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