Oops! This site has expired. If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.

 This Diaspora

Click here to edit subtitle

Blog

view:  full / summary

Nike Is Pagan

Posted by Willow on March 4, 2020 at 12:20 AM Comments comments (0)

Did you know this about Nike

 

The company was founded on January 25, 1964 as Blue Ribbon Sports by Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight,[1] and officially became Nike, Inc. on May 30, 1971. The company takes its name from Nike (Greek Νίκη, pronounced [nǐːkɛː]), the Greek goddess of victory.

 

The "goddess" Nike is thought to be linked with the Nicolatians. The Nike company designed their swoop logo to be an abstract form of the "goddess" Nike's wings. Also, their slogan, or motto "Just do it" seems to be a shortening of the Satanic teachings of Alexister Crowley "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" in other words, " Just do it".

 

In Greek mythology, Nike (Greek: Νίκη, "Victory", pronounced [nǐːkɛː]) was a goddess who personified victory, also known as the Winged Goddess of Victory. The Roman equivalent was Victoria. Depending upon the time of various myths, she was described as the daughter of the Titan Pallas and the goddess Styx, and the sister of Kratos (Strength), Bia (Force), and Zelus (Zeal).[1]

 

Nike and her siblings were close companions of Zeus, the dominant deity of the Greek pantheon. According to classical (later) myth, Styx brought them to Zeus when the god was assembling allies for the Titan War against the older deities. Nike assumed the role of the divine charioteer, a role in which she often is portrayed in Classical Greek art. Nike flew around battlefields rewarding the victors with glory and fame.

Statuette of goddess Nike found in Vani, Georgia.

 

Nike is seen with wings in most statues and paintings. Most other winged deities in the Greek pantheon had shed their wings by Classical times. Nike is the goddess of strength, speed, and victory. Nike was a very close acquaintance of Athena, and is thought to have stood in Athena's outstretched hand in the statue of Athena located in the Parthenon.[2] Nike is one of the most commonly portrayed figures on Greek coins.[3]

 

Names stemming from Nike include among others: Nikolaos, Nicholas, Nicola, Nick, Nicolai, Nikolai, Nicolae, Nils, Klaas, Nicole, Ike, Niki, Nikita, Nika, Niketas, and Nico.

 

It is also believed Saint Nicholas is a name derived from Nike


The Star Of David?

Posted by Willow on March 3, 2020 at 7:30 AM Comments comments (0)

 

 

 




I'm going to get straight to the point, there is no Star of David. Even some Jewish Rabbis confirm there never was any so-called "Star of David", and God didn't tell Israel to make an image of a star for his name as some may use to explain the symbol .

Acts 7:43

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. 44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had APPOINTED , speaking unto MOSES, that he should MAKE IT ACCORDING TO THE FASHION THAT HE HAD SEEN.

26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your MOLOCH and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves

 

Moloch is the biblical name of a Canaanite god associated with child sacrifice. The name of this deity is also sometimes spelled Molech, Milcom, or Malcam. The name Moloch results from a dysphemic vocalisation in the Second Temple period of a theonym based on the root mlk, "king".

 

(Leviticus 18:21)

“You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to MOLOCH, and so PROFANE THE NAME of your God”.

 

 

"The star of your god Remphan": Remphan is a rendering of the Ancient Greek: ρεμφαν. Various manuscripts offer other transliterations, e.g. Ancient Greek: Ῥομφά, Ῥεμφάν, Ῥεμφάμ, Ῥαιφάν, and Ῥεφάν. It is part of a reference to Amos 5:26, which reads in Hebrew as "Chiun", "Kewan", or "Kijun". The Septuagint's reading of Amos is "raiphan" or "rephan". The Greek forms may be based on a transliteration of the Hebrew, k (qoppa) having been replaced by r (resh) and ph substituted for v (yod). "kewan", is the another pronunciation of the Old Persian word of Kayvan, meaning SATURN!

The Shroud Of Turin

Posted by Willow on March 2, 2020 at 5:55 PM Comments comments (0)



The Shroud of Turin, also called the Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino, Sacra Sindone [ˈsaːkra ˈsindone] or Santa Sindone), is a length of linen cloth bearing the negative image of a man. Some believe the image depicts Jesus of Nazareth and the fabric is the burial shroud in which he was wrapped after crucifixion. Historical and scientific evidence points to it being a medieval creation. It is first securely attested in 1390, when a local bishop wrote that the shroud was a forgery and that an unnamed artist had confessed; radiocarbon dating of a sample of the fabric is consistent with this date.

It is kept in the Cathedral of Turin, which is located next to a complex of buildings which includes the Royal Palace of Turin, the Chapel of the Holy Shroud (located inside the Royal Palace and formerly connected to the Cathedral) and the Palazzo Chiablese in Turin, Piedmont, northern Italy.

The Catholic Church has neither formally endorsed nor rejected the shroud, but in 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus. Pope John Paul II called the Shroud "a mirror of the Gospel" Other Christian denominations, such as Anglicans and Methodists, have also shown devotion to the Shroud of Turin . Diverse arguments have been made in scientific and popular publications claiming to prove that the cloth is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis. In 1988, three radiocarbon dating tests dated a corner piece of the shroud from the Middle Ages, between the years 1260 and 1390. Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the results were skewed by the introduction of material from the Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon dating. However, all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted, including the medieval repair hypothesis,

the bio-contamination hypothesis and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.

The image on the shroud is much clearer in black-and-white negative - first observed in 1898 - than in its natural sepia color. A variety of methods have been proposed for the formation of the image, but the actual method used has not yet been conclusively identified. The shroud continues to be both intensely studied and controversial

 

Asking whether or not the Shroud of Turin could be the image of the beast, or whether or not it will play a future role in end time deception may seem far fetched to some, but considering today's technology and the advancement in cloning, is this really as far fetched as it may seem at first?

Scripture says the second beast in Revelation causes the people to create an image unto the first beast, and then the second beast gives the image life and the power to speak.

 

Revelation 13:14-15

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed

 

Life as defined in the bible is the breath of life and also life is in the blood. So the image will become an actual living breathing man.

 

Leviticus 17:11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood:

 

The bible says the 2nd beast had power to give life unto the image of the beast.

It didn't say God gave the image life, but rather power was given unto the beast to give life unto the image that it should speak. I have heard many theories claiming the image will be various types of inanimate objects such as television sets , artificial Intelligence, and even the bible, but that is not what the bible says.

The image will actually have life. It doesn't matter how alive something appears to be, if it is an inanimate object, it isn't alive. Again, life as defined in the bible is the breath of life and life is found in the blood. So, how will the second beast be able to give the image life? Will the image be a clone?

 

Most theologians believe the first beast of Revelation is Rome. If Rome is in fact the first beast, why would the second beast want people to worship Rome unless it has a kinship to Rome? Rome is the 1st beast and the image the second beast will commission to be created in the image of the first will be in the likeness of Rome and a living breathing image of a man.

 

We know there has been an image of a false messiah worshiped in the so-called church throughout the world for several centuries.

This false image is promoted in the churches as the savior is a gentile image. This is not about race necessarily, but it is about a mindset. The gentile mindset refuses to repent and is a proud mindset of superiority.

What you are proud of, you can not repent of, but will create a false idol in your own likeness. Many gentiles today, instead of allowing themselves repent of their ways, truly being born again, allowing the process of being recreated in God's own likeness, instead hold to the mindset of grafting their culture and traditions into messiah rather than the simply repenting of their own dead works. I believe continuing in that mindset will prepare the world to accept the counterfeit Christ, created as an image or representation to the beast. Whether that image is the Shroud of Turin, or some other image. Although many scientist believe the shroud to be a fake, this may not stop the image from being cloned someday and even worshiped.

 

 

Is The Messiah G-d?

Posted by Willow on February 29, 2020 at 4:55 PM Comments comments (0)

 

 

 

 

I recently had a conversation with a Jehovah Witness, when the topic of whether the messiah was God came up. To my dismay, I discovered Jehovah Witness' believe the messiah is the spirit brother of Lucifer, and is also the arch angel Micheal. But let us see what the bible actually says about the messiah.

 

John 1:1-14

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

The messiah is the only begotten of the father and also called "The Word" according to John. "The Word was with God and the Word was God." By The Word all things were created, and without him nothing was made that was made.

The creation story in Genesis tells of God speaking his word and causing the light to come forth . He speaks his word to divide the firmament from the firmament and so on. until we finally see where he says " Let us make man in our image, in our own likeness". Who was God speaking to when he said let us make man?

 

Nehemiah 9:6

Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

 

Scripture clearly defines the messiah as being the only begotten son of the father, and the word also, as being the only begotten of the father

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Messiah is "The Word", and the "The Word" was God. But some may ask how could this be if God is one?

 

Deuteronomy 6:4

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

 

Messiah is the spoken word, the promises of God fulfilled, manifested in the flesh. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth"

. I'm going to get right at it with my thoughts on the whole matter. The answer is yes. Messiah is God, but no, the messiah is not God the father.

"The Word" being the son, existed before being born of flesh, but in what time frame did the word become his actual son is a bit difficult to determine. It seems at some point God spoke his word and brought forth what is his son, then father bestowed upon him the authority of a son.

 

Hebrews 1:1-13

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

 

Scripture affirms it, the messiah is God. As Adam was formed of the dust of the ground, and then his wife Eve, was then taken from Adam's own flesh, and at first was also called Adam, Adam being the source from which she was taken, "The Word" came forth from God's own abundant heart. Although in Position and authority, the father is over his word, his son.

 


What Does The Bible Say About Women Wearing Pants?

Posted by Willow on February 29, 2020 at 4:25 PM Comments comments (0)



 

 

 

 

 

First I'd like to state that nowhere in scripture does it state anything about pants, whether being worn by a man, or being worn by a woman. Everyone in the bible as far as we know of wore robes at the time the law found in Deuteronomy was given, and yet many still want to insert the idea of pants into the scripture given.

Deuteronomy 22:5

5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

 

I have had conversations in which many who claimed breeches worn by the sons of Aaron who were priest, were the same as pants worn today, but lets see what scripture actually says about breeches and how they were described.

Exodus 28:42

And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

 

Leviticus 6:10

And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.

 

1.So first we see who the breeches were made for, they were made for the priests of the Most High.

2.The breeches were to worn underneath the garment of the priest

3. The breeches were to be made of linen

4. The breeches were to be made to cover the loins down to the thigh.

 

This description of breeches sound more like men's boxers worn today underneath the clothing and not like pants.

 

I once asked a Hebrew male who was constantly spouting off about pants and women who wore pants going to hell, what he thought about a man wearing women's pants. He told me there was no such thing as women pants, and that pants only should be worn by men only.

I then showed him a picture similar to the one I posted above. I asked him what he would say if he saw a man wearing the kind of outfit or pants as in the picture above. Outraged, he stated the man was a homosexual. I asked how could he judge that by what the man was wearing, and he stated in frustration, " Because those are women's pants". The problem is not wearing pants, but cross-dressing which is confusion of genders.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Origin of The Word "Church"

Posted by Willow on February 29, 2020 at 4:15 PM Comments comments (0)

 

 

 

 

 

The first complete English bible was the Tyndale bible in about 1524. The Tyndale bible did not use the word "church" anywhere in its pages, but instead used the word "congregation." Sometime after the publishing of the Tyndale bible, the word congregation was replaced with the word "church", which is derived from the word "Circe".

 

 

The Oxford English Dictionary gives this etymology for the word church: Church - Old English: circe etc. = Old Saxon: kirka .

Three quotes giving more information about the etymology of the word "church". The first is from Wikipedia: Quote Church Wikipedia The etymology of this word is generally assumed to be from the Greek, kurios oikos (house of the Lord); but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of the Greek. No doubt the word means ‘a circle.’ The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular (witness circular Stonehenge, the most ancient stone megaliths on earth). Compare Anglo-Saxon 'circe', a small church, with 'circol', a circle. In Scotland it is called "Kirk" and in Gemany it is "Kirche," in England it is the word "Circe" (the "c" having a "k" sound).

 

"Kirke/Circe" was also the name of a Goddess. Kirke or Circe was the daughter of the Sun god, who was famous for taming wild animals for her circus. Quote Circe[/size] [www.paleothea.com] Circe was an evil, or perhaps just cruelly quirky, sorceress. She was very powerful and turned all of Odysseus' men into swine (they bearly escaped). She also had the power to purify and cleanse the Argonauts of the murder of Apsyrtus. Her name means "Falcon" and that seems pretty appropriate for her character. Circe was the daughter of Helios (the Sun) and Perse, and was the aunt of Medea. She was dangerous because she was so powerful and so bored.

 

Quote Circe, Kirke, Kirche and Kerk

This is the word used in most English versions as a rendering of the New Testament's Greek word ekklesia. Ekklesia really means "a calling out", a meeting or a gathering. Ekklesia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew qahal, which means an assembly or a congregation. Neither ekklesia nor qahal means a building. Tyndale, in his translation, uniformly translated ekklesia as "congregation" and only used the word "churches" to translate Acts 19:37 for heathen temples! Whence the word "church", then? Ecclesiastical sources give the origin as kuriakon or kyriakon in Greek. However, to accept this. one has to stretch your imagination in an attempt to see any resemblance. Also, because kuriakon means a building (the house of Kurios=Lord), and not a gathering or meeting of people, as the words ekklesia and qahal imply, therefore this explanation can only be regarded as distorted, even if it is true.

 

Our common dictionaries, however, are honest in revealing to us the true origin. They all trace the word back to its Old English or Anglo-Saxon root, namely circe. And the origin of circe? Any encyclopaedia, or dictionary of mythology, will reveal who Circe was. She was the goddess-daughter of Helios, the Sun-deity! Again, another form of Sun-worship, this time the daughter of the Sun-deity, had become mixed with the Messianic Faith.

 

Some interesting facts emerge from the study of the word circe. The word is related to "circus", "circle", "circuit", "Circean", "circulate", and the various words starting with "circum-". The Latin pronunciation could have been "sirke" or "sirse". The Old English word circe may have been pronounced similarly to "kirke", or even "sirse". However, Circe was in fact originally a Greek goddess where her name was written as: Kirke, and pronounced as such—just as in numerous similar cases of words of Greek origin, e.g. cyst and kustis, cycle and kuklos, cylinder and kulindros. The word "church" is known in Scotland as kirk, and in German as Kirche and in Netherlands as kerk. These words show their direct derivation from the Greek Kirke even better than the English "church". However, even the Old English circe for "church", reveals its origin. Let us rather use the Scriptural "Assembly" or "Congregation", and renounce the word that is derived from Circe, the daughter of the Sun-deity! 


Rss_feed