"Brit-Am Now"-820
1. The Magen David and Sinister Motivations
2. Conspiracy Theories
3. Aran Patinkin:  "Legends of the Lost Tribes"
4. Isaiah Summary chs 46 to 50
5. Criticisms on "What Spake Zarathustra?"

1. The Magen David and Sinister Motivations


You sent me extracts from an article claiming that the Star of David
is the sign of Saturn etc.
The article had a lot of quotation e.g.

"The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia declares that the SIX-POINTED STAR...according to the Rosicrucians...was known to the ancient Egyptians." (Graham, p. 13)

There is no proof of this.
Even if it was true (and I think it is not) it would not prove anything.
I am afraid to say that The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia may not always be such a good source
and "the Rosicrucians" are even worse.

Simple geometric signs exist such as a straight line, a square, rectangle, triangle,
circle, etc.
They can be taken to represent what ever you like.
The Magen David (literally "Shield of David") is simply two triangles superimposed on each other.
Before looking for sinister implications where they may not exist you would do well to read
the Bible all the way through and some parts several times over.

The article you quoted also said:

Amos 5:26-27 - But ye have born the tabernacle of your Moloch, and Chiun (Remphan) your images, the STAR OF YOUR GOD, which ye made to yourselves. Therefore, will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the Lord...

The mark of Cain was worshipped by the Israelites in the wilderness as the star of Remphan, which Strong's Concordance identifies as Chiun:

Strong's #4481 - Rhemphan {hrem-fan'} by incorrect transliteration for a word of Hebrew origin 3594;n pr m AV - Remphan 1; 1 Remphan = "the shrunken (as lifeless)" 1) the name of an idol worshipped secretly by the Israelites in the wilderness

Strong's #3594 - Kiyuwn {kee-yoon'} from 3559; n pr dei AV - Chiun 1; 1 Chiun = "an image" or "pillar" 1) probably a statue of the Assyrian-Babylonian god of the planet Saturn and used to symbolise Israelite apostasy

Both Chiun and Saturn are identified as Cain.

"The god of time was Chium in Egypt, or Saturn...and Chium is the same as Cain." - Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine (897:390)

N.B. Chium is an alternative spelling of Chiun: "...Chium, Chiun kiyyun, khiyun (Hebrew)..." - Theosophical Glossary (898)

"Chiun is sometimes called Kaiwan, or spelled Khiun, and means star. The star of Saturn was a god... Sakkuth and Kaiwan or Chiun are objects of idolatrous worship and are Assyrian gods. In Akkadian texts both names mean the planet or star, Saturn." (Graham, The Six-Pointed Star, pp. 28-29)

Amos was speaking to the Lost Ten Tribes.
regardless of the accuracy of what you quoted the article

The same applies to all similar articles and Conspiracy Theories.

These sources are unclean.
They are liable to inculcate into you pagan values.
They tell you that a certain symbol or group etc has an evil mystical agenda
and then describe that "agenda" to you taking you round in circles.
By the time you are finished you will have unknowingly absorbed
elements of a sinister doctrine against the Bible, against the Jews,and against
the Children of Israel.
You are liable to be on the verge of accepting heathen doctrine.

I repeat read the Bible and Psalms and if you can pray do so.

See also:
Some Brit-Am Responses to "Star" (actually "Shield") of David Queries.
See also:

2. Conspiracy Theories
Conspiracy Theories are almost invariably
anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist, anti-British, anti-American.
Who would have an interest in  harming these entities?

One of the best things Brit-Am did was our campaign against
Conspiracy Theories.

"Conspiracy Theories are False and Evil. They are spread by scoundrels who frequently have sinister agendas of their own. Conspiracy Theories are tools of falsehood used by bad men to denigrate and cast false aspersions against the Jews, the Zionists, the British, and Americans."

On the positive side the fact that we have such enemies shows
that we have a potential importance which arouses the antagonism
of impure forces.

3. Aran Patinkin:  "Legends of the Lost Tribes"
From: Aran Patinkin <>
Subject: RE: answer

Dear Yair

The series "Legends of the Lost Tribes".

Documents the lifestyle of 13 communities around the world:

"Samaritans", "Bene Israel - India", "Ibo Tribe of Nigeria", "The British
Israelites", "Bedul - Petra", "Beit Yaakov-India", "Manasseh Tribe -
Mizoram", "Rastafarians - Jamaica", "Israelitas - Peru", The rest of the
series deal with Anussim [descendants of Jews who were forced
to change their religion].


4. Isaiah Summary chs 46 to 50

Isaiah Prophecies:

The gods of Babylon along with its people will be destroyed. The persecutors of Judah will be punished. Israel will be in the Isles, at the geographical extremities of the earth and a Brit-Am meaning a convenant of nations. Israel will free the salves and settle desolate heritages. The Tribes of Jacob must guide the rest of humanity. Judah will be loathe to accept the Lost Ten Tribes. nevertheless there will be a reconciliation. Judah will be compensated for its suffering. Do good and God will reward you.

5. Criticisms on "What Spake Zarathustra?"
Renaldo Wilson <> wrote:
Re: Your site on Zarathustra
I am very very curious as to how you all can write such way out there events as Zarathustra being a contemporary of Jeremiah and him teaching Hebraic teachings...none of what I read on your site was accurate! I'm very confused as to how this can be acceptable to be put on the net. Zarathustra lived before even Moses (if Moses even existed), so how in the world can he be taught by Jeremiah who came much later than even Moses?

I see that you all used some work from Mary Boyce which is great, but you must not have read her books all the way through. I'm assuming that you got some of your info from the Arabian Gospel as well? That's a bad idea if you did. They feel as you all do as well, that Zarathustra came late.

Lastly, it is very dangerous to place Zoroastrian and Buddhist concepts into a category of Christian or Hebrew in nature. They do not meld together nor should you try to make them. Siddhartha Guatama taught that there was no God, so please do not make him to be a teacher of monotheism, even though the Old Testament doesn't even teach monotheism but instead henotheism.

Renaldo  #27

You are referring to our article:
What Spake Zarathustra?

"Later Zoroastrian tradition, followed by Muslims such as al-Biruni,
give a date of 258 years perior to the accession of Alexander from
Darius III in 330 BCE. This date, said to be in Zarathushtra's 42nd
year, marks the conversion of King Vishtaspa to the new faith. Thus
the Zoroastrian religion may be said to date from 588 BCE, with
Zarathushra born 670BCE and died when he was 77 in 553 BCE. Richard
Frye gives a range from 628-551 BCE for the life of Zarathushtra."

See also E. Herzfeld, Zoroaster and His World (1947); R. C. Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (1961).

A Greek tradition puts Zoroaster much earlier which is what you are apparently adhering to.
This tradition however is wrong.
In the case of Zoroaster we went in the path of conventionally accepted research.
This says that the Gathas represent the earliest and moist genuine source of Zoroaster's teaching.
The teaching of the Gathas fits the attitude of the Achaemenid dynasty (Cyrus, Darius, etc) of Persia.
it does not fit what little we know of Persian religion before that time.
We  mentioned King Vishtaspa who was one of the first students of Zarathustra as being identified with Hystaspes, the father of Darius the Great.
This fits the facts as we know them.
The article is very short and does not dwell on details but the reasoning is there.
You evidently may know something about the subject but you cannot simply nullify what we have written
without giving a reason for doing so.
Our article is consistent with academic research as you are aware.
The article in fact fits all known facts and major opinions better than any other possible solution.
If you were more honest and less predispositioned from an ideological point of view you might recommend us for an award for contributions to historical truth.
As for putting
"Zoroastrian and Buddhist concepts into a category of Christian or Hebrew in nature"
you may be right concerning Buddha.
We do not know enough as to what Buddha originally taught so perhaps we should not have speculated.
Regarding Zarathustra however the sources are quite clear and the parallels with certain Hebrew Scriptures are well
Henotheism is belief in one god without denying the existence of others.
Monotheism is belief in only one God.
The Bible is Monotheistic as you would know if you read it through and did
not rely merely on pseudo-academic articles about it.
All the best Yair Davidiy