Tuesday, April 04, 2017



Patrick Mesterton
CEO Epicenter & Result

Patrick Mesterton is the CEO of innovations consultancy firm Result. Patrick has a background in local search and online advertising. He has worked with business development and digital transformation in a number of European markets for search companies Eniro and European Directories. Since joining Result in 2012 Patrick has been an advisor for fast growing digital companies and led a number of pan-european digital innovation and expansion projects. Patrick is one of the founders, and CEO of Epicenter Stockholm - Europe´s first innovation house. Epicenter located in the center of Stockholm is built to be a melting pot for different industries innovation initiatives, the most proactive innovators in the digital space and a magnet for international growth companies in the tech arena.


As far as just how they might go about hunting down those refusing the prophesied Mark of the beast," read here:

Connecticut Considering Use of Drones Outfitted with Deadly Weapons for Police

March 31st, 2017
Via: AP:
Connecticut lawmakers are considering whether the state should become the first in the country to allow police to use drones outfitted with deadly weapons, a proposal immediately met with concern by civil rights and liberties advocates.
The bill would ban the use of weaponized drones, but exempt police. Details on how law enforcement could use drones with weapons would be spelled out in new rules to be developed by the state Police Officer Standards and Training Council. Officers also would have to receive training before being allowed to use drones with weapons.
“Obviously this is for very limited circumstances,” said Republican state Sen. John Kissel, of Enfield, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee that approved the measure Wednesday and sent it to the House of Representatives. “We can certainly envision some incident on some campus or someplace where someone is a rogue shooter or someone was kidnapped and you try to blow out a tire.”

Found this at http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=50715

Constance, this isn't over with because you post a bit of trivia to change the topic. Unless I am very blunt about what has happened over the past 30 years, no one will get the truth, and I will not do that publicly here and distract from the seriousness of the New Age movement. Privately is another matter, and it won't be a one on one with you. I wasn't very street smart for a few decades. Now I am. The New Age movement is not a trivial matter.

I do hope you get around to posting the link with multiple pages of information on what is at Bentley. It's about the only important thing you have left to offer.
Neither is workers being chipped a trivial mattter. If you don't read the entire Bible you won't understand why some kind of mark that's coming that won't allow you to buy or sell could prevent eternal redemption. The part of the Bible that most Jews or converted Jews read doesn't talk about this, although the book Daniel that talks about the Son of Man walking around in the throne room and also talks about the last kingdom it doesn't go into specific detail about the mark of the beast. Most of us on this blog, understand who that Son of Man is. (Daniel chapter 7).

This is far more important than taking credit for New Age writing because knowing the truth about the system of the anti-Christ will determine whether you live forever in the presence of God or go to a godless eternity. Whatever this mark consists of, without it you will not be able to buy or sell. The mark will cause someone to worship the beast and his system instead of following almighty God.

The mark could actually change someone's DNA like the days of Noah. This is a possibility and the technology is out there. There are many technology types that want to merge us with machines, like Ray Kurzweil and Elon Musk. Being Jewish will not save Kurzweil from his fate if he doesn't repent.

The only salvation is in God's salvation-Jesus. Faith in him saves people from their sins, not faith in New Age research. As much as Constance has written about the New Age, she is not deceived about where her salvation comes from. As Jesus said to Nicodemus, "you must be born again" and Dorothy so must you. If someone writes on your tomb, "great New Age researcher" this will not save you.

Researching the New Age is important because it helps people to see one kind of deception in the world, but it is not the only kind of deception. Anything that keeps prevents someone from seeing the truth, that Jesus our Passover Lamb died so that we might have life, is deception. Religion does not save us, God does. Researching New Age will not save us. Only God can, and belief in his one and only Son. He came to his own, but his own didn't know him but to all who did he gave the right to be sons of God, not born of the flesh but of the spirit.

You must be born again or you will not enter into God's kingdom. Jesus by the way was a Jew, but he didn't talk about that. He talked about how he must die and be raised up. He talked about the kingdom. He lived out the Commandments perfectly and died as the perfect Lamb of Passover which is in a few days. He did not stay in his tomb. He rose
from the dead and so will all who believe in his name, one day, who are born of the spirit.

Constance did a great thing writing about the New Age and exposing its evil, but Constance doesn't ignore Jesus her Savior and neither should you.
One more thing. If this information disturbs you and makes you angry and makes you want to strike out at someone, don't shoot the messenger. The Gospel disturbed me too when I first heard. It made me so mad because I thought I was good enough, but the truth is no one is. . We all sin and fall short of God's glory.

Satan would like to rob you of this information. He's the one that has everything to gain and you have everything to lose. That goes for Mr.Thomas Dahlheimer too and anyone else on this blog who thinks they don't need Jesus.

Satan come to rob and steal and destroy, so don't shoot the messenger. Israel often did that to their prophets. I'm not a prophet, just saying that if the message disturbs you, it should. It's part of the spiritual battle. Put aside your pride, because pride will not give you eternal life. Think whether you have ever sinned or not. There is no way to atone for your sins. That is why Jesus did what he did, to pay once and for all. Your life will change and you will find joy, peace and forgiveness.

I'm sorry you consider a subject as momentous as microchip implants as "a piece of trivia." This is my Blogspot and it is CRITICAL INFORMATION whether you think it so or not. You are perfectly free to have a blog spot of your own. I have encouraged you to do so over the years. You have no idea of the tremendous work I've done digitizing my research. The Bentley Historical Library were aware of it and the last time I was visited by the, approximately a year ago, Mr. Coombs observed that I had done tremendous work. When I'm through, I will be presenting the Bentley Library my digitized archives on DVD Roms.


Anon. 12:24 & 12:49,
As far as you not being a prophet, don't be so sure about that.
"The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy"

Amen and amen 12:24 & 12:49 AM.

This comment has been removed by the author.
Constance Cumbey wrote: Prominent New Age activists starred and ran that convention [the 1985 National Catholic Education Association] under the blessings of its then president, also a nun. The theme that year was "Catholic Schools: Sharing Vision, Teaching Values." The "vision" they were sharing and the values they were teaching were distinctly New Age ones. They came in no small part from Lucis Trust itself. For the benefit of the "uninitiated" Lucis Trust started life under its founders Alice and Foster Bailey as Lucifer Publishing Company.

My comment: The "uninitiated" believe that Lucifer is another name for Satan. However, Lucis Trust believes and teaches that Lucifer is an entity who is holy and is a totally different entity than Satan. At the time, Cumbey either knew this, or probably should have known this. So why did she not inform the "uninitiated" of this fact? It could have been an innocent mistake.

Cumbey also wrote: One is, it appears, allowed to have a religion in the "New World Order," Alliance of Civilizations, "global governance." One is not, however, allowed to believe it true. Nor is one allowed to tell others it is true. If somebody believes that "Maitreya is the Christ," Rev. Moon is "the Lord of the Second Advent," or Sai Baba is God, they may tell you their religion is true. That is called "dialogue." If a Christian dares to suggest Jesus is the only way, that is called "proselytizing."

My comment: I believe that most Christians do not "suggest" that Jesus is the only way, they say "Jesus is the only way", and what they mean by this is; if you non-Christians do not convert to the Christian religion before you die our "loving" God will ultimately cast you into Hell to burn, body and soul, FOREVER. I believe that this is not only "proselytizing", but also psychological terrorism as well, and I believe that it should be outlawed.

When science proves that a religion is false, or fundamentally deceptive, such as Christianity (a religion that does not believe in evolution), and great multitudes of Christians keep telling non-Christian that if they do not convert they will burn in Hell FOREVER, these Christians' anti-science propagandizing agenda poses a great danger to all of humanity and to the earth's life supporting ecosystems as well.

You state:

When science proves that a religion is false, or fundamentally deceptive, such as Christianity (a religion that does not believe in evolution), and great multitudes of Christians keep telling non-Christian that if they do not convert they will burn in Hell FOREVER, these Christians' anti-science propagandizing agenda poses a great danger to all of humanity and to the earth's life supporting ecosystems as well.

You have it exactly backwards. My telling you or anyone else that you are going to hell poses no danger to you and anyone else. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

The REAL threat and danger is in people like yourself, who have wrongly convinced yourselves that mere words are dangerous, and therefore those who speak them must be silenced. Hence, you prove by your own words and beliefs (and later actions based on those words and beliefs) that political correctness (and your New Age belief system, and any other ideology that would zealously suppress free expression) is the new Gulag, as Vladimir Bukovsky has correctly pointed out.

Thomas Dahlheimer can't explain this. His "god" and his evolution lie can't do this, explain this, replicate this.
The God of the Bible created this little fella.
Science actually proves God's existence and creative genius that is beyond belief. ;)

Thomas Dahlheimer,

Scanning your post about Lucis Trust believing Lucifer to be holy?????!!!! Who else but Lucifer himself would want people to believe LUCIFER is holy? Please don't realize too late for the protection of your own soul that an aka (also known as) Lucifer is Satan! We were cautioned biblically that when Satan appeared to us he would appear as an "Angel of Light." That seems to be the way he impressed the Alice and Foster Bailey crowd!

Psychological terrorism, Thomas Dahlheimer, please spare us. After reading your posts in which you’re sympathetic to the killing of Christians I’m certain you’re not cowering and crying you’ve suffered a psychological wound. Your real wound will be at the judgement seat of Christ after rejecting the truth. Fortunate for you He's still given you time to repent.

You are, however, more likely to be one on those conditioning today’s cupcakes to shake and quiver whenever they hear an ideology or doctrine unknown to their fragile consciousnesses.
Thomas Dahlheimer,

Scanning your post about Lucis Trust believing Lucifer to be holy?????!!!! Who else but Lucifer himself would want people to believe LUCIFER is holy? Please don't realize too late for the protection of your own soul that an aka (also known as) Lucifer is Satan! We were cautioned biblically that when Satan appeared to us he would appear as an "Angel of Light." That seems to be the way he impressed the Alice and Foster Bailey crowd!

Mt Trollheimer
There is very little of what you "know" to be science, that's settled. Isaac Newton, ( a Christian ), is settled science. The Big Bang is settled science. Some of Einstien is settled, some is not.
You probably think that evolution, for instance, is settled science, but it isn't at all and there are PhD scientists who say that it is fundamentally flawed. Darwin himself never carried out his conjectures to the extreme that his fan club did.
Do you think that Sigmund Freud rewrote the book on the human mind and that all former world views were obsolete once he redefined the whole subject in the early 20th century? Hardly. In fact nowadays most Psychologists are quick to distance themselves from that pedophile, coke addict. But in the early 1900's everyone was abuzz about the new paradigm. No more religious nonsense; God and all, and sin and heaven and hell and all..."We've grown out of all that." _Whoops.
Likewise the daily news services. Do you believe every story that comes out every morning on AP, or UPI, or Reuters? Do you?
I'm sure you must realize that in this day and age, the news is like Ripley's Believe It Or Not, don't you ?
So what science are you talking about which disproves the God of the Bible? You can't seriously be referring to Alice Bailey as science are you? Benjamin Creme? LOL
I'm pretty sure Ben Carson is a scientist. He performed the first successful separation of cojoined siamese twins; cojoined at the head no less.
I'm pretty sure that Gerald Schroeder is a scientist of the highest order. He is a doctor of more than one discipline, who believes in the absolute veracity of the Torah; word for word, every dot and crossed "t". Not one letter is changed in the original Hebrew to this day. It's absolutely perfect.
I'd dare say that Walter Veith is a scientist and a half; in three or four different disciplines. He's a Bible nut, just like Newton, the greatest scientist who ever lived.
Do you think that Al Gore is a scientist? Do you think that Global Warming, er, Man Made Climate Change, is settled science?

The Bible is the Word of God, Thomas. You've been reading the wrong stuff.
Things appear to be advancing rapidly on the "transhumanist," "human implants", "hard drive implants", "human augmentation", etc.

Today, I turned briefly to Fox News for what I thought would be a political update and was stunned to see an enthusiastic discussion that human enhancements (implants) would be the big growth industry for the 21st Century. They were discussing it in the "utopian" rather than "dystopian" sense.

God help us all!

Germany Moves to Silence “Fake News”

“Germany’s Cabinet on Wednesday approved a new bill that punishes social networking sites if they fail to swiftly remove illegal content such as hate speech or defamatory fake news.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Cabinet agreed on rules that would impose fines of up to 50 million euros (53.4 million dollars) on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms.”

“German Justice Minister Heiko Maas said that the companies offering such online platforms are responsible for removing hateful content. He said the new bill would not restrict the freedom of expression, but intervene only when criminal hatred or intentionally false news are posted.”

Don’t think for one second this will not be coming to America as well. What defines "hate speech” can be highly arbitrary and throws open the door to silence virtually any “speech” the powers to be do not find acceptable. This obviously is an attempt by the system of Anti-Christ to silence all opposition, especially those “hateful” Christians that hold firm to the authority of God’s Word. As I read this account, George Orwell’s statement came to mind:

“At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” - George Orwell


The "Big Bang" remains a theory ... it is not "settled science."

God spoke the Universe into existence. Nowhere in the Bible does God tell us it was done by any other means.
Ray B
I beg to differ. There are no scientists of any reputation who doubt the Big Bang as it's called, and the Big Bang is exactly what the Bible describes, EVEN THOUGH science is atheistic.
Furthermore it's just as the Bible says, that the first element to exist was light. Photons were all there was at first and everything coalesced from light.
The BGR (Background Radiation) of the universe proves that it started from a single point and it's still expanding outward. The background radiation is why even deepest space has some temperature, and isn't absolute zero.
It is settled science, brother.
Science has no idea why it happened.
The Bible tells us exactly why: because God spoke it into existence
Well, the times are even looking more apocalyptic. Cruise missiles were dispatched to Syria tonight. Not sure what the fallout will be. The location of some appeared frightfully close to Damascus bringing to mind the long unfulfilled prophecy that Damascus will no longer be a city but a heap of rubble.

Had the same thought Constance. Senator Rand Paul said he thought the chemical attack was a false flag. It makes no sense for Assad to attack his own people when US had already said removing him was not a priority. Now removing him and carving up the ME into a new map is on track again.
Maybe it was Ron Paul, excuse me:


Rand criticized the bombing without Congressional approval.
Watch for Turkey to try something
The theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is similar to the theology of Christian Dominionism (Manifest Sons of God theology), Theosophy, Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, New Age Gnosticism.

The LDS Church teaches that everyone ... had a pre-mortal existence where we were born as spirit children of God

Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26). Because we are the spiritual children of our heavenly parents [God the Father and God the Mother], we have inherited the potential to develop their divine qualities. (Gospel Principles, 1997, p. 11 [link])

However, prior to this spirit birth each of us had eternally existed as an "intelligence." .... In one of Joseph Smith's revelations we read, "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29).
LDS is not even Christian Thomas Dahlheimer. They have their own "bible" that is not God's Word.

You have no idea what true Christianity is. Is already present in the world, but there's coming a day you'll see it full on, though. These increasingly desperate times will be bringing on the Church of Jesus Christ. What is counterfeit and in name only, will fall away and the true Church will be seen and known to the entire world.
Though it tarry, wait for it...........
What conclusive evidence is there that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was Assad that ordered the use of chemicals upon these people? What would Assad possibly gain by committing such a non-strategic, horrific act? The answer: nothing but a united world against him. Obviously, there was not a single motive that would have enhanced Assad's position in any way.

Hillary's Presidency was a guarantee that we would be led to more and more endless wars. With Trump we had a hope that this insanity would stop. Apparently, the real powers behind the scenes get their objectives met no matter who it is that sits in the Oval Office.

The theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is similar to the theology of Christian Dominionism (Manifest Sons of God theology), Theosophy, Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, New Age Gnosticism.

Well, who’d-a-thunk-it! I actually agree with Mr. Dahlheimer!

Of course, this fact does not mean any of these belief systems are actually worshiping the true God. But, it does point out – something Constance noted LONG ago (and that I’d found out from my own studies, using Constance’s as a jumping off point) – that MSoG is New Age.

Yes, we know those are belief systems that are opposed to the One True God of the Bible, Craig @ 2:09 PM, and glad you lumped LDS to those other "isms" too.
Anonymous Craig said... 2:09 PM
....... that MSoG is New Age.

Latter Rain and MSoG was around much before the 60's, and does not have its roots in NewAge. At least I found no evidence of that. However there may have been a theosophist involved in their doctrinal set? I believe they are sect, that believes that they can make it up. Especially if no scripture can be found to directly dispute their position. One can argue that all religion is adjoined to this pitfall.

However I might agree with you that their theology does mirror the NewAge in their 'godhead' theology, that man will become as gods (little g). They also believe they will transcend or have or experience an ascension event that will make them into Joel's Army of the latter days.

The lay people of these church groups will easily swallow the NewAge theology as it has distinct parallels. There is quite trap set for them.

Dan Bryan,

Respectfully, I don't agree with you, regarding the roots of LR and MSoG. We could say that LR (post-WW II) began around 1948 or so, but I'd argue that there was influence from E.W. Kenyon (from whom Kenneth E. Hagin, shall we say, "borrowed heavily"), who, in turn, borrowed from New Thought, Christian Science, and others, which were all prevalent around the same time (1875) as Blavatsky's Theosophy - Blavatsky being founder/mother of the New Age (ask Dahlheimer), though Alice Bailey's subsequent works ('20s - '40s, some books issued posthumously), which are very similar to Blavatsky's, are also influential (and overtly MSoG). In some ways some of these were parallel polluted streams.

The idea of "new revelation" is the main subject of Bailey's Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle (1950), though this idea can be found in her other works, beginning with her very first book Initiation, Human and Solar (1922).

There was also a LR movement of the late 1800s, which coalesced into the Azuza St. "revival", though I don't know as much about it, and if there are any direct links between it and the post-WW II version.
I think it has been brought up here before the parallels between MSOG's Second Coming of Christ doctrine and that of Barbara Marx Hubbard. I think there there is some online archived material exploring this, but can't remember where. If I remember or can find it, I'll post it here.

Found it!

This is a very in-depth and lengthy study on the end times delusion that is coming, called "Doctrines of Demons", by Tricia Tillin.

It is an 11-part study, and New Age is mentioned quite a bit. I think part 6 mentions Barbara Marx Hubbard in the context I was referring to.



I wrote about this a few years ago, specifically comparing MSoG words of the late "prophet" Bob Jones and Chuck Pierce with Marx Hubbard's:

Craig, Marko,

Thanks very much for your expanded comments, they help a lot, and I need to further inform myself.
I never really studied these roots, though I did attend churches in the past associated with these. There is a lot of good wheat in these churches, as with others however.


You should check out D.R. McConnell's A Different Gospel: A Historical and Biblical Analysis of the Modern Faith Movement. In a footnote he references Kenyon:

It should be pointed out that ‘Reality’ as Kenyon uses it is a term used in New Thought and Christian Science to refer to the spiritual realm and truths that were hidden by the sensations of the physical realm, which were not reality at all, but was considered ‘error,’ the opposite of metaphysical reality. Reality was also the name of Kenyon's first newsletter.
...and this concept, Maya, was written about by Dahlheimer above, though he didn't identify it by that name.
...actually, it was the prior thread, and he did in fact, call it Maya
Trump has been influenced by the usual warmongers. Not a fan of Assad, just don't happen to believe he did that. He gave up his chemical weapons and had little motivation after being recognized as the legitimate leader of Syria. This is part of an old plan to rewrite the map of ME.

WWIII could be sparked by this, but let's hope and pray it isn't.
Pamela Geller's take:

Looks like Joe McNeill is up and running at www.themicroeffect.com (TMERadio) and so my show goes at 10 am later this morning (Eastern time and 7 am Pacific time.) So, I'd better "hit the sack now if I'm to be coherent then". You can call in live to 208-935-0094, or even better, join the chatroom.

This publication by the International Monetary Fund presents the pros and cons of going cashless. I have included a few quotes from the paper that caught my eye. Down at the bottom are some articles included rin the references that I thought might be of interest to everyone. A cashless system will lead to a loss of freedom.

IMF Working Paper: The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing


Below are some interesting quotes copied from the publication:

49. However, social implications of de-cashing can be substantial. Carrying cash is a human right and is written into constitutions, which therefore have to be changed. Social conventions may also be disrupted as de-cashing may be viewed as a violation of fundamental rights, including freedom of contract and freedom of ownership. While convertible deposits cannot be stolen in a conventional robbery, they can be hacked. There are, obviously, concerns as the cases of electronic fraud have more than doubled in the past decade.

53. The private sector led de-cashing seems preferable to the public sector led de- cashing. The former seems almost entirely benign (e.g., more use of mobile phones to pay for coffee), but still needs policy adaptation. The latter seems more questionable, and people may have valid objections to it. De-cashing of either kind leaves both individuals and states more vulnerable to disruptions, ranging from power outages to hacks to cyberwarfare. In any case, the tempting attempts to impose de-cashing by a decree should be avoided, given the popular personal attachment to cash. A targeted outreach program is needed to alleviate suspicions related to de-cashing; in particular, that by de-cashing the authorities are trying to control all aspects of peoples’ lives, including their use of money, or push personal savings into banks. The de-cashing process would acquire more traction if it were based on individual consumer choice and cost-benefits considerations.

47. De-cashing should help reduce illegal migration. With less currency in circulation, employers that attract illegal immigration by cash payment would have fewer options to pay for their services off the books.

Below are some articles that were included in the references that look interesting:

Israel Eyes Becoming a Cashless Society. Israel Today,” May 26, 2014. http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24635/Default.aspx.

The Shift to a Cashless Society is Snowballing. Available at

2016, “Sweden Leads the Race to Become Cashless Society,” Observer. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/04/sweden-cashless- society-cards-phone-apps-leading-europe.
How many of us have given serious thought to what we would do when we flip the switch on cash, and it becomes illegal? I've had the "cashless society" in the background my whole life, but to be honest, never have come up with a serious plan. I've always just said I'd join the inevitable "underground" economy - barter, cash, gold, whatever the currency ends up being.

I don't think signing up for whatever they replace cash with will be the "mark" spoken of in the Bible. I think that will be a decision one makes with 100% certainty knowing what they are doing - rejecting the old world, and agreeing to worship the new leader who is promising peace, love and understanding to all.

The "mark" isn't going to sneak up on anyone, with people saying "OOPS! I accidentally took the mark!"

But still, the loss of freedom and control when going cashless will be a serious line in the sand. I am thinking about talking to my employer about it. Hah... I'm one of the few who still gets a "live" paycheck, and one of the few people I know who doesn't do online banking.

I'm one of the few who still gets a "live" paycheck, and one of the few people I know who doesn't do online banking.

You can count me among those few on both counts.

As one who zealously guards my SSN, I was shocked when recently I had the company which has my car insurance and one of my credit cards (the ONLY services I use from this company) alert me to 'suspicious activity', asking if I had requested to send my credit card to Canada (I'm in Texas). Turns out the fraudster knew my SSN (they used it to access my account - something I never do, as I only use my account # with them), my credit card #, and the make and model of my car. Can you say "inside job"?

I opened a "fraud alert" on my personal credit as a precaution against anything further.

Anyone wonder why I don't do online banking?
I had my identity stolen a couple years ago. Supposedly someone out in Arizona was buying various items with my CC number.
Isn't it interesting when the credit card company itself fixes everything and then tries to sell you protection from future fraud?
My instincts told me that the fraudster was the credit card company itself. I'm sure I'll never really know...
But I know that the Protection Racket is as old as, time, practically. Every Mafia neighborhood mom and pop store was "protected" by the mafia. You pay or you get your store broken into and ransacked. It's your choice.
Why should I believe that Crapital Won is any different?
Constance, this isn't over with because you post a bit of trivia to change the topic. Unless I am very blunt about what has happened over the past 30 years, no one will get the truth, and I will not do that publicly here and distract from the seriousness of the New Age movement.

Where will you do it, please? Many of us would like to know what you have learnt.

The Big Bang is the first scientific theory to say the universe had a beginning. You should be welcoming the agreement between science and scripture, because the opening phrase of the entire Bible says exactly the same thing - in contrast to some eastern pagan systems that assert the universe was always there.


To be fair, it was called a theory for a number of years wasn't it ?

Personally, I find it laughable that anyone that claims the authority of God's Word would accept the evolutionary THEORY of the Big Bang. And yes, it does in fact remain a scientific theory.

I hold to the 6 literal days account of Creation by our Creator, Jesus Christ. Nowhere does the Genesis account speak of, or infer anything else. The Big Bang theorists themselves find the claim that the Genesis account of creation and the BB are compatible is quite absurd. Most adhere to the claim that the universe came into being when a highly compressed cosmic egg exploded some 18+ BILLION years ago, and just kept evolving to the point where human life (and everything else) gradually came into existence. This is in dramatic contrast to the Biblical account. I know of not one single person that holds to the authority of God's Word that believes in evolution, or, the Big Bang ... not one!

Why would the believer need to have his or her faith justified by the scientific community? Why not just faithfully trust in God for the account that He has provided?

Another big motivation for going cashless and being "marked" will be the dark web. Just read that they are selling identity theft info so that they can steal people's tax refunds. Anyone who has been through this knows what a pain it is. I would imagine the physical marking will somehow eliminate fears about hacking. The mark would probably be merged with one's own DNA.


If you do a search on electronic tattoos, you will see how much this technology is being explored.

Even better:

"“The greatest industry of the 21st century will probably be to upgrade human beings,” ...
‘it will be possible to translate economic inequality into biological inequality.’

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-upgrading-humans-will-become-the-next-billion-dollar-industry-2017-04-03?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigchartsZ "

"human enhancements (implants) would be the big growth industry for the 21st Century. They were discussing it in the "utopian" rather than "dystopian" sense."

Constance, this enhancement stuff won't stop at implants and neural lace. This article says it all,
with many links. transhumanism is heavily eugenic based and the linked articles are important to
read. http://farmwars.info/?p=11212 Transhumanism: Genetic Engineering of Man – the New Eugenics
transpecies genetic engineering BYPASSES SEX ALTOGETHER snipping genes from one species and putting them in another. This goes on in nature by viruses called lateral inheritance, there are potato genes in humans. GMO crops are the result of a forced slop job version of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR
A breakthrough technology on this and it is possible to edit the genes of an adult.

In the Bible someone killed a warrior who was like a lion. hmmmm. and those wierd monsters in Greek mythology. maybe some small group of mad scientists were doing things back then. Once you got fire, glass and electricity (search Bagdad battery) and optics however crude, you can do anything.

Personally I think it is highly unlikely that ANY of the races of modern man are identical to Adam and Eve as God created them. My book A Possible History of Life on Mars discusses this somewhat. The original Adam bloodline remains, but the original breed type was likely extinct before Noah's time. Jesus in His Incarnation assumed all physical creation nature, so this is not something to get worried about. The DNA focus of some preachers is materialistic.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands#Early_cartography China may have a legitimate claim to the Spratley Islands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yytSNQ2ogD4 origin and development of implant technology from the 1960s.

regarding the doctrines of demons link and ref to the hypercharismatics using the cross sign, it might be
that this is something that is restraining some of their demonic influence and they don't realize it but adopted
it because of its Christian significance. the oil they anoint with however may be contaminated spiritually. My guess is someone with "sight" would see it as having good and evil mixed and fighting in it. I am not "gnostic"
which is not about existence of unseen material of sorts which is NOT divine or a link to God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Many creation scientists have stated for decades that since evolution is only a theory, that it is not an established principle in science. In reality, the theory of evolution is much more than "just a theory" as the term is normally used.

The word "theory" in normal usage means a guess or a hunch. But in science, a "theory" is a belief that has been generally accepted by scientists as a result of extensive experimentation and/or observation.

Most biologists believe that evolution is more than a theory; it is an established fact. The earth's life forms have, in fact, evolved over billions of years. Species of animals have been recently observed as continuing to evolve, both in the lab and field.

There remains debate about some details of past evolution. For example, there is a consensus that dinosaurs evolved and that birds evolved; there is still some debate as to whether dinosaurs were the distant ancestors of birds. There is also a debate about whether natural selection, as proposed by Darwin about 150 years ago, is the only process that drives evolution. But there is a nearly total consensus among biologists that evolution actually happened and continues to happen today.

In scientific usage a theory is: an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation."
TD, what does science say was the last evolutionary step, or stage in human existence?

Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: ie Einstein's theory of relativity.

Evolution is coherent by group, nor is any of its propositions tested, much less proven. Evolution is a fictional phenomena and a figment of Darwin's imagination and possibly more a religious belief set of the TD type IMO.
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalm 104: 5) Bible scriptures even describe what the "foundations of the earth" look like.


Science has proven that the earth does not set on foundations. Therefore, there is conclusive evidence that some of the Bible scriptures are false, or deceptive. Science has also proven that evolution is real and that it contradicts the foundational dogma of traditional Christianity. New Age Gnostic "Christianity" is compatible with modern-day science.

The way that Christians who are not specialists in a subject of controversy may learn most reliably about it is from their brothers in Christ who are specialists in it. For instance,if I want to learn about the drugs scene then I go to a convert of my acquaintance who used to be a drug addict and dealer.

Now, I am a research physicist, and I understand the solutions of Einstein's field equations of general relativity that predict the universe had a beginning at a single point in space and time, from which it expanded. I can and I do discuss this with other physicists.

Since my conversion from secular materialism (not New Age!), my first commitment has been to Christ. Forced to my knees, at that point I gave up my disbelief in miracles that violate the laws of physics.

Those Christians who dispute the Big Bang do so on grounds of timing. They insist that the Bible says the universe is only a few thousand years old, whereas Einstein's equations in combination with astrophysical observations predict that the Big Bang was billions of years ago. The disagreement is not about the Big Bang itself, for Genesis 1:1 and the Big Bang prediction are in perfect accord.

It is important to understand that the discrepancy over the timing is less fundamental than the agreement over the process. Genesis 1:1 and the Big Bang are
irreconcilable with claims of some pagan monist systems that the universe has always been in existence.

Don't you agree? Say Yes and we can discuss matters of timing. Say No and I'd be keen to know your reasons if you are willing.


"Personally I think it is highly unlikely that ANY of the races of modern man are identical to Adam and Eve as God created them. My book A Possible History of Life on Mars discusses this somewhat."

Sorry, but you are just as rebellious as they were according to the Bible.
Why don't you just admit that you are just a run of the mill, common as everyone else sinner, in need of redemption? Because you are in a different class because you have it all figured out? What you need to submit to, instead of trying to figure out your own personal loop hole is Romans Chapter 3. Read it. The whole thing.

You say you are politically unclassifiable. May be.
But you are very classifiable. Romans 3 includes modern you.

Physicist ...

You state "The disagreement is not about the Big Bang itself, for Genesis 1:1 and the Big Bang prediction are in perfect accord."

Do you believe in the LITERAL 6 DAY creation as stated in Genesis 1, or, do you adhere to the 18+ Billion year evolutionary process of creation?

If God's account of His creation cannot be trusted, what else is there in God's Word that should be made subject to "higher learning?"

Ray, Physicist,

Sorry for jumping in and interrupting, but I thought I'd just toss this out there, and it's probably premature, hence my apology.

My own belief is that the universe was already quite old when Adam was created. There are several more or less accepted views on how this can be, but the first one I came across is known as the "Gap Theory". To be honest, I've not delved very deep into any of them, but the Gap Theory as explained in "The Bible and the Bermuda Triangle" by George Johnson & Don Tanner seemed to me at the time I read that book to be a sufficient explanation. That was decades ago, and I haven't examined the whole topic much since.


Evolution is about biology but I am talking only about physics. Life inhabits the earth, so the earth had to be created (astrophysics and geophysics) before life was created (biology).

I affirm that I do not take Genesis as any sort of 'myth' and that the world was created in six days (Hebrew: Yom) as Genesis says. The question now arises of the meaning of Yom, which has the same ambiguity in Hebrew as 'day' in English (eg, the day of steam power). Yom can *only* mean era in Job 15:23 & 18:20, for instance. We may discuss which meaning is meant in Genesis 1, but both are literal meanings. What meaning do you take of it, please, and why?


Physicist ...

I believe that the all powerful Creator was of course able, and did create in the literal 6 day (24 hour per day) period. Any other interpretation lends credence to the false theory of evolution, IMO. Historically, Biblical theologians have held to the the literal 24 hour per day, 6 day creation account. Those "theologians" that do not are typically of the liberal ilk that also tend to doubt the literal validity of miracles, etc. Often even doubting Christ's Virgin Birth, His physical resurrection, etc.

By the way, prior to my conversion, I held to the hopeless theory of evolution. By an amazing act of sovereign grace, during a deep period of distress I felt about the vanity of life (the fruit of believing in evolution), I one day felt compelled to pick up a (KJV)Bible (I NEVER read the Bible, and to this day, have no idea who it was that put that Bible on the bottom shelf of my night stand). I turned to Genesis chapter 1 for no conscious reason, but it was exactly what God wanted to communicate to me. It was there that God opened my heart eyes to the fact that He was the Creator, and all of this didn't just "happen." That was almost 40 years ago, and I have never found any reason whatsoever to doubt in the literal meaning of God's stated creation account.
Marine LePen Slams French Establishment on Islamic Street Prayers


Things could be heating up soon in France.

The question of whether Yom in Genesis 1 means 24 hours or 'era' has nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution. You are proposing a circular argument, as follows: evolution is wrong because it requires millions of years; Yom means 24 hours because evolution is wrong.

I am not saying evolution is right, please note. I am simply restricting the scope of the discussion to physics, not biology. We are both Christians who reject mythical interpretations of Genesis, but neither of us is a biologist.

The literal meaning of Yom in Job 15:23 & 18:20 is 'era', for the context is inconsistent with 24 hours. The literal meaning of Yom in many of the Old Testament's verses can only be 24 hours, because the context makes it inconsistent with 'era'. Given this ambiguity in 'literal meaning', which is meant in Genesis 1, where there is no context, and why?



It was not my intention to propose a circular argument. I am simply stating that within the context of Genesis 1, there is not a hint that there was anything other than God's creation taking less, or, more than the 6 days. My personal conviction is that there is no reason to question the timing of this. Once it is questioned, one enters onto the slippery slope that will ultimately lead to accepting the false theory of evolution.

Back to the theory of the Big Bang. The same applies. It is a theory, not at all based on Scripture, but by "scientific" discovery, along with THEIR interpretation. I repeat what I stated before; I know of not one single person that yields to the authority of God's Word for all matters of faith and practice that holds to the Big Bang theory ... not a single one. Again, when one begins to interpret the Scriptures based on one's "knowledge" they are entering onto a very slippery slope, that seemingly has no end.

Prior to Darwin, I would be extremely surprised that believers ever had a thought that Genesis 1 didn't take place within the 6 day, 24 per day account. I can assure you, you will find it incredibly difficult to find any commentary prior to Darwin that would interpret it in any other way than what is being declared in plain language. That alone should give you pause to think.

Respectfully in Christ,

When I debated Benjamin Creme (an unexpected debate for him -- it was an ambush of him on the Jan Michaelsen Show then from WLW in Cincinnati, Ohio -- Michaelsen went to to WHO Radio in Des Moines, Iowa, President Reagan's original job station) he accused me of being a fundamentalist. Then he said, "Do you believe the world was created in 6 days?" I replied, "Mr. Creme, I believe God could have created the World in 6 seconds if he wanted to, but it takes a lot less faith to believe that than the story you are running around telling -- that Lucifer did it in 18 million years coming from the Planet Venus." Jan Michaelsen with his indomitable sense of humor said, "Now Constance, let's not be so harsh -- let's not be so judgmental -- Lucifer is a little bit slower -- it takes him longer to do things."


Has anyone ever heard the story about the man-making contest between God and some scientists?

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God.

They picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened patiently and kindly to the man and, after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well! How about this? Let's have a man-making contest."

To which the man replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"


You wrote: "I know of not one single person that yields to the authority of God's Word for all matters of faith and practice that holds to the Big Bang theory ... not a single one." But you do, Ray: Me.

And of course I accept that the creation took six Yom, six days. god says so in the Book of Genesis and I accept Genesis as truth, not mere myth. The question is: Which of the two meanings of Yom/Day is meant? Era, as in Job 15:23 & 18:20, or 24 hours, as in various other verses of the Old Testament? Please notice that there are many appearances of Yom in the Old Testament that are ambiguous between the two, and which you might have been taking as 24 hours without thinking about it. Sometimes the "day/yom of the LORD" clearly refers to the 24-hour period during which Jesus returns bodily to this earth in glory; sometimes the phrase clearly refers to an era, when God (whom we know means Jesus Christ) reigns from Jerusalem.

This is not about biology and Darwin. Astrophysics and geophysics both suggest that yom/day means era in Genesis 1. This is totally consistent with one of the two meanings of Yom found in scripture, and therefore does not impair the nonmythical truth of the Genesis account. As for biological evolution, you need to debate that with an evangelical Christian who is also a biologist. I have nothing to say on the subject being merely a...



It needs to remembered that Physicist isn't denying the creation.
Also to remeber that God stands outside of time and space as He created both.
We are confined both physically and to a large degree conceptually by our experience of "time and space" and apply it to our theology even.
The central tenant of the unbelievers argueing against creation is "deny creation is to deny the Creator".. intelligent design and other apologics are probably more usefull than arguements than time when speaking about creation.
When did time come into existance?.... Jesus is the Alpha and Omega.

Better to be pointing out time is running out and where will we be for eternity.... with the Lord or in the lake of fire.
The sinful fallen nature of man is a far better discussion to have .... its more likely to bring conviction of sin and lead to conversion.


Blockchain gets creepier and creepier -- CHECK THIS:


I'm surprised Marko hasn't colluded with Trolothy's trivial remarks already. You should be bowing before God, not Dorothy, Marko!

One last point I'd like you to consider being that you hold to the Big Bang theory, which supposedly occurred some 18+ Billion years ago, and all life then "evolved" from that highly compressed cosmic egg blowing up in the process.

Genesis states the following after each daily stage of creation: "And the EVENING and the MORNING were (1,2,3,4,5,6th.) DAY. Within that context, the Hebrew word "yom" cannot mean an arbitrary prolonged "era." Scripture itself is stating clearly that each day has an "evening" and a "morning," which cannot mean anything other than the creation took place within God's stated time frame ... 6 days with each having a "morning" and an "evening."

The bottom line is that the works of God are of a spiritual nature, and are therefore not subject to man's "wisdom" i.e. scientific validation.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Cor. 2:14

"There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord."
Proverbs 21:30

In Christ,



The evening/morning phrases are indeed worth taking into account. But those words too are ambiguous. The original Hebrew of Genesis gave only the consonants and the word is BKR which is commonly supposed to mean BOKER, which means morning. In fact it could equally well be BAKARA, which means supervision or control. Likewise the word commonly translated as 'evening' means disorder or chaos (and is a synonym for the word for chaos used in Genesis 1:2). So "and there was evening and there was morning: the third 24-hour-day" (for instance) could equally well be translated "and there was disorder and then there was order: the third era". This matches well how God moves His creation from the chaos mentioned in 1:2 to order.

So the ambiguity remains. Truth be told, I think it is a deliberate double meaning by God, one which is obviously untranslatable.

These are wonderful things to ponder upon.


Some people think that God's Word is only just as deep as they can understand it, and no deeper,
and that the first six chapters of Genesis are talking about the creation of the universe, the earth, and the world
( which are three really large seperate subjects ), but even so, there is no condensation of language and it's all there in
those few short verses of the text, somehow.
So, even though God himself wrote this, it is nevertheless easy for mankind to understand, somehow, even though
"God's ways are above our ways as far as the sky is above our heads."
So, even though there was no earth in the first two days, (verses 1-8), evening and morning are to be understood
as twenty-four earth hours, for some reason...
And even though the text itself is describing the almighty creator God's speaking it all into existence, nevertheless
we should assume that these first two days are "man days" and the nights are man nights, even though there was
no man yet...
They couldn't possibly be God's mornings and God's evenings, could they? Even though St. Peter tells us that "one
day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day."

Ben Carson is a biologist who believes in creation as opposed to evolution.
Walter Vieth is a Biologist who believes in Creation and not evolution.
Gerald Schroeder is a Scientist who believes that Genesis is the very Word of God, letter for letter.
Just because you haven't "met" them doesn't mean they don't exist.
It's only a slippery slope if you have poor fitting shoes. (Eph. 6)
Science is a beautiful thing.
It beats the hell out of superstition.
Born again Christians do NOT need to be afraid of good science.
"Today, I turned briefly to Fox News for what I thought would be a political update and was stunned to see an enthusiastic discussion that human enhancements (implants) would be the big growth industry for the 21st Century. They were discussing it in the "utopian" rather than "dystopian" sense.

God help us all!"

Ms. Cumbey, He (God) will not let it get that far. Not a chance in hell.
Notice each time these fanatics like Kurzweil speak about it, they push back the dates for their 'Singularity'. The latest now he says is 2029 (before that it was 2045), so they know something is up. I see the rescue, raptus evacuation occurring before this madness sets in, too. Notice also the New Age/Satanist circles discussing for years now about an alternate version of the rapture. Apparently they are being fed information by their dark overlords that some sort of global mass removal of 'stubborn' people will occur soon. The 'lie' that will cover the disappearances could very well be E.T. disclosure. So, the dark side too suspects there will be a rapture, and has prepared accordingly! And with Trump leading the way of the plan to bring about World War per Albert Pike's plan, we ain't far off. Our space brothers to the rescue at the first atomic blast over Baghdad! Let us see this September 23, however.....

Indeed, this mark could possibly have a strange effect on our DNA structure. This is one more reason why the anti-messiah, in my view, must be more than a simple man-politician; he will lead the charge, so to speak, of our evolution to god-hood.

That terrible utterance 'they shall seek death but death will flee from them' comes to mind. There you have it! Could their consciousness be linked one day to the 'cloud' and whilst their bodies die, their mind will continue to live on albeit in some sort of living hell on earth? No, thank you.


The block chain could be the technology that convinces people that the system is safe, but I agree with you that some kind of electronic tattoo could be the medium used which merges with our very own DNA and could possible control our brains too.

Elon Musk wants satellites to be everywhere in the world, in the most remote places and Rick Wiles heard a broadcast conference about the whole world being wired for 5G by year 2030.

I agree with you that as in the days of Noah, the fallen angels want to corrupt our DNA so that we would be beyond redemption. Since the teaching about the fallen angels mixing with daughters of men has been wiped out of church theology, most do not realize that this was the accepted meaning of Genesis 6 by both Jews and Christians for a very long time, until the church changed it. People have problems with the supernatural.

Michael Heiser writes a good book about the supernatural battle. This overriding theme in Scripture is important to understand. Jesus defeated the forces of darkness but the battle rages on to deceive man so that they cannot be redeemed.
One more thing. The reason that the block chain will be considered safe is because unlike other financial mediums it cannot be manipulated with options and futures contracts. Right now people trade bitcoin on their computers but it could be that with all the identity theft, terrorism, money laundering people will be convinced that in order for technology to be completely safe it must be imbedded on one's person.

Already the fingerprint control of iPhones is being shown to be not 100% secure, so the next step will be to wire the person directly . This is just a logical progression.
Well said Paul. I've had cordial email correspondence with Gerald Schroeder.


Gerald Schroeder is awesome! I've purchased more than one of his books just to give them away. Right now I need to repurchase
"The Science of God" because I gave away my only (3rd) copy, and I don't like being without it.

In his book "False Dawn" Lee Penn erroneously teaches that Helena Balvatsky taught that Satan is the "savior of man."


Penn quoted Balvatsky: ".... the ‘Luminous Son of the Morning,’ [or holy Lucifer] ... was transformed by the Church into [evil] Lucifer or Satan, because he [holy Lucifer, not evil Satan] is higher and older than Jehovah, and had to be sacrificed to the new dogma.”

Penn wrote, Blavatsky added, “In this case it is but natural – even from the dead letter standpoint – to view Satan [the Church's evil name for holy Lucifer], the Serpent of Genesis, as the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind. For it is he who was the ‘Harbinger of Light,’ bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of the automaton created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was the first to whisper: ‘in the day ye eat thereof ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil’ – can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An ‘adversary’ to Jehovah the ‘personating spirit,’ he still remains in esoteric truth the ever-loving ‘Messenger’ (the angel), the Seraphim and Cherubim who both knew well, and loved still more, and who conferred on us spiritual, instead of physical immortality – the latter a kind of static immortality that would have transformed man into an undying ‘Wandering Jew.’”

Penn wrote: For her [Balvatsky], Satan is the one who frees man from death: “Thus ‘Satan’ [meaning holy Lucifer, not evil Satan] once he ceases to be viewed in the superstitious, dogmatic, un-philosophical spirit of the Churches, grows into the grandiose image of one who made of terrestrial a divine man; who gave him, ... the law of the Spirit of Life, and made him free from the Sin of Ignorance, hence of death.”

Balvasky wrote: Our mind can either be our adversary (which is what the word “satan” literally means) or it can be the lightbearer (the Lucifer) of spiritual Truth to us, the knowledge of which brings about our liberation from ignorance, including spiritual self-ignorance.
Anonymous paul said...

Some people think that God's Word is only just as deep as they can understand it, and no deeper,

I agree with your assessment completely.
In Hebrew lit one can see the mixture of the past present and future in the same text.
The problem with reading these text western linear thinking is that it is easy to get it wrong.

A classic example is Matthew 24, where Jesus is expounding the things that would occur in the close of his age, the end of the OT, the close of the present age we are in today in the early 21st century prior to the millennium, and the end of the world after the millennium.

Thomas Dahlheimer;
The "luminous Satan" was seen by Jesus falling from heaven like lightning. The church didn't invent or distort what Satan is. Jesus himself told us what, and who, Satan is. Satan is not just the adversary in the mind of the Christian, like some neurosis, as you ( and the witch Blavatsy ) want us to believe. Satan is a very powerful angel of God who thought he could userp God's throne, but he wasn't anywhere near powerful enough to do that. He was, and is cast out of heaven and he is cursed of God for all time. It can be argued that God uses Satan for his own ends, BUT it has to be understood what the Apostle James points out; " Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil; neither tempts he any man. For every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."
But that is exactly what Helen Blatheratsky would have us believe, just as so many heretics have proposed through these two millennia of Christianity in the midst of a sinful world.
God doesn't lie. Neither do Peter, James or John. Paul and Dr Luke don't lie either. None of them ever suggested any of the horse apples that you're tossing around.
Your heresy is based on a twisting of a few choice verses of the Bible and a complete ignorance of the rest of it's books.
I'm going to continue to be like the dog barking incessantly at the window because I can hear the thief outside and I can smell him and that's what I do because I love my master and his house.
Dogs may not be intellectuals, but they are incredibly accurate about evil intentions against their family.
Dogma indeed.

God bless you, Paul. Keep up the good work.

I like how you just tell it like it is, Paul. Carry on...anytime you feel the urge to blow his crapola out of the water, because Mr Dahlheimer's blather does not add up, anywhere, for anybody.
If he were a truly honest person he would admit it doesn't add up for him, either.

Paul, You take holy Lucifer and evil Satan and fuse them together and then wrongly present them as a single entity, which they are not. Christian writers, including Lee Penn, do not understand what the New Age movement is about, they keep making false statements about Blavatsky and the New Age movement.

The Old Testament god Jehovah is "Satan" (or evil): Here are a few excerpts on this topic from the website of the Blavatsky Theosophy Group UK.


Yet it’s quite clear that the “Loving Heavenly Father” that Jesus spoke of was not the same Being as the “jealous, vengeful, wrathful God” (Jehovah) of the Old Testament.

Jesus said: “You [the Pharisees] are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murder from the beginning [see the many vengeful, capricious, and inexplicable deaths attributed to Jehovah from the very first pages of the Old Testament], 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.”

Madame Blavatsky asserts elsewhere in “The Secret Doctrine” that the title of “Satan” belongs by right to JEHOVAH. It is plainly obvious – at least to any sincere and decent person and to those whose minds and reasoning faculties have not fallen victim to the almost deadly poison of fundamentalist Christianity – that Jehovah is at best a demon, if not actually the devil himself, should such a being be considered to actually exist.

The above excerpts present clear evidence of Helena Blavatsky's position on this topic.

It’s pretty simple. Blavatsky has made separate entities out of the one Lucifer/Satan/Devil (yes, I’ve read parts of The Secret Doctrine), while conflating Satan and Jehovah as one entity. Blavatsky’s wrong. You’re wrong.

You wrote, referencing texts of Blavatsky: Yet it’s quite clear that the “Loving Heavenly Father” that Jesus spoke of was not the same Being as the “jealous, vengeful, wrathful God” (Jehovah) of the Old Testament.

Riddle me this: in the temptation in the desert, when the Devil was conversing with Jesus (“If you are the Son of God…”), why did Jesus respond by quoting Deuteronomy, such as “It is written: Worship Jehovah your God and serve Him only.”?

I guess I just don't understand the "deeper things of Satan" (Rev. 2:24)

Although one thing that I do know is that God often has more than one name for people and perhaps angels, and that at one time Satan was in heaven and he was a very important angel. I'm thinking that his name, before he rebelled against God, and became accursed and before he became the adversary and the enemy of all mankind, and particularly the enemy of believers,...his name before all that was probably Lucifer.
None of that changes what he clearly is now.
Craig said: Riddle me this: in the temptation in the desert, when the Devil was conversing with Jesus (“If you are the Son of God…”), why did Jesus respond by quoting Deuteronomy, such as “It is written: Worship Jehovah your God and serve Him only.”? (this "devil conversing with Jesus" scripture is found in Matthew 4:10)

As Madame Blavatsky and others have shown, the first Christians were undoubtedly the Ebionites and they were Gnostics who followed the Essene-based teachings of the older Nazarene sect, to which Jesus had belonged during his lifetime.

The Ebionites had but one scriptural text, namely the Gospel of Matthew, the original version written in Hebrew, which is known to have been entirely different from the so-called “Gospel of Matthew” which exists in the Christian New Testament today. The Gospel of Matthew which we have today is – in its initial Greek form – largely the product of Saint Jerome in the 4th century A.D. but has also been edited and altered on numerous occasions since then, as has the entire New Testament.
Thomas Dahlheimer:

Why do you believe Madame Blavatsky to either honest or accurate. How about those "Masters" alleging communicating through her and those after her, i.e. Alice Bailey, Benjamin Creme, and the other "channelers" -- surely you don't believe those spirits would, gasp, lie?

As I recall from reading James Webb years ago, Madame Blavatsky wrote her sister saying, "I am writing ISIS, rather ISIS is writing me." Automatic writing she describes for sure (some called it plagiarism from others). How do you read and how do you interpret Deuteronomy 18, "there shall not be found among you. . ."

Thomas Dahlheimer, you could be a real Saint Paul, should you ever see the light.

The Berkeley riots could get out of control very quickly. Either the left or right could escalate violence very fast.
Just as in 1964, dear 5.18am.
The Lord is risen!!!

Happy Easter to all.


Required viewing for all:

Go to Youtube and bring up the video "EVERYTHING GEORGE SOROS DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW."


Firstly, a blessed Easter/Pascha to all.

Soros has been on a lot of people's radar lately. http://soros.news/ keeps an eye on him
and his activities. http://soros.news/2017-04-13-the-complete-list-of-200-u-s-organizations-that-have-

financial-ties-to-george-soros.html (tiny url eventually goes blank so this is better for future
reference here.)

looks like either Soros has some dirt on Trump he doesn't want exposed or like the article
says, Jared Kushner has too much influence. So does Ivanka Trump who acts (or speaks to
get things done) on emotional reaction without investigation and then gets Trump to bomb Syria.
Trump is still better than Hillary. And maybe he is throwing bones to these people to keep
them happy while he undermines them otherwise. Naturally there is a risk of assassination.

Russia has a warrant out for Soros' arrest.

I'm afraid most people including those identified as Christian are not concerned about the
New Age or the mark of the beast or anything else so to fight the chip you need to
add other arguments.

Like hackability of smart and/or tattoo linked technology, and you could be locked out
of your house in a grid down situation for days or more. etc. etc. pragmatic reasons.
Even if the mark is not a chip and it is just visual check on a tattoo and supervision of the sellers,
the chip thing is very bad. Once it is routine anything can be added into it.

re rebelliousness - this issue raised in response to my remark about races. So which
race you think Adam and Eve were? White? Black? Tall? Short? Muscular? Slender?
the only thing we know from the Bible is that they were upright bipedal of a reddish skin color
since Adam is from Adamah, red earth. (The effort to make this out to be ruddy like ruddy
cheeks on a white person fails by the very comparison to red earth, wrong shade and too
extensive an implication. Logically to get the skin color range the original has to be
intermediate anyway.)

I am sure you anon fit Romans 3 in some ways and I in others but trying to fit every oddball
thing I find into a Biblical framework doesn't look like an example of rebelliousness.

Evolution - serious problems with radiometric dating and some assumptions underlying
astronomy. It took decades but now I favor the 6 24 hour day creationist scenario. Gap theory
unnecessary, depends on misunderstanding of meaning of void etc., which can mean came
into being in that state like a potter starts with a shapeless lump of clay. Genesis 2
contradictions would make sense if God to show Adam Who God is did a locale redo of
creation in a barren place, since Adam wouldn't have seen the prior days' creation activities.

H.P. Blavatsky wrote: “Spiritualists believing in communications with disembodied spirits, and that these can manifest through, or impress sensitives to transmit ‘messages’ from them, regard mediumship as a blessing and a great privilege. We Theosophists, on the other hand, who do not believe in the ‘communion of spirits’ as Spiritualists do, regard the gift as one of the most dangerous of abnormal nervous diseases. … the sight and the hearing of that which if seen in its true nature would have struck the medium’s heart cold with horror, now fills him with a sense of beatitude and confidence. He really believes that the immeasurable vistas displayed before him are the real spiritual world … We maintain – that on the whole, mediumship is most dangerous; and psychic experiences when accepted indiscriminately lead only to honestly deceiving others, because the medium is the first self-deceived victim.”

An excerpt from the Blavatsky Theosophy Group UK website: It can thus be seen that it is foolish and even dangerous to naively apply simplistic and positive explanations for mediumistic messages and phenomena. The matter is far more complex and far darker than many people have guessed. In light of this, the Master Morya and Master Koot Hoomi (the two main Adepts behind H.P. Blavatsky and the founding of the Theosophical Society) stated that “we oppose so strongly Spiritualism and mediumship” and described it as “the most insane and fatal of superstitions.

Read more about this topic at: https://blavatskytheosophy.com/the-danger-and-deception-of-channelling/

Thomas, you have done well in presenting what others believe. When you present these notes are we to understand that you as well believe as they do? Or are you presenting this as information to be considered? What do you believe TD?

Have you read the Old Testament part of the bible? Completely through, several times?

I just found this interview this morning haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but I thought Constance might find it interesting because it is Michael Aquino in a recent interview.




I’m a little late in addressing your comment @ 10:18AM. That said, it’s hard to determine just where to start in an attempt at dispelling all the false notions in that one small comment. But here goes.

The first Christians are the ones actually mentioned IN Scripture—at least what actual Christians identify as Scripture. That’s in Acts 11:26, in which it is mentioned that the disciples of Paul and Barnabas were first called ‘Christians’ in Antioch, identified as some of those scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen (Acts 11:19-26; cf. Acts 7:1-60): “And so it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called [Christianos] ‘Christians’”.

The Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63) identified the disciples, those who were around at the time Pilate sentenced Jesus to death, at the insistence of the Ioudaioi (certain Jews), using the same word above:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the [Christianos] Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared (Feldman translation).

Nowhere in the documents that Christians of today call Holy Scripture do we find mention of a sect called the Ebionites. Historically, the first time the term “Ebionites” is used is not until the 2nd century AD in polemics against the group by Christians. Hence, there’s not a shred of evidence linking Jesus with this sect. Moreover, the Ebionites were extreme Judaizers, calling for all to slavishly follow Mosaic law.

The group’s ‘Gospel of Matthew’ is apparently a chopped up version of the real Gospel of Matthew as found in the Scriptures we have today. Can you show me where we can find a copy of the Ebionites’ version? Oh yeah, there aren’t any extant; the only evidence we have of its contents are in the polemical writings of the Church fathers.

The NT is not ‘edited’ as you say; it’s very well preserved in almost 6000 extant Greek manuscripts. Yes, there are variations, but these are mostly transcription errors in spelling and the like. While it’s true that the first full Gospel of Matthew is found in the 4th century, this is in an Alexandrian manuscript (Sinaiticus), not one written by Jerome. Seriously, where do you even get such easily-proven false information? Oh, that’s right, from Blavatsky’s Koot Hoomi and Morya. Good luck with that.

Yes He is risen. Hallelujah!
He conquered death.

I meant to add some data from Wilhelm Schneemelcher’s New Testament Apocrypha (transl. by R. McL. Wilson, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991) in which are the only known fragments of what this volume calls “The Gospel of the Ebionites” (GE). In the preface to this are the following words, including a quote from ‘historical Jesus’ scholar Martin Dibelius, in which it is shown that the work was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew:

[T]he GE was originally written in Greek. Proof of that is furnished by the account of the food of [John] the Baptist ([fragment] No. 2) in which the locusts (ακρις [akris] Mk. 1:6; Mt. 3:4) are missing and only ‘wild honey, the taste of the manna, as a cake (εγκρις [egkris] dipped in oil is mentioned. This characteristic of the honey is borrowed from Num. 11:8, where the taste of the manna is so described; ‘but without the similarity of the Greek words the author would hardly have lighted here on the manna’ (Dibelius Geschichte, p. 58). Dibelius also points out that the GE adheres considerably close to the text of the Synoptic Gospels, and that goes to prove a composition in Greek (p 167).

Moreover, your claim that the “Ebionites . . . followed the Essene-based teachings of the older Nazarene sect, to which Jesus had belonged during his lifetime” is proven false. According to Schneemelcher, the evidence indicates the Ebionites were vegetarians—this accounts for why the Baptist is not recorded as eating locusts—while the Essenes and Nazarenes were definitely not vegetarians.

The Gnostic Gospels are a collection of 60 or so texts written from the first to third century, based on the wisdom teachings of several prophets and spiritual leaders—including Jesus.

Many of the gospels were written in the first through third centuries, about the same time as their more famous brethren, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Once in wide circulation, these gospels were passed around fledgling churches throughout the Mideast and beyond and show the rich diversity of early Christian beliefs.

There’s just one problem: in the fourth century, the early Roman church declared the books heretical in an attempt to centralize authority and get all Christians literally on the same page. The edict came down not just to stop reading these books, but to destroy every last one of them.

In spite of the best efforts of the book burners, many of these texts survive today. A treasure trove of them were discovered in 1945 in Egypt. But they are largely ignored or even considered taboo by mainstream religions.

In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said (1.) "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you. (2.) He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am [divine]: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him."

Could the title of the Gospel of Thomas--named for the disciple who, tradition tells us, went to India--suggest the influence of Indian tradition?

The ideas that we associate with Eastern religions emerged in the first century through the gnostic movement in the West, but were oppressed by the early Roman Church.

Sorry, you're incorrect again. Not a single one of the Nag Hammadi texts can seriously be dated to the first century. Most legitimate scholars date them from the 2nd to the 4th. And, there's absolutely NO historical evidence to support your assertion that these enjoyed "wide circulation". NONE.

Moreover, none of these texts align with the others theologically; there's all kinds of differences. Gnosticism had quite a few different strands and sects. The real Christianity, on the other hand, has a plethora of historical backing. It appears the "Gospel of Thomas" relied, in part, on Tatian's Diatessaron, a late 2nd century document attempting a harmony of the legitimate Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
I have a question for Mr Dahlheimer.

Do you wear clothes?

But whether you do, or even in the event you don't, Genesis 3 makes the point for you.
Genesis 3 points out what you need most, plus points to who is holding the correct answer for you concerning that.

Wow, the article has a picture of the 1967 album cover from "The Incredible String Band" and boy does it look demonic.

"First evidence found that LSD produces 'higher' level of consciousness, scientists claim"

Monsieur Dullheimer, you have earned yourself the coned hat with a big D on it and a place in the back corner of the classroom. Your striving attempt at disseminating historical and theological inaccuracies has earned you an F.

Time to re-evaluate your faulty belief system, n'est pas?
Thomas Dahlheimer,

One other thing. Implicit in the Josephus quote @ 8:03AM above is the belief in the literal physical resurrection of Jesus – a central, if not THE central tenet of the real Christianity. This, of course, is anathema to gnostics with their spirit vs. matter dualism; that is, all matter is evil, while the spirit is good, capable of becoming divine.

History’s not on your side. [Hey, that sounds like a jingle.]

Concerning the date of the origin of the Gospel of Thomas: A minority view contends for an early date of perhaps 50, citing a relationship to the hypothetical Q document among other reasons.


Psychedelic Drugs: The Brain Enters a 'Higher State of Consciousness' on LSD and Ketamine


"People in a psychedelic state are conscious and they often report experiencing things like hallucinations. 'Boundaries between self and world disintegrate and things like that,' ...

Robert Muller (1923 – 2010), a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, was revered by many to be the prophet of the UN. Dr. Muller wrote:

"Decide to open yourself to God, to the Universe, to all your brethren and sisters, to your inner self...to the potential of the human race, to the infinity of your inner self, and you will become the universe... you will become infinity, and you will be at long last your real, divine, stupendous self ".

I believe that Muller meant: The universe is finite, we should therefore first become it, but like God we are infinite, so our ultimate goal should be to become one with the infinite transcendent God beyond the universe. In other words, we should become the universe, then go through it to become one with God.

Paramahansa Yogananda (1893–1952) is revered by many to be the father of yoga in the West. He quoted his own guru, Swami Sri Yukteswar, in these words:

Jesus meant, never that he was the sole Son of God, but that no man can attain the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond creation, until he has first manifested the “Son” or activating Christ Consciousness within creation. Jesus, who had achieved entire oneness with that Christ Consciousness, identified himself with it [the creation/universe] inasmuch as his own ego had long since been dissolved.

Jesus said: No one comes to the Father except through me ["me" means the creation or universe].

Thomas Dahlheimer,

You wrote: Concerning the date of the origin of the Gospel of Thomas: A minority view contends for an early date of perhaps 50, citing a relationship to the hypothetical Q document among other reasons.

You realize that this is total speculation, right? First of all, it presupposes "Q" - but there are quite a few who adhere to this particular notion, so we'll grant that. However, all the material found in the "Gospel of Thomas" from "Q" is common with the Synoptics. Secondly, there've been scant few who've tried to date any of the fragments either paleograhically (by the handwriting) or by any sort of carbon dating.

Moreover, the entire character of the GoT is as a 'sayings' "Gospel". It's just a mish-mash of this saying and that saying, with no narrative storyline. In addition, those who adhere to the "Q" hypothesis assume common narrative in "Q", with this common narrative found in the Synoptics - something missing in the GoT.

If you want to read an unbiased (as possible) view on the GoT, see Hurtado's review of Mark Goodacre's work on this "Gospel" here:


...Goodacre also proposes a second-century setting in which GThomas likely first emerged.

Goodacre also proposes a second-century setting in which GThomas likely first emerged.

One of the features that I like about the book is Goodacre’s emphasis on, and use of, the early (albeit fragmentary) Greek manuscripts of GThomas. With Goodacre, I too have often been puzzled that scholarly discussion of GThomas (especially by advocates of its importance and early date) has typically been conducted with scant reference to this Greek evidence. A commendable exception is Richard Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas (London: Routledge, 1997).

Craig wrote: "Moreover, the entire character of the GoT is as a 'sayings' "Gospel". It's just a mish-mash of this saying and that saying, with no narrative storyline. In addition, those who adhere to the "Q" hypothesis..."

Well, the doubting Thomas Trollheimer's posts are mere sayings without a storyline too... with Q's and A's based only on hypothesis, yet the nature of his posts are warned against in 2 Timothy 4, where those with itching ears (such as Thomas Dahlheimer) will not heed sound doctrine but are easily given over to fables such as those of Blavatsky and Bailey, et al!
Russia court outlaws 'extremist' Jehovah's Witnesses

Evolution is a scientific fact; so much so that the evidence supporting its occurrence is undeniable, according to the National Academy of Sciences. "..., scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions." http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

The fact that evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur proves that the central theme of the Bible (the fall and redemption story of humanity, along with the Romans 8:21-23 promised restoration of God's creation to the purity of its origins at the end of history theme) is false, which also makes the central dogma of traditional Christianity false.

St. John of Damascus wrote: "The creation of all things is due to God, but corruption came in afterwards due to our wickedness...For God did not make death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things" (Wisdom 1:13). But death is the work rather of man, that is, its origin is in Adam's transgression."

St. Basil the Great wrote: "...it is customary for vultures to feed on corpses, but since there were not yet corpses ["before Adam sinned"], nor yet their stench, so there was not yet such food for vultures. But all followed the diet of swans and all grazed the meadows..such was the first creation, and such will be the restoration after this."

Nowadays, everyone in their right mind knows that the above statements by "saints" are not true and that the creation was not originally pure and then fell into "the bondage to corruption" when the first human ("Adam") sinned.

I'll bet there are many Christians who would look with favor on such a ruling, because they've been convinced that Russia is "more Christian" than the West. Putin has done a good job of building his own Potemkin image as some kind of rider on a white horse, saving Christianity from the darkness that is spreading everywhere.

He is not that at all.


"Evolution is a scientific fact", Mr. Dahlheimer asserted. Are you referring to Darwinian evolution, Thomas Dahlheimer? There is NO evidence of species changing into other species at all!

Also,Thomas Dahlheimer, why haven't you addressed Craig's last comments? You have lost that argument so you thought you'd change tac, well you should address Craig's points first or do the gentlemanly thing and concede gracefully, acknowledging you were wrong!

Anyway, Thomas Dahlheimer, if you believe evolution in the Darwinian sense of species changing into other species, you're about to be proven wrong yet again.

It looks like you're on a losing streak, doesn't it? Your pride merely leads to your inevitable humiliation once more. Repent and win with Jesus Christ, for why will you perish in your sins and self-aggrandising delusions?

Thomas Dahlheimer,

Biological Evolution is as much settled science as Global Warming, er, uh, Climate Change. To be sure climate is ever-changing, but the “science” of “Climate Change” is far from settled.

Lets’ briefly look at your cosmological belief. An ineffable, perfect (without flaw) “God”, had other entities emanate from s/he/it, ‘lower’ entities, inferior G/gods, one of whom (the “evil” Jehovah, aka the Demiurge) created this world, this substandard universe we ‘inhabit’. [Side note: I find it curious that a perfect Being would have inferior emanations proceed from s/he/it. Why wouldn’t these emanations be just as perfect as their source?]

Your “God” was/is so impotent, so lacking in omniscience, that s/he/it just didn’t know that this particular lower G/god was going to create this imperfect universe, and so was absolutely powerless from preventing this from occurring. Moreover, this “God” is powerless to perfect this creation, and, consequently, will eventually destroy it. Why didn’t your god just destroy this faulty creation from the get-go, before the original “Adam Kadmon” (or whatever your individual strand wants to call him) became entrapped in this “evil” matter. Methinks it kinda clumsy for such an exalted man to ineptly get entangled in such an inferior matter. Poor guy; poor “God”.

Bingo, Craig

_Whereas the God of the Bible, who IS God, had a plan of redemption right from the start. The promised Messiah was there right from the moment that Adam and Eve made their fateful decision to rebel against God, and commit the original sin of pride which is the very hallmark of the adversary Satan, and his only real product.
The promised Messiah is Jesus and he is the author and finisher of the faith. Every single book in the Bible has something about it which leads us to him, and points the way to him and lifts him up; his geneology, his character, his infinite mercy and his awesome holiness.
Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing?
Why do the pagans seek mystical magical alternatives to the most mystical amazing truth, when the truth is so much more wonderous than any of the thousands of heresies that persist all the way up to this time, which is the end time?
It's just that same old blind PRIDE, AKA conceit, which is the work of the world the flesh and the devil.
The devil comes to kill, steal and destroy.
Our God is an awesome God who saw it all from the beginning to the end and into the millennial kindom of God on earth and on even further into Paradise on earth and eternal life.

Could not agree more, Craig and Paul!
Thanks for telling it like it is.

Poor Mr. Dahlheimer.
I hope he gets things right with the real God, the Lord Jesus Christ, in his head and heart before it is forever too late.

Yes; while Dahlheimer’s “God” has to clean up a mess made by a lesser G/god who emanated from him, the Christian God, the One True God, had a plan from the very beginning. Revelation 13:8 states:

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.

The grammar here is a little ambiguous, so it may instead be:

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.

Thus, it’s either that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain from the very beginning, or that the book of life belonging to the Lamb was there from the very beginning, this book of life requiring the Life-Giver, Christ. Either way amounts to the same thing. No back-up plan; it was there from the beginning. There’s no “Ooops!” like Dahlheimer’s “God”.


Let's not forget those beginnings......
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]