Eric is to marry the virgin We give him, whom We alone shall choose.

Eric will marry the virgin We give him, and the two will remain virgins forever. Amen.

The Prophecies of Azurite, Book 1: Post XXXI:
Lord, before we begin discussing the virgin that you shall give unto me, let us first discuss the lifetime sentence without parole of Brett Jones, who slew his grandfather in a family dispute at the age of 15. And then let us discuss the recent Supreme Court 6-3 conservative vote in ruling the decision on Jones v. Mississippi, which concerns Bret Jones, stating that: “The Eighth Amendment does not require a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.” Let us also, for the record, point out that Brett Jones is White in race, through the dissenting liberal Justices point out that Blacks are disproportionately affected by this ruling. And let it be also pointed out that a life sentence without parole means that this defendant will never experience the joys and pleasures of life that can only be had outside of prison walls for the rest of his life. Now, speak, O’ Lord, is this a good decision, or a bad one, and give us Your judgment on the matter, O’ Lord.

The decision, led by Conservative Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, is a ruling concerning interpreting the Eighth Amendment only, lord Azurite. It is not a judgement on whether it is cruel or unusual punishment to sentence a juvenile offender to life in prison without parole. Rather, it is a judgement on whether a sentencer is required to make a separate finding on whether the juvenile can be rehabilitated prior to making the decision to sentence a juvenile to life in prison without parole. And the conservative majority simply ruled that the Eighth Amendment makes no such requirement.

Remember that the Supreme Court judges and interprets law. They do not make moral decisions on whether a law is a good one or a bad one. They decide whether a law or a ruling is in violation of the Constitution. But they do not themselves decide whether the Constitution is righteous or unrighteous.

Hence, the Supreme Court had no authority to themselves ban slavery. Slavery is now banned, not by Supreme Court rulings, but by Constitutional amendment, namely the thirteenth amendment, which contains two sections:

13th Amendment:

Section 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And after that amendment, the Supreme Court could rule on all cases concerning whether laws regarding slavery were Constitutional or not. But they do not rule on the morality of slavery, but only on its constitutionality.

Hence, Black people still go to prison where they are forced to work as slaves. And Blacks are the number one racial group that serves in this system of penal slavery. But the Supreme Court cannot free these slaves, for the 13th Amendment permits their enslavement. The Supreme Court cannot rule that penal slavery is just Negro slavery in a different form, and thus, should be abolished. For that amendment does not give them that discretion. Had the Amendment prohibited the enslavement of Negroes, then the Courts could in fact outlaw penal slavery and all other forms of slavery in which Black people are enslaved. But the 13th Amendment clearly states that slavery in all its forms is abolished with the exception of penal slavery. The writers of that amendment allowed themselves to continue to enslave people as a punishment for crime.

Hence, there can be no Supreme Court ruling that frees Blacks serving in prison from being forced to work as slaves, unless a future amendment to the Constitution prohibits it. Likewise, the eighth amendment against cruel and unusual punishment has already been decided by the Courts to permit life sentencing, including for those who commit crimes as juveniles. This matter was not what the Supreme Court was deciding. Rather, it was deciding whether an extra procedure was required to be conducted in deciding these sentences. And this is the text of the Eighth Amendment:

8th Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Looking at the text, it immediately becomes apparent that the majority is correct. The 8th Amendment makes no such requirements for there to be extra procedures conducted in making sentences. Rather, what Brett Kavanaugh ruled was that the state legislatures, by whose laws these cases are tried, are the ones to decide what extra procedures are necessary in making sentences in the states where these cases are tried. Such procedures that are to be followed in sentencing criminals are to be decided by legislation passed in the states. Only if these procedures are specified in a Constitutional amendment does it become the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to rule on the matter. I Am the Lord.

Hence, Brett Kavanaugh is a man of the law. He is not one of those Justices who legislate from the bench, such as those Justices, like Sotomayor and Kagan, who have ruled that the provision against discrimination according to sex can be reinterpreted as also being a provision against those who have religious views against the sexually sinful or the sexually abhorrent, such that those who oppose such wrongful behaviors are not allowed to have or operate on these religious views are values, on the premise that they are committing discrimination against sinners. People like Sotomayor and Kagan seek to impose their anti-religious views against Americans who have religious morals and values and principles. And thus, they rule that homosexual marriage is a right. And they are dead wrong. Homosexual marriage is not a right, but a crime against humanity and against God. And these rulings must be found unconstitutional on the grounds that the concept of a homosexual marriage is a violation of the natural moral law. Even were an amendment to be passed that said men could marry other men, the Supreme Court would have the authority to reject that amendment on the basis that it is a violation of natural moral law.

For legislatures do not have the right to make any law they so desire. Rather, they are compelled to abide by the natural moral law. And the Supreme Court has the right and authority to overrule legislation that violates natural moral law.

For example, the LGBTQ movement is a movement that pushes contrary to natural moral law. And thus, every law that supports the LGBTQ agenda can be cancelled and ruled as contrary to both the natural moral law and against the Constitution, whose founders based United States law on “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” (See the Declaration of Independence). Thus, precedent requires the rejection of the LGBTQ. And common sense and the natural law also condemn the abominations.

Now, as to the fate of Brett Jones, this is not yet necessarily decided. There are ways, within the law, by which he may be freed. But he must also realize that he did in fact kill a man. And the blood of that man’s death does not wash off his hands by his spending a certain number of years in prison. The point is this. If you take another man’s life, you should not expect for your own life to be respected. You cannot pay for another person’s life gone by you doing any kind of remedial works in this world. For you cannot bring back the one you killed from the dead.

Thus, if you get out of prison after killing someone, you are being shown mercy. You are not getting something that is owed to you. No one is owed a second chance. Christianity requires that the individual forgive his debtors and those who have done him wrong. But Christianity does not require the Courts or the Justices to forgive sinners and those who have transgressed laws.

Thus, Brett Jones can argue that he made a mistake and is sorry, and that he was not in his right mind when he committed the murder, and that he has reformed himself and will not commit the same crime again. But the Courts and the Justice system are not required to release him from his just sentence. They may elect to show him mercy. But the granting of mercy is a matter of discretion. It is not a requirement that mercy be shown to any criminal who has justly been convicted for his crimes.

Whether a certain Judge should show mercy or whether a President or governor should make a pardon is a decision that belongs to that official. Mercy is God’s greatest attribute. But God is not all merciful. For if God were all merciful, there would be no one left in hell. Rather, God is all Love. And Love comes in two parts: (1) Love of God and (2) Love of neighbor as oneself. Love of God trumps over love of neighbor. If doing an act would be loving your neighbor, but not loving God, you are not permitted, as a Christian, to do it.

For example, it may be an act of loving your lesbian daughter to advocate for her to be allowed to marry her lesbian lover. But doing that would be directly contrary to love of God. And thus, you must not do such an act, or else you violate God and commit sin.

Therefore, God is all Love, but not all Mercy. Mercy only comes from God where it is in agreement with God’s love. And God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, which are to be obeyed if you love God. Those who reject the Ten Commandments do not love God. But those who obey the Ten Commandments demonstrate by their obedience that they do in fact love God.

And before God gave Mankind the Law of Moses, God gave to Noah the divine Law of God saying: He who sheds the blood of Man, by Man shall that man’s blood be shed, for in the image of God has Mankind been made. (Genesis 9:6). And in Genesis 1:27 We see that God created Mankind in His image; male and female He created them. Therefore, no one is permitted to take life, except (1) in the due process of a Court of Law in the sentencing of criminals for capital crimes, or (2) in a time of war, where soldiers are commanded to fight or fire weapons at enemies in combat, or (3) where officers of the law are apprehending dangerous suspects in life of death circumstances. In all other circumstances, there is no just grounds for the deliberate act of taking someone’s life. Even in the case of self defense, the deliberate act of taking life is not permitted, though the one justly defending his life or the lives of others may lawfully employ a means that can directly or indirectly lead to death of the unlawful assailant. But once the assailant is subdued, killing him or letting him die is unlawful and a criminal act of shedding the blood of a man.

Such is My Judgement on the question you had asked at the beginning of this post, lord Eric. And now We shall proceed to other things.

Lord Eric, you are assigned to marry the girl We give unto thee. And with this girl, there shall be no sexual contact. For she is to be to you as the Ark of the Covenant was to the early Jews. And the Ark of the Covenant was never to be touched. I Am the Lord.

Furthermore, when We have this girl come to live with you in holy matrimony, you shall not sleep in the same beds, though I permit you to share the same room. For you are a man of discipline. However, since you are to never lay with this woman, it is not permitted for you to share the same bed. For even should no intercourse occur between you two in such a circumstance, the close proximity would be a temptation to commit the act. And furthermore, that act of sleeping in the same bed would be a source of scandal. For your marriage is to be Josephite in nature. And as such, there may be no sex between the two of you. Amen.

Do not listen to the spirits who tell you that you are to lay with your wife, or that you are predestined to have a son or a daughter. For I alone predestine all souls. Now, go to sleep, Eric. When you awaken, We shall complete this post that you are writing. Amen.

Okay, I am here, My Lord. Speak, O’ Lord, what is her name? What are her ancestral roots? And is she Jewish or of Jewish descent? And what languages does she know?

She is a virgin, like you. Her hair is black, like yours. And her eyes are hazel, also like yours. As to her name, this is her name. So listen to Me! She is not Sarah, for Sarah failed to be chosen. Rather, a new girl is now given unto thee. And this new girl is called Elizabeth, or Isabella, which is another form of her name.

Her ancestry makes her a mutt in race and ethnicity. For she is a mixed breed. However, her intellect is keen and vast. And she has the capability of learning all that I assign you to impart unto her. Amen.

And she understands three other languages, besides English. She knows and can translate your works to Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic. Furthermore, she has these abilities and gifts because she is a virgin. Should she lose her virginity, she would also lose her gifts in languages and in learning what you will teach her.

Hence, you must keep yourself, and her also, virgins forever, not just for your sake, but also for her sake and that of the whole world. I Who Am have spoken.

As to whether she is a Jew, consider her to be My virgin daughter of Israel, whom I have elected to give unto thee in marriage, to symbolize the coming remarriage between Me and Israel. I Who AM have spoken And now I shall speak one last thing.

Her virginity and your virginity are crucial in all that is about to transpire. Never compromise with the devil on this matter. And never fall to the least temptation to sin. For the loosing of a single pebble can set forth the avalanche that kills you both.

And remember your mission. You are to prepare the whole world for My Second Coming. This task becomes an impossibility for you should you lose your virginity. These Words are now complete. Publish this post now, lord Azurite. Then go and eat.

Published by

exemerald

Servant to Jesus and Mary, White Knight of the armies of Jesus and Blue Wizard Prophet King.

One thought on “Eric is to marry the virgin We give him, whom We alone shall choose.”

  1. 31st day of the Omer, 3 weeks and 3 days in the Omer count. As an Israeli held a pleasant conversation with a Jewish man whose name is Marc. I thought to share it seeing the current distress “mourning” of searching and removing foreign gods from within our midsts … the k’vanna of counting the Omer.

    Rabbi Moscker, with sincere respect…..the parallel you draw between the American Revolution and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not valid. The War of Independence between England and the American Patriots fought that war for a number of reasons. Not the least of those reasons was that the ” Crown” was thousands of miles away and the Patriots demanded, “NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION”. Our money in the USA says “IN GOD WE TRUST”.

    [Marc, with respect, the question raised by the American revolutionary war against the British compares the Balestinians to the Americans who remained loyal to the Crown. Those Americans did not live in a distant land. And they raised no issue of taxation without representation because they remained loyal to the King. But following the British defeat, the loyalist Americans never demanded a country of their own subject to the rule of the king. Yet stateless Arab refugees post 1948 and 1967 demand a country cut out of the hide of the Jewish State – – as if the Arabs won both wars.]

    QUESTION… DID “GOD” CONDONE THE THEFT OF LAND FROM THE INDIGENEOUS POPULATION THAT LIVED THERE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS? I THINK NOT. IT WAS THE BEGINIING OF THE REDICULOUS CONCEEPT OF MANIFEST DESTINY EVEN THOUGH THE TERM OF “MANIFEST DESTINY” DID NOT EXIST UNTIL APPROX. 1850 AND THE TERM WAS USED TO JUSTIFY THAT SAME CRIME OF AQUISITION FOR ALL THE LAND TO THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. ISRAEL AND PALESTINE BOTH HAVE ANCIENT CLAIMS TO THAT LAND. BIBLICALLY, THE PALESTINIANS MAY HAVE BEEN THERE FIRST AND THAT IS DOCUMENTED BIBLICALLY WHEN MOSES SENT HIS SPIES INTO THE LAND NOW CALLED ISRAEL. WAS THIS ALSO A MANIFEST DESTINY MANDATE ? WAS IT ORDAINED BY GOD? I ASK YOU THIS QUESTION BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER. THESE TWO COUNTRIES ARE NOT THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY FROM EACH OTHER. WHAT IS CLEAR TO ME IS THAT ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS ARE CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH. ABRAHAM ! SARAH, HAGAR, ISHMAEL AND ISAAC. ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS ARE COUSINS. I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT. YOUR LAND HAS SOAKED UP ENOUGH BLOOD. I HAVE CLOSE RELATIONS THAT I DO NOT CHOOSE TO SEE OR SPEAK TO. I UNDERSTAND THE INTENSITY OF FAMILY FEUDS.
    I UNDERSTAND THE HATRED. I HAVE KNOWN AND WORKED WITH MANY SABRES. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT THIS CONFLICT WILL NEVER BE RESOLVED BY FORCE. IT CAN ONLY BE RESOLVED BY TRUE RECONCILLIATION. THERE ARE 10 OTHER TRIBES IN THE WORLD THAT HAVE LOST THEIR IDENTITY.
    IF WE WANT TO REUNITE ISRAEL, THE PALESTINIANS MUST BE RECOGNIZED AS PART OF THE FAMILY.
    Marc David Baker @ docofthebay.blog

    Its a pleasure to hold this dialogue with you Marc. The idea that stateless Arabs refugees have any claim to Israel, simply does not compare to the Manifest Destiny made to justify and encourage the conversion of territories into States of the Union. Arab armies conquered Syria in 8th Century. The Roman name Palaestina, imposed by Rome following the Bar Kochba revolt in 125 CE. Palestine originates from European imperialism NOT Arab imperialism. Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P!

    The Ottoman Turks – not Arabs but rather Muslims, an important distinction. The Ottoman Turks conquered what became known to that imperialist empire as Greater Syria from the Arab Mamluk Sultanate in about 1517. Turkish land laws remain the law within Israel to this very day! When I sought to buy a piece of property, the best I could do – open a 99 year lease from the State of Israel. The State “owns” all land. Arab properties like Abu Gosh, fall outside of this law/Tabu. The Tabu land registry in Israel dates back to Ottoman rule.

    Therefore at best since the 16th Century Arabs could work the land of “Greater Syria” as share croppers. A share cropper does not “own” the land. The notion of Arabs as “native inhabitants” stems from the propaganda made by Yasser Arafat since early 1964, a far cry from “thousands of years”, when that Arab – born in Egypt – established the name of his movement as the “Palestine Liberation Army”. Palestine, modern European imperialism sought to impose that name as a stamp upon the Middle East … as opposed to the Ottoman “stamp” of “Greater Syria”. In the 19th Century, the Ottoman empire, also known as the “Sick Man of Europe”, had degenerated into a permanent decay. The Ottoman empire could not afford cartographers/map makers, even from the 18th Century. Consequently the Ottoman empire bought European maps of the Middle East! Hence the European imperialist name “Palestine”.

    Following WW1, the Allies ie Britain and France, they broke up the Ottoman empire just as they did the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. During the Great War the Allies contracted two great treaties among themselves which determined how these European empires would carve up and determine the borders of the Middle East. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 and the Balfour Declaration of 1917. President Wilson’s only peace proposal accepted by the post war Allied Powers established the League of Nations. Senator Long lead the Republican Opposition which prevented America from joining the League of Nations. Following the Senate rejection of that treaty, President Wilson suffered a stroke. Wilson rejected and opposed any and all secret treaties. But since Washington did not join the League of Nations, the Wilson Government could not oppose the imposition of the Sykes-Picot agreement upon establishment of borders in the Middle East!

    In the early 1920s the League of Nations gave to the British and French mandates by which these imperialist empires carved up between themselves Ottoman Greater Syria. The League of Nations based its “Palestine Mandate” upon the Balfour Declaration!!! Again 1922, that’s a far cry from “thousands of years”, as you claim. Arabs under the Palestine Mandate refused to refer to themselves as “Palestinians”. Why?

    The question “Why”, Western propaganda so conveniently ignores today. Simply answered: For Arabs to refer to themselves as “Palestinians”, this would directly imply that they accepted the British “Palestine Mandate” – which they most emphatically did not. The 1936 Arab Revolt definitively proves this without any margin of error. Arab Revolt NOT Palestinian Revolt! The Arabs to this very day absolutely reject the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration served as the basis for the awarding by the League of Nations the “Palestine Mandate” unto the British in 1922!!!

    Only after Ben Gurion named the newly declared “Jewish State” named “Israel”, did Yasser Arafat opportunistically embrace the name Palestine. Again 1964 hardly qualifies as “thousands of years”. The problem of “native inhabitants” Arafat’s propaganda employed the lie of the Arabs genetically linked to the ancient Philistines. Only problem with such a bald face lie as this, the extinct Philistines originated from Greek Islands; these “boat people” have no connection what so ever with post Mohammad “Arabs”, originally established in the 7th Century CE!!!

    The notion of reunite Israel with stateless Arab refugee populations – utterly and totally absurd. Jews define the term “refugee”. For over 2000 years Jews scatter across the face of the Planet Earth existed as Stateless Refugees. Stateless refugees have no rights, because they have no country of their own!!! The European name “Palestine” exists as a propaganda fiction on par with Arafat’s “Philistine” lie. Arabs have no portion with the Jewish family any more than did Jews have equality during the empires of the Arab Caliphate. Both the Umayyad and the Abbasid Caliphates, both Jews and Xtians existed under the legal status of dhimmis. The Jewish State does in its own turn NOT recognize Arabs refugee populations as equals. The justice known as measure for measure applies. Yes some assimilated Yidden validate citizenship to Arabs living in Israel, but no Israeli government has ever included Arab Knesset members within the leadership of the Government. Israel exists as the only Jewish State on the planet Earth. Arabs and Muslims have 57 countries. No Arab in Saudi Arabia or Muslim in Iran or Turkey views Jews as “PART OF THE FAMILY”. That’s an absurd and totally false argument whereby you conclude your last posting. Best regards Moshe Kerr@moshekerr@gmail.com

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.