Claudius, whose full name was Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, was a Roman emperor who ruled from AD 41 to AD 54. He was born on August 1, 10 BC, in Lugdunum, modern-day Lyon in France, making him the first Roman emperor born outside of Italy. Claudius was a member of the powerful Julio-Claudian dynasty and the son of Drusus and Antonia Minor. Despite suffering from physical disabilities such as a limp, stammer, and tremors, he eventually rose to become one of Rome’s most effective rulers.

During his childhood, Claudius was often rejected by his family because of his disabilities. Many believed he was weak or unintelligent, and as a result, he was kept away from public life and political office. However, this isolation may have protected him from the political purges and assassinations that took place during the reigns of emperors Tiberius and Caligula. Since others did not see him as a threat, Claudius survived while many nobles and family members were executed.

Claudius spent much of his early life studying history, literature, and philosophy. Although he wanted a political career, his family discouraged him from participating in public office. Over time, he developed a reputation as a scholar and historian. When Caligula became emperor, Claudius was finally given some public responsibilities and served as co-consul in AD 37. However, Caligula often humiliated and mocked him publicly.

In AD 41, Caligula was assassinated by members of the Praetorian Guard. During the chaos that followed, Claudius hid inside the palace, fearing for his life. According to tradition, a Praetorian soldier discovered him hiding behind a curtain and proclaimed him emperor. The Praetorian Guard supported Claudius, and eventually the Senate accepted him as Rome’s new ruler.

Although many people doubted him at first, Claudius proved to be an able administrator and effective emperor. He strengthened the imperial government by expanding the bureaucracy and appointing skilled freedmen to important administrative positions. He worked to restore Rome’s finances after the wasteful spending of Caligula’s reign and improved the organization of the empire.

Claudius also became known for his major building projects. He constructed roads, canals, harbors, and aqueducts throughout the Roman Empire. Two of the most important aqueducts completed during his reign were the Aqua Claudia and the Aqua Anio Novus, which helped improve Rome’s water supply. He also built the harbor of Portus near Ostia to improve grain shipments and reduce food shortages in Rome.

One of Claudius’s greatest achievements was the conquest of Britain. In AD 43, he sent Roman forces led by Aulus Plautius to invade Britannia. Claudius later traveled to Britain himself after the early victories and celebrated the conquest with a triumph in Rome. This expansion greatly increased Roman influence and marked one of the empire’s most important territorial gains.

Claudius was deeply interested in law and government. He personally presided over court cases, issued legal reforms, and tried to improve justice throughout the empire. He also worked to make the Senate more efficient, though many senators disliked his increasing control and his reliance on freedmen advisors. Throughout his reign, Claudius faced several conspiracies and assassination attempts, forcing him to take harsh actions against enemies and suspected traitors.

In religion, Claudius supported traditional Roman practices and attempted to restore older religious customs. He opposed certain foreign religious movements and expelled astrologers and Druids from Rome. He also played a role in settling disputes between different groups within the empire, including Greeks, Jews, and Romans.

Despite his accomplishments, ancient historians often portrayed Claudius negatively, describing him as weak or easily manipulated by his wives and advisors. However, many modern historians believe these accounts were unfair and emphasize his intelligence, administrative skill, and successful leadership.

Claudius died in AD 54 at the age of 63. Many historians believe he may have been poisoned by his wife, Agrippina the Younger, who wanted her son Nero to become emperor. After Claudius’s death, Nero succeeded him as ruler of Rome.

Today, Claudius is remembered as a capable emperor who overcame personal challenges and political obstacles to strengthen and expand the Roman Empire. Despite being underestimated for much of his life, he proved himself to be an intelligent ruler whose reforms and achievements left a lasting impact on Roman history.

Juba II was one of the most remarkable rulers of the ancient world. A scholar, military leader, diplomat, and author, he ruled the North African kingdom of Mauretania during the late first century BCE and early first century CE. Unlike many kings of his time who were remembered mainly for warfare, Juba II became famous for promoting education, culture, trade, architecture, and cooperation between Africa and the Roman Empire. His reign represented a fusion of African, Greek, and Roman civilizations, making him a key figure in Mediterranean history.

Roman Administration of Modern-Day Morocco and Algeria

The expansion of the Roman Empire into North Africa brought modern-day Morocco and Algeria under Roman political control as part of the region known as Mauretania. This territory became strategically important to Rome because of its geographic location, military significance, agricultural wealth, and access to Mediterranean trade routes. After the annexation of the Kingdom of Mauretania in 44 CE, Emperor Claudius reorganized the territory into two imperial provinces: Mauretania Tingitana and Mauretania Caesariensis. The division roughly followed the area that later became the modern border between Morocco and Algeria.

The Kingdom of Mauretania Before Roman Rule

Before direct Roman administration, Mauretania was an independent Berber kingdom located in the western part of North Africa. The inhabitants were primarily Berber peoples, known to the Romans as the Mauri, from which the name “Mauretania” originated. The kingdom often cooperated with Rome and served as a client state during the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire.

One of the most famous rulers of Mauretania was King Juba II, a highly educated monarch who had close ties to Rome. Juba II ruled under Roman influence and promoted trade, architecture, scholarship, and cultural exchange between North Africa and the Roman world. His capital city, Caesarea (modern Cherchell in Algeria), became a major political and economic center.

After the death of Juba II and later his son Ptolemy of Mauretania, tensions developed between the local monarchy and Rome. Emperor Caligula ordered the execution of Ptolemy around 40 CE, leading to instability and revolt in the region. Rome eventually moved to absorb the kingdom directly into the empire.

Roman Annexation in 44 CE

In 44 CE, under Emperor Claudius, Rome formally annexed Mauretania and transformed it into imperial territory. The Roman government recognized that the region was too large and diverse to govern effectively as a single province. As a result, Claudius divided Mauretania into two provinces:

Mauretania Tingitana occupied much of what is now northern Morocco. Its capital was Tingis, the modern city of Tangier. The province was named after this city. Roman influence in Tingitana was concentrated mainly along the Atlantic and Mediterranean coastal areas and fertile inland plains.

One of the province’s most important cities was Volubilis, a thriving Roman settlement known for its olive production, mosaics, and public buildings. Today, Volubilis remains one of the best-preserved Roman archaeological sites in North Africa.

Rome viewed Tingitana as strategically important because it guarded the western entrance to the Mediterranean near the Strait of Gibraltar. The province also connected Roman Africa to trade routes extending into the Atlantic Ocean.

2. Mauretania Caesariensis

Mauretania Caesariensis covered much of present-day northern Algeria. Its capital was Caesarea, named in honor of the Roman emperors. This province was larger and more urbanized than Tingitana, containing numerous Roman colonies, military outposts, and commercial centers.

The Romans developed extensive roads, aqueducts, farms, and cities throughout Caesariensis. The province became integrated into the wider Roman economy through grain production, olive oil exports, and Mediterranean trade.

The region also served as an important military frontier. Roman legions and auxiliary forces were stationed there to maintain order and defend against tribal uprisings from interior regions beyond direct Roman control.

Roman Governance and Culture

Roman administration in Mauretania introduced Roman law, taxation, urban planning, and infrastructure. Cities were designed according to Roman models, featuring forums, baths, amphitheaters, temples, and paved roads.

Latin became the language of administration, although local Berber languages continued to be widely spoken. Roman culture mixed with indigenous traditions, producing a unique North African Roman society.

Christianity later spread through the region during the later centuries of the Roman Empire. North Africa eventually became one of the intellectual centers of early Christianity, producing influential theologians and scholars.

Military and Strategic Importance

The Mauretanian provinces played a major role in Roman defense strategy. The Roman military established forts and frontier systems to secure trade routes and monitor movement across the empire’s western borders.

The provinces also supplied soldiers to the Roman army. Mauretanian cavalry units gained a reputation for mobility and effectiveness and served in campaigns throughout the empire.

Because the region bordered the Atlantic Ocean and the western Mediterranean, it was vital for maritime trade and naval operations. Roman control over Mauretania strengthened the empire’s dominance across North Africa.

Decline of Roman Control

By the third and fourth centuries CE, Roman authority in Mauretania began to weaken due to economic instability, internal political conflict, and increasing pressure from local tribes and foreign invasions.

In the fifth century, the Vandals invaded North Africa and seized many Roman territories. Later, the Byzantine Empire briefly restored some Roman control before the rise of Islamic Arab expansion in the seventh century transformed the political and cultural landscape of North Africa permanently.

Despite the fall of Roman rule, the legacy of Rome remained visible in architecture, roads, urban settlements, and legal traditions throughout Morocco and Algeria.

Conclusion

Ancient Rome governed modern-day Morocco and Algeria through the provinces of Mauretania Tingitana and Mauretania Caesariensis after annexing the Mauretanian kingdom in 44 CE under Emperor Claudius. The division of the territory reflected Rome’s desire for efficient administration and military control across North Africa. Roman influence brought urbanization, infrastructure, trade expansion, and cultural transformation to the region. Although Roman political power eventually declined, the impact of Roman civilization continued to shape the history and development of North Africa for centuries afterward.

Adventism and the Lamb‑Like Beast of America

Adventism was born in a nation that preached liberty with its mouth while tightening chains with its hands. It rose in the very soil where freedom was proclaimed from the hilltops even as oppression was written into the law. And because of this paradox, Adventism developed a prophetic eye sharper than most — an eye trained to see beneath symbols, beneath institutions, beneath the polished language of empire.

At the center of that prophetic vision stands the image from Revelation 13: a beast with two horns like a lamb, yet speaking as a dragon.

For Adventists, this symbol has never been abstract. It has always pointed toward America — a nation clothed in innocence, founded on ideals of liberty and conscience, yet capable of speaking with the same coercive, devouring voice as the ancient powers before it.

The lamb‑like horns represent gentleness, youth, and promise. The dragon‑voice reveals the hidden machinery beneath the surface — the systems, policies, and powers that can turn freedom into a weapon and righteousness into a mask.

This tension — between appearance and reality, between lamb and dragon — is the prophetic lens through which Adventism interprets America’s role in the final movements of history.

To speak of the Lamb‑Like Beast is to speak of a nation that blesses with one hand and legislates oppression with the other.

A nation that claims divine destiny while repeating the patterns of empire. A nation that can defend liberty while simultaneously restricting it.

Adventism does not demonize America; it diagnoses it. It reads the nation the way a prophet reads a dream — symbols layered with meaning, history intertwined with destiny, power wrapped in the language of peace.

And in that reading, Adventism issues a warning:

When a nation that looks like a lamb begins to speak like a dragon, prophecy is no longer theory — it is unfolding.

This introduction sets the stage for exploring how Adventist thought interprets America’s spiritual identity, its prophetic role, and the tension between its ideals and its actions.

Trey Knowles: Risala 8 – “Deceptive Ambassadors”

As-salamu alaykum — in which your husband did not come. So I am divorcing you from your husband who came to you in deceit. You sit at his table and endure his domestic abuse. You keep eating his deceptive food, for I tell you my Lord Yeshua is the Bread of Life. How dare your husband come in my Lord’s name, corrupting my Lord’s character and spirit?

I am divorcing you from your husband who came to you in deceit:
The one who calls Rome father,
The one who sheds blood and enslaves many,
The one who chases material possessions,
The one who takes my Lord Yeshua’s word and distorts it,
The one who comes to kill and destroy.

If you had listened and accepted the truth my Lord Yeshua told you, you would know that He came so that you could have life more abundantly — with joy — praising our Father who is in heaven.

I am divorcing you from your husband who came to you in deceit. Does he fit the spirit or character of my Lord Yeshua? My Lord Yeshua came for you — to serve you — not for you to serve him without rest.

Do you know my Lord Yeshua? Then why do you serve a deceiver — the very one who enslaves and mistreats you — and comes falsely in my Lord Yeshua’s name? Did my Lord Yeshua enslave you? Does my Lord Yeshua mistreat you? Did my Lord Yeshua come with a sword to harm you? For those who represent Cain do not come from God, but from the evil one.

For my Lord Yeshua came to do our Father in heaven’s will, which is pure and perfect. I come to speak to you, House of Jacob: deny yourself and stop eating corrupt bread. Follow the ways of Yeshua. For my Lord Yeshua did not come to obey Caesar, but to obey the Father who is in heaven.

Speak to me, House of Jacob. How can you be devoted with two different spirits that conflict with one another? How have you become divided in your thinking? What behavior and spirit of character have you adopted? Have you followed your current husband and worshiped my Lord Yeshua’s name and spirit in vain?

يُخَادِعُونَ ٱللَّهَ وَٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ وَمَا يَخْدَعُونَ إِلَّآ أَنفُسَهُمْ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ
Surah Al-Baqarah 2:9

“They seek to deceive Allah and the believers, yet they only deceive themselves, but they fail to perceive it.”

For I tell you, I am divorcing you from your husband who came to you in deceit.

فِى قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌۭ فَزَادَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ مَرَضًۭا ۖ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌۢ بِمَا كَانُوا۟ يَكْذِبُونَ
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لَا تُفْسِدُوا۟ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ قَالُوٓا۟ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ

“There is sickness in their hearts, and Allah only lets their sickness increase. They will suffer a painful punishment for their lies.
When they are told, ‘Do not spread corruption in the land,’ they reply, ‘We are only peacemakers!’”

But you will know them by their fruits.

Grace and peace,
Trey Knowles

Anyone who adopts the behavior of wolves is not worthy of anything good. Their hearts and eyes desire to become colonizers because they idolize Western European behavior. If China attacks Taiwan and kills innocent people for no good reason, then China becomes no different from the Europeans who have acted like demons throughout history.

If China follows this type of behavior—the behavior of European colonizers—it will put a smile on the faces of American Europeans because they love when others commit evil acts. Take heed to the term, “give them over to Satan to be punished.” It gives American Europeans justification to police other countries and defend their own actions. No one does this better than the devil himself, pretending to be an angel of light.

It would not be good for China to do evil toward Taiwan because China would eventually feel the response and retaliation justified by American Europeans. This is how Europeans and White America continue to position themselves as the police of the world—using the evil of others as justification for their own control and influence. European evil operates like a manipulative sociopath, and China should not want to follow that path, because death walks with it.

People already expect evil from European colonizers because many see it as part of their nature, but that is not supposed to be China’s nature. This is just food for thought. Love good and hate evil.

The House of Lords is the upper chamber of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster in London, England. The institution traces its origins back to the early eleventh century, while the development of a two-house parliamentary system emerged during the fourteenth century.

Unlike the House of Commons, members of the House of Lords are not elected by the public. Most members are appointed for life on political or non-political grounds. The House also includes up to twenty-six bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, known as the Lords Spiritual. Since 2014, members have also been allowed to voluntarily resign or lose membership through expulsion.

For much of its history, hereditary peers formed the majority within the House of Lords. Between 1999 and 2026, hereditary representation was reduced to ninety-two excepted hereditary peers. On 29 April 2026, hereditary membership was completely abolished when the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 came into force.

As the upper house of Parliament, the House of Lords performs many functions similar to those of the House of Commons. It reviews legislation, examines government actions, and debates public policy. Members may introduce legislation and suggest amendments to bills. Although the Lords cannot permanently stop most legislation from becoming law, except in limited cases, they may delay legislation for up to one year. Because of this role, the House of Lords is often described as a “revising chamber,” focusing on legislative detail while asking the House of Commons to reconsider aspects of proposed laws.

Members of the House of Lords may occasionally serve as government ministers, although they are generally appointed only to junior ministerial positions, with the exception of the Leader of the House of Lords. The chamber does not control the term of the prime minister or the government, as only the House of Commons has the authority to force a resignation or trigger a general election. Unlike the Commons, which has a fixed number of seats, the House of Lords has no set membership limit. As of 8 May 2026, the chamber had 752 sitting members. The King’s Speech is traditionally delivered in the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament. Until the establishment of the Supreme Court in 2009, the House of Lords also served as the highest court of appeal in the United Kingdom through the Law Lords.

The House of Lords is unique among bicameral legislatures because it is larger than the lower house of Parliament. It is also the second-largest legislative chamber in the world, behind the National People’s Congress of China. The House additionally maintains a religious role, as Church of England Measures must be introduced through the Lords Spiritual. The United Kingdom is one of only three countries that grant permanent legislative seats to religious leaders, alongside Iran and Vatican City.

The modern Parliament of the United Kingdom developed largely from the Parliament of England through the Treaty of Union of 1706 and the Acts of Union in 1707. These acts united the Parliaments of England and Scotland into the Parliament of Great Britain. In effect, the English Parliament continued with the addition of forty-five Members of Parliament and sixteen Scottish peers representing Scotland.

The origins of the House of Lords can be traced to the medieval “Great Council” or Magnum Concilium, which advised the king during the early Middle Ages. This royal council included church leaders, noblemen, and representatives from counties and boroughs. The first English Parliament is often identified as either Simon de Montfort’s Parliament of 1265 or the “Model Parliament” of 1295, both of which included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and representatives from towns and counties.

Parliament gradually increased in power as the authority of the monarchy rose and declined. During the reign of Edward II, the nobility held great influence while the Crown was comparatively weak. Under Edward III, Parliament clearly divided into two chambers: the House of Commons, representing counties and boroughs, and the House of Lords, composed of bishops, abbots, and nobles. During the fifteenth century, both chambers expanded their authority, although the Lords remained significantly more powerful because of the influence of wealthy landowners and church officials.

The power of the nobility weakened during the Wars of the Roses in the late fifteenth century, when many aristocrats were killed or executed and their estates absorbed by the Crown. Feudalism also declined, making baron-controlled armies obsolete. Henry VII firmly established the supremacy of the monarchy, symbolized by the concept of the “Crown Imperial.” Royal authority continued to strengthen during the Tudor period, reaching its height under Henry VIII.

During the seventeenth century, the House of Lords remained more influential than the Commons, although the lower chamber steadily gained power. Tensions between Parliament and the monarchy eventually erupted into the English Civil War during the 1640s. After the defeat and execution of King Charles I in 1649, England became a Commonwealth under the control of Oliver Cromwell. During this period, the House of Lords was largely powerless and was officially abolished on 19 March 1649 through the Act abolishing the House of Peers, which declared the institution “useless and dangerous to the people of England.” The chamber did not meet again until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, after which it regained its position as the dominant house of Parliament until the nineteenth century.

Following the Acts of Union 1707, Scottish peers elected sixteen representatives to sit in the House of Lords. Elections for these positions occurred during each Parliament until the Peerage Act 1963 granted all Scottish peers hereditary seats in the Lords. The first election of Scottish representative peers took place on 15 February 1707 at Parliament House in Edinburgh, shortly before the Scottish Parliament was dissolved for the final time.

The nineteenth century brought major reforms to the House of Lords. The chamber, once consisting of around fifty members, expanded greatly through the creation of new peerages by George III and later monarchs. Although this reduced the influence of individual peers, the House itself gradually lost political power while the House of Commons grew stronger.

One of the most significant developments was the Reform Act of 1832. Before the reform, the electoral system of the Commons was highly undemocratic, with strict property requirements and outdated constituency boundaries. Some major cities lacked representation, while tiny boroughs with very few voters elected Members of Parliament. When the Commons passed a Reform Bill in 1831, the Lords rejected it twice. Prime Minister Charles Grey advised King William IV to create around eighty new pro-reform peers to force passage of the legislation. Although the king hesitated, opposition within the Lords eventually collapsed, and the bill passed. While the crisis weakened the political authority of the House of Lords, it did not eliminate it. In 1868, the Lords abolished proxy voting through changes to their standing orders.

The twentieth century saw further reductions in the power of the House of Lords. In 1909, Chancellor David Lloyd George introduced the “People’s Budget,” which proposed taxes targeting wealthy landowners. The Conservative-dominated House of Lords rejected the proposal, leading to a constitutional crisis. After two general elections in 1910 and pressure from Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, the Parliament Act 1911 was passed, severely restricting the Lords’ ability to block legislation. Most bills could only be delayed for a limited period rather than permanently vetoed. The Parliament Act 1949 reduced those delaying powers even further.

The Life Peerages Act 1958 transformed the composition of the House by allowing the creation of unlimited life peerages. This gradually shifted the chamber away from hereditary membership. Throughout much of the twentieth century, the Labour Party advocated either abolishing the House of Lords or removing hereditary peers. In 1968, Harold Wilson’s Labour government attempted reforms that would have allowed hereditary peers to remain in the House without voting rights, but the proposal failed in the House of Commons. Under Labour leader Michael Foot, abolition became official party policy, though Neil Kinnock later supported reform instead of abolition.

By the late twentieth century, the creation of hereditary peerages had nearly ceased except for a few granted during Margaret Thatcher’s government. Conservative supporters of the Lords, including Merlin Hanbury-Tracy, 7th Baron Sudeley, strongly defended the institution against reform efforts through articles and publications supporting its preservation.

In the twenty-first century, controversy surrounding the House of Lords continued. In 2019, a seven-month investigation by Naomi Ellenbogen found that one in five House staff members had experienced bullying or harassment but feared reporting it because of possible retaliation. Several peers, including Anthony Lester, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, faced accusations of sexual harassment or abuse.

In 2020, the government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson considered relocating the House of Lords from London to cities such as York or Birmingham in an effort to reconnect with northern England and the Midlands. The proposal raised questions about how traditional ceremonies such as the King’s Speech would function and was met with widespread criticism from many members of the House of Lords.

Russia is one of the most ethnically diverse nations in the world, with more than 100 ethnic groups spread across its massive territory. Among these are 41 officially recognized Indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East. These Indigenous communities have lived on their ancestral lands for thousands of years and maintain a spiritual connection to nature, believing that the land, water, air, and animals are sacred parts of life itself.

The Indigenous peoples of Russia include groups such as the Nenets, Evenkis, Chukchi, Enets, Oroks, and many others. Some communities consist of only a few hundred people, placing them at risk of extinction. Despite their small numbers, these peoples inhabit nearly two-thirds of Russia’s territory, especially in remote northern and Arctic regions.

Many Indigenous communities continue traditional lifestyles based on reindeer herding, hunting, fishing, gathering, and seasonal migration. Their cultures are deeply tied to the environment, and many practice spiritual traditions rooted in respect for nature and ancestral wisdom. Indigenous languages belong mainly to the Uralic, Altaic, and Paleo-Siberian language families, though many of these languages are now endangered because of modernization and assimilation policies.

Over the decades, Indigenous peoples in Russia have faced serious social, political, and economic struggles. Industrial expansion, oil drilling, gas pipelines, logging, and mining projects have increasingly taken over traditional lands and sacred areas. Reindeer pastures, fishing waters, and hunting territories have been damaged or restricted by large extractive industries. Although Russian law contains certain protections for Indigenous peoples, these laws are often poorly enforced or ignored altogether.

Organizations such as the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) have attempted to defend Indigenous rights and preserve traditional cultures. However, many Indigenous organizations have experienced government restrictions, political pressure, and legal obstacles, especially after laws targeting groups with foreign funding were introduced.

Economic hardship remains a major concern in Indigenous territories. Unemployment rates are significantly higher than the national average, while incomes are often much lower. Many communities suffer from poor housing, lack of healthcare access, unsafe drinking water, and limited educational opportunities. Diseases such as tuberculosis, hepatitis, and respiratory infections affect Indigenous populations at far higher rates than the general Russian population. Life expectancy is also lower, especially among men in remote northern regions.

Cultural survival is another growing challenge. Over the last century, government assimilation policies, Russian-language schools, migration into Indigenous territories, and mass media have weakened many native traditions and languages. Today, only a small percentage of Siberia’s tribal populations still maintain nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyles, and dozens of Indigenous languages are considered endangered.

Despite these hardships, the Indigenous peoples of Russia continue to demonstrate remarkable resilience and determination. Many communities are actively working to revive their languages, preserve their traditions, protect sacred lands, and pass ancestral knowledge on to future generations. Their survival reflects not only endurance but also a deep spiritual connection to their history, identity, and the natural world. 

The Parliamentarians, often referred to as “Roundheads” by their opponents and later historians, supported the English Parliament during the English Civil War (1642–1651). They opposed King Charles I and his Royalist supporters, known as the Cavaliers, who defended absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings. The Roundheads sought to place the executive power of England under the authority of Parliament rather than the sole control of the king.

Most Roundheads favored a constitutional monarchy instead of the absolute monarchy promoted by Charles I. However, by the end of the Civil War in 1649, widespread public hostility toward the king allowed republican leaders such as Oliver Cromwell to abolish the monarchy entirely and establish the Commonwealth of England.

Although many Roundhead leaders, including Thomas Fairfax, Edward Montagu, and Robert Devereux, still supported constitutional monarchy, Cromwell and his radical allies gained greater influence through the backing of the New Model Army. They capitalized on Charles I’s alliance with the Scottish against Parliament, which many viewed as a betrayal of England.

The Roundhead movement attracted strong support from Puritans, Presbyterians, Independents, and other religious groups, though some members of the Church of England also sided with Parliament. Political groups within the movement included the Levellers, Diggers, and the Fifth Monarchists, each advocating different social and religious reforms.

The term “Roundhead” originally referred to the short-cropped hairstyles worn by some Puritans, which contrasted sharply with the long, fashionable curls of the Royalists. Initially used as an insult, the term became widely associated with supporters of Parliament during the Civil War. Over time, “Roundhead” became linked with republican ideas until it was eventually replaced by the term “Whig” during the political conflicts of the late seventeenth century.

Trey Knowles: Risala 7 – “The Stone the Builders Rejected Has Become the Cornerstone”

They say, “Pay your debt,” but the only debt I owe is to love you—and you did not love me.
Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. I come for the house of Jacob.

I say my Lord Yeshua will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; His kingdom will never end, as it is written in Luke 1:33:

هذا يكون عظيماً وابن العلي يُدعى ويعطيه الرب الإله كرسي داود أبيه
ويملك على بيت يعقوب إلى الأبد ولا يكون لملكه نهاية

I, Trey Knowles, will take away amnesia from my people. Remember your ancestor Yosef, who was sold into slavery by his brothers’ hands. So I say the Transatlantic Slave Trade also came by our brothers’ hands. You have cut the nose of Zaphenath-Paneah.

You have come against the house of Ya'aqov for too long, and now the time has come for you to pay your debts. The rent is overdue. The landlord is coming home to collect payment. You have rejected my people without reason, and now I reject you without reason.

Tell the American colonizers: my Lord’s hair is like wool, and my people are made in His image and likeness. You colonizers—what you think you built will not last; it will soon be destroyed.

The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone, and He is beautiful. Let my people rejoice.

As for you, synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Israelites but are not—you too have rejected me. Do not be naïve, my people. For how can Satan cast out Satan? Those who claim to be Israelites but are not—this is who they are.

Understand this, my people: if Satan opposes himself and is divided, his kingdom cannot stand; rather, it is coming to an end. This is why the counterfeit Israel agrees with your unforgiving colonizer.

As for you who call yourselves the Holy See, you do not have the keys, and you do not own a throne. As God instructed Moses to tell Aaron to take his rod and stretch his hand over the waters of Egypt, so therefore I, Trey Knowles, tell you: I have not come to bring peace to you, but to deliver my people from you, workers of iniquity.

سَأَصْرِفُ عَنْ ءَايَـٰتِىَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَتَكَبَّرُونَ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ بِغَيْرِ ٱلْحَقِّ وَإِن يَرَوْا۟ كُلَّ ءَايَةٍۢ لَّا يُؤْمِنُوا۟ بِهَا وَإِن يَرَوْا۟ سَبِيلَ ٱلرُّشْدِ لَا يَتَّخِذُوهُ سَبِيلًۭا وَإِن يَرَوْا۟ سَبِيلَ ٱلْغَىِّ يَتَّخِذُوهُ سَبِيلًۭا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَذَّبُوا۟ بِـَٔايَـٰتِنَا وَكَانُوا۟ عَنْهَا غَـٰفِلِينَ ١٤٦
Surah Al-A'raf (7:146)

“I will turn away from My signs those who act unjustly with arrogance in the land. Even if they were to see every sign, they would not believe in them. If they see the Right Path, they will not take it. But if they see a crooked path, they will follow it. This is because they denied Our signs and were heedless of them.”

Grace and peace.
Sincerely,
Trey Knowles
The House of Jacob

Trey Knowles’ Praetors Creed of America is a bold, unconventional comedy that reimagines a modern-day “Saul” narrative in a fictional, Roman-inspired version of America. The story centers on a powerful Praetor, portrayed by Clarence Thomas, who serves under a Roman-style American president and uses his authority to intensify the oppression of a group known as the Israelites.

Fueling the chaos is his brother, the loud and polarizing Uncle Ruckus, whose open disdain for the Israelites and admiration for Donald Trump push the conflict into exaggerated, absurd territory. Ruckus eagerly backs efforts against them, amplifying the tension with his over-the-top rhetoric.

As the situation escalates, persecution spreads, drawing in innocent Gentiles and even those who claim to support the Israelites—creating layers of irony and chaotic twists. In a key comedic moment, Trey Knowles directly confronts Clarence Thomas, asking, “Why do you persecute me?” Clarence looks at his wife first, and then responds with a shocking and uncomfortable admission, underscoring the story’s satirical edge.

Meanwhile, the Gentiles—confused by the unfolding events and convinced they should be the ones facing persecution—begin questioning Clarence: “Weren’t you the one who helped MAGA spark a revolt and led chaos into the wilderness not long ago?” His response only deepens the absurdity and highlights the contradictions at the heart of the narrative, making the situation even stranger as he again looks toward his wife.

Blending satire, historical parody, and outrageous humor, Praetors Creed of America offers a wild, thought-provoking take on power, loyalty, and the strange, often cyclical nature of history.

Trey Knowles’ “Archive Message”

To my readers,

My desire for you is to follow the example of my Lord, Yeshua, and to do the will of our Father in heaven. If you release the life shaped by the colonizer, you will find your true life. Love protects—but you, my people, must also walk in obedience to the teachings of your Lord Yeshua.

Out of love, I warn you about the influence of the colonizer. I write in peace to remind you that complexion has often been used as a reason for mistreatment, even though you bear the image and likeness given to you by the Lord.

Look around and open your eyes. Have not people across the earth, marked by their skin, faced injustice and persecution? How many have been imprisoned without cause? I tell you, your life today no longer reflects what it once was when you lived as an indigenous people, fully dependent on God.

Yesterday, today, and still now, the oppressor remains the same. Though they may present themselves as lovers of God or as an angel of light, their actions reveal something different. They are like wolves among sheep—controlling and devouring. You will recognize them by their fruit, which stands in contrast to the ways of our Lord Yeshua.

Identity matters. The purpose of the colonizer or oppressor is to control and enslave while benefiting from that control. Much of what is set before you is designed to corrupt—through media, imagery, and influence.

What the colonizer values becomes the standard for those under that system, creating dependence on those values. This system is sustained by the pursuit of money, which keeps the oppressor in power.

Indigenous people once depended on God and valued Him above all, without reliance on money. What, then, has become of those people?

To my readers—both now and in the future—I warn you: if God is for you, who can stand against you? Yet some remain blinded, distracted by the pursuit of money for survival, living within a system shaped by a colonizing force.

Out of love, I speak to you.

Sincerely Trey Knowles