Matthew 24 and Genesis 6

Answering Rob Skiba on Tower and Other Issues · Chuck MIssler on the Demonic, some Complementary or Corrective Comments by me · On Not Demonising Internet · Matthew 24 and Genesis 6

Video part I

Jesus' Strange Prediction Part 1 - Chuck Missler
Koinonia House | 13.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mMkuR6X5QU

I

0:37 Confidential briefings are not Jesus' style.

While Our Lord spoke certain words to the disciples, without masses present, it was still not a confidential briefing, since He wanted it to be known publically through the Gospels.

If you want to compare it to anything in modern terms, it is more like giving an interview to a newspaper or submitting a manuscript to an editor. Let's take the interview comparison.

Let's say also he founded the newspaper - a bit like a Koinonia publication doing an interview with Chuck Missler, if any, back when he was alive, or New Solidarity doing an interview with Lyndon LaRouche. So, the journalist is not totally independent of the interviewee.

New, Lyndon LaRouche, back when he was alive, would certainly sometimes do interviews with New Solidarity. Helga Zepp LaRouche is arguably still doing them.

Such interviews are not "confidential briefings" just because interviewer and interviewee are in a calm place with not many others around. That is a physical similarity with a confidential briefing, but the reason why it is not a confidential briefing is, the one giving such a thing says "don't publish this, don't pass it on to anyone at first, and later on only to someone you have tried several times over so you know you can rely on his discretion". The one giving an interview will arguably on the contrary say "this is an important topic, make sure to sell many issues of New Solidarity at places where the topic is relevant".

Now, Lyndon La Rouche is not Jesus and neither is Chuck Missler. Koinonia House and New Solidarity are not the Bible. But these things are very much closer to what Jesus did, than a possible "confidential briefing" by Cardinal Bea to a possible Jesuit named Alberto Rivera. If Alberto Rivera started his "coming out" while Bea was still alive, had they asked Bea about it - even supposing he ever gave such a thing to that man - Bea would have denied it. Either because it never happened and was Rivera's invention, or because Bea wanted to keep the briefing confidential. This means, it is very hard or impossible to check that Bea actually gave Rivera such a briefing. I believe Rivera invented it, but could be wrong. However, if a Pharisee had asked Jesus about something some of the 70 or 72 disciples had said while touring, and Jesus had said it, He would not have denied that He had said it and He would not have denied they were his disciples.

Our Lord did give some "confidential briefings" meant to remain so for the time being - up to Calvary - but after Calvary, after the Empty Tomb, the time for confidential briefings is over.

II

1:30 Deception is indeed one characteristic.

One kind of deception is concerned with people claiming "confidential briefings" which, obviously, the Matthew 24 discourse was not.

Alberto Rivera and Avro Manhattan are deceivers about Church History. And in Alberto's case, he pretended to a confidential briefing and in Avro Manhattan's case, he pretended to be a hereditary "knight templar" (forgetting conveniently that Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonics are and for Templars were not feudal knights, but military orders, you joined them by personal vocation, and it involved celibacy and therefore no heirs : a Teutonic Commander in Prussia (in what is now Poland) left the Teutonic Knights pretending Luther's recommendation were a reason to abolish that, and so he could become heir to his cousin who had died in Brandenburg, in Berlin, and similarily, Templars too were celibate ; forgetting also that claims to be Templars after 1313 are uncanonical and as for Templars refusing the dissolution of the order, arguably very likely to be spurious).

Similarily, in Dan Brown's novel, basically the centre piece of a certain Anti-Catholic, Anti-Christian deception is where Teabing gives Sophie Neveu and Robert Langdon precisely a "confidential briefing".

Dan Brown never says as authorial voice that Priory of Zion was founded to protect Merovingian heirs of Our Lord and of Mary Magdalene. It is the character Teabing - ultimately revealed as an evil man - who says so.

But the situation in which he says so is a "confidential briefing" - a situation which arguably has a certain grip on imaginations.

Even in Lord of the Rings, Gandalf gives Frodo a confidential briefing, or actually two, first after Bilbo leaves, then early in Shire reckoning 1418. But from the time of the council of Elrond, the time for confidential briefings is up.

Well, Christ in the real story also gave confidential briefings for only so long. Even when the Blessed Virgin gives a secret each to Mélanie and Maximin, they are not to keep it entirely confidential, they are supposed to share it with the Pope - so that from the Vatican it can be revealed when needed. 19.IX.1846.

Obviously, She did also give a public message.

III

3:32 "With an insight that we missed for a good part of our intellectual lives."

As, with me, rereading Genesis 11:4 after hearing a video with Graham Hancock (or seeing it with subtitles) where he remarked Göbekli Tepe looked like made for a rocket launch or landing place ... if you can't name a rocket a rocket, but have to use a word in your own language or a phrase in your own language (rocket is Italian for bobbin) and you can't take the parallel from firework rockets (if they were invented way later), what would you call the space rocket?

Unlike the fireword rocket, you would not call it a bobbin (rocket meaning bobbin, as said) or a sword hilt (meaning of French fusée). A tower, of which the top - not the rest, just the top - shall reach Heaven (a word used also about space, not just the Throne Room of God) ... that sounds like a fair attempt of describing a three step rocket.

In this context, verse 6 has:

neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed

The dream of going to heaven has been kept alive. Modern rocketry owes sth to astronomy on Ziggurats and in Stonehenge, but also to Greek myths about Perseus and Andromeda going up among the stars - one part of Greek myths which a Church Father called a lie of Satan.

And verse 8 has:

and they ceased to build the city

Ah, it doesn't say they ceased to build the tower ... now if it had only been a local piece of architecture, that would have been included in ceasing to build the city. But if it was meant as a rocket project, they have so to speak been "building" it up to Bajkonur and Cape Canaveral. Probably only speaking openly about Göbekli Tepe (in their view the original Bab-Ilu, gate of gods, in mine the original Babel - confusion) in "confidential briefings" which would have also for long times have distorted the original project.

Also, one really ceased to build Göbekli Tepe, but not Babylon or Woolley's Ur in times prior to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

IV

4:56 Someone pointed out that Septuagint for Genesis 6 does not have angeloi, but οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ

In other words, the LXX is not bona fide a source for Chuck Missler's claim specifically about Genesis 6.

Septuagint GENESIS - 6
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/septuagint-genesis/6.asp

6:35 "and it translates beni ha-Elohim as angels"

Not in the text given by Ellopos. Not for Genesis 6.

V

5:48 [book of Henoch] "highly venerated by Jewish scholarship from about the 2nd century BC to about the second century AD"

Interesting.

Trey Smith had a reading from Henoch on one of his videos (the God in a Nutshell guy).

It first followed very closely the section which we Catholics do hold to be inspired, namely Wisdom 5:1-5. (Later parts of same chapter 5 are an OT counterpart to the spiritual armour in a letter by St. Paul, so he was basically citing Wisdom 5).

Then, it says in Book of Henoch something of the just praying for their repenting harassers and being forgiven ... in other words, it preaches Purgatory.

Unlike us, you may not believe Maccabees is inspired, but it actually suffices that II Maccabees 12 is historically accurate for the not yet Sadducee temple priesthood to have believed sins could be forgiven (at least forgiven as to punishments) even after death, and that people on earth could pray and sacrifice for it.

This means, the idea of Purgatory was around in Our Lord's time, and He did not speak up against it. Presumably meaning He approved it and this means, presumably St. Paul praying for a man whose household he was greeting was doing a prayer for the dead.

Lily Powell

Don't ever presume anything !! When you do that ..you ALWAYS come up empty !!! And WRONG !! Silly , one would think a normal INTELLEGENT person would know better then to " ..ASSUME " , stuff !! Especially when your "ASSUMING " about "BIBLICAL SUBJECTS" !!

So come on ..stop it !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

So, people around then were into accepting Genesis 1 - 11 as historic if they were not Pagans.

Presumably this means Our Lord did so too, hence we are YEC ...

Comes Lily Powell "Don't ever presume anything"

I think the word presumably has a reasonable meaning. It is also sometimes used for modesty in relation to stronger wordings of one's claims.

VI

9:11 Gigantes.

Now, the word in Isidor I find XI.3.12-14 dealing with gigantes ... first he mentions them as a monstruous race, then he discusses the etymology earth born. In Classical Greek that would be gegeneis, not gigantes. Now, the idea of a connection could have sth to do with ge, originally pronounced like "gay" coming to be pronounced like "ghee" (itacism). So, St. Isidor is right to be sceptic about the etymology. And finally, he considers the angelic view as false and as due to inexperience in Scriptures.

Lily Powell

Oh shut up , phoney !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What if Chuck was the phoney?

I gave a reference to my claim, and I looked it up in Google books, so I didn't make it up.

VII

10:35 Unblemished genealogy.

This could mean he had no demonologic involvement in his ancestry even if the demonologic involvement in that of Nephelim was not from "angelic seed."

It could theoretically also refer to his being able to recite his ancestry in an ublemished way, so as to give a correct account of Genesis 5 generations.

In Postilla in Libros Geneseos, presumable St. Thomas Aquinas (though its Latin is different from his mature Latin as in his undisputed works) says:

Noe vero invenit gratiam coram domino. Posita est supra hominum communis malitia, hic subditur ipsius Noe justitia. Alii enim ex injustitia displicebant, sed iste ex justitia placuit. Unde tacitae quaestioni respondet. Posset enim aliquis connexere: ex quo debebat mundum delere, quomodo a regula, quam generaliter proposuit, istum Noe excepit? Et etiam quia videretur esse personarum acceptor, si alios deleret, et istum conservaret, ideo excusat se, et respondet quod cetera non sunt paria. Nam alii communiter erant injusti, et iste justus. Ostenditur etiam devotus ad Deum, ibi, cum Deo ambulavit. Non potuit errare, bonum directorem habuit. Ostenditur etiam ordinatus ad semetipsum, ibi, justus atque perfectus. Benevolus atque solicitus ad aedificandum et conservandum populum suae correptioni subjectum, ibi, in generationibus suis. Et genuit Sem, Cam, et Japhet, qui fuerunt paternae justitiae imitatores.

http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/xgn06.html

So, he takes it as Noah:

• 1) walked with God [was just and perfect as worshipper]
• 2) was just and perfect [in himself, in his ways]
• 3) [not just in himself, but also] in generating.

Presumably the wife by which he begat Shem, Ham and Japheth was not from the Cainite evil state, was not a which and was a good role model.

Linda Duke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Noah had a perfect pedigree. No intermingling with giants

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) I perfectly got this was Chuck Missler's opinion;
• 2) I noted it could be true even if the demonological inolvement into giantism was not one of angels having an own flesh with which to mate with human women;
• 3) I then checked with St. Thomas Aquinas, whom generally I hold higher than Chuck Missler, and noted he had another view of what the words meant.

VIII

11:20 "there was a gene pool problem"

The phrase sounds very related to certain evil practises, like Eugenics.

Now, let's be precise about one thing : just because a doctor has no right whatsoever to forbid a man to marry or a woman to marry or a married man or woman to have children or even unmarried to have such, this doesn't necessarily mean God has no right to Eugenics either.

Precisely as, since God is Lord of life and death, God is not a murderer if He makes a mercy killing.

Quod licet Deo, non licet medico.

Lily Powell

NAH !! YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFULL , WHEN YOU ATTEMPT TO MAKE PROCLAMATIONS ABOUT THINGS YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD GRASP OF !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, that is the case with any medic speaking of "gene pool problems".

Video part II

Jesus' Strange Prediction Part 2 - Chuck Missler
Koinonia House | 14.VI.2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGYYX2CCLdI

IX

2:52 On Sethite view as exposed by St Augustine, sons of God mean faithful Sethites, while daughters of men refer to women in the non-faithful, secularist, Cainite society.

Let's ask if for instance Cainites could have practised, arguably not yet full blown idolatry, as in religions denying the faith as then already given, but witchcraft : Sethite faithful men would have been for instance pure from sexual sin when marrying these witches and then these witches would have invoked demons over such specially "powerful" pregnancies.

That's one view of what happened. Another is, Cainite society was so totalitarian, the state could impose witchcraft in transmhumanist purposes.

Obviously, on St. Augustine's view, the separation of lines imposed in Genesis 11 was a restart, as once again a "human city" had arisen within the City of God (which was what survived the Flood).

X

4:57 I recall the word in Genesis 4:26 as "in his day" and now read "this man":

But to Seth also was born a son, whom he called Enos; this man began to call upon the name of the Lord.

Note very well, the Catholic view is not that he started to profane it, but:

[26] "Began to call upon": Not that Adam and Seth had not called upon God, before the birth of Enos; but that Enos used more solemnity in the worship and invocation of God. (Challoner comment to DRV).

Most versions have what I recalled, and LXX has:

26 καὶ τῷ Σὴθ ἐγένετο υἱός, ἐπωνόμασε δὲ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Ενώς· οὗτος ἤλπισεν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ.

26 And Seth had a son, and he called his name Enos: he hoped to call on the name of the Lord God.

This would perhaps also clear up why Abraham could name a mount Mor-iah and Moses' mother be named Josabeth, before Exodus 3:14, while God tells Moses He had not revealed this name to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.

It would then have been known before them.

As to commentaries stating "profane" Chuck enumerated St. Jerome.

His Vulgate translation, however, has:

[26] Sed et Seth natus est filius, quem vocavit Enos : iste coepit invocare nomen Domini.

And invocare does not mean profane, but invoke or call upon.

Augustinian basis for subset : confer Apocalypse "earth dwellers" ... daughters of a city that was merely human.

Cainites not necessarily godless? They could have been believers, but lax ones (a bit like modern Anglicans who dabble in Harry Potter style spells thinking it doesn't matter). Then also would they have theophoric names.

And daughters of Seth may not have been less attractive, but, say, less willing to flirt and less easy going. That can also play a role.

6:44 No, St. Augustine was not a "liberal" scholar.

There is a textual basis for Cainite city being a bad one : sevenfold vengeance for Cain, seventy times seven fold vengeance for Tubal-Cain (familiar with a very stark contrast in NT?)

There is such a thing as excessive state power. Sure, St. Paul in Romans 13 specifically says the prince carries not the sword in vain, so - does this mean the state can have capital punishment for murder, arson and ... jaywalking?

The seventy times seven fold vengeance for Tubal Cain sounds like they were into very extreme pursuits of power and violence in a game of "zero tolerance".

So, the text actually does indicate Cainites were bad guys.

Less directly and only taking into account extra information from a text corrupted by idolatry, Mahabharata, it seems the grandchildren of Lamech could have been Pandava's and Kauravas. Especially as one ancestor is "Bharat" who seems to have been based on conflating two Henochs, the "city founder" (actually he didn't found a city, Cain did and named it after him) and the raptured one (see Genesis 5).

XI

7:26 Chart on problem with Sethite view as to offspring.

• Nephelim = ?
  
  Well, when Samson's mother was pregnant, she had a compact with God. This made Samson very special and gave him very high powers.
  
  For Beowulf (of Gentile origin in 5th or 6th C AD) the Christian poet (arguably 10th C) argues his strength was a gift of God.
  
  For Hercules and Theseus, I would argue their strength was a gift of the Devil, or of whatever demon "fathered" them. Or took them as adopted children. I'd argue their mothers, after a "wet dream" and believing its contents, had a sort of compact with demons.
  
  
• Supernatural offspring - or just supernaturally marked offspring?
  
  
• You presumably mean "only Y chromosomes among Sethites" - no, but compact being active and different than that of mothers' own (if witches) would be the case with boy pregnancies rather than girl pregnancies.
  
  
• Noah would have had no witch in his foremothers and he would also have preserved the genealogy unflawed as to memory. How did Moses know of all this? Via Noah's memory. Other Sethites would have been playing fast and loose so long with liberal and tyrannic Cainites that they had forgotten the generations. He would be unflawed as to memory of them, but yes, mainly, he would have had no witch among ancestors.

XII

7:34 Chuck's reference to NT is perhaps more to the point.

And St. Augustine's view can be put down to his commenting on Genesis without taking these into account, a bit like a man later on commented on days in Genesis 1 without taking into account Mark 10:6.

However, on this, I am obliged to submit to the judgement of the Catholic Church, if given.

I said if given. Chuck basically said it was given, but a commonly held doctrine not based on all Church Fathers and going against some others of them is not given as a judgement automatically.

One can add that part of St Augustine's rationale is angels are pure spirits, and not created with genitalia, therefore cannot produce seed (they cannot produce it in bodies they don't have, assuming a body is not self incarnation with real biology, and as they aren't God, they cannot create it either). However, he says himself when discussing Romulus (I think it was) that demons can collect semen from a man and then inseminate into a woman, if appearing to both in a seducing manner (first succuba, then incubus).

This possibility would defend the possibility of angelic view insofar as in pre-Flood times incubi could have even appeared socially, as "husbands" when allowed to assume a body.

This view would have an evil, fallen angel even more involved with a pregnancy starting from two human gametes, than if the mother was only a witch.