Dialogue with a friend of Rob Skiba II, after the latter recently died from Covid-19

PART 2 - Revelation 12 and the Nuremburg Connection
Apr 15, 2022 | Rob Skiba
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7knfLjjWaw

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It would seem to me, the classic death from Covid is a kind of allergic reaction. Too many antibodies.

This means the infection is dangerous, and it also means vaccines are dangerous.

I'd have loved to see him as a Catholic before he went ... not meaning the Bergoglio style.

V C F

The church is spiritual it's not institutionalized christianity or a specific denomination.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@V C F It was fairly well institutioned by Christ back in the New Testament, so why would it not remain so?

As to "not a specific denomination" ... well it has the denomination "Christians" given in Antioch in Acts and gets the denomination "Catholic Church" just a few decades after the NT, also in Antioch.

V C F

YT keeps removing my comments. The Church was really institutionalized by the Roman Empire, after emperor Constantine convoked the Council of Nicaea in 325 which established one " holy Church" under the same powers that had failed to suppress Christianity . How convenient don't you see? They didn't embrace Christianity they coopted it. It's called controlled opposition. That's 101 enemy MO. I can't believe you're a follower of Rob Skiba and don't understand how the enemy operates and can't see all of the occult Babylonian symbolism permeating the R C C hiding in plain sight as it is customary in the "mysteries" and the occult in general . The o.b.e.l.i.s.k. is probably the most blatant example. This p.o.p.e is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@V C F I am not a follower of Rob Skiba. I am critically sympathising - and absoluetely not agreeing with him on what Babel was.

Now, what you say about what happened at Nicaea doesn't the least explain why the Church prior to Nicaea:

• was Trinitarian and had in Alexandria condemned the priest Arius;
• had bishops (Alexander), priests (Arius, who was as said deposed) and deacons (to my best memory the position of St. Athanasius at the outbreak of the quarrel;
• seemed to have such a structure already in the New Testament;
• heroically resisted when Emperors became Arian, starting with Constantius just after Constantine's day.

It is also not compatible with the promise of Christ given to the twelve in Mt 28:16-20, unless you can point to some parallel Church that remained faithful, and before you cite Anabaptists, they started out more than 1000 years later at the Reformation.

It is also not compatible with the commission given with that promise, since that commission basically states that the Church should coopt nations - including their governments.

V C F

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Either the Church is an institution that exists independent of its members or it is the corporate body of believers. Jesus said ; “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” It doesn't sound like you really need to depend on some corrupt paganized idolatrous institution to serve as a mediating agent between Him and us .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@V C F Any "institution" is a body of believers in what the institution is about. The military is not just impersonal systems, it is a body of people believing that war is sometimes what one should (in justice or prudence or both, or even in charity too) do, and therefore they prepare for and sometimes go to war.

If the Catholic Church has been really and truly paganised, it is not the Church Jesus founded, if it hasn't (not at all or only in superficial matters), then it arguably is what it claims to be, the Church Jesus founded.

But "institution" is a red herring.

And the Church Jesus founded is sometimes corrupt in places, see Laodicaea.

Now, the Church Jesus founded certainly was institutional. How so? Romans 10. [13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. [14] How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

Now, the word you quote defines 2 or 3 as what Jews would call a minyan - a group capable of praying together. But the Jews don't become Jews by gathering ten in a minyan, they become Jews by birth, circumcision, Bar Mitzvah. Once they are Jews, however, ten or maybe even eleven is their minimal minyan. Our Lord says two or three are sufficient.

If I and you both being Catholics pray the Rosary for a licit purpose, God will hear us, since that is what He promised in the verse you cited. But we become Catholics by steps that do not all of them always involve already meeting the Catholic Institution (or some semblance of it), but at least deal with it sooner or later.

The following

I could not access under youtube but had to try to answer via gmail sending to youtube. I failed, and so I added the answer next day.

V C F

Hans-Georg Lundahl OK from an as unbiased and objective a position as possible ask yourself this question. What is more logical : 1) That those who tried to UNSUCCESSFULLY suppress Christianity converted to Christianity or 2) they simply decided it was strategically the best move to co-opt Christianity (if you can't beat them join them) ? I personally believe "they" did lose some control over it at some point to fully regain control of it during the so-called Renaissance. That's why the Middle Ages have been demonized and labeled the "Dark Ages"and the Renaissance is considered the "rebirth" of classical ideals

Hans-Georg Lundahl

V C F
I am for one thing glad you refuse to demonise the Middle Ages.

Now, for the question:

1) That those who tried to UNSUCCESSFULLY suppress Christianity converted to Christianity
or 2) they simply decided it was strategically the best move to co-opt Christianity (if you can't beat them join them) ?

Both, if you take the question on its terms. And the thing is, the latter type showed their mettle when Constantius persecuted St. Athanasius. Once the Arian crisis was over, the real Christians were again in full control of the Church, and the latter type may still have existed, but had to bide their time.

Again, I refuse to take the question at its bare terms, since the son of a persecutor or grand-son of a persecutor need not follow in his father's or grandfather's evil footsteps. Over time, even in one same household, people die off and are replaced by adults who had previously been children or not even born yet.

And, again, there is a wider question : if you assume the Church was vamped, what became of the Church Jesus founded? Study that question in the light of Matthew 28:16-20. Saying "first it was persecuted, then vamped, but it partially shook the shackles off, then had to do it again after 1000 years by the Reformation, and did so more fully" makes some sense - but forgets that Christ had told His Church to not have communion with Belial. Can you imagine a real Church of Christ partially unwilling and partially inable to do that for a 1000 years? I cannot even do so for 40 years, unlike Israel of old.

Answering Rob Skiba on Tower and Other Issues

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

The Tower of Babel and Confirming the Nimrod - Osiris - Orion - Apollo Connection [MODIFIED]
Rob Skiba | 4.IX.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-GULAzoduU

I

Do you know how 666 looks like in Babylonian numerals?

660 = 11 = a corner to the left and a wedge perpendicular.

Last 6 = three wedges perpendicular over three other wedges perpendicular, and it is placed after the signs which by itself could be 11.

Looks like a space rocket to me.

Confirming my theory, that is what Nimrod was trying to build.

"a tower, the top of which shall reach into heaven" = looks like a tower before take off, only step three gets into space, compatible with non-flat cosmologies.

However, Nimrod may not have known how far up Empyraean Heaven is, it being beyond fix stars, and these being probably at least 1 light day up.

Hence Obadiah 1:4, Luke 14:28.

In other words, Nimrod's tower was going to succeed as far as take off and as far as getting to some spaces in space is concerned, but he had not counted what it really takes, which is less than what we have. Even if Empyraean Heaven is only one light day up.

II

2:35 "plains of Shinar" says where?

And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

Finding "a plain" suggests it is higher up than in the plain land around South Shinar (Babylonian kingdom).

How about North Shinar, where there is "a plain" with Göbekli Tepe where it touches hills undulating again?

III

dialogue:

Narn

so God was worried that they were going to climb up and kill him?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

More like, Nimrod's prototype rocket was as useless as a Leonardo da Vinci airplane and much more dangerous for bystanders, so God post-poned rocketry until we had time to learn about rocket fuels.

trintdaddylandis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl prototype rocket? you for real?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@trintdaddylandis Read the text.

and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven:

If you were naming a space rocket, couldn't refer to firework rockets, and couldn't borrow from another language, what noun would you use and how would you explain the difference from the more usual object?

Plus, have you heard that Graham Hancock considered Göbekli Tepe looked like sth for a space launch?

Seems Mad

It was of no threat to the Most High, other than in the minds of those wicked men........laughable. It was a threat to His beloved creation, and as such, He took action. I believe the threat was that individuals would have become a part of a hive mind, losing free will, which is necessary for Father to restore all creation to perfection and not violate His perfect righteousness. He has a plan, and ALL things, ALL events, ALL actions of EVERY being, work toward the perfect completion of that plan....period. May the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob bless you and keep you in the days ahead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Seems Mad "It was a threat to His beloved creation, and as such, He took action."

Exactly.

A rocket project back then, based on Uranium as rocket fuel would have given a mushroom cloud over Göbekli Tepe, and bringing it to the point would have drafted too much of mankind (as it did for some 40 years) to a project of no use, and uselessly globalist collective.

trintdaddylandis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not saying it's not possible.. i suppose it is.... do you know of any concrete evidence that supports the idea they would've had any type of technology even close to a rocket? are we talking about ancient alien/vimana type stuff here?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@trintdaddylandis There is a difference between having a rocket functional and planning one. As there is a difference between a Leonardo da Vinci airplane and the planes that exist since Brothers Wright.

My point is, Nimrod was a man of ideas, but somewhat going on bungling them in the realisation. God was saving mankind from disaster.

The evidence?

The wording of Genesis 11:4 (a tower, the top of which shall reach into heaven).

The look of Göbekli Tepe.

The fact that GT carbon dates fit perfectly in with where Babel would be in Biblical chronology, once the carbon dates are made to match it.

AND the fact that we have different traces of such a project after Babel.

Stonehenge and Nabta Playa among other stone circles are about astronomic observation. Makes sense if the judgement from God could be taken as observations weren't good enough. "So let's make better ones," they may have said.

Egyptians make Horus and Greeks make Perseus and Andromeda go up to the stars - a religious version of a rocketry project, just as the modern rocketry project is a secularised version of this dream. Makes sense if one wanted to esotericaly keep the dream alive.

Chinese have firework rockets, a kind of miniature of the planned space rocket, which also later did serve as a model for our space rockets, and that makes sense if it was meant to serve so (after a somewhat tedious search for useful gunpowder).

Isaiah's words to Satan in chapter 14 (I think it was) make sense if Satan was instigating Nimrod to a rocket project.

Obadiah's words in verse 3 make sense if some type of Edomite was going to be involved in rocketry projects:

Though thou be exalted as an eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars: thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord.

Each by itself makes sense otherwise too. But together they make even more sense with my interpretation.

Perhaps most : skyscrapers have already been tried (though 9/11 found them wanting in security), so, a blunder in rocketry makes more sense in why God stopped it all than a skyscraper project. Yes, we do have rockets, but probably much safer than the one Nimrod was planning. And also able to work, which has was probably not. My hunch (with a hint from Mahabharata taken as pre-Flood times), is nuke bombs were known, Nimrod wanted to exploit the energy in a more peaceful way (peaceful between men, that is, or those sharing his project).

IV

9:43 You know, I have done a few essays to refute Zeitgeist, especially back when their spoekeswoman Acharya was alive.

Sad she died without converting, as far as we know.

Like here:

somewhere else : No, true enough Acharya, Varro did not write about Jesus ...
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/04/no-true-enough-acharya-varro-did-not.html

V

10:03 So you agree with the errors of Acharya on Catholicism giving a Pagan Jesus?

Why? Bc of "December 25th"?

Earliest known pagan feast held on that date is Sol Invictus. It is so young, the emperor (Aurelian, I think) could very well have tried to hijack Christmas. As already existing among Christians. (Yes, Aurelian is before Constantine).

ANY older Pagan feasts than that are uniformly either on another Roman date (Saturnalia Dec 17 - 21, later 17 - 23), or not in Roman calendar at all, and since Roman calendar was the first to have 365.25 days per medium year, translating from one calendar to another is meaningless, unless you pick a particular year for the translation.

Probably, December 25 is a translation from Hebrew calendar from the year Christ was born, and that being 15 months after 2nd week of Tishri, if not day of Atonement itself. (One Church Father, St. John Chrysostom, actually considered Zacharias as High priest and the sacrifice of incence as sacrifice in the Holy of Holies on that precise day ... may have been an error).

10:10 No Pagan rituals involved in the substitutions.

St. Thomas has a list of OT feasts and how they correspond to NT feasts of the Church, each feast of OT having a precise NT counterpart. Sabbaths - Sundays. Newmoons - Feast of the Blessed Virgin Conceiving on March 25. Pesach of Exodus - Catholic Pascha (Easter) of Death and Resurretion. Pentecost of Old Law - Pentecost of descent of Holy Spirit. Feast of Trumpets - feasts of Apostles. Expiation (Atonement?) - Feasts of Martyrs and Confessors. Feast of Tabernacles - feast of Church dedication (each Catholic parish celebrates the feast when its Church is dedicated). "the feast of the Assembly and Collection, to feast of the Angels, or else to the feast of All Hallows." - I don't know what "assembly and collection" feast is.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sum of Theology I-II (first part of second part), Q[uestion] 103, A[rticle] 3, ad [=reply to objection] 4.

No, as said, December 25 is not the "day of dying and resurrecting Sun gods of antiquity".

Hislop, Acharya and yourself are simply wrong on history here.

VI

10:37 I very much agree "do this in remembrance of me" is very key.

However, we take it as Christ ordering His first Catholic priests to do "this" thing He had just done, namely turn bread into His Body and wine into His Blood, and to do this in remembrance of His death.

And how do we know He had in fact done so? Well, because we take what He just previously had said literally.

Your theory on "do this" meaning "celebrate Passover" is a subsidiary argument on why Catholic Easter changes from the Easter of Exodus, but it cannot be the most important thing, since it doesn't involve anything like an explanation for the words where He said, "this is my body" or "this is the chalice of my blood".

Catholic theology perfectly matches every word, and especially "the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you" (Luke 22:20) matches the first Eucharist at Last Supper being already the sacrifice of Calvary taken place. It was going to be shed next day, but its New Covenant was already there.

10:42 There is no mystery which is known to resemble the Eucharist.

Bacchus mysteries have a certain resemblance of idea, and while we are at it, Moses is a better candidate than Nimrod for ultimate (though misunderstood) model for Bacchus. But no good resemblance in form, since St Paul upbraided Corinthians for doing what came too close to a Bacchanal.

10:48 "look at those good Catholics up there"

There was no Catholic there. Presbyterians aren't Catholics and Presbyterian communions are not real Eucharists, neither valid nor intended to be so.

"Aldrin’s lunar communion has since become shrouded in mystery and confusion, but the rite itself was relatively simple.The astronaut was also an elder at Webster Presbyterian Church, and before he headed into space in 1969, he got special permission to take bread and wine with him to space and give himself communion."

Updated:Aug 29, 2018· Original:Jul 31, 2018
Buzz Aldrin Took Holy Communion on the Moon. NASA Kept it Quiet
NASA worried the Christian ceremony may draw unwanted scrutiny.
Erin Blakemore
https://www.history.com/news/buzz-aldrin-communion-apollo-11-nasa

Webster Presbyterian Church was not a Catholic parish, nor is it now.

VII

12:06 Apollo 11 / Saturn V as projected on Washington Monument looks a bit like a tower, right?

And only the top of it reached into Heaven, while the rest dropped into the Ocean (or at least first step did, but step two was discarded as well, perhaps burning in atmosphere).

Note, if Nimrod had been allowed to try that, he would just have made a mushroom cloud over Göbekli Tepe ... that's my theory on what he was trying to do.

Noahide Aberration

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Palestine · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Noahide Aberration

I just said Rob Skiba II was wrong on flat earth, and he is wrong on one or two here too, but he has something important to say:

The Noahide Law & Christians Allied Against Torah [mirror]
Rob Skiba | 1.IV.2019 (but mirrors one from another date)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo5zlciV0JE

I

"This is a mirror of a video uploaded by Justin Best"

And which was not from April 1.

Note very well, the Thomistic concept of Natural law is not identic to the concept of Seven Noahide laws.

Note also, the halakhic ritual laws are on a Catholic view not so much abolished as voided.

Each of them said "Christ will come" while Catholic liturgy says "Christ has come".

Note also, Talmudists count us Catholics as not having our religion from God come in the flesh, but as Gentiles having made a religion for ourselves, on top of the seven Noahide laws ....

Note also, carefully, Catholic liturgy mirrors OT Jewish liturgy in many details.

This means, the death threat is not just on Torah keeping Christians, it is also on Catholics.

II

15:37 Here you stray into false history.

"[and it became illegal to keep the Torah because of the] birth of the Roman Church and their hatred for anything labelled Jewish"

Have you read Matthew 28:20? What does "all days" mean?

Are IVth C through much of XXth C an acceptable exception to "all days"?

On Roman Catholic (as well as Greek/Russian Orthodox, as well as Nestorian, Coptic, Armenian) there is no such thing as an acceptable exception to "all days". "All days" means precisely "all days". Can the world exist for one hour without one single Christian actually being in the True Church which Chirst founded? Perhaps. Can the world exist 24 hours without it? Nope and nope.

You cannot say you are practising true Christianity and at the same time say that what you practise was outlawed (and treated as outlawed by true Christians) for about 16 centuries.

Let us also note, Catholic liturgy is by definition "man made tradition", in most details (form of sacraments excepted).

Did Jesus say man made tradition is wrong just because?

No.

He seems to have kept Chanukkah, which clearly is a feast not from the Torah, but commemorating a later event (the cleansing of the temple in the Maccabean era).

Do you recall the claim December 25 is "Nimrod's birthday"?

At the very worst, it is based on St John Crysostom mistaking the sacrifice of Zacharias in Luke 1 for a Yom Kippur sacrifice in the Holy of Holies. Making Our Lord's birth 15 months after Yom Kippur.

But even if it were not a correct understanding behind Christmas, there was certainly no intention of celebrating 25 of Tevet by translating Tevet as December, since Tevet in a lunisolar calendar actually varies between December and January, earliest date for 25 Tevet I could get by counting forward from Chanukkah dates 2013 to 2033 was December 28 or December 29.

And median date was actually January 11 or January 12. Not just after Gregorian December 25, but even after Julian December 25 (these two centuries around 2000, it is Gregorian January 7).

I did not go so deep into the research as to verify which of the years Chanukkah ended on 2 and which ones it ended on 3 Tevet.

19:14 "[and a new religion was created] late in the first century"

False history.

On this view, Christianity would be false, since the promise of "all days" (Matthew 28:20) has if so not been kept.

This false history plays right into the hands of the Talmudists.

III

dialogued.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Now, I have for my part not been mixing Noahidism and Hebrew Roots, either with each other or with 7DA.

I am none of the three, have some experience of all of them, and I actually consider Noahidism least attractive.

I don't know if you know of a Swedish goth forum called "helgon.net" but I was on it, came back twice after being thrown out until I left third time after a freemason or similar minded person tried to put a hex on me, a curse which so far has worked out by the way, and I encountered one Talmudist and one Noahide ... it is abhorrent to me to be around people who are so subservient to Talmudists and so uppity against everyone else.

His commandments.

Well I already mentioned one promise of His.

He also said to a set clergy among His disciples : He who heareth you, heareth me and him who sent me.

Hence, obedience to Catholic clergy on ritual.

Yoel Cohen

Noahidism was God's intructions to Noah to prevent the world from being destroyed ever again. God said He made a covenant with Noah and his sons but doesn't explain what those are in the Torah. They are actually found in the Talmud.

Noah and his children should remember them, its not our responsibility to remind them. Since God knew the nations of the world would not study or learn them and forget them He included them in the Oral Torah i.e. Talmud.

How would you know about Noah if you didn't study the Torah? You wouldn't. Don't claim the moral high ground that Judaism is adding to the words of God. On the contrary we are the ones with the words of God. God sent us ALL of the prophets. Only Jews can be prophets after Moses. Why? Because we have the truth and the nations do not. If you want to know ask the Jews!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Yoel Cohen "God said He made a covenant with Noah and his sons but doesn't explain what those are in the Torah."

There are indeed things which God has not told Moses to write in Genesis.

Like who Melchisedec is.

"They are actually found in the Talmud."

No, your Talmud is a dirtied well as to the tradition from Moses, the day your synagogue said before Pilate "we have no King but Caesar" you rejected God.

We Catholics are the ones who truly have the right tradition.

Not you Jews.

"Don't claim the moral high ground that Judaism is adding to the words of God. On the contrary we are the ones with the words of God. God sent us ALL of the prophets. Only Jews can be prophets after Moses. Why? Because we have the truth and the nations do not. If you want to know ask the Jews!"

This was very true up to the occasion when you rejected God and told a Gentile to crucify Him.

In other words, it was true up to the crime of Kaiaphas. It is no longer truth.

IV

dialogued.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

16:31 Speaking of lawlessness.

7DA would pretend that implementing Sunday laws, enforcing rest on Sundays, would equal forcing Christians to break the "IV Commandment" according to this reckoning.

But is this not totally backhanded?

The commandment does not state that one shall work in business all six days other than Sabbath.

Jews who lived in countries with Sunday laws have in fact worked on Sundays under two circumstances:

• as living in Jewries as non-citizens of the surrounding state, they were free to have their own legislation internal to that Jewry;
• and when living in secularised times, they have used Sundays as ideal days for a picnic.

When the commandment was given to Israelites, it was in the desert.

There, they were normally not doing business, but gathering mannah during the six days when work was lawful. However, gathering mannah is a home chore and therefore, as long as the Sunday laws don't prohibit home chores on Sundays or force people to do either business or home chores on Saturdays (Friday Sunset to Saturday Nightfall) against their conscience, the Sunday laws do not interfere with Sabbath keepers keeping what they think the "IV Commandment" (III actually) commands.

However, being against Sunday laws coincides very neatly with the Noahide agenda. It means Jewish employers can force Christian employees into either full blow Orthodox Jewish conversion (i e apostasy) or Noahidism (working on Sundays against their conscience, or if adapting their conscience to it - apostasy).

I recall having an employer who gave us Saturdays free and had us working on Sundays. Not one of my best memories.

Yoel Cohen

God says to Adam and Eve you shall work with the sweat of your brow. They must work all week. They are not given a Shabbat or rest day. They can rest but should not make religious holidays or festivals. God assures Jews that the nations that do shall eventually be forced to work.

The Creator doesn't want you to observe the Sabbath which is biblical. The Creator wants you to work and be productive.

Jews work by keeping the commandments of God. We are promised God will look after us and bless the work of our hands. But the gentiles are blessed through hard work. Jews are above nature - our existence is a miracle. The gentiles are governed by nature.

Also in the New Testament it says "Jesus is your rest" not to observe Sunday like the Sabbath. Sunday was chosen as Christians day of Worshipping Jesus. There is no New Testament Scripture I have found prohibiting work. Indeed many Christians work on the day. Most Christian countries made the day a public holiday because they want to rest after a difficult week if they don't get any other days with tie off.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Yoel Cohen "There is no New Testament Scripture I have found prohibiting work."

There is however a NT Scripture stating to the earliest Catholic clergy "who heareth you heareth me".

Also, there is a duty to sanctify the Lord's day, as is evident from Acts.

Now, there is no time in Church history during which we have a record of a direct change from Sabbath to Sunday, but since first Christians were from Judaea, Galilaea and somewhat from Samaria, such a change must have occurred, we must conclude it occurred after Pentecost in a very short time.

A strict forbidding of work is indeed not given in the NT, the OT very strict forbidding of bodily work was a prophetic symbol of Our Lord's rest in the grave.

Having worked during the OT on a Sabbath is like having in NT times denied Our Lord's body rested lifeless in the grave - heresy.

"Indeed many Christians work on the day."

We consider it lawful in certain types of work and illicit in other ones.

Normally, a grocery store should not be open on Sundays, however, it depends on how hospitable people are to homeless who cannot keep food from Starurday to Sunday and are more likely usually to get money than meals.

Restaurants and hospitals should have a minimum service, as should the military guards.

Banking (even without taking of interest) and field works should not be done on a Sunday.

"God says to Adam and Eve you shall work with the sweat of your brow."

Correct so far.

"They must work all week."

Does not follow.

"They are not given a Shabbat or rest day."

We are not told they were.

"They can rest but should not make religious holidays or festivals."

Are:

• Jews not descended from Adam and Eve?
• Jews not allowed to celebrate Chanukkah and Purim?

During the OT period when Mosaic covenant was valid, the Jewish Church had the right to institute feasts according to God's good deeds to Israel. Since the Catholic Church is now the true Israel, the Catholic Church now holds this right.

What you say is also contrary to another pretense of Jewry, namely that Melchisedec must have been doing Aaronitic type sacrifices.

No, he sacrificed to God in bread and wine (as Aaronite priests did in beer and wheat flour). Either he invented this sacrifice or God instructed him in a way not told in Genesis. This is good sense, but some Jewry pretend, first he was Shem, and second, he was sacrificing the exact same sacrifices as those by Aaronite priests.

Why would all sacrifice from Abel to Jethro have been halakhic, but there be no halakhic day of rest in that period?

"God assures Jews that the nations that do shall eventually be forced to work."

You do not know God.

"The Creator doesn't want you to observe the Sabbath which is biblical. The Creator wants you to work and be productive."

Again, you do not know God.

We Catholics do.

"Jews are above nature - our existence is a miracle. The gentiles are governed by nature."

Both Jews and Gentiles are bodily existing from nature, both Jews and Gentiles have to follow the law of nature (which is not your idea of seven Noahic laws), and both Jews and Gentiles have a Biblical home in the Catholic Church, while the Jewish Synagogue is a Synagogue of Satan.

... on Nephelim and Jericho's Destruction

video commented on:

(first half of) Doug Hamp : Quest 4 Truth with Rob Skiba and Douglas Hamp May 19 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tro3-qPP7o

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I) Only up to 5:15 this one.

Father versus Son never actually was my idea about the Old and New Testaments. It comes through a bit like Enlil versus Enki, if you see what I mean.

Then, having nephelim tainted genome is not in itself a death warrant in God's eyes. Jericho may have had no or very little Nephelim blood, still it was destroyed. I think Carthage in Hannibal's and his successors' time was human as far as genome goes.

But Tanit cult was clearly giant behaviour. That's a death warrant

Conversely again, a certain Reprobus who had served both a human king and Satan, who was nine feet tall, I think if the general lines of your research are correct or some of them, he would have descended from Ham's wife with a lot of her nephelim ancestry, but when he saw Satan cringe before the mere image of a cross with a crucified man on it, he knew the crucified man had to be mightier than Satan.

He later carried the Christ Child on his shoulders, St Christopher was yesterday.

II) 7:47 and the Sons of Seth scenario.

1) we cannot say that Nodian monarchy continued undivided and unmixed up to flood. 10 generations Adam to Noah, 7 Adam to Lamech - and a situation ripe for dynastic rivalry (confer Mahabharata)

2) if Sons of Seth married Nodians, they might have not continued as a separate people

3) look at today's society ... how far can Christians go along with it without counting as apostates? How much "flesh is corrupted" by late marriages in a sex maniac world? Abortion?

III) [A bit later:] Nephelim tainted genome impossible for Messiah?

Was Rahab from Jericho nephelim tainted or not?

If she was not nephelim tainted, probably neither was the population of Jericho. Yet it was destroyed.

Unless you say she was only human among giants.

But if she had ancestry from Ham's nephelim tainted wife, then so has King David and Our Lord Jesus Christ who descend from her. Confer Matthew chapter ... 2? 1?

Your line of thought may have originated as one Samarian excuse for rejecting the Davidic line. Or in a certain horror movie from the eighties.

But if Jericho was destroyed for deeds rather than for seeds, like Carthage, then maybe you should take another look at Cortez in Mexico and at Simon of Montfort taking Albigensian strongholds.

For introduction about Albigensian evil, I recommend "The Night's Dark Shade" by Elena Maria Vidal (her pen name, real name of her grandmother).

Amazon : The Night's Dark Shade [Paperback] : Elena Maria Vidal
http://www.amazon.com/Nights-Shade-Elena-Maria-Vidal/dp/0557159245/

my comments on second half:
... on Diverse Details in an Interview Skiba/Ulrich on Sept 11, and in Skiba/Doug dialogue May 23
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/07/on-diverse-details-in-interview.html

... on Diverse Details in an Interview Skiba/Ulrich on Sept 11, and in Skiba/Doug dialogue May 23

video commented on:

Leonard Ulrich : Interview with Rob Skiba: Sept. '11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH8A2ZTXNBA

general comment:

If I do not share the view that Constantine was using the Church to infiltrate it and sully it with Paganism or Gnosticism, I do not condone Templarism, and I do subscribe to the "intentional view of history" rather than the accidental, except in so far as the intentions of another man are not known beforehand, and to one's own intentions they may come as a welcome or less welcome accidental surprise. Illuminati may control much, they do not control all (and will never do so), and they are not excempt from this kind of accident.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (divers comments along the long interview)

US, have you noticed similarities to Holy Roman Empire of Germanic Nation ... with exceptions like:

Habsburgs and earlier were supposed to rule Catholics vs First Amendment.

Or CSA Secession failed. Prussian Secession succeeded and even parasitized on what was left of HRE.

Spanish Catholic Monarchy tolerated slavery only on a basis of:

• slaves were supposed to have been taken in just wars (like wars in defense against slave hunters)
  
  
• if proven not so, they would be set free
  
  
• if master maimed, killed relative or seduced to mortal sins, slave was entitled to freedom.

Running away was an offense, but not if misconduct on master's side was proven.

Married couples among slaves could not be separated.

And only non-Spanish powers did the buying in Africa.

Speaking of Nephelim - and Nimrod - guess who the first slave hunter was.

"A might hunter before the Lord" is not about going off on St Hubert hunts while the horns take a tune of Ein Jäger aus Kurpfalz, it is about man hunt.

And if you look at Gilgamesh, does Enkidu come through as quite just another pal of Gilgamesh ... in about equality ... or as "friendship means slavery" (c/o Gimli speaking in Isengard)? A bit, at least.

English language developed from ... Gaelic? And it is a Primitive language ... linguistics is not your forte, is it?

Lucifer is also possibly a title of Satan before he fell. It is Latin for Morning Star if you look up Isaiah and ... was it Hezechiel?

A French guy warning about Antichrist meant "if Oyarsas were true, isn't Satan Oyarsa of earth"?

No, rather ex-Oyarsa of planet Venus (whose Oyarsa more than one Pagan system called Ishtar [fake Oyarsa, not rzeal one]). If earth is immobile center, it needs no Oyarsa. (I suppose you know Out of a Silent Planet etc.)

And Luther (Martin) is an Apostate who bypassed Matthew 28 ("every day until the Consummation of time") and in his states forbade the Holy Sacrifice (Wittenberg, Sweden, England ... in England a Catholic priest could well be martyred quickly under Penal Laws for saying Mass)

Speaking of evidence (I've come to George Washington's letter to the pastor), the chess game between Hitler and Lenin, could one have somewhere a better close up?

"Moses pleaded with God" ... which confession said that saints could do that and which that they could not back in 16th C.?

Trentine Catechism proof text "etsi Moyses et ... stetissent coram me" ... even if Moses and ... stood before me ... (was the other guy Abraham, you know "if there are five just" ...)

No power and no food?

Well, food does not grow on Uranium or Petrol.

People will sooner or later need to get back to farms and farms to need more hands and less tractors.

I am not in favour of artificial shortages, I am in favour of getting back to the land and depending less on that stuff.

Electronic food lines?

Ever heard of individual alms giving?

When Christianity took over the Annona was soon finished (two hundred years or less) and unlike tektontv's claim about starvation in Corinth, it was not emergency relie, it was a permanent food line.

When the Hospital of Paris was founded, St Vincent of Paul refused it priests. Because it replaced alms with an institution.

[And possibly even more so because it could use paupers in forced labour in that institution if vagrant or begging.]

Video just went "error has occurred" when the topic was Wancovia (?) Bank ... funny library, Georges Pompidou in Paris ... funny library ... but now it seems to be working again.

The shape of a cross around the Tabernacle ... guess where Armenian and Latin Churches got their layout from?

And even if Pilate had not written

Ieshua
Hanotsri
Vemelek
Haiehudîm

on the title, the Name of God means, letter by letter: hand praises, nail praises. He was - unusually - nailed hand and foot to the cross and, even more unusually, he did not curse but praise on it.

By the way, do read How the Holy Cross was Found by Stephan Borgehammar (Historian of University where I studied Latin and Greek, Lund), and do read The Desert a City by Derwas Chitty.

That will tell you somethng about the Cross and about the Hebrew people.

On Hegel:

Hegelian dialectic is not just a method of ingeneering societal change. It is also a world view, of precisely Hegel.

He considered that:

[in every domain of reality any state] is a thesis

any thesis gives rise to an antithesis

any thesis and antithesis give rise to a synthesis.

That every synthesis is a thesis for a new dialectic triad.

He believed in the "Absolute". Interpreters disagree on whether it means God or matter. Marx and Engels were Hegelian Atheists (via Feuerbach).

other video commented on:

(second half of) Doug Hamp : Quest 4 Truth with Rob Skiba and Douglas Hamp May 19 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tro3-qPP7o

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I) I read New Testament first, then Old Testament.

I was not put off by the war like things. Maybe because I had already read Apocalypse 19 where Christ is really making a physical rout of enemies.

A bit like Ulysses with the suitors (and Antichrist would have a mentality similar to main suitor, and Church is already in a position a bit like Penelope onset by the suitors), a scene which JRRT loved.

II) 23:08 ... rapture.

Rob Skiba has already correctly concluded that rapture is post-tribulation, when Christ returns on the clouds. Is that also the case with Doug?

Either way, in Gospel Jesus speaks of ONE second coming.

In Evangelical readings of Apocalypse, you get two of those, end chapter 19 and end chapter 20 of Apocalypse.

But in St Augustine's reading all of 19 is end of 20.

Precisely as Genesis 2 is in end of Genesis 1.

First resurrection = of souls.

III) 23:59 seeking death, not finding it.

Mental patients are usually very little able to find death, while at same time their situation makes life so much less liveable.

Amy Winehouse, in that view, found death. Others seek but do not find.

Caesarius of Arles (Saint?) pointed out that most of Apocalypse is about pre-tribulation times, very little left for the times of the final tribulation to be fulfilled which hasn't already been so before.

IV) 25:10 "ramparts of Magog" ... what language?

Chinese? Manchurian? Mongol? Tocharian A or B?

What religion? Jews? Nestorians? Or is some unconnected like Buddhists or Confucians preserving something which sounds similar without understanding anything about who Magog is? Or is Mongolian ancestor worship preserving a reference to Magog?

27:07, your reference is to 13:3 " I have commanded my sanctified ones, and have called my strong ones in my wrath, them that rejoice in my glory."

In that case you have Biblical proof there are good giants, not just bad ones.

Rumblebuffin, Wimblewheather ... CSL was right about something.

29:24 ... gebor means basically hero?

Is that the word used about the Sun in one of the Psalms?

Around 30:00 gebor translated as giant about Nimrod.

One early pope discussed names that add up to 666, and he considered TEITAN (misspelling for TITAN, but one already possible due to itacism) as one possibility.

Not meaning to give up the usual Patristic track on Antichrist's identity of course, "a Jew of the Tribe of Dan". But some family of that description might adopt him ... I would not like to be in their shoes if so.

[Isaiah] 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, my slain shall rise again: awake, and give praise, ye that dwell in the dust: for thy dew is the dew of the light: and the land of the giants thou shalt pull down into ruin. (Douai Reims)

V) 32:10

Catholic Church at Trent decided the Vulgate of St Jerome is infallible in all matters of faith and morals. Not however in all matters of fact.

When St Jerome translated the Vulgate OT from Hebrew, St Augustine reminded him that the Septuagint - the Greek Christian OT - has the highest authority.

Vulgate was originally an Apologetic thing, answering Jews from the Scriptures as they themselves kept them, but without having to learn Hebrew. In matters of fact, LXX may trump Vulg/Masor VV.

VI) 32:48 Anakim ... someone of you already pointed out Annunaki (skiba only or both) ... did you know that very Ancient Greek had a word wanax, wanaktos, which means "lord"?

Did you know that in Homeric and Classic, the word comes as anax, anaktos, and in set formulas it is very much used for Apollo?

Could be confirmation of that Apollo/Nimrod connexion.

34:01 Cedars ... have you read Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch? In it, it seems Antichrist is compared to a cedar.

I just read in a newspaper - French nationalists, Catholic - PRÉSENT, that one third of the Lebanese population is currently refugees from Syria.

VII) 36:22 Greek "sperma" is also used for seed of wheat.

Pagan festival panspermia was celebrated with diverse seeds mixed together along with other mixtures.

It is also used for offspring.

Christ in the Holy Eucharist is both Offspring of God and Wheat Kernel of God.

One reason we Catholics reckoned original Protestants at Reformation as demonic.

Another is their totalitarian view on Romans 13, as if an order of a king dispensed from obeying God's law. E g Luther on divorce.