I'm not watching three hours if they can't even spell "Phoenician" in the thumbnail.
You can't spell "Phoenician" without the word "Canaanite"!
Not only did Nimrod kill and eat the fair-skinned descendants of Shem, in his fury and hatred he often burned them alive. The type of human sacrifice involving the eating of the slaughtered human victims derived its name from the combined names of his uncle, Canaan, and the demon god Baal, the two names being combined to form the word "cannibal." Nimrod was also known in ancient history by the names of Marduk, Bel, and Merodach. Because of his importance in its history, Babylon was known as the Land of Nimrod. Nimrod is also cited in the most ancient Masonic constitutions as the founder of Freemasonry.
TLDR: Graham has a lot of good research and is a well-meaning traditional religious Jew. However, actual appearance of the hexagram in Judaism is not older than the 4th century and all attribution backward is ordinary pseudepigraphy. His description of the risks and history of idolatry is otherwise helpful even if it doesn't depend on the hexagram. But calling the hexagram "the" star of Remphan is a historical failure even though it's modernly been adopted as "a" star of Remphan.
You can't prove shit about the so called "Star of David" because it actually is the 666 Hex star of Remphan aka Moloch aka Ba'al aka Saturn aka Nimrod aka Osiris that was always used for "Black Magick" and "Ritual Child Sacrifice", that the ancient ancestors of modern day Edomite/Canaanite/Kenite "Jews" worshiped!
The issue is that to pursue the truth we want to remove strands that aren't true, so that people don't throw out the whole presentation. True, there's a big satanic sacrificial system connected through these periods, but if we speak inaccurately about it then people will not listen. And on points where I can be confident something is inaccurate, I say so. Facts can be debated without resorting to obscenity or invective; it seems you think I'm harming your narrative when I'm seeking to improve it by affirming the correct parts of it. I would hope your grasp of your narrative is not that fragile.
Historically, Nimrod (Naram-Sin) probably did burn Semitic (Shemite) babies alive and eat them, as indicated by evidence of his gods and practices, but that is not the origin of the word "cannibal", which comes from "Carib" and "kari'na" meaning person. If the devil is causing a recycling of the sounds of Canaan and Baal, let's say that directly instead of saying it is of human derivation.
Bel-Baal was then a title of any god or deified human, so Nimrod could easily have been called that. However, in his day Marduk-Merodach was a minor deity called Amar-Utuk (derived from Utu or Shamash the sun, also allied with Sin the moon), found in a list of minor underworld deities from Abu Salabikh as d-Utu-Amar. We have an old inscription (YOS 9:2) taken by Lambert and Beaulieu as saying the ruler of Babbar (Babilu-Babylon) built a temple to d-Amar-Utu, but this hardly means the ruler and the god were the same person. (Add: Both Babbar and Sippar may mean "sunny" in Sumerian, later punned as "gods' gate".) The ruler's name is preserved as "son of Ahu-Ilum [semitic for "God's brother"], man of Ilum-Beli, man of Ur-Kubi" [Kubi is an even more obscure demon or consortium]. If we take this as Nimrod building Etemenanki, he is not merged with Marduk at that time (though we might infer that his uncle Canaan is merging with El-Ilum). The merger of Nimrod with Marduk was over a millennium later in the Babylon revival; he wasn't "Marduk" during his lifetime, and so if we want to say the religion merged him in much later we should say that.
The hexagram may today be associated with 666, hag-hexing, Remphan, Moloch-Baal, and Saturn (and thereby Nimrod and Osiris), by very modern imaginative combination, but this recent nexus is not its original meaning. If we just want to point out the hexagram has been recently roped into the cluster of symbols for this sacrificial system, we should say that.
By the same token, Edom, Canaan, Kenan, and Judah are all easily distinguished, as are their religions, and we should not act like they are all one. In particular, the religion of Judah is testified as monotheism and was distinct from the polytheism infiltrated into it by his descendants. If you want to say that all these peoples had common elements, including the Jews having elements of baalism in their professed monotheism (much as many nominal Christians do today), we should say that, like the Bible does.
Since you appear to reject the Jews as a race, it's odd that you should take the testimony of Graham, who intends it as faithful to Judaism. Just as odd as that you should affirm him in saying the hexagram really is the sign of Solomon but not the sign of David, without any evidence, mechanism, or rationale. Semiotics can be made an exact science.
I don't give a flying fuck about your wall of "NONSENSE" text because even the ancient Chinese People used the 6 sided HEX of Satan/lucifer for "Black Magick" in ancient times!
the hypothesis explains why the hexagram indicated success to the diviner and injury to his opponent. That was the purpose of black magic.13 The Chou 1i says, describing a part of the ancient administration,14" The department consisted of an official and four assistants. They were in charge of the extermination of the poisonous k7u. They drove it out by spells, and attacked it by efficacious herbs. They directed those who could control k7u, and watched the effect." 15 Cheng K'ang-ch'eng's commentary on this passage in the Chou 1i quotes the criminal law of the Han dynasty as saying, " Those who dare to poison people with ku, or teach others to do it, will be publicly executed." The law of the Han was based on earlier codes, going back at least to the fourth century B. c., and it is not unlikely that the practice of ku was forbidden from the time of the first legal codes in China, perhaps long before. If k7ualways represented a method of injuring others, this is what we would expect, since black magic is usually illegal. 13 European scholars have done little work on the subject of ku.
Your link shows that the Chinese used 64 "hexagrams". These were not star-shaped hexagrams or hexagons, but patterns of six parallel lines, which could each be either whole or broken (thus 2^6=64 total). So, yes, the Chinese used a pattern of 6s in the I Ching, without any stars, which is consistent with what I said.
Let's try it a little simpler.
You can't find the Star of David in any ancient scriptures
Correct.
because it never existed,
Correct in that David never used it.
it's actually the Star of Remphan/Chiun/Moloch
It's not the original star of Remphan-Chiun intended by Amos and Stephen, but it's become a star of Remphan-Chiun. Similarly it could not have been a star of Moloch because it was never used in Judaism until after 300 AD.
/Saturn, the Talisman of Saturn
I have no problem saying that Saturnism is satanism and the hexagram star goes very far back with it; for instance, the Sri Sukta ca. 1100 BC describes a yantra of square, circle, and triangle patterns that would include a hexagram. But there's no evidence that the hexagram was singled out as a mark of satanism early on. If we said that satanists had in mind to use setup symbols that could be diverted onto the hexagram track later, maybe, but that's a totally different assertion from saying the hexagram is the star of Saturn.
& the Seal of King Solomon
I showed you that there's no tradition from Solomon that he used the star, as that comes from Arab corruption. If we go prior to the Arab layer and prior to the Zoroastrian layer, where Asmodeus comes from Khashm-Dev or Aeshma Daeva (the Ire Devil), we find that Solomon's actual defense was the name of God (Gittin 68a:10-12): "A chain onto which Name was carved, and a ring onto which Name was carved .... the chain around enclosed him .... The Name of your Master is upon you." So the seal of Solomon, if anything, was the name Yahweh. Is a potential "seal of Solomon" nowadays the hexagram? Could be, times change.
who was a necromancer that summoned demons to build his temple
I have no problem assuming demons were involved. If you track back the 40 plus 390 years prophesied by Ezekiel backward from Zerubbabel's altar of 536 BC, it points to Solomon's temple altar of 966 BC (and Jeroboam's idolatrous altar of 926 BC); so Ezekiel implied that the whole period of the temple had idolatry alongside.
TLDR: You count yourself smarter than these monotheists, so don't fall for their sources but stick to historical research. If you want to point out that all monotheism has had infiltrated idolatry, point out correctly which part happened when, so that your case is listened to rather than laughed off. It's also a good idea for you to propose some other, superior way of apprehending Truth so that you're not dismissed as just as amoral as the people you criticize. Don't just doom, be the solution.
You can't spell "Phoenician" without the word "Canaanite"!
You can't prove shit about the so called "Star of David" because it actually is the 666 Hex star of Remphan aka Moloch aka Ba'al aka Saturn aka Nimrod aka Osiris that was always used for "Black Magick" and "Ritual Child Sacrifice", that the ancient ancestors of modern day Edomite/Canaanite/Kenite "Jews" worshiped!
The issue is that to pursue the truth we want to remove strands that aren't true, so that people don't throw out the whole presentation. True, there's a big satanic sacrificial system connected through these periods, but if we speak inaccurately about it then people will not listen. And on points where I can be confident something is inaccurate, I say so. Facts can be debated without resorting to obscenity or invective; it seems you think I'm harming your narrative when I'm seeking to improve it by affirming the correct parts of it. I would hope your grasp of your narrative is not that fragile.
Historically, Nimrod (Naram-Sin) probably did burn Semitic (Shemite) babies alive and eat them, as indicated by evidence of his gods and practices, but that is not the origin of the word "cannibal", which comes from "Carib" and "kari'na" meaning person. If the devil is causing a recycling of the sounds of Canaan and Baal, let's say that directly instead of saying it is of human derivation.
Bel-Baal was then a title of any god or deified human, so Nimrod could easily have been called that. However, in his day Marduk-Merodach was a minor deity called Amar-Utuk (derived from Utu or Shamash the sun, also allied with Sin the moon), found in a list of minor underworld deities from Abu Salabikh as d-Utu-Amar. We have an old inscription (YOS 9:2) taken by Lambert and Beaulieu as saying the ruler of Babbar (Babilu-Babylon) built a temple to d-Amar-Utu, but this hardly means the ruler and the god were the same person. (Add: Both Babbar and Sippar may mean "sunny" in Sumerian, later punned as "gods' gate".) The ruler's name is preserved as "son of Ahu-Ilum [semitic for "God's brother"], man of Ilum-Beli, man of Ur-Kubi" [Kubi is an even more obscure demon or consortium]. If we take this as Nimrod building Etemenanki, he is not merged with Marduk at that time (though we might infer that his uncle Canaan is merging with El-Ilum). The merger of Nimrod with Marduk was over a millennium later in the Babylon revival; he wasn't "Marduk" during his lifetime, and so if we want to say the religion merged him in much later we should say that.
The hexagram may today be associated with 666, hag-hexing, Remphan, Moloch-Baal, and Saturn (and thereby Nimrod and Osiris), by very modern imaginative combination, but this recent nexus is not its original meaning. If we just want to point out the hexagram has been recently roped into the cluster of symbols for this sacrificial system, we should say that.
By the same token, Edom, Canaan, Kenan, and Judah are all easily distinguished, as are their religions, and we should not act like they are all one. In particular, the religion of Judah is testified as monotheism and was distinct from the polytheism infiltrated into it by his descendants. If you want to say that all these peoples had common elements, including the Jews having elements of baalism in their professed monotheism (much as many nominal Christians do today), we should say that, like the Bible does.
Since you appear to reject the Jews as a race, it's odd that you should take the testimony of Graham, who intends it as faithful to Judaism. Just as odd as that you should affirm him in saying the hexagram really is the sign of Solomon but not the sign of David, without any evidence, mechanism, or rationale. Semiotics can be made an exact science.
I don't give a flying fuck about your wall of "NONSENSE" text because even the ancient Chinese People used the 6 sided HEX of Satan/lucifer for "Black Magick" in ancient times!
https://pdfcoffee.com/the-black-magic-in-china-known-as-ku-pdf-free.html
Your link shows that the Chinese used 64 "hexagrams". These were not star-shaped hexagrams or hexagons, but patterns of six parallel lines, which could each be either whole or broken (thus 2^6=64 total). So, yes, the Chinese used a pattern of 6s in the I Ching, without any stars, which is consistent with what I said.
Let's try it a little simpler.
Correct.
Correct in that David never used it.
It's not the original star of Remphan-Chiun intended by Amos and Stephen, but it's become a star of Remphan-Chiun. Similarly it could not have been a star of Moloch because it was never used in Judaism until after 300 AD.
I have no problem saying that Saturnism is satanism and the hexagram star goes very far back with it; for instance, the Sri Sukta ca. 1100 BC describes a yantra of square, circle, and triangle patterns that would include a hexagram. But there's no evidence that the hexagram was singled out as a mark of satanism early on. If we said that satanists had in mind to use setup symbols that could be diverted onto the hexagram track later, maybe, but that's a totally different assertion from saying the hexagram is the star of Saturn.
I showed you that there's no tradition from Solomon that he used the star, as that comes from Arab corruption. If we go prior to the Arab layer and prior to the Zoroastrian layer, where Asmodeus comes from Khashm-Dev or Aeshma Daeva (the Ire Devil), we find that Solomon's actual defense was the name of God (Gittin 68a:10-12): "A chain onto which Name was carved, and a ring onto which Name was carved .... the chain around enclosed him .... The Name of your Master is upon you." So the seal of Solomon, if anything, was the name Yahweh. Is a potential "seal of Solomon" nowadays the hexagram? Could be, times change.
I have no problem assuming demons were involved. If you track back the 40 plus 390 years prophesied by Ezekiel backward from Zerubbabel's altar of 536 BC, it points to Solomon's temple altar of 966 BC (and Jeroboam's idolatrous altar of 926 BC); so Ezekiel implied that the whole period of the temple had idolatry alongside.
TLDR: You count yourself smarter than these monotheists, so don't fall for their sources but stick to historical research. If you want to point out that all monotheism has had infiltrated idolatry, point out correctly which part happened when, so that your case is listened to rather than laughed off. It's also a good idea for you to propose some other, superior way of apprehending Truth so that you're not dismissed as just as amoral as the people you criticize. Don't just doom, be the solution.