Genesis 15: God’s Covenant with Abram

Earnest Examination

This series is presented as an honest, sincere look into the study of the Bible with my own personal theories, opinions, comments and that of others’ insights and research into what the verses could mean. I cannot claim one way or another that everything that I am stating is fact and the true meaning of what is meant in these verses.

To lay it out in a way that I can manage, I have highlighted the texts of verses that I either don’t understand or have a comment or question about in yellow. And the comments I’ve left beneath it will be of a smaller font and using brown text.

I would love it if you’d join me in this journey and if you have any insights and/or knowledge of these chapters/verses etc., please feel free to share with me and the other readers. Any chance to get a clearer understanding of the Bible and Jesus Christ would be welcomed with open arms.

Version used is from (KJV) Genesis 15

1 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.”
I want to point out the small phrase, “in a vision”. What does this mean, exactly? “In a vision” doesn’t necessarily imply “in a dream”. Was Abram fully awake during this vision? Was he daydreaming? Prophesying? Actually dreaming? Was it a vision in a dream? And how did Abram know that this vision was from the Lord? Did he test this vision? Or just accept it as coming from the Lord? I only pursue this question because we are always told to test spirits, test visions, discern… so that we may not be led astray. Am I implying that Abram possibly was seeing visions from a different entity? Well, I’m not exactly implying anything, but I am attempting to shed light on this matter that to be discerning means to question and search for the Truth, however uncomfortable it may be. And it is my effort to find out if Abram KNEW, from every fiber of his being, if this vision truly came from God or was he being deceived.
2 But Abram said, “Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?”
…I also wonder about bloodlines, which is clearly what is meant in this verse. Abram is concerned about preserving his bloodline… although, if we take the creation account to heart, then we are all born of Adam and Eve – again, if there’s nothing more to this account – and so the specific pursuit to carry on one’s own bloodline is a fascinating subject to me. Even back then there was so much separation and animosity, quite possibly due to the separation at the Tower of Babel (although even within Cain and Abel’s own family there was already strife and conflict) created families who considered themselves separate from everyone else. It’s interesting and makes me wonder if there’s something more to this history than what most of us were/are led to believe.
3 Then Abram said, “Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!”
How important is “blood”? Is it about the blood? The DNA? The questions I’m wondering is, why was Abram chosen to be the “people of God”? I haven’t been able to study the Talmud, the Q’uran, Kabbalah, Testament of Abraham, the Ugaritic texts, etc. and it is something that I definitely want to look into in order to get a broader picture of who Abraham is and his descendants. Since Abraham is widely believed to be the line of the C”hosen Ones”, I feel it’s important to find out how, why, for what purpose, etc., etc.
According to this verse, no other bloodline is going to cut it. His adopted son does not suffice. So why is Abraham’s line so important? Why was he chosen?

4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir.”
5 Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”
6 And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
7 Then He said to him, “I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.”
8 And he said, “Lord God, how shall I know that I will inherit it?”

This is interesting as well, because while the Lord God promised Abram the whole world, basically, Jesus Christ’s teachings is to “come out of this world” and inherit the kingdom of God (Heaven). So I find the stark contrast between these two teachings as very intriguing and worth further consideration.
9 So He said to him, “Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.”
10 Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in two.

These verses confuse me even more. So the Lord God told Abram to bring Him all of these animals, with no further context to it, but then in the very next verse Abram takes it upon himself to cut them in half and place each piece opposite the other. …Am I missing something here? Is this some kind of ritualistic sacrifice? How does Abram come to the conclusion that this is the act that he must do when God told him to bring those animals to Him? Is it the act of bringing death upon the animals is symbolic of bringing the animals to God? And even if so, why do it in such a specific manner as to cut them in half? And why not the birds? Do these questions get answered in other texts or further verses/chapters of the Bible? This just seems very strange to me and screams of ritualistic sacrifice. Perhaps akin to witchcraft.
Is that blasphemous? Or am I just stating a well-earned speculation that Abram’s actions may be paganistic? It is not my intention to condemn or blaspheme the word of God, but only to raise much needed questions and consideration of the texts and belief structures that it proposes. I am a believer in God and Jesus Christ, and the pursuit of Truth. “Truth” does not mean to blindly listen to certain texts/words/teachings of others, but to sincerely study and learn our surroundings and pray for insight so that we may not be led astray. That is what I am attempting to do.

11 And when the vultures came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
12 Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him.
…Hm… this lends further credence that the act that Abram performed may have been ritualistic in nature. What is this “horror and great darkness” that fell upon him? Demonic, perhaps?
Not to mention, in some other translations of this verse, they don’t say “a deep sleep” fell upon Abram:

“12 And when the sun was gone down, dread felled on Abram, and a great hideousness and dark assailed him. (And as the sun went down, fear fell upon Abram, and a great dark hideousness assailed him.)”Wycliffe Bible

Sometimes I refer back to the Wycliffe version, since it seems to be the earliest English translation there is, and in his version it does not say that Abram fell into a deep sleep, but rather that dread and fear fell upon him. And the term “assail”, at least in today’s time, implies that he was attacked by this “great dark hideousness”.
13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.
14 And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.

So I’m trying to understand the transition of these past few verses. I can infer a few speculations (but I suppose ‘speculations’ they will remain):

1. The horror and great darkness that befell Abram was the entity that has been speaking to Abram as the word of the Lord. Assailing Abram with his power? His authority? Physically assaulting Abram? Maybe… spiritually?
2. The horror and great darkness was an inclination, a gut feeling, that something bad will happen – follow that up with the Lord saying that his descendants will be in trouble for a few years may have given him this fear/dread. Certainly very likely. Although it doesn’t seem to explain the term “assailed” that was originally used as the translation.
3. Perhaps because of the Lord gifting Abram and his descendants with the land and various possessions, it made the dark entities jealous and wrathful – therefore the darkness is the acknowledgement that Abram’s descendants will go through some hardships in order to rise above these dark entities and inherit the land.

Now, this brings me again to the land and the possessions. I can’t help but keep going back to Jesus Christ’s teachings that worldly possessions mean NOTHING in the eyes of the Lord. In fact, he teaches that those who have riches and wealth and all these possessions are on the WRONG PATH to Heaven. Yet in these biblical teachings, Abram has been chosen to inherit the land and the riches in them. …Am I the only one who doesn’t quite understand this dichotomy? But then I am also reminded of the verse in Matthew 5 where it says that the meek shall inherit the Earth. So here we have Abram and his descendants, being promised inherited land and wealth/possessions, and then here’s Jesus saying that the meek will inherit the land. Are Abram and his descendants meek? Did Jesus offer up sacrifices to God to earn His good graces? Am I speaking out of turn and just not understanding the symbolic or universal workings of the world?

15 Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
17 And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces.
More interesting implications here, that seem to point to Abram performing a ritualistic spell and/or sacrifice. I know I may get pushback against this speculation, but again, it is NOT to offend anyone. It is only to offer up what an honest look into these verses may provoke in someone who hasn’t studied the Bible and other texts extensively and who is on a sincere path to understanding the Bible and its teachings. From an unbiased and subjective look into these verses, it seems as if Abram is performing witchcraft. Perhaps that is just how people worshipped back in those days, and I can somewhat understand that. And perhaps that is why Jesus Christ came to begin with, to show us that we no longer (or have ever) need to perform these rituals and instead look to being kind and loving to one another and believe in Him to have everlasting life. Of course, that doesn’t explain why this Lord at this time asked to have certain animals brought to him, and doesn’t explain how Abram knew how to set up this altar of sorts.
And speaking of this altar, where did this “smoking oven” and the “burning torch” come from? And it just so happened to ceremoniously pass in between the cut pieces of the animals… It seems quite obvious that this was on purpose and that Abram knew to do this. But how? Who taught him to offer up these animals to the Lord in this manner? And what is the smoking oven that just allegedly appeared out of nowhere? It does not do my peace of mind well to make this connection to Moloch, a terrible deity who is often portrayed as having a furnace or oven for a stomach in which to throw sacrifices into – sacrifices that tragically included (includes?) babies/children. Take another translation from Wycliffe, for example:


“17 Therefore when the sun was gone down, a dark mist was made, and a furnace smoking appeared, and a lamp of fire, and (it) passed through those partings. (And when the sun had gone down, a dark mist came, and a smoking furnace appeared, and a lamp of fire which passed between the pieces of the animals.)”

This is extremely suspicious to me. And I feel rather at odds because as far as I’ve researched, I have not come across a lot of sources making this connection. Am I completely in the wrong here? Why am I having this red flag when it comes to this sacrificial act and the “dark mist” and oven/furnace that just so happened to appear (manifest?) out of nowhere to “pass (collect?)” these sacrifices? I am actually quite perplexed that I don’t see many references to this as even being a possibility. I can’t be the only one who finds these texts suspicious…
18 On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—
19 the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites,
20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,
21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

I know sometimes it would seem as if I’m questioning the veracity of the Bible’s origins, and while that may be true in some sense, it is not meant to presume, condemn, or ridicule, and certainly not meant to certify the propositions I set forth. And I definitely don’t mean to insult or offend anyone, especially not God. It is only to get a clearer understanding of the meanings of the Bible, and the possibility that during so many transitions and translation efforts, and perhaps intentional/unintentional mishandling and misinterpretations, that the Truth along the way may have been concealed more than we’d like.

And as usual, I want to reiterate that some of my thoughts and theories may be way off base, and I also research some other things on the side as well to try and get a broader understanding of what I’m reading, so please bear with me, or, even better, if you have insights that bring more light to these verses, please let me know.

I enjoy bouncing off theories and theology off of each other and love to hear other people’s perspectives on things. Thank you for reading and I look forward to hearing from you!

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by Gnattyone from Pixabay

What is the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist?

Is it a form of cannibalism?

There’s been a lot of debate surrounding the transubstantiation of the eucharist, and if Catholics really believe that they’re eating the flesh of Jesus Christ, and literally drinking his blood.

The whole point (at least in some Catholic circles) of transubstantiation is to magically alter the regular piece of bread into Jesus Christ’s flesh, and the drink into His blood. To partake in and consume in order to have the life and spirit of Jesus Christ within us.

Hm… it sounds an awful lot like cannibalism to me. But to be fair, let’s take an in depth look into what actual Catholics and scholars believe is the meaning of this verse:

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
John 6:53-58

“So, what did Jesus mean when he spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood? He certainly wasn’t talking about cannibalism!

He was talking about true religion. What Jesus meant is that it’s got to be personal. Jesus was saying that you don’t receive eternal life by understand concepts or by believing the right things, but instead by a personal and intimate relationship with him. Jesus must be to us more important than our very food and drink, and closer to us than the nourishment that courses through our body that helps us to live.”
What Does It Mean to Eat Christ’s Flesh and To Drink His Blood?

So according to the site above, they believe that the eucharist is meant to be taken symbolically, and ‘of course it’s not literal!’

Another insight into the belief that the transubstantiation is symbolic can be found here, as well as many other researched sites.

But further study and insight into this mysterious tradition does indeed show that many Catholics and practitioners of this ritual truly do believe that they are literally eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood.

And on average, according to several consensus studies, about 1 in 3 Catholics fully believe in the eucharist doctrine that the host transforms into the actual body/flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, while the other 2/3 believe that it is a symbolic, spiritual essence.

Results from the Pew Research Center: Understanding US Catholics’ belief in the Eucharist

There are even scientific studies declaring some rather unusual characteristics of these consecrated hosts that have undergone a transubstantiation process:

The video above shows several scientists/doctors/researchers who have studied the host’s transformation, and even hypothesizes the tools that would be necessary to replicate such a miracle:

– Odoardo Linoli
– Fredrick Zugibe
– Franco Serafini
– Jason DeGregorio
– Eduardo Sanchez Lazo

And as you can see, the full belief and trust in this miracle is alive and well by not only the creator of the video, but also many of the viewers who have left their own comments. And again, I am not bashing anyone for their beliefs. This is an attempt for me to truly understand these miracles and what may be happening. While I am a believer of Christ, I am also somewhat of a skeptic, especially when it comes to a process that involves the literal consumption of someone’s flesh and blood.

Some of the interesting similarities between the wafers discussed in the video are:

– They were revealed to be AB blood type
– The material derived seemed to have come from the left ventricle of the heart – while it was still alive
– The heart suffered massive trauma

(I don’t know about you… but this literally makes my own heart hurt and I can’t even imagine the circumstances that were involved in order to duplicate this kind of organic tissue result…)

While it may seem that these miracles are indeed mysterious and of a divine nature (or a terribly horrific one), I have to bring up a theory that some of the “host” wafers are not merely flour and water, like most people believe. I won’t get into the gritty details, but I will mention the possibilities that can arise between a religion that may be inclined to convince the public that miracles exist, with the combination of science and the capabilities of the technological age that are quite advanced at creating fabulous “signs and wonders” that the layman may not have even dreamed possible.

(And the insane amount of effort and length that these deceivers would go to, to convince the public in order to maintain their status as the religious world leader…)

For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
Matthew 24:24

This is a very cautious warning for us believers, to be very discerning when it comes to anything deemed “miraculous”. I have to remind everyone that a favorite practice of satan (who is called a liar, the father of lies, and the deceiver – and who also disguises himself as an angel of light) is to invert everything good and holy into one of corruption and wickedness.

What does the Bible say about demonic/satanic miracles?

What better way to do this than to lead the followers astray by taking Jesus Christ’s spiritual/metaphorical words, and twisting them into the belief that one must literally consume His flesh and drink His blood? Which by today’s measure, could be deemed as a cannibalistic, ritualistic custom. After all, if we read outside of the Bible and take a peek into the Book of Enoch, it states that one of the reasons why the great flood happened at all is because the nephilim (offspring of the fallen angels) gave in to the consumption of human flesh and all sorts of wicked tendencies.

(referring to the giants/nephilim) 3. Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them,
4. the giants turned against them and devoured mankind.
5. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood.
6. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.
Book of Enoch 7:3-6

On August 18, 1996, a woman parishioner allegedly found a consecrated host on a candle holder and brought it to Fr. Alejandro Pezet. After a few days of leaving the host in the tabernacle to dissolve, found that it had been transformed into a bloody tissue that was much larger than the original host. It was then photographed and sent for scientific study by none other than our current Pope Francis (Jorge Bergoglio).

The Eucharistic Miracle Overseen by Archbishop Bergoglio (Now Pope Francis)

Just as an added bonus, here are some questionable quotes from Pope Francis himself:

Pope John Paul II was a saint, I am the devil.”
“having a personal relationship with Jesus is dangerous and very harmful.”

– Pope Francis Says: “I Am The Devil”

“Joking” or not, these are pretty serious statements coming from the head of the Roman Catholic Church…

Here’s another extremely controversial quote, from Pope Francis:

“‘Yes, I carry the cross to show that I am a Christian.’ ” And “It’s fine,” but “not just as a badge, as if it were a team, the badge of a team’; but [rather], said Francis, “as the memory of the man who made himself sin, who made himself the devil, the serpent, for us; he debased himself up to the point of totally annihilating himself.”

Pope Francis: Christ “Made Himself the Devil”

There are also some extremely disturbing and, quite frankly, terrifying, implications of the Vatican installing satan as the new head of the church and the shady practices they engage in… so take that for what it’s worth…

Satanic Black Masses at the Vatican

Follow that up with this additional perspective from Pope Francis, and it starts to paint an incredibly sordid and depraved picture…

Pope Francis compares abuse by priests to ‘satanic mass’

I have to admit, one of the reasons why it’s so hard for me to accept the Catholic teachings that the bread and wine literally become Jesus Christ in the flesh and blood, is because it sets a dangerous precedent on consuming the body and blood of the innocent, to maintain a “saving grace” to wipe away one’s own sins. While Jesus Christ Himself should be the ONLY one to turn to, there are certain religious sects that take His word to heart, even further, by following the same verse of John 6:53, but with a slightly different meaning that changes everything:

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you
John 6:53

We see that “Son of Man” is capitalized, which presumes that it is a title given to Jesus Christ. However, if one were to take this verse literally and dissect its meaning, well, most of us would not consider Jesus Christ to be the “Son of Man”. Don’t we all consider Him the Son of God? So who is the Son of Man? Why would Jesus Christ be referring to Himself in this way? After all, if the biblical story of Jesus’s birth is any indication, He was not even born from a man but from a virgin woman and the holy spirit in the “Immaculate conception.” Of course, “man” is usually the term used to include all of humanity (mankind), so this could easily be explained away. And since Jesus is not one to boast about His heritage coming from God, He states also that He came from man.

But, as many confused or simply immoral groups will pursue, one can misconstrue any verse and twist its meaning to suit their own agenda. So now this “Son of Man” title can literally refer to ANYONE. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man (any human being) and drink His (in some translations, “His” is not capitalized) blood, you have no life in you.”

And while people may laugh and scoff at the idea, the history of vampirism is a very real ideology, and there are some that truly believe that in order to have a long and healthy life, one must consume another being’s flesh and drink their blood.

History of Vampires

Even if ‘vampires’ in the traditional sense don’t really exist, there are still many people that believe that consuming other human being’s flesh/blood will give them a longer lifespan and/or give them mystical powers. There are also pagans/witches/warlocks… even misguided souls that have reverted to using ‘blood magic’ to help them with their woes or any other number of transgressions or desires:

Practicing Witchcraft: What You Should Know About Blood Magic

While the author of the above article tries to present this practice in a benign way, even setting “rules” as to how one should use blood in their magic, they cannot speak for everyone that they will adhere to this. If we know anything about the human nature and the addictive quality that power (even an allusion of power) gives to anyone, once they get a taste for it, the measures taken goes to extremes and therefore steps outside of the boundaries that was once set upon them.

Although imho, this occultic practice should not even be attempted since it is quite possibly opening doors that should never be opened. It invites spirits/demons in and may be one of the reasons why people claim to be cursed/haunted/possessed, etc.

In closing, while I do agree that the wordings of the verses lean heavily into a physical consumption of the body and blood of Christ, I am also of the belief that translations and interpretations get confused, especially when trying to ascribe meaning and words to an ancient language. (And that’s if the translations are not skewed on purpose…)

After doing all of this research and myself being a believer of Christ, I have come to this understanding:

The ingestion of the bread/wafer that indicates Jesus’s flesh is a symbolic gesture for that person saying, “I come to you, Jesus Christ.” while the drinking of the “wine” is akin to saying, “I believe in you, Jesus Christ.” Not that Jesus was literally referring to Himself as a physical manifestation that people must eat and drink.

35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
John 6:35

It is my belief that Jesus was indeed speaking in metaphorical terms and talking from a spiritual standpoint. He knew that the hard-hearted, the unbelievers, the stubborn materialistic inclinations of some people would not understand His sayings no matter how He worded it. And that some people may be misled by this teaching. So He spoke with this type of parable to the people that could glean meaning and understanding that Jesus Christ is asking His followers to pursue a spiritual path – instead of the physical.

Of course, I have to admit, for Jesus to describe people’s manner of following Him in this way, does leave it open to different perceptions/interpretations. After all, if one were to read His verses in the literal sense, there is no other way to differentiate His meaning other than an actual consuming of His flesh and drinking of His blood. And it’s fascinating that even other Catholics cannot come to a resounding definitive answer as to the purpose of the eucharist/transubstantiation.

But perhaps to clarify, and put this whole situation to rest, Jesus also says this to his disciples after his very controversial, parabolic teaching:

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:63

Again, why Jesus Christ decided to tell His allegory in such a perplexing way, is perhaps the bigger mystery.

Was He testing His followers and other believers/non-believers alike? To see who would still follow Him and understand this spiritual/conscious teachings?

(And on the flip-side, to see who would take His words literal and continue seeking the physical fulfillment of a worldly life with material sustenance – instead of The Word and Life of the Spirit…)

Bottom line, God knows the motives of our heart. If we come to Him with a sincere and genuine faith and pure intentions, God knows this; and whether we believe in the literal transubstantiation of the eucharist or not, it should not be the key determinant in what kind of person you are or what kind of life you’re living.

After all, one can participate in the mass, yet not be a believer at all…

Personal disclaimer: These are my understandings and beliefs only. In no way am I claiming to know the absolute Truth. This is just what resonates with me and what I have come to realize during my quest to seek Jesus Christ and information I have gathered from the Bible and other sources.

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by idenir from Pixabay

Research on Demand

“America’s Pastor” Billy Graham Exposed - Exposing Graham's ties to freemasonry and their agendas.
The Super-Capitalists’ Depopulation Agenda - Please share and spread awareness.
Vaccination Deaths/Frontline Workers Testimonies & VAERS Reports - Vaccination Deaths / Side Effects / Adverse Reactions
Down the Rabbit Hole: “Conspiracy Theories” Playing Out in Real Time - Scandalous plots? Yes. They have been planned for a long time...
Revealing Some Controversial Themes About the “Sound of Freedom” Movie, Starring Jim Caviezel - Jim Caviezel portrays Tim Ballard. But is everything on the up and up?
What is the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist? - Is it a form of cannibalism?
Is the Dome/Firmament Over Earth Real? - Is there a barrier between us, and "space" as we know it?