EZEKIEL

and YHWH’s

Judgment

for the

Good News

PEOPLE

VOLUME XIV

Christian Religion

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

Judgment for the

Good News People

Volume XIV--Christian Religion

by

an unworthy servant

And you shall know the truth,

and the truth will make you free.

(John 8:32)

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.

Contents

Volume XIV--Christian Religion

CHAPTER PAGE

- Cover Page 1

- Title Page 2

- Contents 3

- Publisher’s Preface 5

Part OO--Christian Religion

201 Christian Idols and Images I 6

202 Christian Idols and Images II 14

203 Modern Sun Worship Theology I 22

204 Modern Sun Worship Theology II 30

205 Modern Sun Worship Theology III 43

206 Modern Sun Worship Theology IV 55

207 Modern Sun Worship Theology V 68

Part PP--The Essence of Christianity

208 Anti-Torah 80

209 More on Christian Gnosticism 85

210 More Beliefs of the Ancient Sun Cults 89

Part QQ--Christian Words

211 Words of the Christian Church I 96

212 Words of the Christian Church II 110

213 Words of the Christian Church III 120

214 Words of the Christian Church IV 133

Part RR--The Ministry

215 The Scriptural Ministry 147

216 The Christian Ministry 155

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

Publisher’s Preface

Greetings! The following presentation is volume fourteen of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site.

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one.

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!

an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE

Chapter 201--Christian Idols and Images I

Christian Problems?

As suggested in the former chapters, certainly some and perhaps even many modern peoples are beginning to understand that there are serious problems in Christendom.

In support of this realization, several important and revealing books have surfaced over the years--like Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons," Joseph Zacchello's "Secrets of Romanism," John Foxe's "Book of Martyrs," G. M. Bowers' "Faith and Doctrines of the Early Church," O. C. Lambert’s “Catholicism Against Itself,” C. J. Koster’s “Final Reformation,” Lew White’s “Fossilized Customs,” Dan Israel’s “Christianity Unmasqued” and others.

Christian Idols and Images!

Beyond these classic books, one might also find interesting some penetrating observations by James Hastings, in "The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics," when he said that "no religion can rival Christianity in the multiplicity of its images" (v. VII, p. 111).

Hastings goes on to note that some European churches have up to 4,000 statutes, icons and images and from 3,000 to 5,000 pictures or figures on stained glass.

Probably, Christian Catholic Churches are most noted for their images and idols (in many Catholic Churches, worshippers bow before and pray to these images). But the reader should be cognizant of the fact that many Christian Protestant Churches have eagerly carried this practice forward from Catholicism into their organizations.

Protestants are particularly guilty of adoring and keeping pictures around of a long haired, effeminate Gee-Zeus which are both sickening and contrary to the Word in violation of the second commandment (Ex 20:4-5), Shaul's condemnation of long haired men (I Cor 11:14), and other references to be elaborated upon shortly.

Consequently, the idol problem is widespread throughout Churchianity with very few, if any, exceptions.

While Christendom leads the pack in idols and images, which form the very basis for outright, blatant idolatry in violation of YHWH's law (Ex 20:4-5), Buddhism is second and Hinduism is third, in numbers, as Hastings sees it. Other religions, including some with ancient roots and expressly condemned in the Scriptures, rank on down the line behind the three leaders in regards to the proliferation and use of images in worship.

Of course, there is categorically no authorization or basis whatsoever in the Scriptures for images, pictures, etc., much less the blatant idolatry attached to these reproductions. At a first perusal, it would seem that the second commandment in the Decalogue clearly places these images in the context of idolatry and sin.

So, if they are not Scriptural, what is the basis for them and their extensive presence in Churchianity? Yes, the source of these pictures, paintings, images, etc are all from Babylonian sun worship (per Alexander Hislop in “The Two Babylons and Ralph Woodrow in “Babylon Mystery Religion).

Images in Ancient Sun Worship

As Hislop, Woodrow and others all note, the ancient pagan (sun worship) temples, buildings, priests’ clothing, etc made extensive use of images of their different gods and particularly the sun god himself. Any student of the more recent Greek and Roman civilizations must be struck with the prevalent remaining evidence of images used in worship.

In an article on images in the “Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature” (p. 471, 482-484), John McClintock and James Strong say that images were commonly placed in sun worship churches and temples (obviously, as also found in Christian Churches, ed).

The sun worshippers believed that their (true) deity was worshipped in images just like false ones were. This is a most profound revelation of truth.

It was classically demonstrated in the situation at the Exodus when the people prevailed upon Aaron to make them a physical image of The HIGHEST. Aaron did so with the golden calf and proclaimed a feast to YHWH (Ex 32:1-8). The people did not want to worship The ELOHIM in His usual invisible state. They wanted to see and worship an image or a representation of Him (as the pagans worshipped their gods).

Yes, the ancient sun worshipping faiths worshipped the sun god in idolatrous images, paintings, etc (and this propensity has spread into Christianity where the people want an image to see and worship). Yet, the Book makes no provision for such worship and clearly forbids it in the second commandment of the Decalogue.

McClintock and Strong’s article on idols (p. 467, 471, 484) mentions that the worship of idols is more than just bowing down to or prostrating one’s self before an idol. They quote Josephus to show that in Second Temple days, worship involved deep respect, admiration and/or honor which one might show to an idol, person or symbol of a deity.

The Statute of “Peter”

St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican has a bronze statute which is alleged to be a statute of the “Apostle Peter.” In “Come Out of Her My People” (p. 104-105), C. J. Koster indicates that it originally was supposedly an image of Jupiter (the Roman version of the Greek sun god Zeus) which was adopted, canonized and sanctified for use in the Vatican.

This image is prayed to, worshipped and adored by the Catholic masses who visit St. Peter’s. One big toe has been reverenced, kissed and cried over so much by the pagan worshippers that it is marred and badly worn. Truly, this image of an alleged Peter is one of the most gross forms of blatant idol worship in Christianity. Of course, it is not the only one.

While the link to Jupiter is interesting and accepted by most scholars who have looked into the origin of this statute, there are some more fascinating points about it which can be dug out with a little time and research. For this, it is necessary to turn to a book called “Simon Magus,” by G. R. S. Mead.

The history of Christianity will be assessed in future chapters herein and there is no intent presently to broach that topic. As briefly cited in a previous chapter, Simon Magus was first mentioned in the Scriptures with his run-in with the leaders of the Apostolic Assembly in Samaria when he tried to buy with money the Baptism of The RUACH HA KODESH/Baptism of Fire (Acts 8:18-24).

From Samaria, Simon eventually migrated on to Rome (before 50 CE) where he became very influential in the developing Christian Church.

The evidence is massive that he was the first Peter (in the sense of a title) of the Roman Catholic Church and played a huge role, not only in the formation of that church, but certainly in the development of the Christian Greek New Testament, as noted earlier (to be addressed in more detail in later chapters herein on Christian history).

Anyway, Mead (p. 10, 26, 30) reports that statutes were made for the followers of Simon to worship at an early time of both Simon Magus and his girl friend and/or whore assistant named Helen (who will be discussed in the subsequent chapters on church history). Simon was portrayed as the sun god Jupiter or Zeus while Helen was supposedly Minerva or Athena.

Since Simon Magus was originally a representation of Jupiter and since he later became “the Peter” of the early Roman Catholic Church, the evidence is persuasive that this statute image of the so-called Peter in St. Peter’s Basilica is really a statute of Simon Magus from Samaria. This seems to be the best explanation of this image. It will be further discussed in the later chapters on church history.

Hans Kristian

A Western writer named Hans Kristian visited a Russian museum in the old Soviet Union some years ago. He came back to the West and wrote of his experiences in a book called “Mission: Possible.” In the museum, Kristian found some most fascinating icons, images and statutes formerly used by the Russian (Eastern) Orthodox Church.

He said: “There were a number of factual displays that one could not argue with because they told the truth. One was an icon that was obviously genuine. It looked as though it had been kissed and fondled and wept over thousands of times. The ‘saint’ pictured in it supposedly wept when people prayed to it. The display revealed how this deceptive religious trick worked.

“There was a tiny hole in the corner of each eye, into which led a tube connected to a bottle of water behind. A priest hiding behind the icon would release some water whenever anyone came to pray and watch the saint ‘cry.’ From this evidence, the descriptive writing under the icon concluded that all religion was a fraud.”

Halo Around Pictures and Paintings

Often, the early sun worship paintings from ancient Babylon and other sun worship cultures had an image of the sun god with a nimbus, halo or sun rays around his head. Of course, Christendom picked up on this practice and often paint pictures of its Gee-Zeus, Mary and various saints with similar halos or nimbuses.

C. J. Koster, in the “Final Reformation” (p. 42-44), quoted from Forlong’s “Encyclopedia of Religions.” Koster noted that the nimbus, halo or aureole symbols all were “originally indicative of solar power and the sun’s disk, hence an attribute of the sun gods.” Alexander Hislop adds that the practice was common in ancient Egypt and Babylon (“The Two Babylons,” p. 87-88).

The Long Haired Look for Men, Revisited

While most Christians are acutely aware of the fact that long hair for a man is sharply condemned as sin in the Scriptures (Lev 10:6 [in the sense of letting the hair grow long and loose, as will be explained in comments to follow]; Ezek 44:20; I Cor 11:14), they persist in believing in and adoring pictures of a long-haired, effeminate Gee-Zeus--as alluded to above and as cited elsewhere in this work.

It is strange and a paradox of sorts that such a belief persists. Even many Christian scholars are both uninformed and uninterested on this theme, as well as lay people. Certainly, Shaul saw no Scriptural basis for effeminate men when he sharply condemned them and put them in the same category as idolaters, fornicators, adulterers and homosexuals (I Cor 6:9).

And why would any man want to wear that which pertains to a woman (long hair) in clear opposition of various Scriptural texts (Deut 22:5). Interestingly, Yohanan identified some beings (evidently masculine) who have hair as the hair of women--obviously long hair (Rev 9:8).

This question of long hair on a man has been briefly mentioned in previous comments herein. The situation here is that YHWH has established a broad, general principle or rule that Adamite men are not to have long hair, but are to cut (or poll) the hair on their heads (less their beards, which will be addressed in a later chapter). This is the essential, general standard outlined in the Torah.

Exceptions?

But there are at least a couple of exceptions to this general rule on hair. First, Leviticus 13:45 (per the “Amplified Bible”) specifies that the leper is to let his hair “hang loose” (from the Hebrew “parua,” which means “to let go, to let the reins loose, or to make unbridled, and lawless” --suggesting rebellion and evil, as found among long haired men, even today).

If the unclean and shamed leper is healed and restored to health, there is a purification ritual and a sin offering--following the declaration by the priest that he is clean (Lev 14:1-32). This cleaning ritual required the man to shave his head and beard (Lev 14:8-9).

These same Hebrew consonants of parua can be translated as “the hair or locks, as growing loose and free and long hair of head or long hair of woman.” This parua reference in Leviticus 13:45 is the exact opposite of Leviticus 10:6 which demands that the priests not allow their hair to remain loose, but to cut or poll it (by extension, this mitzwah extends to all Israelites, who are to be a kingdom of priests--Ex 19:6).

The point is that long hair on a man is associated with rebellion and sin. In terms of the leper, it is a symbol of his disease and shame and his status of being an outcast from the congregation of Yisrael. It is no wonder that Shaul would say that long hair on a man is a shame (sin) and contrary to nature (I Cor 11:14).

The second exception to the rule concerns the Nazarite where a believer separates himself from others (in the same sense that the leper had to separate himself from others) and commits his whole life and being to YHWH in the context of a vow for a specified period of time, usually 30 days (Num 6:1-8).

The Nazarite could not cut his hair, nor could he eat any vinegar, grape products or alcoholic beverages or touch the dead. In this separated state, he voluntarily enters into a state of sin (Num 6:14, with his long, uncut hair). Yes, this is the essence of the state of the Nazarite. He was in a voluntary state of sin. While this seems incredible, it appears to be the precise situation with the Nazarite.

Hence, when the vow is completed, the man has to go through a purification ritual and the making of a sin offering to become clean again--because of the state of sin and shame that he had experienced (Num 6:9-21). As a part of this cleansing process, the Nazarite must shave his head and burn his hair on the altar--by the fire burning his offering.

At this point, it is crucial to realize that YESHUA was not a Nazarite--because He did touch the dead (Mk 5:35-41; Lu 7:12-14) and drank wine and products from the vine (Mk 14:23-25). Conversely, there are reasons to believe that perhaps Yohanan the Baptist might have been a Nazarite (Lu 7:33-34).

The Peyot

For one more supposed exception on long hair, mention might be made to the practice of some Ultra Orthodox sects to let their earlocks grow without being cut. While these persons typically cut the rest of their head hair, often to the skin, they do wear these long earlocks--called peyot. This procedure seems based upon the first part of Leviticus 19:27, about not rounding the corners of your heads.

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 13, p. 269) notes that the Talmud defines this as it is forbidden to “level the growth of hair on the temple from the back of the ears to the forehead (Mak. 20b). Per Maimonides, a minimum of 40 hairs is required for a peyot. Since the Talmudic authority is doubtful, this writer reads this text differently.

Historically, priests and various religious orders have had peculiar methods of shaving or cutting the hair. Over many years, Catholic monks have cut their hair in a fashion as if a round bowl was placed over the top of the head and everything falling below it (including the beard) is shaved off.

In these cases, hair on the top of the head (covered by the round bowl appearance) can be quite long. But otherwise, the hair is shaved all around.

Probably, the question of tonsures (worn by Catholic priests long ago) have a focus in these comments. This issue will be further addressed in subsequent chapters. Suffice to say, this peyot practice of some Ultra Orthodox Jews seems to lack Scriptural support. Thus, it is not an exception to the overall rule of cutting the hair (as is true with lepers and Nazarites).

The Long Haired Zeus and Serapis

Furthermore, with just a minimum of effort, one can quickly perceive that there is a definite link between the long haired, Christian Gee-Zeus (as visualized in Christendom) with the long haired, Greek, sun god Zeus, as well as with the Egyptian Serapes (a Zeus counterpart worshipped in Alexandria, Egypt, which was a center of mysticism and other peculiar forms of religion, as discussed in former chapters).

But the relationship of the long haired look is even more profound in terms of the history of sun worship, as will be proven in comments to follow.

Apollonius

In “Apollonius, the Nazarene,” Dr. R. W. Bernard offered this revealing description of Apollonius (the spokesman for the Eastern sun worship Chrishna faith in Europe which will be examined in some detail in later chapters herein):

“He had a Zeus-like head, long beard and hair descending to his shoulders. Damis describes Apollonius as ever mild, gentle and modest, and in this manner, more like an Indian than a Greek, though when witnessing some special enormity, he would burst out indignantly against it. His mood was often pensive, and when not speaking he would remain for long with eyes cast down, plunged in deep thought.”

If that wasn’t enough, Bernard, elsewhere in the same book, added that Apollonius “was the personal embodiment of the imaginary traits of the Christian Jesus, and was no doubt the original of the pictures of the so called Nazarene, now so venerated by the uninformed professors of the Christian religion.”

Bernard added a footnote by saying that “Almost every picture that in modern times is recognized as a likeness of Jesus really have their origin in a portrait of Apollonius of Tyana painted in the reign of Vespasian.”

In “Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time” (p. 3), Darrell W. Conder quoted “Flavius Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius,” which said that Apollonius “was a worshipper of the one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity.

“He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven.”

Apollonius died or was executed in 98 CE. He was to have a profound effect upon Christendom, as will be established in later chapters. Assuredly, these descriptions of him have become the embodiment of what Christians believe about their Gee-Zeus. The evidence is massive that indeed the early Christians and painters used Apollonius as their model for the paintings which ultimately became known as Gee-Zeus.

Satan

Space will not permit any examination of the several applicable Scriptural texts; but there is an abundance of material which is very suggestive that it is Satan who is a long-haired, effeminate, queer-like creature--rather than The MOST HIGH (in His human form of YESHUA The MESSIAH, which Churchianity seems intent on trying to adore, paint and draw pictures of--for its false worship purposes).

As will be discussed later herein, possibly Satan, in his pride and rebellion, grew long hair (contrary to YHWH’s law). In this sense, long hair on man has come to equate to rebellion and anarchy.

Perhaps The MOST HIGH then went on to create woman (in the image of the long haired, effeminate Satan) with a provision that she should show her submission and humility to man (her head) by being feminine and wearing long hair, contrary to how the effeminate Satan had been rebellious and proud with his long hair (as pointed out to this writer by a friend named James Griffin, to be later discussed herein).

Of course, there are fundamental differences between feminine females and effeminate males. In other words, woman is quite beautiful and proper with her long hair, symbolic of humility, submission and obedience, while the supposedly masculine Satan is a pervert or queer with his rebellious, long hair. The subject of hair length for women will be further assessed in a future chapter.

Consequently, the long haired Gee-Zeus has far more in common with the real sun god (Satan) and his earthly representations than with the short haired Scriptural MESSIAH.

There are profound reasons to believe that all of these pictures and representations of the long-haired, effeminate Gee-Zeus are nothing more than presentations of the pervert Satan (as painted or copied from Satan’s look-alike and early preacher and spokesman, Apollonius, as described above).

Tragically, many readers have never before in their lives considered the question of pagan sun worship which is abundantly present in Churchianity.

Chapter 202--Christian Idols and Images II

The Cross, Revisited

A former chapter addressed the Christian cross in quite some detail. There is no need to even broach the idea of repeating that discussion. However, the points made must be recalled here because the cross within Christendom has become such a fantastic and extraordinary idol and image used in Christian worship.

The tragedy about the whole subject of the Christian cross is that the Christian cross has some fantastic links to ancient sun worship, and the fact that YESHUA The MESSIAH did not die on such a device. Why in the world would anyone (with brains above the moron level) want to worship, adore and respect an ancient image used in heathen sun worship?

Even if the case could be made that this instrument was used in the death of YESHUA (which case cannot be made), then there still would be no reason to adore it and be obsessed over it in the vein of an image. Manifestly, the Christian cross is a 100% ancient symbol of sun worship. It is still the same thing today when it is used in Christian Churches.

There is absolutely no way to connect this sun image to the death instrument of YESHUA--which was a vertical pole, stake or tree. The cross is pagan to the core and should never be used by people in truth.

While the cross image and sign was probably used within all of the ancient sun cults (because it was a symbol of sun worship), perhaps the Mithra cult was one of the most notable ones using the cross in the days of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly.

In the V. I, No. 3 (2004) issue of the “Vendyl Jones Research Institutes Researcher” (p. 3), Larry Rogers notes that the famous use of the sign of the cross (on the head and body of Catholic believers), used in the anointing of believers, is traceable to the old Mithras sun cult. So the cross symbol and making the sign of the cross have some profound connections to pagan sun worship.

But Wisdom is Needed

The June 1998 “New Beginnings” (p. 12) had a story on “Jewish Hatred Towards Christianity,” by Israel Shahak, which suggested that pious Jews have often spit on crosses, crucifixes and other Christian symbols, although they have been careful about how to do it (in order to avoid Christian backlash and so-called anti-Semitism).

This article in a Christian magazine was apparently presented to convey the evil of pious Jews who would dare show contempt toward these so-called “loving and wonderful” Christian images. The fact is that these supposedly wonderful Christian images are relics of wicked sun worship which are hateful and detestable, per the Scriptures and righteousness.

It’s hard to fathom that truly religious people (who have some knowledge of truth and reality from the Scriptures) would not have contempt and animosity for the sun worship emblems, symbols and signs found within sun worship Churchianity.

Since Christendom has ruled the civilized world for the past 1,700 years, it goes without saying that informed religious people need to be as wise as serpents and innocent as doves on issues like this. It does not represent wisdom to publicly spit on heathen Christian symbols when it will arouse hatred and opposition on the part of ruling Christian authorities.

The Fish Symbol

Another extremely popular image in Churchianity is the fish symbol. One sees it commonly used in the symbolism of both Catholic and Protestant denominations. Not only do the Roman ecclesiastical authorities wear a mitre or headgear made in the form of a fishhead; but otherwise, the clergy and lay people generally try to incorporate the fish sign into their lifestyles in some fashion.

It is a very common thing to be driving down the road in an automobile and see a fish symbol (often, with a Scriptural citation) on the back of a passing car. Christendom relishes this image, supposedly because of YESHUA’s statement about His disciples becoming fishers of men (Matt 4:19; Mk 1:17). Christians like to think of themselves in that context (of throwing out a fish line to “hook” some innocent person).

The Christian Prophecy Club of Topeka, Kansas demonstrates this obsession over fish. The “Prophecy Club” newsletter (Jan-Feb 2002, p. 8) had a “Prophecy Club Fishing Report” with a record of the annual Christian conversions and rededications from the Club’s ministry.

For example, the Prophecy Club says that in 1997, there were 1,116 conversions and 2,607 rededications (as determined by a show of hands and public confession). In 1998, there were 557 conversions and 7,671 rededications. In 1999, the conversion total was 1,073 and the rededication figure was 10,059. In 2000, there were 394 conversions and 3,409 rededications.

Things slowed down in 2001 when the Club only had 70 conversions and 26 rededications. In 2001, the Prophecy Club cut back or stopped its primary outreach to conferences and meetings (which probably explains the 2001 slow-down).

Over the years, a number of excellent scholars involved in researching ancient Babylonian sun worship have discovered that the fish image was a very popular part of Babylonian theology. Some of these outstanding research efforts were noted previously in the preceding chapter on some of the published books which have assessed this subject.

In particular, Alexander Hislop’s “The Two Babylons” is especially noteworthy for pointing out the fact that the ancient sun worship priests of Babylon wore fish shaped hats, headgear and robes which were almost exact replicas of those worn today by the pope and Catholic cardinals.

More on Fish

In the “Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets” (p. 313), Barbara Walker reports that the world wide symbol of the Great Mother was the pointed oval sign of the yoni, called the “vesica piscis,” Vessel of the Fish, and that fish and womb were synonymous in the Greek “delphos.” This pointed oval sign is commonly used today in most Christian fish symbols.

Alexander Hislop notes that early Christians began to call their Gee-Zeus by the name of “Ichthys or Ichthus,” meaning “the fish,” in an apparent linkage to Dagon the fish god (“The Two Babylons,” p. 247, 252, 270). Hislop also observes that Ichthus was another name for Bacchus which was the same deity as the Babylonian sun god Tammus (ibid, p. 252, 270).

Otherwise, “The Final Reformation,” by C. J. Koster, also deserves recognition for its work in uncovering the incorporation of the fish image in the works of the early Christian Church fathers.

Writer Koster (ibid, p. 46) adds that the Church father Augustine childishly gave his reason for using Ichthus as being that it was a combination of the first letters of the Greek phrase “Iesous Chreistos Theou Uios Soter” (meaning “Jesus Christ the Son of God the Saviour”).

Koster (ibid, p. 45-48) and James Hannay (in “The Rise, Decline & Fall of the Roman Religion,” p. 94) both confirm that the fish symbol is a common image of the sun god. Koster not only links it to various pagan deities, but adds that it was also an Egyptian phallic emblem, as well as a fecundity sign (of the female generative organ).

Moreover, there is every reason to believe that the Roman Catholic Church’s practice of allowing only the eating of fish on the sixth day of the week for most of the last 2,000 years also ties in with this worship of the fish god in the Babylonian Mysteries.

Darrell W. Conder quotes the “New Catholic Encyclopedia” which relates that the Mystery religions had a practice of eating fish as a custom of “sanctification to the Babylonian goddess” and that fish were particularly sacred to the goddess “Atargatis, the Great Mother.” Conder goes on to relate that this offering was made on her sacred day--Friday (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 151).

Christian Church Steeples

Possibly, one of the most despicable and vulgar heathen images that has found wide acceptance in Christendom is the popular Christian Church steeple which actually links to the ancient Egyptian obelisks (sun images) that were dedicated to the sun god. A later discussion on Osiris will indicate the strange source for the popularity of these obelisks, historically found in Egypt.

While references to these obelisks are to be found in the Word, they are not present as Christians would want to believe. Yes, the Scriptures, themselves, provide a most convincing message that these evil images link to Egyptian sun worship, instead of to truth.

The prophet Yirmeyahu wrote about these obelisks (using the Hebrew word “metzebah”) and noted that they were to be found in Bethshemesh (in Greek “Heliopolis) in Egypt (Jer 43:13). In the “Final Reformation” (p. 78), C. J. Koster suggests that metzebah can best be translated as pillars, sun pillars or obelisks. Another related Hebrew word (Hammanin) can be translated as “sun images.”

Of course, one can find much condemnation of these things in the Book since they are, in fact, phallic symbols or representations of the erected male sex organ (per “Encyclopedia Britannica” and “Babylon Mystery Religion”).

Their height and domination of the surrounding territory made them useful as landmarks and guides to assist traveling and visiting sun worshippers in finding the closest sun temple (per Koster, “The Final Reformation,” p. 80-81).

“The Final Reformation” (p. 79) notes that some of the Roman emperors occasionally removed some of these obelisks from Egypt and moved them to Rome for installation.

In particular, Caligual (37-42 CE) had one brought from Heliopolis to his circus on Vatican Hill. Pope Sixtus V moved it to St. Peter’s Church in 1586. Another one of these Egyptian sun images was brought to New York City and installed there in later years. The Washington monument is one as well.

Nobel Prize nominee Dr Helen Caldicott attended a rally for the Palestinians in Washington on April 20, 2002. She said that the US, Britain and Israel are the real rogue nations and that the Washington Monument was a “phallic symbol,” representing America’s “missile envy” (May 2002 “Endtime News,” p. 1).

Some Bad Translations

Tragically, for the student of truth, some translations of the Old Testament into English fail to properly translate the Hebrew words metzebah and hammanin. “The King James Version,” in particular, often fails in this regard. However, there are some good translations which do the terms justice--such as “The Amplified Bible” and others.

In mentioning the great evil associated with these phallic sun images, pillars and/or obelisks, as they are manifested today in modern Christendom, the reader should understand that these vulgar symbols of sun worship are one of the most prevalent and extensive forms of idolatry present in the age ending House of Yisrael (Lev 26:1, 30; Isa 27:9; Ezek 6:4-6; Hos 10:1-2; Mic 5:12-14--per the "Amplified Bible").

YHWH hates them and ordered them all to be destroyed (Ex 23:24; 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3; 16:22; II Kg 3:2). Of course, it is this trash (as existing in Christian Israel?) which helps to precipitate the second destruction of the House of Yisrael in three judgments--famine, pestilence and war, as outlined in the Book (Lev 26; Deut 28; Ezek 4-7).

It appears that a nuclear assault on Yisrael (coupled with a foreign invasion) seems to be the catalyst that not only brings Yisrael down, but also helps to destroy her sun images and/or Christian church steeples throughout the land (Isa 1:7; 6:11; 9:18-19; 17:9, 11; 33:11-12; 40:23-24; Jer 9:7-14; 18:14-17; Lam 2:3-5, 21; 4:11, 18-19; Ezek 5:3-4; 6:14; 7:16-18; 12:20; 15:7-8; 22:20-22, 31; 33:28-29; Hos 8:14; 11:6; Joel 2:30; Amos 4:11; 5:6-9, 12-18; Mic 7:13; Hab 2:13).

In an article on “The Anatomy of a Church (p. 10), the former Dr Ernest L. Martin offered some interesting remarks on the use of these obelisks (steeples or spirals) in connection with a rooster, as found not only on Christian Churches; but also, in portions of the Western Christian culture and civilization.

Martin noted the popularity of having a rooster (a cock) positioned on top of a prick (a steeple) which was called a “peter” (obviously, in reference to the male sex organ). Also, he suggested that the word cock can refer to the male organ or it can have relevance to the female sexual attribute. Hence, this symbol can mean the male and female principles in copulation. Always, this architecture offers vulgar sexual nuances.

Again, it is interesting to observe that much of Christian practice (as found in the modern House of Yisrael) is not Scriptural at all. It's just not in the Book. So, if Churchianity didn't get her crosses, images, idols, pictures, church steeples, procedures and so forth from YHWH's Word, where then did such things come from? You can be the judge!

The Chair of Peter

When a Catholic pope rules ex-cathedra (that is from the chair), he has authority to establish moral dogma (of right and wrong or sin and righteousness) for the Roman Catholic Church. Interestingly enough, there once was an idolatrous, bronze (so-called) chair of Peter in the Vatican called the Cathedra Petri.

This chair was actually equated with the throne of The ELOHIM in Catholic eyes. Over the ages, it had become quite an idol in Rome which was adored and reverenced by most Catholics. Apparently, some popes had chosen to sit on it from time to time, in their role of governing the church and establishing Catholic morality.

Darrell W. Conder notes that the pope’s “throne” had become quite dirty and unseemly over the years because it had never been scrubbed down (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 197-198).

In preparation for the Catholic festival of the chair on Jan 18, 1662, Pope Alexander VII (1655-1667) decided that the chair should be cleaned up. As Vatican workers began cleaning the dirt and grime off, they discovered some very fascinating inscriptions.

They found a representation of the Twelve Labors of Hercules and various pagan carvings connecting the chair to the Babylonian Mystery religion. The pope was upset. So he canceled the celebration. In later years, the church produced another chair to take the place of the one disgraced.

In 1795, some one discovered an Arabic inscription on the back of the new chair which said “there is no God but God, and Mahomet is his prophet.” This chair was retired and thus seems to have ended the pope’s throne of “God” (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 198).

Rosary Beads

One of the popular idols in Catholic Christianity is rosary beads and the Catholic ritual of using them in idolatrous worship. While the Protestants have correctly ceased using them in their worship exercises (since they are totally foreign in both the Old and New Testaments), the question remains as to their source.

Quite naturally, the answer is fairly simple. Of course, they come from paganism like almost every thing else in Christendom. Specifically, devout Hindus pray at sunrise while seated in lotus or other positions and while touching (fumbling) their rosary beads (“What the Great Religions Teach,” p. 37).

Darrell W. Conder quotes Barbara Walker’s “Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets” which stated that the Great Mother of India was known as the Holy Rose and that the Hindu japamala or rose chaplet was the Rosary of the Mantras worn by the goddess Kali Ma. It had red and white beads (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 154).

Also, Conder goes on to quote the “Catholic Encyclopedia” that almost all ancient countries used something in the nature of prayer counters or rosary beads to include Babylon and Assyria. Conder adds that Layard found an ancient monument from Nineveh which showed two women standing before a “holy tree” and holding rosary beads while apparently engaged in prayer (“Mystery Babylon the Great,” p. 154).

One more interesting facet about this discussion on rosary beads is the fact that in Catholicism there are a whole series of mysteries associated with the rosary prayer. These mysteries will be addressed in a subsequent chapter herein.

The Roman Catholic Church is so fanatical over this prayer that the present pope, John Paul II, has initiated action to add still more mysteries to the prayer (as will be commented upon in the later chapter).

Idols in Worship Sanctuaries

One of the fallouts of having and using idols, images and so forth in worship is that inevitably these idols become the important fixtures within worship sites and sanctuaries. Thus, the old sun cults all had their share of idols and images (like the sun worship cross; and as noted above, pictures of women fondling rosary beads in the East, etc).

Quite naturally, this sun worship practice has been carried forward into Christian Church buildings and worship sites. Catholic Churches are notorious for crucifixes and crosses of all kinds and types--plus statutes, artifacts and images of various alleged church saints and personalities (the supposed Mary is extremely popular for worship and adoration).

Protestant Churches also get on board in this regard as well. Many Protestant Churches have a significant representation of crosses, fish signs, pictures (to adore) and so forth. Even the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church has gotten into the act over the years. The SDA Churches are generally obsessed with paintings and images of an effeminate, long haired person, they call Gee-Zeus.

As already established elsewhere, this long haired, effeminate character is actually a replica of Apollonius of Tyana (who, in turn, was a copy of the long haired Greek Zeus and the Alexandrian Serapis. These gods were copies of Satan himself). Hence, SDA people have pictures of Satan in their churches. They respect, adore, reverence and indeed worship these pictures/images.

There is absolutely no question about it whatsoever. Christian Church buildings and worship sites are ablaze with a host of pictures, statues, flags (church flags of a “Christian cross” are very popular), images and so forth. Almost all Christian Churches have these images and representations of their deity in some manner to worship; or at least, to reverence and adore (though some would argue otherwise).

Synagogues

Conversely, the situation in Jewish synagogues is entirely different. The pattern of NT Messianic worship is predicated upon the synagogue practices, as discussed in former chapters. Assuredly, the synagogue is the first important model to build upon in true worship in modern times.

It must be profound to note that the most precious, valuable and respected item in a Jewish synagogue is a Torah scroll of YHWH’s Word. Generally, in the synagogue, the only ritual of importance is that associated with bringing out this scroll during worship services and reading from it (in Hebrew, as happened in the NT).

Since YHWH YESHUA is the Word and the scroll contains that Word, it is clear that the respect and dignity attached to the Torah scroll represents the same respect and dignity attributable to YHWH YESHUA (though Jews do not understand the linkage of YHWH to YESHUA).

A second feature of the Torah scroll is a recognition that it is the tool from The HIGHEST which opens the door for learning. A disciple of YHWH is a learner. A learner or disciple must start and always emphasize the Torah first in life. This situation in a Jewish synagogue is, of course, a correct way to approach The MOST HIGH on Sabbaths at the worship site (along with prayer, praise and reverence).

This environment in Jewish synagogues is simply not to be found in sun worship sanctuaries. Christian Churches are patterned upon the practices of the old sun cults and not upon the Scriptural practices found in Jewish synagogues.

Chapter 203--Modern Sun Worship Theology I

Polytheism

Any discussion of sun worship must include an acknowledgment that the various sun worship religions have always included polytheism with the worship of many, many gods. Of course, the sun god, per se, was typically the principal, father god. But the worship in these evil cultures would often include a vast host of other lesser gods. Ancient Greece is a classic illustration of this situation, as will be shortly shown.

In the first place, the sun god was typically known by different names among the different peoples and nations. This reality can cause some confusion among students of truth taking a look at the old sun cults.

Therefore, the solar deity was Marduk to the Babylonians, Mithra among the Persians, Baal to the Canaanites, Rae among the Egyptians, Chrishna (Christ) to the Asian Indians, Jupiter among the Romans, Zeus to the Greeks, etc. While the sun god went by different names in the different cultures, he was the same deity in all cases.

And in some instances, a primary sun god would later give way to another sun god in the exact same culture and civilization (as happened in portions of Egypt when the sun god Rae was partially displaced by the star/sun god Osiris). Of course, this fact also acted to cause confusion in sun worship (yes, the sun worship faith, promoted by Nimrod, was Babel or confusion).

Of course, the real sun god behind the scenes was correctly “Nachash” (a Hebrew proper name, meaning to hiss like a snake; translated as serpent at Gen 3:1), also known with the title Satan.

Yeshayahu wrote about him in the context of the king of Babylon and called him “helel,” which actually means the day star (the sun) or shining one (Isa 14:12, per Young’s and other Hebrew lexicons). Incorrectly, the KJV of the OT renders this Hebrew helel as “Lucifer.”

Many Sun Deities

Beyond the confusing (again, Babylonian worship is confusing) direct references to the sun (day star) god, it should also be recognized that most of these sun worshipping cultures existed with a multiplicity of deities, beyond just the sun god who normally was the primary and main one, as just noted. In Greece, there was a whole host of pagan deities, along with Zeus, who was the “father” god of the others.

As noted in a former presentation on the trinity, the Babylonians worshipped a trinity that closely paralleled Christian ideas (Alexander Hislop’s “Two Babylons,” p. 7). Will Durant links this trinity to Egypt (“The Rise of Civilization,” v. 3, p 595). “What The Great Religions Teach” (p 42-43) ties it to Hinduism.

Not only was there this correlation and linkage between the different sun gods in the different Adamic cultures, it is also fascinating that the basic sun worship theology and rituals in the different cultures and with the different sun gods was either the same or at least very similar.

“Too Long in the Sun” (p. 35-36) notes that all of it came from ancient Babel, as established by Nimrod, just after the flood. Per this source, the primary difference between the various versions of the sun god was only in the chosen names of the different sun gods in the contrary cultures.

This same book quoted the famous historian George Rawlinson who said that “the real identity of the several gods and goddesses... (were) understood by the better instructed (sun-worshippers) to represent, not distinct and separate beings, but the several phases of the Divine Nature.” In the case of the Babylonians, in the 6th century BCE, their sun worship was likely the same as that followed in Nimrod’s day.

Christian Polytheism, Revisited

Tragically, one can find the same polytheistic thinking in Christendom and particularly with its ridiculous theories about a so-called trinity of gods (talk about Babylonian confusion--who can ever begin to understand the logic of the Christian trinity theology, if it has any logic and common sense at all).

Christian polytheism has been broached in a previous chapter. There is no need to repeat that presentation. Suffice to say, Christendom picked upon the ancient theories of polytheism in the sun cults and incorporated that nonsense into Christianity in the vein of the trinity.

Of course, the trinity teaching was so ridiculous and in such contrast to Scriptural monotheism that the Catholic Church developed a theory that the trinity was clouded in a mystery which could not be revealed to the dumb sheep or even outsiders. This stupid belief was also discussed in the previous chapter on Christian polytheism.

Although most Sardis people and certain other Christian faiths do not subscribe to the Christian trinity, many of these persons do hold to a form of dualism--in that there are two so-called Christian “Gods,” in the sense of the Father and the Son.

Flying Angels

Within Christianity, there is a common belief that Scriptural messengers are little angels which fly through the air with their little wings and often with bows and arrows. This utter stupidity and nonsense comes precisely from the old sun worship cults--as outlined earlier with the Christian theories on Eros or Cupid.

Furthermore, there is another Christian alternative on so-called angels. This belief hangs on the assumption that messenger spirits are invisible spirits which transfer instantly; or at least, move rapidly through space to enter humans/humanoids. This belief, like the just noted little flying angels, also seems to come exclusively from the old sun cults.

Yes, the Christian ideas associated with little flying angels or invisible spirits floating around the heavens all come from ancient sun worship. Over time, these ideas became entrenched in Christian theology.

Heaven, Hell and Purgatory

Some former remarks in this study were directed at the stupidity of the immortal soul doctrine, as advocated in much of Christianity, as well as in many Eastern religions. Clearly, the Scriptures say that the soul that sins shall die and not live on, as dictated by immortal soul teachers (Ezek 18:4, 20; Rom 6:23).

Since the Book declares that the sinning soul must die (as both Adam and Eve died), what then is the fate of the dead? If man does not automatically possess immortality, what is the basis for Churchianity’s ideas about heaven, hell and purgatory? Strangely enough, all three of these places, as destinies for dead souls, are non-existent in the Word, despite their prevalent acceptance in Christendom.

Assuredly, Christians cannot deny the reality of death. It’s just that they deny that “death” means “death.” As is well known, Christianity simply says that though a person dies, he/she does not really die, but lives on as an immortal soul in heaven, hell or purgatory.

Without repeating the data presented earlier on immortal souls, it would be well to point out that such beliefs come from the old sun worship cults (per “Comparative Religion” [p. 275-302] and “The Two Babylons” [p. 151]). Historically, sun worshippers have always believed in immortal souls which never die, as discussed formerly.

Thus, the question remaining for the student of truth is--are dead people dead or at death do they remain alive in the places accepted by Christians? And the answer from the Book--the dead are dead and are not cast into heaven, hell or purgatory.

In the first place, there is no such place as purgatory mentioned in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, at all, despite Catholic promotion of the locale. The thing allowable about this idea is that the Roman Church has successfully used it over the years to con vast sums of money out of the sucker’s pockets.

In pre-Christian times, the word purgatory was associated with and applied to the pagan womb-shrine or abaton used in pagan initiations, in which a candidate would enter an underground chamber, simulate death, undergo great trials, and experience a new birth into a new life.

The Christian Church picked up on this warped thinking and began calling the shrines “purgatories” (“Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets,” p. 828).

The Caiaphas Family Tomb

In December 1990, a first century CE tomb belonging to the family of Joseph Caiaphas (high priest, 18-36 CE) was discovered in southeastern Jerusalem, when construction workers accidentally unearthed it.

Archaeologists Zvi Greenhut and Ronnie Reich were commissioned to excavate it. This was an exceptionally important find and the work of Greenhut and Reich was fully described and documented in the Jul/Oct 1991 “Jerusalem Perspective.”

Besides the remains of Joseph (evidently dying at about 60 years of age), the tomb contained the bones of a 40 year old woman (named Miriam, daughter of Shimon) who had a coin of Herod Agrippa I (42-43 CE) in her skull remains.

Greenhut explains this practice as being a pagan custom of placing a coin between the teeth of a deceased person in payment to Charon, the ferryman in Greek mythology, who was supposed to carry the dead immortal soul across the River Styx to the Underworld.

There are several important features of this finding. First, it implies a belief in the presence of immortal souls. Next, it can be construed as a suggestion of something similar to purgatory in that the living relatives pay a coin or coins to the heathen god in an effort to transport or move the dead soul from an intermediate location to a better place of abode.

Finally, this is not something that one would expect to find in a tomb of a Jewish person and much less in one of a prominent Sadducean family--like that of Caiaphas (who ostensibly did not believe in a resurrection or after-life and who did hold that the soul [correctly spirit- ed] dies along with the body).

David Bivin (in the “Jerusalem Perspective” article) suggests that the coin could have been put in the dead woman’s teeth by a non-Jewish slave, as an act of love for the deceased woman, without the attendant participation or approval of the Caiaphas family.

Immortal Souls to Heaven?

In terms of immortal souls going to heaven at death, there is absolutely nothing in the Old or New Testament Scriptures that says anything about such speculations. Actually, such thinking comes from the ancient sun worship societies (“What the Great Religions Teach,” p. 7, 15, 151; “The Two Babylons,” p. 167).

Interestingly, on this line, the historic, Egyptian pyramids were built with a small shaft pointing to the Orion star constellation in the heavens so that the dead king’s immortal soul could “escape to heaven” (per “The Great Pyramid” video, of the Ancient Mysteries series, produced by A&E Home Video). The immortality of the human soul seems to be a common belief among all sun worshippers, without exception.

However, in asserting that there is nothing in the Scriptures suggesting or implying “heaven,” as a reward for the dead or immortal souls, the writer of this work is not broaching the subject of the resurrection of the elect dead at their properly scheduled times, nor of limiting any group of resurrected people explicitly to planet earth in the past ages. Some explanations were offered previously on these possibilities.

Hell Is More Complicated

Hell is a little more complicated than heaven because Christians and English “Bible” translations use hell frequently. In fact, whole books can be and have been written on this subject over the years by various people. A number of students of the ancient sun worship societies are well aware of the common teachings of a place of eternal torment and damnation among sun worshippers (“What the Great Religions Teach”).

The early Greek sun worshippers saw this place of damnation for the dead as being Hades, which was placed “beyond” and sometimes subterranean and sometimes at the furthest limits of the sea (“Greek and Egyptian Mythologies,” p. 112, by Yves Bonnefoy). Supposedly, Hades overlapped with Tartarus which was still further below and where the worst of sinners were cast.

Certainly, space herein is too limited to allow much of a presentation on this theme. But a few comments will be made to show the student of truth that such an idea of a place of eternal torment, as advanced by Christendom, is not present in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

The Word Hell

In the Greek, there are three words commonly translated as “hell” in most English translations of the New Testament. They are hades, gehenna and tartaroo. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word “sheol” is sometimes translated as hell.

The words hades and sheol seem to express the same meaning--which is “the common grave.” As some of us know, the common grave is truly the destination of the dead. In the Tanakh, sheol is usually so translated. Even the Greek hades is translated to grave once in the KJV of the NT (I Cor 15:55).

The Greek word gehenna is also translated as hell in the NT. But as “Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words” notes, gehenna represents the Hebrew Ge-Hinnom referring to the “valley of Tophet” around Jerusalem. Here, trash and refuse (including the dead bodies of paupers) were thrown in, to be consumed by a fire which was kept continuously burning.

The Greek word tartaroo (tartarus) appears one time at II Peter 2:4, where it certainly does not refer to so-called human beings at all. However that text is to be interpreted, its use is totally in connection with sinning angels and has absolutely nothing to do with the destiny of Adamites, the behemah or the chaiyah.

Now, what about the English word hell. Actually, hell is an old Teutonic word from a root meaning “to cover” (per the “Encyclopedia Britannica,” v. XI, p. 402, 1953 ed). “Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language” (p. 674, 1959 ed) is more comprehensive in saying that hell is derived from the Anglo Saxon “helan,” meaning to cover, conceal or hide.

Therefore, in Old English, the helling of potatoes was simply the matter of putting potatoes into a hole in the ground and covering them for storage and preservation. Of course, this was the thinking of English translators of the Scriptures in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Even in later times, the “1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue,” compiled by Captain Gross, says that hell was “A Taylor’s repository for his stolen goods, called cabbage.” Thus, hell was a place to hide, conceal or cover over something (like the common grave for a dead body).

Civilized Men Kill (not Torture) Their Enemies

One more important note is now called for on this short dissertation. Historically, among civilized men, the classic punishment for the worst of enemies was always death. Civilized, Adamic people somehow never got much pleasure out of torturing and hurting their worst of enemies for long periods of time (as is envisioned in the context of the ever-burning infinity of the Christian hell).

Alternatively, probably Mongoloids are a little different on this in that they can and have taken delight in torturing and punishing their enemies for long periods of time before death finally takes over. Thus, in the days of the old West, the cavalry soldiers fighting Indians (Mongoloids) would always save their last bullets for themselves. It was very horrible to be captured by the cruel Indians.

But as man is created, death ultimately surfaces in all situations to allow torture, pain and suffering to cease. If this is the reality among evil, corrupt, sorry, little men, why then is it that Christendom teaches that The ELOHIM is so barbaric, evil and wicked that His worst enemies must be tortured, hurt, punished, pained and tormented for infinity in the throes of an ever-burning place called hell?

The question then is--do the Scriptures really declare and define A CREATOR Who takes pleasure in hurting limited little humans/humanoids for eternity and never allowing them any hope of mercy and compassion (as would be forthcoming, if death was allowed to ultimately take over)?

Or could it be that the Book advocates something far different from the ideas of confused men? Of course, the answer is the latter.

The Book says that the soul that sins must die (Ezek 18:4, 20; Rom 6:23). Adam and his sinning descendants have all died. They have not and do not continue to live on perpetually as immortal souls in heaven or hell with death. They have all died and laid dead (actually asleep) in their graves to await a future resurrection from the dead, as the Word assuredly promises.

Christian Thinking

And as is true with most of Churchianity’s ideas and thinking--the Christian concepts of heaven, hell and purgatory come from the old sun worship cults where they were accepted. The evidence is that the Tuscan poet Alighieri Dante (1265-1321) probably must get much of the credit for popularizing all three ideas in his “Divine Comedy” (“A History of God,” p. 207, 235, 290). Dante put hell at the center of the earth.

The ABC Good Morning America program of April 30, 1997, had Billy Graham on for a talk about his supposed “greatness” with the host, Charles Gibson. When asked about hell, Graham said that he thought it represented a “separation from God.” Then Graham went on to suggest that at his death (he was then 78 years old), he expected to be “in the presence of Christ.”

Two points surface from Graham’s comments. First, it demonstrates the continuing Christian ignorance on these subjects, which is totally “Babylonian” confusion. Secondly, one has to wonder how many years Graham had taught the traditional Christian ideas on an ever burning hellfire of torture for lost sinners before adopting his new thinking.

Billy Graham historically was a sun worshipping Southern Baptist, which certainly teaches hellfire and brimstone to its ignorant followers (to milk them out of all the money possible). While Christians have changed some of their doctrines over the years, hell-fire and brimstone is not one of them--at least among the Baptists.

If Graham has in later years changed his stance on hell, why then has he not come out and publicly apologized for all of the errors that he had preached and taught about in the past. He owes it to the stupid suckers that he has misinformed over the years.

Peter and the Keys to the Kingdom

Another one of the popular Christian theories is that Christendom’s alleged “Saint Peter” has possession of the keys of the kingdom of heaven--as if he had some role to play on who may enter that supposed kingdom. So, where does this speculation come from? The answer is sun worship, of course.

In “Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time” (p. 34), Darrell W. Conder notes that the Persian sun god Mithra was called the Peter (to be further described in a later chapter) and bore the ancient keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Conder also quoted from the “Hymn of the Sun, Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries,” which reported that the sun god Apollo was the “Key-keeper of the fountain of life.” This one also assuredly connects to unfounded Christian speculation (ibid, p. 49).

The Pearly Gate

One more of the absolutely unscriptural expressions commonly used by Christians is a reference to the Pearly Gate--which is supposed to be the entrance into heaven which all Christians must hypothetically go through when they die and as their immortal souls reach heaven.

Some Christians say that Peter is the guardian of the Pearly Gate (possibly in his role of having the keys, just described) and only allows good Christians to go through it.

So, where does this stupid nonsense come from? Yes, from heathen sun worship, of course. Barbara Walker says the idea came from the cult of Aphrodite Marian, or the Sea mother Mari, to whom pearls was sacred (“Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets,” p. 779).

Walker suggests that this Mari’s own body was the Gate of Heaven, like the Jade Gate of the Chinese Goddess, through which all men must pass at birth and again at death. Reportedly, pearls bordered the various yonic symbols of the Goddess.

Chapter 204--Modern Sun Worship Theology II

Baptism

While Christian idols (discussed in the previous chapters) have come to hold the most conspicuous links to the ancient sun worship cults, they are only the tip of the iceberg. There are a host of other connections as well.

Take, for example, the case of Christian baptism. Many people erroneously suppose that this is entirely a Christian exercise or ritual--since at first glance, it would seem to have a Scriptural basis.

Certainly, the Word does prescribe water baptism for believers as a common “Jewish” action--based upon certain purifying/cleaning instructions in the Torah (Lev 14:1-57; 15:1-33; 16:4; II Kg 5:10-14).

But by all means, this ritual in both Judaism and the Scriptures does not produce a forgiveness or remission of sin, as often believed in much of Christianity (including the Christian Identity motion, as discussed earlier). It is a symbolic ritual only--which is supposed to be reflective of a person’s heart and attitude to be morally and physically clean (after true repentance)!

The MESSIAH’s example of this rite suggests it for persons at least 30 years of age and involves “plunging” into and under live water--as is the Jewish baptism ritual (yes, conversion to Judaism has always involved baptism, even today).

Self Baptism

Dr Roy B. Blizzard, speaking at the 5th National Foundations of Our Faith Conference, previously described, indicates that Second Temple Judaism’s practice of baptism involved “self baptism” and that the baptizer was only a type of a witness to the rite.

As cited earlier, in Shaul’s water baptism, Ananais told him to wash himself from his sins (Acts 22:16, per the Diaglott NT) while calling upon YESHUA’s name (Acts 10:43).

Baptist theologian Dr Robert Lindsey, formerly of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research (previously cited), offered the same conclusion in his restored Hebrew text of Luke 3:21, which says “Now when all the people had baptized themselves, and when Jesus also had baptized himself and was praying, the heaven was opened” (Number 04-2001, “Discovering the Bible,” by Jim Myers, p. 4).

The traditional English text reads “Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened.” Lindsey explained the arising problem by saying that the words “they were baptized” and “he had been baptized” were due to the use of the passive Greek verbs.

In translating from the Hebrew to the Greek, the translator was faced with a need to translate the Hebrew verb “self-immersion.” Per Dr Lindsey, the verb form chosen in Greek created a new problem for the English translators. English translators generally followed the situation, just noted. But they could have translated it as a reflexive (as Dr Lindsey did in his translation, quoted above).

Likewise, the restored Mark 1:9-10 would read “And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and self-immersed himself and witnessed by John in the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the spirit like a dove descending upon him” (No 04-2001, “Discovering the Bible,” p. 7). Other related texts on baptism similarly need correction.

Writer Jim Myers notes that an early drawing in a Roman catacomb shows the baptism of YESHUA with Yohanan standing on the bank of the river extending a hand to The MESSIAH, Who is standing in the water (Number 04-2001, “Discovering the Bible,” p. 3).

This writer has seen a picture (from an ancient Vault Mosaic in Ravenna, Italy) of YESHUA’s baptism with Him in the water and Yohanan the Baptist apparently standing on nearby land or a large rock in the water (“The New Testament A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings,” p. 62). Josephus confirms that Yohanan’s baptism involved self immersion by the candidate (Ant 18:117).

More on the Jewish Practice

The writer of this study has observed a Messianic Jewish practice of baptism in modern times with a Sephardi trained cohen (who believed in YESHUA), as involving a sight touch and/or motion by the hand(s) of the baptizer, but consisting essentially by the action of the subject being self-baptized.

In other words, the baptizer gives the candidate a slight prod or motion and the candidate plunges himself downward into the water to become completely immersed.

Thereupon, the baptizer becomes an on the spot witness to the event. Since the Jewish method does not require the baptizer to touch the candidate, probably the idea of a visible motion (without any touching) is correct.

Actually, the basis for Jewish baptism goes back to the Torah and the requirements stipulated for people to symbolically cleanse themselves by bathing when they incur ritual impurity (as discussed above). Because of the periodic need for these purifications (yes, even for Miryam--Lev 12:2-4; Lu 2:22), a live water mikveh was one of the issues at the Temple (one has been discovered there), synagogue and home.

Since baptism is a historic Jewish practice and since YESHUA was a Jew (obviously a Hillel Pharisee), the ritual should procedurally be performed--just as the Jews have historically done it (consisting of this just mentioned self-plunge into live water). Assuredly, the way Christians baptize is a world apart from the Jewish method.

Finally, the New Testament is quite precise in establishing that the candidate is baptized (in the Jewish method) in the name of YHWH YESHUA (or correctly, while calling upon the name, as happened with Shaul, Acts 10:43) and raised unto His life by a certain pronounced formula (but not for salvation). Christians do not baptize people using this Scriptural formula.

Source of Christian Baptism

So, where does the Christian baptism practices come from? You guessed it--ancient sun worship.

When Cortez landed in Mexico in the 16th century, he found that the Aztecs baptized their infants at the risen sun by sprinkling or pouring just like the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian Churches do, as a ritual, supposedly granting salvation (as briefly discussed in a prior chapter).

In “Religions of the World” (p. 28-30), Gerald L. Berry, mentioned earlier, specifically outlined the infant baptism practices of the early sun worshipping Aztecs and Incas in the new world, which procedurally were like many modern Christian Churches. As a matter of information, there is some reason to believe that these early peoples were racially linked to the sun worshippers of ancient Egypt.

Moreover, the baptism rite is found in other sun worship cults as well.

E. O. James identifies it as an atonement and penance ritual found in the Mystery religions. He suggests that in the Babylonian cult, baptism was a practice that cleanses one of sin (“Comparative Religion,” p. 211-212, 239). Thus, the sun cults led the way on remission of sins, long before the Identity people came along (as noted earlier).

Darrell W. Conder quoted the “Catholic Encyclopedia” as saying that baptism was found among the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Hindus and others (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 162). This Catholic list covers most of the old sun worship cults (from where it was picked upon by the early Christian Church).

To this day, baptism is a part and parcel of the ritual of Voodoo worshippers on the island of Haiti (as will be covered in a later chapter herein). Manifestly, baptism is simply not limited to Christianity.

Christian Theories About Baptism

Of course, the Mithra baptism theology has carried forward into Christianity--which also treats baptism as a moral cleansing or forgiveness of sin. The previously mentioned Barbara Walker’s work on mythology addresses the baptism question and notes that in 418 CE, the Catholic Church decided that human babies are born demonic because of their sexual conception--thus, damned unless baptized.

Walker goes on to indicate that the Catholic priest’s baptism ceremony supposedly is an exorcism of the demon (“Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets,” p. 90).

In short, the historic Christian position has involved the related concept of forgiveness (remission) of sin, as being advocated today in the Christian Identity motion (for more on this, see “Religions of the World,” p. 76).

In the Scriptures, baptism categorically does not exorcise one of demons, cleanse one of sin nor does it grant salvation (it is simply a physical or symbolic event, showing a person’s intent, as expressed in bathing/washing). The prevailing belief of forgiveness or remission of sin with water baptism, as found in Christendom, and the many reasons why it is thoroughly false, have been elaborated upon in previous chapters.

As noted above and in the former presentation on reconciliation, some discussion was presented on how many Christian Churches teach that forgiveness of sins occurs with water baptism. While much of Christendom might try to deny these teachings, when penned down, they nevertheless maintain them and sometimes mistakenly let their true colors come out in church literature and sermons.

Portions of the Christian Identity movement picked upon this as well with its false theories that people’s sins are forgiven based on the rite of water baptism (as discussed above and in prior chapters). Apparently, some persons in this motion believe that sun worshipping Christian preachers have some hoped for carry over authority from the apostles which will allow them to forgive sins with baptism.

Despite what the Word plainly teaches on this theme, most Christians insist on believing that baptism is the act granting them not only forgiveness, but also conversion, reconciliation and salvation.

Even the Sardis Sacred Name groups have picked upon this same Christian nonsense, as one can see in an article by Jacob O. Meyer on “A Comprehensive Interpretation of Philadelphia” in the May 1997 “Sacred Name Broadcaster” (p. 2).

Meyer quoted Romans 12:2 on the transformation (actually the change in the mind allowing reconciliation) mentioned by Shaul and said that those embarking upon the narrow way of conversion must “be renewed... That is what the cleansing water of baptism is designed to impress upon us. Baptism shows us that we must take on a new outlook, a Scripturally proper vision of the future. The old unconverted attitudes of the past are dead and gone.”

Of course, Meyer could not be more wrong in his interpretation. Baptism does not cleanse one of sin nor does it transform, change or convert the believer. Baptism has absolutely nothing to do with those things (which by the way are free gifts of grace that no one can do by works or acts--even acts of baptism). At best, baptism is only a symbolic ritual which has little or nothing to do with the free gift of salvation.

Prayers

While there is a Scriptural basis for prayers to The HIGHEST, and believers should be praying fervently and frequently, it is also interesting to recognize that prayers to the sun god are a common practice among sun worshippers--both ancient and modern (as amply discussed in “The Two Babylons,” “Comparative Religion,” “The Final Reformation,” and other books).

Of course, these prayers were (are) typically directed to the sun god in his various names and titles, like Zeus (Gee-Zeus), Mithra, Chrishna (Christ), etc. Often they were rendered as memorized chants and mutterings (as is still common today in Catholicism) and involved the worshipper facing the East (as will be elaborated upon in a later presentation on facing the East).

Although there were surely many differences in the aspects of praying, as described in the Scriptures and as found in the sun worship religions of both the old cults and modern Christendom, there seems to be one primary key point of departure between the two.

In the sun worship cults, as well as in Christianity for the last 2,000 years, the sun god always seems to listen to the prayers of anyone (and regardless of any prevailing questions of sin in the petitioner) and then decides on whether to answer them or not.

Per the Scriptures, it’s a whole different ball of wax. Per the Word, The SUPREME categorically will not even listen to the prayers of petition from people in sin and rebellion against His Torah (II Chron 7:14-15; Job 8:5-6; 35:12-13; Ps 9:10; 10:17; 34:15-17; 66:18; Prov 15:8-9, 29; 28:9; Isa 1:15; 59:1-3; Mic 3:4; Zech 7:12-13; Jo 9:31; Jas 4:3; 5:16; I Pet 3:12; I Jo 3:22).

In those cases of sin and rebellion in the petitioner, The MOST HIGH turns His ear and refuses to even listen to them or entertain their petitions at all. His statements on this are quite clear and not subject to confusion. This reality will be discussed in some detail in a later chapter herein.

Praying to the “Saints”

While the Protestant Churches have by and large abandoned any hope for venerated saints in their theology, such is not true in historic Catholic Christianity. From very early times, the Catholic Church began identifying certain people as saints. Over the years, they have canonized hundreds and hundreds of dead people.

Not only has the Church designated these persons as saints, but church members actually go to the extreme of praying to them. Many Catholic Churches have supposed statues, pictures and relics of these dead individuals. Some persons even bow before these images to pray and worship.

The Roman Catholic Church seems to have a fascination with the designation as a church relic of some bone, hair, fingernail, clothes, or something else--which can be supposedly attached to some historic Catholic figure. In many or indeed, in most cases, these so-called relics could be anything from anybody or anything (because in history, it is often hard to precisely tie things like this down with ancient persons).

A most extraordinary example of this stupidity was highlighted in a news report on the “Bizarre Lawsuit Over Dead Cardinal’s Blood” in the Jun 2001 “Internet Vortex” (p. 33). The essence of this story concerned the illness and treatment of American Catholic Cardinal Terrence Cooke (former Archbishop of the New York Archdiocese), just before he died on Oct 6, 1983.

Cooke was treated for leukemia at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in 1983. A Dr Thomas Fahey, senior vice-president at Sloan-Kettering, treated Cooke. Over the time of his contact with Cooke, Fahey reportedly gained possession of some samples of Cooke’s blood which he stored on slides. In the meantime, Fahey removed to private practice in New York City.

With the death of Cooke, the Catholic Church began a process to make him a “saint.” Since Fahey had these blood slides, one of his patients alleged that he used or loaned one of these slides out to be used as a relic to pray to for the healing of a family member.

The whole issue with Fahey and the cardinal’s blood came to light because Fahey fired an employee who knew of his practices and brought the matter to the public in a civil lawsuit.

The point of these remarks is that allegedly Fahey kept these blood slides and made them available (either free or for a fee) to some of his patients--so that they could pray to them as church relics.

If all of this sounds absolutely astounding and stupid, it is. There is no basis for anyone to be praying to these so-called relics (whether of Catholic saints, sinners or bums on skid row).

So, where does this blatant paganism come from? Naturally, it comes from the old sun worship cults. Darrell W. Conder suggests that the old Babylonian Mystery religion had something like 5000 saints that followers could pray to for help in their lives (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 164).

Christian Pulpits--An Overview

For 2,000 years, Christians have been taught that there is a certain sanctity, authority, honor and respect associated with the Christian pulpit. Sun worship preachers believe that when they assume that lofty position of authority that their words (actually of lies and deceptions) are special and are to be believed and obeyed by their gullible listeners.

However, what few (if any) Christians realize is that the elevated and respected Christian pulpit has its origin in ancient sun worship. In the Scriptures, there are references to “high places” where the false, pagan, sun worshippers went to sacrifice and worship the sun god. These high places are always placed in the context of great evil and wickedness (Lev 26:30).

In the Hebrew, the word “bamah” (bamoth) is typically translated as “high place or height” (per Young’s “Analytical Concordance”). It is commonly associated with the Canaanite sun god Baal (Num 22:41). James Ballantyne Hannay, in “The Rise, Decline & Fall of the Roman Religion” (p. 137), points out that Baal Bamoth means the “stinking god of the Pulpits.”

Furthermore, Hannay (p. 136) links the “B” sound in sun worship cultures to sex. He specifically observes that words beginning with “B” are “intensely phallic.” The Baal name of the sun god means “to swell out” or to “seek” in the context of the male phallus seeking its desire and satisfaction.

Hannay (p. 16, 70, 161-163) also goes on to note that the English pulpit is made up of two root words “pul” and “pit.” Pul is linked to the phallic “pala” (in Hindee) or “pole” referring to the male sex organ. Pit, of course, refers to the female organ. Hence, as Hannay notes, pulpit actually means “coition, male and female parts in the creative act.”

Therefore, it is manifest that in the ancient sun worship cults, the pulpit was a common feature of their services. Christianity has, of course, picked up on this and carried it forward into her worship activities.

Almost without exception, Christian Churches have an elevated pulpit (high place or podium) which places the sun worship priest in a position of height and domination over his subjects. Now, what about the Word? Well, as noted, high places are condemned. There is clearly no mention or specification of a high place or pulpit associated with true worship.

Second Temple Judaism

As a matter of information, many early Jewish synagogues provided for a “low” place for their speakers with the audience in elevated seats surrounding the low central place. Some early theaters were built in a similar fashion. In this instance, the speaker was always below his audience. Yet, in this depressed state, all could see him as he spoke--even when he sat down, as elsewhere discussed.

Otherwise, synagogues were also built in a rectangular fashion with elevated galleries around the sides--particularly for women (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 15, p. 595).

Historic Judaism demanded that women be segregated from men (as will be discussed at length in a later chapter) and that women maintain silence during worship services, except for congregational prayers, hymns, etc (also, as will be subsequently described).

Importantly, “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 15, p. 579-593) mentions the interior design of early synagogues from the Talmud and other early writings. This source indicates that the synagogue ark, closet or enclosure housing the Torah scroll (the aron kodesh) was in an elevated central position in the building vis-à-vis the congregation.

The reader’s desk was placed immediately in front of the ark and sometimes below the floor level. Since the ark was in the elevated position and the reader’s desk was in a depressed position, the Talmud describes the prayer leader as “he who goes down before the ark” (in Hebrew “yored lifnei ha-tevah,” Ta’an 2:2).

While later synagogues were to evidently adopt the practice of using an elevated “bimah” or speaker’s platform in the center of the synagogue, this may not have been the actual practice in early Second Temple synagogues. Certainly, those synagogues, built with the congregation elevated (like with the early theaters or galleries), would have had no requirement for an elevated bimah.

Having mentioned historic Judaism, it would be appropriate to note here that modern Jewish synagogues have evidently went the way of Christian Churches. Usually, they are now built with the ark for the Torah and the bimah at the front of the building on an elevated platform.

The Closed Christian Pulpits

If all of this discussion so far in the previous paragraphs wasn’t bad enough, one of the most horrible practices in Christian worship involves the “closed” pulpits. No one can speak or have access to the sun worship pulpit in most of Christianity, except the approved priesthood, preachers, teachers and leaders.

This closed pulpit custom comes from sun worship groups and is not to be found in the Book--perhaps because the sun worship religions were afraid that an outsider allowed to speak (at the pulpit) could bring in truth and upset the apple cart of false worship (like the parable of putting new wine in an old bag or container--Matt 9:17).

Per the Scriptures, the “speaker’s station or position” was always open to most anyone (to include visitors and certainly fellow Jews) in Jewish synagogues and likewise even in the early worship sites, homes, etc of the developing Apostolic Assemblies (Acts 13:14-42; 14:1; 15:1, 4-5; 18:19). The NT letters to the various assemblies reveal this openness as well (I Cor 1:10; Gal 1:6-9; II Jo 1:10; III Jo 1:6-11; Jude 1:4).

Even when worshippers were in the Temple court at the festivals, “public” discussions about Torah could be held with the sages and elders, to include twelve year old boys (Lu 2:46-47). These discussions were fairly open and conducted in the presence of other worshippers and never in the context that the elders “patronized” and looked down upon the remarks of the lay persons.

For sure, they were all on an open basis so that one could say whatever he wanted to say. This fact is amply proven when the writer Luke made the point that YESHUA not only dialogued with the Temple elders (as just noted), but He also obviously outlined His understandings of the Word and answers to their questions which they must have posed to Him (Lu 2:47).

It appears that the early synagogues also followed this practice of allowing at least some open discussion among the men during services. While women seated in the synagogue galleries could not participate, it appears that men could have some dialogue on appropriate occasions. This open situation would never be allowed to exist in the typical sun worship temple or Christian Church.

This was the wonderful environment in true worship which allowed truth to come forth. That’s the reason that commissioned spokesmen like Shaul, Bar-Nabba and the others could travel all over the Roman Empire and have an immediate forum for their messages, at just about any and all Jewish synagogues.

On this line of thought, it is certainly true that if YESHUA, Kefa, Yakov, Yohanan, Shaul or the other apostolic leaders were to enter most Christian Churches today, they would not be allowed to speak. In fact, if they tried to say something, they would be escorted out of the meeting.

Judaism Was Open

Truth was not bottled up in Jewish synagogues by their leaders, as it is in Christian Churches and their clergy and closed pulpits. Not only could truth be discussed in Second Temple synagogues, but the Judaism of that day was extremely open with an allowance for all kinds of variations in faith among religious Jews, as discussed in previous chapters.

In the presentations, outlined earlier herein on the Talmud, several scholars and writers were quoted to illustrate that there were serious differences of Scriptural interpretations in the different fragments and sects of Judaism in Second Temple days. As noted, there were hundreds of differences in acceptance of various halakhah laws in the Oral Law, between the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

In the case of the Talmud, it is important to note that the different scholars with the different interpretations were all free to publicly state their differences (which eventually were formalized in the Talmud) and to praise/support or criticize/condemn whomever or whatever they chose--without fear of political or religious repercussions (with complete freedom of speech and religious belief, in contrast to modern Christianity with her political correctness, hate crimes, hate thoughts, etc).

This is one of the marvelous features of the Talmud and the religious and speech freedom which prevailed in Second Temple Judaism (as discussed in former chapters). The religious leaders, “rabbis,” scholars, teachers and so forth were all absolutely free men to believe and say whatever they wanted to. This is simply not the real world today in the 21st century of the Christian West.

While all of Judaism did accept the written Torah (of Moshe), the Second Temple Jews could have any number of interpretations on different aspects of keeping those laws. The same is true of the entire Tanakh where differences of opinion prevailed. The synagogue and the Talmud manifestly allowed these different interpretations to be intellectually discussed.

Although the Sadducees apparently did not worship in the synagogues, and it is doubtful that the Essenes would have attended a synagogue run by the Pharisees, the truth remains that the Pharisaical synagogue was open and all could attend. Clearly, it was the religious meeting place for the common people (the masses, who were generally of the Hillel persuasion).

Thus, Second Temple Judaism was extremely open and allowed a great measure of diversity in various interpretations and particularly on complicated issues in the Tanakh. Despite these differences, however, the fact remains that collective Judaism accepted the Tanakh writings as authoritative and would not argue that fact.

The Synagogue Realities

This is not to say that synagogue leaders and authorities would have sat back and allowed a pagan sun worshipper to enter the synagogue and start hollering that the law was abolished and done away. Synagogue authorities would have immediately stopped any sun worshipper from spreading sun worship lies and distortions around.

One can be sure that if a demon inspired Christian Holy Roller came into the synagogue and somehow got the floor to start an emotional outbreak of fanaticism, coupled with gibberish and incoherent babblings about everything except truth, he would be shown the door by the authorities.

Quite obviously, no man who was in clear rebellion toward YHWH and His laws (i.e. a clean shaven man or a long haired hippie) or a woman at all would be given the floor. The Jewish authorities were extremely knowledgeable on the Scriptures and would not put up long with sun worshippers who were Scripturally illiterate.

Around the year 1844, the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference voted to send out a team of missionaries to make a real effort to convert the Jews to Christianity. Next year, the team reported that they had completely failed to convert any Jews. The problem was that the Jews were too knowledgeable on the Word and (false) Christian theories made no impact upon them.

In other words, the established synagogue rulers had a certain responsibility to their congregations to allow openness from guests and speakers. But this openness would not have extended to the ridiculous. If a sun worshipper, who did not obey the Scriptures, tried to teach against the Book in general and the Torah in particular, he would have been stopped.

The problem with Christian preachers and teachers is sometimes even worse, beyond their sun worship doctrines, because some of them are the just noted Holy Rollers who will start babbling, shouting, crying, screaming and trying to get the audience worked up into an emotional pitch without any regard to Scriptural truth. Obviously, this unscriptural fanaticism would not have been allowed to persist.

But otherwise, it is abundantly plain from the Book that outsiders entering a synagogue were allowed to speak and to speak whatever they wanted to, as long as they did not attack the Scriptures (as Christian sun worshippers typically do). It is this openness which allowed truth to come forth.

The Nicolaitanes, Revisited

In YESHUA’s message to the seven assemblies, He referred twice to the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, in the vein of something He hated (Rev 2:6, 15). Over the years in Churchianity, there has been much speculation over what this doctrine or teaching could be to cause YESHUA’s hatred and denunciation.

Young’s “Analytical Concordance” (p. 694) notes that the word “Nicolaitanes,” means “the followers of Nicolas” and that the Greek Nicolas is defined as “conqueror of the people.” These clear definitions have prompted some students of the Word to realize that in application to YESHUA’s assemblies (at Ephesus and Pergamos), the issue would seem to be “rulers over the people or laity.”

After years of looking at this word and its usages, this writer also believes the subject must address the “rulers over the laity.”

Some students of the Book, familiar with YESHUA’s messages to the seven assemblies, have come to recognize that these seven represent the last seven groups of fairly obedient keepers of YHWH’s (ten) commandments (including the Sabbath), which have developed in the last 1,000 years, as described in former chapters.

Some of these congregations (like Ephesus and Pergamos) have tended to keep a lot of the sun worship doctrines of the Christian whore, Mystery Babylon. One of the primary positions (YESHUA was warning about in Ephesus and Pergamos) of the mother Roman Church has historically been the position, authority and role of the sun worship priests in that entity.

The priests absolutely “rule over and dominate the laity” under them. The background on this assumption of power is both interesting and ancient. The Jul-Aug 2003 “Search the Scriptures” (p. 3) addressed it in an article by Glenn Shankle on “Ante-Messiah.”

Shankle cited Ignatius (69-117 CE), the Catholic Bishop of Antioch, who admonished laymen of the developing clergy-laity system to “revere, honor and obey the bishop as if he were God, for the bishop presides in the place of God.” Over time, the bishop’s position “as if he were God” was condensed under the title Vicar (from the Latin word “vicarius,” meaning “substitute” or “deputy,” as “one acting in the place of another”).

Otherwise, the Caesers in the old Roman Empire adopted a title called “Pontifex Maximus,” meaning Chief Priest.”

In time, both the ideas of the Pontifex Maximus and Vicar (as the “Vicar of Jesus Christ”) were transferred to the Pope. The essence here is that the Pope became the Chief Priest of The MOST HIGH and the substitute who acts for and in place of The ELOHIM. With this assumption of papal power, some of the same authority flowed down to the entire Catholic priesthood.

Clergy Supervision of the Dumb Sheep

Of course, it is this teaching and reality which gives rise to the closed Christian pulpits, just discussed above. Historically, Rome has discouraged her subjects from an independent study of YAH’s Word. Her position has always been that if a good Catholic has a question about the Scriptures, he or she should go to the priest with the problem.

Naturally, the priest could and would patronize the Catholic faithful and give them some explanation to satisfy their concern.

That’s why Rome discouraged Scriptural study (except under supervision of a priest--like at seminary or school) and kept the Scriptures in a foreign, unintelligible tongue (Latin language)--truly a “mystery” religion, precisely so that the people could never read and understand the Book on their own. They had to go to the priests.

Truly, the Roman Catholic priesthood has dominated and ruled over their subjects for almost 2,000 years. No good Catholic would ever question or doubt the priest (who listens to their confessions and forgives their sins), regardless of what the Scriptures say (if they are even able to read them in the vernacular).

Protestants Followed Suit

As noted in a prior chapter, on separating from Rome, many Protestant Churches have followed suit with this Nicolaitane theology. The dumb sheep are not supposed to know anything or do any thinking on their own. This phenomenon has stayed true in almost the entire Protestant world for the last 500 years.

Even in conservative groups (like the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons and the old Worldwide Church of God), the dumb sheep are never expected to know anything. Ellen White, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith and Herbert W. Armstrong have always had the final word for their dumb sheep followers (and not the Scriptures).

If the dumb sheep have any questions, let them go to the authoritative preacher, pastor or priest who will tell them what they need to supposedly know (the official church position). All they are supposed to do is accept this denominational word and obey it. Any study done should be done at Sunday School or church schools, under the supervision of the pastor.

So, where does this doctrine of the priests or the preachers ruling over the people come from? Quite naturally, it’s an old sun worship practice which came from ancient Babylon where the ruling sun worship priests ruled over and controlled their dumb followers, much like modern Christianity (per “The Two Babylons).

Sun Worship Leaders Stand Over Their Subjects

One of the distinctive features of this Nicolaitane theology surfaces when one relates it to the position of the pulpit or high place on a podium or other elevated stand. It allows the Christian sun worshipping priest, preacher, teacher or leader to stand at the pulpit and literally “dominate” or “lord over” the dumb sheep Christians in the audience.

Christian preachers and leaders have followed this practice for centuries. Almost without any exception, this is the way Christendom has functioned for virtually 2,000 years. No one in Churchianity would dare question the practice at all. But despite its long history, where does the practice come from?

As best as this writer can determine from “The Two Babylons” and other sources dealing with the ancient sun worship cults, this domineering standing position at the pulpit or lectern seems to have its origin with the old sun worship cults. In other words, it is a classic sun worship phenomenon, totally absent from the Scriptures.

The Scriptural approach was clearly laid out by the writer Luke when he wrote about how YESHUA taught in the synagogue. Apparently, The MESSIAH stood up to read the applicable Scripture. Then He sat down to interpret, teach and explain the Scripture to the people present (Lu 4:16-28).

This same conclusion was brought out later by YESHUA when He mentioned that certain Pharisees and scribes “sit in Moshe’s seat,” as commented upon in a prior chapter (Matt 23:2).

Professor Shmuel Safrai, quoted previously, points out that the early synagogues actually had a chair or seat of Moshe used to teach Torah. The conclusion is evident. Teachers in the synagogues may have stood up to read the law, but then they sat down to interpret and discuss the law.

Prior comments noted how the speaker in Jewish synagogues was actually in a low position with much of the audience elevated about him in a circular manner or in galleries. Since the speaker was in a lower position, vis-à-vis his audience, it was of no consequence when he sat down to teach. In fact, whether standing or sitting, the speaker was always in a lower position than the audience.

William F. Dankenbring, in a comment to a reader’s letter in the Mar 1998 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 71), suggests that this practice of sitting while teaching, as outlined by Luke, was the prevailing custom in the ancient Jewish synagogues. He makes the case that it is the Scriptural method of teaching.

Incidentally, this practice of sitting while teaching and discussing the Torah plainly suggests that the reader’s desk or speaker’s chair was indeed in a lower or depressed position vis-à-vis the congregation, as noted previously in connection with high places.

Chapter 205--Modern Sun Worship Theology III

Intermediaries Between the Worshipper and the Sun God

This doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, discussed in the preceding chapter, brings up another relevant factor to consider in Christianity. It is that historically--the priest, pastor, or preacher is an intermediary between the worshipper and The MOST HIGH. Certainly, this has always been true with the Catholic Church and many Protestant ones as well.

The purpose of this practice is quite manifest. It simply means that the poor, dumb, sheep worshipper cannot have contact with The HIGHEST, unless he/she goes through the church and its preachers and leaders. In Catholic theology, the whole process of forgiveness is contingent upon going through the priests at the confessionals, to be discussed next.

This means that the worshipper must not only attend regular church services, but the confessionals as well. In the process of granting forgiveness, the priest typically outlines some works to be done in the form of penance.

Not only in granting forgiveness of sin at confessionals, the Middle Ages saw the Roman Church develop a procedure whereby priests and church leaders would travel over the empire selling indulgences, as an alternative option to gain forgiveness. Yes, forgiveness could occur when the faithful periodically forked over some money. Truly, money is the name of the game.

Thus, for the payment of certain sums of money, the dumb sheep could receive immediate forgiveness of sins without the need for works of penance which some might find disagreeable. It was this deplorable practice which caused the murder of the famous reformer John Huss and helped to precipitate the eventual Protestant Reformation.

It must be significant to note that the indulgences for forgiveness within Catholicism was returned for the Christian year 2000. Pope John Paul II announced on Nov 27, 1998, that any Catholic who did a “charitable deed” or gave up cigarettes or alcohol for a day in 2000 would earn an “indulgence” which would eliminate time in purgatory.

This new Catholic Christian scheme is like the one from the Middle Ages, when the indulgences were sold for money. It is amazing that Christian leaders spent such an enormous amount of time on dreaming up things for their dumb followers, but never bothering to check the Word to see what it says about times, occasions and duties to YHWH.

Of course, such practices of indulgences are totally unscriptural. In the Book, a believer and sinner can approach YHWH YESHUA directly without any regard to mediators or intermediaries in the form of priests, pastors, preachers, teachers or churches and without the need for works of penance or payments of money.

Confession of Sins

When Ezra exposed the great sins of the Jewish Israelite people (with their miscegenation with nokri/nekar strangers) after the return from Babylon, he told them to confess their sins to YHWH (Ezra 10:10-11). Furthermore, the Book says to confess sins one to another, as will be described in comments to follow (Num 5:6-7; Jas 5:16).

But what is the source of the confessions to a so-called or alleged human intermediary with The ELOHIM (like in confessions to priests)? Yes, sun worship, of course, as will next be established.

As almost any book on ancient sun worship attests, the priests, in many of the cults (like Babylon), were always intermediaries between the lay people and the sun god (per “The Two Babylons”). In ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh was a manifestation of the sun god. Hence, he also was a religious mediator for the people.

Yes, early on, the Roman Catholic Church discovered a most useful religious practice that had been a foundational stone of the old sun worship cults for ages. This one was the practice of teaching and promoting the just mentioned confessionals, whereby the Christian sinner has a periodic meeting (usually clandestinely) with the priest and confesses his/her sins.

The priest on hearing these confessions and prescribing certain acts of penance, typically forgives the supposedly penitent church member and then he/she can go out in society and sin some more (which seems to be the Catholic Christian approach).

The beauty of this practice from a dictatorial and belligerent state and system is that it allows the religious leaders to monitor and keep track of what all the people are thinking and doing.

Darrell W. Conder notes that the early Sumerian sun worshippers had a confessional process similar to the Catholic practice. These ancient peoples confessed their sins through the priests (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 156).

Sexual Partners?

Not only do the monitoring and spying activities of the confessionals prove useful from a governmental point of view, but some particularly dishonest and morally depraved Catholic priests have turned them into vehicles for their own personal pleasures and pursuits.

Occasionally, some stupid woman or girl will confess her “sex” sins (of thought, lust or actual deeds) to a crooked priest and he will use the confidential information to later seduce the female confessor.

Over the years, this writer has read of several such incidents where unsuspecting females set themselves up for sexual contacts with sorry priests through the confessional.

Likewise, it is a certainty that some homosexual priests have been able to find lovers from unsuspecting males who have confessed such feelings and tendencies to their local priests. The problem with pedophile, Catholic priests will be discussed in subsequent chapters herein.

Suffice to say, a bad scandal erupted in the American Catholic Church in early 2002 when it was discovered that many (actually almost 200) of the American Catholic priests were pedophiles preying on small children. The Catholic response has historically been to merely transfer these pedophiles to another parish where they could start all over again.

One pedophile priest violated over 100 small boys. This homosexual faggot had been in the sodomy business for many years. It is unclear how many of these perverts used the confessionals to make contacts with likely candidates for their affections. But surely, of the 200 priests, many of them did abuse the confessional.

Of course, the Word does say for believers to confess their sins to The MOST HIGH and one to another (noted above and to be further discussed below), but nothing about confessing sins to an overseeing priesthood. So, what is the basis for such confessionals? Well, Alexander Hislop records that they were a common practice in ancient Babylon by the sun worship priests (“The Two Babylons,” p. 9-10).

In “Religions of the World” (p. 27), Gerald L Berry wrote that confession of sins and absolution under the direction of the priesthood were a part of the ancient sun worship religion of the Aztecs. In “What the Great Religions Teach” (p. 151), the point is made that the ancient Inca sun worshippers in South America used the confession of sins ritual in their worship.

There is every reason to believe that these confession rites were also observed by most if not all of the old sun worship cults. They would be the very type of things which evil people would want to impose on their subjects to keep them in line.

More on Confession of Sins

While the matter of confessing one’s sins to a overseeing priesthood or religious hierarchy is out of the question, the fact remains that there are Scriptural admonitions about confession of sins. The first and primary agency to receive confession of sins is The MOST HIGH (Lev 5:5; Num 5:7; II Chron 30:22; Ezra 10:11), as noted above. Manifestly, there can be forgiveness in the confession of sins to The ELOHIM (I Jo 1:9).

When the great trial and test comes upon the House of Yisrael in her final chastisement, during Yakov’s Trouble, YHWH has promised deliverance for the people when they at last collectively confess their own sins and the sins of their fathers (Lev 26:40; II Chron 30:22; Neh 9:2; Jer 16:19). Yisrael will not be rescued, until she generically undertakes this task.

Beyond the just noted confession to The HIGHEST, there is a mitzwah/commandment for believers to confess their sins one to another on appropriate occasions, also as cited above (Num 5:6-7; Jas 5:16). There is a certain humbling and humiliating element involved when we have to confess and acknowledge our sins to other people.

Obviously, a sinning person who sins against someone else must go and confess that sin as a part of the apology, repair and restitution. However, otherwise, the confession of sins among believers (one to another) is clearly called for within a fellowship.

Though these confessions can possibly be done in private in some circumstances (like when one has sinned against another person and undertakes the effort of apologizing and seeking forgiveness), there is also some Scriptural foundation for confession of sins publicly before a congregation/assembly of believers (Ezra 10:1-2; Neh 9:2; Matt 3:6; Mk 1:5). Such confessions seem to be the rule for obtaining healing (Jas 5:16).

If a person is too proud and vain to confess sins to other believers, then there has to be some question about the level of belief and alleged salvation of the person. This writer is acquainted with a number of so-called religious people. At the moment, there does not seem to be any one of them who would have the guts, integrity, courage and humility to stand up before others and acknowledge any sin in his or her life.

Pride and Vanity, Revisited

Former chapters outlined how our evil hearts and minds love flattery and love to be bragged upon and elevated and lifted up in mental attitude. It seems to be a rare individual who has enough integrity and honesty to confess his sins publicly or even one to another. Likewise, people collectively won’t even acknowledge the sins of their parents, much less themselves.

In fact, some persons are so proud and vain that they cannot handle any conversation at all, unless it is couched in the vein of how great and wonderful they are. There are many illustrations of this reality. The actions of some people like this were shared in prior chapters to really highlight this tragedy.

Manifestly, the public confession of one’s sins, mistakes and evil takes much of the pride and vanity out of a person. Therefore, it is a good process because we all need to be humbled and brought down from our lofty perches.

This writer is no fan of Communism and various Communist countries which have sprang up over the last 100 years. Perhaps, the most glaring illustrations of Communism occurred in the old Soviet Union and in China some years ago.

In the early days of both of these empires, they had a requirement that the so-called “enemies of the people” (who were largely persons of political persuasion who disagreed with Communism) had to publicly go before a Communist tribunal and confess his/her sins and evils (usually in the political or economic sense).

Many of the people in this category were former business people or active in religion (especially the Christian religion). Surely, some of the so-called confessions were legitimate because some of these people were crooks who had been ripping off the public under the old capitalist system. Also, it is clear that many innocent people were improperly made to publicly confess their alleged sins and be humiliated.

This writer is not endorsing this process in the secular government environment. After all, it opens the door to much abuse and misuse of power to hurt people who might not be worthy of the punishment. But alternatively, there probably was some good in it in that many people in the capitalist and religious circles were very evil people who were ripping off the public. Maybe humiliation was good for these evil persons.

The point of this whole presentation is that the confession of sins is a good process to depress the evils of pride and vanity. In the Scriptural sense, it is a commandment in certain situations. Therefore, it can bring about a good result in some people on some occasions.

Minister’s Uniforms and Dress

Over the years, certain distinctive items of dress have come to be associated with the Christian ministry and particularly the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox denominations, the Church of England and a few others--like the popular TV preacher Robert Schuller and his California based drive-in Christian services.

In particular, Christian ministers seem to relish black uniforms; the white, starched, reversed, clergy collars; fishhead hats (especially in the leadership of Catholicism, as indicated earlier); and big flowing robes of various types and designs with many, heathen symbols present. The interesting thing about these items of identification is that none of them are Scriptural.

In general, all of these distinctive features found in Churchianity have their origins and basis in the ancient sun worship religions--especially ancient Babylon (per Hislop’s “The Two Babylons” and Woodrow’s “Babylon Mystery Religion”).

Even the little skullcaps worn by Catholic leaders and many Jews (called a yarmulke by Jews) can probably be traced to Greek sun worship (as briefly noted earlier). In the 6/2000 issue of “The Sacred Name Broadcaster” (p. 6), Jacob O. Meyer writes in an article on “Graduation Caps and Gowns” that representations of the pagans Plato and Aristotle show them wearing something similar to the yarmulke.

Meyer then quoted II Maccabees 4:11-13, which told about the efforts of the Greeks to introduce Greek customs and practices among the Jews in Judea in Second Temple days. One of the things mentioned in II Maccabees 4:12 was the wearing of the Greek hat (which Meyer takes to mean the small, skull cap worn by Catholic leaders and Jews). Evidently, both Catholics and Jews have accepted this sun worship custom.

More From Jacob O. Meyer

This article by Meyer on “Graduation Caps and Gowns” also brought out some other facts worth noting and particularly since persons (including Christian religious leaders) in the Western Christian culture go through an academic graduation ceremony, at least once a year (which does involve wearing distinctive black clothes).

From the “Oxford English Dictionary” and the “The Two Babylons,” Meyer traces the Bachelor academic degree to the words bacchanal, bacca and baca, all of which link to a place devoted to Bacchus. It forms the basis of the word “Bacchanalia,” which refers to the festival of Bacchus.

In “The Two Babylons,” Alexander Hislop traces the name Bacchus to Dionysus and ultimately to the Greek father god Zeus. Bacchus was the “sin-bearing one” (Zeus Sotor or Savior). Meyer says that the Bacchus festival involved drunken orgies and revelry (as found in many modern Christian festivals--like Christmas and Mardi Gras). Bacchus was depicted with a head band with many crosses upon it.

This drunken orgy link to Bacchus made Meyer speculate that this is the reason why that excessive drinking of alcoholic beverages became commonly associated with collegiate life--just before students graduate with the bachelor’s degree.

This article from “The Sacred Name Broadcaster” goes on to quote “Encyclopedia Britannica” (11th ed, v. 23, p. 413 on robes) and notes a suggestion tying academic robes to ecclesiastical robes (discussed elsewhere herein).

Meyer raised a question about linkage of medieval students wearing religious clothing and tonsures (a shaved bald spot on the head, also discussed elsewhere herein) to the practices of pagan priests (Lev 21:5). This connection might allow a tie between academia and ecclesia (per Meyer). Incidentally, the depravity of both disciplines are discussed throughout this study at hand.

Last, the article quoted “Encyclopedia Britannica” to link the tippet, hood and mortarboard hat to the ancient Grecian and Roman sun worship cultures. Meyer thinks that the mortarboard hat is under discussion in Zephaniah 1:10-11, where the NIV reflects “New Quarter.” The Hebrew mortar does appear in Zephaniah 1:11.

This four cornered academic hat is tied to both the square nimbus and the aureole, found in Buddhist art of India (where the idea probably came to India, via Alexander the Great’s invasion in the 4th century BCE).

The nimbus or sun halo was discussed earlier herein. Britannica said that “living persons of eminence were equipped with a square nimbus: The memory of this custom is preserved in the academic mortarboard...” Meyer suggests that the four corners of the mortarboard symbolize the cross (which has been discussed in a prior chapter).

The article quoted the “Oxford English Dictionary,” which links cap to the word cater--that has a root meaning “quatre, quarter or four.” It signifies an academic person. Meyer went on to quote Oxford in a suggestion that the cater-cap descends from ancient, pagan, sun worshippers.

Black is a Symbol of Evil

Not only is the color “black” tied to the ecclesiastical leaders of pagan sun worship cults, but it seems to have some particularly distasteful aspects in Second Temple Judaism which could have some relevance here. Previously, mention was made of the work of the first two prophets and/or the ultimate two witnesses in restoring true worship and the priesthood at a coming Third Temple.

Several OT prophets describe this restoration work in some detail. Zekharyah had some useful comments on it in type with his remarks on the filthy garments worn by Yehoshua, the high priest (Zech 3:3). In a commentary on this verse, the “Soncino Books of the Bible” (v. 8, p. 280) suggest that it was customary for accused persons to wear black or dirty clothes, as indicative of mourning.

So black equates to dirty clothing while white links to the cleanliness of the election (Rev 7:9). Actually in historical times, black was not only connected symbolically to being dirty; but also, it was tied to evil. In Witchcraft and the occult, black is symbolic of their activities.

The Word does contain a lot of information on clothing and dress in general for followers of YESHUA. Certainly, these requirements are not limited to lay people, but would extend to a proper and correct ministry--both in the Apostolic Assembly and in any legitimate age ending work.

The Book Requires

In the first place, YHWH prescribes that all clothing and dress be made from common cloth (possibly natural cloths like linen, wool, etc) which has not been blended with different kinds (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:11). On this edict, please understand that the issue is a blend of different kinds and not just wearing different garments of different kinds. Thus, we should not wear a blend of linen and wool. But we can wear a shirt of linen and a coat of wool.

In today’s sun worship society and culture, about all that the stores sell are blends which are illegal by YAH’s Word. Can pure, unblended clothing be found? Yes, but it takes real work and effort. Incidentally, some persons might believe that this commandment is stupid and out of date by today’s world, but there has to some very important teachings involved in it.

For example, Brian Sass (Mar/Apr 2009 EAOY Newsletter) says that scientifically “wool when combined with linen increases its power of passing electricity from the body. He notes that in hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, the skin inflames and excoriates like a blister” (quoting from Jamisson, Fausset and Brown).

This, per Sass, “is because wool readily sheds electrons. Anyone who has ever walked across a carpet with wool socks and touched a door knob has experienced this phenomenon. However linen will not accept the electrons that are handed to it by the wool; its molecules push the electrons away. The wool then tries to hand them back and the cycle continues and begins to amplify itself.

“As this cycle continues it draws electricity out of your body in order to feed itself. The more electricity it draws, the weaker your body becomes. Our bodies are delicate precision creations run on electricity. If you upset the balance you are in trouble.

“The body is quite healthy with 100 angstroms of electricity, if the electricity falls to 50 angstroms sickness begins to occur—if the decline continues to drop to 15 angstroms—more critical disease such as cancer will occur. Wearing a linen garment will boost the electricity in the human body to 5000 angstroms, keeping you very healthy—it’s no wonder that (Yahweh) had his priests wearing linen garments in His service.

“Wool also will boost the body’s electricity to 5000 angstroms but with an opposite polarity. This is not harmful unless you mix the two, in which case, being of opposite polarity they cancel each other out and the body’s electricity drops to ‘0’ causing the symptoms outlined in the article. These symptoms lead to a condition known as hypovolemic shock.”

Going on, Sass says “If you were to wear a garment mixed with linen and wool in a hot climate, the first thing you would notice is an increasing tiredness as your energy gets zapped, then your internal organs would begin to fail as the electricity needed to run your various functions is depleted. As the energy passes from your body and meets with hot air your skin will start to excoriate like a blister, causing rapid fluid loss and dehydration. The pain and discomfort would become unbearable and you would long for death to quickly come. Your wish is eventually granted.”

More Issues

Another general principle is that men should not wear that which pertains to a woman and vice versa for women (Deut 22:5). Many of these big, long, flowing robes worn by Christian ecclesiastical leaders seem to be awful effeminate and in apparent conflict with YHWH’s law.

Actually, the Book does prescribe something on the order of pants for men (called breeches in the KJV, from the Hebrew “miknasalim”) in its stipulation for the priests (Ex 28:42; 39:28; Lev 6:10; 16:4; Ezek 44:18). Since men in the election are to become priests in the world tomorrow, surely this requirement is relevant on the dress of men.

Daniel Botkin, in the Sep-Oct 2002 “Gates of Eden” (p. 10) takes note of this situation and adds that in a check of “Grolier’s Encyclopedia” and the “World Book Encyclopedia” the traditional clothing for men and women in the various cultures of the world all seem to have some form of pants for men and dresses for women.

Though some persons may argue that the Torah does not specifically prohibit pants for women, Botkin suggests that that belief could only have merit if one assumes that pants are not a man’s garment. Since pants are well established as a man’s garment, it becomes manifest that they are out of the question for women.

Furthermore, the law dictates that obedient persons wear and use something on the order of phylacteries and tefillin (Ex 13:9, 16; Deut 6:4-9; 11:18-21) and wear a covering (the Hebrew kanaph which was described at some length earlier in connection with messengers) with fringes/tassels (Hebrew tzitzityot) on it (Num 15:37-41; Deut 22:12). Obviously, these needs apply to ministers, as well as men in general.

Scriptural Significance of the Tzitzit

These tzitzityot are interesting because they are very Scriptural. Yet, Christians generally hate them with a passion. As just noted, they represent a mitzwah (commandment in the Torah). So one must approach this subject with some care, concern and respect. Instead, Christians laugh and make fun of the very idea of wearing a garment with a fringe or tassels on it.

These tassels are attached to each of the four corners of the outer garment. Often, they are attached to a prayer shawl (the talith) which becomes the outer garment. The talith are used during worship services--where people may cover themselves as they pray and commune with The ELOHIM (thus, in some aspects, they effectively can pray in secret, as even YESHUA commanded--Matt 6:6).

There are 613 mitzwot in the Torah. The numerical value of the word “tzitzit” (singular of tzitzityot) is 600. Each tassel has eight threads (seven white and one a unique blue) which are tied in five knots. The 600+8+5 equals 613, which is symbolic of the mitzwot in the Torah (Oct-Dec 1999 “Petah Tikvah,” p. 52).

There are four sets of windings of the threads (between the knots)--seven at the top, then eight, then eleven and finally thirteen. These four windings add up to 39, which is the numerical value of “YHWH is One” in Hebrew (Oct-Dec 1999 “Petah Tikvah,” p. 52). The four knots correspond to the Tetragrammaton YHWH (2000 issue, “Dispatch From Jerusalem,” p. 8).

In historic Scriptural days, men like Shmuel commonly wore the talith (a mantle) with the four tzitzityot attached (I Sam 15:27). The famous prophet Eliyahu wore a talith (a mantle), which is what he conferred upon Elisha when he was removed by YHWH (I Kg 19:19; II Kg 2:13-14--per the 2000 issue, “Dispatch From Jerusalem,” p. 8).

Boaz spread the tzitzit corner of his talith over Ruth, to signify that he was placing her under his authority and protection (Ru 3:8-9). She was a good woman (Ru 3:11); thus, she agreed to Boaz’s gesture. So he married her (2000 issue of “Dispatch From Jerusalem,” p. 14).

King Shaul in ancient Yisrael wore these four tzitzityot. The reader will remember the account of David cutting off the corners of Shaul’s outer garment. These were the tzitzityot (I Sam 24:4-20--per the 2000 issue, “Dispatch From Jerusalem,” p. 14)

In New Testament days, YESHUA wore a talith with four tzitzityot at the four corners. A sick woman followed Him and touched his tzitzit and was healed (Matt 9:20; Mk 5:27-31). Other sick persons learned that they would be healed and made whole if they could but touch one of His tzitzityot (Matt 14:36).

When YESHUA returns for His millennial reign, He will come wearing a talith (the garment at Rev 19:11-16), with His four tzitzityot attached, falling upon His thighs. His name and titles will be written upon this talith.

The particular blue color (used to dye the blue colored thread) comes from a small gland in the murex snail. In historic times, this dye was very expensive because it took 12,000 snails to make a thimble full of the dye (2000 issue, “Dispatch from Jerusalem,” p. 8). Shaul’s convert Lydia, at Philippi, was a seller of this dye (Acts 16:14). This blue color is symbolic of The RUACH HA KODESH.

Many religious Jews wear their tzitzityot on an inner garment (a katan) in today’s secular sun worship culture. But they often pull these tassels up over their outer belt, which holds their trousers up. Thus, the tzitzityot can still be seen, but not as readily as in the case of the talith.

While there is no question that the above needs involve physical actions by believers (in the context of obedience), there is also something more substantial to the subject.

The Purpose

William F. Dankenbring suggests that the purpose of some of these laws is not for literal, physical reasons; but rather, for spiritual fulfillments in placing YAH’s laws in one’s forehead (mentally) and in one’s hand in the sense of duties and acts of obedience (Sep-Oct 96 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 28).

Yes, every time a person puts on phylacteries and tefillin or wears an outer garment (a talith or whatever) with the tzitzityot attached, the very actions serve as a physical reminder of YHWH’s Torah and the need to think upon the mitzwot and obey them at every occasion and opportunity.

True, these expressions are simple physical acts. But they serve enormously important symbolism and teachings about the Torah. Like the Word declares, the purpose of these actions was well said by Moshe when he wrote that by looking upon the tzitzit, a person can remember YHWH’s mitzwot (Num 15:39).

The point of these remarks is that the Torah does prescribe certain physical rituals and human dress requirements. Christendom, in general, ignores all these Scriptural requirements and instead, substitutes man-made rituals and actions which are derived from heathen sun worship, rather than from the Word. Is there a difference between what YHWH commands and what sun worshippers obey from man-made traditions?

More on Dress and Vestments

In the V. I, No. 3 (2004) issue of the “Vendyl Jones Research Institutes Researcher” (p. 3), the previously quoted Larry Rogers tied many of the vestments used by the clergy in Catholicism to the ancient sun worship Mithra cult. Specifically, Rogers cited the red cap, ring and vestments used by the Pope and the miters worn by Catholic bishops.

Probably, the case can easily be made that virtually all of the uniforms and vestments worn by the generic Christian clergy have connections somewhere and somehow to ancient sun worship.

Ecclesiastical Processions

The Babylonian sun worship religion provided for grand and pompous ecclesiastical processions, whereby the sun worship priests and their attendants would march into the worship services in their long, flowing, ecclesiastical robes and uniforms and with their many idols displayed (as documented in “The Two Babylons,” p. 171).

Of course, the audience would have to congregate and assemble in advance for such lofty processions. And quite naturally, sun worshipping Christianity picked upon this ritual.

The most notable pomp and processional activities occur within the Roman Catholic Church, where the pope is carried into St. Peter’s Basilica while seated in a chair. All of the Catholic faithful are assembled to await his grand entrance. Many of the other Catholic leaders participate in the ceremony in their ecclesiastical robes and uniforms.

Anglican and Eastern Churches have elaborate uniforms and processions as well. And while most Protestants have toned it down somewhat, many of them still follow the practice of the audience assembling first to await some type of a “grand entrance” by the sun worship preacher or leader.

Even the Seventh-day Adventists denomination follows this old sun worship practice on Sabbaths when three of their church leaders (including the preacher and two other elders) ceremonially march from the rear of the auditorium or building to the podium/pulpit (high place), after the audience is assembled.

The Reality

As a matter of information, there are no ecclesiastical processions in Jewish synagogues; though there is some ritual during services associated with the removal of the ark of the Torah from its storage place, its movement to a place of honor, its opening and the readings of the scrolls.

Otherwise, the leaders and speakers at synagogues seem to largely enter the building and take their seats just like everyone else. Manifestly, Christian leaders should spent some time and find out how things are done in Judaism. After all, YESHUA The MESSIAH was a religious Jew, Who worshipped with other religious Jews in the local synagogues.

Since YESHUA and the other leaders of the Apostolic Assembly were Jews and regularly did meet in Jewish synagogues, one can be fairly certain that they acted just like the other people present (and in a most humble fashion). Remember, YHWH resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.

Chapter 206--Modern Sun Worship Theology IV

The Way

While it is true that the Scriptures describe a “way of life” for believers and followers of YHWH YESHUA, there is absolutely nothing in the Word which would suggest, allow or outline that “the Way” be used as an appellative or nominative to describe those believers and followers (and certainly not in English).

Yet, various and sundry sects and cults in Christendom choose to use the words “The Way,” to describe themselves and their religion. In fact, at least one Christian cult has even went to the extreme of identifying itself as “The Way” in its publicly stated denominational name.

So, if there is absolutely no Scriptural basis for the use of the words “the way,” where then and what is the source of this phrase? The answer--Mithra sun worship, of course. In “Religions of the World” (p. 57), Gerald L. Berry notes that Mithraism was identified as “The Way.”

Door to Door Evangelizing

One of the favorite proselytizing tricks (evangelizing) of many Christian groups is to go door to door in an effort to gain, steal or obtain new members.

This practice has had wide acceptance among many denominations over the years. But there have been some slow downs in it in the last 50 years--except for the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) and a few other odd ball cults.

In their book, “Qualified To Be Ministers,” the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim a few New Testament texts which mention the word “house” for their authority in their door to door campaigns (Lu 10:5; Acts 15:36; Rev 3:20). Yet they never seem to understand that their primary reference (Lu 10:5) has a context which precisely says “go not from house to house” (Lu 10:7). Yet, they go house to house.

From Greek Sun Worship

Some years ago, Gordon Keith Pearce wrote a booklet on JW evangelizing in which he quoted from Plato’s Republic (c364 BCE) and other early Greek sources to establish that it was the pagan (sun worshipping) Greeks who seem to have first used the door to door method of proselytizing and passing out religious literature to gain new converts to their religion.

Of course, this is a sun worship procedure and one totally contrary to the Book. Because of its source and linkage to the old sun worship cults, it is no wonder that Christian Churches have followed this door to door practice for ages.

While it is true that this sun worship method of gaining proselytes is not so popular today in the early 21st century (except among the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and a few other cults), it has been followed from time to time by almost all denominations and groups. Clearly, it is not just a phenomenon among the Mormons and JWs.

Collecting Money

The NT tells the story of the poor woman who cast two mites into the Temple treasury in contrast to the givings of the rich man (Mk 12:41-42; Lu 21:1-2). The background for this incident is brought out by Henry Alford in his “The Greek Testament” (v. 1, p. 405).

The Temple had thirteen chests which stood in the women’s court to receive tribute and contributions. With the chests, people could innocuously give without a lot of fan-fare, in contrast to others who liked to have people notice them and their acts of giving.

The point is that collection plates were not passed. This was true in Second Temple synagogues and verity in modern Orthodox synagogues as well. Collection plates are not passed.

In an article on “Creation’s Sabbath,” Kyle D. Pratt notes that Orthodox synagogues do not take up any collections of money on Sabbath; in part, because they consider it unlawful, under the fourth commandment, to carry anything (including money) outside of their homes or synagogues on that day (the “Sabbath Sentinel,” Mar-Apr 1997, p. 8).

A survey of the various meetings of the people of the Apostolic Assembly also fails to reflect any action of passing a collection plate, although they did have a process of collecting gifts for the needy. Too, there was the early incident when some in the Jerusalem assembly sold their possessions and brought the proceeds to the apostles to benefit the collective group (Acts 4:34-37; 5:2).

Yet, Christianity has developed a process whereby collection plates are passed at weekly religious services. Why is it that this procedure has become adopted within Christendom for these many centuries since there is clearly no Scriptural basis for the practice at all?

This writer has spent some effort in going through various books and writings on the old sun worship cults in an effort to locate the basis for this Christian practice. So far, none have been found. But since the practice is well established in Christendom, it likely links in some fashion to the sun worship cults.

Self Inflicted Punishment

One of the interesting practices found among many Christians in the Roman Catholic Church is the matter of some adherents inflicting punishment and pain on themselves as acts of penance.

Even the whole ideas of monasteries and monks, who may live a life of imposed silence and suffering without warm clothing or bedding in very cold environments, have overtures of men trying to bring on human suffering to supposedly please The HIGHEST.

One of the more horrible acts of self punishment involved the Flagellants, a group of Catholic faithful who first surfaced in the Middle Ages in Europe.

According to the “New International Dictionary of the Christian Church,” the Flagellants were people under the influence of religious hysteria who often went about barefooted and inflicted beatings and blood-lettings on their bare backs and shoulders with scourges as acts of penance.

For quite some time, the Roman Church allowed (and evidently even encouraged) these religious acts to continue before finally condemning them at the Council of Constance. For the last four hundred years or so, the practice has survived, at least in the Philippines where it regularly surfaces during the week ending with Easter Sunday.

A United Press International article on “P.I. Torture Rite Reigns,” appeared in the Guam “Pacific Daily News” of April 3, 1980, and described the modern manifestations of the practice. UPI noted that it is a bloody celebration of Easter where hundreds of Filipinos (stripped to their waists and barefooted) flog themselves until their backs flow with blood in a pagan festival of sacrifice.

The article reported that the Flagellants wear hoods and crowns of “thorns” (usually a strip of barbed wire or a sprig of leaves). After peeling off their shirts, friends scrape their backs with pieces of wood encrusted with broken glass, producing numerous small cuts on the flesh. In sweltering heat, the Flagellants parade through the villages while lashing their backs with sharp whips until they become bloody pulps.

Flagellation usually takes place on Good Friday. Many participants carry a huge wooden cross on their march and have friends beat them with whips. Some adherents even allow themselves to be nailed to their wooden crosses (in true to life crucifixions), after they carry their crosses up a hill or mountain. Four inch nails are hammered into their palms and they are then raised up vertically.

The writer of this study spent some years on Saipan Island in the North Pacific where a number of Filipino workers were living. This Flagellant practice can be vouched for, as it has been seen by me at Easter time. Truly, it is a sickening, pathetic ritual.

It’s Basis

Of course, it has no basis whatsoever in the Scriptures. The only self inflicted trials or tests which the Word teaches and advocates is “fasting.” Fasting is a very important practice which true followers of YHWH YESHUA are likely to be involved in since this ritual has a strong Scriptural foundation.

So, if the practice of the Flagellants and their self imposed punishment is unscriptural, what and where then is the basis for this rite which has lasted within Catholicism for several centuries now. Well, one can easily guess that it must link to the ancient sun worship cults. And it does.

In describing the initiation into the Mithra cult, Gerald L Berry (in “Religions of the World,” p. 57) says that the process involved twelve days of “painful trials by fire, water, hunger, thirst, cold, scourging, bleeding, branding, and mock menace of death.”

Also, “What the Great Religions Teach” (p. 113) notes that Roman sun worship involved a Phrygean Cybele cult which annually held a bloody rite of self mutilation on Black (Good) Friday.

Furthermore, the Scriptures seem very precise in describing the event as one found among the ancient Baal sun worshippers, living in the ten tribes of the Northern House of Yisrael. It surfaced among the sun worship preachers who cut themselves, bled and tried to get the sun god to reveal himself in their conflict with Eliyahu and The TRUE ELOHIM of Yisrael (I Kg 18:28).

Asceticism

While numerous points have already been made about religious asceticism in the last several chapters, it would be well to again bring the subject up in a summary form, before preceding on in this present discussion.

In the main, the idea of doing without, self imposed suffering, penance and want all seem to be basic attributes of Hinduism and in particular Chrishnaism.

“What the Great Religions Teach” (p 110) contains some information on the “School of Pythagoras,” as run by the early Greek sun worshippers. Pythagoras was a philosopher who lived in the 6th century BCE. His school reportedly emphasized asceticism--absence from eating animal foods and maintaining silence for five years while in training and celibacy.

This same source also reports on the Orphic Mysteries of the Greek mythologies (ibid, p. 108). Reportedly, Dionysus was the god of the Orphic Mysteries which included rites and initiation ceremonies where asceticism, self denial and purity, and the abstinence from all flesh foods were taught.

Barbara Walker indicates that the most common manifestation of the Great Mother as Preserver was the white, horned, milk giving Moon-cow, still sacred in modern India as a symbol of Kali (“Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets,” p. 180). Yes, cows are worshipped among the Hindus.

The Dec 20, 2002, “The Week” (p. 12) had a news report from India that the Indian government is considering the creation of an elite special forces unit to protect sacred cows. So this matter is serious with the Hindus. Because of the Hindu influence upon Christendom, it is no wonder that so many Christians believe in animal rights.

Celibacy of Priests

Celibacy of priests has been a popular facet of Catholicism for many, many centuries. It is interesting for several reasons. Instead of having a Scriptural basis (which it clearly does not), the practice probably can be laid directly at the doorsteps of Mithraism which taught that the sun god Mithra was a celibate (“What the Great Religions Teach,” p. 99).

Darrell W. Conder notes that in ancient Rome, the priests of the Mysteries took their vows of celibacy by castrating themselves before the image of the mother goddess in her temple (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 192). Conder goes on to suggest that the early Catholic Church priests castrated themselves as well.

Manifestly, the practice of celibacy by the priests has to be one of the contributing reasons to the problems of Catholic perversion, homosexuality, etc, as noted earlier and to be further described in later chapters herein.

A Modern Celibacy Example

Some years ago, this writer was acquainted with a Christian couple who had a celibate marriage (reportedly, they both had been celibates for all of their entire lives--with the woman allegedly being a celibate in a prior marriage of some years).

This is probably no big deal one way or the other, although there are mitzwot which command Adamites to marry and produce children; and one, interestingly, which proclaims that a married woman has “conjugal rights” (Ex 21:10-11, with a focus upon a bondwoman which spells out duties to all wives). And in the strict Scriptural sense, a legitimate marriage seems to result from the very act of copulation.

So one must wonder about the status of the marriage in this just cited couple (in the absence of sexual relations). But they (or for sure, the man, as noted in a prior chapter) liked to brag and boast about their celibate marriage situation, as if they were in some state of righteousness because of it.

Possibly, the Word allows such a marriage (when there is a mutual agreement for it). But participants should not be proud and inflated over it.

After all, one can marry and engage in sex without sin (which seems to be the Scriptural approach). Truly, being celibate is a mark of asceticism, usually found among Gnostic, Hindu and Eastern sun worshippers and not something from the Word (noted above and to be addressed more in a later chapter).

Please understand that these remarks are not being made to justify fornication and adultery--which are different topics and which are wrong, regardless of marriage or not. Obviously, a true believer should always seek a legitimate, proper marriage first. But if a person must remain separate, then likely the condition of celibacy should persevere to avoid sin.

Apparently, both YESHUA (because of His purpose in life and His coming marriage to Yisrael) and Shaul were celibates. But they never treated that fact as being something which made them righteous (because celibacy, as a minimum, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with righteousness--one way or the other). And certainly, neither of them bragged and boasted of that fact.

Surely, there were several reasons for Shaul’s celibacy. At the outset, it would appear that he was so serious in his work (per his commission) that he probably did not want anything (like a wife) to interfere in it or hinder it in anyway whatsoever.

Regarding his words at I Corinthians 7:1-9, it is clear that they were made because of the time factors relevant to the impending tribulation and the change to immortality, as opposed to the question of marriage for people generally who would remain on earth (this course has been noted in a prior chapter on Shaul and the Torah). Suffice to say, Shaul addressed marriage since the other Apostolic leaders did marry (I Cor 9:5).

The Temple and Sacrifices

A former chapter quoted liberal, theologian Karen Armstrong and her book “A History of God” (p. 90) where the former nun called YHWH’s commandments a burden and condemned the Temple and the sacrifice of animals.

As noted earlier, this thinking goes back to the time of the warped and demented Marcion, who had such a profound influence on developing Christianity in its early years.

Of course, the same Marcion and Armstrong views are still to be found in Christendom at large. The “Prophecy Club” Newsletter for Jul/Aug 1999 (p. 3) had a so-called vision of one Dr Bill Deagle (who likely is a Pentecostal or Charismatic of some sort) which supposedly focused upon age ending apocalyptic events.

Somewhere, in Deagle’s background, he must have found out about the prophecies relating to the rebuilding of the Temple and the resumption of the Daily Sacrifice. In this sense, he likely had this information stored in his conscious or unconscious minds. Perhaps this condition prompted him to focus some of his then recent vision (of Apr 24, 1999) upon those institutions.

He was apparently trying to establish a recognizable and definable point in time which would date some events to follow. He chose to describe this point in time as the partitioning of the city of Jerusalem and the start of the “Abomination of Animal Sacrifice on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem” which he later called an abomination against the blood of the Son (of The EL).

Presumably, these events would set the stage for the angel Gabriel to bring to him visions, dreams and great revelations once a week. Going on, Deagle’s vision said that those that pray and seek the “voice of God” will know the truth (apparently, Deagle understood little or nothing about studying the Word to know truth).

This vision was generally too kooky, incoherent and illogical to deserve any mentioning at all. It has been singled out and commented upon only because Deagle chose to focus criticism and complaint upon the Temple and its Scriptural sacrificial system. It is simply more Marcion theology, pure and simple.

Yes, Ignorant Christians

But the tragedy of this whole affair is that it demonstrates the beliefs and feelings of a large number of ignorant Christians who are totally lost about what the Scriptures really say. This is particularly true with the OT; but also, the NT to some extent because few Christians have the foggiest notion that Shaul and others of the Apostolic Assembly went to the Temple to offer sacrifices (as discussed in former chapters).

When YESHUA came and died, He did not abolish the Temple or Temple sacrifices. These institutions remained until the Roman War and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

When a Third Temple is built, these institutions will become valid and proper once more (after all, they are a part and parcel of the Word of The EL). The same is true with the Millennial Temple (Ezek 40-47).

There is little doubt about it whatsoever. When Kain introduced the idea that something was wrong with blood sacrifices (of animals), on the premise that offerings of vegetables, fruits and plants would suffice, he introduced rebellion against YAH’s way. This rebellion, under Cain, later manifested itself in the old sun worship cults (which has carried forward to Hinduism and now Christianity).

Many, many Christians go to pieces at the very thought of a rebuilt Temple and the resumption of the Daily Sacrifice. Some of them will be highly shocked when one day (either here in the age end or in the millennium), they will be obligated to go the Temple and offer a sacrifice to obtain forgiveness.

This sun worship opposition to blood sacrifices, paranoia over animals and the prevailing asceticism are long standing attributes of many people. They are very prevalent among modern Christians, just as they were in the old sun cults.

Dedicated Women

For the last several hundreds of years or so, various segments of Christendom have followed the practice of establishing an order or organization of dedicated women who wear distinctive uniforms and are fairly separated from the general secular society.

Many of these dedicated and religious women are not allowed to marry (hence, they are theoretically virgins) and must work in different orders of charity and humanitarian enterprises, supposedly for the pious service of collective man. They are often prevalent in educational and medical situations. The best example of such women has been the case of the Roman Catholic nuns.

This word nun is interesting because James Hannay, in the “Rise, Decline and Fall of the Roman Religion” (p. 94), says that nun is a Babylonian name for a fish--which is a symbol of the sun god, as outlined formerly.

Otherwise, some Orthodox Churches have the same propensity to establish specific women’s groups and orders for religious service. Over the years, several Protestant groups have also got on the band wagon with their uniformed women.

Aside from taking a woman out of her established and Scripturally ordained role of having children and being a helper (wife) to a man (in the home), there is still one more extremely bad feature about this whole practice, as found in Churchianity.

This adverse quality arises because of the origin of the “consecrated” orders of women. Obviously, they are totally foreign in the Book--both Old and New Testaments.

The Vestal Virgins of Rome

So, where do these dedicated women come from and why are they so popular in religious circles? Of course, the answer is from sun worship societies. The sun worship Roman religion used to employ and use a religious order of women called “vestal virgins,” who were set apart and wore a distinctive uniform.

These women were priestesses of a sort and were held in high esteem in the Roman Empire (per McClintock and Strong’s “Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature,” v. x, p. 767).

The vestals were afforded many privileges and benefits. At the theaters, they were given seats of honour. But there was a downside for them. Because if any of them fell into sexual sins and got caught, they were buried alive for punishment.

Convents

One of the popular ideas in much of Christendom is the Convent or Monastery in the context of a religious community, usually made up of a group of women (like nuns) or men (like monks). While these groups of people and their buildings and facilities are generally now found in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox groups, other Christian Churches historically have been known to have them as well.

Since they are totally unscriptural, the question must arise as to where they come from and why are they found in Christendom. The answer is fairly easy. Quite naturally, these convents and cloisters, as well, come from the ancient sun worship cults.

In the “Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets” (p. 175), Barbara G. Walker specifically mentions that the Convents evolved from pagan colleges of priestesses or virgines--that is unmarried women dedicated to “divine service.” Naturally, sun worship Christianity picked upon this concept and incorporated it into its organizations.

Bell Towers

For vast centuries of time, Christian Churches have been constructed with bell towers, in addition to the popular phallic church steeples, previously described. Ostensibly, the bells were to be rung and sounded to announce the church services and worship ceremonies. However, there are some dark sides to these bell towers not commonly known or thought of among the church faithful.

If a person should go to the Word of YHWH in an attempt to justify the bell towers, he/she would be amazed that there is a clear absence of such things.

Archeologists and historians have been able to piece together quite an abundance of data on the true worship sites of the Israelites and particularly the synagogues used in Second Temple days. None of these places seem to have had bell towers.

Since bell towers are totally foreign from the Book, and from the available information on true worship, where then and what then is the source for such items? Why have Christian Churches been built with them for ages and even unto modern times.

The answer--they come from Babylonian sun worship, as pointed out and commented upon by a number of students of religious history, including Ralph Woodrow in “Babylon Mystery Religion” and Alexander Hislop in “The Two Babylons.”

In “Religions of the World” (p.57), Gerald L Berry notes that in Mithraism, bells were rung on sun worship holidays, suggesting that the bells were used in worship and not so much in “calling the faithful together,” as one might at first suppose. Catholic Churches do the same thing today, as they use the bells in their worship and not for calling the faithful together.

Also, strangely enough, Catholic popes are crowned with a bell shaped hat which closely resembles the pagan Buddhist bells of the East (“Fossilized Customs,” p. 117).

Altars and Altar Calls

So-called altars are one of the common items involved in the ritual of most all Christian Churches. Catholic Churches go through their process of the “sacrifice of the mass” on an altar and Protestant Churches have them, as well, where they are typically used as the focal point of conversion when a candidate walks forward to these altars to bow before them and effectively offer the sacrifice of themselves symbolically.

In terms of the Word, certainly the Tanakh prescribes and outlines an altar in the Temple where animals were sacrificed. But there is not one word, suggestion or implication in the Book that there should be altars in other buildings and facilities of worship. Certainly, Jewish synagogues did not have altars or altar calls where YESHUA and most members of the Apostolic Assembly worshipped from time to time.

So, why the great emphasis on altars and altar calls in pagan Christianity? Well, the Book gives one the reason for this in mentioning that the evil Achav made an altar for the house (Temple) of the sun god Baal which he built in Samaria (I Kg 16:32).

Alexander Hislop specifically links Christian altars to ancient Babylonian sun worship (“The Two Babylons,” p. 162, 191). Also, the early Greek sun worshipers used altars in their worship (“What the Great Religions Teach,” p. 103). James Ballantyne Hannay, in “The Rise, Decline & Fall of the Roman Religion” (p. 61-70, 84, 103), notes that altars are found in the thousands in sun worship buildings all over the East.

Hannay (p. 68) charges that these altars are phallic in construction--as is the case with all names and symbolism in Christian Church architecture, decorations, instruments, clothing, vestments and sacerdotal paraphernalia of worship in all countries.

Stained Glass Windows

One of the most popular presentations of Christian buildings for the past many centuries has been the prevalent use of stained glass windows--ostensibly, so that outsiders cannot look in on the Christian sun worshippers while they are engaged in their worship. However, if that is their purpose, why even have windows at all?

Turning to the Scriptures, one can find absolutely no reference to them. So, if they are not Scriptural, one has to wonder why they are so prevalent and popular in Churchianity. Well, like so much else found in Christendom, their origin lies in the ancient sun worship cultures.

In their “Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature” (v. IX, p. 979), John McClintock and James Strong traced the stained glass windows all the way back to ancient Egypt (and her sun worship practices). These writers found that from Egypt, they went to Greece and later Rome.

“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 803) reports that they were first used in Christian Churches as early as the fifth century CE and that the artwork reached its height in Christian Churches in the Middle Ages. Per this source, stained glass windows were also used and popularized by Muslim designers for their mosque windows.

With this focus on the use of stained glass windows by heathen sun worshipping Christians, it would be well to mention the situation with historic Jewish synagogues--which quite naturally are a world apart from pagan Christian Churches.

The Talmud (Ber. 34b) indicates that the synagogue must have windows based on Daniel 6:10--which describes how Daniel prayed by windows facing toward Jerusalem (“Encyclopedia Judaica,” v. 15, p. 591). Going on, the Talmud also specified that the windows allow the supplicant to see the sky (Ber. 34b). Manifestly, stained glass windows hide the outside sky and would never qualify for the early synagogues.

As the Talmud also states, “the synagogue needs a lot of light” (Sh. Ar., OH 150:4). While the Talmud outlined 12 windows for the 12 tribes of Yisrael, Judaica notes that this stipulation is rarely met because of architectural and other problems. Incidentally, the Temple was also constructed with windows for light, as a matter of information (I Kg 6:4)

Candles

One of the common features of much of false worship is the use of candles in the worship ceremonies. The modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians all make use of candles extensively.

Whether with midnight worship services (to be discussed below) or just the presence of stained glass windows (as described above), many Christian Church services are conducted in a dark, dreary condition (which probably adds a certain sense of mystery and intrigue to the Christian worship). Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the popularity of candles at Christian services.

This Christian propensity and push for darkness in her worship processes should be compared with the situation in the Scriptures at the Temple and at Jewish synagogues, all of which place an emphasis on light and seeing during worship.

Lamps or Candles?

Furthermore, it is tragic to note that in Jewish homes, a very old tradition outlined the lighting of candles for the Sabbath event (at the time of saying the kiddush prayer, as discussed in a prior chapter).

In an article on “How is This Night Different,” in the Apr-Jun 2001 “Petak Tikvah” (p. 17), author Roger Walkwitz suggests that lamps and olive oil were anciently used, instead of candles, because candles (in worship) were symbols of the sun god.

Of course, Walkwitz must be correct because, Scripturally, the Temple did use a menorah for light--which consisted of a seven branched golden lampstand with one or perhaps seven containers supplying olive oil (Ex 25:31-38). The Prophet Zekharyah saw a similar seven branched lampstand, clearly with one bowl (Zech 4:2-3). In the Revelation, Yohanan saw still one more outline of a golden menorah (Rev 1:12, 20).

One of the tragedies of the “King James Version” of the Scriptures is some mistaken translations. Typically, the KJV refers to these menorahs as being candlesticks. But as virtually all commentaries and even most more modern translations report (like the “Amplified”), the menorahs involved were lampstands, supplied by oil for burning. Candles were not used at all.

With this background, it appears that anciently the Hebrew Israelite people in Canaan land would have used a menorah (in the form of a seven branched lampstand supplied by olive oil) for the starting of the Sabbath and the kiddush ceremony and not candles, per se.

In this respect, it seems certain that the Jewish practice of lighting candles for