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 the Sabbath probably has a pagan sun worship origin, as is true in Christian Churches which use candles in worship rituals. 

 

 

Midnight Worship Services 

 

For centuries, various Christian denominations have found pleasure and satisfaction in conducting midnight worship services, as just noted above.  The Roman Catholic Church, in particular, likes to have midnight mass on certain Christian holidays.  Obviously, these services conflict with the synagogue and Temple practices, as cited above. 

 

A check of the Scriptures fails to reveal any basis for such worship services (the Scriptural day starts at sunset and not at midnight, as a matter of information).  Where then do they come from?  Naturally, ancient sun worship is the answer, as is the case in so much of Christian theology. 

 

Gerald Berry in “Religions of the World” (p. 58) reflects that in Mithraism, midnight worship services were observed on appropriate occasions.  Also, midnight was a favorite time for astrologers to be engaged in their activities.  As noted above, night services seems to add an element of mystery and intrigue to the pagan Christian worship services. 

 

 

Worshipping in Groves 

 

Historically, Christian Church groups have had a propensity to build their worship sites and buildings in a grove of trees and on top of a hill or elevated high place where possible.  As is true within almost all of organized Churchianity, this practice comes from heathen sun worship. 

 

Barbara G. Walker, in the “Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets” (p. 356), says that next to a cave, a grove was the most popular uterine symbol in the early pagan religions, to include the “biblical Semites” to whom Asherah was the Mother Goddess of the Grove. 

 

A large tree, pillar or obelisk within the grove represented the male god inside the Goddess, as both child and lover.  Walker’s excellent work goes on to describe the groves associated with Demeter, Diana, the Druids, at Derry and so forth. 

 

These old sun worship practices became so entrenched in the Israelite communities that the Tanakh has a whole host of condemnations against them (Ex 34:13; Deut 12:3; 16:21; Jud 3:7; 6:25-30; I Kg 14:15, 23; 15:13; 16:33; II Kg 18:4; 21:7).  Naturally, the House of Yisrael was a leader in this pagan sun worship and particularly under Achav (II Kg 13:6; 21:3). 

 

 

Church Facilities and Architecture 

 

Prior comments herein mentioned the enormous linkage between the old sun cults and modern Christianity in the context of sex.  The sexual overtures run throughout Christianity. 

 

As pointed out previously, sun worship sexual images are found extensively in Christendom--in unlikely things, such as building architecture (per Hannay’s “The Rise Decline & Fall of the Roman Religion,” p 68-103, 123, 163).  Most are phallic images in design and layout, depicting the male generative organ (as cited earlier with church steeples). 

 

Good examples of sexually motivated architecture include the “V” shaped windows which are reflective of the woman’s sexual attributes; church domes that are symbolic of women’s wombs; doors and windows which represent women’s vaginas; the columns, posts and poles that indicate the male principle; and the cock perched atop steeples which are especially vulgar (as discussed in a preceding chapter). 

 

In a paper on “Satan’s Door to America,” off of the Internet, Ed Decker writes about the phallic pillar or column by saying that it was “surrounded by a circle at its base, intended for the cteis, or female generative organ.  This union of the Phallus and the cteis, which is well represented by the point within the circle, was intended by the ancients as a type of the prolific powers of nature, which they worshipped...” 

 

Besides these lower circles, the pillars of the sun worship cults supported the roofs and ceilings of the sun worship temples (in contrast to the two that were in front of the Jerusalem Temple).  Consequently, many Christian church basilicas are virtual copies of the early sun temples (like the Temple of Artemis).  Even Christian furniture and vessels are also generally phallic in design (per James Hannay, p 76-101). 

 

The construction and layout of churches with a central aisle and seats or pews down the sides can be traced back to sun worshipping Mithraism (v. I, No. 3, 2004, “Vendyl Jones Research Institutes Researcher,” p. 3).  So the sun worship presence is great. 

 

Having mentioned the reality of having sun worship connections even in physical facilities and church architecture, it should also be noted that as the sun worship practice was to have elaborate, expensive, huge Christian Churches, the same was true of the old sun worship temples.  Conversely, the Word indicates simple and inexpensive buildings (Isa 9:10; Amos 5:11). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 207--Modern Sun Worship Theology V

 

 

Use of Mysteries, Secrets and Magic 

 

Other methods used by the priests in the old sun worship cults to keep the dumb, lay people in line were superstition and magic.  The Scriptures also seem to record some feats of magic which may or may not have involved demonic spirits. 

 

One situation occurred in ancient Egypt when the Egyptian sun priests attempted to duplicate Moshe’s miracles (Ex 7:11-12, 22), and another is prophetic in terms of the age end (Rev 13:13-14). 

 

As E. O. James writes in “Comparative Religion” (p. 57-77), the magical arts were a very important part and parcel of many of the ancient pagan religions and especially those that could be considered to be primitive.  Obviously, the Colored peoples of the world have been more prone for such things.  And so today, they still are carried on among Colored peoples. 

 

While Christendom would not seem to be primary agencies for such acts, they have surfaced from time to time.  In “The New Testament A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings” (p. 31), Bart D. Ehrman wrote that scholars in the early 20th century were struck with the similarities between early mysteries and Christianity which, too, was a secretive group with mysteries (like the Trinity, etc). 

 

In a later chapter, focus will be directed to the Voodoo practices of Catholic Christians in Black countries (thus, it is no wonder that Christians like candles and services at night, as discussed in the previous chapter).  Mention can also be made to the fake healings performed by many Pentecostals and Holy Rollers. 

 

On this, one should consider the work of the famous Jim Jones of Jonestown fame.  Before he led his many followers into mass suicide, Jim used to perform healing “miracles” on his flock (many of whom were superstitious Blacks).  Jim used several gimmicks and tricks to supposedly heal the sick.  One would have to be suspicious of other “Christian” healers as well. 

 

 

From Sun Worship 

 

“The Two Babylons,” the “Babylon Mystery Religion,” “The Final Reformation” and a huge assortment of other books and writings assert that the ancient Babylonian sun worship religion involved “mysteries” --specifically, it was the Babylonian Mystery Religion.  The background for this was that many of these rituals were secret rites, which were not supposed to be understood by the dumb masses. 

 

Another religion making extensive use of mysteries and secrets was Mithraism.  According to “What the Great Religions Teach” (p. 99), Mithraism’s rites were practiced in caves and involved secret teachings and practices given only to initiates.  These teachings were analogous to the inner teachings of all religions and included the science of regeneration in which certain forces were consciously utilized.

 

Of course, this concept of secret and mysterious rites (the Trinity [the mysteries associated with the Christian Trinity beliefs were covered in a previous chapter and need no further mention in this presentation], Mass, etc) has been carried forward into the Christian religion. 

 

One can see this reality when focusing on “Mystery Babylon” of Revelation 17 and the mystery of lawlessness of II Thessalonians 2:7, which clearly link to Christendom.  This situation brings to mind YESHUA’s Words--truth sets one free from religious bondage (Jo 8:32). 

 

 

Mysteries of the Rosary 

 

Rosary beads and the rosary prayer were briefly commented upon in a preceding chapter.  As was pointed out in those comments, the Roman Catholic Church has codified a series of mysteries about the rosary prayer.  That reality in Catholicism will now be broached. 

 

The so-called “rosary” prayer has been around for ages in Catholicism.  But what is not commonly known among most Christians (at least Protestant Christians) is that there are a whole series of mysteries associated with the saying of the rosary.  This condition was brought out in an article on “Pope will recommend adding five mysteries to rosary” in the Oct 15, 2002, “Spokane Spokesman-Review,” (p. 2). 

 

Per this newspaper account, there are presently some fifteen mysteries involved in the rosary (grouped into three sets).  Per the just cited newspaper account, these three groupings are:  “the joyful mysteries, revolving around Jesus’ birth and infancy; the sorrowful mysteries, revolving around his suffering and death; and the glorious mysteries, revolving around his resurrection.” 

 

The latest innovation from the Vatican is that the current Pope, John Paul II, will issue a document recommending that five more mysteries be added to the rosary--making a total of 20. 

 

Apparently, these five new “mysteries” will be grouped together into one more added set.  They will reportedly include these alleged mysteries:  “Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan, temptation in the desert, transfiguration, and entrance into Jerusalem” (note:  since only four items were named by the pope, one of the cited four must surely consist of two so-called mysteries--ed). 

 

This whole rosary subject (to include both the beads and these so-called mysteries) seems to be too stupid for discussion.  But it is the real world out there--at least, in the Roman Catholic Church. 

 

 

Words for Christian Funerals 

 

In another classic example of mysteries, Christian preachers often use the words “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust” at their sun worship funerals. 

 

The truth is that this commonly used phrase sounds quite mysterious or a riddle of some sort in the Christian West where dead bodies are customarily buried in the ground.  Moreover, it is not in the Scriptures, nor does the Book suggest anything at all resembling it. 

 

An article by C. S. Spring explains the dilemma on these words by noting that the phrase has its origin in the East (i.e. sun worshipping India) where dead bodies are often cremated (Jan 1999 “Kingdom Digest,” p. 20-21).  Thus, it is heathen to the core and makes perfect sense when properly understood. 

 

 

More Christian Words  

 

There are a few strange little quirks in traditional Christianity on more sayings which are sort of mysterious and difficult to really understand.  When people sneeze, many Christians nearby will proclaim “God bless you.”  Lew White, in his book “Fossilized Customs” (p. 98) assesses this quotation. 

 

White says that pagans “believed that when someone sneezed, their heart stopped, or at least skipped a few beats.  Being that the sun was called “GOTT,” the Celtic peoples would call on their highest deity to come to the aid of anyone sick, or leaving on a journey.  When we say ‘good-by,’ we are really saying ‘GOTT bless ye.’”

 

 

The Sun Worship Link to Sex 

 

As acknowledged in previous chapters, the one word which describes the historic sun worship cults and their faith has to be sex.  Other presentations herein connect the sex-sun worship link all the way back to Nimrod and apparently Cain.  The early Baal sun worship faith in Canaan land was particularly linked to homosexuality and perverted sex (I Kg 14:21-24). 

 

Sex has always been one of the foundational themes of sun worship--both ancient and modern in the form of Christianity. 

 

In “The Rise, Decline & Fall of the Roman Religion” (p. 5), James Ballantyne Hannay focused extensively on the sex-sun worship link.  While Hannay had some apparent confusion over the origin of the Christian “Bible,” he assuredly connected to truth when he related that Rome and Greece were of “phallic” ideas and that the two sexes, or sex organs, were the basis of all their ideas of “life,” whether temporary or “eternal.” 

 

Hannay and a number of other writers and students of the ancient sun worship religions have perceptively zeroed in on a host of sexual presentations in the context of the ancient cults.  Some of these, like the phallic church steeples, the pulpits, sex links to the confessional and so forth, have already been commented upon and need no further explanation at this time. 

 

But all of these things are only the beginnings of the problem because the prevailing sun worship faith is totally contaminated with sex.  This sexual obsession (and it is an obsession) has historically been manifested in three primary directions. 

 

First, almost all aspects of architecture and design of the old sun worship temples, buildings, facilities, furniture, utensils, etc connect in some fashion to sex (as was described in the preceding chapters). 

 

Next, rituals and worship practices generally have had strong sexual overtures.  Thus, sex and especially promiscuous sex was always dominant themes in sun worship theology (especially in symbolism and names). 

 

In an article on “The Anatomy of a Church” (p. 4), Dr Ernest L. Martin wrote that the religious art of many countries of the world was very pornographic.  And indeed, it is! 

 

Martin noted that in primitive societies to our own civilization, almost every ritual includes licentious dances and songs and the performance, actual or symbolic, of the sex act.  Martin suggested that while the erotic character of religious symbolism and ritual tends to become restrained in higher cultural stages, it is displayed in the fullest in those preceding cultural stages. 

 

The third aspect of sex which quickly caught on as a very popular issue was the use of so-called religious women and men to serve the sexual appetites of the faithful.  In the old cults, this was accomplished primarily by temple prostitutes.  Beyond dedicated women, like the Roman vestals, other sun worship cults had specific women orders which were often just temple prostitutes (to be further described below). 

 

As James Ballantyne Hannay wrote, the maintenance of temple prostitutes (both male and female) by the old pagan orders was a profitable operation because the practice brought a constant source of revenue to the temple treasuries (“The Rise, Decline and Fall of the Roman Religion,” p. 104-110). 

 

 

Christian Prostitution Services 

 

But there is substantially more to this theme because Christianity picked upon the prostitution and sex connections found in the old sun cults. “The Rise, Decline and Fall of the Roman Religion” (p. 56-57) says that the early Christian Churches used similar church prostitutes as those found in the sun cults. 

 

At some point of time, developing Christianity largely dispensed with the formally organized prostitution orders at their physical church facilities.  But it retained the overall use of women in other ways to serve the faithful. 

 

As vile and sickening as prostitution is, it must be observed that that’s only part of the sex problem because it has often involved sodomy as well, and particularly with the just mentioned male prostitutes (there is too the problem of numbers of pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood, as cited earlier).  Later chapters will discuss sodomy in detail.  But for now, it must be recognized for its religious implications. 

 

To understand the modern Western sun worship appreciation of prostitution and sodomy, one must turn to the ancient sun worship cults (particularly in Greece and Rome) which provided the whole basis and foundation for the present Western religion, culture and civilization. 

 

As just noted, organized prostitution (including both male and female prostitutes) was largely a function of the sun worship religions in both Greece and Rome, from very early times.  Apparently, most of the old sun worship temples used temple prostitutes for both sexual and religious purposes.  Quickly, illicit and abnormal prostitution became entrenched in the whole sun worship culture and civilization. 

 

While prostitution and sodomy were readily acceptable in the Greek sun worship culture, as a fact of city life, Burton L. Mack makes the case otherwise for the Jews in that it was regarded by them as presenting moral problems and/or threatening family values (“Who Wrote the New Testament?  The Making of the Christian Myth,” p. 27). 

 

It would appear that prostitution and sodomy were not significant issues, at least, in the traditional Hebrew cultural environment; though some of these perversions assuredly did creep in when the Jews were ruled by external powers (like the Greeks, Romans and Amalek-Edomite Herods). 

 

Obviously, the modern problem of prostitution, sexual perversions and abnormalities prevailing in the Christian sun worship civilization can all be traced back to ancient Rome and Greece.   In particular, the ancient Grecian sun worship perversions seem to now be right at home in the Christian West. 

 

 

The Present Sexual Focus in Christendom 

 

As just observed, the formerly organized church prostitutes gradually gave way to new thinking within Christianity.  In the Middle Ages and particularly during the Protestant Reformation, Christianity became more and more prudish and actually frowned down on sex to some extent for several centuries, before the pendulum swung back the other way. 

 

This then opened the door to the more recent Christian approach to sex in the 20th and early 21st centuries in the context of sexual permissiveness and promiscuity in terms of faith and particularly as a part and parcel of the Western Christian civilization and culture (which will be discussed in some detail in later chapters). 

 

Over the years, the Roman Church has had some general sex problems in her churches--principally homosexuality among some priests; and of course, some nuns have been used as whores by the “celibate” priests.  One or more of the Roman Catholic popes have kept a number of nuns around the Vatican specifically for breeding purposes. 

 

One pope in the Middle Ages was supposed to have sired a number of children from his whores.  Several of the famous Protestant Reformers were reported to be children of various “celibate” Catholic priests.  In more modern times, Pope John Paul II allegedly has had some prostitutes in his service, particularly when he was a Cardinal back in his native Poland. 

 

A news report on National Public Radio on Jan 23, 2003, said that a study made among American Catholic nuns showed that 40% of them had been sexually abused and violated while a nun in the Catholic Church.  The abusers were either Catholic priests or other nuns.  So the problem is widespread within Catholicism, even today. 

 

Beyond the natural sex problems that the Catholic Church has had with her celibate priests, some priests also have a propensity for sodomy.  Numbers of priests are homosexual faggots or pedophiles who focus their attentions on small boys and/or little girls (as mentioned above and in a previous chapter and to be further described in later chapters). 

 

Pope Bonaface VIII (1294-1303 CE) outlined the mentality and thinking of the Catholic priesthood and hierarchy when he declared that “to enjoy oneself and to lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one’s hands together” (Oct-Dec 2001 “Petah Tikvah,” p. 15, per Richard Nichels). 

 

 

Hide and Cover-Up 

 

All of this is bad enough.  But Rome has learned over the years how she can hide these incidents from the so-called faithful and the public in general.  Yes, she hides, manipulates and deceives her own followers, as well as the public in general.  She pulls out all the stops to avoid sex scandals in the church which would hurt her public image. 

 

Whenever a report surfaces accusing a Catholic priest or leader of sexual misconduct, the church rushes in stacks of money and trained specialists who hide and cover up the affair.  They willingly pay out large sums of money to hush incidents up and transfer the guilty priests to another parish where they can start all over with a new crop of victims. 

 

 

Protestants Too 

 

The Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on this hide and cover up MO.  Protestant Churches also have problems with their pastors, preachers and leaders.  Periodically, these people get caught and the rush is on to hide and cover up the tragedy. 

 

The object is to never let the dumb sheep find out how bad, sick and depraved their religious organization and leaders are; although from time to time, news does leak out about scoundrels like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, Garner Ted Armstrong, Jesse Jackson, Aimee Semple McPherson, some of the popes and others (as pointed out in the Prologue). 

 

Recently, the Christian “Children of God” denomination gained some notoriety for its use of girls and young women in a dedicated work of “flirty fishing” to hook young men for the denomination.  Many churches use pretty girls and young women for work such as this. 

 

There is no intent to directly focus on the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement at this time since that issue is described at length in subsequent chapters herein.  But it must be pointed out and acknowledged that the Holy Rollers are perhaps the most sexually promiscuous people of all within the broad Christian definition. 

 

 

The Christian-Occult Ties 

 

The popularity in modern Christendom of the occult and Satanism will be assessed in future chapters.  Suffice to say, contemporary Christianity is running after, seeking and participating in occult and paranormal practices more presently than evidently ever in her earlier history.  Surely now, she is exceeding even what was probably found in some of the old sun cults of Europe (but still behind what one would find in the East). 

 

Beyond the more obvious aspects and presence of occultic forces, there are furthermore some things which have been around for centuries which have been accepted, promoted and allowed in historic Christianity, despite the fact that these practices have been totally founded upon historic occultic forces. 

 

Bill Schnoebelen is a very interesting person who was extensively involved in Satanism and many of the other forms of the occult for some 16 years.  His video on “Exposing the Illuminati From Within” will be quoted in succeeding chapters as it is very good.  Suffice to say, Bill is an informed person with intelligence, understanding and vast knowledge about the occult. 

 

He was raised a Roman Catholic and went to college with the idea of entering the Catholic priesthood.  But somehow, in a Catholic college, he was deterred when he learned that he could supposedly advance more spiritually by pursuing the occult.  This took him and his later wife into Witchcraft where he became a priest and she became a priestess. 

 

In time, he found that Satanism represented something still up in occult practices and beliefs.  But the catch here was that before he could become seriously involved in Satanism, he had to become a freemason.  So he found a sponsor and entered this fraternity and took advantage of all of their degrees and work--like the Blue Lodge, York rite, Scottish rite and Shriners (and still higher to become a 90th degree Mason). 

 

While many Masons would argue that there is no such thing as degrees beyond the 33 degree (to even include the Illuminati), Bill is precise in making the charge that these advance degrees are like the Illuminati (in that people of lower degrees and rites never understand or know about higher degrees and rites which are simply kept secret from the organization and the general public). 

 

In other words, too many people only find out things which they are allowed to learn about.  In this sense, there can be secret orders and organizations out there that only participants know about and understand. 

 

 

The Turn to Christendom 

 

Schnoebelen then became a Satanist (a warlock and later a vampire).  However, he still wanted to advance and the next step up was being a Satanic priest.  But another preliminary requirement was needed before making this advancement.  In order to be a Satanic priest, the candidate must first be a Catholic priest. 

 

Thus, Bill arranged to be ordained a Catholic priest in the Old Catholic Church order (not the Roman Catholic Church).  Thereupon, he was ready for the Satanic priesthood. 

 

Then one day, he and his wife began to have troubles.  Everything seemed to come apart for them--both economically and spiritually.  Earlier, in their Witchcraft teachings, they had learned that anytime a witch has spiritual troubles and trials, the thing to do is to join the Mormon Church and use it as a type of hide out or place for recuperation.  Hence, they both became Mormons. 

 

According to Schnoebelen, the Mormon Church is much in tune with the occult world.  The Mormon teachings are almost the same as found in Witchcraft.  Per Bill Decker and a number of other former Mormons, the Mormon Church is furthermore closely akin to the Masonic fraternity for rituals and certain practices. 

 

It has been long known and reported that Mormon Church founder, Joseph Smith, was a Mason and used his Masonic teachings to develop the Mormon theology and rituals. Schnoebelen adds that Smith was also a known warlock (the second degree in Satanism); thus, adding Satanism to the Witchcraft and Masonic mix. 

 

Bill Schnoebelen suggests that the Mason, Witchcraft, and Satanic entities were all developed in very ancient ages from the old Mystery religions of the East (which were totally sun worship to the core).  He and Dr Stan Monteith (in his video “Secrets of the Illuminati”) both recognize the antiquity of the all seeing eye found in Masonry and on the back of the US dollar. 

 

Monteith says that the eye represents Lucifer as the source of light.  In other words (and if Monteith, Schnoebelen and others are correct), Luciferian worship would be involved in all of the cults.  And obviously, if so, then Luciferian worship from the old Mystery religions is intimately involved in Mormonism and Catholicism (since they all link together).

 

The point of this is that sun worship is intimately a part and parcel of all of the various occult agencies, as well as in Christianity.  With a little research, study and effort, it is possible to tie specific Christian theories and beliefs to various occultic and Satanic activities. 

 

 

John 4:23-24 

 

In terms of actual worship procedures and practices, YESHUA appears to have correctly stated the essence of Scriptural teaching when He said that The EL was Spirit and that those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth and that the day would come when believers would so worship Him (Jo 4:23-24).  This has to be one of the greatest messages in the Word. 

 

There are two issues in this message.  What is spirit and what is truth?  Truth is fairly simple because YAH’s Word is truth.  But spirit (Greek “pneuma”) is a little more complicated, although it is possible to define and understand spirit, as was done in a preceding chapter. 

 

Correctly, spirit is mental awareness, intellect, memory, personality, mentality and/or mind power.  In short, a spirit is a mind with intelligence, memory, mentality and the capacity to rationalize and think. 

 

Using these definitions, it is clear that the true believer should be and must be dedicated to worshipping The EL with mental awareness, intelligence and a thought process in the context of true worship, as defined in the Word.  Now, for this worship--Scriptural study, appreciation, knowledge and understanding are essential. 

 

Further light on this theme manifests itself when spiritual worship with the mind and intellect (and as a thought or thinking process, from the heart or mind) is contrasted with man-made rituals and physical acts of worship. 

 

 

Developing the Mind of The EL in Worship 

 

In the Introduction to Samson Raphael Hirsch’s wonderful work on “The Pentateuch” (v. I, p. xxvi), Dayan Dr. I. Grunfeld wrote that the commandments of the Torah are explained not as mere “ceremonies,” but as “Divine rules of life for the people of God... conceived as Divine thoughts implanted into man by symbolic actions and as religious power stations which create a spirit of holiness within the people of Israel.” 

 

Assuredly, the true worshipper does not, will not and indeed cannot worship The EL in the context of performing meaningless man-made religious rituals or ceremonies.  No!  Worship has to be from the heart by using the human mind, intelligence and logical thinking in an effort to understand and duplicate YHWH’s thinking and thought processes. 

 

The ultimate goal, desire and quest of a true believer have to be for the mind and thinking of YHWH (His Spirit) to be implanted into the human mind and mental awareness (the human spirit), so that the believer thinks on the same plane as The MOST HIGH.  Thus, the true worshipper must grow in YAH’s Spirit (from the standpoint of developing His mind and thinking), and in truth, to become like YHWH Himself. 

 

That’s why YESHUA taught that the Torah was more than just physical reactions.  It also involves what’s in one’s heart and mind.  Therefore, it isn’t just the matter of murder in one’s hand; but also, the matter of hate in one’s heart (to cause murder).  It isn’t just an issue over physical adultery; it also involves lust in one’s heart to precipitate that adultery. 

 

As elaborated upon in a prior chapter on the purpose of life, The ELOHIM plans on reproducing Himself in Adam.  He will do this when and as Adam learns to properly obey and worship Him in spirit and truth. 

 

True worship involves real belief, dedication and commitment--in an intellectual sense, as ascertainable from the written Scriptures (the very Word and being of YHWH--which are correctly YHWH in the context of His relationship with man). 

 

 

Tanakh Rituals 

 

It is true that the Torah legislated much ritual and many physical acts to be associated with the operation of the Tabernacle and later Temple.  At a first glance, it might be supposed that these functions were contrary to YESHUA’s Words. 

 

But one must understand that the Tabernacle-Temple ritual primarily involved acts done by the priests and not so much acts done by individual worshippers.  Also, the fact that YAH declared these Tanakh rituals as He did makes them totally proper and legitimate.  In other words, who are we to take issue with Him over what He declares as duties for His followers.  Hence, they can never be questioned or debated. 

 

But in the context of the worshipper making offerings and sacrifices, and during those times when a worshipper was privileged to meet with the sages at the Temple and dialogue and discuss Torah (as was the Second Temple practice), there was little ritual from the standpoint of the worshipper. 

 

In Second Temple Judaism, the School of Hillel Pharisees were much opposed to man-made rituals and particularly physical procedures, as discussed heretofore.  It was the School of Shammai and Haverim people who were big pushers of human ordained rituals for the sake of ritual, as described in the prior chapters. 

 

Certainly, YESHUA was generally opposed to man-made rituals and ceremonies in worship (Jo 4:23-24).  Obviously, His critical remarks did not and could never be intended to focus on Tanakh rituals and ceremonies, as prescribed by The ELOHIM in His Word (obviously, He would never have spoken against His Own words). 

 

This is not to say that worship procedures did not involve physical actions in addition to spiritual or weightier matters. 

 

Obedience of the Torah, which is the backbone of love of YHWH, typically involves both physical and spiritual/mental acts, as noted above and earlier.  Even in first century synagogues, the Amidah was assuredly said physically by some on a ritual basis.  But the worshipper in spirit and in truth approaches these issues from the standpoint of spirit (mental faculties and awareness and intellect). 

 

In other words, to whatever extent that there were physical activities, they were not performed as meaningless gestures by true believers.  The worshipper in spirit and in truth performed YAH ordained physical requirements, but with a mental awareness or intellectual appreciation and understanding in the context of love of YHWH and the rea (fellow Hebrew racial kinsman). 

 

 

Man-made Christian Rituals 

 

Contrast this Scriptural position with what one finds in modern Christian Churches.  Christianity is full of meaningless man-made rituals and physical motions.  Catholicism is the worst.  But most Protestants have more than a fair share of the same evil.  Almost without exception, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, Pentecostals and on and on have a host of rituals and physical procedures to follow in worship. 

 

The leaders march into the meeting in a certain fashion.  People bow, stand up and sit down by certain processes.  Certain songs are sung and certain memorized prayers and creeds are said at certain times and on and on. 

 

Even the Christian concepts of salvation are closely tied to Christian practices of standing up in a meeting, going to an altar, saying some meaningless words about belief, muttering some gibberish in a Holy Roller Church, etc. 

 

All such actions have come to be established as Christian rituals and practices because Christian worship is full of man-made rituals, ceremonies and physical processes. 

 

Since Christians are so pathetically Scripturally shallow and indeed illiterate, they almost never have any worship practices actually tied to righteousness and truth on a spiritual plane of mental awareness, intelligence and thinking, as predicated upon Scriptural truths. 

 

So, why is it that Christians choose to worship this way in contrast to John 4:23-24.  The answer is fairly simple and has been established in the last several chapters on what is wrong in Christianity. 

 

Assuredly, it was the old sun worship cults which advocated and practiced rituals and physical actions in the context of worship of the sun god.  Sun worshippers never had to mentally think about truth and righteousness in their worship.  All they had to do was go through the physical motions of worship. 

 

 

Only the Tip of the Iceberg So Far 

 

Beyond these few observations, there are a host of other Christian rituals and practices which clearly have their origins in ancient sun worship.  What a tragedy it is that Christianity for the last 2,000 years or so has chosen to adopt the practices and customs of sun worshippers, rather than choosing to follow the Scriptures. 

 

But there is still more to come on sun worship like the display of flags, use of idols, the burning of incense (see I Kg 13:1; Isa 1:13; Ezek 6:13; 8:11), purchasing of pulpits (now even some modern Jewish synagogues follow this practice), images, icons, pictures, monuments, statutes, artwork, relics, nudity in culture and worship, proselytizing and retaining converts, qualifications of ministers and on and on.

 

Moreover, this work at hand has attempted to broach, address and consider only those aspects of Christian sun worship which can be precisely connected with the old sun worship cults.  Beyond this presentation, there are a whole host of Christian activities which are totally unscriptural and exist in reality only on the premise of Christian tradition. 

 

This list might include things like Extreme Unction, Invocation of the Saints, Peter and the Rock, Omission of the Cup, Acts of Penance and on and on.  Most of this stuff is contrary to the Word and appears to be thoroughly pagan to the core.  They weren’t broached in any detail, only because this writer could not establish their precise linkages to the old sun cults. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 208--Anti-Torah

 

 

Hatred of Hebrew Tanakh Laws 

 

In the preceding chapters herein, on the Torah and Christian sun worship, the reality of basic Christian hate and opposition to YHWH’s Old Testament mitzwot were elaborated on in some detail. 

 

This is and has always been quite an enigma that Christians carry the Scriptures around (both the OT and NT) and claim to obey them and live by them; and yet, be in total opposition to them--opposition which manifests itself as fanatical hatred.  The question has to be--why? 

 

Strangely enough, the reason for this crazy, emotional, passionate, fanatical, Christian hatred of The ELOHIM YHWH’s laws (found in the Torah of the Old Testament) can be traced back to the old sun worship cults. 

 

In “The Final Reformation” (p. 16-17), C. J. Koster goes to the early “Gnostic sects,” discussed previously, which were known and distinguished for their rejection of the Old Testament. 

 

As outlined previously, in an earlier chapter, some of these Gnostics (like the infamous Marcion) were not only opposed to the Old Testament Scriptures, but they also were in fanatical hatred and opposition to the Old Testament MOST HIGH YHWH and what all He stood for in the Tanakh. 

 

Koster quotes the “Ante-Nicene Fathers” and other ancient writings.  He notes that the early Gnostics were mainly centered in the Alexandria area of Egypt (where they were or had been sun worshippers of the Serapis cult) and Rome (where the Mithra cult was strong).  Koster identifies these Gnostic sects as mostly sun worshippers and at best “half Christian.” 

 

Consequently, this hatred and opposition to The Old Testament CREATOR and His mitzwot seem to have been brought into Catholicism by these Gnostic sun worshippers of the Serapis cult of Alexandria, Egypt and the Mithra cult of Rome. 

 

Very quickly, this theology took hold in the Roman Church and became entrenched to influence and motivate millions of Christians ever since--to include the later Protestants who came out of Rome.  The discussion in the preceding chapters proves that condition easily enough. 

 

 

Manifestation of This Hatred 

 

There is no need to repeat all of the before comments on YHWH’s Torah (law) and its supremacy.  But it would be well to call to mind the typical Christian reaction to The EL’s laws--which is that they were done away by their sweet Gee-Zeus and have no application to Christians. 

 

This reasoning then gives Christian believers some hypothetical justification to follow the old sun worship cults in their passionate hatred of YAH’s Torah. 

 

If Christianity was to come along and follow this teaching (as she has), one would suppose that there must be some mention of it in the Scriptures, if a student of the Word could just understand and comprehend the applicable texts.  Significantly, the NT does seem to have a few references on this very thing--actually starting in the age of the Apostolic Assembly, and obviously later as well, as will now be shown. 

 

Certainly, such theology has no basis in the Tanakh.  But there are a few confusing texts in the NT which seem to be the authority that Christians usually cite in alleging that the Torah (law) was done away with.  These few texts were elaborated upon in previous comments on the Torah and its eternal character. 

 

Thus, one must go to the NT to satisfy sun worshipping Christians on any such question of opposition to YAH’s laws in Apostolic days (since Christians have abolished the OT and its laws).  For this, the Greek NT uses the Greek word “nomos” to translate the Hebrew Torah, although on some rare occasions (ascertainable by the context), nomos can mean a man-made law, as discussed in a previous chapter. 

 

There is no problem or confusion over nomos in the NT where its common usages do not justify the sun worship theory of law or Torah hatred, nor do they clarify why Christian sun worshippers indeed hate the Torah so much--all the while that they carry it around and pretend to live by it (actually, for hypocritical show off purposes--pride). 

 

 

Christendom’s Anti-Law Beliefs 

 

Otherwise, there is another Greek word called “anti,” which is a preposition meaning “over against” (per  “The New Analytical Greek Lexicon,” p. 32).

 

Of course, it is this Greek “anti” which has supplied the fuel for Christians to develop a passionate fear and hatred for the age end Beast man whom they have chosen to call the “Antichrist,” believing that he will be anti (against) their “Christ.” 

 

So anti and nomos are combined in the Greek language to produce a word called anomos and from it a derivative surfaces called “anomia,” meaning “against the law,” as if there was, in fact, a known law to be against. 

 

Thus, in the normal Greek NT usage, the issue is being without Torah, anti-Torah or against the Torah (mentioned earlier); although the Greek “upo nomon,” discussed in a prior chapter on I Corinthians 9:20-21, apparently focused on the Jewish Oral Law, as now found in the Talmud. 

 

As outlined in a prior chapter, the “Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period” (p. 380) notes that the Septuagint uses the Greek anomia to translate a range of Hebrew words denoting wickedness, transgression and wrongdoing. 

 

Manifestly, anomia communicates actions which violate and transgress the Torah (as the KJV reflects for anomia at I John 3:4).  In fact, Messianic Jewish author Dr Michael Lebowitz gives his definition for anomia as precisely that-- “violation of the law” (Jul-Sep 2001 “Petah Tikvah,” p. 12). 

 

“The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (v. IV, p 1085) recognizes the anti-law definition; but also, allows that it can mean without law, as if there was no law.  Obviously, the OT and NT Scriptures both frequently indicate the presence of law (the Torah is clearly extant in both Jewish and Christian “Bibles,” without exception). 

 

Even Christianity itself reluctantly admits the existence of the Old Testament Torah-law.  Some even admit that the law applies to Jews, but somehow not to Christians (making The MOST HIGH out to be a hypocrite, with different standards for different people). 

 

 

Against the Law 

 

Since the law’s existence is not in dispute, this last idea (of no law) from the TDNT is untenable.  This takes the student back to “against the law,” which is present and does exist (in the form of the Torah).  Going on, this TDNT source (p. 1086) suggests that anomos involves a “subjective attitude (of) not paying heed to the law” (the Torah which exists, ed) and “acting as if there were no law or laws.” 

 

One of the fallouts of the presence and influence of early Christian (Gnostic) leaders (like Marcion, Valentinus and others) was their warped views on Scriptural law, as described in previous comments.  They taught that Christians were above the law (Torah) and not subject to it. 

 

Obviously, this anti-law stance hurt Christianity vis-à-vis the Roman government in the early years of the Christian Church (“Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth,” p. 262).  Perhaps this explains why the Roman government, with its multitude of deities and religions, opposed developing Christianity so much. 

 

Thus, with these words of anomos and anomia, translators have chosen to usually translate them as sin, iniquity and unrighteousness because they can’t fathom that the NT writers would dare use them in describing the “against” the OT law attitude of Christians (TDNT, v. IV, p. 1086). 

 

Admittedly, it is inconceivable that a Christian would carry his “Bible” around and yet be anti-Torah and against the first five books of the Scriptures. 

 

 

The NT Uses 

 

With this backdrop, the student of truth can now turn to the NT and see how its writers addressed the issue.  In the first place, anomos was used several times as a noun or adjective and translated to English as transgressors, wicked, lawless and without law (Mk 15:28; Lu 22:37; Acts 2:23; II Thes 2:8; I Tim 1:9; II Pet 2:8).

 

The “without law” phrase is found in I Cor 9:21 where the context is evidently on the Oral Law.  Similar words at Rom 2:12 (from a variation of anomos) appear Torah related, per the context. 

 

While these uses are interesting, they are not as revealing as are the contextual uses of anomia, which seem to always be translated in bad terms--such as transgression, iniquity and unrighteousness (Matt 7:23; 13:41; 23:28; 24:12; Rom 4:7; 6:19; II Cor 6:14; II Thes 2:7; Titus 2:14; Heb 1:9; 8:12; 10:17; I Jo 3:4). 

 

Mattityahu (Matt 23:28) used it for the hypocritical Pharisees who were certainly under YAH’s law.  So, in that sense, it meant “anti YHWH’s existing Torah.”  Yohanan used it as a definition of sin (I Jo 3:4). 

 

Shaul said it was something which YHWH hated (Heb 1:9) and contrasted it (this anti YAH’s law) against righteousness (which is YAH’s law--II Cor 6:14).  He also used the word in reference to the sins (disobedience of YAH’s laws), which The MESSIAH died for and to allow forgiveness for (Rom 4:7; 6:19; Titus 2:14; Heb 8:12; 10:17). 

 

 

Dr Michael Lebowitz, Revisited 

 

Messianic Jewish scholar Dr Michael Lebowitz, briefly quoted above, assessed the question of anomia in an article on “Enter the Gates,” in the Jul-Sep 2001 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 11).  As pointed out above, Lebowitz takes the view that anomia precisely means a violation of the Torah. 

 

With this background, Dr Lebowitz offers his understanding of Shaul’s words at Romans 6:19, as saying-- “...just as you presented yourselves as slaves of uncleanness and of violating the Torah (Greek anomia) which leads to more violation, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness (right behavior) leading them to be set apart.” 

 

Thus, per Lebowitz, Shaul was telling the congregation in Rome that “obedience leads to holiness--a concept he learned in Torah.”  Please note that with Lebowitz’s clarification of the usual English mis-translations, the idea is one where anomia leads to more or further anomia.  In other words, sin feeds upon itself.  When one starts down its path, sin actually multiplies and increases. 

 

 

A Mystery? 

 

Otherwise, and most importantly, Shaul used the word anomia in the context of a mystery (of some person or persons, who were anti YHWH’s law or Torah).  This anti-law or anti-Torah teaching was already at work to deceive the election in Shaul’s day (II Thes 2:7). 

 

Obviously, this thinking of being above the law, against the law or not subject to the law gives rise to a very appropriate English word known as “anarchy” which was discussed briefly in a previous chapter on law (mentioning anomos and anomia). 

 

Hence, people supporting anomos or anomia are, in fact, anarchists, as suggested in the prior chapter on law.  Does that sound familiar in the context of Christendom?  Are Christians anarchists?  Anyway the issue is cut, Christian sun worshippers are anarchists, per the NT view.  This is a sad recognition.  But it represents reality. 

 

No wonder the Scriptures seem to use the Hebrew “pesha,” previously discussed, in contrast to other terms for sin, to describe the depravity that comes from this wicked anti-law position found in Christianity.  This rebellion is far more serious and profound than the simple sin of missing the mark, all the while that a person is “trying” to hit the mark of obedience.  In Christendom, there is not even any effort to hit the mark. 

 

It must have been then and subsequently be quite a mystery--that people would carry the Scriptures around and pretend to live by them (containing YHWH’s laws), all the while that they actually were against them.  What a paradox.  Consequently, one must come to the place that anomos and anomia represent the mystery of persons being against YHWH’s laws of righteousness in the days of the Apostolic Assembly. 

 

Apparently, these ideas were floating around the Roman empire and even among some believers who had picked upon them from the old sun worship cults that were against YAH’s law (Torah).  Of course, to have these evil, wicked, sinful anti-law manifestations, there has to be the presence of law (Torah). 

 

Because, without law ( the Torah), there is no sin or transgression (Rom 2:12-14; 3:20; 7:8).  So, if there remains any question in one’s mind about whether the law was destroyed or not, then all the student of truth needs do is take a look at anomos and anomia.  The law has to be in existence for these words to have relevance and meaning. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 209--More on Christian Gnosticism

 

 

Sun Worship Gnosticism, Revisited 

 

Former chapters herein have briefly discussed Gnosticism and the role of a kook named Marcion in Christian history.  Marcion and his hatred of the OT was discussed in prior chapters and will be further assessed below.  But for now, it is well to take a look at the over-all subject of Gnosticism and how profound this sun worship theology has influenced modern people and especially modern Christians. 

 

“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 335) says that Gnosticism arose in the late Hellenistic and early Christian eras of world history.  This source adds that Gnosticism eventually merged with Manichaeism which adopted much of its thinking.  Reportedly, Mandaeans, in modern Iran and Iraq, is the only Gnostic sect still extant. 

 

Per “The Oxford Companion to the Bible” (p. 255-256), the Gnostic movement of 2,000 years ago involved several groups.  But only some of them chose to define themselves with that term.  Accordingly, there were some groups who did identify themselves as “gnostics” (from the Greek word “gnosis,” meaning knowledge).  Oxford suggested that the idea might link in some way to the false knowledge of I Timothy 6:20. 

 

For sure, the early Gnostic faith was based upon Grecian sun worship (and especially the philosophy of Platonism).  It seems to have consisted of several beliefs which were found in a series of somewhat divided and confused sects and cults.  Oxford defined the essential features of Gnosticism as: 

 

(1) A cosmic duality which rejects the world and that the human body is a prison holding the soul which longs to escape.  (2) A distinction between the “unknown transcendent true God” and the creator (as outlined as the “God of the Hebrew Bible”).  (3) A belief that the human race is akin to the “divine” and a spark of the heavenly light imprisoned in a material body.  (4) A myth about a so-called “fall” to account for the human predicament.  (5) A saving knowledge when the Gnostic is awakened to a recognition of his true nature and heavenly origin. 

 

The Oxford account goes on to add a few other features of Gnosticism--which are most revealing. 

 

For instance, some Gnostics said that man was “saved by nature” and that morality was of no importance.  Since ethics, in the Tanakh, was a matter of obedience of The CREATOR (who, per the Gnostic, seeks to hold the human race in slavery); it was a positive duty for the Gnostic to disobey all the Scriptural commands (thus, anti-Torah). 

 

Supposedly, the evidence from the Nag Hammadi documents (a collection of 4th century CE Gnostic writings in Egyptian Coptic) indicates that the Gnostics may have had some libertine beliefs which made the movement lean in the direction of asceticism.  Therefore, there are reasons to believe that the Gnostics maintained a number of diverse beliefs. 

 

 

Gnosticism in Christendom 

 

It should not be too complicated for anyone to look at this list of Gnostic beliefs and see many of them still present in Christianity.  Manifestly, modern Socialism, humanism and liberalism, found in the Christian West, are largely based upon Gnostic beliefs.  Thus, when early Christendom played around with Gnostic theology, it ended up by adopting many of the sun worship beliefs of the Gnostic cults. 

 

A paradox arises here because Christian history would have current students of truth believe that certain Christian leaders tried to oppose the Gnostic influences which were infiltrating early Christianity.  As pointed out in previous comments, this reported history is interesting in view of the fact that many of the so-called opponents of Gnosticism were Gnostics themselves. 

 

So while the Christian Church has tried to claim that it opposed the Greek sun worship ideas of the early Hellenistic Gnostics, the truth is that the Christian Church either started off with some of these same beliefs or added them later in subsequent years. 

 

 

A Revisit to a Modern Question 

 

Prior chapters herein discussed a letter from a man who had read some part of this study.  As pointed out earlier, he expressed some concern about the sovereignty of The CREATOR and tried to link that reality with the fact that the present world is filled with gross evil and wickedness. 

 

In any case, the man involved made an analysis of the situation in the early chapters of Genesis with Adam and Eve, the sex sin which produced Cain and Cain’s murder of his brother Abel, and concluded that The CREATOR created a mess. 

 

The flood was supposed to solve the mess, but it did not do so.  From the time of the birth of Cain, the efforts of the Cain line (the Satan line) have went on to bring havoc to the line of Adam in the form of miscegenation and mongrelization of the races.  When adding in environmental pollution, the whole creation is in a mess.  This reader believed that The CREATOR should have scrapped the mess and started over. 

 

 

A Revisit to the Answer 

 

As outlined in the former comments, which addressed this man’s letter, the essence of many of his remarks was based upon traditional Christianity--which was partially founded upon the dictates of early Grecian sun worshipping Gnosticism (again, this condition, now present in the world, will be specifically addressed in chapters hereafter on Christian Church history). 

 

As noted earlier, the only focus of the man’s comments, which were clearly non-Christian, were the remarks upon the issue of the mongrelization of the races--presumably starting with Satan and Eve and the production of Cain and on forward to the descendants of Kain (as identified as Canaanites, Kenites, Amalekites, etc). 

 

Christian theology (and its parent Grecian sun worship as well) knows nothing about any differences in races or among the different humans/humanoids.  Manifestly, in the Christian and Hellenistic Gnostic views, there is a brotherhood of man and a fatherhood of the so-called “Good God,” whomever he is (in Christian theology, he is the New Testament Gee-Zeus). 

 

Without repeating the former presentation, the essence of understanding the dilemma focuses upon the grant of free will to Adam (which is granted to Adam, in order to fulfill YHWH’s purpose for the creation). 

 

 

The Gnostic Involvement 

 

In any case, the dilemma of good and evil persists.  And part of this dilemma goes back to the Gnostic who looks upon The OT CREATOR as a bad deity and one of evil.  Per this view, the creation was not good and the fact that evil and bad persists proves it. 

 

Thus, in the Gnostic view, it is easy for Christians to blame The HIGHEST for the evil down here, as if He caused it.  Of course, this is utter nonsense.  But Christians and certainly Christian Gnostics believe it. 

 

Anyway, the point was made in the previous presentations on this theme that the allowance for us to become sinners goes to prove that man is not capable of directing his own footsteps.  Therefore, we need the theocracy and the government of YHWH YESHUA (which will be coming to earth in the millennium). 

 

Furthermore, the benefits of learning from experience (via the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) have been described in detail in former chapters and need no further emphasis here. 

 

Clearly, the crux of this issue was that the blame for the evil here on earth cannot be placed upon The CREATOR.  Essentially, the problem is with Satan, as the god of this world, and man, as the governor of this world.  For sure, manmade Gnostic ideas have prevailed for 2,000 years within Christendom to cause vast confusion and misunderstanding. 

 

Yes indeed, the Israelites have consistently chosen Satan, sin and death--the same as has been true with all other peoples.  But YESHUA will come one day and implement YHWH’s Torah among men on earth (which will be a dramatic change for good).  As hard as it is to understand--this past sin and evil will ultimately work for good (when Adamites can learn to differentiate between good and bad--Gen 3:5). 

 

The point of this presentation is that Christianity and Christian thinking are thoroughly infused with the theology of Hellenistic, sun worshipping Gnosticism.  The typical person will inevitably try to approach the Scriptures from this perspective.  When these Gnostic ideas are attached to the truth of the Word, confusion inevitably results. 

 

 

Anomos and Anomia, Revisited 

 

Preceding chapters herein have commented upon the Greek words anomos and anomia, which are commonly used in the context of being anti-law--or more precisely being anti-Torah.  This condition is commonly found throughout Christianity.  It is a rare thing, indeed, to find any Christians who have a kind word to say for the overall Torah and its mitzwot. 

 

The previous commentary noted that in “The Final Reformation” (p. 16-17), C. J. Koster reported upon the early “Gnostic sects,” discussed above, which were expressly known and distinguished for their rejection of the Old Testament.  These Gnostics had fanatical hatred and opposition to the Old Testament YHWH and His stand on the importance of the Torah. 

 

As was described in the previous presentation on these words and their applicability to the Gnostic sects, the point was made that the Gnostics and their anti-Torah beliefs (in the form of anomos and anomia) were centered in the Alexandria area of Egypt (where they were or had been sun worshippers of the Serapis cult) and Rome (where the Mithra cult was strong). 

 

There can be do doubt about it whatsoever, the hatred and opposition to The Old Testament CREATOR and His Torah (in the form of anomos and anomia) have been brought into Christianity by the early Gnostic sun worshippers of the Serapis cult of Alexandria, Egypt and the Mithra cult of Rome. 

 

Tragically, this whole system of evil has adversely impacted upon the entire Western Christian civilization and culture for the past 2,000 years.  What a pathetic and sick influence Christianity has had upon the Adam kind for these many centuries. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 210--More Beliefs of the Ancient Sun Cults

 

 

Beliefs of the Early Sun Worship Cults 

 

In “The Makers of Civilization in Race & History,” L. A. Waddle said that the old sun worshippers believed that “Nature’s God was a beneficent, vitalizing force resident in the Sun,...the single power that rules the world,...also the ultimate source of all life in this world.  And the Sun as the Light of the World was regarded as the emblem of Purity and Champion of Right over Wrong and Darkness, and required no living sacrifices, but only praises, with offerings of fire and the fruits of the earth.” 

 

Going on, Waddle noted that in time, some of these early sun worshippers “created (this sun) God in the image of man.  They imagined him in human form as a universal and protecting Father, a lord of righteousness and hearer of prayers, with the Sun or the Sun Cross...as his symbol and with Baptism as the initiatory rite of entry into that solar religion of purity” (ibid, p. 503-4). 

 

This type of thinking brought about the early beliefs in the many, mythological, sun god figures like Ahura Mazda, Mithra, Chrishna, Marduk, Zeus, Jupiter, Baal, Rae, Orion, Osiris, Serapis, etc.--all of whom seemingly were supposed to have once been in human form on earth. 

 

Over time, these mythological characters gave way to a situation where human kings and rulers themselves became the personified sun god.  One sees this condition in ancient Egypt, where in time, the Pharaoh became the sun god. 

 

Even some emperors of the Roman Empire got it in their heads that they were the sun god--like the infamous Diocletian, who proclaimed himself a “sun god” (“Religions of the World,” p. 72). 

 

 

Zoroastrianism 

 

One of the earliest sun worshipping cults was that of Zoroastrianism, as mentioned earlier.  The previously noted writer, Gerald L Berry, suggests that it dates to about 660 BCE in Persia (“Religions of the World,” p. 36). 

 

However, other writers outline an origin much earlier, as its adherents suggest--allegedly around 6000 BCE (per S. E. Frost, Jr., in “The Sacred Writings of the World’s Great Religions,” p. 67).  This would put historic Zoroastrianism all the way back to the time of Adam and Eve (or earlier). 

 

This very ancient faith was founded by a man named Zoroaster.  And if his existence can be dated thousands of years ago, as the traditional faith teaches, then he could well go back to Cain and his sin in the days following the Garden of Eden experience. 

 

Over the years, as various writers note, Zoroastrianism was to have a tremendous influence over a number of other religions, particularly Mithraism, which also came along in later years in Persia. 

 

Frost even takes the influence and power of Zoroastrianism beyond Mithraism and other religions to Christianity itself (p 67).  He charges that Zoroastrianism has particularly “influenced Christianity, far in excess of its individual  importance.”  “What the Great Religions Teach” (p. 8) similarly says that Zoroastrianism has influenced other religions (like Christianity) out of proportion to its seeming extent. 

 

 

More from Gerald L. Berry 

 

Gerald L Berry reports that the Romans “did add much of the ritual of their most popular cult, Mithraism, to Christianity” (“Religions of the World,” p. 56). 

 

Berry goes on to say that Mithraists became Christians easily; that there were many points of similarity between the two religions and where differences appeared, the Christians absorbed the Mithraic ritual; and that both observed the same holy days and festivals, sacrament in the mass and similarities in vocabulary and litany (ibid, p. 57). 

 

 

Larry Rogers, Revisited 

 

Writing in the volume I, number 3 issue (2004) of the “Vendyl Jones Research Institutes Researcher” (p. 3), the earlier cited Larry Rogers quotes a number of sources and concludes that sun worshipping “Mithraism eventually died out in the time after Constantine.  By then, most of its customs had been absorbed by the Christian church, and Constantine had successfully merged his Mithraic worship of the sun into the worship of Christianity. 

 

“Augustine of Hippo, Saint Augustine, admits that the two religions had effectively merged when he proclaimed that the priests of Mithras worshipped the same god that he did.  Jesus and Mithras are the same individual.  The two religions were and are the same but with a few differences...”

 

 

Will Durant 

 

In “The Rise of Civilization” (v. 3, p. 595), noted historian Will Durant wrote that “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it.  The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the Church...the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the Mass... Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncrestic result...

 

“From Egypt came the idea of a divine nature... From Egypt the adoration of the Mother and Child, and the mystic theosophy that made Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and obscured the Christian creed... From Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother (to be described in a later chapter); from Syria the resurrection drama of Adonis (Easter celebration)... Christianity was the last great creation of the ancient pagan world.” 

 

 

James Wharey 

 

In an 1840 Presbyterian Board of Publications book on “Sketches of Church History,” James Wharey wrote: “when the heathen converts were received in the church, it was natural they should bring with them some of the talent of their old philosophy and former superstitions; and some fondness for the rites and ceremonies of their idolatrous worship...” 

 

Going on, Wharey said “Indeed we shall find, that when Christianity became the established religion of the Roman Empire, and took the place of paganism, it assumed, in a great degree, the forms and rites of paganism, and participated in no small measure of its spirit also.” 

 

 

More Perception 

 

In “Fossilized Customs” (p. 8), author Lew White says that the sun worshipping Druids (the Israelite religion in ancient Britain) were very nationalistic.  So it was difficult for Rome to conquer them.  The only way for Christianity to win them over was to absorb their culture.  White calls this “inculturation Syncretisms” --the attempt to reconcile or combine differing beliefs in philosophy or religion by uniting them. 

 

In “The Two Babylons,” Alexander Hislop noted that “This tendency on the part of Christians to meet paganism half way was very early developed; and we find Tertullian, even in his day, about the year 230, bitterly lamenting the inconsistency of the disciples of Christ in this respect, and contrasting it with the strict fidelity of the pagans to their own superstition.” 

 

In “Too Long in the Sun” (p. vi), Richard M. Rives wrote that pagan practices from sun worship, and with no Scriptural basis at all, have been accepted by many believers as the worship of the deity of the Christian “Bible.” 

 

In his “Ecclesiastical History,” Lutheran Church historian Johann Mosheim said “Before the second century was half gone... this working of the ‘Mystery of Iniquity,’ had so largely spread over the East and the West, that it is literally true that a large part of the Christian observances and institutions, even in this century, had the aspect of the pagan mysteries.” 

 

In a modern book for Christian preachers and theologians, Christian writer George G. Hunter III wrote that “Much American church attendance is Christo-pagan” (“How to Reach Secular People”). 

 

In another matter, Vishnu is the second god in the modern Hindu trinity.  This solar deity Vishnu is the “embodiment of goodness and mercy, a personal loving god resembling Christ in the Christian trinity” (“What the Great Religions Teach,” by Health Research, p. 42). 

 

Finally, the famous historian, H. G. Wells, said that in Constantine’s days (early 4th century CE), “Christianity had taken on an extraordinary outward resemblance to the cults of Serapis, Ammon or Bel-Marduk...” (Jul- Aug 2000 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 15). 

 

Of course, people like Berry, Durant, Rogers, Hunter, Hislop, Rives, Wharey, Mosheim, White, Wells and the Health Research writer were not the first to discover the truth on this matter.  Actually, quite a number of writers and students of religion have also found the Christian link to sun worship, as has been amply pointed out in this production. 

 

 

What Happened 

 

An understanding of exactly what happened in the first to third centuries CE to bring this deplorable state in Christendom into being was explained by Richard Hansen in his book on “The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God,” as was briefly quoted in a preceding chapter. 

 

Hansen said that the relevant features of all of the various existing religions in the Roman Empire were merged together in proportion to the preponderance of that religion and the resultant mixture was called “orthodoxy,” in the vein of Christianity.  All of the feuding belief systems were asked to give up their former exclusive beliefs and give exclusive allegiance to the new ecclesiastical mixture. 

 

And that appears to be precisely what happened, as will be further assessed in some detail in subsequent chapters which focus upon Christian Church history. 

 

Suffice to say, it was not just a case that the Christian Church adopted the viewpoints of the pagan sun worshipers; but rather, it is a case that all of the various religious components in the empire were merged into one entity.  This idea will be addressed in the later comments on church history. 

 

 

F. Tupper Saussy 

 

The Jan-Feb 2003 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 35-38) had an article by the previously quoted William F. Dankenbring on “A Modern Roman Empire?” which linked the US to ancient Rome.  While the government point of this article will be addressed in comments hereafter, Dankenbring did quote author F. Tupper Saussy extensively in connection with the rise and development of Christianity. 

 

Per Saussy, “By the fourth century, one-half of the lands and one-fourth of the population of the Roman Empire were owned by the priests.  When the Emperor Constantine and his Senate formally adopted Christianity as the Empire’s official religion, the exercise was more of a merger or acquisition than a revolution.  The wealth of the priests merely became the immediate possession of the Christian churches, and the priests merely declared themselves Christians.  Government continued without interruption. 

 

“The pagan gods and goddesses were artfully outfitted with names appropriate to Christianity.  The sign over the Pantheon indicating ‘To [the fertility goddess] Cybele and All the Gods’ was rewritten ‘To Mary and All the Saints.’  The Temple of Apollo became the Church of St. Apollinaris.  The Temple of Mars was reconsecrated Church of Santa Martina, with the inscription ‘Mars hence ejected, Marina, martyred maid/Claims now the worship which to him was paid.’” 

 

Going on, Saussy adds-- “Haloed icons of Apollo were identified as Jesus, and the crosses of Bacchus and Tammuz were accepted as the official symbol of the Crucifixion.  Pope Leo I decreed that ‘St. Peter and St. Paul have replaced Romulus and Remus as Rome’s protecting patrons.’  Pagan feasts, too, were Christianized...” (as will be addressed in later chapters herein). 

 

 

Sun Worshippers at Home in Christendom

 

In “The Nature of Religion,” author Robert O Ballou quoted from the “Standard Dictionary of Folklore and Mythology” and noted that a sun worshipping Mithraist “who entered the Roman Catholic Church today would quickly feel at home for he would find so much of the cult of Mithras reflected in Christian ritual. 

 

“He would find ‘baptism for the remission of sins, the symbolic meal of communion, including consecrated wine, the sign on the brow, redemption, salvation, sacramentary grace, rebirth in spirit, and the promise of eternal life.’  The robes of the priest would recall to him the garments of the Magi (who, in the biblical story of the nativity, visited Jesus and his mother Mary at the manger at Bethlehem).” 

 

In “Mysteries of Mithraism,” Franz Cumont had some similar feelings when he wrote that if a Mithra sun worshipper came into a modern Christian Church worship service, he would be very comfortable and feel right at home!  Why?  “The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 552) explains it by saying that Christianity “bore many similarities” to Mithraism. 

 

C. J. Koster quoted the Roman emperor Hadrian (writing from Alexandria, Egypt in 124 CE) who said that “Those who worship Serapis are Christians and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are vowed to Serapis” (“The Final Reformation,” p. 16).  Serapis was the Egyptian form of the Greek sun god Zeus. 

 

 

Did Satan Counterfeit the True Religion?   

 

The Jul/Aug 1999 “Believer’s Advocate” (p. 11) had some short remarks on the resemblance of Buddhism to Roman Catholicism, as found in a book on “The Secret Societies of All Ages and Countries,” by Charles William Heckethorn, published in London in 1897. 

 

Heckethorn wrote-- “Buddha descended, as the legend says, from heaven to be born as a man, the avowed purpose of this mission being to give peace and rest to all flesh, to remove all sorrow and grief from the world, and to preach the truth. 

 

“The Buddhist and the Roman Catholic Church have a supreme and infallible head;  we find in both prayers in an unknown tongue, prayers to saints and intercessors, and especially, and principally too, a virgin with a child; 

 

“also prayers for the dead, repetition of prayers with imposed austerities and bodily inflictions; a formal daily service, consisting of chants, burning of candles, sprinkling of holy water, bowings, prostrations, fast days and feast days, religious processions; images and pictures and fabulous legends, the worship of relics, the sacrament of confession, purgatory. 

 

“They propitiate the Supreme Deity with sacrifices.  Romanism is only modernized Buddhism, and many religions are but superstitious perversions of the knowledge of natural phenomena.” 

 

The similarities are so note-worthy, marked and obvious that, according to Heckethorn, the Roman Catholics account for the fact by the supposition that Satan counterfeited the true religion. 

 

In “Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time” (p. 3), Darrell W. Conder quotes Don De Solis who wrote a presentation on “The History of the Conquest of Mexico,” in the context of the arrival of Catholic Christianity to the Aztec sun worshippers of Mexico. 

 

De Solis said “...it seems that the Devil...was ambitious to imitate Baptism...and even the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, since he introduced among these Barbarians the Confession of Sins...and Communion which the priest administered on certain days.  They had likewise Jubilees, processions, offerings of incense and other forms of divine worship; they even gave their Chief Priest the title of Pope in their language.” 

 

Solis went on to conclude that “...(Satan) whether with a design to abuse and profane the Sacred Mysteries and Ceremonies (of the Catholic Church) by mingling them with his abominations, is still aspiring to imitate the Most High.” 

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

From the findings of the just quoted Charles William Heckethorn and Don De Solis, it appears that the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic practitioners have a stock answer whenever focus is directed on the similarities between Catholicism and the various pagan sun worship faiths.  Their approved response seems to be that Satan counterfeited the true Christian faith with the sun worshipers. 

 

While the above comments and conclusions have been primarily addressed to Roman Catholicism, it must be noted that the Roman Church is the mother church of all of Christianity.  All of the other Christian Churches seem to have their origin with mother Rome.  They all apparently came out of her directly or indirectly.  They all seem to share many or most of the same signs, marks and doctrines of sun worship. 

 

The theology of all Christian Churches appears to have enormous semblance to mother Rome, although many ignorant and uninformed Protestants tell lies and try to deceive the public by claiming that their theology comes from the so-called Christian “Bible,” instead of the pagan Roman Catholic Church.  

 

Truly, it is not just the sun worship problem within the Catholic Church.  Instead, it is the sun worship paganism found throughout Christendom, at all levels and in all denominations.  Christians may carry their “Bibles” around and show off a lot of pretense, but their hearts and minds are dedicated on heathen sun worship. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 211--Words of the Christian Church I

 

 

"Christian" in the New Testament 

 

Noticeably, on the Good News topic and whether traceable to a paradox or possibly just some fluke, the words "Christian/Christians" (Greek “Christianos”) appear only three times in the Greek New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; I Pet 4:16).  In all three of these situations, the usage seems to be in the context of speakers other than the true faithful ones of the Apostolic Assembly. 

 

In the “Word Pictures in the New Testament” (v. VI, p. 128), A. T. Robertson says that “Christianos” in the texts is a word of Latin formation which was “coined to distinguish followers of Christ from Jews and Gentiles.” 

 

Since the real believers in YESHUA were Jews and/or goyim (Gentile) Israelite converts to Judaism (during the days of Acts, as established in prior chapters), it is clear that “Christians” cannot possibly mean true believers.  Thus, in the New Testament, Christians can only mean non-believers or non-followers of YESHUA. 

 

 

The Jehovah Witnesses (JWs) 

 

Nevertheless, in an attempt to make the Christian appellative more authoritative, the JWs, in their “New World Translation” (per the “Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures”), render Acts 11:26 in the vein of the disciples being called or styled Christians by “divine providence” (even though the Greek text has no word present which means “divine” --like with “theios” [as at II Pet 1:3-4, Young’s “Analytical Concordance,” p. 261].  Both theios and divine are tied to sun worship and cannot be linked to true believers, as will be discussed later herein). 

 

Not only do the JWs attach the “divine” idea to the verb “were called” in Acts 11:26, but they even do the same thing in their “Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures” which supposedly presents the literal English reading of the Greek text (the Greek text was taken from the Westcott and Hort work).  This is absolutely astounding that the Scripturally uninformed Witnesses would take liberty with the text to this extent. 

 

The Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to justify this “by divine providence” meaning from the Greek “kreematisai” which is traditionally rendered as just “were called” in virtually all other translations for Acts 11:26 (but the “Diaglott” interlinear text gives the definition of the verb kreematisai as “to have been styled”). 

 

A close variant of kreematisai (kreematisei) appears in Romans 7:3 where the words “by divine providence” cannot be attached. 

 

 

Kreematizo 

 

Kreematisai comes from the root “kreematizo” which has several NT uses involving the transmitting or communicating of ideas/words--including those from Moshe, possibly at Heb 12:25, and from The HIGHEST, at Matt 2:12, 22; Lu 2:26; Acts 10:22; Heb 8:5 and 11:7 (“The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament,” p. 803). 

 

However, for the subject at hand, “The New Analytical Greek Lexicon” (p. 440) notes that kreematizo means “to receive an appellation, be styled, Acts 11:26; Rom 7:3.” 

 

“The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (v. ix, p. 480-482) cites the sense of “‘affairs,’ business... ‘to handle a matter’ in some way.  Class. authors often use it in relation to public authorities...”  (this remark offers the crux of the matter since it shows how the pagan, contemporary, Greek culture/people actually addressed, used and thought of the word kreematizo for meaning and definition--ed). 

 

This source adds that kreematizo is used in Jeremiah in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew dabar (the common Hebrew verb, meaning to speak); and in the NT, it is used for instructions from YHWH; and from men, in the sense of “appearing as something” (like called, named or styled, as pointed out above in its NT contextual usages--ed). 

 

“Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary” (p. 87) gives perhaps the best explanation on kreematizo by saying that it “occasionally means ‘to be called or named,’ Acts 11:26 (of the name ‘Christians’) and Rom 7:3, the only places where it has this meaning.  Its primary significance, ‘to have business dealings with,’ led to this.  They were (publicly) called Christians, because this was their chief business.” 

 

Because any idea of “divine or divinity” in the Greek culture, language and mentality was automatically directed to the Greek pantheon of polytheistic gods, it is totally impossible to try to incorporate any “divine providence or styling” of the true Hebrew MOST HIGH automatically into the Greek kreematizo as a part of the definition as the JWs have attempted to do. 

 

After all, as discussed in previous chapters, the Greeks really had no conception of YHWH, Who they seemingly looked upon as “unknown” (at Acts 17:23, as discussed in prior chapters).  Manifestly, it would have been impossible to make the Greek kreematizo automatically mean The Hebrew YHWH the subject/object in all cases (as the Witnesses have incorrectly attempted to do). 

 

Hence, the real meaning of kreematizo must just be to some aspect of the Greek culture and civilization and not directly to YHWH.  Of course, as the various lexicons note, the real societal meaning seems to involve secular business dealings.  Thus, the word can be and is used in variously different ways in the Greek language and culture. 

 

 

To Communicate or Transmit a Message, Idea, Word, etc 

 

As noted above, it is true that kreematizo was used in the NT to transmit instructions from The EL in some instances.  But the term was a secular word which could apply equally to messages from anybody or anything.  Therefore, the actual contextual uses of the word in the Greek NT involved communicating or transmitting messages from any source (like YHWH, Moshe, the man on the street or anyone else for that matter). 

 

In the NT, kreematizo seems to be used as an action-verb meaning to speak, to call, to name, to communicate, to transmit, or to report any message, idea or word from any source to others.  There is simply no reason to try to add any further definition or clarification to this verb in its contextual uses. 

 

Actually, while taking liberty with the text in Acts 11:26 is a rare occurrence, some translators have taken liberty with this word in some of its other contextual uses.  Thus, in Luke 2:26, this term is used in the vein of a message that “was revealed” to Shimon.  Here, in the actual text, the source of the message is stated as being from the Spirit (in reference to The RUACH HA KODESH in Luke 2:25-26). 

 

In that case, the implication is indeed that the message came from YHWH.  But the verb simply means “was revealed,” and it would manifestly be wrong to alter the words of the text by trying to attach the words “divine/divinely” to the verb.  Correctly, most translations don’t try to do this improper alteration (although a few do--like the JWs, etc). 

 

A related situation occurs at Acts 10:22 where the verb says “was warned” or “was instructed” (in reference to Cornelius).  The rest of the actual Greek text has a remark that Cornelius’ instructions came from a messenger/angel (“The Word The Bible From 26 Translations,” p. 2154).  Of course, this can be construed as a warning from The HIGHEST, but the Greek text doesn’t actually use those words. 

 

Thus, there is no reason to try to read anything extra into that text--as some translators try to do by adding a preposition to say that Cornelius “was warned from God” by an “holy angel.”  The actual Greek text is saying that a messenger/angel warned Cornelius.  Why have translators (like the KJV) taken liberty with that text to add the preposition “from God” to the verb? 

 

One more related use of this verb appears at Hebrews 12:25.  The actual Greek text reveals the speaker “that spake” on earth as being “from heaven.”  The implication of The ELOHIM is present, but there is no need for translators to arbitrarily go beyond the actual words to add anything further to the verb in the way of an adverb or preposition.  Correctly, most translators do not add any extras in on this usage (ibid, p. 2510). 

 

This willingness of some translators to add their own ideas and thinking into their translations can adversely affect any number of Scriptures (this is why the original Hebrew [or the Greek presentation] in a literal reading is so profoundly important). 

 

This tragedy is well illustrated by a couple of other uses of kreematizo--like in Matthew 2:12 and 22 where the actual Greek text only refers to a warning in a dream.  The text simply does not go beyond acknowledging that the warning came in a dream.  Yet, the KJV and most translations add a preposition to the verb to make it say “being warned of God” in a dream. 

 

While the text and indeed the verb only speak of a warning in a dream, several English translators inevitably choose to add a preposition to the verb to make it say “being warned of God” or the adverb “divinely” to make the verb read “divinely instructed” (“The Word The Bible From 26 Translations,” p. 1874). 

 

Since some translators have taken liberty with this verb in certain texts (which refer directly or by implication to YHWH), the JWs have went even further by incorrectly adding the adverb “divinely” or a preposition like “by divine providence” to the verb to make it say something which is simply not present in the Greek text.  For the benefit of truth, most translators at least get Acts 11:26 and Romans 7:3 right! 

 

 

More Explanation 

 

While the noun-subject in the texts can be The HIGHEST (as stated or implied), it can also be the man on the street (per the contextual usages in ”The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament,” p. 803).  And though the object can be YHWH’s purpose, it can also be the simple gossip, words or messages of mere men. 

 

In Acts 11:26, the JWs apparently are insisting that kreematisai is an action verb with the noun subject (YHWH) or object (YHWH’s purpose) identified by prepositional implication as an integral part of the verb (thus, kreematizo becomes YHWH’s act of transmitting His “divine” message, per the JWs). 

 

“Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible” got into the act of confusion by incorrectly and arbitrarily adding the adverb “divinely” to the verb “were called.”  Tragically, both the attempts of the JWs and Young’s to alter the verb/word into something which simply is not present is grossly wrong.  Why must Christians inevitably try to add their false ideas to the Scriptures? 

 

Thus, the JWs either say that YHWH called the believers Christianos or that the man on the street transmitted YHWH’s message that the believers were to be called Christianos by “divine inspiration/providence.”  Actually, this issue by the JWs is too stupid for discussion by intelligent people; but there are JWs who are obsessed with it. 

 

Though the Jehovah’s Witnesses have tried to place some “divine authority” in Acts 11:26 for the appellative Christianos, the truth is that that reference and the one at Romans 7:3 can only mean what most translators report-- “called, named or styled.” 

 

 

So 

 

Therefore, the disciples of YESHUA, in the Nazarene sect of the Hillel Pharisee Jews (Matt 2:23; Acts 24:5), were called “Christians” for the first time by non-believers in Antioch (although they correctly were not Christians at all; but were, in fact, Jews).  Among non-believers, this term may have stuck somewhat to allow its later usage two more times (Acts 26:28; I Pet 4:16). 

 

Comments to follow below and in later chapters on Christian history will outline the situation in the old Roman Empire where there was a presence of some persons who were called Christianos (but they were persons who were totally different persons from the Nazarene disciples of YESHUA).  From an outsider point of view, it clearly was possible to confuse these two groups of people then developing in the first century CE. 

 

While non-believers (as in Acts) may have employed Christianos for the election, it is almost certain that it was used in the context of derision and disrespect and not because the name was legitimate. 

 

Indisputably, there is absolutely nothing in the Old or New Testaments which would justify the use of the word "Christian" to refer to the true believers of the apostolic age or subsequently. 

 

Assuredly, this assertion cannot be disputed for the two references in Acts.  But an acquaintance took me to task over the citation in I Peter 4:16.  Because of some complexities in I Peter, some explanation will be now shared on this reference. 

 

 

More on I Peter 4:16 

 

As already established, in prior chapters, the evidence is massive that the NT was originally written in Hebrew.  At a later time, some party or parties (possibly persons associated with the Apostolic Assembly or the separately developing Christian Church) translated these Hebrew writings to Greek. 

 

And over time, these Greek writings were subjected to various alterations and modifications to conform with the orthodoxy of developing Christianity.  In this regard, it is hard to be exactly sure of what the original Hebrew text in I Peter 4:16 said (in the sense that I Peter was originally written in Hebrew). 

 

Certainly, in terms of the word Christian, it originally could have been either something in that vein (that is--a presentation of Christianos, transliterated from the Hebrew, or perhaps even in a Greek insertion, as happened with the Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint with a Hebrew presentation in a Greek document), or conceivably in the sense of the true believer--like Nazarene, Messianic (as Dr David Stern gives in his “Complete Jewish Bible,” p. 1519) or Messianic Jew. 

 

And by all means, one must not discount the possibility that one or all of the NT texts using the word Christian could be exclusively the work of Simon Magus, Marcion or some of the other early people who edited and changed the NT (as proven formerly). 

 

As a minimum, there probably was some original Hebrew parallelism in the context of the message at I Peter 4:12-19 (which said one thing and then, with a connective, said about the same thing but with perhaps only a slight modification).  Undoubtedly, this is true in respect to verses 15 and 16. 

 

The actual Greek text at I Peter 4:15-16 seems to read (per the interlinear, in the “Diaglott”)-- “Not for anyone of you let suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evil-doer, or a meddling person; If but as a Christian, not let him be ashamed, let him glorify but the God in the respect to this.” 

 

Almost all English translators approach this text as if the Christian reference is to the believers under discussion in verse 12.  Accordingly, they invariably suppose that this text says that the believer should not suffer because of being a murderer, thief, evil-doer or meddling person; but if suffering because of being a Christian, the believer should not be ashamed, but should glorify The HIGHEST on this behalf or this name. 

 

In other words, most translators “assume” that the Christian in verse 16 refers to the believer and that one should not be ashamed for suffering because of being a Christian.  However, the tragedy here is that the translators are reading far more into this text than is called for in reality.  They make the words say things, on the basis of assumptions, which are simply not present. 

 

Never does the Greek text suggest or imply that the true believer is a murderer, a thief or a Christian.  There is no inherent idea of the believer having to suffer “because” of being a murderer, thief or Christian.  The words and indeed even the ideas of “because” and/or “being” are simply not present in the Greek text.  Thus, it is incorrect to force this thinking into the context on the basis of assumptions or presumptions. 

 

 

Understanding 

 

Actually, the key to this whole dilemma in trying to understand I Peter 4:12-19 is brought out by Dr Henry Alford in his “The Greek Testament” (v. IV, p. 378-379).  The word Christian and the idea of (being) a Christian in I Peter is the same, per Alford, as in Acts 26:28 where the word Christian is “used as carrying contempt from the mouth of an adversary.” 

 

In other words, the text seems to be communicating the idea that Christians (who were inherently contemptible people of shame, just as murderers were persons of shame) were people who were then having to suffer (perhaps because of their religious faith).  Evidently, there was then some presence of persecution on Christians (for reasons which will be explained in later chapters on Christian history). 

 

So, if the true believer suffers as the contemptible Christians suffer, he need not be ashamed of having to suffer in that manner.  If the believer had to suffer as a murderer or thief, he should be ashamed (because of the criminal act involved to precipitate the suffering). 

 

In terms of the contemporary society, one might liken this text to the analogy of the Branch Davidians versus various evil murderers (like Adolf Schicklgruber, Bill Clinton or Jack the Ripper) and the Amalekite gangsters running organized crime (like Meyer Lansky).  Thus, if one suffers because of his criminal acts, he should be ashamed.  But if one suffers like the Davidians for his religious beliefs, then he need not be ashamed. 

 

In this analogy, there is no intent to endorse the despicable religious beliefs of the Davidians.  This writer is certainly not endorsing those beliefs.  However, there is no shame attached to the Davidians for the way that they were persecuted and murdered by the Big Brother state (which will be addressed in chapters to follow).  Shame should be attached to the government murderers of the Davidians and not to the victims. 

 

There is another slight twist on this issue, as brought out in “The Amplified Bible.”  This translation offers perhaps one of the better views of I Peter 4:15-16 in saying-- “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief,... But if [one is ill-treated and suffers] as a Christian [which he is contemptuously called], let him not be ashamed,...” 

 

In this sense, the idea is that the true believer does not have to be ashamed or suffer shame because the secular society/people call him contemptible words and names--like “Christianos,” a word used contemptuously for certain contemptible and evil people in society (this is the essence of the teaching at Matthew 5:11--in being called dirty names, simply because of being a follower and servant of YESHUA). 

 

Therefore, it seems that there was derision and disrespect placed upon Christians and/or the word Christian--by at least the true believers as well as perhaps much of the rest of the society at large.  And if the true believer must suffer as the Christians suffer, or for being contemptuously called by that name, then he need not be ashamed of his suffering (again, see Matt 5:11). 

 

 

From Chrishna to Christ 

 

Manifestly, there is no use of the word “Christianity” at all in the Word.  In fact, there seemingly is not even an implied favorable reference to Christianity (though the evidence is that Christendom started developing by 42 CE).  For sure, the true believers in the Apostolic Assembly never called themselves or thought of themselves as Christians--at least, not in the Scriptures. 

 

In retrospect, the real called out ones historically have never called themselves Christians--surely because the Greek forms of both Christian and Christ connect back in a definite fashion to the Greek presentation of "Lord Chrishna," a supposedly "anointed one," whose Eastern, sun god religion was sweeping across large portions of Europe and Asia in the first century CE, through the work of the effeminate, long haired Apollonius of Tyana (mentioned earlier). 

 

Chrishnaism has been important to Christianity because Krishna or Chrishna was accepted and believed to be the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word and Survivor of the Slaughter of the Innocents (“Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets,” p. 515). 

 

This spread of Chrishnaism (the worship of the Hindu sun god Chrishna) across Europe and its evolution into Christianity, just after the life and death of The Real Hebrew MESSIAH YESHUA, is described in some detail by Dr Raymond Bernard in his book “From Chrishna to Christ,” first published in 1966 by Health Research (of Mokelumne Hill, CA 95245). 

 

As Bernard reports this conversion (at least, in the “worldly” sense), he calls Apollonius of Tyana a “World Teacher of the first century and the true founder of Christianity” (per Foreword of “Chrishna to Christ”).  Apollonius had been a disciple of the Himalayan teacher Iarchus, a Brahman sage. 

 

The writer of this present study would go on to suggest that Apollonius furthermore might have influenced Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-20) to some extent since Simon appears to have had a major role in the establishment of the Universal Roman Church and its linked teachings to Chrishnaism.  Future chapters will focus on the role of Simon in some detail. 

 

Suffice to say, Simon Magus did go to Rome after his run-in with the truth being taught by the Apostolic Assembly and soon upon leaving Samaria, with a brief stop in Alexandria and possibly Pergamos.  Once in Rome, he evidently adopted portions of Chrishnaism and other sun worship faiths and founded the Roman Catholic Church.  He probably became its first pope--perhaps by 42 CE. 

 

 

Chrishnaism Became Christianity 

 

By 312 CE, sun worshipping Chrishnaism, as promoted by the long haired Apollonius and Simon Magus, was known as Christianity in Europe and portions of Asia and North Africa and was theologically of such substance to readily appeal to the sun worshipper Constantine who proceeded to make it a world religion. 

 

The fourth century CE Constantine perceived that he could use Christianity as a unifying force among the pagan sun worshippers in his empire.  And he did so! 

 

By the way, many uninformed Christians suppose that Constantine was a “good” Christian, perhaps because he legalized Christianity and subtly imposed it upon the Roman Empire (later, his successors made it mandatory by the sword).  The truth is that Constantine was a sun worshipper and remained a sun worshipper all of his life and up to the time of his death (when he consented to Catholic baptism). 

 

Even when he summoned and presided over the famous Catholic Church Council of Nicea (or Nicaea in 325 CE), Constantine the Great was a dedicated, conscious sun worshipper. 

 

Students of truth may remember that it was this Council of Nicea that decreed that the sun worshipping Easter replace the Scriptural Passover; hence, to recognize the supposed resurrection of Gee-Zeus, rather than the real death of YESHUA--as The MESSIAH, Himself, outlined for His followers in the NT (Lu 22:19). 

 

Not only did Raymond Bernard recognize and write about this conversion or transformation of Chrishnaism to Christianity, but he was aware of and did comment upon the same observations and conclusions by several early historians and writers, such as Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles and Dr Johannese Hempel. 

 

Of course, the traditional Christian belief has been that Christians are followers of “Christ.”  This truth is quite manifest in the Christian world.  Simply stated, and in reality, Christians are followers of Chrishna/Kristos, as will be proven in comments to follow herein. 

 

Truly, The Hebrew MESSIAH was replaced in worldly thought by the sun god Chrishna (“Christ”) in the Roman Empire.  This is a most extraordinary transformation which has proven to be one of the greatest hoaxes of all in world history.  It will be further assessed in the following remarks and in later chapters. 

 

 

The Personal Name of “Christ” 

 

This conversion of Chrishna to “Christ” is brought out in a most interesting fashion by Christians who regularly use the title “Christ” as a personal noun-name of their “Jesus” (like “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus”), without any understanding at all as to the nature of the Hebrew Messiah. 

 

Howbeit, the word “Christ” (Greek Kristos/Christos) was understood very early as a personal name in many places in the Greek New Testament (Matt 1:1, 18; Mk 1:1; 9:41; Acts 24:24; Rom 6:3; I Cor 2:2; Heb 3:6), as concluded by Walter Bauer (in his “Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Literature” p. 895). 

 

Bauer went on to note that the pronunciation (as well as the sounding and spelling) of the Greek Christos (or Kristos) was so much like the Greek personal name of Chrestos (a fairly popular personal name among male, first century Greeks) that the early Christians must have understood the word Christos in the same way (a personal name), as that of Chrestos. 

 

In a word, the early Greek worshippers of Chrishna, correctly Christians, “confused” the two words and supposed that both were personal names.  The point of all this is that Chrishna is the personal name (which evidently became a title, as well as a name, at least, in Greek speaking lands) of the Eastern, Hindu sun god while the Hebrew Messiah was always a title. 

 

It’s quite manifest that in the early Greek speaking environment of Europe and Asia Minor, the converts to Chrishnaism (Christianity) quickly picked upon the name of Chrishna and popularized it--both as the title of Christos and the personal name of Chrestos, and in time, even confused the two and blended them together. 

 

In “The New Testament A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings” (p. 196), Bart D. Ehrman quoted the Roman historian Suetonius about some riots among some Jews in Rome during the reign of the emperor Claudius (41-54 CE).  Reportedly, the riots were caused by a man named “Chrestus.”  Some scholars have conjectured here that Chrestus might correctly be “Kristos/Christ.” 

 

Regardless of whether the early Christians caused the riots or whether there was actually a man named Chrestus who caused the riots matters not.  What is important at this juncture is a recognition that there was a personal name of Chrestus that was used by men in Rome at a very early time (by 54 CE).  This report could have some further implications, as will be broached in a later chapter on Christian history. 

 

 

The Ancient Krish Tie to Krishna and Christ

 

In various dictionaries, both Krish  and Krishna are defined as being Sanskrit in origin.  Sanskrit is the “ancient and classical language of the Hindus of India” (Funk & Wagnalls “Standard Desk Dictionary,” p. 591). 

 

The Internet on-line edition of the American Heritage Dictionary connects Krishna to the Sanskrit “Krsnah” which comas from “Kresna,” meaning “black.”  In mythology, Krishna is often depicted as a dark or Black child/god.  This source also gives “Kriss Kringle” as “...Santa Claus. Alteration of German Dialectal Christkindl, Christmas present, the Christ child. German Christ, Christ (from Middle High German Krist...”  Thus, Santa Claus is linked to the sun god Krishna. 

 

The Wikipedia.org encyclopedia (on the Internet) gives the meaning of Krishna as “The word ‘krish’ is the attractive feature of the Lord’s existence, and ‘na’ means ‘spiritual pleasure.’  When the verb krish is added to na, it becomes krishna, which indicates the Absolute Truth.” 

 

An article by H. P. Bavatsky on “The Esoteric Character of the Gospels” pt 2 (Internet www.theosociety.org) examines the Greek Christos which is the verbal adjective in the Greek chrio which means “to be rubbed on” as ointment or salve (which is the Christian explanation for the word Kristos/Christ--ed) from the time of Plato on forward to the Christian era. 

 

This source then makes the tie between the Greek chrio and the Sanskrit Kri (the first syllable in the name Krishna), which means “to pour out, or rub over, to cover with” and then adds: “this may lead one as easily to make of Krishna, “the anointed one.”  Christian philologists try to limit the meaning of Krishna’s name to its derivation from Krish, “black,” but if the analogy and comparison of the Sanskrit with the Greek roots contained in the names of Chrestos, Christos, and Chrishna, are analyzed more carefully, it will be found that they are all of the same origin.” 

 

Bavatsky also notes that per Greek mythology the city of Chrisa (now spelt Crisa) was built in memory of Kreusa (or Creusa), daughter of King Erechtheus and mother of Janus (or Ion) by Apollo, in memory of the danger which Janus escaped.  We learn that Janus, abandoned by his mother in a grotto ‘to hide the shame of the virgin who bore a son,’ was found by Hermes, who brought the infant to Delphi, nurtured him by his father’s sanctuary and oracle, where, under the name of Chresis Janus became first a Chrestis (a priest, soothsayer, or initiate), and then very nearly a Chresterion, ‘a sacrificed victim.’”  Surely, this explains much of the origin of the Christian “Christ Jesus.” 

 

In “Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time” (p. 147-148), Darrell W. Conder quotes John Robertson’s “Christianity and Mythology” and other historians and notes that Krishna (as coming from the root krish meaning to tinge or anoint) dates to 1200 BCE and that his worship came to India via Greece (so while Krishna may have a tie to the Sanskrit kresna/black, it is clear from both Robertson and Bavatsky that the real root of the word Krishna must go back to kri/krish in the vein of an anointing--thus, Krishna was an anointed one). 

 

Conder adds that the Grecian god Hercules was a version of the sun god Nimrod-Tammuz and carried the title Christus or “Christ.”   As Conder notes, Christos or the “Anointed One” was a title used for a number of pagan gods, including Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Attis, etc (ibid, p. 14). 

 

The CultCorruption.tribe.net website on the internet says that “The son of Poseidon and Meduse was called Khryst and the priests of Apollo were known as Khyrstes.  In fact, the word Kristo and its derivations, Krst, Krist, Kristo, Khyst, and Krish-na, all appeared in every ancient religious system and showed the original Kristo concept was believed to be the personal and invisible mediator and guide between God and everything spiritual in man.” 

 

 

More From Raymond Bernard 

 

In another of Bernard’s writings (“Apollonius, The Nazarene,” discussed formerly), he says that Apollonius was born in Tyana, a Greek city of Asia Minor, just about the time that The Hebrew YESHUA was born in Judea. 

 

Since he lived to be around 100 years old, Apollonius’ work and ministry of promoting the sun god Lord Chrishna, in Asia and Europe, closely paralleled the ministry and work of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly--which evidently concluded around 70 CE.

 

From the early sun worship writings, it is apparent that Apollonius was a true Hindu pacifist and ascetic--as many people have associated with their sweet Gee-Zeus. 

 

Bernard notes that Apollonius “chose as his own the philosophy of Pythagoras, and enthusiastically practiced its austerities, maintaining absolute silence for five years as a mental discipline, avoiding all relations with women, giving away his patrimony, and wearing only linen garments.  In the phraseology of today he was a vegetarian and a total abstainer.” 

 

In adopting the philosophy of Pythagoras, Bernard says that he “rigorously observed the trying discipline instituted by the Samian sage.  He abstained from animal food, wine and women--and lived upon fruits and herbs, dressed only in white linen garments of the plainest construction, went barefooted and with uncovered head, and wore his hair and beard uncut.  He was especially distinguished for his beauty, his genial bearing, his uniform love and kindness, and his imperturbable equanimity of temper.” 

 

The author of “Apollonius, The Nazarene,” reports that in Greece, “Apollonius traveled around from city to city, visiting the temples, where he restored the ancient mysteries by reeducating the priests.  According to Mead, Apollonius’ ‘one idea seems to have been to spread abroad among the religious brotherhoods and institutions of the Empire some portion of the wisdom which he brought back from India.’  His work was to unify diverse creeds by revealing their common origin and nature, and thus to promote the brotherhood of mankind” (of course, the brotherhood of man, from Chrishnaism, has become the essence of sun worship Christianity--ed). 

 

And in what may be a fantastic revelation about why Christendom--regularly, willfully and with impunity--violates YHWH’s laws, Bernard observes that though Apollonius was “always stern with himself, he readily made excuses for others.”  Doesn’t that sound exactly like Churchianity’s concept of their sweet Gee-Zeus, who supposedly makes excuses for the sins of his followers (which interestingly conflicts with Ex 23:7). 

 

But whatever else may be said of Apollonius, the fact remains that he was a dedicated Chrishna sun worshipper.  He prayed and offered incense to the sun god three times a day (per Bernard) and made Chrishna sun worship an integral part and parcel of the first century Roman Empire. 

 

 

The Christian Connections 

 

The history of Christian sun worship will be covered in later chapters.  But at this point, it must be said that this description of the Chrishna (Christian) preacher Apollonius has definite ties to what Christians have come to envision as applying to their Gee-Zeus and “Christian righteousness” (yes, the pope even dresses in white and supposedly is celibate.  But does this make him righteous?).   

 

Tragically, this writer has known people who were vegetarians and celibates and wore white clothes (all in the vein that their actions somehow constituted righteousness, as outlined in prior chapters), and men who wore long hair and beards (just like Apollonius). 

 

While it is right for men to wear beards (Lev 19:27), why do some persons never grasp the Scriptures about long haired men being in sin (Lev 10:6; Ezek 44:20; I Cor 11:14)? 

 

One male acquaintance of mine, especially, liked to brag and boast about his state (as involving the qualities just cited), never understanding that none of these things (except the beard) have anything whatsoever to do with righteousness--which is defined and known by obedience of the Torah. 

 

The thinking and acts of Apollonius are not supported in the Word.  Instead, they reflect asceticism, as commonly found among Gnostics, Hindus and Eastern sun worshippers. 

 

Though Chrishnaism is powerfully alive and well in modern times in Christendom, there remains a strange twist to this story.  A few years ago, the Beetles rock group traveled to India to study and contemplate Chrishnaism.  Thereafter, George Harrison of the Beetles produced a hit record about his “sweet Lord” (referring to Lord Chrishna).  The American public just loved it. 

 

Of course, ignorant Christians often think of and contemplate their sweet Gee-Zeus in the context of this George Harrison record.  Surely, pagan worshippers of all sorts and kinds also found solace and comfort in George Harrison song in the context of associating Harrison’s “Sweet Lord” to their own sweet pagan gods and lords. 

 

 

“Christ” and Chrishna 

 

Regarding the “Christ-Chrishna” linkage, the Greek word "Kristos" or “Christos” (used in the Greek NT for “Christ”) clearly ties to both “Christ” and Chrishna (as pointed out above).  Assuredly, any good Greek dictionary will prove this assertion satisfactorily for the lover of truth, interested enough to spend some time researching the question. 

 

So then, what was the appropriate appellative for the members of the true congregation?  Certainly, they were Messianic Jews of the Hillel Pharisee sect of the Nazarenes and could evidently be referred to as Messianic Jews, Messianics or Nazarenes (Matt 2:23; Acts 24:5). 

 

In using this word Nazarenes, this writer is absolutely not referring to the modern Christian "Church of the Nazarenes" (which dates from 19th century America and has little or nothing in common with the Apostolic Assembly Nazarenes).  Positively, these two groups are worlds apart, as has been demonstrated throughout this study. 

 

And if the word "Christ" is questionable, what should The ANOINTED ONE be called in the New Testament?  Decidedly, for English speakers, He was The MESSIAH (an Anglicization of the Hebrew Ha MASHIACH).  Again, a student of truth can easily establish this reality with some study of the Scriptures and the Hebrew language (on this, see Dan 9:25-26). 

 

The following remarks and later chapters will offer some revelations on how that even the Greek New Testament reveals the Hebrew title MASHIACH (at Jo 1:41; 4:25).  But this revelation of some hidden truth was subjected to a few spurious or gloss remarks to introduce the Eastern sun god Chrishna to the developing Christian Church.  Again, this process will be described in detail in subsequent presentations. 

 

While Chrishna and certain pagan sun gods in the Greek environment could be called Christos/Kristos (in the sense of “an anointed one,” from the root “krish,” meaning to tinge or anoint, as noted above), there is no way that Chrishna and these pagan gods can be equated to The True MASHIACH in the Hebrew culture and environment. 

 

If translating from Greek to Hebrew, it would be unthinkable to attempt to render the Greek Christos as a substitute for the Scripturally important Hebrew Ha MASHIACH. 

 

Similarly, in terms of translating the Hebrew to the Greek, it would likewise be unthinkable to try to render the wonderful Hebrew title Ha MASHIACH as Christos. 

 

For sure, Christos and Ha MASHIACH are in two totally different worlds of thought, as proven in the Greek at John 1:41 and 4:25.  There is no way that Ha MASHIACH can equal or be the same thing as Christos (though in English dictionaries and references, both are “supposedly” anointed ones). 

 

Categorically, Ha MASHIACH and Christos are not the same and should never be confused into one concept!  The two words and thinking are totally different.  Hence, Christos is not a translation of Ha MASHIACH and should not have been so used in the NT Greek.  Any Greek NT translations should have transliterated MASHIACH--as was possibly attempted in John 1:41 and 4:25. 

 

In the NT writings and era, Ha MASHIACH was a title applied specifically to YESHUA.  In Greek thought, Christos was a title applied to Chrishna and evidently certain other pagan deities.  It is absolutely absurd to attempt to equate the two ideas and use the two titles interchangeably (plus, it was absolutely unnecessary--Jo 1:41; 4:25). 

 

This mention of the words "Christ" and "Christian" is not intended to get off on a tangent here in this chapter in regards to the subject.  However, a discussion on this matter of names and titles appropriate for The CREATOR and/or His manifestation in the flesh is important and must not be dismissed out of hand. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 212--Words of the Christian Church II

 

 

Is “Jesus” Legitimate? 

 

It is sufficient to note that whatever The MESSIAH is to be called (per the discussion in the preceding chapter), His given name must link in some fashion to the more authoritative Hebrew Old Testament which provides the legal basis for the entire New Testament. 

 

Wherefore, one can especially call into question the use of the popular "Jesus" name (often pronounced as Gee-Zeus, as noted in this work), which is hypothetically an English rendition from the Greek "Iesous" (and/or from the Latin “Iesus which is derived from “Iesous”) that some scholars and linguists recognize as meaning “YAH is Zeus” (Zeus was the popular sun god of the Greeks). 

 

Here, YAH is a contraction of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH, which appears about 7000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament as the exclusive, personal name of The MOST HIGH. 

 

To the Jews, YHWH is considered to be the one most “kodesh” (usually translated as holy) word in the universe.  It is never spoken or pronounced by them, except by the ministering priest on the Day of Atonement when he whispers the name. 

 

In “Come Out of Her My People” (p. 64), C. J. Koster links this “sous” or “zeus” sound to the Egyptian Isis (Esu) and the Gaelic or Celtic deity “Esus.”  In “Lost Israelite Identity” (p. 303), Yair Davidy notes that Esau is the same as the Phoenician Esus.  Since some of the Phoenicians settled or amalgamated in Ireland, it is interesting that this Esus name came forward as a Gaelic deity (thus saying that YAH is Esau or Esus). 

 

With this early commingling of the names of YHWH or YAH and Zeus in the Greek language, English and other languages were not the first or only attempts to blend the Hebrew religion of the Book with the Greek religion, as soon will be shown.  Actually, this meshing started much earlier when the Grecian empire gained supremacy over much of the Middle East. 

 

 

The Jews on Greek 

 

From the time of the Ptolemies, the Greek kings of Egypt, Greek names, culture and religion were pushed upon the remnant of the House of Yehudah at every opportunity, as discussed earlier (per “Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 8, p. 296; “Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary,” p. ix; “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” v. I, division 1, p. 195-197 and v. I, division 2, p. 30). 

 

In time, the Greek King Antiochus IV (Epiphanies), of the Seleucid empire, entered Jerusalem by conquest (c168 BCE).  He was determined to force the Jews to adopt the Greek language, literature, names and culture. 

 

It is absolutely manifest that in pushing the Greek names, the Greeks demanded that the Jews not only change their own names to Greek, but to change the names associated with The HIGHEST in Jewish worship to Greek as well. 

 

Thus, it is clear that there was a push on to make the Jews start using Kurios for the name YHWH (and YAH) and title Adonai and to use Theos for The EL/ELOAH/ELOHIM.  These changes will be further addressed in the following chapter. 

 

This Antiochus was a dedicated worshipper of the long haired, sun god Zeus and even went to the extreme of trying to physically look like the mythological Zeus, in his personal grooming and appearance.  One of the relics of the past still extant today is coins struck by this Greek king which have his image engraved on them for his personal glorification. 

 

Epiphanies profaned the Temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar, erecting a statute there to Zeus-YHWH, and making every effort to identify YHWH (YAH) of the OT as Zeus (per "Asimov's Guide to the Bible," by Dr Isaac Asimov).  However, his works were limited because of the later restoration activities of the Maccabees (see I and II Maccabees). 

 

In this surfacing of the works and activities of the wicked Antiochus Epiphanies, it is useful to note that there is every good reason to believe that he was a classic ante-type or example of the (coming) age end Beast man.  If the reader wants to have some insight on the future Beast man (Rev 13), then some time should be spent on researching the diabolical Epiphanies. 

 

Yet, the fact remains that while Antiochus and his Greek cohorts achieved little in terms of converting the Jews, their evil efforts eventually paid off in the development and growth of Christianity, which is essentially a Greek (sun worship) religion, though claiming roots to Jewry (as discussed in previous chapters). 

 

In the names “Iesous” and “Jesus” (“Iesus” in Latin), some of the ambitions of Antiochus came to fruition because Christendom has come along and followed his idea of linking YHWH to Zeus by equating The Scriptural YESHUA with the sun god Zeus (in the names “Iesous, Iesus and Jesus/Gee-Zeus”), as well as linking The Scriptural MASHIACH or MESSIAH to the sun god “Chrishna, Christos and Christ.” 

 

 

Reality 

 

While it is not the purpose of this study to get into a lengthy dissertation on all of the various Hebrew names in the Scriptures and their proper uses, a few more basic remarks need to be made here before proceeding on with some observations on the Greek language and how bad it is in the context of presenting truth. 

 

In the Tanakh, there is a man correctly named Yehoshua--meaning YHWH is salvation (Num 13:16).  In English translations, this Yehoshua is typically anglicized as Joshua.  After the Babylonian exile, this name Yehoshua became abridged to Yeshua--perhaps an Aramaic presentation, meaning salvation or he who saves (Neh 8:17). 

 

In both the Greek OT and NT, the name of this man Yeshua was changed into Greek as Iesous (pronounced as “ee-ay-zeus” --as at Acts 7:45; Heb 4:8).  Later Latin translations rendered it as “Iesus” and English ones picked it up as “Jesus.” 

 

Of course, all of these changes did a great injustice to this wonderful and powerful name which, of course, came to be the name of Miryam’s Baby since He was truly SALVATION (Isa 62:11; Matt 1:21; Lu 1:69, 77; 2:30; 3:6; 19:9). 

 

Like Scriptural translators have done with a host of Old Testament Hebrew names, this one name of YESHUA (meaning SALVATION) became diffused into many names (all linking to the sun god, except for the Hebrew). 

 

This is interesting in view of the fact that the Word declares that only one name has been given for salvation (Acts 4:12; Phil 2:10).  Obviously, that one name is YESHUA (Matt 1:21, in Hebrew). 

 

Since only one name has been given for salvation, why is it and how is it that Christendom insists on teaching that several different names can be used for salvation? 

 

Moreover, if a man was named Charles, William, Kevin, Yakov, or Shaul, would he like it if someone tried to call him with some other name--like say spaghetti, macaroni, chili or something else?  How about changing Smith to something like Smutinsteinerberg.  How about changing one of these names to the sun god Zeus or Satan? 

 

Some say that names change from language to language.  No, not so.  Names do not change (as will be discussed in some detail in later remarks).  Britain’s Prince Charles is still Prince Charles in Spain and Spain’s King Carlos is still King Carlos in England.  Jones is Jones all over the world.  Names of people are not changed from one language to another.  At most, they are transliterated to keep the same sound. 

 

 

The Greek Language 

 

At this juncture, it should be noted that during the period of the Grecian rulership and dominion over the civilized world (from the time of Alexander the Great to the Roman era), the Greek language gained some acceptance and priority among the Adamic populations under Greek control. 

 

Importantly, the Greek language will never measure up to the Hebrew language, as established in previous chapters of this publication.  One of its major deficiencies is that the Greeks frequently had a nasty habit of adding an “s” or “us” as the terminus to the names of males.  This addition was made to honour the Greek sun god Zeus, just as other peoples have honored their deities in their personal names. 

 

For example, the early inhabitants of Canaan liked to name their males with the name of Baal, the Canaanite sun god (like Ethbaal, the father of the wicked Jezebel--I Kg 16:31).  The Babylonians often associated the sun god Baal’s Babylonian name of Bel with the personal names of boy babies.  The grandson of Koniyahu, born in Babylonian captivity, was named Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:8). 

 

 

In the Hebrew Culture 

 

The reader may be aware that in the Hebrew Old Testament and culture, the names and titles of The HIGHEST were also commonly attached to male names as prefixes or suffixes or incorporated in some other fashion. 

 

Thus, the words EL, YAH and YHWH frequently were found in the names of Hebrew people.  The anglicized Elijah (correctly Eliyahu in the Hebrew) is a classic illustration of this phenomenon.  In Hebrew, it means “my EL is YAH” (per Young’s “Analytical Concordance”).  Another illustration was presented a few paragraphs back with the discussed Yehoshua--meaning “YHWH is Salvation.” 

 

The name of the prophet Elisha is most interesting in this regard.  In Hebrew it means “my EL is savior” (per Young’s).  The Greeks rendered this wonderful Hebrew name as “Eliseus” (see Lu 4:27) apparently meaning “my EL is Zeus.”  By the way, the father god Zeus was a “savior” in the Greek sun god religion. 

 

Above all else, this addition of an “s” or “us” has to be one of the tragedies in using Greek names.  Not only was it awful what the Greeks did to the Hebrew names of YESHUA and Elisha, but even the great prophet Moshe had his name smeared as Moses (to honor the Greek sun god). 

 

Beyond the common practice that the Greeks had of incorporating the name of their father god Zeus into the names of males, there is still one more bad feature in that the Greek New Testament uses other names and titles associated with Greek pagan deities for The MOST HIGH.  These words will be examined in some detail later in subsequent remarks. 

 

Nevertheless, these facts of reality should be sufficient to alert students of truth that there are inherent problems with the Greek language.  These problems and difficulties are of such magnitude that a student of truth must pause and wonder if the Greek language was or had been corrupted at a very early time.  This possibility will be further discussed in a later presentation. 

 

 

John McKee 

 

The May-Jun 2001 “Gates of Eden” (p. 12) had an article by John K. McKee on “Is the Name ‘Jesus’ Pagan?”  Writer McKee attempted to demean and make light of assertions that the name “Jesus” has a pagan link, and instead, tried to justify and support the Greek “supposed transliteration” of YESHUA to “Iesous,” which became the basis of the Latin “Iesus” and English “Jesus.” 

 

John McKee writes in the vein that he is some type of an authority on Greek.  But in fairness, he does recognize that the art of transliterating words, names, etc from one language into another language is “not an exact science;” and in terms of YESHUA to “Iesous,” it is a “challenge to understand if one is armed with nothing more than a concordance and does not understand the difficulty of transliteration.” 

 

Mr McKee charges that there are people who call “our Messiah ‘Gee-Zeus,’ implying that those who call upon Him are actually calling upon the Greek god, Zeus.”  He then goes on to present his ideas on transliterating the Hebrew YESHUA to the Greek. 

 

By following the traditional and usual method of transliterating to Greek (in a dead letter for letter transliteration, without any real regard to actual sounds, and with the usual Greek peculiarities in translating by adding an “s” or “us” to male names), it is true that something like “Iesous” might could become a reality. 

 

McKee then goes on to the Septuagint to note that this name was so translated in the Septuagint.  Therefore, this is a “definitive proof,” per his view, that the Greek Iesous is not pagan, but is legitimate (on the premise that the Septuagint is somehow legitimate and authoritative--but it is not!). 

 

All of this may sound well and good to some ignorant Christians.  But it falls far short with this writer (who does make fun of and ridicule traditional Christianity, with her obsession over using something around Gee-Zeus--at least, in sound). 

 

There is no denying that in a dead letter for letter transliteration of the Hebrew YESHUA to Greek, something like “Iesous” might materialize.  There is no argument that the Septuagint did this and it was repeated in the Greek NT.  But neither of these factors have any justification to support the Greek presentation.  It still is wrong! 

 

 

Some of the Issues 

 

There are long and short “A’s” in Greek and there is even some semblance of an “h” sound.  So, based upon transliterating sound rather than letter for letter, it might have been possible to do a better job with YESHUA than in “Iesous.”  This writer is aware of some of the problems (like with no “sh” letter-sound), but takes the place that the difficulty surfaces because the Greek language was corrupted. 

 

In “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament” (p. 41), Greek scholars H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey point out that some Hebrew names were “Hellenized and inflected like a Greek noun” and usually indeclinable.  Perhaps this practice virtually eliminated any effort to use a little ingenuity in transliterating Hebrew names.  

 

And by all means, it was criminal for the Greeks to routinely place an “s” or “us” at the end of male names, in order to pay homage to the Greek sun god Zeus. 

 

Importantly, in the Septuagint, the original translators seem to have avoided doing anything with the Tetragrammaton--where early Greek texts render it in its Hebrew presentation (“Too Long in the Sun,” p. xii). 

 

In “Come Out of Her My People” (p. 84), C. J. Koster says that in the early Greek translations of the Scriptures (the Septuagint), the translators merely copied over and retained the Hebrew letters making up the Tetragrammaton (thus, maybe the Greeks should have done something similar, by using the Hebrew characters, with YESHUA in the NT). 

 

In “The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English” (p. 440), Geza Vermes indicates that at least one Greek text found at Qumran had the Tetragrammaton rendered semi-phonetically as “Iao” (which was dated to the first or second centuries BCE).  In any case, it was much later before the Septuagint began using Kurios for the Tetragrammaton. 

 

 

Why? 

 

So then, why did English translators attempt to transliterate the Greek “Iesous” into “Jesus,” instead of transliterating the name from the Hebrew original (as English translators routinely do for almost all other names in the OT and NT). 

 

These translators have even done this in terms of OT Hebrew names, as used in the Greek NT.  For example, the Hebrew Elisha was put into Greek as Eliseus (Lu 4:27).  A number of English translators (Lamsa, Living, etc) have had brains enough to place this name in both of the OT and NT as Elisha (based upon a transliteration from the Hebrew OT).  Why didn’t they do this with YESHUA? 

 

Throughout the OT and NT, English translators have attempted to transliterate any number of names, directly from the Hebrew to the English.  Though these efforts have not always been completely accurate (like in using Abraham instead of Avraham), they at least show some effort to go back to the originals. 

 

 

The Problem On Names and Titles 

 

With the remarks out of the way in the preceding comments on the applicability of words like “Jesus, Christ and Christian” (which directly connect to the concept of a commission for the Christian Church), it would now be useful to focus on an overview of the whole practice of using English (and other non-Hebrew) names and titles for The HIGHEST in general. 

 

The problem of using non-Hebrew words surfaces primarily in Exodus 23:13 where YHWH’s Torah declares that it is a sin to make mention of the “name of other gods.”  Since this issue concerns a commandment in the Torah, it is a question of sin and righteousness. 

 

Elsewhere, the Scriptures suggest that the subject involved is one in essence of using the name of a pagan deity in association with The True HIGHEST YHWH and/or in attempting to worship or show honor to YHWH and not necessarily of using the pagan names in an adverse manner (like naming Baal, Satan, Nachash, etc, for what they are) or secular sense because of the necessity for communication purposes. 

 

In other words, one “might” properly use the words Baal or Zeus and multitudes of other pagan sun god names on occasion.  But it would clearly become sin to use these words in reverence or being set apart, to hold them in honor or esteem, to use them in praise or attempted worship, or to attach them in any fashion to The MOST HIGH and/or to His manifestation as YHWH YESHUA. 

 

This writer has used the concept of “attempted or attempting to worship” above because there is categorically “no way” that a person can perform true worship or be involved in true worship or honour to The MOST HIGH--all the while that he or she calls upon and addresses Him with a name or word which links to the pagan sun god--like Zeus, Chrishna, etc. 

 

It seems reasonable that if an individual wishes to antagonize and upset The ELOHIM, then all he/she has to do is to continue to call Him some pagan name, after learning to appreciate the truth on this matter. 

 

Certainly, He is a very forgiving SOVEREIGN, respecting us limited, stupid, ignorant, little humans.  But once, we come to a knowledge of truth, there no longer remains an offering for sin--at least, in the age then underway (Heb 6:4-6; 10:26). 

 

 

Things Do Matter! 

 

The mitzwah at Exodus 23:13 was elsewhere repeated by Yehoshua (Josh 23:7), by the Psalmist (Ps 16:4), and clearly alluded to by the prophet Zekharyah (Zech 13:2). This law is profoundly important and must not be treaded upon with apathy, indifference and a don’t care attitude, as Christians tend to do with their rebellion toward YHWH’s Torah. 

 

Many Christians will argue to no end that “what” they call The HIGHEST doesn’t matter because it’s what is in their hearts that He is concerned about.  Any person believing this nonsense probably still believes in the tooth fairy business.  Moreover, the source for such stupidity is most interesting.  Anything and everything written in the Scriptures does matter. 

 

If it’s there, it is there for a reason and it is important.  Everything which The MOST HIGH has caused to be written in His Word and preserved and safeguarded is there for our teaching, our edification and our guidance.  Manifestly, YHWH’s written Words represent Him.  He was the written Word in the Scriptural autographs.  For a fact, He was and is the Word. 

 

When students of truth study the written Scriptures, they are studying YHWH.  The written Word reflects His thinking, His ideas, His theology, His Will and His purpose for Adam and the creation.  The written Word reflects His character and personality.  If any human being alive wishes to be like Him, he must devote his whole energy and being to studying the Word to be like Him. 

 

Interestingly, on the source for this doesn’t matter belief, Hinduism believes in a modern trinity of sorts where its three different primary gods are actually one.  As the Hindu worshippers see it, it is the one god they are worshipping--regardless of whatever name they use in his worship (“What the Great Religions Teach,” p. 38). 

 

Consequently, names are not particularly important in Hinduism or in the other sun worship faiths, as a matter of information.  That’s the reason that the sun god can be and often was called by any number of different names and titles throughout the world.  Names are just not important in sun worship, as they are in true worship. 

 

 

Gods are Idols? 

 

Another important Scripture surfaced when the Psalmist wrote that “all the gods of the nations are idols” (Ps 96:5, per the KJV).  Of course, the start place on this assertion has to focus on the names of those “gods” of the nations, before advancing to deeper understanding about personalities, teachings and so forth. 

 

Otherwise, it should be noted that the Word teaches a certain curse, condemnation or cut off condition placed on sinners and various objects or devoted things associated with evil and sin.  The Greek New Testament uses a Greek word called “anathema” for this condition (per “Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 11).  Anathema can be translated into English as “curse or accursed.”

 

The “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” says that in its construction, anathema is used “a. of the consecrated offerings laid up in the temple... b. of something delivered up to divine wrath, dedicated to destruction and brought under a curse” (TDNT, v. I, p. 354).  Going on, this source asserts that in Shaul’s several uses of anathema, the word “denotes the object of a curse” (TDNT, v. I, p. 354). 

 

One of the famous “Pauline” usages of anathema occurred when he charged that if any man love not YHWH YESHUA, let him be accursed (I Cor 16:22).  But New Testament Christians often fail to pick up on another important use of this word earlier in I Corinthians by Shaul. 

 

This former use charged that no man speaking by The RUACH HA KODESH (the spirit of The EL) can call YESHUA accursed (anathema--I Cor 12:3).  This is a most important text to focus on because the name Gee-Zeus does pay homage to the sun god Zeus--at least, in sound, as well as in some aspects of construction. 

 

From Psalms 96:5, quoted above, it is evident that the names of these pagan sun gods represent idols.  From various other Scriptures and particularly in certain usages of anathema, these pagan idols are under a curse.  They are accursed things, condemned for destruction. 

 

Thus, Shaul came along and reported that no man can call The MESSIAH YESHUA accursed by The RUACH HA KODESH.  In other words, no person operating under the influence of The RUACH HA KODESH would dare call YESHUA an idol nor would he/she refer to Him by using the name of one of the accursed dumb idols. 

 

Since the “gods” of the nations are idols and since no believer would call the True MESSIAH an accursed idol, what about using the popular “Jesus” (Gee-Zeus) name?  Is it not evident that this Gee-Zeus name is the name of an accursed idol?  Why would faithful and obedient people choose to use such an accursed idolatrous name? 

 

 

More on YESHUA 

 

A couple other notes on the importance of this name of YESHUA needs mention at this juncture.  First, YESHUA is the name of Salvation and the only name given whereby man might be saved, as noted above (Jo 1:12; 14:14; 20:31; Acts 4:10-12; Rom 10:13; Phil 2:9-10; I Jo 5:13). 

 

Since the Scriptural name is the only name whereby man might be saved (Acts 4:10-12), there are no other names (not two or three, as in Iesous, Iesus or Gee-Zeus) allowing for salvation.  Whereas sun worshippers might be content and happy with many names in their hoped for salvation with the sun god, such reasoning has no basis in the Word in connection with the salvation of YESHUA. 

 

And second, Luke wrote an amazing record that when Shaul preached the name of YESHUA to some Greek philosophers in Athens, they said that he preached of “foreign divinities” (Acts 17:18, as discussed earlier).  Certainly, they would not have said that if he would have been preaching about Iesous (which is a Greek name, paying homage to their own sun god Zeus). 

 

 

Other Scriptures 

 

Hosea even prophesied that in a coming day, YHWH will take the names (plural) of Baalim (plural of the sun god) from the mouths of His people (Hos 2:16-17).  Please note that the sun god has many, many, different names, besides just the Canaanite Baal.  Obviously, Hosea was addressing the sun god in the collective sense, as he is variously named throughout the world. 

 

There are still two more related texts on this line needing mention.  Moshe wrote that true believers should not be practicing the worship of the pagan nations in terms of “how those peoples worshipped their gods” (Deut 12:30).  “How” covers an awful lot of territory.  It certainly includes using the names and titles of heathen deities. 

 

Yohanan wrote the second one when he quoted The MESSIAH as saying that true believers must worship The MOST HIGH in spirit (obviously, by the mind, heart, attitude, mental faculties and intellect, etc), and in “truth” (Jo 4:24). 

 

Can a person worship The SUPREME in a false way and expect that such worship would be acceptable and pleasing to The HIGHEST? 

 

How about Cain in his (false) worship, contrary to what was true worship (Gen 4:3-4)? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 213--Words of the Christian Church III

 

 

“God”

 

How far does this problem on names/words extend in our modern culture and society?  Well, it’s in almost every aspect of Christian worship.  Take, for example, the popular English word “God,” as ascribed to The SUPREME.  Many modern encyclopedias and unabridged dictionaries raise questions about this word as they relate it to idols and objects of worship in heathen times (i.e. the “World’s Popular Encyclopedia”). 

 

But there is something far more profound to say about this popular word “god.”  Yeshayahu the prophet made a most interesting reference to this word when he referred to Israelites who prepare a table for “Gawd or God” (Isa 65:11, where the KJV incorrectly translates the word as troop). 

 

As “Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary” and others all correctly note, this reference is to the Babylonian deity of fortune (yes, good old luck).  Yes, almost any dictionary will give the connections between the words “good” and “god.” 

 

“Webster’s New World Dictionary” (p. 602) starts off by saying “good (good) adj. better, best [M.E. gode < O.E. god, akin to G. gut...”  Thus, in Old English, god and good were the same word.  In time, the modern English word good then came from god. 

 

Beyond these obvious ties, there was furthermore some place names in ancient Canaan named in honor of this sun deity as Baal Gawd (Josh 11:17; 12:7; 13:5).  So historically, Gawd was not a good word to be using. 

 

The Hebrew letters for this word are a G, long A, and D.  The pronunciation as Strong’s and other Hebrew lexicons have it is Gawd or Gahd, although most English translations incorrectly render it as Gad with a short a. 

 

But again, the Hebrew text is clearly a long a which produces an “ah” or “aw” sound that automatically takes the reader to an o sound.  Thus, the word would be pronounced as “Gawd or God.” 

 

In “The Final Reformation,” author C. J. Koster ties this same Gawd to the Roman sun god Jupiter, the Indian sun god Ghuta and other sun deities as well.  Question, why would a true believer want to worship, praise and adore a name etymologically connected to sun worship? 

 

Going on, in the context under discussion, Yeshayahu also wrote that “Your name shall be a curse word among my people...and call his true servants by another name” (Isa 65:15, per the “Living Bible”).  Clearly, the focus here is on the word “Gawd” or “Gahd,” however it is to be transliterated. 

 

 

Is the Word Gawd Used in Cussing? 

 

Has the word “God” become a curse word in the contemporary Christian culture?  Of course, it has.  The whole popular society and culture in the Western Christian civilization regularly uses the word “Gawd” as a cuss word and in profanity and cursing. 

 

While this practice has been around for years in the Christian West, it has become extremely popular today as these expressions are routinely used over television and in the movies.  Small children now cuss like a band of sailors in an Asian house of prostitution.  Alternatively, do YHWH’s true servants refer to The CREATOR by another name?  Assuredly yes! 

 

 

The Greek Theos 

 

As pointed out in prior comments, the Greek theos is often used to translate the Hebrew EL, ELOHIM and ELOAH, just as the English “god” is so used.  At a first glance, the “s” sound clearly ties theos to the sun god Zeus, as mentioned earlier in connection with Greek names in general.  But there is more to come. 

 

Importantly, Koster found that the Greek verb “theo” had two meanings.  First, it meant “to run” and next “to shine.”  Then, he found that theos links back to the “lingam-yoni,” the sensual element of the Hindu religion. 

 

C. J. Koster quotes Plato that theos derives from the running nature of the sun, moon and stars.  The sun, in particular, was thought to have a running nature (across the sky) in Greek thought and mythology (Addendum, “The Final Reformation,” p. 2). 

 

Notwithstanding the problem with theos, some students of the Greek NT will come forward and cite Acts 17:23 (mentioned in previous chapters) in suggesting that the mentioned altar in Athens referred to the unknown theos and Shaul allowed that he was declaring him unto them.  Well, for people wishing to justify pagan names linked to sun worship, this text may offer them some support. 

 

While the assumption is commonly made that this altar reference was in Greek, it is possible that it was also in other languages, to include Hebrew (just as the sign was that hung over YESHUA’s head when He died.  It was written in three languages--Hebrew, Greek and Latin).  Conceivably, Shaul might have been pointing out the Hebrew ELOHIM reference on this altar. 

 

Furthermore, if the message referred to the “UNKNOWN” deity or theos, possibly this wording may have been in such a way to leave the reader in confusion about not only his existence; but also, his proper name or title.  In other words, all identification that might be associated with him was truly unknown.  If he was unknown or unidentified, it is clear that he was not theos because theos was a known deity to the Greeks. 

 

It makes no sense that Shaul would address an unknown theos and then proceed to say that the Greeks were in ignorance in their worship of this unknown deity.  The truth is that theos was known and not unknown.  In fact, the Greeks worshipped a polytheistic array of known deities.  It would be hard to imagine that they thought any of them were unknown.  So there has to be a question about the meaning of Acts 17:23. 

 

In any case, this single verse, with all of the complications of the Greek language and uncertainty of exactly how it was expressed, doesn’t go to prove anything.  The student of truth must always be prepared to look at all of the Scriptures on an issue and not settle in on a single one to prove a point.  The preponderance of evidence is against the pagan names of the deities in the heathen world. 

 

 

“Lord” 

 

Tragically, the great, Hebrew name of YHWH (the Tetragrammaton) is often translated to "Lord" in many English translations, although it is sometimes rendered as "Yahweh" or "Jehovah."  Plainly an interested person can check any good, unabridged, English dictionary and quickly discover that the source of the word "Lord" makes it also questionable in any application to The HIGHEST. 

 

Regarding this fact, the evidence is fairly persuasive and convincing that the English word "lord" is a contraction of the words "Hlod Weard" which refer to the English Deity of Death (per Webster's "Unabridged New Twentieth Century Dictionary," 1972 edition).  In addition, many English translators allow that the Hebrew word "Baali," in Hosea 2:16, means "my lord."  Moreover, a Teutonic sun deity was named Loride. 

 

In this discussion so far, much of Churchianity probably could care less one way or the other on whether the title “Christ” links to Lord Chrishna, the name “Jesus” connects to the Greek father god Zeus, “God” ties to the Babylonian deity of fortune and the title “Lord” ties to the English Deity of Death or not.  Somehow, topics like these have never interested most persons in Christendom. 

 

Perhaps such Christians would proclaim that they have more important thinks to concentrate on--such as their false concepts of love and doing "good" things for their neighbors.  Yet, per the Book, this issue of using pagan names for The HIGHEST can be a serious matter and should not be taken lightly by individuals interested in truth and real righteousness. 

 

 

The Greek Kurios, Revisited 

 

The Greek word “kurios” (cited earlier) is typically used to translate the Hebrew Adonai and the Tetragrammaton YHWH, as noted earlier herein.  These Hebrew words and kurios, as well, are generally translated into English as “Lord,” as noted above.  Interestingly, the English curious ties to kurios.  Truly, the queer Satan was the first “Curious” one! 

 

Now, what about kurios?  What is the basis of its usage in the Greek language?  Again, C. J. Koster has done some outstanding work in tracing the origin of the Greek kurios.  He found that kurios was used in ancient Greece as both a title and a proper name (like Christos and Chrestos).  He also found that Kuris is another name for the sun god Adonis. 

 

Per Koster, kurios was sometimes rendered as “kuros” (the later Persian word for sun; in old Persian, it is kur).  Kur is another name for the Babylonian sun god Nabu.  Finally, he noted that one of the Greek sun deities was mercury, in Greek “mer--kurios” (Addendum, “The Final Reformation,” p. 3). 

 

 

Sacred  

 

One of the popular English words attached to The MOST HIGH is the word sacred.  English speaking peoples routinely refer to YHWH in that context.  And every time that this word is used, it seems to immediately bring to one’s mind The HIGHEST.  But what is the source of this word?  Naturally, as C. J. Koster found, it is not good. 

 

Specifically, he reports that sacred can be traced back to the Sanskrit “Sakra.”  Quoting Larousse’s “World Mythology,” Koster noted that the Eastern Indra was one of the twelve forms of the sun deity and that he was also known as “Sakra.”  Going on--in the actual twelve Vedic form of Indra, he is called “Mitra,” the origin of the later Persian and Roman Mithra or Sol Invictus (“The Final Reformation,” p. 44). 

 

For years, one of the more successful and well known Sardis “Sacred Name” groups has been the one in Bethel, Pennsylvania.  While the Directing Elder of this assembly seems to be awful arrogant and proud, he is a good student of the Word and does publish “some” useful material on occasion in his paper, “The Sacred Name Broadcaster.” 

 

Some years ago, the fact of the linkage between Sacred and Sakra was brought to this group’s attention.  With their enormous focus on getting rid of the pagan names in worship of The HIGHEST, it would seem that the Bethel people would have dropped the word Sacred since it is so obviously wrong.  Well, they didn’t. 

 

 

Christian Preacher Titles 

 

Christian preachers seem to frequently attach themselves to high and lofty titles, much like ants are attracted to sugar (just like Jewish leaders relish after the title “rabbi,” which is categorically wrong, per Matt 23:7-8). 

 

Previous comments herein have noted how certain modern NT believers love and strive for titles--like pastor and elder--though these titles are never used in addressing religious leaders in the Word and are certainly prohibited for use in Matthew 23-7-8.  As is proven herein, in the Book, believers always address their leaders just as they would any other believer in the group--as “Brother” so and so. 

 

Otherwise, almost all Christian preachers and leaders like to be called “reverend,” and a portion of them (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, etc) like to be called “father.”  But the pope alone seems to get most of the fancy titles--like the “holy father” (which is also used by Christians for The MOST HIGH). 

 

It may be quite a shock to some.  But the Scriptures have a considerably different view on this practice of limited men using fancy titles.  For example, the Book says (per the KJV) that “holy and reverend” connect to YHWH’s name (Ps 111:9) and in a religious sense, call no man “father” (Greek “pater” and Hebrew “av,” per Matt 23:9).  However, upon a closer examination of these various words, some amazing truth emerges. 

 

First, there is a significant aspect about the popular English word “holy,” under discussion.  Most dictionaries and usages would connect it to “being pious.”  But contrast this concept with the Hebrew word “kodesh” (which is typically translated as holy).  The Hebrew kodesh more correctly means separation or being separate and set apart (per “Young’s Analytical Concordance” and other Hebrew Lexicons). 

 

Where then is the impetus to choose an English word like holy (with its meaning) and attach it to the Hebrew kodesh which has a totally different meaning?  In “The Final Reformation,” C. J. Koster looked at this problem from the standpoint of available encyclopedias and other sources and came up with some extraordinary findings. 

 

Koster quoted Jobes’ “Dictionary of Mythology, Folklore and Symbols” (p. 781) as saying that “HOLY:  In practically all languages, the word for holy has been derived from the divinely honored sun.” 

 

In Forlong’s “Encyclopedia of Religions,” Koster found that “HOLI: The Great Hindu spring festival... held in honour of Krishna, as the spring sun-god... a personified woman called Holi... Holi had tried to poison the babe Krishna.”  Hence, the source of the English word and practice called “holiday” is revealed. 

 

Even Strong’s “Greek Dictionary” notes that “heile” or “heilei” (number 1506) means “the sun’s ray.”  Koster reports that this pronounced heilei carries an equivalent meaning of the English holy.  The point of these findings in “The Final Reformation” is that the English word holy does not translate the Hebrew word kodesh.  Tragically, the English holy is a bad word which historically was associated with sun worship. 

 

 

Father 

 

Turning now to the word “father,” one can also find some very disturbing facts.  Of course, the modern word father comes from the Old English “faeder” which, in turn, is from the Greek “pater.”  And in regards to the Greek usage of pater, it is significant that it was typically attached to and functioned as a title for Zeus (per Kittel’s “TDNT”). 

 

Therefore, in Greek mythology, the sun god Zeus was more correctly “pater Zeus” (of course--because Zeus was the father god of Greek mythology).  Moreover, “Encyclopedia Britannica” notes that “pater” was the top degree in the sun worshipping Mithraic religious ceremonies.  Too, the Mithra priests were called father (v. I, No. 3, 2004, “Vendyl Jones Research Institutes Researcher,” p. 3).

 

The point of all this is that while Christian preachers might enjoy being called holy, reverend and father, there should be some concern among true believers and followers of YESHUA in their usage of these titles. 

 

Probably, for The MOST HIGH, the Hebrew “AV” and its associated derivatives (like “AVINU” in Matthew 6:9, which means Our Father) would be more appropriate.  On the question of the Hebrew kodesh, maybe it’s better to just transliterate it without attempting an English translation. 

 

 

The Christian Church 

 

In another matter, the word "Christian" (as discussed in a prior chapter) is also profoundly important to focus upon and to consider here because it has been the dominating, worldwide religion for perhaps the last 1,690 years and it claims to be the agency/people of the New Testament writings with specific authority to carry the Gospel to the pagan and heathen peoples of all lands throughout planet earth. 

 

Moreover, in conjunction with the English word "Christian," it is well to note that Christendom frequently employs the word "church" in the context of its supposed "divine commission" to evangelize the world. 

 

Thus, the phrase "Christian Church" has come to supposedly mean the very agency to represent The SUPREME in His hypothetical quest to save hordes of both Adamites and non-Adamites for their expected bliss of floating around on clouds in heaven forever and ever. 

 

Consequently, it will be useful to next look carefully at this English word "church" somewhat, before moving on with the topic at hand.  While it would be possible to write a book on the adverse features of the word church, the topic will be abbreviated here and cut short as much as possible in the interest of time and space. 

 

Initially, the word "church" is an English word used to translate the technically correct Hebrew "qahal" and Greek "ekklesia."  The primary question about church then--is it an acceptable translation for the Hebrew and Greek?  The writer of this study would say "no" for reasons to follow. 

 

Next, "Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary" gives us this definition-- "church, n. [ME. chirche, cherche; AS. circe, cyrce; Late Gr. kyriakon, a church, from Gr. kyriake  (supply doma, house), the Lord's house, from kyriakos, belonging to the Lord or Master; kyrios, lord, master, kyros, supreme power, authority,] 1. an edifice consecrated for public worship, especially one for Christian worship." 

 

The "Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible" adds that "The Eng. word 'church' with its cognate form, 'kirk' is derived form the Gr. word kyriakon, signifying 'the Lord's' or belonging to the Lord."  In terms of the real meaning of this word "Lord," the reader will at once recall the discussion on this title just presented a few paragraphs back. 

 

 

The Church of the Lord 

 

Suffice to say, there are more than enough good reasons to make a lover of Truth dispense with using a word like "Lord" as a reference or term of identification for YHWH YESHUA, His Congregation, or where His people meet. 

 

Surely, The CREATOR Of The Universe deserves more consideration, respect, courtesy and dignity than to be called by such a sorry title as "Lord" or the more popular "Lard" as much of Churchianity has chosen to use.  In short, there are alternatives. 

 

Therefore, the word "church" cannot produce any basis, support or legitimacy in trying to fall back on the very questionable "Lord" in its definition.  Without a doubt, it will take something far different and authoritative to ever justify both words "Lord" and/or "church" in the context of Truth and righteousness. 

 

Beyond the previous discussion on kurios, the root of this word "kyrios," mentioned in the above Zondervan definition, means "to swell, to be strong."  It is linked with the Sansk "sura" (meaning "strong, brave, hero"), per the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament."  By the way, all of this is suggestive of Nimrod who was called a "mighty one" and a "mighty hunter" by Moshe long ago (Gen 10:8-9). 

 

Question--could the "kyrios" mentioned so far tie in some fashion to the historic Nimrod?  Answer--it is very likely that Nimrod was the first kyrios, since this word kyrios has been used extensively in classical and mythological Greek for all of the heathen gods and rulers of ancient Greece and other nations (as well as The MESSIAH in the Greek New Testament). 

 

 

Source of Church 

 

"Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary" also tells us of the Anglo Saxon "circe" as follows:  "Circe. n. in Homer's Odyssey, an enchantress who turned men into swine."  In the Odyssey, Circe enticed men into her evil house in their hope for sex.  There, she turned them into pigs.  Per J. E. Zimmerman's "Dictionary of Classical Mythology," Circe was the daughter of the sun god Helius. 

 

In an article on “The Anatomy of a Church,” the former Dr. Ernest L. Martin wrote that Circe was famous for taming wild animals in her circus.  In the classical accounts, she is shown holding a golden cup in her hand, mixed with wine and drugs, through which she controlled the kings of the earth.  As Martin noted, this Circe must surely connect to Mystery Babylon of Revelation (chapter 17). 

 

In Appendix 186 of the excellent "Companion Bible," Dr E. W. Bullinger wrote that the English word "church" compares to the Hebrew "kikkar," meaning "a circuit or disc." 

 

"Peloubet's Bible Dictionary" noted of church-- “The derivation of the word is generally said to be from the Greek kuriakon..., belonging to the Lord.  But the derivation has been too hastily assumed.  It is probably connected with kirk, the Latin circus, circulus, the Greek kuklos.... because the congregations were gathered in circles.” 

 

"Fausset's Bible Dictionary" tied church to kirk by saying that it is "...from circus, whence kirk, a circle, because the oldest temples, as the Druid ones, were circular in form." 

 

J. B. Hannay's "Sex Symbolism in Religion" suggested that "The Saxon name church or kirk was derived from the old cult of stone circles, such as were set up by the Druids... The circle or ring is, as we will remember, the Persian door of life... All circles are feminine; we remember Yima in Russia was given a ring and a dart (our egg and dart ornament) to produce all creation, and the ring was the door to the garden which held all the seeds of life." 

 

In "The Two Babylons," Alexander Hislop wrote that "the disk, and particularly the circle, were the well-known symbols of the Sun-divinity, and figured largely in the symbolism of the East.  With the circle or disk, the head of the Sun-divinity was encompassed. 

 

"The same was the case in Pagan Rome.  Apollo, as the child of the Sun, was often so represented.  The goddesses that claimed kindred with the Sun were equally entitled to be adorned with the nimbus or luminous circle.  We give from Pompeii a representation of Circe, the daughter of the Sun... with her head surrounded with a circle, in the very same way as the head of the Roman Madonna is at this day surrounded..." 

 

 

More on the Circle and the Druids 

 

Godfrey Higgins, in "Anacalypsia," linked stone circles in India and elsewhere to sun worship.  He said that "...every cathedral or Druidical circle had its sacred mount for its processions... The ecclesiastical polity of the Romish church is, to this moment, almost wholly Druidical." 

 

In "The Egyptian's Heaven and Hell," E. A. Wallis Budge described a mythological city in the kingdom of Osiris as having "a number of Circles in which dwell the gods." 

 

Obviously, the circle was used both as a representative of the female principle in heathen worship and a classic symbol of the sun god.  The circular structures of stones, etc used by the Druids and others were likely linked to the worship of the sun god in some fashion (like the famous Stonehenge). 

 

The matter of gathering in circles and holding hands will be addressed in a future chapter.  Suffice to say, the process of gathering in circles is closely tied to the Christian Church.  In “Fossilized Customs” (p. 41-42), the previously quoted Lew White notes the practice of the early sun worshipping Druids to gather in circles. 

 

He says that many modern practices of gathering around the fire crux pole go back to the time of ancient sun worship.  White notes the Scandinavian solstice festival around a bonfire with a crux pole and the Ku Klux Klan act of circling the fire crux, symbol of the god Woden. 

 

 

A Physical Facility 

 

As observed in the various citations presented so far, the word church and its sources, by and large, suggest a physical facility for the worship of the sun god.  Conversely, the Hebrew "qahal" and the Greek "ekklesia" (as described earlier) both convey the idea of a body of worshippers and not a building or facility for worship at all. 

 

Clearly, there is no evident reason whatsoever to justify the use of the English word "church" in any of the Scriptures, except for the one instance where Luke describes a situation recognizing that certain thieves were robbing pagan "church" buildings (Acts 19:37). 

 

The place one must inevitably come to on this topic is that the English word church clearly suggests a “circle of sun worshippers,” meeting in an edifice, building or physical facility of some sort, dedicated to Circe, the daughter of the sun god Helius.  Should a true believer be worshipping in a church?  No way! 

 

The essence of the above comments is that while Christendom may see something special about the phrase "Christian Church," the truth is that both words, Christian and church, are very foreign words and ideas in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.  Hence, there is just no conceivable way that the Christian Church could ever be a representative of truth for The HIGHEST in any circumstance. 

 

 

More Problems 

 

Beyond the above presentations on “Christ, Jesus, God, Lord, Sacred, Holy, Father and church,” there are a host of other English words which tie directly or indirectly to the various pagan sun gods or sun worship.  So there is more to come on this motion.  

 

Tragically, Koster and others suggest the following links--Easter, the consort of the sun god (cited earlier and to be discussed in a later chapter); Halo (heile, the sun’s ray); Hallowed (sun image of the Krom-kruach); Sanctified (the Sabine sun god Sancus or Sanctus, who also linked to the Greek Apollo and Roman Jupiter); and Glory (splendor, as of the sun, per “The Comprehensive English Dictionary, by John Ogilvie). 

 

And more--Divine, Divinity and Deity (the Sanskrit “Div,” to shine); the German Herr (or Lord--with the sun gods Horus [Her], Hercules, Hermes, etc); Saint (Sancus or Sanctus, as noted above); Sacrifice and Sacrament (Sakra, as discussed before); and Hades (translated to hell in the KJV.  Hades was the Greek god of the nether or subterranean world--per “Bulfinch’s Mythology,” p. 910). 

 

Still more--Charismatic (Charis, the wife of the fire god Hephaistos); Mighty (machine from maya, magical power, a Hindu goddess--also, machine/mechanic, more names for the sun god Zeus); Master (from Latin Domin, the Eastern sun god Damunas); and Luck and Lucky (from the Babylonian deity Gawd and the pagan deities Luk, Luc and Lucifer, etc). 

 

As even as shocking as it may seem, but legitimate questions can be raised about the English word “Bible.” 

 

The English word “Bible” very well can link to the Greek goddess Byblis or Biblis (there was also a place name in ancient Phoenicia called Byblos which was the headquarters of the sun god Adonis, “Davis Dictionary of the Bible,” p. 804).  There is an alternative here.  One can use the word “Scriptures” to refer to the Book (Rom 1:2; II Tim 3:15). 

 

To the above fantastic list of pagan names used in the modern Western culture, one must add in the days of the week (Wodan, Donar, Frija, etc.), the Julian months (March comes from Mars, January has been named in honor of Janus, the famous Roman solar deity, etc.) and on and on (“Bulfinch’s Mythology,” p. 917). 

 

In “Christianity Unmasqued” (p. 37-39), Dan Israel makes some contributions on this theme by noting that the word “religion” is a compound made up of the two words of Rhea (or Rea) and legion.  Legion means many and Rea was the mother of the pagan gods.  Rhea also links to Re, Ra or Rae, the sun god of ancient Egypt. 

 

In another important observation, Israel notes the word “noel,” which is used in Christendom for Christmas or Xmas.  He suggests that “Noel” means “No EL.”  The Hebrew word EL refers, of course, to The HIGHEST (as discussed earlier).  Manifestly, the Christmas celebration is predicated upon sun worship and a belief that there is “No EL.” 

 

In “Come Out of Her My People” (p. vi), C. J. Koster goes on to outline a whole series of other questionable Greek words. 

 

Specifically, Koster mentions these Greek words which tie to the Greek gods--like Aer (air), Adikos (unrighteous), Anatole (east, rising), Angelos (angel), Dike (judgment, plus modern homosexual uses), Ge (soil, land), Nike (victory), Ouranos (heaven, air, sky), Nomos (law), Parthenos (virgin, maiden), Peitho (believe), Phobos (fear), Psyche (soul), Pur (fire), Tauros (bull), Zelos (zeal, jealousy), etc. 

 

 

Name Changes, Revisited 

 

A previous chapter discussed the unexplained change of the Hebrew Shaul to the Greek Paulus (which certainly ties to Zeus).  There is also the reality of how the Hebrew Shimon was changed to the Aramaic Kefa/Kepa and then later to the Greek Petros, as will be discussed in a future section on Simon Magus. 

 

Please understand that there is no issue when The ELOHIM changes the name of a man like Avram to Avraham or Yakov to Yisrael.  These changes directly involve The MOST HIGH and both names (the old and the new) are Hebrew names with Hebrew meanings. 

 

But there are problems when all of a sudden a great Hebrew name like Shaul is changed to the Greek Paulus and Elisha is changed to Eliseus--without satisfactory explanation.

 

 

A Hebrew New Testament, Revisited 

 

The point one must come to on the issue of words used in the Christian Church (as noted above and from prior chapters) is that it is virtually out of the question to speak or write in the Greek language without invoking the name of a Greek god in some fashion.  This same indictment applies to English and all other languages--except Scriptural Hebrew. 

 

Hebrew is right and correct because it is the language of The MOST HIGH.  His usage of Hebrew authenticates it and makes it right.  Surely, no honest student of the Book would attempt to argue and dispute with The MOST HIGH and His choice of Hebrew. 

 

Admittedly, there is no “sh” letter-sound in the Greek alphabet (as noted earlier) which complicates any attempt to transliterate some Hebrew names into the Greek language (with “sh” sounds, like YESHUA, Shaul, etc).  But this is no excuse to add the s and us sounds routinely to male names or otherwise corrupt names and titles to pay homage to the sun god Zeus (as is done in the Greek NT). 

 

It is not to say that YHWH, Himself, corrupted or defiled the Greek or other languages after the tower of Babel incident when He acted to confuse them (Gen 11:7-9).  Of course, He could have done so.  But the more likely view is that evil men came along in subsequent time periods and incorporated the names of their gods into their languages, contrary to YHWH’s mitzwah (Ex 23:13; Josh 23:7; Ps 16:4). 

 

One of the most important features of corruption involves the Greek alphabet (which is deficient, as just noted).  H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey make the case that the actual Greek alphabet came from the Phoenicians (“A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament,” p. 19).  Per these authors, the Greeks themselves later made some changes to it (to further complicate things). 

 

Because of this tie to the evil Edomite Phoenicians, it seems that invariably there would be problems with it from the beginning (as there were).  And obviously, the Greeks themselves certainly didn’t improve things with their “corrections” and changes.  So the alphabet had two strikes against it (as man-made). 

 

Furthermore, the likelihood that the Greeks themselves also defiled their own language has support from some observations made by Yair Davidy in his book “Lost Israelite Identity” (p. 202). 

 

Davidy says that the Greeks did not always distinguish between Israelites, Syrians and Assyrians and that the very name “Syria” is derived from a Greek mispronunciation of Assyria, even though ancient Assyria was not even in the area of Syria. 

 

This reality of defilement is of such magnitude and weight that it makes one be suspicious about the claims that any of The ELOHIM’s Words could have ever been originally recorded in Greek (or any other language for that matter--apart from Hebrew and possibly its Aramaic cognate). 

 

As noted beforehand, the evidence is overwhelming that the Scriptures were all written in Hebrew/Aramaic.  And this includes the New Testament, as well as the Tanakh. 

 

 

Hebrew Was Protected 

 

Since YHWH’s Own Torah prohibits and condemns the usage of any pagan word or name in a way that links to Him or suggests adoration or worship, it is a certainty that the Scriptural Hebrew language has not been defiled. 

 

C. J. Koster charges that the only language in the world that was protected (by The ELOHIM), from incorporating the names of pagan deities into its language, was Hebrew (“Come Out of Her My People,” p. vi).  All the other languages of man have been defiled in some way on this issue. 

 

To Koster’s conclusion, this writer would just add that the problem with these words is primarily over man’s attempts to link them to The MOST HIGH or use them in a favorable way or in worship, adoration or praise toward The HIGHEST.  Certainly, YHWH, Himself, uses the word “Baal/baal” --but usually, for communication purposes in the context of something bad or undesirable. 

 

If there was ever one fantastic piece of evidence or proof that the New Testament could not have been written in Greek, it is this one.  It is inconceivable that The CREATOR would violate His Own laws and use the Greek language to inspire His Word for man and communicate truth all the while that it is obviously riddled with a host of words that clearly tie to the sun god and the host of heaven. 

 

 

Zephaniah 3:9, Revisited 

 

One of the most important prophetic statements of all on the Hebrew language is recorded in Zephaniah 3:5-9, previously discussed.  The apocalyptic nature of this text is demonstrated in verse 8.  So it is a message for the age end and one which would follow YHWH’s judgment upon Yisrael (verses 5-6). 

 

Verse 7 is interesting in that it mentions the need of the Israelites to fear The ELOHIM in order to receive instruction.  Then comes the wonderful promise in Zephaniah 3:9, whereby The MOST HIGH says that He will produce a “pure language,” which will be used by His people to call upon His name (in worship) and to serve Him with one accord, consent and agreement. 

 

There is only one pure language in the world.  It is Hebrew.  Any person who would be stupid enough to try to suggest that that one language is Greek, English or Latin has lost touch with reality and should not even be reading this study.  Such a person is in need of help--both intellectually and spiritually.   It is absolutely a surety that the pure language under discussion is Hebrew.  There is no other way to cut it. 

 

If Hebrew was also subjected to some variations (as in the Diaspora, where Jews in different parts of the world developed some pronunciation peculiarities), surely, the Hebrew language authority in Israel (described in a prior chapter) has been actively working to purify and restore the language to its original usage. 

 

The whole process of restoring Hebrew to the vernacular (discussed previously) represents a miracle of the most profound kind.  Hebrew was virtually destroyed and extinct in the Christian world for 1,900 years. 

 

Today, in the state of Israel, Hebrew has and is being restored.  The Jews working on this effort are sincere and are assuredly being inspired and directed by The HIGHEST. 

 

Anyway the die is cast, Zephaniah 3:9 has come into focus and is coming into absolute fulfillment in our lifetime.  It is proving to be one of the great prophetic texts in the entire Scriptures.  It is the real world in the year 2003, and not just something to day-dream and speculate about. 

 

It powerfully proves that YHWH is restoring the purity of the Hebrew language; so that His people Yisrael can be instructed (in righteousness), and so that they can call upon Him and upon His name in true worship and service and with one accord (and not in the Babylonian confusion of the many languages used in Christianity). 

 

 

Restoration of Truth Seems Possible 

 

In support of an original Hebrew NT, which has historically been subjected to editing and alteration in a Greek form (probably by early Catholic editors), the point must be made that the Scriptures, overall, contain sufficient information to allow a reasonable restoration of truth, at least, in terms of names, titles and personal references.  The reader has not been left helpless! 

 

The place which one must ultimately come to on this line of research is that it is almost impossible to address The MOST HIGH by using any commonly accepted Greek or English words, without violating YAH’s laws (outlined herein). 

 

Beyond Greek and English, this same finding seems to apply to all other languages other than Hebrew.  Even the Arabic Allah is the name of a (pagan) god (per Ed Decker in “Satan’s Door to America”). 

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

The point being from this is that if a person wishes to follow YHWH YESHUA, then he/she must learn and start using Hebrew words and titles for The MOST HIGH as found in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Since the Hebrew has been used by The CREATOR, then it must be correct and not subject to questions of paganism and/or corruption. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 214--Words of the Christian Church IV

 

 

A Christian Argument 

 

The Nov-Dec 1999 “America’s Promise Newsletter” (p. 1-3) had an editorial by Dave Barley generally opposing the ideas offered in the preceding comments herein on the role of Hebrew in the true faith. 

 

This report from Barley recognized that there is a desire on the part of some persons to use certain Hebrew names in preference to what has come down to modern Americans as the so-called “translated” English names. 

 

Barley writes that “God Almighty” translated the original name into the Anglo-English version of “Jesus Christ” and blessed this name.  Yet, some modern people are calling it cursed--which is wrong, per Barley.   

 

Going on, the editorial says that the House of Israel’s captivity; migrations into different lands with different cultures and languages; various name changes; New Covenant Christianization; language changes; new lands; new and greater role in the world in the last 2,000 years; and so forth are all of “God.”  

 

 

Christian Confusion

 

In a way to supposedly drive home his point (of validating the words “God” and “Jesus Christ”), Barley notes the incredible confusion among the many modern Sacred Name and Identity people in attempting to promote their different brands of the Hebrew pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. 

 

Some of the comments made and charges raised have merit because Christendom is absolutely confused on this topic (but one does not find such similar confusion in Orthodox Judaism which is substantially better informed on the Hebrew Scriptures, language and names than pagan Christianity). 

 

Obviously, Christian Barley knows little or nothing about the topic, as well, as he demonstrates in his newsletter. 

 

It is true that many so-called, Christian believers use very different, supposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton and sometimes even some variations in the name of The MESSIAH.  But this confusion (and it is Christian Babylonian confusion) is brought about by the ignorance of the people promoting it and not from the Word. 

 

Yes, Christians (like Barley) are grossly confused on Scriptural names and titles. 

 

Conversely, it is possible for a truly converted believer (in contrast to an uninformed, sun worshipping Christian) to go to the Hebrew Scriptures and see and learn the correct names and words of The HIGHEST and their exact pronunciations.  Therefore, there is categorically no reason for all of this confusion--other than it has been spread around by Satanic forces to mislead confused and unconverted Christians. 

 

Tragically, many persons (and this certainly is true of false Christian preachers) come under demonic mental telepathic powers (coupled with their own pride and vanity) to generate and disseminate many lies and distortions and much confusion to the dumb sheep goyim under their influence. 

 

Too, YHWH has allowed the confusion to persist among individuals who are not really His followers at all. 

 

 

More 

 

There are other issues which have escaped Barley’s intellect.  For instance, are the words Zeus, Sous or Sus (as used in Gee-Zeus) accursed?  How about the words Gawd, Gahd or the Lard?  It should not take too many brains (above the moron level) to figure out that there are inherent problems with these words and syllables. 

 

In going on, can it be said that the people of modern Yisrael are blessed with the English language?  Was the English language from The MOST HIGH?  Has Yisrael been a blessing (or a curse) to the world for the past 2,000 years? 

 

As discussed in a former chapter on YAH’s divorcement of Yisrael, it is true that in going into captivity (which was ordained by YHWH as punishment for sin), Yisrael lost the Hebrew language, Sabbath sign and name of identification of her husband (in the context of chastisement and punishment for sin and not in the sense of a blessing for obedience). 

 

How about man’s attempts to change the Hebrew names and titles into something in honor of the sun god in almost all languages and cultures?  In other words, this change of names has happened in all of man’s languages and not just Greek and English.  Were these efforts truly from The SUPREME? 

 

If so, why is it that routinely people for thousands of years transliterate their names into other languages, instead of literally changing them in the sense of trying to achieve a translation?  

 

Yes, the truth is that names are always transliterated from language to language and not translated or changed in some manner (i.e., Jones is Jones all over the world, King Carlos is Carlos in England, and Prince Charles is Charles in Spain, as noted previously). 

 

 

Moshe Dayan

 

Since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, Jews have been regularly using Hebrew names (and often those from the Tanakh).  Without exception, these names are rendered in Hebrew, not only in Israel, but around the world. 

 

A few years ago, a famous, one-eyed, Israeli general named Moshe Dayan arrived on the scene.  All over the world, governments, newspapers, colleges, etc all referred to him as Moshe.  This writer has never seen one instance anyplace where a foreign country referred to Dayan as Moses Dayan.  He was always named and referred to as Moshe Dayan, even in the United States and Great Britain. 

 

Therefore, the question must inevitably be asked--why is it and how is it that Christian people are so anxious to use Greek names, linked to the Greek sun god Zeus, in attempting to refer to various Hebrew people named in the Hebrew Scriptures? 

 

 

“Jesus” Simply Won’t Hack It 

 

Of course, any idiot should be able to see that “Jesus Christ” does not and cannot ever represent YESHUA Ha MASHIACH (as noted earlier, only one name has been given for salvation [Acts 4:12; Phil 2:10] and categorically it is not Gee-Zeus/“Jesus”). 

 

Can Gawd ever be a proper substitute for the great Tetragrammaton (which will one day seal the election of the chosen ones of Yisrael--Rev 7:3; 14:1)? 

 

Incidentally, the Hebrew Tanakh does give the correct pronunciation and even the meaning of the Tetragrammaton. 

 

So it is plain foolishness to claim that there is confusion on this name.  It may be confusion among Christians and even Christian preachers (who are extremely Scripturally shallow or illiterate), but it is not confusion in the Hebrew Tanakh or to people who know and understand the Word. 

 

Moreover, was it The MOST HIGH Who Christianized the lost House of Yisrael?  Has sun worshipping Christianity (i.e. the Israelite worship of the hosts of heaven, as outlined by Stephen--Acts 7:42-44) been a blessing to Yisrael or anyone else for that matter? 

 

Of course, people who persist in believing that Christianity is the religion of the Scriptures; or at least, the religion of the NT will continue to support this thinking.   But what if Christianity is not the religion of the Scriptures, OT or NT?  What if it is pure and simple pagan sun worship?  This option was covered earlier and will be further assessed in succeeding chapters. 

 

 

Barley’s Problem 

 

Thus, Dave Barley seems to have followed in the exact same path which Adam pursued some 6,000 years ago, when he sinned for the first time.  As outlined elsewhere herein, Adam initially blamed the woman for his sin and then he turned and blamed The MOST HIGH for giving the woman to him (Gen 3:12). 

 

Christian leader Barley accuses The ELOHIM for Israel’s captivity in the 8th century BCE, various migrations to other lands from Palestine, the abandonment of the Hebrew culture for something pagan, the adoption of the English language, the use of the words “Gawd” and “Gee-Zeus” in worship (which were blessed, per Barley), and the Christianization of Israel (which was a good thing, per Barley). 

 

In Mr Barley’s view, The MOST HIGH was responsible for all of these things which came upon Israel in the last 2,700 years.  Therefore, they must be good and should be accepted and used by modern Israelites as things of good.  Since The ELOHIM is responsible for the evil in Yisrael, the Israelites themselves bear no blame for the prevailing sin (per Barley’s conclusion). 

 

Of course, Christian leader Barley could not be more wrong.  He has completely missed the point.  Before Yarovam split the kingdom, Yisrael lived in the land of Palestine.  They had an exposure and witness of truth from the Torah, the judges and prophets and from the priests who officiated at the Temple in Jerusalem.  This witness largely continued thereafter--all the way, during the divided kingdom. 

 

Though Yisrael was bound in a legal marriage with YHWH and was obligated to obey Him in the marriage role, the Israelites constantly rebelled and disobeyed.  They ignored the Scriptures and YAH’s Word in order to pursue sin and adultery. 

 

Finally, YHWH chose to divorce Yisrael, as was His prerogative.  With the divorce, she went into Assyrian bondage and lost almost all of the blessings that she had enjoyed in Canaan. 

 

This divorce has been described in some detail in prior chapters and needs no further elaboration here.  But everything which came upon Yisrael (including the loss of the Hebrew language, the loss of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, the loss of the Sabbath sign of identification, and the loss of the Hebrew culture and religion) came because of the sins of the people and not because of YHWH (as Barley charges). 

 

While these events were in the form of punishment, it must be noted that the Israelites themselves took those actions.  They lost the name, the Sabbaths and the language, simply because they willingly gave them up.  It was their choice to lose those things.  Conversely, the Jews went into Babylonian captivity and retained all of those things. 

 

To top it off, Barley actually accuses The ELOHIM for the Christianization of Yisrael.  Christianity is bad because it is categorically evil, sun worship.  Barley wishes to believe that all of this evil was good and that it came upon the rebellious, sinning Israelites as a blessing from The HIGHEST. 

 

No!  It was the sins of the people which brought about the English language; Sunday worship; eating pork; Christianity; using Gawd, Lard and Gee-Zeus; and the adoption of gross sun worship practices.  There is no way that this pile of trash and evil can be laid at the doorstep of YHWH.  The guilt here must be placed where it belongs--with the people. 

 

 

Some More of Mr. Barley’s Remarks 

 

Barley also talked about alleged Christian love and condemned the so-called spirit of Pharisaism in the Christian Church today, in the sense of being hypocritical and self righteous (and as if the ancient Pharisees and their descendants were or could be responsible for the depravity and wickedness found in the modern Christian Church). 

 

In one unique comment (ibid, p. 4), the editorial seemed to possibly relegate pork eating into the same role as that of using the so-called Sacred Names--something unimportant, in comparison with other more important issues. 

 

The America’s Promise people, like most of the other Christian Identity advocates (though Barley says his group no longer uses that nominative for identification), frequently talk about the “laws of God” as if they obey them.  If you eat pork, how can you be obedient to YHWH’s laws (and Barley is alleged to be a pork eater--or at least, he has been reportedly seen publicly eating bacon and eggs)? 

 

Is it hypocritical to say that you obey “the laws of God” all the while that you eat pork and use the cursed names of the sun god in your attempted worship of The True MOST HIGH?  Is it hypocritical to condemn others for being hypocrites (like the Pharisees)--all the while that you are a hypocrite yourself? 

 

 

A Follow-up Letter, Revisited 

 

The above article in the “America’s Promise Newsletter” evoked a reader’s letter from Richard and Janet (as discussed in a former chapter on the Septuagint), which was outlined in the Jan-Feb 2000 “America’s Promise Newsletter” (p. 7-8). 

 

The gist of this reader’s letter (its contents suggest that it was written by Richard and not by Janet.  She may have not fully shared in its message) was an allegation that The NT MESSIAH (called “Christ” by Richard) quoted from the Septuagint and that this reality “gives full authority to the fact that one does not need to know or speak Hebrew to be in the good graces with God.”

 

From the very beginning, Richard’s perception (or lack of perception) surfaces in a unique way.  He praises the Greek Septuagint and Greek NT and his version of “Christ.”  But he fails to understand that as sorry as the Greek NT is, it does give a revelation of truth in offering some legitimate status to the Hebrew MASHIACH (Dan 9:25-26), when it reveals that YESHUA was the “Messias” (Jo 1:41; 4:25). 

 

The Hebrew MASHIACH and Greek Messias are anglicized as MESSIAH in many translations.  But Yohanan’s words were subjected to some Christian translators, editors or persons who chose to alter the existing NT text by adding a few spurious or gloss remarks (in saying--the Messias, which is interpreted or called “Christ”). 

 

This amazing little gloss indicates the once presence of the legitimate title MASHIACH in the original Hebrew spoken words and in the original Hebrew NT (which came out in the Greek process as Messias).  But someone then altered the text to introduce the corrupted form of Christos, in honor of the Eastern sun god Chrishna. 

 

If Richard was much of a scholar and devotee to the Greek of 2,000 years ago, why does he not worship and praise Messias instead of “Christ?”  Even the Greek NT is honest enough to spell out the truth on this matter (despite the obvious later efforts of editors to change that truth). 

 

 

Did Richard Misunderstand Barley’s Words? 

 

Going on, in his letter, Richard makes his famous assertion that the “Greek Septuagint was the Bible at the time of Christ.  Period,” as commented upon earlier.  Now, some real problems ensue here because there is absolute confusion from Richard over what Barley actually wrote. 

 

As outlined above, Barley tries to make the case that the English language was now the language being used by The MOST HIGH to communicate with so-called Christian Israelites.  In fact, Barley specifically said that “The Bible by means of which God Almighty ‘speaks’ now to Israel is English and NOT Hebrew” (Nov-Dec 1999 “America’s Promise Newsletter,” p. 1). 

 

Barley’s article said nothing about the Greek language or about the Septuagint.  And even Barley has brains enough to understand that the original inspired OT was in Hebrew because he refers to “the original Hebrew tetragrammaton” and casts all of his remarks on the presence and status of the Hebrew language and culture in the context of Yisrael in the Scriptures. 

 

Dave Barley’s whole focus was upon his belief that English has now taken the place of Hebrew for YHWH’s communications with His people.  Thus, per Barley’s view, the English language is now The MOST HIGH’s language and English translations are therefore on an inspired level (as once was Hebrew). 

 

Since Barely did not distinguish or differentiate between the many, different, English translations, the presumption would seem to be that all of them are ordained by The MOST HIGH and therefore all of them are inspired and carry authority (although if Barley gave his teaching some thought, he might want to back off and limit the inspiration to just one, a few or several English translations and not all of them since many modern English translations are grossly sorry, as even Barley will admit). 

 

In looking at Barley’s Scriptural quotations, it appears that he uses the King James, American Standard and/or some other older translations, which have been founded upon the Hebrew Masoretic OT, and not upon the text supporting the Greek Septuagint.  In other words, Barley nowhere gives any support to the Greek language or Greek Septuagint, but strictly to the English (from the Masoretic text). 

 

 

Surfacing Babylonian Confusion 

 

Yet, Richard, whomever he is, comes along and brags and fills Barley’s ears full of flattery, pride and vanity over his article (while down-playing the Hebrew OT and language) and on Barley’s talk about Christian love (whatever that is) and the evils of Pharisaism. 

 

Of course, both Richard and Barley are Christian Identity types (although Barley now rejects that phrase).  They seem to passionately hate Jews (who do not convert to Christianity, as discussed earlier), Judaism, the Hebrew language and the Hebrew Tanakh.  Thus, it is perfectly logical that Richard would come out in support of his alleged friend’s approach to truth and righteousness. 

 

However, there is now this paradox of confusion from Richard on the whole thing.  Richard focuses upon the Greek Septuagint as the “Bible” carrying inspiration and authority.  In his view, Hebrew was out 2,000 years ago. 

 

In Barley‘s view, Hebrew is now out (although he recognizes that it once was in--in ancient Yisrael), but English is now in as carrying authority.  Barley believes so much in English that he quotes English translations in his newsletter (but he quotes those which translate from the Hebrew Masoretic OT and not those from the text or texts used in the Septuagint).  

 

So, how is it possible that Richard (if he has any brains above the moron level) could praise and glorify Barley’s article in support of English and English translations of the Hebrew Masoretic OT--all the while that he denigrates the Hebrew OT and praises the Greek OT (which has a very different textual base from the Masoretic text used in most English translations)? 

 

After all, the Greek OT is a world apart from the Hebrew OT and certainly has little or nothing in common with the older English translations of the OT. 

 

Even an English translation from the Greek Septuagint is grossly different from the English translations of the Hebrew Masoretic text.  So, if Richard tries to use an English translation of the Septuagint, he will be in a very different world today than Barley. 

 

The essence here is that poor Richard cannot have it both ways.  Both he and Barley cannot be right.  One or both of them must be wrong.  If Barley is right and English translations are authoritative, then Richard is wrong since the Greek translation cannot also be authoritative. 

 

If Richard is right and the Greek translation (from an entirely different text) is authoritative, then Barley must be wrong since he says that English translations are authoritative (apparently from the Hebrew Masoretic text).  Yet, Richard brags on Barley and says that Barley is right. 

 

 

A Change? 

 

Of course, some might try to argue that the Greek Septuagint (translated from its very different Hebrew text) was inspired and authoritative 2,000 years ago.  Since the Septuagint was translated from a Hebrew text and was certainly not in existence before the 3rd century BCE, what was the inspired Word of THE HIGHEST before then?  Even the uninformed Richard would have to admit that it was Hebrew. 

 

But at some point in time, The MOST HIGH switched again (a second time, per Richard and Barley) when He changed His inspired Word from the Greek to English translations (made from the very different Hebrew Masoretic text).  After all, Richard now agrees with Barley that English is now in.  This means, per Richard, that not only did The ELOHIM change the language, but he changed the basic OT text. 

 

Obviously, such a change would suggest a complete revision of what is righteousness of 2,000 years ago with what is righteousness today since the English translations first appeared in the 16th and 17th centuries. 

 

Even the Greek Septuagint lost much of its usage in Yisrael lands, after the Latin Vulgate came into being in the late 4th century CE (which was partially translated by Jerome from the Hebrew Masoretic text). 

 

Perhaps a good question for poor Richard is--in the void between Greek in the fourth century and the English in the 17th century, what language and what text held authority for believers?  Was it Latin--since even Christian Israelites used the Latin Scriptures (like the Vulgate)?  If The HIGHEST changes from Greek to Latin to English and uses different texts in these changes, would this be called a change? 

 

Yet, former chapters herein have quoted YHWH Who says that He does not change.  If He changes, then maybe He changed the definition of sin and conditions for salvation/redemption sometime between 70 CE to the KJV of 1611 CE.  Obviously, this line of thought is too stupid for discussion.  However, if Richard insists upon his incoherent nonsense, then this is the only way that both he and Barley can be right. 

 

Obviously, the arguments of both Barley and Richard are riddled with Babylonian confusion.  They cannot possibly be believed by any honest student of the Word who has some intelligence and ability to rationalize and think. 

 

They bounce around and constantly change the definition of the inspired Scriptures.  They start from Hebrew originals (in the Masoretic rendition) to the Greek Septuagint (with a very different Hebrew text) to the Latin (which goes back, partly to the Masoretic text) and then to the English of years ago (with the Masoretic text) and perhaps now to the modern English (with who knows what, with all of its distortions). 

 

 

Another Overlooked Feature 

 

Then there is one more issue on this Christian Identity confusion and lack of scholarship ability and Scriptural knowledge.  This is a profound point which neither Richard or Barley addresses. 

 

The Christian Identity motion (to include both Barley and Richard) believes that the Christian Israelites today are the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Germanic and kindred peoples found in America and NW Europe (presumably from Britain across Europe to even the Germanic persons in Eastern Europe--Nov-Dec 1999, Barley’s newsletter, p. 2).  This takes in a lot of people who use an awful lot of different languages. 

 

Barley said that The MOST HIGH speaks to His people Israel in English.  If this is true, how does He communicate with His people Yisrael in the European states where English is not commonly spoken.  For example, all of Scandinavia (from Iceland to Norway to Denmark to Sweden to Finland) have different languages (none of which are English, although some Scandinavians do speak English as a second language). 

 

Manifestly, their Scriptures are in each of their different languages.  Only some small portion of these people use English and English translated Scriptures.  Does this mean that these persons must all become English scholars and obtain, study and use English Scriptures in order for The ELOHIM to speak to them? 

 

Well, that’s what Barley effectively said and Richard agreed with him.  In fact, Richard denigrated the very idea that a believer would need to know Hebrew (actually, just “some” Hebrew, since the focus was only upon Hebrew names and titles associated with The HIGHEST, and not on the whole language--although there are obvious blessings in knowing the whole language). 

 

Since Richard says that it is unnecessary for English speaking people to know any Hebrew, why is it necessary for Europeans to have to learn English in order to have contact with The MOST HIGH.  If Richard does have some intelligence and is not a hypocrite, why didn’t he also condemn the need for millions of Europeans from having to learn English in order to have the authoritative Scriptures? 

 

 

Richard Has Problems 

 

Obviously, Richard, whomever he is, has some problems of understanding and logic (plus a lot of hate and venom for truth).  In a word, he seems grossly “confused” and may not be very swift (with his evident IQ level).  The tone of Richard’s letter suggests that he probably just learned about the Septuagint quotations in the NT recently, and that it is something which he knows little about. 

 

Per his letter, he does not appear to be very scholarly and probably cannot read or effectively use either Greek or Hebrew (which means that he must use translations and the ideas of other people). 

 

It is obvious too, that Barley is also sadly lacking in attempting to discuss the Hebrew language and Scriptures (however, he honestly admits that he is “not a Hebrew linguist”). 

 

 

Blind Leading the Blind

 

Therefore, these words of Richard and Barley suggest that the blind are leading the blind in the Christian Identity motion.  In which case, what happens?  They all fall into the ditch.  No wonder Christianity is so filled with Babylonian confusion (to include the Christian Identity movement). 

 

If this Richard is a leader in the Christian Identity movement and is the person this writer believes, then he uses English translations from the Masoretic text (like the KJV), which raises further questions about his character and/or brains. 

 

“If” this Richard is a colleague of the Aryan Nations sect (as is possible from the tone of his letter), it is interesting that he brags and boasts about Barley all the while that Barley routinely condemns the Aryan Nations for their Nazi practices and beliefs.  Even Barley’s Nov-Dec 1999 comments include a condemnation of Nazi ideology and the practice of calling Coloreds “mud people” (as supposedly done in Aryan Nations). 

 

Dave Barley is no fan of the Aryan Nations Nazi sect.  He regularly berates them in his newsletter with some very harsh criticism (he has even consulted with the FBI about the alleged evils and beliefs of the Aryan Nations people--Jul-Aug 1999 “America’s Promise Newsletter,” p. 2). 

 

Surely, Barley is correct in condemning the Aryan Nations in his newsletter (but one must wonder about Barley’s work with the FBI to oppress Aryan Nations) because the Aryans are not a force which promotes Scriptural truth.  Instead, they promote the occult, political Nazism and the worship/adoration of Adolf Schicklgruber (in praising him, adoring him, saluting him and marching and parading around on his birthday). 

 

The non-Scriptural, occult ceremonies and pagan worship practices found in the Aryan Nations should be condemned by honest people (i.e., the reported Ku Klux Klan cross burnings; the pagan knighting, commissioning and/or christening ceremonies with a sword; use of the pagan cross; etc). 

 

 

Not Just Problems But Major Problems  

 

Incidentally, in his flattering, bragging and boasting on Barley, Richard talked about meat and major doctrines--as if Barley’s comments were in the major, meat category, as opposed to milk and minor doctrines.  With this backdrop, one must wonder if Richard links in some way to the Aryan Nations (as seemed possible from the gist of his letter). 

 

It’s hard to fathom that a member, associate or colleague of Aryan Nations would write a letter praising Barley on his great Scriptural insight on meat and major items, all the while that the exact same Barley’s newsletter (on page 2) attacks the doctrines of the Aryan Nations sect and condemns them wholeheartedly. 

 

Effectively, Richard has major problems in many directions and is hardly in any position to be trying to be dogmatic in things which he has apparent difficulty in understanding.  One can almost be sure that empty pride (vanity) prompted poor Richard to enter the arena and try to be a scholar while teaching more confusion to the misinformed, Christian Identity goyim. 

 

Though Barley at least was coherent and made his case, this Richard, whomsoever he is, has got absolute problems.  The amazing thing is that Barley and apparently Richard (from the sense of his letter) are long time leaders and big shots in the Christian Identity movement (with its enormous hatred of anything Jewish or Hebrew which must be the motivation for the attacks upon Scriptural Hebrew). 

 

 

William F. Dankenbring, Revisited 

 

William F. Dankenbring weighed in on this question as well in his Mar-Apr 2000 “Prophecy Flash” magazine (p. 74-75).  He offers that “it was God Himself who separated the nations at the tower of Babel, and gave them different languages.”  Going on, Dankenbring then noted the situation with Daniel and his three friends whose Hebrew names were changed in Babylon (Dan 1:6-7). 

 

Though Dankenbring notes a distinction between private use versus public use, the truth seems to be that that the four men, themselves, used their Hebrew names (Dan 2:17) while Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians used their Babylonian names (Dan 2:26, 49; 3:12-30).  The Scriptures merely record the incident the way it happened.  Since the four Jews were in bondage, they had little recourse in the matter. 

 

But what does this have to do with a person “voluntarily” and with “foreknowledge” using names for The MOST HIGH in worship which link to pagan gods and deities?  When a free man voluntarily does something, as opposed to what a slave owner does with his slaves, the case can be made that the circumstances are entirely different.  It’s like to trying to compare apples and oranges.  They are not the same at all. 

 

While The MOST HIGH did change the languages at Babel, did He identify Himself in those languages with words which link to the pagan gods which those people worshipped? 

 

Is it not far more plausible that any references to Him, as The CREATOR and MOST HIGH, would have remained in their original Hebrew format and that the people chose to willingly change those Hebrew presentations into words that paid homage to their own, personal pagan gods which they had chosen to worship? 

 

In other words, the fact that the English speaking peoples use the word “Gawd” for The CREATOR is not because of any action by The CREATOR; but rather, it is because of the choice, will and fault of the people.  Thus, The HIGHEST did not drag His great name (YHWH) into the mud and cesspool of human intellect with its propensity for false, fake, sun gods and worship of the host of heaven. 

 

 

The Problem With Christian Leaders 

 

The essence here is that some Christian leaders have got some basic problems in understanding the differences between the purity and honor of the great Hebrew language (as chosen by The SOVEREIGN of the Universe), as opposed to the corruption and shortcomings found in Greek, English and other worldly languages (as developed and perpetuated by sinful men). 

 

In particular, these issues in the above mentioned “America’s Promise Newsletter” provide powerful evidence that indeed YHWH will allow the Big Brother, Amalekite plutocrats and forces of evil to commence a terrible persecution upon the contemporary Christian Identity people (and later, upon the general Christian Israelite population)--to effectively clean them up (to be discussed in later chapters). 

 

Once the Identity leaders are imprisoned and/or murdered by Big Brother and his Amalekite associates (and later, upon the essential lot of the Christian preachers and teachers), the dumb sheep under them will be able to break free and turn to YHWH’s Word to learn some truth and righteousness from the Hebrew Scriptures. 

 

Thus, Christian Identity leader Pete Peters (as quoted and discussed in previous chapters) calls his followers “my flock,” meaning his sheep (as in his Apr 2001 “Special Alert”).  Yes, they are dumb sheep--being misled by him! 

 

For sure, the day will come when both Greek and English are out for Scriptural understanding.  Hebrew is the language of the future. 

 

 

The Straw Man 

 

Christianity seems like a huge and colossal building with many paths, halls and stairways which lead to a vast array of rooms of many different sizes and shapes (actually 32,000 of them right now).  When ignorant and gullible people enter this incredible construction, they may choose any of these different paths and trails to reach one of the rooms. 

 

Part of the reason for this huge facility and its vast assortment of halls and paths leading to the 32,000 rooms is that this edifice has been constructed in the last 2,000 years upon a foundation which consists simply of a large straw man (or more correctly, a straw foundation) called the Greek New Testament. 

 

Since this straw man is made out of straw and since it is far from YHWH’s truth, the result is that this mass of inconsistency and lies represents Babylonian confusion.  The whole system is weak and lacks any true strength or durability.  It is very susceptible to a collapse (as will happen one day when YESHUA returns to establish His Kingdom over planet earth). 

 

But in the interim, a few individuals will discover the reality of this system of weakness and confusion and will be able to at least chop the straw man down (which is not a hard task, as has been discussed in former comments in this publication). 

 

Once the straw man (the Greek New Testament) comes down, guess what happens to the huge Christian building being held in place by the straw man?  Without its foundation (however weak and stupid its foundation is, in fact), the building will surely collapse. 

 

The MESSIAH’s advice to any builder is to build his building upon a rock--which manifestly is the Hebrew Torah, as amplified and clarified by the later prophets, writers, apostles and YESHUA, Himself (Who, as YHWH, was The AUTHOR of the original Torah and the source of inspiration that guided all other Scriptural writers). 

 

When a building is constructed on a rock, it can stand up to floods, storms, and so forth (Matt 7:24-27; Lu 6:48-49).  When a building is constructed on sand (or on straw), it won’t last.  It is doomed. 

 

Of course, the Apostolic Assembly was built upon a rock (Matt 16:18).  And that rock was the Tanakh in the days of the Apostolic Assembly (since there was no New Testament in those days and the Scriptures used by the people were the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures, which were assuredly focused upon the Torah). 

 

Now, should one totally ignore the New Testament?  No, of course not!  But the New Testament must be put in its proper perspective.  And that perspective is not Greek--no way, Hose! 

 

With a restoration of the New Testament to Hebrew, a realization that the basic guide to truth and righteousness is the Torah, and an understanding that the NT only clarifies and amplifies the OT, one can obtain much good use and information from the NT.  But one must use it in the right way and certainly with an understanding that it is a secondary source of information and not a primary source (as is the Torah). 

 

Thus, in the pursuit of righteousness, justice, truth and a hope for the future, the Israelite must use first the Torah, next the OT prophets and writings, and last the NT. 

 

 

A Final Word 

 

In the preceding discussion on the use of pagan names and words, some readers may try to accuse this writer of hypocrisy since these pagan words have been sometimes written herein.  Admittedly, this is a problem and issue for a speaker or writer in trying to communicate with others.  Some writers intentionally use dashes and consonants only to communicate--like g-d for god and so forth. 

 

However, this writer has tried to follow the Scriptural example where evil words do appear in the Tanakh, but not in a favorable vein and certainly not in praise or worship (like with Baal and so forth). 

 

Thus, the writer of this study has occasionally used some pagan words which link to the evil sun god--like the Christian “Jesus,” “God,” and so forth.  But these uses have been necessitated for communication purposes and not for praise.  For my part, if there is need to mention the sun worship deities of Christianity, the better choice is to use them in derision and disrespect (like with Gee-Zeus or Gawd). 

 

Otherwise, if there is a need to quote another writer or Christian people in general who do use these pagan names, the names are used in the quotation or context, but clearly showing quotation marks.  This reality means that the words belong to the author quoted or Christian people under discussion and not me. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 215--The Scriptural Ministry

 

 

The Scriptural Prophets, Apostles and Preachers 

 

As noted in previous chapters, and as will be further shown in subsequent chapters, there seems to be no requirements on who can be a preacher, teacher or leader within Christendom.  Virtually anyone can step forward and declare himself to be a Christian preacher, pastor, leader or captain of the ship.  But this is not the way it is in the Book. 

 

Starting with the man Yakov Yisrael, the Word is quite precise in first establishing that all of YHWH’s spokesmen, preachers, prophets, priests, apostles, leaders, etc were fleshly Israelites--without exception (Isa 43:1-10; 44:6-8).  This assertion certainly cannot be challenged from the Old Testament perspective.  All of the Tanakh writers were Israelites from Moshe on down to Malakhi. 

 

Not only were they “all” Israelites, but it is significant to observe that the Temple workers and priesthood were furthermore delineated by race in that they all had to be genetic Levites.  The priesthood was additionally defined racially as being limited to “Cohanim” --those who were descendants of Aaron. 

 

The same conclusion about Tanakh writers can also be stated in terms of the New Testament writers.  All of them appear to have been racial Israelites and religious Jews as well.  Some might try to argue that Luke was different.  But even Luke was probably an Israelite of the House of Yisrael, though he might not have been a Jew by any classification unless it was one of religion (as is also plausible). 

 

In regards to the collective Apostolic Assembly, the evidence is very persuasive that the membership was effectively all fleshly Israelites.  Additionally, most of them were likely religious Jews as well (again, Luke being a doubtful exception), though few of them were necessarily racial Palestinian Yehudahites, beyond YESHUA’s close family and Judas Iscariot. 

 

But even Iscariot could have been an Amalek-Edomite, posing as a Yehudahite.  In fact, his greed for money is enough to suggest that indeed he was an Amalekite, merely posing as a Jew. 

 

The Apostle Shaul was certainly of the tribe of Binyamin.  Many of the others were likely from the Galilee area and could also be of the tribe of Binyamin.  And of course, one must not rule out the possibility that some were Levites.  The Apostle Yohanan is a classic illustration of this possibility since he seems to have been a cohen (priest). 

 

 

Role of Women 

 

As covered elsewhere herein, the Word does not authorize, allow or promote the idea of women exercising authority over men or even publicly speaking in the Assembly (Gen 3:16; Isa 3:12; I Cor 11:1-15; 14:33-35; Eph 5:22-24; I Tim 2:9-12).  As will be assessed in later chapters, women are very susceptible to adverse spiritual (demonic) influences.  This makes them very unstable in leadership roles (Isa 3:12). 

 

Obviously, there is just no way that any women are going to be in positions of leadership over males in YHWH’s Congregation or publicly speaking or muttering gibberish from a demon, as is done in Pentecostal churches.  Women may supervise, teach and be in charge of other women, but not men (Titus 2:3-5). 

 

This single reality should be sufficient to alert any honest student of the Word that something is fundamentally wrong in the modern Pentecostal-Charismatic movement where women play a key role and often publicly (when they mutter their gibberish and express open demonic emotionalism, as they offer their unscriptural prayers to the sun god Gee-Zeus, to be assessed in succeeding chapters). 

 

 

Women Prophetesses 

 

By mentioning this clear Scriptural injunction against women publicly speaking and uttering gibberish in Assembly meetings, some Christians may be prompted to start hollering about a few cases of important women in the Scriptures whom did have significant prophetic roles--like Anna, Deborah, Philip’s daughters, etc. 

 

For sure, Deborah and the evangelist Philip’s daughters did not exercise any authority publicly over men, nor is there any reason to suggest that they ever publicly spoke before men.  As a friend once told me, these women evidently uttered their prophecies from their homes (Jud 4:5; Acts 21:9).  For certain, if Deborah had something for Yisrael, she would have given it to Barak and he would have proclaimed it to the people. 

 

The same is true with Philip’s daughters.  Anything Philip’s daughters had for the Apostolic Assembly would surely have been given to their father (who was a person of some rank in the Apostolic Assembly), and he would have informed the congregation. 

 

It would have been utterly out of the question for those girls to have publicly spoken before the collective congregation, as Shaul correctly pointed out.  They were humble women who knew, appreciated and accepted their role of subjugation to men. 

 

The situation with Anna is not clear in the Word beyond Luke’s note that she was a prophetess (Lu 2:36).  Apparently, she was an extremely elderly widow woman who probably knew quite a bit about humility.  In that sense, one can be sure that she did not publicly exercise her gift.  Anything she had would have likely been shared with one of the priests who would have publicly handled it. 

 

The Scriptures mention a few other prophetesses--like Huldah (II Kg 22:12-20), Miriam (Ex 15:20-21) and Noadith (Neh 6:14).  While the details of their lives are not totally clear, it is certain that they did not publicly prophesy.  Like Deborah and Philip’s daughters, they surely prophesied in their homes/places of abode. 

 

If they had something for Yisrael or the Congregation, they would have told some man in authority.  For example, Miriam would have told Moshe or Aaron, though Miriam seems to have been some sort of a leader among the women (Ex 15:20-21). 

 

It might be that she prophesied to the women.  In fact, the Book suggests that she did get big-headed on one occasion and with Aaron did proclaim some things (evidently critical of Moshe) to the people (Num 12:2, 8). 

 

The MOST HIGH was extremely angry with both of them and particularly Miriam (surely because she was trying to usurp authority over Yisrael, beyond her leadership role over the women).  In His decision to correct the sin, he chose to make Miriam a leper (Num 12:9-10).  Thereupon, Aaron personally confessed their sins to Moshe and was apparently spared any further punishment at that moment in time (Num 12:11).

 

Both Aaron and Moshe pleaded for Miriam.  After YHWH expelled her from the Congregation for seven days, she was healed and allowed back in (Num 12:12-15).  Obviously, she learned that she was not to speak before Yisrael or attempt to rule over men in any manner whatsoever.  Apparently, she got the message that she would have to be a humble woman in a subjugated role. 

 

In the only Scriptural example of Huldah’s work, the Word reflects that the priest Hilkiah and certain other men came to her, clearly in her home, to receive her prophecies (II Kg 22:14).  It was these men who proclaimed her prophecies to others.  This is the classic illustration of how a true woman prophetess should act and function in Yisrael. 

 

 

Children Are Out As Well 

 

The next obvious requirement for YHWH’s true ministry is the matter of age.  Maybe, the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses will send out children and young adult missionaries, but not so by the Book.  Per the Word, the age of maturity and of teaching for The ELOHIM is mandated by law as being 30 years of age (Num 4:3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47; Lu 3:23).  YESHUA, Himself, obeyed this law (Lu 3:23). 

 

Manifestly, there is a clear age limitation factor for representing YHWH.  One can be absolutely sure that all of YHWH’s spokesmen were at least 30 years old. 

 

Consequently, there is no Scriptural authority or allowance for small children or women to be priests, preachers, teachers, evangelists, etc.  While this unscriptural condition is found in Christendom, generally, and within the Holy Roller movement, particularly, it has no support in the Word. 

 

It sounds like something one would find in some of the old sun worship cults in the West.  The prophet Yeshayahu must have had this situation in mind when he wrote about the age ending Israelites, in the context that women rule over the men and children are their oppressors, which leads to a destruction of their paths (Isa 3:12). 

 

 

The Commission 

 

Beyond the above obvious realities, it is also manifest that in all cases, The MOST HIGH makes the selection and determination on the “who” for His ministry.  Significantly, not only did YHWH YESHUA decide; but often, the individual He selected did not initially want the commission and tried to evade it (i.e. Moshe, Yonah, Yeshayahu, Shaul, etc). 

 

In connection with the grant of a formal commission of authority, it should be noted that in most cases, the commission was granted to the chosen prophet, apostle, etc by a personal visit of YHWH in the Tanakh or YHWH YESHUA in the New Testament. 

 

There were at least a few exceptions to this reality of YHWH YESHUA’s personal involvement in the grant.  When the Apostolic Assembly had to choose a replacement for Judas, they used the “lot” (Acts 1:26).  Also, there is some Scriptural evidence which would suggest that the apostles had authority to commission certain people for service--obviously those persons chosen by The RUACH HA KODESH (Acts 19:1-10). 

 

Subsequent chapters herein will assess The Baptism of The RUACH HA KODESH and/or of Fire and the grants of power to the apostles to work miracles, signs, healings and so forth.  Suffice to say, these grants of power authenticated and proved their commissions. 

 

 

Other Grants of Authority 

 

Before moving on with a more careful look at the office of an apostle, it would be well to acknowledge and comment on two other supposed grants of authority to certainly the apostles of the Apostolic Assembly.  One of these grants involved the so-called forgiveness of sins mentioned by Yohanan, as described and commented on in some detail in a prior chapter (Jo 20:23). 

 

Beyond Christendom’s confusion over this matter of forgiving sin and attempting to misappropriate that authority, there is another most fascinating issue which likewise confuses Christian preachers--so much so that they often try to use it as a special grant of particular authority for themselves. 

 

This second misused reference, also previously commented upon herein, concerns the occasion when YESHUA told Kefa and the collective disciples that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven (as the KJV seems to communicate in Matt 16:19; 18:18-20). 

 

Numbers of pagan Christian churches, all the way from the Roman Catholic Church to the Worldwide Church of God, have read those words and seized upon them to be special authorizations for them to mandate right and wrong for their people (define sin and righteousness).  For sure, these false Christian teachings are totally wrong! 

 

 

Forbidding and Permitting 

 

In the first place, a number of NT translators in the 20th century have looked at the underlying Greek texts involved in Mattityahu’s remarks and concluded that they were saying--whatever you forbid on earth will be or must be what is (already) forbidden in heaven and whatever you permit on earth will be or must be what is (already) permitted in heaven. 

 

John Lightfoot’s “Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud and Hebraica” (v. II, p. 235-241) has some very interesting comments on these words from Mattityahu.  Lightfoot says that the Second Temple School of Shammai tended to bind many things while the School of Hillel tended to loose them.  This situation was discussed earlier in the context of the Talmud. 

 

For example, Shammai Pharisees would say that it was forbidden to mix wine and oil on the Sabbath day to anoint a sick man (for fear of transgressing the Sabbath), while Hillel Pharisees would loose that restriction.  Shammai would say not to start a journey over the Mediterranean Sea after the fourth day of the Week.  However, Hillel would allow it. 

 

Thus, the Shammai people would tend to make obedience of The ELOHIM’s Torah more of a burden with various man-made restrictions (and also rituals, as noted in an earlier chapter), while the Hillel people tended to minimize or limit man-made restrictions (and rituals as well). 

 

Incidentally, it was this distinction which promoted most of the differences between YESHUA (A Hillel PHARISEE) and the Shammai Pharisees, particularly over their Sabbath interpretations and the washing of hands, as noted earlier. 

 

The point of this is that in applying the law of Moshe, there is a need to sometimes do some “interpretation” which can be subject to different opinions.  Evidently, in Second Temple days, that authority rested with the scribes and Pharisees (Deut 17:8-13; Matt 23:2-3).  For the non-conformist Essenes (who rejected the authority of the Oral Law and the authority of the scribes and Pharisees), they developed their own rules. 

 

The Essene situation was described in a former chapter and there is no need to repeat all of those comments.  Suffice to say, the Qumran authorities promulgated a number of ordinances (discussed earlier) that specifically focused on some of YAH’s laws which do not state the necessary particulars to allow their fulfillment.  Exodus 30:13-14 and Leviticus 15:13, both discussed previously, are examples of such a dilemma. 

 

As discussed formerly, the people believed that The EL cared about His laws and having His people obey them correctly (remember, YESHUA said that The EL’s people must worship Him in spirit and in truth--Jo 4:24). 

 

 

Making Decisions 

 

Obviously, there were right and wrong ways of performing His commandments in order to please and serve Him.  If some of the details were discretionary or were not readily ascertainable from the Word, local group authorities had to act. 

 

Although that authority apparently rested with the Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees (Deut 17:8-13; Matt 23:2-3), there might be some concern with its placement with the Essenes.  In any case, the Qumran sect rejected the Jerusalem power structure and chose to assume the same binding and loosing authority for its people. 

 

To the extent that the Essenes (or the later Karaites) and any one of the thousands of particular Christian denominations in existence may be legitimate, they certainly have the power to decide discretionary matters and to establish necessary details to fulfill YAH’s Torah.  Actually, the case can be made that none of these groups are legitimate.  If so, this condition may raise questions about the authority that they assume. 

 

In any case, there are issues which are discretionary and subject to local interpretation.  They are discretionary only because YHWH did not legislate them in His Word. 

 

The question now comes up as to whether this permission was subsequently transferred to the Apostolic Assembly or not.  If not, then it still rests with the “rabbis” of Orthodox Judaism. 

 

The binding and loosing discussions by YESHUA (Matt 16:19; 18:18-20) and subsequent remarks by Shaul to the Colossians (Col 1:18, 2:16-17, discussed in a prior chapter) suggest that  this authority (of sitting in Moshe’s seat; Deut 17:8-13; Matt 23:2-3) was given to the Apostolic Assembly (also to be present with the age ending Philadelphia Congregation). 

 

 

Discretionary Authority 

 

In that sense, some aspects of the Passover meal and ceremony (and many other things) were and are of necessity discretional issues subject to legitimate interpretation and are subject to the decision of the local Assembly which apparently sits in Moshe’s seat, just as the scribes and Pharisees did in Second Temple days. 

 

Please understand that here the concern is not over statements/commands legislated by YHWH.  The discretionary authority applies solely to discretionary items that were not and/or could not be legislated. 

 

If The ELOHIM specified all of the particulars on a subject, then the discretionary aspects of its accomplishment would have become fixed and not subject to local interpretation.  There is no room now or ever for discretionary decisions when YAH’s Word formally legislates a point. 

 

Consequently, the NT Assembly and elders faced a need to sometimes make decisions about discretionary or non-stipulated matters to insure that YHWH’s mitzwot, as written by Moshe, were properly obeyed. 

 

In the context of making judgments on applying and interpreting YHWH’s Torah, it seems that YESHUA gave the apostles and NT leaders authority to bind and loose those judgmental decisions--just as the Second Temple “rabbis” had authority to establish binding and loosing provisions in their interpretations and applications of The ELOHIM’s laws (as outlined in Matt 23:2-3, discussed previously). 

 

Effectively, Mattityahu’s comments were seemingly along the line that the disciples were (to be) granted the spirit of truth in the baptism of The RUACH HA KODESH.  They would have supernatural help in properly interpreting and applying YHWH’s Torah in the context of things subject to interpretation or discretion in application. 

 

As they bound or permitted things (in the methodology of the “rabbis”), such decisions would be honored in heaven.  Of course, it goes without saying that it was and is only those items which are discretionary or which are not sufficiently clear in terms of details which will be subject to binding in heaven. 

 

 

True Apostles 

 

After YESHUA departed earth for heaven, He left an Apostolic Assembly organization (the body) supervised by twelve, overseeing, male apostles (one for each of the twelve tribes of Yisrael).  Whenever one of them died or was killed off (as periodically happened during the life of the Apostolic Assembly), he was replaced--sometimes or always by lot in any case of doubt about YHWH’s choice (Acts 1:15-26). 

 

A prior chapter focused on the conversion of Shaul and the role that Ananias played in that transition.  Since Ananias seems to have imparted The RUACH HA KODESH (to Shaul), with the laying on of his hands, it would appear that he likely was an apostle.  If he was not an apostle, then something is assuredly wrong in the context of Acts 8-9. 

 

Just as Judas was replaced by Matthias, it could be that by the time of Shaul’s conversion in Acts 9 (which could have been as late as 36 CE), another of the apostles had died and had been replaced by Ananias (to make up the quorum of twelve).  Perhaps 20 or so persons eventually became apostles to serve on this leadership board or group of twelve during the life of the Apostolic Assembly. 

 

The qualifications of a true apostle were laid out in the Word--which evidently included the need for the candidate to have been a witness of the reality of YESHUA’s life, death and resurrection in 30 CE (Matt 10:2-42; Acts 1:15-26; I Cor 9:1). 

 

Since the qualifications of an apostle were clearly set forth in the Book, it is manifest that Shaul, Bar-Nabba and all the other apostles to eventually be appointed met those qualifications (evidently to include the just mentioned Ananias). 

 

There is no problem at all in allowing that all of these individuals lived in Palestine in 30 CE to witness the reality of YESHUA’s life, death and resurrection.  Shaul and Bar-Nabba, in the beginning, seem to have had no particular office or authority.  Later, they became prophets (Acts 13:1-3), before eventually becoming apostles (Acts 14:4, 14). 

 

Were they witnesses of YESHUA’s life, death and resurrection?  The answer seems to be yes and particularly so with Shaul who subsequently testified of seeing YESHUA (I Cor 9:1).  Shaul also seems to have said that he saw Him after the flesh (II Cor 5:16). 

 

Both A. T. Robertson’s “Word Pictures in the New Testament” (v. iv, p. 231) and “The Expositor’s Greek Testament” (v. 3, p. 70-71) seem to allow that Shaul saw YESHUA in the flesh during His ministry, although there is also a contrary position outlined in the Expositor’s presentation. 

 

All of these men who served as apostles seemingly died (or were translated to their new immortal bodies when YESHUA returned c70 CE) except for possibly Yohanan who was evidently ordained to be one of the two age ending witnesses and perhaps never faced death in the flesh or achieved immortality in the first century (Rev 10:11). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 216--The Christian Ministry

 

 

Christian Preachers vis-à-vis The Scriptures 

 

The determination of “who” can be or is to be a Christian “preacher” is considerably different in the world of Churchianity than what the Scriptures actually outline (as described in the preceding chapter).  As Christendom sees it, the truth is that virtually anyone can decide on his own to be a Christian preacher or spokesman. 

 

It is almost entirely a personal choice and decision which seems to be the exact, same situation with the priests of most of the ancient sun worship religious groups.  In other words, anyone can up and decide to be a sun worship priest or a Christian preacher. 

 

This openness of the ministry among Christians brings up a fascinating little remark this writer heard years ago by Worldwide Church of God spokesman Garner Ted Armstrong.  He told the story of a farmer seeing a vision while out in one of his fields one day.  The farmer in the story (parable) saw the letters “PC” in the sky. 

 

Immediately, the farmer concluded that the PC was a commission for him to “preach Christ.”  However, the farmer got it all wrong.  As it turned out, the PC actually meant “plant corn.”  This story brings to mind a prophecy by Zekharyah of a coming time when some false prophets will be ashamed and acknowledge that they are really farmers and not prophets at all (Zech 13:2-5). 

 

Surely, in the Tanakh, there is the greatest of condemnations for false preachers and prophets.  Perhaps the problem with false teachers is not so much the fact that their bad teachings affect not only their own lives, but their erroneous teachings affect the lives of their students and listeners.  Maybe that is the reason that Yakov promised a greater judgment for would be teachers, as elsewhere discussed herein (Jas 3:1). 

 

 

Yes, A Personal Choice 

 

While some Christian denominational leaders and big shots encourage and promote the idea of the ministry to their followers, generally, they sometimes devote particular attention to specific people at particular times. 

 

Regardless of where the impetus might have come from, the fact remains that the choice of the Christian ministry is essentially a matter of the choice and decision of the individual Christian person. 

 

Of course, some denominations have schools, seminaries and training courses for the individuals that choose the particular denominational ministries.  One can see these curriculum requirements--especially in the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and some of the older, main-line, Protestant churches. 

 

Some groups have demands that their preachers be males or of a so-called adult age (20 or so).  But others, like the Pentecostal Holy Rollers and liberal churches, have almost no restrictions.  In these cases, almost anyone can be a Christian preacher--including queers, women, small children, the behemah, the chaiyah, nokri/nekar aliens and so forth. 

 

Yes, some Christian preachers start very early in life in learning how to con money out of the suckers.  And money is the name of the Christian game.  Marjoe Gortner, to be later discussed, started at age four. 

 

Importantly, many people self appoint themselves as religious leaders--apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, elders and so forth (as mentioned above and in former chapters).  A subsequent chapter will focus on a group of Holy Rollers in Northeast Washington.  The self appointed leader of this entity apparently has or does refer to himself as the captain of the ship (as some of his colleagues note). 

 

 

The Building 

 

This NE Washington preacher built a so-called church building on his land and he preaches and teaches his ideas to anyone who will come and listen to him on Sabbaths.  Since he owns and controls his own church building, it is “his church” (it does not belong to the congregation)  So anyone coming to it must accept his oversight and rule. 

 

This is not unusual among many Christian big shots--especially in the Sacred Name, Identity and Holy Roller movements.  Many of the pastors and elders in these small sects are self appointed.  Very often, the way they get started is to build a building for worship on their property and hold themselves out to others as Pastor or Elder so and so.  With ownership of the building, no one can challenge their rule. 

 

Besides the WA captain of the ship, this writer has known of a number of similar people who set themselves up in authority to represent and speak for The MOST HIGH (without His authority or commission).  There are at least two small Sacred Name groups North of Van Buren, Arkansas which started when the self designated leader built a worship building on his property and opened it to the public for services. 

 

Logically, these small groups should not have much success at all.  But usually, the founders of these groups have a large family and the leader starts with family members, neighbors and friends.  Sometimes, it only takes a very few people to hold Christian services (three or so).  Most family men with some children can always start a church.  This seems to be what happened in Arkansas and Washington state. 

 

The Christian Identity sun worship churches are notorious for starting with a self appointed pastor or leader building a Christian Church on his property and setting up shop for all those who will come.  Actually, one can go down the list of them in today’s modern world and most have gotten their start precisely in this manner. 

 

 

The Contrast With Truth 

 

Contrast this Christian approach with the situation with Messianic synagogues in the Apostolic Assembly (as established in Shaul’s letters to Timothy, Titus and Corinthians).  The evidence is massive that they followed the organizational arrangement of the traditional Jewish synagogue (as described in previous commentary herein). 

 

In this sense, one can be sure that these congregations were founded with apostolic authority and must have included the historic Jewish minyan for a congregation, which is organized and becomes reality with ten male members who have at least passed the Bar Mitzwot stage--age thirteen or older (“A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice,” p. 14). 

 

When a Jewish congregation is organized, it is founded by the members.  The building they normally use belongs to the membership/congregation and not to the preacher or someone else who built it (if the builder wants to serve YHWH, he normally builds the building and gives it to the congregation).  The elders select their board of governors or leaders; who, in turn, appoint the shammashim (deacons) to serve the membership. 

 

In the case of the previously discussed Aryan Nations and the just mentioned Northeast Washington group--if the members or people attending don’t like the direction being charted by the captains of the ships (or the open rebellion and contempt toward the Torah in the groups), it’s just tough.  They can do nothing about it--except quit and leave. 

 

Jewish synagogues don’t work that way.  The building belongs to the people and it is supervised by a board generally of twelve elders.  If the people in the synagogue don’t like the way things are going, the bosses can be removed and replaced by more competent and interested people. 

 

 

The Role of Charisma 

 

One of the realities of living in this present world is that if a person has a little charisma and charm, he can fool many of his contemporaries and will have a heads up on the prospects for success in this life of the flesh and especially in the vein of how the Western, Christian civilization and culture function. 

 

It just works out that he (or she) can often obtain quite a following with a little charisma.  It happened with William Miller in the 1830s, with Herbert W. Armstrong in the 1930s and numbers of others even today.  Therefore, any number of false, evil, Christian preachers have had some measure of success, essentially for the one reason that they were persons with charisma and charm. 

 

Gullible, uninformed and misinformed people just love charismatic leaders who can charm them and deceive them as to reality.  It just works out that way in the real world--in the context of politics, business, economics, religion and on and on.  Obviously, many, false, pagan preachers have been able to capitalize upon their personalities and have succeeded. 

 

One finds this very common in much of the Christian world and this includes the situation with Christian Identity preachers, as mentioned elsewhere herein (in the vein that once the secular society arrests and either murders them or ships them off to concentration camps, their dumb sheep followers may be able to break free of their false teachings and actually turn to YESHUA and truth here in the age end). 

 

 

Charisma Fools the Suckers 

 

It seems that most ignorant and uninformed Christians are attracted to people with charisma rather than to persons with Scriptural knowledge, understanding and truth.  Limited humans/humanoids love to follow charismatic leaders. 

 

Since the vast majority of people are not interested in pursuing and seeking truth, this reality of Scriptural ignorance helps the charismatic leader put over his false teachings.  Consequently, most of his lies and false teachings go unchallenged. 

 

Though these Christian leaders, preachers and big shots are extremely Scripturally shallow and largely ignorant about profound subjects in the Tanakh, most of them do have enough charisma and can quote a few NT texts (which they usually misuse and manifestly misunderstand).  Again, this is even true with the Christian Identity big shots, discussed earlier. 

 

Like his/her fellow Christians, in general, the typical Christian Identity person is totally unable to follow the instructions presented in I John 4:1-7.  The Book is clear enough.  The students of truth must test and try the messages that are placed into their minds from whatever source.  By checking upon what a preacher says, as opposed to how much charisma he has, it is possible to determine whether he is a man of truth or not. 

 

 

Oliver North 

 

This same reasoning applies in the secular world.  For instance, Oliver North (in the Reagan administration) was a very charismatic person who could talk and talk convincingly to fool a lot of people.  But North was a very disobedient employee with his boss (i.e. Admiral Poindexter, who gave him orders which he did not obey--like when he was told to get rid of his slush fund and he didn’t). 

 

North was also careless and irresponsible (like when he left critical, detrimental messages in his computer; which could destroy him, his supervisor and almost bring down a president) and he was a definite, loose cannon (doing things without authority, like when he became involved in diplomatic issues with Iran).  His charisma helped him greatly to fool people.  But he was a big disaster as an employee and worker. 

 

 

In the Christian Game, as Well 

 

Christianity is full of lying, deceiving preachers and teachers who are doing their level best to raise up followers and particularly followers with money (since money is the name of the Christian game).  This is true with Christian Identity preachers, as well as the rest of Christendom.  With a little charisma and ability to deceive and mislead, they are able to generate a class of suckers to follow them. 

 

Why is it and how is it that most supposed followers of YESHUA are so incredibly shallow and ignorant about the Book that they are totally incapable of using the Scriptures to check these wolves out who come to them in sheep’s clothing?  Why can’t followers of YESHUA be people of truth who turn to the Word for truth instead of to charismatic preachers and leaders? 

 

Quite naturally, with a little charisma and influence (often on the emotional level), these evil Christian charlatans are able to obtain followers and indeed even money.  Most ignorant persons enjoy following and giving money and devotion to a Christian preacher who has a little charisma and the gift of the gab.  Since the human heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, these liars can become quite successful. 

 

It is indeed a very rare Christian who has enough sense and Scriptural honesty to see through these charlatans and reject them for being false prophets and teachers.  It looks like a person with some familiarity with the Scriptures would take a stand and not become a dupe and follower of a fraud who teaches against the Torah.  But many do become followers of Christian frauds! 

 

The subject of charisma and the success of various Christian preachers in using it will be assessed in later chapters.  Suffice to say, personal charisma works and almost guarantees the likelihood of a measure of success at whatever in this life.  However, in the world tomorrow, issues will be decided based on truth and righteousness and not upon charismatic leaders. 

 

If a man has a little charisma in this life, he especially will appeal to persons who are “feelers” in personality and temperament.  The typical feeler makes decisions on the basis of how he feels about somebody or something; rather than on objectivity, facts, logic and truth.  Feelers are notorious for becoming followers of charismatic people.  If they are also perceiving in temperament, it merely adds to their gullibility. 

 

With some charisma and the beginning of a following from a group of feelers and perceiving types (or family members, if necessary), it isn’t long before some preachers can create quite a religious organization.  Actually, most or many of the Christian Churches started precisely this way over the years. 

 

 

More From Northeastern Washington 

 

A later chapter will discuss the situation with the group of Holy Roller Pentecostals and Charismatics in Northeastern Washington state, as noted above.  There is the captain of the ship (the captain of the group); who, at first, seems like a likable man.  But he is heavily influenced by his Holy Roller demon and really obeys almost nothing from the Scriptures--beyond the traditional laws that are used to promote Christian humanism. 

 

The captain’s background is Seventh Day Baptist and later Pentecostalism.  Thus, he supposedly is a Sabbathkeeper and probably does not eat pork.  This condition might make some Scriptural shallow people believe that he is actually obedient.  But he is not really obedient.  Because otherwise, his heart, mind and attention are far removed from YHWH’s Torah and righteousness. 

 

The man appears to be an SP in personality and temperament.  Consequently, he is notorious about vacillating on issues and never being able to take a firm stand on things.  Perhaps it is this condition which makes him appear to be very compromising in respect to obedience. 

 

Though he is reportedly a Sabbathkeeper, it appears that both him and his congregation are known for transgressing the Sabbath.  This condition of Sabbath breaking will be more fully explored in a later chapter that discusses this particular Northeast Washington Holy Roller group in some detail. 

 

In any case, the captain of the ship may not be a true Sabbathkeeper at all.  At least, there seems to be some question about his role in teaching the Sabbath.  The same thing is true regarding the annual Sabbaths and feast days.  The captain and some of his people supposedly keep these occasions. 

 

But they don’t appear to have any firm rules and guilds about when or how to keep them (they have never read or understood these realities from the Word).  Actually, the captain says he believes one thing about when the feasts should be kept, but then goes on to keep them on other dates (contrary to his supposed belief).  Surely, this action constitutes gross hypocrisy!  

 

In this writer’s contact with the captain of the ship, the evidence seems to be that the man has a competence problem, much like the situation with Aryan Nations.  He vacillates and bounces around in confusion simply because he lacks knowledge and understanding.  Nevertheless, he has set himself up a religious teacher and leader of other people. 

 

 

Success and Followers 

 

Despite his compromising and vacillating attitude and clear lack of Scriptural understanding and obedience, the man has had a measure of success in his own church or assembly building.  He has a few Holy Roller followers who come to his weekly services, and submit to his preaching and teaching (mainly his relatives, over the years). 

 

In particular, he has one young follower who also seems to have the same type of Holy Roller, demon spirit.  This young man appears to be somewhat dedicated to the Torah (at least, he implied that idea once to me in a conversation, although he apparently has and does flagrantly transgress the Sabbath on occasions--as is true with the NE Washington group of people that he fellowships with, to be later discussed). 

 

For sure, this young fellow has been reading some of the Torah and may possibly be beginning to obey some things which traditional Christians and their leaders hate (to include his captain of the ship and his Holy Roller brethren). 

 

The young man is along enough in the Word to understand that he should wear a beard (though his leader does not understand this simple truth--since the leader shaves), and the young man also claims to see the need to leave gleanings in his agricultural fields (apparently, his preacher knows nothing about these things).  Otherwise, it is unclear to what extent the young man is actually obedient. 

 

It has been a mystery to me how a person who reads and begins to obey some things from the Torah could continue to be a follower of a false preacher.  But this young fellow is such a person.  He seems to willingly take in every word of his preacher, though he must be able to put two and two together to grasp that his preacher is a liar or is extremely shallow in the Book. 

 

Why does this enigma continue?  Probably, the answer here is that the preacher has a certain level of charisma and is able to convey an image of sincerity and devotion to the Scriptures.  This image is, of course, false.  But it can and does fool a lot of people. 

 

The young man, his wife and a few others do come and listen to the preacher teach his rebellion against the Torah.  It looks like the young fellow and any of the others who might want to take the Torah seriously would wake up and quit fellowshipping with the preacher.  But they are friends and the preacher has some charisma.  So the blind followers follow him (the blind follow the blind and both end up in the ditch). 

 

 

The Problem of Christian Apathy and Ignorance in Leaders 

 

One of the fall-outs of Christian preachers setting themselves up as pastors, elders, bosses, leaders, big shots, captains of the ship and so forth is that this leadership may have some charisma and even a measure of success (particularly when the leader builds his own church on his own property, so that no one can dispute his leadership), but tragically it is often lacking otherwise. 

 

In many cases, these self-appointed leaders are extremely shallow Scripturally (in knowledge, understanding and even in obedience), and sometimes they are just filled with apathy, indifference and don’t care about progressing into more Scriptural truth (this might create a situation where they have to depend upon someone else for instruction and teaching and this cannot be allowed since the self-appointed boss cannot have someone else acting in an authoritative role). 

 

So much apathy and indifference to truth can easily prevail in these groups with self-appointed leaders.  Some classic illustrations of apathy, indifference and the could care less attitude have already been discussed earlier herein in the vein of pride and vanity (which is always a problem in the actions of limited men).   But a couple more will be mentioned here in these remarks on Christian leadership. 

 

 

Our Place 

 

A classic case of apathy and indifference came to my attention on the 17th day of the 12th Scriptural month of Adar in the Julian year of 2000.  This writer had an old listing of various Christian Identify groups of about ten years earlier.  The list included one group which was not familiar to me. 

 

This group, Our Place, had an old Star Route address and a box number in the Northport, Washington area that had changed to road/street addresses some years ago.  With a desire to become acquainted with the group, it was necessary to go along the route and stop at a couple of houses to find out their old box numbers so that the appropriate box could be found. 

 

A woman at one house said that she was not acquainted with the group involved, but the man across the road would know them since he had lived there many years and conducted weekly religious services at his home.  So this writer went to the house and asked this man (an older man perhaps in his 60s). 

 

He immediately recognized the name and was familiar with the group and many of its people.  He told me exactly where they were located (across the mountain some miles). 

 

Once the man mentioned some of the people in the sect (or more correctly, the cult) and exactly where it was located, this writer recognized the group at once (but it was known to me under a different name).  As it turned out, the group was the Pentecostal/Charismatic Identity group already known to me (as headed by the captain of the ship, mentioned above in NE Washington). 

 

After leaving the man’s house, the thought came to me that the man might have been involved with the Our Place entity (because of his obvious knowledge about the group and people).  So i went back to ask him.  He said “no” that he had not been involved religiously with them, but had done some bulldozer work for them. 

 

The man went on to proudly say that he was a Baptist and on Wednesdays, he conducted a “Bible study and prayer meeting” in his home. 

 

He then did some more bragging and boasting to add that he had given land to build a nearby, large Southern Baptist Church (which was, by the way, a classic sun worship temple, complete with a large steeple, stained glass windows and everything one would expect in a sun edifice). 

 

At first, he didn’t say much about the Christian Identity Our Place people.  But he noted that they had some strange beliefs.  Being curious, i asked him if he would mind clarifying what kind of strange beliefs they had.  He said that they were into legalism and were a White supremacist group. 

 

Then, to prove his point on supposedly how evil and/or unchristian they were, he mentioned a Mexican family that had moved near them and tried to have fellowship with them.  But this didn’t work out.  So the Mexicans moved away (perhaps they had only been in a rent house); and then, evidently complained to him or others about the religion of the Our Place people. 

 

 

The Christian Idea 

 

Being a Southern Baptist, probably his mentality was focused upon the Christian ideas of goodness and being neighborly.  In other words, the modern Christian approach is that if someone new moves into a neighborhood, the local church people roll out the welcome mat and try to get the new people to come to Christian sun worship services.  Obviously, this didn’t happen with Our Place and the Mexicans. 

 

With his complaint about the White supremacists involved (which was an unfair and grossly wrong charge since this writer knew the people after all and they were not White supremacists--neither were they legalists, though they did supposedly keep the Seventh day Sabbath), the fact was mentioned to him that the most famous White supremacist i knew of was Abraham Lincoln. 

 

This writer then raised a question to this older man (who was supposed to be a local community leader, big shot in the Baptist Church and “Bible” teacher) asking if all so-called human beings in the world clearly came from one Adam and Eve.  Immediately, he proclaimed that all human beings were created equal and that we all are of the same blood. 

 

Again, he had it all wrong.  This equal business in America didn’t come from the Word, but from Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.  But even here, there are problems because when Jefferson used the word “equal,” he was not referring to Blacks (since he was a slave-holder and certainly never believed that thinking) or Indians (whom he called savages). 

 

Finally, we are not all of the same blood (as proven earlier herein). 

 

 

Truth Can Be Had 

 

Without trying to argue with the man (because he was a proud, ignorant bigot and very prejudiced with a lot of false information, probably from his childhood), this writer suggested that the whole question of the different races can easily be settled from the Scriptures since they plainly communicate the truth.  Well, he seemed just a little interested.  So i proceeded to give him a brief idea of how to prove it. 

 

This writer brought up the need for a good concordance and mentioned Strong’s.  He said that he did not own one, but that there was a Strong’s over at the Baptist Church.  The suggestion was made for him to get it and note that the proper, noun name of Adam appears repeatedly in English translations as man.  This is wrong.  Adam is a name and should not have been translated to man. 

 

Next, the need to address the two Hebrew words of behemah and chaiyah was mentioned.  With a contextual study of those two words, it is possible to understand much about the creation of the different races in Genesis one.  The point was made that this research would take some time and effort to do using “Strong’s Concordance.” 

 

The very mention of needing some time and work to learn truth must have struck the man wrong.  He promptly suggested that it was not necessary to waste time on these word studies because he had “Gee-Zeus Christ” and that’s all that is needed in his life.  He went on to suggest that one of the other problems with the Our Place people was in  making such word studies. 

 

Realizing that i had struck a wrong cord, i courteously thanked him for his time and information on Our Place and left. 

 

 

Apathy and Idolatry 

 

So here we have an older man who has surely spent many years attending the local, Baptist, sun worship church.  He has prayed thousands of prayers to the sun god.  His life is wrapped around and molded into the religion and culture of the old sun cults. 

 

The one thing which he was totally uninterested in was any involved study of the Word.  In his view, he already had Gee-Zeus and salvation (in fact, “once saved always saved” is the Baptist thinking).  So, why would he need to waste time making a study from the Scriptures.  Obviously, he was so proud, arrogant, ignorant, prejudiced, bigoted and perhaps stupid that he was far removed from truth. 

 

Yet, he surely was one of the leading elders in the Baptist Church.  He was in charge of the weekly “Bible study and prayer meeting” and probably received a continuous accolade of thanks and pats on the back from the preacher and the other church members (which would, of course, build up his pride and vanity). 

 

 

Prevailing Christian ignorance 

 

The tragedy is that this Baptist man really knew virtually nothing from the Word and was totally uninterested and unconcerned about finding out either.  With his lack of concern and his open rebellion toward the Torah, it is manifest that The Real MOST HIGH will not even listen to his abominable prayers uttered each week at his prayer meeting services (at least, that’s what the Word says). 

 

In his gross state of ignorance, prejudice and confusion, he condemned and criticized other people who would make some effort at understanding and obeying (the Our Place group was not very obedient and did have significant shortcomings in truth.  But they were miles ahead of the Baptist Church). 

 

To top it all off, the Baptist man was a “Bible” teacher.  And whomsoever he taught would end up in the same confused state of hopelessness which he lived in.  It would have been a classic case of the blind leading the blind.  Hence, they both would fall in the ditch. 

 

 

The Division Chaplain 

 

In 1969, this writer was in the Army and stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas with the 24th Infantry Division.  One day, the Division Chaplain was visiting with me.  He was a Protestant Christian, a Lieutenant Colonel in rank, and the senior religious advisor in the division of some 16,000 soldiers. 

 

At that time, this writer had just recently discovered the truth about the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:38-40 (as described in a prior chapter), and was beginning to look seriously at keeping the Seventh day Sabbath.  In our conversation, the reality of the three days and nights of Matthew 12 was brought to this man’s attention for his comments (although i could not then cite the exact verse). 

 

His only response was that i should stay away from things like that because those texts would serve to confuse me and mix me up theologically.  Thereupon, the issue was dropped in our conversation. 

 

In recalling this incident and mentioning it here, the point is not so much on the text itself in our conversation of many years ago.  Instead, its relevance now is in the attitude of this religious leader and big shot who supposedly was the Christian pastor and religious guide for the entire 24th Division. 

 

So here, we have a man of his rank, authority and caliber who not only knew nothing about the text in question, but could only warn and patronize a nobody like me with his words of wisdom to stay away from theological questions about the meaning of a text that is in obvious conflict with historic Christendom’s ideas on a “Friday crucifixion and a Sunday morning resurrection of their Gee-Zeus.” 

 

How absolutely astounding it is that the very people who have set themselves up as theologians and spiritual leaders of the common, lay people are themselves blind and in the dark.  With most of these leaders, they don’t know, and they don’t want to know.  They cannot intelligently discuss any of the major issues in the Word.  Their whole lives have been spent in Christian Babylonian confusion, lies and deception. 

 

As discussed in the Prologue and in a prior chapter on pride and apathy, the typical Christian is grossly ignorant and will not study for approval.  This is the sad truth!  Not only does this indictment affect the common lay people sitting in the church pews, but it tragically affects the preachers, leaders and big shots (who likewise know little or nothing from the Book--beyond a few memorized verses out of the NT). 

 

 

Elaborate Organizations 

 

Finally, many of the Christian denominations establish elaborate hierarchies complete with a superstructure organization of big shots to oversee the whole denomination (to even include those started by one, charismatic leader--like the Mormon Church, started by Joseph Smith).  Again, the Catholics and some of the old line Protestants bend in this direction with their overseeing priesthoods. 

 

For these groups, their hierarchical organizational structures resemble some of the early sun worship groups, like those in Babylon and Egypt.  Chrishnaism and the Greek sun worshippers may not have had the same bent toward extraordinary super structures (at least among mortals, though the Greeks did have quite an extensive organization of their “gods”).