About Rav James Talbott

I am an Elderly Messianic Rabbi writing on the Hebrew Roots of scripture as an exercise of the mind in this old man after 50+ years in the Church system.

Sabbath Scriptures

Scriptures about the Sabbath

A great many articles have been written about the Sabbath. This article consists almost completely of Scriptures about the Sabbath. It does not quote every Sabbath verse in the Bible, but contains the major ones. Only a few explanatory notes are added in this type style.

Notice that the first two Bible quotes, below, show that the Sabbath was given before the Ten Commandments on the 7th day of creation.

Thus heaven and earth were completed with all their array. On the seventh day YHWH God had completed the work he had been doing. He rested on the seventh day after all the work he had been doing. Yahweh God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on that day he rested after all his work of creating (Gen 2:1-3).

He [Moses] said to them, “This is what the LORD YHWH commanded: ‘Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD YHWH. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left [of the manna] and keep it until morning.’” So they saved it until morning, as Moses commanded, and it did not stink or get maggots in it. “Eat it today,” Moses said, “because today is a Sabbath to the LORD YHWH. You will not find any of it on the ground today. Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any.” Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none. Then the LORD YHWH said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my instructions? Bear in mind that the LORD YHWH has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out [to gather manna].” So the people rested on the seventh day. The people of Israel called the bread manna. It was white like coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey (Ex 16:23-31).

The Ten Commandments are stated two places in the Bible. The forth commandment (the Sabbath) varies slightly, with different details added in each place. Notice that YHWH God asked them to “remember” the Sabbath—something that already existed.

“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD YHWH your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD YHWH made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD YHWH blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Ex 20:8-11).

“Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD YHWH your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD YHWH your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD YHWH your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD YHWH your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day” (Deut 5:12-15).

Then the LORD YHWH said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD YHWH, who makes you holy. Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD YHWH. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD YHWH made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested’” (Ex 31:12-17).

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to Yahweh. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day (Ex 35:2-3).

Since the restriction, above, is against work, and since the rest of Exodus 35 is about doing the metal- work of building the temple, this verse is understood by some to be a prohibition against building a fire to work—not a requirement to eat cold food and live in unheated dwellings on the Sabbath.

“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘These are my appointed feasts, the appointed feasts of Yahweh, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies. There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a Sabbath to Yahweh’” (Lev 23:1-2).

While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then Yahweh said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp” (Num 15:32-35).

There are scriptures where Yahweh does command people to do some work on the Sabbath. Sacrifices were offered on the Sabbath (Num 28:9-10, 1Chr 23:31; Ezk 45:17; 46:12; Matt 12:5). The Israelites marched around Jericho every day for seven days (Josh 6; Heb 11:30)—one day had to be a Sabbath. Guards were regularly on duty at the Temple on the Sabbath, and Jehoiada used the Sabbath to over- throw the evil queen Athaliah (2Kings 11; 2Chr 23). Circumcision and healing were permitted on the Sabbath (John 7:22-23).

“When the neighboring peoples bring merchandise or grain to sell on the Sabbath, we will not buy from them on the Sabbath or on any holy day. Every seventh year we will forgo working the land and will cancel all debts” (Neh 10:31).

In those days I saw men in Judah treading winepresses on the Sabbath and bringing in grain and loading it on donkeys, together with wine, grapes, figs and all other kinds of loads. And they were bringing all this into Jerusalem on the Sabbath. Therefore I warned them against selling food on that day. Men from Tyre who lived in Jerusalem were bringing in fish and all kinds of merchandise and selling them in Jerusalem on the Sabbath to the people of Judah. I rebuked the nobles of Judah and said to them, “What is this wicked thing you are doing—desecrating the Sabbath day? Didn’t your forefathers do the same things, so that our God brought all this calamity upon us and upon this city? Now you are stirring up more wrath against Israel by desecrating the Sabbath.” When evening shad shadows fell on the gates of Jerusalem before the Sabbath, I ordered the doors to be shut and not opened until the Sabbath was over. I stationed some of my own men at the gates so that no load could be brought in on the Sabbath day. Once or twice the merchants and sellers of all kinds of goods spent the night outside Jerusalem. But I warned them and said, “Why do you spend the night by the wall? If you do this again, I will lay hands on you.” From that time on they no longer came on the Sabbath. Then I commanded the Levites to purify themselves and go and guard the gates in order to keep the Sabbath day holy. Remember me for this also, O my God, and show mercy to me according to your great love (Neh 13:15-22).

Psalm 92 is titled: “A Song for the Sabbath Day”. It speaks of praising God with voices and instruments, acknowledging that His ways are true and right, and will stand—and that mankind’s evil ways will not stand.

This is what YHWH says: “Maintain justice and do what is right, for my salvation is close at hand and my righteousness will soon be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, the man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil…. And foreigners who bind themselves to YHWH to serve him, to love the name of the YHWH, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer….If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a delight and  YHWH’s holy day honorable, and if you honor it by not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking idle words, then you will find your joy in YHWH, and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.” The mouth of YHWH has spoken (Is 58:2-3, 5-6, 13-14).

At that time Yeshua went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Yeshua, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus (Matt 12:1-14).

Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath (Matt 24:20).

They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Yeshua went into the synagogue and began to teach (Mark 1:21—similar verses: Mark 6:2; Luke 4:31; 6:6).

He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read (Luke 4:16).

Indignant because Yeshua had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.” Yeshua answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? (Luke 13:14-15).

One Sabbath, when Yeshua went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away. Then he asked them, “If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?” And they had nothing to say (Luke 14:1-6).

At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked. The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.” But he replied, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk’“ (John 5:9-11).

All these happened after Yeshua’s resurrection:

The women who had come with Yeshua from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment (Luke 23:55-56).

… On the Sabbath they [Paul and believers] entered the synagogue and sat down. After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the synagogue rulers sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have a message of encouragement for the people, please speak” (Acts 13:14-15).

As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath (Acts 13:42).

As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2).

Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks (Acts 18:4).

Then never let anyone criticize you for what you eat or drink, or about observance of annual festivals, New Moons or Sabbaths. These are only a shadow of what was coming: the reality is the body of Yeshua (Col 2:16- 17).

There must still be, therefore, a seventh-day rest reserved for YHWH God’s people, since to enter the place of rest is to rest after your work, as God did after his (Heb 4:9-10).

The last two quotes summarize the Bible teaching on the Sabbath: We are not to judge each other over picky rules as the Pharisees did, but the seventh day Sabbath remains, just as it has from the beginning of creation.

There simply are no scriptures that say the Sabbath or the “worship day” was changed to Sunday. Sunday worship did not become a regular practice until centuries after the New Testament was written. The Edict of Constantine in 321 CE did this.



Valentines and Nimrod

Christian Custom? — or Pagan Holiday? Edited from The Plain Truth – February, 1966
by Herman L. Hoeh

Valentine’s Day & Nimrod What is the Connection?

Nimrod the Mighty Valentine
Christian Custom? — or Pagan Holiday? Where did St. Valentine’s Day come from?

You might suppose that school teachers and educators would know. But do they? How many of you were ever taught the real origin of Valentine’s Day? Were you ever told in school why you should observe the custom of exchanging Valentines?

The Silence of Educators

Teachers are all too often silent about the origin of the customs they are forced to teach in today’s schools! If they were to speak out, many would lose their jobs! Isn’t it time we examined why we encourage our children to celebrate St. Valentine’s Day — when it is never so much as mentioned in the Bible as a practice of the New Testament Church?Today, candy-makers unload tons of heart-shaped red boxes for February 14th, while millions of the younger set are annually exchanging Valentines, Florists consider February 14th ( St. Valentine’s Day) as one of their best business days. And young lovers pair off (at least for a dance or two at St. Valentine’s balls.) Why? Where did these customs originate? Where do we find any such practices in the Bible? How did we come to inherit these customs?

A Christian Custom?

Did you know that centuries before Christ, the pagan Romans celebrated February 15th and the evening of February 14th as an idolatrous and sensuous festival in honor of Lupercus, the “hunter of wolves”? The Romans called the festival the “Lupercalia.” The custom of exchanging Valentines and all the other traditions in honor of Lupercus (the deified hero-hunter of Rome) was also linked anciently with the pagan practice of teen-agers “going steady.” It usually led to fornication. Today, the custom of “going steady” is thought very modern. It isn’t. It is merely a rebirth of an old custom “handed down from the Roman festival of the Lupercalia, celebrated in the month of February, when names of young women were put into a box and drawn out by men as chance directed.” That’s the admission of the “Encyclopedia Americana”, article, “St. Valentine’s Day.”

When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire there was some talk in church circles of discarding this pagan free-for-all. But the Roman citizens wouldn’t hear of it! So it was agreed that the holiday would continue as it was, except for the more grossly sensual observances. It was not until the reign of Pope Gelasius that the holiday became a “Christian custom.” As far back as 496, Pope Gelasius changed Lupercalia on February 15th to St. Valentine’s Day on February 14th. (p. 172 of “Customs and Holidays Around the World” by Lavinia Dobler). But how did this pagan festival acquire the name of “St. Valentine’s Day”? And why is the little naked Cupid of the pagan Romans so often associated today with February 14th? And why do little children and young people still cut out hearts and send them on a day in honor of Lupercus the hunter of wolves? Why have we supposed these pagan customs in honor of a false god are Christian?

Who Was the Original “St. Valentine”?

Valentine was a common Roman name. Roman parents often gave the name to their children in honor of the famous man who was first called Valentine in antiquity. That famous man was Lupercus, the HUNTER. But who was Lupercus? — and why should he have also borne the name Valentine among the heathen Romans? The Greeks called Lupercus by the name of “Pan.” The Semites called Pan “Baal,” according to the “Classical Dictionaries.” Baal (mentioned so often in the Bible) was merely another name for Nimrod, “the mighty HUNTER” (Genesis 10:9). The hunter Nimrod was the Lupercus (or wolf hunter) of the Romans. And St. Valentine’s Day was originally a day set aside by the pagans in his honor! But why should Nimrod have been called “Valentine” by the Romans? And why should the celebration of this day have been anciently limited to the city of Rome before Pope Gelasius’ time? What part did the site of ancient Rome play in the life of Nimrod? Valentine comes from the Latin word “Valentinus”, a proper name derived from the word “valens”, meaning “to be strong,” declares “Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.” It means literally “strong, powerful, mighty.” Any connection with Nimrod? We read in the Bible that Nimrod was the “MIGHTY hunter” (Gen. 10:9). It was a common proverb of ancient time that Nimrod was “the MIGHTY hunter before the Lord.” NIMROD WAS THEIR HERO — THEIR STRONG MAN — THEIR VALENTINE! How plain that the original Valentine was Nimrod, the mighty hunter of wolves. Yet another of Nimrod’s names was “Sanctus” or “Santa,” meaning “Saint.” It was a common title of any hero- god. No wonder that the Roman Lupercalia is called “Saint Valentine’s Day”!

But why do we associate HEARTS on a day in honor of Nimrod — the BAAL of the Phoenicians and Semites?

The surprising answer is that the pagan Romans acquired the symbol of the heart from the Babylonians. In the Babylonian tongue the word for “heart” was “bal” (see “Young’s” or “Strong’s Concordance”). The heart – “bal” — was merely a symbol of Nimrod — the “Baal” or Lord of the Babylonians!

Executed at Rome

Nimrod — THE ORIGINAL ST. VALENTINE — was also known as Saturn, the Roman- Babylonian god who HID from his pursuers in a secret place. The Latin word Saturn is derived from the Semitic-speaking Babylonians. It means “be hid, hide self, secret, conceal.” The original Semitic (Hebrew) word, from which the Latin Saturn is derived, is used 83 times in the Old Testament (see “Young’s Concordance” under “Sathar,” also “sether.” According to ancient tradition, Saturn (Nimrod) fled from his pursuers to Italy. The Apennine mountains of Italy were anciently named the mountains of Nembrod or Nimrod. Nimrod briefly hid out at the site where Rome was later built. The ancient name of Rome, before it was rebuilt in 753 B.C., was Saturnia — the site of Saturn’s (Nimrod’s) hiding. There he was found and slain for his crimes. Later, professing Christians in Constantine’s day made Nimrod — the St. Valentine of the heathen — a SAINT of the Church and continued to honor him under the name of a Christian martyr.

Why February 14th?

But why should the Romans have chosen February 15 and the evening of February 14 to honor Lupercus — the Nimrod of the Bible? (Remember that days in ancient times began at sunset the evening before.)

Nimrod (the Baal or sun god of the ancient pagans) was said to have been born at the winter solstice. In ancient times the solstice occurred on January 6 and his birthday therefore was celebrated on January 6. Later, as the solstice changed, it was celebrated on December 25 and is now called Christmas. It was the custom of antiquity for the mother of a male child to present herself for purification on the fortieth day after the day of birth. The fortieth day after January 6 ( Nimrod’s original birthdate) takes us to February 15th, the celebration of which began on the evening of February 14th the Lupercalia or St. Valentine’s Day. On this day in February, Semiramis, the mother of Nimrod, was said to have been PURIFIED and to have appeared for the first time in public with her son as the original “mother and child.” The Roman month February, in fact, derives its name from the “februa” which the Roman priests used in the rites celebrated on St. Valentine’s Day. The “februa” were thongs from the skins of sacrificial animals used in rites of purification on the evening of February 14th.

Cupid Makes His Appearance

Another name for the child Nimrod was “Cupid” –meaning “desire”– (Encyclopedia Britannica, art., Cupid). It is said that when Nimrod’s mother saw him, she LUSTED after him — she DESIRED him. Nimrod became her Cupid — her desired one — and later her Valentine! So evil was Nimrod’s mother that IT IS SAID SHE MARRIED HER OWN SON! Inscribed on the monuments of ancient Egypt are inscriptions that Nimrod (the Egyptians called him Osiris) was “the husband of his mother.” As Nimrod grew up, he became the child-hero of MANY women who DESIRED him. He was their Cupid! In the Book of Daniel he is called the “DESIRE of women” (Dan. 11:37). Moffatt translates the word as Tammuz — a Babylonian name of Nimrod. He provoked so many women to JEALOUSY that an idol of him was often called the “image of jealousy” (Ezekiel 8:5). Nimrod, the hunter, was also their Valentine — their strong or mighty hero! No wonder the pagans commemorated their hero-hunter Nimrod, or Baal, by sending heart-shaped love tokens to one another on the evening of February 14 as a symbol of him. Nimrod, the mulatto son of Cush the Ethiopian, was later a source of embarrassment to the pagans of Europe. They didn’t want an African to worship. Consequently, they substituted a supposed son of Nimrod, a white child named Horus, born after the death of Nimrod. This white child then became the “fair cupid” of European tradition.

It is about time we examined these foolish customs of the pagans now falsely labeled Christian. It is time we quit this Roman and Babylonian foolishness — this IDOLATRY — and get back to the faith of Christ delivered once for all time. Let’s stop teaching our children these pagan customs in memory of Baal the sun god — the original St. Valentine — and teach them instead what the Bible really says! Christians should be known by their discernment and should be asking questions regarding “Saint Valentine’s Day.” What is the origin of this unusual day? Why is there a preoccupation with the color red? Where did the heart shape come from, and what does it mean? These and other questions will now be answered, as we examine the roots and pagan origin of this popular day.

At this website, insight is provided into the origins of Valentine’s Day: http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract6.html
Once again it is of “Roman” origin with pagan rites of sex and fertility attached to it. Should We Honor Saints? The Roman Catholic Church has adopted a custom of “honoring Saints” but does the Bible teach us to give honor to men such as “Saint Valentine”?

John 5:41 “I receive not honour from men.”

John 5:44 “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”

“All Saints Day” or Halloween is yet another “tradition of men” designed to nullify the word of God in the life of the believer.

Traditions of Men
What did Yeshua tell us about man made traditions?

Matthew 15:3 “But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition.”

Matthew 15:6 “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.”

Mark 7:9 “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”

Mark 7:13 “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition…”

The word tradition has a numerical value of 666 when calculated in the Hebrew alphabet/numbers. No wonder why Yeshua hates tradition. It is based on man’s ideas and not on God’s Torah (instructions).

In the days of the Roman Empire, the month of February was the last and shortest month of the year. February originally had 30 days, but when Julius Caesar named the month of July after himself, he decided to make that month longer and shortened February to 29 days while making July a month of 31 days. Later when Octavius Caesar, also known as Augustus, came to power, he named the month of August after himself, and not to be outdone he also subtracted a day from February and gave the month of August 31 days. To this very day it remains that way. The ancient Romans believed that every month had a spirit that gained in strength and reached its peak or apex of power in the middle or ides of the month. This was usually the 15th day, and it was a day when witches and augurs, or soothsayers worked their magic. An augur was a person filled with a spirit of divination, and from the word augur we get the word “inaugurate”, which means to “take omens.” Since February had been robbed by Caesars and had only 28 days, the ides of February became the 14th day of that month. Since the Ides of a month was celebrated on the preceding eve, the month of February was unique, because it was the 13th day that became the eve of the Ides that month, and it became a very important pagan holiday in the Empire of Rome. The sacred day of February 14th was called “Lupercalia” or “day of the wolf.” This was a day that was sacred to the sexual frenzy of the goddess Juno. This day also honored the Roman gods, Lupercus and Faunus, as well as the legendary twin brothers, who supposedly founded Rome, Remus and Romulus. These two are said to have been suckled by wolves in a cave on Palatine Hill in Rome. The cave was called Lupercal and was the center of the celebrating on the eve of Lupercalia or February 14th. On this day, Lupercalia, which was later named Valentine’s Day, the Luperci or priests of Lupercus dressed in goatskins for a bloody ceremony. The priests of Lupercus, the wolf god, would sacrifice goats and a dog and then smear themselves with blood. These priests, made red with sacrificial blood, would run around Palatine Hill in a wild frenzy while carving a goatskin thong called a “februa.” Women would sit all around the hill, as the bloody priests would strike them with the goatskin thongs to make them fertile. The young women would then gather in the city and their names were put in boxes. These “love notes” were called “billets.” The men of Rome would draw a billet, and the woman whose name was on it became his sexual lust partner with whom he would fornicate until the next Lupercalia or February 14th. Thus, February 14th became a day of unbridled sexual lust. The color “red” was sacred to that day because of the blood and the “heart shape” that is popular to this day. The heart-shape was not a representation of the human heart, which looks nothing like it. This shape represents the human female matrix or opening to the chamber of sacred copulation.

When the Gnostic Catholic Church began to get a foothold in Rome around the 3rd century A.D., they became known as Valentinians. The Catholic Valentinians retained the sexual license of the festival in what they called “angels in a nuptial chamber”, which was also called the “sacrament of copulation.” This was said to be a reenactment of the marriage of “Sophia and the Redeemer.” As the participants of the February 14th ritual began their sexual sacrament, presided over and watched by the priests known as Valentinians, the following literary was spoken: “Let the seed of light descend into thy bridal chamber, receive the bridegroom… open thine arms to embrace him. Behold, grace has descended upon thee.” As time went on, the Orthodox Church suppressed the Gnostic Catholics and manufactured “St. Valentine”, whose day continues to be celebrated in these modern times. It should be without saying that Christians should avoid Valentine’s Day like a plague. In God’s eyes, it is still “Lupercalia”, the “Day of the Wolf.” Men become wolves, as they carry on the Satanic rituals of fornication, which means sexual intercourse without marriage. We have heard of the “wolf whistle”, and we all know that wolves do not whistle. It is lustful men and women, who carry on Satan’s blasphemy to this very day.

In conclusion, we must ask ourselves, “Should a true Christian be associated in any way with this celebration of evil roots? Should we be doing what the heathen have done for so many years and try to justify it as love?”

Romans 12:2 answers this very well, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind…”

You may have a hard time giving up this holiday. You may even try to rationalize: “Well we can turn this into a day to celebrate the love of Jesus, right?” This sounds logical, but what does Yeshua say about keeping man-made traditions? Matthew 15:3 Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Matthew 15:6 Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Finally, we are exhorted not to learn the way of the heathen when it comes to observing “signs of heaven” by use of astrology:

Jeremiah 10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

Valentine’s Day is certainly a day which Christians should not celebrate. Although it is celebrated in the pretense that it is all about LOVE, as is Christmas, that’s not so. It is actually another Pagan holiday giving honor to Nimrod. Before you give your sweetie candy this coming Valentine’s Day, consider that to do so you are paying homage to this creature. This creature which is half goat and half man is none other than Satan. Satan transforms himself as “an angel of light” as well as many of these other creatures who are objects of worship:

Nimrod, Baal, Valentine, the Mighty Hunter, Faunus, Lupercus. This is the same BAPHOMET or the Goat of Mendez worshipped by Freemasons at the 30th, 31st, 32nd & 33rd degrees. Satan has many aliases. Let’s get a better understanding of where this image has come from and what it means. Nimrod after the flood was at first known as Gilgamesh as shown here. He was often depicted in Hieroglyphs which are just pictures that were used to describe things, as a King of Kings. He wore a spotted leopard’s skin which was given him by his father Cush who got it from his father Ham who stole it from the cave in which Adam was buried. The serpent in Gilgamesh`s hand represents from where he gets his power. Another hieroglyph of Nimrod was the centaur. It represented Nimrod who was the first to master the horse and to ride it. The arrows are to show how he gained his power, which was by force. Notice also that cupid is always shown with a bow and arrow.

This is to show how he, Nimrod gained his empire, which was by force. Consider now what is told to us in Re 6:2 And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer. Many have assumed wrongly that because this was a white horse that it represents Yahshua, it does not but on the contrary it does represent the false religion that has sprung up from the teachings of Nimrod. The wings also represent his power as it stretches out over the world. Notice something else in the picture of the Centaur. He is depicted as a black man and with horns. The wings of power from Nimrods day has passed down to our day. The leopard’s skin depicting royalty has also passed down from Nimrod who was Isis and down to the kings of the Zulu tribes.

Nimrod was the son of Cush and was a black man. As such statues of him have survived down to our day as well. But surprisingly it is the Asian community which still pray to Nimrod unknowingly, and this is after they despised him as the first evil ruler. Today most statues of Nimrod are depicted in the statue of Buddha. Notice that each statue of Buddha is depicted as a black man with short curly hair and facial features that are distinctly Negro in appearance. Buddha was not a name but a title meaning: Enlighten One, Blessed One, or to Become awake.

Nimrod was the world ruler and he did it by force. He was known as an evil ruler and one the people did not want. But his image was forced upon the people and they grew to accept it as god. The Bull represents the Leadership or in other words the Government of the time. In this case the government that Nimrod has destroyed and taken over, which is symbolized by him putting on the Bulls head on his head, and is symbolized by Mithras killing the bull. The Bull Nimrod has killed represents the government that Nimrod has over powered is none other than his own fathers authority and that was the government of Cush. It was after this time that Nimrod was symbolized in hieroglyphics as a man’s torso with a bulls head and legs, which is what the above seal depicts. Note it first shows Nimrod as a man fighting the bull and then it shows him as the government or ruler fighting the lion. I want to say that the lion Nimrod is fighting is Shem. Although I believe this to be true, I have no source to back this understanding, other than the scriptures which depict Israel as a lion. All through history, Israel will be at war with the government of Nimrod. The Lion will always be fighting the bull or in other words the truth of Yahweh will always be fighting the Babylonian false religions of the world. The horns on the head were symbolic of his authority. Even on the walls of Nineveh Nimrod was shown with either bull or a lions body with wings and the head of a man.

The pentagram is sometimes known as the Eastern star and is apparently then identical with the Morning star and the planet Venus as the war goddess Ishtar or Astarte. During the Middle Ages, however, began to be associated with magic and the Devil. In Nordic countries it was drawn on doors and walls as protection against trolls and evil. When the sign was turned so that two of its ends were pointing upward, like , it represented the Devil. Recapping, the bull represented the government and the horns represented the power. The bigger the horn the more powerful he was implied to hold.

In Lev 16 we are told of the Day of Atonement and of how to keep this day. The symbolism of this day has been known since Adam.

The goat that had the hands of the High Priest laid on it represented Satan. He was the one who brought the evil into the world. Nimrod also was known to be evil and represented Satan. In hieroglyphic pictures this became represented by the upside down Star which was a symbol of Nimrod and the goat. By turning the star upside down they were able to draw in the two horns representing his power and the goat representing the one who brought this evil upon us. Today that symbolism has manifested into the current picture we use to represent Satan. This is of course ludicrous because scriptures tell us that Satan is an angel of light. 2 Co 11:14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. These horns go all the way back to the time of Nimrod and represent his power and authority. And this is the image of Bacchus in mythology. But do not be deceived, Satan would have you think he looks like this when in fact he looks like an angel of light. He is so much like the Messiah that only Yahweh can pick him out as is shown to us in the Day of Atonement sacrifice.

This then brings us to today. How is this knowledge of the symbolism of Nimrod important to us now in the year 2009?

In Daniel we are told of an great image that Nebuchadnezzar saw in a dream which goes from that current time of Daniel down to our time today. But the symbolism had predated Nebucchadnezzar as I have shown you. It comes from Nimrod.

Daniel 2:31-45

“You, O king, were watching; and behold, a great image! This great image, whose splendor was excellent, stood before you; and its form was awesome. This image’s head was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. “This is the dream. Now we will tell the interpretation of it before the king. You, O king, are a king of kings. For the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength, and glory; and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given them into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all–you are this head of gold. But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold– the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure.”

We are again given more information in Daniel, but as you read keep in mind the symbolism we have already discussed.

Daniel 7: In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head while on his bed. Then he wrote down the dream, telling the main facts.* Daniel spoke, saying, “I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, each different from the other. The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings. I watched till its wings were plucked off; and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man’s heart was given to it. And suddenly another beast, a second, like a bear. It was raised up on one side, and had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. And they said thus to it: ‘Arise, devour much flesh!’ After this I looked, and there was another, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words. “I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire; A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened. “I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. “I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed. “I, Daniel, was grieved in my spirit within my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. I came near to one of those who stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things: ‘Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.’ Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet; and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows. I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom. “Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast shall be A fourth kingdom on earth, Which shall be different from all other kingdoms, And shall devour the whole earth, Trample it and break it in pieces. The ten horns are ten kings Who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; He shall be different from the first ones, And shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand For a time and times and half a time. ‘But the court shall be seated, And they shall take away his dominion, To consume and destroy it forever. Then the kingdom and dominion, And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.’ “This is the end of the account. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly troubled me, and my countenance changed; but I kept the matter in my heart.”

When you follow this image in history, as explaiined by the angel who told Daniel what it meant, you can see on the following maps it’s growth and shape and where it is, and from where it shall come again.

Babylon was represented by the head of Gold.

The Persian Empire was represented by the shoulders and arms of silver.

The Macedonian Empire, 336-323 BC was represented by the belly and thigh of brass.

The Roman Empire was represented by the legs of iron.

Notice that each empire overlapped the others only concerning the area of Babylon.

And now all of this brings us down to our day and the feet of iron and clay on the image of Daniels dream.

We read in Revelation 17: Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me,* “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.” So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement. But the angel said to me, “Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns. The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition. The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.” Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

We have one more insight to share. Many will think I am saying the Beast power of revelation is to come from Europe. And they are half right. There are others who are saying the beast power is the Islamic nations and they too are half right. These are Islamic Empires.

Brethren do you see the area that is over lapping in all of these maps, it is the Babylonian area again. The feet of this image were iron and clay, strong and weak at the same time.

In Psalm 83: we read of an alliance between the King of the north, Assyria and the Arab nations. Daniel also tells us of the King of the North will come and in Daniel 11:37-39 we are told this King of the North will honour a god his fathers did not know. It is the god of Islam. Islam is going to take over the worship in Europe. At this time the beast power of Nimrod will once again be united from Europe to Africa and Persia, and they will unite in a common goal of destroying the Tribes of Israel. When we read of the beheading of the Saints, in Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

What group of people cut off the heads of those who do not submit to their worship? The beast power that is about to rise up is going to so terrifying the world, that no one will be able to stand against it. In Lev 26:14 Yahweh says He is going to send terror on those who do not obey. Things are getting closer to this time each day. You need to obey and you need to pray.

Edited and submitted on the road to Emmaus,

Moreh James Talbott, Yeshua HaTikvah Yisrael Ministry

The Ethics of Speech


The Holy Bible sets out the rules for speech that is acceptable to Almighty God. These rules are set forth in YHWH God’s Holy instructions for life, the four law books of the Torah, and are defined, confirmed and examples are given by our Savior, Yeshua Ha Moshiach [Jesus Christ] in the four books of the Gospels.

America, in throwing out the Torah of the Almighty Creator, has become a nation of accomplished habitual liars and also habitual false accusers.

This essay will address these twin sins, Lashon Hara and Hilchot Rechilut, which are now endemic in American Society, name the most egregious sinners, and lay out YHWH God’s commands and punishments.

Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun and he was correct. The previous “Democratic” Empires such as Greece and Rome fell into ruin for the same universal sin of lying that America is now experiencing.

Here is my list of the worst practitioners of these sins in American life, beginning with the worst offenders. Each of these lying mouths give the same excuses for their sin, which are, “I am only doing my job” and similar self-congratulatory phrases to cover the lies they tell with more lies.

1. American Police, the new Gestapo and the same old lie

2. American Politicians, lies for fame, power and fortune

3. Doctors and Medical personnel, lies for power over life and death

4. Lawyers, lies for riches and power

5. Salespersons for profit

6. Muslims for Muhammud and Islam

These five categories of liars recently destroyed Nazi Germany and they shall surely destroy America. Each will be exposed in the latter part of this essay.

The Love of money is the root of all evil.

The Prohibition of Communicating Lashon Hara in Scripture and commentary on the Bible

The Chafetz Chaim lists 31 mitzvot, which may be violated when a person speaks or listens to Lashon Hara. This is a staggering number. Even though one does not generally violate them all in one shot, it is important to remember how carelessness can lead one into deeper trouble. The central prohibition against unethical speech is Leviticus 19:16 – “Lo telech rachil b’ameicha” — do not go about as a talebearer among your people. [FYI: Rashi’s commentary on this verse is a “classic.” He discusses the origins of the word rachil (a roving merchant), and a few divergent ideas about the Hebrew language.

This verse in Leviticus applies equally to Rechilut and Lashon Hara (abbr.: L”H). The Chafetz Chaim gives their exact definitions later on, but for clarity we should mention them here:

◦ Lashon Hara – any derogatory or damaging (physically, financially, socially, or morally evil speech.

Although Rechilut seems more obviously derived from the verse, both as a cognate (rachil/rechilut) and a concept (talebearer), the Torah is prohibiting any type of harmful or negative speech in this commandment.

There are several other commandments that directly address “gossip”:

Deut. 24:8-9 – “Take heed concerning the plague of leprosy” because it is a punishment of Lashon Hara. “Remember what the L-rd your G-d did unto Miriam by the way as you came forth out of Egypt.” Specifically, she spoke against her brother Moses.
◦ Lev. 25:17 – “You shall not wrong one another” which the Talmud (Bava Metzia 58b) explains that this means saying anything that will insult or anger (stress-inducing) communication.

◦ Rechilut – any communication that generates animosity between people. Rechilut is often the repeating of Lashon Hara. For example, Reuven tells Shimon that Levi is ugly (Reuven spoke L”H), and then Shimon tells Levi what Reuven said about him. Shimon probably made Levi angry with Reuven, which is Rechilut.

Deut. 19:15 – “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin” because, unlike in a court for monetary matters, the testimony of a solitary witness is not binding, so that his testimony damages the defendant’s reputation without any beneficial result.

Several other commandments are more general, yet in certain circumstances apply when Lashon Hara or Rechilut is spoken:

◦ Ex. 23:1 – “You shall not utter a false report.” Acceptance of a false report also follows from this.

◦ Lev. 19:14 – “Before the blind do not place a stumbling block.” This applies to both the speaker and the listener since they are helping each other violate the commandments.

◦ Lev. 19:12 – “You shall not hate your brother in your heart,” referring to contradictory behavior such as acting friendly but then speaking negatively about him behind his back.

◦ Lev. 19:18 – “You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the children of your people,” such as speaking against someone in anger and for something that was done against the speaker.

◦ Lev. 19:17 – “You shall rebuke your neighbor and you shall not bear sin because of him.” This verse contains two mitzvot: (1) stop someone from speaking Lashon Hara (among other interpretations), and (2) don’t embarrass him in the process. (Note: rebuke is not a simple topic, especially because the one being scolded may not always listen. This is covered in some detail in the second section of the book, Hilchot Rechilut.)

◦ Lev. 19:18 – “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

◦ Num. 17:5 – “You shall not act similar to Korach and his company” who sustained a dispute.

◦ Deut. 10:20 – “To Him [and (by implication) his wise ones] shall you cleave.” ◦ Ex. 23:2 – “You shall not follow a multitude to do evil.” The above two commandments refer to keeping good company, which includes those who will refrain from improper subjects in their discussions.

If you’ve been counting, you’ll realize that there are still a good number of commandments that we haven’t mentioned yet. To see the complete list, please see the Sefer Chafetz Chaim or its English adaptation, Guard Your Tongue, by Rabbi Z. Pliskin.

It is certainly good to be aware of the various mitzvot. However, the halachot discussed in the Chafetz Chaim are more specific, basically revolving around “Lo telech rachil b’ameicha,” “B’tzedek tishpot et amiteicha,” and “hocheiach tochiach et amiteicha.” The Chafetz Chaim delineates different situations and conditions, and identifies when the speech is forbidden, permissible, and even desirable.

 Definition of Lashon Hara: Negative Comments, Whether True or False

It is forbidden to speak disparagingly of one’s “chaveir” (lit. friend–we will discuss who this technically includes later). Even if the information is entirely truthful, it is called Lashon Hara. If the information also contains any fabrication, it is also called motzi shem ra (lit. putting out a bad name). The speaker of Lashon Hara violates the prohibition of “Lo telech rachil b’ameicha (Lev. 19:16).”

Biblical Source for the Prohibition Against Lashon Hara

Leviticus 19:16 explicitly prohibit Lashon Hara and Rechilut (talebearing that

incites hatred and resentment), yet there are many more commandments that bear on the speaking of Lashon Hara, as discussed in the introduction.

Habitual Speakers of Lashon Hara

The above (the seriousness of speaking Lashon Hara) relates to someone who incidentally includes something inappropriate in his speech. But those who make it a habit to talk about others in a derogatory manner (“Did you hear…” “Do you know she…..”, etc.) are labeled ba’alei lashon hara (lit. masters of Lashon Hara, in that such speech is an integral part of themselves), and their transgression is far more severe. They regularly create a chilul Hashem (desecration of the name of G-d; cf. Lev. 22:32) because of their rebellious manner. Though they may view their activities as social tools, such behavior cuts them off from many good things in the world around them.

Profound Consequences of Speaking Lashon Hara

Ba’alei Lashon Hara is also cut off from something else: olam habah (the World to Come). The Sages say (Bab. Erchin 15b) that for three transgressions one forfeits his portion in olam habah: murder, adultery, and idol worship, and that lashon hara is equivalent to all three. The Chafetz Chaim adds that when someone accustoms himself to speaking Lashon Hara, he rationalizes it to the extent that he begins to view Lashon Hara as entirely permissible.

The comparison of Lashon Hara to well-known and agreed-upon sins such as murder is surprising. But at the same time, we can imagine why: just as the “Ten Commandments” sins damage and destroy vital physical aspects of the world, Lashon Hara afflicts the emotional and social realms.

Being “Coerced” into Speaking Lashon Hara

[Police interrogations/good cop or bad cop deceivers]

There is no difference when speaking lashon hara whether one tells a juicy story of his own will or because someone encourages (or pressures) him to do so. Even if the speaker’s Rebbe (teacher) or parent–whom the person must honor and fear, and not contradict–requests that he tell about an incident, if the relating of the information would result in Lashon Hara or even Avak Lashon Hara (speech that provokes Lashon Hara; more about that later), he cannot say it.

If you think about it, Lashon Hara isn’t any different from any other commandment. If someone encouraged you, or even nagged you, to eat a cheeseburger, you would still be fully responsible for your actions. Certainly social pressure for gossip seems more effective than it is for food, drink and many other areas, but that may be because we are not used to saying “no” to evil speech.

 Speaking Lashon Hara to Avoid Financial Loss

Even when subject to great financial loss, one is not permitted to speak Lashon Hara. This may mean that he will be viewed as a fool, and denied financial opportunity by the “intelligent” people with whom he associates. As in all Mitzvot Lo Taaseh (Torah prohibitions), we are commanded to forgo all of our income.

(The source for this is in Shema: b’kol l’vavcha, b’kol nafsh’cha, ub’kol m’odecha: “You shall love the L-rd your G-d with all of your heart, all of your soul, and all of your possessions.”)

It is generally helpful to try and develop a (personal) rational approach to the laws of Lashon Hara. When someone is confronted with a situation in which he is expected to speak derogatorily about someone, if he can respond with a simple personal philosophy (or sometimes just enough self-confidence to convey adherence to a personal philosophy), he will leave most of those situations with others’ respect intact. And in those situations, which are not in the “most” category, the best thing to do is remember the benefits that accrue through hardship in observing this mitzvah.

Speaking Lashon Hara to Avoid Personal Dishonor

If someone stands to lose personal honor by not speaking Lashon Hara, he must also sustain the loss and remain silent. For example, if one is sitting in a group speaking Lashon Hara, and he has no way to separate from them at the moment, he cannot participate in their lively discussion. This applies even if he will look like a simpleton or social clod. He should try to hold himself back and remember the many sayings of the Sages regarding his situation: “Better to be considered a fool in the eyes of man throughout one’s lifetime than as a wicked person in the eyes of G-d for one moment (Eduyot 5:6),” “the reward is according to the effort (Pirkei Avot/Ethics of the Fathers 5:25),” “one hundred times more in hardship than without it (i.e. the reward is one hundred fold; Avot d’Rabbi Natan),” and the Vilna Gaon who writes that “for every second that one remains silent he will merit reward beyond the comprehension of any being, even celestial.”

 Various Methods of Conveying Lashon Hara

Whether spoken, written, or hinted with gestures or any other way (if you looked at the Rashi in Lev. 19:16 you saw that winking was described as a characteristic behavior of holchei rachil – those who go about slandering), any communication of Lashon Hara is prohibited. This also applies if you weren’t the writer of a piece disparaging someone. [Rabbi Pliskin elaborates on a footnote in the Hebrew about the communication of Lashon Hara: showing a letter or other writing (e.g. a newspaper) to belittle its writer would also be forbidden. I would anticipate that this would also apply to footage in a film or other media.]

Hilchot Rechilut:

While Lashon Hara causes damage to the subject (in reputation, finances, emotional anguish or otherwise), Rechilut causes hatred toward the subject, or between the listener and the subject.

 The Prohibition of Rechilut

One who speaks Rechilut about his fellow violates a Torah prohibition: “Lo telech rachil b’ameicha” – do not go about as a talebearer among your people (Lev 19:16). This is a severe sin, as it causes much spiritual bloodshed within the Jewish people, which is why the Torah continues, “Lo tamod al dam re’eicha” – do not stand upon (i.e. allow the shedding of) the blood of your fellow (ibid).

Learn from what happened from the Rechilut of Doeg the Edomite (Samuel I 21-22), [in which he told King Saul that the priest Achimelekh of Nob gave David food and weapon as David was fleeing from Saul, and upon hearing what Achimelekh did for his rival David, Saul commanded that] the entire Priestly City of Nob be annihilated.

This prohibition (“Lo telech rachil b’ameicha”) is the Torah’s explicit prohibition against such speech, although one violates many others, as discussed in the introduction to Sefer Chafetz Chaim.

A Description of the Speaker of Rechilut

A talebearer (Heb. rachil) is one who carries tales among people, saying, “This is what Ploni said about you…” “This is what Ploni did to you…” or “this is what I heard about someone that he did or wants to do to you….” [“Ploni” and “Plonit” is the male and female Hebrew words used for an anonymous person; in English “so-and-so”; might be used in this context. Sometimes a commentary might use Shimon and Reuven (and Levi and Yehuda) to depict several anonymous individuals.]

Even if the information is not derogatory, and even if the person being spoken about were asked would volunteer the information himself, and even if the information is true, or even if the intention of the speaker was something entirely different, it is still Rechilut.

 Regardless of Intention

The prohibition of Rechilut applies even if the speaker did not intend to provoke ill will in the listener’s heart against the subject, and even if the speaker believes that the subject’s actions were correct and just. For example, Shimon criticizes Reuven for something Reuven said about him or did against him, and Reuven asserts that he was right in what he said, and in fact that Yehuda said the same thing. Even if as a defense of his own actions, he has caused Shimon to feel hatred against Yehuda, Reuven’s statement is called as Rechilut.

The severity of stirring up hatred between friends

The parameters discussed in the paragraphs above apply even if all the information is completely true, without any trace of falsehood – speaking Rechilut is prohibited.

It does not matter if they were friendly and someone told what one said about the other – the speaker is called a “rasha” (evil person), and his actions are an abomination, as stated in Proverbs (ch. 6): “Six are hated by G-d and seven are abominations … one who places disputes between friends.” The Sages say that the seventh [Rechilut] is the most severe.

Also, even if they were already bitter enemies, and someone hears one speaking against the other and he goes and tells him, it is called Rechilut (and forbidden).

Rechilut Under Duress is also forbidden

Regarding the prohibition against speaking Rechilut, there is no distinction whether the speaker states Rechilut willingly, or the listener suspects something on his own and pressures the speaker to tell him what another said about him. Even if his parent or teacher pressures him to tell what the other person said against them, and even if the information is only Avak Rechilut (a lighter form of Rechilut that we will discuss in a later chapter IY”H), in any such case it is still forbidden.

 Rechilut to Prevent Personal Loss is also forbidden

Even if the speaker realizes that not relating the Rechilut would cause himself a significant loss, it is still forbidden. For example if he works for someone, and the boss realizes [another has said or done something against him] and tries to compel the worker to inform him of the details, and if the worker would refuse, his boss will suspect that he is collaborating with the guilty party, and as a result he would lose his job and have no way by which to provide for his family. Not speaking Rechilut is included among all negative prohibitions (i.e. “do not…” in contrast to positive commandments such as reciting Kiddush on Shabbat), for which one must lose all his possessions in order not to violate them, as discussed in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 157:1.

In some cases it would be permissible to reveal the information in order to prevent such a loss and quell the dissention. But one shouldn’t rush to rely on this allowance, as many prerequisites must be met, which we will outline in the ninth chapter of this section IY”H.

Rechilut to Prevent Embarrassment is forbidden

Further, if through holding back a story the speaker would not be subject to financial damage, but rather only be chastised or embarrassed, it is certainly forbidden to say anything.

The speaker who holds himself back should not feel any remorse when experiencing ridicule or other mental anguish, for in the World to Come he will be counted among the Ohavei Hashem (those who love G-d), and his face will shine with holiness. The Sages say that one who is shamed but does not shame another, one who hears his chastisement but does not respond, earns the scriptural description “those who love him are like the rising of the sun in its strength.” All the more so, one who withstands disgrace for the sake of G-d’s command.

 How to respond when confronted for information [Police]

Regarding what to answer when asked, “What did X say about me?” it depends as follows: if the person can respond in some way without lying and without speaking rechilut, he should do so. If, however, he knows that the person asking him for information will not accept such an answer, then it is permitted to speak outright falsehood for the sake of peace. However, the speaker must not – Heaven forbid – take an oath or swear falsely, as further discussed in the [Hebrew commentary for our text] Be’er Mayim Chaim.

Not naming names

It is also forbidden to help one’s friend deduce who spoke or did something against him even without revealing the name of the culprit. Whether to speak more generally, so that only later will his friend realize the identity of the speaker, or if the friend knows what happened but does not know who did it, to give him hints so the friend will deduce who it was, is prohibited.

Special note: Any translators out there? If you’re following in the Hebrew text, you’ll see that I diverged from the Chafetz Chaim’s own structure (although not content) for this paragraph. I’d be interested in feedback for how a non-amateur translator might have tackled this paragraph. Thanks!

Innocently” stirring up ill will

It is forbidden to speak rechilut through deception. For example, a person knows that his friend suffered some damage or embarrassment from another, and there was a serious argument between them as a result. Now this person wants to stir up the old dispute, yet does not want anyone to realize that he is instigating it. So, he slyly prepares his speech, and mentions this awful damage or embarrassment that happened to his friend some time ago and seemingly innocently remarks that he doesn’t know who did such a thing to him. Through this, the damaged party [the speaker’s “friend”] remembers on his own that so- and-so caused him that damage. Any speech along these lines is forbidden.

Muslims lying as a religious command from their Prophet

Al Taqquia lies are required in order to obey Muhammud. Muslims live in accordance with 7th Century religious duties and dogma. They are dirty, pagan, inbred and lie to all unbelievers in Allah, their Mesopotamian moon god.

 POLICE LIES, the most egregious on planet earth

Police brutality caught on video is becoming so commonplace that you think police would think twice before attacking people without provocation. But it’s probably difficult to change years of unchained aggressiveness that has gone unenforced. Lying police are reducing our justice system to a laughable charade. We expect police, upon whom the whole system rests, to tell the truth. Over and over again, we have seen that they don’t. Any police officer’s testimony must now be treated with suspicion.

Police Officers Only Required to Tell the Truth in Court?

Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Police can lie to you in order to extract a confession, Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969). The only place an officer cannot lie is while testifying under oath in court, and criminal defense attorneys occasionally catch an officer lying, even on the witness stand. Police are only required to advise you of your Constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, if you are in custody and being interrogated about the offense for which you are being confined. This point is usually determined to be the point in which the suspect is placed under arrest, or the suspect would reasonably conclude that he or she is under arrest and not free to leave. Detectives are very good at creating the illusion that you are free to go, when actually, you are not. For example, the detective may tell you that you are free to go at any time, but that it would benefit you to provide your side of the story as the evidence do not look to be in your favor; therefore you can be persuaded into continuing the interrogation.

Police Lies To Obtain Evidence

During interrogations, police who use this tactic may lie about the facts of a
case. For example, where you have an 18 year old male who has a 15 year old girlfriend, the officer will tell him that they have evidence that he raped her, when in fact, they do not. The 18 year old tells the officer that they had consensual sex and that there was no rape involved; now the officer has a confession as to Statutory Rape that came straight from the mouth of the suspect. In trying to exonerate himself from the charge of Rape, the 18 year old legally confessed to the lesser crime of Statutory Rape. In Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969), the officer was able to extract a confession from the criminal defendant by lying about the strength of the case. During interrogation, the officer lied to the criminal defendant and told him that his cousin had confessed to the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, also implicating the criminal defendant in the crime. The criminal defendant then also confessed to the crime in reliance of the officer’s false statement. The Court determined that the criminal defendants confession was voluntary and the fact that he was given his Miranda rights prior to making the confession was relevant to a finding of waiver and voluntariness. Id.

Evidence Can Be Fabricated by police to Obtain Information

Police officers are also allowed to fabricate evidence to support a deception. In re D.A.S., 391 A.2d 255, (D.C. App. 1978) the police pretended to compare the defendants fingerprints to a fingerprint on the victims checkbook and pronounced them a match when in truth, no fingerprints were recovered from the checkbook. The defendant confessed to the robbery and the Court held that the police deception did not by itself invalidate a voluntary confession. Id. at 258. Confessions are not invalid or inadmissible, even if they are obtained by deception or trickery, as long as the means employed are not calculated to produce an untrue statement. Only if the deception, combined with other factors, coerces the suspect or defendant to confess, will the court deem the confession inadmissible. Id., at 259.

Police May Leverage Victims to Obtain Confession

In order to extract confessions, police may also attempt to persuade the suspect or defendant that her conduct was less blameworthy than anticipated. Deborah Young, Unnecessary Evil, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 425, 433 (1996). Police may lie about the victim to diminish the suspect’s fear of confessing. In People v. Jordan, 597 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), the police told the defendant that he may be able to save the victim if he told the police exactly what happened. The police falsely told the defendant that the victim had just received eighteen stitches for her knife wound and would soon be out of the hospital, when in actuality, the victim had died. The defendant confessed to stabbing the victim believing that he would be charged with assault and not murder. The court affirmed the murder conviction, holding that; “mere deception by the police is not alone sufficient to render a confession inadmissible unless accompanied by a promise or threat that could induce a false confession.” Id. at 808.

In Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), federal agents used an informant as a secret conspirator to listen in on the criminal defendants conversations. He made incriminating statements to the informant, not knowing that the informant was secretly working with the federal agents. At the time the statement was made, the criminal defendant was out on bail and had already secured an attorney. The Court held that because the criminal defendant had secured an attorney and had already been indicted, federal agents could not attempt to elicit a confession without the presence of the criminal defendants retained counsel. Id., at 204.

Why Are Police lying Tactics Permissible by the Court?

The Court is reluctant to bar such police tactics and confessions because of the assumption that an innocent person of normal intelligence will not admit to a crime she did not commit. Patrick M. McMullen, Questioning the Questions: The Impermissibility of Police Deception in Interrogations of Juveniles, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 971, 974 (2005). However, the Court has recognized the inherently coercive nature of police interrogations, thereby mandating the police to provide Miranda warnings to suspects and defendants to lessen such coercion. The intimidation is even greater on juveniles. The power of police to deceive juvenile suspects during interrogations is significant since kids may be even more impressionable and confused. Juveniles are more likely than adults to defer to the wishes of adult authority figures and are more susceptible to suggestions of guilt. Id., at 975. Juveniles are more likely to believe things that adults, especially powerful authority figures, tell them. Many kids are taught to trust police officers and to have faith in them as enforcers of law. They are not raised to believe that officers will resort to deception in order to carry out the law. Id., at 997. Thus juveniles are easily pressured into admitting guilt or agreeing to false information. Unfortunately, the interrogation room is one of the few places where the Court has been unwilling to protect juveniles from their own bad or premature decisions. In Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979) the Supreme Court decided that juvenile confessions were to be assessed under the totality of circumstances standard and thus age was only one of many factors that come into play when assessing the admissibility of juvenile confessions.

Police deception may be helpful in eliciting confessions from guilty suspects. However, such manipulation also extracts false confessions, especially from juveniles. Placing false hope in young suspects by promises of leniency and misrepresentation of evidence are effective in inducing such false confessions. Patrick M. McMullen, Questioning the Questions, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 971, 988 (2005). The vast majority of evidence that prosecutors obtain against defendants comes straight from their own mouths because of the Police interrogation methods discussed.

How To Avoid Police Interrogation lying Tactics

For these reasons, it is best to obtain the services of a skilled criminal defense attorney before an opportunity for questioning arises, or any charges are filed. After discussing with the client what is known about the scope of the investigation, the attorney should start by advising the detective that the defendant is represented by counsel, and not to talk to his client without that counsel present. If you have no inkling that you might be investigated or charged with a crime prior to being contacted by law enforcement, it is very important that you consult an attorney before speaking to authorities. While an officer may imply that failure to speak immediately will result in arrest, a person cannot be arrested for exercising the right to remain silent. Police can only arrest a person if probable cause exists, and the choice to remain silent cannot be part of that analysis. If the officers already have probable cause, they would not need to question you. If they do not, the statement you make could well supply it. Know Your Fourth Amendment Rights: Reasonable and Unreasonable Search and Seizure

January 30th, 2006
quote By: Swazi Taylor, Esq. and Jay Mykytiuk

Open up, this is the police! This command is usually delivered with a loud pounding on your door, and usually means that police will soon be entering your home and searching your belongings. In the eyes of the law your home is your castle, but under some circumstances your rights in your residence give way to the power of law enforcement. But this power is not unlimited. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the police from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. Determining what is reasonable can be complicated business so complicated, in fact, that treatises have been devoted to the search and seizure issue. Although the law is complex and constantly evolving, there are several basic rules that govern when, where, and how police officers may search an individual’s home. The more familiar one is with these rules; the better-equipped one will be at identifying an illegal search.
Search and Arrest Warrants

Absent exigent circumstances, the general rule is that police officers may only enter a person’s home with a search or arrest warrant based on probable cause. A search warrant gives the police the right to search a particular place, at a particular time, and only for particular items as approved by a judge. The warrant must clearly spell out what these items are, and generally, the police may not look for items that are not listed in the warrant. For example, if the search warrant authorizes the police to search for a rifle, police may only search places in your home that are big enough to hide a rifle. Therefore, in this example, a small bureau drawer or a jewelry box on that bureau would be out of bounds.

If the police enter a home pursuant to an arrest warrant, they may only search the areas into which the suspect might reach to obtain weapons or destroy evidence. This area is generally measured by the suspect’s wingspan.

There are circumstances, however, when police may extend a search beyond the terms of the warrant. The most significant of these circumstances is known as the plain view doctrine. Under the plain view doctrine, police who are lawfully searching a home may seize any items in plain view whose incriminating nature is immediately apparent. Even if the item is not listed in the warrant, if it is in plain view and obviously incriminating, police may rightfully seize it.


Police Tazers are lethal weapons! Police using tazers since 2001, have murdered over 500 people! Police then lie universally as to why they used tazers and then walk free of any consequences. There is something wrong here in America. This is nothing more than Gestapo thugs at work.

Knock and Announce Rule ignored by Police

Generally before entering your home to serve a valid search warrant, police must knock on your door, and announce their presence, rather than simply forcing their way in. The so-called, knock and announce rule requires that police wait a reasonable amount of time for the resident to open the door. If you then refuse to let the officers in, they have the right to force the door open.

As is often the case with rules governing police searches and seizures, however, there are exceptions to the knock and announce rule. Police may forcibly enter your home without knocking and announcing when a more stealthy approach is required to ensure the safety of police officers or to prevent the destruction of evidence. Even when officers do knock and announce, they need only wait a few seconds before bursting in.

Warrantless Searches

Just as there are exceptions to the knock and announce rule, there are also exceptions to the warrant requirement. First, police do not need a warrant to enter and search your home if they obtain the consent of an occupant. Any person with an apparent equal right to use or occupy the property may consent to a search, and any evidence found may be used against the other owners or occupants. Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering what should happen when one spouse consents to a search of the house, while the other spouse does not.

Even without a search warrant and without the consent of an occupant there are still occasions when police may enter and search a home. Although there is no general emergency exception, the court will decide on a case-by-case basis whether an actual emergency existed that allowed police to conduct a warrantless search. Shots fired, screams heard, or fires emanating from inside a building have all been considered emergencies that justify searches without warrants. A federal appellate court recently ruled that the “strong aroma” of a decaying body, wafting through the open window of a dead man’s house, constituted an emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Essentially, anytime the police have a reasonable belief that and immediate search is required to protect the safety of individuals, police will be permitted to search without a warrant.

Protecting Your Constitutional Rights

Although search and seizure law can be confusing and is constantly evolving, there are some basic steps you can take to protect your Fourth Amendment rights. First, remember that generally, without a warrant, police have no right to enter and search your home. If a police officer asks your permission to search your home you are under no obligation to consent. Consenting to a search automatically makes that search reasonable, and is essentially a waiver of your Fourth Amendment rights. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a search can be used to convict the person. Police officers are not required by law to inform you of your rights before asking you to consent to a search. In fact, police officers are trained to use their authority to get people to consent to a search.

If the police have a search warrant, they may enter your home without your consent. In this case, there are still things you can do to protect yourself. Next, ask to see the warrant. If for any reason you believe that the warrant is not valid, make your objections clear to the officer, and announce that you are not consenting to the search. But remember that it’s always in your best interest to remain calm, polite, and non-confrontational. Even if you believe the search to be unreasonable, you have nothing to gain by interfering with the police officers. A person should not risk injury or a separate charge of “interfering with a police officer.” After voicing your objections to the search, simply stand aside and allow a court to decide later whether the officer’s actions were proper. Most importantly, you should immediately contact a criminal attorney whenever you have been the subject of a search or seizure. In the event that the police have conducted an unreasonable search of your home, an attorney will seek to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of that search. This means that the illegally obtained evidence may not be used against you at trial. An experienced attorney will know how to protect you when your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated.

In Lying (New York: Vintage, 1999), Sissela Bok defines a lie as any intentionally deceptive stated message. According to Bok, these are statements that are communicated either verbally or in writing. Lying is a subset of the larger category of deception, and deception is undertaken when one intends to dupe others by communicating messages meant to mislead and meant to make the recipients believe what the agent (the person performing or committing the act) either knows or believes to be untrue. Deception encompasses not only spoken and written statements but any conduct that conveys a message to the listener. Deceptive conduct can range from verbal statements or writings to physical expressions such as a shoulder shrug, eye movement or silence-any intentional action that conveys a message.

Historically, not all intentionally deceptive conduct in social interactions has been considered improper. Indeed, as early as the Middle Ages, Saint Thomas

What Is Police Lying?

Aquinas classified deceptive conduct as helpful, joking, or malicious. Aquinas argued that lying helpfully and lying in jest may be acceptable forms of conduct, whereas telling malicious lies, lies told deliberately to harm someone, was a mortal sin.

Acknowledging that some deceptive conduct is acceptable helps to define deceptive misconduct. For example, the classic dilemma, argued about for centuries, is what to do if a murderer approaches you and asks the location of his intended victim. If you tell the truth, the murderer will kill the victim. If you lie, the intended victim will have the opportunity to escape. Although this hypothetical dilemma forces you to choose between insufficient options with no other choices, it is illustrative of Aquinas’s argument. Lying to a murderer to protect a potential victim is helpful, and it may be both morally and ethically the proper thing to do because it is the lesser of evils under the circumstances.

Police Lies Justified by their Investigative Necessity

In the performance of their duties, police officers frequently engage in a significant amount of deceptive conduct that is essential to public safety. Consider lying to suspects, conducting undercover operations, and even deploying unmarked cars. Presenting a suspect with false evidence, a false confession of a crime partner, or a false claim that the suspect was identified in a lineup are but a few of the deceptive practices that police officers have used for years during interrogations. These investigatory deceptive practices are necessary when no other means would be effective, when they are lawful, and when they are aimed at obtaining the truth.

Some, like John P. Crank and Michael A. Caldero in Police Ethics (Cincinnati: Anderson, 1999), have argued that accepting these types of deceptive practices places the police on a slippery slope, which will create a belief by officers that all deception is acceptable, or a perception by the public that diminishes the trustworthiness of officers. It may be true that some persons who engage in serious misconduct began with minor acts of deception, but it does not follow that all deception is a gateway to serious misconduct. Most police officers can distinguish the differences and do not conclude that specific, lawful deception implies the rightness of all deception. The majority of police officers are quite capable of applying the Constitutional test of whether that deceit would make innocent persons confess to a crime that they did not commit.

Police Lies Made in Jest

Where specific lies can be supported by rational argument, as justified, other lies may be deemed excusable by the same type of ethical analysis. Lies made in jest, although sometimes callous and hurtful, do not affect an officer’s credibility unless they are in such bad taste that they call into question the person’s judgment in general. Between officers, embellishments and exaggerations are commonplace in the descriptions of the misfortunes of others. A sense of humor, even where some deception is involved, can and does help responsible persons cope with great stress and grim circumstances. Indeed, a sense of humor and a sense of proportion may be inseparable under the worst circumstances. Although humor is an acceptable practice at the appropriate time, humor is not a shield to the disciplinary process. When jokes become intentionally harmful to others, they become malicious lies that should be dealt with accordingly. Agency leaders should not strive to create such a sterile workplace that humor is forbidden, for they would succeed only in making themselves objects of derision and ridicule. Police leaders should seek to establish and enforce reasonable standards.

Deception concerning trivial matters, often told to spare another’s feelings may also be excusable. These white lies are meant not for any personal gain but rather for social courtesy. Not every social situation calls for the whole truth. How do I look? What do you think? Sometimes benign statements or tactful silence are the most appropriate responses.

In The Varnished Truth (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), David Nyberg asserts that acts of deception are such common practice in human communication that deceptive conduct would be impossible to prevent entirely by any rule, law, policy, or manner of enforcement. From the social kindness of white lies to embellishments, exaggerations, and boastful behavior, we frequently conceal the truth for a variety of reasons. We not only condone these activities but also teach our children the art of deception from an early age. Children learn from their parents, friends, television, books, and other sources how to deceive. Children quickly learn how to maintain a poker face, so their hand is not easily identified by their body language, or in sporting activities where young athletes fake a throw or head-fake an opponent by looking one way and going another. Our laws and culture have even created exceptions to the unvarnished truth such as in advertising, recognizing that there is speech that tends to embellish the value of a product, but because these speech patterns are so common and easily recognized, they do not dupe a reasonable, mature person into a false belief. This exception, called puffery, encompasses terms like “world’s best,” “the greatest,” “the purest,” and so on.

Police deception – Malicious and threatening Lies

Although lies justified by necessity, lies told in jest, and white lies may be acceptable forms of deception in law enforcement, malicious lies are the true evil of officer misconduct. The difference between lies justified by necessity or lies made in jest and malicious lies is the presence of actual malice by the communicator. Here, malice would include not only lies told with a bad intent but also lies that exceed the limits of legitimacy.

For example, a police officer may be tempted to testify falsely to imprison a criminal. The officer’s intent may be a worthy objective to the public; removing a criminal from society and the officer may validate his intent in his own mind by believing that he is engaging in a greater good. But this lie would violate the standard by which we would say the lie was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances given the status obligations of the person engaging in the lie. Although the intent may be legitimate, the actions are malicious. This malice is the motive by which any sense of limits or constraint or fidelity to law and policy is destroyed.

It is important to understand that motive or intentions can be mixed, so that a person may deceive in order to pursue some worthwhile, utilitarian goal (such as public safety) and at the same time have a malicious disregard for the rights of the suspect and for the laws, policies, and limits that apply to policing. This willingness to betray basic principles of honesty attacks the very public safety that the person believes himself to be pursuing. A police officer who by malicious disregard goes beyond the limits of legitimacy is a threat to the public safety, since the officer may end up violating anybody’s rights, and this poisons the idea that the lie is advancing public safety.

Police Deception Continuum

Perhaps it is easier to assess intentional deceptive conduct on a continuum. At one end is intentional, malicious, deceptive conduct that will take one of three forms:

◦ Deceptive action in a formal setting, such as testifying in court or during an internal affairs investigation

◦ Failure to bring forward information involving criminal action by other officers, also known as observing the so-called code of silence

◦ Creation of false evidence that tends to implicate another in a criminal act Intentional, malicious, deceptive conduct in any of these three areas will permanently destroy an officer’s credibility. Should an officer violate these standards, there is no alternative in an employment context other than termination or permanent removal from any possible activity where the officer could be called upon to be a witness to any action.

At the other end of the continuum are lies justified by necessity, which may be defended, based on the circumstances and excusable lies, including lies made in jest and white lies, which like minor embellishments and exaggerations are not intended to harm others or convey a benefit to the communicator. These types of deceptions are at least excusable if not acceptable.

Deceptive conduct at either end of the continuum can be dealt with easily. At one end, the conduct does no harm and no action is necessary. At the other end, there is great harm and there is no option other than the termination of the officer’s employment. The problem is not the conduct at the ends of the continuum, but rather the conduct that falls somewhere in between. Consider the following example:

A supervisor asks an officer whether a particular report has been completed. The report itself is of very little consequence, and the question was prompted by a routine administrative action rather than any specific employee concern. The officer has not submitted the report but quickly replies that the report has been turned in, fearing what would be at most a minor counseling by the supervisor. The officer then immediately completes the report and turns it in before the supervisor can discover the lie.

In this example, the officer was dishonest. He was asked a direct question by a supervisor and he failed to respond truthfully. Although the officer had no opportunity for reflection, there is no excuse for his misconduct. The question was not posed as part of a formal process, the officer was not engaging in an action to protect another officer, and there was no conduct that would place a community member at risk of a false prosecution. Similarly, there is no evidence that the officer’s deceit was either justified or excusable.

What is left is conduct that falls somewhere in the middle of the continuum. The officer’s response is certainly not acceptable, but it leaves the question of whether it is far enough on the other end of the continuum to be grounds for termination. There is a strong argument for termination in this case. After all, the officer was asked a direct question by a supervisor about a work-related subject and the officer responded untruthfully. The difficulty for managers is balancing the need of the department and community to have officers that are beyond reproach against the recognition that all officers are human beings and that they have human failings. The officer’s response may best be described as a spontaneous, unintelligent statement, and there are other factors that should be considered in making a final determination. Is the officer remorseful? Does the officer recognize the error? Does the officer have an otherwise acceptable record with the department? Was the underlying issue one of very little consequence?

Consider the following:

A dispatcher asks an officer if he is available for a call. The officer radios that he is out of service and unavailable, when in fact he does not want to receive a call because it is near the end of his shift. Based on the officer’s statement, the dispatcher assigns the calls to another officer.

As in the last scenario, the officer’s conduct is neither justifiable nor excusable. However, the conduct probably does not amount to the end of the scale that mandates termination. It is this type of intentional, deceptive, misconduct that can be termed “administrative deception” that creates consternation for police management. The conduct may not warrant termination, but a sustained finding of untruthfulness creates a Brady issue that many believe will prohibit the officer from continuing his employment. The question then becomes, does Brady mandate termination on the basis of any lie or act of deception?

The concession that the lie is preferred over force as a means of social control forms the basis for the morality of policy lying, i.e., in any situation in which police have a legitimate right to use force they acquire a moral right to achieve the same ends by lying.

Police Conclusion

The American police we see daily are the biggest liars in America of the categories of Liars at the head of this essay.

It matters not if these police liars claim to be Christian or heathen, their condemnation after death is sure, final and set in eternity. This is the unpardonable sin set forth in scripture.

Psalms_58:3: From the womb, the wicked are estranged, liars on the wrong path since birth.

Psalms_63:11: But the king will rejoice in God. Everyone who swears by him will exult, for the mouths of liars will be silenced.

Revelation_21:8: But as for the cowardly, the untrustworthy, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those involved with the occult and with drugs, idol-worshippers, and all liars — their destiny is the lake burning with fire and sulfur, the second death.”

The judgment call is for ALL LIARS, with no exceptions.


There was the former Navy SEAL Pennsylvania pastor, the silver and bronze star-winning defense contractor and then the Congressional Medal of Honor- winning California local official — each with inspiring stories of service to the nation and heroism in the line of fire. The only problem was, none of it was true.

The pastor, Jim Moats, was in the Navy but was never in the SEALs like he claimed. The defense contractor, former Marine Sgt. Gary Lakis, served for 10 years in the Corps, but was never in combat and never won the medals he wore. And Xavier Alvarez, the man who claimed to win the nation’s highest military honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor, never served a day in the military.

And though hundreds of military service liars came before Alvarez and dozens more have been outed since he was exposed, the former California public official is the one at the center of a landmark Supreme Court case today.

Alvarez and his attorney are challenging a law, known as the Stolen Valor Act that makes it illegal to represent oneself as being awarded military honors that have not been rightfully won.

After Alvarez was found out, he was convicted in 2007 under the Stolen Valor Act and sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine and community service. But he appealed and his lawyer, Jonathan Libby, argued the law is a violation of the First Amendment — in short, it violates the right to lie.

“The Stolen Valor Act criminalizes pure speech in the form of bare falsity, a mere telling of a lie,” Libby said. “It doesn’t matter whether the lie was told in a public meeting or in a private conversation with a friend or family member.”

But according to several veterans well acquainted with false war stories, claiming you’re a medal-winner can be “more than just lying.”

“It’s not the barroom loudmouth that anyone is interested in,” said Don Shipley, a former SEAL who has been given unique access to the SEAL personnel database so he can route out fakers. “People tend to believe what they’re told, they use that… They do an awful lot of damage.”

Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, another military watchdog, Doug Sterner, told ABC News that cases of fake military heroes aren’t likely to stop overnight — after all, there’s a new Navy SEAL movie coming out and, most likely with it, imposters ready to latch on to the fame.


“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has, it has stolen.”
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”

!Friedrich Nietzsche, German Philosopher, 1844-1900

Are lying politicians trying to fool us, or are they just telling us the same lies we tell ourselves? It is the latter in most cases, and it is necessary for their political survival. Here is my explanation of how the process works.

One side says that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The other side says the gun control can save lives. On each side, the politicians play to their constituents. What do none of them say? None of them can say that maybe there would be lives saved if there was more gun control, but that we have a right to have guns, so we will accept the violence that comes with them.

The deception practiced by politicians comes with a terrible price

The moral consequences of totalitarian propaganda, which we must now consider are, however, of an even more profound kind. They are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the foundations of all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth.

American totalitarians must propagandize not only about values (e.g., placing the government above individuals), but about facts as well. The government’s “values” must be connected to genuine values held by the people, and the people must be spoon-fed government’s view of the “facts” so that the government’s desired conclusion appears inevitable.

So politicians tell myths (or, to use Plato’s term, “noble lies”) to con the people into supporting certain acts.

In the process, however,

The whole language becomes despoiled, and words become empty shells deprived of any definite meaning, as capable of denoting one thing as its opposite and used solely for the emotional associations which still adhere to them.

The word “truth” itself ceases to have its old meaning. It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of the unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.

The warnings about “totalitarian propaganda” apply very nicely to the propaganda currently served up for gullible consumption by the American and British governments.

Lying American and British politicians proclaim that the current enemies politicians are liars, and that such lying justifies war.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

All presidents are politicians. All politicians are salespersons. All salespersons are liars. This may sound like a brazen conclusion, but in today’s world it is a reality that must be confronted and dealt with.

!This practice of using fallacies to mislead may be of even greater importance to our entire nation when the nation’s highest leaders make these deceptive, misleading statements. Our democratic system of government, in which the people are required to make judgments about issues that effect the entire nation, our economic well being or the peace of the world, demand that the nation’s leaders give to the people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In their critical positions, politicians and presidents must be held accountable for every fallacy or misleading statement that they give whether they are straightforward lies or deceptive propaganda. In general, selfish politicians lie to promote their own personal agenda and their own personal well being often to the detriment of the rest of the nation and the world.

The office of the president of the United States is not a private office to be used by any individual for private financial gain, personal ambition or self-serving glorification for themselves or for any special interest groups. The office of the president exists to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and promote the peace and the best interests of the entire nation.

The president of the United States should never use fallacies, lies or any deceitful misleading statements in any speech either public or private for any reason whatsoever. Obama is the worst President America ever had. Lying {al Taqiya] is an Islamic principle of Stealth Jihad in the Koran where Muslims are taught that it is a religious duty to never tell nonMuslims the truth. Obama was born a Muslim, was trained in Islamic schools in Indonesia and remains a lifelong Muslim. Therefore, as a believer in Allah, he lies at all times and in all circumstances as a religious duty. The people must demand truthful leaders. The alternative can be disastrous as it is today while America is being systematically dismantled from within.
The suspicion that politicians are inclined to tell lies is as old as politics itself. Yet when a politician is caught in a lie, the consequences are often dire, at least in democratic countries. Indeed, proving that a politician is a liar is just about the only way to get rid of him or her quickly and terminally, which is why the attempt is so attractive to political opponents.


To begin with, we are all salespersons to different degrees, in our everyday lives. We all have something that we want to sell. We want to sell our boss on our talent or skills. We want to sell our neighbors on our friendliness or personality. Almost everything that we do, the style of clothes we wear, the model of car we own, our mannerisms and behavior are all carefully selected to sell ourselves, to attract the opposite sex, to increase our income or just to become more popular. Everyone in almost all professions are salespersons. A lawyer is trying to sell the jury on the defendant’s guilt or innocence. All public speakers are trying to sell the audience on whatever subject they are promoting; a book, an idea, an ideology or whatever. A politician is also trying to sell to the public his agenda, his ideology or his qualifications for an office he is seeking.

The statement that all salespersons are liars needs to be explained. There are many different ways in which a person can tell a lie. There are simple straightforward lies in which the liar is simply stating a fact that is false.

Sometimes many will believe this type of lie; if repeated often enough, especially if it comes from someone in a place of authority. However most of the lies that people tell are more complicated and are better classified as fallacies. These are complex deceitful statements that are used to sell an idea by misleading claims. Different individuals to different degrees do this for different purposes. Some are harmless but some are dangerous and illegal.

Why was the statement made that all salespersons are liars? This is because all of the sales tactics learned in any sales training class are based on fallacies and all fallacies are intentionally deceptive. This is the definition of a lie. A lie is a statement that is intentionally deceptive. Fallacies are all lies. Many examples could be given. If one salesperson was well dressed and friendly and another salesperson was sloppy and rude, which one would you buy a product from? People would almost unanimously choose the first. This is a fallacy because the buyer is not buying the salesperson, they are buying their product. Their choice should be based on the characteristics of the product and not the characteristics of the salesperson. This is true of almost all fallacies. The fallacies have nothing to do with the product. What a salesperson says and what they do and their product should be evaluated separately. This is especially true of politicians. In today’s professional advertising campaigns, politicians almost always read speeches written by professional speech writers. What a politician says in a beautiful patriotic speech should be clearly separated from their actual experience, their character, their qualifications and their real accomplishments in relevant professions. These political speech’s are essentially lies simply because no matter what they say, they were written by another person. The speaker is simply an actor reading another’s words. He is misleading because he is pretending that the ideas are his own.

The obvious question is why do salespersons use fallacies? Why don’t salespersons simply tell the truth? The answer to this is very simple. They use fallacies because they work. They sell products. People in general don’t spend a lot of time analyzing a sales pitch. They are easily swayed by a friendly smooth talking salesperson. Simple fallacies are the most effective way to sell any product, whether it is a used car, a political ideology, a religious creed or any consumer product. A salesperson (politician, lawyer, used car salesperson etc.) does not want to tell the whole truth. They only want to tell the potential buyer the good features of their produce, not the bad features. The detrimental result of this practice is that the buyer can only make a sound judgment if all features of a product are known. However this is irrelevant to the seller, who is only interested in making a sale.
In most of our daily activities, many of these sales judgments we make are trivial and not of significant importance. Choosing between two different TV sets or two automobiles may have little lasting consequences. Unfortunately, the general public’s habit of not analyzing a sales pitch about consumer products, which is not especially important, also have the same attitude toward sale pitches in other areas, such as politics, economics or law, which are very important.

In many situations, these choices may be of extreme importance. If a lawyer uses misleading fallacies, a guilty person may be freed or an innocent person may go to prison. A jury must be critically observant when any lawyer is being deceitful.

NEWS MEDIA as liars

The nation’s news media also have the highest responsibility to tell the whole truth. As the fourth branch of government, the news media are the sources of information that the public relies on to make sound judgments about everything local or national. Fallacies and misleading articles have no place in any news media. Unfortunately these are quite common and contribute to the public making bad choices in elections.

Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to it.

I must close by restating the obvious:

(Rev 21:8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake, which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

This condemnatory scripture not only applies to lying persons; it is also applicable to lying nations. History is a great teacher. The great lying empires of the past are gone, leaving only ruins. You can walk through the crumbled stone monuments and see the results for yourselves.

Written in 1817, by Percy Bysshe Shelley! An Epitaph for America?!

“I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert … near them, on the sand,

Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.

And on the pedestal these words appear:

“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

The hand belonged to the sculptor, the heart to the king, nursing the passions the sculptor read. Today, the hand belongs to the historian who must account for so great an empire in its glory – and for its passions spent. To tread on an empires dust, as Shelley’s contemporary, Lord Byron remarked, is to be reminded of the earthquake that was once below.
THE ‘OZYMANDIAS PRINCIPLE proves all empires to be transient.
So went Egypt, Greece, Rome, The Ottoman, the British and soon, the American empire, all fallen from the political and religious rottenness within.
Sic transit gloria mundi: It is a Latin phrase that means, “Thus passes the glory of the world”. It has been interpreted as “Worldly things are fleeting.”

The phrase played a part in the ritual of papal coronation ceremonies until 1963. As the newly chosen pope proceeded from the sacristy of St. Peters, the procession stopped three times. On each occasion a papal master of ceremonies would fall to his knees before the pope, holding a silver or brass reed bearing a piece of smoldering tow. For three times in succession, as the cloth burned away, he would say in a loud and mournful voice, “Sancte Pater, sic transit gloria mundi!” (“Holy Father; so passes worldly glory!”) These words, thus addressed to the pope, served as a reminder of the transitory nature of life and earthly honors. The stafflike instrument used in the aforementioned ceremony is known as a “sic transit gloria mundi”, named for the master of ceremonies’ words.

“For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeters’, musicians and strange animals from conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conquerors rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children robed in white stood with him in the chariot or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering over and over in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting.”

– Gen. George C. Patton

Is this always so? YES, with one exception.

Yeshua’s Eternal Kingdom is coming soon, ! GLORIA IN EXCELSIS DEO!!

Rav James Talbott, far from the wilderness of religion

End Times Days of Noah

THE DAYS OF NOACH REDUX The Mixture of seeds

Matthew says: For the Son of Man’s coming will be just as it was in the days of Noach. Back then, before the Flood; people went on eating and drinking, taking wives and becoming wives, right up till the day Noach entered the ark; and they didn’t know what was happening until the Flood came and swept them all away. It will be just like that when the Son of Man comes.


“Also, at the time of the Son of Man, it will be just as it was at the time of Noach. People ate and drank, and men and women married, right up until the day Noach entered the ark; then the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, as it was in the time of Lot — people ate and drank, bought and sold, planted and built, but the day Lot left S’dom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. That is how it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed.

Yahweh saw that the people on earth were very wicked, that all the imaginings of their hearts were always of evil only. Yahweh regretted that he had made humankind on the earth; it grieved his heart. Yahweh said, “I will wipe out humankind, whom I have created, from the whole earth; and not only human beings, but animals, creeping things and birds in the air; for I regret that I ever made them.” But Noach found grace in the sight of Yahweh. Here is the history of Noach. In his generation, Noach was a man righteous and wholehearted; Noach walked with YHWH God. Noach fathered three sons, Shem, Ham and Yefet. The earth was corrupt before YHWH God; the earth was filled with violence. YHWH God saw the earth, and, yes, it was corrupt, for all living beings had corrupted their ways on the earth. YHWH God said to Noach, “The end of all living beings has come before me, for because of them the earth is filled with violence. I will destroy them along with the earth. “Then I myself will bring the flood of water over the earth to destroy from under heaven every living thing that breathes; everything on earth will be destroyed. But I will establish my covenant with you; you will come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife and your sons’ wives with you.
Some will fall by the edge of the sword, others will be carried into all the countries of the Goyim, and Yerushalayim will be trampled down by the Goyim until the age of the Goyim has run its course. “There will appear signs in the sun, moon and stars; and on earth, nations will be in anxiety and bewilderment at the sound and surge of the sea, as people faint with fear at the prospect of what is overtaking the world; for the powers in heaven will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with tremendous power and glory. When these things start to happen, stand up and hold your heads high; because you are about to be liberated!”

This treatise was written in order to address a particular controversy regarding a most strategic portion of the Biblical record, and the importance of a proper understanding of that passage and its relevance to our world today. The attempt is to clarify some of the key elements of the continued interpretive contention with the hope that a proper understanding will not only be elicited, but that such understanding will clarify the malignity of evil itself and to galvanize our understanding of its influence and culpability in the great underlying conflicts which beset our world. It is also hoped that the reader will not only be stimulated in his own study of Holy Writ, but that he will gain a greater appreciation of it and realize a greater degree of his own appropriation of these oracles of YAHWEH. Then, the ultimate purpose and hope of this paper is that it might edify believers in their daily life, and, most of all, magnify the glorious anticipation of Yeshua’s imminent personal return in these last days. One of the most fascinating topics to be found in our study of the Bible is that of its record regarding the early earth, that first great era in the history of our world, sometimes referred to as the antediluvian age. It is an age shrouded in mystery and wonder, an age pertaining not only to a lost world but an age separated from us in time by a great dividing epoch of catastrophic world changing events. It is an account of that world of human glory and depravity, and demonic intervention; a world, which was, totally destroyed in the great judgment of the Flood several thousand years ago, a universal flood which left our world vastly and permanently different. Even though the evidence of this great event is abundant in the traditions of many cultures around the world and confirmed in many of the disciplines, the only direct information that we have of this early period in the Earth’s history is found in the first few chapters of the book of Genesis and a few other relatively brief references scattered throughout the rest of Scripture. Because portions of this subject and related matters touch upon issues of demonology it has been objected, “we should focus our attention on Yeshua and not on the Devil.” Yet, among things, such an objection would tend to perpetuate the somewhat obscure understanding of this important passage of Scripture. Furthermore, if our victory as believers is to be complete, it is incumbent upon us to study all of the Scriptures, for as in any military engagement knowledge of the enemy is necessary. That we will be engaged with this enemy is of a certainty pointed out most graphically by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 6:10-18. Finally, Yeshua Himself exhorts us to study the details of that early age, the likes of which will be repeated shortly before His second coming during the Acharit Hayamim. Thus, if any ask whether this question is worth laboring, we can but reply that all of Scripture is given to us by the love and wisdom of YAHWEH and it must be of essential value and importance to accurately understand it. Two days before the crucifixion of Yeshua, His disciples asked Him, “What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3) His reply pointed to a number of “signs,” all of which together would occur in that generation which would see the signs, and which would be the sign they had requested. These signs were climaxed with the prophetic warning, “But as the days of Noach were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be, For as in the days that were before the Flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the Ark, and knew not until the Flood came and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be” (Matthew 24:37- 39). Thus did Yeshua not only verify the historicity of antediluvian culture and the great Flood, and remind us of the relationship between wickedness and judgment, but He also encouraged us to study closely the characteristics of the days before the Flood, because these would also characterize the days just before His return. The first great age of human history was brought to its climax and culmination in the days of Noach. The sin-disease, which began so innocuously when Eve was tempted to doubt the word of YAHWEH, which then began to show its true ugliness of character in the life of Cain, and which came to maturity in the godless civilization developed by his descendants, finally descended into such a terrible morass of wickedness and corruption that even the most fertile imagination is defied in its attempt to grasp the magnitude, and of which a full disclosure would, without doubt, utterly shock the Christian’s sensibilities to behold. The record notes that even our very Creator Himself was dismayed and grieved to the core of His being that He had ever made man upon the Earth. Only a global bath of exceedingly turbid water unleashed from the windows of heaven and from the bowels of the earth could purge and cleanse the fevered and festered world. The word of YAHWEH clearly and unequivocally declares that the characteristics of those awful and tragic days, strange as they may seem, are nevertheless to be repeated in the last days of this present age. As a correlation between Genesis 6:1-4 and Matthew 24:37-39, as well as other pertinent passages will show, it is clearly evident that in the times of both cases corruption and violence exist side by side with sinful luxury, pride filled refinement and high culture. Such minglings apparently incongruous have not been infrequent in postdiluvian times. It is thus urgently important, from the standpoint of both understanding past history and seeking guidance for the future, that we understand the events, which took place in the days of Noach. As we can see from Scripture, and as pointed out by our Lord Himself, the sixth chapter of Genesis contains an important message for us regarding the days of Noach, a description of momentous interest and importance to us: for Yeshua has declared that a similar epoch of worldliness will at length exhaust the forbearance of YAHWEH toward the present dwellers upon the Earth, and cause Him to come with fire, and with His chariots like a whirlwind, to render His anger with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire; to plead with all flesh by fire and by His sword (Isaiah 66:15-16). It becomes, therefore, an obvious duty to consider the progress of wickedness and corruption among the antediluvians, so far as it has pleased YAHWEH to inform us of it; to acquaint ourselves not merely with the sowing but also with the watering, the growth, and the ripening, of that hideous crop against which the gleaming sickle of the Almighty at length flashed forth from heaven; to note the various incentives to evil as they successively appeared, and to observe the particular influence of each upon the rapidly decomposing masses of society. For by so doing we shall arm ourselves against the errors and temptations, which are daily multiplying around us, and be able to discern the threatening signs of our own times. (Romans 15:4; I Corinthians 10:11; II Timothy 3:16-17; I John 5:13) When men multiplied on the face of the Earth in that primeval age, as in our own time, so also did the diffusion and intensification of sin. For every form of evil, which exists in thinly, populated locales will also be found, but in greater degree, where men have multiplied; where there are countless vices peculiar to crowded districts. Consequently, if they are numerous, men support each other in rebellion, and are prone to become far more daring and defiant of YAHWEH. Among us, the strongholds of dominionist rationalism and arrogant atheism are always to be found in large cities. Given the longevity of the antediluvians, coupled with their immense accumulation of knowledge, experience, and skill through the teachings of the Watchers, their civilization must have advanced to an almost inconceivable degree. One recorded specimen of antediluvian industry was the Ark built singly through the labor, and under the superintendence, of a lone Godly Sethite, Noach, guided by YAHWEH, along with his modest family. Sad and instructive was the long past amalgamation of the Cainites (descendants of Cain, the murderer son of Adam and Eve who slew his brother Abel) and Sethites (descendants of Seth, the Godly son whom Adam and Eve bore after the death of Abel) in a society of leisure disposed to wickedness. Abject indulgence, self- gratification and depraved human glory seemed to be the residual ungodly lazy Laodicean religion of the day. A wastefully indulgent life of vanity and a disregard for the institution of the family in the careless giving away of their children in frivolous marriages set the stage for the appalling escalation of evil shortly to follow. No true worshippers of Yahweh were to be found, save in the single family of Noach, a small remnant connected with the line of the promised Seed. Then, in the days of Noach, a new and startling event burst upon the world, and fearfully accelerated the already rapid progress of evil, leading to such a tidal wave of violence and wickedness over the earth that there was no longer any remedy but utter destruction. For such, our text in Genesis reads as follows: “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And Yahweh said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants [Nephilim] in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of YAHWEH came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:1-4). This passage contains a detail that is often either ignored, disputed, or outright rejected – that of Nephilim giants on the Earth. Here we have the record of what evidently constitutes the first great outbreak of demonic “genetic engineering” through the demonic abduction of women, the result of which was humanoid gigantism. The second outbreak occurred “also after that” sometime before Israel arrived in the land of Canaan. For there they encountered the Nephilim or “fallen ones.” The pre-Flood outbreak had been, of course, brought to an abrupt end by the worldwide judgment of the Flood. During the time of David, who faced off Goliath, YAHWEH, through Israel, brought the post-Flood outbreak to an end. A thousand years after the time of David demonic intervention occurred again, this time in the form of human corporal possession, which waxed rampant, at the time of Yeshua. Finally, in our own time we again see evident trademarks of demonic activity, by the fallen “sons of YAHWEH,” of a different legion, quite possibly in likes of the “UFO” and “alien abduction” phenomenon of recent years. Now, Scientists are trying to recreate the Nephilim, Rephayim and Anakim through cloning, gene and DNA manipulation, transhumanism and military “super soldiers” .As the record clearly indicates, the offspring of the unions between the “sons of YAHWEH” and the “daughters of men” were progeny of the most grotesque sort, being “giants in the earth,” the same being “mighty men which were of old, men of renown,” monsters not only in size but also monsters in demonic wickedness, and they always, without exception, were disposed to thwart the purposes of YAHWEH (Genesis 6: 1, 2, 4). In the minds of many readers, the first reaction to this passage is such that, in spite of its obvious and clear intent, its incredulity begs for an alternate interpretation. The standard interpretation of the liberals is to think of the fairy tales of antiquity, the legends of ogres and dragons, and the “myths” of the gods consorting with men – and then to dismiss the entire story as legend and superstition, but a careful examination of the passage will elicit a far deeper meaning. Often the biases and presuppositions we bring into a matter prevent our understanding and acceptance of its face value and patent meaning. Modern Christians have often attempted to make this passage in Genesis more palatable intellectually by explaining the “sons of YAHWEH” as Sethites and the “daughters of men” as Cainites, with their union representing the breaking down of the wall of separation between believers and unbelievers. Another interpretation, which avoids the supernaturalistic Biblical implications, is that the phrase “sons of YAHWEH” referred to kings and nobles, in which case the commingling so described is merely an account of royalty marrying commoners. This passage is not the first to be met with a twisted naturalistic attitude as such. The miraculous parting of the deep waters at the Red Sea, in which YAHWEH provided a way of escape for the Israelites fleeing Egypt during the Exodus has been explained by liberals as an event whereby “a shallow swampy flood plain was drained during an unusually low tide accompanied by a particularly strong hot dry desert wind which dried off the land, thus permitting the Israelites to walk on dry ground at the shallow extremity of the Sea of Reeds.” Yet the account in Exodus describes something startlingly different, a miraculous and dramatic division of waters where “the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left” (Exodus 14:21-22). In our present age the “scientifically impossible” is most often rejected outright anyway. In another case, unusually large and powerful animals, referred to as the behemoth and the leviathan, are described in Job 40:15-24 and 41:1- 34, Yahweh’s conversation with a dunderhead. In the past they have been reckoned by Bible commentators to be descriptions of the hippopotamus or whale, yet neither of these creatures even closely fits the careful description of the beasts given in this passage of Scripture. It was only fairly recently realized that the behemoth and leviathan were large land animals, namely dinosaurs. Since the science of dinosaurs in our age is a fairly recent paleontological development, dating back only to the middle of the last century, most of the early writers of which our present commentaries are based had no knowledge of these creatures preserved in the fossil graveyards of the Earth. Had they taken YAHWEH’s word at face value and studied the descriptions of Job more carefully, our knowledge and science of dinosaurs might very well have come at a much earlier time. Even the literal interpretation of the vast longevity of the antediluvians, who lived to such great age of nearly a thousand years instead of being cut off at three score and ten as in our age, is most often brought into question if not rejected outright by some theologians and Bible students. Regarding Genesis 6:1-4, none of the naturalistic interpretations, however, explains why the progeny of such unions would be “giants” or why they would lead to universal corruption and violence. Although Scripture does teach that believers should not wed unbelievers (II Corinthians 6:14; I Corinthians 7:39), there is no intimation that this particular sin is unforgivable or necessarily more productive of general moral deterioration than other sins. Regardless of intellectual difficulties, it is clear that something most remarkable, beyond the normal and natural, is described in Genesis 6:1-4. The first matter of understanding regarding this amazing portion of Scripture beyond its plain contextual intent turns quite obviously to the Hebrew meaning of the phrase “sons of YAHWEH” (bene elohim). In the New Testament, of course, this term is used with reference to all who have been born again through personal faith in Yeshua (John 1:12; Romans 8:14; etc.), and the concept of a spiritual relationship of believers to YAHWEH as analogous to that of children to a father is also found in the Tanakh [Old Testament] (Psalm 73:15; Hosea 1:10; Deuteronomy 32:5; Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 43:6). However, none of these examples use the same phrase as Genesis 6:2, 4; furthermore, in each case the meaning is not really parallel to the meaning given in Genesis. Neither the descendants of Seth nor true believers of any sort have been previously referred to in Genesis as sons of YAHWEH in any kind of spiritual sense and, except for Adam himself; they could not have been sons of YAHWEH in a physical sense. In context, such a meaning would be strained, to say the least, in the absence of any kind of explanation. When we are told that “men” began to multiply on the face of the earth, and that the sons of YAHWEH saw the daughters of “men,” in each case the human race is clearly signified, in other words the descendants of Cain and Seth alike. Hence the “sons of YAHWEH” are plainly distinguished from the generations of Adam. The only obvious and natural meaning without such clarification is that these beings were sons of YAHWEH, rather than of men, because they have been created, not born. Such a description, of course, would apply only to Adam (Luke 3:38) and to the angels, whom YAHWEH had directly created (Psalm 148:2, 5: Psalm 104:4; Colossians 1:16). The actual expression “sons of YAHWEH,” bene elohim, occurs explicitly three other times, all in the very ancient book of Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7), and in each case the term refers indisputably to angelic beings. These are the beings that, apparently, were created sometime during the first half of the creation week, probably on the first day (Genesis 2:1; Job 38:4-7; Luke 2:13). Twice in the beginning of the book of Job we read of the sons of YAHWEH presenting themselves before Him at stated times, and Satan also comes with them as being himself a son of YAHWEH, though a disobedient, fallen, and rebellious one. In Job 38:7 the morning stars are represented as singing together, and the sons of YAHWEH as shouting for joy, over the creation of our earth. There are, as well, implicit references to these sons of YAHWEH in a number of other passages. There is no doubt that, in these passages, the meaning also applies exclusively to the angels. A very similar form “bar elohim” is used in Daniel 3:25, and refers either to an angel or to a theophany. The term “sons of the mighty” (bene elim) is used in Psalm 29:1 and also Psalm 89:6, and again refers to angels. The sons of Elohim the mighty Creator are confined to those creatures made directly by the Divine hand, and not born of other beings of their own order. Hence, in Luke’s genealogy of Yeshua, Adam is called a son of YAHWEH (Luke 3:38), and, so also Yeshua is said to give to them that receive Him power to become the sons of YAHWEH (John 1:12). For these are born again of the Spirit of YAHWEH as to their inner man even in the present life. This is only possible with man since he is delivered from the penalty of death and brought into newness of life through a substitutionary atonement, unlike the angels which, on the other hand, have been fixed in their position as angels of grace, or damnation, the latter hopelessly lost in their state of perdition. At the resurrection those of mankind who are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, who is Yeshua, will in their glorified physical bodies, be clothed with a spiritual body, a building of YAHWEH (II Corinthians 5:1); so that they will then be in every respect equal to the angels, being altogether a new creation (Luke 20:36). Thus, all reasonable doubt insofar as the context, language, and plain exegesis of Genesis 6:1-4 is concerned, is removed regarding the intent of the writer to convey the concept of angels, fallen angels no doubt, acting in opposition to YAHWEH’s will. This also was the meaning placed on the passage by the Greek translators of the Septuagint, by Josephus, by the writer of the ancient apocryphal book of Enoch, and by all the other ancient Jewish interpreters and the earliest Christian writers. It is apparent that the first Christian writers to depart from this understanding and suggest the Sethite interpretation were Chrysostom and Augustine. Even an appeal to some of the later “church fathers,” who abandoned the orthodox view of Genesis 6:1-4 because it is “refuted by its own absurdity” must themselves then answer their own patient frivolity of contending that the “giants” were merely individuals of the same race who were “slightly larger and stronger, and more evil,” than the rest of the people. By the same token they must also answer why the world at Noach’s time was “divided” into Sethites and Cainites, which in reality we know it was not. Furthermore, those who would interject the Christian Church into the Old Testament economy to justify the “sons of YAHWEH” as being simply believers, thus mortal men, distracts the issue from one of a direct Biblical exegesis to other grounds which are much the obscure, if not outright fallacious. These men, in spite of their greatness in doctrine and theory, were still humanly fallible and capable of missing important elements of Biblical truth in their doctrines. In our own time this opposing view has been widely propagated by C. I. Scofield in the notes of his famous reference Bible. To apply the term “sons of YAHWEH” as such to mere men is to stretch the matter beyond a reasonable limit, for it can only refer to those fallen sons of YAHWEH involved in a second and deeper apostasy of those fallen ones from on high, the Watchers. Only a portion of the angels who originally fell with Lucifer committed this atrocity. These chose to leave their own world and, having broken through YAHWEH’s limits into another, to go after “strange flesh” (Jude 6, 7) and to exercise an unlawful influence over the human race. These more devious rebels in particular are no longer found among the spirits of darkness, which now haunt the air. They no longer retain their position as principalities and powers of the world, or even their liberty; but may be identified with the imprisoned criminals of whom Peter tells us that, after they had sinned, YAHWEH dashed them down at once to His lowest dungeons as an instant punishment of their impious outrage, and to deprive them forever of the power of producing further confusion of this particular sort. “YAHWEH spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to Hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” (II Peter 2:4). Jude 6 also mentions their present condition in similar terms, and the context of either passage indicates with sufficient clarity the nature of their sin. The demon- possessed men with twisted DNA and their progeny, along with all the other godless inhabitants of the antediluvian world perished in the waters of the Flood. These waters are now the waters of the present day vast oceans. It is apparent that those former inhabitants are referred to in connection with the final judgment when “the sea gave up the dead, who were in it” (Revelation 20:13). Since all who thus sinned were imprisoned in hell (II Peter 2:4; Jude 6) and, as it is evident, are probably “the spirits in prison which once were disobedient when the long suffering of YAHWEH waited in the days of Noach” (I Peter 3:19, 20), and to whom Yeshua went in the Spirit after His death to proclaim His ultimate victory over their evil purposes. There are, although, yet other fallen angels who were not bound, who still remain at large (Ephesians 6:12). That angels have appeared to men in bodies of such a nature that they could not only be seen but even touched as the selfsame Scripture declares, rumors have persisted over the millennia that, as well, certain demons continue to attempt and effect the ancient crime. That such has been so generally affirmed it would be impudent to deny it. That Paul had such thought in his mind when he bade the woman to worship with covered head “on account of the angels” (I Corinthians 11:10) is, to say the least, within the limits of possibility. We ourselves, being distanced in time from the ancients or of Paul who were much closer to the origins of these traditions and who still retained a fresh historical memory of these events, tend to find them incredible in our own time. Perhaps the most common of objections to the obvious meaning of the “sons of YAHWEH” as representing angels, apart from the supernaturalistic overtones, is, for those who do not reject the idea of angels, that it would be impossible for angels to have sexual relations with human women and to father children by them, because they are “strictly spiritual beings” who, unlike humans, “have no form.” However, this objection presupposes more about angelic abilities than we know. Whenever angels have appeared visibly to men, as recorded on numerous occasions in the Bible, they have appeared in the physical bodies of men. Those who met with Abraham, for example, could not only be touched but they actually dined with him (Genesis 18:8) and, later, appeared to the inhabitants of Sodom in such perfectly manlike form that the Sodomites attempted to take these “men” for homosexual purposes. The writer of Hebrews also makes a pointed comment that, on various occasions, some “have entertained angels unawares” (Hebrews 13:2). The Lord Yeshua indeed said, “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of YAHWEH in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). However, this is not equivalent to saying that angels are “sexless,” since people who share in the resurrection will surely retain their own personal identity whether male or female. It should be remembered that Yeshua Himself, even though in a glorified state after His resurrection, was still recognizable to His disciples, and others, in His masculine gender. Furthermore, angels are always described, when they appear, as “men,” and the pronoun “he” is always used in reference to them. Thus angels have the power to assume human form in the fullest sense, although the Holy angels never opted to exploit this power to their own advantage, as did the demons. When Yeshua said that the angels of YAHWEH in heaven do not marry, this does not necessarily mean that those who have been cast out of heaven were incapable of doing so, or committing some form of sexual act. It clearly was not of YAHWEH’s design or intention that angels mix in such a way with human women, but these wicked angels were not concerned with obedience to YAHWEH’s will. It was probably precisely for the purpose of attempting to thwart YAHWEH’s will that this particular battalion of the “sons of YAHWEH” engaged in this illegal invasion of the bodies of the daughters of men. The activities of these fallen angels was not only a patient counterfeit of the unique conception by the Holy Spirit, Who through the virgin Mary gave birth to the YAHWEH-man Yeshua, but an attempt in desperation to fatally pollute the human race, and in particular those people through whom the promised Seed was to come, and thus to destroy that Seed. By a profound principle of genetic science, discovered only recently, the blood line, or type, is determined through the male, or father, and thus the blood of Yeshua was technically, and truly, not tainted by the curse of Adam as it is in the rest of humanity, since Yeshua did not have an earthly father. The same sinless blood was poured out at Calvary for all whom are redeemed in Yeshua. No other death could have accomplished the substitutionary atonement and the propitiation of His righteousness unto us. In the same principle, but in a design, which was diametrically opposed to the purpose of YAHWEH and in almost inconceivable malignity, Satan through his cohorts began to infest humanity with hybrid offspring of an appalling characteristic, bearing cursed blood. This heinous deed by the fallen league thus becomes all the more diabolical. Satan had not forgotten YAHWEH’s prophesy that a promised Seed of the woman would one day destroy him. He had planted his own spiritual seed in Cain and his descendants, but YAHWEH had preserved the line of the true seed through Seth. When Noach was born and Lamech was led to prophesy that “comfort” concerning the Curse would come through him (Genesis 5:29), Satan and his angels must have reckoned that their opportunities for victory in this cosmic conflict were in jeopardy. Desiring, if possible, to completely corrupt mankind before the promised Seed could accomplish Satan’s defeat, it is evident that they opted to utilize the marvelous power of procreation, which YAHWEH had authorized and given only to the human family, and to exert their own power to corrupt it to their own illicit advantage. In the days of Noach, men were rapidly multiplying on the Earth, and by implanting their own “seed’ in humanity, these malignant beings might be able to enlist in only one generation a vast multitude as allies against YAHWEH. It was an ingenious way to effectively contaminate and make filthy the entire human race so that YAHWEH’s seed, Messiah, could not come to offer eternal salvation. So these “sons of YAHWEH” saw the daughters of men and “took them wives (or, literally ‘women’) of all which they chose.” With the demoniacal ungodliness of the antediluvians in general, coupled with the irruption of the Serpent’s seed directly into large numbers of the human race, and then with the thrusting forth of hordes of the monstrous offspring of these unlawful unions, conditions in the world became finally intolerable even to a YAHWEH of compassion and long-suffering. Thus, such a scenario made the necessity of the catastrophic judgment of the Flood all the more sensible and necessary. Another objection to the bene elohim, or sons of YAHWEH, actually being angels is the contextual assumption that they actually have male reproductive systems, which leads to the even graver question of the nature of the progeny that would result from their sexual intercourse with human women. Fallen angels have no possibility of salvation, but fallen men and women do have at least this possibility. What, then, would be the case with “people” who were half-angel, half-men? It is a situation that is so grotesque that it would seem extremely doubtful that YAHWEH would have allowed it to happen at all, even if it were physiologically a realistic possibility. Yet, as already indicated, it would do violence to the actual text of the passage if we were to make it merely mean that the sons of Seth began to marry the daughters of Cain. If this were the meaning, why did not the writer simply say so, and thus avoid all the confusion? Furthermore, why the Giants, and why the universal violence? The sons of Seth were surely not all godly men; so why should they be called sons of YAHWEH? It should be remembered that they all perished in the flood. Adam had many sons in addition to Cain and Seth; were they spiritual “sons of YAHWEH” too? Not very likely, at this period of history. Furthermore, why stress only the union of godly men with ungodly women? What about the “daughters of YAHWEH”? Were they being married to “sons of men”? The naturalistic interpretation is so forced and awkward that it seems to do disservice to the doctrine of Divine inspiration to suppose that this is what the writer meant to say. He surely meant to convey to his readers the idea that, in those days of Noach, such an awful irruption of abnormality and wickedness burst forth on the Earth that it could only be explained by a demoniacally supernatural cause. The apparent dilemma of the theologically paradoxical and grotesque nature of the progeny of such unions is resolved when one realizes that these children, even though true human children of truly human fathers and mothers, were all possessed and controlled by evil spirits. That is, these fallen angelic “sons of YAHWEH” accomplished their purposes by something equivalent to demon possession, indwelling, or taking on, the bodies of human men, and then also taking, or “possessing” the bodies of the women as well. The men whose bodies they possessed were evidently thereby made so attractive to the careless and rebellious women of the age that they could take over and use any of the women they chose. The seductive beauty of the women, probably enhanced by various artificial cosmetics and allurements developed by that time, was itself sufficient to induce men to constant obsession with sex, assuring a maximum rapidity of multiplication of the population. Thus, the “sons of YAHWEH” controlled not only the men whose bodies they had acquired for their own exploitation, but also the women they took to themselves in this way, and then all the children they bore – veritable children of the damned. I Kings 22:19-23 and Psalm 82:1-8 sheds some light on the fate of these progeny in that unlike their demonic progenitors they die an earthly death. The “sons of YAHWEH,” et al., were warned that if they proceed with the evil which YAHWEH condemns, and withhold their powers on behalf of the needy and afflicted, they shall “die like Adam (men), and fall like one of the princes.” Now if the children of Adam were the persons addressed, it would be superfluous to warn them as such, for their death would be a matter of course; hence it is quite evident, again, that these are “sons of Elohim,” and not of Adam. The fearful phenomenon of demonic “taking” and “habitation” of human bodies has often been repeated since, though apparently never yet on the global scale, which Satan attempted in the days of Noach. Many such cases of demon possession are noted in the New Testament, and missionaries still testify to its common occurrence in heathen lands today. The association of extreme violence with demon possession is well noted in Mark 5:13 and Acts 19:13-16. Even in modern “Christian lands” where the influence of the Gospel has until recently kept it to a minimum, this form of satanic activity is evidently rapidly increasing. Spiritism, witchcraft, and other forms of occult belief and practice – even Satanism itself – are captivating the minds and bodies of multitudes today, especially among young people through TV, the Internet, video games, Rock music, drugs and Hollywood movies. A closely related phenomenon is the tremendous recent upsurge of interest in the “host of heaven” – in terms of astrology, the so-called “chariots of the gods” and “gods from outer space,” the various unidentified flying objects, and their strange occupants. Although scientists have pointed out many fallacious assumptions and interpretation involved in these, there remains a stubborn residuum of scientifically inexplicable yet apparently well-verified phenomena attached to these highly unusual types of data, including the more recent “alien abduction” phenomenon. All of this should be a reminder to us that there does indeed exist “principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of this world, spiritual wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12) and that Satan is the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2). Evil angels as well as YAHWEH’s unfallen Holy angels, apparently on certain occasions have the ability both to appear in material forms of various sorts (even as “ministers of righteousness” – II Corinthians 11:15) and also to inhabit and control the bodies of human beings. Furthermore Yeshua warned that, in the last days, “fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven” (Luke 21:11). It may be that this particular feature of the days of Noach is beginning to be repeated in the modern proliferation of this great complex of unexplained and spiritually intimidating occult phenomena, the purpose of which appears to be to gain direct Satanic control over the minds and bodies of hosts of human beings before Yeshua returns. The children of the unlawful connections before the Flood, as recorded by Moses in Genesis 6:4, who became the “mighty men which were of old, men of renown” no doubt gave rise to the countless legends of the loves of the gods; and no doubt the subsequent repetition of the crime after the Flood reinforced these ancient traditions of men. These explain the numerous passages in the Classics, as well as in the ancient literature of other languages, in which human families are traced to a half divine origin. Doubtless many of the mighty labors accomplished by the earlier descendants of Noach, such as the pyramids of Gaza, may be considered to have sprung from reminiscences of pristine grandeur, and fragments of lore, handed down by forebears who had lived a portion of their existence in the previous age. Thus reams of mythology have been generated, which is taught in public schools to this very day. Now mythology enshrines the remembrance by man of the earliest acting’s and teachings of these fallen Watcher angels and their hybrid offspring of super human vitality. Such had come from the heaven and became gods and they were worshipped as such. They had imparted “life” to humans; they had performed spectacular miracles, and revealed great truths, never before imagined. They had returned to the stars according to Satan’s delusion but not before they left a promise to come again! Such are the themes of so many stories and beliefs around the world that the masterful counterfeit of Biblical truth is startling. The Biblical account of the doom of these grotesque creatures in hell as recorded in II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 is closely paralleled in the Greek classics where Tartarus was a dark abode of woe, as far beneath Hades as Earth is below Heaven (Hom. I1. viii. 16), a description which fairly corresponds to Peter’s “pits of darkness.” Very significant, too, is the fact that it was thought to be the prison where Zeus hurled Chronos and the rebel Titans. The mythology of the past is a startling disclosure, albeit twisted, of the uncontrolled behavior of both spirit beings and rebellious man. The Almighty had to destroy the ancient world because it had become completely unsalvageable. One of the most amazing facts revealed by paleontology (the study of fossilized remains of creatures which inhabited the Earth in bygone ages) are that nearly all of the modern animals having larger ancient counterparts. Among these have been found fossils of mammoths, large bears, giant insects, sea creatures, and huge reptiles like the dinosaurs. Along with these are occasionally found giant human footprints, suggesting that indeed, “there were giants in the earth in those days.” Not only in the Bible, but also in numerous other ancient books, are preserved traditions of giants. With such a uniform testimony from ancient tradition, and with paleontological evidence as well, it is a superficial sophistication, which ignores the possibility that these data may contain primitive reflections of the real events and characters described historically in the Genesis record. As to why children born of demon-controlled parents should grow into giants, a reasonable supposition can be made. The modern science of genetics has shown that there are two basic causes of variations in physical characteristics among men, namely mutations and recombinations. In the genetic system a tremendous number of factors for different characteristics exist. Some are dominant in a particular population and some are latent or recessive. These can be “recombined” in various ways to allow for an almost unlimited variation in physical features. Recombinant DNA is the goal of this research with Transhumanism as the goal. Mutations can introduce new features formerly not present through a response to external influences whose energies effect random changes in the genetic system. It is now known that such features can be brought about by design in the case of controlled manipulation of the genes by breeders understanding enough about the genetic process to do so. Today geneticists appear to be on the verge of breakthroughs in “genetic engineering” which would permit them to accomplish such things on a practical basis, including cloning, hybrids and gigantism. Given the supernatural powers of angels (and demons) such a possibility in Noach’s time is not only credible, but it is all the more likely. With their power over the minds and bodies of antediluvian parents, through these secrets, the evil league of the “sons of YAHWEH” could then by some genetic manipulation, cause their progeny to become a race of monsters. Although our text in Genesis 6:1-4 also includes an assertion of a secondary outbreak of demonic hybridization after the Deluge, this episode was not of the magnitude and scale of the first but nevertheless equally as diabolical. As we read that there were giants “also after that,” it is to be remembered that when we come to the days of the Canaanites in the Biblical account we find encounters with giants in the land when the Israelites arrived there. When they beheld these people in the new land they felt, as it seemed to themselves, like mere grasshoppers in comparison. This agrees with a passage in Numbers, which mentions the sons of Anak who are said to have been known as, among other things, the Nephilim, or of the Nephilim (Numbers 13:32-33). Even though the English rendition of the word is “giants” the Hebrew form meant “the fallen ones,” hence the fallen angels. The term later transferred to their offspring. The Greek rendering signifies “earth born” and was used of the Titans, or sons of heaven and earth – Coelis and Terra. Humanly speaking, the Nephilim in Canaan were descended from Anak, and so were also known as the Anakim. The Anakim as well as the Emim, Rephaim, and Zamzummim were all a race of giants existing in Canaan at the time of Israel’s arrival, Among them were warriors of exceeding stature, including Ishbi-Benob (II Samuel 21:16), Og (Numbers 21:33; Deuteronomy 3:11); and the famous ten-foot-plus Goliath, a great champion of Gath who defied the Israelites and who was slain by David (I Samuel 17:21-29). The Nephilim, Goliath was probably descended from the old Rephaim of whom a scattered remnant took refuge with the Philistines after their dispersion by the Ammonites (Deuteronomy 2:20, 21; II Samuel 21:22). Tradition has it that by David’s time there were only five great warrior “kings” left in the land, represented by the five stones in David’s satchel, one of which he used to slay Goliath, while the other four stones were marked for the other remaining giants slated to be destroyed (II Samuel 21:15-22). After the time of David, the Philistines were no longer a reckonable adversary and a threat to Israel. From then on the nation of Israel was beset with different problems. Interesting enough, that these beings were real and not an impossible phenomenon is confirmed by the discovery by archeologists in Palestine of human skeletons of similar stature and of roughly the same period. These people were, of course, known to Moses and it was probably he who editorially inserted the phrase “and also after that” into Noach’s original record here in Genesis 6:4. Moses probably also inserted the information that these were the “mighty men of old, men of renown,” men whose exploits of strength and violence had made them famous in song and fable in all nations in the ages following the Flood. To rebellious men of later times, they were revered as great heroes, hence the heroes of mythology who have their basis in historical fact; but in YAHWEH’s sight they were merely supra-ungodly men of violence and evil. Before the foundation of the world YAHWEH had ordained a particular people of the human race to bear the special oracles and testimony of Divine revelation. He also chose these people to be the bearers of the Chiefest of YAHWEH’s manifestation, Yeshua, who would come to redeem a people of His own from the bondage of Satan and his kingdom. It was in the land of Canaan, the crossroads of three continents, into which YAHWEH had led his people out of Egypt to dwell and to establish a theocracy from which the entire world would be blessed. At the time of the arrival of the Israelites into this specially “promised” land after 40 years of wilderness wanderings they found it to be already inhabited. It was these indigenous inhabitants who proved to be great adversaries to the people of YAHWEH. They, of course, included the Philistines, after whom the land was later called Palestine by the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, hence the current rival faction of the Palestinians often heard about in the news media today in association with the continued conflict in Israel. The ancient Philistines should be of interest to the student of the Bible in terms of understanding why YAHWEH was so “harsh” in dealing with them. Satan himself was behind the circumstances of the Canaanites and the certain jeopardy into which they placed the Israelites. Already well known was Satan’s agenda to bring the entire human race to ruin. YAHWEH’s particular people were targeted above all other peoples because of their unique mission. All of this makes it all the more obvious why a “cleansing” of the land was necessary when Israel arrived. In spite of YAHWEH’s command to do so, the Israelites did not utterly and completely drive the Canaanites from the land (Judges 1:28; 3:5-7). The small residue of these people that was allowed to continue in the land was sufficient to inflict a considerable degree of tragedy upon the people of Israel. Nevertheless by the providential superintendence of YAHWEH the messianic line was preserved. It is impossible to imagine what our world would be like today otherwise. When the Israelites first arrived in the Promised Land they thus encountered the Nephilim, that progeny of the second recorded outbreak of demonic conceptions. In reality the population of the land was literally infested with these strange beings and their families, and as if by higher design they were “pre-planted” there, in place, waiting for the arrival of the Israelites in order that they might be a vexation to them. In consideration of the promised Seed who was to come out of the Israelites the ominous presence of the Nephilim makes all the more sense, and all the more strategic, as well, that the Israelites obey fully the command of YAHWEH that the whole race of the Canaanites be totally extirpated. Some of the accounts of their destruction at the hands of the Israelite warriors are most graphic. One specific account illustrating the means whereby the Israelites were to carry out YAHWEH’s mandate is found in I Samuel 15:3: “Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Such descriptions of wholesale slaughter from, of all things, the Holy Bible, often breach the sensitivities of the reader, if not his very sensibilities. Even some of our learned expositors literally stumble in the pulpit as they dare give even a brief treatment for this verse of abject carnage, and it is usually delivered in a timid and almost apologizing manner, lest there be in the congregation before him a tender footed believer who might stumble at the hearing of this “harsh posture and great atrocity” on behalf of our benevolent and loving YAHWEH. Often nothing more is said than “well uh, we may not understand all of these things, but we can rest assured that God is still a just God in spite of this, and uh…” Hence the matter is usually left at that with no one really grasping the deep significance of the passage. Indeed it is true that YAHWEH, of a certainty, is consistent in His righteous integrity, judgment, and loving kindness. Yet, when the hideous and treacherous nature of the Canaanites is truly comprehended then the purpose in the movement of YAHWEH and His people against these enemies, and the wholesale destruction of the same, then all of this takes on a whole new meaning, significance, and justification. The utterly ungodly identity, nature, and purpose of these exceedingly depraved murderous inhabitants become chillingly authentic when their origins and heredity is realized. Just as world conditions in the days before the Flood pre-staged that early catastrophe, so will world conditions in the last days of this age foreshadow a potentially greater catastrophe. In that age there was a tendency to regard YAHWEH as merely the Creator and Benefactor rather than as the covenant YAHWEH of mercy, dealing with transgressors who are appointed to destruction, and finding a ransom for them. Some of the more notable characteristics of that age which will also attend the times prior to the second coming of Yeshua include the following: preoccupation with physical appetites (Luke 17:27), rapid advances in technology (Genesis 4:22), grossly materialistic attitudes and interests (Luke 17:28), uniformitarian philosophies (Hebrews 11:7), inordinate devotion to pleasure and comfort (Genesis 4:21), no concern for YAHWEH in either belief or conduct (II Peter 2:5), an undue prominence of the female sex as vanity realized , and a disregard for the primacy of the marriage relation (Matthew 24:38), rejection of the inspired Word of YAHWEH (I Peter 3:20), population explosion (Genesis 6:1,11), widespread violence (Genesis 6:11,13), corruption throughout society (Genesis 6:12), preoccupation with illicit sexual activity (Genesis 4:19; 6:2), widespread words and thoughts of blasphemy (Jude 15), organized occultic and Satanic activity (Genesis 6:1-4), promulgation of systems and movements of abnormal depravity (Genesis 6:5,12), and a preponderance of extraterrestrial or trans-dimensional demonic intervention (Genesis 6:2; I Timothy 4:1). In the case of the last effect in the previous list, it is apparent that this same basic activity of demon possession is occurring again, today, “as it was in the days of Noe,” but in a somewhat varied form under the guise of “UFO’s and aliens from another world” who are abducting humans and conducting genetic hybridization experiments on them against their will, in a godless deception perfectly tailored to our modern technological age. The interest and popularity of the UFO-alien enigma has become so great in the last few years that television, radio, and the printed media are rife with features about these occurrences. The whole affair is very real but, in reality, it is not what it is purported to be and is not what most people think it is. This modified variety of demonic intervention, and possession, is nothing more than a deceptive attempt by demonic advocates of a fallen angelic order to supplant the body, soul, and spirit of man as a dwelling place of YAHWEH and to pervert and turn man against YAHWEH, thus doing Satan’s “dirty work” for him, in overturning YAHWEH’s created order on Earth. The solemn fact is that the essential doctrines of the old pagan philosophers are even now subtly and widely permeating the western world, in spite of its education and scientific progress, and are captivating multitudes who would boast of intellectual superiority to the “poor heathen.” For even some who would call themselves Christian today the Scriptures say “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” (I Timothy 4:1). Now that much of mankind is laced with drugs, the occult, and the “new age-new world order” deception, the human race is ripe for the greatest conspiracy and deception of all time, a great “public disclosure,” perfectly fitted to our time, that “we have made contact” and are being visited by “aliens from outer space.” Many who claim to have had encounters with UFO’s have reported that these objects seem to be more alive and intelligent than just mechanical craft. Given that our atmosphere is literally swarming with advocates of “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2; 6:12) it should come as no surprise that there might be an occasional visible manifestation of such a presence. The fallen angels have shadowed humanity ever since Satan deceived our first parents in Eden. Meanwhile YAHWEH’s Holy angels, in even greater numbers, continue as ministering spirits on behalf of YAHWEH’s people (Hebrews 1:14), and signal the ultimate victory over evil.

Even though the so-called “extraterrestrials” may appear as “benevolent brothers” the messages derived from and through them consistently conflict with Biblical Christianity. There is nothing in the UFO phenomenon that leads to belief in the one true YAHWEH. The “visitors” appear to be in tune with what has been known as “New Age” religion, including eastern mysticism, astral projection, and harmonic convergence, and so on. None of these are in harmony with Yeshua. They are more interested in steering us away from the one who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” to fool mankind about Bible prophecy, and even to falsify His coming in the very era of Yeshua’s return. All of this can be nothing else than preparation for, and necessary to, the events surrounding the rise of Anti-Yeshua. According to a recent survey of several hundred people, who claimed to have been abducted by aliens, there were no true Bible believing Christians found among the interviewees. Thus, we find another “red-flag” indicator that this phenomenon is decidedly demonic. Dear reader, are you a born again Christian? One of Yeshua’s great comforts to the believer is the Biblical declaration that “…greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.” -I John 4:4 All of these conditions prevailed in the days of Noach and they are all now increasingly evident today. There is good reason, therefore, to believe that these present times are those, which immediately precede the return of the Lord Yeshua. The judgment in Noach’s time presaged the personal advent of Yeshua in judgment at the end time. Now if we receive the word of YAHWEH “with all readiness of mind,” and “search the scriptures daily” to see “whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11), not “adding unto the word,” nor “taking away from it” (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19), “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Corinthians 2:13), “knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation,” (II Peter 1:20), and knowing we follow not “cunningly devised fables” (II Peter 1:16), and most of all, realizing that there is a blessing for them that readeth, heareth, and keepeth the word of YAHWEH (John 20:31; Revelation 1:3), then we shall find, as Enoch’s knowledge of YAHWEH’s appearing some five thousand years ago showed him, that the secrets of YAHWEH are ever with them that fear Him.

Portions of this article are excerpted from other articles, including excerpts from one by:
Copyright © 1995 by J. Timothy Unruh Box 1034 Rocklin, California 95677-1034 Item No. 22121995JTU

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article contains some copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, religious and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Additional Related Information:

Consider the following biblical clues, written in modern terminology (The Book, Tyndale House Publishers):

— In Genesis 14:5, we are told the Refaim inhabit the place called Ashtherot- Karnaim. Just ten miles from the Canaanite rings archeological site in Israel is the site of an ancient Canaanite city called Ashtherot. It is named after the Canaanite goddess of war and, contradictorily, the goddess of love. Ashterot was the Canaanite name for Sirius, from which the Hebrew name Esther was derived.

— In Joshua 12:4, we learn that “King Og of Bashan, the last of the Refaim, who lived at Ashtarot… ruled a territory stretching From Mount Hermon in the north…

— In 1 Chronicles 6:71, we are told that the half-tribe of Manasseh later inhabited “Golan,” in Bashan.

— The most explicit description of the size of the people of Bashan is found in Deuteronomy 3. King Og is attacked and defeated. “King Og of Bashan was the last of the great Rephaim. His iron bedstead is kept at Rabbah… and measures thirteen and a half feet long and six feet wide.” In the same chapter we are informed, “The Sidonians called Mount Hermon, ‘Sirion.'”

— In Deuteronomy, we are told that the Refaim “were a large and powerful tribe, as tall as the Anakim (giants).”

— In Chronicles 20, the last of the Anakim is killed. “A giant with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, whose father was also a giant, was killed by David’s nephew Jonathan. These giants were descendants of the giants of Gath and were killed by David and his soldiers.”

The respected Jerusalem biblical author, Rabbi Yisrael Herczeg, hardly an advocate of ancient alien theories, nonetheless confirms the possibility that giant heavenly beings or their descendants could have constructed the circles.

“The Jewish oral tradition says Og, the King of Bashan, stowed away on Noach’s ark and was the only survivor of the flood outside Noach’s family. Og was descended from the Nephilim, deities who fell from the heavens.”


“No, more like fallen angels. Og had children with Noach’s daughters and they were hybrid giants called the Anakim or Refaim. They existed in ancient times and the Bible records their presence in the Golan Heights. They could have built Gilgal Refaim.” 12/97 (news article)

Walking on the road to Emmaus, Rav James and Erlene Talbott

Yeshua HaTikvah Israel Ministry


Death Religions


Mexicans Worship Mictlantecuhtli, god of death and Sante Muerte, the white death

Why murder anyone or kill yourself as an act of faith?

The religions of the world take many forms, both positive and negative, and the studies of these beliefs have fascinated researchers for millennia. Oceans of ink have been expended in these written tomes and knowledge has increased, but wisdom had still fled and remains in hiding today. Humankind still persists in worshiping weird and false gods.

All religions including Christianity revere death with a positive spin, regarding an afterlife as a positive goal of this life, which is achieved by conscious acts committed in the name of, or ordered by, the religions founder. The difference, however, is the pursuit of the death of others through murders committed in this life as a goal of faith to be sought after, which results in the blessings of the diety worshipped are then cast upon the faithful follower who kills others in the name of the god or idol. This article will follow a study of the second premise stated above that is now so prevalent on planet earth as the worship of death. Adherents of death cults now comprise a large percentage of religions today as evidenced by the many news stories and an increasing barbarous body count of the innocent throughout the nations.

During World War II, the Japanese Empire’s religion targeted American military forces for suicide bombers to attack, primarily as an act of faith in their religion of dead ancestor worship. Now, the worlds largest and longest-lived (1,400 years or so) murder cult of Islam expands religious murder to include ALL of humanity, including themselves, as murder victims in order to show humanity the superiority of their Mesopotamian moon god, Allah (Strong’s H#421-423, the CURSE). This study will name and examine a sample of the plethora of old and new death religions now in the world and their destructive belief systems that result in oceans of innocent blood shed by the insane and cannibalistic adherents to these murderous beliefs.

Deities associated with death take many different forms, depending on the specific culture and religion being referenced. Psychopomps along with birth, is among the major parts of human life, these deities may often be one of the most important deities of a religion. In some religions with a single powerful deity as the source of worship, the death deity is an antagonistic deity against which the primary deity struggles. The related term death worship has most often been used as a derogatory term to accuse certain groups of morally abhorrent practices which set no value on human life, or which seem to glorify death as something positive in itself.

In polytheistic religions or mythologies, which have a complex system of deities governing various natural phenomena and aspects of human life, it is common to have a deity who is assigned the function of presiding over death. The inclusion of such a “departmental” deity of death in a religion’s pantheon is not necessarily the same thing as the glorification of death, which is commonly condemned by the use of the term “death-worship” in modern political rhetoric.

In the theology of monotheistic religion, the one god governs both life and death. However in practice this manifests in different rituals and traditions and varies according to a number of factors including geography, politics, traditions and the influence of other religions.

1. Mexico’s SAINT DEATH

Santa Muerte (Spanish for Saint Death) is a female folk saint venerated primarily in Mexico and the United States. A personification of death, she is associated with healing, protection, and safe delivery to the afterlife by her devotees. Not sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church, her cult arose from popular Mexican folk belief, a syncretism between indigenous Mesoamerican and Spanish Catholic beliefs and practices. Since the pre-Columbian era Mexican culture has maintained a certain reverence towards death, which can be seen in the widespread commemoration of the syncretic Day of the Dead. Elements of that celebration include the use of skeletons to remind people of their mortality. The worship is condemned by the Catholic Church in Mexico as invalid to Mexican Catholics, but it is firmly entrenched among Mexico’s lower working classes and various elements of society deemed as “outcasts”. Deities of the underworld, and resurrection deities are commonly called death deities in comparative religions texts. The term colloquially refers to deities that either collect or rule over the dead, rather than those deities who determine the time of death. However, all these types will be included in this article.

Many have incorporated a god of death into their mythology or religion. As death, Since 2001, there has been a “meteoric growth” in the size of the Santa Muerte cult, largely due to her reputation for allegedly performing miracles. Worship has been made up of roughly two million adherents, mostly in Mexico State, Guerrero, Veracruz, Tamaulipas, Campeche, Morelos, and Mexico City, with a recent spread to Nuevo Leon. In the late 2000s, the founder of Mexico City’s first Santa Muerte church, David Romo, estimated that there were around 5 million devotees in Mexico, constituting approximately 5% of the country’s population; Chesnut accepted this as a plausible figure. Chesnut noted that by this time Santa Muerte had become Mexico’s second-most popular saint, after Saint Jude, and had come to rival the country’s “national patroness”, the Virgin of Guadalupe. The cult’s rise was controversial, and in March 2009 the Mexican army demolished 40 roadside shrines near the U.S. border. Circa 2005, Mexican and Central American migrants brought the Santa Muerte cult to the United States, and by 2012 had tens of thousands of followers throughout the country, primarily in cities with high Latino populations. In the Mexican and U.S. press, the Santa Muerte cult is often associated with violence, criminality, and the illegal drug trade. She is a popular deity in prisons, both among inmates and staff, and shrines dedicated to her can be found in many cells. The majority of believers are poor people who are not necessarily criminals, but the public belief in her by several drug traffickers and small numbers of other petty criminals has indirectly associated her with crime, especially low-level organized crime. In Mexico, authorities have linked the worship of Santa Muerte to prostitution, drug trafficking, kidnapping, smuggling, and homicides. Criminals, among her most fervent believers, are likely to pray to her for successful completion of a job as well as escaping from the police or jail. In the north of Mexico, she is venerated along with Jesus Malverde, the so-called “Saint of Drug Traffickers”. Altars with images of Santa Muerte have been found in many drug houses in both Mexico and the United States. Among two of Santa Muerte’s more famous devotees are kidnapper Daniel Arizmendi Lopez, known as El Mochaorejas, and Gilberto Garcia Mena, one of the bosses of the Gulf Cartel. On Friday, 30 March 2012, the Sonora State Investigative Police announced that they had arrested eight people for murder for allegedly having performed a human sacrifice of a woman and two ten year old boys to Santa Muerte.

The Holy Death sect is gaining followers in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico’s murder capital, where rival drug cartels have been battling for every inch of turf, according to Fox News’ Latino News.

Three Holy Death churches have opened in the past two years in the border city, drawing hundreds of people to pray and make offerings to the “White Girl,” a skeletal image dressed in women’s clothing. The Catholic Church does not sanction her worship.

She is called Santa Muerte or “Holy Death.” A federal marshal says shrines to the skeletal “Holy Death” are a growing presence, not just along the U.S.-Mexico border but also throughout the United States.

“Based on my experience, it appears she is the most popular icon being used by the drug traffickers, criminals not just in Mexico and not just along the Southwest border area but throughout the entire United States,” U.S. Marshal Robert R. Almonte of El Paso told the Laredo Morning Times for a story in Sunday’s editions.

She is also called ”La Flaquita” or “the skinny little girl” and has become increasingly visible in Laredo, Texas, just across the Rio Grande from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
The sect’s roots can be traced to 1795, according to different researchers, when Indians began worshipping a skeleton they called the Holy Death in a town in central Mexico, and there are accounts that say the religion remained underground for two centuries.

Experts, however, agree that the sect has experienced explosive growth since the economic meltdown of 1995, when worship of the Holy Death moved from home altars into the streets, with the deity gaining a presence in processions and festivals that draw hundreds of people.

Drug traffickers and even residents of some sections of the border city battered by drug-related violence ask the Holy Death for protection, sometimes putting up chapels where alms, tequila, cigars, candy and other offerings can be left.

Almonte said he has heard reports from Mexico of people killing their victims as an offering to Santa Muerte, as the Aztecs did and as Islam does today.

2. Islam: Religion of Life or Religion of Death Introduction

“The pen is silent, powerless and confused when facing the magnificence and power of he who commits suicide for Allah, the pen is powerless faced with your ability and strength, the pen trembles faced with your courage and toughness, the pen is silent to the sound of your voice which blends with the music of the belief and struggle, the pen bows its head in submission faced with your sublimeness. Oh, he who commits suicide for Allah, we do not know if to grieve for your departure… or to rejoice because you have obtained the honor of dying following the path of Allah, and the Lord knows (the reward of the suicide bomber) from the determined mother who receives her son who has committed suicide, weltering in his holy blood, at times with blessings and words of praise and at times with howls and cries. A thousand blessings and a thousand blessings of mercy for your pure spirit hovering in the skies of Palestine, which rose to the high skies… your name will be engraved in the heart and in the memory, and we swear to continue the path of Jihad (holy war) on which you marched.” QUOTE, praise to a suicide bomber for “Allah”

Suicide is against Islam. Martyrdom as a suicide killer is not.
“Suicide bomber” is a derogatory term invented in the West to try and describe what in Islam is known as a Fedayeen or Shahid – a martyr. The point of the bomber isn’t suicide – it is to kill infidels in battle. This is not just permitted by Muhammad, but encouraged with liberal promises of earthy rewards in heaven, including food and sex.

There have been such martyrs in Islam almost from the founding of the religion. Whereas Christian and Jewish martyrs without exception passively accepted death for their faith, most Muslim martyrs have given up their lives fighting as combatants in the holy war. Even Sufis, members of the mystical fraternities in Islam, have embarked on jihad as individuals and groups. The warrior monk is a common figure in pre-modern Islam, and jihad scholar Michael Bonner has drawn attention to the important role played in war by religious leaders and scholars as preachers and as fighters.

The figure of the martyr as a holy warrior (mujahid) who dies in battle and goes on to reap a heavenly reward above that of ordinary mortals is of central importance in the earliest period of Islam. Its ideal type is the fighter who engages in an action called inghimas, throwing himself recklessly at the enemy, even if he should be one man against a thousand. Doing this was seen as legitimate because the Mujahid was seeking martyrdom and did not need permission from the leader of his army or unit. Its legitimacy, even today, is derived from the fact that Muhammad himself often sent out individual fighters as “military expeditions” in and of themselves. In the modern period, some scholars have argued that there is a close connection between inghimas and suicide bombing: “If, by immersing himself into enemy ranks, a fighter brings about his own death, such self-sacrifice is legally [in terms of Shari’a law] the same as bringing about his own death by his own hand. In this respect there is no legal difference between the direct hand of the self-detonating suicide fighter and the proxy hand of the outnumbered fighter entering the fray alone.” Gibril Haddad, a hard-line Wahhabi sheikh, writes that inghimas “must not be viewed as reckless self-destruction but as the highest valor and courage. More than that, as Abu Ayyub [a companion of Muhammad] indicated with his tafsir [interpretation] of al- Baqara 195 [Qur’an 2:195] before entering the fray at Constantinople and fighting to the death, they viewed inghimas as life itself.”

This again is a clear echo of the Islamist saying that Muslims “love death” whereas non-Muslims love life. This conceit seems to have begun during the great Arab conquests of the seventh century. In 633, just one year after the death of Muhammad, the Muslim general Khalid ibn al-Walid had entered Iraq in the first phase of the conquest of the Iranian Sassanid Empire. Writing to Hormuz, the Persian governor of a frontier district, Dast Maysan, Walid proclaimed: “Submit to Islam and be safe. Or agree to the payment of the jizya [tax], and you and your people will be under our protection, else you will have only yourself to blame for the consequences, for I bring the men who desire death as ardently as you desire life.”

The Almighty and Glorified Allah said to his servant and messenger, Muhammed (P.B.U.H): “And worship your lord until there comes into you the certainty (Al- Quran 15:99) certainty here means death.

The real meaning of this verse is: Do not abandon worship until you die. So he made the ultimate point of worship, the ultimate point of one’s life. The righteous servant of Allah, Jesus (P.B.U.H) said “And has enjoined on me Salaah (Prayer) and Zakah as long as I live —“(Al-Quran 19:3!). Also the prophet (P.B.U.H) said: “verily, if the son of Adam dies, her deeds terminate—“by Muslim. So he made- “death”-the limit of his deeds terminate—-that means, after fasting in the Ramadan a believe does, and should not stop fasting, for fasting will still be lawful in the whole year round in the form of fasting 3 days of each and every month, fasting on Mondays and Thursdays, and fasting on Arafat Day.

And even if the night prayers of Ramadan are gone a believer will not cease from performing them. How can he do that when Allah praised those who perform night prayers when he said: “Their sides for sake their Beds, to invoke their, lord in fear and hope, and they spend (charity in Allah’s cause) out of what we have bestowed on them. No person knows what is kept Hidden for them of joy as a Reward and for what they used to Do—“(Al-Qur’an 32”, 16-17).

Palestinian society actively promotes the religious belief that their deity craves their deaths. Note the words of a popular music video directed at children, broadcast hundreds of times on PA TV, which depicts the earth thirsting for the blood of children: “How sweet is the fragrance of the Shahid, how sweet is the scent of the earth, its thirst quenched by the gush of blood, flowing from the youthful body.”

This conviction that the deity thirsts for or craves human death as tribute and sacrifice has its roots in ancient beliefs.

The Bible cites ancient cultures of the Land of Israel: “Their sons and their daughters they sacrifice to their Gods” [Deut: 12]. Even the Israelites were drawn to it: “And they built altars to give their sons and daughters to Molech which God did not command nor consider this abomination [Jeremiah: 32].”

As recently as 500 years ago, South American tribes used to leave children to die on mountaintops as presents to their gods. The common denominator driving human sacrifice cults was the belief that the deity craved the death of innocents.

This is precisely the belief that the leaders of Palestinian society are inculcating in their people. Moreover, Palestinians have been taught on PA TV by their religious leaders that they are born for the very purpose of dying for Allah: “The believer was created to know his Lord and to uphold Islam to be a Shahid, or intend to be a Shahid. If the Muslim does not aspire Shahadah, he will die as in the Jahiliya [pre-Islam faith]. If we truthfully request it of Allah, He will grant us its rewards even if we die in bed.”

This message is of paramount significance. The Muslim is born in order to die the right death, according to Palestinian Islam. Death need not be the termination of life to be prevented, but can be transformed into the ultimate achievement, on the condition it is for the deity. Those who do achieve this death are promised rewards by religious leaders on PA TV: “All his sins are forgiven from the first gush of blood; he is exempted from the torments of the grave (Judgment)… he marries 72 Dark-Eyed [Virgins or Maidens of Paradise]… on his head is placed a crown of honor, one stone of which is worth more than all there is in this world.”

Like their adult role models, Palestinian children have learned to see dying for the deity as their goal in life. In a chilling talk show interview on PA TV, two 11- year-old girls explain cheerfully and eloquently what they and their young friends desire: Walla: “Shahadah is very, very beautiful. Everyone aspires to Shahadah. What could be better than going to paradise?”

Host: “What are better, peace and full rights for the Palestinian people or Shahadah?”

Walla: “Shahadah”.

Yussra: “Of course Shahadah is sweet. We don’t want this world; we want the Afterlife. We benefit not from this life but from the Afterlife… Every Palestinian child aged, say 12, says, “Oh Lord, I would like to become a shahid.” Public opinion polls indicate that Yussra and Walla represent an overwhelming majority of Palestinian children who embrace this belief. According to three different polls, 70 to 80 percent of Palestinian children aspire to Shahadah.

In the ancient world, there was widespread belief that the deity wanted humans to die as the ultimate form of worship. People gave their children to the deity of Molech and the Baal. This ancient belief has now returned to plague the world. The world had assumed that the Palestinian suicide terrorist was facing a dilemma of having to choose between the “value” of killing Jews and the value of life. Clearly, this is false.

Killing Jews is one “value.” Death for deity is itself a value, indeed, a value greater than life. Seeking Shahadah is not desperation but aspiration. As the mother explained her joy after her son’s death: “I wanted the best for him.”

Suicide, or self-killing, has been known throughout the whole of recorded history and has been a phenomenon in every culture and social setting. It was noted in the Biblical Times within the Jewish and Christian faiths. It is mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita within the Hindu faith, in classical Greece and Rome, and later throughout the Middle Ages, when the reaction to the heresy of suicide was severe hostility from the Universal Church, whose later fathers railed against the canonical sin of despair. Suicide occurs in every culture, not only in the Western developed world, but also in India, China and, despite severe theological prohibitions, in Islam.

As shown, neither the Judaic nor Christian parts of the Bible are there direct injunctions against suicide. However, this is not the case in the traditions of the true religion, Islam, which continues to be a major influence upon many Islamic people. There are a few quite specific sanctions expressed in the Quraan against self-killing. The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) also assigns suicide to the lower levels of Hell. Allah says explicitly in the Quraan, “And do not kill yourselves. Surely, Allah is Most Merciful to you”. (Surah An-Nisa Verse 29) In another verse of the Quraan, Allah says: “And do not throw yourselves in destruction”. (Surah Al-Baqarah Verse 195) The impact of this injunction still has considerable force in Islamic countries, and it may be one reason why, with the exception of Jordan and Turkey, there is no recorded suicide in national statistics of the Islamic Nations. But, in the last decade or so there has been a substantial increase of suicide in Muslims living in Non-Muslim countries, namely Britain and America.

The female suicide bomber completes her journey. Oh Shahid (martyr), relax, relax, we will continue the struggle but how? This is the ever-present question. Our brothers and sisters in the suicide university (the name given to Al- Najah university) participate in an impressive procession, while accompanying a new bridegroom to heaven (i.e. A funeral of a suicide bomber) so he can meet there with prophet Muhammad and his martyred colleagues. Is not the Jihad (holy war) a binding command for every Muslim? What will I say to my Lord tomorrow? I placed my trust in the death for Allah as my most noble aspiration. At night she told her fiancé, and after a long argument, the desire to die for Allah triumphed, to follow those who sacrificed themselves for Allah. (After her fiancé was killed) she contacted the leadership of Al- Qassam Brigades and requested what every Muslim dream of (i.e. carry out a suicide bombing) and they immediately prepared and booby-trapped (with explosives) the vehicle, which our heroin drove. After the Al- Qassam Brigades set the target, she was dispatched (to carry out the suicide attack). Where the bride wed her groom and a voice from heaven stated: the female suicide bombers are worthy to wed in heaven with the male suicide bombers.

The women of heaven-Hur al-Ayan Hur al- Ayan are those with the beautiful eyes. The white of their eyes shine and their pupils are jet black. Their breasts are prominent and their teeth compatible. They are young and beautiful as pearls, corals and gems and the shade of their skin is like sunlight. The women of heaven are pure. They have no monthly period or bleeding after birth and no other secretions. The women of heaven sing beautifully in anticipation of good husbands. The “Shahid” (martyr) for Allah, receives immediate atonement of all his sins, with the first drop of his blood being shed. He is exempt from the suffering of the grave, a crown at honor is placed on his head and he weds 72 virgins, whose abode is in heaven (Hur al- Ayan) and is entitled to have 70 family members enter heaven- The “Shahid” receives the potency of 70 men.

Women Arriving in Heaven The wife of a believer in this world will be his wife also in heaven, if she were a believing woman. They are entitled to the pleasures of heaven with their husbands. The women will be wed to her last husband if she were married to several men. One tradition says that each man will have one woman only, the righteous will have two, and the “Shahid” will have 72, because he enters heaven unconditionally.

The Scorn of Inhabitants of Heaven toward those Going to Hell The believers, after entering heaven, heap scorn and curses upon the infidels going to hell.

“The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death,” explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah.

Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: “We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid.”

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: “It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion.

To the Muslim religionist death is victorious because he believes he will be united with 72 virgins in some ‘Paradise’ after he blows himself up in his misguided attempt to please his god—Allah. Under this interpretation of the Koranic verse, Islam is a suicide/death cult and Mohammed taught that death is good and glorious.

Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him us truth… (Koran, Sura 9:111)

Note the Sura number. This Sura (verse) was used as the Islamic Jihad command for the World Trade Center bombing of 9/11/2001.

The Koran and aHadith, reported accounts of what Muhammed did, are filled with his views, which he claimed came from Allah. But who is Allah? He certainly is not the God of the Bible.

In Western societies, this is the expected norm and is often called the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Hence in Western democracies we hold this as a reasonable expectation—that others will treat us as we treat them.

In Islam such a notion also exists. However, it is nothing like the Golden Rule. In Islam the world is divided into believers, the Dar-al-Islam, and the evil unbelievers or the kafirs, known as the Dar-al-Harb or world of war. While Muslims are prohibited from lying, cheating or stealing from Muslims, no such restrictions are applied when dealing with kafirs. Even murder is acceptable. Killing a Muslim is a serious crime, but the murder of an infidel is justified by the non-Muslim’s non-belief in Allah.

So Muslims leaders the world over is preaching the doctrine of Death. They love death. They say,

“We are going to win, because they love life and we love death,” said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. He has also said: “each of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah.” Shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden told a reporter: “We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us.”

These poor misguided devotees! The enemy himself has deceived them. Just like Eve was deceived in the Garden, Satan deceived Muhammad and the deception is still here today with these poor lost Muslims. This fact is evidenced by death being the result of sin.

So these Muslim suicide terrorists are just doing the devil’s work, when we read how they blow themselves up killing many innocents.

Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty. (Exodus 23:7)

Don’t lie and don’t kill the innocent because God will not acquit you. The deception is great—Muslims, it seems, believe the opposite of what the Bible teaches.
There is no mistake he is talking about killing the innocent. This thinking is exactly from the Muslim holy books. It is not aberrant Islam but mainstream. Benbrika is being true to the faith. The problem is the faith is based on a false foundation, i.e. that death is to be celebrated. As we have seen from the Bible the truth is the opposite. It warns against this sort of thing.

They band themselves together against the life of the righteous and condemn the innocent to death. (Psalm 94:21)

And shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted, with the blood. (Psalm 106:38) Muslim mothers are doing the same today, offering their own children as sacrifices to their god Allah, just like the pagan Canaanites did by burning their children in the fires of Moloch—the false god.

Zahra Maladan is an educated woman who edits a women’s magazine in Lebanon. She is also a mother, who undoubtedly loves her son… but She wants her son to become a suicide bomber.

Ms. Maladan was quoted in the New York Times giving the following warning to her son: “if you’re not going to follow the steps of the Islamic resistance martyrs, then I don’t want you.” Now there is a new image of mothers urging their children to die, and then celebrating the martyrdom of their suicidal sons and daughters by distributing sweets and singing wedding songs. More and more young women – some married with infant children – are strapping bombs to their (sometimes pregnant) bellies, because they have been taught to love death rather than life.[1]

The true Word of God tells us to love life and protect the innocent. We find that Proverbs 1:10-19 gives almost a perfect description of the way the Muslim terrorist believes he can force the world to believe using the sword.

My sons, if sinners entice you, do not consent. If they say, “Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood; let us ambush the innocent without reason; like Sheol [Hell] let us swallow them alive, and whole, like those who go down to the pit; we shall find all precious goods, we shall fill our houses with plunder; throw in your lot among us; we will all have one purse”— my son, do not walk in the way with them; hold back your foot from their paths, for their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed blood. For in vain is a net spread in the sight of any bird, but these men lie in wait for their own blood; they set an ambush for their own lives. Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain; it takes away the life of its possessors.

But Allah is the god of Death and he teaches his followers to kill and destroy. The Koran says,

Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)… (Sura 9:5)


Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 509: Narrated Salama bin Al- Akwa:

We went out to Khaibar in the company of the Prophet. While we were proceeding at night, a man from the group said to ‘Amir, “O ‘Amir! Won’t you let us hear your poetry?” ‘Amir was a poet, so he got down and started reciting for the people poetry that kept pace with the camels’ footsteps, saying: – “O Allah! Without you we would not have been guided on the right path neither would be have given in charity, nor would we have prayed. So please forgive us, what we have committed (i.e. our defects); let all of us Be sacrificed for Your Cause And send Sakina (i.e. calmness) Upon us to make our feet firm When we meet our enemy, and If they will call us towards An unjust thing, We will refuse. The unbelievers have made a hue and Cry to ask others’ help against us.” The Prophet on that, asked, “Who is that (camel) driver (reciting poetry)?” The people said, “He is ‘Amir bin Al-Akwa’.”

Then the Prophet said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him.” A man amongst the people said, “O Allah’s Prophet! Has (martyrdom) been granted to him. Would that you let us enjoy his company longer.” Then we reached and besieged Khaibar till we were afflicted with severe hunger. Then Allah helped the Muslims conquer it (i.e. Khaibar). … So when the army files were arranged in rows (for the clash), ‘Amir’s sword was short and he aimed at the leg of a Jew to strike it, but the sharp blade of the sword returned to him and injured his own knee, and that caused him to die. When they returned from the battle, Allah’s Apostle saw me (in a sad mood). He took my hand and said, “What is bothering you?” I replied, “Let my father and mother be sacrificed for you! The people say that the deeds of ‘Amir are lost.” The Prophet said, “Whoever says so, is mistaken, for ‘Amir has got a double reward.” The Prophet raised two fingers and added, “He (i.e. Amir) was a persevering struggler in the Cause of Allah and there are few ‘Arabs who achieved the like of (good deeds) ‘Amir had done.”

So, did Amir commit suicide and the Prophet praised his “suicidal” action? No. Amir DID NOT commit suicide and the Prophet DID NOT praise suicide. Such are the glaring misrepresentations and lies being spread about Islam!

Such exposure of lies or ignorant claims of these former Muslims may not stop them from their anti-Islamic propaganda, but Muslims themselves need to be educated about Islam and its various sources (the Qur’an, hadith, history books, commentaries, etc.). More importantly, Muslims need to be educated in these regards in a self-critical manner.

Does this hadith make Islam look better? We never said Muhammad encouraged suicide. Although he himself attempted it, he said that Allah would punish those who commit suicide. He encouraged murder-suicide. He said getting killed while killing in the path of Islam will attract the highest reward. So, if Amir had turned the sword on himself intentionally, he would have gone to hell, but since his intention was to kill a defenseless Jew and was killed accidentally by his own sword, his reward will be doubled. The moral of the story is clear. If you kill yourself you will go to hell, but if you are killed while attempting to kill an infidel you will be rewarded.

Doesn’t this encourage suicide bombing? Many of the suicide bombers are frustrated people. They are ordinary Muslims, who face a life crisis. Then they are told that if they kill non-Muslims and in the process end their own miserable life, they will be rewarded handsomely and all their problems will go away.

Using this Islamic logic, an Iraqi woman had 80 young women raped then recruited as suicide bombers.

Once these girls were raped, she told them that they are sinners, that there is no future for them either in this world or in the next. But there is one way out. The way out is to become martyrs.

In this macabre enterprise, no one was doing anything un-Islamic; everyone thought he or she would be rewarded. In Islam, you can commit all sorts of crimes; and if it is done for the advancement of Islam, you will be rewarded. The rapist’s thought they will be rewarded; the woman, who encouraged these victims of rape to become suicide bombers, thought she will be rewarded; and the victims themselves, who carried out the suicide bombings, thought they would be rewarded. In Islam, it is the intention that counts. If your intention is to murder non-Muslims, or even Muslims, who, you think, are murtad and do not interpret Islam in the “right” way, you will be rewarded. You can rape them, loot them, murder them and treat them with utmost savagery and you will be rewarded. This is Islam – the only major religion that is completely divorced from the Golden Rule and actually prescribes qildhat, being harsh to unbelievers. (Q. 48:29; 9:123)

Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Q. 9:5; 2:191)


It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (Q. 8:67)

This sura, appropriately called ‘Spoils of War’, was written after the battle of Badr. Muslims did not want to kill the captives. They wanted to return them in exchange for ransom. But the bloodthirsty prophet of Allah wanted his vengeance. Hence the above verse. He tells his followers, “don’t worry about ransom; there is more to come. It does not behoove a prophet to stop killing just for a miser ransom. My thirst for blood must be satisfied. These captives derided me when I was in Mecca and now I want to take my sweet revenge.” So, he ordered beheading of his captives of war. No matter how you look at it, what he did was war crime.

It is shameful for Muslims, especially those, who claim to be scholars and know the truth, to tell us that Islam respects human life when the reverse is true. From the time Muhammad managed to fool a bunch of savages in Medina, he did nothing but raiding, looting and killing. How can anyone say Islam respects life when according to an estimate Muslims have slaughtered more than 280 million people since the inception of Islam? Muslims follow the examples set by their prophet. The victims of Islam are increasing and will continue to increase until Islam is eradicated. No other cause has taken more tolls on humanity than Islam.

This is the logic of Islam. Hell may freeze before Muslim scholars find courage to confront ex-Muslims.Nothing will destroy Islam faster than such a confrontation. Muslim scholars know it well. That is why they pretend they do not see us. That is why Muhammad prescribed swift death for apostates.

Only by understanding Genesis as real history can we understand that death is the product of sin. It is an intruder and is evil and not to be celebrated, but overcome. When the Church rejects Genesis as real history she cannot understand that Islam is as much as a false religion as the Canaanite pagan worship of Moloch—a religion of Death.


Suicide in Japan has become a significant national social-issue. Japan has one of the world’s highest suicide rates, and the Japanese government reported the rate for 2006 as being the ninth highest in the world. 71% of suicides in Japan were male, and it is the leading cause of death in men aged 20–44.

Factors in suicide include unemployment (due to the economic recession in the 1990s), depression, and social pressures. In 2007, the National Police Agency revised the categorization of motives for suicide into a division of 50 reasons with up to three reasons listed for each suicide. Suicides traced to losing jobs surged 65.3 percent while those attributed to hardships in life increased 34.3 percent. Depression remained at the top of the list for the third year in a row, rising 7.1 percent from the previous year.

In Japanese culture there is a long history of honorable suicide, such as ritual suicide by Samurai to avoid being captured, flying one’s plane into the enemy during WWII, or charging into the enemy fearlessly (Banzai) to prevent bringing shame on one’s family.

There has been a rapid increase in suicides since the 1990s. For example, 1998 saw a 34.7% increase over the previous year. This has prompted the Japanese government to react by increasing funding to treat the causes of suicide and those recovering from failed suicides.

Japanese society’s attitude toward suicide has been termed “tolerant,” and in many occasions suicide is seen as a morally responsible action. Public discussion of the high rate of suicide also focuses on blaming the economic hardship faced by middle-aged men (see sarakin). However, the rise of Internet suicide websites and the increasing rate of suicide pacts (shinjo) have raised concerns from the public and media, which consider the pacts “thoughtless.”

In 1703, Chikamatsu Monzaemon wrote a puppet play entitled Sonezaki Shinjuu (The Love Suicides at Sonezaki), which was later, re-engineered for the kabuki theater. The inspiration for the play was an actual double suicide, which had recently occurred between two forbidden lovers. Several more “double suicide” plays followed, which were eventually, outlawed by the governing authorities for emboldening more couples to “romantically” end their lives.

During Japan’s imperial years, suicide was common within the military. This included suicide when a battle was lost. The samurai way of glory was through death, and ritual suicide was seen as something honorable. Writer Yukio Mishima is famous for his ritual suicide while trespassing on the grounds of the Defense Agency headquarters in Ichigaya.

The cultural heritage of suicide as a noble tradition still has some resonance. While being investigated for an expenses scandal, Cabinet minister Toshikatsu Matsuoka took his life in 2007. The governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, described him as a “true samurai” for preserving his honour. Ishihara is also the scriptwriter for the film I Go To Die For You that glorifies the memory and bravery of the kamikaze pilots in WWII.


Death has ruled the world’s religious life for millennia ever since Cain. Different Religious beliefs have caused or have been a basic factor in the majority of all conflicts on planet Earth. The insane hatred of the “other guy” knows no bounds in the minds of unregenerate pagan man and is used as a major weapon by the enemy of our souls to kill, steal and destroy since the beginnings of human life. This has always been so and will continue until Yeshua returns as Melech Tzadique, our Righteous King. In the meantime, redemption, restoration, hope and righteousness are always available to the redeemed of the LORD as promised in scripture, but only on an individual, and not on a collective, basis.

“Seek the LORD while He may be found, call on Him while He is still nearby.” (Isaiah 55:6)

Walking on the Emmaus road to Peace with Yeshua,
Rav James and Erlene Talbott, Yeshua HaTikvah Yisrael Ministry


Cultural Inbreeding


Incest/Inbreeding Taboos
International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family is quoted in this article

The CULT’ural “RAT PEOPLE” of Pakistan are victims of Islams 1400 years of religious inbreeding commanded by the Koran and the Hadiths.

The World is now within the “Acharit Hyamim” (End of Days) and the response of Humanity to that prophetic Bible fact is to go insane. Writing, blogging, and “prepping” for world collapse has become a cottage industry over the last ten years.  The proliferation of websites, books, articles, and conferences devoted to analysis and speculation about what will happen, learning to grow and preserve food and other survival skills, and storing up living supplies, are based on the well-founded fears that interconnected systems of phony fiscal finance and fossil fueled industry are all heading for implosion and that the environment will become unstable, less habitable, and less able to sustain the billions of souls straining the earth’s carrying capacity.  At the heart of all this activity is the concern, How will we be able to protect and sustain our families and others we love in drastically altered conditions? The descent into full implementation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY, is well on its way to the cliff edge of dissolution through massive world Incestuous inbreeding and its inevitable conclusion, mass insanity. A very large segment of the human race has been involved with inbreeding for centuries, mostly for religious reasons, with predictable results. This essay will add another cautionary voice to the many writers and researchers on this “fools errand” doctrine practiced by the followers of the humanist manifesto promoted by false teachers, phony seers and lying prophets.
This is the latest of my series of Essays about the major sins of America and the rebellious world that bring on YHWH God’s Judgments described primarily in the Books of Daniel and Revelation. My previous works included “Vials, Viruses and Vectors”, a treatise on Revelation 16, “Homosexuality”, “Cannibalism”, “All about Abortion”, “A New Babylon”, “Apostasy” and a few hundred others. It is too difficult for one writer to address ALL the sins committed against YHWH Gods Torah Laws of Life, as only He knows the full extent of the reborn Sodom and Gomorrah being played out in America today.
CULTURE (Cult’ure)
If one were to look up this word in a complete, comprehensive Dictionary; one would find very many pages describing in quasi-scientific terms, this compound word. Most sociologists, psychiatrists, anthropologists and countless other “titled” individuals defending their pet theories over all others in academia, adnauseum. Even so; there is a vast religious culture of Inbreeding worldwide that has been in existence for time immemorial in defiance of the Torah Laws of God, the Almighty. This is to be expected of pagan humankind as normative, but Inbreeding through Incest is somewhat surprising when it is discovered in religious communities.

Incest/Inbreeding Taboos according to scripture

The incest taboo is one of the oldest and most perplexing mysteries studied by clueless students of human society. Historically, western scholars believed that the incest taboo—long proposed as a cultural universal—is vital to understanding the human condition. Thus, interest in the incest taboo has an extensive history.
Although the incest taboo varies in meaning by society, it is frequently an important rule of prohibition, commonly encompassing religious sanctions, and usually forbidding sexual contact between particular categories of relatives and family members. Closely related to the incest taboo are the rules of exogamy that usually prohibit marriage between the same categories of kin forbidden by incest rules (Murdock 1949). Typically included in the taboo are nuclear (parents and children) and immediate (e.g., grandparents, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, and first cousins) family members. In societies composed of unilineal descent groups (e.g., lineages, clans, and moieties), the incest rule often includes all or most of a person’s descent (kinship) group. This includes distantly related individuals to which an actual genealogical connection cannot be made (Murdock 1949). A thorough understanding of the incest taboo necessarily recognizes this rule as an important part of a larger system of sexual regulations. In turn, these sexual regulations are an important component of the extensive normative structure regulating family, marriage, and kinship systems, and ultimately the larger society.
There are many cross-cultural variations in the incest taboo. Whereas it appears that most societies have some sort of incest prohibition, the rule is not strictly universal. Likewise, many societies deem the incest taboo extremely serious, whereas other groups view the taboo more casually. Sanctions for taboo violations reflect a similar cross-cultural diversity. In some societies, members simply express disapproval or distaste when incest occurs, as might be expected in the presence of bad manners. In other communities, the act of incest is considered horrifying or unthinkable, and transgressors may be put to death or expelled from the society. In many instances, the incest taboo is intricately entwined with religious tenets and proscribes supernatural sanctions against violators or against the society as a whole. In technologically advanced societies scientific explanations have commonly replaced religious beliefs, and religious sanctions have been replaced by legal penalties and concerns about genetic harm to progeny.
The TORAH Laws of YHWH God in the Bible set the rules for humankind’s life, health and wellbeing.
Sexual Laws to create and preserve a peaceful, orderly and lawful society are given in Leviticus 18, which says:
“Adonai said to Moshe, “Speak to the people of Isra’el; tell them, ‘I am Adonai your God. You are not to engage in the activities found in the land of Egypt, where you used to live; and you are not to engage in the activities found in the land of Kena‘an, where I am bringing you; nor are you to live by their laws. You are to obey my rulings and laws and live accordingly; I am Adonai your God. You are to observe my laws and rulings; if a person does them, he will have life through them; I am Adonai. “‘None of you is to approach anyone who is a close relative in order to have sexual relations; I am Adonai. You are not to have sexual relations with your father, and you are not to have sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother — do not have sexual relations with her. You are not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that is your father’s prerogative. You are not to have sexual relations with your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with them. You are not to have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or with your daughter’s daughter. Do not have sexual relations with them, because their sexual disgrace will be your own. You are not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife’s daughter, born to your father, because she is your sister; do not have sexual relations with her. You are not to have sexual relations with your father’s sister, because she is your father’s close relative. You are not to have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative. You are not to disgrace your father’s brother by having sexual relations with his wife, because she is your aunt. You are not to have sexual relations with your daughterinlaw; because she is your son’s wife. Do not have sexual relations with her. You are not to have sexual relations with your brother’s wife, because this is your brother’s prerogative. “‘You are not to have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter, nor are you to have sexual relations with her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are close relatives of hers, and it would be shameful. You are not to take a woman to be a rival with her sister and have sexual relations with her while her sister is still alive. You are not to approach a woman in order to have sexual relations with her when she is unclean from her time of niddah. You are not to go to bed with your neighbor’s wife and thus become unclean with her.
“‘You are not to let any of your children be sacrificed to Molech, thereby profaning the name of your God; I am Adonai.
“‘You are not to go to bed with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
“‘You are not to have sexual relations with any kind of animal and thus become unclean with it; nor is any woman to present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; it is perversion.
“‘Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, because all the nations which I am expelling ahead of you are defiled with them. The land has become unclean, and this is why I am punishing it — the land itself will vomit out its inhabitants. But you are to keep my laws and rulings and not engage in any of these disgusting practices, neither the citizen nor the foreigner living with you; for the people of the land have committed all these abominations, and the land is now defiled. If you make the land unclean, it will vomit you out too, just as it is vomiting out the nation that was there before you. For those who engage in any of these disgusting practices, whoever they may be, will be cut off from their people. So keep my charge not to follow any of these abominable customs that others before you have followed and thus defile yourselves by doing them. I am Adonai your God.’”

Haftorah Acharei Mot: EZEKIEL 22:

“‘The leaders of Isra’el in you all use their power in order to shed blood. In you, they make light of fathers and mothers, they oppress foreigners, they wrong orphans and widows. You treat my holy things with contempt, you profane my shabbats. In you, people gossip to the point of inciting bloodshed; in you are those who go to eat on the mountains; in you, they commit lewd acts; in you, they commit incest; in you, they force themselves on women during their menstrual impurity. In you, one commits an abomination with his neighbor’s wife; another commits some lewd act defiling his daughter-in-law; still another humbles his sister, his own father’s daughter. In you, people take bribes to shed blood; you demand and accept interest on loans; in greed you make profits off your neighbors by extorting them; and you have forgotten me,’ says Adonai Elohim.

These sexual rules of engagement and practical taboos formed by the Almighty God of the Universe in eternity, if violated, result in the deliberate incestuous inbreeding practiced by many human created religions, cults, tribes and nations that inevitably end with a diseased zombielike whimper of death.

Historical Review
Plutarch (c.e. 46–120) was one of the earliest Western scholars interested in the incest taboo. His writings anticipated two modern theories: alliance theory and familial conflict theory. Alliance theory concludes that the incest taboo exists to create an outward reaching network of cooperative kin, which is a primary social structure essential for human survival. This network works because rules of incest force individuals to find sexual and marriage partners outside their own families. Familial conflict theory argues that incest restrictions exist to prevent destructive conflicts within the family. If family members were to engage in sexual relationships with each other, role conflicts and jealousies would destroy the effectiveness of the family institution.
The Roman historian Tacitus (c.e. 56–120) offered a theoretical framework similar to Plutarch’s, suggesting alliance networks as the reason for the incest prohibitions in Roman society (Honigmann 1976). Along with other alliances, Augustine (c.e. 354–430) proposed a natural aversion to incest and an “inherent sense of decency” that prevents incestuous relationships. Thomas Aquinas (c.e. 1225–1274) advocated alliance theory and asserted that incest hindered child development. Aquinas believed that close kin marriages encourage lust and result in disruptive role conflicts that could destroy the family (Honigmann 1976).
The development of the social sciences in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries continued these themes. George Murdock (1949) and Yehudi Cohen (1978) accepted alliance theory, whereas Sigmund Freud (1950) and Talcott Parson (1954) continued the argument that incestuous relations are destructive to the family.
In The Descent of Man (1871), Charles Darwin, a man who married his first cousin, acknowledged the family conflict model but proposed an evolutionary foundation by hypothesizing that inheritable traits allowing incest would be selected against in the evolutionary process.
Edward Westermarck, in The History of Human Marriage (1891), employed Darwinian evolutionary theory and posited that incest avoidance emerged as an instinct to prevent the genetic harm produced by inbreeding. Westermarck hypothesized that this instinct was made active when people were raised in near proximity, such as in families. He believed that this aversion would be evident most commonly among siblings, but Westermarck also proposed that sexual repugnance would develop when unrelated children were reared together. This thesis (Westermarck’s hypothesis) is currently asserted by sociobiologists of human behavior (human sociobiologists), who assume that many complex social behaviors are grounded in genetic inheritance shaped by natural selection.
Beyond these historical accounts, notable explanations of the incest taboo include demographic theory, proposed by Mariam Slater (1959) and elaborated by Charles Case (1969). It is these theorists’ assertion that the demographic characteristics of human breeding populations (e.g., life expectancy, birth order, and the distribution of sex among siblings) make incestuous activity in the immediate family unlikely and, at best, short-lived. They were wrong!
Talcott Parsons’s (1954) socialization theory asserts that the incest taboo is part of a normative structure employing eroticism—and its withdrawal—as a system of sanctions in the socialization of children. The affection offered by parents and other adults (often relatives) acts as a powerful reward for “proper” behavior in children, just as its withdrawal acts as a forceful punishment. Parsons claimed that this is an effective socialization process because of the deeply social nature of the human species. Scientists try to avoid the Biblical admonition against incest by asserting long and involved hypotheses. Scripture simplifies this rhetoric.
For Parsons, the incest taboo is part of the system of sexual regulations that draws a boundary beyond which the family may not wander when imparting erotic rewards. Withholding erotic rewards forces the adolescent child to participate in the larger society to find greater sexual fulfillment. This ties the society together through marriage and kin relationships.
Incest/Inbreeding Harm
Sociobiologists believe that life and its evolution results from the competition between individual species members to spread their genes by producing the most progeny. (Progeny, by definition, carry parental genes to future generations.) The central sociobiological thesis concerning incest/inbreeding avoidance simply states that natural selection favors outbreeding behavior because inbreeding more often results in genetically debilitated offspring—in other words, inbreeding is not the best adaptive strategy for producing the most descendants. Although the deleterious thesis is widely accepted, and has taken on a law-like stature, a careful examination of the simple Mendelian mathematics involved quickly refutes this notion (Shields 1982; Livingstone 1969).
Almost all harmful genes are recessive, requiring that both parents carry the gene to produce offspring that manifest the deleterious effect. Since relatives share some common ancestry, they are more likely than non-relatives to share the same harmful recessive genes. In this respect, the more closely related the mates, the more common their ancestry, and hence the more likely they will share the same deleterious genes. Thus, mating between relatives is thought to more readily produce genetically harmed descendants.
However, if a society, cult or religion customarily practices inbreeding, such as first and second cousin marriage, harmful recessive genes will quickly pair up and wash out of the gene pool. This occurs because deleteriously effected individuals are far less likely to reproduce and pass along the harmful genes to descendants. The result of systematic and recurring inbreeding in a population is to reduce the “genetic load” (the number of harmful recessive in the gene pool). Thus, inbreeding is no more harmful than outbreeding, they say, but they are wrong.
For most of ancient human history, breeding populations were small and isolated, and the community often practiced cousin marriage. Examples are found in the Tanakh (OT). The results were a relatively homogenous small population of some inbred individuals.
Sibling Marriage and Human Isolates
There are many examples of ancient and modern human communities where incest and/or close inbreeding have occurred on a regular and systematic basis. These examples include not only the well known cases of royal family incest but also incestuous practices among commoners and closed religious cults. This social class distinction is important to note because human sociobiologists have dismissed the many instances of royal incest as exceptional and of no consequence to the debate. Cases involving closed cults, where sibling or other incestuous marriages are usual and systematic, strongly challenge sociobiological suggestions that a natural selection mechanism exists by itself to prevent inbreeding. This process can be nullified by religious doctrine, mind control and fear of false prophets and the like.
One of the more conspicuous examples of incestuous marriage involves the Romans and Egyptians of the first three centuries c.e. A great deal of documentary evidence with genealogical information (mostly census records, but also personal letters, marriage contracts and other types of contracts, petitions, and documents addressed to the administrative authorities) has been unearthed and reveals that Egyptian commoners frequently practiced full brother-sister marriage (Scheidel 1996; Middleton 1962). Russel Middleton argues that there is little uncertainty in these documents. “Unlike some of the earlier types of evidence which may be subject to differing interpretations, these documents of a technical character have an ‘indisputable precision'” (1962, p. 606).
Evidently full sibling marriages accounted for 15 to 21 percent of all unions. When considering how many sibling marriages were demographically possible and socially acceptable (i.e., some families would not have children with siblings of the opposite sex that survived to marriageable age; or have children with opposite sexed siblings; or have children with siblings with the customary age differences—Egyptian marriages conventionally occurred between an older man and younger woman), we find that almost all possible brother-sister marriages were, in fact, contracted. This strongly suggests that sibling marriages were not only common but the preferred norm.
The documents also demonstrate that sibling marriages sometimes continued through two and three generations, and that the overwhelming majority of brother-sister marriages produced children. This practice lasted for at least three centuries and ended only when the Romans discouraged the custom by withholding Roman citizenship from persons continuing the practice.
Another example of a brother-sister incest custom is presented by Edward E. Evans-Pritchard when writing about the African Azande. “[W]hen a boy reaches puberty he may take his sister and with her build their little hut near his mother’s home and go into it with his sister and lay her down and get on top of her—and they copulate” (1974, p. 107). Middleton (1962, p. 603) also notes that Azande monarchs married their daughters and that father-daughter incest was common among the Thonga tribes.
Among the Greeks, Keith Hopkins notes, “[t]he Athenians allowed marriage between half-siblings of the same father but different mothers; the Spartans allowed marriage between half-siblings of the same mother and different fathers” (1980, p. 311). The ancient Hebrews permitted a similar practice as noted in the Old Testament by Abraham’s marriage to his half-sister Sarah.
Besides cases of sibling marriage, there is abundant evidence of close inbreeding provided by human isolates—small isolated communities where the degree of inbreeding is determined by the size, extent, and length of isolation of the population (Leavitt 1990). These small isolated communities were numerous in the past and represent the norm for preagricultural Palaeolithic societies.
A well-documented illustration of a human isolate is the Samaritans of Israel. From about 200 b.c.e., when the Samaritans broke completely from Jewish society, until the twentieth century, the Samaritan population declined dramatically (largely due to persecution by more powerful neighbors). At the end of World War II, the Samaritan population numbered 146 individuals, and this population had remained relatively stable for 100 years. By the 1980s, however, the population had increased and the Samaritans consisted of two communities of about 250 individuals (Bonne-Tamir 1980; Jamieson 1982; Talmon 1977).
Inbreeding in the Samaritan communities has been intense, not only because of their small population, but because of three other well established customs. First, Samaritan religion prohibits marriage with individuals outside of their faith. Second, the Samaritans limit their marriages to extended family lineages. Third, they prefer cousin marriage. Batsheva Bonne-Tamir (1980) has observed that nearly 85 percent of all Samaritan marriages are between first and second cousins. Yeshua spoke often of the Samaritans and used them as story teaching examples in the Gospels. They were usually despised by the Jews on the basis that their marriage practices violated the Torah and the Talmudic prohibitions.
Westermarck’s Hypothesis: The Israeli Kibbutzim Marriage

To support the deleterious theory of incest/inbreeding avoidance, human sociobiologists have repeatedly emphasized Edward Westermarck’s hypothesis (1891) that children raised in near proximity will develop an aversion to sexual relationships with each other. Sociobiologists assume that this aversion originated as a naturally selected mechanism. Human sociobiologists site evidence from two case studies of human communities in support of Westermarck’s hypothesis.
One group, the Israeli kibbutzim, separate children from their parents’ household at birth and raise them in age-graded cohorts. In these cohorts boys and girls are raised without segregation, even sharing sleeping, bathing and toilet facilities; the proximity and intimacy of their upbringing is greater than what would usually be expected among siblings. Joseph Shepher (1983) studied these kibbutzim as a test of Westermark’s hypothesis and reported that of the nearly 3,000 kibbutzim marriages he examined there was not one case of intra-cohort marriage.
However, several other researchers reported compelling research results which demonstrate that there are numerous social structural and ideological reasons why individuals of the same kibbutzim cohort might not marry (Talmon 1964; Spiro 1965). Mordecai Kaffman (1977), on the other hand, reported that by the late 1970s sex and marriage between cohort members had become common. John Hartung (1985), in reanalyzing Shepher’s research, reported that not only did cohort members from Shepher’s samples marry but did so at a disproportionately higher rate than would be expected for marriages involving non-cohort members.

The custom of inbreeding is as ancient as the history of the human life. It was not an exception among hunter Homo sapiens; it was the rule. However, humans learned from experience of its devastating affect upon the offspring. For example, none of the male children of pharaoh Akhenaton that were born out of consanguineous marriages survived. Later, Moses prohibited the marriages between siblings, mother ≠son and father ≠daughter (Thornill, 1993), a very courageous step in a population that had long embraced inbreeding.
The practice of interfamily marriage is still relatively common among Arabs because of the structure of the Arabic society. Nomadic people (Bedouins) do not really have the chance to mix with others. They are organized in tribes based on common ancestry, and when it comes to marriage, the only opportunity is to inbreed (Teebi, 1993). This social structure is common in the Arabic desert in countries like Kuwait. On the other hand, among the agricultural communities, inbreeding also commonly takes place but for different reasons. There it is favored because it ensures the unity of lands. Inheritance of land by males and females is kept within the same family, and this is of great importance for peasants because small pieces of land are inefficient in agricultural economies. This pattern is common among Lebanese, Egyptians, Palestinians, and Jordanians (Klat et al., 1984).
The consequence of consanguinity in the Arabic population is worse than typical. Although Arabs are usually identified as Caucasians, modern Arabic populations especially in Egypt, Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon, are the result of a long history of blending with different human races (Der Kalustian et al., 1980). Arabs, Africans, Europeans, and other Asian people intermarried during wars, mass migrations, trade and religious practices (pilgrimage). This kind of “out breeding” rendered Arabic populations more susceptible to genetic disorders when comes to consanguinity; because out breeding introduced different deleterious recessive alleles common among other populations beside those alleles already common among Arabs.
The impact of consanguinity is that it increases the inbreeding coefficient (Thornill et al., 1993). Thus, the chance that an individual will inherit two alleles identical by descent increases. In other words, the frequency of homozygosity increases, while the frequency of heterozygosity decreases. Because recessive disorders phenotypes are only manifested in the homozygous state, their incidence increases in inbreeding populations.
Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected. As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
Increased genetic disorders
Fluctuating facial asymmetry
Lower birth rate
Higher infant mortality
Slower growth rate
Smaller adult size
Loss of immune system function
Inbreeding can occur just because a small population has been isolated during some time, so that all breeding individuals became genetically related. It can also occur in a large population if individuals tend to mate their relatives, instead of mating at random.
Many individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce. Over time, with isolation such as a population bottleneck caused by purposeful (assortative) breeding or natural environmental factors, the deleterious inherited traits are culled.
Marriages between first and second cousins account for over 10% of marriages worldwide. They are particularly common in the Middle East, where in some nations they account for over half of all marriages.
(“Blood relation”, from the Latin (consanguinitas) refers to the property of being from the same kinship as another person. In that respect, consanguinity is the quality of being descended from the same ancestor as another person. as another person. The laws of many jurisdictions set out degrees of consanguinity in relation to prohibited sexual relations and marriage parties or whether a given person inherits property when a deceased person has not left a will.
Modern secular law
Issues of consanguinity arise in several aspects of the law. It is directly relevant in determining whether a couple can marry. These are linked to a jurisdiction’s definition of incest, so that couples in an incestuous relationship will not be permitted to marry. Some United States jurisdictions forbid first-cousins to marry, while others limit the prohibition to brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts and uncles.
Several volumes of Smith’s Laws, enacted from 1700 through 1829, contain certain public and private laws of the Province and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Several laws with a prescribed punishment against adultery, bigamy, incest and fornication and all combinations of those crimes were enacted in 1705.

Religious and traditional law
Under Roman civil law, which early canon law of the Catholic Church followed, couples were forbidden to marry if they were within four degrees of consanguinity. In the ninth century the church raised the number of prohibited degrees to seven and changed the method by which they were calculated. Eventually the nobility became too interrelated to marry as the pool of nonrelated prospective spouses became smaller. It was either defy the church’s position or look elsewhere for eligible marriage candidates.
The connotations of degree of consanguinity varies by context (e.g., Canon law, Roman law, etc.). Most cultures define a degree of consanguinity within which sexual interrelationships are regarded as incestuous (the “prohibited degree of kinship”).
It is common to distinguish first-degree cousins, second-degree cousins, and often also third-degree cousins. Since comparatively few people can trace their full family tree for more than four generations, the identity of fourth-degree cousins often cannot be established. Also at a genetic level, half-fourth cousins typically do not exhibit greater genetic similarity with one another than with any other individual from the same population.
Double first cousins are descended from two pairs of siblings, and have the same genetic similarity as half-siblings. Globally, the most common form of consanguineous union contracted is between first cousins, in which the spouses share 1/8 of their genes inherited from a common ancestor, and so their progeny are homozygous (or more correctly autozygous) at 1/16 of all loci (r = 0.0625). Due to variation in geographical and ethnical background and the loci chosen to genotype there is some 2.4% variation expected. In practice the technical factors involved are the design of the SNP genotyping platform was used (e.g. which SNP array or sequencing method) and which software cut-offs were applied. Historically, some European nobles cited a close degree of consanguinity when they required convenient grounds for divorce, especially in contexts where religious doctrine forbade the voluntary dissolution of an unhappy or childless marriage. Conversely, the consanguinity law of succession requires the next monarch to be of the same blood of the previous one; allowing, for example, illegitimate children to inherit.
It is estimated that 55% of marriages between Mirpuri (Kashmiri) Pakistani Muslim immigrants in the United Kingdom are between first cousins, where “preferential patrilateral parallel cousin marriage” (where a boy marries the daughter of his father’s brother) is often favored.
Genetic disorders
The offspring of consanguineous relationships are at greater risk of certain genetic disorders. Autosomal recessive disorders occur in individuals who are homozygous for a particular recessive gene mutation. This means that they carry two copies (alleles) of the same gene. Except in certain rare circumstances (new mutations or uniparental disomy) both parents of an individual with such a disorder will be carriers of the gene. Such carriers are not affected and will not display any signs that they are carriers, and so may be unaware that they carry the mutated gene. As relatives share a proportion of their genes, it is much more likely that related parents will be carriers of an autosomal recessive gene, and therefore their children are at a higher risk of an autosomal recessive disorder. The extent to which the risk increases depends on the degree of genetic relationship between the parents; so the risk is greater in mating relationships where the parents are close relatives, but relationships between more distant relatives, such as second cousins, the risk is lower (although still greater than the general population). The low genetic heterozygosity associated with increased consanguinity in a population (identified by micro-satellite markers) increases its susceptibility to infectious pathogens such as tuberculosis and hepatitis.
Although severe inbreeding depression in humans seems to be highly uncommon and not widely known, there have been several cases of apparent forms of inbreeding depression in human populations. Charles Darwin, through numerous experiments, was one of the first scientists to demonstrate the effects of inbreeding depression. Darwin had married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood. He later became concerned that inbreeding within his own family would adversely affect the health of his own children. The Darwins had ten children, but three died before the age of ten. Of the surviving children, three of the six who had long-term marriages did not have any children. As with animals, this phenomenon tends to occur in isolated, rural populations that are cut off to some degree from other areas of civilization.
A notable example is the Vadoma tribe of western Zimbabwe, many of whom carry the trait of having only two toes due to a small gene pool. Another example is Fumarase deficiency, a rare genetic disorder that leads to severe mental retardation. Over half of the known cases are in the isolated and adjoining polygamous Reformed Mormon communities of Hilldale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona.
In a study by Khoury et al., 1992, the frequency of consanguinity in Jordan was determined to be 50.33%. The average inbreeding coefficient was 0.0225. Interestingly, the study showed that male education didn’t have much effect on consanguinity. Forty percent of university graduate males had consanguineous marriages. However, female education seems to be mare important. Only 20% of university graduate females were married to relatives. This study also demonstrated a regressive pattern of inbreeding.A 30% consanguinity rate early in the 20th century increased at the end of the century to 50%. The pattern was also independent of religious beliefs as both Christians and Muslims showed similar results.
The Kuwaiti population is made up of Kuwaiti natives and Bedouins (40%), and immigrants from other Arabic countries and southeastern Asia (60%) (Al- Awadi et al., 1985). The incidence of consanguinity was 54.3% among Kuwaiti natives and higher among Bedouins. The average inbreeding coefficient was at least 0.0219.
Types and Reasons Behind Consanguinity:
Among Muslims and Christians, the most common type of consanguinity is between first cousins especially from the paternal side (Teebi, 1994) (Al-Nassar et al., 1989). A common Lebanese way of complimenting the spouse is to call her/him “cousin”(Der Kalustian et al., 1980). Marriages within the extended family are also common especially in villages and among Bedouins. However, aunt-nephew and uncle-nice marriages as practiced by Jews from Arabic origin, are prohibited by Islam and by state laws (Teebi et al., 1988). Genetically speaking, aunt-nephew and uncle-niece marriages result in the same inbreeding coefficient of double first cousin marriages (F=1/8) (Abdel-Gafar et al., 1983).
The question is why does the practice of consanguinity persist among Arabs in face of severe genetic consequences. Several factors might be involved here including religion, education, socioeconomic status and culture.
To begin with, most Arabs are Muslims and Islamists who worship the Mesopotamian moongod, Allah [Strongs Concordance, H#421-423, the CURSE]. Many researchers tend to conclude from religious studies that Islam discourages consanguineous marriages (Teebi, 1994). I think Islam is in theory equivocal about this issue. There is a very clear teaching from Prophet Mohammed encouraging people to outbreed. On the other hand, he was very proud of his tribe. One might deduce here that one’s Muslim tribe is favored especially when it comes to marriage.
The data from Lebanon show a significant difference in the incidence of consanguinity between Christians and Muslims (Der Kalustian et al., 1980). However, most Lebanese Christians (Maronites and Armenians) do not identify themselves as Arabs. Clearly, they have different origins and cultural practices. In Jordan, however, consanguinity rates among Christians and Muslims are very similar (Khoury et al., 1992). Besides, the practice is also common among Jews of Arabic origin (Stark et al., 1984). Thus, religion is at least not the single determinant of consanguinity rate.
Another consideration is educational level. I initially thought lack of education was the reason behind consanguinity. However, the data, especially from Jordan, demonstrated that the phenomenon is independent of the degree of education. For instance, university graduates showed a consanguinity rate of 40%, which is close to that of illiterates 44%. Nevertheless, in urban populations, that traditionally have higher degree of education, there is a lower occurrence of consanguinity than among suburban and rural populations. All in all, the relationship between consanguinity rate and educational level remains indirect and thus inconclusive.
I think the consanguinity problem is culturally based. Arabs previously lived as either nomads or as peasants in agricultural villages. Both styles of living, as I mentioned before, have their reasons to inbreed. As people moved toward urban cities in the 20th century, the pattern in cultural practices and inherent mentality remained untouched. Urbanization didn’t challenge the mentality of the old out-dated system, and it didn’t offer any alternative. It even strengthened the practice with the development of modern statehood in the Arabic countries (in Jordan for example). Political leaders didn’t legitimize their rule based on public consent, elections or economic development, but rather based on the power of their tribes or tribal allies. This tradition has had a great negative impact on the general population.
The high rate of consanguinity increases the inbreeding coefficient, and the frequency of genetic disorders in Arabic populations. This effects health, psychological state and economic status of many unfortunate families, and it has implications on the whole population. Regardless of the reasons behind it, there has to be an effort at least in the medical field and population genetics to evaluate the situation. There is a lack of research and information concerning the problem.
Many tragic, articles have been written about the rise of rare recessive diseases among a schismatic Mormon sect which dominates Colorado City, Utah in the FLDS Fundamental Mormon Church. This group has been in the news since their prophet, seer and revelator, Warren Jetts was arrested. The articles point out that because of the inbred nature of the community, and its small size, one particular rare disease, “Fumarase deficiency”, has now become rather common. Most of us know the problems that crop up intuitively from experience, rare traits begin to spread in an inbred population. What needs to be emphasized is the greater problem from long term customary inbreeding, as is common in much of the Muslim world (and now in the Muslim ingress into the West), and in isolated cases as above.
First cousins have a coefficient of relatedness of 1/8, that means you can expect 1 out of 8 genes to be identical by descent from the same ancestor. As a small community marries only among itself soon everyone is a first cousin in many different ways. In the United States most first cousin marriages are between individuals who share only one pathway of near genetic relationship, from one of their parents. In places like Colorado City this is not so, the family tree is reticulated and twisted back into itself multiple times. This results in a reduced long term effective population, a self-induced bottleneck as a few individuals population what should be a more diverse constellation of ancestors (e.g., your great-great-grand-father is really your greater-great-grandfather multiple times). Low effective population increases stochastic effects, random genetic drift, and so you have deleterious allergies which can rise in frequency rather quickly. Because of low effective population selection is swamped.The key for the Colorado City Mormons, and many Muslim groups, is that tightly knit clans share many, many, recent common ancestors, so even individuals who are not technically first cousins may share more genetical similarities than the typical first cousin.
In the articles referenced above, the anger and outrage at the “benign” neglect of the government at what was happening in Colorado City, and the refusal of the community to cease their inbreeding, is palpable. The Colorado City Mormons are dependent on the state for their well being, and their own actions have resulted in the generation of a dependent class of children who will never participate in society, as such. Though the case of Pakistani origin Muslims in Northern England is much milder per capita (due to the larger size of the community, and its more recent provenance), the size of this community is going to have implications for the US National Health Service, a federal agency. In many Muslim communities it seems that inbreeding has increased with “modernization” for a variety of reasons, all related to the religion of Islam.
A fundamentalist breakaway Mormon sect, the FLDS, in Colorado City, AZ, is being overtaken by a rare birth-defect brought on by inbreeding doctrine ordered by Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, seer and revelator who revered Muhammad, the Muslim prophet, seer and revelator. The cult’s leader arranges all marriages between community members, who are descended from two founding families. The cult’s members view the severe disabilities brought on by the inbreeding as a test from God, and those who question this are excommunicated and thrown out of the community.
By the late 1990s, Tarby and his team had discovered fumarase deficiency was occurring in the greatest concentration in the world among the fundamentalist Mormon polygamists of northern Arizona and southern Utah.
Of even greater concern was the fact that the recessive gene that triggers the disease was rapidly spreading to thousands of individuals living in the community because of decades of inbreeding.
Doctors and family members interviewed by Newspapers say up to 20 children from families in the polygamist community are currently afflicted with the condition that requires full-time attention from caregivers. Victims suffer a range of symptoms, including severe epileptic seizures, inability to walk or even sit upright, severe speech impediments, failure to grow at a normal rate, and tragic physical deformities.

There is a dire phenomenon rising in Europe that is crippling entire societies and yet the continent sleeps, refusing not only to confront the destructive elephant in the room, but also to admit its very existence. The troubling reality being referred to is the widespread practice of Muslim inbreeding and the birth defects and social ills that it spawns.
The tragic effect of the left’s control of the boundaries of debate is that any discussion about vital issues such as these marks an individual as an “Islamophobe” and a “racist.” A person who dares to point at the pathology of inbreeding in the Muslim community is accused of whipping up hatred against Muslim people. But all of this could not be further from the truth. To fight against inbreeding anywhere is to defend humanity and to defend innocent babies from birth defects. Fighting against this Islamic practice stems from a pro-Muslim calling, since identifying destructive ideologies and practices in Islam enables the protection of the Muslim people from harm.
Massive inbreeding among Muslims has been going on since their prophet allowed first-cousin marriages more than 50 generations (1,400 years) ago. For many Muslims, therefore, intermarriage is regarded as being part of their religion. In many Muslim communities, it is a source of social status to marry one’s daughter or son to his or her cousin. Intermarriage also ensures that wealth is kept within the family.
The custom of inbreeding is as ancient as the history of the human life. In fact, it was not an exception among hunter Homo sapiens; it was the rule. However, humans learned from experience of its devastating affect upon the offspring. For example, none of the male children of pharaoh Akhenaton that were born out of consanguineous marriages survived.
The practice of interfamily marriage is still relatively common among Arabs because of the structure of the Arabic society. Nomadic people (Bedouins) do not really have the chance to mix with others. They are organized in tribes based on common ancestry, and when it comes to marriage, the only opportunity is to inbreed (Teebi, 1993). This social structure is common in the Arabic desert in countries like Kuwait. On the other hand, among the agricultural communities, inbreeding also commonly takes place but for different reasons. There it is favored because it ensures the unity of lands. Inheritance of land by males and females is kept within the same family, and this is of great importance for peasants because small pieces of land are inefficient in agricultural economies. This pattern is common among Lebanese, Egyptians, Palestinians, and Jordanians (Klat et al., 1984).
The consequence of consanguinity in the Arabic population is worse than typical because of their religion, Islam. Although Arabs are usually identified as Caucasians, modern Arabic populations especially in Egypt, Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon, are the result of a long history of blending with different human races (Der Kalustian et al., 1980). Arabs, Africans, Europeans, and other Asian people intermarried during wars, mass migrations, trade and religious practices (pilgrimage). This kind of “out breeding” rendered Arabic populations more susceptible to genetic disorders when comes to consanguinity; because out breeding introduced different deleterious recessive alleles common among other populations beside those alleles already common among Arabs.
Our present President, Barack Hussein Obama is half Arab from an Arab father and a White mother, so there is a high likelihood that Arab inbreeding may be a part of his ancestry! His assertion that he is of the black race is an Al Taquiya lie based upon the Koran, the Hadiths and Sharia Law. He fas stated publicly on many occasions that he is an “inbred” Muslim. This explains his strange personality and Islamic decisions.
The risk of stillbirth doubles when parents are first cousins. A study comparing Pakistani children of consanguineous marriages with Norwegian children shows a 50 percent higher risk that babies die during birth. Infant mortality among the inbred Pakistani children was more than double that among the Norwegian children. Deaths due to disorders such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy were 18 times more common among the Pakistani children and deaths due to multiple malformations, which may be part of unrecognized medical autosomal recessive syndromes were 10 times more common.
Other research concludes that inbred people have a higher risk of developing mental disorders such as depression  and schizophrenia. The practice of consanguineous marriages in Muslim families may thus explain why more than 40 percent of the patients in Denmark’s Sct. Hans Hospital for the criminally insane and 70 percent of the inmates in Danish youth prisons have Muslim immigrant backgrounds.
The consequences of consanguineous marriages may also bring us closer to an understanding Islamic terrorism. One study suggests that many suicide bombers are suffering from depression. Among some Muslims their actions are considered a socially acceptable way of committing suicide to end mental torment.
A study from Kabul, Afghanistan, based on autopsies of the remains of suicide bombers, shows that close to 90 percent were suffering from severe illnesses or deficiencies such as blindness, cancer, missing limbs, diminished brain capacity or leprosy. Many Muslim societies, including that of Afghanistan, have a low social acceptance of handicaps and mental illness. Being physically handicapped or mentally retarded often leads to exclusion based upon Sharia law and Muslim extremism. Becoming a martyr may be the only chance of achieving social recognition and honor. Some cases of Down’s syndrome may be another unpleasant effect of inbreeding and al-Qaeda has been known to use people afflicted with it. People with low intelligence may also be more easily convinced that Islam, with its promise of 72 virgins in a false paradise to Muslims who die fighting for their religion, is true.
Inbreeding among Muslims has severe social implications both for the Western societies and the Muslim world. According to Danish Social worker Merete Lefelt, “When cousins have children together, they are twice as likely to have a disabled child. …  Disabled immigrant children cost Danish municipalities millions. In Copenhagen the number of disabled children … has doubled over 10 years.” She has contacted 330 families with disabled children in Copenhagen and estimates that one-third of her clients have a foreign cultural background. The cost of special education for slow learners consumes one-third of the Danish school budget. This means less money for normal and gifted learners. 51 percent of the children in Copenhagen’s three schools for children with physical and mental handicaps have immigrant backgrounds.
Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool as was done to the Samaritans. The consequences of intermarriage between first cousins has a very serious effect on the offspring’s intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings.
The most famous example of inbreeding is in ancient Egypt, where several Pharaonic dynasties collapsed after a couple of hundred years. To keep wealth and power within the family, the Pharaohs often married their own sister or half-sister and after a handful of generations the offspring were mentally and physically unfit to rule.
The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also predates the world’s oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called “consanguinity”) and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percentage.
Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.).
A large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred – which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequences greatly.
The amount of blood related marriages is lower among Muslim immigrants living in the West. Among Pakistanis living in Denmark the amount is down to 40 percent and 15 percent among Turkish immigrants (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2, 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants”.).
More than half of Pakistani immigrants living in Britain are intermarried to siblings and first cousins:
The research, conducted by the BBC and broadcast to a shocked nation on Tuesday, found that at least 55% of the community was married to a first cousin. This is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.” (Times of India, 17/11, 2005 Ban UK Pakistanis from marrying cousins).
The lower percentages might be because it is difficult to get the chosen family member to the country, or because health education is better in the West.
Low intelligence
Several studies show that children of consanguineous marriages have lower intelligence than children of non-related parents. Research shows that the IQ is 10-16 points lower in children born from related parents and that abilities related to social behavior develops slower in inbred babies:
“Effects of parental consanguinity on the cognitive and social behavior of children have been studied among the Ansari Muslims of Bhalgapur, Bihar.
IQ in inbred children (8-12 years old) is found to be lower (69 in rural and 79 in suburban populations) than that of the outbred ones (79 and 95 respectively). The onset of various social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures, oral expression and hand-grasping are significantly delayed among the new-born inbred babies.” (Indian National Science Academy, 1983 Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of nsari Muslim Children”).
The article “Effects of inbreeding on Raven Matrices” concludes that “Indian Muslim school boys, ages 13 to 15 years, whose parents are first cousins, were compared with classmates whose parents are genetically unrelated on the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices, a nonverbal test of intelligence. The inbred group scored significantly lower and had significantly greater variance than the non-inbred group, both on raw scores and on scores statistically adjusted to control for age and socioeconomic status.” (Behaviour Genetics, 1984).
Another study shows that the risk of having an IQ lower than 70 goes up 400 percent from 1.2 percent in children from normal parents to 6.2 percent in inbred children: “The data indicate that the risk for mental retardation in matings of normal parents increases from 0.012 with random matings to 0.062 for first-cousin parentage.” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1978 Effect of inbreeding on IQ and mental retardation”). The study A study of possible deleterious effects of consanguinity concludes, that “The occurrence of malignancies, congenital abnormalities, mental retardation and physical handicap was significantly higher in offspring of consanguineous than non-consanguineous marriages.”
Mental and physical diseases and death
The risk of stillbirth doubles when parents are first cousins. (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants)
One study analyzed the risk of perinatal death (the child dies during its own birth), infant death (child dies while still infant) and autosomal recessive disorders (serious and often deadly genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy):
Perinatal mortality in the Pakistani children was 1.5 times higher than that in the Norwegian children, and infant mortality in the Pakistani children was more than double that in the Norwegian children. Deaths due to autosomal recessive disorders were 18 times more common in the Pakistani children. Similarly, deaths due to multiple malformations, which may be part of unrecognized autosomal recessive syndromes, were 10 times more common. (BMJ, 1994 Infant death and consanguineous marriage)
There are also evidence suggesting that inbred people has a higher risk of developing mental disorders: “The clinical observations indicated that depression is very high in some communities where the consanguinity of marriages is also high.” (Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 2009 “Relationship between consanguinity and depression in a south Indian population”)
Another study focused on the relationship between intermarriage and schizophrenia: “The closer the blood relative, the more likely was there to be a schizophrenic illness.” (American Psychiatric Press, 1982 The role of genetic factors in the ethiology of the schizophrenic disorders)
The increased risk of insanity among children of marriages between cousins might explain why immigrant patients are stressing the psychiatric system and are strongly overrepresented among insane criminals: “In Sct. Hans Hospital, which has the biggest ward for clinically insane criminals in Denmark, more than 40 percent of the patients have an immigrant background.” (Kristeligt Dagblad, 26/6 2007 Ethnic minorities overrepresented among the criminal insane)
Implications for the Western and the Muslim World
The consequences for offspring of consanguineous marriages are unpleasantly clear: Death, low intelligence or even mental retardation, handicaps and diseases often leading to a slow and painful death. Other consequences are:
Limited social skills and understanding, limited ability to manage education and work procedures and painful treatment procedures. The negative cognitive consequences also influence the executive functions. The impairment of concentration and emotional control most often leads to antisocial behavior.
The economic costs and consequences for society of inbreeding are of course secondary to the reality of human suffering.
However, inbreeding among Muslims has severe implications for both the Western societies and the Muslim world.
Expenses related to mentally and physically handicapped Muslim immigrants drains the budget for other public services: “When cousins have children together, they are twice as likely to have a disabled child – it costs municipal funds dearly. Disabled immigrant children costs Danish municipalities millions. In Copenhagen County alone, the number of disabled children in the overall increase of 100 percent at 10 years. … Meredith Lefelt has contacted 330 families with disabled children in Copenhagen. She estimates that one third of their clients have a foreign cultural background.”
On top come the expenses for Muslim immigrants who – because of different consequences of being born from blood related parents – are not able to live up to the challenges of our Western work market: Muslim immigrants and their descendants in Europe have a very high rate of unemployment.
The negative consequences of inbreeding are also vast for the Muslim world. Inbreeding may thus explain why only nine Muslims ever managed to receive the prestigious Nobel Prize (5 of them won the “Peace Prize” – for peace that turned out not to last for very long).
There is no doubt that the wide spread tradition of first cousin marriages among Muslims has harmed the gene pool among Muslims. Because Muslims’ religious beliefs prohibit marrying non-Muslims and thus prevents them from adding fresh genetic material to their population, the genetic damage done to their gene pool since their prophet allowed first cousin marriages 1,400 years ago are most likely massive. The overwhelming direct and indirect human and societal consequences have been explained above.
Compassion for the health of future generations should be enough to ban intermarriage among first cousins. The economic and societal consequences do also count. Such a ban would also lessen Muslim immigration to the West because many Muslim families would like to be able to continue their practice of intermarriage to live up to cultural and religious traditions and keep wealth and power inside their family.
A legislative ban on first cousin marriages is a logical and compassionate imperative for both the Muslim world, for EU and our Western national governments.
Walking exhausted on the road to Emmaus,
Rabbi James Talbott, Yeshua HaTikvah Yisrael Ministry

Beginners Christianity


What surprises most believers in Yeshua is the discovery that Christianity was not the original faith of the Apostles. Christianity got its start in the made-up pagan religion called Roman Catholicism some three hundred plus years after the first coming of Messiah, Yeshua. Roman Catholic Christianity was a hybrid and paganized religion right from the very beginning, a Roman political compromise between the worship of the Nazarene Israelites and the sungod worship of the day, called Mithraism.

The Roman Emperor Constantine 1st, who started Catholicism in 321 AD, was the titular head of the Roman State religion of Mithraism. Mithraism was the worship of the sun (or Lucifer, “the Light Bringer”). Being a good Mithratic believer, Constantine worshipped the sun on the day of the sun (the “Sun-day”), in honor of the sun. He also practiced many forms of idol worship. After his so- called “conversion” to Christianity, he had his wife and child beheaded, and minted coins to “Sol Invictus Mithras,” or the “Invincible God of the Sun,” demonstrating his continued allegiance to Mithras Sol Invicta, the victorious sungod.

Being Emperor (“Caesar”), Constantine 1st was regarded as a God. He was the official head of the Roman Empire, and was the object of veneration in the state-run religion. That might seem like a pretty good deal to some people, but Constantine had a small problem. Three hundred years earlier, a man named Yeshua of Nazareth (“Jesus of Nazareth”) had come, preaching a new and better Way that did not involve sacrifices to Lucifer, “the Light Bringer” (the sun).

Yeshua of Nazareth’s Israelite worship (and its later and more-numerous lawless and corrupt variants created by false leaders) had become very popular within the Roman Empire since Yeshua’s death. As a result of the Apostles going forth and preaching the Word, approximately half of the Roman Empire believed in some form of worship of Yeshua by the time of Constantine, and the messianic movements were continuing to grow.

Emperor Constantine 1st was faced with a small dilemma. He could not kill off all of the Believers in Yeshua without killing off at least half of his population. If he did that, he would not only cut his tax base in half, but he would be leaving himself in a seriously weakened military state at a time when he faced imminent threat of invasion from the pagan tribes/sides of the north. He could not act militarily against the Believers, but neither could he ignore the rapidly growing Israelite faith (and its many lawless variants) as it was rapidly taking over His Empire. If Israelite worship (and its variants) succeeded in taking over his empire, it would leave him bereft of his position as head of the state-run sungod religion, which would seriously jeopardize his hold on power.

Unable to kill off all the Believers, and unable to ignore the crisis in hopes it would go away, Emperor Constantine solved his problem by creating a new religion that would unite his people once again under his headship. The plan was to form a blend of Mithraism and Nazarene Israelite worship, calling it by a new name, the True Universal Roman (“Catholic”) faith.

Once this Catholic faith was firmly in place, and then Constantine would be free to resume his persecutions of Jews and Israelites, who after all, did not revere him as a God, which was reason enough to kill them all. By providing the Israelite Believers with a substitute faith, Constantine was then able to drive the majority of Believers away from the Nazarene Israelite messianic faith (and its many variants) and into the Roman Catholic faith, by way of persecutions and threats of death. Constantine preferred that the people be Catholics rather than Israelites or Jews of any sort, because in the Catholic faith, Constantine was still the object of religious veneration. Although not thought of as God per se, he was yet regarded as the Mouthpiece of God, being considered the first Papa, or Pope, called Pontifex Maximus, the ancient title of the Babylonian god- king, Nimrod.

Once the majority of the people had converted to Catholicism, Emperor Constantine then resumed his persecutions of Jews, Israelis, and all other Hebrew peoples, setting the precedent for the later persecutions, pogroms, the Spanish Inquisitions, the Crusades and the Holocaust. Constantine decreed that anyone found practicing Jewish or Hebrew customs, YHWH God’s Torah Law, or the Biblical Feasts of Yahweh that are actually written in the Word of YHWH should be put to death. This murder of YHWH’s chosen people was considered acceptable to Catholicism primarily because the core foundational belief of Catholicism is Babylonian Luciferism. Catholicism is Babylonian Luciferism in disguise; therefore it considered Judaism and Israelite worship of Yeshua Messiah as its enemy.

Catholicism was designed from its very inception as a fraud and a substitute religion, much as infant formula was designed as a man-made substitute for mother’s milk. And as much as infant formula yields a sickly and malnourished baby because there is no substitute for genuine mother’s milk, so Catholicism and its later Protestant daughters in 4,000 or so variants yield sickly, confused and undernourished Believers, because there is no substitute for what Yeshua taught in accordance with His Father, the Almighty Creator.

Although there are many fine and splendid people practicing Christianity today who do not wish their Jewish and Israelite brethren any harm, that is not to say that Christianity is an acceptable substitute religion for the original faith of the Jewish Apostles. Catholic Christianity is nothing but a hybrid between the original Nazarene Israelite faith and Babylonian Luciferism. The resultant Catholicism is not an acceptable Biblical substitute religion, and neither are its “wayward daughter” organizations, the Protestant Churches.

It is less correct to say that Catholicism is basically the original faith of the Apostles infused with Luciferism than it is to say that Catholicism is a decoy. It is Babylonian Luciferic sun worship disguised in the doctrinally twisted trappings of the original Nazarene Israelite faith. And, ironically, since Protestantism derives from Catholicism, Protestantism contains most of the same errors as Catholicism, despite Protestantism’s stated desire to rid themselves of the pagan ways of the Catholics. The reason for this all stems from the manner in which the Protestant Reformation got started.

The Protestant Reformation was conceived back in the 1520’s when a German Catholic monk named Martin Luther noticed that what the Apostles were recorded as doing in the Scriptures was actually very different from that which the Catholic Church taught its followers to do. Unable to reconcile the differences in his own heart, Father Martin Luther nailed 95 protests (or “Theses”) to the door of his own Catholic Church in Wittenberg, Germany, and thereby the Protestant Reformation was begun. Martin Luther was, however, a major anti-Semite; proof of which lies in his three books, “Against the Jews and their lies”, which was later adopted by Adolph Hitler, who attempted to implement Luther’s “final solution”; and nearly succeeding by killing nearly half the Jews in all of Europe!

As much of an improvement as Protestantism is over Catholicism; there are many discrepancies between the Protestant Church and the original faith of the apostles. By refusing to let go of the pagan core and the hierarchical framework of the Catholic Church, the movement is doomed to failure. Despite the flourishing of so many Protestant Sects (72 major ones and thousands of minor ones) none of them can ever approximate the faith of the Apostles. None of them can, because they retain the original Luciferic framework of the Catholic Church, including Sunday worship, pagan replacement holidays for YHWHs Holy Feasts, Replacement Theology and Darby’s Dispensationalism.

Every time a group of Protestant believers identifies another element of satanic corruption that needs to be removed from their variant of Protestant worship, a new Protestant sect is formed. Yet despite such “reformations,” the main errors of hierarchical Luciferic authoritarian structure, the substitution of pagan names for the sacred Hebrew Names of YHWH and Yeshua, and the pagan feast dates of December 25th and the Vernal Equinox Easter are never called in to question, while the Torah of the Almighty and His Appointed Times and Seasons are ignored and are today called “Bondage” by Protestant Christians, thereby making both Jesus/Yeshua and His Father out to be liars and their words in the Torah and the Gospels to be meaningless to the modern Churches. Matthew 5:17-19 is but one example among many of the denial by Christians of Yeshua’s words.

If Catholic Priest, Luther’s Protest was an attempt to restore the original faith of the Apostles to the people, it was an abortive first step. However, a journey is composed of many steps, and unless the Protestant Church adopts an entirely new attitude and thereby rediscover their Hebrew roots, they will never complete this journey. None of the Protestant Churches have ever really attained this goal of doing exactly as the Apostles did, and it is not likely that they ever will. The reason for this inevitable failure is the faulty approach that Martin Luther adopted for his Reform back in the 1500’s. By starting from within the polluted pagan framework of Catholicism and attempting to reason its way backwards towards what they might think that the Apostles may have done, the Protestant reformation was hamstrung as a failure on the day it was born.

It is not correct to say that the Nazarene Israelite faith was infused with Luciferism so as to create Catholicism. Rather, it is more correct to say that Roman Catholic Christianity was created by dressing up Mithratic sun worship in the trappings of the Nazarene Israelite Faith, to act as a stumbling block to the unwary. Catholicism was an attempt to make Luciferism look like the original faith of the Apostles; kind of in the same way that one attempts to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. You can try all you like, but it just can’t be done, because the fabric is completely different, like the incompatibility of new and old cloth put onto one torn garment.

Martin Luther’s attempt to practice Hebrew rooted “Christianity” as the Apostles practiced while remaining inside of the pagan framework and Luciferic pollution of Roman Catholic Christianity has been likened to a farmer who grows his garden in soil that has been exfoliated by Agent Orange. No matter how much he tries to clean up the soil, it just is not quite possible to get away from all the poison. If you eat the fruit of that ground, you are only going to develop cancer, which is a Metzora spiritual sore. See my essay on that. The farmer would be a lot better off by simply abandoning that particular patch of soil, moving over a little bit, and starting over. The fruit would be a lot better for him, too.

Catholicism was originally a mixture between Luciferism and the Nazarene Israelite faith, which is somewhat akin to putting the sheep in to the wolf’s den. The wolves consume the sheep for dinner, while all the time, the sheep are arguing over the “color of the wolves hair”. While the Protestants have protested against many of the practices of the idol worship of their Catholic Christian mother religion, the Protestant Christian Churches have by-and-large retained the majority of the Luciferic feast days, the pagan names as assigned by Rome onto their Pope Gregory [Gregorian] calendar, and are embracing a large number of the same pagan symbols resident in Catholicism. Not only that, but most Protestant churches worship on the same day that Constantine identified in his edict of 321AD for worship of the sun, the Sun day, which is nowhere prophesied or even mentioned in Scripture as a suitable replacement for the proper seventh-day Sabbath. As a matter of fact, I defy you to find any Scripture in the Bible or any person that was authorized by YHWH God in scripture to change the 7th day to the 1st day of the week to be a new Sabbath Day set in eternity!

Furthermore, the hierarchical structures and dogmas of the Protestant and Catholic Churches are very different from the loose affiliation of self-motivated spiritual seekers that constitutes a proper Israelite assembly (or “ecclesia/quahal”). The former is a militant political organization, while the other is a genuine loose-knit fellowship that seeks to uplift one another as brethren and sisters in Yeshua. Martin Luther’s attempts to return to the original practices of the Apostles while refusing to drop the hierarchical Catholic/Babylonian Church structure was doomed to failure before he ever got started. It would be like trying to become a civilian at the same time you reenlist in the military. The two are antonyms of one another.

It is important to consider the fact that the Greek historian, Plutarch lived during New Testament times some eighty years after the time of Yeshua’s first advent. Even so, he tells us that the secret rites of the sungod Mithra were still being celebrated in his day.

Most people do not know it but at that time Roman Mithraism was the chief rival of Christianity. The followers of Mithra had their own versions of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. December 25th was recognized as the birthday of Sol Invicta Mithra and Sunday was his special day.

Theologians would tell us that during the fourth century the worship of Mithra mysteriously vanished at the same time Roman Christianity appeared on the scene. But what really vanished – Mithraism or Biblical Hebrew roots Messianic Christianity that has nothing to do with the pagan precepts of Sunday and December 25th?

The truth is that nothing vanished. Aspects of Mithraism are still found among the precepts of contemporary Christianity of today – and Biblical Messianic Christianity is still being practiced by the few who fear the LORD, Yahweh and keep His commandments – which preclude and do not allow the inclusion of pagan rituals.

As the original faith of the Apostles, Nazarene (or Messianic) Israel agrees with Orthodox Judaism, in that the Torah (the Instructions or “Law”) of YHWH (“God”) is perfect, and can never be done away with. Yeshua Himself said as much at Matthew 5:17-20, and 7:21-23. Paul and the NT Apostles agreed with Yeshua; thereby confirming with God that the “New Testament” VALIDATES TORAH! Those who twist Paul’s words so that they can do away with the Almighty’s Torah, do so at their peril.

We observe the Torah of YHWH (“God”) and the original seven Scriptural feast days of Leviticus 23. We believe in keeping all the Torah just as Yeshua our Example, Lord and Savior kept the Torah.

Nazarene (or Messianic) Israel shares the common goal with the real Christian Church of furthering the worship and knowledge of Yeshua HaMoshiach (“Jesus the Messiah”). We share a common foundation in the Word of YHWH God despite the Catholic bunny trails now present in western Christendom.

Nazarene (or Messianic) Israel further shares the common goal with some Protestant Christian churches of eschewing the Luciferic practices and idol worship of the Catholic Christian Church, and by returning to the original practices of the Apostles. However, while we share this same goal, we believe that it is valuable to take a more direct approach in our goal of arriving at the original doctrines and practices of the Apostles as Yeshua taught them, adding nothing and leaving nothing out as scripture instructs us to do.

Rather than beginning with pagan-influenced Catholicism and working backwards, we simply do as the Apostles did as best we can. We start out with our identity as Israelites (whether genetic or grafted in, Romans 9, 10 and 11), and then we move forward to accept Yeshua as the Messiah according to the Scriptures. We understand that Yeshua came not to do away with the Torah (the Instructions of YHWH), or to replace it at all, but rather to show us how best to keep it, by living a life that is pleasing to YHWH God, His Father. This simple approach allows Nazarene Israelites to understand why the Apostles spoke of the importance of keeping the Torah Law of YHWH God in Acts 21-26 and elsewhere.

By working forwards rather than backwards we come to a far cleaner, more thorough and more intellectually and spiritually satisfying knowledge of the Scripture. Both the “New” (Brit Chadashah) and “Old” (Tanakh) “Testaments” (One Covenant only, and not two) fit into one cohesive, harmonious whole. Nothing needs to be explained away, and nothing needs to be “replaced” or “Dispensed” with by adding lying manmade theologies (Jeremiah 16:19-21). Nothing needs to be “spiritualized” in order to make sense of it. We do not do away with YHWH’s feast dates, nor do we adopt the Luciferic feast dates of Christmas and Easter. Further, we retain our identity not as “spiritual Israelites,” but as actual Israelites (whether genetic or grafted in, as was Ruth) and as the many nations and children of father Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Walking on the road to Emmaus,
Messianic Teachers, Rabbi James and Erlene Talbott