A greater persecution would specifically mean the laws, though pretended to be Noahide (human), are actually inhuman and thus not Noahide at all.

People blur the whole problem of bad law over history as if the worst category of bad law should be called "Talmudic Noahide Law" and as if that's a valid description of it. If it's bad law it doesn't matter if we call it the United States Statutes or anything, it's still bad law. If a giant tyrannical empire promulgates bad law, the whiners who complain that the Jews contributed a Noahide slice to it, as if that's the only salient point, will be steamrolled in their ignorance of the whole of the problem; same as with other such problems.

league of nations

It'd be just like any of several prior empires that criminalized the covenant people, declaring themselves the representatives of humanity (i.e. of Noahides). Nothing new.

Yes, I think the future holds an empire persecuting Christianity both directly and indirectly just as we see presently given the literal persecution in ~60 countries and the indirect persecution we permit in the West via legal and cultural manipulation. Christians are already being beheaded regularly, no need for LaHaye and Jenkins to mistranslate anything. The goal of consolidating power free from Christian influence so that Christians can be further persecuted is always part of the same war.

[Talmud] permits the slaughter of innocent women and children through dehumanization

No, I looked for it and it goes no further than Biblical passages that Christians accept, where slaughter of innocent women and children is either (1) unintended collateral damage during war, or (2) in one or two cases intended because of evidence of idolatrous collusion by the women and/or minors involved. If morality did not permit collateral damage, anyone could sin with impunity and surround himself with human shields and never be targetable. If morality did not permit trying minors as adults, anyone could direct minors to carry out their crimes and have no penalty. Yes, there's a lot of dehumanization going on in war today, but that's not from established morality.

you can find the noahide laws only in the Babylonian Talmud

No, a version of the Noahite laws was promulgated by the first pope, Peter, at the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15:20, 29. It too prohibited idolatry but Peter, James, and Paul obviously didn't count themselves idolators!

the Noahide Laws began when President Jimmy Carter signed Education Day USA into Law in 1978

No, that's just the first US proclamation acknowledging they exist, but all Christians accept the Jerusalem Council as binding.

What's the punishment if a Gentile transgresses the Noahide Laws? DEATH!!!

Correct, and according to the Noahide laws that can only be tried by a court of justice established by Noahides i.e. people of all nations together. So no Jew can cause their definition of idolatry to prevail without agreement by the court of all nations.

The nascent Sanhedrin, a modern attempt to revive the ancient Jewish court, views Jesus Christ as a FALSE PROPHET

I've looked closely into this Sanhedrin and found no such ruling.

This is primarily based on the traditional Jewish understanding of Jesus as someone who did not fulfill the criteria

YET.

Ancient Israelites = /= modern day "jews"

Yes, modern Jews are a subset descended continuously from Yehudah. (English Jew, from French Ju, from Latin Judaeus, from Hebrew Yehudah.)

the Bible doesn't explicitly state that you will have 2800 "subhuman" slaves when your nachash moshiach (antichrist) comes

No, that's an interpretation. It says in Zech. 8:23 that "ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of [me] that is a [spiritual] Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." Christians are "spiritual Jews". Nachash isn't related at all to moshiach.

Please show me where i misqouted

Gladly. Most obviously, you wrote above, "Jesus is in hell and is being punished by being immersed in boiling semen", when semen is not in the quote you cited (semen is referred to Balaam instead, who is different from the Yeshu mentioned). Further, the "Yeshu" is generic and conflates three or more people named "Yeshu" in the Talmud; it's not about fiery "hell" as we call it but about tzoah rotachat, a compartment of sheol; it's not about present punishment but is regarded as punishment with respite; it doesn't say the Yeshu is being punished but that he speaks of the punishment; and it doesn't speak of immersion. I'll be happy to put you down as getting the quote correct the second time, but the interpretation is still complex context, as I linked.

The Sabbatean's "sympathy" victim card is long expired

Correct.

Thank you for supplying a new source! It still follows the same erratic misquotation methods as others but it's helpful to see them all. I'm adding details to the Talmud Quotes page.

"About the Christians":

1. Probably means Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 425:5, which says: "In the case of a Jewish heretic, which is someone who worships idols or sins in spite- ... and those who deny the Torah or Jewish prophecy, there is a mitzvah to remove them." There is no "Cohen Law" text but it's one of the funniest misnames! "Idols" is literally Akum, meaning "star and constellation worshipper". There is no ruling that Christians are Akum, but there are rulings that they are a special case.

2. Zohar, Vayetzei 27 (at 280, also called Zohar 1:160a) does not say "The Jews must always try to deceive the Christians." Google translates it as: "With tricks you will make war for yourself." But this is just an inference from Pr. 24:6 (KJV), "By wise counsel thou shalt make thy war." Zohar is a medieval source, again it is limited to use in wartime.

3. Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b comes close to saying "Even the best of the goyim should all be killed." The medieval Hebrew text quotes Tractate Soferim 15 by name, where the actual text is discussed, without significant elaboration here: במסכת סופרים [פט"ו] כשר שבכנענים הרוג ... דהיינו בשעת מלחמה or "In Tractate Soferim [15], the best of the Canaanites are to be killed ..., that is, in time of war." It's quite clear that the context changes the quote: in wartime it is understood that it is permitted to kill even the best among the enemies. But this is only one rabbi's proverb, not a halakhic majority ruling, nor from the main Talmud (not found in Avodah Zarah 26b).

4. Bava Kamma 113a does not say "It is allowed to deceive the Christians." Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." Two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted in Sanhedrin 57a. So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Ashi and Yishmael, but not for the majority view or Jewish practice.

5. Part of this same quote comes from Rockwell's White Power attributed to Baba Kamma 113b, which accurately says, "Permitted his lost item, as Rav Hama bar Gurya says Rav says: From where permitted the lost item of a Gentile? As it is stated, With every lost thing of your brother's, to your brother you return, but you do not return to a Gentile. But say this applies where has not yet come into hand, as he is not obligated to pursue it. But where the item had come into his hand, say return it. Ravina said: 'And you have found' indicates that come into one's hand. Is taught Rabbi Pinehas ben Ya'ir says: In a case where there is desecration of name, prohibited even lost item." Thus the minority opinion is stated in order to be rejected. The lost item of a Gentile that is picked up must be returned if possible, and even if not picked up it should be returned for sanctification of the Name.

6. Bamidbar Rabbah 21 [not Talmud] does not say "A Jew who kills a Christian does not commit sin, but rather offers a sacrifice acceptable to God." It actually says, with reference to the death of Zimri (Israelite) and Cozbi (Midianite), Num. 25:13: "When anyone sheds the blood of the wicked, it is as if he had offered a sacrifice." So "wicked" is not a code for a Gentile, and Numbers itself compares such a death to an atonement.

7. Sanhedrin 106a accurately says, "Rav Pappa says this that people say: Was from princes and rulers, was licentious with carpenters." This is merely a proverb, applied to Balaam, which may also indicate contemporary mood about Jesus (already known from the Gospels), and is not directly about Mary or Jesus, nor an actual ruling.

8. Zohar, Bo 16 does not say "Christian extinction is a necessary sacrifice." This is attributed to the entire book "Zohar, Shemot" without paragraph citation, but this is the closest match in hand (aka Zohar 2:230 or 2:43a or 11:43a), given by Pranaitis in exaggerated form. The text (ויקרא כ' ע"א) (שמות י״ג:י״ג) וְכָל פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה וְגוֹ' .... וְאִם לֹא תִפְדֶּה וַעֲרַפְתּוֹ .... לְאִתְמָחֲאָה מִן סֵפֶר חַיִּים, דְּעָלַיְיהוּ אִתְּמַר, (שמות ל״ב:ל״ג) מִי אֲשֶׁר חָטָא לִי אֶמְחֶנּוּ מִסִּפְרִי can be translated: "[Lev. 20:1, Ex. 13:13] And every donkey's firstborn shall be redeemed with a lamb, etc. .... And if it is not redeemed, you shall kill it .... To be blotted out of the book of life, so he said of them [Ex. 32:33], he who has sinned against me will be removed from my account." However, this is very basic Scriptural exegesis. If this were to be applied to a Gentile as Pranaitis hints, Torah context would be that the human must be redeemed with a lamb and could not be killed. This is not Talmud or command or halakhah; by the time the Zohar surfaced, disdain for Christianity was already present, but there is no genocidal text.

9. Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1 (rulings of worshippers of stars and constellations), does not say "Do not save goyim in danger of death .... Show no mercy to the goyim." It says: "Idolaters .... It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as Deut. 7:2 states: 'Do not be gracious to them.' Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." This is not Talmud, is not about goyim but is limited to idolaters (with Jewish idolaters being mentioned separately), and refers only if one's own life would be at risk. Deut. 7:2 is limited to the seven nations in Canaan judged for their idolatry, who were in a state of war with Israel and were not to be shown mercy, so Maimonides extends this to other hypothetical known idolaters.

10. Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10 is also adventurously called the otherwise inscrutable "Torah c. 10". The standard text correctly reads "To whom do the above apply? To Gentiles. It is a mitzvah, however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minim, and Epicureans, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God." (Not "minimize".) This is the actual view of Maimonides, and refers to diverters, sectarians, and Epicureans, but only from the Jews, as Gentiles were outside this jurisdiction. Now, a variant censored reading exists, but it cannot be held to be the considered opinion of Maimonides or the conclusion of Judaism (as defined by the standard text): "As Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Zadok, Boethus, and their students". Since it's Jews only, this doesn't refer to Christians at large but to marranos, whom other Jews treated singularly. The actual relationship between the unit "Jesus and students" and minim is not stated, but it's clear that whoever wrote it considered marranos at large to include some who diverted Israel. But the formal opinion of Maimonides is that the definition of "min" applied to separation from the community and commands (which marranos did but many Messianics today do not), and that the mitzvah involved is only about self-defense. Specifically, one is not to pity an attacker (Deut. 25:12) or stand idle (Lev. 19:16), but warns the attacker and prevents an attack on another's life, preferably nonlethally. So it's not about killing other than in an immediate attack, and cannot apply to sect without a judgment that the sect strikes at the heart of Jewish community, and even then only applies to eradicating the perceived threat of blood (which in this case should always be doable nonlethally as Deut. 25:12 hints). The part about the pit is not a mitzvah but an inference from Ps. 55:23, assuming the attacker is in fact wicked. All this comes from Maimonides, the book of mitzvoth, explaining the exact mitzvah, so in the quote he is simply drawing an application to marranos as to removing any life threat they pose. Since his views often moderated at different times, he must be taken as a whole, but it's granted that this passage found in nonstandard copies of his book does reflect his times and is challenging for modern Jews to deal with.

11. Zohar, Bereshit 20:228, found in Rohling 1883 (footnote 82) as "Sohar I. 25 b", does not say "Jene, welche sich bestreben, den Akum Gutes zu thun, ihre Seelen werden nicht auferstehen" (Google translate, "Those who strive to do good to the star and constellation worshipper, their souls will not rise"). It says "These were Uzza and Azael; from them the 'mixed multitude' derive their souls, and therefore they also are called nefilim, because they fall into fornication with fair women. For this, God casts them out from the future world, in which they have no portion, and gives them their reward in this world." This is about specific Nephilim, spirit beings, not about Jews. Rohling ignorantly interprets the Gen. 6 conversation of the sons of God and daughters of men as if it refers to any Jew doing any good to any Gentile, which is totally unrelated.

12. Makkot 7b:4 does not say "You will be innocent of murder if you attempt to kill a Christian" and isn't about Christians at all. It's an extended discussion on manslaughter (unintentional). 3-4 says, "The Sages taught: Unintentionally, exclude the intentionally .... Intentionally? Obvious, he is subject to death. Rather, Rava said: Say, exclude the says 'It is permitted'. Abaye said to, If says 'It is permitted', he a victim of circumstances beyond his control." This cites Num. 35:11, and the context that murder (intentional) is capital and manslaughter (unintentional) is to be exiled. The argument is that the word "unawares" in Numbers creates a third category, and this is then defined as the person who is too incompetent to be tried, who can't learn the obvious about the law because he justifies himself contrary to it. (While this category can be and has been abused, the fact that it should exist is not in question.)

13. Shabbat 116a does not say "Jews must destroy the books of the Christians." This is an extended hypothetical about what books are worth breaking Sabbath law for if they are on fire. The general rule is 115a: "All sacred writings, one may rescue them from the fire." Actual text: "The blank folios and the scrolls of heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire .... And just as they are not rescued from the fire, neither are they rescued from a rockslide, nor from water, nor from matter that destroys them." Though one rabbi recommends respect for the holy Name in heretical books, meaning saving the text is permitted, the clear majority ruling is that due to heresy God even lets his Name be effaced. Though there is animus against the New Testament, there is no active destruction in mind, merely rescue of heretical books from disaster by natural "matter".

14. Bava Batra 54b (Talmud 4:3:54b) accurately says: "Rav Yehuda says Shmuel says: Property of a Gentile, it is like a desert; anyone who takes possession of it acquired it. What is the reason? Gentile relinquishes from when money reaches his hand, Jew does not acquire until the deed reaches his hand." In immediate context, this is not referring to all property of Gentiles, but to that which is being sold to a Jew. The distinction is that between payment and any delay in the receipt of the deed, it is possible that another Jew might claim squatter or other rights, and that would need adjudication. This has nothing to do with the world being ownerless.

15. Gittin 56b-57a has been misquoted repeatedly and variously. Actual quote: "Onkelos ... went and raised Jesus [the Nazarene?] from the grave through necromancy .... Said to him: What is the punishment of that man? Said to him: with boiling excrement." It appears "Nazarene" has been added; "Yeshu" is apparently a conflation of Jesus, and the student of ben Perahya, and the son of Paphos ben Judah, and others. Other observations about the hesitant theology and the rashly joking context appear in a previous study. The nine interpretative cautions there apply throughout this list.

16. Rosh Hashanah 17a accurately says, "But the heretics; ... and the apostates; who denied the Torah; ... and separated from the ways of community ... descend to Gehenna and are judged there for generations and generations." This appeals to Is. 66:24 and makes it literally "for eons of eons." Heretics, minim, means separatists (e.g. tritheists, not specifically Christians); apostates means Epicureans (hedonists); next are deniers of Torah (not Talmud); then those without community (assembly). Other categories appear also. Flatly, Talmud contains no judgment that followers of Jesus as Messiah are minim, nor is this about rejection of Talmud.

Would you like the truth? Since you use boilerplates, I'll give you the truth I have to see if you want it.

Jesus actually referred to you babylonian Edomites and Canaanites as Synagogue of Satan. He also told your lying psychopathic Pharisee ancestors that their father is the DEVIL!

Thank you for assuming that I should suffer with these people. The synagogue of satan were not Jews but can be identified by the letters of Ignatius to Smyrna and Philadelphia as a group of wannabe Jews probably including a young Onkelos (who later converted). Babylon, Edom, and Canaan do not have continuing polity despite people being influenced by them. Many Pharisees were sympathetic to Jesus, like Hillel, Joseph, Nicodemus, Gamaliel, Paul, the righteous scribe, and many of the ten thousands of Torah-observant Messianic Jews in Acts 21:20.

It's not true at all STOP LYING, Christians will be hunted down, enslaved and DECAPITATED according to your SATANIC BABYLONIAN TALMUDIC NOAHIDE LAWS!

Of course Christians claim Zech. 8:23 just as Jews do, the interpretation is different though. But whatever the passage says it says to all the righteous. If laws are Noahide then by definition they are to be agreed by all children of Noah, Gentile and Jew both. In the Bible idolators are indeed guilty of capital sin, but the view of Judaism has not been that Christianity is idolatry (except for a very small number of nonrepresentative teachers like Ulla, 4th c.); rather, Christianity is a special case to be treated differently and tolerated for the sanctification of God's name. There is no authoritative Jewish source by which the distortion of Noahide law is drawn; rather it's all just wild inference. Obviously Noah is not Babylonian, nor Talmudic which is a wholly different law and jurisdiction.

You quote two crazed compilations that are mostly not from the Talmud and that are entirely misunderstandings of actual texts, so far from the written text as to be often incomprehensible. (For instance, the nonexistence of "Libbre David" was noted back in 1920.) The first contains a slight bit of material new to me so I will answer it separately. The second is just this graphic and is entirely answerable with facts and accurate quotes (see passages with reference [4]).

TLDR: If you want to criticize Jews or Talmud, do it right. When you misquote you create sympathy for Jews and can be accused of shilling for them. Criticize the superstition and legalism of the actual quotes, not the misquotes that don't represent actual teaching.

Do you mean God's chosen people are selected from non-Jews instead of saying all non-Jews are chosen? Is it impossible for the chosen to be selected from ethnic Jews for some reason?

When Christians read the Bible, it refers to both Jews and Gentiles as goyim. For millennia it was just a common word for "nations".

Writings that speak of people as animals depend on context, Jesus referred to his followers as animals. But I'm trying to remember your view about Jesus.

Again, blurring names is unhelpful. Lucifer and satan are close enough that they can refer to the same entity (but they are also titles, praiser and adversary, that can apply to more than one). Baphomet and Saturn are fascinating side trails and I suppose nowadays they've been merged onto the main strand but sometimes distinctions appear. Ain Sof (Unlimited) is an attempt to name deity apophatically and so it's a title that isn't appropriate for the devil; my rule is not to give him more credit than he deserves. Shekinah (Dwelling) is a form of a Biblical word for God and similarly isn't fitting to glorify the devil with. When you throw names about inexactly, you tend to give more glory to the devil that you're claiming to fight, so the truth requires being exact.

Similarly, the 2800 servants is based on a promise that Christians claim as well, namely Zech. 8:23.

If you think Christians should not endorse parts of the Bible like the word "goy", animal metaphors, Wisdom, Infinity, Adversaries, Presence, Praisers, or many followers from all nations, then it'd be helpful to describe how we know who are God's real chosen and how we know what his real Word is.

I know exactly what result the devil means. He is looking for any event whatsoever, even the motion of a single atom, to escape the will of God. He never succeeds and yet he has committed himself to the nihilism that the unreal must be greater than the real in a meaningful sense.

I love linguistics and someday I'll learn more Russian than the alphabet, so I really appreciate your background, I knew you'd have something "crazy" to say about it.

All that I need to stop a deluge of lies is another person's will to hear truth, it is a stronger shield than the greatest onslaught. Then the truth flows freely between the two of us. If I do that often enough, the truth is heard widely. I used to want to write books that sold millions, then I realized there's little value in it and the gradual method works better for most truth.

It wasn't a success by Guidestone standards. The devil doesn't care about successfully carrying out the fulness of his wrath. His minions think it a success when they get anywhere near 1% of their evil imaginations, and by that standard it was a bit better success than every other op they've tried annually or more often.

If we assume there are white hats, that implies much worse was foiled. Civil War and WWII and Great Leap Forward were better "successes". But war would've been along anyway even if covid was a bigger "success", as the deck chairs of the Titanic are constantly musical. If we assume there aren't white hats, then that implies that the much worse failed by the incompetence of the competing evil factions. Either way we were spared.

Instructive example: the "Copenhagen" treaty was supposed to bind everyone to climate-change OWG. Just before the event, somebody released data proving the warming advocates didn't believe their own data. ("Hide the decline" was I think a key phrase.) Suddenly Copenhagen was objected to and became only a shadow of the tyranny it could've been. That suggests a couple white hats do exist.

Jim Jones looks clearly to me like a scientific experiment to see what can be done, just like the random mutilated animals around the world are, just like everybody's portal summoning spells are. The humans think they're just playing, but a few entities are deadly serious about using the "play" to discover secrets of the universe before anyone else does. And it never helps them either. "One word of truth" is what I heard Solzhenitsyn say.

Proof of concept?

False encyclopedia quote, hoax #6.

Thank you for admitting the names "satanist" or "luciferian" cover the whole group, and the other names only segment the group into various sets of human shields and hidden hands, which can be distracting from conquering the whole group.

Hey Michalus, reclaimed sewer water has the same effect. I'm sure it's more than just fluoridation fatigue. "Pure" ain't what it used to be.

Nimrod was a real person who got identified with the other idol names; he was most likely Naram-Sin, son of Sargon. I just saw him again in a random book in a bas-relief where he is literally building a tower to heaven and yet the author didn't realize it's just Babel (aka Etemenanki).

Gilgamesh was probably a real person who knew Noah (Utnapishtim). I haven't positively ID'd him yet.

The others are overlapping names but sometimes different entities are being invoked (or are at war over the sigils).

u/Lone_Star need not make it all fake. The fact is that the cabal uses much fakery and some reality for the express purpose that anything real can be called fake and anything fake can be called real. I make it 80-20. The 80% fake is def accompanied with lots of money-power-sex transfers but both that track and the supernal track are confederated together.

This is a serious topic and should be stickied every time it comes up.

Looks like a great resource, fren!

based

In honor of the beginning and ending of the first Salem witch trial on this date in 1692, that of Bridget Bishop, I'd like to ask:

Is your dominant theory then that both the accusers and the convicts were part of a deceptive purge that actually assisted them with consolidating power and resurfacing in the later globalist structures observed?

And does this suggest that earlier trials, such as of Romani, vampires, Jews, or Templars were also often kayfabe to cover for both sides, the alleged hexers and the alleged executioners, who then embraced again after the show closed? Hexecution, that's funny.

Yeah, I appreciate it.

My first take was that Backrooms (web series and film) is a mental lever to get people to talk about DUMBs and the probability that every institutional building does have such rooms. Trump is broadcasting what they are in the ballroom, for instance. I won't name in what institutions the rooms are. For now. If you go ten large buildings in any city you've probably been in an average of one that has a Backrooms portal. Not all are in buildings.

But there's another take, which is that other Backrooms are the spiritual rooms that defy physical laws. These appear in visions and NDEs, where I'll just allude to buildings that change size or shape. I have some of the 4D worked out for them. That seems more the direction Kane intends, and in that sense it's a 2-in-1 mental lever because it gets people talking about accessing that realm too, and the UAPs and such.

I will testify, with 1% exaggeration. I was nearly inducted into entering a door into the Backrooms, but declined. Instead we went outside to the graveyard, but I declined to enter that too. I was covered and felt no fear, I just didn't have a need as I took the guide's word for everything. That wasn't far from the R.C. Christian monument.

Another time I did enter a door into the Backrooms, that was in Texas, again around midnight. Nothing was physically impossible, but pointless unsafe arbitrary wall ladders and large sculptures that tempted climbing were incongruous. In this case we knew the way in and another way out and we had no encounters, but the guide was shocked at how fearless I was when anything could have been encountered.

There are probably offices I've been in where I've seen or passed through a door to the Backrooms where no party knew whether it was official space or off-book space. If I think of them I might add them. Oh yeah, I passed through Backrooms of a haunted amusement park, those workers will tell you how because they know where the demarcs are. Shoulda included that one, but I was distracted with company and scheduling that time. Last week I was at a furnishings store just before I saw the trailer for Backrooms and I shoulda made that connection too because it's exactly the right kind of old building, but I declined to enter the staircase or to cross the guide rope. These are all the first category. The second category only comes to me in dreams.

I suppose the growth industry will be combining the two, that's the whole idea of having the material portal that regulates the spiritual realm, isn't it? Something to include in my Laws of Pneumatics.

DON'T GO WITHOUT JESUS.

Related media: Inferno; The Yellow Wallpaper; the Escher corpus; The Navidson Record; 1408; the one I forgot; and the classic text, Rev. 6:15-17. Add: The one I forgot was Las Hazanas Fantasticas.

Add: Oh dear God. I was just writing to put all my thoughts on the subject in one place, and writing about how I went into a Backrooms-coded region just before seeing the Backrooms trailer without realizing it, and guess what else I didn't realize while writing this. The above starts with both the Guidestones and the Texas climbing sculptures and they're both connected to portals I witnessed. The intent must be, as Stonehenge above, so Backrooms below. Well, let's invert that now. As Christian catacombs below, the realm of koinonia, so Christian parousia above. The top-down evil is beaten by the bottom-up righteousness because only the bottom-up reaches all the way to the top.

TIL that Livy reported that in 186 BC, 7,000 Bacchanalians were executed or imprisoned for ritual sexual abuse of those under 20 and for hurrying victims off to hidden caves in an immense multitude, almost equal to the population of Rome.

no contemporary Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of the Exodus

The Tempest Stele, the Hearst Medical Papyrus, the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, the Berlin Apepi Seal, and the Thera dust are all evidence of Biblical plagues striking Egypt all in 1440-1439 BC. All data about the collapse of the 15th dynasty is evidence of the events of the Hyksos expulsion that precisely matches the Biblical description.

there is no mention of Pyramids

I now have more evidence to confirm what I told you above, that the Bible mentions the Tower of Babel as representative of the pyramids. Given the compressed Egyptian chronology based on the principle of simultaneous reigns that all Egyptologists admit, the 65m Pyramid of Menkaure (the third of the three greats) was not only exactly the same height as 66m Etemenanki, it was also built at exactly the same time, in the 2230s. Etemenanki was a ziggurat pyramid rather than a geometric pyramid, but they both count as pyramids. So I've concluded the pyramids came after the deluge tradition instead of before, and this greatly helps the entire chronology of that millennium.

Third Eye, are you actually interested in getting at the truth of what the Talmud says and what Solomon and the rest did? Because you're not acting like you pursue the truth at all costs, but that you just pursue low-effort posts and comments regardless of how botlike it appears.

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.

Correct, and what laws did Noah promulgate in truth? How did he define idolatry when he offered animals to God? Surely he believed in the seed of the woman to come.

Do the sons of Noah, including yourself, jointly agree as sovereigns on what the laws of Noah are, Rex?

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'm not watching three hours if they can't even spell "Phoenician" in the thumbnail.

The star of Remphan and Chiun was in Israel a thousand years before the hexagram was. They're not related. The best candidate for the original star of Remphan is actually the bronze Nehushtan or poled snake, which is represented by "$" rather than "*". Remphan (Rephaim) means Titans, and Chiun means Saturn. It's true that there's a cult history connecting the Nephilim to the Canaanites to Nehushtan and Moloch, but this does not have evidence of involving a "star" as we conceive of it (i.e. a polygram). The concept of "star" was not semiotically associated with the polygram shape, but with various representations of points of light, such as crosses in circles.

It's associated with neither David nor Solomon. It's illogical to say it's not David's but it is Solomon's. Fact is that both legends were far backdated, mostly by Arabs. Graham's book says (p. 24), as to Solomon's idolatry, "Part of the evidence is the six-pointed star, which was called the Seal of Solomon from then on"; but the etymology of "seal of Solomon" tapers off only a little prior to Muhammad and has no Jewish origin.

The earliest Jewish legend of Solomon's sorcery says that he had an inscription containing God's name, possibly just a simple tetragrammaton (no data about a particular shape), which was used to control a demon named Asmodeus. This is clearly a later legend based on a Zoroastrian legend of controlling the demon Khashm-Dev. That legend, a thousand years later, was combined with Arabic geometry to propose a particular sigil that eventually resolved as being a hexagram.

Graham correctly begins by noting the hexagram is not Jewish (see my first link), and notes that Amos's star is indeed associated with Moses, but then he claims there's evidence of Solomon (that marriage was probably the 960s or 950s instead, certainly not 922 since he was dead when Shishak subjugated his son Rehoboam in 926; probably a transciption error by Graham, who puts David's birth more correctly ca. 1040). There's no hexagram in Solomon because there are very few records of Solomon anyway. There are many hexagrams and polygrams in ancient world history, and the Egypt route does not connect to the Arab route. After the Arabs the research is probably correct.

Your link mentions the tomb of Leon ben David containing a hexagram, but that is a random occurrence based on the hexagram being a generic symbol of peace; Gershon Scholem finds it only as early as 6th century, in agreement with my cite of him in my first link. To correct another implied error, the word "hex" is from a German root related to "hag" ("hagzissa"), but the prefix "hexa-" is not related and is from the common Latin roots for "six", which in German is the completely different "sehs".

The idea of connecting the hexagram directly to 666 is very recent and was never used until recent semiology (though the basic connection of hexagram to 6, for mankind, is well-known and the connection of 6 to 666 is also obvious). There's no 666 in Daniel, there's just a figure who templates over the 666 figure in Revelation.

There's little to say about Masonry as it's not here connected to semiology; however, the idea that the hexagram has any specialness in Masonry is exaggerated, as they will use or abandon any symbol as they see fit.

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.