Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Was Saul (who became Paul) actually a deceiver of the early church and Apostles?

Posted by truthtalklive on December 18, 2007

In our discussion on “Should Pastors Live in Poverty” we somehow veered off-track and a new conversation took shape. We’d like that discussion to remain on-topic and have this thread serve as our new discussion on Paul, Essene Christianity and how true Christian Doctrine and the REAL teachings of Jesus may, or may not, have been hi-jacked by Paul.

Here is a good pre-amble posted by Thomas in the previously mentioned thread:


Click HERE to go back and read how the discussion evolved (scroll down to comment #34) and let’s continue this debate HERE.

Thank you – Moderator

337 Responses to “Was Saul (who became Paul) actually a deceiver of the early church and Apostles?”

  1. Joe said

    I’m still waiting on the documented proof of validity of these documents and info mentioned by Thomas and Nick.

  2. ADB said

    The premise of this assertion is really sort of silly when you think about it. By all accounts the Pauline epistles were the first NT documents to be written (1st Thessalonians being written around 50 A.D., and the final ones written while in prison in the early 6o’s). By comparison Mark the first gospel was written about 65-70 A.D., Matthew and Luke somewhat after that, and John coming around 90 A.D. If our only knowledge of the words of Christ comes from the gospels, how can we know that Paul perverted them if the gospels were written after Paul’s letters. The only way around this is to start citing hypothetical sources that may lie behind the four gospels, and it’s hard to really put much stock in a source that may not have ever existed to begin with.

  3. jAsOn said


    Typically, the 20th century motivation behind the denial of Pauline authority is an attempt to escape the fact that homosexual behavior is sinful, and the differing roles with which God created men and women; because they often misread Paul (and I can’t help but think this is intentional), they think he has said something against the Law, against women, or against those who struggle with the sin of homosexual behavior that hasn’t been said in other places in the NT. Paul NEVER shifts away from the doctrines of God in Jesus Christ; God instead used him to reveal some things in a fuller fashion than He had done before.

    So, with those and other motivations in mind, some persons approach Scripture with the presupposition that Paul obviously did not have apostolic authority, and internal “evidences” are contrived to try to prove that Paul contradicted Jesus.

    It must first be said that the alleged contradictions are not contradictions at all, even though there are some things that are paradoxical.

    One of the proofs that Thomas used in a much earlier post (I think #43 on the other thread) he claimed that Paul contradicted the gospel account of Jesus’ genealogy because he claimed that Jesus was the son of David, but here we read differently, Matt 1:1 “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

    Paul never contradicted the Jerusalem council, but Thomas misunderstands the purpose of those statements made by the council.

    On the positive, the book of acts clearly shows how the apostles eventually accepted Paul and his authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ: they confirmed his experience on the road to Damascus, and what motivation could Paul possibly have had for giving up a highly reputable position as a Jewish leader and scholar to become a lowly tent maker who was beaten, imprisoned, and eventually martyred for what he believed? Likewise, the other apostles never wrote against Paul and what he was teaching; they even suffered and died for the same reasons. As virulent a writer as the apostle John was, he surely would have counted Paul’s teachings if he disagreed with them…particularly after Paul had died.

    As for the account on the road to Damascus, Paul doesn’t contradict himself in his words to Agrippa. What happened is what we refer to as “telescoping”. Here is what Paul recounts for Agrippa, “And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles— to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’”

    Now, if Paul or Luke had written and said that Christ appeared to Paul and the only thing He said to me was this:
    “And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. 10And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’ 11 And since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus.”
    and this: “”I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.”, and He said nothing else but those words…then if Paul had added something to the story it would have been false.
    The fact is that Paul and Luke didn’t account for every word that was said in the first to records. Likewise, let’s say I got off work and went to the grocery store, the movie store, and went home and decorated the Christmas tree with my wife and kids, then the next day, my coworker asks what I did last night and I tell him, “oh, I had a great time decorating the Christmas tree with my family”, but then my boss walks in and says, “I tried to get hold of you last night at your house, but you weren’t there until 7:00, what did you do last night?” I would answer him, “Well, I left here and went to the grocery store and then the movie store, and then I went home and decorated the tree.” I have not lied to either my coworker or my boss, but the stories were different.

  4. Fred said

    ADB, I think we if we accept the dates you gave for Mark, then we must accept that pre-Markan Gospel sources existed, whether verbal or written, mustn’t we?

    Of course we can hypothesize about what they contained, but they must have existed. Whether or not Paul was aware of them is beyond my ken.


  5. ADB said


    Scholars speculate about what sources the gospel writers may have used, but they are all very hypothetical at this point. Of course, tradition says that Matthew and John wrote the gospels that bear their names, but there still may have been source material they used. There is a strong tradition that the Apostle Peter was the primary source for Mark’s gospel. With the nearly unanimous agreement that Mark was written first, and the similarity between it and Matthew and Luke, it is quite likely that Matthew and Luke used Mark, or at least had access to it. What access Paul would have had to source materials for the gospels is entirely impossible to guess. In any event, in my opinion there simply aren’t the great contradictions between Jesus and Paul that some seem to find. We must remember that Paul wrote to address specific issues in specific churches. He never actually wrote a theological treatise that summarized systematically all that he thought.

    A curmudgeonly pastor 🙂

  6. jAsOn said

    Below is an interesting perspective by James White on the topic of transmission (an excerpt from his article discussing the errors of Brian Flemming.

    “I hear precious little discussion of the fact that there would have been an insatiable desire for knowledge of Jesus and His teachings in those early decades. And once the gospel stories became known to tens of thousands, memorized by devoted repetition, the idea that someone else could come along (i.e., Paul, for example), and make up a whole new religion and a whole new view of Jesus (as Shabir Ally suggests) is simply without merit. While the early church surely looked for the imminent return of Christ (as do we today), I think the real impetus for the production of the canonical gospels was the growth of the church and the need for documentation of the record that was already so familiar and well known to believers. The idea that these gospels were just “cooked up” decades later flies in the face of the reality of the existence of the infant Christian church. Of course, this would require Flemming to be honestly examining the facts at this point, and one thing we can tell just by the choice of “scholars” used is that examination of facts is not his goal.”

    The article in its entirety can be found at:


  7. ADB said

    Good points. By the second half of the first century two things were happening. Many of those who had seen Jesus were dying and there was a perceived need to write this material down. Secondly, as you pointed out the movement was growing very rapidly, and the gospel writers recorded their gospels to show who Jesus was/is for their particular audiences.

  8. Fred said

    That is ADB’s hypothesis of pre-Markan Gospel sources. Could there be others?

    (queue the spooky Discovery Channel music)

    My favorite hypothesis is that the Gospels were originally plays written for actors. So Paul’s letters were instructions to the various theater companies? Just kidding about that last part!



  9. Before we attack the validity of the Pauline scriptures any further and due to anonymous people posting links to my myspace, as if they were exposing me…

    If I wanted to hide, I wouldn’t have a myspace in the first place and if I was afraid of being exposed in the light… I wouldn’t have posted anything online at all.

    Myspace blogs are for me as a form of Therapy.

    On the other hand I post online not to deceive but to reveal that I too, struggle and I am not greater than another being.

    I wear the title because It is my right and privilege to do so as it is yet sits unclaimed.

    If you read your bibles, you will find that God endorses one form of Government… A Monarchy. And one House by which to Rule and leave no Throne empty… The Davidic Line.

    I am through my Patriarchal line of the Royal house of Judah and the Tribe of Dan(Tuatha de Danaan). Through my Matriarchal line of the Tribe of Benjamin (Of which were promised literal ownership of the city of Jerusalem.)

    Yes… I am Merovingian.

    Hierosolyma means ‘Two Jerusalem’s’ as one lies hidden in Iraq.

    Let’s be honest.

    Christianity as it stands today is largely a farce based nowhere on Truth… Historically that is.

    What is Faith?

    Demons believe in God but they do not have faith.

    Faith then is not Belief.

    For if Belief was Faith… Even the Devil would be pleasing to God (If there is only one Devil outside of human existence).

    Is faith blind… No.

    The things hidden are revealed in the light.

    It appears no matter what I say or anyone for that matter having a difference in their faith will be judged by ignorant wanna be Christians who have seduced their own minds to believe in things that have no foundation in Faith.

    That is a run-on sentence… whew!

    That is if Faith be based on Truth.

    While belief can be based on false assumptions, Faith cannot exist in assumption.

    Faith is substance, is it not?

    Faith must rest on Truth.

    Many of you have based your judgments on me from a Pre-molded truth. A Truth you have devised in your own hearts to be true.

    I warn you… that can be a terrible Sin.

    A sin against yourselves… Having no foundation based in Truth.

    Be careful you, you who find peace in your hearts to decide what is true or not… Is that not arrogant?

    Even the Prophet Jeremiah warned that the priest have turned the truth into a lie (“…The lying pen of the scribes!…”)… That the prophets speak from their own vain imaginations. This is not just left to flaky new agers reading palms or Tarot cards… The same outlet is involved in making peace in our hearts over an issue. Usually and most often issues involving Anger and Fear. We have the power to seduce ourselves into what is true… or what is Not True or considered true…

    It’s when we find comfort we should be warned to question even more important to ponder our own heart… If our heart be true.

    Reading the Bible rarely brings me solution it rather brings me to question… My self, my motives and my struggle…

    More often than not I am troubled from the Truth.

    Not just with Sin. I am not an addict. I attempt to live a balanced life and when possible I eat as healthy as I can… I limit my self in moderation to substance that this world is made up from.

    Do I doubt God?

    No, no way… God is in me and I in him as Jesus declared in the Gospel of John.

    What is my faith, how is it different from yours?

    My faith instructs me to question, yes even argue with God.

    I must argue or wrestle with God even if it hurts to come to the end of myself… Not the end as people, pastors or priest might suggest is the end… For I do not allow any agency of Man or mankind to stand between God and I.

    There isn’t any greater Authority than my own experience and inner searching of myself.

    Jesus commanded our family to not ‘Rule’ over one another… As the Gentiles do.

    So Paul hasn’t the right to suggest in Romans 13, that all leaders are ordained by God to be leaders… Then we ought to repent for removing Saddam from Iraq because that was a Sin regardless of our opinion of the man… Even Hitler should have been respected in his day.

    Hitler being A Jew himself knew of the Prophecy that Jehovah would crush the Holy people and was only fulfilling the will of Jehovah.

    (Jehovah not being the most high God as he exclaims or confesses rather in his submission and abject Rebellion against the Most High God in Psalm 82)

    I do not believe nor is my faith founded in or upon the ideals of ‘Fallen’ man and definitely do not blame women for my short comings.

    As I, as a matter of faith, have never been separate from God.

    No, never… That is the lie from the pit of Hell that we could even exist outside the Heart of Holy Spirit or the Mind of God… That is and would be Idolatry.

    Adam and Eve are prototypes of the Psyche`.

    As we all struggle from the same duel nature.

    Male… Female… Right, Left… Good, Bad… Etc…

    This Struggle centers around subjects of importance stemming from one’s own learned reaction…

    God… Judgment… Eternal Punishment…

    …Life and Death… Birth, Life and Death… Fear.

    Yes, Fear is the reaction we are trained to respond with, in the midst of the unknown.

    Man has a problem with death and when a death occurs, it becomes a reminder to our Psyche’ that we too will die.

    Aside from never ever thinking about Death, many can’t deal with death, but many people can’t even deal with life either. We have (not in our culture) a variety of way’s to deal and not just cope with death:

    There is only Nothing..?

    First state Hylic, we can cop-out with the seemingly easy road of denial and just believe (or Accept) that we die, we rot, the worm’s eat us and that’s it! The oblivion.

    God is separate from Me..?

    Second state Psychic, we can run to and hide in our blinded faith of the ‘world beyond’ and lie to ourselves that we will find eternal life outside of ourselves. The eternal.

    (NOTE: The state above is where most (The Cattle)Christian’s chose to remain)

    God is inside me..?

    Third state Pneumatic, we can take accountability for ourselves and explore who we really are and discover our beginning so as to discover our end. The womb.

    Which, ever-way we choose nothing is absolute but we are as something in a state-of-being.

    If darkness is absolutely nothing the light is infinitely something.

    If we descend from our higher state-of-being we establish our foundation from what we see, feel, taste, touch, hear due to fear, ignorance and weakness.

    The Oblivion is the realm where we are tossed into this life, knowing nothing or nothing knowing us. Simply put, not knowing our self, who we are or where we come from.

    This is the place called the ‘Momentary thought’ we see, feel, taste, touch, hear, smell but do not allow any Conscious thought of it. We are base, instinctual, and primal.

    If we ascend from our view or foundation, for some a false reality due to fear, ignorance and weakness, we will discover a pattern in nature…

    The Eternal is the realm where we discover a frontier outside our perceptions, feelings and ideals. Simply put, refusing to know our self in search of who we are and where we are from.

    This is the place called the ‘Fleeting thought’ we see, feel, taste, touch, hear, smell but do not allow any Polymathic thought of it. We are linear, unfocused, and close-minded.

    If we transcend our base conscious state-of-being we will return from whence we came, back to the higher sub-conscious state-of-being.

    The Womb is the realm where we return to beginning and receive a revelation of the self. Simply put, remembering our self, who we are and where we are from.

    This is the place called the ‘Free thought’ we see, feel, taste, touch, hear, smell but do not allow any oppressive thought of it. We are liberated, ecstatic and Immortal.

    Once we receive this revelation we become the true Gnostic and child of Love.

    That is the Revelation of the Law of Liberty.

  10. Fred said

    Thanks, your highness! I think you will get along splendidly with the others here about!

    Ta Ta for now!


  11. ADB said

    May I ask a couple of questions to clarify your beliefs? Do you believe that the material world is evil and is created by a different god than that of the New Testament? Do you believe that the afterlife is in some sense, a matter of the soul escaping from the body?


  12. jAsOn said

    Thomas said, “There isn’t any greater Authority than my own experience and inner searching of myself.”

    If this is true for every individual, then what if my experience “proves” to me that omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, trinitarian God of the Bible exists, and someone elses experience “proves” to them that the same God does not exist, then we have two mutually exclusive ideas…God cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship. In that scenario, the God that my experience has proven to me transcends all beings, so my experience “proves” to me that He exists whether the other person believes it or not. Those to ideas cannot exist simultaniously, thus they break the law of non contradiction and that is irrational and a manefest absurdity. Here is a quote from RC Sproul because I cannot state it any better,

    “Absurdities often sound profound because they are incapable of being understood. When we hear things we do not understand, sometimes we think they are simply too deep or weighty for us to grasp when in fact they are merely unintelligible statements like “one-hand clapping”. the Bible does not talk like that. The Bible speaks of God in meaningful patterns of speech. Some of those patterns are more difficult than others, but they are not meant to be nonsense statements that only a guru can fathom.”

    So Thomas, please start making rational arguments instead of cryptic statements, or this conversation can go nowhere.

  13. Joe said

    Still…..no proof.

  14. Anonymous said

    “Even Hitler should have been respected in his day. Hitler being A Jew himself knew of the Prophecy that Jehovah would crush the Holy people and was only fulfilling the will of Jehovah.”

    You should be ashamed. I wonder what God thinks of this?

    No kool-aid for me, thanks.

  15. “Do you believe that the material world is evil and is created by a different god than that of the New Testament?”

    Well ADB, to answer your first question, I do not believe nor is it a part of my faith that the material world is Good or Evil. Good or Evil is only a product of the being manipulating matter and the perspective of the matter being manipulated.

    For instance:

    A God isn’t neither Good nor Evil by appearance alone but by the actions of that God in question. Although, this can only be defined by the followers of the God in question.

    An example of this dynamic is associated with the belief that a Vampire is Evil. If mankind were only food being cultivated on planet Earth to feed another species is that Evil? It is only Evil among mankind’s perspective being prey rather than the predator.

    A Vampire is not Evil in themselves but only Evil in the eye’s of their intended victim.

    I hope that’s make it clear.

    “Do you believe that the afterlife is in some sense, a matter of the soul escaping from the body?”

    The answer here is little more complicated…

    There are three parts my species. First I am a Spirit – a Sentient Being.

    The Flesh that I reside is a complimentary and conducive vibrational pattern that best houses my spirit. When these two become one then they produce a living Soul.

    Hence the Parable of the Wheat and Tare. The tare looks like wheat but is only an empty husk. So a Flesh body that has no spirit while it appears alive has no Soul. Thus it is only an empty piece of flesh.

    The Trinity is only a map of the offspring of God.

    The Father being the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of which made it possible for the Manifestation of the Son.


    My only point with that statement wasn’t meant to be cryptic but more a declaration.

    For instance how can a Psychiatrist no more about what your think and why than you?

    I am responsible and accountable for what I think or even allow to enter my thoughts.

    I do have Mentors and Teachers in my life as well as peers but I do not allow anybody to separate me from God (Not even myself). Because that is Sovereign… As my Family are all only peers on the same journey as I.

    Sin is separation from God… But I being is Son do not fear nor doubt my relation to God of which could arise if allow someone to throw in doubt… While I am listen to others it does not affect my Faith unless divinely orchestrated.

    And that is solely up to me to discern.

    I will attempt in the future to speak plainly as I can.


    Sorry Joe…

    Can I speak at your Church next Sunday?

    Why not?

    Tell me or prove to me rather, that Paul met Jesus on the Road to Damascus.

    And why is it, he feels, he needs no certificate of approval or ordainment?

    If Paul were here today Most Churches would call him a flake and wouldn’t dare let him teach or have access to the pulpit. (Why? because he sounds crazy)

    But I guess he’s special, huh?


    My dear Anonymous,

    Watch as you snicker at this…

    What do you know about the Albigensian Crusade under Pope Innocent III?

    Called by the Catholic inquisition the Albigensian Heresy.

    Albigens means… Relation to ALBA of which we derive the word ELF.

    The Thousand Year Elven Holocaust.

    But hey Elves don’t exist… Right?

    A Jewish Holocaust… What!?! Everyone knows that Jews don’t exist, silly… LOL!

  16. jAsOn said


    I hope you can take my critisizms an intention to help…you remain either unable our unwilling to address the topics at hand… and you dodge the questions that are asked by running off on endless rabbit trails, and you ignore the plan facts of history.

    You do realize that there are more extant documents assuring the accuracy of the transmission of the old and new testament scriptures than there are for any other historical documents which we consider accurate today.

    You continue to speak about truth and even speak of “god”, but I wonder what sourse you have for knowing these things, you inner self alone, then please adress the issue of objectiveity; the issue of breaking the law of non-contradiction.

  17. Anonymous said

    I’m sorry, Thomas. I just can’t take you seriously. You with your profane websites and your reference to vampires and obvious obsession with Dan Brown’s fictional novels.

  18. My goal here is to give a perspective on the matter as whole between Paul and Jesus. At this point I feel the need to present the teaching’s of Jesus or better, what political, religious and what foundation did Jesus Stand.

    In my opinion Paul re-presented the Law under a whitewash and gloss over of which Jesus could not stand (Pardon the pun).

    Part One will deal with scripture references from and only from the Gospel of John.

    Jesus Speaking to the JEWS.
    Gospel of John Ch. 5 vs. 37-47

    37. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

    38. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

    39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

    40. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

    41. I receive not honour from men.

    42. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

    43. I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

    44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

    45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

    46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

    47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

    In verse 45 we need to pay attention the language being used. Accuser is equivalent to Satan… So, if we read it now with Accuser interchanged with Satan: “Do you think that I will be Satan to you before the Father: there is one that is Satan to you, even Moses, in whom you trust.”

    If Moses was an Accuser/Satan how did Jesus feel about him?

    The Jews confront Jesus:

    30. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

    31. Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

    Pay attention to how Jesus responds to them:

    32. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

    33. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

    34. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

    35. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

    “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you ‘not’ that bread from heaven…”

    I guess then Moses lied?

    Jesus then defines God and himself:

    36. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

    37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

    38. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

    39. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

    40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

    41. The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

    42. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

    43. Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

    44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

    45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

    46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

    47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

    Bread is the same as Flesh, Word or Sperm (DNA).

    48. I am that bread of life.

    49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

    50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

    51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

    52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

    53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

    54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

    56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

    57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

    58. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

    59. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

    Notice how Jesus refers to the Father’s of the Jews, “…not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead…” Again reiterating Moses being a liar along with the Jews and their Father’s.

    John Ch. 7 vs. 1-7

    1. After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

    2. Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand.

    3. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

    4. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

    5. For neither did his brethren believe in him.

    6. Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.

    7. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

    This is important to understand that ‘The World’ (Mans Socio-economic System) and their works are Evil. This language is enough to contradict Paul’s opinion if Worldly Government in Romans 13.

    This discussion I will discuss later.

    John Ch. 7 vs. 8-19

    8. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

    9. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.

    10. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

    11. Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?

    12. And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people.

    13. Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.

    14. Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.

    15. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

    16. Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

    17. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

    18. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

    19. Did not Moses/The Accuser/Satan give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

    Here it needs to pharsed in the context that the language is being spoken or used: “If Moses (being a liar) gave you the Law, and none of you (being liars) keep the Law?”

    Then Jesus openly apposes and confronts the Jews with their reflection in the next question to publicly humiliate them: “…Why go about seeking to Kill me?”

    It is funny that people immediately attack a person’s character when they cannot defeat his words.

    Of course at this point the Jews can only defend themselves by responding publicly trying to disgrace him and ruin his credibility:

    John Ch. 7 vs. 20-27

    20. The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?

    21. Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.

    22. Moses/ The Accuser/Satan therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

    23. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses/The Accuser/Satan should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

    24. Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

    25. Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill?

    26. But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?

    27. Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.

    The Jews cannot budge him. I want to take the time to state that the term Jew first appeared in 441 BC in the city of Alexandria to denote those that were Jewish by blood but were spiritually Hellenized.

    KJV 1611 Bible the term Pharisee refers to an Essene and Jew refers to a Hellenized Priest from Jerusalem.

    Galilee refers to a Gentile Settlement and territory.

    After the Jews try to discredit him, Jesus cannot take their hypocrisy any longer…

    John Ch. 7 vs. 28-35

    28. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.

    29. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

    30. Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.

    31. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?

    32. The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him.

    33. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me.

    34. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.

    35. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

    The concern here is that Non Bloodline Jews would have equal say in the temple Jesus being of Jewish Blood and Gentile Blood.

    Refer to Isaiah Ch. 9 vs. 1-2

    John Ch. 7 vs. 36-50

    36. What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come?

    37. In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

    38. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

    39. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

    40. Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.

    41. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?

    42. Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

    43. So there was a division among the people because of him.

    44. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.

    45. Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?

    46. The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.

    47. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?

    48. Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?

    49. But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

    Notice here the Law in question and he who knows it not is Cursed.

    50. Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,)

    The reference of going to Jesus in the night is a Gentile practice because of the inherent adverse condition to sunlight. And the nocturnal practices of the Gentiles, in this case a specific bloodline of Gentiles.

    John Ch. 7 vs. 51-53

    51. Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?

    52. They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.

    53. And every man went unto his own house.

    Obviously the Bloodline Jews and Religious Pharisees were in agreement that Gentiles were lesser beings and oft times referred to as Dogs in the scriptures.

    John Ch. 8 vs. 31-33

    31. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

    32. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

    33. They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

    The Jews here attempt to use their supposed Genealogy against Jesus

    John Ch. 8 vs. 34-37

    34. Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

    35. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

    36. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

    37. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word / bread / sperm / DNA hath no place in you.

    Jesus agrees that they are the seed of Abraham and that Abraham was not an Israelite, he was a Hittite / Iraqi / Arabic descent.

    (I am not saying that Arabic / Iraqi people are of Evil or lesser bloodlines… I am merely making distinctions of Bloodline to be clear… I will discuss this entirely different bloodline later in [Part Six]of ‘Why Jehovah is the Devil’.)

    Jesus then responds with, “…because my word hath no place in you.”

    This is a rebuttal to the Genealogical attack made by the descendent’s of Abraham… Remember ‘Word’, in the Scripture is synonymous with Flesh / Sperm / Bread (DNA).

    Interchanging ‘Word’ with any of the other descriptive choices Like, because my bread / Sperm / DNA has no place in you.

    John Ch. 8 vs. 38-40

    38. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

    39. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

    40. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

    Jesus makes it clear that Abraham did not tell the truth because he could not hear God.

    Here the Jews defend their Ego driven spiritual superiority:

    John Ch. 8 vs. 41

    41. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

    Jesus then responds:

    John Ch. 8 vs. 42-43

    42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

    43. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

    This was a Jab at their ignorance because they do not have the Ears to Hear. Which was an insult against the Jews in-ability to discern truth and scripture concerning genealogical meanings.

    Jesus finally drives it home slamming them and their father Jehovah:

    John Ch. 8 vs. 44

    44. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    Jesus then explains that you must have the DNA of God to hear him. Remember here also the word Sin is an Old English used during archery events, meaning ‘Off Target’. In a Genealogical sense it can be applied as separated or unrelated.

    John Ch. 8 vs. 45-47

    45. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

    46. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

    47. He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

    Now the Jews try to save face and take a cheap shot at Jesus and his family Tree.

    John Ch. 8 vs. 48-55

    48. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

    49. Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.

    50. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

    51. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

    Unable to dent Jesus’ family Tree, they attack his Character…

    52. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

    53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

    54. Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

    55. Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

    It is clear by now that Jesus has not only called Moses, Abraham and the Jews a liar but offspring of the Devil, Jehovah.

    None of them have any relation to God what so ever but now we take a detour I am not sure how deliberate it is but it would seem to me that somebody wanted to blur the facts at this point I can only guess, hoping to obscure what the hell Jesus was actually talking about…

    To only add to the confusion:

    John Ch. 8 vs. 56-59

    56. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

    57. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

    58. Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

    59. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

    Now what the Hell happened?

    It is relatively easy to explain there was a Patriarchal seat called the ‘Abraham’ and in order to speak with him in the Temple you had to be at least 50 years old At this point Jesus is around 44 years old so it is obvious that he is not old enough for the Patriarchal father of the Community to have spoken to him in the Temple Much less rejoice.

    The passing through was because Jesus was under the protection and Authority of the ‘Father’ of the Community and hadn’t yet finished his initiation… So he could not be touched, yet.

    Continued- Part Two

  19. Joe said

    Again, I’m no theologian…but, I’m not buying it. Are you the head of a church, Thomas? Is it a growing church? Tell me about it. I am interested. Still not sure if I call this proof or not. Sounds way too out there.

  20. jAsOn said

    I’m sorry for the pointedness of my condemnation, but you don’t know how to read a book if you think John in 5:45 means the translation you provided. You have avoided my questions of you ability to converse rationally, and I believe that you do so because you have no intention of being rational, if fact you have rejected the notion that God has spoken and we can know what He has said.

    Matthew 10:”13 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. 15 Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.”

    I will no long speak to you until you decide to respond in a logical fashion…btw, you never responded to the email I sent you.

  21. John said

    King Thomas, all of this sounds odd coming from a man who, on his website, said “F*** the gods, and F*** Jehovah!”
    I’d never dare to do such a thing, and I’m not even a subject of this deity!Surely you must realize that you’re coming off as a weirdo, not that that’s all bad, mind you, as we are all weird in our own ways.But you should know enough about people that if you throw words like elves, dragon, ring, king,and vampire all together in your replies, that “most normal” people are gonna think “Wow. This guy’s mind is trapped in a game of Dungeons and Dragons.”, or something.
    I may be wrong.We will see.

  22. Tripp said

    While this is all very fascinating & interesting…I’m curious to ask Thomas a few questions just so I can understand where he’s coming from. Thomas – Do you profess to being a Christian? Do you believe in the Crucifixion and the Resurrection? Do you believe that you will go to Heaven when you die and how do you believe that is possible? Would you mind answering these questions, please?

  23. Jeff Duncan said

    Thomas – you are most definitely a study in contradictions.

    This is downright blasphemous:
    “…I will discuss this entirely different bloodline later in [Part Six]of ‘Why Jehovah is the Devil’.)”

    Please explain how you can claim to be of the Tribe of both Dan and Benjamin, as well as Merovingian. I would like to know how you came to that discovery.

  24. ADB said

    Good ole’ gnosticism warmed over again after 1900 years. I normally try not to be too judging, but this exact stuff was considered heretical as early as John’s gospel and epistles at the end of the first century. Goes to show that the saying is true that “there is no such thing as a new heresy.”

    A curmudgeonly pastor:)

  25. Mike Sears said

    A good rebuke from our resident wiccan. Good advice John! And Merry Christmas to you!! Mike

  26. Nick said

    This may help people understand where King Thomas is coming from.

    Elven Holocaust

    I think it’s something you need to really research before you can judge the material.

    It has validity. And just because Americans are so skeptical doesn’t mean the world is. What I mean to say, if you’re at a Pub in America and you say, I’m a communist, you’re liable to get your lights punched out. Although, if you’re in a Pub in Europe somewhere, you’re liable to make a friend and great conversation.

    It’s all Perspective.

  27. jAsOn said

    I agree with Nick that we need to understand where one is coming from so we can present the truth to them in a context to which they can relate, but we also must remember that popular opinion doesn’t determine what is true, and that the Truth is absolute. John 14:”6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

    As far as judging the material goes:

    When trying to prove something with no historical validity at all, the first thing that one must attempt to do is convince his audience that all historical documents which make statements contrary to his position are suspect because they are contrived by their authors desire is, not to record what has happened, but to edit the record of events so as to highlight the events that elevate the historians position and diminish events that condemn the historian. As an aside, if this were the only test for the validity of an historical document, then we can look at the Bible and expect its historical validity because of its sheer honesty about the lives it records.

    Secondly, we have yet to hear Thomas even represent the position on the above link (post #26) head on; he has talked over it and around it, but not about it.

    In the document there are several misunderstandings of church history (or history at all) and the intentions of the church in that time. Apparently, elves, fairies, and mediums and witches are nearly synonymous, and the church has been involved in their “genocide” as a “race”. We must note that to call mediums a race, people or nation would be fallacious. Even the United Nations definition of genocide (which was quoted in the article) is a poor one. To begin the article with a statement that says that etymology is part of the study of history, and then go on to say that the systematic eradication of those who claim to speak with the dead is genocide is confusing at best. The word genocide is a combination of two different Latin words: geno (or genus) meaning race, kind, birth, offspring, and cide which means to kill. Saul of Tarsus and later, Nero both tried to eradicate the members of the church, but it does damage to language to refer to those actions as “genocide”.

    Another thing to note is that, even though the persons and institutions representing the church (we call this the visible church) have done terrible things in the past, because none of us is perfect and those who claim to be Christians are not all redeemed. Unlike the way it was represented in the article, the Word of God demands that we do not try to communicate with those who have died. The charge that this is what we do when we pray to God, through Christ our mediator, is not accurate, because Christ is not dead, He died and rose, and ascended to the right hand of the Father.

  28. Joe said

    Hey Nick – I looked over this Eleven Holocaust document. Seriously, where do you guys get this stuff? Is it even the least bit relevant in today’s society? Shouldn’t we focus all our attention on Christ and fulfilling His Great Commission? I mean, I’m trying to decide between Huck and Thompson and you guys are really distracting me here.

  29. Anonymous said

    Beware the false prophets.

  30. F. L. A. said


  31. jAsOn said

    Hi John,

    I just realized who you are, you were on the show some time back right? I just wanted to say, though our world views differ on a multitude of very important levels :), that I am glad you are still a part of all these various conversations; I’m certain that this forum is more a “marketplace of ideas” because of your presence, so we all can hopefully have meaningful discourse (and I must add, to the glory of God).

  32. John said

    Hello, JAsON.
    The feeling is mutual. I have been here since Stu E. had me on his show for the Interview With A Wiccan site.And now, like a cold virus in a school building, I’m all over the darn place.
    I try not to be too much of a roaring pain.
    Aside for amusement,I come here to study all of you as theological test subjects, and expected the same from you all in return.This dose not mean that I haven’t grown rather fond of some of you, because I have, and in fact have a handful of favorites.From the very start I was not expecting agreement or acceptance of any kind, as my ways are alien and considered sacrilegious to your ways by many in the Christian faith.But it feels good to be appreciated,for whatever reason, and I give you my gratitude for that.I and a few others within my little tribe would truly miss not being able to come here to this interesting “marketplace of ideas”.
    I hope I don’t come off as sounding too “cold”.If so, then sorry.
    I never did have a very easy way with humans.

  33. ADB said


    You are a welcome contributor. You sound like someone who realizes that there is just so much that we do not understand, and appreciate your input (and occasionally agree with it!)

  34. About Jesus.

    Jesus is the ‘only begotten’ son of God. This is a figure of speech in the era of the birth of messianic Faith. As all ‘first born’ Sons are considered the ‘Only Begotten’ but does not mean they are the only child.

    While Jesus was anointed hence the title, ‘Messiah’ there were other’s anointed messiah as well. James the Just was anointed Messiah in his own right even having disciples himself.

    Today in the modern Pauline churches we find the term being thrown around randomly and in reckless fashion. While I could write an entire treatise on that subject there is only one term in particular I would like to draw to light, the Anointing.

    Many Christians claim to be Anointed by God… this is dangerous language as we are warned in Matthew to beware of people claiming to be Messiah. If a person claims to be anointed they are saying that they are the Messiah. As Messiah means, ‘Anointed one’.

    Many Churches claim that Jesus is in their church or in their home but again in Matthew we are warned that, that is false and not believe them.

    What do I believe about Jesus?

    That he is the first born of many brethren. I too am a Son of God… Not that I claim any title of Messiah, never would I do that neither dare I claim some fictitious Anointing from God as that would make me every bit as false as the false church.

    Jesus is my Lord and King. His capacity to save me is limited to my perspective to receive. And that is multi-faceted in us all, at least those of us that are always growing, learning and changing.

    I do not claim him to Be God in the Flesh alone. As the brethren are all Son’s of God just not the first born. That Jesus not only symbolically came to redeem my flesh but that he literally came to save it in our DNA. That he fostered a New creation and family literally on Planet Earth. That Jesus is a Literal King and Priest not just symbolic for biblical sake. That Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and they fostered a New Royal family of God on planet Earth.

    Another figure of speech used to denote children being born is the reference in the Gospel about hundred fold blessing. “…Some thrirty, some sixty and some a hundred fold…” is actually a genealogical reference to birthing children in a family unit.

    When Jesus exclaimed this he was declaring his Joy over the blessing of Mary Magdelene’s Womb. The throne of God is his Mother’s lap.

    You can argue that Jesus wasn’t married but I assure you that while the scripture never plainly addresses the issue they never plainly address that he wasn’t either.

    Do any of you believe that having a wife, children or a family to be Evil, a sin or unclean?

    What right do we have to make such arrogantly bold assertions that we cannot truly know beyond the tingly’s in your heart as so..?

    So, it is not blasphemous to think or believe that Jesus fell in Love with woman and they produced children. Unless you think woman are only saved through their child bearing as Paul asserts. I do not believe nor I condone the false teaching of the fallen nature of man or the posting of blame for my short comings on woman.

    It is most often true in in ancient writing’s that when a male author bashes woman they are most often homosexual. As they like Paul feel inferior to women unless they submit themselves like an animal to a man.

    Do you realize how much violence and abuse towards woman is justified by the teaching’s of Paul? It is disgusting.

    Besides many of you do not even follow his ideals or ‘His’ Gospel. Such Woman should be silent in Church and with their head covered in the church.

    Jehovah kicked the Shekinah out of the Temple… That is why so many Rabbinical teachings’s chastise Jehovah for kicking his wife out of the Temple…

    Blasphemy is declaring your truth above another and destroying any free thought by use of fear. When a Demon comes out of person it is never accomplished by commanding them in the ‘Name of Jesus’… It is done by one thing and one thing only… It always works and is sure to silence the Devil himself… LOVE.

    Although, I do not believe in the DEVIL in the sense that I do not separate him from Jehovah. What better way to win against God but by convincing God’s creation that he is God.

    God does not need to threaten me to believe him not respect him. He Loves me and that is enough.

    Or do you not consider that Mary the mother of Jesus was no older that sixteen when she was betrothed the Joseph..?

    So old testy (Jehovah) being a mean loud mouth bully finally knocks up and under aged teenage girl and finally decides he better have Mercy and Grace rather than Judgment and Severity..?

    That almost makes Jehovah a pedophile and Sex offender… Wow, it does in our world and Law does it not?

    Jesus is not only God but all his brethren(Family) are God incarnate.

    Or who do you think are the 144,000 thousand Son’s of God and the 144,000 thousand Maidens in Revelation?

    Take a moment and consider, what if you are all wrong and the church is apostate… What would that mean?

    Because if this is the ‘End Time’ then you cannot blame the Catholic’s alone as being apostate for that would be ignorant.

    Rather that the very elect may be deceived…

  35. Forgive the typo’s as I am attempting multi-task and I did not look it over before I posted it.

  36. John said

    Thank you, ADB.

    King Thomas, if what you think is true, then tell us if you can,
    where are the descendants of Jesus and Mary RIGHT NOW ????

  37. Anonymous1 said

    Thomas – You haven’t answered any questions about your church and if you believe you are going to heaven when you die. In fact, you haven’t answered hardly any of the questions. Your statements borderline on the bizarre and quite frankly, sound completely ludicrous. You’ve offered zero proof concerning the information you reference and claim to be true. Where is Brad when we need him?

  38. I’m one…

    Although I would like to say there millions and less hundreds of thousands but I cannot even say hundreds.

    How about .03% of the Human population are descendent’s of Jhesus-Mariah.

    It just so happen’s that I am lucky enough to know my Genealogy on my father’s side because it’s of Royal & Public record. On my mother’s side it’s little more obscure finding the proof but I have without too much out of my pocket book. Of course, you will disbelieve me but I don’t care about that.

    The ‘Kelly’ family is well documented publicly but my Mother’s family is little more protected in the matter much as Lady Diana is distant relative of mine… But I bet until here recently due to the media clamor you didn’t even know she was a Jew.

    Joan of Arch is my cousin as well… As my family is from a region of France which at one time was part of what was known as the ‘Jewish Quarter’ under the headship of Godroi de Bullion King of France and Jerusalem.

    And even at the sheer dis-enchantment (by many of the ilk involved) that was caused when it was brought before the Late Grand master Martin Lunn of the Dragon Society… Of which by acceptance of: A Knight of the Dragon Society.

    It costs, thousands of dollars to buy your genealogical information and family history…

    So, I can direct you to my pay-pal account if you would like to purchase a summary copy of my proof… $69.99 USD+tax if applicable.

  39. My Church…

    Heaven, as I stated in a previous somewhere on this site under a different topic title, is a state of being.

    We are accountable to create Heaven or allow Hell to persist. God does not make Hell or Heaven… As they both pass away and are not eternal concepts.

    “…Heaven and Earth Pass away but Words/DNA will never pass away…”

    As the Essenes and Naz-Aryans (Like Jesus) were before me, I will be reincarnated.

    Not everyone is reincarnated… Only those that possess the DNA of God are eternal.

  40. Mike Sears said

    What a hoot! Now we’re selling geneologies? I don’t need one to know that I am a wretched sinner in need of a savior. And I don’t need a geneology to know that I am a Child of God, thanks to what Jesus did!! 1John 3:1 Merry Christmas!

  41. Mike Sears said

    Do you follow Eckhart Tolle as well?

  42. Oh this wicked generation seek for a sign… Some proof of the eternal… Some fact of the Divine.

    That’s not how Faith works neither does that work with Magik as Faith and Magik are purely genetic attributes of the divinely qualified.

    You search the scriptures because in them you think you will find eternal life…


    Jesus has the literal answer… It’s in your DNA… But only time will prove it… Of which Mankind has very little of because they lack the DNA of God.

    You are afraid to apply Science to your Faith because it decimate it but if you had the Truth Science would only follow suit of your Faith.

    Is God with in or With out?

    Did God create creation or did creation create God?

    Dates from history sure do not fit the Bible Chronology but if you fit the Bible into history… It is surprising how many things suddenly line up and make sense…


    HRH Prince Nicholas de Vere

    Ahmed Osmen

    Robert Eisenmen

    To name few references in my library of study… And I have read most of their material avidly and non-stop.

  43. John said

    And to think, I didn’t think that there was absolute proof that Jesus as we know of him actually existed.
    Thanks for clearing that all up for me.I guess we should feel honored, huh.Strangely, your claim does not surprise me at all.

    I like the sales pitch at the end.Does Nick get a cut?

    You should have known better.

    Now, assuming that your NOT just some con-man…….
    Thomas, we all need to feel needed, to feel wanted, respected,and important.This is natural and understandable.But there is no need to go to such an extreme.I personally was willing to accept the possibility that you were descended from some ancient royal bloodline of the Merovingians,or something.
    It would not have been impossible.But your claim.Come ON………! It would be like me claiming to be Merlin, only worse, because you’re trying to make some money off the claim.
    I would like to assume that Jesus wouldn’t approve of such a thing, what with the scene he caused at that temple, and all.You know what I’m talking about[or should].Sometimes we can lie to ourselves, good enough, long enough, until we believe it.Is this what you did with your ancestry?Because you felt a little…insignificant in some way? If so, then tell us a.s.a.p.! It can be forgiven, in time.I’m sure.
    As for now, though, you’ve just unintentionally [?] made yourself look like a complete B.S.Artist.

  44. “So, I can direct you to my pay-pal account if you would like to purchase a summary copy of my proof… $69.99 USD+tax if applicable.”

    Mr. Sears,

    That is what you call a Joke all betwixt a smart remark…

    Did I need to apply “LOL!” or “Ha ha” at the end of that comment?

  45. F. L. A. said


  46. John your so right about that… Then I would be like every other flaky Wiccan writer out there… Read a bunch of books and rehash old subject matter… Then Print.

    Wow… “How to practice Earth Magik Dragon Style!”

    I assure you, I have nothing for sale as I my Vow requires that I own nothing…

    I am like my forefathers before me… Naz-Aryan, and I vowed, shaved my head and refuse to cut my hair, until I see my Vision fulfilled..

  47. Anonymous1 said

    Just when I thought I had heard it all. Thomas – do you believe the accuracy of the Four Gospels? What do you do for a living? No wait…you’re a king, right? Seriously, why is this nut job even allowed to post this rubbish?

  48. Joe said

    Oh boy, here we go. Our little Christian blog is gonna turn into the Gnostics vs. the Wiccans. HAHAHAH! Go get him, John.

  49. Moderator (not Stu) said

    Hello Anonymous1 – Please refrain from mindless name calling. Let’s debate intelligently and freely here. Anyone is allowed to post, unless they post profanity, obscenity and vulgarity….or links to sites that contain these things. We’ve allowed it once because we felt it was relevant to the conversation. Otherwise, we won’t. Name calling serves no purpose here. This is America and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, be it Christian, Mormon, Wiccan, Gnostic, Jehovah’s Witness, etc. This forum’s purpose is to exist as an extension of the radio show and provide us with an outlet to discuss and debate. Merry Christmas, everyone! Yuletide Greetings to our friends, John & company. Thank you – Moderator (not Stu)

  50. John said

    Befor I go to bed, I apologize for my implied dirty words in my post to King Thomas.I really didn’t think at the time that that sales pitch he made was meant in jest.
    King Thomas, what exactly was I right about pertaining to you?
    Joe…..later on, maybe.

  51. John said

    Alright, just for arguments sake, let’s go with this.
    Thomas, you stated that your family line on your fathers side was
    on Royal and Public record, which somehow confirmed that you were the great, great,+1,000[?]grand nephew,son, whatever, of Jesus the Christ.Right? Where can WE go to see such Royal and Public records?Many Christians that I talk to don’t think that Jesus had any descendants.By himself or any of his siblings.Some that I’ve debated with don’t even think he had any blood siblings.
    Seems like these records would be a really big deal in the theological community, so why haven’t we “little people” heard anything about this?Nobody ELSE ever claimed that Joan of Arch was related to Jesus.How do you know that you weren’t tricked in some way by your sources?
    What do vampires have to do with any of this?Are there some of those in your bloodlines,or something?I imagine it would tie in nicely with all that talk about being reborn and eternal life, and stuff.You’re standing in the sunlight on your web sight,so……….?
    If your claims are true, it matters not to me anyway, being a Pagan.Pagan mythology has untold numbers of tales about Demigods/goddesses and their children, so, big deal[for someone like ME anyway].It would just mess things up for Christianity.
    Which leads me to ask why you came hear to this site to tell all of us about this stuff.What was your motivation?
    Just bragging?
    Are you being stalked by a big albino monk?[grin]
    Although I don’t claim to have the DNA of a deity[except perhaps in the most LIBERAL way possible]I work Magick, so I must be “divinely qualified” too!
    Maybe we can swap techniques,eh?
    Please answer my questions Thomas.

  52. Nick said

    The dividing line between Paul and Jesus begins right here.

    (I though it appropiate for this thread and the season. So, with a package of thought and concern wrapped with a bow, Merry Christmas)

    Laurence Gardner
    Author of ‘Bloodline of the Holy Grail’

    States in his lecture,

    “The nativity story itself provides a good example. Itís widely accepted, and the Christmas cards keep telling us that Jesus was born in a stable. The gospels donít say that. There is no stable mentioned in any authorized gospel. The nativity is not mentioned at all in Mark or John, and Matthew says quite plainly that Jesus was born in a house.

    So where did the stable come from? It came from a misinterpretation, really, of the Gospel of Luke which relates that Jesus was laid in a manger-not born, but laid-and a manger was then, and still is, nothing more than an animal feeding box. One only has to study society history of the time to recognize the fact that it was perfectly common for mangers to be used as cradles, and they were often brought indoors for that very purpose.

    So why has it been presumed that this particular manger was in a stable? Because the English translations of Luke tell us that there was no room in the inn. Must then have been in a stable! But the pre-English translations of Luke donít talk about any inn; the manuscript of Luke does not say there was no room in the inn. In fact, there were no inns in the East in those days. There are very few inns there now; and if there are, theyíre illegal! People lodged then in private houses. It was a common way of life. It was called family hospitality. Homes were open for travelers.

    Come to that, if weíre really going to be precise about this, there were no stables in the region, either. In fact, “stable” is a wholly English word and it specifically defines a place for keeping horses; horses of a particular stable. Who on earth rode around on horses in Judaea? Oxen, camels; the odd Roman officer might have had a horse, but even the mules and the oxen, if kept under cover, would have been kept under some sort of a shed or out-house, not in a stable.

    As for the mythical inn, the Greek text actually does not say there was no room at the inn. By the best translation it actually states that there was no provision in the room. As mentioned in Matthew, Jesus was born in a house and, as correctly translated, Luke reveals that Jesus was laid in a manger, an animal feeding box, because there was no cradle provided in the room.

    If we’re on the subject of Jesus’ birth, I think we ought to look at the chronology here, because this is important as well; because the gospels, the two gospels that deal with the nativity, actually give us two completely different dates for the event.

    According to Matthew, Jesus was born in the reign of King Herod, Herod the Great, who debated the event with the Magi and ordered the slaying of the infants. Well, Herod died in 4 BC, and we know from Matthew that Jesus was born before that. And because of that, most standard concordant Bibles and history books imply that Jesusí date of birth was 5 BC, because that is before 4 BC and Herod was still reigning, so thatís a good date.

    But in Luke, a completely different date is given. Luke doesnít tell us about King Herod or anything like that. Luke says that Jesus was born while Cyrenius was Governor of Syria, the same year that the Emperor Augustus implemented the national census, the census which Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be a part of.

    There are relevant points to mention here, and they are both recorded in the first-century Jewish annals (such as The Antiquities of the Jews). Cyrenius was appointed Governor of Syria in AD 6. This was the very year recorded of the national census, put into operation by Cyrenius and ordered by Emperor Augustus. As Luke tells us, it was the first and only ever recorded census for the region.

    So Jesus was born before 4 BC and in AD 6. Is this a mistake? No, not necessarily, because in the way it was originally portrayed weíre actually looking at two quite specific births.

    Both gospels are correct. Were looking at Jesus physical birth, and were looking at Jesus community birth. These were defined at the time as the first and second births, and they applied specifically to people of particular groups and certainly to dynastic heirs.

    Second births for boys were performed by way of a ritual of rebirth. It was very physical: they were wrapped in swaddling clothes and born again from their motherís womb. It was a physical ceremony. Second births for boys took place at the age of twelve.

    So we know that Jesus was twelve in AD 6. Unfortunately, the latter-day transcribers of Luke completely missed the significance of this, and it was their endeavor to somehow tie in this event about swaddling clothes and being born then, that led to this mention of the nonsense about the stable.

    So if Jesus was twelve in AD 6, this means that he was born in 7 BC, which ties in perfectly well with the Matthew account that he was born during the latter reign of King Herod.

    But we now discover what appears to be another anomaly, because Luke says later in the gospel that when Jesus was twelve years old, his parents, Mary and Joseph, took him to Jerusalem for the day. They then left the city to walk home for a full dayís journey with their friends before they realized that Jesus was not in their party. They then returned to Jerusalem to find him at the temple, discussing his fatherís business with the doctors. Well, what sort of parents can wander for a whole day in the desert, without knowing their twelve-year-old sonís not there?

    The fact is that the whole point of the passage has been missed. There was a wealth of difference between a twelve-year-old son and a son in his twelfth year. When a son, on completing his initial twelve years-that is to say, when he was actually on his thirteenth birthday-was initiated into the community at the ceremony of his second birth, he was regarded as commencing his first year. It was the original root of the modern bar mitzvah. His next initiation, the initiation of manhood in the community, took place in his ninth year, when he was twenty-one-the root of the age-twenty-one privilege. Various degrees followed, and the next major test was in his twelfth year-at the end of his twelfth year, at the age of twenty-four, on his twenty-fourth birthday. When Jesus remained at the temple in his twelfth year, he was actually twenty-four. Not surprising that they expected him not perhaps to be wandering around the desert with them!

    So his discussion with the doctors related to his next degree. He would have discussed this at the time with the spiritual father, the father of the community; and indeed, he did. It was the fatherís business he discussed; his fatherís business. The father of this era is recorded. The spiritual father of the community at that time was Simeon the Essene, and if we look back a few verses in Luke we see that it was exactly this man, the just and devout Simeon, who legitimated Jesus under the law.”

  53. Nick said

    If you would like read the entire Lecture click link below:

    The Full Lecture

  54. John said

    That IS interesting.
    Nick, did you remember before advising that site that it led to other links which alleged that the Merovingians[of whom King Thomas says he’s descended from in post#9, among others,some non-human like the semi-divine Tuatha de Danaan Fairy race of Ireland]where a Satanic bloodline?I explored through 4 links from the one you mentioned above through words like “family”, “Antichrist”, and “bloodlines” and all this info on it just popped up.OOPS![smile]
    If I’ve somehow misinterpreted this information, then please let me know how, because it looks pretty self-incriminating for Thomas.And the person who gave that lecture is also accused of shape-shifting into a reptilian monster[!?] and participating in human sacrifice[!], on another related link.
    This doesn’t help your case very well, Nick.You should know that people here will use these kind of things to judge you guys in a….. less than favorable light.

  55. Tripp said

    I, for one, don’t need to judge on this one. I can sum it up in one, hyphenated, word.

    Poppy – Cock!!!

  56. Nick said

    Whether people accuse other’s or not, does it change who or what they are?

    What kind person are you, the kind that throw stones, like Peter? Who later, when confronted by the Authorities, denied even knowing Jesus??

    Of Course, unless you are like the Christian cattle seeking after

    “…Smooth sayings…”

    It’s funny, many of you demand proof yet, when anything is presented all you can do is scoff at it..? Or maybe, you decide to attack a persons personal weakness..? Why, becasue you do not know any other way to respond? I’ve been watching the bigotry, arrogance and sheer audacity of some of the people responding.

    Anonymously even?

    Again, Judge the material and not the people behind it> Better Judge with ‘Righteous Judgement’ as Jesus instructs.

    I personally, find it rather insulting after God went through all the trouble to design a brain (As complex as it is), and people would choose to remain ignorant.

    Remember, God will forsake the ‘ninety nine’ loyal sheep for the ‘One’ that Rebels.

    Rebellion is not bad, it’s what your rebelling against that matters.

    It’s amazing, when did many of quit learning? How can you say, you have it all right?

    Because your Priest say’s so?

    The Majority say’s so?

    Because of the ecstatic states you experience while in prayer?

    It’s not that Jesus Died for you, or do you not get it?

    It’s that Jesus lived for you.

    This whole issue, I blame on Paul.

    Or when did intelligence become seperate from God that people would quit questioning?

    Why do you continue to crucify Jesus, maybe you do not understand my reasoning??

    Mankind is, I must admit, trully dim-witted.

  57. Beth said

    What you are promoting here is simple. You are promoting a cult and/or occultism. The Scriptures are very clear on this.

  58. Paulinian said

    I’m from a different spectrum – I would say the Church doesn’t emphasize Paul’s epistles enough 🙂

    Classic Pauline Dispensationalism – http://www.WithChrist.org

    Merry Christmas! Even though Christ wasn’t born on December 25th 🙂

  59. Joe said

    Aha!!!! Here we go! Let the debate re-begin!!!! Welcome, Paulinian.

  60. John said

    But Nick, did I lie? Well? Did I?
    I told you in my last reply that if I had somehow misinterpreted the information to let me know how. You did not.
    I was not trying to cast stones at you, to be rude.It wasn’t as if the other people here never could have found that stuff on their own.Right?
    It’s just confusing to me that you and King Thomas keep recommending websites to back up your claims that have so much self incriminating stuff.
    “Or when did intelligence become separate from God that people would quit questioning?”-YOU
    Well, I am.Did you expect easier, dumber, questions and replies?
    If you’re going to swim with sharks,then you should prepare to get bitten at times, Nick. It happens to us all, sooner or later.
    No need to get all upset over it.I actually like you and Thomas because I think you’re both really weird, and this makes you all the more interesting and valuable to me.When King Thomas declared that he was related to Jesus, I was like”Alright! What a test subject he’ll be! What to ask him?”
    He’s been rather quiet of late.I want some answers from him.
    That make some sense, that is.

  61. Paulinian said

    The Lord Jesus, as Israel’s Messiah in His pre-Cross humiliation, “went about all Galilee, teaching in their [Israel’s] synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Matthew 4:23). It was at this time that He sat upon the mountainside and taught His disciples the Sermon on the Mount.

    The Lord Jesus Christ, after the Cross and in His ascension glory as Head and Life, ministered His “glorious Gospel of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:4) to His Body–and He did it through Paul. “I want you to know brothers, that the Gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11,12). “…I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven” (Acts 26:19).

    Not one of the apostles or disciples taught the Gospel of the kingdom, or any other gospel, to Paul. The “glorious Gospel of Christ,” of and to the Church, had been hidden in God–it was not in any of the Scriptures–until the glorified Bridegroom presented it to His Bride, through Paul.

    Dr. William R. Newell presents clearly the new-creation difference between the Lord Jesus as Messiah speaking to His earthly people, Israel, and the glorified Lord Jesus Christ as Head speaking to His heavenly Body. “He is the Head of the Body, the Church; He is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead…” (Colossians 1:18).

    “There are two great revelators, or unfolders of Divine Truth in the Bible–Moses in the Old Testament, and Paul in the New Testament. Some may ask, “Is not Jesus the Great Teacher?” In a sense that is true, but actually He is the Person taught about, rather than teaching, in the Gospel. The Law and the prophets pointed forward to Him; the Epistles point up to Him; and the Revelation points to His second coming, and those things connected with it. The Lord Jesus Christ, therefore, is the theme of the Bible.

    Unto none of the Twelve Apostles did God directly reveal the great body of doctrine for this dispensation. Just as He chose Moses to be the revelator to Israel of the Ten Commandments and all connected with the Law dispensation, so He chose Saul of Tarsus to be the unfolder of those mighty truths connected with our Lord’s death, burial, resurrection and His ascended Person. And all the “mysteries,” revealed to the Church in this dispensation by the Holy Spirit in the Word, are set forth by Paul. Finally, Paul is the revelator of that great company of God’s elect, called the Church, the Body of Christ, which is also His Bride–members of the Lord Jesus Himself.

    Paul is the glorified Lord Jesus’ declarer of the Gospel to us. Take his thirteen Epistles of Romans to Philemon out of the Bible and you are bereft of Christian doctrine. If you were to take Paul’s Epistles from the Word, you could not find anything about the Church, the Body of Christ, for none of the Apostles mention that Body.

    You could not find the exact meaning of any of the great doctrines, such as: 1) Justification, 2) Redemption, 3) Propitiation, 4) Reconciliation, 5) Identification, or 6) Sanctification. You could not find what is perhaps the most tremendous fact of every Christian’s life, that of his personal union with the Lord Jesus Christ in glory.

    Saul already stood in clearer light regarding the Risen Lord than did the other apostles; for they had known Him primarily in His humiliation, and they were His messengers to Israel, of whom is Christ according to His “human ancestry” (Romans 9:5). But Paul’s first vision of Christ was as the Glorified One, the Son of God, in ascension glory.

    The concept of the Lord Jesus in Paul’s Epistles is one of constant, unspeakable glory. We do not mean that the other apostles did not recognize the Lord Jesus as the Son of God. They had, long since (Matthew 16:16; John 1:14, etc.). But their first testimony at Jerusalem and to Israel had been more of the Messiahship and Lordship of Jesus, as the Crucified and now risen King, who was ready to return to Israel and set up His kingdom if they would repent (Acts 2:36; 3:19, etc). But Paul received his teaching all from heaven, from the Lord Jesus Christ in glory, rather than on earth in Jewish connections. Paul’s glorious Gospel has nothing Jewish about it.

    You can discern a man’s preaching or teaching by this rule–is he Pauline? Does his doctrine start and finish according to those statements of Christian doctrine written by the glorified Lord Jesus Christ through Paul? No matter how wonderful and popular a man may seem in his gifts and apparent leadership, if his Gospel is not Pauline, it is not the Gospel; and we might as well get our minds settled once and for all as to that.

    Failure or refusal to discern the Pauline Gospel as a separate and new revelation, and not a “development from Judaism,” accounts for most of the confusion in many people’s minds today as regards just what the Gospel is.”
    – Miles Stanford http://www.withChrist.org

    There are other great articles on this website along with notes from other great Christian writers who saw the differences and distinctives in ministry.

    Sincerely and free in Christ,
    the Paulinian

  62. jAsOn said

    John, Nick, Thomas,

    You guys should know that the infomation presented by “the Paulinian” in no way represents orthodox/historical Christianity, and “Dispensationalism” in general was only systematised about 200 years ago. I just didn’t want you guys to think that “the Paulinian” represents all of what calls itself Christianity, and Im not quite sure why he thinks it’s helpful to present Miles Stanford’s (nearly cultic) deviations from scripture in this argument…I’ve read many of them and I have found that he rarely represents the opinions of his critics accurately; he is a very confused man, and he has a tendancy of confusing others with his HIGHLY polemical and pejorative statements;I think that he has very little good to say.

    Thanks, Merry Christmas,


  63. the Paulinian said


    Considering that this thread is based on a belief that Paul corrupted Christ’s message. I believe quotes and statements from classic pauline dispensationalism are appropriate.

    Why are you so personally offended by classic pauline dispensationalism? What is driving you to consider it “nearly cultic”? Especially when you are addressing 3 people that most Christians would consider are “cultic”.

    Covenant theology does not have a monopoly on Biblical truth. It is simply a means of interpreting Scripture. Just like dispensationalism is. And there is no need to promote covenant theology as “orthodox” and “historical”. For it is neither, no more than you would say classic dispensationalism is.

    Stick with the topic at hand. Where I feel classic dispensationalism can be of a help on this thread, I will post comments.

    That being said – Paul the apostle didn’t corrupt the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord gave Paul more revelation concerning His church than any of the other apostles. Our Lord, through Paul, made a great distinction between His heavenly Church in Christ(Paul’s epistiles) and earthly covenant Israel. We should, therefore, keep the two separate. Why does the Church with all its spiritual blessings in heavenly places need earthly covenant Israels earthly blessings based on complete adherence to the Law of Moses? This is the underlying problem of the “word of faith” movement and even of covenant theology. The Church is not national/earthly Israel.

    Some covenant theologians say we are spiritual Israel – then why do you force us to live under earthly Israel’s law based covenant?

    Merry Christmas,
    the Paulinian

  64. ADB said

    Hope all are having a good Christmas Day. Jason made excellent points about dispensationalism I think. IMHO it represents an artificial framework that is imposed upon scripture. The result is reading things into scripture that aren’t there. It is telling that none of the great church leaders of history would have taught anything resembling the dispensationalism of the past couple of hundred years. I don’t want to be argumentative on a holy day, but just wanted to add my two cents worth.

  65. the Paulinian said

    What is the objection to classic dispensationalism? Do not confuse it with ultra/hyper or even traditional dispensationalism. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, yet to proclaim something as “nearly cultic” or as “artificial framework..imposed upon Scripture” would need evidence and rebuttal.

    Also, it is said that December 25th is a “holy day”. By who? Did the church fathers? Paul? Peter? John?

    Could it be that celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25th is an artificial framework imposed on Scripture? Considering none of the Puritans(calvinistic) nor other church leaders celebrated this day as His birthday, seems we have an issue here.

    Hope my point is made. Don’t call one thing artificial and then promote another as “historical” and “holy”.

    the Paulinian

  66. jAsOn said


    I said what I had to regarding any type of dispensationalism on this particular thread. Though we agree with you that Paul never contradicted Jesus, in our discussions with John, Nick and Thomas, you would have VASTLY different things about the continuity of scripture than ADB and I would say…thus I believe your introduction of the “dispensational” category will bring more confusion to the discussion than clarity.

    If you want to continue the discussion regarding the differences between dispensationalism (whatever stripe) and covenent theology, I would gladly do that on another forum, perhaps my blog (click on my name above) or perhaps an older feed where there was a similar conversation https://truthtalklive.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/how-do-you-reach-your-jewish-friends-for-christ/

  67. the Paulinian said

    And I said what I had to say as well jAsOn. Covenant theology is far from being consistant in what it teaches. You promote it as if it was the only means of interpretation since the apostles and that just is not the case. It is “one” of several methods of interpretation. And IMHO, it is a poor choice. But that is my opinion. As is your opinion concerning dispensationalism. I would not venture to say covenant theology is “nearly cultic” however.

    I’ll not get this thread chasing rabbits, but people need to be aware that not all of us are Calvinists, nor reformed, nor covenant in our theology. Yet, according to the Scripture I don’t need to be a calvinist, nor reformed, nor a covenant theology proponent in order to be a born-again Christian.

    take care y’all. To learn more about classic dispensationalism you can visit http://www.withChrist.org or you can read Chafers systematic theology or read Darby’s writings. Oh, and you can also read the apostle Paul’s epistles to the church. It’s all about identification.

    Have a happy and blessed New Year,
    the Paulinian

  68. jAsOn said

    Based on what you have said thus far, regarding covenant theology, you don’t appear to understand what it teaches (this would certainly be true if you gathered your understanding of it from Miles Stanford) but it sounded as though you weren’t interested in discussing it any furhter, is this true?

    I don’t believe that one has to be a calvinist, reformed, or a covenant theologian to be born again, but I do maintain that dispensationalism of any type is aberrent, and the understanding that Darby, Chaffer and Scoffield promoted remains dangerous because of many of the views it holds as a result of its method of interpretation, and if you would like to discuss it further, then you tell me a forum on which we could do so.

  69. the Paulinian said

    Let me say that what I know of Covenant theology and Calvinism, I learned from listening to and reading from R.C.Sproul, Roger Wiles, D.James Kennedy, and for extra “flavor” John MacArthur.

    I compared this to classic pauline dispensationalism and believe the latter to be more in line with Scripture and in harmony with the church epistles.

    The big differences that I can tell between covenant theology and classic dispensationalism are: 1)what the Law is for 2)Israel’s covenant 3)believers identification 4)Israel and the church being separate or one

    There are probably more, but these are ones that stand out to me.

    Free in Him,
    the Paulinian

  70. Nick said

    I think that this may set the stage so, that readers can understand what we are realy dealing with here.

    Many ask me, “Why do you care”?

    I care, even though realizing it may never change anything and for the most part, may even make it worse.

    Yet I try.

    The Greatest Fraud

    by Nicholas de Vere

    The Donation of Constantine first appeared during the 8th century and was a document which purported to recognize the Roman popes as Christ’s representatives on Earth and to donate to Pope Sylvester and the Roman Church all those Imperial powers formerly invested in the Throne of Byzantium.

    The ’Donation’, the Church claimed, was written in the 4th century at the insistence of the emperor Constantine. The Church said that he was so grateful for having been cured of leprosy by Pope Sylvester, that he gave into the Church’s hand the entire power and wealth of the unified Roman Empire, including the right to crown and dethrone kings. Now that is what you call expensive medical insurance.

    Supposedly written before 337 AD – the year of Constantine’s death – the Donation of Constantine actually didn’t make an appearance on the stage of European history until four hundred years later. So far-reaching are the powers bestowed upon the Church by this document, one would have thought that it would have been made public at the time of its bestowal. Not centuries later.

    The provisions of the Donation were enforced in 751 AD following which the Merovingians were deposed by the Church and replaced by their sycophants, the Mayors of the Palace who later became known as the Carolingians. The Church had made a pact with the Mayors and offered to ’recognize’ their legitimacy as rulers if they would dispense with the true Dragon Kings. The deal was done and the Carolingians were made the puppet rulers under the Roman Church.

    The Donation, because it was made by a Dragon King, Constantine, legitimized the Church’s right to take this action. To all intents and purposes they had the authority of Dragon Kingship given up to them by this Charter. No doubt the Merovingians knew this to be a fraud, which is why they refused to recognize the authority of the Church to meddle in affairs of state. What do we learn from this?

    We can see from the Church’s choice of ’benefactor’ that the Church was well aware that universally, only those of the Dragon Blood would be recognized as true kings. Therefore they chose Constantine as he was known to have been descended from both the Britannic PenDragon House and the Dragon House of David. Furthermore he was a member of the Desposyni – the heirs of the Lord – the blood descendants and legitimate representatives of Jesus Christ. In the Donation, it appeared as if Constantine had relinquished his hereditary spiritual position as a Messiah and invested it in the Papacy.

    By suggesting they were the representatives of Christ, the popes were claiming Dragon descent for themselves. It was well known that Jesus had descendants and that they were part of the only Eurasian dynasty which was authorized to be kings – the Elven Overlords or Dragons. It would have appeared to the public then, that in the displacement of the Merovingians, one Dragon dynasty was being replaced by another, albeit a paper one. This reduced any danger of mass unrest. As time passed however, it became uncomfortably clear that the function of kingship under the Merovingians had been entirely different to that under the Carolingians. Whilst the Merovingians had formerly assumed the role of overseers, sages and wise counsellors, the Carolingians and their successors, prompted by the Church, became deliberately poorly educated, ignorant, insensitive tyrants and territorial tradesmen.

    Dragon Kingship and the Grail Code had died to be replaced by a corrupted form of feudal totalitarianism and brutal, economic slavery as the Church carefully and strategically replaced the old dynasties with its own merchant-class client families who, from that day on, became vassals of the Vatican.

    Lastly we learn that from 751 AD the true Dark Age began in earnest. The Elven Holocaust was initiated and would run its course for another thousand years until, in England at least, the witchcraft laws were repealed in 1736. North of the border in Scotland, however, the persecution of witches in the 1700’s was at its fiercest until the end of the century.

    During this time, history has witnessed the rise of the Church of Rome and its successful struggle for power. In time, no dynasty ruled in Europe or remained in power unless the Church sanctioned their reign. The Church chose the royal families, it crowned kings and it deposed its detractors. In short, the Church, under the auspices of the Donation of Constantine was the sole and supreme temporal power in Europe and the known world. Without this purported imperial benefice however, the Church would have remained a marginalized Mediterranean cult contesting for patronage along with a host of other gnostic Christian denominations.

    The royal dynasties, sponsored by the Church and crowned by its Divine Right, instituted their courts and parliaments, passed laws and employed agents to act on their behalf. To all intents and purposes it seemed as if the Church had the absolute right of Dragons and wielded power by the very sanction of Jesus Christ and God.

    No monarch reigning today and no government under the monarch or instituted in their name would enjoy their position if the Church, empowered by the Donation, had not given them permission to rule in the first place. Without the Donation of Constantine, European history today would be totally different and none of the dynasties past or present would have had the right to have reigned. Nor would they reign now and none of their governments or agencies would have exercised power.

    One slight problem, though. The Donation of Constantine is a complete and utter fraud and the Church was never given any temporal powers at all, let alone the right to found dynasties, crown kings or institute governments. The whole document was a lie from beginning to end and has been known to be a fake since Lorenzo Valla applied the methods of historical criticism to it during the Renaissance.

    How do we know Valla was correct? The New Testament references incorporated into the wording of the Donation were taken from the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible. The Vulgate Bible was compiled by St. Jerome who was born more than two decades after Constantine was supposed to have signed the Donation. The actual Vulgate Bible wording that appears in the Donation didn’t exist until St Jerome invented it, fifty years after the document had supposedly been dated and signed by the Emperor. By this time Constantine had been dead for decades and couldn’t have signed the Dragons’ rights away anyway.

    The language of the Donation is eighth century clerical or dog Latin, whilst the Latin used in the 4th century Empire was late classical Roman. The Imperial and Papal ceremonials described in the Donation didn’t exist in Constantine’s time but were developed some centuries later.

    Several documentary instances of the Church’s use of the Donation to assert their authority in the medieval period still exist, including the letter of Pope Gregory IX entitled ’Si Memoriam Beneficiorum’ dated October 23rd 1236 and addressed to the Emperor Frederick II. Pope Gregory writes,

    “…….that as the Vicar of the Prince of Apostles (the Roman Pope) governed the empire of priesthood and of souls in the whole world, so he should also reign over things and bodies throughout the whole world; and considering that, he should rule over earthly matters by the reins of justice to whom – as it is known – God had committed on earth the charge over spiritual things. The Emperor Constantine humbled himself by his own vow and handed over the empire to the perpetual care of the Roman Pontiff with the Imperial Insignia and sceptres and the City and Duchy of Rome……..”.

    People in the medieval and Renaissance period, confronted with this document, did not generally criticize the Donation on the grounds of its veracity. They just exclaimed aghast that they could not believe that Constantine would have been stupid enough to have given the Roman Church everything.

    From the Donation we understand that Constantine offered the Pope all the robes and Crowns of office but the Pope, being such a humble man, gave them back to the Emperor. This lets the Church off the hook should some malcontent turn up and ask for sartorial evidence. If the readers read the Donation for themselves they will be appalled at the pretentious egotism, the arrogance and the sheer material greed of the Church, as authors of the document.

    The fraudulent imperial power of the Vatican to create kings by ’coronation’ – derived from this faked 8th century ’Donation of Constantine’ – was later adopted by the Archbishops of the Church of England with the complicity of the Tudors, who were Catholics themselves.

    When he split with Rome, Henry VIII still retained and later ratified and re-established in the Anglo-Catholic Church of England the fraudulent right of the Church’s clergy to create by coronation, a succession of British monarchs. This was an illegal act. The ’Donation of Constantine’ was proved to be a completely fake document. Therefore no Royal Elven House that knew its origins and cared about social justice could possibly bring itself to recognize a Christian British monarchy or any of their Church sponsored, Church crowned predecessors or any of their regnant or formerly regnant, European cousin Houses.

    Because the Donation was a fraud and no subsequent priest of any Catholic derived denomination ever had the right to crown kings, Britain has had no legally reigning monarch for 900 years. As a consequence of this, all the laws passed by these monarchs were and are illegal and worthless and all the governmental agencies set up by or derived from these monarchs or their laws are also illegal and worthless up to the present day.

    When considering this, the reader might like to consider the fact that all the arrests ever made by the police in Britain and Europe are acts of kidnap and habeas corpus. Equally, any man who has taken up arms for the Crown and killed for his country is unprotected by law and guilty therefore of murder.

    However, paradoxically, as the entire British legal system is illegal, there are no laws, and so the crimes of habeas corpus and murder as we define them today, simply do not exist. Subconsciously people know that their politicians and monarchs have no legitimate authority to rule over them. They manifest this knowledge in an increasing disrespect for these optional, arbitrary and illusory social conventions, which is yet another reason why social order is breaking down.

    If the UN is right, we may face chaos in the near future; and all because of a stupid fraud, perpetrated by a group of myopically greedy, maniacal peddlers of false religion who are now long dead.

    Again, for asserting this kind of view the Fairies are implicitly guilty of Treason, even though all British laws are constitutionally illegal and the act of treason itself is a non sequitur. Think of the implications of this.

    It applies to any nation state in the Christian world today which is still a monarchy or which has evolved as part of a successive, developing political process originating from a monarchy, by virtue of its continuing sanction from, or sponsorship by, the Church of whatever denomination. It is unauthorized by any temporal or divine power to coerce anyone to obey any law originating at any stage of that government’s evolution.

    In effect, Britain, Europe and America are ruled by the sword, and that sword is being wielded by people who are no more than short sighted, self seeking robber barons. They have no constitutional right to rule even in America, where in the 19th century, the libertarian commentator, Lysander Spooner, demonstrated that the consensual nature of the original document, upon which the subsequent, consecutive clauses are founded, was being flouted, thereby making the entire Constitution illegal. Pierre Proud’hon called them all “Tyrants and Usurpers”. Next time you are tempted to eulogize Western Democracy, bite your tongue and let your brain select first gear before you open your mouth. Flawed or otherwise, the idea that the English speaking world has any democracy at all is a joke.

    At the beginning of this work the author stated that the people have been conned enough. He now hopes that the readers might appreciate for themselves the precise extent to which the people have actually been deceived. They have accepted a state of affairs where they and their ancestors have been enslaved by a chameleon-like corporate body that has destroyed their creativity and robbed them of their psychological liberty and their freedom of conscience for over a thousand years.

    The entire moral basis of our society is founded upon a massive historical lie which has twisted the minds of generations of individuals until they have become terrified of the natural drives of their own bodies and souls.

    The resultant taboos that have been created have been used to divide the minds of the people and make them dependant on the Church-State for solutions to the problems of resisting Satan and fighting temptation and sin, when these contrived, nonsensical whimsies never existed in the first place.

    As a result, western Christian society was turned into an open air lunatic asylum packed full of lost souls who weren’t lost at all and had no need of a cure for diseases of the soul they weren’t actually suffering from in the first place.

    The Church created the confusion and the division and then offered the solution. In fear the population invested its trust in the perfidious Church and in return for their confidence the Church turned the people into slaves and an entire civilization into a manufacturing plant to service their own greed for luxury and power.

    For a thousand years the Fairies have remained silent about their identities – formerly for fear of their lives – latterly for fear of becoming social outcasts and objects of mirth and derision. Still however, a shadow of menace lies over the ancient families. Greed will go to any length to ensure the continuity of its satisfaction and the same motives that prompted the Church to murder and lie in the past, still prompt their merchant-class puppets to kill and deceive today.

  71. the Paulinian said

    OK, I stand corrected. Neither covenant theology nor classic dispensationalism have anything to do with what “Nick” is saying.

    His whole post is a fairy-tale 😦

    Carry on……
    I see no need to express rebuttal.

    Free in Christ,
    the Paulinian

  72. John said

    Thank you, JAsOn.I was aware of this possibility ready.Although it’s a little off topic, I am trying to use both Nick and Thomas as objects of study in regards to theological insanity.Unfortunately King Thomas seems to have disappeared.
    Perhaps that big albino monk caught him?[grin]

  73. Nick said

    Dearest Paulinian,

    Fairy-tale… As is the whole Jesus mythos presented in the (not four) but over five thousand Gospels.

    In all honesty, I truly know nothing but what I can say is neither you, or anyone else nor can I provide one shred of evidence of our own existance much less a God who created all things.

    That leaves a broad spectrum for us to define as it would be the greatest of sin, a sin of sins, for me to allow myself to be spoon fed and accept my person to be blindly led.

    And if God be a being, that will Judge me to Hell in my search for Truth, then I would not want to serve that God anyway.

    I am anti-Zionist but I am not anti-Semitic as I am Jewish by race (Not religeously).

    We can all agree there is something out there but you cannot pin a name or likeness to God. Beisides that would be, by definition Idolitry, would it not? Jesus wasn’t named Jesus… Neither did he actually go by that name.

    Honestly and historically speaking his name would more match these derivitives (Depending on the dialect and region you would have lived), Dositheus, Dosithius, Doetus or Dorcus.

    Share your fairy-tales all you want, but the entire Christian religion is a farce, no matter what your faith in it may be.

    Yes you have a right to your faith, Faith in whatever you want your faith in, until you demand legislation or laws that would enforce others to that faith.

    This is the heart issue with the Pauline doctrine.

    Examples with issues such as Abortion… I am personally, Pro-Life as far as my faith is concerned, but I am Pro-Choice concerining lagality. Especially when comes to the reality of the World we live as I have met a survivor of coat hanger in the alley abortion. Of which is far worse then having a trained Medical doctor performing it. We must keep in mind reality when discussing issues of faith. Becasue as strong as you think your faith is and how mighty your god… Women will contitnue to have abortions whether legal or illegl, why? It’s always been and will always be that way.

    Who am I to say to a Woman you must give birth to a baby… God may have that right but I surely do not. So, let God sort it out in the end. The best that we can do is be there for the girls when the issue arises and then you have a chance to convince them othr wise.

    I do not have the right to impose my faith on someone becasue when you threaten people to believe it does not produce faith.

    Or what is the opposite of LOVE?

    Hate… No, Hate is a result of Love… You cannot Hate what you do not already Love.

    The opposite of Love is Fear.

    I do not fear God nor do I believe that anyone should fear God… What god would want me to fear him and threaten hell fire if I did not?

    If you treated other people around you in manner Paul suggests, you’d possibly find yourself in Jail if not burnt by the people that you inflicted abuse on.

    But I bet, you were not ever a victim of abuse nor did you probably ever experience Fear on a daily basis?

    I grew up in Fear of my father… So much so, I would have rather come home in bodybag, than to have the police deliver me to him.

    I do not blame God for all that has happened to me but rest assured he cannot blame me if I do not trust any man to stand over me nor do I trust a God that would subject me to that kind of abuse.

    I am done being afraid… I fear nothing. Not that I donot occasionally become fearful but I am never conceding that part of myself to anyone not even God. The God that Paul presents is tyranical, abusive and conditional God with is his Love. as you discover quickly when reading the beginning Romans.

    As for your views of Paul, as this thread is a discussion about, he is far less credible of a source. considering, I have been lucky enough to read a few epistles of Paul, that were not included in the Bible.

    One such epistle has a man engaged to be married but doubts the faithfulness of his soon tobe wife. So Paul has the woman sit over the hole of wine cask and has her breath out so he can smell her breath. Upon finding no odour of wine on her breath, Paul declares she is still a virgin.

    And the couple then run off to be married.

    It is only obvious why this epistle was left out as it makes Paul appear a total flake not to mention a complete idiot.

    But I bet you haven’t read anything outside the box and that I find a terrible travesty. Because it is not God that gains from your ignorance and lack there-of of wisdom but Evil men gain oppourtunity to to take advantage of you.

    You comfort yourself to believe what you believe because you’re frightened that you might end up in Hell… Hell is a result of loosing your individual sovereignty, free creative thought and the right to think for your self. And Paul is an enemy to indiviual Sovereignty and a robber of free thought and usurper of creative intellegence.

    And as Tom Petty put it. “You can take me to the gates of Hell but I won’t back down… No, I won’t back down.”

    Because I am not afraid of who, and what I am, neither what brings me happiness.

    And I know nothing… But that I AM.

  74. Tripp said

    pure heresy…the docithians totally rejected Christ

  75. Anonymous said

    Hey – What did Tom Petty do to deserve being dragged into this nonsense?

  76. Joe said

    I Googled “Nicholas de Vere” and got a lot of stuff, but first was this interview: http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/mykingdom.html and this exchange puzzles me:

    TT: Is the Dragon bloodline a Satanic or Luciferian bloodline?

    NDV: Yes is the honest and simple answer.

    How can you claim to be of Merovingian descent and claim Jesus as an ancestor, then turn around and claim that your bloodline is Satanic?

    Nick – I am assuming that you are Nicholas de Vere.

  77. ADB said


    I certainly am not a dispensationalist, but surely do not regard it as being cult-like in any way. Too many times latch onto labels and this causes problems and puts unnecessary barriers up. Referring to Dec. 25th. Of course it is not “holy” in a literal way, as no one really knows the exact date of Jesus’ birth. In effect it is holy because of its use. Best wishes. By the way, what planet do you think Nick and Thomas are from?

  78. Joe said

    Isn’t it amazing what you can find online? Google Nicholas de Vere yourselves and make your own decision. Here is an interesting comment I found on a message board. There is plenty of information on this out there.

    DVB11-13-2006, 05:31 AM
    How many people remember Nick de Vere aka Nick Weir’s previous incarnation?
    Don’t know about his previous incarnation, but I thought I’d do a quick Google search. These are just some of the results:

    http://www.razza.fsnet.co.uk/kreeegans/kep2.htm & …kep3.htm
    Well the sooner we get the krip out of you the sooner we can put it in Nick de Vere….! from a comedy site
    KREEEGANS is the comic story, in screenplay format, of the visit to Earth by five aliens from the planet Kreeeg. Their planet is dying and it is the Kreeegans mission to find a new world they can inhabit. The planet Earth is on the short list. They very soon begin to wish it was on the long list.

    Then there’s this rather scary one: http://swordofgryffindor.com/2006/08/10/the-meaning-of-the-phoenix/
    and from my Good Lord who’s name JESUIS DVIR/Dvere sighed through my mind…
    My beloved is *AHA-Nicholas de Vere; and He is in fact: JE SUIS = Jesuis is Nick de Vere; Nick de Vere is JESU(I)S. NISSE III: LAMB of GOD and Our Egyptian Shepherd King; Brite morning star & Pharaoh for our flock.

    And there is this very interesting, serious and quite disturbing piece about the website http://www.dragoncourt.org/ at http://sandbat.batcave.net/dcgreg.html
    An explanation of the strife between Nicholas De Vere, Tracy Twyman, et all and the folks at http://www.dragoncourt.org. OR: How Nicholas De Vere attacked his own website. which, if accurate, does not paint a very edifying picture of De Vere &/or his followers.

    He’s not someone who I’ve had any dealings with; obviously, Robin, you have — I found this as well, from one RCH (!) at http://messageboard.cinescape.com/phenomenamagazine/forums/showthread.php?t=637&page=5:
    As for Nick de Vere… I knew him well, I helped to construct his original DragonCourt website in a past life. His real name is Weir and the DragonCourt history is fiction, so I wouldn’t bother with that red herring!

    So he’s all tied up with Dragon bloodlines, and Raymond McNally’s historical Dracula research, and Laurence Gardner’s tripe? But who or what is he himself? Presumably he’s not the Nick Weir who is a British entertainer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Weir)? Or the lawyer Nick de Vere Moss who runs a language school for the blind, Eye Talk English?


  79. Anonymous said

    Ah yes…..now we’re talkin’. If you’re gonna throw yourself out there like that you gotta be prepared for what one might uncover simply by doing a Google search.

    Here is that message board: http://www.mania.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2735.html

  80. jAsOn said


    The is no historical data that reveals that there were “thousands” of gospels written about Jesus which were under consideration by the apostles or the early church fathers as being authentic. Yes, there were many gnostic writings that were quickly rejected by them. Dan Brown was no historian, and neither are you.

  81. ADB said


    #73- a lot of that made no sense at all. A couple of points to make- Jesus name in Aramaic/Hebrew would have been roughly pronounced “yeshua” similar to Joshua from the OT. In Greek it would have been “jesous” with the “j” pronounced as a “y.” As for the different names you gave, what linguistics are you using? I agree with your point about God being a just judge (actually he’s not merely just, he’s merciful), and that you will stand before him one day. That is exactly right, and is exactly the reason you need to be very careful.

  82. Nick said

    I am not Nicholas de Vere.

    And much of the opinions posted about him are a result of people who do not agree with the exclusivity of the Dragon Court. People want a club that is all inclusive but that is not reality.

    Not everyone is born a Cherokee so not everyone is qualified to be a Dragon.

    It’s a non-joining fraternity of which I am not affiliated with.

    The issue of the name of Jesus and his real name are not a mystery…

    ‘DOSITHIUS’ search it out.

  83. Joe said

    You may not be de Vere, but you’re posting material by him, apparently a professed satanist who references Aleister Crowley in his writings. Boy, you and Thomas sure are a confusing bunch.

  84. Moderator (not Stu) said

    Folks, this is interesting stuff, but I feel like we’re veering off-topic again. Not a big deal. Continue on, but we’d like to see it stay on the subject of Paul, if possible.

    Thank you,
    Moderator (not Stu)

  85. jAsOn said


    Who here wants an all inclusive club; what does that mean?

    “The issue of the name of Jesus and his real name are not a mystery… ”

    I agree, that Jesus’ name is not a mystery…we have it recorded in all the new testament and in MANY consequnt documents that corroberate its use and historical validaty.

    Nick, I think your goal here should be to prove that the documents we consider as inspired by the Holy Spirit to be the New Testament (not the apocryphal works) are not the ones that the first century church accepted as “God breathed”, or were not written in the first century at all.

    I don’t think you have addressed that specifically, instead you seem to be addressing what are perceived as atrosities that have been commited by those who call themselves the church.

    We need to bear in mind that no one is perfect, not even the redeemed, and there is a distinction between the “visible” church and the “invisible” church; the later being those who are actually born again, counted righteous in Christ. If we are not going to end up debating relativism, you need to assert and prove the historical validaty of your sources and the undeniability of their exclusive truth claims.

  86. the Paulinian said

    In what ways did Paul contradict the other apostles and Jesus’ teachings?

    I think Nick understands more than we give him credit for. He sees a difference in the synoptic gospels message and Paul’s epistles.

    Obviously his understanding is warped concerning Christ, yet even he sees a distinct difference in Paul’s message which is- that of the believers identity, the mystery of the Church, and the separation of the Heavenly Church and Earthly covenantial Israel.

    We do not forsake the 4 gospel accounts nor the epistles of the other apostles. We simply contextually interpret the text. You must admit that if we did away with Paul’s letters to the churches, much of the core doctrines we adhere to would be unheard of – specifically the Church and our identity in Christ.

    I would like for Nick to give evidence for his accusations against Paul the apostle, and also for the supposed “other” letters that Paul supposedly wrote.

    Free in Christ because of Christ,
    the Paulinian

  87. jAsOn said


    There is ABSOLUTLY NO difference in the gospel message preached in the gospels and in Paul’s writtings; you must remember not to confuse the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant with the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant–there certainly is a progression in the words God has revealed, but the message is the same (Eph. 2:11-12). I think you need to re-read the book of Hebrews. We have to allow the NT writers to guide us in our understanding of the OT.

    I would love to interact with you on this topic. I have provided an exegesis of many pertinent text in Hebrews and other NT writings on my blog, please comment there so we can discuss this.


  88. the Paulinian said


    Re-read my post again. I didn’t say the gospel was different in Paul’s message – for it is the same from Adam to us now. All are “saved” by the same means.

    You see only covenants. While we see covenants and dispensations in the Scriptures. I don’t know where you are coming from. You are very angry toward dispensationalism, even referring to it as “nearly cultic” “aberrant”, etc. Even though I do not agree with Calvinism, reformed theology or covenant theology. I won’t call it what you have called dispensationalism.

    I can’t even give a remark without you negatively running dispensationalism down and telling me to go to another forum to discuss this. If anything, classic pauline dispensationalism is more apropriate for this topic than your covenant theology.

    Please help me understand why you are so bitter and angry toward dispensationalism.

    the Paulinian

  89. jAsOn said

    In a context where we are only reading one another’s words, comunication can be misread. I feel very strongly about this topic, but I am not angry or bitter, I just believe that dispensationalism (not so much progressive–which it is debatable whether or not it is dispensationalism at all) is a hermenutical structure that provides interpretations of of scripture as a whole that is very unhealthy for the church.

    What am I supposed to do when I think that your assesment of Nicks comment is wrong, and that you would lead the discussion away from its center, which should be the historical validity of Paul’s writings, and God’s faithfulness in transmitting them to us while retaining their accuracy. If you go on to explain to Nick that the reason he sees “differences” in Paul’s writtings and the record of what Jesus taught, is not that they contradict, but that Paul had a “different message” to proclaim, then you will inevidably lead him down the wrong path.

    I retract my statement about you saying that the two taught a different gospel.

  90. jAsOn said

    The reason I have pointed you to other forums is because I am looking for interaction on this topic…I believe that we all benefit from should discussions. Granted, I hold my position firmly, but I am willing to accept challenges, how else are we supposed to grow?

  91. Anonymous said

    So Paulinian, are you and the character MonkeyMan one in the same, or are the two of you just using the same computer?
    Just wondering, after reading your last post on the “Code Huckabee”site.

  92. Paulinian said

    Yes, monkeyman and paulinian are one in the same – but two different topics so trying to keep them separate.

    What “wrong path” would I lead Nick down? I don’t want this thread to get off topic, yet you are making strong accusations. Forgive me if I am “misreading” your sentences. But how can I misread “nearly cultic”, “wrong path”, etc.?

    Paul’s “different message” was concerning the mystery – “Christ in you, the hope of glory” and the otherside of the coin “I in Christ”. He emphasized the Church being heavenly, not earthly. He only, through the Spirit, elaborated on the teachings of Christ concerning His kingdom. Through Paul, Christ revealed the Church. Just as I’ve stated above, if we remove Paul’s epistles and declare them heretical, what are we left with as far as Orthodox/Historical Christian doctrine?

    It is crucial that we as Christians understand the uniqueness of the Church. It being heavenly, and guided by the Spirit. We are not bound by the law for it never justifies nor sanctifies any way. It is crucial that we as Christians understand our Identity in Christ – crucified with Christ, raised with Christ, seated with Christ, alive in Christ, etc. and we will rule and reign with Christ. If you have read Stanford’s writings, surely you know what he taught concerning Identification?

    Classic dispensationalism is not what you see today on television nor even what is taught at Dallas seminary, etc. It is definately not progressive.

    You are more than welcome to go to http://www.withChrist.org and interact with them concerning your hatred of dispensationalism.

    – the Paulinian

    Thank you for your affirmation in the faith.

  93. jAsOn said

    The wrong path is to say that Paul’s message was different than Jesus’. Yes, God had reveled a fuller understanding of the same story He had been telling throuhgout the history of redemption. The mystery was that gentiles and jews were going to be in the same Kingdom and are part of the same body of saved persons. Paul didn’t teach that there are two kingdoms (one heavenly and one earthly). The hope of glory for OT saints and NT saints is one in the same…Christ. Paul said that Abraham was sounted righteous BEFORE he was circumcised and that righteiousness was the righteousness of Christ, no one (OT or NT) is saved outside of that (which I’m sure you would affirm)Christ Himself spoke of the same heavenly kingdom of which Paul spoke, Christ said that His kingdom was not of this earth, etc. Neither one of us believes that we should deem PAul’s writtings as heretical. The obedience anyone exhibits in any era, under any covenant, is by grace, and guided by the spirit, and it is crucial that we all understand that Christ fulfilled the New Covenant for all of us who believe (OT and NT) so that we can inherit the promises of that covenant. It is also crucial that we understand that the church is spiritual Israel (not national, physical Israel, mind you). Standford did not understand justification correctly, let alone identification with Christ. Paul says in Gal. 3:29 “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” speaking to, none other than NT believers.

    The way I read the history of dispensationalism, is that it staprimarily with Darby and his emphasis between the differences between national Israel and the church, then to chaffer, then to Scoffield, then it has become whatever it is today, multifaceted, and includes Ryrie, who’s book, “Dispensationalism Today”, wherein he was trying to “fix” statements made by Scoffield which indicate that the OT saints were saved in a different way than the NT saints. He claimed that covenant theologians misread him in their critiques, and that scoffield wasn’t saying that.

    Again, I am not angry or bitter, nor do I hate dispensationalism, I do however think that it is dangerous, and directing persons like Nick to the writtings of Miles Stanford is especially unhelpful because of his hermenuetical errors.

  94. 1. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

    “…By the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ…”

    When in the entire Bible does God or Jesus mention anything about this supposed command of Paul?

    I guess I could wake up tomorrow morning and walk into the Church and make up stuff that God says?

    2. Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus ‘Christ’ our Lord.

    ‘Christ’ is a Babylonian title given to the annual male sacrifice it is not a surname, so why does Paul use it that way?

    3. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

    No other ‘doctrine’ as apposed to what? What doctrine could he be referring to because there is only one doctrine taught in the Old Testament and New Testament’s, Gospel teachings of YESU, The doctrine of ‘The Way’?

    4. Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

    “…Fables and endless genealogies…”

    Really… Then forget any stories of a dying a resurrecting God man that Paul conveniently plagiarizes as he goes from one place to the other…

    But what is he saying to Timothy about, ‘Endless Genealogies’?

    Of which he goes on the say, “…which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do”?

    What questions could there be, knowing your ancestors? Could it be that by knowing, who your related to can only make trouble for Paul? Maybe questions against the sale of this ‘New’ doctrine Paul is preaching?

    By Paul’s statement, he nullifies the family of Jesus, the house of David and his messianic heritage.

    Of which, Paul makes the Gospel to no effect, as the validity, upon which the justification of Jesus’ messiah-ship rest solely on his Genealogy.

    The question has to be asked, is a bloodline Holy because of Jesus or is Jesus Holy because of a bloodline?

    Paul has everything to gain by undermining the Royal House of Judah, him being a of the house Herod and all…

    5. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

    What command is he referring? Of course it sounds good but Jesus gave us two commands, which hang ALL the Law.

    6. From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

    Who is he referring to here? Could it be he is attempting to hijack a dynastic Priesthood of which is purely a hereditary right?

    I must admit, I smell a tinge of jealousy here.

    7. Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

    Oh, now we know, who he is referring to… Single handedly he has summed up the entire Royal Priesthood, suggesting that they do no know what they are talking about.

    8. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

    Because you know the Royal Priesthood are all a bunch Lawless liars… Right? Or at least they do not use the Law, lawfully which implies they are Lawless.

    9. Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man-

    STOP right there!

    On the contrary Jesus scolded the Authority for being hypocrites in this fashion… Jesus teaching that in the light of Gods Mercy, Grace and Love we are all equal. That no man is greater than another… That we should, have all things in common, dropping title, riches and seats of power. That the, brethren, should not, lord it over one another.

    Faith is literally letting all things go and take no thought for tomorrow…

    Pay close attention, as what Paul does here is ‘whitewash’ the Law. It isn’t bad until you apply the false teachings of the ‘Fallen Nature of Man’ and “…All fall short of the Glory God”

    9. Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

    10. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

    Who doesn’t fall under any of these descriptive titles?

    Paul has seduced everyone back under the Law nullifying the Gospel message very cleverly… What a tricky man Paul is.

    “…And if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine”

    Sound doctrine… What doctrine could he be referring to?

    11. According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

    His Trust… Where in the Gospel is Paul even mentioned?

    And what God presented him, a doctrine, solely to his Trust?

    This is dangerous speech. Many of you accuse me of promoting a Cult… and practicing Occultism (Hidden-ism or Better a practitioner of Privacy).

    But you want me to swallow this guy’s beguiling lies that he is the only Man God trusts’?

    And that he was single handedly picked without any of the Prophets ever mentioning him or a likeness of him… Unless you apply ‘False Teacher’, ‘Lawless one’ or ‘False Prophet’… Oh yeah the Naz-Aryans did have a name for him, ‘The Black Priest’…

    12. And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

    While I do believe Paul met Jesus on the ‘Road to Damascus’ this is merely a figure of speech.

    As when in ancient texts one reads the same reference, ‘on the way to…’ or ‘…on the road to Damascus’, it means literally, while a person is attaining or being enlightened or simply, while they were studying in the Temple.

    The reason Paul met Jesus was because Jesus was alive and well at Qumran.

    13. Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

    Notice here that Paul admits that he is blasphemer… And notice how he say’s Jesus responds to him…

    (Note: Compare with the way Paul treats a blasphemer later in is rant to Timothy)

    What should be added here? Well let me speak for Paul…

    I am Thaddeus Alexander born of the Herodian line, the puppet kings of Rome. I being commissioned by Rome to find Jesus and his family, there-by murder them and leave no one living, no man, woman or child.

    You know the best way to destroy something is from the inside.

    14. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

    Of which when Paul met Jesus this is exactly how Jesus treated him… well after he punched his lights out anyway.

    15. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

    That is a little arrogant and egotistical to say but hey what ever floats your boat Paul… Or Thaddeus.

    16. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

    Well that’s nice… At what point do you think, Paul realized what a money, maker this movement could be?

    17. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

    This in interesting, as it applies to a particular God in Egypt… The state God Amen or Amun… The Hidden God or Hidden one of which the term ‘Occultism’ arises.

    He even ends his Prayers ‘AMEN’ when the Hebrew way to end a Prayer is ‘Ha’em’ meaning ‘So be it…’

    18. This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;

    That is militant and in good conscience necessary considering that the Zealots have at this moment shaved, their heads and vowed to find and kill Paul.

    19. Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

    Oh, really Paul, of whom, are you referring to?

    20. Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

    Satan being the literal term you would apply to any Man-made or organized societal and legal Authority. Like, the police, the judge, the king and executioner.

    Where is the Mercy for these men, Paul, you know the same that Jesus showed you?

    Is this how Jesus taught us to respond to blasphemers?

    Or didn’t Jesus even say, (Paraphrased) “…Blaspheme me or blaspheme the father and will be forgiven you but if you blaspheme the Holy Spirit it will be un-forgiven you…”

    I like to say this way, “Talk about me or talk about my father but don’t you talk about my mama!”

    1 Timothy 2

    1. I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

    2. For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

    Yeah of’ Course this is read with Romans 13 in mind… So if the King be a tyrant just shut up a deal with it… Go home and be quiet or rather apathetically remain in subjection to the tyrant.

    This reminds of the mentality here in the South of, “Be happy you even have a Job…” If your Boss doesn’t pay you enough, and you have this attitude, what does it profit you?

    Rather use wisdom and quit that Job and get a better one besides, you don’t owe your boss anything…

    I am not saying there aren’t good boss’ out there, I am saying, if your being paid less than $14-15.00 an hour with no benefits, your Job sucks anyway. A family cannot be supported on that alone.

    Especially, the list of crappy Jobs available that pay far less and do not even provide benefits… You cannot follow this prescription because first, it is unwise and second, Jesus said to have all things in common… Period.

    Of which the modern Church refuses to obey Jesus… You can follow Paul but Jesus you conveniently ignore because you’re too greedy to give up all your possessions.

    3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

    4. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,

    What Truth, Your truth Paul?

    5. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

    Then who the heck are you!?!

    6. Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

    What a great thing to say but what is your agenda Paul?

    Oh yeah, here ya go…

    7. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

    If your telling the truth why would the idea of lie, come to (YOUR) mind Paul?

    This leaves a bad taste in my mouth and as a matter psychology and statistical data this is most often a warning that the person speaking is in actuality lying. In this case Paul is lying.

    Ordainment… You are not ordained Paul… That’s the issue between James the Just and You. You were never ordained or commissioned by the Temple… Of who only two people had the Authority to give… James the High Priest of the Temple and Jesus who could not give his approval because he’s supposedly off in Heaven playing Love songs to himself.

    James surely didn’t commission you as an Apostle because of one main requirement… You had to be related, as it was a, Hereditary, entitlement.

    8. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

    No… No, no Paul. Jesus instructed to pray in private and not in public as the hypocrites do, only to be seen by other men to be Holy. That whatever you ask your father in private he will answer openly.

    9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

    Oh really, tell that to your congregation, your mothers, your sisters and your wives… See how far that gets you.

    How far for a married man… How about divorced?

    First, the covering of a woman’s head is not a derogatory requirement nor is it an implication that a woman is lesser…

    Rather, that she is greater and should be honored and respected, not lusted after or dishonored by staring strangers after her beauty. But also, so that a woman does not cause a distraction to the weak in faith, while in the Temple.

    If any men that read this have daughters, you can probably relate…

    Knowing how healthy children are in puberty… Or better remember how you were and maybe you still are…

    10. But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

    Where does Paul come up with this BS?

    11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

    Really… Is that how churches think of and view women?? Oh I see, when it comes to homosexuality it should be enforced in a Church but these Womanly issues that Paul prescribes… That’s optional?

    12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

    Oh really? The Temple is symbolic of the Womb, the Holy of Holies the Uterus. Of which at root derives the word ‘Utter’ meaning ‘to speak’. So it is from the Uterus that God Speaks or the Holy of Holies… The conduit of Gods voice or Utterance is through the Woman.

    13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    Adam was the Prototype and Eve was the finished product then?

    14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    Where does, Paul, get this idea? Considering he has left out much of the story… He conveniently picks the parts that best fit his agenda.

    15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

    Oh really… Saved in childbearing… What?

    He has taken a Sacred act among the Dynastic Royal Priesthood of which he began this rant and has belittled it to a sexist requirement of women… Knowing full well that anyone in their right mind would never follow these instructions… But what he has really accomplished is more than ‘Evil’. He has successfully destroyed the Holy Union of Marriage within the Royal Bloodline and validity of Gods promise in the Garden.

    The two becoming one flesh as the consummating act between A Priest (A Joseph) and a Priestess (A Miriam). There-by Pregnancy being the sealing pact of their marriage as a Holy and Sacred act. Only now, because of Paul, it has been defiled to sexist wifely duty, that if she, be lucky enough to bear a child it will be her salvation…

    Paul knew what he was doing here and he is very successful in doing so… So, successful, that my words fall on deaf ears.

    1 Timothy 3

    1. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

    What does Paul know about leadership qualifications?

    He has not only betrayed Rome, he has betrayed the Trust of Jesus, James and the entire Royal Priesthood.

    Only remaining true to that Herodian reputation well known by the Native population…

    2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

    Since Paul hijacked the Faith of Jesus he not only changes the name but creates all new, never before heard of Titles.

    3. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

    4. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

    5. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

    So what position does Paul hold in this New religion? Has he ruled himself out as a leader by not being married and never producing offspring? And what of the fact that Thaddeus Alexander was indeed a Homosexual… This definitely explains the thorn in his side…

    6. Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

    7. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

    8. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

    9. Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

    10. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

    11. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

    12. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

    13. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    You know, if these rules were applied as hard as others verses written by Paul, not only referring to homosexuality but that of working a Job… “…Let those that not work, not eat…” Then many churches would find themselves empty. That ‘Job’ reference is actually miss- interpreted because what is most often left out, due to the ignorance of the teacher of the circumstances involved, that there was a famine at the time.

    That doesn’t stop the ignorance… As it, yet continues to be used as a weapon against the jobless in the Church.

    Again, do not take a Job that doesn’t pay you what you need. You only accept a Job that is worthy of a Son of God and what one Christian has, demand no less… As we as believers, are instructed by Jesus, to have all things in common.

    14. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

    Ever wonder why Paul wrote Timothy in regard the Authority and the Structure of the Church?

    The Herodian family prided themselves in Greco-Roman Style and Fashion leaving nothing but hedonistic orgies in their wake of oppression. It was fanciful for older men to have young lovers and I more than believe that Paul Loved Timothy… And mean he loved a young boy… Which was customary, that is the practice of pedophilia, of the times in which Paul or Thaddeus Alexander lived… It must be stated that it is no known secret of Ancient times that such behavior today would not only be frowned against and terribly abusive but it’s down right illegal!

    Even if Paul had come to true repentance, finding Jesus as his Lord and Savior as claimed consistently within his Epistles, he knew Timothy for year’s prior to his conversion.

    And if he were living under today’s standards and Law he would not only be been run out of town and writing from a prison cell he’d have his guts carved out.

    Oh that is what happened to him… How Ironic.

    He most certainly wouldn’t be speaking in any Christian church, leading a church, founding a church much less be called an Apostle of the Lord Jesus.

    And we all are familiar of what happens to people in a crisis situation involving being held captive, aren’t we? The victim not only relates to their captors they sympathize with them.

    Now considering the fact that Timothy was, I assure not of the Herodian bloodline and most likely a slave given to or bought by Paul. Most disturbing is that the average sex slave, even in today’s market is and was twelve years old. What is even worse? Fact is, the largest sex slave operation in the World can be found in God’s supposed Holy city of Jerusalem.

    The Jews have always prided themselves in providing top quality service in the sex industry bar none… Just ask anyone in the know.

    15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

    One can almost, hear Paul as if he was alive, today say, “And Timothy, don’t tell anyone our little secret…”

    16. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    Wow… Paul, did you make that up yourself?

    The Angel reference is not of supernatural being but that of a messenger of the community as all messengers were referred to as Angels.

    Mary the mother of Jesus was of the branch of Japheth, which had settled the Isle of Britannia. Incidentally, Berith-anna or Berith-ain – mean Covenant of the Prophetess, and/or Covenant Land.

    When Jehovah had kicked the Shekinah out of the temple, which implies that the Priests of Jehovah kicked the Sacred Temple Nuns out of the Temple they had no where to go.

    The Prophet Jeremiah later led the Priestess’ to the Isles of Britannia of which later become to home of the, renown Priestess’ of Avalon.

    Mary was a Gentile, which means that Jesus was born of not only Jewish blood but Gentile blood as well.

    So Paul wasn’t the sole person gifted with message to the Gentiles especially that of symbolic salvation as Mary the mother of Jesus was a Gentile.

    1 Timothy 4

    1. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

    Who is he implying departed from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils?

    2. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

    Who is now speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron?

    3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

    If one so chooses he can become a Priest of God but it comes with a price…

    If but for only a season a Initiate must abstain marriage because Jesus taught that no one be given in marriage in Heaven and Initiates of the Priesthood must transcend Earthly existence and ascend to Heaven or else what difference would priest be from anyone else?

    An Initiate must abstain from eating of meat not because it is a sin or not a sin but because meat weighs you down. And it’s a Spiritual Law that meat / proteins weigh the body down and create mass thus distracting energy and absorbing it. So by abstaining from meats it increases one’s Spiritual energy and helps to open conduits in the body for energy to flow freely.

    What does Paul have to fear from this Royal Priesthood he so easily demonizes?

    4. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

    Better why does Paul wish his followers, are weighed down with Meats (proteins)? Could it be because people are more conducive to suggestion as their body is too busy breaking down meats in the intestinal track and dampening a person’s awareness?

    5. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

    6. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

    So not only is it Good but it sanctified by the word of God and prayer to decimate the Royal Priesthood?

    7. But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

    Now Paul belittles Jesus and his disciples reducing the Royal Priesthood to a profane and old wives fable. And even that Jesus, James and the Royal Priesthood lack godliness?

    8. For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all
    things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

    ‘Bodily exercises’, referring to the practices and meditations of the Royal Priesthood and again reiterating that all such practices lack godliness.

    Of which denying the Royal Priesthood is a means to not only gain life now but attain to eternal life to come?

    9. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.

    And seals this fact with this statement that in order to be faithful you must accept this.

    10. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Here Paul makes the teachings of Jesus to no effect and the Royal Priesthood implying that anyone can be a Royal Priest on mere belief. Belief is not Faith for even the Demons believe and shudder at his presence but they aren’t Faithful and faith being the only way to please God.

    According to the scriptures anyway…

    11. These things command and teach.

    He commands Timothy to do this; and Timothy will obey remaining, as any victim would do, in submission to Paul.

    12. Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

    13. Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

    Yes read the Gospel, exhort but keeping (my) doctrine.

    14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

    And here Paul takes advantage of fearful and desperate people into artificial mimicry of the ministry of Jesus becoming the great sham and terminal flaw of the Church.

    15. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.

    16. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

    Save thy self from what Paul? Not everyone wakes up guilt ridden and ashamed of being a human or living life to it’s fullest. Paul’s implication here is that all people lack something only to be found without. I once pondered this method only to find pain, loneliness and despair.

    1 Timothy 5

    1. Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

    2. The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

    Now Paul, yet again reveals his disdain for James, the disciples and the Royal Priesthood;

    3. Honour widows that are widows indeed.

    “…Honour widows that are widows indeed…” What could Paul ever mean by that? I mean either a woman is a widow or not?

    4. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.

    What he is referring to is not just a woman who’s husband has died but to the dynastic requirements of the Royal Priesthood. When a Priestess became pregnant the Priest had to leave her and the child for designated period of time.

    If she be pregnant with a girl, the Priest / Father had to leave for three years and if it be a boy then six years. During this separation the Priestess was considered symbolically a widow and the children orphans.

    Let’s read as Paul clarifies exactly what he is talking about…

    5. Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.

    Which was indeed a customary practice.

    6. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

    7. And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.

    8. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

    Here he refers to the separation period that Mary and Joseph would fulfill their Royal and Priestly duty. Of which the Priestess (widow) and the children (orphans) were under the care of the Temple. Paul then claiming that this practice is a denial of faith and the Priests in question are worse than an infidel’s. That is truly, truly an Evil act as Paul is a selfish, power hungry, glory seeker and genuine opportunist.

    9. Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

    10. Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

    Above, is continued customary duty of a Priestess / Wife to here Husband / Priest. Hence, Mary Magdalene is recorded in the Gospel as fulfilling these requirements.

    11. But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;

    If their husband died it would not be only wise for them to remarry but customary. It seems that Paul had some sort of disdain to the function of a woman’s body… Did Jesus consider an orgasm a sin?

    12. Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.

    That the desire for companionship and sex is a choice between what Paul calls, ‘their first faith’ and because they having damnation.

    What is he talking about? It is apparent that he desires to belittle the Royal Priesthood and there-by turn it into a trivial matter and less worthy of faith and even a damnable custom.

    13. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

    It was normal for widows to be guest in other peoples dwellings as it was a part of Communal living in which Jesus highly praised and promoted among his disciples.

    “…Having all things in common…” And we will see how Paul continues to undermine this lifestyle and custom for the more popular and hedonistic capitalist of Rome.

    14. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

    May I attempt to translate?

    Woman ought to be in submission to a man (As Marriage is a Holy Sacred Act between two Equal and Whole people neither of which are the lesser, male or female.), be barefoot and pregnant, tend the house being her wifely duty and never should she question or talk back to her man because that is Satan.

    15. For some are already turned aside after Satan.

    Oh now this is exactly why the inquisition found justification for divine right to burn single, beautiful and wealthy female landowners as Witches.

    So talking back or questioning your husband is turning aside from God?
    So, any woman, who expects equality with men, is now a Satanist?

    That is Poppy – Cock!

    Wow, why do we put up with that kind of crap?

    As if Christians are more successful with marriage… Wrong. Christians have almost a higher rate of divorce than that of secular community as a whole. Women were never meant to submit to a Man, never.

    Or do you not consider that the Holy Spirit is Sofia the divine feminine wisdom?

    And could it be that Christians, ignorantly so, have not only offended God’s Grace but also his Wrath. Of which is actually, blaspheming the Holy Spirit who is God’s co-equal part. And I remind you Jesus says, is the ONLY unforgivable sin!

    16. If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

    Oh really? Again Paul is more than down playing the responsibility of the Temple and the customary practice of the Royal Priesthood. As the Temple was solely responsible for Widows and Orphans… What is Paul’s agenda for burdening the poor and placing this yoke on the neck’s of the meek in the community?

    17. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

    Here we go… That’s all you had to say Paul! You can almost hear the guilt in Paul’s voice as to justify why he takes such a large portion of the Tithe (All of it)?

    18. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

    Now he adds to his Justification now by making it a general rule.

    19. Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

    20. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

    Oh so demanding to know what a preacher uses the tithe for is not the congregations business much less a passer-by. Matter of fact it’s a sin to question the Authority of the Church.

    As most Christians submit to this abuse everyday… Don’t think for one moment, that your pastor doesn’t ever chuckle to his self, as he deposits money into his account.

    Could it be that Paul wanted nobody to question what he did with all the money and as a matter of Roman record Paul / Thaddeus Alexander purchased a Roman citizenship justified by the missionary excuse of spreading the Gospel in which it is his sole responsibility? How lucrative of him as only the rich elite could afford such an item.

    Can it be called to question as to why Paul’s missionary track was through some of most popular vacation spots in the known world?

    Again this was only an option for the Rich Elite to enjoy… Yet, in all Paul’s epistles does he even mention the beauty of the Mediterranean landscapes but rather continued to whine about how many times he was beaten and suffered in the name of ‘Christ Jesus’ as he adventured around with the rich elite? He lived like a Millionaire of today’s standards.

    A popular ministry in Atlanta, called ‘Blood and fire’, sends missionaries over to Africa. And they collect offerings and tithes for their support to go… And they live in Mansions while they are there equipped with servants and all… Eating gourmet meals and living like Kings… God is good when you live off the backs of the bruised.

    21. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

    Now this is strange… Paul is writing this as if he, were speaking directly to his audience and messengers from Qumran suddenly entered the tent.

    22. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.

    23. Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.

    24. Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.

    25. Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.

    Are you saying, Judge not by appearance… Or do you mean do not judge my appearance, Paul? Maybe your robes were of fine quality or maybe you are justifying the money or in the least exemplifying yourself from your past?

    1 Timothy 6

    1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

    Well, of course you are… Subtly a little guilt is guilt none the less as guilt is not feeling but place rather as you are either guilty of a crime or you are not.

    Is that why Paul justifies slavery? How can he do that that when Jesus came to set the captives free? And I hate to beat a dead horse but Jesus did teach that we are to have all things in common.

    So why if Jesus was against slavery of any kind is Paul justifying it? Well if one considers that ideally it wouldn’t sell tickets to the next Gospel show in Greco-Roman culture. And Paul wanted to not only afford a citizenship in Rome but he didn’t want to miss out on all that tithe and offering money.

    Rather Jesus would tell the masters to drop the title and become a servant to their servants. That in the Gospel, even Jesus taught as he, himself and a Literal King washed the feet of his disciples.

    2. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

    “…partakers of the benefit…”? Benefit of what and who Paul, their master’s use of them as slaves?

    How does condoning that kind of mentality become a glorification of God… what kind of god, a god of bondage, like the Devil?

    Oh whatever Paul… Teach and exhort slavery, this is exactly why slavery has been justified for so long and one of the defenses the South used against the North for the justification for slavery.

    “The in errant word of God says through Paul, that Slavery is not only Lawful its God’s will…”

    3. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

    So if any man teach freedom rather than bondage and slavery then his words are not wholesome, and the will of Jesus? Surely any man who disagrees with Paul and slavery they lack godliness?

    4. He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

    So, someone who wants to liberate people, like Jesus, from oppressive leaders and are not only defying Paul, but also God. So to question our leaders is wrong causing strife, envy, railings and evil surmisings?

    Thank God this is a lie. The Law was and is to be applied to our leaders, as especially we in America do not have live under such oppressive and ignorant rules… Thank God.

    5. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

    Now a liberator like Jesus is Perverse, corrupt of mind and destitute of truth…

    “…supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”

    6. But godliness with contentment is great gain.

    Oh so do not question Paul, his use of money and private activities with young boys!

    7. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.

    Now he justifies the rich elite, their use of slavery and dominance over woman. Because, you were born naked, and you die naked doesn’t change that the Rich are responsible and accountable for the Poor.

    8. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.

    So Paul, tell me when you took up the tithe and offerings from the poor and needy did you think this up? Anything to shut up the mouths of the weak…

    9. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

    Is this a confession Paul because you’re surely not poor?

    10. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

    Anything to convince if not frighten the poor so that do not want the hard and dangerous responsibility of tending to all that money, you’ve accumulated.

    11. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

    Oh dig in, accept your plight and place in life… Besides Jesus will make it better later so just accept the things as they are… Like do not resist the Authority and do not demand equality, liberty or freedom.

    12. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

    Because you know fighting the good fight is like living as an apathetic weak woman that doesn’t talk back and like the slaves that should tuck their tails, neutering themselves and their minds?

    13. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;

    What, are you namedropping now and bragging about your birthright and power?

    14. That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:

    15. Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

    16. Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

    Here Paul again praises the Hidden God, even by name? So not only has he illegitimated Jesus, his family, Royal Priesthood and his liberating work but also out right commits Idolatry!

    But don’t question him as you have no right and anybody who opposes this ideal, are not only godless but Of Satan.

    17. Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;

    18. That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

    Yeah go ahead and butter them up Timothy! Because, you do not want the rich elite to forget, or choose not to pay the Tithe and offerings, do you? Besides, Paul will be with you soon to count the money in the coffers.

    19. Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

    Oh so now Paul is selling a plots of land in Heaven?

    20. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

    Do not listen to the Essenes or the Egyptian Theraputate (The Doctors and Scientist of Qumran) who only speak vain babblings?

    As many Christian easily shrug off this subject and blindly go as sheep led to the slaughter. Any one speaking reason or logic, are only ‘vain babblers’ and of Satan?

    Do not question, and do not think for yourself… and surely do not be creative.

    21. Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

    So thinking for your self, questioning the Authority, being creative or promoting equality among the sexes, stations, classes resulting in liberty and freedom is erring from the faith?

    What utter nonsense.

    Why should we ever let a suspected pedophile be leader of the church much less our, family.

  95. jAsOn said


    Lets get one thing straight, when you pit the words of Jesus against the words of Paul, you are actually pitting the words which another Apostle recorded against the words of Paul, so the entire argument from your perspective should be the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John against the words of Paul, another way to say it is this, you are pitting the words of one professing Apostle against the words of other professing Apostles.

    1. Jesus died and was raised before this event happened to Paul.
    2. No Christian claims that “Christ” is a surname, it means the anointed one, and was the title given to Him (by even the gospel writers) as a fulfillment of the coming Messiah from the OT.
    3. No other doctrine?!?! What do you think spurred the idolatry of the Corinthians, the worship of Caesar, etc?
    4. Because of the emphasis of the OT on the children of Abraham, which in Christ’s and Paul’s day caused some Jews to consider themselves righteous before God solely based on ancestry, others of them made an idol out of the genealogies and their overemphasis confused the gospel.

    That’s all I have time to answer right now.

  96. jAsOn said


    It is difficult to imagine how Timothy or anyone in the assemblies to whom Paul’s letter was written, and by whom it was read (probably in one sitting) would ever have come to the same conclusions that you have about what Paul has written. We have to remember that the Bible is a collection of books, letters, etc, and must be read as such, taking into account the genre of the specific literature at hand. This is a letter, and should be read as letters are read…you are not doing this. This has HISTORICALLY been regarded as “literal” interpretation, that we read the Bible as literature. Granted, the Bible is VASTLY different than any other literature due to its being expiated by God.

    4. You completely miss the point of Paul’s statement; his comment on genealogies was not against their inclusion and validity in the historical narrative of scripture, but he uses hyperbole (endless) to prove that the overemphasis of some is not edifying, quite similar to your mistaken notions of scripture…the scriptures you criticize are no less scriptures because of your critique, but your invalid use of them is destructive, and causes endless questions!
    5. Ends and means…don’t you see the difference, the end of the commandments of God is charity, etc.; you must come to the scriptures void of your contempt for them! And you cannot do that except by the Holy Spirit of God.
    6. NO is the answer to your question, it has absolutely nothing to do with that. If you smell jealousy, it is not because you got it out of Paul’s words, but because you read it into them.

    Btw, I suggest you start using a different English translation because you obviously can’t read the original languages (many of us can’t) and the translation you are using (KJV?) is only helping to confuse your understanding.

    More later…

  97. jAsOn said


    Here is the rendering of vs. 4 & 5 in the ESV, 4 “nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.”

    Paul is clearly arguing that Timothy care for the sheep over which he see, by making sure they are not DEVOTED TO” myths and genealogies and the CHARGE made by Paul and the other Apostles represented by Paul in this pastoral letter was to love, which comes from, “a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” This in no way contradicts the words of Jesus recorded by other Apostles.

    I and others have attempted to directly address many of your claims but you have done very little of that, I for one would appreciate your attempt at the same, from this or from earlier comments we have made in this tread.

    7 “desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.”

    This is a continuation of Paul’s description of those whom he urged Timothy to charge them not to teach different doctrine, or devote themselves to myths and genealogies. If, as you suppose, the “certain persons” to whom Paul addresses his comments are the Levitical Priests, we know that Christ Himself had very harsh words for the priest, the scribes, and the Pharisees; this is no different, and paul is simply reiterating similar charges.

    8 “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.,”

    We know from elsewhere in the NT that the Law was meant to be a schoolmaster, and that Christ fulfilled all righteousness in the Law by living a perfect life, He did not come to destroy it, but to fulfill it. Notice also that the NT again and again shows Christ as having fulfilled the symbols and types that were presented in the Law, like the ritual sacrifices, the Sabbaths, and New Moon, even the temple itself and the promises of the land, etc were fulfilled in Christ, so we can clearly see that the NT witnesses to the completion of all those things in Christ, therefore, when Paul says that the Law is good, he is right, and he goes on further to say that it is good when it is used rightly, not when it is used to devote oneself to genealogies or a different doctrine than that of Christ, not that the Law itself is bad, but that the improper use of it is.

    Frankly Thomas, I don’t see how any literate person can look at the way you are reading this text and agree; I firmly believe that you would never pick up any other historical document and obscure it this way, I don’t even thin you read the gospels this way, yet, since this is Paul’s writing, you somehow feel at liberty to blind and deaf to the gospel.

    Paul is in no way contradicting the intent of Jesus or the other apostles. You allude to Acts 2:43 “And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.”

    You also use the phrase “lord it over one another”, which would be a direct reference to a command in Paul’s words!!! 2 Cor. 1:23 “But I call God to witness against me—it was to spare you that I refrained from coming again to Corinth. 24 Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, for you stand firm in your faith.

    Note that it is “all those who believed” who “had all things in common”. Furthermore, Paul’s point is not to make a hierarchy of sins and sinners (elsewhere he actually would put himself at the bottom of such lists) the point is that for those who are in Christ (those who have their ears and eyes opened to the Moral Law of God) the Law is not made, the Law is not their slave master, because they have been freed from trying to keep it for righteousness, but those who are still in sin, in Adam, and have not been born of God, the Law to they is death; it remains a slave master driving them with a whip to try to obey its stipulations in their own strength for salvation, and it was never intended to do so. The Law can NEVER provide the power to obey it, it is an accuser, but the good news is that Christ obeyed all its stipulations for all those who believe; the gospel has the power to free us from the slavery of self-righteousness! I ask you Thomas, have you been freed?

    I see that you deny any teaching of original sin, passed down to Adam’s posterity (a doctrine certainly not relegated to Paul’s writings alone) and

    You said, “Faith is literally letting all things go and take no thought for tomorrow…”

    The Bible knows of no such definition of the word faith, faith is in an object, we are not saved by faith in faith, but by a faith that is in an object, and that object is the Lord Jesus Christ, so for OT saints, they were saved by grace through faith in the coming messiah, and the NT saints are saved by grace through faith in the Messiah who has come!

  98. Nick said

    We have been arguing whether Paul had the right to proclaim himself an Apostle of Jesus but the in-errant word of God also declares in Hebrews that Jesus was the ‘Melchi-Zedek’…

    Who was Jesus and what was his faith?

    Before we can answer that question we have to ask…

    Who was Melchizedek?

    Q: Here’s a question for you: who was Melchizedek, exactly? He’s mentioned about ten times in three books of the Bible (Genesis 14:17-20; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:1,10,11,15,17), but not much is said except for his being a high-priest of God, and Jesus was ordained as a High-Priest of the Melchizedek Order.

    A: The bottom line is that no one knows for sure. He is a very strange figure who kind of pops up and then disappears. From Genesis 14:17-20, we know that he is a priest and a king (like Jesus). His name means “king of righteousness” and he is the king of Jerusalem (so all of this prefigures Christ). He brings bread and wine to Abraham (a figure of the Lord’s supper?). Finally he receives tithes from Abraham indicating that he is greater than Abraham (see Hebrews 7:4).

    So who was Melchizedek? Here are the three options that I know of:


    Melchizedek is a pagan priest who recognizes God’s blessing on Abraham. Although Genesis 14 calls Melchizedek a “priest of God Most High,” the titles “most high,” “lord of heaven” and “creator of earth” (see Genesis 14:18-20) were frequently applied to the chief Canaanite deity in ancient times. The problem with this view is why would Abraham give a tithe (a tenth of the spoils) to a pagan?

    Melchizedek is a priest of the true God. If you count the years it has not been all that long since the time of Noah. Since Noah’s time, almost all of human kind has corrupted the worship and knowledge of the God, but Melchizedek may be an exception. He is a priest who worships the true God. Abraham recognizes this and gives Melchizedek a tithe.

    Melchizedek is a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. There are instances in the Old Testament where God seems to appear in human form (Genesis 18 and Daniel 8:15-16 for example). Some of the “angel of the Lord” appearances seem to fall into this category too. Melchizedek could be Christ. It would not surprise me to get to heaven and find that there had been an untold story of Christ walking through history appearing in various forms and guiding His people.

    So, to understand the perspective I have added a study of this material by my friend, a Pagan High Priest. I know this is a Christian venue but this must be considered because it has academic validity and if we are understand whether Paul correctly represented Jesus, we must know what it means when the scripture say’s that Jesus is the Melchizedek.

    Pagan Priesthood and the Mystery of Melchizedek

    Chapter Five of The Crafted Cup

    c The Rev. Shadwynn, O.A.G.

    Every Sunday and, indeed, every day throughout the world, a strange and obscure personage is ritually remembered at the altars of the Catholic faithful:

    Father, we celebrate the memory of your Son. We, your people and your ministers, recall his passion, his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into glory; and from the many gifts you have given us we offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation. Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedek. 1

    For the most part, even Catholics, by and large, have little knowledge as to the identity of the Biblical context of the story, which to some degree, gives a brief and tantalizing glimpse into the life of Melchizedek.

    Who was he? The well-informed among the pious will answer, “He was a priest of the Most High God.” What did he do? “He offered bread and wine to Abraham.” Other than this bare shred of information regarding a single incident in the life of this mysterious man, we are left with a historical and Biblical blank. What does it matter? For Christians, his identity carries with it important implications which affect one of the very foundational tenets of their faith. For Pagans, Wiccans, and those of us in the Ordo Arcanorum Gradalis in particular, the political and priestly position, the religion, and the later theological exaltation of Melchizedek at the hands of Jewish and Christian writers, represents the key by which the Pagan priesthood can once again assert its authority over the sometimes intolerant and prejudicial claims of the ecclesiastical establishment of the Church.

    The earliest and only information regarding this ancient figure from an almost forgotten past is contained in Genesis, the very first book of the Bible. Biblical scholars have long recognized the fact that Genesis, as well as the rest of the Pentateuch, is a compilation from at least two divergent sources of oral and written tradition, known respectively as “J” and “P”; “J” standing for the Yahwist narrative and “P” designating the Priestly source. But fragmentarily sandwiched in between these diverse streams of literary source material are occasional stories which have embeded themselves here and there in the manuscripts, but whose origins are distinctly more ancient than those of “J” and “P”, and originating from often more obscure and independent sources in Hebrew antiquity. Genesis 14:17-20 is a vivid case in point:

    When Abram (Abraham) came back after the defeat of Chedor-laomer and the kings who had been on his side, the king of Sodom came to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the Valley of the King). Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High. He pronounced this blessing: “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, creator of heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High for handing over your enemies to you.” And Abram gave him a tithe of everything.2

    On the basis of this extremely brief passage, some of the most mistaken assumptions in Judeo-Christian theology have been made which have affected the traditional perceptions of the nature and superiority of Christ and the Christian priesthood. To begin with, later Jewish commentators unwittingly initiated what would subsequently become a “domino effect” of seemingly legitimate conclusions based upon inaccurate linguistic interpretations and a faulty historical exegesis of the above scriptural text.

    Outside of Genesis, reference to Melchizedek is made only one other time in the entire canon of the Hebrew scripture: Psalm 110:4, “Yahweh has sworn an oath which he will never retract, ‘You are a priest of the order of Melchizedek, and for ever.'”3 Here we see that by the time of the composition of this psalm (1000 BCE-600 BCE?), the writer, speaking for Yahweh, was no longer aware of the true identity of Melchizedek. He was obviously under the impression that this priest-king who blessed the patriarch of the Hebrew nation was a member of the priesthood which from the dim mists of antiquity had been in the service Israel’s god Yahweh. It is this colossal misidentification of Melchizedek which later became the fallacious cornerstone for the Christian teachings regarding Eucharistic archetypes and the doctrine of the superiority of the priesthood of the Church over the Levitical priesthood of the Jewish people:

    You remember that Melchizedek, king of Salem, a priest of God Most High, went to meet Abraham who was on his way back after defeating the kings, and blessed him; and also that it was to him that Abraham gave a tenth of all that he had. By the interpretation of his name, he is, first, “king of righteousness” and also king of Salem, that is “king of peace”; he has no father, no mother or ancestry, and his life has no beginning or ending; he is like unto the Son of God. He remains a priest forever. Now think how great this man must have been, if the patriarch Abraham paid him a tenth of the treasure he had captured … this man (Melchizedek), who was not of the same descent (as the Levitical Jewish priesthood), took his tenth from Abraham, and he gave his blessing to the holder of the promises (Abraham). Now it is indisputable that a blessing is given by a superior to an inferior … It could be said that Levi himself (the ancestor of the tribe which composed the Jewish priesthood), who receives tithes (through the priesthood of his descendents), actually paid them, in the person of Abraham, because he was still in the loins of his ancestor (Abraham) when Melchizedek came to meet him. 4

    This passage from the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews goes on to designate Christ as the next in line to inherit the prerogatives of Melchizedek’s superior priesthood by virtue of applying to Him the previous quoted prophecy of Psalm 110:4, “You are a priest of the order of Melchizedek, and for ever.”

    The writer of this early scripture to Hebrew Christians was “making as much hay” as possible from the legendary narratives of Genesis as well as the involved sacrificial instructions contained in the Levitical regulations of the Jewish priesthood as a foreshadowing of the atoning sacrifice of the Christ. Secondarily paramount was the writer’s intention to show the superiority of the Christian priesthood of apostles and prophets (having received their authority from Christ Himself, the very embodiment and fulfillment of Melchizedek’s priesthood) over the “superceded” priesthood of the Jewish temple.

    Part of the writer’s argument hinged on the identity of Melchizedek. Admittedly, he or she knew the Old Testament extremely well, and was quite adept in bringing forth an interpretation of the scriptures which fit into the mold of his/her spiritual preconceptions. As seen from the above passage, Melchizedek is described in no uncertain terms as being like the Son of God, the original King of Peace, and even by implication, a deathless and eternal being. No doubt the author saw in Melchizedek the cast shadow which prophetically pointed to the substantive continuation of his priesthood in Jesus, the new Priest-King Messiah. It is possible the writer even conceived of Melchizedek as a literal manifestation of the pre-incarnate Christ or primordial Logos. In fact, latching on to this idea, there were those in the later Church who went so far as to assert that Melchizedek was a greater manifestation of the Logos than was Jesus!5

    Many shades of interpretation colored these verses, depending on who was expounding from this epistle. But one thing is certain: the argument of the early Christians was clear enough. The fact that Abraham, in whose loins were the later progeny of the Hebrew people, paid voluntary tithes to this mysterious priest-king of ancient Salem (Jerusalem) was proof that the messianic priesthood of Christ, being after the Order of Melchizedek, was superior to the later priesthood of the Jews, who through Abraham their supreme patriarch, were paying tithes to Melchizedek! Or so ran the argument throughout the rest of the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

    However, upon closer examination of these evolutionary interpretations of Genesis 14, we will discover that, far from validating the ecclesiastical preeminence of the Christian clergy, this Biblical passage actually strengthens the historical and sacramental superiority of the Pagan priesthood in relation to both church and synagogue. The thrust of this chapter is not, however, an attempt to establish one religion as being better than another. It is, rather, an effort to apply the logic used by early Christian interpreters drawn out to its ultimate conclusions when based on the historical facts surrounding the mystery of Melchizedek instead of the unfounded assumptions of the early Church fathers.

    Ironically, the first mistake was made originally by the Hebrew commentators themselves with regard to the meaning of certain pivotal words in the original text itself. In Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek is described as being a priest of “God Most High.” While technically speaking, this rendition of the words el ‘elyon is not a mistranslation, it is most definitely reflective of the translators’ historical ignorance relative to the contemporary culture of which Melchizedek was a part. Scholars have now learned that Melchizedek was a Canaanite priest-king who reigned over the city of Jerusalem long before it ever came under the control and supremacy of the Hebrews. The words el ‘elyon , while technically permitting the translation of “God Most High” according to later Hebrew usage, were originally a designation of either one or possibly two Canaanite deities, apparently among the most exalted gods of the Canaanite pantheon! What has become abundantly clear to discerning Biblical scholars is that Melchizedek was a Pagan priest, who, after the great battle between the kings, blessed Abraham, the father and patriarch of the Hebrew people, in the name of the Canaanite god(s) El ‘Elyon for his victory over their common city-state enemies! Melchizedek was neither a priest nor a worshipper of the god of Abraham, known to later generations as Yahweh. Instead, he worshipped and served the god(s) of his own Pagan, Canaanite religion:

    Finally, the notice about Melchizedek merits a measure of confidence in its own right. He Abraham, on the other hand, refers to Yahweh, using the Canaanite name or names in suitable apposition, which is no less appropriate in his particular case …The narrative itself has all the ingredients of historicity …Now that this chapter (Genesis 14) is amply attested as a source unto itself, it is not only unnecessary but fallacious to harmonize its contents with other portions of the OT (Old Testament). As a Canaanite priest, Melchizedek would invoke his deity or deities by name; and this is what the above translation has sought to reproduce. Abraham, on the other hand, would just as naturally turn to Yahweh, especially in an oath …6

    We cannot…be certain about Melchizedek’s historical context, but it is likely that his kingdom of “Salem” was Jerusalem, and that the “God Most High”” whom he served was the Canaanite god El-Elyon …7

    Melchizedek is an old Canaanite name meaning “My King Is (the god) Sedek” or “My King Is Righteousness” (the meaning of the similar Hebrew cognate). Salem, of which he is said to be king, is very probably Jerusalem … The god whom Melchizedek serves as priest is “El ‘Elyon,” again a name of Canaanite origin, probably designating the high god of their panteon … For Abraham to recognize the authority of a Canaanite priest-king is startling and has no parallel in biblical literature.8

    As just stated above, the very name itself–Melchizedek–literally means from the Canaanite usage, “My King is (the god) Sedek.” So this priest-king of early Salem (later Jerusalem) was even dedicated by his own name to yet another Canaanite deity!

    The theological implications of these facts are nothing short of staggering. The later Hebrews saw in Melchizedek the archetype of the perfect priest of their Lord, Yahweh. They had totally lost sight of his actual identity as a Pagan priest of the very Canaanite peoples which the invading Israelites under Moses and Joshua had sworn to destroy due to the “abominations” of their Pagan religion (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)!

    The Christians, in their turn, continued to compound this same scriptural misinterpretation by making Melchizedek either a pre-incarnate manifestation of the Christ, or else a foreshadowing type of the Messiah who would continue his ancient priesthood through the apostolic succession of the Church. But when we understand the historical facts surrounding the original events described in Genesis 14, we see that not only are the Jewish and Christian theologies relating to Melchizedek totally fallacious in their basic assumptions, but they play perfectly into the hands of those of us who are instrumental in the contemporary re-establishment of the Pagan priesthood.

    If we use, in our turn, the same interpretive approach as did the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we will easily come to some most astounding conclusions. To being with, Melchizedek was a Pagan priest. He did not serve the god of Abraham, but rather his own Canaanite deity(ies), El ‘Elyon. Abraham paid his tithes to the chief priest of a Pagan religion, so, if like the early Christian interpreters, we see Abraham as symbolically containing in his loins the later spiritual progeny of the Jewish priesthood, and succeeding them (in Christian teaching), the priesthood of the Church, then we can just as consistently argue that in paying his tithes to Melchizedek, Abraham and through him all the later generations of Jewish and Christian clergy were acknowledging the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood, which, as has been clearly established, as PAGAN! Furthermore, Jesus Christ is said by the New Testament writers to be an eternal High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:17, 24). If we use the same kind of interpretive analysis, this makes Christ the successor and embodiment of an ancient and venerable Pagan priesthood! Therefore, it can be said that modern Pagans have more of a legitimate claim upon the deified priest-king Christ than does the Christian Church itself, for His priesthood is derived, not from the Jewish Temple, but from the Pagan priest-king Melchizedek!

    Neither should it be forgotten that Melchizedek is seen as the great archetype of the divine origination of the Eucharist, giving as he did bread and wine to Abraham. For this reason, as quoted at the beginning of this chapter, Melchizedek is memorialized daily in the traditional Canon of the Roman Catholic Mass. Now again, when we use the same interpretive logic as did the early Church, we can confidently assert, in light of the historical facts, that the very elements of sacred bread and wine–the Eucharist in the making–were a gift to Abraham and his spiritual descendents (i.e., the Christian priesthood of apostolic succession) from one of the most venerable Hierophants of ancient Paganism: Melchizedek, priest of El ‘Elyon! “Melchizedek is hermetically considered to be an inner master because he had neither ‘beginning of days nor end of life’ His motif is woven into the Grail legends. He is a strong and high contact which will bring the reader into the presence of eternal things.9 For those of us in the Ordo Arcanorum Gradalis, for whom the Eucharistic mystery of the Grail Mass is of central importance within the confines of our tradition, this all the more reinforces our long-standing belief that, far from being alien to the Pagan way, Eucharistic worship is indeed inextricably bound into the heart of Pagan antiquity. It was not stolen from the Church. Actually, it was the Church, which, through Abraham, received it as a gift from the chief priest of Canaanite Paganism!

    Contemporary Pagans, Wiccans, and other esoterically-minded occultists need to realize that it often pays off theologically to closely examine the teachings, claims, and dogmas of the Church, for very often we will find that they have built upon the foundation of the pre-Christian Pagan mysteries whose original meaning has been distorted for the purposes of furthering certain claims of Christian exclusivity and theological intolerance. But it is in the process of this kind of investigation that we occasionally come across “a pearl of great price” like Melchizedek, a man whose mysterious obscurity has long held the key for authenticating the spiritual precedence and antiquity of the Pagan priesthood over the later Judeo-Christian claims of religious and ecclesiastical superiority.

    This knowledge is important for us because it reinforces the realization that through Melchizedek, Pagan, Jewish, and Christian clergy stand on an equally valid footing derived from the same source of blessing and empowerment. For this reason (as well as a host of others), it is needful for those who function as priest/esses of covens, groves, and chapels of the Pagan way to ponder deeply upon their calling as ministers of the sacred.

    During much of the recent upsurge of the Wiccan and Neo-Pagan movements, there was often what can only be described as a much too cavalier and/or casual attitude towards being a high priest or high priestess. For some it was the means of obtaining power over a small group for immature ego gratification. Titles of priesthood among modern Neo-Pagans have often been “a dime a dozen.” In some groups, any pretense of priesthood has degenerated into a travesty; the means of initiation often depending upon who slept with who. As one Grailpriest reflected:

    All too often in American Neo-Paganism, the steps leading to office and title can be all too easy (“I read Starhawk, so I’m a High Priest!”), all too immature (“Okay, I slept with you, where’s my 2nd degree?”), or irrelevant (“The initiate shows proper magical attitude by washing the High Priest’s car.”). The steps to title and office must be challenging, mature and relevant. Plus they must refer back to a tradition, to connect us with our past.10

    In the past lies our religious and historical authentication; in the future lies the fulfillment of our priestly potential, if we learn a lesson from the example of Melchizedek. As contemporary Paganism comes of age, there is dawning upon many in the positions of leadership a corresponding yearning for more serious structuring of both practical and theoretical training for those who feel compelled to follow the call of service and responsibility as a member of the ranks of Pagan clergy. This is a necessary imperative in the right direction if we are to reflect in our society at large a reputation as representative os serious theological substance and religious relevance. Historically, members of any priesthood have been expected to function as intercessors for their people before the gods, to minister to the spiritual needs of their people, and to stand courageously in resolute defense of their deities, traditions and sacred truths. In the Ordo Arcanorum Gradalis we also take seriously our priestly stewardship as the dispensers of sacramental grace through the celebration of the Grail Mass. If we want the public at large to view the priesthoods of modern Paganism with the same sense of validity as they do both Jewish and Christian clergy, we must be able to expound not only the realities of our links with the revered faiths of ancient antiquity, but also upon the seriousness with which we take our vows of ordination in order to serve the spiritual needs of our people and the ecological imperatives of our planet. It is a most astounding commentary for our consideration that Melchizedek as a Pagan priest-king was so respected even by those–like Abraham–who were of other religious faiths, that they willingly received upon themselves and their posterity the blessing which he bestowed. Let us pray to the Goddess that the Pagan priesthood can become worthy of being held in such high esteem by Jews, Christians, and all other faiths within our pluralistic society, that they will willingly listen to the wisdom of our counsel and respect the integrity of our convictions.


    1 Excerpts from the English translation of The Roman Missal c1973, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc. All rights reserved.

    2 Genesis 14:17-20, The Jerusalem Bible. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966).

    3 Psalms 110:4, The Jerusalem Bible.

    4 Hebrews 7:1-4, 6-7, 9-10, The Jerusalem Bible. (Emphasis Shadwynn’s.)

    5 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Ed. by F.L Cross. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1974), p. 899.

    6 The Anchor Bible: Genesis. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by Ephraim A. Speiser. (New York, NY:Doubleday & Company, 1981), pp. 109, 104 (Emphasis Shadwynn’s.).

    7 Richard Coggins, Who’s Who in the Bible. (London: B.T. Barsford Ltd., 1981), p. 100. (Emphasis Shadwynn’s.)

    8 From “Melchizedek” in Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition (1985), 7:1029. (Emphasis Shadwynn’s.)

    9 Caitlin and John Matthews, The Western Way, Volume II–The Hermetic Tradition. (London: Arkana, 1986), p. 178.

    10 William Calhoun, “Vigil and Question,” Hallows, Fall 1990 (Glen Allen, VA), p.11.

  99. jAsOn said


    I wish that you and Thomas could stop submitting new material long enough to answer/cross-examine a rebuttal to previous material you have offered.
    This current method doesn’t produce dialogue; it is just multiple competing monologues. Cross-examination is where we will weed out contradictions and inconsistencies, and is where the truth will be exposed.

    Let’s remember that Melchizedek was referred to as a priest of the most High God, which in the context of that passage in Genesis would have meant no other than the God, creator of all heaven and Earth who descended as Christ and died as the perfect sacrifice and rose again to triumph over death.

    You said, “the in-errant word of God also declares in Hebrews that Jesus was the ‘Melchi-Zedek’…”
    When in fact, the book of Hebrews doesn’t say that, here is the text, Heb. 5:5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him,
    “You are my Son,
    today I have begotten you”;

    6 as he says also in another place,

    “You are a priest forever,
    after the order of Melchizedek.”
    7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.”

    Heb 6:20 “where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”
    Heb. 7:1 “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. 3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.”
    Heb. 7:7 It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. 8 In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. 9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. 11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is witnessed of him,”
    “You are a priest forever,
    after the order of Melchizedek.”

    So we see very clearly, the author of Hebrews never says that Jesus, “the Melchizedek”, which may have been a typo on your part Nick, but the important distinction is that the author of the book of Hebrews was intending to use the Melchizedek reference to show that Christ’s priesthood did do exactly what you friend below denies.

    Btw, it seems that Thomas attacks Paul’s writings, but agrees with the gospel writers, but you are attacking the validity of the OT writers as well, is this an accurate assessment?

    Shadwynn said,
    “Here we see that by the time of the composition of this psalm (1000 BCE-600 BCE?), the writer, speaking for Yahweh, was no longer aware of the true identity of Melchizedek. He was obviously under the impression that this priest-king who blessed the patriarch of the Hebrew nation was a member of the priesthood which from the dim mists of antiquity had been in the service Israel’s god Yahweh. It is this colossal misidentification of Melchizedek which later became the fallacious cornerstone for the Christian teachings regarding Eucharistic archetypes and the doctrine of the superiority of the priesthood of the Church over the Levitical priesthood of the Jewish people:”

    Here is the quotation from the Psalm,
    110: 3 Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours. 4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” 5 The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
    Shadwynn wildly claims that the Psalmist is no longer aware of Melchizedek’s identity which he does not provide a shred of credible evidence, but just makes an argument from antiquity over majority—regarding the oral sources for the life of Melchizedek. As I have also shown, it is absurd to think that Melchizedek was not a servant of the God of Abraham.

    You and Shadwynn seam to think that the only reason we should believe that Jesus was the messiah or the Christ is because of the Psalmists and the NT writers association of Jesus’ to Melchizedek, is this correct? This is plainly not the only reason to consider Christ the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, and yes, even the Priest of priests, the NT is filled with claims that Jesus fulfilled those OT prophesies of such a person, and Christ Himself claimed to be God, the Most High God in fact. I will read the rest later and comment.

  100. Joe said

    I’m still trying to figure out how Thomas and Nick plan to get into Heaven since they believe Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross. Forgot which one of you posted this, but it sure raises more questions.


  101. Hey Joe,

    Heaven and Hell are only states of being that are evident by manifestation.

    If we fill our minds, hearts surroundings with negative images, information and emotions what will we manifest in our life?

    This is true to the final Judgement.

    If are full of disgusting things then surely your eternity well reflect those things as well beautiful things.

    Salvation is knowing we have the power to change ourselves.

    The freedom to chose our path, our destiny and create our eteranl abode.

    The Our Father prayer was actually transcribed from Sumerian Text
    of which actully began, “Oh Anu who are in Heaven”

    I have below tied the basic cross meanings in the Our Father Prayer something a little more balanced in meaning.

    Our Father(ANU) who are in Heaven
    Hallowed be your name(Bloodline)
    Your Kin(g)dom come
    Your will (Be fruitful and multiply) be done
    On Earth as it is Heaven (As a above so below)
    Give us this day
    Our daily bread (Living bread)
    Forgive us of our Separations,
    As we forgive those,
    who bring Separation against us.
    Lead us not into Temptation,
    But deliver us from Evil(DEATH).

    What we know is Heaven and Earth a simular places that the will of God is that both become Identical.

    Jesus say’s Heaven and Earth Will Pass away but my word will never pass away…

    Refering to the same word that became flesh and dwealt among us.

    So Jesus’ DNA will out live Heaven and Earth?

    No, two perspectives of the same reference are one in the same.

    OUr perspective of these places change not only our perspective but actually transform Heaven and Earth into someting new.

    A New Heavens and New Earth of which the only people that can survive this transformation are actually(Becasue they are eaternal beitg they possess the ‘Word’ in them) etarnal and can be ‘Born Again’.

    Matter O’fact if you are not ‘Born Again’ you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Meaning you must be reincarnated becasue of the Word (DNA) of God in You.

    We are already in Heaven but look what we have done to it…

    Look around and see what we have done a beautiful paradise… We Steal from other Countries, like their OIL and we Kill them when we they resist; we do not care as we will destroy them, their homes and their posterity.

    We Ameirca come to Steal, Kill and Destroy.

    Our Sin is evident before us… God will not Judge the weak, drug addicts, sex addicts and dirtiest among us. When most of the isn is propegated from the top. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit as well a bady tree cannot produce good fruit.

    Americans go to Church while we condone murder, robbery with no respect of family.

    The reason America is lost… Is becasue we have no root to keep us.. We are lost in the briars of Political correctness, watered by the bribery and pay off to Rich Elite.

    If this is Heaven, don’t you think we should be held accountable to clean up the mess? But you see, Christians tend to shrug it off assuming Jesus will take care of it all… Jesus never taught to be apathetic nor would he condone passing the buck of responsibility.

    If the Church does not agree with that then why do we not just hand out hundred dollar bills on the streets to the bums?

    People want to see a person pay his due? Although Jesus never gives this requirment we know it to be wise. So if when it comes to money we require such responsibility of one another but do not hold the Authority to the same Ideals what good is it?

    Such Hypocrisy.

    It is sad but true, you cannot inherit the Heaven you wish to have if you do not take care of the Earth you already have.

    Especially if they are the same place.

    Think about that as women that lack in IQ or are so impoverished and lonely… Add three children and you have a very desperate woman. She cannot work hard enough to take care of her childrt then although if she prostitute herself she can make six figures… Thats gross and don’t think anyone of us are off the hook because Faith without works is Dead. We have to be out in the streets fighting for the Human Rights of People notjust here in AMERICA but the entire Earth.

    Why will the Anti Christ have power? Becasue the christians will apathetically award it to Evil and have already. You know becasue I’m busy working,paying bills you know… I mean I do not like George Bush but what can I do?

    There are no excuses before the Throne of God. If you skip work for Jesus we would see our corrupt Governement fall and WE the People can take back the Consititution.

    I am afraid that Ameirca is already sold out to the most terrible Evil Greed.

    And what is worse so is the Church.

    Heaven requires the accountabiltity of Earth.

  102. Joe said

    Hey Thomas – What you’re saying makes sense and I agree with you on most of it. I’m curious to know out of the republican and democratic candidates for the 2008 election…..which one has the right bloodline and which one do you think will keep us on the path to a New World Order and North American Union? I’m having trouble understanding your answer concerning heaven. Is it really true that you don’t believe in the Crucifixion and Resurrection?

  103. jAsOn said


    What is the source text of the supposed “Sumerian” prayer from which Christ stole to create the “Disciples” prayer?

    I reentered the discussion with you because, about 15 posts ago, you seemed to be trying to form some rational arguments, but you still haven’t answered many of my rebutals of your arguments, why not?

  104. F. L. A. said

    WE HAVE.

  105. Anonymous said

    FLA – why do you post with all caps?

  106. F. L. A. said


  107. By Popular demand!

    Sorry John that it took me so long

    “Alright, just for arguments sake, let’s go with this.
    Thomas, you stated that your family line on your fathers side was
    on Royal and Public record, which somehow confirmed that you were the great, great,+1,000[?]grand nephew,son, whatever, of Jesus the Christ.Right? Where can WE go to see such Royal and Public records?”

    Well you can begin with Ancestry.com or Rootsweb but ultimately you will need to find genealologist and then you need to petition for grants that will allow you to view Royal archives.

    I have a couple of links I will post later…

    Laurence Gardner has the bulk work published in Bloodline of the Holy Grail.

    “Many Christians that I talk to don’t think that Jesus had any descendants.By himself or any of his siblings.Some that I’ve debated with don’t even think he had any blood siblings.
    Seems like these records would be a really big deal in the theological community, so why haven’t we “little people” heard anything about this?”

    Oh they are public knowledge it’s that most scholars do not want to upset the chruch because their funding could be cut. And live by an old Texas motto, ‘If it aint broke don’t fix it.’

    The Church is the most powerful finacial entity in the United States second only to the federal reserve itself.

    The bottom line is Money… If Jesus’ Faith were being expressed, Churches wouldn’t recieve the money they do and the preacher could no longer justify thier 80 thousand dollar car, 2 million dollar estate, their Italian suites and rolex watches.

    “Nobody ELSE ever claimed that Joan of Arch was related to Jesus.How do you know that you weren’t tricked in some way by your sources?”

    Because that would be stupid.

    Tricked by whom… Don’t you think the Bible would be under scrutiny as well? Can you imagine a conspiracy to fake the genealogical records of Joan of Arch? I mean if people are going to fake something like that.. Why not just fake the Bible?(Far more fun in tha, don’t you think?)

    What I’m saying if the records of Joan of arch are wrong… The whole damn bible is based on the same wrong information.

    “What do vampires have to do with any of this?”

    That is multi-part answer to a simple question. First, Vampires are not blood sucking demons who cannot be in the daylight. Those are fictitious creations that the catholic Church propagated against certain bloodlines, Namely, Vladd ‘the Imapaler’ Tepes son of Dracul.

    Origins of Vampirism

    “Are there some of those in your bloodlines,or something?”


    “I imagine it would tie in nicely with all that talk about being reborn and eternal life, and stuff.You’re standing in the sunlight on your web sight,so……….?”

    If you are alive and you die and then you are raised from the dead what does that make you?


    Sunlight does make me very ill if I spend to much time in direct conctact with the suns rays. I cannot work in the sunlight or remain exposed for more than thirty minutes at a time as it becomes very painful especially, if I do not wear long sleeves.

    My skin burns and I sunburn fast, I become extremely nausiated and get a terrible migraine head ache… I am very Nocturnal as all white skinned people are naturally nocturnal. That is why many fair skinned people suffer from Insomnia.

    “If your claims are true, it matters not to me anyway, being a Pagan.Pagan mythology has untold numbers of tales about Demigods/goddesses and their children, so, big deal[for someone like ME anyway].It would just mess things up for Christianity.
    Which leads me to ask why you came hear to this site to tell all of us about this stuff.What was your motivation?”

    I will not stop until the truth be known.

    “Just bragging?”

    Bragging… Bragging no… I’m not bragging, I’m at war. All I want is Vindication for my family.

    “Are you being stalked by a big albino monk?”

    Maybe… there are stange people following me…LoL!

    “Although I don’t claim to have the DNA of a deity[except perhaps in the most LIBERAL way possible]I work Magick, so I must be “divinely qualified” too!
    Maybe we can swap techniques,eh?”

    John I would love to hang out with you maybe you would like to attend a Pagan festival and you could meet some of my SUMERIAN friends?

    HAPPY NEW YEAR… I guess? That is if you follow the solar calender.

  108. Anonymous1 said

    Oh pullleeeeeaaaaassssse. Again, just when I thought I had heard it all. Put your boots on boys!

  109. Anonymous said

    Hello Thomas – I am a direct descendent of Richard Keith of Clan Keith in Scotland. I have not been able to trace back further than the 1200’s. Keith was a son of the family of Keiths Earls Marshall of Scotland, and in proof carry in their arms the chief of Keith Marischal. I wonder if you can tell me if it would be of interest to me to investigate further. I’m curious to find out if I can trace any ancestry to the Merovingians, etc.

  110. Keith-

    I say hell yes.. although you and I as well many others are in the dilemma.. Seems that by personal research everyone finds d aead end about the same time.

    Between 10-1200’s there comes a genealogical brick wall.

    Usually, if you can find one relative in scotland you can petition to fly your colors so-to-speak.

    Hiring a recognized or Royal appointed Genealogist is necessary at this point.

    It’s not cheap.. try 5-7000 Euros.

    The only alternative is do it yourself which is a tremendous amount of work (And quite franky impossible). The Mormans have the corner on the market for Genealogy even the Jews go to the Mormans for their genealogy.

    Which gives the Mormans some validity becasue they have the records that even the Windsors do not have in their own family tree… Well of’Course even they paid the Latter day Saints money to get their genealogical info.

    As for the Merovigian blood line that is little bit tricky.

    Are you Jewish/Sicambrian Frank descent at all?

    And by tradition, it can only be validated through the Matriarchal line.

  111. The

    Main Proof Paul is a false Prophet?

    He Blasphemes the Holy Spirit, The Wife of God.

    Rose Of Sharon

  112. Moderator (not Stu) said

    Hello Thomas – We would really appreciate it if you would not use anymore curse words in your posts. We value your input and would rather not have to delete any comments containing profanity. Thank you – Moderator (not Stu)

  113. jAsOn said


    Many of your critisicms of the church fall on segments which reformed protestants wouldn’t consider to be accurate depictions of Christianisty, i.e., the “Word Of Faith” movement, via Hinn, Copeland, etc. (Please note that I didn’t say they weren’t redeemed)

    I think it would benefit you to investigate the “visible church/invisible church” principle; there are many who in the end will say, “Lord, Lord, but He will say, ‘Depart from me you workers of iniquity, for I never knew you’.”

    You must remember that WE ALL, every one of us are hypocrites at times, thus we sometimes misrepresent what we say we believe by acting and doing contrary.

    A little graciousness would be appreciated; it seems to me that the ones who generally call “foul” first are the ones who end up casting the first stone, i.e., your continual denegration of the materially “rich”–the REJECTION of things material is not definitional to Christianity, but closer to gnosticism.

  114. John said

    Happy New Years everybody! Thankyou Thomas, that will do very well.Samhain[Holloween] is the New Year for us, but as not all of us are Wiccan/Pagan and we like to party and celebrate for any little reason at all, wishing me a happy New Years now is just fine with me, as the begining of this post makes clear.
    After reading your response to my kin here, my mother wanted to say….:”And all of you thought that JOHN was weird? Now THAT’S weird! That’s scary weird!”
    No offense intended from me,Thomas. She’s “normal”, not like us[ha.ha.]But I’m a very different kind of weird compared to you.

  115. Jeff said

    Thomas – I’m curious to know how you reconcile John 14:6, or do you have a different translation for that piece of Scripture too? Seems pretty clear to me and I still don’t understand how you plan to get into Heaven since Jesus is clear that the only way to the Father is through Him.

  116. Anonymous said

    Thomas – Do you have an email address you can share? I would like to email you and ask you a few questions offline concerning ancestry.com, etc. Thanks.

  117. Moderator and and all ‘Passer bys’…

    I apologize for offending some with the occasional use of profanity.

    I hide nothing, I cus it up when I feel the inclination to do so, as you can see it is intergrated into my Angalish.

    So again I Apologize.

  118. Jason,

    I do apologize as my life gets really hectic and seems at times I can’t keep up.

    Please, could you start from the beginning and give me alist of questions in order of importance.

    That way, we can work out any mis-understandings… Forgive me amidst the multitude of Books of history, religion and philosoophy from modern to ancient times and back forget… I tend to throw out information assuming my audience is well read.

    I will do my best to clarify and confirm sources one by one as needed to bring everyone up to speed.



    John 14.6

    Jesus said to him, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the father except through Me.”

    Jeff first tell me what you think by telling me what you are trully asking…

    What is the Way?

    What is the Truth?

    What is the Life?

    Surely I will respond to you.

  119. Jeff said

    Thomas – I’m assuming what Jesus is saying in John 14:6 is that through following Him and having a personal relationship with Him…one can spend eternity with Him in Heaven. What’s your translation?

  120. jAsOn said

    I looked through the posts above, and as far as I can tell, posts #95,96, and 97 contain my rebutals and objcections…as far as putting them in order of importance…I’m not sure that’s a reasonable exercise, so if you would try to address those issues I would appreciate it; we probably all know what it is like to be busy.

  121. Mike Sears said

    The answer to your 3 questions to Jeff is Jesus!



    Here is ‘in part’ some answers to the addressed questions:

    “Lets get one thing straight, when you pit the words of Jesus against the words of Paul, you are actually pitting the words which another Apostle recorded against the words of Paul, so the entire argument from your perspective should be the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John against the words of Paul, another way to say it is this, you are pitting the words of one professing Apostle against the words of other professing Apostles.”

    Simple answer:

    YOu could not be an Apostle if were not related as it was and still is a hereditary appointment.

    “1. Jesus died and was raised before this event happened to Paul.”

    Jesus reamain among the desciples and taught them for what the bible describes as ’40 days and 40 nights’ but this was only figure of speech purposely used to describe and unknown amount of time. And as for the Death on the cross… It took around 7-8 days on the average for a person to die from Crucifixion as most people die suphicating from preasure on the lungs. Jesus wasn’t even hanging there for an entire day before he was lowered down.

    “2. No Christian claims that “Christ” is a surname, it means the anointed one, and was the title given to Him (by even the gospel writers) as a fulfillment of the coming Messiah from the OT.”

    The main point was to bring to light that this wwas never a term used by Jesus or the bretheren. Jesus is not a ‘Christ’ unless you want to practise Paganism..?

    “3. No other doctrine?!?! What do you think spurred the idolatry of the Corinthians, the worship of Caesar, etc?”

    Until you are willing to step outside the box you never see another doctrine but the one so ingrained into your psyche from birth.

    “4. Because of the emphasis of the OT on the children of Abraham, which in Christ’s and Paul’s day caused some Jews to consider themselves righteous before God solely based on ancestry, others of them made an idol out of the genealogies and their overemphasis confused the gospel.”

    This why you need to understand the New Testement written by the Underground stream and sanctiond my King James to render the 1611 KJV of the Bible was written in a CODE.

    I cannot teach you the code… Becasue that would defeat the purpose and I’d only be throwing pearls before swine.(Jason I do not refer that to you or any other’s who are diligently seeking after the truth)

    But I will attempt to help you some…

    Pharisee – Essene Priest of Qumran

    JEW – Priest of the Hellenized Temple in Jerusalem

    These are two entirely different factions… The Pharisee had no problem with Jesus talking smack to the Jews.. and vice versa.

    “It is difficult to imagine how Timothy or anyone in the assemblies to whom Paul’s letter was written, and by whom it was read (probably in one sitting) would ever have come to the same conclusions that you have about what Paul has written. We have to remember that the Bible is a collection of books, letters, etc, and must be read as such, taking into account the genre of the specific literature at hand. This is a letter, and should be read as letters are read…you are not doing this.”

    First Timothy was a sell out for Paul… He was never formerly trained or intitated by the bretheren. He would have had no clue to question really and you have to ask why would Timothy even care?

    But without exception Paul has lied saying he is an Apostle… Of which I say again, was an ‘exclusively’ reserved seat for the blood related being a Hereditary Title and Position.

    Paul hasn’t any relation to Jesus other than by marriage as Phillip was Herodian also.

    This has HISTORICALLY been regarded as “literal” interpretation, that we read the Bible as literature. Granted, the Bible is VASTLY different than any other literature due to its being expiated by God.

    What are you saying? I do not contest the Rabbinical requirements for what is considere divine or not. But there is a science to the Torah of which again would throwing pearls before swine.

    Riddle me this:

    ‘wheels with in wheels, sevens with in sevens’

    “4. You completely miss the point of Paul’s statement; his comment on genealogies was not against their inclusion and validity in the historical narrative of scripture, but he uses hyperbole (endless) to prove that the overemphasis of some is not edifying, quite similar to your mistaken notions of scripture…the scriptures you criticize are no less scriptures because of your critique, but your invalid use of them is destructive, and causes endless questions!”

    What? He emphaitically attacks the issue and constantly declares that he is an Apostle. While he could have joined the Bretheren of Qumran he would nor could he ever be an Apostle.

    Peter and Andrew were of the original twelve ‘Disciples’ but they weren’t even granted such a Title of ‘Apostle’ being they weren’t directly related to James or Jesus.

    “5. Ends and means…don’t you see the difference, the end of the commandments of God is charity, etc.; you must come to the scriptures void of your contempt for them! And you cannot do that except by the Holy Spirit of God.”

    I think we ought to leave the issue at hand from involving the break down of the Holy Spirit as I do not want Exploit Her.

    That is an entirely differet issue and one that will surelly raise a few flags… So I will stick with the pauline issue and Doctrine but the Goddess discussion is for later.

    “6. NO is the answer to your question, it has absolutely nothing to do with that. If you smell jealousy, it is not because you got it out of Paul’s words, but because you read it into them.”

    Who was Saul? And Who was Jesus? and what was the Royal House of David? And does bloodline matter? Because according to God (Who in our modern world of political correctness would be considered a racist bigot) we are not to mix outside our tribal bloodlines.

    According to the Bible it’s a very serious issue as is also Usery(Interest) on money you owe of which GOd is against. But Christian’s conveniently ignore this issue as well being sold out to God Mammon.

    “Btw, I suggest you start using a different English translation because you obviously can’t read the original languages (many of us can’t) and the translation you are using (KJV?) is only helping to confuse your understanding.”

    I have most of the different version from front to back repeatedly only to come back to the KJV 1611 as being the most valid versions as the other skew the original intent and meaning of the scripture.

    Looky here… Did you know that the New American Standard, New International Version and one other I cannot rememebr off hand are not printed by christian publishers? Nor Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist? But they are published by companies owned by the Satanic Church of Europe..?

    The King James 1611 retained coded references to the origian scribal codes used by the ancient scribes. And certain surface information lay atop layers of hidden knowledges, genealogical, alchemic and medicianl, geo-politiac and religeous information and general history.

    When reading the other versions this coded information is lost.

    Interestingly the NIV is a good tool as it seperates the many Gods in the bible with different references shuch as, ‘Lord’ and ‘Lord God’ being used in Genesis. There are more and you can usually find this break down in the intro of a descent printing of the NIV.

    “Here is the rendering of vs. 4 & 5 in the ESV, 4 “nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.”

    Paul is clearly arguing that Timothy care for the sheep over which he see, by making sure they are not DEVOTED TO” myths and genealogies and the CHARGE made by Paul and the other Apostles represented by Paul in this pastoral letter was to love, which comes from, “a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” This in no way contradicts the words of Jesus recorded by other Apostles.”

    You say it is… But history and the facts sitll remain, Paul lied repeatedly about being an Apostle when as I have state it was impossible. Now if he claimed it was merely symbolic I could swallow it but it would not, could not be a valid Title.

    Again Jesus knew about the rules, don’t you think he would have said something about it in the Gospel?

    I and others have attempted to directly address many of your claims but you have done very little of that, I for one would appreciate your attempt at the same, from this or from earlier comments we have made in this tread.

    7 “desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.”

    This is a continuation of Paul’s description of those whom he urged Timothy to charge them not to teach different doctrine, or devote themselves to myths and genealogies. If, as you suppose, the “certain persons” to whom Paul addresses his comments are the Levitical Priests, we know that Christ Himself had very harsh words for the priest, the scribes, and the Pharisees; this is no different, and paul is simply reiterating similar charges.

    Job, Enoch, Elijah did not need Jesus to be taken up… And in the New Testement Gospel of LUKE 1:(*5)-6 It was stated:

    “6 And they (*refering to Zacharias and Elizabeth) were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandements and ordinaces of the Lord blameless.”

  123. Jeff said

    Our friend, the illustrious Mr. King Thomas, ruler of whatever, etc. etc. also makes this unbelievable claim in a separate thread on this site.

    “(I personally have a gift of talking to dead but I ignore it… No amount of prayer or kneeling before God about made it go away… I yet can see them and hear them but I say nothing- Most of the time anyway until they irritate me. I dont try to do it nor is there any ritual mumbo jumbo but it is a natural gifting.
    I do not exploit it either it’s a very private issue although I have helped children who lost a parent(s) and occasionally I have used my gift so that they can properly say goodbye… It requires little of me but to let them know that they are there and then I leave the room… And what they expereince is private and intimate but ultimately for their good.)”

    Why is anyone even listening to this guy?

  124. jAsOn said


    You said, “YOu could not be an Apostle if were not related as it was and still is a hereditary appointment.”

    Yes you could, apostle means “sent one”. You are wrong when you say that one had to be physically related to Jesus to be an Apostle. See Matt. 10:2 “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus”

    You said, “And as for the Death on the cross… It took around 7-8 days on the average for a person to die from Crucifixion as most people die suphicating from preasure on the lungs. Jesus wasn’t even hanging there for an entire day before he was lowered down.”

    I figured that you didn’t believe that Christ had died on the cross, but the physical and historical evidence doesn’t allow for any other solution: the disciples of Jesus never would have died at the hands of the Jews or the Greeks for something they knew wasn’t true, if the Romans had remove Jesus from the cross they would have produced His live body to the disciples to prove them wrong and pragmatically resolve a conflict among the Jews that would have caused the Roman leadership in the area a great deal of frustration, and the Jewish leadership would never have allowed anyone under any circumstances to believe that Christ had died on the cross after the disciples had claimed that He had risen from the dead…it was in their best interest that the body remain in the tomb where it had been laid. Furthermore, it was customary Roman practice to stab the victim to insure that he was dead BEFORE he was removed from the cross and EVERY historical account of the event either agrees with this occurance or doesn’t even mention it…no legitamate historical document validates that Jesus was removed from the cross before death.

    You said, “The main point was to bring to light that this wwas never a term used by Jesus or the bretheren. Jesus is not a ‘Christ’ unless you want to practise Paganism…?”

    Your argument was that persons who claim to be Christians use the term “Christ” as a surname…this is patently false. There are about 500 instances where the word CHRIST appears in the NT, and about 70 of them are in the gospel records.

    You said, “Until you are willing to step outside the box you never see another doctrine but the one so ingrained into your psyche from birth.”
    That has nothing to do with the comment to which I was resoponding, in your post #94 you addressed 1 Tim. 1:3 and said, “No other ‘doctrine’ as apposed to what? What doctrine could he be referring to because there is only one doctrine taught in the Old Testament and New Testament’s, Gospel teachings of YESU, The doctrine of ‘The Way’?”—Thomas

    I rebutted by saying, “No other doctrine?!?! What do you think spurred the idolatry of the Corinthians, the worship of Caesar, etc?”

    The point is that you didn’t address what Paul was saying in verse 3; Paul is trying to get his audience to see that ALL “OTHER” DOCTRINES THAT OPPOSE CHRIST are false!

    You said, “This why you need to understand the New Testement written by the Underground stream and sanctiond my King James to render the 1611 KJV of the Bible was written in a CODE.”

    There are no valid historical documents that show that King James was sanctioned by such a group; all of the books written by the NT authors which are included in the canon claimed by the protestant Reformers as having been inspired by the Holy Spirit have more historical evidence backing their authorship than many validated secular documents to which there is no opposition. There is NO HISTORICAL PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM!!!!; You do not know what you are talking about; you oppress the truth in righteousness and are a fool in the biblical sense; the only reason I have continued to humor your responses and address you in this stream is because I want all the other participants to see that you have nothing of intellectual/factual/historical value to offer tto the discussion.

    You said, “I cannot teach you the code… Becasue that would defeat the purpose and I’d only be throwing pearls before swine.” I don’t care about the insult…I just want this staement to go on record as evidence that gnosticism is alive and well.

    ALL of the Pharasees had to be of JEWISH decent, oh yeah I forgot, you don’t believe in Jews?!?!
    That’s all I have time to respond to for now…I hope you have the intention of cross-examining the claims I have just made or else this is an exercise in futility!

  125. Matt. 10:2

    Simple answer to that…

    The Gospel of Mark was rippped to shreds and rewritten.

    The Gospel Matthew was taken from relative sources but main from the Gospel of Mark.

    The Gospel of Luke is borrowed from the Gospel of mark as well.

    The Gospel of Mark was taken from many sources but mainly from the Gospel documant ‘Q’.

    While Peter and Andrew are part of the Twelve the writer of Matthew was not aware of such rules or he just did not care.

    While Matthew (Or whoever he or she really is) was a very poetic writer but not a very accurately informed person.

    The evidence is in the Dead Sea Scrolls of what kind of people the Bretheren were and I assure you just going to have to study that one out.

    You need to Purchase and of His work and and his credentials are listed here…

  126. Sorry about the link I am not sure what happened there..?

    Robert Eisenman’s name should have been there… hmm?

    oh well ooops!

  127. Jason,

    I didn’t mean to insult you… It was general reference as I do not know whould read it but what i can say first read Laurence Gardner’s ‘Bloodline of the Holy Grail’… Then pay careful attention to the Foreword in his Second book ‘Genesis of the Grail kings’.

    And then you will realize… You know the code.

    But forgive me because I did not intend that to mean you as you seem to be a genuine truth seeker and I would in no way inhibit you to delve deeper into any subject concerning scripture with me.

    Personally, it would be easier to meet for coffee but I am not sure how possible that is.

  128. Paulinian said

    Seems to me that somebody is watching way too much Discovery, History, and National Geographic channel t.v.

    Not all “science” is true Science and not all “history” is true History. We must discern between truth and error. Just because someone writes a book, says its truth, and puts it on the best seller list, doesn’t make it nonfiction.

    There are no “hidden” codes in the Scriptures, no “secret” rites/sects that hold the real “truth” that mainstream Christianity has tried to suppress for 2,000 yrs.

    This is about reality and being able to wade through fairy tales.
    Jesus corrupted Moses’ message, Paul corrupted Jesus’ message, the Church corrupted Paul’s message, the Christian corrupted the Church, and the devil made me do it…………nonsense 😦

    – the Paulinian, I reckon 🙂

  129. You don’t say… Even Paul knew of the Code hence, the term he barrowed from Qumran to… ‘Rightfully divide the word of God’

  130. jAsOn said


    This is a quote from the link you posted for Robert Eisenman, “He is most famous for having completed a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls in only 6 months, and his attempt, now discredited by carbon-14 dating and paleographic evidence, to identify the early Christians as synonymous with the Qumran sectarians through analogies between the Pauline Epistles and the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

    The quote states, “…and his attempt, now discredited by carbon-14 dating and paleographic evidence…”, am I missing something; how is this link or his work a credit to your argument; is this the souorce of your information regarding the dates and occasions for the authorship of the NT letters?

    I would link to suggest a book for your reading, one by Dr. James White called, “From Toronto to Emmaus”. http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=22&products_id=41&osCsid=003ebb0eb739e5ef6cd07d0a41ec508e

    Also here, http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=261&osCsid=869e20b480a2713729a7b0ced4a8a142 you can download an mp3 of one of his lectures regarding transmition, textual criticism, inerrency, inspiration, and Jesus’ own view of the Scriptures.

    I am in Winston Salem, NC, where are you?

  131. Thank You Jason I will read the information above.

    Robert Eisenman is a good source to color you canvas with.

    There many other authors that I would suggest…g Give a minute and I will compile an entire list of books and authors to read…

    Umberto Eco … For example or Zachariah Sitchin…

    and even Stephen Hawking?

    My library is extensive.

    I study the bible ‘the way’ it was intended with an open mind and open heart.


    I say, I am a King and many say, hogwash!

    Are the Jewish People God’s chosen race?

    Is the Royal House of David valid?


    I do not believe that Israel should remain a nation as the only standing in the way of democracy in the middle east are the Jews as they will not concede to Equality of all men.

    Besides the ‘Jews’ or rather those that claim to be Jews but or not… But of the synagogue of Satan.

    The so called Jews you run Israel are Zionist Russians posing
    as Jews. The Israeli army doesn’t even speak Hebrew… Broken Hebrew at best but they indeed speak Russian.

    I believe in a Free Palestine and support the dismantling of Israel. So isn’t that strange?

    As you I too do not like religious fanaticism… And I do not condone Terrorism of any kind.

    Run the word, ‘Terrorism’ and read all the descriptions and definitions… After you have good understanding of Terrorism then apply that to biblical figures such as Abraham, Moses, David, King Saul, Paul and Even Jesus…

    And you know what?

    They would all be Terrorist.

    And I like saying this so pardon me…

    Moses was a Terrorist for Jehovah as was Abraham.

    Paul candy coats the Law to fit his needs but uses it when convenient. But then throws the law to the wayside when convincing people of this new found freedom of Lawlessness.

    Paul doesn’t even follow the law himself but imposes the Law in the minds of people not in the way of self introspection but one of defined reflection. He gives you boundaries within this New doctrine and imposes it on others more heavily then the Keepers of ‘The Law’.

    Jesus declared Moses to be the Accuser or Satan. And Abraham and his children were of their father Satan who was a murderer from the beginning.

    How many times does Jehovah justify Murder in his name?

  132. I’m in Dallas / Fort Worth (DFW), Texas

  133. jAsOn said


    Please address the fact that RE was discredited.

    The debate ofver JEws vs Palestinians is not simple, and I would not take the typical Dispensationally charged view, but in the end I have to admit that I would probably not agree with your take 100% either.

    You said this, “The so called Jews you run Israel are Zionist Russians posing as Jews. The Israeli army doesn’t even speak Hebrew… Broken Hebrew at best but they indeed speak Russian.”

    Where did you get this info…I very seriously doubt it is true.

    “Terrorism” according to Merriam-Webster means, “: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.”
    You said that all these were “terrorist”: “Abraham, Moses, David, King Saul, Paul and Even Jesus”

    All of those but Jesus were sinners, but none of them were terrorists any more than you or I should be occasionally considered so, at least by the definition given by Webster.

    You could redefine the word, or revise the historical lives of those you mentioned in order to call those you mentioned “terrorist”, but you would be stretching the truth very thin.

    Jehovah NEVER justified “murder”, but sanctioned killing of persons which of course He had never considered innocent…which I would guess is a concept that is completely foreign to your world view–the depravity of man and the Holiness of God.

  134. F. L. A. said


  135. Hi Jason,

    This is very irritating…

    “You said this, “The so called Jews you run Israel are Zionist Russians posing as Jews. The Israeli army doesn’t even speak Hebrew… Broken Hebrew at best but they indeed speak Russian.””

    What do you know about the Israeli Army?

    Obviously, you have assumed as most people that they are Jewish..?

    There are countless resources not excluding calling them up your self and asking them directly what language they speak fluently… I have friends in Israel, from Israel and Minister who have worked for their government.

    Of which all do not want to exploited with this thread.. So Jason I apologize but just go find out them come back and talk to me about that subject.

    Google “Zionism, anti semitic”

    About Terrorism…

    In a few places we are referred to read the book of ‘Yasher’ in the old Testament?

    “Joshua(Yehoshua) 10:12-14; “On that occasion, when Yahweh routed the Amorites before the Yisraelites, Yehoshua addressed Yahweh; he spoke, in the presence of the Yisraelites: ‘Stand still, O sun, at Gibeon, O moon, in the valley of Aijalon! The sun stood still and the moon halted while a nation wreaked judgment on its foes. As it is recorded in the book of Yashar so the sun halted in mid-heaven and did not press on to set. For an entire day Yahweh fought for Yisrael. Not before or since that time has there ever been such a day in which Yahweh acted upon the words spoken by a man.’ “”

    “2 Samuel 1:17-18; “And David intoned this dirge over Shaul and his son Jonathan: ‘He ordered the Judites to be taught the bow.’ That is what is recorded in the book of Yashar.””

    It makes me wonder why the scribes would reference that book and later religious authorities did not consider it Canon….

    Now while I do not agree with every word in this book either it must be considered somewhat valid if God made sure to mention through his in-errant word to read it.. Not once but multiple times.

    When you read it… Abraham isn’t some poor pilgrim running around with his family in the wilderness… He is conquering Hittite Warlord.

    He most certainly was a Terrorist.

    With Moses it’s easier… If her were alive today and he led us to a mountain and we began to worship other Gods while he’s busy sippin gin with other priests… Comes back down finds dis obeying his command and orders to have all the Hebrews slaughtered?

    That isn’t Terrorism?

    Please you know it as well as any high court in the Land of Men would agree that he was indeed a Terrorist.

    And that is why the Church has failed and become apostate because they justify themselves as spiritual Terrorist…

    Unlike many people who frequent the forums have material wealth to some degree… I own nothing… My faith has led me to ruin in this World. But I know that God is, God is Love. And Love covers a multitude of Sins… God is not some white haired bearded old man jotting tiddles… keeping track of your sin.

    God is no respecter of persons.

    God does not need Moses or Abraham.. As Jesus make very clear in the Gospel of John.

    And when Jesus discounts them and their bloodline do not think for minute he is referring to the bloodline of the Ebionites (The Meek).

    What we have here is a Genealogical mis-understanding.

    JEREMIAH 33:23-26

    Jason, I have more to say on this but I have to work on my car today.

    You may ask me about ‘Vampirism’… ‘My’ vampirism is an intimate journey of understanding.

    Ask what you will…

  136. And I forgot…

    Carbon dating is unreliable… If anyone here is familiar with how many times you have to test different samples to come up with a realistic average.

    Tens of thousands of times and more…

    What Robert Eisenmen does right is in regard linguistic and phonetic connections as well as well names, titles and symbolic imagery that do not need dates, times and places…

    It’s an understanding of historical figures of speech and messianic brotherhood that is far older than Jesus.

    messiah is all one as we are all messiah.

  137. Tripp said

    Thomas – Don’t you consider this statement even the least bit blasphemous?

    “messiah is all one as we are all messiah.”

  138. John said

    Rather pantheistic, I think. Thomas, in regards to asking about your vampirsm, are you sure that there isn’t anything that you DON’T want us to ask you about?

  139. jAsOn said


    Regarding the whole “Jewishness” of the Israeli Army thing (though I am sceptical of your interpretaiton of historical data anyway) I am not sure of the pertinance of this information and how it concerns the historical legitimacy of the writings of Paul or other NT writers.

    Further, why do you say this, ““You said this, “The so called Jews you run Israel are Zionist Russians posing as Jews. The Israeli army doesn’t even speak Hebrew… Broken Hebrew at best but they indeed speak Russian.””

    Those are not my comments, and why do they iritate you.

    You call the church, “spiritual terroists”, but to whom do you refer as the church, and what do you mean by spiritual terrorism?

    You refer to the book of Yasher, and you must also remember that there were other instances in history to which the writers of Holy Writ specifically refered and they were not canonised as books of the Bible. (Jude 14) I really can’t help that you don’t accept the historical account of the canonization of our present day, protestant scriptures…but I defy you to emperically prove that it happened differently. Your “higher critical” views and the “higher critical” views of your sources you cite are suspect from the get go…you have said that you are well read, but I doubt that it is so in any arena other than “fantastic history”.

    You said, “Unlike many people who frequent the forums have material wealth to some degree… I own nothing… My faith has led me to ruin in this World. But I know that God is, God is Love. And Love covers a multitude of Sins… God is not some white haired bearded old man jotting tiddles… keeping track of your sin.” Really Thomas, what does this have to do with anything?

    Your presumptions are astounding and you seam to have blind faith in the sources from which you aquire your information.

    Rom 1:18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

  140. Hello Tripp,

    While this statement is meant for the Ebionim…


    First, maybe it is to you but with me it’s not because I am not separate from whatever God is.

    Not that I do not have problems and adversity… I just do not put myself down that way.

    Second, If I am blasphemous then so are most of the Apostles…
    Especially, James the Just because he was anointed Messiah as well as his younger brother Jesus.

    Third, Do you not feel blasphemous denying the Mother Goddess, the Holy Spirit of God?

    Right now I wanna obey God and say thank you.

    Maybe you do not understand me… I am like everybody else…

    I want a home, family and love.

    Thats something that many people take for granted… And I know I might fall into the complacent group if I had a family to go home to.



    Thank you for asking…

    I am not a swinger, I do not like to have sex with random partners.

    So, I will not disclose certain intimate details of my relations.

    I’m a One woman man.

  141. Jeff said

    I love Greg Laurie’s devotional email newsletter for today. He writes…

    One morning as Alfred Nobel was reading the newspaper, he was shocked to find his name listed in the obituary column. It was a mistake, but nonetheless, there it was. He was stunned to see that he was primarily remembered as the man who invented dynamite. At that time in history, dynamite was used in great effect for warfare. It distressed Nobel to think that all he would be known for was inventing dynamite, something that was used to take the lives of others. As a result of reading this mistaken obituary, Nobel decided to change the course of his life. He committed himself to world peace and established what we know today as the Nobel Peace Prize. When the name Alfred Nobel is mentioned today, dynamite is rarely the first thing that comes to mind. Rather, we think of the prize that bears his name. It’s all because Alfred Nobel decided to change the course his life was taking.

    Another man, living centuries earlier, also changed the negative course his life was on. His name was Paul, formerly known as Saul of Tarsus. Known as a relentless persecutor of the early church, he was determined to stop the spread of Christianity. But after a dramatic conversion on the Damascus Road, Paul devoted the rest of his life to preaching the gospel and building the church. Today we remember him as a missionary, church planter, and author of 13 New Testament epistles.

    If you were to read your own obituary today, what do you think people would remember you for? It isn’t too late to change your direction.

  142. Jason,

    I apologize but you must realize while I might address you I may throw out a bone or two…

    Not necessarily for you but many people read this thread and I am sure they are fascinated and not sure how to jump in or respond.

    I am speaking to the silent majority…

    “Unlike many people who frequent the forums have material wealth to some degree… I own nothing… My faith has led me to ruin in this World. But I know that God is, God is Love. And Love covers a multitude of Sins… God is not some white haired bearded old man jotting tiddles… keeping track of your sin.”

    As for the ‘Church’ I mean the established imperialistic doctrine… You know the only curriculum as any other faith is deionized by the churches intolerance and ignorance.

    The Pauline Doctrine.

    And this is very irritating…

    I know I was quoting *’Below’ it because of the issue… As many Christians assume their teaching that has been doctored to suit the establishment.

    *“You said this, “The so called Jews you run Israel are Zionist Russians posing as Jews. The Israeli army doesn’t even speak Hebrew… Broken Hebrew at best but they indeed speak Russian.””

    As most Christians do not have a clue what is happening in the Middle East as the Church flying the banner of Saint George only justifying the slaughter.

    I have walked many Christian circles my friend… I am not saying every Christian person is Evil but I am more than declaring the Pauline doctrine as Evil.

    If you do not accept my Lord then you will go to Hell?

    How is that not spiritual terrorism?

    Jesus was more than clear in Gospel as it is not a focus on what we are doing wrong everyday (Sin) but it’s a focus of service.

    Google “Zionism, anti semitic”

    Zionism has everything to do with the Pauline doctrine.

    My point is not to prove I am the master of knowledge and scriptural data…

    All you have to throw at me are more references from that thief Paul whom you trust so much and you cannot even prove one word of it… Except by you vain imagination.

    I am an actor and Shakespeare is hard to understand for the laymen and trust me I have had some tough situations with characters.

    But the KJV 1611 was written by the ‘Underground Stream’ and here are a few members, Francis Bacon, William Shakespeare, Sir Edward de Vere.

    These men were commissioned by King James to write the 1611 and that is a fact of history.

    Shakespeare took an old farm slang and reinvented the English language. In his first play Shakespeare introduced over 5000 New words to the English language (Or did you think people actually talked that way?) In the KJV 1611 Shakespeare invents over 500 New English words.

    Like the word ‘Host’ which is a Militarized unit hence the Jehovah witness’ rendering in their Bible is most correct, ‘Jehovah of Armies’.

    And even Ancient words used as or in Sorcery were applied to the average, everyday speaking person… So as to have the populace repeated sounds and vibrations to bring about their desired results through Incantations, invocations, etc…

    So while we speak our English many words are actually being utilized by an ongoing working of a ‘Spell’… So you see just by our ignorance we are still practicing Witchcraft.

    We are a guilty of the old Testaments sin regarding Witchcraft.

    It’s not in the words we use… It’s in the vibrations we create when speaking them.

    For instance the Sumerian word (translated phonetically to English) ‘KLON’ is pronounced the same as the the English word ‘Clone’… and they mean exactly the same thing.

    Matter of fact the roots of English are found in the ANGALISH speak of the Magi which of course was private language used between them.

    What does this have to do with Paul… Everything.

    If I wanted to be an Apostolic Christian of the Celtic Church I would be ridiculed and not taken seriously, If I were of the Naz-Aryan faith you would call me a heretic (One word Paul created or picked up somewhere).

    What right do Christians have to say things like this about other people?

    As if Paul had it all right…

    Paul contends that the Temple was taking a profit and he turns around taking the tithe he collected and purchases a citizenship in Rome. Please, come on… It”s just like the Preachers I have been around and please do not make me name drop as I am trying not to do that but… These men are arrogant and Evil… They laugh about their riches while they fly around the world almost daily it would seem enjoying the high life while many in their congregations are struggling with everyday life.

    Why do we allow these church leaders to be treated as Kings?

    When they do not give any concern for these people… But merely laugh them off. I fought to get help, real help for people and there was none but if I wanted to, ‘Sell Out to Jesus’, I could be in the gang…

    That was my invitation to the high life of Christian ministry…

    Who isn’t involved?

    Dr Gene Scott, Arnold Murry and Mother Theresa…

    Those are just a few Ministers I have found no spot or blemish concerning the faith.

    But my growing list of crooks and beguilers continues to grow more rapidly by the day.

    JEREMIAH 33:23-26

  143. jAsOn said


    Do you read Greek and Hebrew?

  144. Jason,

    You asked,

    “Do you read Greek and Hebrew?”

    Of course the answer to that question is, Yes and No.

    Israel was invaded by:

    (Ashkenazi & Khazar Zionist = Germans/Russians Masquerading as the True Lineage of Abraham/Jews) These are the True Anti-Semites, do some research and you will find the truth.

  145. jAsOn said


    What does “yes and no” mean?

  146. John said

    Hello Thomas.I was not interested in your love life, so your answer was confusing to me.I would think that being a vampire would involve a large amount of secrecy.Perhaps it’s different where you are living, but where I’m at being a vampire would be kept a great secret, a secret worth killing to protect. The fear of exposure would be tremendous, as it would lead to your death, or at the very least, a mob of fanatics and bullies trying to make every moment of your undead life absolutely miserable.So I was interested that you brought it up so freely.Is it because of the anonymity of the internet, perhaps?
    Anyway,….what kind of a vampire are you? Folklore teaches that, like were-beasts,nature spirits, and dragons, the vampire belongs to a very large, diverse group of beings that change from culture to culture throughout the world.I’ve studied up on the topic quite a bit so feel free to hold nothing back, in case you think that I might not understand.
    What makes you sure that you’re really a vampire and not simply a man with a ……..blood fetish, or something?Are you genetically human?Could you be something else, some other kind of a creature that is just “vampire-like” and simply have a case of mistaken identity?Is your body physically different from a man in obvious ways[fangs, claws, super strength,etc.]?You mentioned your magick before.What kind of magickal abilities do you have?
    Also, how did you become a vampire? Was it through supernatural means, like a curse or self inflicted ritual? Were you simply born as one? Or was it like a viral infection?
    This is all for now.Please take your time and answer carefully[and hopefully in great detail].

  147. jAsOn said

    Not that I don’t find it interesting, but John and Thomas, I don’t think that this thread has any more vacancy for tangental topics, do you?

  148. John said

    Perhaps not, but how often does one get to interview a vampire?
    Where else could we go to do this?

  149. “What makes you sure that you’re really a vampire and not simply a man with a ……..blood fetish, or something?”

    You want the truth about Vampires.

    The truth is I do not have a blood fetish.

    I do not drink blood from a the veins of another.

    It is very dangerous to drink blood for ‘Many’ obvious reasons and many less known but deadly reasons.

    Crutchfield-Jacobson Disease for one.

    “I would think that being a vampire would involve a large amount of secrecy.
    Perhaps it’s different where you are living, but where I’m at being a vampire would be kept a great secret, a secret worth killing to protect.

    The fear of exposure would be tremendous, as it would lead to your death, or at the very least, a mob of fanatics and bullies trying to make every moment of your undead life absolutely miserable.

    So I was interested that you brought it up so freely.

    Is it because of the anonymity of the internet, perhaps?”

    Oh sure it’s a secret, John but I am not afraid what man will do to me it’s beyond that.

    How about being alone, truly alone.

    You want to know about my Power… I have none.

    I am powerless to the Cosmos, I am drawn by the Fates.

    I am not a depressive person… I have been beaten and abused my whole life… When I find another that I can relate too it is often too much for us to remain together because if you have light in the darkness may attract attention but two surely will be even brighter.

    Mis-understood by many but it’s my own that I most fear.

    If I fear anything at all…

    Trying to stand alone is tough and you have to understand that I am merely a hybrid of a separate species.

    So am I human, Yes.

    I am Man also.

    Mankind and Human beings are two different and separate things that are often assumed to be the same.

    I am not afraid to expose myself or my weakness because what is death at this point to me?

    I do no condone suicide and I do not really want to die… I love life, the trees, the grass, the wind, the rain… But when you cannot find another person to talk to you, understand what you think and find some form of similarity but cannot it is very alienating.

    I always tried to fit in and I do not.

    I live in continual heartache, I grew up feeling abandoned and forgotten as if some sick joke were played on me. And Love, yes love… What love in this world is for me…

    I wish I had not been born… I wish I would have died at birth.

    Do you not feel the pain and anguish of the Earth?

    Yes, let’s talk about Vampirism and why Jehovah forbid the eating of blood… And Why Paul submitted to that tyranny.

    I wish some one would come kill me, put me out of my misery but I would only come back again.

    Jesus commanded us not to resist the Evil man. So please, many people have been manipulated to believe all sorts of nonsense.

    Or do you not know, that the Red object four times the size of Jupiter heading towards Earth… Is the home Planet, the species that have genetically engineered Mankind (The Clones of Jehovah) and developed Hybrids for genetic research and pro creation?

    Mankind is for Slavery and Food.

    While I am related… Those of my kind are separated into at least 17 different genetic lines.

    And of those *17 many are sold out to the Anunnaki Lords of the Earth… But their are some that remain loyal to their kind that are coming and already here.

    Those of Earth are the ones that most hate mankind and are with Jehovah/Enlil in the destruction of Mankind but Anu/The most high God and Father in Heaven is the God that you should be bending a knee too for he is our High King and his first born Son of the Royal blood (The Only Begotten) and heir is Enki/ Jesus.

    So do you see Jason and John?

    What I see?

    Soon the the catastrophes will far out number the reporters reporting them… Soon one the largest Hurricanes known to man will pummel the east and southern coast of the United States. A tsunami will strike the Gulf… Caused from the eruption in the sea… Setting off a chain reaction causing the largest Earth quake in a hidden less talked about fault line stretching up through the middle of the United States. This in turn will cause Yellowstone to blow (virtually a Volcanic bubble)… Blanketing a third of the Earth in Darkness.

    The waters will recede…

    So the Earth will totter and shake from earthquakes deep with in as Nibiru comes closer to Earth… The Closer Nibiru gets to Earth the more that we will be violently destroyed by that forces all around us.

    Earth will totter and she will be turned up right and we shall be a return to Sharon. Earth will stand straight up and will be aligned perfectly 360 days in year.

    As a SHA – means a complete circle and equals 360 degrees.

    RA – means Light

    ON – means Temple

    SHARON – means Orbiting Temple of Light.

    Cites long forgotten will arise out of Sea.

    And suddenly when we least expect it, in a twinkling of an Eye Water will divide into Fire. And will consume a third of the Earth.

    The two most flammable gases known to man make up ‘H2O’…

    Where will you be?

    “I would think that being a vampire would involve a large amount of secrecy.
    Perhaps it’s different where you are living, but where I’m at being a vampire would be kept a great secret, a secret worth killing to protect.

    The fear of exposure would be tremendous, as it would lead to your death, or at the very least, a mob of fanatics and bullies trying to make every moment of your undead life absolutely miserable.

    So I was interested that you brought it up so freely.

    Is it because of the anonymity of the internet, perhaps?
    Anyway,….what kind of a vampire are you?”

    Because it’s soon to be over… All of it.

    “Folklore teaches that, like were-beasts,nature spirits, and dragons, the vampire belongs to a very large, diverse group of beings that change from culture to culture throughout the world.I’ve studied up on the topic quite a bit so feel free to hold nothing back, in case you think that I might not understand.”

    Again much of the material, information and history of Vampires is very distorted. The Catholic Church feared the Aryan Church and sought to decimate it along with any other religious ideals and or information

    It is Paul who personally burned countless library’s and private schools not excluding the burning of the Library of Alexandria, yet again.

    “Are you genetically human?”

    Yes Human as that means I am Half Eloh and Half Anunnaki.

    A son of God or the of the Sons of Light as they are called in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    Could you be something else, some other kind of a creature that is just “vampire-like” and simply have a case of mistaken identity?

    Well as whole, tribally speaking, I am a Dragon… The references in the bible for the Dragon family many often confusing for the masses to know what those references are. Ultimately the bible refers to ‘fiery flying serpents’ This is a reference to Genetically altered species or the Hybrid Species of which make up the Dragon Families. They were spawned and originated from the genetic material of the Ape Woman (according to the Sumerian text) as they were called received the genetic inheritance of the Elder Gods / Anunnaki / Elohim. They tried to take our DNA and splice with their own but it failed every time but the Hybrid was possible because the Eloh peoples that were original natives of Earth had a superior genetic make- up than any other species in the Known Federation of Planets. So whatever the genetic materials that the extra terrestrial beings, Anunnaki / Elohim wanted, it did work out… As it was not compatible with their own DNA.

    HU man beings on the other hand have adopted all the traits of these seemingly superior beings… That is why Jehovah / Enlil wanted to destroy of Human beings (The children of Nephilim) and Mankind (Monkeys)… As Jehovah / Enlil hated mankind with a passion. The serpent at the tree was not Satan, it was not the Symbolic Devil… It was Enki / Jesus who is and was and will always be the Bright and Morning Star.

    “Is your body physically different from a man in obvious ways[fangs, claws, super strength,etc.]?”

    Many people contend that they do have physical traits and most common that I have found are large Canine teeth over lapping the other teeth. The canine are usually very sharp. Regretfully I let an Orthodontist straighten my teeth and sand the points down. Had I known, or been consciously aware of why they were like that, I would have never allowed anyone to touch them.

    “You mentioned your magick before.What kind of magickal abilities do you have?”

    Well I practiced Demonism which is the art of opening portals and gates to the Anunnaki Lords of the Earth or the Seven Angels spoken of in the book of Revelation.

    “Also, how did you become a vampire?”

    I was born with the genetic inheritance.

    “Was it through supernatural means, like a curse or self inflicted ritual?”

    Yes the ritual of the Anunnaki- The Magi came to me when I was Twelve years old.

    Well I feel, that it is a curse to know the truth and that we are Prisoners on Planet Earth being manipulated by the Anunnaki Lords of the Earth, behind their self imposed leader, Jehovah / Enlil a traitor and murderer.

    “Were you simply born as one?”


    “Or was it like a viral infection?”

    The world does treat woman the are RH(neg)- blood type as a disorder but it’s because they are Hybrids giving birth to gods on the Earth. They are not compatible with any other blood type as their body will naturally reject the baby and kill it… Because her body assumes the fetus of the child as a threat being a completely separate species.

    There are good reasons for Jehovah’s racism… Genetic ones and I would have to agree with Him that we should not be mixing races as we are not all children of Adam and Eve… I for one am the the Child of Enki / Jesus and Eve hence, the blood of Cayin runs through my veins as he was the first KIN KAIN KING of the Dragons or latter called the Pen dragons.

    C- ayin – The AYIN is symbolized by a circle with a dot in the middle and represents the third eye… So thats lets the reader of GENE_ISIS the first book of the Bible know that Cayin had the a Sovereign Mind having his third eye open.

    I will post some scientific data that has been compiled by the Dragon Families…

  150. Jeff said

    Thomas – you need 3 things…

    1 – psychiatric help
    2 – Jesus
    3 – a loving church

  151. And for the people who think this is some Gothic wanna-be nonsense…

    I am not a Goth and I do not wear make-up unless I am on stage, Halloween or cross dressing… Joking…

    I rarely wear make-up when I am cross dressed!

    It’s ok to Laugh now…

  152. Jeff you’re so right…

    Really… Jeff you live in fear of thinking for yourself and outside the box.

    Are you so spoon fed you cannot see anything else?

    Let me wipe your blind eye… so that you can see…

    First of all, Suffering and Ecstasy are requirements of Enlightenment.

    You think, ‘this guy is crazy…’ But you accept the truth as it is handed to you.

    The Dragon Families are as valid as the Cherokee Families.

    Even Jesus explains that while his heart is for everyone he knows he is only here for those whom that his father has sent him too.

    Those that have the Word in them, Gods DNA.

    I do not need impersonal self gratifying hugs from shallow spoon fed Christians.

    I do not need Sun-day worshipers to pray for me to their false God (The SUN) there-by breaking the commandment to keep the Sabbath day Holy and committing Spiritual Idolatry and Adultery against the true Father in Heaven

    Saturday being the true Sabbath Day as Saturn is ANU.

    I suggest you do a little reading in the Epistle of James. Chapter two to be exact. (As to what a true Christian is and I don’t see churches offering houses and cars as they need it.)

    To answer that unspoken question, ‘What is a Pauline Christian verse an Essene’

    Ignorance is never an excuse not even before the Throne of God (The Throne of God being the Goddess hence, the Madonna and Child ash she is God’s Glory and Wrath.)

    We today have lost our sense of true family and community… It has given way to weak and ineffectual leaders.. Do you not suppose Jesus was himself was a pro racist supporter as well as Jehovah?

    Read John 10:1-21

    1. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
    2. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
    3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
    4. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
    5. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
    6. This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
    7. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
    8. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
    9. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
    10. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
    11. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
    12. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
    13. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
    14. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
    15. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
    16. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
    17. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
    18. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
    19. There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
    20. And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
    21. Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

    So even Jesus declares that our Great grand fathers (Enki / Jesus being the Serpent / Seraphim at the Tree of Life) are our true Leaders and the hireling (Elected and Apointed officials are the false Authority).

    Again, the only form of Government created by God and Endorsed by God, biblically speaking, Is a Monarchy of which the Royal house of David (TUT or THOTH) are to RULE and REIGN which means – To Measure and Teach.

    When will you kill your EGO… Because your responses to me are full of yourself and no where grounded with anything academic, creative or scriptural but are only interjected as personal insults and an attempt to either sling hash that I am flaky (As that is your uneducated opinion I’m sure…) or to discredit what I have to say because you cannot handle the Truth.

    Yes, I am honest and open with how I feel, inside and out.

    The Earth too, is alive and suffering although, soon she will shake us from her back… Mankind is only a Virus that lack the understanding that if you destroy your (Host) Planet you in inadvertently destroy themselves.

    I am at one with the Earth Mother even though my true Mother is not Earth…

    You have to understand that you are not alone in this Cosmos of Cosmos’.

    Those beings from Marduk had a Monarchical system of government on their home planet. Their present king was named Anu. His rank was “60” and he was the head of a pantheon of twelve. The members of the pantheon of twelve were all related to each other and were ranked downward from “60”. Anu had two sons: Enki, the oldest (by Anu’s wife Antu) and Enlil (by Anu’s half-sister). Succession to the throne went to the son by the half-sister, therefore Enlil had the rank of “50,” whereas the oldest son, Enki, had the rank of “40.” Each of the wives were ranked “5” under their spouses, therefore Anu’s wife had the rank of “55”; Enlil’s wife had the rank of “45”; Enki’s wife was ranked “35,” and so on until the 12 were completed. (Never more than twelve and never less than twelve. Each of the members of the pantheon were identified with one of the twelve “planets” in our solar system. (The ancients counted the Sun and Moon as planets, Marduk/Nibiru being the 12th planet.)

    Note: Enki and Enlil had problems with one another over the issue of Authority.

    Enlil being designated Lord of Earth and Air.

    Enki being designated Lord of Earth and Sea.

    Hence, why bible referred to the Devil/Jehovah/Enlil as the ‘Principality and Powers of the Air’.

    And Why Baptism was included into Essene living following the guiding of the Lord being Enki the ‘Principality and Powers of the Sea’.

    Jeff, I dare you to study outside the box because I know you will discover the truth. And if you’re a Human being it will effectively be nothing short of resonating through your heart and being as TRUE.

  153. Jeff said

    OK, Thomas. How do I figure out if I have God’s DNA? If I don’t does that mean I’m going to hell? Please advise.

  154. Paulinian said


    I really can’t believe that you believe all this that you are writing 😦

    It sounds like a fairy tale. I actually met a guy who talked in similar tone as you “el ohim having a wife, etc.” and he was very serious about this. I referred him to the Scriptures, even to the Hebrew of Genesis 1. Yet, he continued to espouse is very unbiblical nonChristian thoughts.

    It is sad that you are in such error, but it does not sway me from faith in Jesus Christ, the Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible.

    We can’t even debate Scripture with you for you believe it is corrupted by Paul. I do pray for your understanding to be conformed to the truth of the One True God Jesus Christ.


  155. Jeff… Is Belief the same as Faith?


    So, if the only way to please God is Faith then how can I be forgiven of my sins and allowed eternal life to run around God’s throne screaming Holy, Holy, Holy… All based on my Belief in Jesus.

    That is silly, idiotic and very unrealistic.

    The answer to your question is Yes and No… Yes if you do not have the DNA/ Word in you… Then while you look like the Wheat, you are actually the Tare but No… You are not going to Hell but you will be burned in the all consuming Fire which is the Glory and Wrath of God… The Goddess / Holy Spirit.

    To be honest we all go through the fire and we are burnt to ash but if we be Wheat then we have Seed / Sperm / Word / DNA and that means we have the Fire of the Holy Spirit in us.

    Think about it like this.. we are mostly made up of water H2O and Hydrogen and Oxygen in their gaseous state are two of the most flammable gases known.

    If you can become one with the Holy Spirit you will be born of Fire that as Jesus explained to Nicodemus hence, the term, ‘Born Again’.

    What Jesus called Born Again the Sidhe (Druids) called ‘Twice Born’.

    From the ashes of our self inflated ego’s we are reborn. To receive the Holy Spirit is to receive the Phoenix Fire the Resurrection from the Dead.

    So, if Fire burns Fire, what dies?

    The Idea here is, if you are Wheat, then you have the seed of God in you. You are his offspring reborn through is wife the Holy Spirit.

    Jeff, let me set you at ease… If you are worried about whether or not you are the Wheat or the Tare… You are, obviously, the Wheat for the Tare is not, even, concerned about their Eternal well being… Because they cannot fathom such Ideas.

  156. Jeff said

    So, what you are saying is that if I don’t have God’s DNA in me, I will be reincarnated. Correct? This is difficult to understand, Thomas.

  157. jAsOn said


    What makes you think there is life after death?

  158. Jeff said

    If I Google “God’s DNA” I get all kinds of crap. Too many theories out there for me to research.

  159. Jeff you are correct… You will be reincarnated that is what the Essenes taught.

    Holy Spirit is Spirit not a spirit…

    when we become on with the Holy Spirit we enter in ti the divine plan for eternal life.

    How big is God?

    Is he bigger than an infinite Universe we find ourself in?

    Are there multiple dimensions?


    When you leave here you can go anywhere… There is so much to explore so many species to meet, so many galaxies to discover… So many planets to spend time on.

    When does knowledge end?

    When are you finished living, growing and evolving?


    How can we place everything in box and say I have it, I know the truth?

    We cannot do that…

    Faith comes from what we KNOW..

    Knowledge cannot be forgotten nor subtracted from the equation of God. Neither can Wisdom be divided out of understanding Life.

    Faith is not Blind.

    Look we all wish their was a man called Jesus who came to take all our problems away… But what is most often shoved aside is our accountability.

  160. John said

    Wow. All I can say for now is ….. WOW!!!!!

    Thank you,Thomas. That’ll do very well for now.

  161. Jeff you are right about one thing… I would to find a loving Church that honestly cared about what I am going through…

    I mean I do not need another cheeseburger and fries discussing how good the Lord is.

    It would be nice if more Christians put their money where their mouth is.

    I think if Jesus were here he puke all over himself.

    I have needs that if a churched stepped and helped me with as Jesus instructed I would change my life.

    Christians do not realize that instead preaching to people about Jesus they instead became like Jesus they would be more successful.

    When I was Minister I only prayed the prayer of Salvation with three people and each time I felt wrong about it.

    From then on I spent more time being like Jesus and I could pack out a house… What Christians need to apply is the Gospel… If you see a person and they haven’t any way to work and you have spare vehicle give it to them.

    If they need a place to live and you have enough money in the bank to pay the rent do it.

    It’s all for the Kingdom.. What is with Rich Christians and their inability to part with their Money.

  162. Jeff said

    Thomas – This is one area where I can agree with you 100%. I find it completely disgusting when I see these gigantic churches where all these wealthy people attend, yet when someone within the congregation is in need they think all they need to do is pray for them. How about pray AND GIVE!!!! The Joel Osteen’s, Benny Hinn’s and Joyce Meyer’s of the world ought to be thrown in jail and have their millions distributed amongst the needy people in our country. Yes, I concur Thomas. Tell me more about this reincarnation.

  163. jAsOn said


    What epistimological reasons do you have for claiming the things in post # 159.

    You makes statements about Jesus, but how do you know who he is?

    You said,

    “Christians do not realize that instead preaching to people about Jesus they instead became like Jesus they would be more successful. ”

    If Jesus is not preached, how will people know how to become like him?

    I have absolutely zero respect for someone who cannot make or engage in rational conversation; I dare say that you make those of us who oppose your lunacy think that one must check his brain & ability to reason in at the door of the temple of paganism.

  164. For you Jason…

    You can stand on a corner preaching at people or you can just be.

    Jesus didn’t preach at people.

    He responded and in most cases met people where they are at.

    For instances… Take a fairly wealthy Church… in growing attendance homeless and hungry people show up. The Church decides to provide day old food to the homeless and poor… Do you make the people listen to a message about Jesus before you feed them or do you feed them and give a message?

    This why I know how bring a revival in Church and where most Christians fail to meet the mark.

    The answer is obvious… But most Churches decide that they will give message and then pass out food.

    This is wrong thinking.

    And that is why I know I can fill any church and why I am more successful at conversion than most ministers, especially on the streets.

    I never preach about Jesus.. I meet people where they are at and before I say anything I ask what they need. Then I go to work for them and help them with out question as Jesus requires nothing in return for his gifts… As that is what he Jesus is a gift not a tool for a pew quota.

    I packed out a Denny’s every night for three years with out preaching. I have gone all over the united states and I can have Pagans studying the bible practically leaving me in the dust with their enthusiasm.

    In ministry it’s not about you or what you think. The Gospel is action.

    St. Francis of Assisi once said, “Go out and preach the Gospel, and if you have to, use words.”

    You think the Gospel is about preaching a Jesus nobody will ever know and action is being the only Jesus people will meet.

    You do not preach Jesus… You show people Jesus by your actions.

    I know I am a good Preacher because the first thing I do is Listen.

    YOU feed the hungry but you do not foist your beliefs on them or you will never catch the fish.

    You provide housing to the homeless but not at the cost of their freedom to believe whatever they want to believe.

    The reason I have hundreds of friends that love me and house me is because I do not preach at them or to them… But I mimic Jesus and they see fruit in me.

    They see something in me and want that which I have and… I wait patiently until they bite the bait… That is when they come to me and ask how can they receive the gifts that I have… Then I reel them in and I give them the Gospel of Love.

    (Yes I have been homeless for the better of fourteen years mostly as a missionary in the United States itself… I live by absolute faith that not only will God provide way he must keep his word to me.)

    I do not believe you,re very experienced, Jason, in the art of Evangelism or Sales.

    When I sell a product I will fail every time if I talk to the customers or try to get them to listen.. I sell the product by using it properly by action.

    Love is a Verb and Love is the Heart of the Gospel.

    I am a walking Love letter of Jesus.

    I guarantee I will get true conversions while that baptist boy using and waving the bible in his hand will get people to pray the prayer of salvation but it will not last.

    You cannot help those who do not want help.

    Read the Gospel, Jesus does not help everybody nor does he preach unless it is necessary… Which if you pay attention it’s at the demand of his audience by their relentless questions.

    You can cry tears of how sinners are going to Hell and Jesus died on the cross but that means nothing to people out drinking and having a good time… Lets be honest when I am out drinking and looking a chicks I don’t care about hell or Jesus… I thinking that girls hot and I’m drunk.

    It bothers me to see preachers out preaching in the middle of a bar district with a cross in one hand and bible in the other.

    Jesus said, (And this has a multi-layered meaning) “…Be wise as Serpents with the heart of a Dove…”

    I will give you lesson… Next time you go out to minister the Gospel on the streets instead of bringing your bible or rather find a tiny bible you can keep out of sight then go into the bar order a beer and sit down and wait for the fish… the right fish God will bring you. Then talk to them and listen… Be patient and listen intently… Give them time and if you are truly gifted (Jason) they will notice you have something they are lacking… They will confess their sins to you naturally and you do not have to say anything. They will break the ice and ask you about God or what ever it is that they notice… You know the light in you.

    Jason you may think I am crazy and I that I am deceived but I bet my soul to the devil that you I cannot out minister me resulting in a true conversion that goes for most any preacher or minister alive today.

    It’s not that I am great… It’s that My king said be patient… Oh and I do know Jesus my friend and his favorite color.

    I tore up my first bible using it as a projectile on the street… I would throw it down, stomp on it and kick it… And you would not believe the crowd of drunks that would stop on the street and watch.

    Sometimes I would cuss like a sailor while reading the bible out loud…

    And you know what… People were convicted by the Holy Spirit. People do not silence me when I yell in grocery stores, jump on tables in coffee shops. I offend them in their hypocrisy… But all people are listening and I have their undivided attention. Thats when I use the art of planting seeds of Faith in people and they do not know it.

    You cannot force a plant to grow, You can only plan a seed and water the plant… But the plant grows on it’s own despite you, the bible or the gospel.

    I Am the only Jesus people will know until they come to repentance and seek to discover on their own…

    My mentor once said if any Christian ever asks you, how do you know it’s Jesus… Say to them “It’s none of your D%$* business.”

    Jesus is a personal relationship and what makes you think it’s your right to preach to someone?

    It’s not your work anyway.. Not even Jesus set out to save the world… He was only for those whom his father chose.

    Leave the Drunks alone… Instead help them out and buy them another drink and then you made a friend… Then you have their ear… listen to them… And then you have their mind… wait for their confession… And then you have their heart.

    Love on them and they will be saved.

  165. John said

    Hey JAsOn, please don’t judge Paganism by what King Tomas says.That would be as bad as pagans judging Christianity by what he says!Not that I think he’s crazy, or anything[I’m not winking,I just have something in my eye[grin,grin].
    Thomas, if you don’t feed on blood, then why do your kind have fangs? you talked about being soooooooo alone, but what about Nick and the others on your web-site? How does Nick fall into all of this?

  166. “if you don’t feed on blood, then why do your kind have fangs? you talked about being soooooooo alone, but what about Nick and the others on your web-site?”

    When I say I am alone, I do not mean a neediness for human contact or desperation for love.

    Those feelings have more depth than simple mundane insecurity. It’s a lack of true family and community… No real connection of tribal and life direction. As all forms of Christianity aside from the current apostate version in Southern Religion and supposed Catholic Church, have all been wiped out by Christians.

    Do I open a church for those like me and of me? What so that some ignorant Christian redneck’s know exactly how to find us?

    Because of Christianity we are being held back and lied to about numerous Archaeological discoveries. If anyone speaks out or says’s anything contrary to the status quo of the Church those people stand to take REAL persecution.

    Take for instance Gay Bashing… Most of these crimes are committed by sick and twisted individuals… What and who twisted them? Most often they are homophobic closeted queers who are threatened by the Gay community and fear ridicule themselves and persecution. These people are at large a product of their environment and I mean Christianity. The Christian churches attack children and molest their psyche placing guilt on them for a puritanical code that the Pauline doctrine espouses.

    NO other culture has been more cruel to Gay and trans gendered people than that of Christianity. At least Islamic people in most Muslim countries, aside from the few fanatic groups, actually, privately promote homosexual tendencies in their youth before marriage.

    Jews do not even really care about it, not even in the ‘old Testament’ times did people ever think to poke heir nose in other peoples business, as do Christians today.

    I agree, I do not want a gay pride parade walking down my neighborhood street, but they wouldn’t be marching if people would leave them alone.

    In Christianity many times when single woman are lonely, I have heard the advise given to them, to draw strength from their spiritual husband Jesus…
    After I heard this a few times from different sources I thought to myself… What about lonely guy..? Should I draw strength from my Husband Jesus too?

    Christianity is Sterile and Cold. It’s Homo erotic on the denial side and bad by fetish. Jesus I am lonely come spoon me…

    I am sorry.. I am not able to accept Jesus as my Husband. I am not Gay… I need female contact even from the Goddess.

    Jesus taught a form Christianity that had both a Female and Male counterpart.

    Why would Jehovah want to be referred to as father and be personified as male? And then as Paul explains but wish to mainly interact through men… Jehovah must be Gay himself.

    As the male sex organs seem to be his primary focus, being that circumcision is his favorite way to mark his cattle or little boys.

    How does Nick fall into all of this?

    HRH Prince Nicholas de Vere von Drakenburg Kt. S.D. is the King of Witches.

  167. John said

    King of Witches?If you say so.
    You and your Mesopotamian deities.In your mention of the deity Anu, did you mean Anu the Mesopotamian[Babylonian-Akkadian] Creator God, consort of Antu[m], derived from the older Sumerian God An?
    Or did you mean Anu the Celtic[Irish] Chthonic Mother Goddess, mother of the Tuatha de Danann?

  168. Tripp said

    Thomas –

    In post #82 –
    Nick Says:
    December 27, 2007 at 7:28 am e
    I am not Nicholas de Vere.

    And much of the opinions posted about him are a result of people who do not agree with the exclusivity of the Dragon Court. People want a club that is all inclusive but that is not reality.

    In post #166 you answer –
    How does Nick fall into all of this?

    HRH Prince Nicholas de Vere von Drakenburg Kt. S.D.

    – You say in one comment that Jesus is your King, but that you hate Jehovah. Honestly, you guys are incredibly confusing. You obviously are well-read, but very inconsistent and I believe….quite troubled. It’s hard to take you seriously in this thread.

  169. Beth said

    People please…this conversation is totally ridiculous. Vampires? This guy Thomas is accusing Jehovah of being gay? Come on, Truth Talk Live…..get rid of this silliness so we can debate with intelligent people.

  170. Jeff said

    Thomas – What archaeological discoveries?


    Hello Beth,

    “This guy Thomas is accusing Jehovah of being gay?”

    I did not accuse Jehovah of being Gay…

    I merely made statement of possibility… “Jehovah must be Gay himself.” due to the
    homophobic tendencies of the Paul and the Christian church.

    Or I would have said, “Jehovah is Gay.”


  172. Hi Tripp,

    The bantering can go on for ever don’t you think…

    Knowledge is never ending journey.

    It’s like saying we can defeat Terrorism… Terrorism is relative to the one being Terrorized.

    How can Terrorism defeat Terrorism?

    Can Fear cast out Fear?

    No only perfect Love cast out all Fear.

    Love is not afraid of knowledge or Truth. Love is not afraid of Terrorist either.

    Let us pray Osama Bin Laden has found the Heavens and forgiveness before the Throne of God… As he is dead and it’s only a lie and propaganda of the Bush administration that he is alive only to continue their justification (Even claiming it’s Gods will) to continue the war in Iraq and the Middle East.

    Let us pray that the United States will no longer live in a curse.

    My beef with Christianity lie in the fact that it’s whole premise is inconsistent and distorted.

    You think I banter on about subjects of Lunacy?

    Lunacy is a persons ability to justify murder and kill others for any reason.

    Take for instance Christians and their suppression of knowledge. You see how Beth reacted… If she had it her way there would only be (What she describes as…) Intelligent conversation… But what she means is, what she considers truth and worthy of discussion.

    Although in a persons limited capacity to understand they attempt to reject new information feeling threatened by it or just overwhelmed.

    Many Christians would say God is not the author of confusion. But if truth be and island in the middle of a Sea called confusion… located amidst a larger land mass called Information and we traveled to the Island of Truth… WE must pass through confusion to get there and find Truth. If we are tricked into climbing aboard a ship called Religious Propaganda we will never arrive at the island of Truth.

    When it says in Genesis, the Cayin traveled to the land of Nod… Nod meaning the anxiety and uncertainty of the unknown… He was experiencing anxiety and uncertainty of his future without the security of the garden. I know this first hand as my father kicked me out of the house when I was kid and I had to fend for myself on the streets.

    I no longer had the security of knowing where I would sleep or what I would eat… It became a matter of life and death… a Matter of survival.

    I too have been to the land of Nod and Jesus came to set my people at ease as we no longer and to toil for our daily bread nor should we take thought of what we should eat or what we should wear… We no longer had to live in the and of Nod.

    The curse of Jehovah upon the descendants of Cayin has been lifted and is only a matter of time when my family will inherit the Earth. Or do you not understand who the Ebionim are?

    I didn’t come here to debate or get trapped into a intellectual clap-trap. I donot want to convert anyone… I want to find those that I know find this information fascinating and resonating within their spirit and heart that this be Truth.

    How arrogant Christians are… When have any of you ascended to Heaven and have returned to Earth to tell about it?

    When have any of you seen Jesus in the Flesh?

    Once upon a time…

    A protestant preacher and his family, while making their way west, were captured by savages (as they called them) or native Americans. While these so called savages burnt the wagons the preacher pulled out his bible and began to rebuke in the them with a boldness. He cried, “The Lord rebuke you!” while waving his bible in the air.

    Fascinated by his fearlessness the natives decided instead of killing him and taking his wife and children they brought them back to their tribe safely. The woman of the tribe tended to the preachers family while the men motioned for the preacher to come into the tent and smoke a peace pipe.. The preacher offended rebuked them again waving the bible and claiming it’s a sin to smoke because the body is the temple of the lord.

    The Chief began to grow even more interested in the preacher and said to the his brothers in their native tongue “he is an idiot, let us see his wisdom”… Suddenly a young hunter spoke in broken English and said to the preacher, “My grand father knows you are a very wise man and that you serve a great spirit…” The preacher nodded and said, “I serve the Lord Jesus Christ!” The young hunter requested, ” My grandfather wishes to see the wisdom of your great spirit” The preacher smiled and thought to himself this was his chance to preach the gospel So, he opened the bible and began to present the Jesus and explained how he died.

    The tent was filled with an uproar and the Chief yelled out and suddenly silence fell on the tent. The Chief leaned over to the young hunter and whispered in his ear. The preacher tried to continue but the young hunter interrupted, My grand father says, “My grand father says he would like to see you wisdom… He says, if your great spirit is as powerful as you say please produce light.” After he had spoken the torches were extinguished one by one until they sat in pitch black. The preacher began to pray and pray but he could not produce any light in the tent so that anyone could see… Finally the Chief grew tired and whispered in the young hunters ear.

    They then seized the preacher and carried him outside and then buried him up to his neck, scalped him and left him to die. They named him the man of darkness and considered him a liar. His wife and children were given mercy and became members of the tribe and eventually converted to the beliefs of the tribe.

    One day the preachers youngest daughter asked the Chief why they did not like her daddy… The Chief answered her, “Your father was not a wise man he spoke many empty words with out substance…” The little girl pondered for a moment but why did my daddy have to die?” The Chief answered, “He died because he was an idiot, when we asked him to make light he was not able to neither did his great spirit help him” The little girl confused asked, “How do you make light?”

    The Chief then smiled and doused the torch so that the tent was dark and then went outside the tent leaving the little girl alone in the dark. He went to the great fire and stuck the tip of the torch in the fire. She began to get scared when suddenly the Chief came back with the torch lit with fire and sat back down. The little girl frowned and asked, “Is that it?” The Chief laughed and laughed and exclaimed, “Yes!”

    The End

  173. Beth said

    I can only think of one word, Thomas…


  174. Jeff said

    Thomas – Bin Laden being dead is an archaeological discovery?

    How did you come to the conclusion that he is dead?

    Please respond.

  175. Hello Beth,

    I will remember that you said that when the North American Union is installed and our current government is dissolved.

    Maybe you should look at the bigger picture.

    “Every Elf for Himself

    “This is our Law, and the Law of the Strong. ” — Crowley, ibid.

    To the charges of “conspiring to take over the world,” the Dragons deny that they give two licks what the rest of humanity does with itself. Their primary concern is,

    “the restoration of their own Tribes, their own Nation and their own Homelands…. the foundation of their own distinct society.. re-introducing their old social structures and values.”

    This results in “The Grail Code,” a system of Egalitarian, Chivalric ethics that govern how dragons treat other members of their race. However, “it is not the code that efficiently orders the behavior of the Dragon Families in their dealings with those not of the Grail Blood.” They acknowledge and defend their own elitist attitudes towards mankind, whom they regard as,

    “thoroughly stupid and dimwitted, with a clear indication that this condition is genetically inherited.”

    Whereas in contrast,

    “The Elves were naturally transcendent of spirit and their queens and kings were insulated from the common round of nuisances and petty concerns by minds which were bred for deeper matters.”

    Despite their hatred of humanity, they will kindly agree to be the guardians of our governments again (if they aren’t secretly doing so already), should the population choose to accept them, and offer them the thrones of the Earth, which de Vere and friends indicate are rightfully theirs anyway. They are just waiting for mankind to realize it again. We will have to deal with the fact that these “Elves” seem to be in possession of a material that bestows long life as well as fantastic physical, mental, and spiritual powers, giving them a distinct advantage through which they are clearly attempting to lord over us, while they allow our populations to wallow in disease, death, and spiritual degradation. As an excuse, de Vere and Gardner claim that the Starfire and White Gold are only effective for those already of the Dragon Blood anyway, because the rest of us,

    “won’t have the right blood serum or the right connections in their cerebral lobes.”

    De Vere denies the claims of most people who believe themselves to be of this bloodline.

    “Some people argue that because of the out breeding of the old families, there must be millions of people ’of the fairy blood’ living today: but such a statement flies in the face of accepted facts of history. The genuine old royal families rarely outbred at all, whilst the later, fake parvenu, tinker nobility whom people now confuse with them often did.”

    So that leaves little hope for you and me of ever obtaining the fruits of this magnificent “Philosopher’s Stone,” which “gives youth to the old” and is described as “the summation of the heart’s desire.” And if such a substance were available to the public, how much would it cost? Would it be obtainable by everyone or only the rich and privileged? What if it could be administered for free in the water supply or was available in tablet form at your local pharmacy, covered by your health insurance policy? What would happen to our already exploding population?

    As a species, mankind will have to decide how to deal with the information – provided that the information is aired in public someday, and provided our “thoroughly stupid and dim-witted” populace can figure out what to do with it. Will we take advantage of what could be our greatest opportunity to advance as a species, or will we allow it to be used against us by a caste of Aryan overlords who despise us (and who are literally the spawn of Satan!)

    Then again, will we perhaps wish to accept their rule, and the benefits of being led by an advanced race whose powers and insight are greater than our own. After all, there are those who believe that civilization is created by and can only be maintained by an established elite. Would we want to meddle with that, and allow positions of power to be overrun by inferior men? Perhaps it is worth considering whether an elite can truly be made by enhancing human faculties, or whether such powers are purely in the blood sources.”

    Want more?

    Divine Right

  176. Paul and Ananias

    Jesus said that true prophets can be distinguished from false prophets by
    “their fruits.” He mused, “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of
    thistles?” In other words, he told us to check out the story of a so-called
    prophet or person of influence. If the story doesn’t add up, then the person
    in question should be viewed as a false prophet.

    Having stated that, here is some additional information about Paul. Firstly,
    Paul was linked—from the moment of his so-called conversion in Damascus—to
    one of the same high-priests who had Jesus killed. The man’s name was
    “Ananias” (Acts 9:10, King James). It was Ananias who restored Saul’s sight
    after being blinded during his so-called vision of Jesus at Damascus.

    The Bible states that Ananias [complained to the Lord that Paul] had “authority

    from the chiefs to bind all that call on thy name” (Acts 9:14). [So Ananias was

    apparently quite familiar with the hierarchy of the high priests and the Sanhedrin.

    Ananias may have been somewhat influential himself.] Possibly a former high priest.

    Ananias [may have been] one of the high priests in the Sanhedrin who questioned
    Jesus before his execution. In the King James Version of the Bible, this man’s
    name is spelled “Annas.” He was the father-in-law of Joseph Caiaphais, the high
    priest who decreed that Jesus must die (John 11:49-51). In fact, Jesus was
    first questioned by Annas after being arrested by the Sanhedrin guards. Annas
    turned Jesus over to Caiaphas who turned him over to Pilate for crucifixion.

    The English translations of Antiquities, by Josephus, identifies “Ananus” as a
    high-priest appointed to head the Sanhedrin a few years before Caiaphas (ref.
    Josephus, Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 2). In John 18:13, it states that Annas
    (Ananus) was the father-in-law of Joseph Caiaphas.

    So we know that Ananus and Annas were the same person, but different authors or
    translators spelled their names differently (in Antiquities versus John). So it
    seems highly plausible that the person known as Ananias (from Acts 9, Saul’s
    pal) is also Ananus/Annas.

    It is highly suspicious that the same high priest who was deeply involved in the murder
    of Jesus was also linked to Paul’s conversion to Christianity.(More than likely his co-conspirator to help Paul with his fake vision lies)

    Secondly, Paul’s teachings are much different from those of Jesus. Jesus
    taught people how to live their lives in a manner that would please God. In
    addition, he said in no uncertain terms that those who practice Pharisaic
    teachings would not escape hell. He called them the children of the Devil. Paul
    WAS a Pharisee. In addition, Paul focused on the meaning of the resurrection
    in an obsessive manner that left most of Jesus’s teaching
    forgotten—particularly the damnation of the Pharisees and their followers.

    Thirdly, Paul never attempted to atone for his life as a Pharisee or his
    association with one of the high priests involved in the murder of Jesus. In
    fact, he boasted of his status as a Pharisee. It should be regarded as
    blasphemy that an active Pharisee would spread Christianity and [may have

    been] aided in [his] efforts by one of Jesus’s murderers, high-priest Ananus.

    Jesus said of false prophets, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” I can see
    nothing but rotten fruit produced from Paul.

  177. “They say they are Jews are not, but are the synagogue of Satan”

    John, in his Revelation, scowls at Paul and his Gentile following, who “say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9). He denounces the doctrines of Nicolas, [2:6] one of the seven first deacons of the Church, as hateful; and he expresses his detestation of the Laodiceans (Rev. 2:16) by saying that the Almighty would spew them out of his mouth. Paul returns the compliment by “withstanding” Peter for his “dissimulation,” (Gal. 2:11-13) and sneering at James and John (Gal. 2:9) as seeming to be pillars, the former of whom retorts that Paul is a “vain man” (James 2:20). Paul vehemently tells the Galatians: “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). Even “the beloved disciple,” in his second Epistle, manifests the same persecuting spirit:

    “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 10-11)

    In the very first century Christianity was split into many petty sects, each denouncing the other as teaching false doctrine. The early Nazarenes, who adhered to the Jewish law, were called Ebionites, or contemptible people. The Ebionites denounced the Paulinists, and declared that Paul was an impostor who became a Christian because he was not allowed to marry a Jewish woman. In an epistle of Peter to James, prefixed to the Clementine Recognitions, and as genuine as any other portion of the writings ascribed to Peter, Paul is alluded to as “the enemy,” and the author of lawless and foolish teachings. Of the Recognitions itself, a work ascribed to Clement, alluded to in Philippians 4:3 and undoubtedly belonging to the first era of Christian history, the author of Supernatural Religion says:

    “There cannot be a doubt that the Apostle Paul is attacked in this religious romance as the great enemy of the true faith, under the hated name of Simon the Magician, whom Peter follows everywhere for the purpose of unmasking and confuting him. He is robbed of his title of “Apostle of the Gentiles,” which, together with the honor of founding the Church of Antioch, of Laodicea, and of Rome, is ascribed to Peter. All that opposition to Paul which is implied in the Epistle to the Galatians and elsewhere (1 Cor. 1:11-12; 2 Cor. 11:13-20; Philip. 1:15,16) is here realised and exaggerated, and the personal difference with Peter to which Paul refers is widened into the most bitter animosity.” (Vol II, p.34.)

    Irenaeus, in the second century, in his work against Heretics, stigmatises them with the most abusive epithets, and accuses them of the most abominable crimes. He calls them “thieves and robbers,” “slippery serpents,” “miserable little foxes,” and so forth, and declares that they practise lewdness in their assemblies.

    Tertullian, in the third century, displays a full measure of bigotry, with an added sense of exultation over the sufferings in reserve for his pagan opponents.

    “What a city in the new Jerusalem! For it will not be without its games; it will have the final and eternal day of judgment, which the Gentiles now treat with unbelief and scorn, when so vast a series of ages, with all their productions, will be hurled into one absorbing fire. How magnificent the scale of that game! With what admiration, what laughter, what glee, what triumph shall I perceive so many mighty monarchs, who had been given out as received into the skies, even Jove himself and his votaries, moaning in unfathomable gloom. The governors too, persecutors of the Christian name, cast into fiercer torments than they had devised against the faithful, and liquefying amid shooting spires of flame! And those sage philosophers, who had deprived the Deity of his offices, and questioned the existence of a soul, or denied its future union with the body, meeting again with their disciples only to blush before them in those ruddy fires! Not to forget the poets, trembling, not before the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but at the unexpected bar of Christ! Then is the time to hear tragedians, doubly pathetic now that they bewail their own agonies; to observe the actors, released by the fierce elements from all restraint upon their gestures; to admire the charioteer, glowing all over on the car of torture; to watch the wrestlers, thrust into the struggles, not of the gymnasium, but of the flames.”

  178. C.S. Lewis once wrote that the teachings of Jesus tend to be harsh, and that Paul’s writings soften their impact. This is true. But is it good? Do you want those in power to be held accountable to a high moral standard with harsh penalties, or a low moral standard with slap-on-the-wrist penalties? If a man is deciding whether to rape his niece, is it more beneficial for him to read “All things are permissible” (1 Corinthians 6:12) or “Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” (Matthew 7:19)?

    James the Just, in James 1:12, stated that salvation belongs to those who love God, who are patient under trial, and who stand up under temptation. Jesus stated that the most important command contained in the Law is the duty to love God with all your heart. Yes, the duty to love God–a duty which Paul omitted from his teaching–is more difficult than merely believing. Real Christianity is a hard road to follow, certainly harder than the salvation through belief that Paul preached.

    Jesus and James asked for more than just belief. They asked for more than just a love for neighbor. They asked people to love God, to love Him passionately, to love Him so deeply that patience under trial and the resistance of temptation would inevitably follow. Yes, good works could be expected to follow too. But, in their eyes, the key, the cornerstone, the seed, the necessary and the sufficient condition for salvation is a passionate, whole-hearted love for God.

    While the choice is not easy, the right answer is clear. A society that bases its actions upon justice, upon love of God, and upon a genuine respect and love of neighbor will be a more peaceful, more equitable, more fair place to live than a society that believes works to be irrelevant, exploitation normal, and holiness a quaint fancy.

    Paul rejected the authority of the Apostles that Jesus appointed, and the Apostles that Jesus appointed rejected Paul. Paul lacked authority to preach, and his own letters make it clear that he did not possess a letter of recommendation from the authorities that Jesus instituted. Jesus did not institute the Twelve Apostles as a means of personal amusement or to fill his idle time; he did so to protect the Church from idle, heretical, or blasphemous doctrines. He did so with the intention of creating an institution that would preserve correct teaching. Paul chose to go outside of this institution, without a letter of recommendation, and without benefiting himself from its teaching or instruction. Not only do Paul’s writings lack consistency or reliability, they cannot be considered Christian.

  179. There are two flaws with Paul’s approach: the first being that it is not based on the teaching of Jesus, and the second being that it is designed to propagate a mixture of superstitious belief and secular humanistic practice.

    Paul’s letters display a remarkable degree of ignorance about Jesus the man, and his teaching. The entire corpus of Paul’s letters contains two historical facts about Jesus: that he was crucified, and that he had a brother named James. Paul seems content with his ignorance, stating “knowledge puffeth up” (1 Corinthians 8:1).

    Jesus spent years living with and teaching a group of twelve Apostles. Paul’s attitude towards these Apostles can be found in the following passage from Galatians: “But though we, or an angel of heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. . . . For I neither received [the gospel] from man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. . . . I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it . . . But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb . . . To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles I saw none, save James the Lord’s brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia” Galatians 1:8-21.

    As this passage makes clear, Paul did not avail himself of the opportunity to learn from those whom Jesus taught face to face. Paul instead claimed that his revelation came directly from God, making instruction from humans unnecessary for him. Given this attitude, it would not be surprising if Paul did more talking than listening during the fifteen days he spent with Peter. It will become clear that he was unable or unwilling to eliminate contradictions between his own doctrine and that of Jesus. It is surprising that someone who had chosen a profession of lifelong ministry should fail to avail himself of the opportunity to learn from those who had been taught by Jesus himself. Paul’s approach to the Apostles that the visible Jesus chose can be found in the following passages. Paul sneers the three chief Apostles: James, Cephas (i.e. Simon Peter) and John, saying that they “seemed to be pillars” Galatians 2:9. Paul publicly rebukes Peter (Galatians 2:14), scolds Barnabas (Galatians 2:13), and claims “For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles” 2 Corinthians 11:5. And in 2 Corinthians 12:11, Paul claims, “in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.”

    Jesus’ attitude towards the twelve Apostles was different. “Then answered Peter, and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” Matthew 19:27-28.

    Paul clearly felt that the personal revelation that he experienced was of greater value than the years of instruction that the Apostles received from Jesus himself. To test the validity of this assertion, it is necessary to compare Paul’s teaching with that of Jesus. If, in fact, Paul’s teaching turns out to be a natural extension of that of Jesus, in the same way that a fully grown tree is the natural extension of a sapling, then there may be validity to his belief. If, however, the voice or spirit that Paul thinks communicated with him is unreliable, then we should expect to see Paul choosing a different path than the one Jesus chose.

    The fulfillment of the Law

    “For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself.” Galatians 5:14, also see Romans 13:9, in which the sentiment is repeated. Gamaliel, the Pharisee, Hillel the Pharisee’s grandson, taught the same thing. Hillel was one of the founding fathers of Phariseeism, and is favorably mentioned in the Talmud.

    “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matthew 22:37-40. Also see Mark 12:29-31.

    This is the most glaring contradiction between the teaching of Paul and Jesus. On this issue, Paul sides with the Pharisees, who behaved as though they were more afraid of the Roman conquerors of Israel than of God. Thus, those parts of the Law which demanded holiness were weakened, while new rules were created to convince people to submit to secular authorities. Based on the general direction that Paul took religion, it is most likely that the omission of an explicit command to love God was deliberate.


    “Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.” Ephesians 6:5

    This passage is based neither on the Old Testament nor on the teaching of Jesus, as will be seen.

    “Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen, saying, At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother an Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee; and when he hath served thee six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee: but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. . . . But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and handmaids. Therefore thus saith the LORD; Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the LORD, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.” Jeremiah 34:13-17.

    “I [Paul] urge you on behalf of my child Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment, who was once useless to you but is now useful to you and me. I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you. . . . Perhaps this is why he went away from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloved especially to me, but even more so to you, as a man and in the Lord.” Philemon 10-16.

    “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the slave which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.” Deuteronomy 23:15-16.

    “[The covenant of Moses] is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar . . . corresponds with the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. It was for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened by a yoke of slavery” Galatians 4:24-5:1.

    The escaped slave Onesimus is probably wondering how to avoid “letting [himself] be burdened by a yoke of slavery” when the person who gave that advice, Paul, re-enslaved him, and returned him to his ex-master. Had Paul been under the covenant of Moses, which he likened to slavery, then Paul could not have returned the escaped slave Onesimus back to his master Philemon. However, because Paul was free, a “child of the free woman,” his freedom freed him to return Onesimus to slavery. Onesimus, being a Pauline Christian, was, by Paul’s reckoning, also a “child of the freewoman.” Therefore, “All things are permissible to [him]” (1 Corinthians 6:12), except disobedience to his master (Ephesians 6:5) or to governing authorities generally (Romans 13:1-4). Under these constraints, Onesimus is not the servant of God, but the slave of man.

    Paul has more to say on the subject of slavery. In Galatians 5:1, Paul states that “It was for freedom that Christ has set us free” even though his passage 1 Corinthians 7:20-24 states “he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave.” Paul appears unable to decide whether Jesus has enslaved Christians or set them free.

    The same lack of consistency that Paul exhibited when addressing slavery can also be seen in his approach to circumcision.

    “Mark my words, I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all” Galatians 5:2.

    “Paul wanted to take [Timothy] along with him on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek” Acts 16:2.

    Paul’s Attitude Towards Sin

    Romans 6:12-14, “Let not sin . . . reign in your mortal body . . . For sin shall have no dominion over you: for you are not under the Law [of Moses], but under grace.”

    Romans 8:13, “If you live after the flesh, you shall die, but if you, through the Spirit, mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live.”

    Romans 7 :14-25 “I am carnal, sold under sin. . . . I can will what is right, but I cannot perform it. For I fail to practice the good deeds I desire to do, but the evil deeds that I do not desire to do are what I am [ever] doing. . . . [I am] a prisoner to the law of sin that dwells in my bodily organs. . . . I [with mind and heart] serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.”

    Paul made a promise in Romans 6:14. In a behavior disturbingly similar to a modern politician, he wastes little time in revealing the empty nature of his own promise. Also, it is not immediately clear whether there is an observable difference between “living after the flesh,” which Paul states will lead to death (Romans 8:13), and the “law of sin” that Paul admits to serving with his “flesh” in Romans 7:25.

    The Sabbath

    “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.” Romans 14:5-6

    “Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath” Matthew 24:20

    Unclean foods

    “As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.” Romans 14:14

    “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols . . .” Revelation 2:14.

    Justification through love alone, as expressed by faith and works, or through faith alone, unaided by love?

    “For if Abraham were justified by works, he had whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and was counted unto him for righteousness. Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.” Romans 4:2-5

    “[B]ecause thou [Abraham] hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Genesis 22:16-18.

    “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by his works was made perfect?” James 2:19-22.

    “Abraham . . . was made a friend of God, because he kept the commandments of God and did not choose the will of his own spirit” The Dead Sea Scrolls: Damascus Document, column 3, line 2.

    “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works” Matthew 16:27.

    “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” Matthew 5:48.

    “[I]f thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments” Matthew 19:17.

    “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink . . . And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” Matthew 25:41-46.

    The status of woman

    “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7.

    There is nothing in the book of Genesis to support this contention. Genesis does state that woman was created as a helpmate for man, but if anything, this further weakens Paul’s already baseless argument, as “he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” Matthew 23:11.

    “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Genesis 1:27.

    Based on this passage, it would appear that woman, like man, was created for the glory of God.

    “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” Ephesians 5:22. This commandment closely parallels Ephesians 6:5, in which Paul exhorts “slaves, be obedient to . . . your masters . . . as unto Christ.” Disturbingly, these two new commands occur within less than a chapter of each other.

    “[Pharisees] love to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi. But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. . . . Neither be called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ.” Matthew 23:7-10.

    Paul saw many christs: a husband is christ over his wife (Ephesians 5:22), an owner a christ over his slaves (Ephesians 6:5), and a secular government the gatekeeper of heaven (Romans 13:2). Paul saw many christs, Jesus saw only one.

    Submission to governing authorities

    “[The Polish priests] will preach what we want them to preach. If any priest acts differently, we will make short work of him. The task of the priest is to keep the Poles quiet, stupid, and dull-witted” Adolf Hitler. Did Paul’s teachings encourage people to critically examine their government, and to insist upon ethical conduct? Or were they more likely to promote the quietness, stupidity, and dull-wittedness that Adolf Hitler saw as prized attributes for conquered people?

    “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” Romans 13:1.

    At the time those words were written, Nero, the Roman Caesar, was demanding that his populace worship him as god.

    “Everyone must know for all future time that if he raises his hand to strike the State, then certain death is his lot.” Adolf Hitler.

    “Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they that resist shall receive to themselves [eternal condemnation]” Romans 13:2.

    Whether secular rulers deliberately harm good people

    “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.” Mark 8:15

    “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Romans 13:3-4.

    “[Pilate] had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified” Matthew 27:26.

    “[Herod] sent, and beheaded John in the prison. And his head was brought in on a platter, and given to [Herodias’ daughter] who carried it to her mother” Matthew 14:10-11.

    “Wherefore, behold, I send unto you [scribes and Pharisees] prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some ye shall scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth.” Matthew 23:34-35.

    “But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God. . . . At this they . . . began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. . . . And Saul was there, giving approval to his death” Acts 7:55-8:1.


    “Unto you [disciples] it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins forgiven them” Mark 4:11-12.

    “And they sent unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch [Jesus] in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? Shall we, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? Bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is the image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” Mark 12:13-17.

    “The earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof” Psalms 24:1.

    Thus, when someone has finished giving to God what is God’s, there is nothing left to render unto Caesar.

    “And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? Of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. [Note that this concept of freedom is radically different than Paul’s.] Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, [pay the tax anyway, with money miraculously obtained]” Matthew 17:24-27.

    “For this cause [i.e., the divine appointment of secular rulers] ye pay tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law” Romans 13:6-8.

    “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in [the place of condemnation]” Matthew 10:28.

    Peace or a sword

    “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I am not come to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Matthew 10:34-37.

    “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. . . . For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:17-20.

    “For [Jesus] is our peace . . . having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace. . . . And [Jesus] came and preached peace to them which were afar off, and to them which were nigh.” Ephesians 2:14-17

    “[They have said] Peace, peace, when there is no peace. . . . Hear O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people . . . because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor unto my law, but rejected it. . . . your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.” Jeremiah 6:14-20

    “And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people . . . because they have seduced my people, saying Peace, and there was no peace . . . Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life” Ezekiel 13:8-23.

    “[T]o the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness” Romans 4:5.

    “[I]f thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments” Matthew 19:17.


    “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” 1 Corinthians 7:10-11

    “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They said unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committed adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Matthew 19:3-9.

    The effect of studying the Law

    “What can we say? That the law is sin? Of course not! Yet I did not know sin except through the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, ‘you shall not covet.’ But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of lust. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. . . . But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.” Romans 7:7-13.

    A close reading of this passage is necessary to a careful evaluation of the claims Paul is making. The reader is asked to carefully consider Paul’s contention that he would not have known to lust after women had he not been commanded against doing so.

    “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” James 1:13-14.


    “Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. . . . Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. . . . In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by my own countrymen . . . in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. . . . If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities. . . . In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city . . . with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me: And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands. It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. . . . For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man think of me above what he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. . . . in nothing am I behind the very chiefest of the apostles, though I be nothing. . . . For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong” 2 Corinthians 11:16-12:19.

    For James, such boasting is proud, potentially hypocritical, hurtful to others, and, ultimately, unneeded.

    “But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil” James 4:16.

    It is interesting that the word “I” does not once appear in the book of James. Contemporaries had described James as a man of exceptional holiness, a man who prayed so often that the skin on his knees began to resemble a camel’s hide. When Paul, in Galatians 1:8, wrote “But though we, or an angel of heaven, preach any other gospel unto you . . .” it is most likely that James was the “angel of heaven” that Paul had in mind. James did not mention the work he had done for God, choosing instead to follow the teaching of Jesus, to “not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing.”

    Paul the Man

    To find information about Paul the man, one can turn to the book of Acts, the Clementines, Paul’s letters, and the histories of Josephus. Of the four historians, Josephus appears to have the most knowledge, writes with the most detail, and is the author about whom the most is known. Like most writers of the time, he often chooses to whitewash Roman misdeeds. When “The Jewish War” was written, Josephus had reason to fear execution at the hands of the Romans. Consequently, the book must be dismissed as a piece of pro-Roman propaganda. His later works were written after his adoption into the royal family, and in “Antiquities” he displays a moderate level of willingness to examine Roman and Herodian misconduct.

    Interestingly, none of these four sources state that Paul was martyred. There is support for the idea in apocryphal Gentile Christian literature of the time. It is perhaps advisable to read such literature fully before giving wholesale credence to its assertions. In one case, the same work that declares Paul to have been martyred also claims that he baptized a lion, and that the animal spoke to him, going so far as to have a short conversation about how the lion had been captured.

    The book of Acts was written by Luke. Luke was a follower of Paul, could write in Greek, and was perhaps from Cyrene. Beyond this, nothing is known about him.

    Luke paints a picture of a Paul who is born poor, martyrs Christians before becoming one himself, and who proceeds to live the rest of his life for Christ. Acts attributes several miracles to Paul. The Clementines follow the same basic story line as the first part of Acts, but with some key differences. James is elected the head of the Christian Church following the departure of Jesus. After his conversion, Paul remained on good terms with the Herodian family. He initiated a physical attack on James, in which James was cast down from the Temple stairs, and left for dead. There was, of course, no understanding between Paul and the main Church, and no one gave him permission to preach to the Gentiles.

    The first part of the Book of Acts appears to be a rewritten version of an early version of the Clementines. The Clementines presents the Jewish Christian side of the Early Church’s history, and Acts presents the Pauline view. Josephus tells the story from the perspective of one who has taken neither side. Josephus’s Saulus is a descendent of Herod’s brother, and hence is a free-born Roman citizen. Saulus’s house arrests were relatively mild affairs, done primarily to protect him from those who had sworn to kill him. Saulus was on bad terms with king Aretas, because Saulus had supported the killer of John the Baptist (Herod Antipas) in his war against King Aretas. As a result of this disagreement, Saulus was not safe in King Aretas’s domains, and, at one point, had to escape the city of Damascus by being let down in a basket. For more information about the Herodian family in general, or Paul in particular, see Robert Eisenman’s “James the Brother of Jesus.”

    Josephus’s account provides a more comprehensive and consistent explanation of Paul’s background than does Luke’s. Hillel was one of the most famous Pharisees of all time. His grandson, Gamaliel, was Paul’s boyhood teacher. Luke says nothing about how a poor tentmaker’s son from somewhere in Turkey could possibly have acquired such a famous teacher. Likewise, there is no mention of why or how Paul was “freeborn” into full Roman citizenship, at a time when the distinction was rare. There is also no explanation of how Paul acquired authority-which he clearly had-to kill Christians (Acts 7:58, 22:20). That a young man should have such power is surprising, that a young man born into a poor and obscure family should have such power is absurd. A more logical and consistent explanation of the facts is the one Josephus provides: Paul was born into a rich and powerful family, was given instruction from the most prestigious Pharisee available, and was later, because of his family connections, given power to persecute Christians in whatever manner he pleased.

    “Behold, the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth [i.e., the Lord of Hosts, or even the Lord of War]” James 5:4.

    This statement echoes back to the riots of the 60s. In these riots, slaves of the Rich High Priests robbed the Poor Lower Priests of tithes that were rightfully theirs. The riots were violent affairs, and some of the Poor Lower Priests were killed. According to Josephus, Saulus actively participated in, and indeed lead, these riots-on behalf of the Rich High Priests. These riots, incidentally, took place well after Saulus’s/Paul’s Damascus road experience.

    “When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean, and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.” Matthew 12:43-45.

    Even a casual perusal of the works of Pauline Christians reveals a disturbing willingness to bend or stretch the truth to gain converts. Because they felt belief to be the necessary and sufficient condition for salvation, they exhibited a strong willingness to fabricate tall tales about miracles that strain credulity. In the Acts of Paul and Thecla (which are a subset of the Acts of Paul), a lovely virgin heroine is cast nearly naked into a stadium, and requires several consecutive very public miracles to rescue her, including help from a mysteriously benevolent lion (perhaps the same one Paul baptized). In several of the infancy gospels, Jesus miraculously killed a boy who had accidentally banged into him. He turned clay pigeons into real birds, for no apparent reason other than that it was the Sabbath. Jesus exhibited a strong willingness to miraculously kill or maim those who disagreed with him, healing people only when doing so would solidify his own social position. Few, if any, of the miracles discussed in these books have moral meaning, the apparent purpose instead being to demonstrate raw power. The efficacy of these works in gaining converts was surprisingly high: there were many who had converted simply on the strength of what they had read in an infancy gospel. Many of these works can be found in “The Other Bible,” a compilation of various apocryphal writings.

    Apart from the testimony of those actively engaged in marketing Paul’s religion, there is no historical evidence to support the contention that Paul’s life was marked by any unusual degree of holiness or personal rectitude. On the contrary, aside from the writings of Paul and a few sectarians (who predominately wrote long after Paul’s death), early historians paint a disturbing picture of a man whose driving energy was a strong desire for personal aggrandizement and power.

  180. Beth said

    Thomas – You’re not answering any questions. You’re just spouting out ridiculous Gnosticism. How many times have you read The Davinci Code? Probably more times than you’re read the Bible. Plus, you say Nick is Nicholas de Vere. Nick says he’s not.

    Folks, if we ignore him long enough maybe he’ll go away. I’ll be the first.

  181. Accountability

  182. YOU are so afraid of me Beth…. Essenes nor the Naz-Aryans practiced Gnosticism But if you like I can start with the Catharii?

    I have never read the Davinci Code (I grew bored of it in the first chapter)… And I Promise you Beth and I guarantee when you stand before the Throne of God… You will eat those words and apologize to me.

    The Father in Heaven Knows how many times I’ve read the Bible… How many versions and how much time I have committed to study of which I owe Paul one debt… That he pissed me off enough to prove him wrong by reading the Books of the Prophets repeatedly.

    And if you must know… Unlike most Christians I Truly Love Jesus… Enough to really study it out to find out who Jesus really is.

    God as my witness, I have laid my life down repeatedly for God.

    Many times I was scared for my life but when I did preach, I endured more beatings than you could imagine.

    I say this with conviction… I like you Beth and I know God likes you too.

    I do not down you for your faith and if Paul did not condemn mine I wouldn’t have anything against him at all. But I would watch your attitude though because you haven’t a real clue who you’re talking too… Yeah I am sure that it’s possible, you as well as many other who have seen my myspace assume they can Judge me by appearance alone.

    I do not Judge any one of you … I do not even Judge Paul before God… I Judge his doctrine and motive. God has already Judged the Devil and his false Prophet.

    Paul is a Liar and a false Apostle.

    Let us, then break down what the Law is in Paul’s eyes, verses, Jesus, James and the Bretheren, Shall we?

  183. The Law Stands
    Christian anti-Semitism and other errors of Paul


    Paul was anti-law and said the law was a curse

    Now we need to look at more of Paul’s errors in doctrine, especially those that suggest one is not expected to live by God’s Law. We have already seen that Paul’s doctrine concerning the sovereignty of God is severely flawed, his use of Scripture to prove his doctrine is lackluster at best if not outright dishonest, he lies, and he is in all probability the false apostle that Yeshua commended the Ephesians for rejecting.

    Still, Paul makes both pro-law statements and anti-law statements in his writings that he never does reconcile. Indeed he can’t! Either God expects us to live by His Law or He doesn’t. There is no in-between. But to be fair, I must make mention the fact of his pro-law statements. One reason I need to do this is because among the growing sect of Messianics there is a small number who call themselves “observant” Messianics. They continue to believe, as Yeshua taught, that the law stands today. But in their endeavor to try and maintain some semblance of credibility with other Messianics, (who are really little more than Christians with a Jewish flair and an umbilical cord attached directly to mainstream Christianity) these observant Messianics will engage in bend-over-backwards apologetics for Paul and do everything they can to argue he was pro-law. Apparently they continue to feel the need to embrace the picture of an infallible New Testament. We shouldn’t be surprised about the fact that Paul made both pro and anti-law statements because of things he said like the following.

    “…to the Jew I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak, I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” 1Corinthians 9:20-22

    At the very least, it is apparent that Paul was a chameleon who blended with his surroundings whatever they were! Paul clearly taught contradictory messages for the purpose of making everybody happy… something you will never find Yeshua doing. As long as there are numerous, clearly anti-law statements made by Paul, Christians and non-observant Messianics alike will always point to them and rest their case against the poor legalistic observant Messianics. There is no simple misunderstanding about it. Even Paul’s contemporaries accused him of encouraging others not to practice the law of Moses. They even had him there in the flesh to explain and straighten out the misunderstanding if indeed it was so simple. This I have already established. (See again Acts 21:20-12,28 for an example) As you will see shortly while I display more of Paul’s anti-law doctrine, the observant Messianic’s endeavors might be better termed… appaulling apaulogetics! They would be better off facing the fact that Paul was a false apostle, call him on it, and suffer the ostracism of Christianity. They aren’t having much success convincing anyone that Paul was pro-law anyway.

    The book of Romans.

    The book of Romans is considered by many Christians to be Paul’s masterpiece argument against justification through the law in favor of justification through faith by grace. In trying to deal with Paul’s errors in logic one can quickly become bogged down in the very convoluted string of arguments he makes. In dealing with his logic, it is not just a simple matter of untying a series of knots in a long string. His logic is more like one big twisted ball of knots made of knots made of knots! Many of those who believe in Paul have an extremely difficult time following his rambling flow of logic themselves. To deal with all of Paul’s nonsensical logic in the book of Romans alone would take an entire book by itself. I’m not going to take the space to do that here. But what I will focus on are the fundamental premises on which he bases his doctrines, and most importantly his ongoing blatant abuse of Scripture to support them. In doing this alone, Paul will be totally disarmed. His building will come crumbling down when these foundations that are built on sand are removed. I will deal with only a portion of his nonsensical logic.

    One of Christianity’s favorite Pauline passages that clearly suggests we ought not bother trying to keep God’s Law comes from the first part of the book of Romans. Right off in chapter 1, Paul tries to establish some fundamental premises on which to continue building his doctrine. He says;

    For in it (the Gospel) the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith”. Romans 1:17

    This was a favorite passage of the Christian reformer Martin Luther. He believed, as Paul clearly lays out later in Romans and Galatians, this faith that the just are supposed to live by is as opposed to living by the law. Paul eventually turns it into an either-or… mutually exclusive incompatibility of faith and law. Notice once again that Paul feels compelled to prove his doctrine by quoting Scripture. This observation alone should make it go without saying that the Scripture he quotes had better paint the same picture, or his premise is flawed… or groundless at best. Here again Paul misquotes Scripture albeit slightly. The passage he quotes is:

    “Behold the proud, his soul is not upright in him, but the just shall live by his faith.” Habakkuk 2:4

    In its context, and more accurately translated, it is obvious that what God is saying here is that the just person (someone who is righteous) shall live (as opposed to dying) “by” (literally “because of”) “his” (personal, as opposed to general) faithfulness: (literally, “steadfastness”, ) to righteous living. Let me shorten this up for better understanding. It is this: The righteous person will survive if he is steadfast in his righteousness. Nowhere in this picture is the idea: If an unrighteous person wants to become righteous, he must live by exerting his faith.

    This one relatively small mistake of Paul’s is only the beginning. From here, he builds on his doctrine by continuing to make more grave errors that end up taking him way off course. It’s like an astronaut’s rocket being off in trajectory by only a couple of degrees when he begins his journey to the moon. He will eventually find he missed it by thousands of miles. By the end of the book of Romans, Paul is so far off it’s hopeless! Watch where he goes from here in chapter 3.

    Romans 3

    Whenever someone suggests to a Christian (most particularly evangelical Christian) that the law of God still stands today, one of the first things out of their mouths to refute the suggestion comes from Romans 3. We are quickly informed that no one is able to keep the law, and all are guilty of breaking it and forever remain labeled by it… unrighteous. Then we hear this quote:

    “There is none righteous, no, not one”. Romans 3:10

    This passage is again a quote Paul takes from the Scriptures to prop up and prove his case. From verse 10 on through 18 is Paul’s apparent direct quote from Scripture that is supposed to prove to us that no one is righteous, but all are full of evil. Please read all eight verses for yourself. Now guess what? No such single passage exists! What Paul quotes is a compilation of no less that six separate passages that have been jerked out of their original context in the Psalms and the book of Isaiah, and they are all strung together in such a fashion that it appears they are one. We have seen this deceptive practice of Paul’s before. Remember in Romans 9, where he pastes together two short passages from Genesis and Malachi concerning Jacob and Esau?! And Paul’s accuracy in quoting from the Psalms leaves much to be desired. The first passage he quotes in verses 10-12 come from Psalm 14. Here is his version first.

    As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one.” Romans 3:10-12

    Now here is the passage quoted accurately… and in its context.

    “The fool has said in his heart, “there is no God”. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none (of the atheistic fools) who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the (corrupt) children of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is non who does good, no, not one. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call on the Lord? There they ( the evil people) are in great fear, for God is with the generation of the RIGHTEOUS. Psalm 14:1-5 (Amplification in parentheses mine)

    Guess what? In David’s picture there are no atheistic fools who do good! This passage is obviously not speaking of every human being but of a very distinct group of people whom David describes as fools, atheists, workers of abominations, corrupt, ignorant, and workers of iniquity. Of course, not one of them do good. And these evil people are pitted against a second group of real people known as “my people” and “the generation of the righteous”. Even in this very Psalm that Paul quotes from, there are obviously those whom God refers to as “righteous”! This is hardly the picture Paul wants us to get from this Psalm. Notice also Paul’s embellishment of this passage. He would have us believe the phrase, “no, not one” is used twice when it is only used once. The first time Paul uses the phrase is where it doesn’t exist, and it is coupled with the word “righteous” which Hebrew word doesn’t exist in this part of the Psalm or anywhere near the words “no, not one”. Instead the Hebrew word for righteous shows up later in verse 5 and directly implies that there are those who are righteous! So much for Paul’s “no, not one”.

    In Paul’s string of quotes in Romans 3:10-18, he continues in verse 13 to take Scripture snippets out of their context from Psalm 5:9 and Psalm 140:3. In verse 14 he snips from Psalm 10:7. Verse 15,16 and 17 he yanks from Isaiah 59:7,8. And verse 18 he jerks from Psalm 36:1. In each and every case, the people spoken of in these passages are specifically evil men, and in the greater context of these passages, the evil men are contrasted with people who are called “the righteous”, “the upright”, and “the innocent”. Please check for yourself. They are all obvious and easy to see except for the Isaiah quote. In Isaiah, compare 59:7,8 which Paul quotes to the previous chapter… Isaiah 58:6-12 and take special notice of the word “righteousness” and how it is used in verse 8.

    Paul wants us to believe that no one becomes righteous through the works of the law. But there are many whom God called righteous. From Genesis 7:1 where He says to Noah, “I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation”, all the way through to the New Testament where Yeshua says, “many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it…”, there are many references to righteous men. Take an exhaustive concordance and look under the word righteous.

    After supposedly proving his premise with his deceptive quoting of Scripture that no one can be righteous under the law, Paul is forced to try and find for us a good working reason as to why God gave man the law at all! Here is his logic.

    “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that (for this purpose) every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:19,20

    This begins to defy words to describe the blasphemous lie that it is. But hey, Paul has to come up with some reason for the law’s existence after demolishing the truth! Are we really to believe that it’s God’s purpose to make man guilty before Him? If God intentionally made His law impossible for man to keep, that would make God the author of unrighteousness and guilt! Here’s God’s version of why He gave man the law.

    “Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that (for this purpose) it might be well with them and with their children forever!” Deuteronomy 5:29

    “And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that (for this purpose) He might preserve us alive, as it is this day. Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.” Deuteronomy 6:24,25

    This blasphemous lie by itself should finish Paul off and nail his hide to the wall as a false apostle. Here, read it now again after having read these words from God’s own mouth and compare them closely.

    “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that (for this purpose) every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:19,20

    Yeshua never taught anything remotely close to this. But we are still long from being finished with all of Paul’s doctrinal errors. He goes on to mention some fringe benefits that go along with his extremely faulty premise. The logic flows that if no man is capable of doing God’s law, and salvation is instead granted as a free gift of grace, then nobody can brag about keeping the law anymore!

    Where is boasting then? It is excluded, By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Romans 3:27,28

    Never mind the fact that it is an important part of the law for man to know his place and humble himself! If people kept all the law they wouldn’t be boasting anyway.

    “He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

    Notice also what it says about the man who gave us the law.

    Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth. Numbers 12:3

    God has never been in the business of making it impossible for man to boast. He just makes it not worth the while by humbling proud men if they refuse to humble themselves. The ironic fact is that in the real world, Paul’s doctrine is the source of far more pride and arrogance than any other doctrine! One only need look at Paul himself, and as mentioned before, notice how he lifted himself above the very apostles who followed Yeshua (2Corinthians 11:5, Galatians 2:6,9), and how he even lifted himself above Moses (2Corithians 3:11-13 and notice the phrase, “we use great boldness of speech unlike Moses”), anyone who believes in the concept off destiny, and that before creation God destined some vessels for honor and some for dishonor (Romans 9:20-23), and naturally believes he is one of those who is destined for honor, that person will be extremely conceited in his heart.

    But it’s Paul’s flow of logic from the presupposition that God intentionally made the law impossible to keep that becomes totally absurd. Since in his world, no one can keep the law, man must therefore be justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. At this point he uses Abraham as his cornerstone example.

    Abraham justified by faith?

    Abraham’s supposed justification by faith is Paul’s ace-in-the-hole argument for faith apart from the works of the law both in the book of Romans and the book of Galatians. The following passages come from Romans and Galatians and contain his supposed direct quote from the book of Genesis.

    What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Romans 4:1-3

    …just as Abraham “Believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness”. Galatians 3:6

    So fundamental is Paul’s use of Abraham as a proof-text example for his righteousness “apart from works” doctrine that James became fully aware of it and refuted it in his letter.

    Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” James 2:21-23

    James’ logic here is far superior to Paul’s, but the disappointing thing about James’ rebuttal is that he could have done a better job and perfectly squashed Paul’s pet argument! One reason it is obvious that James is directly addressing Paul’s doctrine is the fact that James’ quote from Genesis is identical to Paul’s quotes which are in error… again! It is apparent that James had obtained copies of Paul’s letters and had them in front of him when he wrote his letter, and it is obvious that he assumed Paul had quoted Genesis accurately. After all, Paul’s version would have sounded very close to what he remembered of it. Consequently, James used Paul’s quote and went about refuting Paul’s doctrine on other logical grounds. But in doing this, he appears to have agreed with Paul that Abraham was justified by faith. After all, that is what Paul’s quote from Genesis indicates. But James argues that Abraham’s faith was a faith made of works as opposed to Paul’s faith without works. If James had gone down to the local Synagogue and scrolled through the book of Genesis to see if Paul’s quote was perfectly accurate, he doubtless would have dealt with Paul’s doctrine very differently. The difference is subtle in appearance at first, but it is devastatingly wrong. The accurate quote from Genesis is in the following passage.

    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.” And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness. Genesis 15:5,6

    Notice the difference that it says, “and he accounted it to him”, as opposed to Paul’s, “and it was accounted to him”. Paul and James’ quotes rearranged the phrase and left out the pronoun “he”. You might be thinking, “What’s the difference? Aren’t they still saying the same thing?” Answer; not at all! The question at hand is, who is this pronoun “he” referring to?

    Because Bible translators work from the assumption that Paul knew what he was talking about, they assume the particular pronoun here in Genesis is in reference to God. So they capitalized it to indicate that it was God who accounted something to Abraham. But in the Hebrew text there are no such capitalized letters, nor are there any indicators in the word itself (which is actually only one letter) as to who the pronoun refers to. The Hebrew language makes much use of pronouns this way and at times can be confusing for English speaking people. We prefer to have the person identified more regularly. You may have noticed in the short passage above there are seven pronouns and Abraham isn’t even named! We know this passage is speaking of Abraham from two verses earlier! The Hebrew language assumes more intelligence upon its readers to figure out who the pronouns refer to from the context in which they are used. The first key to understanding who this particular pronoun refers to comes from the obvious fact that the sentence this phrase is found in begins by changing the identity of the one referred to as “he” from God to Abraham. Read the entire passage again and notice how it changes with, “And he believed in the Lord…” Obviously the Lord didn’t believe in the Lord! So at this point the narrative changes and begins to refer to Abraham… and he believed in the Lord. Would it not make sense that the remainder of the pronouns in the sentence also refer to Abraham? The second key comes from the very next word translated “accounted”. The predominant meaning of this Hebrew word is to compute, reason, or reckon. Seldom does it mean to credit to someone’s account. The far more likely interpretation of this phrase is that “he” (Abraham) “reasoned” that “it” (the promise) was given to him for (because of) his righteousness. Read it again and see if this doesn’t fit much better. In a moment I will prove that this interpretation is without question the truth of the matter. So hang in there a minute while we first note something else that happened in the same scene as this one where God promised to multiply Abraham’s descendants like the stars of heaven.

    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…” Genesis 15:18

    Now comes the proof I promised. Let’s look at something God said to Abraham’s son Isaac a number of years later. Notice that God makes reference to everything He had promised to Abraham on that very same day in history. And more importantly, notice why God gave Abraham the promises.

    “Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; BECAUSE Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My Laws.” Genesis 26:3-5

    Nowhere does God say anything to Isaac about Abraham’s faith! The promises God gave to Abraham were all because of Abraham’s works! God gave Abraham the promises because Abraham was a righteous man… just as Abraham reasoned was the case back in Genesis 15:6. Abraham was not justified by faith as Paul would have us believe. He was justified by works! God couldn’t have made that fact more plain to Abraham’s son Isaac.

    Grace and mercy versus law and works?

    In the book of Romans, Paul goes on to try and drive home this picture of grace versus works with more nonsensical, and non-Scriptural logic. The book is sprinkled throughout with this picture based on the assumption he has firmly established its truth on his previous arguments, namely, that no one can become righteous under the law because God made the law impossible to keep for the very purpose of keeping man humble and reliant on His good graces. We have also seen his extremely faulty proof taken from the story of Abraham. Another one of Paul’s statements that ultimately makes God responsible for man’s sin is this gem.

    “Moreover the law entered that (for this purpose) the offense (sin) might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through (faith alone in) Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 5:20 (amplifications mine)

    Again he draws the mutually exclusive picture of Law and grace in the following.

    “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” Romans 6:14

    Later on in Romans, Paul uses an analogy from the time of Elijah to make his grace versus works point.

    But what does the divine response say to him (Elijah)? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” Even so then, (proof by analogy) at this present time there is a remnant (of Israel) according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. Romans 11:4-6

    Paul’s logic is so stood on its head, and his proof demonstrated with smoke and mirrors here that it’s almost humorous. It would be hilarious if so many didn’t believe this is the infallible word of God. The only thing that Paul derives from what God said to Elijah is that He had reserved a “remnant” for Himself. Nothing more! Never mind the fact that these seven thousand men had themselves remained true to God’s law and not bowed their knee to Baal! Sounds like works to me! But then, to keep the illusion going, Paul states that this new remnant of saved Israel is “according to the election of grace”. This he bases on the assumption that he had firmly established the concept of predestination and the election by grace earlier in the infamous passages of Romans 9. This detestable doctrine is itself based on numerous misquotes of Scripture as I have exposed in chapter 5. But now Paul continues to build lie on top of lie with the flow of logic that if salvation is by grace, than it is no longer by works; otherwise grace is no longer grace! What utter nonsense! Where is it written that grace and law (works) are mutually exclusive concepts… other than in Paul’s writings? Paul had previously tried to establish the principle that the two concepts cannot go together with this slight-of-hand.

    “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.” Romans 4:4

    This deception is accomplished by renaming elements in the equation much the way an abortionist would never call an unborn child a “baby”. If Paul can get away with calling obedience to God “work”, than he can get away with calling the benefits of that work “wages”, and if we continue to follow him down this road we find out that wages are really a “debt” for which payment may be demanded at any time! Oh no! Who would want to be accused of being so presumptuous as to bill God for grace?!! Phew. Let’s back up and start over. What Paul calls “work” is really obedience to God. God is the One with the bill! He made us and demands the payment of obedience. His grace and mercy are fringe benefits (not wages) of doing business with Him. No one, no matter how obedient, can presumptuously demand payment of anything from God. To do so would involve disobedience to the law concerning walking humbly with God! Anyone who is obedient and walks humbly with God can have all the “faith” in the world that God will provide the fringe benefits He promised. Now doesn’t this sound so much more simple and right? Even a child can grasp this picture. But one must spent years in seminary before they can pretend to comprehend Paul’s convoluted mess.

    Now let’s take a look at Scripture and take notice of who God deems worthy of His fringe benefits of grace, and mercy. Let’s start with Noah.

    So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.” But Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the Lord. This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. Genesis 6:7-9

    Then the Lord said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, BECAUSE I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. Genesis 7:1

    Hmm! No one else on earth found grace or mercy from God except one man and his family because he was “just” and “righteous”! Contrary to Paul’s doctrine, Noah being a recipient of God’s grace had everything to do with works. Grace and works are not mutually exclusive. In God’s view they are inextricably tied to one another. There is more.

    For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord will give grace and glory; no good thing will He withhold from those who walk uprightly. Psalm 84:11

    For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Exodus 20: 5,6

    But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children’s children, to such as keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commandments to do them. Psalm 103 17-18

    And the list goes on and on. Paul’s concept of the separation of grace and works is as unscriptural as it can possibly be. Just think about Paul’s picture logically for a minute. The concept of grace presupposes there exists law that man is guilty of breaking and he is therefore desperately in need of grace! If there is no more law to break, who needs grace? Absolutely nothing concerning grace and law has changed since Yeshua… or Adam for that matter. Men who lived before Yeshua were no less treated to God’s wonderful grace, and man today is under no less obligation to obey God’s laws.

    Paul, the author of Christian anti-Semitism.

    Ever since the gospel story of Yeshua the Messiah left the hands of the Messianic Jews and went with Paul toward the Gentiles under the new label of Christianity, and throughout history, Christianity has had a terribly anti-Semitic dark side to it. Nearly all Jews know the facts of history, but most Christians are completely unaware of the despicable treatment the Jews have suffered in the name of their faith. The Christian leaders who are aware of history have a tendency to sweep the facts under the rug. So rampant was Christian anti-Semitism among both Protestants and Catholics in Europe in the early 20th century that it could easily be argued that the holocaust could not have occurred had it not been the general ‘who-cares about Jews’ attitude of Christians. So few and far between were the Christians who cared for the Jews that there is only one name that comes to mind among Christians today. It is the Tenboom family. Naturally, Christianity has made much of the Tenboom’s sacrifices made on behalf of the Jews, but they were able to save only a few Jews. The movie ‘The Hiding Place’, which was produced to tell their story spends most of its time focusing on the suffering of the family members in German concentration camps. It does little to portray the even worse suffering of millions of Jews. So pathetic was Christianity’s response to the needs of the Jews at that time that God has to raise up a man who had left the church… an alcoholic, womanizing, industrialist by the name of Oscar Schindeler… to do many times the work of all of Christian Europe put together.

    Up until this time in history, Christianity had itself been the main perpetrators of Jewish persecution. During the times of the inquisitions, Jews were regularly tortured and killed if they refused to convert to Christianity and prove it by eating pork. Jews were constantly being called “Christ killers” and treated like the scum of the earth. Even today, there are branches of Christianity that continue to consider and treat Jews as “Christ killers”… as if they are the very ones who crucified Yeshua. Many Christians still love to cite Matthew 27:25 were the Jewish leaders said, “His blood be on us and on our children” as though all Jews today are descendants of these relatively few prominent Jews and they are only getting what their parents have asked for. This practice is nothing short of despicable and I have a hard time finding words to express my personal contempt for it. We can be sure that those relatively few leaders of the Jews who pronounced the curse on themselves and their children, who were indeed evil, died, along with their children 40 years later when Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome in 70 A.D. But the sad truth of the matter is that Jewish history has shown that it only takes one wicked king to bring about destruction on the entire nation. But even then, God continues to hold on to those of Israel who are innocent as a remnant through whom He will bring His promises to pass. The point here is that since 70A.D. there has never existed a single solitary Jew who can be held accountable for the crucifixion of Israel’s Messiah. Those few who were responsible have long since paid the price. The remnant of Jews that live today should be as furious with the evil Jewish leaders of the first century as they might be with those of earlier history when evil leaders of the Jews lost the promised land of Israel for all Jews. But no Christian has any right to hold accountable any Jew today for what happened in the first century. Those who do are no less evil than the very people who had Yeshua crucified… and they too will pay the price.

    The question now is, where did Christianity ever get the idea it had the right to condescend over the Jews in this way and twist the words in Matthew 27:25 to include the descendants of the entire nation of Israel? You guessed it. It’s our resident false apostle Paul! For starters, in 2 Corinthians 3, Paul paints the picture of the Law of Moses being given for the very purpose of convicting of sin and causing death… much the same as he teaches in Romans as mentioned above. He even blasphemously refers to the Law of Moses as “the ministry of death” in 2Corinthians 3:7. God calls the Law of Moses His Law, and He calls it life to all who obey it! (See Deuteronomy 4:40, 5:29, 6:24-25 30:15-20) Paul then goes on to say these words.

    For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious. Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech–unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were hardened. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. 2Corinthians 3:9-15

    Now take all of these types of passages from Paul and consider them in light of these words.

    Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to everyman who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law: you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:2-4

    For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God. Galatian 6:15-16

    In view of these words from Paul, is it any wonder that Christianity views itself as the new true Israel of God and the former Israel has passed away? It is from this condescending posture that it logically flows… the Jews today are irrelevant in God’s eyes and deserving only of contempt. Any true follower of Paul’s doctrine should be anti-Semitic. Paul and his doctrine are responsible for the blatant and rampant anti-Semitism that has existed in Christianity throughout history because Paul is the father of Christianity. Yeshua never taught anything remotely resembling Paul’s replacement doctrine.

    The remainder of Paul’s errors I will set aside for now. They naturally come crashing down with the fact that their foundations have been kicked out from under them. So now the question is, if the law stands, what laws are we expected to observe.

    Which laws stand?

    If one were to ask the average Christian if it were acceptable to murder someone because Christians aren’t under the law according to Paul, you would be told; “of course not”. Then it would be explained to you that God still expects Christians to live by the moral code as embodied in the ten commandments. How this supposed fact fits with Paul’s either/or grace or law doctrine is never satisfactorily reconciled. But nevertheless, they are quite adamant that we must still keep the ten commandments. When you ask them about the forth of the ten commandments which is to honor the Sabbath day, you are told that Paul dealt with that particular commandment in his letter to the Colossians.

    “Therefore let no on judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” Colossians 2:16,17

    So I guess there are really only nine commandments that Christians need to observe! But then, if you listen to Christian teachers and especially televangelists, it becomes obvious that in their mind there are other parts of the law that continue to stand. And it seems that they are most adamant about one in particular. The one law that you will constantly hear reinstated is the commandment to give a tenth of one’s income to support the ministry of the Gospel! Isn’t this an interesting re-inclusion? I guess maybe this one commandment is to replace the one concerning the Sabbath so we are back at ten again… kind of the way Paul is supposed to replace Judas so there are again twelve apostles! Am I mocking again? Yes! This re-inclusion of tithing law should be seen for the incredible self-serving thing that it is. Preachers will quote from the law over and over again to guilt their followers into giving to the church. Their favorite is the following.

    “Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you have robbed Me, even this whole nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and prove Me now in this,” Says the Lord of hosts, “If I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it…” Malachi 3:8-10

    When these words hit the ears of the listeners, the wallets and checkbooks pop out everywhere. Who wants to be guilty of robbing God and be cursed for it? And who doesn’t want God to bless them so much they can’t contain it? When it comes to which of the laws of God are applicable today, it should go without saying that the individual is responsible before God to keep only the laws that God expects an individual to keep. God gave numerous laws to the nation of Israel and to the priests that no individual is capable of carrying out today. For example, I cannot prepare myself and go walking into the Holy of Holies on the day of atonement and make atonement for my home nation… for many reasons. It was the sole responsibility of the High Priest to make atonement for Israel alone, and only then when there is a temple and Holy of Holies in existence in Jerusalem the first place. Likewise, the law of God concerning the tenth of one’s income is very clear. It was given as a command to the nation of Israel for the purpose of supporting the tribe of Levi, the priests, who were given no other inheritance in the land of Israel. (See Deuteronomy 14:22-29) God was their inheritance, (See Numbers 18:20-24) so in commanding the other tribes of Israel to give a tenth to the Levites it was considered a debt to God. That is why God saw withholding the tithe from the Levites as robbing Him and took it personally as recorded in Malachi. Guess what people? We don’t have a Levitical priesthood today! To claim that the leaders of the modern Christian church are today’s priesthood is nothing more than convenient nonsense in light of Paul’s false apostleship and the fact that God does not officially recognize any religious institution on earth today. Religious institutions today are bad enough about applying the screws of guilt to their followers to get money out of them, but televangelists as a whole are the worst. They have made a complete mockery of the small amount of truth that they do have. That truth being Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah and coming Judge. I for one would not want to be anywhere near their shoes when the Judge is seated.

    But there certainly is a place for giving. If a person still desires to give, and wants to have true reward in heaven, they should do as Yeshua taught and give it directly to help the poor. Matthew 19:21 Luke 19:8,9 Forget the institutions of Christianity. It’s money to the wind that will not come back in this life or the next!

    The main point of this section that needs to be born out is that there is no consistency to Christianity’s rejection of the law. It has obviously become no more than a pick and chose whichever law suits the best interests of institution at the time.

    Every “jot and tittle”

    Yeshua fully endorsed the Law and the Prophets. To reiterate His say-so;

    “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill (give official sanction). For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law till all (heaven and earth) is fulfilled (come to pass). Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:17-19

    Yeshua’s reference to “jot” and “tittle” of the law is of utmost significance here. At that time in history, there were two distinct groups of laws. There was the written law, and there was the oral law. It was taught that the oral law was also given by Moses to detail how to carry out the written law, and it was handed down through the ages by word of mouth to special people like the Pharisees. This nonsense is disprovable in light of Israel’s history as recorded in 2Kings 22, and 2Cronicles 34. There it is recorded that Israel found the written book of Moses that had been lost for some time. When it was read, it was obviously something those who heard it hadn’t heard before. The question is, if Israel had lost and forgotten the written law, how can we be expected to believe there was an ongoing oral law that gave detain on how to carry out the written law?

    Yeshua also made these comments concerning the oral law.

    He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me, and in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men–the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” And He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandant of God, that you may keep your tradition.” Mark 7:6-9

    The idea that God gave Moses these oral laws and that they have been passed down is simply not true. Yeshua called them the mere commandments of men. But on another interesting side note, the modern Catholic Christian church has borrowed from this successful method of duping and controlling the masses. It is taught that the secret doctrines of Christianity were given by Yeshua to his apostles who were the first bishops. And since the first century, “there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral tradition.” These doctrines, like the perpetual virginity of Mary, the communion between living and dead saints, the Eucharist, and so on, are taught by the Church in a, ‘trust the church, and submit to it because it is God’s authority on earth, and you simply cannot comprehend…” fashion. I wonder where the Catholic church got the idea to try this? There is not a shred of truth to these doctrines. And like the notion that the oral law was passed down from Moses, there is not a shred of truth to the notion that Yeshua’s secret teachings have been passed down orally by the bishops from the time of the apostles. The only solid piece of truth that anyone has to work with is found in the written words of Moses, the prophets, and Yeshua. And we all, now have access to them and can read them for ourselves. It was the practice of Christianity throughout the majority of its history, especially during the dark ages, to keep the average person illiterate and the Bible out of the hands of the masses. Is it any wonder why it was called the dark ages? Even when more people became literate, the Bible was intentionally kept out of the hands of everyday people. William Tyndale was murdered by the church for translating the Bible into the English language for the average person to read. His pocket-sized Bible translations were smuggled into England, and then ruthlessly sought out by the Church, confiscated and destroyed. Tyndale was condemned as a heretic, and was strangled and burned outside Brussels. This happened in history as recently as 1536. Today, the Catholic church keeps its more literate masses at bay by claiming the most important doctrines were never written down at all, but are mysteries passed down orally and known only to the bishops! Can’t seem to win… can we?

    Having said this, I must emphasis that I speak against the institutions and hierarchy of not just the Catholic Christian church, but all religious institutions… Christian and otherwise. There is hardly one better than another… and non are recognized in heaven. But as mentioned before, I believe there are many of the every-day type people in these institutions whose hearts are good, who have done well with what they were given, and will still receive some significant degree of salvation. So, in certain cases where it is clear that a good individual cannot make a change, it may be better not to confront them and the errors of their particular institution and spare them the guilt of rejecting the truth. This act of consideration is not altogether without precedence. Yeshua said, “I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now”. John 16:12 I would advise people to be careful about getting into just anyone’s face with the truth. Be sure your motives are pure, or you may end up doing more harm than good. But I digress. More will be said on this in the final chapter.

    Many of the Pharisees of Yeshua’s time also intimidated and controlled every-day people with an air of superiority based on their knowledge of oral law. But later in history, the oral traditions they taught became written down and today are know as the Talmud. Most of modern Judaism is really Talmudism much the way Christianity today is Paulinism. So back when Yeshua said, not one “jot or tittle” of the law would pass away, he was intentionally disenfranchising the oral traditions of the Pharisees and speaking only of Moses and the prophets that were in writing at that time. The words “jot” and “tittle” are specific terms referring to something written.

  184. Correction…

    I never said, whoever the ‘NICK’ is on this board, was Nicholas de Vere…

    I often refer to Nicholas as Nick but I forget that many people do not understand the difference between formal and informal Titles.

    Hence, My formal Name is ‘Thomas’, My informal name is ‘Tom’ and and endearing personal or familiar name is ‘Tommy’.

    From now on I will only Refer to Nicholas as Nicholas so as to avoid petty mis-understandings.

  185. Anonymous said

    is it not true that JAMES “the just ” the leader of the jerusalem church sent spies after paul .and several times ORDERED him BACK to answer for his wayward teachings.
    I think CHRISTIANITY would be INDEED CHRISTIAN if it werent for PAUL .
    HE is responsible for the lack of CHRISTS teachings in the church today .
    catholics adhere to PAULIANITY NOT CHRISTIANITY .

  186. ollie said

    can SOMEONE respond to me who has MY set of beliefs …..;
    thaT MOST religions are simply PHILOSOPHIES with rituaL + dogma.
    TRUE (as opposed to pauline ) christianity are identical to ZEN buddhism ….all developed religions try to TEACH the elite (as opposed to the masses ) how to achieve ENLIGHTENMENT .enlightenment has been called HEAVEN/PARADISE/NIRVANA/COMMUNION with GOD/seeing GOD/ etc etc etc .
    AND achieving ENLIGHTENMENT HERE and NOW .the kingdom of the lord is WITHIN. jesus;” you fail to understand the present moment ” = zen .
    ZEN… is every main religion with the rubbish striped away. it goes straight to the point . christianity is covered with so many layers that its unrecognisable to its original teachings which were identical to zen buddhism.
    i dont believe in god ….but i believe we (all) can achieve heaven /enlightenment through prolongued practice and contemplation . PRAYER is a perfect meditation.
    the original church fathers spoke of prayer + MEDITATION as a means to COMMUNE with GOD, i simply call that communion “enlightenment.”
    ADAM +EVE is a parable explaining how once a child (liberated/free/in bliss….becomes ashamed and confused once it reaches a certain age.then at sexual maturity feels shame. this is similar to the scientific truth that around the age of seven(give take a couple yrs) the child looses its liberation and as it gets older feels the seperation fron something.and a need to “RETURN” to “HOME” or “GOD”.
    religion practices the ability to “RETURN” TO gain “GRACE” again.
    so many MODERN ARTISTS (myself also) use childlike naivete to try emulate or achieve the FREEDOM and LIBERATION thay had as children .
    jesus said “we must be as babies to enter the kindom”. numerous quotes. read GOSPEL of THOMAS…IDENTICAL TO A ZEN SCRIPTURE.uncanny.
    BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH IN RELIGION and PHILOSOPHY and that is we must UNLEARN all the NEGATIVE RUBBISH WEve ACCUMULATED -called NO-mind and therefore achieve HEAVEN here and now .
    theres a medieval book called the “cloud of UNKNOWING” and its simply the same teaching but using christian phrases and names .
    an enlightened christian will say she communes with god or “FILLED WITH GOD” its simply enlightenment described in a different way .

    I IMPLORE ALL READING to study ZEN (read) and then look at the gospels and christianity in this light .and judaism / islam .
    but as jesus said “for those with ears to hear ,let them hear” ie those who understand the inner mysteries .those inner mysteries are ENLIGHTMENT and how to achive it .
    they are all the same thing .


    THANK YOU ( for listening )

    ps become a christ or a buddha a saint ; no difference .

  187. jAsOn said

    NO annonymous, what you said is not true.

  188. ADB said

    Anonymous #185,
    I would humbly suggest that you really think about what Paul taught, what the Gospels actually, say and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches as doctrine. Considering the Catholic tendancy toward adding things to faith- veneration of saints, somewhat magical view of sacraments, over emphasis on works, etc. you certainly can’t say that they follow “Paulianity.”

  189. jAsOn said


    Just like Thomas did, you began by contrasting paul with “true” Christianity, but then went on to largely deny what Christ and the rest of God’s Word says.

    IF Christ claimed to be the only way to the Father (and all valid historical documents affirm that he did), then no, Christ buddha and saints are NOT all the same, in fact, that is irrational because it breaks the law of non-contradiction–which of course has typified much of the discussion in this thread.

  190. John said

    Hello, Ollie.
    I am curious, how can you believe in a Heaven without a Deity/Deities?
    Also, what is Heaven to you?

  191. ADB said

    I guess to it will seem like folks are piling on, but I really think that you should consider the entirety of the New Testament before making such pronouncements. The concepts of atonement and bodily resurrection, salvation being by grace through faith instead of actions, knowledge, wisdom really do distinguish Christianity. Certainly Christ taught his follows what the life of faith will look like as exemplified by the sermon on the mount. That sermon in Matthew describes what the life of the Chritian should look like, but does not teach that one becomes a Christian or inherits eternal life by doing them and this is a critical distinction.

    A curmudgeonly pastor 🙂

  192. O yeah I do like what’s happening here!

    What is Christ Mind?

    What is Budd-Ha?

    Budd-Ha is the attainment of enlightened mind.

    Is a Bloodline Holy because of Jesus or is Jesus Holy because of a Bloodline?

    Let’s step out of the Box shall we or better let us free God from the confines of human understanding.

    Jesus said he spoke in parables to the many and to the apostles he spoke plainly.

    Most people were not allowed to see the scriptures besides they were mostly illiterate. But the ‘Plain speech’ term Jesus use has a firm base with in the community of the Essenes.

    The writers of the KJV 1611 re instituted a scribble code within its pages. They recreated the text encoded with the true meaning hidden behind certain key words that referred back to its original archetype.

    They had use of scribble codes:

    Mary – Priestess / Widow- unable to own property
    Joseph – Priest- unable to own property
    Orphan – Son or Daughter of a Mary & Joseph
    Blind – Ignorant of the ‘WAY’
    Lame – Those paralyzed by the law
    Anna – Prophetess
    Martha – God Mother- able to own property
    Abraham – Father Of the Community
    Elijah – Community Prophet
    Gabriel – Community Judge- Head seat of the seven Demons
    Leper – ‘Unclean’ not fulfilling the community rule
    Dead – Excommunicated from the Community
    Pharisee – Priests of the Community
    Jew – Hellenist Priest from the Temple in Jerusalem
    Zadok – High Priests
    Levite – Janitor and Servants of the Temple
    Shed Blood – Menstrual Flow
    Loaves – Jewish Priest
    Fishes – Gentile converts
    Michael – Community Judge- Head seat of the seven Menorah lights

    That’s just a few… I know this group is for the gospel of Thomas but I thought this subject applied to the conversation.

    To have ‘eyes to see’ is to say my third is open.

    To have the ‘ears to hear’ is to say I know the code.

    “What is the KJV 1611 ?”

    The King James Bible printed in 1611.

    (Septuagints numberings? obviously, no)

    “Why did ‘they’ Re institute a scribble code?”

    Because the Catholic Church really didn’t want an English Language translation of the bible. In order to tell the truth and be accepted by the
    Holy Catholic Church, they had to develop ‘the code’.

    “Was the scribble code some secret words (code) written by whom?”

    Many people call King James a Pagan but while by definition to the Catholic’s he was, the view of him being involved in paganism as we see it today is a false notion.

    King James funded the work on the 1611 and organized a writers group under the name, ‘The Underground Stream’. The members of the non-joining fraternal order were actually Nazarene. Nazarenes were the original ‘Christians’ that Paul hated. Some of the historical names associated with the writing, encoding and publication of the KJV 1611 were; William Shakespeare, Frances Bacon and Sir Edward de Vere.

    “And who made up the Original scribble code so that one knows
    that it was the original archetype?”

    Nazarene faith cannot promote conversion because either God knew you before you were in your mothers womb or not. Sumerian culture is vague as to where they came from or where went to… But The Nasara are from this earlier faith or archetype of Christianity. It is this mysterious cultures that the mysteries of mysteries, come from. Thats the point of a scribble code; to shroud the truth under a veil of mystery.

    “The Jews, who of course would not give in to story of Christ as Saviour OR the resurrection(s).?”

    The term ‘Jew’ was first used in the city of Alexandria in and around 441 BC.
    A Jew was a practitioner of Judaism, who adopted Hellenist beliefs and philosophies but still practiced a loose type of Judaism.

    So, no the ‘Jews’ did not create the scribble code but it was invented to protect the truth from those who would steel the truth, kill the truth or destroy the truth.

    “For ‘dead’ simply stated only meant excommunicated
    from the community !!?

    If this is/was True–what does this do to the meaning of the resurrection?”

    Resurrection, was an act of a high priest to ‘roll the stone away’, so to speak, and re-instate the accused back to the ‘living’ or the community. The stone being the ‘rock of offense’ or the ‘stone of stumbling’ or in layman’s term, a charge by the community against one brother or sister, (The State Vs you!).

    This may seen scary for those who hope they are going to resurrected from death and rightly so.

    Jesus didn’t promise bodily resurrection from the dead in the litteral sense od the ‘dead’. But in thinking of the eternal the Gospel of Thomas holds a clue:

    ‘(29) Jesus said, “If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty.” ‘

    Mystic Psychology…

    In the secret mystery school or the invisible college, they have a measure of which you judge a person. The Job of a shepherd is to guide, feed and protect the flock. In order to do this there had to be a ‘rule’ of measure of a shepherd could discern the place of his sheep ans/or the wolf.

    There are three levels of enlightenment before become an ascended master.

    1) Hylic – A Hylic is a person that is bound to the ‘five sense’ realm. The may or may not have the ability to measure or rule for themselves.

    2) Psychic – A Psychic is a once ‘Hylic’ that has discovered that there is a sixth ‘sense realm’ beyond that of their perception(s).
    Note: Psychics are usually the highest ascension that people achieve in there journey to ‘God’ because our ‘ruling’ authorities have purposely blinded us. Most ‘Born-again’ Christians are at this level and they stay there always seeing God in the distance. Always looking up to see God as if God were a separate entity from themselves…

    3) Pnuematic – A Pnuematic whe were once ‘psychic’ that have discoverd that ‘God’ is not separate from them neither were they ever sepperate from him.
    when we reach this state of being/ faith, we realize that the only lie we have ever been told is that we a doomed to Hell without God!

    The truth is that if we do not recognize ourself then we will never see God. And that is Hell/Separation/Darkness/Ignorance/Fear.

    Fear of Death is Hell.

    having fear is hell.

    To know that ‘I AM’ is the end of all fear…

    To realize the ‘I Am’ in ourselves we have look into the mirror.
    If we see our reflections… Our self imposed image/flesh/the body then we have failed the test but if we haven’t any reflection then we can see ‘God’ our true selves.
    If we ‘Fear’ death then we are attached the mundane, 5 sense, flesh and litteral body and will not pass on but remain in the darkness/abyss/hell.

    ‘I Am’ not the ‘Body/flesh, ‘I Am’… SPIRIT!

    Spirit is Consciousness.

    Now read this again:

    ‘(29) Jesus said, “If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty.” ‘
    Jesus is so sarcastic, what a sense of Humor.

    Job said “Naked came I into the world and naked I will return thither…”

    Jesus said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end…”

    ‘Alpha’ is the first letter in the Greek but Omega is not the last but ‘Omega’ represents the Womb.

    Shakespeare Made sure to rhyme Womb with Tomb when inventing An-Gal-ish because they are symbolically and literally the same place.

    Do not fear…

    Jesus said, “Those that seek to save their life will loose it but those who loose their life for my sake, shall receive everlasting life and even more…”

    Just stop telling ‘God’ who you are and Just be.

    I am being god but together we are God.

    In Closing:

    (30) Jesus said, “Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him.”

    “There is no co de, The King James was translated by
    Three separate groups of Scholars (who had no contact
    with each other)Oxford, Cambridge and another, with the
    provision and mandate that there be NO Margins notes,
    NO Codes, Nothing outside of the Hebrew or Greek
    (NOTHING) to counter the Bibles and references of the
    Day that were filled with such additions The idea that there
    is a code or anything other than the Greek or Hebrew is
    so stupid as to not require explanation It shows a fundamental
    misunderstanding of the Development of the present day Bible
    and a lack of historical grounding in factual information…”

    No Code…

    Please count 46 words down from the top and 46 words from the bottom. Exclude the word ‘Selah’.

    Psalm 46

    “046:001 God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
    046:002 Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains
    be carried into the midst of the sea;
    046:003 Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains (shake) with
    the swelling thereof. Selah.
    046:004 There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place
    of the tabernacles of the most High.
    046:005 God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right
    046:006 The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.
    046:007 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.
    046:008 Come, behold the works of the LORD, what desolations he hath made in the earth.
    046:009 He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth
    the (spear) in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
    046:010 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted
    in the earth.
    046:011 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.”
    You should of found the word, ‘Shake’ at the top and the word, ‘Spear’ at the bottom.
    46 words from the top and 46 words from the bottom in Psalm 46…


    When the 1611 was first printed when William Shakespeare was 46 years old, it was his birthday psalm and his signature on his art.

    No Code… I beg to differ.


    Have you ever heard the story in the Book of Daniel of Daniel in the Lions Den,and Shedrach, Mesach and Abednigo in the furnace. ?

    Daniel was delivered by the Lion .Shedrach Mesach and Abednigo were joined by the fourth person (God /Spirit) through the fire of the furnace.

    In your body the Pineal Gland is Leo or the Lion, and the Fornix of the brain is the vault or furnace.

    In the universe the Pineal Gland is now displayed by Supernova 1987a which is presently on fire. If you will look at a picture of it you will clearly see the center green single eye which is on fire. (April 1997 edition National Geographic.)

    The Fornix of the brain is represented by the constellation Fornax which is the furnace.

    In the body the energy or fire from the Pineal travels along the stria Pinealis (straight line of the Pineal) to the Fornix where it ignites the fire of the furnace bringing to us the fourth person or Christ/Spirit consciousness. You may confirm the connection of the Pineal and Fornix via stria pinealis in Stedmans Medical Dictionary.

    In the universe Supernova 1987a is on fire and science says the light will touch us around 2002. The fire from Supernova 1987a will travel as a fuse to Fornax the furnace and bring to the universe the new mind, the new consciousness, the Christ consciousness.

    In the story the 4th man appeared in the furnace when it was heated 7 times hotter which represents the 7 chakras or 7 seals.

    What is a confirming fact is that on 6-10-98 there was an article from the Associated Press that astronomers had for the first time cracked the curtain of interstellar dust known as the Zone of Avoidance that blocked earths view of a FOURTH of the universe.

    The ancient myth is being acted out in the sky. As well as in the human brain. The time is now. The coming fire has been misinterperted by many as an Armageddon to destroy the earth. Not so. The fire is actually the light to destroy that which is destroying the earth, burn away the dross to reveal the gold.


    Today we place our hand over our heart or on the Bible when we are about to give witness. In ancient times that was not the case. The hand was placed on the male genital area.

    Let us look at a Bible scripture where we see this.

    Genesis 24:2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh And I will make thee swear by the LORD.

    Now look up the word “testi” in your dictionary. You will see it has two meanings. The male sexual organ and to give witness. Do you suppose that is why the Bible did not allow women to “testify” in church.?


    The Holiday season brings us close to the Christian Holy Day called Epiphany. It celebrates the manifestation of the divine nature of Jesus to the gentiles as represented by the Magi. It is celebrated on January 6.

    The word Epiphany means a revelatory manifestation of a divine being. A sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something, enlightenment.

    We understand enlightenment to take place through meditation as the energy rises up the spine and through the chakras or seals impacting at the Pineal Gland of the brain.

    The word Epiphany has it’s roots in the word epiphysis. It you will look in Stedmans Medical Dictionary you will find an amazing thing.

    The Pineal Gland of the brain (The Single Eye) is also called epiphysis. !!

    Now we know what Epiphany really means.


    In the Bible it says that in the temple inside of the Mercy Seat you would find Aarons Rod that bloomed almonds.

    The temple is actually the human brain. The rod is the spine, and it bloomed almonds because as the Kundalini energy moves up the spine or rod, it reaches the laryingeal area and touches something called amygdala which is the almond. Near the area of the throat is the amygdala or the almond.

    The rod blooms almonds through meditation and one is then enlightened to speak and lead others to the inner pathway of light.

    Everything has a wonderful meaning.


    The Bible Story: A woman with an issue of blood 12 years touches the hem of Jesus garment and is healed.

    The issue of blood is a gradual loss of the inner life force. It refers to sliding deeper and deeper into emotional depression.

    Here the number 12 refers to the 12 cranial nerves in the human brain. Thus overcoming the gradual loss of the inner life force will occur in the mind.

    The word woman refers to the human spirit metaphysically. Notice now the healing comes from touching the hem of the garment.

    Stedmans medical dictionary defines the hippocampus of the brain (the place of memory), as the medial margin (hem), of the cortical (outer), mantle (garment) of the cerebral hemisphere. THE HEM OF THE GARMENT

    Thus we rise to Christ consciousness by entering in meditation, the place of the 12, which is the brain. There the energy will touch the hem of the garment which is the hippocampus of the brain and our memory of our true cosmic nature will be restored and the wasting away of our inner life force will end.

    Try it, touch the hem and see for yourself.

  194. anonymous said

    Someone here is lost in outer space I think.

  195. jAsOn said

    Thomas said,

    “The word woman refers to the human spirit metaphysically. Notice now the healing comes from touching the hem of the garment.

    Stedmans medical dictionary defines the hippocampus of the brain (the place of memory), as the medial margin (hem), of the cortical (outer), mantle (garment) of the cerebral hemisphere. THE HEM OF THE GARMENT”

    Notice his blatant misapplication of the word (hem)isphere…a word that does not appear in the greek text at the passage to which he refers.

    Here is the etymology of the ENGLISH word “hem”:
    “hem (n.)
    O.E. hem “a border,” from P.Gmc. *khamjanan (cf. O.N. hemja “to bridle, curb,” O.Fris. hemma “to hinder,” M.Du., Ger. hemmen “to hem in, stop, hinder”), from the same root that yielded hamper and O.E. hamm, common in place names (where it means “enclosure, land hemmed in by water or high ground, land in a river bend”). The phrase hem in “shut in, confine,” first recorded 1538. Hem-line first attested 1923.”

    There is NO RELATIONSHIP between the english word “hem” used, in part, to translate the greek passage and the greek word “hemi” which Thomas is trying in vain to relate to his fantastic ramblings.

  196. John said

    Thomas, you sound[ And I mean this in the kindest way possible], like an absolute nut-ball.Do you recall what I said to you in post #21?
    Surely you must understand how crazy you come off.[?] Perhaps you should try a different…… technique?
    You sound as if you’re getting worse.

  197. John,

    I suffer from an ailment… It’s called a lack of patience for stupid people.

    It’s hard to slow down for people I have an utter disdain for… Christians really irritate me.

    Most of them are so sure of what is going on.

    The only technique I think I could use for shallow, close minded, uneducated, bewitched(Pardon the usage here), moronic…


    Let me start over…

    What I mean to say, If you were an Israelite and you were out wandering around in the desert following after an idiot who had you run off out of Egypt… You get to Mountain where God supposedly hangs out from time to time… And Moses goes climbing to the top and tells you to wait below… And things get kind of boring, real boring…So every one says hey lets party like it’s 1999 !!! Then suddenly in the middle of everyone having a great this jerk comes waddling down the mountain with the ‘Divine weight & measure’, the ‘ordinances/Law’ and the ‘Ten Commandments’… You then watch in dismay as this self centered, selfish, power hungry, stammering, control freak throws down the tablets and orders the house of Levi to slaughter everyone… Would you feel stupid?

    Are we supposed to swallow that the Hebrews were all so gullible and stupid?

    Would you sit there and allow him to Kill your children, your wives and family?

    Only a ‘Nut-Ball’ would listen to a rich kid throwing a temper tantrum as he doesn’t even consult God but assumes his authority to Kill people because they thought differently?

    Jehovah Schmuck-hovah… If that is God… Hey count me out.

    Jehovah isn’t God.

    God couldn’t be so stupid and petty.

    I have read the Bible repeatedly and if any person treated people as this wanna-be god has, they would end up in Prison and on Death row.

    How can God be a Hypocrite?

    John for you I will post something a little more civilized and educated concerning this issue… Give me minute.

  198. Before I belittle Moses, Abraham or Jehovah any further…

    Sorry for the mess… I have called the aid of other Dragons and this is a work compiled by our tribe in one work.

    (Originally our discussion)

    This compilation is based on all the Facts available.

    Theres definitely a few things I don’t understand about this subject to. I do believe Moses was Akhenaten, though one of the keys to knowing who Akhenaten was, would be to know who his grandfather – Joseph the vizier- was. And if Im not mistaken I’ve got two versions of that from the SAME author.

    In Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Gardner explains the discrepancy
    between the time of Joseph (Jacobs son) and the time of Joseph (Yuya
    -the Vizier) as a mistake in standard Biblical chronology. Therefore
    they were the same person, Joseph being in Egypt in the 15th century
    after all, and becoming chief Minister to Tuthmosis IV.
    On the other hand in Genesis of the Grail Kings he portrays the
    discrepancy of time as proof of the fact they were not the same
    person – and that the writers of the Old Testament intentionally
    portrayed them as one and the same in order to add significance to
    their ancestry. He explains the real Joseph (Yuya in Egypt) as
    having descended from Ham (Chem-Zarathustra) via the Hyksos Delta

    Im not knocking Gardner – despite the occasional contradiction which
    proves hes human after all, I still consider him my major in-road at
    the moment into all sorts of esoteric subjects. In any case I
    believe in the second explanation of Yuya, this doesn’t mean that
    Akhenaten didn’t receive Israelite influence, because his grandmother
    Tuya (wife of Yuya) was descended from Esau – and the fact that he
    was in part raised by Tey (who descended from Levi). Supposedly due
    to this upbringing Moses/Akhenaten could not accept the gods of
    Egypt, and conceived of a true monotheism – The Aten cult. But I
    have heard that even the Israelites did not have a true Monotheistic
    religion at this point in time – Loyalty to Jehovah perhaps, but the
    Matronit (El, Asherah,Anath,He/father,wife,daughter,son) existed..
    Asherah was supposed to have been worshiped openly until the 6th
    century BC. Why couldn’t Moses accept Egyptian deities then? Did the
    Israelites give monotheism to Moses, or Moses give it to them? And
    is the concept of the universal creator or One god, (Aten) a concept
    ultimately given to us by the gods themselves (but a concept confused
    and merged lingering pagan or tribal god deities by

    “’tis not genesis that constituteth life, but ’tis

    Some facts pertaining to MIRIAM………

    Jesus’ mother, Mary, was also known as MIRIAM or MARA, but refers to
    a much more Ancient origin
    The word MARA connects MOTHER with SEA, as in ‘Stella Maris’ (Star
    of the Sea), one of the titles pf Mother Mary.
    The words for Sea and Mother are related in a number of languages –
    MERE and MER in French; MUTTER and MEER in German; MADRE and
    MARE/MAR in Italian/Spanish.
    So we see even in the primitive origins of languages the clues to

    Stella Maris – Star of the Sea.
    Epithet of Au Set (Isis),
    Ishtar, Aphrodite, Venus,
    Mari-Anna and the Mother Mary.

    She was “the sister of Moses, was the eldest of that sacred family;
    and she first appears as a young girl, watching her infant brother’s
    cradle in the Nile, (Exodus 2:4) and suggesting her mother as a
    nurse. (Exodus 2:7-9)
    After the crossing of the Red Sea ‘Miriam the prophetess’ is her
    acknowledged title. (Exodus 15:20) The prophetic power showed itself
    in her under the same form as that which it assumed in the days of
    Samuel and David.

    In Ireland Mermaids are known as Merrow, and although obviously from
    ‘mer’ or ‘mare’ for ‘sea’, the word ‘Mermaid’ is sometimes presumed
    to come from the same root as Mary/Miriam from the Egyptian for
    ‘beloved.’ – as are the word ‘marry’, and the term ‘Merrie England’.
    This archaic use also appears in Robin Hood’s ‘Merry Men’, and some
    consider Maid Marion herself a link to Mary Magdalene.
    During the Qumran era, Miriam (Mary) and Martha were not simply
    names, but titles for those who participated in a formal Ministry
    within spiritual orders such as the ascetic and healing community of
    the Therapeutate, Moses being a Title denoting this fact.

    The truth one learns from the mermaid/siren is that patriarchy,
    especially the Judeo-Christian variety, is a relative latecomer in
    human history. The new religions could not, and cannot ever
    overwrite the undercurrents of the more Ancient Traditions that
    preceded them, regardless of how concerted their efforts to do so.

    The name Jesus is actually a modernized version of Yeshia (Yeheshua)
    or Joshua. The name. Joshua is sometimes referred to as ‘Son of Nun’
    which means ‘son of the fish’. This seems to connect him with
    Oannes, who taught wisdom in the myths of the Phoenicians.
    It is interesting to note that Jesus said his followers were
    fishermen would become ‘fishers of men’, and an early symbol for
    Jesus was a fish.

    WISDOM is universally represented as a ‘FEMININE FIGURE……..
    and does even foolish things to find the Beloved.

    In Sanskrit, the holy mountain of Krishna is called MERU, meaning
    In eastern metaphysics, divine enlightenment (kundalini) rises up
    the spinal cord like a sea serpent swimming up toward the light. The
    rising of the Mermaid or Merman from the depths of the Sea is a
    similar image.
    In Egyptian, the word MARA also means SPINE or BACKBONE.
    The word sometimes refers to a Sacred Mountain the SACRED CONNECTING

    The loss of Eros, Wisdom, and Playfullnes in modern life and
    religion parallels the Rape of the Eartth and the Sea.
    To save ourselves, we must save our Planet and its life blood, the
    The earliest ‘religions’ focused on the Love of the Mother, not the
    domination of the Father through conquest and power.

    The MER, combining both human and non-human bodily elements, reminds
    us of our PRIMITIVE ORIGINS from which we have our DEEPEST INSTINCTS

    Whether we are Male or Female, the reawakening/balancing of the
    compassionate Yin or FEMININE ELEMENT in Each and Every One of Us is
    the only way to restore Life on to Earth, religion, and ourselves.


    If the Sea Goddess is an Archetype of reawakening Spiritualtiy, then
    metaphorically, Fish and Fisher become One – THE SEA AND HER

    One last point – :the color of the 3rd-eye Chakra is Iindigo, a
    DEEP-SEA BLUE. The 3rd-eye is said to give WISDOM and IMAGINATION.


    According to the bible Abraham was a very powerful man.
    Josephus, the first century Jewish historian says of Abraham:
    “Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt at the time, descended on this land with an immense army and seized Sarah the Princess, mother of our nation.”
    Abraham had three hundred and eighteen officers, not men, under his command, it was obviously quite a sizable army that he had at his disposal – possibly running into the tens of thousands.
    The image I have portrayed above is not absurd, at the most it is just an embellishment on what the texts say, for they do not explain from what lands and over what peoples Abraham was such a leader.
    Yet how many options do we really have, how many nations in this era would have such a powerful army?

    This simple observation, holds within it the key to the fundamentals of modern theology and these are far removed from the Christmas card images that we are so familiar with. It is somehow explained to us by the clergy that the whole of the Western world were suddenly transfixed by the philosophy of a family of nomadic sheep-herders wandering around the Negev desert, a family who had held their traditions through thousands of years – and all this at a time when most such individuals were illiterate. This is the fantasy!

    The truth is rather different and rather more believable – Abraham, pharaoh of Egypt, master of all he surveyed, the most powerful man in the world. Now this would be a real story to set the scribes scribbling, the story of his sons, of his forefathers, of his mighty deeds and works. Like the tales of all kings, each and every schoolchild would be forced to learn by rote the names and accomplishments of the royal family, it would be ingrained into the national psyche. This is the kind of family that can trace their history back through 70 generations, as could Jesus, this is the kind of family that could spawn a billion books. Jesus’ nation, the Jews, have always had an overriding fascination with genealogy, but why should this be so? The reason is now clear, with their aristocracy perhaps descended from a line of semi-divine kings and descended from the mighty Egyptian empire, I think we have all the explanations necessary. Royal dynasties to this day have the same fascination for their family history, for the family’s entire existence depends solely on proving their legitimacy.

    But if the biblical family were pharaohs of Egypt, should we not see them in the historical record? Indeed so, but first of all the precise era to study needs to be decided and the clue to this comes from the Bible. The patriarchs in the Bible are known as being shepherds, as I have just indicated, in fact the Bible is quite specific about this point. Joseph’s family are asked by pharaoh:
    What is your occupation? And they said … Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers.

    This point is not just interesting, it is fundamental to understanding what the Bible is trying to tell us. For it just so happens that a whole dynasty of pharaohs were known as shepherds! These were the pharaohs who, in the historical record, had ‘invaded’ northern Egypt during the 14th to 16th dynasties and these peoples were known as the Hyksos, a term which translates as ‘Shepherd King’.

    Clearly we have a very obvious and very strong link here – in fact it is amazing that so little has been said about this coincidence. There is a great deal of synergy here, the Bible mentions a very special family line of Shepherds of which it says the Òkings will come out of youÓ and likewise the historical record tells us that some of the pharaohs of northern Egypt were called Shepherd Kings.
    It was a similarity that was just crying out to be investigated and the results of this scrutiny were quite astounding.

    To start this process is has to be assumed that the Bible contains a real historical record, yet many people may look at the Bible as something completely alien to the real world. We have the real history provided for us by the archaeologists and then there is the theological history of the Bible, Koran and Torah – yet it seems at times that the two records are mutually exclusive. Nothing in the theological record really ties in with the historical one, it is almost as if the biblical story occurred on another planet! Nothing could be further from the truth, in reality the Bible and the historical record continuously merge into one – if one knows how to interpret what is being said.

    The key to this entire conundrum was the term shepherd, for why should an Egyptian pharaoh wish to be known as a shepherd? The answer lay in the Egyptian records and their fascination with astrology, this just had to be a stellar reference, these kings were being compared to the constellation of Aries. With this concept firmly in the back of the mind, the Bible suddenly started to release its long hidden secrets: for there are numerous references to sheep and cattle in the Bible and although the subject matter fitted the quaint pastoral image being plied by the clergy, none of them made any literal sense. But suitably translated, with the sheep becoming the constellation of Aries (or their followers) and the cattle as Taurus (and their followers), everything fitted into place.

    As has been alluded to in previous books, the constellations move slowly with the millennia and each era has a ruling constellation, the current one being Pisces. But back in the 13th 14th dynasty, they were on the cusp of a change in the constellations, between Taurus and Aries. The era of Taurus lasted until about 1800 BC, when Aries came into ascendance, this date is not only very close to both the era of the first Hyksos pharaohs and the arrival of Abraham in the Bible, but I would also suggest that this change in the constellations caused a social rift between the Apis Bull worshippers in Thebes (the Taureans) and the Hyksos Shepherd pharaohs in the north (the Arians). The country was divided, there was civil war – just as the historical records indicate.

    The Bible has direct evidence that shows this to be true and in addition the following quote seems to be a verbatim conversation that has been preserved for some 3,500 years. The scene is set by the 3rd century BC Egyptian historian Manetho, who indicates (as does the Bible) that there were actually two exoduses from Egypt – one being a major migration and the other a much smaller exodus of priests. After the first exodus, the patriarch Joseph (he with the coat of many colours, ie a priests stole) goes back to Egypt and rises to become the most powerful man in Egypt, save from the pharaoh himself. Joseph asks his family to join him in Egypt, but he has a warning for them.

    (Paraphrased) You are shepherds as you know, and your duty is to feed the cattle… And it shall come to pass that pharaoh will call you, and shall say what is your occupation. You must say in return that your trade has been cattle from our youth even until now, both we and also our fathers. Otherwise you will not be allowed to stay in the land of Egypt, for we shepherds are an abomination to the Egyptians. Genesis 46:32

    What could Joseph possibly mean by this statement? It is not as if the Egyptians had any prohibitions on the eating of sheep meat, so why was the pharaoh so interested in the occupation of the brothers and why was the lowly but honourable profession of shepherd so despised? The solution is simple, a couple of words have been altered by the scribes to give the conversation an agricultural bias, but in truth they were discussing the most important topic in Egypt – religion. Replacing the words with their original astrological counterparts, the full import of the statement becomes dramatically clear.

    (Paraphrased) You are Hyksos/Arians as you know, and your duty is to convert the followers of Taurus … And it shall come to pass that pharaoh will call you, and shall say what is your religion. You must say in return that your religion has been Taurean from our youth even until now, both we and also our fathers. Otherwise you will not be allowed to stay in the land of Egypt, for we Hyksos/Arians are an abomination to the Egyptians.

    Suddenly it becomes dramatically obvious why the Egyptians thought that shepherds were an abomination. This was not a reference to a profession, but to a religion and an entire nation – the Hyksos. Egypt had just been through a bitter and bloody civil war with these peoples, a war between southern and northern Egypt which resulted in the Exodus of the Hyksos peoples and the destruction of much of the northern delta lands. Of course the ‘shepherds’ were an abomination to the (southern) Egyptians – they were the Hyksos Shepherds!

    Suddenly the Bible makes sense, there is valid historical data to be found if we know what to look for. Forget the picture postcard images of simple nomadic farmers – enter the tortuous dynastic alliances and political machinations of the most powerful people in the world in that era – the pharaohs of Egypt. Joseph was, by the admission of the Bible, the vizier to the pharaoh, the second most powerful man in the world. It is not a great extension of this biblical history to say that the other members of this important family were even more powerful, that they sat on the throne itself.

    Further evidence that this is the correct interpretation to be placed upon the Old Testament writings is provided by the later works in the New Testament. Jesus, who was descended from the same family as the patriarchs, was born as a Lamb of God. In other words he was a young Shepherd (Hyksos) prince in exile, he was just a lamb for the time being. As Jesus matured to become a Shepherd, another momentous event was happening in the skies above; at just this precise era the constellation of Aries started to wane in the heavens and Pisces came into the ascendance. Accordingly Jesus changed his title according to the age-old tradition, the young shepherd became a Fisher of Men, a king of Pisces. The first of the Grail romance “Fisher Kings” had been crowned.

    So if the biblical patriarchs were indeed pharaohs of Egypt, why are they not to be found in the historical record?
    One of the simplest ways of looking for evidence for this biblical pharaonic family, would be among the all important and diligently recorded family names of the patriarchs.

    Unfortunately, however, the very line of kings that we wish to research is the most fragmentary in the historical record, but nevertheless, some progress can be made. As a starting point in this search, take a look at an encyclopaedia of the pharaohs of Egypt and flick through the pages until you reach the sixteenth dynasty, the period that covers the last of the Hyksos pharaohs. The last pharaoh listed is Yacobaam, a name not unrelated to that of the patriarch Jacob. Many deliberations on this similarity are made within the book “Jesus Last of the Pharaohs”, including the removal of the ‘m’ at the end of the name, which is likely to be a ‘determinative’ glyph. The resulting conclusion has to be that there is a direct connection here.

    Suddenly the Biblical Jacob, father of Joseph, becomes the historical Jacoba, a Hyksos Egyptian pharaoh. This is a revolution in theology, but it is only a small step in a long process of uncovering the truth. The Biblical family is about to be transformed in terms of its political and secular importance. We have found the first bunch of grapes on this ancient royal vine.

    This is the radical theory that underpins the whole of the book “Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs”. It is a real story, constantly backed up by the ancient text themselves. The first step towards this transformation is to readjust our perceptions of the past. Throw out the years of established dogma that clouds our normally rational and critical analysis of the world and look at history anew.
    See the incredible tale of a ruling dynasty that has managed to cling to the greasy pole of history, despite the millennia of misunderstandings and persecutions, a family that is not even recognised by the faithful that worship them to this day. The Torah and Old Testament were never intended to be simple tales of Asiatic tribes and sheep herders. The true story is a complete history of the ruling family of Egypt, the ‘Royal Bloodline’. It is a history that can both solve the mysteries of man’s dim and distant past and also tell us something of our future destiny.

    Working through the Bible looking for pharaohs was an interesting task, but although this may seem to be a bizarre field of study, nevertheless coincidences seemed to fall out of the texts like confetti. Each of the names in the table below has only required small changes to the pharaonic names, each made using the standard techniques that all Egyptologists use, to reform themselves into their Biblical equivalents.

    This is not ‘cheating’, for Egyptologists do not know themselves how these names are supposed to be pronounced. Should the name Stephen, for instance, be pronounced Steven or Step-hen? Without a guide it is impossible to know. Now we have our guide, the Torah, Bible and Koran will instruct us as to how these ancient names should be pronounced.

    Using this simple technique of name comparison, suddenly the texts come alive with historical kings:
    After a long list of biblical pharaohs we finally come to another pharaoh, the one mentioned by the historian Josephus – Necho.

    Looking down the historical record for an equivalent pharaoh reveals that the closest match is Nehesy, a fifteenth dynasty pharaoh. This link may not seem totally convincing at this stage, but remember that Egyptologists are uncertain of the exact pronunciation here so the name Nehesy could also be seen as being pronounced as Nehosy, each is a valid transliteration. It is also significant that the name of Abraham’s wife was Sarah, which is quite possibly a derivation of this same pharaoh’s throne name, which was Aasehra.

    So perhaps Necho and Nehesy were simply different renditions of the ‘first name’ of this pharaoh. Looking at the Bible we find a possible third translation of this name, that of Nachor, the grand-father of Abraham. Have we found another Biblical pharaoh? The Biblical Nachor and Josephus’ pharaoh called Necho seem far too close for comfort. To find out for sure we could always compare the family histories involved, comparing the sons and grand-sons for instance.

    The son of the Biblical Nachor was Thara, whereas the son of the pharaoh Nehesy was Sheshi. Thus far, this is not looking too promising.
    But wait just a minute, the throne-name of the pharaoh Nehesy is Aasahra and this seems to equate very nicely with the Biblical Thara; it looks as if the Bible has simply dropped the initial ‘A’ in the name.

    The fact that there was an original ‘A’ attached to this Biblical name is confirmed by the same stories that occur in the Koran, where the same individual (the father of Abraham) is called Azar. The Koran, however, seems to have lost the ‘a’ at the end of the name, it has lost the suffix of this name instead of the prefix. but if we conjoin the two patriarchal names of Azar and Thara, we either derive the name Aathara or Azara. All in all, it would appear that the pharaonic name of Aasahra has been preserved rather well over the years in these religious texts.

    What we now have is the father and grand-father of Abraham being joined into just one individual in the Egyptian historical record, where he is listed under the two names of the pharaoh Nehesy. If we quite legitimately change the second vowel in the name Nehesy to an ‘o’, we thus derive:
    The historical Pharaoh: Nehosy (Aasahra)
    The Biblical Patriarch: Nachor (Azarah)

    This is a very satisfying arrangement. However the whole edifice we have just built up, seems to fall down on the count of one glaring error – the son of Nehesy. The Biblical Nachor (Azarah) fathered Abraham himself. Yet if we look at the historical record, the son of Nehesy (Aasarah) is this pharaoh called Sheshi, this is truly unsatisfactory and it seems to undermine all the progress that has been made so far.

    Actually this is not so, it was just the result that was needed to finally convince me, and perhaps the reader, that this was not all wishful thinking, that this line of Biblical pharaohs is a historical reality. Why? Because the throne name of the pharaoh Sheshi is none other than Mayebre or Mamayebra. This name not only sounds like Abraham, with the ‘M’ displaced to the end, it is quite possibly another very simple and possibly deliberate mistranslation of it.

    What better way to hide the name of a pharaoh, than simply moving the first syllable to the end of the name. So subtle and yet so effective was the ploy, that the truth lay hidden for thousands of years – Abraham was a pharaoh of Egypt.

    The Bible seems to admit this possibility, even if theologians will not; of Abraham it says:
    For a father of many nations I have made thee. And I shall make thee exceedingly fruitful … and kings shall come out of thee.
    The true royal status of Abraham can be seen once more, it is just as the biblical texts tell us, “… and kings shall come out of thee.” Now the ma’at, the truth, can be told; the Biblical patriarchs were indeed powerful people, they were pharaohs of Egypt.

    This line of Biblical pharaohs is the baton that “Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs” takes up and runs with. Here we have the outline for an entirely new history of Egypt and Palestine. The great Exodus can be seen in an entirely new light, with the causes and ramifications of this historic event falling on the shoulders of Egypt herself, it was nothing more or less than an internal dispute – a civil war.

    Jesus too, sprang from this royal vine, he too was a pharaoh of Egypt, but a pharaoh in exile. Egypt was no longer seen as being their rightful property by the royal dynasty at this time, but the traditions and influences of Egypt were still strong enough that the young Jesus was sent there to receive his education; they were also strong enough for the ‘lamb’ to pronounce himself a Fisher of Men – the ancient traditions were still being adhered to. We continue to follow the ministry of Jesus and find many references to his royal stature, plus some ‘new’, very interesting and contemporary historical references that place Jesus in a real historical context. He was described by his detractors in that era as being the ‘Egyptian False Prophet’, he was also the governor of Tiberias and he later tried to take Jerusalem back from the rebel Jewish factions by force of arms with 600 men from his base on the Mount of Olives, an event that is described in the Bible in dramatically similar phrases.

    The book “Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs” runs with this theme through thick and thin, for the results of this new theological interpretation can sometimes be both shocking and profound. But this is not an idea born in a vacuum, every step of the way the ancient texts assure us that this was the true history – one just needs to know the key to unlock these long forgotten secrets and the will to embrace them.

    Lastly we need to address the ramifications of this research, for they are many. For, to the orthodox believer of the three Judaic religions this whole concept may appear to be a heresy to be mocked and derided, but I hope there are many readers out there with more open minds. The Jewish and Christian hierarchy have delivered a simple creed to us, but it is one that is not fully supported by the texts.
    They have taught us a tale of simple shepherds, but the texts say again and again, from Abraham to Jesus, that these people were kings. All I have done is to take the texts at their word and built a story on those foundations. To understand this new creed does demand a readjustment to ones religious outlook, but it is not as big an adjustment as one might expect.

    The trade here, for Christians in particular, is one that dissolves the unique divinity of Jesus but it delivers in return a Christian history that is traceable back to the very start of the historical world, back into pre-dynastic Egypt and beyond. It means that the family of Jesus and their descendants, can trace their history through every Egyptian pharaoh, the longest recorded family history in the world. Personally, I find such concepts both fascinating and tantalising, it detracts nothing from the religious world to think that Jesus was, perhaps, the Last
    of the Pharaohs.

    Coats of many colors
    Apparently Joseph, (he of the technicolour coat), was Yuya, the famous Grand Vizier to Tuthmoses IV, the Pharaoh who had a strange dream while sleeping at the place where the Sphinx was buried. In the dream, the Sphinx told him he would be Pharaoh if he cleared the sand off the buried mysterious monument. He did so, and lo and behold, the Sphinx was revealed from the digging.

    Tuthmoses IV’s grandfather was Tuthmoses III, the powerful Pharaoh-conqueror, acclaimed as the Egyptian Napoleon who ruled from the Nile to the Euphrates. Tuthmoses IV in turn was the father of Amenhotep III and thus the grandfather of Akhenaten.

    Yuya’s daughter was the Tiye, whom Amenhotep III (Akhenaten’s dad) fell in love with. Yuya also had a son called Ay.

    However, when Amenhotep III (Akhenaten’s dad) was still a very young prince, he had to marry his sister, Sitamum who was still an infant, in order to inherit the throne – note: some historians put Sitamun as his and Queen Tiye’s daughter, whom he, the father-Pharaoh, also married.

    Remember all those seemingly incestuous marriage had to do with the matrilineal succession of Egyptian royalty – note: it is also interesting to learn that Judaism follows a similar matrilineal lineage.

    Lineage of Pharoahs

    Ancient Egypt’s lineage was traced through women and property was passed through women. For this reason, Ancient Egypt originated as a matriarchy. The pharoahs were trustees of the property passed down and their reign was decided by their matrilineal status. Because of the matrilineal structure, husbands would lose their property and status if their wife died. The property was passed down to the daughters and granddaughters. Many incest relations began with fathers and daughters and granddaughters because the men wanted to stay with the property. There were also numerous brother/sister incest marriages.

    But once the marriage to Sitamun was taken care off to secure the royal succession, Amenhotep III married his real love, Tiye. Among his royal progenies was Amenhotep IV, soon to be Akhenaten the heretic King.

    I noted Akenaten and Nefertiti mentioned earlier, so a little more on this famous pair and the other notable Phatoahs of the 18th Dynasty.

    After Tuthmoses III’s reign/death his successor was, Tuthmoses IV (Akenaten). Akenaten was married to queen Nefertiti, a former Nubian princess (and regarded as one of the most beautiful women in antiquity). Akenaten instituted a number of important religious, political and artistic reforms. Among them were the elimination of polytheism and replacing it with the newly created religion of ethical monotheism.

    The Sun God (Amon-Ra) was the only officially- recognized God during Akenaten’s reign. The Egyptian priesthood was furious and rebelled at times. Akenaton, the inventor of monotheism, does not always receive the credit in theological circles for this invention.

    The ancient Hebrews (later Israelites or Jews) frequently receive the credit for this invention. Hebrews begin to practice monotheism around 1200BCE upon the encouragement of Moses.
    However, the Hebrew tribes, a semitic population, migrated from Mesopotamia into Egypt during the 2nd intermediate period (1800BCE to 1580BCE) and either became guest/migrant workers or slaves (there is a split among Egyptologists over the exact employment status of these Hebrew tribes).

    Nevertheless, adopted at birth by a wealthy Egyptian women, Moses became part of the Egyptian aristocracy and he studied in the Egyptian priesthood. Therefore, Akenaton’s ideas of monotheism had to have had an influence on Moses’s theology.
    Akenaton allowed greater popular input in local government affairs, a limited form of democracy. Akenaton also abolished capital punishment. Moreover, he mandated that artists must strive for realistic and not abstract representations in their works.

    He was portrayed in realistic form in all the art work, in which he appeared to have had a protruding stomach. His predecessors were portrayed in highly exaggerated and muscular form (larger than life form).
    After Akenaten’s death, the priesthood eliminated monotheism and reistituted polytheism and re-opened many of the polytheistic temples. The priests destroyed most of the monuments, temples and writings associated with Amon-Ra (monotheism) and Akenaton.

    The successor to the 18th dynasty was Ramses I , the founder of the 19th dynasty.
    Ramses I had a great deal of Nubian and black Egyptian anscestry.
    His son (Ramses II) had less negro anscestry, because his mother was a caucasian. Both Ramses I and Ramses II launched numerous military campaigns against the Nubians, Libyans, and Syro-Palestinians.

    They both strengthened political control over Egypt and launched numerous civil engineering projects.
    The monument of Abu Simbel was the most prominent example, a tribute to Ramses II’s Nubian wife and queen, Nefertari. Abu Simbel served as a giant billboard warning the Nubian army not to advance north of Abu Simbel, or else! It served as a border marker between Egypt and Nubia. King Ramses II lived to the age of 92 and had dozens of wives and perhaps over 100 children.
    Nefertari was his main wife and the most adored by Ramses II. Prior to circa 1225BCE, the Hebrews worked on many civil engineering projects and were perhaps forced laborers/slaves (Egyptologists are split on whether the ancient Hebrews were slaves or guest workers).

  199. This is Part Two of ‘who(Jehovah) is the Devil?’ (Forgive my impatience it is not finished at all)I hope to broaden our perspective while we focus on ‘Law’ and What Jesus thinks about the ‘Law’ the Identity of ‘Satan’ and the ‘Devil’ and if they are the same being. Then finish with an overview of the ‘Jew’ and ‘Gentile’ bloodlines.

    I will start In Gospel of John and move through Genesis, Job, Synoptic Gospels and Revelation.

    John Ch. 8 vs. 1-

    1. Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives.
    -Something Here-

    2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

    This is where it takes a new twist… This piece can leave people to question exactly what the original author was saying… Many people say that the woman in question being accused of adultery was herself, Mary Magdelene… But this does show an Errant quality because the mistranslation of the Magdelene being a Whore or Prostitute.

    This here is one example of a Male-Dominant attitude prevailing to eradicate the Divine Feminine from the Annals of His-Story.

    The descriptive Greek word Sacred Temple Nuns was the word ‘Hores’- Meaning ‘Beloved One’. I find it that the diseased Catholic Whore would dare desecrate the ‘Beloved Ones’ / “Hores” and create such an English word as ‘Whore’. That even today prevails as the Prostitute Mary Magdelene.

    [For this I formally ask the Mother for forgiveness. Mercy Mother.]

    I would like to point out that the ‘Pharisees’ are not the same people as the ‘Jews’. Pharisees were the Temple Priests from Qumran and the ‘Jews’ were the Hellenized Priests of Jerusalem.
    Scribes would be a generalized description of the record keepers but a quiet way to say Egyptian Theraputate.

    3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
    4. They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

    5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

    The Pharisees here invoke the (their) Law.
    It is clear hear that they intend to trap Jesus but watch how Jesus responds to the Law of Moses as ‘their’ Law.

    6. This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
    Notice here he writes with his finger… Here he physically draws a circle.

    7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
    8. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
    This time it doesn’t specify

    9. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
    10. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
    11. She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

    12. Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
    13. The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
    14. Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
    15. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
    16. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
    17. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

    Notice how Jesus refers to the Law, “…written in your Law…”

    18. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
    19. Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
    20. These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.

    21. Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
    22. Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
    23. And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
    24. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
    25. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
    26. I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
    27. They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
    28. Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
    29. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
    30. As he spake these words, many believed on him.

    John Ch. 10 vs. 1-

    1. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
    2. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
    3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
    4. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
    5. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
    6. This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
    7. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
    8. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
    9. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
    10. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
    11. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
    12. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
    13. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
    14. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
    15. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
    16. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
    17. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
    18. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
    19. There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
    20. And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
    21. Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?
    22. And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
    23. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.
    24. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
    25. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
    26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
    27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
    28. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
    29. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
    30. I and my Father are one.
    31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
    32. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
    33. The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
    34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
    35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
    36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
    37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
    38. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
    39. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
    40. And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
    41. And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.
    42. And many believed on him there.

    1 Isaiah 8:11-18 and through out 1 Isaiah, it is definitely clear that there are two god’s here communicating back and fourth to one another. The NIV is really clear in this regard but I used the NKJV to illustrate it. I paraphrased this scripture in a statement and added an overall theme of the
    Teaching’s of Jesus on just ‘BEING’.

    I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused you or anyone else.

    Fear God, Heed His Word

    11 For the LORD( Enki/Jesus ) spoke thus to me with a
    strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in
    the way of this people, saying:

    “12Do not say, “A conspiracy,’ Concerning all that this people call a conspiracy, Nor be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.
    13The LORD of hosts (Enlil/Jehovah), Him you shall hallow; Let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread.
    14He will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
    15And many among them shall stumble; they shall fall and be broken, be snared and taken.”

    16Bind up the testimony, Seal the law among my disciples.
    17And I will wait on the LORD (Enki/Jesus), who hides His face from the house of Jacob; And I will hope in Him.
    18Here am I and the children whom the LORD (Enki/Jesus) has given me! We are for signs and wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts (Enlil/Jehovah), who dwells in Mount Zion.

    Three David’s


    Kain-Dom, Kin-Dom, King-Dom.

    So the ‘Pauline’ Christians also believe that the authority of the church is in one name, JESUS, correct? Yes

    the term, ‘in the name of Jesus’, refers to his family not his literal name.

    Even as the bloodline or genealogy of Jesus is important, correct? Yes.

    But in the ‘Epistle of Paul to Titus’ 3:9

    “9 but avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and
    contentions, and strivings about ‘the law’; for they
    are unprofitable and vain.

    10 A man that is a Heretic after the first and second
    admonition reject;

    11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and
    sinneth, being condemned of himself.”

    To be the Messiah it was prophesied that the Messiah would come of the house of David; even Jesus says,

    REVELATION 22:16

    “I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and
    morning star.”

    Who was David or the David’s?

    When one wants to trace back to who David was and why his bloodline is important, you must open up and accept certain facts.

    The name ‘TUT’ sounds like letters T and U or the double ‘U or W’ as in a ‘EWE’ sound; so T-ewe-T but pronounced quickly.

    When the priests wanted to translate the name from Coptic Egyptian to the Hebrew, it sounded different.

    A hard ‘T’ in the Coptic becomes a ‘D’ and the ‘U; EWE’ , (due to a lack of vowels in the ancient or original Hebrew language.) becomes ‘Vav or WAW’; so hence DVD, ‘D(-UU, VV or W-)D’, hence, DAVID.

    “TUT” in the Coptic is a type of name of the God of Knowledge and Wisdom; THOTH.

    King DAVID / TUT or Thoth was also of this Royal bloodline.

    The name of a famous King, who wielded the ARK in the Valley of Megiddo or as bible calls it ‘Armageddon’, was to the Hebrew, King David while to the Coptic Church in Egypt, Tutmose III or ‘Tuthmosis’.

    Tut – Mosis/Mose (Thoth-mosis) means – ‘heir’ or ‘son of’ so, Son-of-Thoth or more commonly to the ‘Hebrew’, Son of David.

    NOTE: Another Name for Thoth is Hermes, deriving yet from an earlier source or root name, ENKI.

    The Star of David:

    When Jupiter and Saturn merge in the constellation of Pisces. This happened four times in the year 7 B.C.

    Abraham/Uriah/Hittite/Warlock —- Sarah/Beth Sheba/Scarlet Woman —- Tutmos III/King David/Pharaoh

    Abraham – Sarah/Bath Sheba – David
    | |
    | |
    | |

    Isaac… (No) Isaac… (Yes)

    Abraham is a RAM and King David is a GOAT.

    Who was Abraham?

    After reading the book of Yasher (referred to read in the book of Joshua.) appears to be , not a poor wandering pilgrim in search for God but an Patriarchal, military leader, gorilla warrior ( much like Bin Laden). he married his sister, denied his wife, and seduced his handmaid; who drove one child into the desert to starve, and attempted to kill his son not excluding the thousands of common folk he butchered in the name of Jehovah… Insane is the only way to describe it.

    Let’s not forget where Abraham is from… Ur of Chaldea was a predominantly Hittite City. Hittites are sworn enemies of the Israelites. So it is pretty safe to state that Abraham is not an Israelite…

    17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
    18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
    19 And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying,
    20 Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
    21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
    22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
    23 Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying,
    24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
    25 Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
    26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

    Notice the reference to the ‘two families’ in verse 24.
    “…The two families which the LORD hath chosen…”
    “…Then will I cast away the seed of ‘Jacob, and David’ my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be ‘rulers over’ the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…”
    So the first family ‘Jacob & David’ are to be Rulers over ‘Abraham, Isaac & Jacob’…

    I believe that Jeremiah is leaving clues to the truth of genealogy and true authority no matter what… Isaac is the father of Jacob but Isaac ‘The Promised Seed’ is confused as either the Son of Abraham or the Son of David… The Son of David being in authority over Abraham and his Bloodline,
    Who is Jacob?

    I believe that was answered already.

  200. Now to clarify… I have stated that I am of the Elven/Dragon bloodline and often they are referred to as ‘fantasy’ creatures…

    Such as the Picts of Scotland and the Sidhe(Druids) of Ireland hence the word ‘Pixie’ as combination of the two.

    I have posted numerous links to information discussing this material at length.

    But NOT to my surprise have many of you belittled my faith, my heritage and family without taking a serious read through.

    If you would have read any of the Material you would know that Vampires do exist but not the evil blood drinkers that Christians created to scare their followers in order to remain in control.

    Even now as I speak the Christian foundation is crumbling.

    Vampires, or the correct word would be ‘Oupire’ which simply means the ‘The Above’, are not blood drinkers or cannibals.

    They are enlightened beings and Sons of the Most High God.

    Even in your inerrant Bibles (Jude) it says to beware you may be entertaining Angels unaware… I am a Devils Advocate.

    But alas, I digress….

    I have been warned by my kin to leave you people alone and let you to your own demise but that is not the (MY) Way… as I have a heart to teach and guide people in to Truth and that Truth requires you to be accountable.

    Accountability cannot rest on feel goods and gentle tingly’s of what may be interpreted as the Holy Spirit.

    Truth has substance and if God can maintain a book with out Error of Human hand what makes you think it is any different with his creation?

    If God is the creator of ALL things then his Truth can be proven without a doubt.

    Faith is the ability to accept that Nature Mirrors Heaven.

    The only reason Nature appears harsh is that we Dragons have lost our place and Mankind has given way to their own EGO’s.

    Again with fair warning I tell you… You will never see Heaven until you fix the Earth you have.

    You have to be diligent with what you have in order to receive that Gift of paradise. Until you realize that Jesus did not come to do all the work for you but that he came to tell you that you are capable and even more so to do it for yourselves.

    Quit copping out and flaking your responsibility… If you make a mess clean it up… Why is it you will tell your children to clean up their own messes but when it comes to polluting your planet you seem to think you just continue on down your path of destruction because Jesus will take care of it all…???

    How disappointing, it is for me to realize, I am only throwing Pearls before swine.

  201. jAsOn said

    A man who says so little in so many words only exposes his own foolishness.

  202. Anonymous said

    What do you say everyone just ignore this nut? Responding to him only encourages more half brained, basisless gibberish infesting this blog! It’s really pretty scary. I would hate to think that he has influence over or around children with this stuff! He sounds like a good candidate to be profiled on Law & Order SVU, or Criminal Intent!

  203. Tripp said

    a few sandwiches short of a picnic
    a few bricks shy of a load
    not the sharpest tool in the shed
    a peculiar hitch in his get-along

    where is the scholarship and documentation to back all this information up?

    it’s an interesting read, but seriously…..where is the proof?

    i believe proof has been requested enough…..there is plenty of documentation, archaeology and scholarship to validate the authenticity of the Bible, which includes King James 1611

  204. Jason what have you done in your life that makes you so smart and great?

    Have you ever preached the Gospel knowing you would die?

    Personally, I think my stay is about up… As my needs for my agenda have been somewhat fulfilled.

    Jason, I would like to meet you in person, and If things work out (As I might be relocating to Virginia to continue my ongoing mentoring of an inmate in prison) I would love more than anything to sit down and chat with materials in tow. You know as well as anyone, you cannot prove anything we say unless an extensive bibliography were supplied, and at that point, no one would publish that kind of material, without some sort of financial renumeration.

    I do not, nor will I ever do anything in the name of ‘God’, without some sort of pay, I gave Christianity too many years of my life not to mention the beatings, the facial reconstruction, the metal plates and the scars to remember. I have died and come back from the other side more than once, only to my regret.

    Oh yes, I know there is a God and I wish as much as you, that I were not here, that I did not exist. I was even born three and half months premature and that Jerk still kept me alive… Oh that I would not have been born… I wish I would have died rather than to see one day here with people of the like that frequent the MAN MADE AND MAN RULED RELIGIONS.

    Christian people are disgusting to say the least as they are self deluded and blind of their own Hypocrisy.

    You dare even Judge me… With out cause… other than a few measly posts… I have laid my life down repeatedly for JESUS.

    And that I will not prove to you either… I have worked with and around some of the most well(Powerful) known preachers in the business… And I say this not only with God and Jesus as my witness… But with Holy Spirit, (knowing full well blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the Unforgivable sin), bearing witness in my conscience that I do not know one(Well One, My Mentor but outside one person)… No, not even one Pastor or Church leader… That has not lied, stolen money, and/or committed adultery… No, not one of them is innocent of these crimes against the people of God, ‘while’ they continued in their seats of Glory and leadership.

    Am I angry… YOU darn right I am. AS I am not a Hypocrite.

    I have been invited (As my old Pastor thought I was the best person for the Job because of my Integrity in the matter) to speak to these men in a private, hush hush, back room retreat seminar, so as to not embarrass their families, their congregations and stain the Ministry to people that have entrusted these Men to lead them.

    Yes, it being better to keep these matters a secret and private best suited the needs of everyone involved.

    I have taken confession from pedophiles with in ranks as well, not to mention the sickness and perversion of PK kids and their seedy underground… Of which, I have been used by insecure Pastors to keep track, for them, of their prodigal children.

    PK kids are the most screwed up Kids I have ever counseled… And When I say they have perversion, I mean they would rival the Romans and Greeks with their Orgiastic lifestyle.

    I did it without Pay… Of which the leaders should be ashamed that they didn’t at least pay my rent, least of all furnish all my cost in the matter.

    Don’t ask me how many abortions, and all, among the daughters of preachers go on, all because their parents are to busy with work in Kingdom to pay attention to their problems at home.

    It has been my experience that when the chips are down, rarely are Christians, people you can count on… As Pagans are the ones, most of the time, that offer themselves as servant by giving aid and provisions whether, it be clothes, food, houses, cars or whatever the need may be.

    And the reward for such as this… Hell. Right now I live in Hell watching you people squander such a great opportunity but in the end you will bring Hell down upon yourselves of which mankind is only virus and need be eradicated anyway.

    Jason, Mr Intellectual… Mr. Rationale… I do not care about your pre-contrived history and academia… It’s all B.S.

    You waste more time debating doctrinal issues than you do ministering to someones need. Like have you stopped, even one time from allowing you EGO to speak and ask me how I really am?

    You go and meet people where they are at. I wonder is your Job more important, your security and your comfort are they superior to that which you espouse to believe?

    If I were a believer as you say you are.. I wouldn’t hardly have read anything on this site much less waste time discussing issues that mean absolutely nothing.

    You do not even know where your from? What root do you have?

    What you people are angry about with material I have presented… Is that you just might not be of God.

    How dare any of you think that you could be grafted into a Royal Family…

    It’s hogwash… I find it offensive and even when I was minister I found it offensive to think you could be suddenly apart of the family of Jesus.

    Well I challenge any of you to prove that you are of the family of Jesus, and the ‘End of Days’ shall be the Judge… I challenge anyone, all of you to put your money where your mouth is.

    I dare you to follow Jesus forsaking family, wives, husbands, children… I dare you to forsake your property and any sense of identity of the person you think you are and take up your cross and follow Jesus.

    If then Jesus showed you the Way… Was his crucifixion symbolic (as I have presented the facts form any people and sources and from years of research and study) or was his crucifixion literal and real?

    If it be real… and Literal, why then is Jesus’ instruction to you as disciples not Literal and real?

    Or do you not know such as the like of you are not worthy of him.

    In the End I will Stand majestic as did my Older brother and Kin.

    I go boldly to the Throne of God, knowing who and what I am… And to think that I would feel bad for one minute to not be counted worthy among men?

    Your opinion of me, means nothing as I am well known and Honored in Kingdom. I have been established by Jesus himself declaring between the Door and the Alter as he etched it upon the tablet of my heart.

    God told me through more than one witness he gave me a pen and ink horn and said, you can write anything you want… Yes anything.

    I can say Jehovah is EVIL and Jehovah is the DEVIL and Jehovah is dingle berry and even if I wanted, I could be more nasty and cynical about that old fart…

    What will happen if I curse God… Do you think he will zap me with a lightning bolt like Zeus? Or do you think he may drown me because he grows tired of me… Not, God could never grow tired of me as I am one of his favorites… Likened unto David, a man after his own heart… I could Murder people as David did without remorse and it would be forgive… One reason, the fact that he loves me and has already received me.

    But you see… What does any of that matter?

    Because You will only justify why you cannot give up your possessions, why you cannot follow God no matter for fear that you too would be considered foolish.

    God forbid your credit score would be screwed up or that mortgage on the house would fault… And the Car in your driveway would be impounded…

    Are all of you too busy eating, drinking and being given in marriage that you do not see your delusion?

    Right now you are safe within your little clique of Christians but what if God told you to enter a church naked as he instructed Isaiah?

    Would you do it, knowing you would possibly and most likely go to prison as a Sex offender….??

    I would watch how all YOU Moral do-gooders treat those that are less becoming… Or haven’t you read your Bibles enough to realize that most of the characters in the Bible are Criminals, Prostitutes, Witches and Convicts..?

    Or would you quite your Job and lay down on your side, for more than a year, hardly moving an inch as God instructed Ezekiel?

    Another name of Jehovah is Bel… Ponder that.


    “He sounds like a good candidate to be profiled on Law & Order SVU, or Criminal Intent!”

    I am Jewish by blood not faith, I had relatives in concentration camps… It is people like you that made it possible for Hitler to to do what he did… As Criminal profiling was method perfected by the Nazis.

    And even if I did teach my children to worship Satan, what business is it to you?

    Worry about your own life babe.

    And to shudder and think I do have access to Children, having a daughter myself… oh my!

    And she doesn’t believe the crap and lies of the Church either… But you know something I do not victimize children as you obviously do by forcing God down their throat, I do not threaten her with Hell, fiery torment and condemnation to get her to listen and obey, I do not damage her psyche over issues she deals with by placing Paul’s idea of Guilt on her… And even though I have left this subject to her mother to discuss with her, we discussed allowing her to explore masturbation with out shame of her body, sex or information about orgasms (The result being her passions are now exhausted in Music and skate boarding rather than secret perversions being developed in puberty by enforcing a puritanical code) I teach her Love not Hate… I teach her acceptance of others not rejection… I teach her with an open mind and depth not shallow and close minded ignorance. I inspire my daughter as well all children I know to think for herself(them self) and she does it with a passion. She is no coward and isn’t afraid to stand tell people how stupid they are being or whether the material being taught in school is false information as she has done in her school with teachers on few occasions.

    Right now she 13 and loves studying the Occult and Witchcraft being that is our Jewish heritage.

    As Mary the mother of Jesus was a student of a Helena Solome who was a Scarlet Woman and High Priestess.

    When I first noticed her strong rebellious nature… I could only cry for Joy at her strength. I know her life will be riddled with pain and suffering but sovereignty, accountability and Integrity are the reward of the truly righteous.

    I taught her to think for herself, teach herself and learn on her own… That she does not need anyone to teach her.

    (Not that she should not allow mentors but to chose her guides carefully and never take things at face value, neither judge a person by their cover).

    And above all, do not care what other people think of her…

    What do you teach your children or force them to believe?

    And right now the only things my daughter would surmise about this conversation.. Is first she would ask me, “Why do you care all this crap?” and then she would say, “But whoever this ‘Anonymous’ is they are probably woman but definitely a coward.”

    You see, I have put documentation of some resources but years of study do not come free. If you want to learn about the Sumerians, the Egyptians or anyone for that matter.. You could take a few College course for starters.

    Or if your IQ allows you may be able to teach yourself.. But that requires you to trust yourself and Christians do not promote this kind of thought or behavior.

  205. jAsOn said


    In the end my opinon of you does not matter, if you are Christ’s then you have His righteousness imputed to you, if not then you will go to Hell when you die. Eventually every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!

    You have never laid down your life for Christ Jesus…not the Christ of scripture.

    How can you make claims about how much I do or do not minister to people, anyway, it is not edifying to compare our stats, that’s ridiculous.

    You still have not answered my rebutals of your false interpretations of the words of Paul and the words of the gospels of God.

    You cannot prove that there were many gospels that were discarded by the early church in favor of the ones we know now to be God breathed.

    Just because someone wrote something contrary to the factual accounts of history and called in “history” doesn’t make it true; it doesn’t mean there is a conspiracy. The sites that you have recommended contain documents that make unvarifiable claims…they just contradict history.

    Btw, I don’t claim to be smart or perfectly rational, but you don’t even seem to try to make rational statements…the “historical narratives” you recommend are far more similar to the D&D “Monster Companions” than they are reality.

  206. Anonymous said

    That’s a lot of hypocrisy coming from someone who says “I am not a Hypocrite”! Maybe you would be a better fit for one of those wife swap shows!

  207. John said

    Wow Thomas. That’s a lot of ranting for someone who says he doesn’t care about the opinions of others.
    Thanks for the material and the amusement.I shall copy it and add it to my library in the psychology section.

    I wonder what he does for a living.Wouldn’t it be funny if, after all those claims, he was the french-fry bagger at McDonalds, or something?
    I’d like to hear him on the show just to hear what he sounds like, like if he talks the same way he post’s[smile].

  208. John I own nothing.

    I am nothing to this world.

    I do not have anything…

    It’s not that I do not want things… It’s the price we pay for them.

    When I committed myself to being a Priest I did just that… Became a Priest.

    Sometimes I go with purse other times I do not… I have traveled all the united states with little to nothing but lint in my pocket… And there isn’t anything wrong with a person that is a French Fry bagger at McDonalds as long as their happy. I for one wouldn’t put up with being treated a demeaning s corporations treat people who work there.

  209. Jason,

    I do care about people and authentically care they be educated.

    As far as proof neither have any of you posted any proof of the Bible being God’s inerrant word… You prove it was written by God I will be glad to compile All my sources into an easy to understand bibliography consisting of the information posted.

    Please I would love to see your proof as to why the world must be subjected to further Terroristic threat of the Pauline idea and theory of ‘God’…

    Truth need not threaten to prove itself true. A God, that must tell it’s followers it is the only true God, has something to hide…

    The Bible was fabricated from other works and religions simply to control the masses and to keep everyone in line… As has always been the custom of Patriarchal Religion to seduce, dominate and terrorize their followers.

    In the 18th Dynasty of Egypt they offered relief to poor desert wanders in exchange for their given trades and skills.

    Yes, come to Egypt, come… We offer the finest in clothing, luxury housing, state of the art Medicine and quality education. For all your hard labor you will receive financial security and comfort that can found no where else in the desert… You will be given a great retirement and even mummification for your eternal life!

    Not too much different than the modern day as family rosters were replaced by 401k plans while the technologies, medicine and education have changed some but totally different is Jesus replaced mummification for their eternal life.

    Jason, I think that you will one day see things differently and you know maybe Hell is knowing you missed the mark…

    In this world I do not care about my honor because I am honored by God and Goddess… and it’s not Jehovah.

    You demand proof of things but what would it matter… The Material from the Dragon Court that I posted (Not Nicholas de Vere’s work) about the history of the Hyksos are academically validated but you will have to search out the Hyksos yourself.

    Humble yourself for one moment and listen to what your saying to people… Not the words you type or that come out of your mouth… But your ‘dark speech’… Or can you not hear your bigotry amidst your blessed assuredness?

    I guarantee you and I, will both be called to account, how we spent our time on planet Earth. Most assuredly but… How much time will be accounted to your Judge mental attitude?

    I never expected to win the conversation here.

    NO matter what I say, someone will always say something contrary…

    No matter what references I offer… There are others who would refute it.

    It’s never ending.

    Revelation 11:18

    “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.”

    “…’shouldest destroy them’ which ‘destroy the earth’…”

    Don’t you get it?

    It doesn’t matter what you say or what you believe.. Either you are part of the problem or you are part of the solution.

    Proving or converting was never my purpose… I have loftier purposes than that.

    Oh and John… I do not care what anyone thinks of me…

    It’s that being here while ranting serves a greater purpose… I rant in Grocery stores, Coffee shops, shopping malls and College campus’s… It’s kind of my pass time.

    Think more along the lines that I am not communicating with you, Truth talk, it’s regulars or anyone in particular.

    Let me tell you, or ask rather, do you think the New World Order will suddenly send troops into the United States?

    Do you not know or realize that three of the five descriptive definitions of what is considered a Terrorist (According to the New World Order) that of having over $2000 dollars in food and watered stored in you house. Having over $5000 dollars in your pocket or house (Gold and Silver(Bars or Coins)). Believing and or confessing a book written by the Hand of men, declaring authorship and expressing Faith in a God greater than the Government(The New World Order).

    Why is this happening because Christian have been duped into supporting it.

    And if you believe that George Bush is a Christian and thinks your equal to him..? Huh! Think again.

    If there is anything I want Christian to hear… And before I say it please, How many Christians believe we are in the end times?

    If you believe that we are… Tell me where is the Apostate church?

    Who is the Harlot and the daughters of the Harlot?

    The Harlot and her daughters

  210. Jason,

    Comparing stats… No. You do not have any to compare.

    Being raised a Franciscan Catholic… You grow up talking to Nuns and Priest about many subject for one the burning of Gospels by Paul and his followers…

    Many of the surviving Gospels are being stored in the vaults beneath the Vatican.

    Quick List of easy to find Gospels



    IT is in the religious doctrines of the Gnostics that the real meaning of the Dragon, the Serpent, the Goat, and all those symbols of powers now called Evil, can be seen the best; as it is they who divulged the esoteric nature of the Jewish Substitute for AIN-SOPH in their teachings; of the true meaning of which the Rabbins concealed it, the Christians, with a few exceptions, knew nothing. Surely Jesus of Nazareth would have hardly advised his apostles to show themselves as wise as the serpent, had the latter been a symbol of the Evil one; nor would the Ophites, the learned Egyptian Gnostics of “the Brotherhood of the Serpent,” have reverenced a living snake in their ceremonies as the emblem of WISDOM, the divine Sophia (and a type of the all-good, not the all-bad), were that reptile so closely connected with Satan. The fact is, that even as a common ophidian it has ever been a dual symbol; and as a Dragon it had never been anything else than a symbol of the manifested Deity in its great Wisdom. The Draco volans, the flying Dragon of the early painters, may be an exaggerated picture of the real extinct antediluvian animal; but those who have faith in the Occult teachings believe that in the days of old there were such creatures as flying Dragons, or a kind of Pterodactyl, and that it is those gigantic winged lizards that served as the prototypes for the Seraph of Moses and his great Brazen Serpent.(1) The Jews had worshipped the latter idol themselves, but, after the religious reforms brought about by Hezekiah, turned round, and called that symbol of the great or Higher God of every other nation — a Devil, and their own usurper — the “One God.”(2)

    The appellation Sa’tan, in Hebrew sâtân, “an adversary” (from the verb shatana, “to be adverse,” to persecute) belongs by right to the first and cruellest “adversary of all the other gods” — Jehovah, not to the Serpent, which spoke only words of sympathy and wisdom, and is at the worst, even in the dogma, “the adversary of men.” This dogma, based as it is on chapter 3 of Genesis, is as illogical and unjust as it is paradoxical. For who was the first to create that original and henceforward universal tempter of man — the woman? Not the serpent surely, but the “Lord God” himself, who, saying:– “It is not good that the man should be alone” — made woman, and “brought her unto the man” (Gen, 2:18, 22). If the unpleasant little incident that followed was and is still to be regarded as the “original sin,” then it exhibits the Creator’s divine foresight in a poor light indeed. It would have been far better for the first Adam (of chap. 1 ) to have been left either “male and female,” or “alone.” It is the Lord God, evidently, who was the real cause of all the mischief, the “agent provocateur,” and the Serpent — only a prototype of Azazel, “the scapegoat for the sin of (the God of) Israel,” the poor Tragos having to pay the penalty for his Master’s and Creator’s blunder. This, of course, is addressed only to those who accept the opening events of the drama of humanity in Genesis in their dead-letter sense. Those who read them esoterically, are not reduced to fanciful speculations and hypothesis; they know how to read the symbolism therein contained, and cannot err.

    There is at present no need to touch upon the mystic and manifold meaning of the name Jehovah in its abstract sense, one independent of the Deity falsely called by that name. It was a blind created purposely by the Rabbins, a secret preserved by them with ten-fold care after the Christians had despoiled them of this God-name which was their own property.(3) But the following statement is made. The personage who is named in the first four chapters of Genesis variously as “God,” the “Lord God,” and “Lord” simply, is not one and the same person; certainly it is not Jehovah. There are three distinct classes or groups of the Elohim called Sephiroth in the Kabala, Jehovah appearing only in chapter iv., in the first verse of which he is named Cain, and in the last transformed into mankind — male and female, Jah-veh.(4) The “Serpent,” moreover, is not Satan, but the bright Angel, one of the Elohim clothed in radiance and glory, who, promising the woman that if they ate of the forbidden fruit “ye shall not surely die,” kept his promise, and made man immortal in his incorruptible nature. He is the Iao of the mysteries, the chief of the Androgyne creators of men. Chapter 3 contains (esoterically) the withdrawal of the veil of ignorance that closed the perceptions of the Angelic Man, made in the image of the “Boneless” gods, and the opening of his consciousness to his real nature: thus showing the bright Angel (Lucifer) in the light of a giver of Immortality, and as the “Enlightener”; while the real Fall into generation and matter is to be sought in chapter 4. There, Jehovah-Cain, the male part of Adam the dual man, having separated himself from Eve, creates in her “Abel,” the first natural woman, and sheds the Virgin blood. Now Cain, being shown identical with Jehovah, on the authority of the correct reading of verse 1 (chapter 4, Genesis), in the original Hebrew text; and the Rabbins teaching that “Kin (Cain), the Evil, was the Son of Eve by Samael, the devil who took Adam’s place”; and the Talmud adding that “the evil Spirit, and Samael, the angel of Death, are the same,” it becomes easy to see that Jehovah (mankind, or “Jah-hovah”) and Satan (therefore the tempting Serpent) are one and the same in every particular. There is no Devil, no Evil, outside of mankind to produce a Devil. Evil is a necessity in, and one of the supporters of the manifested universe. It is a necessity for progress and evolution, as night is necessary for the production of Day, and Death for that of Life — that man may live for ever.

    Satan represents metaphysically simply the reverse or the polar opposite of everything in nature.(5) He is the “adversary,” allegorically, the “murderer,” and the great Enemy of all, because there is nothing in the whole universe that has not two sides — the reverses of the same medal. But in that case, light, goodness, beauty, etc., may be called Satan with as much propriety as the Devil, since they are the adversaries of darkness, badness, and ugliness. And now the philosophy and the rationale of certain early Christian sects — called heretical and viewed as the abomination of the times — will become more comprehensible. We may understand how it was that the sect of SATANIANS came to be degraded, and were anathematized without any hope of vindication in a future day, since they kept their tenets secret. How, on the same principle, the CAINITES came to be degraded, and even the (Judas) ISCARIOTES; the true character of the treacherous apostle having never been correctly presented before the tribunal of Humanity.

    As a direct consequence, the tenets of the Gnostic sects also become clear. Each of these sects was founded by an Initiate, while their tenets were based on the correct knowledge of the symbolism of every nation. Thus it becomes comprehensible why Ilda-Baoth was regarded by most of them as the god of Moses, and was held as a proud, ambitious, and impure spirit, who had abused his power by usurping the place of the highest God, though he was no better, and in some respects far worse than his brethren Elohim; the latter representing the all-embracing, manifested deity only in their collectivity, since they were the fashioners of the first differentiations of the primary Cosmic substance for the creation of the phenomenal Universe. Therefore Jehovah was called by the Gnostics the Creator of, and one with Ophiomorphos, the Serpent, Satan, or EVIL. (See Isis Unveiled II, 184). They taught that Iurbo and Adonai were “names of Jao-Jehovah, who is an emanation of Ilda Baoth” (Codex Nazarœus). This amounted in their language to saying what the Rabbins expressed in a more veiled way, by stating that — “Cain had been generated by Samael or Satan.”

    The fallen Angels are made in every ancient system the prototypes of fallen men — allegorically, and, those men themselves — esoterically. Thus the Elohim of the hour of creation became the “Beni-Elohim,” the sons of God, among whom is Satan — in the Semitic traditions; war in heaven between Thraetaona and Azhi-dahaka, the destroying Serpent, ends on earth, according to Burnouf, in the battle of pious men against the power of Evil, “of the Iranians with the Aryan Brahmins of India.” And the conflict of the gods with the Asuras is repeated in the Great War — the Mahabhârata. In the latest religion of all, Christianity, all the Combatants, gods and demons, adversaries in both the camps, are now transformed into Dragons and Satans, simply in order to connect evil personified with the Serpent of Genesis, and thus prove the new dogma.


    Christian theology had to isolate itself, and to assert its authority. Hence it could not do better than turn every pagan deity into a devil. Every bright sun-god of antiquity — a glorious deity by day, and its own opponent and adversary by night, named the Dragon of Wisdom, because it was supposed to contain the germs of night and day — has now been turned into the antithetical shadow of God, and has become Satan on the sole and unsupported authority of despotic human dogma. After which all these producers of light and shadow, all the Sun and the Moon Gods, were cursed, and thus the one God chosen out of the many, and Satan, were both anthropomorphised. But theology seems to have lost sight of the human capacity for discriminating and finally analysing all that is artificially forced upon its reverence. History shows in every race and even tribe, especially in the Semitic nations, the natural impulse to exalt its own tribal deity above all others to the hegemony of the gods; and proves that the God of the Israelites was such a tribal God, and no more, even though the Christian Church, following the lead of the “chosen” people, is pleased to enforce the worship of that one particular deity, and to anathematize all the others. Whether originally a conscious or an unconscious blunder, nevertheless, it was one. Jehovah has ever been in antiquity only “a god among other Gods” (82nd Psalm). The Lord appears to Abraham, and while saying, “I am the Almighty God,” yet adds, “I will establish my covenant … to be a God unto thee” (Abraham), and unto his seed after him (Gen. 17:7) — not unto Aryan Europeans.

    But then, there was the grandiose and ideal figure of Jesus of Nazareth to be set off against a dark background, to gain in radiance by the contrast; and a darker one the Church could hardly invent. Lacking the Old Testament symbology, ignorant of the real connotation of the name of Jehovah — the rabbinical secret substitute for the ineffable and unpronounceable name — the Church mistook the cunningly fabricated shadow for the reality, the anthropomorphized generative symbol for the one secondless Reality, the unknowable cause of all. As a logical sequence the Church, for purposes of duality, had to invent an anthropomorphic Devil — created, as taught by her, by God himself. Satan has now turned out to be the monster fabricated by the “Jehovah-Frankenstein,” — his father’s curse and a thorn in the divine side — a monster, than whom no earthly Frankenstein could have fabricated a more ridiculous bogey.

    The author of “New Aspects of Life” describes the Jewish God very correctly from the Kabalistic stand-point as “the Spirit of the Earth, which had revealed itself to the Jew as Jehovah.” “It was that Spirit again who, after the death of Jesus, assumed his form and personated him as the risen Christ” — the doctrine of Cerinthius and several Gnostic sects with slight variation, as one can see. But the author’s explanations and deductions are remarkable: “None knew … better than Moses … and so well as he how great was the power of those (gods of Egypt) with whose priests he had contended,” he says … “the gods of which Jehovah is claimed to be the God” (by the Jews only). “What were these gods, these Achar of which Jehovah, the Achad, is claimed to be the God … by overcoming them?” the author asks; to which our Occultism answers: “those whom the Church now calls the Fallen Angels and collectively Satan, the Dragon, overcome, if we have to accept her dictum, by Michael and the Host, that Michael being simply Jehovah himself, one of the subordinate Spirits at best.” Therefore, the author is again right in saying: “The Greeks believed in the existence of … daimons. But … they were anticipated by the Hebrews, who held that there was a class of personating spirits which they designated demions, ‘personators.’ Admitting with Jehovah, who expressly asserts it, the existence of other gods, which were personators of the One God, were these other gods simply a higher class of personating spirits, which had acquired and exercised greater powers? And is not personation the Key to the mystery of the Spirit state? But once granting this position, how are we to know that Jehovah was not a personating Spirit, a Spirit which arrogated to itself that it was, and thus became, the personator of the one unknown and unknowable God? Nay, how do we know that the Spirit calling itself Jehovah, in arrogating to itself his attributes did not thus cause its own designation to be imputed to the One who is in reality as nameless as incognizable?”

    Then the author shows “that the Spirit Jehovah is a personator” on its own admission. It acknowledged to Moses “that it had appeared to the patriarchs as the God Shaddai” …. and “the god Helion” …. With the same breath it assumed the name of Jehovah; and it is on the faith of the assertion of this personator that the names El, Eloah, Elohim, and Shaddai, have been read and interpreted in juxtaposition with Jehovah as “the Lord God Almighty.” Then when the name Jehovah became ineffable … the designation Adonai, “Lord” was substituted for it, and “…. it was owing to this substitution that the ‘Lord’ passed from the Jewish to the Christian ‘World’ as a designation of God.” And how are we to know, the author may add, that Jehovah was not many spirits personating even that seemingly one — Jod or Jod-He?

    But if the Christian Church was the first to make the existence of Satan a dogma, it was because the Devil — the powerful enemy of God (? ! !) had to become the corner stone of the pillar of the Church….(6) The choice and polity were unfortunate, anyhow. Either the personator of the lower god of Abraham and Jacob ought to have been made entirely distinct from the mystic “Father” of Jesus, or — the “Fallen” Angels should have been left unslandered by further fictions.

    Every god of the Gentiles is connected with, and closely related to, Jehovah — the Elohim; for they are all One Host, whose units differ only in name in the esoteric teachings. Between the “Obedient” and the “Fallen” Angels there is no difference whatever, except in their respective functions, or rather in the inertia of some, and the activity of others among those “Dhyan Chohans” or Elohim who were “commissioned to create,” i.e., to fabricate the manifested world out of the eternal material.

    The Kabalists say that the true name of Satan is that of Jehovah placed upside down, for “Satan is not a black god but the negation of the white deity,” or the light of Truth. God is light and Satan is the necessary darkness or shadow to set it off, without which pure light would be invisible and incomprehensible.(7) “For the initiates,” says Eliphas Lévi, “the devil is not a person but a creative Force, for Good as for Evil.” They (the Initiates) represented this Force, which presides at physical generation, under the mysterious form of God Pan — or Nature: whence the horns and hoofs of that mythical and symbolic figure, as also the Christian “goat of the Witches’ Sabbath.” With regard to this too, Christians have imprudently forgotten that the goat was also the victim selected for the atonement of all the sins of Israel, that the scape-goat was indeed the sacrificial martyr, the symbol of the greatest mystery on earth — the Fall into generation. Only the Jews have long forgotten the real meaning of their (to the non-initiated) ridiculous hero, selected from the drama of life in the great mysteries enacted by them in the desert; and the Christians never knew it.

    The philosophical systems of the Gnostics and the primitive Jewish Christians, the Nazarenes and the Ebionites show the views held in those days — outside the circle of Mosaic Jews — about Jehovah. He was identified by all the Gnostics with the evil, rather than with the good principle. For them, he was Ilda-Baoth, “the son of Darkness,” whose mother, Sophia Achamoth, was the daughter of Sophia, the Divine Wisdom (the female Holy Ghost of the early Christians) — Akâsa;(8) while Sophia Achamoth personified the lower Astral Light or Ether. Ilda-Baoth, or Jehovah, is simply one of the Elohim, the seven creative Spirits, and one of the lower Sephiroth. He produces from himself seven other Gods, “Stellar Spirits” (or the lunar ancestors), for they are all the same. They are all in his own image (the “Spirits of the Face”), and the reflections one of the other, and have become darker and more material as they successively receded from their originator. They also inhabit seven regions disposed like a ladder, as its rungs slope up and down the scale of spirit and matter. With Pagans and Christians, with Hindus and Chaldeans, with the Greek as with the Roman Catholics — with a slight variation of the texts in their interpretations — they all were the Genii of the seven planets, as of the seven planetary spheres of our septenary chain, of which Earth is the lowest. (Isis II, 186.)

    Thus “SATAN,” once he ceases to be viewed in the superstitious, dogmatic, unphilosophical spirit of the Churches, grows into the grandiose image of one who made of terrestrial a divine MAN; who gave him, throughout the long cycle of Mahâ-kalpa the law of the Spirit of Life, and made him free from the Sin of Ignorance, hence of death.

  212. Jehovah is a Terrorist

    Jehovah was a Murderer from the Beginning

  213. F. L. A. said


  214. Yes I did… And I apologize for not posting a link to post#211 as it is not my work but I posted it for the use of perspective.

    I think it’s important to have a broad perspective before making a final decision on any subject.

    There is good reason I mentioned that Mankind (not Human beings as they are two different species) or for food for the Anunnaki. The Anunnaki rebelled under the command of Jehovah / Enlil and they could remain on Earth below the surface because the Sun affects their health.

    They went into the Earth an hid there from the light and they search out certain genetic strains of DNA in Mankind of which they find easy to manipulate and possess.

    They are what people describe as Demons and yes Mankind is food for them. I practiced demonism for years and the one requirement for rendering service is blood.. Not from animals or anyone else, as it required of the Sorcerer to give of his own blood, as an offering in order to recieve service from the Demons / Anunnaki… The art has been passed down from generation to generation and often attributed to Solomon. As he perfected the art and craft capturing the Djinn / Anunnaki / Demons thus placing them in a bottle.

    Incidentally, Djinn are winged creatures and all references winged Angels refer to the Djinn / Anunnaki / Demons.

    Solomon in his own schools of Sorcery called Scholomancy.

    This knowledge helped me a whole lot with deliverance ministry.. I have many Miracles in this regard…

    But must understand once in always in… Once a Sorcerer always a Sorcerer at least from the perspective knowing about them.

    They still speak to me through other people, threatening me or my life.

    Although when it happens it is very subtle and inconspicuous.

    And as to quote a fellow Dragon concerning the Dragon lineage…

    “You don’t have to seek them out, they will seek you out.”

  215. I say this to people passing through that have had or currently have problems they are afraid to tell anyone.

    Deliverance is available to you.

    And the reason why it didn’t work in the past within the Pentecostal church or other ‘spirit filled’ churches is because most people really do not know anything about demonic oppression or possession.

    It’s not something you cast out in the ‘Name’ of Jesus… Like, “Come out of him you Demon in the name of Jesus!”

    That is hogwash and usually just makes things worse… I have seen it time in and time again…

    It’s something else and I cannot exploit here.

    And the first thing about deliverance is it is a private thing not a public spectacle as many Preachers use as a source of entertainment… Come see my horse and pony show!

    Yeah, Jesus delivered people of demons in public but you have to have someplace for them to go… And it just doesn’t work by reading scriptures and screaming at them.

    Truth Talk Live is almost borderline concerning the exploitation of desperate people and the weak of faith. And I mean if you want to talk about Sin, it is a Sin to speak about matters such as the subjects presented…

    Such as John for instance… How you presented him and allowed callers to to call in and rag on him all for ratings. I know why you do this and it’s not for Jesus… It’s the bottom line, MONEY.

    Just like if you ever decide to have me on the air it’s all for a public roasting and I know it’s not for the furthering of the Kingdom… It’s for, yet again the bottom line, MONEY.

    Not even Stu has interjected or e-mailed me nor anyone of your staff to ask or see if I be alright or with any concern of my personal well being concerning my salvation… Granted I don’t really care to have his concern but you are the People representing the Kingdom of God and all I have seen is just another Horse and Pony Show.

    What if I was desperate and wanted your help?

    I guarantee God knows what kind of Salary you draw from this Business… And it is Non-Profit Corporation… Correct?

    I know all about Corporations and the bottom line.

    Many of your regulars, who post comments on your blog are only here for entertainment value… I have yet to see one authentic true believer here… I see many people with a lot to say and many people who are even well read but I have yet to see anything inspired of Holy Spirit.

    What I see is Judgment… A lust of attacking people with the bible as a weapon… Than an istrument of Love.

    I do not know what kind of person you are STU.. In real life but what is up?

    And you do not have to tell me what your salary is, what kind of car you drive or the size of your house…

    All I can say is… if I had a radio talk show and a website and I was representing the Kingdom of God… It would not be for a profit to my pocket book nor anyone else’s.

    And I surely wouldn’t be exploiting preople for the sake of entertainment and a profit.

    Yes, I know, I’ve heard it before… It all cost money… I know for a fact there is enough money coming in off your show to more than pay your bills.

    For instance take a Church with say, 300 members… And I mean truly active, tithing members.

    Statistically speaking, you can estimate for every hundred members, at least five people take in a six figure annual income.

    And at least, twenty five members and their household, bring in between fifty to seventy thousand dollars.

    So two hundred and ten people, we’ll just say, make eighteen thousand dollars income annually.

    Thats just an average and I am playing it safe here..(And Stu, you know and any other honest church pastor knows it’s true.)


    15 make a minimum of $100,000.00 USD

    75 make a minimum of $50,000.00 USD

    210 make a minimum of $18,000.00 USD

    15 x 100,000 = 1.5 Million dollars annual income.

    10% would be 150,000 tithed dollars minimum a year.

    150,000 divided by twelve months… $12,500.00 USD

    Then heres where the real money is…

    75 x 50,000 = 3,750,000.00… Wow!

    10% would be 375,000 tithed dollars minimum a year.

    375,000 divided by twelve months… $31,250.00 USD (Thats more than the average makes in one year!)

    Finally the small potatoes (The poverty stricken masses),

    210 x 18,000 = 3,780,000.00… Wow again!

    10% would be 378,000 tithed dollars minimum a year.

    378,000 divided by twelve months… $31,500.00 USD

    TOTAL MONTHLY TITHE: $75,250.00

    TOTAL ANNUAL TITHE: $903,000.00

    What do you think the Churches do with all that Money?

    And we know most people are Compulsory when being asked to tithe and are inspired to give more than 10%. And neither is that fond thing Christians call the ‘Love Offering’ added into the equation…

    Granted 300 solid tithing members, usually means you have around 800 – 1,000 in attendance on a weekly basis, and I assure you that is a very safe assumption.

    Then you have the fund raisers for special events and services… So, the bulk of the tithe money is never touched, and easily embezzled into secondary and private accounts. The Church Entity (Protected under the Constitution) is the only Entity, that does not have to tell anyone nor any of it’s members what they do with any of the money. And that changes with private ministries as they are scrutinized heavily by the IRS.

    These numbers are based on far less than the true averages in the actual churches in America. And a business / Tax savvy Pastor can even get great deals on real estate, that would blow individual people away… It is a SIN, churches aren’t providing these cheap rates to their congregation. Not to mention, they could solve the Health Care crisis in America. Matter a’fact, if the Church was doing it’s Job in America, in the first place, there wouldn’t be homeless, hungry and poor… And there most certainly, wouldn’t be a Health Care crisis.

    If you want to know, what I believe and stand for, do not Judge me by my opinions regarding our discussions… Rather, Judge me on my actions… As that is what the Order of the Green Stagg is all about. Not about the occult, or doctrinal issues…

    It’s about Bringing the Churches (Once and for all time) to account for their crimes against the weak, the poor and the desperate masses.

    It’s about fulfilling the ‘Gospel’ literally not metaphorically as which, Christians seem to do, in order to justify to themselves… Searing thier conscience as to why they do not do more… “Well, I tithe and give to my Church, isn’t that enough?” …

    No… It’s not.

    Especially, if you do not question every Church you attend as to what they do with that money.

    And I know what it will cost me to bring this about… Everything I am. I will have to bleed and suffer for it, and in irony, at the hands of Christians no less.

  216. jAsOn said

    For all those who read Thomas’ posts,

    He said, “Comparing stats… No. You do not have any to compare.”

    ?this is ridiculous?

    he said, “Being raised a Franciscan Catholic… You grow up talking to Nuns and Priest about many subject for one the burning of Gospels by Paul and his followers…

    Many of the surviving Gospels are being stored in the vaults beneath the Vatican.”

    The “gospels” to which he refers you in the link are the “Nag Hammadi” library of Gnostic tests.

    He claims that Paul and his followers burned them…none of them were even written until the second century (that’s 100-200 AD)and the “gospel” of Nicodemus has such a wide variety of styles that NO ONE in their right historical mind believes that they were from one author; the earliest section may have been written as early as the end of the second century (175-200)and even that is largely disputed, but the other sections were even later than that. The “gospel” of Thomas has a date only as early as 165, and far from Jerusalem and it was written in Coptic.

    The fact is, that no serious historian, theologian, or scholar believes that the gnostic writtings were ever seriously considered as the revelation of God…of course Thomas doesn’t believe that God has clearly spoken to His creatures anyway, & he believes that the God of the Bible is Satan b/c the relativistic absurdity from which he forms his worldview blinds him to the truth.

    Rom 1 “21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

    2 Tim 3 “1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. 6 For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.”

    Thomas also refered to me as a “bigot”. Here is the definition of bigot:

    “: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”

    If the first half is true, it could be said of virtually every person in history who is consifered great (even peacemakers and Thomas himself) and if the second half is that part he is leveling at me, I’d like to know how it applies.

  217. Jason You are an intellectual Bigot.

    You demand proof of things while not providing any your self.


    by Kelsos


    Listed are only events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)

    Ancient Pagans

    * As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
    * Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
    * Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
    * Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as “temple destroyer.” [DA468]
    * Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
    * Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
    According to Christian chroniclers he “followed meticulously all Christian teachings…”
    * In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
    * In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
    * The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.


    * Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
    * Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
    * Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
    * 15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
    * 16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops “pacified and civilized” Ireland, where only Gaelic “wild Irish”, “unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing.” One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that “the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies… and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie”, which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused “greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde”.
    Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

    Crusades (1095-1291)

    * First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
    * Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
    * 9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
    * Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
    * after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
    Here the Christians “did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy’s] tents – save that they ran their lances through their bellies,” according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
    * Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine “the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians” said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
    * Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
    (In the words of one witness: “there [in front of Solomon’s temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes”, and after that “happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour’s tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude”)
    * The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: “It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished.” [TG79]
    * Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that “even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition”. One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
    * Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered “in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ”. [WW45]
    * Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
    * Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224]

    Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.


    * Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
    * Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
    * Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
    The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
    Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
    * Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
    * subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
    * After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
    * Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
    * Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
    * Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
    * John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
    * University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
    * Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.


    * from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
    * in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
    * incomplete list of documented cases:
    The Burning of Witches – A Chronicle of the Burning Times

    Religious Wars

    * 15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
    * 1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
    * 1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain. [DO31]
    * 1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
    * 17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, “cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals… and then dumped him into the river […but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [… and] dragged what was left … to the gallows of Montfaulcon, ‘to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows’.” [SH191]
    * 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. “In a single church fifty women were found beheaded,” reported poet Friedrich Schiller, “and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers.” [SH191]
    * 17th century 30 years’ war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]


    * Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
    * In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
    * 17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
    * The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities’ Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
    * First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
    * Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
    * Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
    * Fulda/Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
    * 1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
    * 1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
    * 1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
    * 1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
    * 1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
    * 1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
    * 1391 Seville’s Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored “badges of shame” that all jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
    * 1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
    * 1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]

    (I feel sick …) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.

    Native Peoples

    * Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
    * Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, “ought to be good servants … [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion.” [SH200]
    While Columbus described the Indians as “idolators” and “slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order,” his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as “beasts” because “they eat when they are hungry,” and made love “openly whenever they feel like it.” [SH204-205]
    * On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, “making the declarations that are required” – the requerimiento – to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And “nobody objected.” If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:

    I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you … and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church … and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him.” [SH66]

    * Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: “justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England … to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, … and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ.” [SH235]
    * In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of “the marvelous goodness and providence of God” to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as “for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess.” [SH109,238]
    * On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
    * The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
    * As one of the culprits wrote: “So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous.” [SH69]
    * The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As “they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell.” [SH70]
    * What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
    “The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties … They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles… then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive.” [SH72]
    Or, on another occasion:
    “The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts…Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs.” [SH83]
    * The “island’s population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus’s arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out.” Eventually all the island’s natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were “forced” to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus “the Caribbean’s millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century”. [SH72-73] “In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated.” [SH75]
    * “And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next.” [SH75]
    * Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
    * “When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead.” [SH95]

    Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of Amerikkka.

    * Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: “Their Warres are farre less bloudy…”, so that there usually was “no great slawter of nether side”. Indeed, “they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men.” What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
    * In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown – “being idell … did runne away unto the Indyans,” – to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
    “Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: ‘Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe’.” [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen: “This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia” methods were different: “when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community” down. [SH105]
    * On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the “Peqout War”. The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
    * When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief’s pledge they attacked.
    Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
    The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: “And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished … God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven … Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies”: men, women, children. [SH113-114]
    * So “the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance”. [SH111].
    * Because of his readers’ assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
    “Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them…” (Deut 20)
    * Mason’s comrade Underhill recalled how “great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers” yet reassured his readers that “sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents”. [SH114]
    * Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists’ own words: “blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them.” (This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)
    In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
    * The surviving handful of Indians “were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for ‘a share’ of the captives, specifically ‘a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good’.” [SH115]
    * Other tribes were to follow the same path.
    * Comment the Christian exterminators: “God’s Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!”
    “Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!” [TA]
    * Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. “Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians ‘grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie’, advised the Council of State in Virginia, ‘we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne’.” [SH106]
    * In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
    * In a single massacre in “King Philip’s War” of 1675 and 1676 some “600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a ‘barbeque’.” [SH115]
    * To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive – a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 – 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 – 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive – 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
    * All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
    * A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
    * In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.

    More Glorious events in US history

    * Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England’s most esteemed religious leaders, in “1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs ‘to hunt Indians as they do bears’.” [SH241]
    * Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church (“I long to be wading in gore”) had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs’ waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
    From an eye-witness account: “There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed …” [SH131]
    More gory details.
    * By the 1860s, “in Hawai’i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands’ native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to ‘the amputation of diseased members of the body’.” [SH244]

    20th Century Church Atrocities

    * Catholic extermination camps
    Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
    In these camps – the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar – orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi “Sicherheitsdient der SS”, watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
    * Catholic terror in Vietnam
    In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters – the Viet Minh – had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican’s spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam “Soldiers of Christ”, a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
    Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.
    The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
    o “Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp.”

    Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in “detention camps.” Out of protest dozens of buddhist teachers – male and female – and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded – mostly in street riots – 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].
    To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI’s lost their life.
    * Christianity kills the cat
    On July 1, 1976, Anneliese Michel, a 23-year-old student of a teachers college in Germany, died: she starved herself to death. For months she had been haunted by demonic visions and apparitions, and for months two Catholic priests – with explicit approval of the Catholic bishop of Wrzburg – additionally pestered and tormented the wretched girl with their exorcist rituals. After her death in Klingenberg hospital – her body was littered with wounds – her parents, both of them fanatical Catholics, were sentenced to six months for not having called for medical help. None of the priests was punished: on the contrary, Miss Michel’s grave today is a place of pilgrimage and worship for a number of similarly faithful Catholics (in the seventeenth century Wrzburg was notorious for it’s extensive witch burnings).
    This case is only the tip of an iceberg of such evil superstition and has become known only because of its lethal outcome. [SP80]
    * Rwanda Massacres
    In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
    For quite some time I heard only rumours about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
    Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany – a station not at all critical to Christianity – the following was stated:
    o “Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda’s capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees – women, children, old – being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.
    According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
    In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive…” [S2]
    * As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end.

    If today Christians talk to me about morality, this is why they make me sick.


    K.Deschner, Abermals krhte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962.
    K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987.
    P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985.
    S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977.
    H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961.
    M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People.
    A.Manhattan, The Vatican’s Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
    See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992.
    J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992.
    Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00.
    D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992.
    German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996.
    A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676.
    F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980.
    H.Wollschlger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zrich 1973.
    (This is in german and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is the best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of original medieval Christian chroniclers’ writings).
    Estimates on the number of executed witches:

    * N.Cohn, Europe’s Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Frogmore 1976, 253.
    * R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York 1959, 180.
    * J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
    * H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954, 56.

    Chemical And Biological Terrorism

    Imported smallpox:
    1 -• In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began.
    This was a great sign of (“the marvelous goodness and providence of God”) to the Christians of course…

    2 -• On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead.[SH204]

    3 -• The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and Spanish raids.

    3 -• As one of the culprits wrote: “So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous.” [SH69]

    4 -• The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and (burned alive).

    As “they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that (if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell.”)[SH70]

    This is some of what Christians do wherever they go.

    – Imported illness (smallpox)
    – Burning people alive.
    – Rape.
    – murder.
    – enslavement.
    – Killing innocent people for no reason…

    Jesus has nothing to do with all shameful deeds (crimes) committed in His name…

    But I guarantee Paul does as his Epistles are used to Justify evil repeatedly.

    So keep on… As I have seen the Judgment continues…

  218. Tripp said

    Thomas – Are you going to also give us a run-down on the killing that has been done by radical Islamic terrorists in the name of Allah since the religion came into existence? What are your thoughts on the genocide that is currently taking place in Darfur? Do you think Idi Amin is a hero? Sadam Hussein killed thousands of his own Iraqi people. Why didn’t you mention that on here? Your comments are very lopsided. It’s almost as if you are bent on destroying Christianity. You come on here and complain that nobody has reached out to you and shown compassion to you personally, yet you blaspheme and insult the very God the majority of the readers on here worship. What do you expect, Thomas? You show no respect. At least with John and the Wiccans on here we try to show respect to one another’s personal beliefs and stick to the debate at hand. Even the debate between Mormons and Christians, while heated at times, is civil. You’re lashing out on here and expecting people to feel sorry for you and the life you’ve chosen. Honestly, it is getting quite tiring.

  219. jAsOn said

    Thomas said,
    “This is some of what Christians do wherever they go.

    – Imported illness (smallpox)
    – Burning people alive.
    – Rape.
    – murder.
    – enslavement.
    – Killing innocent people for no reason…

    Jesus has nothing to do with all shameful deeds (crimes) committed in His name…

    But I guarantee Paul does as his Epistles are used to Justify evil repeatedly.

    So keep on… As I have seen the Judgment continues…”

    But Thomas fails to mention why PAul would argue AGAINST such “crimes” in his NT epistles, and infact describes that Christians should be just the opposite in Gal 5 as he presents the fruit of the Spirit.

    Just b/c some who call themselves Christians have committed these acts doesn’t mean that Thomas can claim that PAul told them to.


    Thomas has forsaken actually history for the fantasy that will allow him to remain in darkness as he suppresses the truth in his unrighteousness.

    He calls me an “intellectual bigot” b/c I demanded proof of Thomas’ ridiculous claims that Paul contradicted Jesus, and he produced intellectually retarded interpretations of the NT writtings, so I rebutted those false interpretations by providing sound exegeses of those passages and he never answered my rebutals.

    He calls me an “intellectual bigot” b/c I demanded proof of Thomas’ ridiculous claims on history using sources of which even wikepeda says are disputted.

    What Thomas should do is answer the objections I made to the Na Hammadi and the common scholarship written that rebukes the historical inaccuracies generally spewed in the gnostic writtings. I claim that the burden of proof is with Thomas, and he has yet to provide a credible source proving that the gnostic gospels were written in the first century, or that they were ever considered anything but outside of scripture (in some cases they were imediately considered heretical) nor has he proven in like fashion that there was a conspiracy to hid the “truth” about Christ, the crucifiction or any other historically varifiable fact that actually validates what we have written in Paul’s letters.

    I guess I am an “intellectual bigot” if that means that I demand to hear historical evidence from sources of rational thought.

  220. Dude you are so deluded by nonsense…
    How can you read Paul’s words in comparison to Jesus and James and not see a difference?

    It’s not that I do not have faith in Jesus or in whom he called, ‘Father’…

    I just do not have faith in Paul and I cannot find and old Testament or anything from Jesus written in the Gospel about Paul.

    And I cannot find any agreement between what Paul taught and what it is found in the dead sea scrolls… Nor the history of the Essenes, nor the Nazarenes.

    Paul even declares it is a dishonor to to a Man to have his head covered… When no where can a reference be found such an Ideal… Even when considering the requirement for Nazarene to cut his hair after a vow be made… Or how about the requirement for a full beard for a person to even be considered a Priest… And the double beard of the Nazarene by age 44..?

    I have showed you enough that you cannot explain away even with your silly semantics… Of I which find insulting considering your in ability to prove yourself or show one shred of evidence that Paul ever even met Jesus…

    Other than his Testimony alone.

    Although, I do believe I have supplied enough evidence form the Bible displays blatant contradictions…

    You want historical evidence read it online or go Buy all of Laurence Gardner’s books, starting with ‘Bloodline of the Holy Grail’ of which has been stamped with approval of many academic and scholarly sources.

    Bloodline of the Holy Grail
    The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed
    by Laurence Gardner

    The time-honoured quest for the Holy Grail has been referred to by some as the ‘ultimate quest’, but in 1547 the Church condemned Grail lore as a heresy even though tradition perceives the Grail as a thoroughly Christian relic.

    A heresy is described as ‘an opinion which is contrary to the orthodox dogma of the Christian bishops’. The word ‘heresy’ is nothing more than a derogatory label – a tag used by a fearful establishment that has long sought to maintain control of society through fear of the unknown. It can therefore define those aspects of philosophy and research which quest into the realms of the unknown and which, from time to time, provide answers and solutions that are quite contrary to authorized doctrine.

    As the years progress, however, it is evident that scientific and medical discovery must overturn much of the medieval religious dogma that has persisted to modern times. And, in this regard, some previously cited heresies are already being taken on board by a Church that has little option to do otherwise. So, let us begin with the most obvious of all questions: What is the Holy Grail?

    The word ‘Gra-al’ originates from ancient Mesopotamia, where it was recorded as being the ‘nectar of supreme excellence’. It was directly related to the bloodline of kings who descended from the gods – those monarchs who were anointed with the fat of the sacred Mûs-hûs: a type of monitor-crocodile in the Euphrates Valley. By virtue of this anointing, the kings were also called Mûs-hûs (or, in Egypt, Messeh) – a term which in the later Hebrew tongue became Messiah, meaning Anointed One.

    By medieval times in Europe, this line of kingly descent was defined by the French word Sangréal, meaning Blood Royal. This was the Blood Royal of Judah – the line of King David which progressed to the family of Jesus. By the Middle Ages, the definition Sangréal became San Graal. When written more fully it was Saint Graal – the word ‘saint’, of course, relating to ‘holy’. Then, by a natural linguistic process, came the more romantically familiar English term, Holy Grail.

    In symbolic terms the Grail is often portrayed as a chalice that contains the blood of Jesus. Alternatively it is portrayed as a vine of grapes. The product of grapes is wine, and it is the chalice and the wine of Grail tradition that sit at the very heart of the Eucharist (the Holy Communion). In this sacrament, the sacred chalice contains the wine that represents the perpetual blood of Jesus.

    It is quite apparent that, although maintaining the ancient Communion custom, the Christian Church has conveniently ignored and elected not to teach the true meaning and origin of the custom. Few people even think to enquire about the ultimate symbolism of the chalice and wine sacrament, believing that it comes simply from some Gospel entries relating to the Last Supper. But what is the significance of the perpetual blood of Jesus? How is the blood of Jesus (or of anyone else for that matter) perpetuated? It is perpetuated through family and lineage. So why was it that the Church authorities elected to ignore the bloodline significance of the Grail sacrament?

    The fact is that every Government and every Church teaches the form of history or dogma most conducive to its own vested interest. In this regard we are all conditioned to receiving a very selective form of teaching. We are taught what we are supposed to know, and we are told what we’re supposed to believe. But, for the most part, we learn both political and religious history by way of national or clerical propaganda. This often becomes absolute dogma – teachings which may not be challenged for fear of reprisals. With regard to the Church’s attitude towards the chalice and the wine, it is apparent that the original symbolism had to be reinterpreted by the bishops because it denoted that Jesus had offspring.

    The 2nd-century chronicler Julius Africanus of Edessa recorded that, during the Jewish Revolt from AD 66, the Roman governor of Jerusalem instructed the troops that all Messianic records should be burned so as to prevent future access to the details of Jesus’ family genealogy. He added, however, that “A few careful people had private records … and took pride in preserving the memory of their aristocratic origin”. Africanus described these royal inheritors as the Desposyni – a hallowed style meaning Heirs of the Lord.

    Subsequently, the Palestinian historian, Hegesippus, reported that in AD 81 (during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian) the execution of these family inheritors was ordered by Imperial decree. It was then later confirmed by Eusebius, the 4th-century Bishop of Caesarea, that they were hunted down and put to the sword – first by command of the Empire and then by the newly introduced Roman Church.

    The writers were unanimous, however, in stating that although many of the Desposyni were seized, others became leaders of a Nazarene church movement that opposed the Church of Rome, with leaders who became the heads of their sects by way of a “strict dynastic progression”. Hence, the required destruction of records was far from complete, and relevant documents were retained by Jesus’ heirs, who brought the Messianic heritage from the Holy Land to the West.

    Not only were sacraments and customary ritual reinterpreted, but the Gospels themselves were corrupted to comply with the newly designated ‘male-only’ establishment of the emergent hybrid Church. We are all familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – but what about the other Gospels: those of Philip, of Thomas, of Mary and of Mary Magdalene? What of all the numerous Gospels, Acts and Epistles that were not approved by the Church councils when the New Testament was compiled? Why were they excluded when the choices were made?

    There were actually two main criteria for selection, and these (from an earlier short-list prepared by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria) were determined at the Council of Carthage in the year AD 397.

    The first criterion was that the New Testament Gospels must be written in the names of Jesus’ own apostles. Matthew was, of course, an apostle, as was John – but Mark was not an apostle of Jesus as far as we know, neither was Luke; they were both colleagues of the later St. Paul. Thomas and Philip, on the other hand, were among the original twelve, and yet the Gospels in their names were excluded. Not only that but, along with various other texts, they was sentenced to be destroyed. And so, throughout the Mediterranean world, numerous unapproved books were buried and hidden in the 5th century.

    Although many of these books were not rediscovered until the 20th century, they were used openly by the early Christians. Certain of them, including the Gospels mentioned, along with the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of the Egyptians and others, were actually mentioned in the 2nd-century writings of early churchmen such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon and Origen of Alexandria.

    So, why were these and other apostolic Gospels not selected? Because there was a second, far more important criterion to consider – the criterion by which, in truth, the Gospel selection was really made. It was, in fact, a wholly sexist regulation which precluded anything that upheld the status of women in Church or community society. Indeed, the Church’s own Apostolic Constitutions were formulated on this basis. They state: “We do not permit our women to teach in the Church, only to pray and to hear those who teach. Our master, when he sent us the twelve, did nowhere send out a woman – for the head of the woman is the man, and it is not reasonable that the body should govern the head”.

    This was an outrageous statement with no apparent foundation, but it was for this very reason that dozens of Gospels were not selected, because they made it quite clear that there were many active women in the ministry of Jesus – women such as Mary Magdalene, Martha, Helena-Salome, Mary-Jacob Cleopas and Joanna. These were not only ministering disciples, but priestesses in their own right, running exemplary schools of worship in the Nazarene tradition.

    The Church was so frightened of women that it implemented a rule of celibacy for its priests – a rule that became a law in 1138; a rule that persists today. But this rule has never been quite what it appears on the surface, for it was never sexual activity as such that bothered the Church. The more specific problem was priestly intimacy with women. Why? Because women become mothers, and the very nature of motherhood is a perpetuation of bloodlines. It was this that caused such concern – a taboo subject which, at all costs, had to be separated from the necessary image of Jesus.

    We have all learned to go along with what we are taught about the Gospels in schoolrooms and churches. But is the teaching correctly related? Does it always conform with the written scriptures? It is actually quite surprising how much we learn from pulpits or picture-books without checking the biblical text. The Nativity story itself provides a good example.

    It is widely accepted that Jesus was born in a stable – but the Gospels do not say that. In fact, there is no ‘stable’ mentioned in any authorised Gospel. The Nativity is not mentioned at all in Mark or John, and Matthew makes it quite plain that Jesus was born in a house.

    So where did the ‘stable’ idea come from? It came from a misinterpretation of the Gospel of Luke, which relates that Jesus was ‘laid in a manger’ – and a manger was nothing more than an animal feeding-box. In practice, it was perfectly common for mangers to be used as emergency cradles and they were often brought indoors for that very purpose. Why, then, has it been presumed that this particular manger was in a stable? Because the English translations of Luke tell us that there was ‘no room in the inn’. But the old manuscript of Luke did not say that. In fact, there were no inns in the region.

    The original Greek text of Luke does not relate that there was ‘no room in the inn’. By the best translation it actually states that there was ‘no place in the room’ (that is: ‘no topos in the kataluma’). As previously mentioned, Matthew states that Jesus was born in a house and, when correctly translated, Luke reveals that Jesus was laid in a manger (a feeding-box) because there was no cradle provided in the room.

    To facilitate the best possible trust in the Gospels, we must go back to the original Greek manuscripts with their often used Hebrew and Aramaic words and phrases. In this respect, we discover that a good deal of relevant content has been misrepresented, misunderstood, mistranslated, or simply just lost in the telling. Sometimes this has happened because original words have no direct counterpart in other languages.

    Christians are taught that Jesus’ father Joseph was a carpenter, as explained in the English-language Gospels. But it did not say that in the original Gospels. By the best translation, it actually said that Joseph was a “master craftsman” (rendered in Greek as ‘ho tekton’ from the Semitic term ‘naggar’). The word ‘carpenter’ was simply a translator’s concept of a craftsman – but the text actually denoted that Joseph was a masterly, learned and scholarly man.

    Another example is the concept of the Virgin Birth. English-language Gospels tell us that Jesus’ mother Mary was a ‘virgin’. It was the same in an early Latin text which referred to her as being a ‘virgo’, meaning nothing more than a young woman. To have meant the same thing as virgin does today, the Latin would have been ‘virgo intacta’ – that is to say, a young woman intact. Looking back beyond the Latin to the older documents, we discover that the word translated to ‘virgo’ (a young woman) was the Semitic word ‘almah’ which meant the very same – a young woman. It had no sexual connotation whatever. Had Mary actually been physically virgo intacta, the Semitic word used would have been ‘bethulah’, not ‘almah’.

    Apart from such anomalies, the canonical Gospels suffer from numerous purposeful amendments. In about AD 195, Bishop Clement of Alexandria made the first known amendment to the Gospel texts. He deleted a substantial section from the Gospel of Mark and justified his action in a letter, stating: “For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not agree with them – for not all true things are to be said to all men”.

    Even at that stage, there was already a discrepancy between what the Gospel writers had written and what the early bishops wanted to teach! But what exactly was in this removed section of Mark? It was the item which dealt with the raising of Lazarus – in the course of which the account made it perfectly clear that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were man and wife.

    Many scholars have suggested that the wedding at Cana was the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene – but this was not the wedding ceremony as such, being simply the pre-marital betrothal feast. The marriage is defined by the quite separate anointings of Jesus by Mary at Bethany. Chronologically, these anointings (as given in the Gospels) were two-and-a-half years apart.

    Readers of the 1st century would have been fully conversant with the two-part ritual of the sacred marriage of a dynastic heir. Jesus, as we know, was a Messiah, which means quite simply an Anointed One. In fact, all anointed senior priests and Davidic kings were Messiahs; Jesus was not unique in this regard. Although not an ordained priest, he gained his right to Messiah status by way of descent from King David and the kingly line, but he did not achieve that status until he was ritually anointed by Mary Magdalene in her capacity as a bridal high priestess.

    In the Old Testament’s Song of Solomon we learn of the bridal anointing of the king. It is detailed that the oil used in Judah was the fragrant ointment of spikenard (an expensive root oil from the Himalayas), and it is explained that this ritual was performed while the kingly husband sat at the table. In the New Testament, the anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was indeed performed while he sat at the table, and specifically with the bridal ointment of spikenard. Afterwards, Mary wiped Jesus’ feet with her hair and, on the first occasion of the two-part ceremony, she wept. All of these things signify the marital anointing of a dynastic heir.

    Messianic marriages were always conducted in two stages. The first (the anointing in Luke) was the legal commitment to wedlock, while the second (the later anointing in Matthew, Mark and John) was the cementing of the contract. In Jesus and Mary’s case the second anointing was of particular significance for, as explained by Flavius Josephus in the 1st-century Antiquities of the Jews, the second part of the marriage ceremony was never conducted until the wife was three months pregnant.

    Dynastic heirs such as Jesus were expressly required to perpetuate their lines. Marriage was essential, but community law protected the dynasts against marriage to women who proved barren or kept miscarrying. This protection was provided by the three-month pregnancy rule. Miscarriages would not often happen after that term, subsequent to which it was considered safe enough to complete the marriage contract.

    After the second Bethany anointing, the Gospels relate that Jesus said: “Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her”. But did the Church authorities honour Mary Magdalene and speak of this act as a memorial? No they did not; they completely ignored Jesus’ own directive and denounced Mary as a whore.

    To the Nazarenes, however, Mary Magdalene was always regarded as a saint. She is still revered as such by many today, with numerous churches dedicated to her in the Renaissance era. But the interesting fact of this sainthood is that Mary is the recognized patron saint of wine-growers – the ultimate Grail guardian of the Vine.

    Aspects of the Gospels can actually be followed outside the Bible. Even the crucifixion sentence of Jesus is mentioned in the Annals of Imperial Rome. We can now determine from chronological survey that the Crucifixion took place at the March Passover of AD 33, while the Bethany second marriage anointing was in the week prior to that. We also know that, at that stage, Mary Magdalene was three months pregnant – which means she should have given birth in September of AD 33.

    As for Jesus’ death on the cross, it is perfectly clear this was spiritual death, not physical death, as determined by a three-day excommunication rule that everybody in the 1st century would have understood. In civil and legal terms, Jesus was denounced, scourged and prepared for death by decree. For three days Jesus would have been nominally ‘sick’, with absolute ‘death’ coming on the fourth day. Prior to this he would be entombed (buried alive) in accordance with Jewish Council law – but during the first three days he could be raised or resurrected, as he had predicted would be the case.

    Raisings and resurrections could only be performed by the High Priest or by the Father of the Community. The High Priest at that time was Joseph Caiaphas (the very man who condemned Jesus), therefore the raising had to be performed by the patriarchal Father. There are Gospel accounts of Jesus talking to the Father from the cross, culminating in “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” – and the appointed Father of the day was the Magian apostle Simon Zelotes.

    During that Friday afternoon when Jesus was on the Cross, there was a forward time change, and the Gospels explain that the land fell into darkness for three hours. The Hebrew lunarists made their change during the daytime, but the Nazarene solarists did not make their change until midnight. This explains why, according to the Gospel of Mark (which relates to lunar time), Jesus was crucified at the third hour, but in John (which uses solar time) he was crucified at the sixth hour.

    On that evening the Hebrews began their Sabbath at the old nine o’clock, but the Essenes and Magians still had three hours to go before their Sabbath. During those extra three hours they were able to work with Jesus while others were not allowed to undertake any physical activity. It was for this reason that the women were so astonished when they found the tomb-stone moved at daybreak on the Sunday – not because it was moved, but because it had been moved on the Sabbath.

    And so we come to one of the most misunderstood events in the Bible – the Ascension. And in consideration of this, the births of Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s children become apparent.

    We know from Gospel chronology that the Bethany second-marriage anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was in the week before the Crucifixion (at the time of the March Passover). Also that, at that stage, Mary was three-months pregnant and should, therefore, have given birth six months later in the notional month of September AD 33. The story is taken up in the Acts of the Apostles, which detail for that month the event which we have come to know as the Ascension.

    One thing which the Acts do not do, however, is to call the event the Ascension. This was a tag established by way of a Church doctrine more than three centuries later. What the Bible text actually says is: “And when he had spoken these things … he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight”.

    It then continues, relating that a man in white said to the disciples: “Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus … shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go”. Then, a little later in the Acts, it says that heaven must receive Jesus until ‘the times of restitution’.

    Given that this was the very month in which Mary Magdalene’s child was due, is there perhaps some connection between Mary’s confinement and the so-called Ascension? There certainly is, and the connection is made by virtue of the said ‘times of restitution’.

    Not only were there rules to govern the marriage ceremony of a Messianic heir, but so too were there rules to govern the marriage itself. The rules of dynastic wedlock were quite unlike the Jewish family norm, and Messianic parents were formally separated at the birth of a child. Even prior to this, intimacy between a dynastic husband and wife was only allowed in December, so that births of heirs would always fall in the month equivalent to September – the month of Atonement, the holiest month of the calendar.

    From the moment of a dynastic birth, the parents were physically separated – for six years if the child was a boy and for three years if the child was a girl. Their marriage would only be recommenced at designated ‘times of restitution’. Meanwhile, the mother and child would enter the equivalent of a convent and the father would enter the kingdom of heaven. This kingdom was the Essene high monastery at Mird, by the Dead Sea, and the ceremony of entry was conducted by the angelic priests under the supervision of the appointed leader of the pilgrims. In the Old Testament book of Exodus, the Israelite pilgrims were led into the Holy Land by a cloud and, in accordance with this continued Exodus imagery, the priestly leader of the pilgrims was designated with the title Cloud.

    So, if we read the Acts verses as they were intended to be understood, we see that Jesus was taken up by the Cloud (the leader of the pilgrims) to the kingdom of heaven (the high monastery), whereupon the man in white (an angelic priest) said that Jesus would return at the times of restitution (when his earthly marriage was restored).

    If we now look at St Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews we discover that he explains the said Ascension event in some greater detail. Paul tells of how Jesus was admitted to the priesthood of heaven when he actually had no entitlement to that sacred office. He explains that Jesus was born (through his father Joseph) into the Davidic line of Judah – a line which held the right of kingship but had no right to priesthood, for this was the sole prerogative of the family of Levi. However, says Paul, a special dispensation was granted, and that “for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law”.

    In September AD 33, therefore, the first child of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was born, and Jesus duly entered the kingdom of heaven. By following the chronology of the Acts, we see that in September AD 37 a second child was born, followed by another in AD 44. With the period between the first and second births being just four years, we know that the first child was a daughter. The period from the second birth to the next time of restitution in AD 43 was six years, which denotes that the AD 37 child was a son. Subsequent information reveals that the third child was also a son.

    Prior to the birth of her second son in AD 44, Mary Magdalene was exiled from Judaea following a political uprising in which she was implicated. Along with Philip, Lazarus and a few retainers, she travelled to live at the Herodian estate near Lyon, in Gaul (which later became France).

    From the earliest times, through the medieval era, to the great Renaissance, Mary’s flight was portrayed in illuminated manuscripts and great artworks alike. Her life and work in Provence, especially in the Languedoc region, appeared not only in works of European history but also in the Roman Church liturgy – until her story was suppressed by the Vatican in the 16th century.

    We can now return to the Grail’s traditional symbolism as a chalice containing the blood of Jesus. We can also consider graphic designs dating back well beyond the Dark Ages to about 3500 BC and, in doing this, we discover that a chalice or a cup was the longest-standing symbol of the female. Its representation was that of the sacred vessel of the ‘vas uterus’. And so, when fleeing into Gaul, Mary Magdalene carried the Sangréal (the nectar of supreme excellence) in the sacred chalice of her womb.

    From this point in the 1st century, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, takes up the individual stories of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and their offspring, following their descendants through the course of their turbulent history, which led to the great Inquisition and beyond.

    It is an account of Messianic descent against which the bishops’ only recourse was to denigrate the position of women in its ecclesiastical structure. Throughout this history, however, Grail lore has always been consistent in its social prediction that only when the Messianic wound has been healed, will the wasteland return to fertility.

  221. Josephus reports four main sects or schools of Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots. The earliest followers of Jesus were known as Nazarenes, and perhaps later, Ebionites, and form an important part of the picture of Palestinian Jewish groups in late 2nd Temple times.

    The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of the mostly Jewish/Israelite, followers of John the Baptizer, and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions, and led by “James the Just,” oldest brother of Jesus, flourishing between the years 30-80 CE. They were zealous for the Torah, and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, accepting non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21). The term Ebionite (from Hebrew ’Evyonim) means “Poor Ones,” and was taken from the teachings of Jesus: Blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom of God” based on Isaiah 66:2 and other related texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones. Nazarene comes from the Hebrew word Netzer, drawn from Isa 11:1 and means a Branch—so the Nazarenes were the “Branchites,” or followers of the one they believed to be the Branch. The term Nazarene was likely the one first used for these followers of Jesus, as evidenced by Acts 24:5 where Paul is called “the ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” Here we see the word used in a similar way to that of Josephus in writing of the four sects/schools of Judaism: Pharisees; Sadducess; Essenes; and Zealots. So the term Nazarene is probably the best and broadest term for the movement, while Ebionite (Poor Ones) was used as well, along with a whole list of other terms: Saints, Children of Light, the Way, New Covenanters, et al. We also know from the book of Acts that the group itself preferred the designation “The Way” (see Acts 24:14;22, etc.). The term “Christian,” first used in Greek speaking areas for the movement, actually is an attempt to translate the term Nazarene, and basically means a “Messianist.”

    The Essenes (possibly from ‘Ossim, meaning “Doers of Torah”), who wrote or collected the Dead Sea Scrolls, pioneered certain aspects of this “Way,” over 150 years before the birth of Jesus. They were a wilderness (out in the Arava, near the Dead Sea based on Isa 40:3)), “baptist” (mikveh of repentance as entrance requirement into their fellowship), new covenant, messianic/apocalyptic group (they were expecting three redemptive Figures—the Prophet like Moses and his two Messiahs), that saw themselves as the remnant core of God’s faithful people—preparing the Way for the return of YHVH’s Glory (Kavod) as set forth in Isaiah 40-66. They too referred to themselves as the Way, the Poor, the Saints, the New Covenanters, Children of Light, and so forth. Perhaps their most common designation was the Yachad–the brotherhood or community, and they referred to themselves as brother and sister. They were bitterly opposed to the corrupt Priests in Jerusalem, to the Herods, and even to the Pharisees whom they saw as compromising with that establishment to get power and influence from the Hellenistic/Roman powers. They had their own developed Halacha (interpretation of Torah), some aspects of which Jesus picks up (ideal of no divorce, not using oaths, etc.). They followed one they called the True Teacher (Teacher of Righteousness) whom most scholars believe lived in the 1st century B.C.E. and was opposed and possibly killed by the Hasmonean King/Priests at the instigation of the Pharisees. John the Baptizer seems to arise out of this context and rekindle the apocalyptic fervor of the movement in the early decades of the first century C.E.

    So, the terminology is flexible, there are a variety of self-designations used by the Jesus movement, most of which had previously been used by the Essenes. In that sense you might call the Jesus movement a further developed messianic “Essenism,” modified through the powerful, prophetic influence of Jesus as Teacher.

    Later, when Christianity developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and gradually lost its Jewish roots and heritage, largely severing its Palestinian connections, the Gentile, Roman Catholic Church historians began to refer to Ebionites and Nazarenes as two separate groups—and indeed, by the late 2nd century there might have been a split between these mostly Jewish followers of Jesus. The distinction these writers make, (and remember, they universally despise these people and call them “Judaizers”) is that the Ebionites reject Paul, and the doctrine of the Virgin Birth or “divinity” of Jesus, use only the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and are thus more extreme in their Judaism. They describe the Nazarenes more positively as those who accept Paul (with caution) and believe in some aspect of the divinity of Jesus (virgin born, etc.). What we have to keep in mind in reading these accounts from the Church fathers is that they are strongly prejudiced against this group(s) and claim to have replaced Judaism entirely with the new religion of Christianity, overthrowing the Torah for both Gentile and Jew.

    I think it best today to use the collective term Ebionite/Nazarene in an attempt to capture the whole of this earliest movement, and it would be useful to revive the term Yachad as a collective designation for the community of the Hasidim/Saints. I use Ebionite/Nazarene as an historical designation to refer to those original, 1st century, largely Palestinian, followers of Jesus, gathered around Yaaqov (James) in Jerusalem, who were zealous for the Torah, but saw themselves as part of the New Covenant Way inaugurated by their “True Teacher” Jesus. James is a key and neglected figure in this whole picture. As the blood brother of Jesus, authority and rights of guidance were passed on to him. When he was brutally murder in 62 CE by the High Priest Ananus (see Josephus, Antiquities 20.197ff), Simeon, a second brother [sic “cousin” according to Hegesippus] of Jesus, took over the leadership of the Jerusalem based movement. Clearly we have the idea here of a blood-line dynasty, and according to the Gospel of Thomas, discovered in 1946 in upper Egypt, this dynastic succession was ordained by Jesus himself who tells his followers who ask him who will lead them when he leaves: “No matter where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being” (GT 12). Indeed, when Simeon was crucified by the Emperor Trajan around 106 C.E., a third brother of Jesus, Judas, took over the leadership of the community.

    As far as “beliefs” of the Ebionites, the documents of the New Testament, critically evaluated, are among our best sources. There are fragments and quotations surviving from their Hebrew Gospel tradition (see see A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, E. J. Brill, 1992), as well as the text of “Hebrew Matthew” preserved by Ibn Shaprut, and now published in a critical edition by George Howard (The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Mercer University Press, 1995). Based on what we can reliably put together from other sources we can say the Ebionite/Nazarene movement could be distinguished by the following views:

    1. Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, or True Teacher (but not to be confused with YHVH God of Israel), who will anoint his Messiahs on his right and left hand when he is revealed in power following his rejection and death. These two figures, the Davidic Nasi (Prince of the Yachad) and Priest, will rule with him in the Kingdom of God.
    2. Disdain for eating meat and even the Temple slaughter of animals, preferring the ideals of the pre-Flood diet and what they took to be the original ideal of worship (see Gen 9:1-5; Jer 7:21-22; Isa 11:9; 66:1-4). A general interest in seeking the Path reflected in the pre-Sinai revelation, especially the time from Enoch to Noah. For example, divorce was shunned, even though technically it was later allowed by Moses.
    3. Dedication to following the whole Torah, as applicable to Israel and to Gentiles, but through the “easy yoke” halacha of their Teacher Jesus, which emphasized the Spirit of the Biblical Prophets in a restoration of the “True Faith,” the Ancient Paths (Jeremiah 6:16), from which, by and large, they believed the establishment Jewish groups of 2nd Temple times had lost.
    4. Rejection of the “doctrines and traditions” of men, which they believed had been added to the pure Torah of Moses, including scribal alterations of the texts of Scripture (Jeremiah 8:8).

    How the earliest group/s viewed Paul is unclear. By some reports he was tolerated or accepted as one who could go to the Gentiles with a version of the Nazarene message (Acts 15, 21). Others apparently believed he was an apostate from the Torah and founder of a new religion—Christianity.

    For further reading, see H-J Schoeps, Jewish Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), still useful and quite readable for students.

  222. Jesus said, “I come in my father’s Name(The Royal Family) and you do not receive me… Another will come in his own name(some fictitious family) and him you will receive.

    Jesus even knew that his truth wasn’t enough for people and that they would turn away and follow somebody not of the Royal Family.

    You are a Lawless bunch, you who serve Paul.

    Paul—The Founder and Spreader of Christology
    A Rabbi’s Impressions of the Oberammergau Passion Play, by Joseph Krauskopf, [1901], at sacred-texts.com


    OF all the countless millions who have professed themselves followers of Jesus, Early Nazarenes truest followers of their Master.the truest was that little band of Nazarenes that survived the martyrdom of its Master. Never, in all the eighteen centuries that have since passed by, existed a Christian community that patterned its life as faithfully after that which its Master lived, or moulded its beliefs as truly after those which he believed and taught, as did that little community at Jerusalem.

    Doctrines that have since become the very foundation-stones of the creeds of some of the Christian sects, were then unknown. That little band knew nothing of a Trinity, of an Immaculate Conception, of Original Sin, of Vicarious Atonement, of Salvation by Faith, of Eternal Damnation, nothing of religious rites and ceremonies and observances differing from those of their Jewish brethren. It had added but another Jewish

    p. 193

    sect to the many already existing in its day. To the Essenes and Sadducees and Pharisees it had added the Nazarenes, and the difference between its religious beliefs and those of any of the other three sects was not even as great as that which existed between the Sadducees and Pharisees, or between the Pharisees and the Essenes.

    The members of this little band would have indignantly hurled back the accusation of having founded a new religion. Nothing was further from their mind than a separation from Judaism, nothing was less thought of by them than their severance from God’s Chosen People. They had no new dogmas and no new ritual. To Israel’s Temple they betook themselves, daily, for worship and sacrifice with their fellow Israelites, as they had done during and before their Master’s sojourn among them. The Jewish Sabbath and holidays they observed in the same manner and spirit in which they had always observed them. They complied with all the requirements of the Torah (the Mosaic Code) as scrupulously as the most Pharisaic in Israel.

    The whole difference between them and the other Jewish sects lay in their Messiah-belief. The others expected daily the adventDiffer from other Jews only in Messiah-belief. of a political saviour, who would come, sword in hand, and deliver them from the tyrannous

    p. 194

    rule of the Roman, cleanse their land, their Holy City, and their people, from the heathen pollutions, and re-establish their glorious kingdom at Jerusalem; these expelled daily the Second Advent of their crucified Saviour, who would reappear on earth in all His glory, cleanse the people from their transgressions, and raise them all, the quick and the dead, into the Kingdom of Heaven.

    Their expectancy of the Second Advent of Jesus was a necessary conclusion from their Expected hourly Second Advent of their Master.belief in his first advent. His crucifixion, at of first, had perplexed them sorely, had led some of his most devoted followers to deny and to doubt him. They had expected a ruling Ruler, a saving Saviour, a delivering Deliverer, an emancipating Emancipator. He had come, such had been their firm belief, with the divine mission of preparing Israel for the Kingdom of Heaven, and was put to death before he had scarcely begun his work, before he had succeeded in gathering around himself more than a handful of followers, or in making his mission known and felt among the leaders of his people.

    But gradually their faith in the martyred Master returned. The more they brooded over his tragic death, over his noble and unselfish aim, his pure and wise precepts, his illustrious example, the more convinced were they that he, who had lived and taught so divinely,

    p. 195

    could not have shared the common fate of common mortals. He cannot be dead. He lives. How natural such a faith is, those of us, who have stood at the coffin, or at the grave, of some one loved but lost, know only too well. Among the many thoughts that then crowd into our minds, there is one stronger and more persistent than all, it is the thought that he, who was so good, so true, so self-sacrificing, can not be dead, nay, nay, he lives. Such was the thought that stormed their minds; and of that thought their loving hearts soon made a firm conviction. Their Master is not dead. He has been snatched up into the skies, to His Father in Heaven, to get His promised kingdom in readiness, soon to reappear in all His glory to lead His followers into the New Jerusalem in Heaven. His Second Advent might occur at any moment, and so they, His first and faithful and personal followers, held themselves in readiness amidst constant prayer and goodly deeds.

    Their mode of life was similar to that of the Essenes. They formed a communistic body with monastic regulations. Whatever Led life of a communistic brotherhood. they possessed they shared and enjoyed alike. They ate at a common table, and contributed to, and spent from, a common purse. Whoever joined them sold all he possessed, and contributed the proceeds to the common

    p. 196

    fund. They were ascetic in their habits, withdrew from public affairs and from worldly pursuits, and in obedience to their Master’s instructions—not to provide themselves either with money or with superfluous raiment—they surrendered themselves to voluntary poverty. What need was there for wealth, or even for forming marital unions, when the Kingdom of Heaven might dawn at any moment, and wealth lose its value, and earthly unions dissolve. Holiness and peace dwelled in their hearts, and good will and concord reigned among them. The envies and discords that wealth, station, and passions beget, the strifes and hatreds which religious and political differences arouse, obtained no foothold in their midst. Theirs was an ideal state, a Utopia that had a Somewhere, and that somewhere, for about three years, in one of the quarters of Jerusalem, and if such a mode of life be impossible for large and progressive communities, it has at least this in its favor: it enabled the first followers of Jesus to do what the later followers have never done as a body since, it enabled them not only to profess admiration for the life and deeds and doctrines of their Master, but also to live as he had bid them, and as he himself had lived.

    Ideal as this mode of life was, it could not have endured much longer than it did. The

    p. 197

    long-deferred non-appearance of their MasterWould have been doomed to dissolution. would have gradually checked their enthusiam and their piety. The vividness with which their leader was remembered would have gradually faded. The laws of nature and of society would have asserted their rights. Their disregard of worldly affairs and of worldly pursuits, their ascetic and celibate habits, their voluntary poverty, their neglect of the present for the sake of the future, would have hastened their decay. The nation’s subsequent mighty struggle against Rome, which involved especially the people of Jerusalem, would either have scattered them, or their refusal to take up arms, in obedience to their Master’s instruction, might have completely routed them, and with their death the life and mission of Jesus—no having found a place in the contemporaneous literature of his or of any other people—might also have passed out of the memory of man, as did the memory of the life and deeds of many of the other aspirants to the Messiahship, of many of the other claimants to the vacant throne of David.

    But fortunately the Second Advent came in time to prevent the memory of the first advent to pass out of the mind of man. TheHad there not been a Second Advent. saviour appeared. He did not indeed descend from Heaven, amidst a blaze of glory, accompanied by a host of angels, as the faithful had

    p. 198

    pictured to themselves the Second Advent of their Master. It was not even he whom they had expected. And yet one it was who, for Christianity, has been of far greater importance than was even he who came before him. One it was who, though his name was Paul, meaning the little, was in reality by far the greatest power of all who labored in the founding and spreading and up-building of the Christian Faith.

    With the advent of Paul, a new character steps upon the stage of the world’s history, In the person of Paul.a character that has perhaps never had its equal before or since. Little as he is, he represents more than an individual great man. He is a composite of a number of great men. He reflects, and he foreshadows the most distinguished characteristics of some of the greatest religious leaders who have preceded or succeeded him. He has of the enterprising spirit of Moses, of the fire of Isaiah, of the patience of Hillel, of the temper of Shamai, of the zeal of Savonarola, of the daring of Luther. Here is indeed a fascinating character. This kaleidoscopic greatness allures our eye. We must take a closer look at this wonderful man, who, despite his littleness, looms from out the hoary past, and from the great distance that parts him from us, in colossal dimensions, and with fascinating attractiveness.

    p. 199

    We look for an authentic biography of him, and to our surprise and disappointment we find none. Contemporaneous literatureNo authentic biography of Paul. knows nothing of him. The first attempt at a biography is contained in the “Acts of the Apostles,” one of the New Testament books, immediately following the gospels. The historical value of this book is exceedingly untrustworthy. Its date is probably half or probably as much as a century after the death of Paul. Its author is an unknown partisan whose language, style, and spirit, lead to the conjecture that he was probably a Gentile, a Roman, one who lived far away from Judea, who had an imperfect knowledge of the character, religion, and political condition of the Jews, who found it to his interest carefully to conceal Rome’s frightful cruelties against the early Christians, who seldom neglected an opportunity to paint the Jew in darkest colors and to present the Roman in as beautiful a light as possible.

    This in itself is enough seriously to damage the historic worth of this book, but it suffers even more from a mass of legends,Accounts of Peter and Paul in Acts of the Apostles legendary. which fairly bury out of sight, whatever historical fact it contains. The “Legends of the Apostles” would have been a more appropriate title for this book than its present name: the “Acts of the Apostles.” It is a collection of myths and legends obviously

    p. 200

    compiled to glorify the early apostles, chiefly Peter and Paul, and I shall briefly cite a few of these legends that you may convince yourselves of the historic worth of the “Acts of the Apostles.”

    On the Pentecost succeeding the crucifixion of Jesus, “cloven tongues, like as fire,” Illustration of legendary account of Peter.suddenly descended from heaven upon the apostles, and, instantly, they began to speak and preach to a multitude of their Jewish brethren from foreign countries, in different foreign tongues, and with the help of this miracle, and through the convincing argument of Peter, they added about three thousand souls to their ranks. To a man forty years old, who had been lame from his birth, and who had to be carried about, Peter said: “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk,” and instantly the man was cured of his lameness, “and entered with them into the Temple, walking and leaping and praising God.” Using this miraculous cure as a text, Peter delivered a forcible sermon on it, to the Jews gathered in the Temple for worship, upbraided them for their murder of Jesus, exhorted them to acknowledge Him as their Messiah, and this miracle and sermon added about five thousand men to their number. Peter rebuked Ananias and his wife Sapphira for their hypocrisy, and they fell down dead before him; which miracle

    p. 201

    increased the numbers of the followers of the new faith by many more. So great was this miracle-working power of Peter that the people brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that the shadow of Peter passing by might fall upon some of them, and these, as well as many others that came from abroad, were healed by him; even the dead were restored by him to life. Peter was imprisoned, and an angel appeared, broke his chains and set him free. It is thus, and through yet other miracles, that the greatness and glory of Peter was made manifest.

    Paul is introduced to the reader about three years after the death of Jesus, and, in his first appearance, is represented as one ofIllustration of legendary account of Paul. the most blood-thirsty persecutors of the Nazarenes—although it is historically established that at that time the Nazarenes and the other Jewish seas lived and worshipped side by side, and in peace, with no other difference between them, except that of the Messiah-belief. While on his way to Damascus to persecute the Nazarenes, “suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” Instead of a persecutor

    p. 202

    he entered the city of Damascus as a converted follower of Jesus, cast his lot with the Nazarenes, and to the amazement of all the Jews “straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.”

    Somewhat later, while he and Barnabas were at Lystra, they encountered a cripple that had been lame from his birth, to him Paul spake: “Stand upright on thy feet!” And he leaped and walked. When the people saw this they exclaimed: “The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men,” and they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker, and with difficulty restrained the people from bringing sacrifices to them. In Lydia, Paul and Silas met a maiden possessed with a spirit of divination, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying. Paul commanded the spirit to come out of her, which command was obeyed. The masters, deprived of a profitable source of income, had them publicly flogged, cast into prison, their feet fastened in the stocks, and special watch placed over them. At midnight, in answer to their songs of praise, “suddenly there was a great earthquake,” . . . “immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s hands were loosed: “The jailer fell down before them, and said: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe

    p. 203

    on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Whereupon the jailer and all his house were baptized, and in the morning the magistrates themselves “besought them, and brought them out, and desired them to depart out of the city.”

    These few illustrations must suffice to convince us of the legendary nature of the book on the “Acts of the Apostles” in which theBetter results obtained from study of Epistles of Paul. life and deeds of Paul are supposed to be sketched. It is evident, that if truth we want, and not legend, we must look elsewhere, and, fortunately for us, we have not far to go to find what we need. There have been preserved, in the New Testament, a number of Epistles, which Paul addressed to different cities, where he had organized Christian congregations, or where he desired to do so, and these Epistles, fragmentary though they be, are of priceless value. In them the occurrences are, with but the slightest exception, natural and real. They afford us not only an intelligent insight into the rise and growth of the new religion, but they also enable us to disentangle, in the “Acts of the Apostles,” the historical from the mythical, and together they furnish an outline to a fairly satisfactory biography of Paul.

    He was born at Tarsus, a Greek town in Asia Minor, under Roman rule, of Jewish parents. The influences of three powerful

    p. 204

    nationalities worked upon him, even from Psychological pen-picture of Paul.his cradle. He describes his appearance and his speech as unattractive. In stature he was small. Physically, he was weak, and yet he possessed an indomitable willpower, and an amazing energy. He was a frequent victim of ill-health, subject to occasional trances, and to spells of strange maladies, of which he speaks as the thorn in his flesh. He was restless, irritable, passionate, ascetic, celibate, ambitious, zealous for the cause espoused. His appearance and temperament offer a fairly reliable psychological pen-picture of the religious enthusiast, of the speculative mystic, of the fearless propagandist, of the man who believes himself entrusted from on high with a special mission, and goes forth into the world to discharge his divinely-commissioned duty—lovingly and peacefully, when unobstructed, but with all the bitterness of the fanatic, when opposed.

    Of the extent of his education it is difficult to tell. Opportunities he had, and the veryHis education Græco-Judaic. best. According to Strabo, the schools of Tarsus, at the time of Paul, were equal to those of Alexandria and Athens; according to his own statement, he studied at Jerusalem under the illustrious Rabban Gamaliel, the honored and peace-loving President of the Sanhedrin. The style and the reasoning displayed in the Epistles, incline one to the

    p. 205

    belief that he acquired more of what was faulty, in both systems of education, than of what constituted their chief merits. His reasoning is generally obscure and frequently illogical. His style is argumentative, yet he seldom convinces. He is not often the ethical teacher, but he is the theologian always, and sometimes the dogmatist. In censuring the Galatians for forsaking his doctrines for those of a rival apostle, he says that if any man preach any other gospel than that which he preached, even if an angel from heaven should preach to them otherwise than he had preached, let that one be accursed.

    From the Jewish school he adopted the controversial and casuistical method of reasoning; and from the Grecian school he borrowed the absurdest notions of Philonic Gnosticism, its mystical amalgamation of Greek philosophy with Jewish theosophy, its allegorical interpretations of the Divine Reason as the “Logos,” the “Eternal Word,” the “Legate of the Most High,” the “High Priest,” “Eternal Bread from Heaven,” “Guide to God,” “Substitute for God,” “Image of God,” “Second God,” “Creator of the Worlds,” “Mediator between God and Man,” “Intercessor,” “Son of God.” These titles, which were merely the poetic Grecian mode of expressing mental concepts in allegorical form, his prosaic Jewish mind transferred

    p. 206

    upon Jesus, enveloped him with a maze of mystical doctrines, and both of these, the titles and the doctrines, have since become almost hopelessly interwoven with Christianity.

    What the immediate cause may have been that led to his connection with the Nazarenes Joins Nazarene sect.cannot now be discerned. Contact with the pious Nazarenes and their pure life may have fascinated a temperament like his. Their affectionate devotion to their martyred Master, their hourly expectation of His Second Advent, may have afforded abundant fuel for the Philonic-Gnostic flame that burned within. The Master, of whom this faithful band spoke so enthusiastically, and with such affection, the Master, who manifested such divine wisdom, could be none other than the incarnation of the Divine Reason, the “Logos,” of which the Jewish philosopher Philo had taught and written, and from which it was but a step to the “Guide to God,” the “Substitute for God,” the “Image of God,” the “Second God,” the “Intercessor,” the “Son of God.” Here was the Grecian poetry translated into Hebrew prose. The allegorical concepts of Athens and Alexandria and Tarsus had turned into flesh and blood in Jerusalem. Here was a new theology. Here was a working theology. Here was a world-conquering theology. Here was a theology

    p. 207

    that contained the elements to satisfy Jew and Gentile, to reconcile Oriental with Occidental thought and belief. The Judaic Jesus must become the World’s Christ; Jew and Gentile must unite in Christ; Paul, the Jew, the Grecian-born, the Roman citizen, must become the Apostle to the Gentiles.

    It was a bold thought and bolder yet was his resolve. That moment in which Paul, the Jew, resolved to be the “Apostle to the Gentiles”A decisive moment in history of civilization. was one of the most eventful in the history of civilization. What the prophets of Israel had long dreamed and hoped took living form in that moment. What millions of Jews had professed for centuries, this one man proposed to execute single-handed. He would open the way for the realization of the prophets dream of a federation of all people into a brotherhood, under the Fatherhood of God, and under the sway of universal peace and good-will. He would spread his new theology to the ends of the vast Roman empire, and preach it, till it received the homage of every tongue and knee. In that moment the Nazarenes ceased to be a sect, and Judaism a tribal religion. In that moment a cosmopolitan religion was born. In that moment the ethical teachings of Judaism crossed the border of their birthplace, under the spiritual leadership of Jesus, the Jew, in the guise of a mystical Christ. In that moment

    p. 208

    a spiritual alliance was formed between Jew and Gentile that has endured to this day. That moment opened a new epoch in the world’s history.

    Bold as was the thought and resolve, bolder still was its execution. Paul dared what no Determines to become the Apostle to the Gentiles.other dared before, and what but very few have dared since. To succeed he could have no obstacles to obstruct success. If the Gentile world was to accept his new theology, he had to present it to them in an acceptable form. Jewish ceremonies, rites and observances he unfalteringly cast aside. He swept away every barrier between Jew and Gentile. Where the fate of his world-conquering theology was concerned, the authority, with which centuries of observance had vested these rites and ceremonies, could have no weight. Had not the prophets taught that God looks to deed, not to form, and that a pure heart and devout mind are more acceptable than sacrifice? Seeing that the prophets were with him, what had he to fear in resolving to inaugurate what the prophets of Israel had advocated before him?

    He was not the man to delay long after once determining upon a line of action. Forth he went as the Apostle to the Gentiles upon his missionary work. With the rigorous Jewish ceremonial removed, with a Philonic-Gnostic doctrine,—which, in its main outlines, was

    p. 209

    familiar to the Gentile world and to the Jews who dwelled among them,—and with the proselytizing carried on with exceptional zeal and energy, he gained many converts to his new belief.

    He met with strong opposition from Jew and Gentile, and also from a source from which, perhaps, he had least expected it, fromOpposed by the Nazarenes. those very Nazarenes for whom he had forsaken his former sect, and on whose support he had perhaps counted most. They understood neither him nor his doctrine; neither did he seem to understand them. They knew not what he meant by a “Son of God,” by an “Intercessor,” by a “Mediator,” by a “Second God,” and by some of his other novel doctrines. They had been in personal contact with Jesus, had listened to his teachings, knew his aim, knew him to have been human, they had heard him proclaim as the first commandment the great Jewish monotheistic doctrine: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is One,” and they could not recognize their Master in this novel attire of a Grecian Christ. They knew not what Paul meant by titling himself the “Apostle to the Gentiles,” to preach Christ to the heathen nations. Their Master had come of the Jews, and had labored among the Jews, and for the Jews only. Jesus himself had declared: “I am not sent but unto the lost

    p. 210

    sheep of the house of Israel,” and he himself had bid his disciples: “Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” They were horrified at Paul’s doing away with the ceremonials and rites of the Law. Had not their own Master declared that he had not come to abrogate the Law or the prophets, and that whosoever would break even one of the least commandments, and should teach men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven? Their Master had opposed the ceremonial excesses, narrow interpretations, unreasonable deductions, but not the Mosaic Laws. They themselves had remained scrupulously faithful to every detail of The Law; Peter had even found it necessary publicly to defend himself against a suspicion of having violated some of the forms and rites. They worshipped and sacrificed in the Temple as before, and observed all the ceremonies and rites and festivals as Jesus himself had done. And who was he, they asked, who arrogated to himself the right of abrogating the Law of Moses? Who appointed him to the Apostleship? Who dared rise and speak in the name of Jesus, and as his messenger and interpreter, while those still lived, who had walked and talked and counselled with him?

    p. 211

    The feud between them and Paul grew bitter. He was publicly censured by them at a conference in Jerusalem. Peter broke withBitter feud ensues. him. Barnabas deserted him. James sent missionaries to follow upon his track, and to undo his errors. The charges and countercharges between them reveal little of the forgiving and peaceful spirit which their Master had taught. They, who were not yet fully converted themselves, were quarreling about the mode of converting others. Paul castigated them in very severe language. He insisted upon his right to the apostleship, and to the rightfulness of his work among the Gentiles. His was one of those spirits that thrives best under opposition. His work prospered best when to the “thorn in the flesh” that worried him within, there was added the thorn from without.

    He turned his back upon the Nazarene community, and forth he went among the Gentiles, and pursued his mission with a zeal, with a heroism, with a self-sacrifice, that is as amazing as it is eventful in the history of Christianity. When he suddenly disappears from the scenes of history, after about thirty years of missionary labor, Christianity had taken root in Asia and in Europe. In the very strongholds of Paganism, in Antioch, in Athens, and in Rome, in Cyprus, in Ephesus, and in Corinth, in Cilicia, in Phrygia, and in

    p. 212

    [paragraph continues] Macedonia, and in yet other cities and other provinces, he had organized little Christian communities, that were destined soon to grow to such power and number as to crowd out almost every other form of belief. Despite the opposition of the Nazarenes, the Grecian-Gnostic Christ had conquered the Galilean Jesus. Christianity was established, in the name of a Jew, and by a Jew.

    It is much to be regretted that a compromise between the Nazarenes and Paul Regrettable that compromise was not effected.could not have been effected, that the former could not have been persuaded to surrender their fondness for ceremonialism, and their spirit of exclusiveness, and the latter, his mythical and mystical Christology. Had they but compromised their differences, they might have labored together, and in unison, and converted, not only Gentiles, but also the Jews. They would, in time, have given up hoping for the Second Advent of their Master. They would have concentrated their attention upon the pure ethical precepts which he had taught, would have recognized in them the pure Judaism of old, and their pure life, aided by Paul’s zeal, would have cemented the different Jewish sects into a close brotherhood, and prevented the breach which Paul’s Christology introduced. Such a compromise would not have interfered with Paul’s success among the Gentiles. It was

    p. 213

    not as much his mystical and mythical Grecian Christ that conquered the Gentiles, as it was the preaching of the pure-hearted and noble-minded Judaic Jesus. It was not so much the Gnostic theosophy, as it was the ethics of Judaism, that found a ready echo in Gentile hearts, especially in those days of corruption, of tyrannous rule by madmen and monsters like Caligula and Nero, under whom the Roman empire groaned, and at which time many, even of the most cultured classes, had sought refuge in Judaism, despite its rigorous and forbidding initiation ceremonialism. If Judaism could attract converts, even with an uninviting ceremonialism, how much more, and how much easier, could it have won Gentile followers with such ceremonialism removed, and with a man like Paul to preach the ethics of Moses and of the Prophets and Rabbis, and to illustrate the possibilities of such ethics by holding up to the world the noble life of the Galilean Rabbi.

    Such a compromise might have brought the prophets’ dream of One God over all, One Brotherhood of all, peace and good willCompromise would have meant realization of Prophets’ dream. among all, nearer realization than it is to-day, and Paul might have ranked as one of the greatest of the great men of Israel.

    Such a compromise would have spared Christianity those mystical and mythical doctrines of a Trinity, of a Virgin-born and

    p. 214

    [paragraph continues] Holy Ghost-conceived God, of a Suffering Would have prevented infusion of Christology in religion of the Master.and Resurrected Son of God, of a Vicarious Atonement, of Original Sin, Eternal Damnation, Salvation by Faith, and yet other doctrines, that have been to Christianity what the “thorn in the flesh” was to their inventor Paul, that have plunged the Christian Church, for centuries, into profitless theological speculations, that have led to painful dismemberments, and often to the settlement of mooted theological points with the aid of fire and sword and rack, that have retarded the world’s progress for centuries, that have frozen the life-giving, life-sustaining stream of religion, which had poured forth from the warm heart of Jesus, into a deadening dogmatic theology, that even to-day perplex and vex Christianity sorely, and array reason and science and philosophy against it.

    Perhaps it was not to have been. A mind like Paul’s, to be true to itself, could not have Jewish philosopher partly responsible for Christology.acted otherwise than it did. Moreover, it was Philo, the Jewish philosopher, who flourished at that time, who was much to blame. He it was who had sought to reconcile Semitic theology and Asiatic mysticism with Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, and, by his allegorizing and Hellenizing the Jewish Scriptures, had greatly confused the religious thought of the Grecian Jews.

    With all Paul’s faults, with all the injuries

    p. 215

    his Christology has wrought, we have moreYet grateful for Paul’s spread of Judaic Jesus. reason to be grateful to him than we have cause for censure. As Jews, we are indebted to him for spreading the ethics of Judaism among a Gentile world, for doing for the cause of Israel what never was done by Jew before or since, for showing us how, by the removal of obsolete, meaningless and repellant ceremonies, rites, and observances, Judaism, pure and simple, might be made a world-conquering religion. As members of civilized society, we owe him unstinted praise for coming to the rescue of Gentile peoples, at a time when they most needed his aid, and for showing countless successors the way in which light, cheer, and comfort, faith, hope, and charity, may be introduced in a benighted and a cruel world.

    And each of us may draw from Paul’s epoch-making life and deeds the inspiration of independent thought and courageous daring,A new Paul needed to unite Jew and Gentile. fearless of the consequences that may ensue. Each of us may draw from the results of his labors the hope that the compromise, that could not be effected eighteen centuries ago, may yet be brought about. The spirit of our age greatly favors such a compromise. What the Christian world needs is another Jew, to complete the Trinity of Jewish Reformers, one who shall combine within himself the moral and religious purity of

    p. 216

    [paragraph continues] Jesus, and the zeal and energy of Paul. He will be the long-expected Messiah. His coming will constitute the Second Advent of the Nazarene Master. The time for his coming is drawing nigh. Obsolete forms and meaningless rites are crumbling away. Offensive doctrines are disappearing. The Judaic Jesus is slowly regaining his lost ground. The Ethics of Judaism are gradually supplanting the Gnosticism of Paul. When the Jew shall have completely cast away his obstructive exclusiveness and ceremonialism, and the Christian his Christology, Jew and Gentile will be one.

    decorative separator

  223. Jason go to your local womans shelter and ask all the abused women that are supposedly Christian if Paul’s attitude towards women doesn’t contribute to their abuse.

  224. Tripp, I do not want you pity…

    Relatively speaking Saddam is or was not a bad guy in comparison…

    You could at least practice Christianity or Paganism (And I know this first hand form my Iraqi friends And the High Priestess of the Sumerian’s that I am friends with was taught her Craft in Iraq.) privately in your home and often outside if you didn’t attract attention, unlike our Allies in Saudi Arabia… Whom will kill their own people for such practices and imprison visitors including Americans for wearing a crucifix and or carrrying a bible

  225. John said

    Thomas, labels like “Christianity” and “Paganism” are umbrella terms. Please tell us what exactly you mean, which type, which denomination, of Christianity or Paganism you have on your mind.
    You sound absolutely insane, you know.If you’ve really been messing around with demons, then they may have infected your mind[along with your soul]. A.Crowley messed around with demons, and do you know how he ended up? It was most unpleasant.

  226. SUMERIAN FAITH if you want to know, as it is alive and well in Iraq… Not everyone is Muslim or follow the tenets of Islam.

    Insane… Hmmm… You know insanity is getting up every day and working the same Job for 30-40 years to finally earn a retirement so that you can watch tv and die.

    Insanity is allowing Corporations to dominate out minds and our souls.

    Insanity is selling our children ff into the same slavery that we have been raised in.

    Insanity is believing that what our society has going on, is the best that we have to offer.

    Yes, I have admitted I am angry.

    But I know that we have such a great opportunity and our potential is overwhelmingly great but…

    We prefer the lie from the truth.

    We would rather justify the injustice in the world…

    Pro dominant attitude of the Medical doctors in this country that they believe poor people should just die.

    It is disgusting that we buy into the Pauline doctrine and allow the prevailing attitude of being quiet and accepting the rich elite as our masters.

    With ignorant anti- drug commercials that imply if we buy WEED that we support and condone terrorism….

    When the same Neo-Conservative Christian Right fascist ride around in their SUV’s while buying happy meals for their little Hitler Youth brats.

    Never considering who makes them little toy surprises….

    China uses it’s prison population to manufacture toys. So as to have free labor while Fast food corporations pay for all the material costs… So in essence it cost China virtually nothing to produce the toys but hey they get paid… Millions of dollars.

    In Irony all the money they profit from this business venture supplies their weapon development and manufacturing cost.

    The ignorance is unending and I could rant for days about it but I haven’t the time to do so.

    If the church were literally following Jesus then we wouldn’t live in a cursed nation… And their are many curses on this nation… For the lack of obedience and lawlessness of Pauline Christians.

    Oh and John, please do not make light of things you do not understand… And Crowley was into dark practices of which I have merely tasted the surface.

    As for Demons, The Rebellious Anunnaki… I have authority over them.

    And this year the end begins. And read Revelation and tell me what comes up out of the Earth… And they are hungry…

    When it all falls down around you make fun then but don’t you ask me for help… John… Cuz it ain’t going to be funny then.

    The thing all Pauline Christians and Pseudo Patriots of the Bush regime need to understand… is the Terrorist enemy they think were fighting in the Middle East… Isn’t in the Middle East… Their already here all around you….

    Let us attack IRAN like the idiots the World thinks we are and welcome to World War 3.

    And it will start on our own land… that we stole.

    China already has Nuclear War heads planted in key locations around the Globe.

    But you go ahead and mock me because I ain’t laughing because I have a daughter.

    John do you have children?

    Laugh it up funny guy.

    Then we will all see the birds of prey… but it’s your flesh they’ll feating on…

    Because you haven’t the slightest clue how to protect yourself nor what you will do in the situation.

    But yeah John, I’m just crazy right???

    If you think 9-11 was bad wait until this year and feast your eyes.

    Then tell me come 2009 how Insane I am… Although I have my ticket for freedom paid for how about you?

    Oh just so you know I like you John… So I tell where I’ll be… hanging out with the Hopi Indians.

  227. This all such a farce as the Crusades coninue in the name of Jesus. This is all News that falsified reports as they happened at the the time of 9-11… As the News of this incedent were known about years in advance and that our country paid for and trained the Terrorist to do it. And they are not Iraqi or Afgan peoples they are mostly Saudi Arabians our Ally. World Trade Center Bombing Friday, February 26, 1993 At 12:18 on a snowy Friday afternoon, a massive explosion rocked the foundation of the Twin Towers of the Trade Center in lower Manhattan–the second tallest buildings in the world and a magnet for 100,000 workers. � Time Magazine World Trade Center Bombing Friday, February 26, 1993 (Reuters) – A bomb blast ripped through the parking garage of the landmark World Trade Centre on Friday, killing seven people, injuring as many as 700 and setting off a terrorist alert. The explosion ripped through three levels in the parking garage and started a fire that sent smoke spiraling through the twin 110-storey towers of the complex. ——————————————————————————– IRA Bombing In London Saturday, February 27, 1993 (Reuters) – An Irish guerrilla bomb rocked north London’s busy Camden Town shopping area on Saturday and police said about 10 people were injured. The small but powerful bomb, latest in a blitz of mainland Britain, went off in a litter bin close to the Camden Lock market, a major London tourist venue. ——————————————————————————– Zamboanga City Airport Bombing Saturday, February 27, 1993 (AP) – A bomb exploded Sunday at the airport in the southern city of Zamboanga, injuring 15 people, police said. The blast at the departure area occurred shortly after a flight to Manila had left, police said. The explosion shattered windows. No group claimed responsibility. But police speculated that it was the work of Muslim extremists. ——————————————————————————– International Investigation Begins Monday, March 01, 1993 (Reuters) – U.S. experts are sifting intercepted global communications for any sign of a foreign hand in the bomb blast at New York’s World Trade Centre, a prime symbol of U.S. commerce. So far, law enforcement authorities have not labeled explosion on Friday as a terrorist act. But the FBI confirmed that the explosion was caused by a bomb. ——————————————————————————– World Trade Center Bombing Arrest Friday, March 05, 1993 (UPI) — A Muslim fundamentalist was arrested in connection with the bombing of the World Trade Center that killed five persons. FBI agents arrested Mohammed Salameh, 26, a Jordanian nationalist at a truck rental company in Jersey City, N.J., after tracing the charred fragments of a van found in the rubble to the company. ——————————————————————————– International Terrorism Links Thursday, February 03, 1994 (Reuters) – Police special branch teams are scouring Thailand for a Pakistani man with links to the World Trade Centre bombing who is suspected of killing two U.S. intelligence agency employees last year. They are also investigating reports that a man found dead in a condominium was connected to deadly bomb blasts in Bombay. ——————————————————————————– Conviction in Trade Center Bombing Saturday, March 05, 1994 (Reuters) – Four Moslem fundamentalists were found guilty of bombing of New York’s World Trade Centre and now face up to life in prison for an attack that killed six people. A federal jury forewoman read out the verdicts in the case Friday, pronouncing the defendants guilty on every count. ——————————————————————————– Iraq Offers Trade Center Information Tuesday, July 19, 1994 (Reuters) – Iraq’s deputy prime minister, Tareq Aziz, said Tuesday he would hand over information on the World Trade Centre bombing if Baghdad were asked “in a proper manner” by U.S. authorities. In answer to questions at a news conference, Aziz said: “They have not yet asked in a proper manner to get that information. ——————————————————————————– Capture of Ramzi Yousef Monday, February 20, 1995 (AP) – U.S. authorities have arrested the alleged mastermind of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and are holding him in New York for trial. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, 27, was detained Tuesday by law enforcement officials in Pakistan and was handed over to American authorities. Yousef was flown to the United States last night. ——————————————————————————– Ramzi Yousef Convicted in New York Thursday, November 13, 1997 (AP) – Two men were convicted of conspiracy in the World Trade Center bombing, including one portrayed by prosecutors as one of history’s most sinister terrorists. The jury answered plea to make Ramzi Yousef pay for plotting to kill a quarter of a million people by toppling two 110-story towers like dominoes. WTC – Since their completion in the mid-1970s, the 110-story glass-and-steel twin towers of the World Trade Center had appeared to float like mirages above lower Manhattan, their peaks at times obscured by clouds. It may in fact have been their grandeur that led to their destruction: a 1993 attempt to blow up the towers was the work of terrorists bent on demoralizing the country by felling the “towers of the West,” FBI documents show. The boxlike pillars looked simple in form, but they were sturdy architectural marvels that provided a home for hundreds of businesses, many of them involved in international trade. They were also awesome to look at, said Andy Thornley, who took his last glimpse of the famed skyline as he rode the bus to work Tuesday. “I looked at the Manhattan skyline and thought there’s no more beautiful place in the world. And now it’s gone,” said the 43-year-old insurance worker. First imagined in the early 1960s as part of an urban renewal project, the first building in the $1.2 billion, 16-acre complex opened in 1970. The twin towers were completed in 1976, immense in every detail — 43,000 windows, 99 elevators, 1,350 feet tall — and designed to be a critical hub for international trade. For a time, they were the tallest buildings in the world; until Tuesday, they remained the tallest in New York. The buildings were designed to be especially sturdy, using load-bearing steel walls rather than the steel-cage construction typical of modern skyscrapers. By the time the final building of the seven-building complex was completed in 1988, the center had lured scores of businesses, including commodity exchanges, major investment firms, banks, law firms and a hotel. The center was fully rented out when the towers collapsed Tuesday. Roughly 50,000 people worked in the towers; the complex, which included an observation deck and a number of other tourist attractions, drew an additional 90,000 visitors each day, according to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the complex. While it thrived as an international business hub, it also had become a clear target for terrorists. On Feb. 23, 1993, bombs exploded in a parking garage beneath the center, killing six people and injuring 1,000. Six Islamic militants were convicted in the bombing and sentenced to life behind bars. That bombing was designed to topple the two towers like dominoes, kill 250,000 people and convince Americans they were at war, according to a Secret Service agent who helped interview Ramzi Yousef, the alleged bombing mastermind. FBI evidence in that case also included a document calling for destruction of the “towers of the West.” The unsigned statement, found in the home of convicted terrorist El-Sayyid Nosair, said the bombing was meant to demoralize the enemy by “blowing up the towers that constitute the pillars of their civilization.” Mohammed Salameh: Radical charged in New York bombing The Ottawa Citizen ——————————————————————————– NEW YORK (AP) – A man described as a follower of a radical Muslim cleric was arrested Thursday in last week’s World Trade Centre bombing when he tried to reclaim a rental deposit on a van that the FBI said held the bomb. Other suspects were being sought, said prosecutor Gilmore Childres. The motive for the bombing remained unclear. Mohammed Salameh, 26, appeared in federal court in New York City on Thursday night and was charged with aiding and abetting the bombing and a fire that followed. The Jersey City, N.J., resident was ordered held without bail. He faces life in prison if convicted. The van Salameh rented was the one that carried the bomb, the FBI said in an affidavit. Fragments of the van were recovered at the blast site. The affidavit also said a search of a Jersey City apartment with a bomb-sniffing dog turned up bomb-making equipment, including wiring and manuals on circuitry and electro-magnetic devices. On the rental agreement Salameh had given the phone number for that apartment; it wasn’t immediately clear whether Salameh lived there. Salameh appeared calm and relaxed as an interpreter read the charges to him in Arabic. The swarthy, bearded man nodded to his lawyer but didn’t appear to speak. Papers that the suspect gave the rental agency several days ago were covered with nitrates, said a government source. Nitrates are found in some explosives; traces of nitrates were found at the blast site. The arrest was a sudden, major break. Just a day earlier, the FBI had said it could take months to crack the case. Friday’s blast in a garage beneath the twin towers killed five people, injured more than 1,000, left one missing and sent fear through New York City. It caused a crater four stories deep. The 110-storey towers — home to hundreds of businesses and more than 50,000 workers — aren’t expected to reopen for a month. The suspect was affiliated with the El Salam Mosque in Jersey City, N.J., where Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman preaches, a Jersey City official said, citing reports from FBI agents to city police. Abdel-Rahman, 54, is a blind Muslim cleric living in self-imposed exile in New Jersey after his acquittal a decade ago in Egypt on charges that he sanctioned the 1981 assassination of president Anwar Sadat. The cleric commands a following in Egypt that analysts compare to that of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Bomb blamed in N.Y. blast; Militant group claims credit, says report ——————————————————————————– — Canadian Press NEW YORK (CP) – A blast that killed seven people and injured more than 300 at the World Trade Centre on Friday was caused by a plastic explosive, local television quoted a New York City fire official saying. WCBS reported deputy fire commissioner Harry Ryttenberg said he estimated the bomb contained 90 kilograms of C-4 plastic explosive. The explosion left a 30-metre hole in the B-2 parking-garage level in the complex and started a fire that sent smoke pouring into the twin 110-storey towers. The explosion also forced the ceiling to collapse in the PATH railway station under the office complex. The line carries passengers to and from New Jersey under the Hudson River. Some of the injured were in the rubble in the station. As accidental causes such as a natural-gas leak or electrical fire were ruled out, law-enforcement sources said it is increasingly likely a bomb was involved. An unconfirmed local broadcast report said the local police precinct in the area received a call of responsibility from a group calling itself the Serbian Liberation Front. In a phone call 15 minutes before the explosion, a group claiming to represent Croatian militants said a bomb would go off, one source said. A second source, a police official at the scene, said a bomb was responsible. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly confirmed there was a call claiming responsibility but he had no further details and would not confirm there was a bomb. “We’re not ruling out anything,” he said. Serbs, Bosnians and Croatians are fighting in the former Yugoslavia. But Kelly said the department received seven calls, none claiming responsibility. “The calls were not claiming credit,” he said, although he quoted one caller saying: “It was not an accident.” The Empire State Building, the city’s second-tallest skyscraper, was abruptly closed at mid-afternoon by police, who said they were investigating a bomb-threat. In Washington, the White House said late Friday it was seeking details on the explosion and fire, White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers said. She said the explosion is not expected to have an impact on President Bill Clinton’s plans to visit New Brunswick, N.J., on Monday — despite reports a presidential limo may have been damaged in the blast. “The president’s limo will be flown in,” she said. “There may have been armored limos owned by the Secret Service in that garage but not the one used by the president.” The Secret Service maintains offices in the World Trade Centre complex. Carl Meyer, a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington, said the agency assumed some of its cars were damaged in the explosion. “Our entire New York fleet is parked there, probably in excess of 100 vehicles,” he said. The massive explosion caused chaos in Manhattan, as highways were closed, mass-transit was disrupted and hundreds of emergency vehicles converged on the narrow streets of lower Manhattan, the heart of the financial centre. Thousands of office workers poured into the streets around the centre, which comprises the world’s second-highest office buildings, as they fled the choking black smoke. The complex has up to 130,000 occupants on a normal business day. There are believed to be no Canadian companies with offices in the centre, said Jim Holdham, an official at the Canadian consulate in New York. World Trade Centre director Charles Maikish said the blast caused structural damage and said it was uncertain when the second World Trade Centre tower would be reopened. But he stressed there was no risk of any collapse. Rescue services undertook one of New York’s biggest-ever rescue operations to help evacuate thousands of people down stairwells where black smoke hung heavy in places. Firefighters made their way painstakingly up the smoke-filled staircases floor by floor and some office workers said they took more than 90 minutes to walk down darkened and smokefilled stairs. They complained they received no advice on how to cope with the crisis and a number of them were forced to call local radio and TV stations asking for advice and information about their predicament. Fire Commissioner Carlos Rivera said two died in the lunch-hour blast at the B-2 garage level, one of six levels of parking beneath the complex. No details were available on the other three dead. As concern mounted, security was tightened at New York’s three airports, said Charles Knox, director of public safety for the Port Authority. He said staffing would be pushed up by 10 per cent. The explosion, at the edge of New York’s financial hub, forced an end to trading in the commodity markets that are located in the complex. Bond market trading was also affected. Trading on the New York and American stock exchanges was not directly affected, but volume slowed after the explosion. ——————————————————————————– – MARCH 4, 1994 WORLD TRADE CENTRE BOMBING: Four guilty of New York bomb attack Militant Muslims face life in prison By Peter Pringle National Post NEW YORK – A year after a van bomb blasted a five-storey cavern in the foundations of the World Trade Centre, killing six people and injuring more than a thousand, four Islamic militants were found guilty Friday of plotting the most devastating act of terrorism in the United States. As the verdicts were announced on the fifth day of the jury’s deliberations, one of the convicted men, Mohammed Salameh, yelled: “Allah Akhbar and “Victory to Islam in Arabic. The men nodded to each other as if they had expected to be found guilty. They face life imprisonment. The four are Ahmad Ajaj, who brought his manuals on bomb-making and terrorism to the U.S.; a chemist, Nidal Ayyad, who ordered some of the materials used; Mohammed Salameh, who rented the van that carried the bomb; and Mahmud Abouhalima, who was brought back by the FBI from Egypt where he had fled. After a trial that lasted five months and featured mind-numbing detail about bomb materials and motor vehicle parts, the jury took five days to find the four guilty. The verdict was based on circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy; none of the suspects was ever placed by witnesses, or forensic evidence, at the scene of the crime. The FBI investigation into a wider plot by Islamic extremists to target New York landmarks is far from over. Second trial A second trial of another cast of conspirators will begin in September. Those charged include the blind Egyptian cleric, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, and 14 others, all accused of plotting to blow up the United Nations headquarters and other New York landmarks. The sheik, who speaks only Arabic, is to conduct his own defence. Still at large from the first trial is Ramzi Yousef, the man described during evidence as the “evil genius behind the plot. He may hold the key to the mystery of how this motley crew came together and decided to launch a bombing campaign. Washington is offering a $2.6 million reward for Yousef and a similar reward for an alleged accomplice, Abdul Rahman Yasin, who has fled to Iraq. So far, one can only guess at the motive: a belief in the cleansing power of the jihad (holy war) or compliance with a standing order to harm the “Great Satan, the U.S. The FBI has considered that the bombing might have been revenge for the Gulf War. The blast occurred Feb. 26 last year, the second anniversary of the day allied forces encircled and destroyed the Iraqi army. The plotters, who did not give evidence, were painted as servants of an absent master. But who? The blind sheik, who was jailed and tortured by Egyptian police for the murder of President Anwar Sadat, is today a constant critic of President Hosni Mubarak, but he has disclaimed any hatred of the U.S., which he describes as “a country I chose to come to, whose people are very generous. How generous Americans remain to foreigners is a question under constant review. Their present fear is that there will be some Islamic revenge on U.S. targets, probably New York, for Baruch Goldstein, from Brooklyn, who killed 43 Palestinians in a Hebron mosque last Friday. New Yorkers have been counting the cost of the World Trade Centre blast. The insurers’ bills for repairs to the underground garage and hotel complex are estimated at $550 million. There are some 80 lawsuits by more than 250 plaintiffs against the building’s owners, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Reaction Disbelief: In Jersey City, New Jersey, at a mosque where Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman delivered fiery sermons that allegedly inspired the bombing, news of the conviction of the four men for the World Trade Centre attack was met with disbelief and anger from worshippers Friday, the Muslim Sabbath. Families: In Jordan, the families of two of the convicted men condemned the ruling as an injustice, designed to tarnish the image of Muslims worldwide. The families of Mohammed Salameh and Nidal Ayyad said they had high hopes of an acquittal. Salameh’s father, Amin, said the four men were framed for an attack carried out by Israeli intelligence. Reprisals: The U.S. State Department warned the verdict may result in attacks against U.S. nationals and interests by Islamic extremists. Americans overseas, especially those living or travelling throughout the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa, should be alert to developments, a spokesman said. The National Interest, Winter, 1995/96 THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB: Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters by Laurie Mylroie ACCORDING TO THE presiding judge in last year’s trial, the bombing of New York’s World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 was meant to topple the city’s tallest tower onto its twin, amid a cloud of cyanide gas. Had the attack gone as planned, tens of thousands of Americans would have died. Instead, as we know, one tower did not fall on the other, and, rather than vaporizing, the cyanide gas burnt up in the heat of the explosion. “Only” six people died. Few Americans are aware of the true scale of the destructive ambition behind that bomb, this despite the fact that two years later, the key figure responsible for building it–a man who had entered the United Stares on an Iraqi passport under the name of Ramzi Yousef–was involved in another stupendous bombing conspiracy. In January 1995, Yousef and his associates plotted to blow up eleven U.S. commercial aircraft in one spectacular day of terrorist rage. The bombs were to be made of a liquid explosive designed to pass through airport metal detectors. But while mixing his chemical brew in a Manila apartment, Yousef started a fire. He was forced to flee, leaving behind a computer that contained the information that led to his arrest a month later in Pakistan. Among the items found in his possession was a letter threatening Filipino interests if a comrade held in custody were not released. It claimed the “ability to make and use chemicals and poisonous gas… for use against v! ital institutions and residential populations and the sources of drinking water.” [1] Quickly extradited, he is now in U.S. custody awaiting trial this spring. Ramzi Yousef’s plots were the most ambitious terrorist conspiracies ever attempted against the United States. But who is he? Is he a free-lance bomber? A deranged but highly-skilled veteran of the Muslim jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan? Is he an Arab, or of some other Middle Eastern ethnicity? Is there an organization–perhaps even a state–behind his work? These questions have an obvious bearing not only on past events but on possible future ones as well. [2] It is important to know who Ramzi Yousef is and who his “friends” are, because if he is not just a bomber-for-hire, or an Islamic militant loosely connected to other Muslim fundamentalists, Yousef’s “friends” could still prove very dangerous to the United States. It is of considerable interest, therefore, that a very persuasive case can be made that Ramzi Yousef is an Iraqi intelligence agent, and that his bombing conspiracies were meant as Saddam Hussein’s revenge for the Gulf War. If so, and if, as U.S. officials strongly suspect, Baghdad still secretly possesses biological warfare agents, then we may still not have heard the last from Saddam Hussein. This essay will focus on three points. First, it will argue that, as things stand now, coordination between the Justice Department and the relevant national security agencies is such that the latter–and thus national security itself gets very short shrift when it comes to dealing with terror incidents perpetrated on U.S. soil. Second, it will look afresh at the evidence from the World Trade Center bombing case and suggest that the most logical explanation of the evidence points to Iraqi state sponsorship. Third, it will assay briefly what dangers the Iraqi regime may still pose to the United States should this analysis prove correct. A High Wall THE SUGGESTION THAT Iraq might well have been behind Ramzi Yousef’s exploits may initially strike many as implausible. Wouldn’t the U.S. government investigation of the World Trade Center bombing have uncovered evidence to that effect, evidence that the press, in turn, would have broadcast far and wide? Wouldn’t America’s robust anti-terrorist intelligence capacities have focused on such suspicions long ago? While these are reasonable questions, they reveal a lack of understanding about how the U.S. government works when legal and national security issues of this special sort overlap. A high wall, in fact, stands between the Justice Department, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on the one hand, and the national security agencies on the other. Once arrests are made, the trials of individual perpetrators take bureaucratic precedence over everything else. The Justice Department inherits primary investigatory jurisdiction, and the business of the Justice Department is above all the prosecution and conviction of individual criminals. Once that process is underway, the Justice Department typically denies information to the national security bureaucracies, taking the position that passing on information might “taint the evidence” and affect prospects for obtaining convictions. [3] In effect, the Justice Department puts the prosecution of individual perpetrators–with all the rights to a fair trial guaranteed by the U.S. judicial system–above America’s national security interest in determining who may be behind terrorist attacks. Questions of state sponsorship that are of pressing interest to national security agencies are typically relegated to a distant second place, or never properly addressed at all, because the national security agencies are denied critical information. In particular, whenever early arrests are made regarding a terrorist incident on American soil, the U.S. government cannot properly address both the national security question of state sponsorship and the criminal question of the guilt or innocence of individual perpetrators at the same time. This is precisely what happened in the World Trade Center bombing. In the case of Ramzi Yousef, the perfectly reasonable questions posed above about who this man is and who may sponsor him have never been properly investigated. Instead of the appropriately trained people conducting a comprehensive investigation, the World Trade Center bombing was followed by an undercover operation, in which an informant of dubious provenance led a handful of local Muslims in a new bombing conspiracy, aimed at the United Nations and other New York landmarks. For this conspiracy Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman and nine others were found guilty in early October 1995. Yet none of those in the trial of Sheikh Omar et al., as it is formally called, was accused of actually participating in the World Trade Center bombing.[4] They were only charged with conspiracy regarding it. The government contended that other followers of Sheikh Omar–four fundamentalists who stood trial in 1994–were actually responsi! ble for puffing it into effect. But what if Ramzi Yousef, who eluded the grasp of U.S. authorities until after his second bombing conspiracy, is neither a follower of Sheikh Omar nor a Muslim fundamentalist? That if he is an Iraqi agent? From a legal perspective–as the judge in that trial advised the defense team–whether state sponsorship played a role in the World Trade Center bombing was irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of Sheikh Omar et al. And indeed, the prosecution did not need to address the question of whether the World Trade Center bombing had state sponsorship in order to obtain the convictions sought against Sheikh Omar and the others. Indeed, that state sponsorship can be irrelevant to a criminal prosecution was explained most clearly by the federal prosecutors in the New York bombing conspiracies, the lead prosecutor in the trial of Sheikh Omar et al., and the lead prosecutor in last year’s Trade Center bombing trial, who will also prosecute Ramzi Yousef. When I put it to them that Iraq was probably behind the Trade Center bombing, they replied, “You may be right, but we don’t do state sponsorship. We prosecute individuals.” Asked who does “do” state sponsorship, they answered, “Washington.” “Who in Washington?” No one seemed to know.[6] Yet by responding to state-sponsored terrorism solely by arresting and trying individual perpetrators, the U.S. government, in effect, invites such states to commit acts of terror in such a way as to leave behind a few relatively minor figures to be arrested, tried, and convicted. Done adroitly, this makes it unlikely that the larger, more important, and more difficult question of state sponsorship will ever be addressed. The problem is illustrated vividly in the case of Ramzi Yousef since his arrest in February 1995. The Justice Department has passed on very little information to other bureaucracies. The FBI’s typical response to any question about Yousef is: “We can’t tell you much because of the trial.” [7] As a result, the State Department, which is responsible for determining whether a terrorist act had state sponsorship, lacks the most basic information– even, for example, a point as simple as what passport Yousef was traveling on when he was arrested in Islamabad. The details of the World Trade Center case are chilling. From the outset, the Justice Department refused to share key information with the national security agencies. The government had two sets of relevant information–foreign intelligence, gathered by the CIA from watching terrorist states such as Iran and Iraq, and evidence gathered by the FBI largely within the United Stares for use in the trial. The FBI flatly told the national security bureaucracies that there was “no evidence” of state sponsorship in the World Trade Center bombing. When the national security agencies asked to see the evidence themselves, the FBI replied, “No, this is a criminal matter. We’re handling it.” Thus, all that the national security agencies had available to decide the question of state sponsorship was foreign intelligence they themselves had collected. But many cases of stare-sponsored terrorism cannot be cracked by means of intelligence alone. The crucial element linking the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 to Libya, for example, was not intelligence but a piece of physical evidence–a microchip, part of the bomb’s timing device, that could be tied to other bombs built by Libyan agents. After the World Trade Center bombing, the FBI was the only bureaucracy with both the intelligence and the evidence. Even if the FBI did make a serious effort to examine the evidence for state sponsorship–and it is not clear that it did–the Bureau alone is not competent to carry out such an investigation. “They’re head hunters”, one official in Pentagon Counterterrorism remarked–that is, they are oriented to the arrest of individuals. A State Department expert described the FBI’s new Office of Radical Fundamentalism as “a joke”, bereft of any genuine Middle East expertise. But the more fundamental problem is that the Justice Department in Washington seems not to have been interested in pursuing the question of state sponsorship. In fact, the New York FBI office suspected an Iraqi connection early on, but the Washington brass seemingly wanted to tell America that they had already cracked the case and caught most of the perpetrators. It is always easier to go after the small fry than to catch the big fish, and law enforcement is ever vulnerable to the temptation to cut off a conspiracy investigation at the most convenient point. Thus, five weeks after the World Trade Center bombing, four Arabs were under arrest. The mastermind, Ramzi Yousef, had fled. Still, at that point in early April 1993, the FBI proclaimed that it had captured most of those involved. The bombing, it claimed, was the work of a loose group of fundamentalists with no ties to any state. The predictable media frenzy followed and, perhaps as a result, some obvious questions were not asked. How could the government know so early in the investigation that those it had arrested had no ties to any state? If the government knew so much so soon, then why did one of those arrested never stand trial for the bombing, and why were three others indicted much later? In short, the Justice Department determined that the bombing had no state sponsorship even before it decided definitively who had been involved. Moreover, by April it was impossible to have conducted a sufficiently thorough investigation. Such an investigation required, at a minimum, a meticulous examination of all records associated with the defendants to insure that they had had no contact with foreign intelligence agencies–or at least that none could be found. That process simply could not have been accomplished in five weeks. And it must be kept in mind that, at the time, the mastermind of the bomb was a fugitive about whom almost nothing was known. How could anyone therefore declare confidently that he was not a foreign agent, especially in light of the fact that he had entered the United States on an Iraqi passport and had been known among the New York fundamentalists as “Rashid, the Iraqi”? Ironically, this sort of problem would not have arisen had the bombing occurred abroad. In such cases there are usually two separate investigations by two different bureaucracies, one to determine state sponsorship, the other to catch the individuals responsible. After the bombing of Pan Am 103, for example, the CLA led an inter-agency intelligence investigation addressing the question of state sponsorship. There was also a separate criminal investigation, headed by the FBI, aimed at individual perpetrators. But there was no intelligence investigation of the World Trade Center bombing. The CIA is, after all, prohibited from operating in America. Of course, a crack inter-agency team could have been established to examine the question of state sponsorship. But Clinton administration officials set up no such team. In September 1995, the State Department forwarded to Congress the report of an independent panel, established to examine whether mistakes in security training had contributed to the March 8 assassination of two U.S. consular officials in Karachi–apparent retaliation for Ramzi Yousef’s extradition. The report expressed concern about the FBI’s lack of cooperation with the national security agencies. Clearly, discontent with the FBI is growing among those agencies as issues such as international crime–and with them the Bureau’s international role–assume a mare prominent role in the post-Cold War world. Indeed, one State Department official described the FBI’S unwillingness to share information as “the train wreck coming”–meaning that given the FBI’s lack of expertise in international politics, there may well come a time when the Bureau will be sitting on information that, in the hands of others, could have been used to avert a disaster. One may indeed ask whether the World Trade Center bombing itself is not a harbinger of the train wreck coming. For if Saddam Hussein was behind it, then the Justice Department, in effect, has blinded the national security bureaucracies to a serious danger, namely the possibility that in the extreme Iraq might use biological agents, whether for terrorism in America or in the context of military’ action in the region, possibly involving U.S. troops. Of course, that is an important “if.” It is to that issue we now turn. Dramatis Personae Ramzi Yousef, a.k.a. Abdul Basit Karim -the key man; likely Iraqi agent. El Sayid Nosair–murderer of Rabbi Meir Kahane, bomb plot initiator. Emad Salem–FBI informant with ties to Egyptian intelligence. Mohammed Salameh–Palestinian fundamentalist, Nosair accomplice and early plotter; left a trail of phone calls to Iraq. Musab Yasin–Iraqi with New Jersey apartment where Yousef first went. Abdul Rahman Yasin–Musab’s brother, led FBI to apartment where bomb was made; employee of Iraqi government; indicted fugitive, presently in Baghdad. Nidal Ayyad–Palestinian fundamentalist convicted in the World Trade Center bombing. Mahmud Abu Halima–Egyptian fundamentalist cab driver convicted in the World Trade Center bombing Eyyad Ismail–Palestinian from Jordan charged with having driven the van. Forty-Six Calls to Iraq ALTHOUGH THE national security agencies never received the World Trade Center evidence, at the conclusion of a trial evidence becomes public. Anyone can examine it, and I did so meticulously. The raw data consist mostly of telephone records, passports, and airplane tickets. Such data reveal nothing directly about state sponsorship, but under close analysis certain facts begin to stand out and certain patterns emerge. And it helps to know the Middle East well. The story begins in November 1990 when an Egyptian fundamentalist, El Sayid Nosair, shot and killed Meir Kahane, an extreme right-wing Israeli-American, in Manhattan. A year later, in November 1991, Nosair’s trial became a cause celebre among local fundamentalists, who turned out in force to support their “martyr.” Planted among them was an Egyptian, Emad Salem, working as an FBI informant, even as he maintained ties to Egyptian intelligence. In December, the jury returned a bizarre verdict, acquitting Nosair of murder and finding him guilty on lesser charges. An outraged judge gave Nosair a maximum sentence on those lesser charges, and sent him to Attica. The fundamentalists continued to support Nosair, arranging bus trips from their mosques to visit him in prison. Salem, the FBI plant, remained among them. In early June 1992, with Salem acting as an agent provocateur, Nosair convinced his friends to execute a bomb plot. He wanted them to make twelve pipe bombs, to be used for assassinating his judge and a Brooklyn assemblyman, the others to be used against Jewish targets. A cousin was to organize the plot, and Salem was to build the bombs. A twenty-six year old Palestinian, Mohammad Salameh, was soon recruited into the plot. Salameh comes from a long line of terrorists on his mother’s side. His maternal grandfather fought in the 1936 Arab revolt against British rule in Palestine, and even as an old man joined the PLO and managed to get himself jailed by the Israelis. A maternal uncle was arrested in 1968 for terrorism and served eighteen years in an Israeli prison before he was released and deported, making his way to Baghdad where he became number two in the “Western Sector”, a PLO terrorist unit under Iraqi influence. Despite this pedigree, Salameh himself is naive and manipulable. When one considers that he was arrested in the process of returning to collect the deposit on the van he had rented to carry the Trade Center bomb, it is not so surprising that on June 10, soon after being recruited into Nosair’s plot, Salameh made the first of forty-six calls to Iraq, the vast majority to his terrorist uncle in Baghdad. We can only speculate about what Salameh told his uncle, but it seems very likely that he spoke about the bold new project Nosair was organizing, perhaps seeking his help and advice. Salameh’s telephone bills suggest that the pipe bombing plot was one of the most exciting events in his life: In six weeks he ran up a bill of over four thousand dollars and lost his phone service. Iraq is one of the few remaining Stalinist states. Iraqis routinely assume their telephones are bugged, and are even cautious about discussing sensitive issues in their own homes. The more significant the person, the greater the likelihood his activities are monitored–at least that is what Baghdadis assume. My own experience in Baghdad makes clear that when Iraqis want to be sure that a conversation is not monitored, it takes place out of doors. It is thus more than likely that Iraqi intelligence learned of Nosair’s bombing plot and Salameh’s participation in it through Salameh’s phone calls to his uncle. In any event, key preparatory steps to the World Trade Center bombing were taken within days of Salameh’s first call-including steps taken in Baghdad. On June 21, an Iraqi living in Baghdad, Abdul Rahman Yasin (subsequently an indicted fugitive in the Trade Center bombing) appeared at the U.S. embassy in Amman asking for a U.S. passport. Born in America, Abdul Rahman received his passport, which he soon used to travel to this country. Just at this crucial point, unfortunately, the FBI lost track of the Nosair-Salameh conspiracy. It did not fully trust its informant, Emad Salem, and Salem’s ties to Egyptian intelligence; the Bureau severed relations with him in early July when he refused to follow its procedures relating to criminal investigations. Salameh’s phone bills and other evidence raise the distinct possibility that, Iraqi intelligence having learned of Nosair’s plans from Salameh’s calls to his uncle, Baghdad decided to help out, transforming the plot in the process. If so, the speed of the reaction suggests that Iraqi intelligence may have already been planning some operation against America, and that Salameh1s calls to his uncle provided it with a fortuitous means of carrying it out. Here probably lies the source of Ramzi Yousef s exploits in America. Enter Ramzi Yousef ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1992, Ramzi Yousef arrived at JFK airport. He presented an Iraqi passport without a U.S. visa, was briefly detained (and fingerprinted) for illegal entry, and granted asylum pending a hearing. Yousef went to stay at the apartment of Musab Yasin, an Iraqi living in Jersey City. So too did Abdul Rahman Yasin, Musab’s younger brother, who arrived in America from Iraq soon after Yousef. (Musab had an unlisted telephone number under an Israeli-sounding alias, Josie Hadas.) Musab lived in the same building as Mohammad Salameh. Many young Arab men used their two apartments, praying and eating together; relations were so close that the apartments were connected by an intercom. Once established within this group, Ramzi Yousef befriended Salameh, and the two left to share an apartment elsewhere in Jersey City. From then on, the impressionable Salameh was under Yousef s wing. Although the principal conspirators had been in place since September, it was not until after the U.S. elections on November 3 that Yousef began to prepare the World Trade Center bomb. In mid-November the first of many calls to chemical companies appears on his phone bills. At the same time, Yousef also began calling surgical supply companies for the gloves, masks, and rubber tubing he needed to make the bomb. In the meantime, two other local fundamentalists were recruited into the plot, Nidal Ayyad and Mahmud Abu Halima. Ayyad, a Palestinian, was the same age as Salameh and Salameh’s friend. Abu Halima, a thirty-four year old Egyptian cab driver, was a friend of Nosair. Abu Halima was older and generally savvier than the two Palestinians. In January 1993, Yousef and Salameh moved into another Jersey City apartment where the bomb was actually built. Set well back from the street, the building provided seclusion. On February 21 a twenty-one year old Palestinian named Eyyad Ismail arrived from Dallas. Ismail is charged with having driven the bomb-laden van.[8] On February 23, Salameh went to a Ryder rental agency to rent the van to carry the bomb. On the morning of February 26, the conspirators gathered at a local Shell gas station where they topped up the tank–one last explosive touch–before driving to Manhattan. Shortly after noon, the bomb went off, on–let it be well noted–the second anniversary of the ending of the Gulf War. That evening Salameh drove Yousef and Ismail to JFK airport; Yousef escaped to Pakistan on falsified travel documents, and Ismail flew home to Jordan. But Salameh looks to have been deliberately left behind by Yousef, not provided with money he needed for a plane ticket. Salameh had a ticket to Amsterdam on Royal Jordanian fight 262, which continues on to Amman, dated for March 5, but it was an infant ticket that had cost him only $65. While Salameh had been able to use this ticket to get himself a Dutch visa, he could not actually travel on it Needing more money for an adult fare, he tried to get his van deposit back by telling the rental agency that the van had been stolen. With either desperate or inane persistence, he returned three times before he was finally arrested on March 4. Salameh had used Musab Yasin’s phone number when renting the van, and Abdul Rahman Yasin was picked up the same day in a sweep of sites associated with Salameh. Abdul Rahman was taken to New Jersey FBI headquarters in Newark. He is reported to have been extremely cool, as a trained intelligence agent would be. He was helpful to investigators who themselves faced tremendous pressure to produce answers. He told them, for instance, the location of the apartment that was used to make the bomb, a key bit of information. They thanked him for his cooperation and let him walk out. This, although he had arrived just six months before from Iraq, and might well attempt to return there. And indeed, the very next day, Abdul Rahman Yasin boarded Royal Jordanian 262 to Amman, the same plane Salameh had hoped to catch. From Amman he went on to Baghdad. An ABC news stringer saw him there last year, outside his father’s house, and learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government! . Meanwhile, as U.S. authorities searched for Abdul Rahman Yasin in March 1993, after his “helpful” session with the FBI and before they knew for certain that he had fled, an FBI agent who had worked with Emad Salem in June 1992 speculated: “Do you ever think that Iraqi intelligence might have known of these people who were willing to do something crazy, and that Iraqi intelligence found them out and encouraged them to do this as a retaliation for the bombing of Iraq. . . . So the people who are left holding the bag here in America are Egyptian. . . or Palestinian. . . . But the other people we are looking for, Abdul Rahman, he is gone. . I hate to think what’s going to happen if this guy turns out to be. . an Iraqi intelligence operative…and these people were used.” [9] Mahmud Abu Halima had similar thoughts. As he told a prison companion who later turned state’s evidence: “The planned act was not as big as what subsequently occurred. . . Yousef showed up on the scene. and escalated the initial plot. . . . Yousef used [them]. . .as pawns and then immediately after the blast left the country.” [10] That, indeed, is the most straightforward explanation of the World Trade Center bombing: that it was an Iraqi intelligence operation, led by Ramzi Yousef, with the local fundamentalists serving first as aides and then as diversionary dupes. Since Yousef’s arrest and extradition to the United States, the evidence for this explanation has, if anything, grown stronger. First of all, he is clearly no fundamentalist. According to neighbors, he had a Filipina girlfriend and enjoyed Manila’s raucous night life.[11] Yousef’s nationality and ethnicity have also become known: He is a Pakistani Baluch. The Baluch are a distinct ethnic group, speaking their own language, one of several Middle Eastern peoples without their own homeland. They live in eastern Iran and western Pakistan in inhospitable desert terrain over which neither Tehran nor Islamabad exercises much control. Baluchistan is a haven for smuggling, both of drugs and of arms. The Baluch are Sunni and are at sharp odds with Tehran’s Shia clerical regime. Through Iraq’s many years of conflict with Iran, first in the early 1970s and then during the Iran-Iraq war a decade later, Iraqi intelligence developed close ties with the Baluch on both sides of the Iranian-Pakistani border. Above all, it used them to carry out terrorism against Iran. Yousef’s associates in Pakistan, too, were anti-Shia. This fact, taken together with his Baluch ethnicity, make it nearly impossible that Iran could be behind Yousef. The most recent inquiries, made since Yousef’s arrest, have reduced the question to two possibilities: He is a free-lancer connected to a loose network of fundamentalists; or he worked for Iraq. [12] Of Passports and Fingerprints THE SINGLE MOST important piece of evidence pointing to Iraq is the passport on which Yousef fled America. It was no ordinary passport. On November 9,1992, just after the final green light for the bombing had been given, Yousef reported to Jersey City., police that he had lost his passport. He claimed to be Abdul Basit Mahmud Abdul Karim, a Pakistani born and reared in Kuwait. Then, between December 3 and December 27, Yousef made a number of calls to Baluchistan. Several of them were conference calls to a few key numbers, a geographical plotting of which suggests that they were related to Yousef’s probable escape route–through Pakistani and Iranian Baluchistan–across the Arabian Sea to Oman, after which the “telephone trail” ends. After Yousef s arrest, a National Security Council staffer confirmed to me that Yousef had indeed fled from the United States through Baluchistan. On December 31, 1992, Yousef went to the Pakistani consulate in New York with photocopies of Abdul Basit’s current and previous passports. Consistent with his story to police in Jersey City, he claimed to have lost his passport and asked for a new one. The consulate suspected his non-original documentation enough to deny him a new passport. But it did provide him a six-month, temporary passport and told him to straighten things out when he returned “home.” This turned out to be good enough for the purpose at hand. By now it should be clear that the World Trade Center bomber’s real name is probably neither Ramzi Yousef nor Abdul Basit. After all, would someone intending to blow up New York’s tallest tower go to such trouble to get a passport under his own name? Yousef was a man of many passports; he had three on his person when he was arrested in Pakistan. Rather, it seems that Ramzi Yousef risked going to the Pakistani consulate with such flimsy documents because he wanted investigators to conclude that he was in fact Abdul Basit, and so would stop trying to determine his real identity. And that is pretty much what happened. But why Abdul Basit Karim? Here we come to one of the most intriguing and vital aspects of the case. Because there really was an Abdul Basit Karim, a Pakistani born in Kuwait, who later attended Swansea Institute, a technical school in Wales. After graduating in 1989 with a two-year degree in computer-aided electronic engineering, he returned to a job in Kuwait’s planning ministry. As Abdul Basit and his family were permanent residents of Kuwait, Kuwait’s Interior Ministry maintained files on them. But the files for Abdul Basit and his parents in Kuwait’s Interior Ministry have been tampered with. Key documents from the Kuwaiti files on Abdul Basit and his parents are missing. There should be copies of the front pages of the passports, including a picture, a notation of height, and so forth, but that material is gone. There is also information in the file that should not be there, especially a notation stating that Abdul Basit and his family left Kuwait for Iraq on August 26! , 1990, transiting to Iran at Salamchah (a crossing point near Basra) on their way to Pakistani Baluchistan, where, according to the file, they now live. Who put that notation into Abdul Basit’s file and why? Consider the circumstances of the moment. The Kuwaiti government had ceased to exist, and Iraq was an occupation authority; bent on establishing control over a hostile population amid near-universal condemnation, as an American-led coalition threatened war. The situation was chaotic as hundreds of thousands of people were fleeing for their lives. While the citizens of Western countries were pawns in a high stakes game, held hostage by Iraq, little attention was paid to the multitude of Third World nationals bent on escape. It truly boggles the imagination to believe that under such circumstances an Iraqi bureaucrat was sitting calmly in Kuwait’s Interior Ministry taking down the flight plans–including the itinerary and final destination–of otherwise non-descript Baluchis fleeing Kuwait. Rather, it looks as if Iraqi intelligence put that information into Abdul Basit’s file to make it appear that he left Kuwait rather th! an died there, and that, like Ramzi Yousef, he too was Baluch. Moreover, Iraqi intelligence apparently switched fingerprint cards, removing the original with Abdul Basit’s fingerprints and replacing it with one bearing those of Yousef. Fingerprints are decisive for investigators because no two people’s match. But the very fact that fingerprints are so decisive makes them the perfect candidate for careful manipulation. Thus, after U.S. authorities learned that Yousef had fled as Abdul Basit, they sent his fingerprints (taken by the Immigration and Naturalization Service at JFF airport when he was briefly detained for illegal entry) to Kuwait, asking if they matched those of Abdul Basit. When the Kuwaitis said that they did, everyone assumed the question settled–forgetting that Kuwait’s files were not secure during the Iraqi occupation. Pakistan also maintains files on those of its citizens permanently resident abroad, at the embassy in the country in which they live. On August 9, Baghdad ordered all embassies in Iraq’s “nineteenth province” to close. Most did, including the Pakistani embassy. The files on Abdul Basit and his family that should be in the Pakistani embassy in Kuwait are missing. The Pakistani government now has no record of the family. What does all this suggest? To me it suggests that Abdul Basit and his family were in Kuwait when Iraq invaded in August 1990; that they probably died then; and that Iraqi intelligence then tampered with their files to create an alternative identity for Ramzi Yousef. Clearly, only Iraq could reasonably have: 1) known of, or caused, the death of Abdul Basit and his family; 2) tampered with Kuwait’s Interior Ministry files, above all switching the fingerprint cards; and 3) filched the files on Abdul Basit and his family from the Pakistani embassy in Kuwait. Of course, the best way to verify or falsify this would be to check with people who knew Abdul Basit before August 1990. To this end, Brad White, a former Senate Judiciary Committee investigator and CBS newsman, contacted an overseas source he knew in the United Kingdom who had looked into the matter. Two people had a good memory of Abdul Basit but, shown photos of Yousef, were unable to make a positive identification. They both felt that while there was some similarity in looks, it was not the same person. “Our feeling is that Ramzi Yousef is probably not Basit”, White was told.[13] Logic and circumstance also suggest the same conclusion. Is it likely to be mere coincidence, after all, that during Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait key documents were removed from Abdul Basit’s and his parents files, while the same files were filched in their entirety from the Pakistani embassy? Moreover, Abdul Basit had no criminal record in Britain, nor did he or his parents have any security record in Kuwait. The first concrete knowledge we have of Ramzi Yousef/Abdul Basit comes in early 1991, around the end of the Gulf war when he showed up in the Philippines seeking contact with a Muslim group there. Introduced as “the chemist”, he proposed to collaborate in bombing conspiracies. Now, how did a young man who had led a seemingly normal life up until August 1990 suddenly become a world class terrorist six months after Iraq invaded his country of residence? Where did he get such sophisticated explosives training in just six months? (The real Abdul Basit’s degree, remember, was in electronic engineering, not chemistry, which Swansea Institute does not even teach.) And where are Abdul Basit’s parents? They never returned to Kuwait after its liberation, nor have they appeared anywhere else. Did they too take up a life of crime after decades of abiding by the law? Ramzi Yousef’s arrest has made it easy enough to resolve a key question and perhaps produce important evidence implicating Iraq in the World Trade Center bombing: Is “Ramzi Yousef” really Abdul Basit or not? Let those who remember Abdul Basit from before August 1990 meet Yousef in person and tell us. It sounds simple and logical, but strangely, the Justice Department has shown no interest in arranging such a meeting. Moreover, it has decided to try, the bomber as Ramzi Yousef even though no one, including Yousef by now, maintains that that is his real name. If the government believes that Yousef is really Abdul Basit, why doesn’t it try him as Abdul Basit? Why is the Justice Department uninterested even in definitively determining his identity, even though doing so might help get to the bottom of the matter. I recently asked a Justice Department official, who maintains his confident view that Yousef is indeed Abdul Basit, “Why don’t you bring the people who knew Abdul Basit ! to the prison to meet Yousef, so they can say for sure if they are the same?” “But you”, I was told, “are interested in an intelligence question.” Earlier I had been told, “It does not matter what we call him. We just try a body.” And so back we come to the high wall. As before, those who have the information about Ramzi Yousef and his bombing conspiracies are not concerned with the question of state sponsorship, or at least consider it secondary to their trials; while those who are concerned with state sponsorship are denied the information that they need to investigate the question properly. Threats From Baghdad MOST MEMBERS OF the U.S. national security bureaucracies think that Saddam Hussein has largely lain low since the Gulf War, constrained by economic sanctions and swift American reactions to his occasional feints to the south. But if in February 1993, Saddam ordered his agents to try to topple New York’s tallest tower onto its twin, and if, in January 1995, Iraq sponsored an effort to destroy eleven U.S. airplanes in the Far East, then Saddam has not been quiescent. This, simply put, is why it is important to find out who Ramzi Yousef is and who may have put him up to his murderous work. Maybe Iraq had nothing to do with him, despite all the circumstantial evidence suggesting otherwise. But if it did, then the otherwise peculiar, bombastic, and extremely violent statements emanating from Baghdad might make more sense than they at first seem to. In the fall of 1994, Baghdad’s official press, in essence, threatened that Saddam might use his remaining unconventional agents, biological and chemical, for terrorism in America, or in missiles delivered against his enemies in the region if and when he became fed up with sanctions.[14] On September 29, 1994, following an otherwise cryptic statement of Saddam Hussein’s, the government newspaper, Babil, warned: “Does the United States realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?” Other threats followed almost daily; When peoples reach the verge of collective death, they will be able to spread death to all. [15] When one realizes that death is one s inexorable fate, there remains nothing to deter one from taking the most risky steps to influence the course of events. [16] We seek to tell the United States and its agents that the Iraqi patience has run out and that the perpetuation of the crime of annihilating the Iraqis will trigger crises whose nature and consequences are known only to God.[17] These statements occurred in the context of Saddam’s second and abortive lunge at Kuwait, which was thwarted by the swift U.S. deployment to the region. Saddam then turned around and formally recognized Kuwait, removing what then seemed to be the last major obstacle to lifting sanctions, and the Iraqi press soon began to call 1995, “the year of lifting sanctions.” But that was not to be. The UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) started to uncover evidence of a large, undeclared biological program. As Baghdad’s disappointment grew, the Iraqi press began to repeat the threats it had made in the fall. The number two man in Iraq’s information ministry warned, “Iraq’s abandonment of part of its weapons-the long-range missiles and chemical weapons. . does not mean it has lost everything.”[18] Al-Quds al-Arabi, a London paper financed by Baghdad and close to the Iraqi regime, cautioned. “Iraq still has options. But they are all destructive options. Yet if the Americans continue to humiliate them, they will have no option but to bring the temple down on everyone’s head.”19 After Baghdad succeeded in getting a clean bill of health from UNSCOM in mid-June on its chemical and missile programs, it finally acknowledged in July having had an offensive biological program and having produced anthrax and botulinim. But it denied that it had ever tried to weaponize those agents and, in any case, claimed to have destroyed them in the fall of 1990. The claim was neither credible nor verifiable, particularly as Iraq produced no documents detailing their destruction. Indeed, the Iraqi “revelations” may even have been meant as a threat, an attempt to intimidate the United Nations by hinting at what Baghdad was still capable of doing.[20] In early August 1995, as Iraq pressed UNSCOM for a clean bill of health on its biological program, Hussein Kamil–Saddam’s cousin and son-in-law, and the man responsible for overseeing the build-up of Iraq’s unconventional weapons program defected. This precipitated a flood of stunning revelations from Baghdad. They included the admission that Iraq had indeed weaponized botulinim and anthrax. At the very same time that it had earlier claimed to be destroying those agents, the Iraqi regime now acknowledged that it had been stuffing them into bombs and missiles. Yet Iraq still claimed that whatever biological agents it had produced had been destroyed, even as it still failed to produce any documents to confirm their purported destruction. It looks as if Iraq is holding on to prohibited weapons of mass destruction, even as it insists that sanctions be lifted. Why? In early September, a former adviser to Saddam Hussein predicted that Iraq would not give up any more unconventional agents. Instead, Saddam would probably employ them for blackmail and brinkmanship to get sanctions lifted. And failing that, he would use them.[21] General Wafiq Samarrai, former head of Iraqi military intelligence, told me much the same: “Tell the allies that they have to destroy Iraq’s biological agents before Saddam can use them.” Iraq could attack its neighbors by missile, or America through terrorism. The United Stares might retaliate with nuclear weapons, but by then “the disaster will already have happened”, Samarrai warned. [22] Would Saddam actually do such a thing? When asked about the possibility of Saddam’s using biological agents for terrorism in America, UNSCOM chairman RoIf Ekeus replied, “It is obviously possible.”[23] Yet such thoughts seem far from the minds of most U.S. officials, who believe that Saddam is trapped by sanctions and can do no real harm. They feel no urgency about bringing Saddam down; they sense no danger. Unfinished Business YET IF RAMZI YOUSEF is in fact an Iraqi intelligence agent, there obviously is a danger. Even if we cannot yet be absolutely certain of this, so many American and allied lives are potentially at stake that it seems the least a responsible government can do is to make every reasonable effort to find out. As Saddam Hussein senses his ever-increasing isolation and sees the prospects for lifting sanctions receding, his desperation may lead him to order other, and even more ghastly, deeds. If Saddam Hussein still hungers for revenge, the question of Ramzi Yousef’s terrorism is much too important to be left solely to the Justice Department, while the FBI continues to withhold critical information from the national security bureaucracies. The following are among the steps that could and should be taken to address the issue of whether Iraq is behind Ramzi Yousef and to strengthen America’s anti-terrorism efforts generally: Bring those who knew Abdul Basit Karim before August 1990 to meet Yousef in prison and pronou

    Bring those who knew Abdul Basit Karim before August 1990 to meet Yousef in
    prison and pronounce definitely if they are one and the same man.
    Demand the immediate and unconditional extradition of Abdul Rahman Yasin from

    Establish a “tiger team”, drawn from the best and brightest within the national
    security bureaucracies, to examine all the information in the U.S. government’s
    possession related to Yousef and his bombing conspiracies. Yousef’s apparent use
    of chemical agents in New York and his threat to use them in the Philippines
    deserve special attention.

    Establish appropriate procedures so that whenever a terrorist attack occurs
    against U.S. targets that might be state-sponsored, a qualified team will
    address the question of state sponsorship regardless of whether the terror
    occurs on U.S. soil or whether early arrests are made.

    Individually, the pieces of this puzzle–the elusive identity and affiliation of
    the World Trade Center bomber; the series of explicit threats against the United
    States issuing from Baghdad; the question of Iraqi biological
    capabilities–raise troubling questions. Taken together, they provide the
    outline of a very frightening possibility. The lack of coordination between the
    Departments of Justice and State may have created a niche for terrorism within
    America’s borders; while the lack of any adequate response to the two major
    bombing conspiracies may have already begun to undermine the credibility of the
    threat of deterrence. So far, State Department officials have been content to
    leave the issue of Iraq’s possible resort to biological terrorism on the back
    burner, secure in the belief that the threat of nuclear retaliation will be
    sufficient deterrent. But Saddam has previously miscalculated the American
    reaction to his provocations. It would be reassuring to know that, so!
    mewhere in the policy-apparatus of the State Department, someone is looking
    seriously at the possibility of future terrorist acts and at the requirements of
    effective deterrence.


    Laurie Mylroie, formerly of Harvard University and the U.S. Naval War College.
    is currently with the Foreign Policy Research Institute of Philadelphia. She was
    co-author of the bestseller, Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf (Random
    House 1990), and has just completed a sequel, ‘Study of Revenge’: Saddam’s
    Terror Against America, January 1993-??


    1. Washington Post, October 7,1995.

    2. Indeed, there is good reason to suspect an Iraqi hand in the November 13,1995
    bombing of the U.S. military office in Riyadh.

    3. Interview with Vincent Cannistraro, former Chief of Counterterrorism
    Operations for the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. There is no formal or legal
    reason for the FBI position and standard practice. It is largely a matter of
    protecting bureaucratic turf.

    4. Wall Street Journal, September 22,1995. This point was repeatedly made in the
    New York Times–April 4,7, 9 and 26; June 22 and 28; July 26 and 30; August 2
    and 22; October 2, 1995.

    5. Ken Wasserman, lawyer for one of the defendants in Sheikh Omar et. al. to the

    6 Author’s meeting with federal prosecutors in New York, January, 1995, arranged
    by the New York District Attorney’s office. Another Trade Center prosecutor,
    since retired, expressed his frustration with the FBI to a Yale Law School
    alumni gathering, complaining that they had done no “overall policy review.”
    Allan Gerson, former Chief Counsel of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations
    (1981-5), to the author-

    7. Sources in the State Department, CIA, and Pentagon all told me that those at
    the working level were not getting information from the FBI on Yousef, and were
    all very unhappy about it,

    8. lsmail was indicted in September 1994 and arrested in August 1995 at his
    family home in Jordan. He was identified by comparing Yousef’s telephone records
    to the passenger manifests of planes leaving JFK the night of the bombing. I
    believe that Ismail was probably an unwitting participant and meant to be
    caught. After Yousef was arrested in February, he mentioned the existence of
    another conspirator and expressed surprise that he had not yet been arrested.

    9. John Anticev to FBI plant Emad Salem. Salem taped most of his phone
    conversations, including those with the FBI.

    10. FD-302, [Proffer Session], p.3, Mohammad Abdul Haggag.

    11. New York Times, February 12,1995.

    12. See Charles Wallace, Los Angeles Times, May 30, 1995; David Ottaway and
    Steven Croll, Washington Post, June 5, 1995; Maryanne Weaver, New Yorker, June
    5, 1995.

    13. Brad White to the author, September 23,1995.

    14. See Laurie Mylroie and James Ring Adams. “Saddam’s Germs”, The American
    Spectator, November 1995.

    15. a1-Jumhuriyah, October 4, 1994.

    16. al-Jumhuriyah, October 5, 1994.

    17. al-Jumhuriyah, October 8, 1994.

    18, Al-Iraq, April 11, 1995.

    19. Al-Quds al-Arabi, June 15,1995.

    20. This was suggested by Frank Gaffney in a Center for Security Policy
    “Decision Brief,” July 7,1995.

    21 “Saddam Nears End-game,” The Guardian, September 4, 1995.

    22. Telephone interview with Samarrai, in Damascus, September 1995.

    23. McNeil-Lehrer Newshour, August 28, 1995.

    AWAM 7201113 WINFRED A/L WILLIAM 02 IP. JKR. KEDAH KJT 2-01 X L’97 L’97 L’93
    AWAM 5713239 NG HAK KEEN 04 IP. JKR. PERAK KJT 14-01 L’93 L’98 L’00 X
    AWAM 8081093 BHASKARAN A/L RAMAN 04 IP. JKR. PERAK KJT 15-01 X L’99 L’98 X
    L’98 X
    AWAM 5251956 AMINUDDIN BIN ABD AZIZ 05 JKR. W. P. K. LUMPUR KJT 21-01 X X L’98 X
    AWAM A0503294 ZAIMI BIN NORDIN 05 JKR. W. P. K. LUMPUR KJT 22-01 X X X X
    X X
    AWAM 6742439 SITI HAJAR BTE SHARIF 08 IP. JKR. MELAKA KJT 31-01 X L’97 L’97 L’97
    AWAM A0286752 SA’DON BIN MD ATAN 09 IP. JKR. JOHOR KJT 33-01 X X X X
    AWAM 6986262 MOHD SOTERI BIN AHMAD 09 IP. JKR. JOHOR KJT 36-01 X L’97 L’98 X
    AWAM 5330506 MD LANI BIN TUMIN 09 IP. JKR. JOHOR KJT 37-01 X X X X
    AWAM 6247813 MOHD ISHAK B. HJ. OMAR 10 IP. JKR. PAHANG KJT 38-01 X X X X
    AWAM 6111279 HALIM BIN HASHIM 10 IP. JKR. PAHANG KJT 45-01 X X L’98 X
    AWAM 4302706 MOHD. YUSOH BIN MD. ALI 10 IP. JKR. PAHANG KJT 47-01 X L’97 L’92 X
    AWAM 4772109 AHMAD BIN ROSLAN 10 IP. JKR. PAHANG KJT 49-01 X X L’95 L’95
    AWAM 6288196 RAMLI BIN SULONG 11 IP. JKR. TERENGGANU KJT 54-01 X L’98 L’98 L’98
    AWAM 5034777 CHEN FOOK KEONG 12 IP. JKR. KELANTAN KJT 56-01 X X L’00 L’93
    AWAM 5254491 AZAMY BIN HUSIN 14 IP. JKR. SABAH KJT 60-01 X X X X
    AWAM A0836053 ANUAR B. SAAT 14 IP. JKR. SABAH KJT 62-01 X X X X
    X X X
    X X
    X X X
    ELEKTRIK A1450149 SALINA BT AMIR 05 JKR. W. P. K. LUMPUR KJT 2007-01 L’98 X X
    ELEKTRIK A0252230 AMIR BIN ISMAIL 05 JKR. W. P. K. LUMPUR KJT 2008-01 L’00 X X
    ELEKTRIK 6128206 RAZALI BIN AB HAMID 05 JKR. W. P. K. LUMPUR KJT 2009-01 L’98 X
    X L’98
    ELEKTRIK A0872395 JOHARI BIN HUSIN 05 JKR. W. P. K. LUMPUR KJT 2012-01 L’98 X X
    L’98 X X L’98
    X X L’98
    ELEKTRIK A0361919 MOHD PUAT B. RAMLI 05 JKR. W. P. K. LUMPUR KJT 2015-01 X X X X
    X X
    X X
    ELEKTRIK 6849865 SHUKRI BIN SEMAN 06 IP. JKR. SELANGOR KJT 2018-01 X L’99 L’97 X
    X X X
    2032-01 L’00 X L’97 L’96
    L’00 X X L’00
    L’98 L’93 X

    – –
    – –
    L’00 X X X
    MEKANIKAL A0340532 CHEK IDRUS B. OMAR 04 IP. JKR. PERAK KJT 1007-01 L’98 X X X
    L’97 L’00 X X
    X X
    X X
    L’94 X
    X X
    MEKANIKAL 6756452 RAMLI B. HJ BAHALI 09 IP. JKR. JOHOR KJT 1015-01 L’98 X X X
    L’95 X
    L’99 L’95 X
    L’97 L’98 X
    L’98 X
    L’00 X X X
    X X L’93 X
    L’95 X
    MEKANIKAL 4181597 AB KADIR B. JUSOH 12 IP. JKR. KELANTAN KJT 1029-01 L’94 X L’93
    1030-01 L’00 X X X
    X X X
    L’00 X X L’00
    L’00 X L’99
    L’98 L’96 L’97
    X X X X X
    SENIBINA 6336253 AZHAR BIN SALEH 04 IP. JKR. PERAK KJT 3006-01 X L’00 L’00 X
    X X X X
    3010-01 X X L’00 X L’00
    SENIBINA 5328717 OMAR BIN AKASAH 05 JKR. W. P. K. LUMPUR KJT 3011-01 X L’00 L’93
    L’99 L’99
    SENIBINA 6977694 RAMLI B. SELAMAT 05 JKR. W. P. K. LUMPUR KJT 3012-01 X L’00
    L’00 L’00 L’00
    SENIBINA 590410015890 RAZMI BINTI JAMAL 05 JKR. W. P. K. LUMPUR KJT 3013-01 – X
    X X X
    SENIBINA 550511045363 ABU KASIM BIN MOHAMAD 05 JKR. W. P. K. LUMPUR KJT 3014-01
    X X X X X
    SENIBINA 6145102 NORIDAH BT. OMAR 06 IP. JKR. SELANGOR KJT 3015-01 L’00 X L’94 X
    L’00 X L’00
    SENIBINA 7058749 RAZALI B. ABU HASAN 08 IP. JKR. MELAKA KJT 3018-01 X – – – X
    SENIBINA 560708045163 AB GAFAR BIN BABA 08 IP. JKR. MELAKA KJT 3019-01 X X X – X
    UKUR BAHAN 5786903 OTHMAN BIN ZAINOL 01 IP. JKR. PERLIS KJT 4001-01 X L’95 L’92
    L’93 L’93
    X X X X X
    X X X X
    4004-01 L’00 X L’00 L’00 X
    L’94 L’93 L’93
    4006-01 X X L’93 L’93 L’93
    4007-01 L’95 X L’94 L’95 L’94
    L’99 L’99 X
    L’00 X X
    UKUR BAHAN 4400379 SAHAT BIN MOHAMAD 10 IP. JKR. PAHANG KJT 4010-01 L’99 X L’94
    L’94 X
    L’98 L’98 L’99
    L’97 L’95 L’94
    UKUR BAHAN 6770828 JUNAIDAH BT MAHMUD 10 IP. JKR. PAHANG KJT 4013-01 L’00 X L’99
    L’99 X
    L’98 L’98 L’98

    This is not from me, but a friend of mine in Colorado.

    SO YOU WANT A HOLY WAR?Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 22:32:41 +0000
    >It’s been weeks since I’ve grandstanded so for those hoping for jokes I will
    >follow this up with the usual, insensative crap I am known for. For now I
    >really must pass along this article written by the brilliant William F.
    >Buckley, Jr.. Take your time reading it because it makes perfect sense.
    >But first, my take…
    >We are heading ito the 21st century in an awkward but important way, through
    >War. In the first part of the 20th Century we had a world divided by a
    >conflict the likes of which we thaught we would never see again. It was
    >called the Great War and we only know of it from history books as World War
    >1. That’s because just 20 years later the world was thrust into a second
    >Great War, also known as World War II. In the interest of brevity I will
    >not go into great details and will invite anyone to disagree with the
    >general concensus that by defeating the Nazzis, we in the West have enjoyed
    >enormous prosperity. The 50+ years since the defeat of Hitler has also seen
    >another Great War, The Cold War. And in the years of conflict with
    >Communism and the subsequent defeate of it, we in the West have enjoyed
    >enormous prosperity. With those points made, I would like for everyone who
    >reads this to realize that MILLIONS of men, women and children have died in
    >the last 90 years of World Wars. What this means to me today is that my
    >ability to sit hear and dole out my oppinion on my PC while drinking a beer
    >and smoking a cigarette was BOUGHT AND PAID FOR IN FULL WITH BLOOD!! With
    >one condition, that I should strive to make the most of my Freedom and
    >prosperity and not let it be taken for granted. Facisim and Communism (with
    >the exception of that bastard Fidel) are two infections that I personally
    >will not have to worry about in my lifetime thanks to all the people
    >(Including the guilty ones) who fought and died eleminating it. It is for
    >those reasons that I take this new conflict seriously. I beleive that the
    >Current War on Terrorism is completely Justifiable and our World to come
    >will continue to enjoy enormous prosperity and Freedom.
    >The Roan
    >William F. Buckley, Jr. – ON THE RIGHT
    > Tuesday, October 9, 2001
    >Whatever is or is not authentic transcription of Islamic
    >dogma, we do know that the people who ran the airliners
    >into the World Trade Center believed that a Koranic voice
    >was telling them to do what they did. We have the four-page
    >document that told them not only what to do, but what to
    >think. “Kill them, as God said; no Prophet can have prison-
    >ers of war.”
    >They would not cavil, their clerical dispatcher knew, but
    >even so there was a reiteration of the sacredness of their
    >mission. “Recognize … what God has prepared for believers
    >in endless happiness for martyrs. … Be steadfast and
    >remember (that in) God you will be triumphant.”
    >Here is a strategic suggestion from the Western high command.
    >Declare in full voice that Islam is widely profaned and mis-
    >taught. That if it isn’t — if the Koranic high exegetes are
    >paralyzed with doubt whether such as the Ladenites are true
    >to their faith — then the faith being practiced must be
    >disavowed by the legitimists. Say as much, and say also that
    >the Western world is prepared to denominate the imposters as
    >such and to call for a restoration of a Muslim religion con-
    >sistent with civilized conduct.
    >We have done such a thing in the political world. Without
    >using the language of xcommunication as such, what we got
    >around to doing in the postwar world was to exclude commu-
    >nism as an acceptable model for the organization of polit-
    >ical life. We did this because, by our experience with
    >communism in practice and by the exercise of reason, we
    >judged it incompatible with irreversible advances in human
    >When finally the United States abolished slavery, the word
    >went out: No more. No Christianity cum slavery. One or the
    >We have now Islam to deal with. We do not need to make the
    >point that its political and economic record is miserable,
    >that only one of 18 Muslim states (Turkey) is democratically
    >governed. There are those who are willing to advertise the
    >individual hypocrisies. A spokesman from the Jamiat Ulema-
    >e-Islam party, while calling on his faithful to overthrow
    >the government of Pakistan for the sin of maintaining
    >equable relations with the United States, sends his own
    >two sons to the United States to school. The Taliban has
    >taken unmarried women detected in pregnancy and buried them
    >to neck level before execution. Where is Islamic condemnation
    >of such practices? For that matter, where is condemnation of
    >Saudis chopping pickpockets’ hands off?
    >We read of the mobs in Karachi who denounce the United States
    >and flaunt signs that call out to “CRUSH AMERICA.” In a pinch,
    >we have to gamble. Perhaps human nature isn’t reliably self-
    >interested enough to prefer liberal democracy to protracted
    >tyrannical misery. But we have to hope that the raw instinct
    >is there to welcome relief. There were Kuwaitis who prostrated
    >themselves with gratitude to liberating GIs, even as there
    >are millions of Afghans who flee the wretched world of their
    >Muslim oppressors where they have been kept alive by American
    >food shipments to Afghanistan and bank now on American food
    >shipped to Pakistan, where they will reasonably hope that
    >before America is entirely CRUSHED we will have stored
    >enough food for them and their children.
    >It is thought to be a sign of toleration to defer to Islam
    >as simply another religion. It isn’t that. It is a form of
    >condescension. Carefully selected, there are Koranic
    >preachments that are consistent with civilized life. But
    >on Sept. 11 we were looked in the face by a deed done by
    >Muslims who understood themselves to be acting out Muslim
    >ideals. It is all very well for individual Muslim spokesmen
    >to assert the misjudgment of the terrorists, but the Islamic
    >world is substantially made up of countries that ignore, or
    >countenance or support terrorist activity.
    >Mustafa Kamal Uddin, a 32-year-old body-and-fender man in
    >Karachi, explained it to a New York Times reporter. You see,
    >he said, holy wars come about only when Allah has no other
    >way to maintain justice, times like now. “That is why
    >Allah took out his sword” on Sept. 11.
    >We demand to know: Who taught Mustafa Kamal Uddin to reason
    >in that way, and the crowds in Karachi to support such think-
    >ing? Pending an answer to the question, and the unmistakable
    >assumption by reputable Muslims of the responsibility to
    >extirpate such misteaching, renounce modern Islam. Either
    >restore the proper Allah — or get ready for a holy war.

    > “Brian D Douglas”
    FBI warns of possible terrorist strike in next few days Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001
    15:13:58 -0600
    >X-Priority: 1 (Highest)
    >X-MSMail-Priority: High
    >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
    >Importance: High
    >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
    > Boston.com home Boston Globe Online SearchSERVICES
    >Apartments Careers Cars MarketBasket Personals Real
    >Estate Yellow PagesSECTIONS Arts&Entertainment Business
    >digitalMASS Dining Education Health Movies MP3 Music
    >Music Nation Northeast Personal Finance Sports Stock
    >Quotes Traffic Travel Washington Weather World
    >YourTownWHAT’S NEW
    > -Archives
    > -Latest news
    > -Wire updates
    > Retaliation:
    > (Strikes beginning Wednesday)
    > Targetted: Airport in Kabul, possibly Rishkore and
    >Kargah (south of Kabul), Shamshaad (Taliban base near Pakistan
    >border), Kandahar airport.
    > Recovery:
    > New York City
    > 157 dead on planes
    > 442 dead in ruins
    > 4,776 still missing
    > 6,291 injured
    > Washington
    > 189 believed killed
    > 64 dead on plane
    > Pennsylvania
    > 44 killed
    > Recovery NYC
    > 450,000 tons of rubble
    > 106,838 tons of rubble removed
    > How to help
    > What you can do
    > Relief funds
    > Blood centers
    > Flag flying guide
    > Flag wallpaper
    > Printable flag
    > Commemorative Globe front pages
    > Memorials
    > Post a tribute to someone killed in the attack or write
    >condolences to all victims in the National Book of Remembrance.
    > Travel resources
    > Travel info.
    > Cancellation information, phone numbers, etc.
    > Boston traffic
    > Massport website
    > Car rental refunds
    > Hotel refunds
    > Flight refunds
    > Changes at Logan
    > List of victims
    > AA Flight 11
    > UAL Flight 175
    > AA Flight 77
    > United Flight 93
    > NY WTC
    > Pentagon
    > Flight 11
    > Flight 175
    > Tenants of WTC
    > North Tower
    > South Tower
    > Investigation
    > Anyone with information regarding the attacks should call the
    >FBI at this number:
    > 866-483-5137
    > Leave a tip online
    > FBI website
    > Tax help
    > The IRS last week announced a toll-free number to help people
    >having difficulty filing taxes as a result of the Sept. 11
    >terrorist attacks: 1-866-562-5227, Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to
    >10 p.m.
    > FBI warns of possible terrorist strike in next few days
    > By John Solomon, Associated Press, 10/11/01
    > Military
    > US military deployed in Pakistan
    > First US casualty in operation
    > Afghanistan
    > Strikes trigger civilian flight
    > New York
    > Prince gives $10m to WTC fund
    > Memorial service at Ground Zero
    > Washington
    > US offers bounty for terrorists
    > Bush to hold conference on war
    > World
    > Pakistan pre-empts protests
    > US bombs hard, mulls next step
    > Networks yield to White House
    > New worry: a power vacuum
    > Hijackers made trial air trips
    > Patrols stretch federal resources
    > Bin Laden gave $100m
    > More coverage in:
    > Nation | World
    > City & Region
    > Living | Arts
    > Complete archive of stories
    > POLL
    > Online Poll:
    > Do you think it is time to send US military
    >ground troops into Afghanistan?
    > Yes, send them in immediately
    > Not until a few more weeks of airstrikes
    > Not until a few more days of airstrikes
    > The US should not send ground troops into
    > [ View results ]
    > First US casualty
    > Memorial service at Pentagon
    > Massport faces budget cuts
    > One month later in NYC
    > Third case of anthrax
    > Polls show Bush popularity high
    > US jets pound Afghanistan
    > Strikes near Kabul airport
    > Most wanted terrorists named
    > Military jets prepare
    > Archive of RealVideo
    > Most wanted terrorists
    > Scenes from Afghanistan
    > Archive of photo galleries
    > Graphics
    > Diagram of the attacks
    > Overview of the region
    > Weaponry used in strikes
    > A look at US aircraft carriers
    > Satellite-guided weapons
    > Bomb covers 10 football fields
    > New bomb used for first time
    > US forces face a tough fight
    > Afghanistan is a hostile land with a history of
    >vanquishing some of the world’s finest armies.
    > America’s military options
    > Profile of Afghanistan
    > Map of Persian Gulf region
    > The 19 suspected hijackers
    > A look at Osama bin Laden The elusive Saudi
    >militant is widely regarded as the world�s most dangerous man.
    > Bin Laden’s trail of terror
    > Sept. 11, 2001
    > A reconstruction of the day in graphics, photos,
    >and text.
    > Acts of patriotism
    > What is the most original or inspiring
    >display of patriotism you’ve witnessed over the past week?
    > Read messages
    > Earlier boards
    > Has America changed forever?
    > Condolences
    > Recent US terrorist threats
    > WASHINGTON – In a stark warning, the FBI said Thursday
    >it has received information there may be additional terrorist
    >attacks inside the United States or abroad in the next several
    > The bureau said its information does not identify
    >specific targets, but it has asked local police to be on the
    >highest alert and for all Americans to be wary of suspicious
    > “Certain information, while not specific as to target,
    >gives the government the reason to believe that there may be
    >additional terrorist attacks within the United States and against
    >U.S. interests overseas over the next several days,” the FBI said
    >in its warning.
    > “The FBI has again alerted all local law enforcement to
    >be on the highest alert and we call on all people to immediately
    >notify the FBI and local law enforcement of any unusual or
    >suspicious activity,” it said.
    > The statement provided no additional information.
    > It was the FBI’s second request this week that law
    >enforcement move to its highest state of alert. The first was on
    > Thursday’s statement was the first to suggest attacks
    >might occur within several days.
    > Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert
    >Mueller have said they intend to alert Americans to any credible
    >threats about future terrorist plans.
    > In recent days, the FBI has asked supervisors of water
    >supplies, nuclear and electric power plant operators, owners of
    >crop dusters and drivers of hazardous waste trucks among others to
    >increase security to ward off attacks.
    > “We are working to do everything possible and we would
    >enlist the help of citizens in that,” Ashcroft said earlier
    >Thursday, before the FBI warning was issued.
    > Save 50% on home delivery of The Boston Globe
    > � Copyright 2001 Boston Globe Electronic Publishing
    > | Advertise | Contact us | Privacy policy |

  229. AJ said

    Hello Thomas – I agree with you on the fact that we are in grave danger on our own soil. I have just a few questions that I am curious about. Who do you like in the upcoming election? Who do you think is the most qualified to lead this country once we are rid of Bush? In other words, who is most capable of bringing peace and stability, thus thwarting this threat of World War 3? The other question I have is how do you have a ticket out of here if it does commence?

    Thanks. Your posts are very interesting.

  230. jAsOn said


    In your last post you falsly equate who is “most qualified to lead this country” with “who is most capable of bringing peace and stability”. The qualifications of the Presidency include many things, bringing peace and stability are only two.

  231. AJ said

    Jason – I see your point. I guess what I’m trying to ask Thomas is which candidate is the most experienced and qualified to handle the current global crisis as it relates to this type of threat.

  232. jAsOn said


    Got it.

  233. John said

    Thomas, I also think that you have too much free time on your hands[smile].
    You’ll never have to worry about me asking for your help in anything other than trying to get your interpretation of your words, ideas, and phrases.
    Thank you.

  234. John,

    Again, I want you to know I like you.

    I also want to confess you are the main reason why I decided to come to this website… As I listened to you on the show.

    ‘Free Time’… As opposed to what?

    Honestly, every year I seem to have more time in the winter than in the summer… But It always works out for me to have that time off from working or a Job.

    I do it every year.

    So, lately, I have had more time than usual but I work very hard on research and development of a Non-profit and LLC. Not to mention, I have to make my rounds and visit allot of people and check up on them. While, I formally do not call myself a Minister of the Christian church, I am still a Pastor and or counselor to many people whom I love.

    I do not get paid for the this, nor are my travel expenses covered by anyone. I go with purse or without… As I have been known to go places without much money at all. I have faith that where ever I go there will be provision to suit the needs and when the brook dries up it is obvious that it is time to move on.

    I have taken responsibility to make it it primary concern to solve the health care crisis… well in prayer and meditation I have been given a great idea and answer of how to make it possible for every American Citizen to have Health and Dental insurance coverage…

    I’m sharing this with you because I believe you have guts.

    Besides, when I finally get the patent for my insurance solution…

    Well, let me give you an example… I know a way for a family of four to have Medical or Dental coverage for any and all work up to $300,000.00 USD for only $119.00 USD a month.

    119 is price that through prayer and confirmation of other people is based on Psalm 119.

    No deductible, no co-pay, no hidden fees, no *question, and as I said all and any work is covered.

    *As long as the work is necessary and verifiable.

    Almost 80% of American do not have coverage of any kind… This is a heinous crime against the citizens of this nation.

    And even the less than 25% that do have coverage are often denied services for certain surgeries.

    In my situation I have had two major facial re-constructive surgeries and I am in need of (at least) one more.

    I had braces for more than seven years and the glue used to cement the brackets and bands on to the teeth wore out the enamel on my teeth. This caused them to become brittle and break into pieces.

    As most Americans I could not afford to maintenance my teeth as fast as they were deteriorating. Now I have had most of my molars removed and having none on my lower Jaw.

    Just to have an evaluation of my situation cost me somewhere around seven to eight hundred dollars. Now in my advanced situation a dentist is no longer able to help as I need reconstruction of bone that requires a specialist.

    After seeing the my doctors, as it requires more than one and they ain’t cheap either… I mean it’s my face someone is working on… And your not going to let just anyone chop it up into pieces and put it back together again.

    Now at this point… Nothing would be covered by dental insurance. One, because it’s considered pre-existing and Two, because in considered ‘Cosmetic’, three, because it is no longer just dental.

    My lower Jaw has suffered major bone loss at a rate that will require bone grafting in my fifties or live life without a lower Jaw. (Which ain’t happening).

    Now a surgery like that would cost somewhere around the ball park of about $50,000 USD.

    This could be prevented from happening if implants were used to stimulate bone growth in my lower Jaw.

    Implants cost around $2700-3200.00 USD a piece, once you add in all the factors involved.

    To have my remaining teeth removed and to be prepped for future implants and or dentures it will $8,000.00 upfront.

    The issue with dentures, in my case, especially, is you have maintenance the fit in your mouth every six months because your mouth / Jaw will atrophy with out teeth. And with my situation my lower Jaw will only hold a lower denture for 10 years at most before there will not be enough bone left.

    Now considering the average person has between 32-34 teeth this would be outrageous to pay that many implants.

    16 x 2700 = $43,000.00 USD just for the lower Jaw. So, a minimum of six would be the best solution… As it will cost 16,200.00 as opposed to 43,000.00… And that is the cheapest rate I could find.

    Then a track with all my lower teeth could be mounted on top of the six implants….

    Total for this procedure would be $26,000.00 USD for the lower Jaw. Again the cheapest rate I could find in DFW.

    The issue is that this work while it would prevent future health problems is only considered cosmetic.

    And if a person doesn’t have credit they cannot pay for this type of work… They take the dentures and hope for the best. And the outcome is obvious… And terrifying… To think you will lose your face??

    There are Tens of thousands of horrifying stories of poor people who for whatever reason have lost all their teeth and cannot afford this work…

    Not only is it a badge of ‘Dishonor’ for America, it is a Sin for Christians to sit by and allow it to happen.

    Insurance companies are a Scam… As well the Federal Reserve Bank.

    But instead of picketing and complaining… I have sought a solution to the problem and I have found one.

    It is hard to protect the idea for fear that someone will steel it and there-by profit from all my hard work. So it is slow and steady…

    I am driven by the fact that I need this work done and I do not have $50,000.00 dollars lying around to pay for it all.

    I do not have the credit in my own name to get a loan (of which even if I did I am sure I would default anyway) and the payment plan available isn’t bad but outrageously expensive.

    I have the choice depending on the total cost to pay it out in 24 – 30 months with zero interest or finance charges.

    Although, even on the 30 month payment it will cost me over $1000.00 dollars a month.

    It would be easy for some people to pay that but not for most and it is not solved by working more as it will require time of from work, the inability to speak clearly or normally for 5 months – 5 years… depending on who you are and the extent of damage and work that needs to be done.

    MY work often requires that I can speak clearly and project loudly to an audience or group of people… So this puts me at a disadvantage for obtaining work.

    Now to supplement things in this regard I am forced to work in an environment that does not best utilize my strengths but rather my weaker aspects… I am not complaining but my rate of pay is not much at all… $10.00 and hour is what I am t now… But I am not sure if my Job will look kindly on my absence due to two if not three major surgeries within a two year period.

    This is terrible for America to do this kind of thing to it’s own people.

    My average day on the Job is twelve hours… And I work part time in my own business.

    The cost of living, rent, car payment or maintenance, insurance, household bills and gas can be quite expensive.

    After Taxes, I take home around $1600.00 a month, from my hourly Job.

    Gas in my car is $100.00 a week easy … As I have take up living with roommates(Of which I hate to have)Rent $250.00 Electric. $100.00, Food $100.00, Insurance $50.00… I’ve have already exceeded my demands of life considering $1100.00 has to go to my medical expenses for the next two years…

    It should be a crime to treat human beings this way… But solving my problem led me to solve everyone’s problem in this regard.

    Now it’s just a matter of time before I can provide this coverage to people…

    Many people ask me, “Where is the money coming from to pay for all this?”

    With this question I answer with a question, “When the Rockefeller’s run out of cash what do they do?”

    The Answer: Print more money through their scam bank and European corporation, ‘The Federal Reserve’.

    This is the only clue I can offer: What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander…

    Now, I know, I cannot print money… But I can align myself to be among the few that are apart of the hands of the Bankers…

    If you do not have money, you must create money…. But it is true, you must have money to make money.

    So, that is why it takes a minute to set up. Corporate Law allows everyone to take advantage of the benefits given to Corporations but one must have a Corporation, the knowledge of Corporate structure and law to effectively utilize it’s Power and Strength.

    So really, if you cannot beat them, join them.

    The Money is there… It’s all over the place… And if you do not see it… Go to the nearest large super sized church and ask them what they bring from their tithing members each month..?

    So, with all that money, if one were privy to the mechanizations of Corporate structure and Law… One could provide solutions to poverty, hunger, homelessness and lack of health coverage if one really did care… And one should if they say Jesus is in their heart.
    (I use that as an example available money because this is a Christian venue)

  235. AJ,

    None of them… The Election is a farce.

    which candidate is the most experienced and qualified to handle the current global crisis as it relates to this type of threat.

    The Masons will never suffer the Nation of a black man in a white mans throne.

    A woman cannot ever hope to achieve such a status women are not allowed to enter a Masonic Temple… And the Majority of the world (Aside from Margret Thatcher)will not deal with women…

    Ron Paul is the only one wanting to restore the Constitution back to the ‘We the People’.

    But He does not have the power, connections, genealogy or the money to make this happen.

    The United States is on the verge of mass Liquidation. What I mean is, currently, the Bush administration is destroying the value of US currency. Just with the passing of the ‘Patriot Act’, the dollar fell in value over 26%…. And it’s value, according to the trend line, continues to plummet.

    With the threat of the recession, and our fears are not founded on fantasy… It is reality… We will be systematically sold out, one by one.

    What I mean is, if you are a poor family with two kids and your money is essentially worthless… And the European and World opinion be that we be dissolved and adopt the ‘AMERO’ as our new currency… Offering to wipe your slate clean, giving every poor person a new lease on life… what family will not agree?

    If you give me an the opportunity to have a fresh start start with credit, debt and bills… Hell it’s very tempting but I warn you that it is a trick…

    And it’s coming sooner than you think.

  236. AJ said

    OK, Thomas. Let me try this question again.

    Which candidate, in your opinion, is high enough in the Masonic order and has the geneaolgy to be the next president? You’ve prophetically ruled out Hillary and Barack. Edwards has no chance of winning the nomination. Is Rudy a Mason? Is McCain? Mitt? Huck?

    Which is it, Thomas? You seem to have all this figured out, so you must know exactly which one it will be.

    By the way, there is a Christian company that operates in a similar fashion to what you mention. It’s called Medi-Share.


  237. F. L. A. said


  238. FLA,

    Hu-man is exactly right as mankind lacks the resources and mental faculties to transcend their fleshly existence.

    I never said I have super powers… It is the ignorant mis-understanding of what a Vampire is…

    The reason a vampire doesn’t see himself in a mirror as his reflection represents the EGO… Hence the lack of a reflection denotes a lack of EGO.

    Transcendent Mind hasn’t any EGO.

    The ‘Oupire’ (The Above) are not of Mankind being they are from above and Mankind are from below.

    29. Jesus said, “If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.

    Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.”

    Immortality of the flesh is not the Way… Immortality of Spirit is.

    I am not the Body, it is merely, my Earth suit.

    I am Spirit.

    While I am here I must tend to my Earth Suit so that it is possible to achieve my destiny.

  239. John said

    Why do you like me, Thomas?
    Why would you?
    I am curious.I shall check back tomorrow.

  240. jAsOn said

    Did everybody hear that, Thomas has a “lack of ego”…news to me.

    “…possiple to achieve my destiny.” If it is your destiny, it is DESTINED to happen, there would be no other POSSIBILITIES. That sounds like the oh so common idea of Molinism.

  241. F. L. A. said


  242. Jason,

    Why do you do that? Attempt to name everything, define it and isolate it?

    Destiny… Is like a tree.

    What has root has branches… Genealogy is a peek into our past, our heritage. Jesus said, “Know thyself and you shall be known.” My destiny is a result of knowing my ancestry. What is the divine duty bestowed upon my family is yet the same as my destiny.

    Destiny is a Sacred family duty that we in the west have truly forgotten.

    Do not read into this any other silly notion of destiny.

    Have you ever read Holy Blood, Holy Grail?

    “Wishy-washy discussion which considers the merits of opposing views merely invites attack and ridicule. However, truths spoken with authority and confidence have the mesmerizing effect upon the populace for which we are aiming. Once they are willing to accept, even demanding a transition back to the old, true order, and Draconian traditional values, we can remove the tyrannies of democracy and capitalism, putting to bed once and for all this moronic concept of the “marketplace of ideas.” There is but one real idea, and we must hold true to it unswervingly. When we vacillate, when we stop to consider alternative ideas, we lose. We must surpass the intellect of the populace and aim at the soul. Gustave le Bon wrote in The Crowd :

    “All founders of religious or political creeds have established them solely because they were successful in inspiring crowds with those fanatical sentiments which have as result that men find their happiness in worship and obedience and are willing to lay down their lives for their idols.””

    -Tracy Twyman
    ‘Blood Victory’

  243. AJ,

    Medi-share seems like a good idea on the surface but it’s longevity depends solely on the giving nature of those involved and nothing more.

    What I propose to offer is much more complicated at first glance but is fairly simple to those in the know.

    Maybe you would understand better by defining to yourself as to “What is a Bank” and “What is an Insurance company”… Then we will understand two ingredients used in my Cauldron elixir for financial liberation.

  244. John said

    Still no answer to post#239, eh?
    Well maybe tomorrow.I wasn’t hoping for a fast, easy answer anyway.

  245. AJ said

    Nope…and still no answer to my question concerning which candidate has the masonic and geneaological markings to be president. Typical.

  246. John said


  247. F. L. A. said


  248. AJ,

    None of the candidates… Are worth of mentioning.

    We will eventually be given the choice to accept our debt and be forced into labor camps or accept the ‘AMERO’ as our New & Improved medium of exchange and have all our debts erased.

    You know even if I knew the future… Nothing is absolute.

    I am wise to measure the height, the width, the depth and weight of the heart go God but it is not for me to exploit it to you or anyone…

    I’d be surprised if George Bush even leaves office.

  249. Who am I voting for, If I vote???

    Ron Paul.

  250. jAsOn said

    Thomas said,

    “You know even if I knew the future… Nothing is absolute.”

    If that is true, can I say, “everything is absolute” and also be right?

    …that’s rational 😉

  251. F. L. A. said


  252. Mike S said

    That would be absolutely “relative” though. 😮

  253. Jason you really appear akin to the Pharisee…

    It’s funny… I am wise with a my Angalish.

    Your petty attempts of entrapment are quite humorous.

    I am sure Jesus used metaphor when referring to the ‘Few’… Not.

    It is impossible to discuss the bible outside your indoctrination… As I find it impossible to evolve the conversation so as to even touch on the Quantum Mechanics involved in the bible…

    For instance;

    Elijah… Who is he, who was he?

    The book of Kings only relays that he was a ‘Tishbite’

    Nobody… Again I say nobody in the realm of Churchianity nor does anybody know where a Tishbite came from, much less even what a Tishbite even is…

    I think you may need to sit down for moment and humble yourself in your Absolute mind and in-absolute faith… To the Quantum aspect that you haven’t considered or at least I haven’t seen any evidence that you have considered it.. As you seem to revel in demanding, I provide you facts to back up my claims as you cannot even produce any facts yourself… To prove any different.

    Again, let me remind you, I do not have a problem with God nor Jesus but… Could you tell me where does God, the Torah, the Prophets, the Psalms or Gospels ever even make mention of Paul..?

    NO not one mention unless you accept that when Jesus said, “I come in my father’s name and you do not receive me but another will come in his own name and him you will receive…” He was indeed referring to Paul and ‘HIS’ doctrine(As Paul often claims it to be, ‘HIS’ doctrine).

    So Jason, I am attacking the doctrine, I am accusing the Pauline doctrine of being false… And I have pointed out more than enough information and alternate perspectives to prove that Paul indeed beyond a shadow of a doubt more than ‘possibly’ a false prophet and or at least a opportunist and profiteer. But for a fact not an Apostle and a Liar to claim such a thing not being related to Jesus at all.

  254. ADB said

    If Paul is such a deceiver, and such a perverter of the Gospel of Jesus where exactly did he go wrong? Jesus spoke of resurrection as did Paul; the gospel writers all devote an inordinate percentage of their books to the events surrounding Jesus’ last days, and Paul said he desired to know nothing beside Christ and him crucified; Jesus said that whosoever belived in him would have eternal life; Paul said that one was justified (put right with God) through faith apart from works of the Law. Speaking to the Corinthian church he was careful to point out that he had baptized only a few people so that there could be no chance that someone might say the he was baptized in Paul’s name. As for Paul not being a blood relative of Jesus, only one leader of the early church was related to Jesus- James his half-brother who emerged as a leader in the Jerusalem church. Let’s leave the silly conspiracy theories behind, the gnostic writings from 2-3 centuries after Jesus’ life, and the Dan Brown stuff behind. Look at what actually passes the sniff test from actual recognized historical and theological sources.

    A curmudgeonly pastor 🙂

  255. The Essenes were not Gnostic… Paul in actuality was the Gnostic.

    As the the dying and resurrection of God man is a purely Pagan belief.

    Jesus claim he was ‘I AM’ as all of his brethren are ‘I AM’.

    It is True for me to claim ‘I AM that I AM’…

    As I am ONE with Jesus and as he is ONE with the Father.

    Again Paul’s doctrine totally violates the rule dynastic wedlock…

    Besides, tell mere where Paul is mentioned to have such a great title either by the Torah, the Psalms, the Prophets or Jesus?

    Paul is not even mentioned unless you want to count the reference in Revelation of the ‘False Prophet’… Or the references in the Dead Sea Scroll’s as the ‘Black Priest’…

    That makes sense.

    Jesus being Naz-Aryan in faith… is totally contradicted by the Pauline doctrine.

    It’s not that I do not esteem the words of Paul it
    ‘s that I esteem my own to be higher.

    Jesus, the Father in Heaven… are bother biblically verifiable as many references of them both can be found through out the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms…

    With all that nothing is at all mentioned about someone who could claim a title of Apostle and yet not even be mentioned in any of the genealogy… Of James or of Jesus.

    And please, enough with the DAN BROWN references… He studied his materials at my heals, while I was reading the original sources.

    Dan Brown is my Peer in that regard…

    I was Accepted and granted entrance by Grand Master Martin Lunn to the Dragon Society… After presenting what I had collected of my genealogy and evidence of genetic anomalies with in my family.

    The Late, G.M. Martin Lunn is a recognized expert in the Davidic bloodline and other issues presented in The Da Vinci Code. He has a Masters degree in History and an extensive background in journalism.

    He has lived throughout the Far and Middle East, the US and several countries in Europe, currently residing in Barcelona. He is also Grand Master of the Dragon Society, founded originally in 1408 by King Sigismund of Hungary.

    The Irony behind all of this is that God (the Father in Heaven) told me to learn this material… As it was by his own hand that he led me to the banquet table for the feast of knowledge.

    God told me that most Christians would not believe the information and that it is not my Job to prove it to them… But that I would have the knowledge necessary for Mankinds survival.

    I should have listened but yet I argue with God… Thinking, there must be one person out there that deserves to know the Truth.

  256. “God told me that most Christians would not believe the information and that it is not my Job to prove it to them… But that I would have the knowledge necessary for Mankinds survival.”

    Don’t take this quote from my previous blog all wrong… I thought (even though sad0 surely one of you would stoop to such a low degree of integrity and twist this around to fit your interest… And know I am not, at all, alone in my Faith.

    There are a ‘FEW’ of us.

  257. John said

    Are they vampires too?
    How many of you will be joining the Hopi Indians? And how did you arrange THAT? I thought that they were a really exclusive people.

  258. Andy said

    According to Google, G.M. Martin Lunn doesn’t exist.

    But you sure do, Thomas:

    I believe you’re leading a Luciferian, Satanic cult.

  259. jAsOn said

    “The Irony behind all of this is that God (the Father in Heaven) told me to learn this material… As it was by his own hand that he led me to the banquet table for the feast of knowledge.

    God told me that most Christians would not believe the information and that it is not my Job to prove it to them… But that I would have the knowledge necessary for Mankinds survival.

    I should have listened but yet I argue with God… Thinking, there must be one person out there that deserves to know the Truth”

    I think David Koresh said that God “told” him to murder all those he deceived in Waco…but he was a Branch Davidian.

  260. jAsOn said

    Thomas should explain himself,

    “Jason you really appear akin to the Pharisee… ” & “Your petty attempts of entrapment are quite humorous.”

    I wonder how Thomas would classify me as a Pharisee, in what way am I akin? And how exactly have I tried to “entrap” him…is it because I (as others) expect credible statements and an honest view of history; is it because I expect him to bind himself with the laws of logical and rational argumentation?

    Thomas has not (as he vainly claims) “proven” that Paul’s teaching were contradictory to the teachings of Christ, and I say it again, he has not yet cross-examined the rebutals I made of his attempts to prove such an absurd idea, unless he has hidden his answers in some cryptic code within the paragraphs of nonscense with which he has showered us thus far. Oh, perhaps if one takes some obscure writting whose date is either from the 4-5 century or cannot even be establihed which claims that Jesus of Nazareth was married and he said this and that and the other thing…perhaps there are gnostic writtings which claim to quote Jesus or give an historical account of his life that contradict what Paul has written.

    He wrote “Again, let me remind you, I do not have a problem with God nor Jesus but… Could you tell me where does God, the Torah, the Prophets, the Psalms or Gospels ever even make mention of Paul..?”

    First of all, that “test” is not a test of the validaty of the writings inspired by God…the 1st cent. Christians didn’t consider it so. Second, as someone else had pointed out to Thomas, none of the apostles were written about in the Torah, the Prophets, the Psalms, and yes, they were mentioned in the Gospels, but those same apostles were written of by Luke, to have accepted Paul and his teachings, likewise, Luke (having written a gospel) speaks of Paul’s conversation with Christ Himself!

  261. ADB said


    King Thomas similarly never has answered my questions from above either. For all the hot air, conspiracy theories, talk of gnostic gospels, etc. you simply can’t back up his contentions with credible sources. By credible sources I mean not only Biblical/Christian writings, but also any other credible historical sources. Personally, I think this whole thread should be allowed to die off.

  262. jAsOn said

    I’m begining to think the same thing.

  263. Jason

    “I think David Koresh said that God “told” him to murder all those he deceived in Waco…but he was a Branch Davidian.”

    Wow you truly are more ignorant than I thought.

    David Koresh did not kill those people… Incidentally, the first shot fired was from an ATF officer shooting David’s seven year old son in the front of the compound at point blank range.

    I can tell you as being a father myself… If an officer of the Law shot my daughter, from point blank range, knowing she was not a threat, I’d surely fire back with a vengeance.

    I think we should stay away from that subject considering that, that even is a scar on our nation that will never go away… And it stands in judgment of us.

    It’s like saying th OKC bombing was a one man job… and that it caused a large crater as both TIME and NEWSWEEK both reported… But I was there and there wasn’t a crater at all… Not even a pothole.

    It’s really stupid…

    Are you saying for a fact that LUKE wrote ACTS?

    There isn’t any really proof of that neither it’s all just educated guestimations.

    The Apostles are not mentioned by personal names but their Genealogy is… As the Bloodline plays a very important role and still does… Paul does not figure into the equation being a of Herodian descent.

    Again you defend Paul without knowing the facts in the bible…?

    Does God care about mixing or reproducing children outside the racial tribal boundaries?

    Yes he does as he says’ repeatedly, DO NOT DO THAT.

    You Christians use the Bible to fit your silly needs but you do not hold any of the words to weight or merit of which espouse to be inerrant words of GOD…

    I have more to say on this subject but haven’t the time.

  264. Anonymous said

    Does that settle it then? Should this thread fade in to neverland? HRH could print it out and keep it there with him as he continues to fight Peter Pan! Toodles!!

  265. John said

    I like your hair, Thomas. You must go through conditioner like mad.I go for the “crew-cut” look myself[smile].Humidity and bugs, you know.

  266. AJ said

    John is a nut….and I mean that in the nicest possible (joking) way.

    Let’s close it down.

    The conspiracy theories are getting old…..and every incident in history is a conspiracy theory, according to Thomas.

  267. jAsOn said

    Amen to that AJ.


    I KNOW that Koresh didn’t personally murder every individual in the camp, but it was most certainly his deceptive insanity which lead them to their deaths.

    I didn’t say that you WOULD lead persons to their death, but the same crazy line of thinking which Koresh used, you also use: with your inane conspirasies that revise history and some sort of Messiah complex.

    Thomas, it looks like you once again are the pot calling the kettle black…I’m glad you’re not a hypocrite like the rest of us often are.

  268. John said

    I never denied it AJ[ha,ha].
    Alright, guys, I’ll leave Thomas alone from now on.That may help to end it.
    Do you find this…satisfactory?

  269. Jason,

    David Koresh wasn’t insane and that is not why anybody died in Waco…

    David Koresh was a avid Gun collector… He started making connections with some important people in our government… They made him offers pre-prepped lab He then began pakaging chemicals and other supplies needed to produce Meth-amphetamine for the government… As that is how they keep the drug racket going. When David said he didn’t to do it anymore they had to destroy all the evidence and silence the witness’s… This was a Sad day for Americans and the Constitution… This was a test run of FEMA… As Officers (Mercs for hire) fired upon the Women and Children running from the Compound after it caught fire.

    It’s disgusting.

  270. This many intelligent people cannot be wrong.

    • Thomas Aquinas,
    Summa Theologica I-II, Q.103, Art.4, Reply Obj.2 (1272): According to Jerome, Peter [in Gal 2:6-14] withdrew himself from the Gentiles by pretense, in order to avoid giving scandal to the Jews, of whom he was the Apostle; hence he did not sin at all in acting thus. On the other hand, Paul in like manner made a pretense of blaming him, in order to avoid scandalizing the Gentiles, whose Apostle he was. But Augustine disapproves of this solution.
    • John Duns Scotus,
    Summa Theologica (ed. Jerome de Montefortino) III, Q.55, Art.1, Obj.2 (1305): Ordo, quo fertur Christi resurrectio percrebuisse, minus conveniens esse videtur; nam perhibetur primum Mariae Magdalenae innotuisse, et per illam Apostolos didicisse Christum vivere: sed (Oxon.4, D.25, Q.2, N.3 seqq.) id evenisse constat mandatum Apostoli [Pauli], I ad Tim. 2, dicentis: ‘Docere mulierem non permitto.’
    • Teresa of Avila, Accounts of Conscience, XVI (1571): It seemed to me that, concerning what St. Paul says about the confinement of women- which has been stated to me recently, and even previously I had heard that this would be the will of God- [the Lord] said to me: ‘Tell them not to follow only one part of the Scripture, to look at others, and [see] if they will perchance be able to tie my hands.’
    • Blaise Pascal, Pensées, #673 (1660): Saint Paul … speaks of [marriage] to the Corinthians [I Cor 7] in a way which is a snare.
    • John Locke, The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695): It is not in the epistles we are to learn what are the fundamental articles of faith, where they are promiscuously and without distinction mixed with other truths…. We shall find and discern those great and necessary points best in the preaching of our Savior and the Apostles … out of the history of the evangelists.
    • Thomas Morgan, The Moral Philosopher (1737-40): St. Paul then, it seems, preach’d another and quite different Gospel from what was preach’d by Peter and the other Apostles.
    • Peter Annet, Critical Examination of the Life of St. Paul (letter to Gilbert West, 1746): We should never finish, were we to relate all the contradictions which are to be found in the writings attributed to St. Paul…. Generally speaking it is St. Paul … that ought to be regarded as the true founder of Christian theology,… which from its foundation has been incessantly agitated by quarrels [and] divisions.
    • Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, ‘Paul’ (Varberg edition, 1765): Paul did not join the nascent society of the Christians, which at that time was half-Jewish…. Is it possible to excuse Paul for having reprimanded Peter?… What would be thought today of a man who intended to live at our expense, he and his woman, judge us, punish us, and confound the guilty with the innocent?
    • Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776): The Messiah himself, and his disciples who conversed with him on earth, instead of authorizing by their example the most minute observances of the Mosaic law,… [should, like Paul,] have published to the world the abolition of those useless and obsolete ceremonies.
    • Juan Josef Hoíl, The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel (compiled by Hoíl in his native Mayan language 1782, 3rd Spanish edition by the UNAM 1973): Only in the crazed times, thru the mad priests, did it happen that sadness entered into us, that ‘Christianity’ entered us. Because these same ‘Christians’ were those who brought here the true God; but this was the beginning of our misery, the beginning of the taxes, the beginning of ‘alms’, the cause from which arose hidden discord, the beginning of the battles with firearms, the beginning of the outrages, the beginning of the plundering of everything, the beginning of slavery for debt, the beginning of debts glued to one’s back, the beginning of the continuous quarrelling, the beginning of suffering,… the Antichrist upon the Earth, tiger of the villages, wildcat of the villages, leech on the poor [American] Indian. But the day will arrive when the tears of their eyes reach unto God, and the justice of God comes down upon the world in a single blow…. Brothers, little brothers, sons of servants come to the world! When the King comes and is recognized, the face of the Son of God will be crowned. And the Bishop, which is called the Holy Inquisition, will come before Saul to beg concord with the Christians, so that oppression will cease and misery will end.
    • Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Characteristics of the Present Age (1806): [The] Christian System … [is] a degenerate form of Christianity, and the authorship of which … [must be] ascribed to the Apostle Paul.
    • Thomas Jefferson, ‘Letter to William Short’ (1820): Paul was the … first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.
    • Jeremy Bentham, Not Paul But Jesus (1823): It rests with every professor of the religion of Jesus to settle with himself, to which of the two religions, that of Jesus or that of Paul, he will adhere.
    • Ferdinand Christian Baur, ‘The Christ Party in the Corinthian Church, the Opposition between Petrine and Pauline Christianity in the Ancient Church, and the Apostle Peter in Rome’ (1831); The Church History of the First Three Centuries (1853): What kind of authority can there be for an ‘Apostle’ who, unlike the other Apostles, had never been prepared for the Apostolic office in Jesus’ own school but had only later dared to claim the Apostolic office on the basis of his own authority? || The only question comes to be how the Apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus…. He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears.
    • Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘The Lord’s Supper’ (1832): It does not appear that the opinion of St. Paul, all things considered, ought to alter our opinion derived from the evangelists.
    • Henry David Thoreau, A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers (1849): It is necessary not to be Christian to appreciate the beauty and significance of the life of Christ.
    • Søren Kierkegaard, The Journals (1849,’50,’54,’55): In Christ the religious is completely present-tense; in Paul it is already on the way to becoming doctrine. One can imagine the rest!… This trend has been kept up for God knows how many centuries. || When Jesus Christ lived, he was indeed the prototype. The task of faith is … to imitate Christ, become a disciple. Then Christ dies. Now, through the Apostle Paul, comes a basic alteration…. He draws attention away from imitation and fixes it decisively upon the death of Christ the Atoner. || What Luther failed to realize is that the true situation is that the Apostle [Paul] has already degenerated by comparison with the Gospel. || It becomes the disciple who decides what Christianity is, not the master, not Christ but Paul,… [who] threw Christianity away completely, turning it upside down, getting it to be just the opposite of what it is in the [original] Christian proclamation.
    • Benjamin Jowett, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians and Romans (1855): Our conception of the Apostolical age is necessarily based on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul. It is in vain to search ecclesiastical writings for further information…. Confining ourselves, then, to the original sources, we cannot but be struck by the fact, that of the first eighteen years after the day of Pentecost, hardly any account is preserved to us…. It seems as if we had already reached the second stage in the history of the Apostolic Church, without any precise knowledge of the first.
    • Charles Dickens, Little Dorrit (1857): There was the dreary Sunday of his childhood, when he sat with his hands before him, scared out of his senses by a horrible tract which commenced business with the poor child by asking him, why he was going to perdition?,… and which, for the further attraction of his infant mind, had a parenthesis in every other line with some such hiccoughing reference as 2 Ep.Thess. c.iii v.6&7 [‘Keep away from any brother who travels about in idleness’].
    • John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859): The Gospel always refers to a pre-existing morality,… the Old Testament…. St. Paul, a declared enemy to this Judaical mode of interpreting the doctrine … of his Master, equally assumes a pre-existing morality, namely that of the Greeks and Romans;… even to the extent of giving an apparent sanction to slavery.
    • Ernest Renan, Saint Paul (1869): True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the Gospels, not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology.
    • Feodor Dostoyevsky, The Diary of a Writer (1880); The Brothers Karamazov (1880): If slavery prevailed in the days of the Apostle Paul, this was precisely because the churches which originated then were not yet perfect, as we perceive from the Epistles of the Apostle himself. However, those members of the congregations who, individually, attained perfection no longer owned or could have had slaves, because these became brethren, and a brother, a true brother, cannot have a brother as his slave. || This child born of the son of the devil and of a holy woman:… they baptized him ‘Paul’.
    • Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn (1881): The story of one of the most ambitious and obtrusive of souls, of a head as superstitious as it was crafty, the story of the Apostle Paul- who knows this, except a few scholars? Without this strange story, however, without the confusions and storms of such a head, such a soul, there would be no Christianity.
    • Leo Tolstoy, My Religion (1884): The separation between the doctrine of life and the explanation of life began with the preaching of Paul who knew not the ethical teachings set forth in the Gospel of Matthew, and who preached a metaphisico-cabalistic theory entirely foreign to Christ; and this separation was perfected in the time of Constantine, when it was found possible to clothe the whole pagan organization of life in a Christian dress, and without changing it to call it Christianity.
    • James George Frazer, The Golden Bough (1890): If Christianity was to conquer the world, it could not do so except by relaxing a little the exceedingly strict principles of its Founder.
    • Frederick Engels, ‘On the History of Early Christianity’ (1894): Attempts have been made to conceive … all the messages [of John’s Revelation/Apocalypse] as directed against Paul, the false Apostle…. The so-called Epistles of Paul … are not only extremely doubtful but also totally contradictory.
    • William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (Gifford Lectures, 1901): This is the religious melancholy and ‘conviction of sin’ that have played so large a part in the history of Protestant Christianity…. As Saint Paul says: self-loathing, self-despair, an unintelligible and intolerable burden … [-a] typical [case] of discordant personality, with melancholy in the form of self-condemnation and sense of sin.
    • William Wrede, Paul (1904): The obvious contradictions in the three accounts [of Paul’s conversion in Ac 9 & 22 & 26] are enough to arouse distrust of all that goes beyond this kernel…. The moral majesty of Jesus, his purity and piety, his ministry among his people, his manner as a prophet, the whole concrete ethical-religious content of his earthly life, signifies for Paul’s Christology- nothing whatever…. If we do not wish to deprive both figures of all historical distinctness, the name ‘disciple of Jesus’ has little applicability to Paul…. Jesus or Paul: this alternative characterizes, at least in part, the religious and theological warfare of the present day.
    • Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus (1906); Out of My Life and Thought (1931); The Mysticism of St. Paul (1931): Paul … did not desire to know Christ after the flesh…. Those who want to find a way from the preaching of Jesus to early Christianity are conscious of the peculiar difficulties raised. … Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded by primary Christianity. || The rapid diffusion of Paul’s ideas can be attributed to his belief that the death of Christ signified the end of the Law [of Moses]. In the course of one or two generations this concept became the common property of the Christian faith, although it stood in contradiction to the tradition teaching represented by the Apostles at Jerusalem. || What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, of the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?… The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority…. The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.
    • Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth (1909); Notebooks (date?): Paul … advised against sexual intercourse altogether. A great change from the divine view. || If Christ were here now, there is one thing he would not be- a Christian.
    • Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (1911): Paul has surely nothing to do with the Sermon on the Mount…. The Sermon says: ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves’ (Matt.vii.15). This is generally understood as a warning against untrustworthy leaders in religion…. Does the verse express the experience of the primitive Church? Might it not be a warning against Paul and his followers?
    • Miguel de Unamuno, The Tragic Sense of Life (1913); The Agony of Christianity (1931): Paul had not personally known Jesus, and hence he discovered him as Christ…. The important thing for him was that Christ became man and died and was resurrected, and not what he did in his life- not his ethical work as a teacher. || During Christ’s lifetime, Paul would never have followed him.
    • George Bernard Shaw, Androcles and the Lion, Introduction (1915): There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus…. There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul’s soul upon the Soul of Jesus…. It is now easy to understand why the Christianity of Jesus failed completely to establish itself politically and socially, and was easily suppressed by the police and the Church, whilst Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith.
    • Martin Buber, ‘The Holy Way’ (1918); Two Types of Faith (1948): The man who, in transmitting Judaism to the peoples, brought about its breakup,… this violator of the spirit,… [was] Saul, the man from Tarsus…. He transmitted Jesus’ teaching … to the nations, handing them the sweet poison of faith, a faith that was to disdain works, exempt the faithful from realization, and establish dualism in the [Christian] world. It is the Pauline era whose death agonies we today [in World War I] are watching with transfixed eyes. || Not merely the Old Testament belief and the living faith of post-Biblical Judaism are opposed to Paul, but also the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount…. One must see Jesus apart from his historical connection with Christianity…. It is Peter [rather than Paul] who represents the unforgettable recollection of the conversations of Jesus with the Disciples in Galilee.
    • Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom (1919): Christianity was a hybrid, except in its first root not essentially Semitic.
    • Carl Gustav Jung, ‘The Psychological Foundations of Belief in Spirits’ (1919); ‘A Psychological Approach to the Dogma of the Trinity’ (1940): Saul’s … fanatical resistance to Christianity,… as we know from the Epistles, was never entirely overcome. || It is frankly disappointing to see how Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in.
    • Herbert George Wells, The Outline of History (1920): St. Paul and his successors added to or completed or imposed upon or substituted another doctrine for- as you may prefer to think- the plain and profoundly revolutionary teachings of Jesus, by expounding … a salvation which could be obtained very largely by belief and formalities, without any serious disturbance of the believer’s ordinary habits and occupations.
    • James Joyce, Ulysses (1922): Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
    • Franz Kafka, The Castle (1926): Barnabas is certainly not an official, not even one in the lowest category…. One shouldn’t suddenly send an inexperienced youngster like Barnabas … into the Castle, and then expect a truthful account of everything from him, interpret each single word of his as if it were a revelation, and base one’s own life’s happiness on the interpretation. Nothing could be more mistaken.
    • Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Divine Milieu (1927): The mystical Christ, the universal Christ of St. Paul, has neither meaning nor value in our eyes except as an expansion of the Christ who was born of Mary and who died on the cross. The former essentially draws his fundamental quality of undeniability and concreteness from the latter. However far we may be drawn into the divine spaces opened up to us by Christian mysticism, we never depart from the Jesus of the gospels.
    • José Carlos Mariátegui, Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality (1928): The missionaries did not impose the Gospel; they imposed the cult, the liturgy…. The Roman Church can consider itself the legitimate heir of the Roman Empire…. This compromise in its origin extends from Catholicism to all Christendom.
    • Mahatma Gandhi, ‘Discussion on Fellowship’, Young India (1928): I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount and the Letters of Paul. They are a graft on Christ’s teaching, his own gloss apart from Christ’s own experience.
    • Kahil Gibran, Jesus the Son of Man (1928): This Paul is indeed a strange man. His soul is not the soul of a free man. He speaks not of Jesus nor does he repeat His Words. He would strike with his own hammer upon the anvil in the Name of One whom he does not know.
    • Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West (vol II, 1928): Paul had for the Jesus-communities of Jerusalem a scarcely veiled contempt…. ‘Jesus is the Redeemer and Paul is his Prophet’- this is the whole content of his message.
    • John Langdon-Davies, A Short History of Women (1928): It was through [St Paul] that the offensive attitude towards women was finally expressed in the Catholic Church.
    • Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms (1929): That Saint Paul…. He’s the one who makes all the trouble.
    • Rudolf Bultmann, ‘The Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul’ (1929): It is mos