http://www.thevesselofgod.com/theluciferianlegacy.html

The Luciferian Legacy




“[The] Serpent is also the wise word of Eve. This is
the mystery of Eden: this is the river that flows out
of Eden. This is also the mark that was set on Cain…
[and] this serpent is also he who appeared in the
latter days in human form at the time of Herod…”

- Hippolytus




The Mark of Cain




A few years back, workers toiling in an underground
chamber beneath a medieval cathedral in Geneva,
Switzerland uncovered a strange mosaic tile floor,
thought to be of great antiquity. The mosaic depicted
an icon beloved by the Merovingians: the Black Sun.
The Priory of Sion claims that one of its principle
commandaries is in Geneva, and if so, this may be it.
For hidden away in the cathedral’s recesses, far from
public view, is one of Christendom’s strangest set of
relics: a plate and cup connected to the legends of
Cain, Solomon, Christ, and Lucifer.

In an ancient variation on Biblical tradition, the
so-called “mark of Cain” - believed to have been
inflicted upon Adam’s first son - is said to have been
caused by a stone that fell from Lucifer’s crown
during the war in Heaven and bounced off Cain‘s
forehead. According to this lore, the mark was in the
shape of a red serpent. The jewel from Lucifer’s crown
became a sacred relic, and was handed down
dynastically from father to son, eventually coming
into the possession of King Solomon. He hired a master
craftsman to carve the huge stone into a plate and
drinking vessel. According to this same legend, these
very utensils were later used by Christ at the Last
Supper. This story, bizarre though it may be, is
emblematic of the unambiguously Luciferian symbolism
that recurs constantly in regards to lore of the Grail
bloodline - symbolism that has been consciously
cultivated by the Merovingians throughout their
history.




The Melusine




Among the most overtly Luciferian lore relating to the
Grail bloodline is the strange saga of Melusine, a
woman said to be half-human and half-serpent. Her
father was reputedly Godfroi de Bouillon, former King
of Jerusalem (or “Defender of the Holy Sepulcher”, as
he preferred to be called), and prime mover behind the
formation of both the Priory of Sion and the Knights
Templar. It was due to de Bouillon - a descendant of
Jesus Christ, King David, and the historical figure of
Lohengrin - that the Templars adopted the Cross of
Lorraine as their esoteric emblem. This symbol is
known in Germany as the Cross of Lothringen, or
Lohengrin (the origin of the name “Lorraine”), and was
said to have been emblazoned upon Lohengrin’s shield.
Godfroi was succeeded as King of Jerusalem by his
brother Baldwin, who in turn was succeeded by Fulk the
Black, a member of the prominent Angevin dynasty. It
was Fulk who married Godfroi’s daughter, the mythical
Melusine. As the story goes, upon her betrothal to
Fulk, Melusine made a very unusual request. She agreed
to marry him, but only upon this strange condition:
that one night per week, on the Sabbath, she was to be
allowed absolute solitude and privacy. On this night
her husband was neither to speak to her, nor to enter
her bedchambers. Fulk agreed to the bizarre codicil,
and by all reports they shared a very happy union for
the first several years.

In time, however, Fulk’s curiosity began to get the
best of him. He wondered why his lovely bride required
time apart from him, and what exactly she did on those
nights. Unable to resist the temptation, Fulk burst
into her bedroom one of these nights, only to be
confronted by a terrifying visage. His wife had
transformed herself into a figure that was
half-serpent. The entirety of her lower extremities
took on the appearance of a massive, bluish-white
colored snake. Melusine was so horrified at being
discovered that she keeled over dead. It was said that
her ghost (in half-serpent form) haunted the site
thereafter, and could be heard late at night,
slithering about behind the locked door.

In a variation on this tale, Fulk was said instead to
have peered through the keyhole of his wife’s chambers
on one of her private nights. Inside he saw Melusine
sitting in a bath, her body covered with scales from
the waist down, her legs having turned into the tail
of a fish. Deeply disturbed by what he had seen, Fulk
was eventually compelled to question his wife. Upon
learning that her trust had been violated, Melusine
departed, never to be seen again.

As bizarre as such tales are, many European monarchs
took great pride in citing Melusine in their family
trees. In fact, according to Sabine Baring-Gould’s
Myths of the Middle Ages, a number of royal families
altered their genealogies in order to claim descent
from the “illustrious” serpent lady. Her story became
wildly popular in France, Germany and Spain, and for a
time was seldom out of print.

In the early, happy days of Melusine’s marriage, she
gave birth to a son, Geoffrey de Anjou. Geoffrey would
eventually grow up to be the first Plantagenet King of
England. Present at Geoffrey's birth was Bernard of
Clairvaux, the famous Cistercian abbot, and yet
another founding father of the Knights Templar. Upon
first seeing the baby Geoffrey, Bernard made this
strange pronouncement: “From the Devil he has come,
and to the Devil he’ll return.” Though the Melusine
saga may have been a beloved tale in parts of Europe,
such was not the case everywhere. The tale seems to
have been equally well-known in England, but not
equally well-liked. In his book The Conquering Family,
Thomas B. Costain writes:




“The counts of Anjou and their lovely but wicked wives
gained such an unsavory reputation over the centuries
that the people of England were appalled when they
found that one of them (Geoffrey) was to become King
of England.”




This notwithstanding, the House of Plantagenet
provided England with some of its most noteworthy
monarchs, many of whom admitted to having a soft spot
in their hearts for their mythical matriarch,
Melusine. Richard the Lionhearted even cited his
purportedly Luciferian heritage as being the reason
why his family “lacked the natural affections of
mankind.”

The story of Melusine had such an impact on the French
psyche that to this very day in some parts of France,
“Melusines” (ginger cookies shaped like a woman with
serpent’s tail) are sold on May Day. The fact that so
many people have seemingly taken this unusual tale at
face value seems rather unfathomable to the modern
mind. Stranger still, why would a family putatively
descended from Christ and King David so publicly
include in their family tree the figure of a woman
half-human and half-serpent?

It would appear that due to the highly improbable
nature of this tale, it has been dismissed entirely by
scholars and historians as pure folklore. Yet the
members of this family (the Grail family) are no
strangers to the adroit implementation of symbolism.
Never has their use of symbolism been gratuitous. It
is employed to reveal to the initiated precisely what
it conceals from the uninitiated. And the imagery
associated with Melusine is very specific in its
connotations: it refers to the patriarch Adam’s first
wife Lillith, who is depicted in cabalistic tradition
as a naked human female with a serpent’s tail for her
lower half. For us, this suggests that the
Merovingians were consciously trying to keep alive an
esoteric tradition - one which holds great secrets
relating to the true nature of their sacred bloodline.





Lucifer’s Children




Conventional wisdom has it that the Grail bloodline is
sacred because it came from Christ, a man still
considered by much of the world to be the true son of
God. And yet the dynasty of kings who descended from
this bloodline were known as sorcerer-kings, some of
whom hinted or even stated outright that they were in
fact descendants of Lucifer. A number of authors claim
this thesis is true, but they are predominantly
hardcore Christian conspiracy theorists, and stop well
short of explaining why they believe this, or of
giving any tangible details to substantiate their
claims. Says author Fritz Springmeier in The
Bloodlines of the Illuminati: “In typical Gnostic
fashion, descendants of the Merovingians claim to have
the blood of both Christ and Satan in their veins.”
Given the fact that this theme (or a variation of it)
recurs with some regularity, and given that it would
appear to be consistent with the sort of dualism which
permeats the story of this bloodline, we began to
wonder if there might not be some traditions from
which such a notion could have arisen. At length,
several were discovered.

Firstly, let us recall that this bloodline descended
from a figure who equates with the biblical Cain. In
certain rabbinic lore, we come across the very
interesting notion that Cain was not the son of Adam,
but of Samael. It was thought that when Samael
appeared to Eve as a serpent, he seduced her. The
fruit of that union was Cain. Samael was a fallen
angel, essentially the Judaic Lucifer. If the
Merovingians knew of this version of the story (which
they no doubt did), and believed it, it could be the
basis of their alleged assertion that they possessed
the blood of both Christ and Lucifer. This notion is
expressed in a famous poem by Charles Peguy, which
states:




“The arms of Jesus are the Cross of Lorraine,

Both the blood in the artery and the blood in the
vein,

Both the source of grace and the clear fountaine;




The arms of Satan are the Cross of Lorraine,

And the same artery and the same vein,

And the same blood and the troubled fountaine.”




Some apocryphal versions of the story of Cain proclaim
that he was the son of Adam and Lillith, not Eve.
Before becoming Adam’s first wife, Lillith had been
the consort of God before coming to Earth as a fallen
angel. The full details of her story are probably too
well-known to bear repeating here, but it is
interesting that of the two alternate traditions
concerning Cain’s parentage, both involve the
Luciferian Nephilim bloodline. Also of interest is the
fact that the lily is known to have taken its name
from Lillith, and the heraldic device emblematic of
this bloodline is the fleur-de-lys (widely accepted as
symbolic of the lily). Could not this symbol, viewed
within this context, in fact be the Flower of Lillith?

The Lillith/Samael connection is also pertinent in
regards to our investigation because both Lillith and
Samael are traditionally held to be the parents of the
demon Asmodeus.1 Not only is Asmodeus the dominant
image (shown mirroring Christ) in Rennes-le-Chateau,
he is said to have played the central role in building
the Temple of Solomon, the edifice from which the
Knights Templar took their name. The recurrence of
this strange figure in Grail lore has long perplexed
observers, yet it would appear that both he and the
descendants of Cain may in fact have shared a kindred
ancestry. It is even said in some traditions that it
was Asmodeus whom Moses called upon to part the Red
Sea, and not God. Though portrayed as a demon or devil
figure, his name reveals that he may not always have
been viewed as such, for “Asmodeus” translates simply
to “the Lord God.” (“Ashma” means “lord”, and “deus”
means “god.”)

Luciferian imagery is implied the presence of “the
Elohim” of The Book of Genesis, where they are quoted
as saying: “Let us make man in our image.” The word
“Elohim” is translated simply as “God” in the King
James Bible, but it is clearly a plural noun, as
plural words in the Hebrew language end in the letters
“im.” In fact, “the Elohim” are widely believed by
many researchers to be identical with the Nephilim,
the fallen angels known as the Watchers in The Book of
Enoch. It is believed that “Elohim” comes from the
much more ancient Babylonian word, “Ellu”, which means
“Shining Ones.” This phrase has a distinctively
Luciferian connotation, because the name “Lucifer”
literally means “lightbearer.” And the descendants of
Cain, who were the deified kings of Sumeria, were
sometimes called “the Ari”, a term which also meant
“Shining Ones.” The Sumerian pictogram for “Ari” or
“Ar”, as noted earlier, is an inverted pentagram, a
symbol long associated with Lucifer. And the phrase
“Shining Ones” would be a very apt description for the
descendants of Enoch’s fallen angels, who were said to
have hair as white as snow, pale eyes, and pale skin
which seemed literally to glow and fill the room with
light. The Sumerian Ari are almost always depicted as
wearing crowns bearing horns, and some of their
descendants were reputed in legend to have had horns.
For instance, the most famous statue of Moses (that of
Michelangelo) depicts him with horns atop his
forehead, not wholly inappropriate for someone who may
be a blood relation of Asmodeus. Theologians protest
that they are not horns, but merely rays of light. Yet
even rays of light suggest a Luciferian subtext.
Alexander the Great declared himself the son of a god,
and he too was said to have horns. In fact, to this
very day, if you talk to people in certain Iranian
villages (who speak of his invasion as though it
happened last week), they will tell you in all
solemnity Alexander had horns, and that he wore his
hair long to cover this up.

One cannot but admit that Cain seems to have
engendered his own tradition, as evidenced in a
strange Gnostic sect called the Cainites (named after
the race of Cain’s descendants). Like the
Carpocrateans, the Cainites believed that no one could
be saved except by “making the journey through
everything.” Epiphanius describes them as a group
“consecrating... lustful or illegal acts to various
heavenly beings” as a sort of sacrament.
Interestingly, many scholars compare them to
Satanists.

The extent to which the Merovingians knew of these
alternate traditions is uncertain. Whether or not they
believed in them is more uncertain still, yet it
remains likely that they both knew about these
traditions and took them quite seriously. To this very
day, the coat of arms of the capital of the
Merovingian empire, Stenay, bears an image of the
Devil. In fact, the original name of Stenay was
“Satanicum.” And the area Rennes-le-Chateau also
contains many geographical references to the Devil. In
addition to the Asmodeus statue at the church, there
is an ancient stone monument in Rennes-le-Bains called
“the Devil’s Armchair”, and there are hundreds of
years worth of local legends pertaining to the
appearance of the Devil on numerous occasions.

Seeing that this Luciferian legacy played such a
prominent role in the Merovingian mythos, we wondered
if traces of it could be detected in the Bible and
other related texts. In short order, we were able to
discern an abundance of such material. What caught our
attention the most were a number of stories which
seemed very suggestive of the idea that certain key
patriarchs were descendants of the Watchers. Take, for
example, the story of Abraham, the first proselyte
ofonotheism, and a figure central in all three major
monotheistic religions. His birth was, according to
apochryphal traditions, foreseen in the stars by none
other than King Nimrod, who felt threatened by the
birth of Abraham, and effected a “slaughter of the
innocents”-type scenario, in which 70,000 male
children were put to death - in an effort to
neutralize him.2 Consequently, his mother fled to the
wilderness to give birth to him in a cave. As author
Louis Ginzberg states in Legends of the Jews, upon
Abraham’s birth, “The whole cave was filled with the
light of the child’s countenance, as with the splendor
of the Sun...” Compare this description with that in
The Book of Enoch, where it was said that Lamech’s son
Noah, “...illuminated all the house, like the Sun; the
whole house abounded with light.”

A further indication that Abraham was of the Nephilim
bloodline is that according to this version of the
story, Abraham’s mother left him in that cave alone
for twenty days, and upon returning, she did not even
recognize him because he had “grown very big.” He was
as large as a full-grown man and could both speak and
walk - surely an indication of some divine
supernatural ancestry. In fact, later chroniclers
state unambiguously that Abraham was a giant. Like
certain of his illustrious forebears, Abraham was also
a great builder. Legends of the Jews tells us that:




“[Abraham] built a city for [his sons through his
slave Hagar], surrounded by an iron wall, so high that
the sun could not shine into the city... Also Abraham
taught them the black art, wherewith they held sway
over demons and spirits.”




Here we have a preeminent biblical patriarch as a
practicioner of black magic, the forbidden art taught
to man by the Watchers. And Abraham is not unique in
this regard. Later figures such as Moses and Solomon
were also said to be sorcerers. If three of the most
important Old Testament figures were practicioners of
the black arts, might not one reasonably conclude that
an occult doctrine or tradition was perhaps central to
the creed that eventually evolved into Judaism, and
later Christianity? We will explore this idea (and the
figure of Abraham) in greater depth later on, but
first we will revisit the story of Jacob.

It was the tale of Jacob’s Ladder that provided the
point of departure for most of our subsequent
research, and we have since discovered alternate
versions of the tale in which the symbolism is much
more vivid. For example, in an apocryphal book called
The Ladder of Jacob, 1:1-6, we read:




“He found a place and laying his head on a stone, he
slept there, for the sun had gone down. He had a dream
and behold a ladder was fixed on the earth, whose top
reached to heaven. And the top of the ladder was the
face of a man, carved out of fire. There were 12 steps
leading to the top of the ladder, and at each step
leading to the top were human faces, on the right and
on the left... and the face [on top was] one of
fire... [and was] exceedingly terrifying...”




The ladder in Jacob’s dream could be construed as
representing a direct lineal connection between God
and man, or the sons of God and man - the Nephilim
patrimony of the twelve tribes of Israel fathered by
Jacob. The “exceedingly terrifying” face of fire at
the ladder’s apex is assumed to be God, although it
could certainly be deemed a Luciferian apparition as
well. The notion that the ladder represents the
descent of the twelve tribes seems to be borne out by
the twelve steps of the ladder, one for each of
Jacob’s future sons. We find support for this idea in
The Legends of the Jews, which tells Jacob’s story in
greater detail.:




“Jacob took twelve stones from the altar on which his
father Isaac had lain bound as sacrifice, and he said:
‘It was the purpose of God to let twelve tribes arise,
but they have not been begotten by Abraham or Isaac.
If now these 12 stones unite into a single one, then I
shall know for a certainty that I am destined to
become father of the twelve tribes.’ At this point a
... miracle came to pass; the twelve stones joined
together and made one, which he put under his head,
and at once it became soft and downy like a pillow...
He dreamed a dream in which the course of world
history was unfolded to him.”




The dream of Jacob’s Ladder is both a memory and a
prophecy. It both foretells the coming of the twelve
tribes, and alludes to their fallen angel lineage. In
a bizarre addendum to this story, Jacob annoints the
stone that served as his pillow with oil descended
directly from Heaven, and then God casts the stone
into “the Abyss” to serve as the cornerstone for his
temple. But why would God want the cornerstone for His
temple to be in the Abyss? Could it be because
Jehovah’s Sumerian prototype, Ia, was known as “the
Lord of the Abyss”?




The Serpent Messiah




One of the oddest symbols used frequently in reference
to the Grail bloodline, and often in wildly unexpected
contexts, is that of the serpent. We are all familiar
with the serpent of Genesis, as the premier villian of
Christian theology - the Devil himself. Consequently,
the serpent has come to be viewed as emblematic of
evil. How then are we to explain the strange episode,
found in the Old Testament and in apocryphal Jewish
legends, in which God instructs Moses to consturct a
magical bronze serpent, the mere sight of which would
save Israelites and bring death to their enemies? In
some versions of this tale it was said that this
serpent could cure men bitten by poisonous snakes.
Others went so far as to say that it could actually
save their souls. Biblical scholar James Kugel,
commenting on the story, said this:




“The bronze serpent fashioned by Moses greatly
troubled ancient interpreters. After all, a man-made
object that had to power to cure snake bites if one
simply looked at it - did this not smack more of magic
than proper belief? What was worse, this same bronze
serpent was later said to have become an object of
idolotry in itself.”




The explanations arrived at by ancient interpreters
are less than satisfactory. They claimed that it was
not the snake which saved people, but God, and that by
beholding it, they were beholding Him. But this fails
to explain why a graven image was made to portray God,
or why God would be symbolized as a serpent. Every
conceivable aspect of this story is utterly in
variance with what we know about orthodox Christianity
or early Judaism. Another version of the tale, related
in The Letter of Barnabas, says:




“...the Spirit, speaking to the heart of Moses, [tells
him] to make a representation of the cross and of him
who was to suffer upon it... Moses therefore made a
graven serpent.”




This is very bizarre indeed. Not only do we have God
represented as a serpent, but Christ as well. And it
gets more interesting still. In the cabalistic science
known as “gematria” (in which words are reduced to
numbers), words sharing the same numeric value are
viewed as having an identical essence on a higher
level of meaning. In gematria, the words “messiah” and
“serpent” can both be reduced to the same number: 358.
So in cabalistic terms, the messiah and the serpent
are one and the same.

For some gnostics and early Christian sects, the
serpent of Genesis was viewed not as the villiain of
the book, but as the hero. It was he, after all, who
brought divine wisdom to man. God had told Adam not to
eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, for if he
did he “would surely die.” But Adam and Eve did eat
the fruit, and they didn’t die. In other words, God
was wrong and the serpent was right. The serpent told
the truth, and God had lied. Certain Gnostics and
Christians thought that this was surely the intended
subtext of Genesis. Evidence that they may have been
correct can be seen in what amounts to an Aramaic pun.
In this now-dead language, used at the time of Christ,
the words for “serpent” and “to instruct” are nearly
identical. The serpent had instructed Eve to eat of
the Tree of Life, and in following his advice, she
gained wisdom. Viewed in this light, how could the
serpent not be seen as the hero of Genesis?

As previously noted, in Jewish apocrypha, there is a
story in which Eve is seduced by the serpent of Eden
(Samael), and it is he, not Adam, who fathers of Cain.
Could this strange tradition have something to do with
Moses and Christ, possibly Cain’s descendants, being
connected to serpent symbolism? Perhaps. Both men were
obviously privy to the traditions connected with their
family - traditions that have not come down to us
through mainstream Christianity. Some sects, such as
the Ophite Gnostics, have promoted theologies which
explicitly identify Christ with the serpent. According
to author Stephen Flowers in Lords of the Left-Hand
Path, these groups felt that:




“Christ came as a manifestation of the light-bearing
serpent... The serpent brought humanity knowledge
(gnosis) of good and evil (Genesis 3:1-7), and can
further aid man in getting the fruit of eternal life,
thus making man like God, or like Christ.”




Though this is purely a philosophical abstraction, it
is interesting insofar as one would not logically
expect to find even a single tradition in which Christ
was identified as a serpent, let alone several. Yet
the examples from Moses, the cabala, and the Ophite
Gnostics would seem to indicate that people had some
concrete reason for making such a connection. We know
that for many years following the death of Moses, the
bronze serpent made by him became a sacred object of
idolotry for the early Israelites.

In some schools of esoteric Christianity, it is
thought that the cross of Christ is synonymous with
the Tree of Life. There is even a very old Latin motto
which, when translated, states: “The wood of the Cross
is the Tree of Knowledge.” If the cross of Christ is
symbolically equal to the Tree of Life, it follows
that Christ would likewise be emblematic of the
serpent who dwelt in that Tree. This may explain an
otherwise inexplicable but nonetheless common
alchemical motif: the crucified snake. Though in the
context of Christian iconography, this repreated
identification of Christ with the serpent appears to
make little or no sense, if one looks to religious
ideas prominent well before the advent of Judaism, the
symbolism is a perfect fit.

In many ancient cultures, such as Egypt, poisonous
serpents were venerated. In Chaldea, they were symbols
of God and of the Sun. This has caused some scholars
to misconstrue the Chaldeans as being superstitious
“snake worshippers”, but such is not the case. The
serpent as a religious icon embodies a very high
degree of sophisticated symbolism. Serpents are
perhaps among the most earthbound of creatures, and
yet were identified with the Sun. For the Chaldeans,
this would have signified the union of Heaven and
Earth, or spirit and matter. This is precisely the
symbolism inherent in the notion of Christ: an
intersection of attributes both heavenly and earthly,
both human and divine. Because serpents shed their
skin, they were associated with the idea of death and
resurection, of rebirth and immortality. Once again,
these are the same ideas central to the mythos of
Christ.

A vestage of this so-called “serpent worship” can be
found in an obscure Judaic sect called the Naasenes.3
The Naasean doctrine posited that God was a primordial
hermaphrodite, as was Adam. The sect chose the serpent
as a representation of God because it was thought that
snakes possessed both sexes, and thus the power of
self-generation. It was a creature like unto God. Is
it possible that Christ, the serpent messiah, was a
Naasene? Perhaps. It can be shown that the moniker
“Jesus of Nazareth” is a misnomer, since the town of
Nazareth did not exist at the time of Christ, which is
why some protestant churches now refer to him as
“Jesus the Nazarene” instead. The authors of Holy
Blood, Holy Grail have speculated that Jesus was a
Nazorean, another obscure Jewish sect of whom Samson
was a follower. But given the serpent imagery found in
alternate traditions of the life of Christ, might not
the “Naasene hypothesis” be every bit as likely? After
all, it was prophecized that the messiah would take
the form of a serpent as early as the time of The Book
of Exodus.

That there is a conncetion between the Naasean
tradition and that of Chaldea seems highly likely.
Chaldea’s deified kings were associated symbolically
with both the Sun and the serpent, and were viewed to
be “sons of the Sun”, or sons of God. The
solar/serpentine motif shows up in the names of many
ancient gods and kings, including some central to our
own investigation. The name “Marduk” can be translated
as “Son of the Sun” of “Son of the Lord”, as “duk”
means both “sun” and “lord”, but “mar” can also mean
“serpent”, giving this title the alternate meaning
“Serpent of the Sun”, or “Serpent of the Lord.” As you
may recall, the name of the South American tutelary
deity “Quetzlcoatl” is also said to mean “Serpent of
the Sun.” In ancient Egypt the word for “serpent” was
“sir”, which allows us to translate “Osiris” as “Sun
Serpent Lord.” And the name of the Chaldean tutelary
deity “Oannes” can be translated into the nearly
identical “Sun Lord Serpent.” Furthermore, you will
recall that the South American god “Noach Yum Chac”
(obviously connected with Noah) is supposed to have
written a text titled Proof that I am a Serpent.

Though the serpent imagery is obviously mere
symbolism, it nonetheless constitutes a symbol central
to the identity of the Watchers and their offspring -
one taken seriously by them, as it would later be by
the Merovingians. Could it be a symbol of their
heritage, derived from some illustrious (or perhaps
sacred) forebear, a figure intimately connected to the
idea of the solar serpent, perhaps one of the
Chadeans’ deified kings? It is quite possible. If this
were the case, it would explain the legend of the
serpent fathering Cain. You will note that the serpent
heritage which was such a matter of pride for the
god-kings of other cultures was a cause for shame in
the context of Judaism. In the Judeo-Christian version
of events, the Original Sin is miscegenation, not
disobedience. Could it be that the woman presented in
all monotheistic religions as the primordial matriarch
was in fact seduced by a Chaldean king? The name
“Samael” may hold some clues. It consists of “Sam”,
which means “Sun”, and “ael”, which means “Son of
God.” So Samael is a serpent who represents both the
Sun and the Son of God, precisely the symbolism
associated with Chaldean kings. Is this the reason
that Cain, a man remembered by other cultures as a
mighty king and a builder of great cities, was
villianized and written out of the Old Testament
almost entirely? Very possibly so.

It is assumed that Cain’s bloodline disappeared from
Biblical events at the same time he vanished East of
Eden, and that subsequent patriarchs derived their
descent from Adam’s “third son”, Seth. However, a
close examination of the genealogies connected to Cain
and Seth reveals that such may not be the case. Except
for a few extra names added to the list of Seth’s
descendants, the two genealogies are nearly identical.





Cain’s descendants are: Enoch, Irad, Mahujael,
Methusael, Lamech.




Seth’s descendants are: Enos, Cainan, Mhalaleel,
Jared, Enoch, Mathuselah, Lamech




The correspondances should be obvious: “Jared” is
“Irad”, “Mathuselah” is “Mahujael”, and so on. Both
lists contain “Lamech”, and both contain “Enoch” (with
an additional “Enos” to further confuse things.) It is
as though the authors are retaining the true history,
yet falsifying it just enough to throw off all but the
most attentive reader. And indeed, the similarities
have not passed unnoticed. Many Biblical scholars have
commented on these odd genealogies, some suggesting
that the one descending from Seth was an obvious
fabrication, and that such a figure probably never
existed. Cain had to be written out of Jewish history
for some reason, but this task must have been quite
difficult, because he was a very famous figure in the
ancient world, known for having erected great cities
across the length and breadth of Sumer and Chaldea. He
built Ninevah, Erech, Agade (Akkad), and Lagash. He
was looked to as a founding father by nations and
cultures that seemingly had no connection to Jewish
history. He built Babylon, and Babylonians were
generally viewed as the natural-born enemies of the
Jewish nation. Curiously, he appears to be a figure
both central to Jewish history, and perplexingly
outside of it.

There is perhaps more written in the Bible about Cain
under his guise as King Nimrod of Babylon than there
is written about Cain proper. The historical figure of
Nimrod can, as we have shown, be conclusively
identified with Cain, and like Cain, he is another
character roundly demonized in the Old Testament. (He
is also portrayed as having lived long after the time
of Cain, something we clearly disagree with.) In early
Jewish and Christian texts he is depicted as a fierce
tyrant, a giant who hunted humans, and a king who
“waged war against God.” But in the kingdoms he left
behind he was worshipped as a god centuries after his
death, and later kings would claim to be Nimrod
reincarnated.

The Chaldean Connection




The genealogy of the Merovingian bloodline has for
centuries been shrouded in mystery, and yet, we have
been able to definitively trace it back to the
Shepherd Kings of ancient Sumer. Subsequently, we have
managed to fine-tune the focus of our investigation
further still and many indications (both ancient and
modern) seem to suggest that the role played by
Chaldea was of pivotal importance. For instance, in
The Book of Genesis, we are told that the Biblical
patriarch Abraham was “a Chaldean from Ur.” For most
readers, this seemingly insignificant factoid would
undoubtedly slip by unnoticed, but to the student of
ancient cultures, it is pregnant with portent, because
Chaldea was known to be a Mecca of astronomy,
astrology, and the black arts. So much so, in fact,
that the word “Chaldean” in many ancient cultures was
synonymous with “sorcerer.” Even so far away as
Northern Europe, their term for sorcerer, “galdyr”,
was rooted in “Chaldee.” The authors of Genesis
obviously did their utmost to distance the figure of
Abraham from the occult traditions of Chaldea, yet
Abraham still appears to be an occultist both in
biblical and extra-biblical texts. Note the following
quote from Pseudo Eupolemus:




“Abraham excelled all in nobility and wisdom; he
sought and obtained the knowledge of astrology and the
Chaldean craft... he traveled to Phoenicia and dwelt
there. He pleased the Phoenician king by teaching the
Phoenicians the cycles of the Sun and Moon, and
everything else as well... [in Egypt] Abraham lived in
Heliopolis with the Egyptian priests and taught them
much: He explained astrology and the other sciences to
them.”




>From Artapanus:




“Abraham... came to Egypt with all his household to
the Egyptian king Pharothothes and taught him
astrology.”




And from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews:




“...before the coming of Abraham, the Egyptians were
ignorant of these sciences, which thus traveled from
the Chaldeans into Egypt, [and then] passed to the
Greeks.”




It is clear from these quotes that Abraham travelled
far and wide not to preach the gospel of the “one true
God”, but rather to spread the wisdom of the Chaldean
craft. These Chaldean sciences seem to echo the
teachings of the Watchers, and pertained to geometry,
astronomy, and the movements of the planets and stars.
Compare the lore of the Watchers to what Philo records
about the Chaldeans:




“The Chaldeans exercised themselves most especially
with astronomy, and attributed all things to the
movement of the stars, believing that whatever is in
the world is governed by forces encompassed in numbers
and numerical proportions... seeking out the numerical
arrangement according to the cycles of the Sun and
Moon, the planets, and the fixed stars… .”




The parallels between the Watchers and the Chaldeans
become greater still when viewed in the light of a
tradition cited by Eusebius, who wrote: “Abraham
traced his ancestry to the giants. These dwelt in the
land of Babylonia. Because of their impiety, they were
destroyed by the gods.” So there you have it. These
two traditions (of the Watchers and of the Chaldeans)
sound so identical because they are identical - one
and the same. Were the Chaldeans the descendants of
the Watchers, and executors of their tradition? Such
an idea is certainly reinforced by the fact that the
Hebrew word for “Watcher” is “Ir”, which sounds
similar to the name of the Chaldean city “Ur”, as well
as “Ar”, the Sumerian word mentioned previously that
is symbolized by the pentagram (and means “Shining
Ones”). Also, the Watchers were called specifically,
“the watchers of the heavens”, a very appropriate
title for a people (like the Chaldeans) so preoccupied
by astronomy. Could it be that Ur was the primordial
city-state of the Watchers? Very possibly. Ur is
considered so ancient that to the modern mind it has
become synonymous with antiquity itself. All of this
would appear to suggest that Abraham’s status as a
Chaldean from Ur may indeed be very telling. It also
seems that Abraham is far more than merely a man who
“traced his ancestry to the giants.” Remember, it was
said that “Abraham excelled all in nobility and
wisdom.” In ancient times “nobility” did not refer to
a man’s demeanor - it meant of noble birth. And as we
will ultimately reveal, the figure known as Abraham
was of very noble birth indeed.

For the time being however, we will continue our study
of the Chaldean saga by looking into the story of King
Gudia. Though one of the most illustrious of the
Sumerian/Chaldean monarchs, Gudia remains a relatively
obscure personage in terms of mainstream history.
Gudia was both priest-king and architect, a builder of
great cities and temples, not unlike Cain/Nimrod. And
it just so happens that Nimrod was Gudia’s patron
saint, as well as having been his ancestor. Gudia was
like many of the Old Testament prophets, in that he
was prone to dreams and vision. In one such dream,
Nimrod himself appeared to the king, revealing to him
the blueprints of a temple he wished to be erected in
his honor. Upon waking, Gudia lost no time setting in
motion plans to construct the Temple of Nimrod, a
structure that would eventually be seen as one of the
most magnificant edifices of its day.

The reign of Gudia witnessed a flourishing of culture
and civilization in his region. He wandered the full
length and breadth of Mesopotamia (and often beyond)
to amass lumber, blocks, and precious metals for his
many projects. He not only built new cities and
temple, but rebuilt old ones as well. Ruling from his
capitols of Lagash and Ur, he preferred not to be seen
as a king, but rather as a priest and prophet. He was
known simply as the “Good Shepherd”, and may in fact
have refused the title of king (although his name does
appear in the King’s List.)

Of all the many kings that reigned over Chaldea or
Sumer, only a handful of their names are known outside
of specialist circles, or from readings of the Old
Testament. Those that come to mind are Sargon,
Kamurabi, Assurbanipal, and a few others. Why, then
(or how) could a man of Gudia’s stature have simply
vanished into the mists of history? A possible answer
was suggested upon reading that in Gudia’s time and
culture there were no letters equivalent to “G” or
“I.” Substituting the closest equivalent to those
letters results in something both startling and
altogether unexpected: Judea.

Is it be possible that Judah, the son of Jacob from
whom Jews derive their name, could in fact have been a
Chaldean priest-king? Are Gudia and Judah one and the
same? Turning to the Old Testament in search of
information that would either corroborate or disprove
altogether such a bizarre thesis revealed passages so
scant and so strange as to be of no help whatsoever in
either regard. Further searches in Josephus’
Antiquities of the Jews and Louis Ginzberg’s Legends
of the Jews proved equally fruitless. How could a man
from whom the entire Jewish tribe adopted their name
be so little documented in three such major works
documenting Jewish history and folklore? It was both
perplexing and mysterious, like trying to conceive of
a New Testament that featured only a half-dozen
off-handed references to Christ. It defied all logic.
And it seemed that logic was the only means left to
pierce this apparent conspiracy of silence.

So it was that the ancient Chaldean King’s List was
consulted again, the reasoning being that if Gudia and
Judah were the same figure, perhaps other names in
close proximity on the list might have a familiar
ring. Four lines above Gudia on the list was a king
named “Irarum.” Though not precisely identical to
“Abraham”, it was the only name on the list with so
familiar a ring to it. Remember that these names were
not only spelled and pronounced differently from
culture to culture, but also often in the same
culture. Irarum had a son named “Dar”, who also went
by the title “Asahk” (literally, “Son of God”).
Asahk’s son was “Khab” (or “Khabulum”), and his son in
turn took the royal title “Akhab” (“Son of Khab”). He
in turn fathered Gudia. So if we take into account the
sound of these names in their respective order, we
arrive at something quite extraordinary:




“Irarum” is the same as “Abraham”

“Asahk” is the same as “Issac”

“Akhab” is the same as “Jacob”

“Gudia” is the same as “Judah”




So with one notable exception (the extra figure of
“Khab” or “Khabulum”), we find in the Chaldean King’s
List an almost perfect reflection of the Old Testament
line of patriarchs.

At this point it is virtually impossible to ascertain
what any of this really means. Were the Chaldeans all
Jews? Were the people who called themselves Jews
really Chaldeans? Were both merely different nations
or tribes of an essentially Sumerian populace? Could
it be that the so-called “Shepherdic Jews” were not so
named because they had been shepherds, but because
they claimed descent from a priest-king known as the
“Good Shepherd”? Remember that this was the same title
used to refer to Christ, who acted in the capacity of
a priest-king without a throne. Christ, too, is said
in some early traditions to have been a Chaldean, an
idea we will explore in due course.

The Chaldean tradition, and its secret gnosis, is
intimately linked with astronomy, astrology, geometry,
architecture, and magic; all topics central to our
ongoing inquiries. But there’s more. It was said that
Gudia practiced the “Chaldean rite” of bull sacrifice
- a practice that passed from Chaldea to Egypt, and
eventually, to many parts of the ancient world.
Significantly, this rite is said to have originated in
Atlantis, and Gudia, like the Atlantean kings, kept
the sacrificial bulls in his own palace. Further, when
Gudia’s ancestor appeared to him in a vision and gave
him specifications for the construction of a
magnificent temple, the building thus erected was a
seven-stepped ziggurat. Legend tells us that an
identical structure once existed as the royal palace
on Atlantis.

By reviving Atlantean architecture and religious
ritual, Gudia seemed to be trying to build a bridge
between the past and the present, or to reconstitute
the past in the present. His chosen title, “Gudia”
(“Lord/King Ia”) harkens back to Sumer’s first deified
king. Within two centuries of his death, Babylonians
worshipped him as the “Divine Gudia”, and put statues
of him in their temples. The reign of Gudia is
reckoned by some scholars to have been around 2400 BC.
By the time Judaism began to coalesce some 900 years
later, Gudia and his illustrious forebears would have
become mythic figures in an oral tradition. Though
there is little proof beyond what we have presented to
link the figures of Gudia and Judah, there are
references to Judah being a ruling king in rabbinic
lore, including descriptions of a crown, royal
scepter, and royal signet ring. And although orthodox
Judaism seems to have rejected most of what
constitutes the Chaldean tradition, there are
indications that these ideas were preserved on a sub
rosa level, to reemerge later in a most unexpected
context.




Christ the Chaldean




And did those feet in ancient time

Walk upon England’s mountain green?

And was the Holy Lamb of God

On England’s pleasant pastures seen?

- William Blake, Jerusalem




As the above lines from William Blake’s 18th century
poem Jerusalem reveal, the tradition that Christ came
to England is one that is both widespread and
long-standing. Indeed, Roman chroniclers began
referring to it as early as the reign of Tiberius
Caesar, who died in 37 AD (only four short years after
the presumed date of Christ’s own death). It was in
Glastonbury, Cornwall, that the first Christian church
was built, purportedly by Christ himself.

For those unfamiliar with the story, it is
well-documented that Christ’s uncle, Joseph of
Arimathea made frequent trips to England in the course
of his travels as a tin merchant. As the story goes,
Jesus often accompanied his uncle on these journeys,
and ended up spending a good deal of time in Cornwall
during his well-known “lost years.” It was here that
he conducted the early years of his ministry, and
legend records that he constructed a rather large
house for the habitation of his mother, Mary. It was
this house which, pursuant to the crucifixion, became
recognized as the first Christian church in the world.
And this first Christian church was known by a number
of names, such as “the wattle church”, “the old
church”, and perhaps most significantly, “the Culdee
church.” In other words, “the Chaldean church.”

In Thomas Campbell’s Reullura, we read:




“The pure Culdees

Were Alby’s4 earliest priests of God

Ere yet an island of her seas

By foot of Saxon monk was trod.”




In E. Raymond Capt’s marvelous book The Traditions of
Glastonbury, he states: “The first converts of the
Culdees... were the Druids of Britain, who found no
difficulty in reconciling the teaching of the Culdees
with their own teaching of the resurrection and the
inheritance of eternal life.” In addition, the Druids
had long believed in the coming of a messiah - a
messiah named “Jesu.” They also shared the Chaldean
preoccupation with sacred geometry and astronomy. And
too, they had the odd habit of referring to God as
“the ancient of days.” Clearly these two groups’
traditions had a shared origin of some sort. Capt
continues:




“Culdees are recorded in church documents as
officiating at St. Peter, York, until AD 939.
According to some church authorities, the Canons of
York were called ‘Culdees’ as late as the reign of
Henry II (AD 1133-1189). In Ireland, a whole county
was named ‘Culdee.’ The names ‘Culdee’ and ‘Culdish’
cling tenaciously to the Scottish church, and its
prelates until a much later date.”




The Culdee phenomenon appears to be little known,
little discussed, and even less understood.
Nonetheless, over the centuries a fascinating number
of theories and legends have become attached to them:
theories and legends that are all the more fascinating
in that they seem to overlap with much of our own
research. What follows are some of the fundamental
assumptions held about the Culdees, as collected and
preserved by Arthur Edward Waite in his New
Encyclopedia of Freemasonry:




The Culdees were Druids.

They were identical with the Chaldeans mentioned by
the prophet Daniel.

They were priests in Assyria and can also be traced to
Babylon.

They were Casideans, Essenes, Therapeutae, and Magi.

Beneath their cloak of Christianity they concealed a
secret doctrine.

They were mathematicians and architects at the time of
the early Roman emperors.

They were the builders of King Solomon’s Temple.

The Culdees of York were all Masons.

They denied the personality of Jesus - meaning the
historical personality - and also the existence of the
Devil.

The Culdee monks were the schoolmasters and architects
of their time.

It was thought that the historical allegory of the
Round Table, as well as the quest for the Holy Grail,
referred in mystical terms to Culdee rites.




If the foregoing statements are indeed accurate, it
would appear that there was the presence of a
Templar-like fraternity in England for a full thousand
years before the advent of the Knights Templar. And
not just in England, but throughout the British Isles.
The Culdees had commandaries, schools and churches in
Wales, Ireland and Scotland as well. It is said that
despite pressure from Rome, the Culdees remained a
very strong presence right up to the time of the
Norman conquest5, which began in 1066. The timeframe
here seems highly significant, as 1066 is only a few
decades before the founding of the Order of Sion and
the Knights Templar by Godfroi de Bouillon in 1090.

Is it purely coincidental that an organization whose
history spans over a thousand years should essentially
vanish, and in a matter of mere decade a group whose
outlook seems nearly identical should emerge in
another part of the world? Most of what the historians
assert about the Culdees is incredibly similar to what
was said of the Templars. Let us compare: both groups
were said to possess a secret doctrine which they
concealed behind the facade of Christianity. Both
groups denied Christ in a sense. Both groups were
architects. And both groups were associated with the
Holy Grail, as well as with Solomon’s Temple.

There definitely seems to be a continuity of belief,
purpose and action between the two groups. Certainly
the mystery surrounding both groups appears to be the
same mystery. But if these two groups represent
different manifestations of the same esoteric
tradition, it is not simply a tradition whose origin
came about after the crucifixion of Christ. The
tradition can clearly be traced to the Chaldean King
Gudia, and further still to his role model and patron
saint, Nimrod/Cain.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 “Asmodeus” contains that root word, “Az”, that was
yet another title of Cain.

2 According to Louis Ginzberg, Nimrod did this because
he feared Abraham “would rise up against him and
triumphantly give the lie to his religion” - a
polytheistic cult in which Nimrod himself was
worshipped as a god.




3 “Naas” is the Hebrew word for “serpent.”




4 England was then called “Albion.”

5 In other locations, such as Ireland, their influence
remained strong well into the fourteenth century.

Nephilim's Paranormal Investigations - http://paranorm.cjb.net


                
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/98XolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Visit our Psychic/Paranormal message boards at 
http://www.skatemd.com/forums/index.php 
Arcade, Journals, Chats, Boards, Fun! 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paranormal_stuff/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to