Rabbi Baruch Efriti: 'Islamization of Europe a good thing"

repost from previous page since it isnt paging over properly

enlil, according to the sumerian texts, held the title to the planet, as it were. this was his planet. (and who tried to give the planet to jesus?? 3 guesses, first 2 don't count) and he didn't want human beings running around on it, procreating like mad. he was depicted as an environmental scientist. enki, who was a master of genetic sciences (creator of living things -- serpent in the tree is dna) created humans and other life forms on the planet. then he spent the next 4000+ years trying to defend it from enlil, in the heavenly court of anu (who is heavenly father in the example, also known as the egyptian amen).

the reason why the text says the jews are gods is because the adam was named after its creator, egyptian atum. since moses was an egyptian for the first half of his life, he was taught both the egyptian and mesopotamian creation accounts, which are identical but have diverging cultural spins and language barriers. remember, some of noah's descendants settled egypt.

the problem is, all people are descended from the atum, so that means all people are gods, in the junior sense of the word. they just don't realize it and that's what the enlil parts of the old testament, koran and talmud, try to hide from everyone. why? cause he thinks this is still his planet, that's why. and he ain't gonna give it up. he'll try to kill every last one of us, first. with that in mind, recall to mind everything else you know about global politics and current trends, and the comments of the rabbi in the op, who, unbeknownst to him, is preaching enlil and as a result is preaching islam. this would explain quite a bit, if you think about it.

the synagogue of satan is the synagogue of the accuser, who is enlil, who is allah. the law accuses you. and taken to extremes, is entirely hateful of human beings in general. for example the anti female texts of these ancient cultures are the result of enlil not wanting more humans on his planet and since female humans create more humans....well you get the idea.
the muslims have been lied to, as have most jews and christians (even hindus and buddhists have ancient anti female texts or anti female cultures). that doesn't mean that jews, muslims or christians, etc, are evil. it means the teachings of enlil are the anti-thesis of the teachings of enki. and enki is the creator. somehow, they ended up squished together in the texts of torah, talmud and koran.

say hi to dad, egyptian atum (that's a plural word and so is adam and so is elohim (the mesopotamian equivalent of atum)



what's that he's holding in his hand? well by george, it's a life symbol
(the ankh) and well lookie there, it's suspiciously like a crucifix. what twisted mind, made the life symbol into an instrument of capital punishment (a death device)?

woot, on a roll

according to this www.balaams-ass.com... EL is never derived from
IL and therefore, the hebrew god EL is not Allah. That is WRONG!
and I can prove it.

The etymology of Enlil goes thusly

En means Lord.
so EN.LIL means Lord LIL
LIL became IL
IL became ILAH
Add AL and you have AL'ILAH
Contract it and you have AL'LAH



HOWEVER, EL and IL are language variants in neighboring cultures for the exact same word. For example, BABEL is also BABIL or BABILU. some scholars try to argue this by ignoring pretty much all other linguistic queues and etymological trails. that's a no-no. One reason they do that is because ILU is "gods" and you can't very well have a monotheistic religion based on multiple gods.
That means EL and IL are the same!
the word LIL became the generic god word for mesopotamia.
so yeah, AL'LAH is one of the versions of jehovah in the old testament that derives from ENLIL.

reply to post by undo

HOWEVER, EL and IL are language variants in neighboring cultures for the exact same word. For example, BABEL is also BABIL or BABILU. some scholars try to argue this by ignoring pretty much all other linguistic queues and etymological trails. that's a no-no. One reason they do that is because ILU is "gods" and you can't very well have a monotheistic religion based on multiple gods

It's much easier to just go ahead and be a polytheist. That way, you can simply strip away the mythology (de-mythologize) and go with what's left.

Zeus, Jupiter, Tangri, Ashur, It's all Father Sky to me.

you'd think that since enlil was concerned for the environment of the planet, that he would also be concerned for its life forms as well, but that's not his M.O. (modus operandi). his concern for the life forms on the planet, seems to be attached directly to the willingness of said life forms to do everything he says, to the letter, with no mistakes or deviations, which is really only possible if you're a robot (And even then robots tend to have the occasional glitch). he knows that and as a result, uses it as a means to condemn us as a species, on a regular basis.
that's the definition of accuser, to a T. somebody, somewhere, messed up the ancient texts, big time.

consider the rabbi, who wants to condemn the great great great great grandchildren (and anybody inbetween) of people who may or may not have done anything to his ancestors. just plop ye olde label on the whole lot of them based on location in 3d space, whether they were even christians or not, is also not taken into account. race plays a huge factor, and ignoring all the help israel gets from these same people is a necessary ingredient as well. (which sounds like vatican influence, since that would fit the whole prophecy about the 10 kings who league with the antichrist and great whore -- shifting that inglorious mantle from themselves to the entire european system which has basically gone secular. probably ticked off they can't bilk people for more money and probably knew it would come to this and perhaps even planned it that way so they could have a religious excuse to watch it all go down the tubes -- depopulation of humans = enlil agenda).

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by undo

HOWEVER, EL and IL are language variants in neighboring cultures for the exact same word. For example, BABEL is also BABIL or BABILU. some scholars try to argue this by ignoring pretty much all other linguistic queues and etymological trails. that's a no-no. One reason they do that is because ILU is "gods" and you can't very well have a monotheistic religion based on multiple gods

It's much easier to just go ahead and be a polytheist. That way, you can simply strip away the mythology (de-mythologize) and go with what's left.

Zeus, Jupiter, Tangri, Ashur, It's all Father Sky to me.

not sure about the list you have there. i mean ashur is a possibility, but only because of the hebrew translation of I AM THAT I AM. which is Hayah Asher Hayah.

reply to post by undo

not sure about the list you have there. i mean ashur is a possibility,

I was just trying it on to see if it fit. I guess it doesn't really. Turns out to have started out as a deified city.

As the deified city Assur (pronounced Ashur), which dates from the mid 3rd millennium BC and was the capital of the Old Assyrian kingdom.[1] As such, Ashur did not originally have a family,
...
When Assyria conquered Babylon in the Sargonid period (8th-7th centuries BC), Assyrian scribes began to write the name of Ashur with the cuneiform signs AN.SHAR, literally "whole heaven" in Akkadian, the language of Assyria and Babylonia. The intention seems to have been to put Ashur at the head of the Babylonian pantheon, where Anshar and his counterpart Kishar ("whole earth") preceded even Enlil and Ninlil.[3]
Ashur

You're right. Seems Ashur is a city god who usurps the primal Anshar. Anshar and Kishar seem to be equivalent to Ouranos and Gaia, as primals. Okay, scratch Ashur.

Thanks for correcting my madness. That would have been like putting a carp into an aquarium of guppies. "Hey, I've only got one fish now!"

As for having say, Ouranos and Zeus in the same list: That's where demythologizing comes in, Still the sky, but name change due to one culture dominating another, no real change.

Does it seem to you that you may have derailed the thread?

Does it seem to you that you may have derailed the thread?

well it touches on judaism and islam, and the rationale behind why a rabbi would think it was a good idea to islamify an entire continent out of revenge, against people who most likely weren't present during the problem (kinda like women being blamed today for what some lady named eve did 1000s of years ago). what is he thinking?

people move in and out of europe all the time. the original prepetrators are likely all dead, and the people he thinks need to be made to suffer under the yoke of islam today, are, at least in part, not even the descendants of the original prepetrators. so you have to ask yourself, what would drive him to say such a thing? all i can think of is he's on the enlil train. he wants to the women to be "modest" (notice that part, that's a key part in all this. the gentiles shouldn't even have a say over what they wear. not that i'm a gentile. as far as i'm concerned we are all the sons and daughters of god. he doesn't think so though, so there you go. gentile women are to be stuffed in gunney sacks along with the muslim women, whereas israel, which is completely secular, gets to wear normal clothing, and so on. maybe he hopes the israeli women will get the idea and hide themselves out of shame, as well. god makes a woman and then spends the next 6000 years, lecturing her about how evil her body is. crikey, somebody dropped the ball somewhere.)

sounds like a depopulation plan if you ask me. which was the whole point of making women the problem child in the story. cover up that body, so the men don't think about sex, cause sex leads to pregnancy. he thinks it's a religious ideal, but i think it's enlil's environmentalism gone amuck.

i'll tell you a little something i figured out one day while doing a very indepth study of genesis. the big sin, the fall of the adam race (there were female adam before eve), was the addition of procreation (that was knowledge. adam KNEW (had knowledge of) his wife, and she begat. back then, having knowledge was equivalent to procreation. that was the knowledge of creation.

so what the serpent gave us, was the ability to procreate. the serpent wasn't an actual snake, it was dna. when the serpent was cursed and lost its legs, it was referring at the same time to shortening the life span of procreating humans -- prior to that, we apparently had eternally regenerative bodies. so the legs of the serpent, were likely some portion of the dna that use to unzip and replicate to regenerate all parts of the body. that part was nerfed so that it no longer unzipped or was removed altogether. because enlil didn't want a bunch of procreating humans on his planet. the council had a pow wow and it was decided to nerf humans (and since this was his planet, he had final say in the matter), that's why it says the way to the tree of life (totally regenerative dna) was blocked.

and today, we ladies have to put up with this complete bs about how evil our bodies are.

reply to post by undo

gentile women are to be stuffed in gunney sacks along with the muslim women, whereas israel, which is completely secular, gets to wear normal clothing, and so on. maybe he hopes the israeli women will get the idea and hide themselves out of shame, as well.

I don't think women are that free in Israel. Try a google search on women beat up by "modesty patrols", especially on buses. Here's a story about not sitting on the back of a bus:

In her first interview since the incident, Shear says that on the bus three weeks ago, she was slapped, kicked, punched and pushed by a group of men who demanded that she sit in the back of the bus with the other women. The bus driver, in response to a media inquiry, denied that violence was used against her, but Shear's account has been substantiated by an unrelated eyewitness on the bus who confirmed that she sustained an unprovoked "severe beating."
Woman beaten on J'lem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

that may be a totally unrelated issue to modesty. sephardic jews are treated pretty badly there cause the ashkenazi jews are the ruling class and quite a few are atheists and the sephardic jews are not. this spills over into the behavior of ashkenazis who aren't atheists.
(read my edit to my post above. i added a bit on the subject of adam and eve)

oh i just read the article. yikes.

how did it get like that? the old testament is mostly an egyptian book
(in disguise) with some mesopotamia thrown in, here and there. the egyptians were nothing like that. all i can think of is, enlil was the one that oversaw the exodus, he separated them off in another land, and then laid on the rules, several of which were not bad at all, some were quite brilliant (like not eating things that crawl/swim at the lowest levels of the water due to the fact they suck up all the garbage that sinks to the bottom of the water) and some were horrific. such as if your child misbehaves take to them out and have the townspeople stone them. some of that stuff was so bad, you wonder why they would even agree to it.

the exodus like you may have never seen it before



you don't want to read the actual egyptian story if you're terribly fond of the made in hollywood version.

god's people, ahmo israel. say what? ahmose was the pharaoh.
so that should be rephrased, the pharaoh's people. yeah. moses was named after him.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Agreed is this a rape statistics thread about the treatment of women in Islam. Or a thread about what the Rabbi said and his meaning, and thoughts on this?