Mucpeor & Baalpeor

Pierre

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
In one of the first Cs transcript we get this unusual and puzzling name : Mucpeor. I really like the different names of the Cs but to be honest I don't understand their meanings.

session 940716 said:
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: Do you have any messages for us?
A: Keep doing what comes naturally.
Q: (L) In what respect?
A: Study.
Q: (L) What is your name?
A: Mucpeor.
In the old testament we can find a word with the same suffix : Baalpeor

Numbers 25:3 (KJV) said:
And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.
If we have a look at the etymology and meaning of "baal", "muc" and "peor", we can find the following :

1/ "Baal" seems strongly lizzie related :

session 941020 said:
Q: Who built the city of Baalbek?
A: Antereans and early Sumerians. We meant Atlanteans.
session 941020 said:
Q: (L) Who was or is Baal?
A: Lizard.
2/ "muc" can be found in Sanskrit. mukti a setting or becoming free, release, from muc to let loose, free, release. MOOkti is the multipurpose polysynchronous virtual ...
noisey.oise.utoronto.ca:9996/help/mookti

3/ "peor" could mean bad/worse. Mauvais; malo; male. Latin malus. pire; peor ; peggiore Latin pejor, cognate to Sanskrit padyate "he falls"

http://experts.about.com/e/s/su/Suppletion.htm

It might lead to a duality : on one side Baalpeor (the bad Lizzard) on the other side Mucpeor (who lets free from the bad)
 
C

centreground

Guest
it is indeed an interesting observation.

i am of the belief that whenever a person 'channels' information there is only one 'source'.

let me explain....

whether one seems to be channelling 'the cassiopeans' 'ra' 'the nine' or whoever, one is in reality actually channelling god.

i see the casseopeans not as 'sixth density light beings' but as a conceptual tool or crutch for these current times of difficulty invented by god who saw an opportunity to ease sufferring by offering hope in the form of 4th density. this is equivalent to the belief in a heaven held by those of various faiths who think they will be saved or rescued in some sense from the pain and sufferring they experience in their lives.

i used to belive that god was one being and that there are seven densities and i would soon be graduating to 4th density. i basically believed in everything the cassiopeans said. but over the years i noticed that there were some glaring self-contradictions, inconsistencies, very strange remarks , and blatant yarn-spinning which lead me to believe that all was not as it seemed.

reading the transcripts i was surprised to hear that laura's daughter doesn't believe in the reality of the cassiopeans, but now i find myself of the same belief.

the cassiopeans may not be real beings in my opinion but 'they' do bring people closer to reality and thus god so 'their' message is a necessary stepping stone on the way to truth. not that there aren't many other 'sources' just as useful....


maybe 'baalpeor' is the name of a particular 'reptilian' (draco-dinosaur hybrid as far as my researches and meditations thus far go) or group . so by god using 'muc' they may be making a small tribute to them in some way, or they may be offering an insight into them for others.

i still think the concept of hyperdimensionality is useful in the sense that it can help explain things like why i saw a young draco walk past me in my kitchen and then dissapear. or why ive seen ufos appear and dissapear.
i think all beings occupy the same density or dimension but sometimes some are hidden or cloaked from others because of a choice made by god, and all other beings. life would be pretty difficult for someone who could see all the ghosts and other entities around them at all times.

i believed in the idea of hyper dimensional reptilian opressors, soul-less greys etc because i chose to. i see it differently now. life is just the playing out of exchanges between beings and the search for 'union with the one'- full telepathic union with another being - thoughts and emotions.

our super ancient ancestors, still alive and well, dealing out there 'tough love' from orion could well be changing their ideas and attitudes at the same time as we change ours. it's not inconceiveable that jesus may have been described as saying he was 'the son of god' because the beings that orchestrated the writing of that section of the bible were sending a snub or compliment to the oldest being in creation (i think her name is Ea based on my current researches) a draco somewhere in orion. i think god has always been two beings who dreamt up another and thus created the first (asexually reproductive - to begin with) being who then gave birth to another - the being that later incarnated as jesus/jesinnavarra/eus. perhaps 'he' has been making up for something which saw god 'cast him down from' orion where some of the beings feel so little strain on their soul- energy that they never sleep. so they watch us even in our sleep (and the beings around - ghosts have an electromagneticm profile too).

'as above so below', if god is two beings in telepathic union i reckon all of us can count on eventually being telepathic with one other being.

i would love to hear what ppl think of these ideas.

sam
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
centreground said:
whether one seems to be channelling 'the cassiopeans' 'ra' 'the nine' or whoever, one is in reality actually channelling god.

sam
And what evidence you have for this belief of yours? Some people, for instance, believe that "Any channeled information is crap. It is 100% disinformation." - see http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/swerdlow.htm ;)

So, what is the basis of your belief?
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
centreground said:
i basically believed in everything the cassiopeans said. but over the years i noticed that there were some glaring self-contradictions, inconsistencies, very strange remarks , and blatant yarn-spinning which lead me to believe that all was not as it seemed
Followed with this, which, since you are sharing it here, you must not consider 'yarn spinning' or 'very strange'

centreground said:
the beings that orchestrated the writing of that section of the bible were sending a snub or compliment to the oldest being in creation (i think her name is Ea based on my current researches) a draco somewhere in orion. i think god has always been two beings who dreamt up another and thus created the first (asexually reproductive - to begin with) being who then gave birth to another - the being that later incarnated as jesus/jesinnavarra/eus. perhaps 'he' has been making up for something which saw god 'cast him down from' orion where some of the beings feel so little strain on their soul- energy that they never sleep.
Perhaps any evidence you have for these statements will make this information you've presented seem less like blatant yarn spinning.
 

Keit

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Axel_Dunor said:
2/ "muc" can be found in Sanskrit. mukti a setting or becoming free, release, from muc to let loose, free, release. MOOkti is the multipurpose polysynchronous virtual ...
noisey.oise.utoronto.ca:9996/help/mookti

3/ "peor" could mean bad/worse. Mauvais; malo; male. Latin malus. pire; peor ; peggiore Latin pejor, cognate to Sanskrit padyate "he falls"
Interesting! In Hebrew "baal" is "husband" or "owner". "baal" of something, is owner of something. And to own something is to limit this something, the opposite of setting something free.

p.s In Hebrew, demon "Beelzebub" is called "BaalZvuv" or "Owner/Lord of the Flies".
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
centreground said:
it is indeed an interesting observation.
i am of the belief that whenever a person 'channels' information there is only one 'source'.
Billions of people have billions of beliefs. I think it's safe to say that beliefs do not help one seek truth.
whether one seems to be channelling 'the cassiopeans' 'ra' 'the nine' or whoever, one is in reality actually channelling god.
Why wouldn't that apply to interacting or talking to people and everything else that exists?
i see the casseopeans not as 'sixth density light beings' but as a conceptual tool or crutch for these current times of difficulty invented by god who saw an opportunity to ease sufferring by offering hope in the form of 4th density.
Billions of people have billions of beliefs. I think it's safe to say that beliefs do not help one seek truth.
i used to belive that god was one being and that there are seven densities and i would soon be graduating to 4th density. i basically believed in everything the cassiopeans said.
Billions of people have billions of beliefs. I think it's safe to say that beliefs do not help one seek truth.
the cassiopeans may not be real beings in my opinion
Billions of people have billions of beliefs. I think it's safe to say that beliefs do not help one seek truth.
i still think the concept of hyperdimensionality is useful in the sense that it can help explain things like why i saw a young draco walk past me in my kitchen and then dissapear.
It might help explain the "how", but it does not explain the "why" anymore than aerodynamics explains why someone visited their grandmother in South Africa.
i think all beings occupy the same density or dimension
Billions of people have billions of beliefs. I think it's safe to say that beliefs do not help one seek truth.
i believed in the idea of hyper dimensional reptilian opressors, soul-less greys etc because i chose to.
Billions of people have billions of beliefs. I think it's safe to say that beliefs do not help one seek truth.
i see it differently now. life is just the playing out of exchanges between beings and the search for 'union with the one'- full telepathic union with another being - thoughts and emotions.
Where did you get the idea that the C's ever referred to God or "The One" as a being?
the oldest being in creation
What do you think came before the oldest being in creation?
i would love to hear what ppl think of these ideas.
You presented them as your beliefs - and therein lies the problem, since beliefs only lead away from truth. You have presented no evidence to back anything you said up, just that you choose to assume these things to be true for no reason other than because you want to.
 
C

centreground

Guest
ok then...

i obviously need to explain my beliefs further.

to begin with, beliefs do help one seek truth. people's beliefs are those things they hold to be true. i believe fruit is conscious, therefore i act accordingly and give them as painless a death as possible.

to say that beliefs do not help one seek truth is in itself a belief that some use to help themselves see truth. so, therein lies a nonsense huh?

ok, as for the basis of my belief that all channelled messages are communicated by god, i would have to say the basis is the recurring thought that it is so every time i meditate upon it.

if i appear to be yarn spinning then too bad...

as the 'cassiopeans' said: spinning helps, 33 times, 3 times a day, clockwise for a man , anti - clockwise for a woman - maybe they just think ppl need to have fun spinning around, digging etc for exercise.
or are ppl really of the belief that this will help build a 'magnetic centre'?

by the way. i used to engage in a spot of spinning myself (when the cassiopean material was more than a primer). i suppose looking back it was fun, and probably made those watching a little queezy with any luck (the 'light' is taken from the eye so whatever u look at can be seen along with all your corresponding internal states:)

god is two beings in full telepathic union who dreamt up Ea, a draco still in orion who gave birth (asexually) to a male who then reproduced with her (variable physicality) and had 3 kids: 2 males 1 female. the female reproduced with her father. they told others it was an immaculate conception and many offspring where born, eventually the truth came out and there was 'a war in heaven' and many were 'cast down' onto a new planet. Ea's physical body is as old as the physical universe, so its no wonder some of her 'younger relatives' still think she is god.

this is what i think, believe , assume, has been 'channelled' to me, i have meditated upon and have concluded to be so, imagine, cogitate, speculate, reason , surmise, etc etc .

of course it is possible to others that i may be wrong, but when the nephilim ships are only a few years from earth, the being who was jesus/jesinnavarra is alive and well on earth, being closely watched by various elements of the consortium and the quorum (some of whom think that he is satan's (Ea's) second in command due to the fact that they dont believe in telepathy so think she is beaming voices into his brain), it is time to voice idEas rather than get 'dragged down' by those around you.

sam
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Mucpeor & Baalpeor

Sam, sorry but your doctrinaire beliefs suggest to me that you a) have never read the C's material very carefully; b) if you did read all of it, and read it carefully, along with the commentary and context provided, you were unable to grok what you were reading; or c) you are a troll just composing random contradictory sentences.

If situation B is the correct one (and there are others, of course, but these are the three that strike me as highest on the list of probabilities), then there IS an explanation. As psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski points out:

[A] typical product of conversive thinking: subconscious selection and substitution of data leading to chronic avoidance of the crux of the matter. ...

Drug-induced characteropathies: During the last few decades, medicine has begun using a series of drugs with serious side effects: they attack the nervous system, leaving permanent damage behind. These generally discreet handicaps sometimes give rise to personality changes which are often very harmful socially. Streptomycin proved a very dangerous drug; as a result, some countries have limited its use, whereas others have taken it off the list of drugs whose use is permitted.

The cytostatic drugs used in treating neoplastic diseases often attack the phylogenetically oldest brain tissue, the primary carrier of our instinctive substratum and basic feelings. Persons treated with such drugs progressively tend to lose their emotional color and their ability to intuit a psychological situation. They retain their intellectual functions but become praise-craving egocentrics, easily ruled by people who know how to take advantage of this.

They become indifferent to other people's feelings and the harm they are inflicting upon them; any criticism of their own person or behavior is repaid with a vengeance. Such a change of character in a person who until recently enjoyed respect on the part of his environment or community, which perseveres in human minds, becomes a pathological phenomenon causing often tragic results....

Results similar to the above in the psychological picture may be caused by endogenous toxins or viruses. When, on occasion, the mumps proceeds with a brain reaction, it leaves in its wake a discrete pallor or dullness of feelings and a slight decrease in mental efficiency. Similar phenomena are witnessed after a difficult bout with diphtheria. Finally, polio attacks the brain, more often the higher part of the anterior horns, which was affected by the process. People with leg paresis rarely manifest these effects, but those with paresis of the neck and/or shoulders must count themselves lucky if they do not. In addition to affective pallor, persons manifesting these effects usually evidence naivet� and an inability to comprehend the crux of a matter.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Now, back to the original subject.

As it happens, the subject of the Heresy of Peor has long fascinated me. In the earlier edition of Secret History, when it was titled "Ancient Science," I included a passage on the subject. It was removed from the current edition because it belongs in the volume: "The Horns of Moses."

Anyway, for the record, here is that passage:

There is a final very interesting specific example that I would like to talk about, noted by Friedman among the many others he has detailed: the story of the Heresy of Peor from Numbers 25. The JE text starts off the story with verses 1 through 5, wherein it talks about the mixing of the people with the "daughters of Moab." The story then breaks off talking about women of Moab and starts talking about a particular incident involving a Midianite woman. Apparently, the people are weeping at the Tent of Meeting for the death of Aaron as related in the previous chapter of Numbers, and Aaron's grandson, Phinehas, is present outside the tent and becomes the hero of this tale.

The story tells us that an Israelite man and a Midianite woman have gone into the Tent of Meeting "in the sight of Moses." So, apparently Moses is there. They then do something that is shocking or reprehensible to the writer of the P text, and he makes a significant point that Moses does not act against this, but rather seems to be condoning it. So, Phinehas comes to the rescue of the violated sanctity of the Tent of Meeting. He follows the man and woman into the tent where he finds them engaged in an activity "whose arrangement makes it possible to thrust a spear through both the man and the woman, ending in the woman's abdomen." The P document makes it clear that Phinehas' execution is absolutely legal without a trial because the P text has made it clear throughout that no one is to enter the Tent of Meeting except for the approved priests. What is more significant, however, is that the P text makes it clear that whatever Moses was approving of was wicked and no longer would be tolerated. Phinehas's reward is an eternal covenant of priesthood, excluding the Mosaic line.

This is a strange story for a number of reasons. As noted, the beginning of the story is from the J text, which would be a tradition of the Southern kingdom. In it, the Moabites are considered to be very wicked, King David's famous ancestress, Ruth, notwithstanding . What is more, the practices of the Moabite women have been changed to a Midianite woman, and Moses' wife was a Midianite. Then the P author makes a very special point of the event in the tent as being wrong. Keeping in mind that he is laboring to create authority for the Aaronid line; he seems to be forced to present an event that was obviously part of a tradition, only he gives it a special ending by the priest of the Aaronid line acting against it.

It seems obvious that whatever was taking place in the Tent of Meeting was an act that was apparently a practice of the time of Moses. What was it? Was it that the "Tent of Meeting" was originally constructed for ritual intercourse - a hieros gamos - officiated at by Moses himself? And if that is the case, just what god did Moses really represent? Clearly, not Yahweh as we know him now. And certainly not the Yahweh of the later Shiloh priests either!

The author of P ends the story by putting words in Yahweh's mouth to Moses saying: "Trouble the Midianites, and strike them. For they troubled you with their enticements by which they enticed you over the matter of Peor." Whatever it was that was taking place in that tent, apparently it was part of the practice of the Midianites, and the P author is making it clear that such will no longer be tolerated. And this event is entirely in line with the other mythic tales of the patriarchs and their practice of a religion that was, initially, based on acknowledgement of the feminine, and the shamanic ecstasies of ascent. We will later see how other stories indicate the process of controverting this worship to that of a male god, and that the writing of this new Torah was merely a major step in this process. A major point to consider here is that the "god" who spoke to the patriarchs was, very likely, the goddess. It can, of course, be claimed that this was simply vulgar paganism or nature worship. But again, please observe the historical effects of this transformation and judge the tree by its fruit.

The author of P was not only eliminating things that he specifically rejected for theological or political reasons, he was also eliminating the long tales of the J and E texts. Retelling the wonderful stories of the people was not his intent; his intent was the business of establishing Yahweh and his agents: the Aaronid priesthood. He shows no interest whatsoever in the literary interests of the people, alluding to them only in short lines or paragraphs where they are mostly dismissed as pagan nonsense. In all of P there are only three stories of any length that are similar to JE: the creation, the flood and the covenant with Noah (excluding the sacrifice after the flood), the covenant with Abraham, (excluding his almost sacrifice of Isaac). He also added a story that is not present in the older documents: the story of the death of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu which is presented to instruct the people that the sacrifice must only be performed as commanded by god, even if it is performed by bloodline Levites! He was leaving no angle uncovered! The repeated emphasis on this point tells us that he was trying to change something that had existed for a long time: that anybody could enter the Tent of Meeting. But now, with a fake ark of the covenant in there, only the priests could enter. In this way, only they were able to see that the replacement ark was not the original. Clever, yes? The P writer seems overwhelmingly concerned with Sinai and the giving of the law, since half of Exodus, half of Numbers, nearly all of Leviticus, is concerned with the Levite law.
Douglas Reed also mentions the subject of the Heresy of Peor in Controversy of Zion, however in order to understand his meaning - which is actually similar to the point I was trying to make in Ancient Science, I will have to quote the entire chapter.

THE FORGING OF THE CHAINS

The Babylonian episode was decisive in its consequences, both for the petty tribe of Judah at the time and for the Western world today.

During this period the Levites achieved things which were permanently to affect the life of peoples. They added four Books to Deuteronomy and thus set up a Law of racio-religious intolerance which, if it could be enforced, would for all time cut off the Judahites from mankind. By experiment in Babylon, they found ways of enforcing it, that is to say, of keeping their followers segregated from those among whom they dwelt. They acquired authority among their captors, and at last they "pulled down" and "utterly destroyed" their captors' house; or if this did not truly happen, they handed on this version of history to a posterity which accepted it and in time began to see in these people an irresistibly destructive force.

The first "captivity" (the Egyptian) seems to have been completely legendary; at any rate, what is known confutes it and as Exodus was completed after the Babylonian incident the Levitical scribes may have devised the story of the earlier "captivity", and of Jehovah's punishment of the Egyptians, to support the version of the Babylonian period which they were then preparing.

In any case, what truly happened in Babylon seems to have been greatly different from the picture of a mass-captivity, later followed by a mass-return, which has been handed down by the Levitical scriptures.
No mass-exodus of captives from Jerusalem to Babylon can have occurred, because the mass of the Judahite people, from which a Jewish nation later emerged, was already self-distributed far and wide about the known world (that is, around the Mediterranean, in lands west and east of Judah), having gone wherever conditions for commerce were most favourable.

In that respect the picture was in its proportions very much like that of today. In Jerusalem was only a nucleus, comprising chiefly the most zealous devotees of the Temple cult and folk whose pursuits bound them to the land. The authorities agree that merely a few tens of thousands of people were taken to Babylon, and that these represented a small fraction of the whole.

Nor were the Judahites unique in this dispersion, although the literature of lamentation implies that. The Parsees of India offer a case nearly identical and of the same period; they, too, survived the loss of state and country as a religious community in dispersion. The later centuries offer many examples of the survival of racial or religious groups far from their original clime. With the passing of generations such racial groups come to think of their ancestors' homeland simply as "the old country"; the religious ones turn their eyes towards a holy city (say, Rome or Mecca) merely from a different spot on earth.

The difference in the case of the Judahites was that old country and holy city were the same; that Jehovaism demanded a triumphant return and restoration of temple-worship, over the bodies of the heathen destroyed; and that this religion was also their law of daily life, so that a worldly political ambition, of the ancient tribal or nationalist kind, was also a primary article of faith. Other such creeds of primitive times became fossilized; this one survived to derange the life of peoples throughout the ages to our day, when it achieved its most disruptive effect.

This was the direct result of the experiments made and the experience gained by the Levites in Babylon, where they were first able to test the creed in an alien environment.

The benevolent behaviour of the Babylonian conquerors towards their Judahite prisoners was the exact opposite of that enjoined on the Judahites, in the reverse circumstances, by the Second Law which had been read to them just before their defeat: "Save nothing alive that breatheth. . ." Dr. Kastein says the captives "enjoyed complete freedom" of residence, worship, occupation and self administration.

This liberality allowed the Levites to make captives of people who thus were largely free; under priestly insistence they were constrained to settle in closed communities, and in this way the ghetto and Levite power were born. The Talmudic ruling of the Christian era, which decreed the excommunication of Jews if without permission they sold "neighbour-property" to "strangers", comes down from that first experiment in self-segregation, in Babylon.
The support of the foreign ruler was necessary for this corralling of expatriates by their own priests, and it was given on this first occasion, as on innumerable other occasions ever since.

With their people firmly under their thumbs, the Levites then set about to complete the compilation of "The Law". The four books which they added to Deuteronomy make up the Torah, and this word, which originally meant doctrine, is now recognized to mean "the Law". However, "completion" is a most misleading word in this connection.

Only the Torah (in the sense of the five books) was completed. The Law was not then and never can be completed, given the existence of the "secret Torah" recorded by the Talmud (which itself was but the later continuation of the Torah), and the priestly claim to divine right of interpretation. In fact, "the Law" was constantly changed, often to close some loophole which might have allowed "the stranger" to enjoy a right devolving only on "a neighbour". Some examples of this continuing process of amendment have already been given, and others follow in this chapter. The effect was usually to make hatred of or contempt for "the stranger" an integral part of "the Law" through the provision of discriminatory penalties or immunities.

When the Torah was complete a great stockade, unique in its nature but still incomplete, had been built between any human beings who at any time accepted this "Law" and the rest of mankind. The Torah allowed no distinction between this Law of Jehovah and that of man, between religious and civil law. The law of the stranger", theologically and juridically, had no existence, and any pretension to enforce one was "persecution", as Jehovah's was the only law.

The priesthood claimed that the Torah governed every act of daily life, down to the most trivial. Any objection that Moses could not have received from Jehovah on the mountain detailed instructions covering every conceivable action performed by man, was met with the dogma that the priesthood, like relay runners, handed on from generation to generation "the oral tradition" of Jehovah's revelation to Moses, and infinite power of reinterpretation. However, such objections were rare, as the Law prescribed the death penalty for doubters.
Mr. Montefiore remarks, accurately, that the Old Testament is "revealed legislation, not revealed truth", and says the Israelite prophets cannot have known anything of the Torah as the Levites completed it in Babylon. Jeremiah's words, "the pen of the Scribes is in vain" evidently refer to this process of Levitical revision and to the attribution of innumerable new "statutes and judgments" to Jehovah and Moses.

"Sin" was not a concept in the Torah as it took shape. That is logical, for in law there cannot be "sin", only crime or misdemeanour. The only offence known to this Law was non-observance, which meant crime or misdemeanour. What is commonly understood by "sin", namely, moral transgression, was sometimes expressly enjoined by it or made absolvable by the sacrifice of an animal.

The idea of "the return" (together with the related ideas of destruction and dominion) was basic to the dogma, which stood or fell by it. No strong impulse to return from Babylon to Jerusalem existed among the people (any more than today, when the instinct of the vast majority of Jews is completely against "return", so that the Zionist state is much more easily able to find money abroad than immigrants).

Literal fulfilment was the supreme tenet and that meant that possession of Palestine, the "centre" of the dominant empire to come, was essential (as it still is); its importance in the pattern was political, not residential.

Thus the Levites in Babylon added Exodus, Genesis, Leviticus and Numbers to Deuteronomy. Genesis and Exodus provide a version of history moulded to fit the "Law" which the Levites by then had already promulgated, in Deuteronomy. This goes right back to the Creation, of which the Scribes knew the exact date (however the first two chapters of Genesis give somewhat different accounts of the Creation and the Levitical hand, as scholars believe, is more to be seen in the second chapter than the first).

Whatever has survived of the former Israelite tradition is in Genesis and Exodus, and in the enlightened passages of the Israelite prophets. These more benevolent parts are invariably cancelled out by later, fanatical ones, which are presumably Levitical interpolations.

The puzzle is to guess why the Levites allowed these glimpses of a loving God of all men to remain; as they invalidated the New Law and could have been removed. A tenable theory might be that the earlier tradition was too well known to the tribespeople to be merely expunged, so that it had to be retained and cancelled out by allegorical incident and amendment.

Although Genesis and Exodus were produced after Deuteronomy the theme of fanatical tribalism is faint in them. The swell and crescendo come in Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers, which bear the plain imprint of the Levite in isolated Judah and Babylon.

Thus in Genesis the only fore-echo of the later sound and fury is, "And I will make of thee a great nation and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. . . and the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land. . ."

Exodus is not much different: for instance, "If thou shalt indeed, . . do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies. . . and I will cut them off"; and even these passages may be Levitical interpolations.
But in Exodus something of the first importance appears: this promise is sealed in blood, and from this point on blood runs like a river through the books of The Law. Moses is depicted as "taking the blood and sprinkling it on the people" and saying, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words". The hereditary and perpetual office of the Aaronite priesthood is founded in this blood-ritual: Jehovah says unto Moses, "And take unto thee Aaron thy brother and his sons with him that he may minister unto me in the priest's office".

The manner of a priest's consecration is then laid down in detail by Jehovah himself, according to the Levitical scribes:

He must take a bullock and two rams "without blemish", have them butchered "before the Lord", and on the altar burn one ram and the innards of the bullock. The blood of the second ram is to be put "upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons and upon the thumb of their right hands and upon the great toe of their right foot" and sprinkled "upon the altar round about. . . and upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons and the garments of his sons".
The picture of blood-bespattered priests, thus given, is worth contemplation. Even at this distance of time the question prompts itself: why was this insistent emphasis laid on blood-sacrifice in the books of the Law which the Levites produced. The answer seems to lie in the sect's uncanny genius for instilling fear by terror; for the very mention of "blood", in such contexts, made the faithful or superstitious Judahite tremble for his own son!
It is all spelt out in Exodus, this claim of the fanatical priests to the firstborn of their followers:

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine".
According to the passage earlier quoted from Micah, this practice of sacrificing the human firstborn long continued, and the sight of the bloodied Levite must have had a terrible significance for the humble tribesman, for in the words attributed to God, quoted above, the firstborn "of man and of beast" are coupled. This significance remained long after the priesthood (in a most ingenious way which will later be described) contrived to discontinue human sacrifice while retaining the prerogative. Even then the blood which was sprinkled on the priest, though it was an animal's, was to the congregation still symbolically that of their own offspring!

Moreover, in the Talmudic strongholds of Jewry this ritual bloodying of priests has continued into our time; this is not a reminiscence from antiquity. Twenty-four centuries after Exodus was compiled the Reform Rabbis of America (at Pittsburgh in 1885) dec1ared: "We expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the administration of the sons of Aaron; nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish State". The importance of this statement lay in the need, thus felt in 1885, to make it public1y; it shows that the opposite school of Jewry still practised literal observance, inc1uding the ritual of "sacrificial worship". (By the 1950's the Reform Rabbis of America had lost much ground and were in retreat before the force of Zionist chauvinism).

The Levitical authorship of the Torah is indicated, again, by the fact that more than half of the five books are given to minutely detailed instructions, attributed directly to the Lord, about the construction and furnishings of altars and tabernac1es, the c1oth and design of vestments, mitres, girdles, the kind of golden chains and precious stones in which the blood-baptized priest is to be arrayed, as well as the number and kind of beasts to be sacrificed for various transgressions, the uses to be made of their blood, the payment of tithes and shekels, and in general the privileges and perquisites of the priesthood. Scores of chapters are devoted to blood sacrifice, in particular.

God probably does not so highly rate the blood of animals or the fine raiment of priests. This was the very thing, against which the Israelite "prophets" had protested. It was the mummifying of a primeval tribal religion; yet this is still The Law of the ruling sect and it is of great potency in our present-day world.

When they compiled these Books of the Law, the Levitical scribes inc1uded many allegorical or illustrative incidents of the awful results of "non-observance". These are the parables of the Old Testament, and their moral is always the same: death to the "transgressor". Exodus includes the best known of these, the parable of the golden calf. While Moses was in the mountain Aaron made a golden calf; when Moses came down and saw it he commanded "the sons of Levi" to go through the camp "and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour", which these dutiful Levites did, so that "there fell of the people that day about three thousand men".

Christendom also has inherited this parable of the golden calf (having inherited the Old Testament) and holds it to be a warning against the worship of idols. However, a quite different motive may have produced whatever trend among the people caused the Levites to invent it. Many Judahites, and possibly some priests, at that time may have thought that God would be better pleased with the symbolic offering of a golden calf than with the eternal bleating of butchered animals, the "sprinkling" of their blood, and the "sweet savour" of their burning carcasses. The Levites at all times fought fiercely against any such weakening of their ritual, so that these parables are always directed against any who seek to change it in any detail.

A similar case is the "rebellion of Korah" (Numbers), when "two and fifty hundred princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown, gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; wherefore then lift ye yourselves above the congregation of the Lord".

The Israelite "prophets" had made this very complaint, that the Levites took much on themselves, and the parable in Numbers is plainly intended to discourage any other objectors: "So the earth opened and swallowed Korah and his two hundred and fifty men of renown" (however, the congregation "continued to murmur", whereon the Lord smote it with the plague, and by the time Aaron interceded, "fourteen thousand and seven hundred" lay dead.)

The lesson of these parables, respect for the priesthood, is driven home immediately after this anecdote by the enumeration, in words attributed to the Lord, of the Levite's perquisites: "All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the wheat, the first fruits of them which they shall offer unto the Lord, them have I given thee".
Presumably because the older tradition imposed some restraint in the writing of history, Genesis and Exodus are relatively restrained. The fanatical note, first loudly sounded in Deuteronomy, then becomes ever louder in Leviticus and Numbers, until at the end a concluding parable depicts a racio-religious massacre as an act of the highest piety in "observance", singled out for reward by God! These last two books, like Deuteronomy, are supposed to have been left by Moses and to relate his communions with Jehovah. In their cases, no claim was made that "a manuscript hoary with the dust of ages" had been discovered; they were just produced.

They show the growth of the sect's fanaticism at this period, and the increasing heat of their exhortations to racial and religious hatred. Deuteronomy had first decreed, "Love ye therefore the stranger", and then cancelled this "judgment" (which probably came down from the earlier Israelite tradition) by the later one which excluded the stranger from the ban on usury.

Leviticus went much further. It, too, began with the admonition to love: "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself" (chapter 19). The reversal came in chapter 25: "Of the children of the stranger that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour".

This made hereditary bondage and chattel-slavery of "strangers" a tenet of the Law (which is still valid). If the Old Testament is of "equal divine authority" with the New, professing Christians of the pioneer, frontiersman or Voortrekker kind were entitled in their day to invoke such passages as these in respect of slavery in America or South Africa.

Leviticus introduced (at all events by clear implication) what is perhaps the most significant of all the discriminations made by the Law between "thy neighbour" and "the stranger". Deuteronomy, earlier, had provided (chapter 22) that "if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die; but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death; for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter". This is the kind of provision, in respect of rape, which probably would have been found in any of the legal codes which were then taking shape, and for that matter it would fit into almost any legal code today, save for the extreme nature of the penalty. This passage, again, may very well represent the earlier Israelite attitude towards this particular transgression; it was impartial and did not vary according to the person of the victim.

Leviticus (chapter 19) then provided that a man who "lieth carnally" with a betrothed woman slave might acquit himself of fault by bringing a ram to the priest "as a trespass offering", when "the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him", but the woman "shall be scourged". Under this Law the word of a woman slave clearly would not count against that of her owner, on a charge of rape, so that this passage appears to be an amendment, of the discriminatory kind, to the provision in Deuteronomy. Certain allusions in the Talmud support this interpretation, as will be shown.

Leviticus also contains its parable depicting the awful consequences of non-observance, and this particular example shows the extreme lengths to which the Levites went. The transgression committed by the two allegorical characters in this case (who were themselves two Levites, Hadab and Abihu) was merely that they burned the wrong kind of fire in their censers. This was a capital offence under "the Law" and they were immediately devoured by the Lord!

Numbers, the last of the five Books to be produced, is the most extreme. In it the Levites found a way to rid themselves of their chief prerogative (the claim to the firstborn) while perpetuating "the Law" in this, its supreme tenet. This was a political move of genius. The claim to the firstborn evidently had become a source of grave embarrassment to them, but they could not possibly surrender the first article of a literal Law which knew no latitude whatever in "observance"; to do so would have been itself a capital transgression. By one more reinterpretation of the Law they made themselves proxies for the firstborn, and thus staked a permanent claim on the gratitude of the people without any risk to themselves:

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, And I, behold. I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; because all the firstborn are mine. . ." (As the firstborn to be so redeemed outnumbered their Levite redeemers by 273, payment of five shekels each for these 273 was required, the money to be given "to Aaron and his sons".)
Proceeding from this new status of redeemers, the Levites laid down many more "statutes and judgments" in Numbers. They ruled by terror and were ingenious in devising new ways of instilling it; an example is their "trial of jealousy". If "the spirit of jealousy" came on a man, he was legally obliged (by "the Lord speaking unto Moses, saying") to hale his wife before the Levite, who, at the altar, presented her with a concoction of "bitter water" made by him, saying, "If no man have lain with thee and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse. But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband. . . the Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell."

The woman then had to drink the bitter water and if her belly swelled the priests "executed the law" of death on her. The power which such a rite put in the hands of the priesthood is apparent; ascribed to the direct command of God, it resembles the practices of witch doctors in Africa.

The final touch is given to "the Law" in the last chapters of this, the last book to be compiled. It is provided by the parable of Moses and the Midianites. The reader will have remarked that the life and deeds of Moses, as related in Exodus, made him a capital transgressor, several times over, under the "Second Law" of Deuteronomy and the numerous other amendments of Leviticus and Numbers. By taking refuge with the Midianites, by marrying the Midianite highpriest's daughter and by receiving instruction in priestly rites from him, and in other ways, Moses had "gone a-whoring after other gods", had "taken of their daughters", and so on. As the whole structure of the law rested on Moses, in whose name the commands against these things were laid down in the later books, something evidently had to be done about him before the Books of the Law were completed, or the whole structure would fall to the ground.

The last small section of Numbers shows how the difficulty was overcome by the scribes. In these final chapters of "the Law" Moses is made to conform with "all the statutes and judgments" and to redeem his transgressions by massacring the entire Midianite tribe, save for the virgins! By what in today's idiom would be called a fantastic "twist", Moses was resurrected so that he might dishonour his saviours, his wife, two sons and father-in-law. Posthumously he was made to "turn from his wickedness", to validate the racio-religious dogma which the Levites had invented, and by complete transfiguration from the benevolent patriarch of earlier legend to become the founding father of their Law of hatred and murder!

In Chapter 25 Moses is made to relate that "the anger of the Lord was kindled" because the people were turning to other gods. He is commanded by the Lord, "Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the Lord against the sun", whereon Moses instructs the judges, "Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor" (Baal-worship was extensively practised throughout Canaan, and the competition of this cult with Jehovah-worship was a particular grievance of the Levites).

The theme of religious hatred is thus introduced into the narrative. That of racial hatred is joined to it when, in the direct sequence, a man brings "a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses". Phinehas (the grandson of Moses's brother Aaron) goes after them "and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the women through her belly". Because of this deed, "the plague was stayed", and "the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Phinehas hath turned away my wrath from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake. . . Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace!"

Thus the covenant between Jehovah and the hereditary Aaronite priesthood was again sealed (by the Levitical scribes) in blood, this time the blood of a racioreligious murder, which "the Lord" then describes as "an atonement for the children of Israel". Moses, the witness of the murder, is then ordered by the Lord, "Vex the Midianites and smite them". The symbolism is plain. He is required, in resurrection, to strike equally at "other gods" (the god of the high priest Jethro, from whom he had received instruction) and at "strangers" (his wife's and father-in-law's race).

The Levites even made the ensuing massacre Moses's last act on earth; he was rehabilitated on the brink of eternity! "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites; afterwards thou shalt be gathered to thy people". Thus ordered, Moses's men "warred against the Midianites as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. . . and took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of their cities, and all their flocks, and all their gods, and burnt their cities".

This was not enough. Moses, the husband of a loving Midianite wife and the father of her two sons, was "wroth" with his officers because they had "saved all the Midianite women alive. Behold these caused the children of Israel. . . to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregations of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves". (The booty is then listed; after the enumeration of sheep, beeves and asses follow "thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him". These were shared among the Levites, the soldiers and the congregation; "the gold" was brought to the Levites "for the Lord".)

With that, Moses was allowed at last to rest and the Books of the Law were concluded. Incitement could hardly be given a more demoniac shape. Chapters 25 and 31 of Numbers need to be compared with chapters 2, 3 and 18 of Exodus for the full significance of the deed foisted on Jehovah and Moses by the Levites to become apparent. It was a plain warning to the special people of what Jehovaism was to mean to them; it remains today a warning to others.

On that note The Law ended. Its authors were a small sect in Babylon, with a few thousand followers there. However, the power of their perverse idea was to prove very great. By giving material ambition the largest shape it can have on earth, they identified themselves forever with the baser of the two forces which eternally contend for the soul of man: that downward pull of the fleshly instincts which wars with the uplifting impulse of the spirit.

The theologians of Christendom claim more for this Law than the scholars of Jewry. I have before me a Christian Bible, recently published, with an explanatory note which says the five books of the Torah are "accepted as true", and for that matter also the historical, prophetic and poetic books. This logically flows from the dogma, earlier quoted, that the Old Testament is of "equal divine authority" with the New.

The Judaist scholars say differently. Dr. Kastein, for instance, says that the Torah was "the work of an anonymous compiler" who "produced a pragmatic historical work". The description is exact; the scribe or scribes provided a version of history, subjectively written to support the compendium of laws which was built on it; and both history and laws were devised to serve a "political purpose. "A unifying idea underlay it all", says Dr. Kastein, and this unifying idea was tribal nationalism, in a more fanatical form than the world has otherwise known. The Torah was not revealed religion but, as Mr. Montefiore remarked, "revealed legislation", enacted to an end.

While the Law was being compiled (it was not completed until the Babylonian "captivity" had ended) the last two remonstrants made their voices heard, Isaiah and Jeremiah. The hand of the Levite may be traced in the interpolations which were made in their books, to bring them into line with "the Law" and its supporting "version of history". The falsification is clearest in the book of Isaiah, "which is the best known case because it is the most easily demonstrable. Fifteen chapters of the book were written by someone who knew the Babylonian captivity, whereas Isaiah lived some two hundred years earlier. The Christian scholars circumvent this by calling the unknown man "Deutero-Isaiah", or the second Isaiah.

"This man left the famous words (often quoted out of their context), "The Lord hath said. . . I will also give thee for a light unto the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth". This was heresy under the Law which was in preparation and the Levite apparently added (as the same man presumably would not have written) the passages foretelling that "the kings and queens" of the Gentiles "shall bow down to thee with their face towards the earth and lick up the dust of thy feet . . . I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine; and all flesh shall know that I am the Lord thy Saviour and thy Redeemer" (This sounds like the voice of Ezekiel, who was the true father of the Levitical Law, as will be seen.)

Jeremiah's book seems to have received Levitical amendment at the start, because the familiar opening passage sharply discords with other of Jeremiah's thoughts: "See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy . . ."

That does not sound like the man who wrote, in the next chapter: "The word of the Lord came to me saying, Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord: I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown . . . What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me . . . my people have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters . . ."

Jeremiah then identified the culprit, Judah (and for this offence well may have come by his death): "The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah". Israel had fallen from grace, but Judah had betrayed; the allusion is plainly to the Levites' new Law. Then comes the impassioned protest, common to all the expostulants, against the priestly rites and sacrifices:

"Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord. . ." (the formal, repetitious incantations) ". . . but thoroughly amend your ways and your doings, oppress not the stranger, the fatherless and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place" (the ritual of blood-sacrifice and the ordained murder of apostates). . . "Will ye steal, murder and commit adultery, and swear falsely. . . and come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are de1ivered to do all these abominations" (the ceremonial absolution after animal-sacrifice). "Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? . . I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices...."
In such words Jeremiah, like Jesus later, protested against the "destruction" of the Law in the name of its fulfillment. It seems possible that even in Jeremiah's time the Levites still exacted the sacrifice of firstborn children, because he adds, "And they have built the high place. . . to burn their sons and daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my heart".

Because of these very "abominations", Jeremiah continued, the Lord would "cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride; for the land shall be desolate".

This is the famous political forecast which was borne out; the Levites, with their genius for perversion, later invoked it to support their claim that Judah fell because their Law was not observed, whereas Jeremiah's warning was that their Law would destroy "treacherous Judah". Were he to rise from the earth today he might use the word without change in respect of Zionism, for the state of affairs is similar and the ultimate consequence seems equally foreseeable.

When Judah fell Jeremiah gave his most famous message of all, the one to which the Jewish masses today often instinctively turn, and the one which the ruling sect ever and again forbids them to heed: "Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace". The Levites gave their angry answer in the 137th Psalm:

"By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept..... Our tormentors asked of us mirth: Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth. . . O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed, happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones".
In Jeremiah's admonition and the Levites' reply lies the whole story of the controversy of Zion, and of its effects for others, down to our day.

Jeremiah, who was apparently put to death, would today be attacked as a "crackpot", "paranoiac", "antisemite" and the like; the phrase then used was "prophet and dreamer of dreams". He describes the methods of defamation, used against such men, in words exactly applicable to our time and to many men whose public lives and reputations have been destroyed by them (as this narrative will show when it reaches the present century): "For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. Report, they say, and we will report it. All my familiars watched for my halting, saying, Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him".

While Jeremiah was a refugee in Egypt, the second Isaiah, in Babylon, wrote those benevolent words which glow like the last light of day against the dark background of the teaching which was about to triumph: "Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice...... let not the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people . . . The sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants . . . even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer . . . for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people".

With this glimpse of a loving God of all mankind the protests ended. The Levites and their Law were left paramount, and therewith the true captivity of "the Jews" began, for their enslavement to the law of racial and religious hatred is the only genuine captivity they have suffered.

Jeremiah and the Second Isaiah, like the earlier Israelite remonstrants, spoke for mankind, which was slowly groping its way towards the light when the Levites reverted to darkness. Before the Law was even completed Prince Sidharta Gautama, the Buddha, had lived and died and founded the first religion of all mankind, founded on his First Law of Life: "From good must come good, and from evil must come evil". This was the answer to the Levites' Second Law, though they probably never heard of it. It was also time's and the human spirit's inevitable answer to Brahminism, Hindu racialism and the cult of the perpetual master-caste (which strongly resembles literal Judaism).

Five hundred years ahead lay a second universal religion, and five hundred years after that a third. The little nation of Judah was held back in the Law's chains from this movement of mankind; it was arrested in the fossil stage of spiritual development, and yet its primitive tribal creed retained life and vigour. The Levitical Law, still potent in the Twentieth Century, is in its nature a survival from sunken times.

Such a Law was bound to cause curiosity, first, and alarm next among peoples with whom the Judahites dwelt, or to their neighbours, if they dwelt alone. When the Judahites returned from Babylon to Jerusalem, about 538 BC, this impact on other peoples began. At that moment in time it was felt only by little clans and tribes, the immediate neighbours of the repatriated Judahites in Jerusalem. It has continued ever since in widening circ1es, being felt by ever greater numbers of peoples, and in our century has produced its greatest disturbances among them.
 

John G

The Living Force
...as the 'cassiopeans' said: spinning helps, 33 times, 3 times a day, clockwise for a man , anti - clockwise for a woman - maybe they just think ppl need to have fun spinning around, digging etc for exercise.
or are ppl really of the belief that this will help build a 'magnetic centre'?...
The principle at my children's Catholic school is very into the idea of spinning being good for the brains of children, I suspect it is related to this from
http://www.readytosucceed.org/publications/brains.pdf#search='spinning%20brain%20development'

CEREBELLUM: Above the brain stem is the cerebellum, which is associated with movement. This densely packed area has many connections with the parts of the brain related to abstract thinking and mental focus. When young children do not move and exercise regularly, the connections are weaker than they otherwise would be, and thinking and focus suffer. Vestibular stimulation, such as swinging and spinning, particularly supports one's ability to focus.
As for your Trinity/Avatarish sounding ideas, I would treat them in a less literal more Jungian symbolism way and compare them with other Trinity/Avatarish ideas.
 

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
LOL! We have to get rid of the 'bootays' and bee yatch's. Is a-- more weird than 'bootay'?

Laura said:
THE FORGING OF THE CHAINS

(after the enumeration of sheep, beeves and asses follow "thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him". These were shared among the Levites, the soldiers and the congregation; "the gold" was brought to the Levites "for the Lord".)
 
Top Bottom