Comments by "Remnant Disciple Lazzaro - Revelation 12:17" (@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217) on "Status Coup News"
channel.
-
24
-
15
-
13
-
9
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
The so called "Star of David" is not in the Bible.
Acts 7:43 “Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.”
This passage reflects the sentiments of Amos 5:26-27, where Prophet Amos rebukes the Israelites for idol worship. The “Star of Remphan” is a mystical symbol linked to the worship of a deity known by many names—Chiun, Kaiwan, Raiphan, the Great Architect, Star God, among others. All these forms are interconnected through the cosmic representation of the planet Saturn, often equated symbolically with Satan in occult traditions.
The association of this symbol with Masonry and Judaism invites scrutiny into the esoteric and exoteric traditions of these groups. It raises profound questions:
Is Masonry a form of Judaism adapted for non-Jews? If so, who is the deity at the centre of their rituals?
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The so called "Star of David" is not in the Bible.
Acts 7:43 “Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.”
This passage reflects the sentiments of Amos 5:26-27, where Prophet Amos rebukes the Israelites for idol worship. The “Star of Remphan” is a mystical symbol linked to the worship of a deity known by many names—Chiun, Kaiwan, Raiphan, the Great Architect, Star God, among others. All these forms are interconnected through the cosmic representation of the planet Saturn, often equated symbolically with Satan in occult traditions.
The association of this symbol with Masonry and Judaism invites scrutiny into the esoteric and exoteric traditions of these groups. It raises profound questions:
Is Masonry a form of Judaism adapted for non-Jews? If so, who is the deity at the center of their rituals?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sheilahall8450 Sheila, you prove incontrovertibly why satan always goes too the woman first, remember the Garden of Eden, he went to her first because nai-EVE. You obviously do not care to do accurate, correct, ordered, precise, proper, sound and supremely, spiritual study [Acts 17 Berean/John 3:1-21 qualified exegesis] of the Scriptures like the authentic austere Scriptural Jesus the Christ/God taught. You do exactly the opposite which is eisegesis which the true Jesus teaches that is what the many do in Matthew 7:21-23, 24:11 who profess to know Him and be His true disciple. I am not convinced you really study His Holy Writ by yourself, rather you let a Matthew 7:13, 15, 21-23, 24:11 etc qualifier teach you the Scriptures and you do not at all obey the true the Christ Jesus to TEST ALL THIINGS AND TEST ALL SPIRITS. You do NOT even who is true Israel now, what Paul the Apostle taught WHO is true Israel, SPIRITUAL Israel [go read the Book of Galatians for one of the more than a a bunch of places that the true Lord God/Jesus teaches who is true Israel today...here's a hint: i already gave you another set of verses by Him who walked with Jesus as an Apostle]. When one accurately, carefully, correctly, diligently, orderly, precisely, properly, soundly and supremely spiritually reads the Holy Bible in the Acts 17 Berean exegesis/John 3:1-21 qualified way, you learn modern Israel is FALSE Israel and is the enemy of God/Jesus. They are abomination unto Him which means a heartbeat away from the Lake of Fire.
1
-
@sheilahall8450 One last thing, if you stand with modern false Israel, you've cursed yourself and made yourself an enemy of the the true God/Jesus of the Scriptures.
Jesus was **NOT** a Jew. The true faith of Old Covenant/Testament is Abrahamic/Mosaic, not the religion of the Pharisee's and Scribes = The "tradition of the elders"
"Edom is modern **Jewry**." ~ 1925 Jewish Encyclopaedia, Ed., 5, Pg. 41
"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a *"Jew"'* or to call a contemporary *"Jew"* an Israelite or a Hebrew." ~ 1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3.
"We have already seen substantial evidence that any notion of Pharisaism [or later Rabbinic Judaism] as the true and direct descendants of the Old Testament is contradicted by the most fundamental assumption of one Mishnah-Tractate after another. These stand wholly separate from the Priestly Code....and generally contradict it!" ~ Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities [Brill Academic, 1974], P. 7. - ISBN-10: 9004038973
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia connfirms that Judaism is based on the teachings of the Pharisees and not upon the Law of Moses: "The Jewish Religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature." ~ Vol. VIII P. 474 [1942].
So according to their own literature buried deeply into their dense Encyclopaedia they are not Israelites nor the offspring, and for the record [do your supra due diligence to learn the hard truth of this] = according to a quite brave remnant of Genomicists/Geneticists in Israel who have faced quite the intense and severe blowback for being the small minority of voices to boldly tell the factual operational science of what they discovered, *that it is a genetic impossibility to claim to be a genetic descendant of the Israelites, not only because the gene pool of mankind is so mixed that no one is truly 'pure' breed, but supremely because there is no way to obtain a DNA sample from a true Israelite in circa 30 A.D. who came out of Shem to compare with the professing modern day genetic descendants of the Israelites to verify truly if they veritably are the descendants of the Israelites.*
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The true faith of Old Covenant/Testament is Abrahamic/Mosaic, not the religion of the Pharisee's and Scribes = The "tradition of the elders".
"Edom is modern **Jewry**." ~ 1925 Jewish Encyclopaedia, Ed., 5, Pg. 41
"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a *"Jew"'* or to call a contemporary *"Jew"* an Israelite or a Hebrew." ~ 1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3.
"We have already seen substantial evidence that any notion of Pharisaism [or later Rabbinic Judaism] as the true and direct descendants of the Old Testament is contradicted by the most fundamental assumption of one Mishnah-Tractate after another. These stand wholly separate from the Priestly Code....and generally contradict it!" ~ Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities [Brill Academic, 1974], P. 7. - ISBN-10: 9004038973
The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia confirms that Judaism is based on the teachings of the Pharisees and not upon the Law of Moses: "The Jewish Religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature." ~ Vol. VIII P. 474 [1942].
So according to their own literature buried deeply into their dense Encyclopaedia they are not Israelites nor the offspring, and for the record [do your supra due diligence to learn the hard truth of this] = according to a quite brave remnant of Genomicists/Geneticists in Israel who have faced quite the intense and severe blowback for being the small minority of voices to boldly tell the factual operational science of what they discovered, *that it is a genetic impossibility to claim to be a genetic descendant of the Israelites, not only because the gene pool of mankind is so mixed that no one is truly 'pure' breed, but supremely because there is no way to obtain a DNA sample from a true Israelite in circa 30 A.D. who came out of Shem to compare with the professing modern day genetic descendants of the Israelites to verify truly if they veritably are the descendants of the Israelites.*
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimmycricket7946 "I thought you were referring to REV ch 7 by your username. Meaning you were claiming to be one of the sealed 144k." What my position is at this point in time from studying the Scriptures for many years in the correct 1st century born again Israelite perspective is that the 144k is not a literal number, it's symbolic to mean the born again who are perfected.
"I forgot that REV 12 is all about the woman clothed with the sun with a moon beneath her feet and 12 stars around her head that gives birth to the child. Who do you think this woman represents? There's three distinct interpretations out there?"
Sorry for the length.
The woman is spiritual Israel, which Paul references many times that the true believer/John 3:1-21 qualified is now spiritual Israel, the bride of the Christ Jesus, so many parallel Scriptures show this, when again, one does accurate, correct, ordered, precise, proper and sound Acts 17 Berean/John 3:1-21 exegesis. Many, so many, make grave mistakes, like i used to, of doing *eisegesis* with the Scriptures - twisting them to my own destruction which i did before the true austere first century Jesus of the Scriptures by His will gave me a road to Damascus conversion that has ineffably changed my life years ago to become His adopted child. As for your claim of three distinct interpretations, this shows me you have not spent much years studying the early church [From the point of Jesus' ascension to the last Apostle John dying so around around 100 A.D.] in proper contextual, historical Berean study to see why this claim of three distinct understands, is a modern idea. Such arise by reading modern ideas and societal mores into a circa 2000 year old New Testament which is **exactly how the true Jesus teaches to NOT study the Scriptures - eisegesis - which is normalised today** hence why Matthew 24:11 for example is true than ever before in our day. The word "interpretation" truly means 'translation', i'm not translating anything, rather i'm doing what the true Scriptural austere Jesus commands, to be an Acts 17 Berean. The child of the woman are the John 3:1-21 qualified believers, again the Body of the Christ / the Bride of the Christ etc. Since i've been trained in Bible Hebrew and Greek in different strengths by professors in Israel and Greece, i will naturally have a view that aspires to be as close as to the correct reading/understanding [**not "interpretation"] that a born again Israelite had in the first century or Gentile baptised by the Apostles. If you study the early Ekklesia [pre 100 A.D.] there is none of this 'three distinct' readings/renderings/understandings/comprehensions... there is only one correct way to accurately comprehend such things. I am not an expert, neither a rookie, and John on the Isle of Patmos deliberately used much figurative language, symbols etc because he knew the Roman soldiers and the higher level officers responsible for him would read his letter to the John 3:1-21 qualified assemblies, so he purposely put much symbolism and figurative language so as to cause the Roman centurions and higher level officers to look at his letter w/o the ability to discern what he was actually stating so they would not think it was some letter telling the Israelites to rebel against the Roman rule etc, only true John 3:1-21 qualified remnant believers would correctly comprehend, whether they were Israelite or Gentile, what he was exactly meaning etc. Hence why it takes many years of Acts 17 Berean/John 3:1-21 qualified Bible study to gain a much more accurate historical, linguistic, contextual and supremely, spiritual understanding of the Book of Revelation which is tied also with the Book of Daniel for example.
I encourage you to do the laborious work [i did], to go back to the first century as best as possible, and read Polycarp [disciple of John the Apostles] + Ignatius + Mathetes, Papias [we only know about him since the one or two of the ones i just mentioned wrote about him]. STAY AWAY FROM Justin Martyr [heretic], Irenaeus [argued to be the most dangerous heretic by Polycarp and/or Ignatius and/or Papias and/or Mathetes] and Tertullian [from 2nd century, heretic], Origen _[late 2nd century] etc. Why? I found that Justin Martyr [North African man mixing African pagan beliefs with Scripture which Paul forewarned that there would be wolves who would enter the early Ekklesia not sparing the flock brining in all manner of doctrines of devils and heresies] and the same goes for Irenaeus who taught another Gospel [Galatians 1:7-9, he lies that he was the student of Polycarp] and same goes for another heretic named "Valentinus" and another heretic named "Marcion" and another heretic named Tertullian etc [these were what could be called the "Proto-Catholics" of Rome] and so..... i strongly suggest you first read Polycarp, Ignatius, and what was stated by Papias which Polycarp and Ignatius and i think one or two or three more cited [like Mathetes or Barnabas (i think this is the one who was a partner with Paul in planting assemblies)] ..and once you understand true correctly first century authentic austere Scriptural Jesus the Christ doctrine that He taught the Apostles and which Polycarp and Ignatius and Papias held loyalty to etc, and if you still want to read the heretics i mentioned, ***be very careful, ask the true God/Jesus]_ to send you red flags when something seems "Scriptural" but it's not. May you truly allow the true austere Scriptural Jesus the Christ/God, to guide in Spirit and Truth... if what you read outside of the Holy Bible does not Acts 17 Berean/John 3:1-21 qualified exegesis line up with what Jesus and the Apostles taught, then that is a red flag. May He richly bless your studies. Selah.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1