Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Luciferian Legacy

Expand Messages
  • Dr. Daniel Nephilim
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 3, 2005

      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

      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

      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

      “The arms of Jesus are the Cross of Lorraine,

      Both the blood in the artery and the blood in the

      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

      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

      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

      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

      From Artapanus:

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

      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

      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

      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

      “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

      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

      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.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.