The obligation of tefillin is mentioned four times in the Torah: twice when recalling The Exodus from Egypt:
And it shall be for a sign for you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand did the LORD bring you out of Egypt.
— Exodus 13:9 And it shall be for a sign upon your hand, and as totafot between your eyes; for with a mighty hand did the LORD bring us forth out of Egypt.
— Exodus 13:16 and twice in the shema passages:
And you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm, and they shall be as totafot between your eyes.
— Deuteronomy 6:8 You shall put these words of mine on your heart and on your soul; and you shall tie them for a sign upon your arm, and they shall be as totafot between your eyes.
— Deuteronomy 11:18
Sure, much better to worship yourself as the sole authority on everything and to be your own god while granting everyone else the same status. What could go wrong really? Pluralism and relativism sounds like fun! Totally not a scam and the biggest psy op in existence. This is literally what Satan told Eve.
You will get demolished on that worldview every single time. You have no ground to stand on.
It's sad basing your identity on comics and video games. Maybe read a serious book and learn about the real world instead? Nah, who's gonna make such low tier posts then?
What do you mean? Read the wiki. It's Torah passages.
St. Cyril of Alexandria
“When they see Him whom they pierced — that is, when the Jews behold Christ coming again from heaven, they will recognize Him whom they denied and delivered to death. Then they shall mourn for Him, repenting of their impiety.”
St. Jerome
“Then shall they look upon Him whom they have pierced, that is, Christ, whom their fathers pierced, and they shall mourn, confessing their sin and acknowledging the true Son of God.”
— Commentary on Zechariah 12:10
Yes, it is a prophecy about Christ's crucifixion. But beside it, most Church Fathers (that you've quoted here) interpreted the verse as the future fulfillment when “the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall mourn,” meaning the jews' repentance.
This is the teaching of the Church as evident from the writings of the Church Fathers like St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril of Alexandria.
“A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved...” - Romans 11:25–26
“They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him...”
- Zechariah 12:10
Also, you are the same person who criticizes Protestants for being too pro-Jewish, but you are the one arguing pro-Jewishly right now.
There's nothing pro jewish about what I said. I am reaffirming the position of the Church whose Fathers you quote above.
They killed the prophets, they killed the Son of God, they killed the apostles.
They were idolaters and killed many prophets in the OT and yet God sent His son through them. Even after killing Jesus, they can still repent and be saved. Paul was a pharisee who prosecuted and killed Christians - is he Babylon too? No one is damned because they are born jewish - God judges each one of us on our individual actions and heart. Anyone can repent - this is the core teaching of Christianity. Evil has no real existence, it is merely a disposition of the will against God and all evil acts are the result of disobeying God who is the ultimate good.
This is a ridiculous idea that is not the teaching of the Church and you made up in your head just like protestants tend to make shit up and misinterpret Scripture all the time.
That's false.
Judaism is a hebrew heresy originating from the pharisaical interpretations of the Torah. There were many such heresies during the OT. The true hebrew religion is not Judaism, but that of the prophets - Abraham, Moses, David who all worshipped the Triune God and spoke to the Son (Christ). The OT was fulfilled with the coming of Christ and Him establishing His Church - the New Israel through His 12 apostles. This is the Christian tradition.
We as Christians are not called to hate the sinner but hate the sin. The jew's rejection of Christ is a grave sin but like any sinner they can repent. The prophecy of the end times is that there will be a mass conversion of the jews to Christianity.
That being said it is true that the Church Fathers have always condemned the jews and never withheld the righteous judgment of their heretical belief and degenerate ways. The only Church which follows that tradition is the Eastern Orthodox Church which is yet another prove of it being the one true Church.
Agreed. It being a ziggurat is a speculation, we have no way of knowing what it was 100% but we don't have to because the meaning is there. I like the ziggurat theory and it fits in the larger scale but yes the focus was the city itself.
If an enlightened democratic republic was their idea, who opposed that, and why was secrecy necessary?
Because their idea of an enlightened democratic republic is satanic and revolutionary. Those people were degenerate psychopaths, communists and occultist luciferians. They opposed the Christian world order that ruled the West since the fall of pagan Rome. Naturally, the status quo of the old world order wasn't pleased with those plans and prosecuted the conspirators.
Why do you come to the land of Trump and Q to shit on the floor of the temple?
There we go. I thought with all your sophistication you'd see right to the cabal's psy ops but alas you fell for it. I've never been to the US and I don't need to go to Babylon, thank you. Temple, really? Can you be even more freemasonic than this?
Let's see what the Protocols say about democracy, liberalism and republicanism and the revolutions that toppled the old monarchies brought the NWO about.
“We were the first to cry among the masses the words ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ words many times repeated since those days by stupid poll-parrots… These words have always brought whole flocks of men to us as obedient cattle... In all corners of the earth the words ‘freedom,’ ‘liberty,’ and ‘equality’ brought to our ranks whole legions of men who bore our banners with enthusiasm… Meanwhile, the rulers who had been established by us were being overthrown.” — Protocol 1
“When we introduced into the State organism the poison of liberalism, its whole political complexion changed. States have been seized with a mortal illness — blood poisoning. All that remains is to await the end of their death agony... The new constitution will transform the governments gradually into a form of our autocracy… The people, under our guidance, will imagine that they are pursuing their own aims in their democratic aspirations.” — Protocol 10
“In all ages the people of the world, equally with individuals, have accepted words for deeds, for they are content with a show and rarely pause to note, in the public arena, whether promises are followed by performance. For this reason we shall establish what will be called a strong government of our own; it will be headed by a monarch who will be advised by a group of wise men. But this monarch will not be of the blood of the old kings…” — Protocol 15
“When we introduced into the State organism the poison of liberalism, its whole political complexion changed. States have been seized with a mortal illness — blood poisoning. All that remains is to await the end of their death agony. Then the Constitutions will be turned into caricatures, and changes will take place which will deliver the State into our hands. In the place of the rulers of today we shall set up a bogey which will be called the Super-Government Administration. Its hands will reach out in all directions like nippers and its organization will be of such colossal dimensions that it cannot fail to subdue all the nations of the world.” — Protocol 10
“Ever since that time we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another, so that in the end they should turn also from us in favor of that King-Despot of the blood of Zion, whom we are preparing for the world... We have taken hold of the ends of the springs which move the mechanism of the State. We have handled all the wheels of the machinery of government. We have been the prime cause of all revolutions that have overthrown the existing order of things... We shall be in a position to throw upon the streets whole mobs of workers simultaneously in all the countries of Europe. These mobs will rush gladly to shed the blood of those whom they have envied since childhood… Then, at that moment, the hour will strike when we shall destroy the entire social order and become the masters of the world.” — Protocol 3
“In order to incite seekers after power to a misuse of power we have set all forces in opposition one to another, breaking up their liberal tendencies towards independence. To this end we stirred up all parties, armed all their opponents, and set them fighting each other.” — Protocol 9
All of the above has come to pass, proving this was indeed the plan of the cabal. Yet here you are defending republicanism and democracy while admitting you are descended from illuminists. I think I know where you stand.
Paine's royalist detractors took his staying at a couple's residence while in Paris as opportunity to slander him. You fall prey to their machinations. Have you read his personal letters to his wife? No you have not.
Either way, the fact he was very close to Bonneville is much worse than the supposed debauchery. Bonneville was a revolutionary proto-socialist, a freemason and an illuminist (his Cercle Social and Amis de la Verite).
The cabal toppled some royals and not others to usurp the power as their own. It was a cabalist who told me they were monarchists, not that I needed him to say it.
Sure, there's black aristocracy left from the old world. Don't let me defend them - they have betrayed their people and serve Satan along with the transhumanist technocrats. They operate within the framework of the NWO and aren't monarchists at all. They are very happy as internationalists, globalists and socialists. In fact they're it's opposite and make a mockery of the monarchical institution just like modern skittles churches make a mockery of Christianity.
You have no idea of the history of the revolutionary ideas that have led to today's NWO (or you do and you are pleased with how things are going). I recommend you read Billington's book who's a librarian of congress and an Ivy league prof. - he's a supporter of the revolutionary new world order, so he's on your side and has no monarchist bias.
I'm of the line of VonHaderschot, who were orignators of the so-called Bavarian Illuminatti (Home base for the cabal of the past) nd know its history well.
Makes sense. You espouse their ideas too. The irony of saying I have no place here when you're of illuminati lineage...
Dude, calm down. I don't know her story but knowing how many of those girls were groomed and trafficked early on I'd rather give her the benefit of the doubt than cast the first stone. I'm willing to bet she was a victim of SRA.
I don't excuse prostitution and degeneracy. Stop channeling Andrew Tate with this pathetic performative pseudo-masculine behavior, it's cringe.
The globalist transhumanists were inspired by that depiction, that's the point. No one knows what the actual tower looked like.
consider the size of the people that made it
What would their size be? This is after the flood so it was made by people like me and you.
Tower of Babel was the size of a continent
That's ridiculous. No human structure can have such a massive scale. It was a huge pyramid/zuggurat that symbolized man's ascend to the heavens and dethroning God. This is why it was destroyed by Him and why we see similar temples all over the world among different cultures. Common to all of them was human sacrifice which is what the original Babylonian temples were used for.
This is why Planned Parenthood HQ is a stylized pyramid/ziggurat too. There are no coincidences and this symbolism is very ancient and deliberate.
It was a ziggurat so it was closer to the size of a large pyramid.
Either way, scale is not important. It's what it symbolizes.
I've red Paine's Common Sense. He was a degenerate liberal living in a menage a trois in Paris (source: Fire in the Minds of Men: Origin of the revolutionary faith by J. Billington). But so were most of the founding daddies who were influenced by both the girondin and jacobin faction of the French revolutionaries. I'm not saying the US never had good people as leaders (I think Andrew Jackson is a great example), but it's wrong from the outset due to foundational philosophical problems of the project.
How about Nancy Pelosi as your king? How about King Biden, drooling on the throne? What a joke.
The joke is that those leaders are the logical consequence of the system you support. These types of globalist technocratic goblins aren't to be found in the monarchy I described. But either way, having a bad leader or a monarch doesn't invalidate the system. Sure there were weak and corrupted monarchs and still it's a better system than a secular freemasonic republic or a democracy.
Tell us who is to remove the despotic monarch.
The aristocracy and contenders to the throne. Still much easier done than removing a psychopathic and tyrannical technocratic Big Brother government that's been institutionalized and cemented in all spheres of society. We've been under the control of that system for centuries now (or at least since WWII). When was the last time a despotic monarch ruled for 80 years?
The cabal are monarchists. You're obviously simp-pathetic to their cause and are a glow-worm who doesn't belong here.
Lol sure. This is why they toppled the monarchies with their masonic talmudic revolutions and we're constantly force fed propaganda about how great democracy is and how bad absolute power is (your arguments are textbook examples of that propaganda). We surely live in an evil monarchist world and not in a "Liberty, equality, fraternity" freemasonic NWO. The very idea of it being called a new world order is to set it in opposition to the old world order which was based ruled by the Church and the monarchy.
But don't let common sense, countless books on the topic (at least read the Protocols maybe) and history get in the way of your narrative - we all just need to double down on the thing that got us in this clown world in the first place, which is revolutionary emancipation, liberalism and individualism, and we'll get there!
You should rename yourself 2EyesWideShut
She was probably trafficked as a child. Hope you get to experience what she did.
Yes they did. Cholesterol is essential for testosterone production along with Vit D. It's easy to see why they did that.
An action taken in history is not an ideological position.
Your ideological position is to be proud (that's in first person) of that action taken in history because it was done by white men, dumbass.
Thanks for the strawman and goalpost moving.
How's that a strawman? You insisted to be proud that white men walked the moon. Those same white men happened to be freemasons and employed by NASA which is a deep state institution involved in Crowleyan ritual magick.I dare you to dispute any of this.
Aren’t you proud of no longer beating your wife?
Again with the wife beating? Why are you projecting your degeneracy on me you twat?
Maybe. Does that prevent him from making good investments?
Great. Now we have to get clear who decides what works and who is "us"?
A monarchist will nearly always find a need to control the church and religions or vice-versa, as occurred in both world wars, as well as countless times in prior history.
Yes, in the West this was the case but this was after the schism and after the papacy became a geopolitical power in its own right and rivaled against the monarchs for power.
In the East there was no rivalry between Church and state because the model was different. Both institutions had their respective roles and the roles but the state itself wasn't secular but confessional because the people and the aristocracy were Christian (Orthodox). This meant the empire was unified in creed and worldview, and had a cohesive community.
Our founding fathers knew better than to attempt to weld two powers that were impossible to remove, hence the 'separation of church and state' and 'freedom of religion' that stipulates a ban on both oppression of religion and the establishing of a state religion.
Yes, that would be the instutionalization of pluralism and liberalism. But is that a good thing? You can see the fruits such propositions bear. And still people wonder why people in the US can't agree on anything and are divided? Maybe because the whole project is based on individualism, liberalism and pluralism? Not to mention that religion itself is inseparable from government. Every person holds religious believes and it's inevitable that they'll influence their decision making. It's very naive to assume people can be Christians or freemasons in their private life, but somehow when they become presidents, it all of a sudden stops being relevant? Not only this doesn't happen but it's illogical to expect it.
Sharia law or an equivalent is the very thing we as a democracy now fight.
Last time I checked, most western democracies facilitated the immigration of millions of muslims and gave them free reign under the rights of religion, expression and free speech. How can democracy fight anything when it has to be accepting of it by virtue of being a democracy? Do you realize there's internal contradiction in that system? Karl Popper called it the paradox of tolerance but it's no paradox at all - it's a built in self-destructing logic because democracies can't guard themselves against any majority - be it Christian nationalists, muslims, communists or fascists.
An unremovable principality is absolute power and complete power corrupts absolutely.
That's a cliche that has aged like milk. There's nothing inherent about holding power that makes a government corrupt. What makes it corrupt is the corrupt ideas behind it. As if cutting the power in small pieces makes the system less corruptible? On the contrary - such compartmentalization makes it ripe for the creation of a technocratic deep state that can centrally control the smaller offices of power and be way more corrupted than an absolute monarch or a dictator. Case in point - the NWO after WWII.
It never happened and it never will. The true Church will stand the gates of hell and to the end of times as the gospels teach us. The processes you mention are problems within the sects who are outside the Body of Christ (since they're not the Eastern Orthodox Church).
Sure, liberals, freemasons, ecumenists and modernists attempt to infiltrate and subvert the Church sure but it's grounded in tradition, dogma and the Church fathers - it's not susceptible to modernization in any way. Its teachings have remained unchanged for the past 2000 years and it will always remain the same, because the word of our Lord is unchanging.
Today what the true Church is is more obvious than ever just by looking at what the supposed "Churches" teach: Rome, the anglicans and most of the protestants are pro skittles, pro immigration, pro globalism, pro climate change, pro ecumenism (receptive of other religions), pro vaxx, pro feminism (female preachers, deacons and bishops) - they are completely aligned with the NWO agenda which is antichristian and satanic.
This is what makes Eastern Orthodoxy unique because while Roman Catholicism also lays claim to tradition and apostolic succession, it has deviated and "evolved" their doctrines, structure and faith from the Early Church of the time of the Apostles (that we see in Acts and Epistles), becoming a worldly geopolitical power. Just think about it - a few centuries back Rome was fighting crusades against the muslim and today the Pope prays in a mosque towards Mecca and issues documents stating the jews, muslims and hindus worship the same God as Christians and all are on the path to salvation. Rome forbids the conversion of jews. They bless same sex couples. Should I even go on? This is absolutely ridiculous and it invalidates the whole RC Church.
Or what if the monarch is bribed?
Bribes don't work on monarchs when they control the economy and finances of the country. A good Christian monarch is a servant of the people and takes care of his flock because he aspires to be like Christ Himself, who is the King of kings. But they are still human and susceptible to bad influence, moral degradation, decadence, etc. The good thing about it is that they still can be replaced because there's always someone waiting to inherit the throne. Sure you get weak monarchs from time to time but you also get great ones. In the freemasonic dual party system (or in any democracy for that matter) you only get pawns of the Deep State because everyone who is preselected and groomed to be a leader is compromised and kept on a leash. The ultimate power never lies in the official leaders - it's all a facade built on marketing schemes.
Dual eagled monarchy aka symphonia where Church and state have unique roles in the governance and the monarch himself assumes a minor clerical office (a deacon). Thus state policy is influenced by the Church and its moral teachings.
A historical example would be the Byzantine empire which is the longest standing empire in history. It coincided with the golden age of the Orthodox Catholic Church and the ecumenical councils where the orthodox faith was dogmatized (this is the true Chruch before the falling away of Rome; it is now known as the Eastern Orthodox Church).
This is a pipe dream. There has never been such a thing in the history of mankind. You are like the commies who always say "this time it will be different - we will establish utopia on earth" and always lead to the most insane tyrannical and satanic form of government. This is the problem - a secular republic will always go down that route because a power grab of a small "enlightened" elite is inevitable due to fallen human nature. In a might makes right secular universe why wouldn't they usurp the power and enslave the people?
The difference is, that in monarchy the power to rule over the people is recognized to be from God and the good monarch follows the morality of the Church which is not decided by the whims of the small elite but is transcendent and not subject to change.
Read the quotes from the Protocols and look around the society you live in. I have nothing more to say.