Month: July 2017

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Just finished posting a series on Aleister Crowley and the Book of the Law.

The most that many know of Aleister Crowley is his (in)famous motto “Do what thou wilt.”
Beyond that, they may know other useful tidbits such as that he referred to himself as “Baphomet,” “The Beast 666,” “To Mega Therion (the great best)” and was known as the wickedest or most wicked man in the world.

Aleister Crowley was a satanic black magician (or rather, magickian), intensely sexually perverse, a drug addict and an all-around glorifier of all things demonic. Crowley is also very, very, very influential in very, very, very many areas of culture, history, the magickal arts and much more. You can find his hidden left hand behind everything from Jack Parsons and L. Ron Hubbard to the Lock Ness Monster and the alien grays.

This is part 2 of a series that began with The Beatles – John Lennon and the occult.

On March 4, 1966—perhaps coincidentally the same year when Anton LaVey established the church of satan—John Lennon stated:

“Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue with that; I’m right and I will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first – rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.”

Subsequently, Lennon had the following exchange with a reporter:

“If I had said television is more popular than Jesus, I might have got away with it, but I just happened to be talking to a friend and I used the words ‘Beatles’ as a remote thing, not as what I think – as Beatles, as those other Beatles like other people see us. I just said ‘they’ are having more influence on kids and things than anything else, including Jesus. But I said it in that way which is the wrong way.’”

Note that he sidesteps the fact that his statement was premised upon besmirching Christianity, exclusively, “Christianity will go.” He was also so, obviously, wrapped up in his own tiny little world that he did not consider that there were, at the time, people all over the world with no regard or even knowledge of for rock ‘n’ roll, no regard or even knowledge of the Beatles nor, for that matter, even the use of electricity.

A reporter asked:

“Some teenagers have repeated your statements – ‘I like the Beatles more than Jesus Christ.’ What do you think about that?”

To which John Lennon answered:

“Well, originally I pointed out that fact in reference to England. That we meant more to kids than Jesus did, or religion at that time. I wasn’t knocking it or putting it down.”

This, even though he stated “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink.” He was not putting it down? He was putting it out, with the rubbish.

Lennon continued directly in reply to the reporter with:

“I was just saying it as a fact and it’s true more for England than here. I’m not saying that we’re better or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person or God as a thing or whatever it is. I just said what I said and it was wrong. Or it was taken wrong. And now it’s all this….I wasn’t saying whatever they’re saying I was saying. I’m sorry I said it really. I never meant it to be a lousy anti-religious thing. I apologize if that will make you happy. I still don’t know quite what I’ve done. I’ve tried to tell you what I did do but if you want me to apologize, if that will make you happy, then OK, I’m sorry.”

So, he “never meant it to be a lousy anti-religious thing” even though he stated “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink” which is 100% anti-religion.

“early in his career, John regularly poked fun at church dignitaries, parodied hymns, and drew blasphemous cartoons of Christ on the cross. A biographer Philip Norman writes, ‘While in Hamburg, John, each Sunday would stand on the balcony, taunting the churchgoers as they walked to St. Joseph’s. He attached a water-filled contraceptive to an effigy of Jesus and hung it out for the churchgoers to see. Once he urinated on the heads of three nuns.’ (Philip Norman, Shout! The Beatles in Their Generation, p. 152)
Later, he started to think that Christ – like the Beatles – might have had divinity thrust on him by fans. When he was under the influence of drugs, he admitted that he thought he was Christ. When he got into Eastern mysticism, he thought Christ’s message was to tell us we’re all divine, sons of God like Christ – we just don’t recognize it.”

“Lennon gave a suspicious account of the origin of the name ‘Beatles.’ In 1961 he wrote: ‘It came in a vision – a man appeared on a flaming pie and said unto them, ‘From this day on you are Beatles with an A.’ Thank you, Mister Man, they said, thanking him.’”

“Lennon and Yoko Ono knew about it too. They consulted mediums, astrologists, numerologists, psychics, etc. and had links with the occult. One of Ono’s latest albums is titled ‘Yes, I’m a Witch.’”

“In his book, The Ultimate Evil, investigator-author Maury Terry writes that between 1966 and 1967, the Satanic cult, the Process Church, ‘sought to recruit the Rolling Stones and the Beatles. The Beatles’ links with Satanist Aleister Crowley are documented. Crowley’s photo appeared on the Sgt. Pepper album cover. The Beatles testified that the characters who appeared on the album were their ‘heroes.’”

You can read up on Aleister Crowley here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

The most that many know of Aleister Crowley is his (in)famous motto “Do what thou wilt.”

Beyond that, they may know other useful tidbits such as that he referred to himself as “Baphomet,” “The Beast 666,” “To Mega Therion (the great best)” and was known as the wickedest or most wicked man in the world.

Aleister Crowley was a satanic black magician (or rather, magickian), intensely sexually perverse, a drug addict and an all-around glorifier of all things demonic. Crowley is also very, very, very influential in very, very, very many areas of culture, history, the magickal arts and much more. You can find his hidden left hand behind everything from Jack Parsons and L. Ron Hubbard to the Lock Ness Monster and the alien grays.

And this is barely even scratching the surface which is actually why we will merely focus on one Crowley related issue; his (in)famous motto.

But what is the motto? Well, that is the place to start. In a manner of speaking it is not Crowley’s motto meaning that it was not directly authored by Crowley but by one of his demonic cohorts.

Aleister Crowley had what is known in this context as “scarlet women,” those, including his wives, who were unfortunate enough to have anything to do with him (some of whom ended up in insane asylums). One was his wife Rose who became entranced whilst in Egypt with Crowley. Upon Crowley’s request that she identify the entity speaking to her while they visited the Cairo Museum, she identified the ancient Egyptian artifact known as the Stele of Ankh-ef-en-Khonsu aka Stele of revealing which was conveniently exhibit number 666 (see the video Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Page: “Lucifer Rising” and the stairway to hell (and Eddie Murphy) for a view of this).

Aleister Crowley decided to conduct a ritual, a working whereby to summon the being who subsequently dictated the Book of the law which contains the motto.

But what is the motto? Well, firstly keep in mind that what gives the motto its meaning is its context so that is something to which we shall get.

Some quote the mottos simply as, “Do what thou wilt.” Others add to it thusly, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” and yet others quote in in whole, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law. Lover under will.”

Some note that simply quoting “Do what thou wilt” or “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” is why the motto gets such a bad rep as this makes it sound like it is an invitation, if not commandment, to just do whatever you want. However, with the addition of the last portion, “Love is the law. Lover under will” we get a fuller context and the motto turns into a beautiful, life affirming, peace, love and happiness sort of statement.

Well, context expands from immediate to greater (and beyond to cultural, historical, etc.) and so what defines just what is meant by, let us focus on, “love” and “will” is both the preceding and following sentence, the paragraph and the text as a whole.

Note that, to begin with the Book of the Law’s chapter one verse 3 states, “Every man and every woman is a star” which makes you wonder, or finally know, why we refer to celebrities as “stars.”

Verse 7 notes that “it is revealed by Aiwass” which some read as “I WAS” which they then see as a reversal, of sorts, of YHVH’s statement in Exodus 3: “I AM” or “IAM that I AM.” Note that former Magister Templi in the Church of satan who is now the Magus of the Chaos Imperium Diabolus Rex Church (whose name appears to mean something to the likes of: the devil is the king of the church) has stated, “I am that I am not” (see Self-deification and the magick craft).

Verse 10 states, “Let my servants be few & secret” hinting secret societies, mystery religions, etc.

Verses 12-13 begins to provide that which we seek, “take your fill of love! I am above you and in you. My ecstasy is in yours. My joy is to see your joy.” See, it is all positive and beautiful.

Verse 15 offers some identifications, “Now ye shall know that the chosen priest & apostle of infinite space is the prince-priest the Beast; and in his woman called the Scarlet Woman is all power given. They shall gather my children into their fold: they shall bring the glory of the stars into the hearts of men.”

Verse 18 also makes an interesting reference, “Burn upon their brows, o splendrous serpent!”

Verse 21b gets right to the point of identifying the messenger, “…there is no other God than me, and my lord Hadit.”

Now, since this is coming from a deceiving spirit who is dealing in secret info it gets a bit confusing but note that verse 1 stated simply, “Had! The manifestation of Nuit.” Verse 6 stated, “Be thou Hadit, my secret centre, my heart & my tongue!” Verses 7-9, “Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass…The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs. Worship then the Khabs, and behold my light shed over you!”

Yeah, Aiwass, Nuit, Hadit, etc. shed light alright, “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2nd Corinthians 11:14).

Verse 27 refers to the “Queen of Space” which is reminiscent of the Biblical “Queen of Heaven” who is an abominable idol (and the name of which Catholics have applied Mary, see Roman Catholic Maryology: Mary in Roman Catholicism, part 14 – Queen of Heaven?) and verses 33-34 actually references, “Queen of Heaven” in this way:

Then the priest fell into a deep trance or swoon, & said unto the Queen of Heaven; Write unto us the ordeals; write unto us the rituals; write unto us the law!

But she said: the ordeals I write not: the rituals shall be half known and half concealed: the Law is for all.

It is then noted that v. 35 “This that thou writest is the threefold book of Law” and, in part, this will teach “the work of the wand and the work of the sword” which refers to magickal, and sacrificial, practices.

We then learn that v. 39 “The word of the Law is THELEMA.” This became Crowley’s magickal system and hints at the definitions which we seek as we were interested in defining “love” and “will.” As in English “will” can mean a legal document, the exercise of volition, etc. there are various Greek words for “will” such as pisteuō, ekballō, thelō and, of course, thelēma.

And this brings us to the motto in v. 40:

Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong, if he look but close into the word. For there are therein Three Grades, the Hermit, and the Lover, and the man of Earth. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

The motto will be repeated a few times and so we shall come the love and will part. Note that with regards to the context of “love” and “will” v. 41 states, “The word of Sin is Restriction.” Seems that doing what thou wilt would free you from the restriction of sin. In other words, do whatever you want and do not be concerned about sin.

Verse 42 notes that “thou hast no right but to do thy will” and v. 43 notes that “pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.”

Verse 57 brings us to the statement:

Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well!…

Indeed, there are love and love if we take that to mean different concepts and meanings. For example when you say “I love my children, I love chocolate, I love my dog” you are using one word with different meanings (see “Love” and “Hate” – Defining Terminology).

Verse 58 states, “I give unimaginable joys on earth” and states, “nor do I demand aught [anything] in sacrifice” which, as we shall see, is a statement which will be contradicted.

As a point of interest, v. 60 references “The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red.” This is a pentacle (an incircled pentagram) such as can be seen on the cover of the Anton LaVey’s satanic bible.

Back to love v. 61 states, “…to love me is better than all things: if under the night stars in the desert thou presently burnest mine incense before me, invoking me with a pure heart, and the Serpent flame therein.” Along with this come promises of worldly goods and pleasures in exchange for worship:

Ye shall gather goods and store of women and spices; ye shall wear rich jewels; ye shall exceed the nations of the earth in spendour & pride; but always in the love of me, and so shall ye come to my joy…I love you! I yearn to you! Pale or purple, veiled or voluptuous, I who am all pleasure and purple, and drunkenness of the innermost sense, desire you. Put on the wings, and arouse the coiled splendour within you: come unto me!

There are a lot of veiled references here such as to the coiled, fiery, spinal serpent kundalini which is tied in with sex magick (and thus, with tantric sexual yoga). This exchange of worship of false gods and/or satan in exchange for the things of this world sounds familiar:

 Again, the devil took Him [Jesus] to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.”

Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY'” (Matthew 4:8-10).

Chapter one ends the “Manifestation of Nuit” with calls to have the priestess’ eyes “burn with desire as she stands bare and rejoicing in my secret temple…I am the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are some relevant books:

John Weldon and John Ankerberg:

Knowing the Facts about Divination Practices and Occult “Games”

The Facts on the Occult

The Coming Darkness

Walter Martin’s The Kingdom of the Occult

Ron Rhodes’ The Truth Behind Ghosts, Mediums, and Psychic Phenomena

Philip G. Davis’ Goddess Unmasked – The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality
Davis “argued that Wicca was the creation of an English civil servant and amateur anthropologist named Gerald B. Gardner…the origins of the Goddess movement lay in an interest among the German and French Romantics-mostly men-in natural forces, especially those linked with women. Gardner admired the Romantics and belonged to a Rosicrucian society called the Fellowship of Crotona-a group that was influenced by several late-nineteenth-century occultist groups, which in turn were influenced by Freemasonry.”

Ronald Hutton’s The Triumph of the Moon
Hutton “conducted detailed research into the known pagan practices of prehistory [but] could find no conclusive evidence of the coven from which [Gerald] Gardner said he had learned the Craft, and argued that the ‘ancient’ religion Gardner claimed to have discovered was a mélange of material from relatively modern sources.”

Robin Briggs’ Witches and Neighbors
Briggs “pored over the documents of European witch trials and concluded that most of them took place during a relatively short period…The accused witches, far from including a large number of independent-minded women, were mostly poor and unpopular. Their accusers were typically ordinary citizens (often other women), not clerical or secular authorities. In fact, the authorities generally disliked trying witchcraft cases and acquitted more than half of all defendants. Briggs also discovered that none of the accused witches who were found guilty and put to death had been charged specifically with practicing a pagan religion.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.

With the US government, actually nine unelected officials, radically redefining “marriage,” the issue of gender is more relevant than ever.

The “sexual revolution” was, in reality, sexual devolution and “free sex” resulted in slavery to sex. The free sex revolution was merely an open door to homosexuality. In turn, homosexuality was merely an open door to transgenderism.

Finally, transgenderism was merely an open door to postgendersism.

Here is the latest of my guest post at the Illuminati Watcher website:

The following are some interesting statements from Lady Gaga’s Elle magazine interview titled, “True Colors.”

For my series on Lady Gaga, see here.

The article refers to her “high-priestess act” and that as for Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, Lady
Gaga’s real name:
I am-Stefani is-a perpetually tortured artist. Of course! That’s why I changed my name. I can’t be her in public. She would be a mess!

Well, if Stefani “would” be a mess and Lady Gaga is not then I would hate to see Stefani as a mess.

She was a onetime apprentice to Jeff Koons. He and Gaga are said to, as she puts it, “stare at things for decades” which either means nothing of that their brains often are in standby mode as is apparently the case with other celebrities; see the video: Celebrity brain freeze…of the mind control kind?.

Referring to Koons coming over Lady Gaga’s place for dinner, she states, “I’m still trying to figure out if we drugged him and mind controlled him into doing this.” She also stated, “Every time I’m around him, I’m sweating.”

It is interesting that wacky paranoid tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists are nuts to claim that personages such as Lady Gaga communicate with hidden messages…but what does it mean when we hear it from her own mouth?:
You hide something that’s culturally interesting in something else, like a pop song. And then you blast it to the world, and suddenly they discover something new. That’s what I’ve always been doing. Now we’re doing it on a higher level.

This influencer (the article notes, “Gaga has sold 24 million records worldwide”) states that in making her album Artpop, “I was less drunk and more high on this record, if that makes sense.” Yes it does; she is a druggy who even got high during the interview.

The article states, “Gaga’s every fashion moment is carefully conceptualized-even if its execution sometimes amounts to haute arts and crafts” and Gaga herself stated:
I’m sort of raging and refusing to wear eyeliner and eyelashes anymore. I love wearing makeup. But it became something I had to do every day to keep up with my iconography. I want to erase that whole idea and have an entirely new one. So every morning, after we do our makeup, I just end up going into the bathroom and taking it off.

It is noted that she has a “faux-snakeskin-wallpapered living room.”

Sadly, Lady Gaga notes, “Do you know the men I had to crawl through, the people that disrespected my body, my mind, my heart?” This should be a good lesson for her fans; do not get involved with someone, especially physically, until such time as you know them very, very well.
However, Gaga encourages her fans to treat sex as merely the ice cream flavor de jour with more flavors than Baskin-Robbin only much less satisfying and much more regret full; at least when the drugs wear off and they have a rare moment of clarity.

Last, note that the article notes that the album Artpop involves, “videos, performances, mobile apps, and top-secret red-carpet dresses developed, she claims” with Gaga stating, “with the help of military engineers.”

So, in the end, we have a perpetually tortured artist who is a druggy who stares at things for decades who hides things in pop songs who makes reference to mind control and military engineers.

And you are the weird one if think that she is a perpetually tortured artist who is a druggy who stares at things for decades who hides things in pop songs who makes reference to mind control and military engineers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Arnold B. Murray (1929-2014 AD) was the pastor of The Shepherd’s Chapel, the official website of which has a page titled In Answer to Critics that was written by Murray. The relevant portions read as follows:

What about teaching Serpent Seed? I make no apology for teaching the Word of God. In Matthew 13, our Lord and Saviour explains the Parable of the Sower directly to His disciples. He is very explicit about exactly who the sower of the bad seed really is. Matthew 13:37-39 states, “He (Jesus) answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.”

The issue, that Murray is not addressing, is that there are two seeds but they have nothing to do with genetics but with actions, with sin, with rebellion. Such is the case in 1 John 3 (see Reply to Zen Garcia on the serpent seed of Satan theory) John 8 (see Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in John 8?) and Matthew 13 (see Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in the parable of the sower?).

Arnold Murray continued by noting:

Let no one tell you Christ was speaking in a parable here for He was carefully explaining to His disciples the real meaning of the parable He had previously spoken to the multitude. He talked with them in private, and He used language that a child could understand. Christ’s teaching of the seed of the devil (or serpent) was nothing new, it was taught from the beginning of Scripture – Genesis.

Here again, the issue is just what is Murray getting at; that the serpent seed of Satan are those who are in sin or that they have Satan’s genetics via Eve and Cain?

Well, Arnold Murray further notes:

In Genesis 3:15 God is speaking to the serpent, “and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel.” The bruising of the heel took place when Christ was nailed to the Cross.
And finally, for those who still want further proof as to who the serpent really is; we read in Revelation 12:9, “and the great Dragon was cast out, that old Serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world.” Now can anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear have any doubt or confusion about Satan’s own seed?

Indeed, Satan has seed but at least in this reply to his critics, Murray is not very specific however, we can learn more about his views on this issue via his Genesis Lecture 3 wherein after quoting “Gen 2:9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” Arnold Murray states:

…the tree of life is a different subject. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a different “type”, let’s put it that way. The tree of life, the tree that gives life, is Jesus Christ. The tree of the knowledge of both good, I mean Satan knows how to be good, he was created good but he is evil. That tree happens to be Satan…I’m going to give you quite an education in trees, symbolism, and what actually happened in the garden.

We can also consider Arnold Murray’s Genesis Lecture 5:

Why then, why is Cain not in Adam’s genealogy? Because he’s not of his genes…Now, had Cain been of the genes of Adam, he would have been in Adam’s genealogy, but he’s not because he wasn’t….Open you minds if you don’t understand, put it on a shelf and just come along with us….Cain, which is not of his genes.

Murray had actually referenced Genesis 4:1 which states, “Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain.” He comments thusly:

We know that conception took place and the prior chapter and here we have another conception from Adam. Not understanding the word “again” as it is used here, “she again bare his brother Abel”. I want you to look at that word in the Hebrew. Let’s call it up. It’s: H3254 yasaph – yaw-saf’ A primitive root;

Here Murray quotes a lexicon:

…to add or augment (often adverbially to continue to do a thing): – add, X again, X any more, X cease, X come more, + conceive again, continue, exceed, X further, X gather together, get more, give moreover, X henceforth, increase (more and more), join, X longer (bring, do, make, much, put), X (the, much, yet) more (and more), proceed (further), prolong, put, be [strong-] er, X yet, yield.

Now, just what is it that Eve continued to do? She not only conceived again but did so through Adam.
Following the thought, the context, the action, Genesis 4:1-2 state:

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”

So what will Arnold Murray do with this fact? He elucidates the Hebrew and comments thusly:

And it means to continue. Now if she’s giving birth to Cain and she continues in labor, what does that mean? It means that she continued in the labor of having delivered Cain and delivered Abel. They were twins but not by the same pregnancy. Identical twins are conceived in one conception, one pregnancy I should say. They’re both in the same bag of water. Whereas twins that are not identical, they are two separate pregnancies that happen at two separate times and they are in separate bags of water. Now any of you that might have a hang-up on that, talk with to your medical doctor. He will assure you that is correct.

It is odd that Murray seemed to read 4:1 and 4:2 as continuing events—birthing Cain with Abel coming out after him as twins—but he actually states that they are not only “two separate pregnancies” but that they did “happen at two separate times” which is what the text implies (with Adam fathering both Cain and Abel as per the Bible).

Well, Arnold Murray actually provides a reference to “DDC, DNA Diagnostics Center: http://www.dnacenter.com/media/twins-different-fathers.html” which is a page titled, “Paternity Testing: Twins With Different Fathers” (Posted May 22, 2008 AD) which reads, in part:

There are two possible scenarios when the paternity of a set of twins is in question, depending on whether the twins are Identical or Fraternal. Because Identical Twins have exactly the same DNA, they would therefore have the same father…fraternal twins may have different DNA profiles because they come from two different eggs that have been fertilized by different sperm cells… In the case of fraternal twins, a woman has ovulated more than once in a given month, thus releasing more than one egg. If this occurs and each egg is fertilized by sperm cells from the same man, fraternal twins are formed that have the same father…

While extremely rare, it is possible that each egg is fertilized by sperm cells from two different men, thus forming twins with two different fathers, called bi-paternal twins.

You can see how easy it is to get bogged down in semantics as the term twins implies that they are born at the same time. They may be “two separate pregnancies” but, of course, this depends on how one defines pregnancy such as, in this case, two eggs and two different father’s sperm. Also, just what is meant by that the fertilizations “happen at two separate times”; minutes apart, days apart? And what is being referred to as happening at separate times; the sex act, the fertilization, the pregnancy, the birthing?

We will see whence Murray got this strange idea of twins but for now, he continues thusly:

We even have records of a person having non-identical twins that are of two separate races. So it’s not a medical mystery. It’s something quite frankly—if there’s a set of twins that are not identical; this is what happens (separate bags of water). I’m not saying by separate fathers; that’s separate conceptions (as with Eve’s twins having separate fathers). So what do we have here? We have a set of twins; but at two separate conceptions. How do we know that? Because Cain is not in Adams genealogy (period).

The reason that Cain is not in Adam’s genealogy is that as per Genesis 4:16-17, “And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived…” The separation was not genetic but geological; Cain moved and started his own family.

The fact is that the interpretive idea that Cain and Abel were twins was invented circa 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis). It is found with The Targum of Palestine, Commonly Entitled the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, on the Book of Genesis. Targumim (of which there are a few) combine Aramaic translations of the Hebrew along with paraphrases which often simply insert invented comments into the text of the Bible that simply do not exist in the Hebrew.

Following the thought, Arnold Murray references Genesis 4:10, “What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground” and states:

In the manuscripts this word “blood” is plural meaning “bloods”. Why? All the children that Abel would have given birth to, those genes also cried out from the ground. Because when you murder someone you don’t only just murder that person you murder all the offspring that would have come from that person.

Well, he is even wrong on this simple point as the Hebrew word in the text is dam (Strong’s H1818). What makes a Hebrew word plural is an im ending for masculine words and ot for feminine—dam is neither.

We will leave off with another of Murray’s statements as he quotes Genesis 5:3 thusly, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth” and states:

Do you find Cain listed there? No you do won’t. Do you know why? This is a chronological giving of the genes of Adam. Why isn’t Cain there? He was not of Adams genes. He was not Adam’s son. It’s very difficult to accept that (for some), but if you were not to understand it, then as Jesus said concerning the parable of the tears which the wicked (one) planted in the world, if you don’t understand it you won’t understand any of my (Christ’s) parables, Mark, chapter four. So it’s up to you. Let God’s word speak, and God gave you a brain.

I wrote specifically on the issue of the tears referencing the parallel text in Matthew 13, see: Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in the parable of the sower?. In short, the parable says nothing about genetics nor much about the issues involved in the debate over the serpent seed of Satan. Arnold Murray begins by re-writing, as it where, Genesis and then overlays that eisegetical interpretive template over Matthew 13 / Mark 4.

The most relevant New Testament texts on this issue are John 8 and 1 John 3 about which I wrote here Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in John 8 and Reply to Zen Garcia on the serpent seed of Satan theory.

You will find that those texts, as well as YHVH’s statement to and cursing of Cain in Genesis 4, make it clear that it is about actions, about sin, about rebellion and not about genetics.

A Catholic acquaintance is rather taken with employing one liner catch phrases into his claims about the Catholic church. For example, it is the almost 2,000 year old apostolic church that has always believed the same things.
Well, he recently claimed that the Catholic church has believed in the assumption of Mary “Since from the day it happened” and that it is (generically) “the oldest feast day of Our Lady” without a date given for her assumed assumption or the fist feast.

For details on the assumed assumption, see here: Assumed Into Heaven? In short, the claim is that either before or after her death, Mary was assumed (as in taken up) body and soul into heaven.

In order to prove his claim to an early belief in and feast of the assumption, he provided an aptly titled article by Father Clifford Stevens, “The Assumption Of Mary: A Belief Since Apostolic Times.” It was originally published within the July-August 1996 AD issue of Catholic Heritage and published online by the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN).

Here is the opening statement:

The Assumption is the oldest feast day of Our Lady, but we don’t know how it first came to be celebrated.
Its origin is lost in those days when Jerusalem was restored as a sacred city, at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337).

Let us consider that “we don’t know how” nor when “it first came to be celebrated” because “Its origin is lost” but we know it was “the oldest feast day of Our Lady.”

From the get go the article is in error as the fact is that it is not detailed enough since “the oldest feast day of Our Lady” is not, I repeat not, the feast of the assumption. Rather, the oldest is the feast of the Dormition (the falling asleep). This is because people knew that Mary died. That was the extent of the early feast; her death and nothing whatsoever about her being assumed.
Much later on, Catholic invented a brand new idea about which earlier Catholic knew nothing: that Mary was assumed.

During his debate with James White titled, “The Bodily Assumption of Mary,” Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis stated:

Some will say, “Where is the testimony of the Assumption in sacred scriptures? Where is the testimony in the ancient Fathers?” To the first question I answer, with Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott, quote, “Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had” unquote. But we have possible allusions the Assumption in scripture; allusions, not direct evidence…Where’s all the Patristic evidence for the Assumption of Mary? Well, I would say the same thing that Ludwig Ott says about scripture. I would say, about Patristic evidence, “Direct and express Patristic evidence is not to be had.” But what hangs in the balance here? We do have late Patristic witnesses…they come rather late on the scene…

So we have no testimony nor allusions in sacred scriptures nor in the ancient Fathers.

The Catholic New Advent encyclopedia provides some succinct historical statement on this issue (emphasis added for emphasis and bracketed annotations added). Also, note something very important, something that Catholic do when they know that history and theology is not only not on their side but utter contradicts their authoritative claims. The encyclopedia seeks to soften the blow to the faithful by actually beginning the cited article thusly within the subsection titled
“The fact of the Assumption”:

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius [bishop of Salamis] (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11)…

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae [oddly, the encyclopedia has not entry for this nor does it provide a date; but it dates to circa the 5th century], bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis [late 5th century and which was condemned by Pope Gelasius], falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.

If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete [mid 7th century to 720 or 740], St. John Damascene [676 to 754 or 787], St. Modestus of Jerusalem [? to 630] and others.

In the West, St. Gregory of Tours [538 or 539 to 593 or 594] (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome [340 or 342 to 420] and St. Augustine [354 to 430] for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus [676 to 754 or 787] (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem.

Now, if the assumption was celebrated “Since from the day it happened” then Mary must have lived for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Clearly, one has to wait circa half a millennia after her death to even find anyone mentioning the assumption. As noted, bishop Epiphanius knew nothing definite about it.
The encyclopedia makes it clear that to claim that the assumption is an early belief, one must appeal to an apocryphal text of the fourth or fifth century, a falsely ascribed text of the late 5th century, a spurious letter, a spurious sermons and when we actually get to those who mention it, we are into the half a millennia mark after her death.

Back to Clifford Stevens’ article which, you will recall, asserts that “The Assumption Of Mary” is “A Belief Since Apostolic Times,” he notes:

After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the “Tomb of Mary,” close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived. On the hill itself was the “Place of Dormition,” the spot of Mary’s “falling asleep,” where she had died. The “Tomb of Mary” was where she was buried. At this time, the “Memory of Mary” was being celebrated. Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption.

Exactly. The early church only knew that Mary died, thus “the ‘Memory of Mary’ was being celebrated,” and only “Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption”—much later.
Stevens states that the “Memory of Mary” then “began to be celebrated in Rome under the title of the ‘Falling Asleep’ (‘Dormitio’)” and this was “In the seventh century”—and we not yet dealing with a feast of the assumption.

He also touches upon a loophole to which many Catholics appeal when they see that history and theology contradict their claims:

Soon the name was changed to the “Assumption of Mary,” since there was more to the feast than her dying. It also proclaimed that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven.
That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)

Apparently, bishop Epiphanius did not know his history as he knew nothing definite about it and yet, “That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves.” It is a simply case then, please provide quotations from the apostle in this regard, or the disciples of the apostle (the ante-Nicene leaders) or any history within the first, second, third centuries.

It is noted:

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451…Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary…The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”

Firstly, there were competing locations for Mary was buried (see the article The assumption of Mary’s assumption) and we are, generically told that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles” but that at some unspecified time referred to as “later” no body was found. What we do know is that by 451 no relics were available. Of course, we also do not know were the body of Jimmy Hoffa is; was he, therefore, assumed? For that matter, we do not know where the bodies of 99% of biblical priests, prophets, apostles, disciples, etc. are.

Catholic also reference Enoch and Elijah who were assumed (whilst alive, by the way) and ask whether Jesus would do any less for His mother. Well, seeking loopholes is no way to do history and theology. Would it say something bad about Jesus if his mother died, as the apostle and early knew, and did not rise her body to heaven but received her soul?
The issue is that if Mary was assumed body and soul that would be a wonderfully beautiful thing. The problem is that we ought not claim that Jesus did something He did not do and that He did so was invented circa half a millennia after His time on Earth.

A further problem with the assumption is the manner in which it is used and the likely reason for inventing the idea in the first place; to take attention away from Jesus and His uniqueness. Stevens wrote, “The Assumption looks to eternity and gives us hope that we, too, will follow Our Lady when our life is ended.” Yet, he should be stating, “The Ascension of Jesus looks to eternity and gives us hope that we, too, will follow Jesus when our life is ended.”

Finally, it was one thousand, nine hundred fifty years (a millennia and a half) when Pope Pius XII proclaimed the assumption of Mary to be a dogma and Steven notes, “With that, an ancient belief became Catholic doctrine and the Assumption was declared a truth revealed by God.”

To reiterate an apocryphal text of the fourth or fifth century, a falsely ascribed text of the late 5th century, a spurious letter, a spurious sermons and when we actually get to those who mention it, we are into the half a millennia mark after her death and one and a half millennia after the assumed event it becomes, “a truth revealed by God.”

As noted, the way Catholics escape troublesome historical and theological facts is to make statements such as, “Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition.” And, in the case of Pope Pius XII; authoritatively proclaiming an ex-cathedral dogma.

Within his book Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988 AD), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. p. 273, Catholic apologist Karl Keating wrote:

…where is the proof [of the Assumption] from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.

The issue, as detailed within this video:

By proclaiming dogma the Catholic church discredits itself by changing the way of salvation, by adding to the gospel. This is because a dogma must be believed for salvation. Thus, a Catholic could have been saved prior to 1950 AD with no regard for the assumption but then, literally from one moment to the next in 1950 AD, they could no longer be saved unless they believe it.

Overall, there is every reason to believe that Mary died like any other mortal and that her soul went to heaven along with all other believers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

The serpent seed of Satan theory promulgates the concept that Satan engaged Eve in sexual relations with Eve and was thus Cain’s father; making Cain his literal son and meaning that Cain’s bloodline literally carry Satanic genetics. Generally, serpent seed of Satan theorists claim that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a tree, the fruit of the tree was not fruit, etc. All of it, or so they claim, is symbolic of Satan’s body and sex.

Serpent seed of Satan theorists also tend to partially quote texts while offering citations that make it appear as if they are quoting texts in their entirety—they take texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts.

One example, is how Bethel-The House of God within their radio show titled “The Original Sin (The Serpent Seed)” stated, “Genesis 4:1 says, ‘Eve brought forth a child and his name was Cain” (see my article Bethel-The House of God on “The Original Sin (The Serpent Seed)”). Yet, that is not what 4:1 states rather, it states, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” Of course, this is very inconvenient for serpent seed of Satan theorists as it is literally a one verse silver bullet refutation of their theory.
In fact, 4:2 continues the context, the thought, with “And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.” Thus, in exactly the very same way that Cain was conceive, Abel was conceived.

But if Jesus taught the serpent seed of Satan theory then it must be we who are mistaken and not He.

Under consideration is John chapter 8 which serpent seed of Satan theorists note has Jesus stating to “the Jews” that “Ye are of your father the devil.”
Starting at verse 30, we learn that “many believed on him” and continuing with:

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

From here the discussion continues regarding whether Jesus is from God, has a devil, etc.
The point is to note that the issue is not genetics but actions. This explains how it could be that the Jews, of which Jesus was one, stated that they are “Abraham’s seed” and “Abraham is our father” why Jesus agreed “ye are Abraham’s seed” and/but also stated, “Ye are of your father the devil.”

This could be so because they are genetically from God, through Adam, via Abraham but their actions make them of the devil. This is why the action terms were emphasized above: “continue in my word,” “know the truth,” “committeth sin,” “abideth,” “the deeds,” “love,” “lusts…ye will do,” “murderer,” “liar,” “honour” and “dishonor.”

This is the pattern that you will find anywhere in the Bible from where serpent seed of Satan theorists attempt to insert bloodline / seedline distinctions that are meant to juxtapose Godly versus Satan; it is not about genetics but about actions, about sin, about rebellion.