow. 9. The act of a group is not applied to the law about a single murderer if it is simultaneous (tort law would apply instead), but if there is a sequence of blows then it is capital.
In all cases the Talmud is the merciful text and the Torah if taken alone becomes the judgmental text by contrast! In all nine cases the rabbis are considering defenses that permit them not to apply capital charges (though in at least rows 1-2 they are cases where other capital charges would apply). And this is exactly the position Jesus took with the woman caught in adultery: he knew the crime was capital but he showed the way to extend her mercy by shaming her accusers (who had broken the law about bringing the male forward as well). The point of the Mosaic law was to demonstrate the gravity of sin by its capital charges so that we would learn to hate sin; it was never to create a gotcha environment. Just as in American law, the many defenses available against capital crimes allow us to sift until we are only executing those who have demonstrated for years they have no interest in learning to do right. We too try never to err in our use of capital punishment. Thus the conclusion that the Talmud is sinful in itself or contrary to legitimately merciful exposition of Mosaic law is not sustained by the chart given. We could criticize the Talmud for its irreverent jokes, its insular protectiveness against outsiders, or its extensive demonology and folk spiritism, but its legal judgments have not been evidenced anywhere as constituting permissions to obvious sins.
The Talmud infers routes of appeal for criminals from the Torah that are very similar to American routes today (American capital justice is even more lenient). Compared to other legislation of its time, yes, it was more lenient to criminals than Roman law, or even later interpretations like Vlad's. But it's no justice to forbid the accused from means of appeal, just as it's no justice to allow dilatory appeal. In its context, while it can be said to be an early means by which people "hid" their crimes by creating many loopholes, the fact that the crimes were recorded is better than the Roman system of bribing your way through violations of the Twelve Tables. So on that point it's got mixed character, but it does wrestle with the subject early in a way that American jurisprudence continues to work through, namely, the balance between rights of the accused and rights of the victim.
This is overshadowed, however, by the Talmud's recognition of victim rights unlike any of the time. Based on the need for enforcement without tyranny as shown by Ezra and Nehemiah setting up a board to review unnaturalized immigrants (the divorce list), the covenant people continued to develop standards, using individual cases, where mercy could be shown. Thus some passages objected to are actually the first to recognize the rights of child victims (such as to prevent their victimization from affecting their future reputation), the rights of young adults who have lashed out thoughtlessly against their families to have the benefit of their inexperience, the rights of women to produce personal admissible evidence, and the rights of an individual participant in a riot not to be tried for the crimes of the crowd, the rights of those entrapped by cults without full knowledge of the cult's crime, and even the rights of chaste suitors to give gifts without being accused of impropriety.
Now, we could object to declaration of refusal to vow as being very easy to abuse, and document that it has been abused. The text says that (a) a person has the right to refuse to be taken as making vows and that (b) such a person has the duty to inform people of that refusal; in that it should not be problematic. However, textual and historical indications show that, even to the present day, the declaration has become a thoughtless commitment (an annual liturgy) and the duty to inform has become "revelation of method", namely an underhanded admission that one is lying, framed in such a way that the framer makes himself believe that the audience is the one deceiving itself if it doesn't understand. This is deplorable whomever does it (Christians and Muslims have their ways to do the same), but this cannot be blamed on the text.
The wicked should be punished with objective justice and should be given rights of appeal with objective mercy. Those convicted of pederasty, murder, or adultery were executed according to the text of the Torah and the Talmud (albeit the Torah on pederasty is by inference). The OP and links do not recognize the place of these documents, or of the New Testament, in the history of jurisprudence, but instead take a shallow view based on cherry-picked misquotations.
Hello. Can you please re-up this video? I've been looking for it everywhere!
Just heard about this: https://scored.co/c/CommunityNoticing/p/1ATC04om13/upcoming-return-of-pomf2lainla-w/c
Thnx
Speaking to the thumbnail only and not to the 5.5 hours, these are not admissions that the Jews "are not" Israelites. The first quote is correct but is just the first shocker sentence of a long article in which it's pointed out that Jew, Israelite, and Hebrew, "strictly speaking", have different definitions and contexts; it's not an admission, just an attention-getting distinction. The second quote isn't really accurate, as the primary name being Jews (from Judeans/Judahites) didn't affect the fact that secondary names fluctuated in popularity. The third quote is patently false, as I've documented; it's a telephone-game version of quotes that actually appear in the encyclopedia with far different meaning. Details, hoax #6.