posted September 28, 2006 12:24 AM              

The Order of Comacine based themselves on the island of Comacini in Lake Como in northern Italy. Lake Como, which today is close to the Swiss drug money laundering centres like Lugano, is a very important centre for the Babylonian Brotherhood. Two of its modern British members, Prince Philip and his mentor, Lord Mountbatten, attended a meeting of the Brotherhood’s Bilderberg Group at Lake Como in 1965. The Order of Comacine was divided into lodges headed by Grand Masters and they wore white gloves and aprons and communicated through secret signs and handshakes.22

All this was happening more than a thousand years before the official creation of Freemasonry! They were given the patronage of the king of Lombardy and were made masters of all masons and architects in Italy.23 It was this secret order, the successors to the earlier Brotherhood architects, the Dionysian Artificers, who provided the bridge between those who built the ancient Pagan temples and their brethren, who would build the great Christian cathedrals of Europe. The same Brotherhood built both!

The ancient temples were shrines to the Pagan deities, and the Christian cathedrals were also shrines to the Pagan deities. The only difference was that, with the latter, the public thought they were built to worship ‘Jesus’. The famous Christian hero, St Bernard, defined God as ‘length, width, height and depth’ because he understood the effect of geometry and numbers on the energy fields. Pythagoras also stated that: “number is all”. The power of pattern, numbers, geometry and proportion, are some of the ‘great mysteries’ that have been denied the mass of the people.

Clearly Constantine, and the Brotherhood which controlled the emperors, saw political advantage in supporting the Christian movement. And the people would have had no problem encompassing Jesus into their belief system because the story matched that of the other Sun gods of the time, including Mithra.

Christianity picked up many followers of Mithra because to them it was no different to what they already believed except for the name. Constantine ended the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire by issuing his Edict of Milan, but this was not specific to Christianity, though it stopped the persecution against all one-God religions. Anyway, as one persecution ended another was soon to begin, as the Roman Church persecuted, burned and tortured anyone who refused to believe in the Christian faith, or even their version of the faith.

Tens of millions of people have died in the name of the so-called ‘Prince of Peace’. Appropriately, Constantine murdered his wife and elder son before making the journey in 325 AD to his palace at Nicaea (now Iznik in Turkey) to decide what Christians to this day must believe. He wanted to end the conflict between the Paulines and the Arians and install a single Christian creed. He called 318 bishops (another mystical number) together at Nicaea to tell them what their creed was going to be. Bitter arguments erupted between the factions on the burning issue for the future of the world: Was Jesus part of a trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Holy **** .

Documents were torn up and blows were struck. If you are a Christian, this is how your faith was decided. The Arians lost the day and out of this mayhem and Roman dictatorship came the foundation belief of Christianity, the Nicene Creed. This dog’s breakfast was as follows. I hope you are concentrating, I’ll be asking questions later:

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is to say, of the same substance of the Father, God of God and Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who, for us men and our salvation, came down and made flesh, made man, suffered and rose again on the third day, went up to the heavens, and is to come again to judge the quick and the dead; and in the holy ghost.”

Simple eh? It was decided that Jesus was the same substance as the father because in ancient Babylon it was said that Nimrod and his son, Tammuz, were the same person. His mother, Queen Semiramis, was titled the Holy Spirit. So the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are in fact Nimrod-Tammuz and Semiramis. Christianity is the religion of Babylon and has been from the start. Today Rome and Italy remain a major Brotherhood centre, as I detail in .. And The Truth Shall Set You Free. The Vatican itself is wholly controlled by the Brotherhood and one of its most important bases.

Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, was designed to achieve another vital part of the reptilian Agenda: the suppression of the female energy, the intuitive connection to higher levels of our multidimensional consciousness. Once you suppress your feminine energy, your intuition, you switch off your higher consciousness and become dominated by your lower consciousness. You are isolated from your highest expression of love, wisdom and knowledge, and at the mercy of the manipulated ‘information’ bombarding your eyes and ears.

This is why the Brotherhood have sought to create a world in which the male energy has called the shots, on the surface at least. The state of being we know as ‘macho man’ is a person disconnected from his female energy and therefore deeply imbalanced. Note that there is no mention of women in Constantine’s Nicene Creed. It says that God became flesh as Jesus “for us men and our salvation”.

Christianity was a male bastion from its very foundation, created to suppress the balancing female energy. The early founders of the Church, like Quintus Tertullian, banned women from priestly office and even speaking in church. It was only at the Council of Trent in 1545 that the Roman Church officially agreed that women had souls and then only by a majority of three votes! The seeds of this anti-feminine dogma in the Christian Church can be seen in its mirror, Zoroasterism, the sect of the prophet (mythical Sun god), Zoroaster.

He and his religion emerged yet again from Persia, now Turkey, the home of the Taurus Mountains and St Paul’s abode, Tarsus. Zoroaster was vehemently anti-women and he said that “no women could enter Heaven except those ‘submissive to control, who had considered their husbands lords”’.

This whole philosophy is an almost word-for-word repeat of Brahmanism, the appalling Hindu creed which was introduced by the Aryans to India many centuries before. St Paul (the Pisos and Pliny) continued the antifeminine agenda in Christianity and set the scene for the horrific suppression of women over nearly two thousand years.

Among St Paul’s little gems are:

“Wives submit to your husbands for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church. Now if the Church submits to Christ so should wives submit to their husbands in everything.”

And:

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

The Christian Church was built to represent and perpetuate the extreme male vibration, the Sun energy, and to keep the ancient knowledge secret. The Christian Church became a crucial and highly effective vehicle to remove knowledge from circulation so it could be used secretly and malevolently from behind the scenes. The assault on the balancing female energy and the hoarding of knowledge resulted in the persecution of ‘witches’ channellers, mediums, psychics and seers of all kinds.

These communications with other realms had been an everyday part of pre-Christian life. Channellers were given names like prophets, oracles, vessels of God and such like. One of the leaders of this witch-hunt was Jerome, born in 341, who is credited with gathering the texts for the main Latin version of the ‘Holy Bible’. It was Jerome who persuaded the Pope to outlaw channelling (psychic communications with other dimensions). By this single papal decree, the vessels of God became vessels and witches of the Devil, terms still used by many Christians.

King James I, the first king of both England and Scotland, included a bitter condemnation of witches in his King James Bible in 1611 and he was true to his word as he had thousands of women tortured and executed for being witches. Jerome wanted the priests to be the middle men between humanity and God. He did not want people going direct, contradicting the official line, or circulating unapproved knowledge. As he said:

“We tell them (the channellers) that we do not so much reject prophecy, as refuse to receive prophets whose utterances fail to accord with the Scriptures old and new.“24

Yet at the same time the initiates of the Babylonian Brotherhood which created the Roman Church were using these same psychic powers and modes of inter-dimensional communication. OK, how else can we control and diminish the great unwashed? We’ve got them to believe a fantasy about Jesus and we’ve conned them to think that after one life on Earth, God decides if they go to heaven or hell.

We have also conned them to think that we, the men in frocks, know how God wants them to live and that anything to do with the esoteric is the Devil. Anything else? Hey, we need to be careful about that sexual energy, the creative force. Got to shut that down or their power source will still be there. I’ve got just the man. I say, Augustine, in my office, please.

Saint Augustine of Hippo, like most of the early Church heroes, was from North Africa. He couldn’t get enough sex earlier in his life, but after his alleged conversion to Christianity at the age of 31, he switched dramatically and decided that sex was horrid. You know what smokers are like when they stop. He would not allow a woman into his house unaccompanied, even his sister. He couldn’t think of another way of producing children, so unless the race was to die out, he was stuck with it. However, he insisted that on no account should you enjoy it.

I’ve tried that mate, and it doesn’t work. This was Augustine’s view of sexuality:

“Husbands love your wives, but love them chastely. Insist on the work of the flesh only in such measure as is necessary for the procreation of children. Since you cannot beget children in any other way, you must descend to it against your will, for it is the punishment of Adam.”

These attitudes led, in stages, to the imposition of celibacy on priests by Pope Gregory VII in 1074. Yes, we have celibate priests in the Roman Catholic Church today because of what one pope decided a thousand years ago and countless children, abused by sexually frustrated and messed up churchmen, have taken the consequences. Augustine connected sex with original sin, the idea that we are born sinners because of our link back to Adam and Eve.

Jesus, so this theory goes, was the only one born without original sin because he was conceived by a virgin birth. But what about his mother? She must have had original sin and so some of it must have been passed on to him. Eventually, the Roman Church could see the contradiction and they decreed that Mary, too, was a virgin birth. But what about her mother? Did she have original sin? If so, it must have been passed on to Mary.

My God, please stop me before I disappear up my own orifice. What garbage it all is. But billions of people have been controlled and manipulated in this way since the Christian creed sank its fangs of fear, guilt and violence, deep into the human spirit. Actually I believe-in original sin myself. Some of my ‘sins’ have been very original. If you are going to sin, make it original, that’s what I say.

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

posted September 28, 2006 12:29 AM              

Figure 18:

The human ‘chakra’ or vortex system which interpenetrates our levels of being.

When they are open we connect with the cosmos and draw in limitless amounts of energy.

When they are closed we are disconnected from the cosmos

and operate on a fraction of our mental, emotional, physical and spiritual potential.

These emotional imbalances manifest in the physical body as chemical reactions and it is these reactions that official medicine (the transnational drug corporations) seeks to ‘treat’ at unbelievable cost in both money and long term effects on the body. They treat the symptom, not the cause, because most doctors are so in-doctor-rinated that they have no idea how the body really works and what the human being really is. Those that control the drug corporations do know, however, and they use every means possible to suppress ‘alternative’ healing methods which treat the cause and not the symptom.

It is also the chakras which suck energy into our consciousness field and in a fully functioning state we take in vast amounts of energy, particularly through the base chakra at the bottom of the spine. From there it moves through the seven major chakras going up along the spine and out through the crown chakra at the top of the head. I explain all this in detail in other books like I Am Me I Am Free. For reasons I will go into in a later chapter, the more energy we suck into our energy field, the
Crown chakra more power we have to create and Third eye chakra control our own destiny. It is vital, therefore, that those who wish to diminish and dominate us find ways to limit the amount of energy we absorb.

This is where the manipulation of sex comes in. The three lowest chakras are the base, the sexual chakra just above that, and then the chakra connected to our emotional level in the solar plexus. It is this chakra which stimulates the ‘butterflies’ and ‘nervous stomachs’ when we are worried or stressed. So the Christian and ‘moral’ attitudes to sex close down the base chakra and what energy it does absorb is thrown into turmoil when it hits the sexual and emotional chakras because of all the fear and guilt surrounding the subject. This imbalances and diminishes the entire human energy consciousness field.

Most Christian clerics have no idea that this is so, but those who have controlled Christianity and the Roman Church certainly do, because they are in the knowledge stream that has been suppressed in the general population. Each generation has been conditioned to think the Christian way about sex, whether consciously or subconsciously, and they in turn have helped to condition the next generation to think the same. But sex is wonderful. It is to be enjoyed.

The ability to express your love physically for another human being is an incredible gift. I don’t care what your sexuality may be. Love is love is love. Let’s express it. If Augustine or the Pope want to tie a knot in theirs, fair enough, everyone to their own, as long as they don’t tell me how to live my life.

In the East, Asia and China, they have retained the understanding of the power of sexual energy over thousands of years and this knowledge has been practiced in the West in the secret societies and Satanic rituals. Once again the sexual energy is just that, energy, and can be used to create or destroy. In the Eastern religions, the conscious creation and stimulation of sexual energy is known as Tantra. Sexual intercourse is seen, quite rightly, as the union and balance of the male and female, the yang (male) and yin (female).

The idea of Tantric sex is to stimulate the sexual energy held in the base of the spine, the Kundalini energy as it has become known. This was symbolized as uncurling serpents and in Tantra the participants control and delay orgasm to transform the kundalini from its original state (ching) into the higher energy (ch’i) and finally its highest expression (shen). This is done by raising the energy up the spine and down again until it has reached a vibratory state that can reconnect the person with the cosmos. By the end of this book you will see the importance of this and its scientific basis.

When the kundalini explodes into your energy field .... it can blow you away mentally, emotionally and spiritually, sometimes physically too, until you have mastered its power. Stimulating the kundalini is described as ‘lighting the inner fire’ ....Tantra is designed to complete this process in a more controlled way, but sometimes the uncontrolled way offers a more extreme and enlightening experience. Once the Kundalini is awakened, you have a constant supply of enormously powerful energy with which to create whatever you choose

The Satanists use sex as a fundamental part of their ritual so they can tap this sexual, kundalini force, for their horrendous purposes. But it can equally be used to set us free and hence the Christian obsession with making sex into a dirty, immoral, guilt-ridden experience which suppresses or imbalances the kundalini energy and delinks the person from their cosmic levels of self.

The compilation of the Bible was yet another farce. If you ask most people about the Gospel writers, they will usually tell you that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the disciples of Jesus. That’s the impression people get and are encouraged to get, but it’s not true and not even the Church claims that officially. The Gospels and other books of the Bible are only those chosen by the hierarchy of the Christian Church from those written by the Pisos and Pliny and the many copies and offshoots which followed.

Many other texts were available that were just as valid, often very much more so, than those which made it into the ‘Holy Book’. Texts were rejected, destroyed or rewritten to fit the official line and the philosopher, Celsus, wrote of the church leaders in the third century:

“You utter fables, and you do not even possess the art of making them seem likely... You have altered three, four times and oftener, the texts of your own Gospels in order to deny objections to you.” 25

In 1958, a manuscript was discovered at a monastery at Mar Saba, east of Jerusalem, which shows how the Jesus story was rewritten by the Church whenever it suited them at the time. It was found by an American, Morton Smith,26 Professor of Ancient History at Columbia University, and it included the content of a letter by Bishop Clement of Alexandria, Egypt, an early Christian father, to a colleague called Theodore. It also revealed an unknown segment of Mark’s Gospel which had been suppressed.

It included in the ‘Jesus’ story some details of mystery school initiations and it was an account of the raising of Lazarus by Jesus, the famous raising from the dead. In this suppressed text Lazarus called to Jesus before any ‘raising’ took place, so proving that he was not supposed to be physically dead. There was also another devastating revelation for Christianity. The manuscript makes references to the effect that Jesus was understood to have engaged in possible homosexual practices involving the ‘rich young man’ mentioned in Mark’s Gospel.27

Let me stress that I am not condemning homosexuality here. Good luck to those who wish to live their lives in this way so long as it’s the choice of all concerned. I am making the point that the Christian hierarchy have been deceiving and lying to their followers right from the start. Bishop Clement’s letter was replying to a Christian who was very perturbed to be told the above story of ‘Jesus’ by the Gnostic group called the Carpocrates. It had apparently been leaked to them by an official in Alexandria. Clement’s advice, after confirming the story, was that anything which contradicts the official church view must be denied, even if it is true.

The letter says of those who question official orthodoxy:

“For even if they should say something true, one who loves the Truth should not, even so, agree with them... To them one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark - but should deny it on oath. For not all true things are to be said to all men.” 28

Clement was summing up the attitude of the Brotherhood and their religious fronts throughout history. Most members of the Church follow the party line because that is what they are conditioned to believe, but within these ‘religions’ are the secret sects which know the truth. They are organizations within organizations or an organization (the reptilian Brotherhood) within organizations. It was such people who created the religion in the first place and compiled and translated the Bible, the book that was to mind control the world for centuries and, to a very large extent, still does. Jerome became secretary to Pope Damascus in about 382 and he was commissioned to bring various texts together to produce the Bible in Latin, the official language of Rome.

Now we had another translation, the Hebrew and Greek into Latin, plus Jerome’s own prejudices. His version is known as the Vulgate, from the Latin Vulgata, meaning in common use. The English derivative, vulgar, meaning ‘in poor taste’, would have been a better description. Jerome edited the texts as he saw fit and rejected those which didn’t support the creed of Nicaea.

He worked with another church ‘father’, the sex bomb, Augustine. Jerome and Augustine both agreed that women were morally and spiritually inferior and that sex and earthly pleasures were a source of evil which kept men from their spiritual path. Poor sods. They examined 13 gospels, nine acts and teachings of the Apostles, plus 31 letters and other writings. They decided which were ‘orthodox’ and which were to be rejected.

Their choice was supported by the Council of Carthage in 397 and confirmed again by Pope Innocent I a hundred years later. Jerome’s Vulgate Bible became widely accepted as the version. The Council of Trent in 1545 decreed that it was the only acceptable one for Roman Catholics.

Most Christians could not understand what it said because they didn’t read Latin, but they could rely on the priests to tell them what it said they should do. People were condemned and killed for the crime of translating the Bible into English because doing so allowed millions to actually read the texts the priests were using to control and terrify them. In 553 AD, the belief in reincarnation was outlawed at the Second Synod Council of Constantinople under the influence of the Emperor Justinian. The council decided, without the attendance of the Pope, that:

“If anyone assert the fabulous preexistence of souls and shall submit to the monstrous doctrine that follows from it, let him be... excommunicated”.

The ‘monstrous doctrine’ was that we live forever on an eternal journey of evolution through experience and we are all responsible for our actions in this physical life or a future one. An acceptance of reincarnation took away the power of the heaven or hell mob to frighten people into doing as they, sorry, ‘God’, said. The knowledge continued to be sucked from the public domain. After Constantine the Great, came other emperors who influenced the course of the fast emerging Christian creed. Among them was Theodosius who made Christianity the official religion of the empire in 380.

The power of the men in frocks grew enormously as the Babylonian priesthood dropped anchor in Rome. Anyone who strayed even marginally from the official beliefs was brutally executed and their documents destroyed - exactly the Nimrod doctrine of Babylon. This is not just a bunch of power crazed psychopaths, ad-libbing their way through this grotesque slaughter, it was a coldly calculated plan to rule by terror and in doing so, take any other knowledge or versions of life out of public circulation. As reptilians and the puppets of reptilians, they wanted to create a mental and emotional prison cell, outside of which it was fatal to tread.

The marauding Visigoths, a Germanic (Aryan) people who occupied southern France, eventually sacked Rome in 410, but by then the Roman Church had such a grip on the minds of so many in the former Roman Empire, that where the Roman emperors left off, the Popes would take over. The Roman dictatorship became a papal dictatorship and in the centuries that followed, Europe became a landscape of untold slaughter. The Pope ruled and who ruled the Pope? The Babylonian Brotherhood, exactly as they do today.

The Hebrew and Christian religions are the inventions of those who controlled the underground stream of secret knowledge. Even the ritual garbs are the same in so many ways. What do Jewish people wear? Skull caps. What does the Pope wear? A skull cap. This is symbolic of the way priests in the mystery schools used to shave the backs of their heads. The more formal headgear and ritual of Judaism and Christianity are also very similar because they originate from the same source and the Pope’s mitre is the fish head symbol of Nimrod.

To complete the trio, along came the skull-cap-wearing Muslims and the creed of Islam, inspired by the ‘Prophet’ Mahomet (Mohammed) when he had a ‘vision’ in the year 612. Once more we find that Islam’s roots are in Christianity and Judaism and therefore Babylon. Muslims see Islam as an updated continuation of the Judeo-Christian stream and they, too, trace their ancestry back to our old mate, Abraham, who is said to have emerged from the Sumerian city of Ur and headed for Egypt.

They believe that Abraham built the Kaaba, the sacred shrine at Mecca, and the focus of pilgrimage for Muslims all over the world. But it was in fact originally a Pagan temple of goddess (Semiramis) worship featuring the famous Black Stone. W. Wynn Westcott, founder of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, wrote in his work, The Magical Mason, that the Black Stone supposed to have been brought to Mecca by Abraham, was used originally for ancient Pagan ritual.29 Again you see Brotherhood symbolism in this ‘new’ religion.

posted September 28, 2006 12:36 AM              

Mohammed was the last prophet and therefore, the Muslims reckon, the most valid. As such, all Christians and Jews should convert to Islam, the orthodox Muslims demand. The term, Jihad, is the ‘Holy War’ that Muslims are urged to wage against all who do not accept the creed of Mohammed. How fitting that Islam means ‘to submit or surrender’ and Muslim means ‘one who submits’. Some of the bloodiest conflict in history has resulted from the desire of Islam, Christianity and Judaism to impose their creed on each other, when they all come from the same source and the same manipulation! Excuse me, did I come in late and miss something? Beam me up Scotty, get me out of here...

The Islamic god Allah is the same ‘god’, the Muslims say, as the Judeo-Christian, Jehovah. The Koran is the Islamic holy book, but Muslims also give credence to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament attributed to Moses. In truth they were written by the Levites after Babylon and not by ‘Moses’, which was a title in the Egyptian mystery schools. Is it really a coincidence that these three massive prisons of the mind, suppressors of the female, and creators of bloody conflict, should all come from the same part of the world? Or that people having visions and visitations should play such a crucial part in the formation and legend which created these monsters?

Mohammed said he had his vision near the cave where he used to go. Caves and dark places constantly recur in stories of religious superstars and Sun gods like Mithra and Jesus. Mohammed said his visitor claimed to be the Angel Gabriel of biblical fame and during the encounter Mohammed said he lost consciousness and entered a trance state. While Mohammed was in his trance or hypnotic state, ‘Gabriel’ gave him a message to remember and recite. Mohammed said that when he awoke the message was inscribed upon his heart.

What followed the encounter with ‘Gabriel’ was a bloodbath spanning the centuries to the present day, as Mohammed and his successors sought to impose their creed on the world. Islam is not the opposite of Christianity and Judaism, they are all ‘oppo-sames’: the same state of mind with a different name, ultimately controlled by the same people, the reptilians. Islam is another mystery school religion, its texts written in esoteric code for the masses to take literally.

There were times in later centuries when some of this secret knowledge was allowed into the public domain by more enlightened Muslim leaders and this was the inspiration for the advanced societies and science which came out of Muslim Spain and Baghdad. Today, part of the Brotherhood Agenda is to stimulate conflict with the Islamic nations by causing division between the Muslim and Christian-Jewish world.

The Mormon Church is another ‘vision’ religion which very powerfully locks into the Brotherhood network, as all religions do. The Mormon Church, or more formally, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, was founded by Joseph Smith after he claimed an ‘angel’ called Moroni appeared to him in 1823. Moroni, he said, told him of the existence of a book of gold plates containing: “the fullness of the everlasting gospel” and “an account of the former inhabitants of this continent and the sources from which they sprang”.

The location was revealed to him, and in 1827 with help from two ‘magic stones’ called Urim and Thummim, he translated the plates into English. Urim and Thummim were, in fact, the names of knucklebones or dice used by Levite priests and the Kings of Israel were said to follow their prophecies. They were used in the mystery school holy place known as the Tabernacle. Here we have yet another religion originating from the same source and another perpetuation of the Jesus myth. The gold plates, Smith said, were written in ‘reformed Egyptian’.

From this came the Book of Mormon two years later and his followers became the Mormon Church in 1830. The pillars of the early church were Smith and another guy called Brigham Young. They were both high degree Freemasons from the key New York Lodge and the expansion of this church was funded by Kuhn, Loeb and Company, the Rothschild Bank in the United States30 which also helped to fund the Russian Revolution and both sides in the First World War. The Mormons were a Brotherhood creation. Mormons recognize the Bible, but claim that Smith’s writings are equally divine.

They set up communities called Stakes of Zion (Sion, the Sun) and eventually settled in Salt Lake City, Utah, the Mormon city from where its mind control programmes are orchestrated, as I shall document in a later chapter. Funny how all these religions are justified by a vision or visitation, followed by an extreme, dogmatic and autocratic religion which rules by fear, indoctrination and mind manipulation.

Another mind control sect which emerged from Christianity/Judaism is the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the worship of the Hebrew angry god, Jehovah, and one of their leading founders was the paedophile Charles Taze Russell, a high degree Freemason.

These religions were set up to control, to create conflict between people, and to divide and rule the masses. Visions of biblical characters like the Virgin Mary which have enhanced mainstream Christian beliefs over the centuries have followed a similar pattern. We have no idea what the Jesus ‘team’ looked like, but people always see them as their classic artistic depiction.

Those who have seen visions which relate to the Bible stories have had shrines built to them, but those who see visions which are not biblical are condemned as working with the Devil. William Cooper, a former operative with United States Naval Intelligence, said he had seen secret documents which claim that extraterrestrials had told the US authorities that they had manipulated the human race via religion, Satanism, witchcraft, magic and the occult.

Certainly, the human race has been manipulated and controlled through religion and Satanism. The only question is, are extraterrestrials (or inner-terrestrials) behind this? As Cooper asks:

“...were they indeed the source of our religions with which they had been manipulating us all along?” 31

The answer, I would suggest, is a very loud: “Yes”.

SOURCES

1 Abelard Reuchlm, The True Authorship Of The New Testament (the Abelard Reuchlm Foundation, P0 Box 5652, Kent, WA, USA, 1979).
2 Ibid, p 1.
3 Ibid, pp 4-5.
4 Ibid, p 12.
5 Ibid, p 5.
6 Ibid, p 22.
7 Michael Howard, The Occult Conspiracy (Destiny Books, Rochester, Vermont, 1989), p 18.
8 Bloodline Of The Holy Grail, p 132.
9 The True Authorship Of The New Testament, p ii.
10 Ibid, p 14.
11 Acts 9: 17-18.
12 Romans 16: 11.
13 The True Authorship Of The New Testament, p 15.
14 Ibid, p 15.
15 Ibid, p 16.
16 Ibid, p 15.
17 Ibid, p 27.
18 Arthur Findlay, The Curse Of Ignorance, A History Of Mankind (Headquarters Publishing Company, London, first published 1947), Volume I, p 549.
19 Matthew 16:18-19.
20 Matthewl6:23.
21 The Occult Conspiracy, p 18.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 The Curse Of Ignorance, Volume I, p 636.
25 Ibid, p 637.
26 Morton Smith, The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read, p 176.
27 MarklO:17-23.
28 Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel (Victor Gollancz, London, 1974).
29 Quoted by Euctace Mullins in The Curse Of Canaan (Revelation Books, P0 Box 11105, Staunton, VA), p 44.
30 Fritz Springmeier, The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines (Springmeier, Lincoln, Portland, Oregon, 1995), p 151.
31 William Cooper, Behold A Pale Horse (Light Technology Publishing, P0 Box 1495, Sedona, Arizona, USA, 1991), pp 212-213.

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

posted September 28, 2006 12:45 AM              

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

posted September 28, 2006 12:51 AM              

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

posted September 28, 2006 01:01 AM              

"Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes" Carl Gustav Jung~

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

posted September 28, 2006 09:28 AM              

Awesome! simply captivating.

posted September 28, 2006 11:00 AM              

It's okay that each religion has it's own savior, Silverstone. In Christianity Jesus is our savior.

Many authors have sought to discredit the death and resurrection of Jesus throughout history. However there is also much proof and evidence to support that Jesus was crucified and died. The Shroud of Turin comes to mind and to this day scientists from all fields have tested that Shroud with the imprint of a man on it and they have not been able to disprove that the Shroud is anything but authentic. They have stated that it was true human blood on that Shroud, even typed the blood - type O or A, cannot remember which - and that the person who left that imprint also bore a crown of thorns on his head. That is the most revealing evidence that supports that Jesus did die as stated by the eyewitnesses in Scripture and that he did bear a crown of thorns. We will all know the truth and who was right and who was wrong after death for certain.

Personally I think that some people are real uncomfortable with the divinity of Jesus - the incarnation- so they seek to drag him down to a strictly human level. I do not understand how many people can believe in reincarnation and yet have a difficult time with the incarnation. Please explain this to me.

I admit that I have not yet read all the articles posted here. Will do that when I have more time. But did these articles say that they believe that Jesus WAS crucified? I ask because it seems that thy are not dispelling his crucifixion but that he died on that cross. That to me, is ludicrous and illogical. If they think that Jesus survived the crucifixion, the extreme beatings he endured beforehand with the loss of blood due to those wounds that made him so weak he fell 3 times carrying the cross to calvary, long thorns sticking into his brain and the loss of blood from that, then how do they feel he survived hanging on a cross with brads drove through his wrist for so long and a sword stuck in his side? All those wounds were clearly shown in the Shroud of Turin. Do you guys really believe that any human being could even withstand half of what Jesus endured and survive it? The beatings alone would have killed any other man. That he endured that agony for so long on the cross gives testament that Jesus was no mere man.

Sorry, guys, I love you all but this is all too illogical and only speculation to me. Nothing to support it at all. No real evidence. While there IS real evidence to support the crucifixion and death of Jesus. If you have not yet done so then read about the scientific studies of the Shroud of Turin through the years as science has developed all kinds of new methods to test that funeral shroud with. Still they can only say it is authentic.

posted September 28, 2006 11:49 AM              

I respect your beliefs. Please don't feel offended. as I stated before, those are not my intentions. I am not one of those people. Just sharing info. Actually, all of my family is religious (Catholic or Christian) so please, don't get the impression that I am trying insult religion, but, hey, if you would like, we can discuss this, as I know you are very respectable.

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

posted September 28, 2006 02:16 PM              

They taught us that Jesus didnt die on a cross, but on a stake.

I wonder why that was?

My mother always disapproved of people wearing crosses around their necks because she said they were pagan????

I am wondering where all these different theories come from??

posted September 28, 2006 05:39 PM              

We just disagree on this issue is all and yes, would love to discuss it more.

Have to pour through all the material and posts first and right now my time is limited. It's been a waaaaay too busy day for me here. Need a vacation.

posted September 29, 2006 12:44 AM              

Sue, I know what you mean

I'll be back, ladies!

Fayte... good thread

Silverstone

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

posted October 02, 2006 01:50 AM              

quote:

---

The characters depicted as good in the Bible are more devil/demon like than lovely...

---

“When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose... The Nefilim were on the earth in those days -and also afterwards when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”
Genesis 6:1-4

According to the translations of Zecharia Sitchin, the word Nefilim relates to “Those Who Decended” while others say it means “the fallen ones” or “those who have fallen”. The word ‘renown’ in that passage in Genesis is translated from the Sumerian word shem. This has been translated in the Bible as relating to ‘name’, as in making a name for yourself as a man of renown. Sitchin says the real meaning of shem is ‘sky vehicle’.

He says it comes from the root, shu-mu, which means ‘that which is a MU’, and a MU was a flying craft, he says. So ‘men of renown’ becomes ‘men or people of the sky vehicles’. It was these who interbred with human women. This passage in Genesis, I would suggest, tells of the interbreeding between the extraterrestrials or inner terrestrials with humans to produce the reptile-human hybrids. The term ‘sons of God’ in fact comes from the Hebrew, bene-ha-elohim, which really translates as ‘sons of the gods’.

The early offspring of these genetic encounters were the giants of legend and there are many records of such hybrids being born. There are numerous accounts throughout the ancient world, on every continent, of a giant race and the biblical Goliath could well have been symbolic of these people. The Native Americans have many tales of the Star People coming down from the skies to breed with human women and Alex Christopher says that a common denominator in the abduction of humans by reptilians in the United States appears to relate to the person’s bloodline, particularly those that go back to Native Americans or ancient Indians.

The Hopi, you will recall, speak of originating within the Earth. The Ethiopian text, the Kebra Nagast (Nagas were Indian shape-shifting ‘serpent gods’), is thousands of years old, and it refers to the enormous size of the babies produced from the sexual or genetic unions of humans and the ‘gods’. It tells how:

“...the daughters of Cain with whom the angels (extraterrestrials) had conceived... were unable to bring forth their children, and they died.”

It describes how some of these giant babies were delivered by caesarean section:

.... having split open the bellies of their mothers they came forth by their navels.”46

In the ancient Hebrew text, the Book of Noah, and its derivative, the Book of Enoch, a strange birth is described of a non-human child, who turns out to be Noah of Great Flood fame.

References to this also appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the records of the Essene Community in Palestine 2,000 years ago which included much material from the Book of Enoch. The strange child the texts describe is the son of Lamech. He is said to be unlike a human being and more like ‘the children of the angels in heaven’. Lamech’s child, Noah, is described as white skinned and blond-haired with eyes that made the whole house ‘shine like the Sun’. Blond-haired, blue-eyed beings with laser-like eyes is a description for mysterious people or ‘gods’ which spans thousands of years to the present day and appear in cultures across the world.

Lamech questions his wife about the father of the child:

“Behold, I thought then within my heart that conception was (due) to the Watchers and the Holy Ones.. .and to the Nephilim. . .and my heart was troubled within me because of this child.”47

In the Shahnemeh or Book of Kings, the legendary history of Iran completed in 1010 AD by the Arab poet, Firdowsi, he describes the birth of a baby called Zal, the son of a king called Sam. Again the king is horrified by the unearthly appearance of his child who has a very large body ‘as clean as silver’, hair as white as an old man’s and ‘like snow’, and a face compared with the Sun. Sam calls his son a demon child, a child of the daevas - the Watchers. Like the patriarchs of the Old Testament, the Iranians appeared to have an aversion to children born with extremely white features. And who is said to be extremely white, albino white? The royal hierarchy of the Draco.

SOURCES

1 Dr Arthur David Horn, Humanity’s Extraterrestrial Origins, ET Influences On Humankind’s Biological And Cultural Evolution (A and L Horn, PD Box 1632, Mount Shasta, California, 96067, 1994). 48
2 Jason Bishop Ill, Matrix ii, compiled by Valdamar Valerian (Arcturus Book Service, USA, 1990), p 96.
3 Rev John Bathhurst Deane, The Worship Of The Serpent (J. G. and F. Rivington, London, 1833).
4 Bible Myths, p 11.
5 Ibid, p 15.
6 Ibid, p 12.
7 Francis Hitching, The Wodd Atlas Of Mysteries (Pan Books, London, 1981), p 10, section entitled, Death of the Dinosaurs.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 John Rhodes, the Reptoid website, http://www.reptoids.com
11 Dale Russell, Exponential Evolution: Implications For Intelligent Extraterrestrial Life (Advanced
Space Research, 1983).
12 The Wodd Atlas Of Mysteries, p 159.
13 Ibid.
14 Herbert S. Zim and Robert H. Baker, Stars, A Golden Guide (Golden Press, New York, 1985), p
58.
15 Graham Hancock, Quest For The Lost Civilization (Channel Four Television, 1998). 16 Professor Phillip Calahan, Ancient Mysteries And Modern Visions (Acres, Kansas City, USA, 1984).
17 See the John Rhodes website, http://www.reptoids.com
18 John Rhodes, writing on his website.
19 William Bramley, Gods Of Eden (Avon Books, New York).
20 Nexus magazine, April-May 1994, pp 52-54.
21 “Explorations In Grand Canyon”, Arizona Gazette, April 5th 1909.
22 John Rhodes, The Human-Reptilian Connection, privately published and distributed paper in
1993.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips, Trance Formation Of America (Reality Marketing Inc, Las
Vegas, Nevada, USA, 1995).
28 Ibid, pp 165, 166.
29 Ibid, p 165.
30 Ibid, pp 209-210.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid, p 174.
33 Hunter S. Thompson, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas (Vintage Books, New York, 1998, first published in 1971).
34 Cymatics, The Healing Nature Of Sound, video available from MACROmedia, P0 Box 279, Epping, NH 03042, USA.
35 Los Angeles Times and Herald Examiner, 21 July 1988.
36 The Arrival, Steelworks Films, 1988.
37 They Live, Alive Films, 1988.
38 Alien Resurrection, 20th Century Fox, 1997.
39 V: The Final Battle, Warner Brothers Television, 1984, and Warner Brothers Home Video, 1995.
40 Alex Christopher, Pandora’s Box Volumes I and 2, available from Pandora’s Box, 2663 Valleydale Road, Suite 126, Birmingham, Alabama 35224.
41 Alex Christopher speaking on KSEO Radio, USA, on April 26th 1996, transcript by Leading Edge Research Group.
42 Jason Bishop Ill, quoted in Leading Edge.
43 Jason Bishop Ill, Matrix ii, compiled by Valdamar Valerian (Arcturus Book Service, USA, 1990), p 96.
44 Ibid.
45 Matrix ii, p lOOc-lOOd.
46 Andrew Collins, From The Ashes of Angels, The Forbidden Legacy Of A Fallen Race (Signet Books, London, 1997), p 35.
47 A Genesis Apocryphon, the translation of part of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Naham Avigad and Yigael Yadin, published in 1956 by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
48 Firdowsi, The Shah Nameh Of The Persian Poet Firdausi, translated by James Atkinson (Frederick Warne, London, 1886).
49 Christian O’Brien, with Joy O’Brien, The Genius Of The Few - The Story Of Those Who Founded The Garden of Eden (Turnstone Press, Wellingborough, England, 1985).
50 From The Ashes Of Angels, pp 268, 269.
51 Ibid.
52 L. A. Waddell, The Phoenician Origin Of Britons, Scots And Anglo Saxons (The Christian Book Club of America, Hawthorne, California, first published 1924), p 65.
53 From The Ashes Of Angels, p 191.
54 Ibid.
55 Second Book of Enoch, 1:4-5.
56 Revelation, 12:9.
57 Ibid, 20:2-3.
58 Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls In English (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1990).
59 Ibid, p 7.

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

posted October 02, 2006 02:05 AM              

They both became known as Watchers or angels, the latter as fallen angels. It could well be that the legends of St Michael casting the dragon onto the Earth for the final battle and St George defeating the dragon, relate to the long-standing conflict between the genuine white Martians and the reptilian Anunnaki. St Michael and St George are ancient Phoenician heroes from the very region of the world where the Anunnaki instigated their crossbreeding programme and, for a long time, operated openly as reptilians.

In the last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation, we see the clear connection made between the being known as Satan and the serpent or reptile:

“And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to earth and his angels were cast down with him.” 56

“...And he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and cast him into the abyss, and shut it, and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more.” 57

In a Dead Sea Scroll fragment translated by the Hebrew scholar, Robert Eisenman, there is a description of a watcher called Belial (Bel?), who is described as the Prince of Darkness and the King of Evil. He is said to be terrifying in his appearance - like a serpent with a visage like a viper. One of the main angelic groups in Hebrew lore is the Seraphim or ‘fiery serpents’ and the Watchers are very much connected to the description of serpents. In the Persian teachings they also talk of a being they describe as ‘the old serpent having two feet’, just as the Book of Enoch features walking serpents.

When you consider that the Draco royal leadership is said to be up to 12 feet tall and white skinned, indeed albino white, ‘whiter than snow’, it again relates to the very white skin of the giant Watcher-human hybrid babies described in the Book of Enoch and elsewhere. [It should be emphasized], the birth of the human-Watcher child in the Book of Enoch is that of Noah. If this be so, Noah is, in fact, a reptile-human hybrid and many peoples have sought to claim descendence from Noah -descendence from the reptilian Watchers and Anunnaki. In Hebrew myth, the Nefilim are described as awwim which means devastators or serpents.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, Noah is described as looking like “the children of the (fallen) angels of heaven” whose “conception was (due) to the Watchers... and to the Nefilim”. In Jewish lore, Eve is seen as the ancestral mother of the Nefilim and associated with the Hebrew words meaning life and snake. Eve was, of course, tempted by the serpent according to Old Testament myth and other sources. In Chapter 69 of the Book of Enoch we find that among the Watchers who revealed the secrets to humans was Gadreel, the fallen angel who has been identified with tempting Eve.

The Book of Enoch was banned by the Roman Church which sought to deny the earlier Christian belief in the existence of flesh and blood angels and fallen angels occupying physical bodies and interbreeding with humans. This was to stop the masses understanding the true situation. But the Freemasons, who control the Roman Catholic Church today along with other Brotherhood offshoots, have always looked upon Enoch as one of their legendary founders. The very name Enoch means ‘initiated’.

The theme of the fallen angels giving forbidden secrets to humanity can be found in the Book of Enoch and other works. Among these tellers of secrets is Azazel, who taught the art of metal making, and Shemyaza, who taught the magical arts. These tales spawned many later heroes based on this theme, the most famous of which is the Greek god, Prometheus, who is said to have stolen fire (knowledge) from the gods and given it to humans (selected humans).

A gold statue of Prometheus stands in the Rockefeller Center in New York. The Rockefellers are reptilian full-bloods and therefore are fully aware of the true significance and background of the Prometheus legend. Incidentally, the Watcher called Azazel is the origin of the goat head in Satanic ritual and the term ‘scapegoat’. According to the Book of Leviticus, the Israelites would sacrifice two male goats at Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. One was offered to God and the other to Azazel. The priest placed both hands on the head of the Azazel goat and confessed the sins of the people.

The goat would then be taken into the wilderness and plunged over a cliff, symbolizing the fallen angel Azazel, who was seen as bound and chained in the wilderness -the ‘abyss’ in the language of the Book of Revelation

- which I think is imprisonment in the lower fourth dimension. From this comes the ancient theme of the scapegoat which manifested in one form as the symbolic story of ‘Jesus’. The goat head of Azazel, a fallen angel-reptilian, is symbolized by the inverted pentagram of Satanism.

...the details [can be debated] and [it] should because there is a vast amount of information still to be uncovered. [There is an] endless stream of questions... But there are some emerging themes: extraterrestrial races have been visiting the Earth with varying intent for probably millions of years and their interbreeding has created the many racial streams. In the distant past there have been highly advanced technological civilizations based on this extraterrestrial knowledge - a Golden Age as the ancients called it.

SOURCES

posted October 02, 2006 02:20 AM              

quote:

---

Also both Lucifer and him are known as the Morning Star.

---

Revelation 21:16 "I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star."

Many would wonder... in other words, Jesus is saying that he is the offspring of the Morning Star.... Christians commonly associate Venus with Lucifer (cf. Satan), the bright evening star. Confused? Is this but another attempt to hide the truth? Did the Christian fathers intentionally renamed the Mother of God the Virgin Mary?

posted October 03, 2006 01:54 AM              

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

posted April 18, 2007 11:55 PM              

OK......
Something to ponder.....
For those who believe Lord is GOD and Jesus is GOD......

quote:

---

"For I so loved the world that I sacrificed Myself to Myself to appease My own anger at My own creation." - The Lord.

---

Crucifixion/Crucifiction.......For the moment I will go with the mythos many subscribe to.....

"Jesus died for our sins".

Now read that phrase again with a different point of view.
A man named Jesus died because some foolish people, some "sinners"=bigots/lynch mob, decided to murder him.
So Jesus died for=becausethese folks murdered, committed a sin of killing...and he died because they sinned=committed a crime, by their actions.
He did not die to save them, he died for=because of their sin=crime, against his mortal body.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BECAUSE
Definition:
1. for reason that: for the reason that follows
I like her because she's always so friendly.
2. seeing that: on the basis of or taking into account what follows
It must have been raining, because the path is wet.
[14th century. < by cause 'for the reason (that)', after Old French par chance]
because of indicating the reason or cause of something.

FOR
Definition:
8. preposition because of: indicating a reason why something happens or is done
22. conj because: for the reason or seeing that...

For some humour..... http://www.planetmike.com/jokes/religion/

posted April 19, 2007 06:45 AM              

I have composed a LONG rant on the Jesus mythos.
But have decided....why bother posting it?
It would only offend some, and confuse others.
So as much as I would love to have a good "serious" discussion,
I see no way for that to be the case at this time.

posted May 06, 2007 11:54 PM              

The Bible Fraud is Tony's first book where he tells the untold story of Jesus and his twin brother, Judas Khrestus. http://www.joshuabooks.com/bushby/biblefraud/internalgif/sample.htm - this is a link to the first chapter.

In Tony's second bookThe Secret in the Bible, Tony describes the lost history of the Giza Plateau and tells how Temple priests of the Great Pyramid preserved the evidence of life beyond death.

In the third book in his series The Crucifixion of Truth, Tony takes his readers into the world of ecclesiastical dishonesty and reveals startling new evidence of forgery and fiction in the New Testament.

Deception unlocks the concealed evidence of Jesus’ twin brother and reveals how the church contrived for centuries to hide the information from the public.

quote:

---

The Bible Fraud will reveal to you:

The origin of the first Gospel
The staged crucifixion in Rome
The initiation of Jesus in Egypt
The concealed place of Jesus’ death
The nature of the early church fathers
The names of Jesus’ three Royal wives
What the ancient Mystery Schools knew
Why the church burnt 12,000 Jewish books
The "fools and madmen" at the church councils
The need for the church to forge historic records
Secret ciphers and forgery in the New Testament
The real lives of Jesus, his twin brother and their families
Why Emperor Constantine called the first Christian Council

Mystery and intrigue surround the church web of deceit, corruption, murder and debauchery.
In The Bible Fraud, you will find the truth about Rabbi Jesus and his twin brother, Judas Khrestus,
their birth, marriages and deaths as well as the bloodlines that have resulted from events of that time.
http://www.joshuabooks.com/bushby/biblefraud/internalgif/untoldstory.htm

---

posted May 07, 2007 12:11 AM              

THE various deific titles applied to Jesus Christ in the New Testament are regarded by some Christian writers as presumptive evidence of his divinity. But the argument proves too much for the case; as we find the proof in history that many other beings, whom Christians regard as men, were honored and addressed by the same titles, such as God, Lord, Savior, Redeemer, Mediator, Messiah, etc.

The Hindoo Chrishna, more than two thousand years ago, was prayerfully worshiped as "God the Most High." His disciple Amarca once addressed him thus: "Thou art the Lord of all things, the God of the universe, the emblem of mercy, the bestower of salvation. Be propitious O most High God," etc. Here he is addressed both as Lord and God. He is also styled "God of Gods."

Adonis of Greece was addressed as "God Supreme," and Osiris of Egypt as "the Lord of Life." In Phrygia, it was "Lord Atys," as Christians say, "Lord Jesus Christ." Narayan of Bermuda was styled the " Holy Living God."

The title "Son of God" was so common in nearly all religious countries as to excite but little awe or attention.

St. Basil says, "Every uncommonly good man was called ,the Son of God.'" The "Asiatic Research" says, "The Tamulese adored a divine Son of God," and Thor of the Scandinavians was denominated "the first­born Son of God;" and so was Chrishna of India, and other demigods.

It requires, therefore, a wide stretch of faith to believe that Jesus Christ was in any peculiar sense "the Son of God," because so denominated, or "the only begotten Son of God," when so many others are reported in history bearing that title.

The title Savior is found in the legends of every religions country. So also God, Redeemer, and Mediator. "When a Mogul or Thibetan is asked who is Chrishna," says the Christian missionary Huc, "the reply is, instantly, 'the Savior of men.'" Buddha was known as "the Savior, Creator and Wisdom of God," and Mithra as both Mediator and Savior, also as "the Redeemer," and Chrishna as "the Divine Redeemer," also "the Redeemer of the World." The terms Mediator and Intercessor were also frequently applied to him by his disciples. And both he and Quexalcote were hailed as "the Messiah." In short, most ancient religious nations were honored with or expected a Messiah.

Was Jesus Christ the "Lamb of God?" (John i. 9.) So was Chrishna styled "the Holy Lamb." The Mexicans, preferring a full­ grown sheep, had their "Ram of God." The Celts had their "Heifer of God," and the Egyptians their Bull of God." All these terms are ludicrous emblems of Deity, representing him as a quadruped, as the title "Lamb of God" does Jesus Christ, a term no less ludicrous than the titles of the pagan Gods as cited above.

And was Christ "the True Light?" (John i. 9.) So was Chrishna likewise called "the True Light," also "the Giver of Light," "the Inward Light," etc. Osiris was "the Redeemer of Light," and Pythagoras was both "Light and Truth." Apollonius was styled the "True Light of the World;" while Simon Magus was called "the Light of all Men."

Several nations had also their Christs, though in many cases the word is differently spelled. Chrest, the Greek mode of spelling Christ, may be found on several of the ancient tombstones of that country. The Christian writer Elsley, in his "Annotations of the Gospels" (vol. i.p. 25), spells the word Christ in this manner, Chrest. The people of Loretto had a black Savior, called Chrest, or Christ. Lucian, in his "Philopatris," admits the ancient Gentiles had the name of Christ, which shows it was a heathen title. The Chaldeans had their Chris, the Hindoos their Chrishna, the Greeks their Chrest, and the Christians their Christ, all, doubtless, derived from the same original root.

As for Jesus, it was a common name among the Jews long before the advent of Christ. Josephus refers to seven or eight persons by that name, as "Jesus, brother of Onias," "Jesus, son of Phabet," etc. Joshua in the Greek form, Jesus, was in still more common use.

Again, was Jesus Christ "the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End?" so, likewise, Chrishna proclaimed, "I am the Beginning, the Middle, and the End." Osiris and Chrishna were both proclaimed "Judge of the Dead," as Jesus was "Judge of quick and dead." Isaiah represents the Father as proclaiming, "I am Jehovah; besides me there is no Savior." (Isa. xliii. 11.) With what consistency, then, can Christ be called "the Savior," if there is but one Sazior, and that is the Father?

And other divine titles besides those above named ­­ in fact, all those applied to Christ ­­ are found used also in reference to the older pagan gods, and hence prove nothing.

ORIGIN OF THE TERMS MEDIATOR, INTERCESSOR, ETC

Several causes contributed to originate a belief in the offices imaginarily assigned to divine God­descended Mediators, Redeemers, and Intercessors.

1. In the first place, the Great Supreme God was believed to be too far off and too aristocratic to be on familiar terms with his subjects, or at all times accessible to their prayers. Hence, was gotten up a "Mediator," or middle God, to stand midway between the Great Supreme and the people, and transmit messages one from the other, and thus serve as agent for both parties. Confirmatory of this statement is the declaration of Mamoides, in his "Guide to the Erring," that "the ancient Sabeans conceived the principal God, on account of his great distance, to be inaccessible; and hence, in imitation of the people in their conduct toward their king, who had to address him through a person appointed for the purpose, they imaginarily employed a middle divinity, who was called a Mediator, to present their claims to the Supreme God." Here the whole secret is out, the whole thing is explained, and we now understand why Christ is called a Mediator, Intercessor, "Advocate with the Father," etc.

2. Again, the Supreme God was supposed to be frequently angry with the people, and threatening to punish if not to destroy them. "I will punish the multitude." (Jer xlvi. 25.) "I will destroy the people." (Ex. xxiii. 27). Hence, this middle divinity, this second person of the trinity, stepped in to plead and intercede on their behalf, being, as we must presume, a better­natured and more merciful being than the Father. And thus interceding, he received the titles of Intercessor and "Advocate with the Father." (i John, ii. i.)

3. The principal circumstance, however, which led to the conception of a divine Savior was the desire to find some way to continue in sin and wrong­doing and escape its natural and legitimate consequences; in other words, to evade the penalty. Hence, it came to be believed that people might run riot in sin, and plunge into the indulgence of their passions and their lusts, till the hour of death approached, when they would have nothing to do but to ask forgiveness, and cast the burden of their sins and sufferings on the merits of "a crucified Savior and Redeemer," who "suffered once for all, that we might escape," and thus dodge the penalty for sin. It was, as Mr. Fleurbach expresses it, "A realized wish to be free from the laws of morality, and escape the natural consequences of wrong doing."

WE have the singular coincidence presented in the histories of several of the Saviors of their lineal descent through a line of kings or princes, and yet commencing their probationary life under the most humble and adverse circumstances ­­ being born in stables, caves, and other inauspicious situations.

The story of their royal blood was calculated to add dignity to their characters, while their humble birth in the midst of poverty, and unmarked by ostentation, would evince their humility, meekness, condescension, and absence of pride, and thus proclaim a lesson of humility and resignation to their disciples and followers.

Here, seems to be plainly indicated the motives for assigning them to such a birth, and such a character.

Christ's lineal descent, it will be remembered, is professedly traced (though in a very zig­zag, disjointed manner) from the royal house of David. And yet his royal blood did not save him from the most ignoble and ignominious birth, and obscure exordium of his earth life.

A singular story, and yet a similar story, is told of the Indian Savior Chrishna, who was, according to the Rev. Mr. Allen (India, p. 379) of the royal house of Kousa, traced back through many generations. Yet, in order to teach the world a lesson of true humility, and administer a just reprehension to pride, he submitted to be born in a cave, amid the denizens of subterranean abodes. And here let it be noted, the best and most orthodox writers concede that while Christ is said to have born in a manger, that manger was in a cave. Mr. Fleetwood (a very popular Christian writer) testifies in this matter that "the Greek fathers generally agree that the place of Christ's birth was a cave. (Life of Christ, p. 568.) Then the coincidence in this respect between Christ and Chrishna may be set down as complete.

We have no means of learning how many of the Saviors were of royal blood, as the genealogy of some of them is not given. But those whose lineal descent is furnished us are almost uniformly traced to or evinced as springing from royal parentage, and practical liumility ­­ so far as it can be taught by an unostentatious birth ­­ is a lesson taught by nearly all. Buddha Sakia of Hindostan is directly traced through a royal pedigree.

Speaking on this point, one writer remarks: "Tradition affirms that his mother was betrothed to a rajah, and of course her son belonged to the same royal caste that Chrishna did during his existence on earth." (Prog. Rel. Ideas, vol, i. 84.)

"The Great Prophet" of Arabia (Mahomet) not only commenced his earthly career in a humble situation, but resembled Christ in having "nowhere to lay his head." It is said of the Great Prophet, "A cloak spread on the ground served him for a bed, and a skin filled with date leaves was his pillow." The genealogy of the God Yu (of China) is traced through a line of princes to a very remote origin, while his whole life was a lesson of practical humility, and proclaimed at every step, This is the way; walk ye in it."

IN order to exalt the dignity and character of the Christian Messiah still higher than a mere claim for a divine origin paternally would have the effect to do, two of his assumed to be inspired biographers have set up for him a claim to a royal lineage through the maternal line.

Hence, they tell us that he descended from and through a line of kings embracing the house of David. But in presenting the names, and the number of generations, in their attempts to make out this royal distinction, this kingly exaltation of birth, they exhibit a most egregious bungle, and the most barefaced tissue of discrepancies. For they not only differ widely with each other in this matter, but differ with the Old Testament genealogy, and differ with those texts which give the maternal ancestry of Jesus.

Indeed, though varying as wide as the poles from each other, they both miss Jesus and arrive at Joseph in tracing down the generations from Abraham (unless we assume they intended to represent Joseph as being his father).

Luke, in his gospel, names and counts off forty­one generations from David, to Joseph, though he had previously represented it as being forty­two; but Matthew says that "from Abraham to David are fourteen generations," but according to his own showing, and according to his own list of names, there are but thirteen. And then he tells us there are but fourteen generations from David to the carrying away into Babylon. But according to the Old Testament genealogy (see i Chron. iii.) there were eighteen. And then the names comprised in the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke are so widely different from that found in Chronicles, as to set all analogy and agreement at defiance.

In fact, in their whole list of names, from David down to Joseph, they only come together twice. Their names are all different but two, that of Salathiel and Zorobabel, which names alone are found in both lists.

Matthew tells us that the son of David, through whom Joseph descended, was Solomon, but Luke says it was Nathan. The next name in Matthew's list is that of Roboam, but the corresponding name in Luke's list is Mattatha. Matthew's next name is Abia, which Luke gives as Menan, while Chronicles differs from both, and gives it as Abijah. Matthew says Joram begat Ozias, but Chronicles virtually declares Joram had no such son, although he had a great­great­ grandson Uzziah. But Luke says, in effect, there was no such person in the genealogical tree, or family line, as either Joram, Ozias or Uzziah. Matthew says again, "Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon." (Matt. i. ii.)

But Chronicles declares that Jechonias was Jehoiakim's son, and not Josiah's, and that Josiah had no such son. And, besides, we learn, from 2 Kings xiii., that Josiah was killed eleven years before the exile to Babylon, and could not well beget a son after he had been defunct a tenth of a century.

Matthew, after naming twenty­four generations as filling out the line, and making it complete between David and Jacob, concludes by saying, "and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary."

But Luke, antecedent to spinning out his list to fourteen generations more than Matthew, i.e., making it fourteen generations longer, declares that "Joseph was the son of Heli." So that Joseph either had two fathers, Jacob and Heli; or Matthew or Luke, or both, were most egregiously mistaken, with all their "inspiration."

Again, Luke says that Salathiel was the son of Neri; but Chronicles says he was the son of Jechonias. And after Chronicles had registered Zorobabel as the son of Penniah, Matthew and Luke, assuming to become "wise above what was written," both declare that he was the son of Salathiel. They agree here in contradicting Chronicles, which is the only instance but one of their agreement in the whole list of progenitors from David to Joseph.

With this exception they contradict each other all the way through, and in many instances that of Chronicles, too.

This is a strange way, indeed, of proving Jesus Christ to have had two fathers! ­­ to be both the son of God and son of David! And it is still stranger that they should trace his genealogy to Joseph, if they did not consider him Joseph's son. Otherwise, the genealogy of "Sinbad the Sailor," or "Harry Haulaway," would have been as apropos.

Such are the beautiful harmony and agreement in the words of "divine inspiration" which Christians prate so much about.

And all this appears to be the result of an attempt to elevate the man Christ Jesus to a level with the demigods of antiquity, nearly all of whom claimed to be of royal or princely descent. Such continual blundering, guessing, cross­firing, and clashing of names as is exhibited in the foregoing exposition, reminds us of the Hibernian's reply when asked for the number and names of his brothers:

"Well, sir, I have fourteen brothers, and they are all named Bill but Bob ­­ his name is Tom."

Matthew and Luke's attempt to exalt and dignify the character of Christ by making out for him a pure, holy and royal lineage we find, upon a critical examination not only proved a very signal but a very singular and ludicrous failure, for all his female ancestors who are brought to notice were persons of libidinous or licentious tendencies, according to their own biblical history.

"It is remarkable," says Dr. Alexander Walker, (a Christian writer, in his work on Woman, p. 330), "that in the genealogy of Christ only four women are named: Thamar, who seduced the father of her late husband, and Rachel, a common prostitute, and Ruth, who, instead of marrying one of her cousins, went to bed with another of them, and Bathsheba, an adulteress, who espoused David the murderer of her first husband."

What a pedigree for an incarnate God ­­ a being ostensibly of spotless origin! though his impure ancestral origin does not detract from the high moral character and distinguished moral life which marks the history of "the man Christ Jesus," many incidents of whose life show him to have been what is now known as a spiritual medium.

posted May 07, 2007 01:05 AM              

quote:

---

OK......
Something to ponder.....
For those who believe Lord is GOD and Jesus is GOD...... ***Fayte

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For I so loved the world that I sacrificed Myself to Myself to appease My own anger at My own creation." - The Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

And for more ponderings:
THE monstrous scientific paradox (as coming ages will regard it) comprehended in the conception of an almighty, omnipresent, and infinite Being, "the Creator of innumerable worlds," ("by him [Christ] were all things made that were made," John i. 3­10), being born of a frail and finite woman, as taught by both the oriental and Christian religion, is so exceedingly shocking to every rational mind, which has not been sadly warped, perverted, and coerced into the belief by early psychological influence, that we would naturally presume that those who, on the assumption of the remotest possibility of its truth, should venture to put forth a doctrine so glaringly unreasonable and so obviously untenable, would of course vindicate it and establish it by the strongest arguments and by the most unassailable and most irrefragable proofs; and that in setting forth a doctrine so manifestly at war with every law and analogy of nature and every principle of science, no language should have been used, nor the slightest admission made, that could possibly lead to the slightest degree of suspicion that the original authors and propagators of this doctrine had either any doubt of the truth of the doctrine themselves, or were wanting in the most ample, the most abundant proof to sustain it. No language, no text, not a word, not a syllable should have been used making the most remote concession damaging to the validity of the doctrine, so that not "the shadow of a shade of doubt" could be left on any mind of its truth. Omnipotent indeed should be the logic, and irresistible the proof, in support of a thesis or a doctrine which so squarely confronts and contradicts all the observation, all the experience, the whole range of scientific knowledge, and the common sense of mankind. How startling then, to every devout and honest professor of the Christian faith ought to be the recent discovery of the fact, that the great majority of the texts having any bearing upon the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ, ­­ a large majority of the passages in the very book on which the doctrine is predicated, and which is acknowledged as the sole warranty for such a belief, ­­ are actually at variance with the doctrine, and actually amount to its virtual denial and overthrow. For we find, upon a critical examination of the matter, that at least three­fourths of the texts, both in the Gospels and Epistles, which relate to the divinity of Christ, specifically or by implication either teach a different and a contrary doctrine, or make concessions entirely fatal to it, by investing him with finite human qualities utterly incompatible with the character and attributes of a divine or infinite Being. How strange, then, how superlatively strange, that millions should yet hold to such a strange "freak of nature," such a dark relic of oriental heathenism, such a monstrous, foolish and childish superstition, as that which teaches the infinite Creator and "Upholder of the universe" could be reduced so near to nonentity, as was required to pass through the ordinary stages of human generation, human birth, and human parturition, ­­ a puerile notion which reason, science, nature, philosophy, and common sense, proclaim to be supremely absurd and self­evidently impossible, and which even the Scriptures fail to sustain, ­­ a logical, scriptural exposition, of which we will here present a brief summary: ­­

1. The essential attributes of a self­existing God and Creator, and "Upholder of all things," are infinitude, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, and any being not possessing all these attributes to repletion, or possessing any quality or characteristic in the slightest degree incompatible with any one of these attributes, cannot be a God in a divine sense, but must of necessity be a frail, fallible, finite being.

2. Jesus Christ disclaims, hundreds of times over, directly or impliedly, the inherent possession of any one of these divine attributes.

3. His evangelical biographers have invested him with the entire category of human qualities and characteristics, each one of which is entirely unbefitting a God, and taken together are the only distinguishing characteristics by which we can know a man from a God.

4. Furthermore, there issued from his own mouth various sayings and concessions most fatal to the conception of his being a God.

5. His devout biographers have reported various actions and movements in his practical life which we are compelled to regard as absolutely irreconcilable with the infinite majesty, lofty character, and supreme attributes of an almighty Being.

6. These human qualities were so obvious to all who saw him and all who became acquainted with him, that doubts sprang up among his own immediate followers, which ultimately matured into an open avowal of disbelief in his divinity in that early age.

7. Upon the axiomatical principles of philosophy it is an utter and absolute impossibility to unite in repletion the divine and the human in the same being.

8. And then Christ had a human birth.

9. He was constituted in part, like human beings, of flesh and blood.

10. He became, on certain occasions, "an hungered," like finite beings.

11. He also became thirsty (John xix. 28), like perishable mortals.

12. He often slept, like mortals, and thus became "to dumb forgetfulness a prey."

13. He sometimes became weary, like human beings. (See John iv. 6.)

14. He was occasionally tempted, like fallible mortals. (Matt. iv. i.)

15. His "soul became exceeding sorrowful," as a frail, finite being. (Matt. xxvi. 38.)

16. He disclosed the weakness of human passion by weeping. (John xi. 35.)

17. He was originally an imperfect being, "made perfect through suffering." (Heb. ii. 10.)

18. He "increased in wisdom and stature" (Luke ii. 52); therefore he must have possessed finite, changeable, mortal attributes.

19. And he finally died and was buried, like all perishable mortals. He could not possibly, from these considerations, have been a God. It is utterly impracticable to associate with or comprehend, in a God of infinite powers and infinite attributes, all or any of these finite human qualities.

20. Dark, intellectually dark, indeed, must be that mind, and sunk, sorrowfully sunk in superstition, that can worship a being as the great omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "I AM," who possessed all those qualities which were constitutionally characteristic of the pious, the noble, the devout, the Godlike, yet finite and fallible Jesus, according to his own admissions and the representations of his own interested biographers.

21. The only step which the disciples of the Christian faith have made toward disproving or setting aside these arguments, objections, and difficulties, is that of assigning the incarnate Jesus a double or twofold nature ­­ the amalgamation of the human and divine; a postulate and a groundless assumption, which we have proved and demonstrated by thirteen arguments, which we believe to be unanswerable, is not only absurd, illogical, and impossible, but foolish and ludicrous in the highest degree. (See vol. ii.)

22. This senseless hypothesis, and every other assumption and argument made use of by the professors of the Christian faith to vindicate their favorite dogma of the divinity of Jesus, we have shown to be equally applicable to the demigods of the ancient heathen, more than twenty of whom were invested with the same combination of human and divine qualities which the followers and worshippers of Jesus claim for him.

23. Testimony of the Father against the divinity of the Son. The Father utterly precludes the Son from any participation in the divine essence, or any claim in the Godhead, by such declarations as the following: "I am Jehovah, and beside me there is no Savior." (Isaiah xliii. ii.) How, then, we would ask, can Jesus Christ be the Savior? "I, Jehovah, am thy Savior and thy Redeemer." Then Christ can be neither the Savior nor Redeemer. "There is no God else beside me, a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me." (Isaiah xiv. 21.) So the Father virtually declares, according to "the inspired prophet Isaiah," that the Son, in a divine sense, cannot be either God, Savior, or Redeemer. Again, "I am Jehovah, thy God, and thou shalt not acknowledge a God beside me." (Hosea xiii. 4.) Here Christ is not only by implication cut off from the Godhead, but positively prohibited from being worshipped as God. And thus the testimony of the Father disproves and sets aside the divinity of the Son.

24. Testimony of the mother. When Mary found, after a long search, her son Jesus in the temple, disputing with the doctors, and chided or reproved him for staying from home without the consent of his parents, and declared, "thy father and I sought thee, sorrowing" (Luke ii. 48), she proclaimed a twofold denial of his divinity. In the first place it cannot be possible that she regarded her son Jesus as "that awful Being, before whom even the devout saints bow in trembling fear," when she used such language and evinced such a spirit as she did. "Why hast thou thus dealt with us?" (Luke ii. 48) is her chiding language. And then, when she speaks of Joseph as his father, "thy father and I," she issues a declaration against his divinity which ought to be regarded as settling the question forever. For who could know better than the mother, or rather, who could know but the mother, who the father of the child Jesus was? And as she acknowledges it was Joseph, she thus repudiates the story of the immaculate conception, which constitutes the whole basis for the claim of his divinity. Hence the testimony of the mother, also, disproves his title to the Godhead.

25. Testimony or disclaimer of the Son. We will show by a specific citation of twenty­five texts that there is not one attribute comprehended in or peculiar to a divine and infinite Being, but that Christ rejects as applicable to himself ­­ that he most conclusively disclaims every attribute of a divine Being, both by precept and practice, and often in the most explicit language.

26. By declaring, "The Son can do nothing of himself" (John v. 19), he most emphatically disclaims the attribute of omnipotence. For an omnipotent Being can need no aid, and can accept of none.

27. When he acknowledged and avowed his ignorance of the day of judgment, which must be presumed to be the most important event in the world's history, he disclaimed the attribute of omniscience. "Of that day and hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only." (Matt. xxiv. 36.) Now, as an omniscient Being must possess all knowledge, his avowed ignorance in this case is a confession he was not omniscient, and hence not a God.

28. And when he declares, "I am glad for your sakes I was not there" (at the grave of Lazarus), he most distinctly disavows being omnipresent, and thus denies to himself another essential attribute of an infinite God.

29. And the emphatic declaration, "I live by the Father" (John vi. 57), is a direct disclaimer of the attributes of self­ existence; as a being who lives by another cannot be self­existent, and, per consequence, not the infinite God.

30. He disclaims possessing infinite goodness, another essential attribute of a supreme divine Being. "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God." (Mark x. 18.)

31. He disclaim divine honors, and directed them to the father. "I honor my Father." (John viii. 49.) "I receive not honor from men." (John v. 41.)

32. He recommended supreme worship to the Father, and not to himself. "The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." (John iv. 21.)

33. He ascribed supreme dominion to the Father. "Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever." (Matt. vi. 13.)

34. It will be seen, from the foregoing text, that Christ also acknowledges that the kingdom is the Father's. A God without a kingdom would be a ludicrous state of things.

35. He conceded supreme authority to the Father. "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John vii. 16.)

36. He considered the Father as the supreme protector and preserver of even his own disciples. "I pray that thou shouldst keep them from the evil." (John xvii. 15.) What, omnipotence not able to protect his own disciples?

37. In fine, he humbly acknowledged that his power, his will, his ministry, his mission, his authority, his works, his knowledge, and his very life, were all from, and belonged to and were under the control of the Father. "I can do nothing of myself;" "I came to do the will of him that sent me;" "The Father that dwelleth within me, he doeth the work," etc;. "A God within a God," is an old pagan Otaheitan doctrine.

38. He declared that even spiritual communion was the work of the Father. (See John vi. 45.)

39. He acknowledged himself controlled by the Father. (See John v. 30.)

40. He acknowledged his entire helplessness and dependence on the Father. "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." (John v. 19.) 41. He acknowledged that even his body was the work of his Father; in other words, that he was dependent on his Father for his physical life. (See Heb. xvi. 5.)

41. And more than all, he not only called the Father "the only true God" (John xvii. 3), but calls him "my Father and my God." (John xx. 17.) Now, it would be superlative nonsense to consider a being himself a God, or the God, who could use such language as is here ascribed to the humble Jesus. This text, this language, is sufficient of itself to show that Christ could not have laid any claim to the Godhead on any occasion, unless we degrade him to the charge of the most palpable and shameful contradiction.

42. He uniformly directed his disciples to pray, not to him, but the Father. (See Matt. vi. 6.)

43. On one occasion, as we have cited the proof (in Matt. xi. ii), he even acknowledged John the Baptist to be greater than he; while it must be patent to every reader that no man could be greater than the almighty, supreme Potentate of heaven and earth, in any sense whatever.

44. Testimony of the disciples. Another remarkable proof of the human sireship of Jesus is, that one of his own disciples ­­ ay, one of the chosen twelve, selected by him as being endowed with a perfect knowledge of his character, mission, and origin ­­ this witness, thus posted and thus authorized, proclaims, in unequivocal language, that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Hear the language of Philip addressed to Nathanael. "We have found him of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did write ­­ Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John i. 45.) No language could be more explicit, no declaration more positive, that Jesus was the son of Joseph. And no higher authority could be adduced to settle the question, coming as it does from "headquarters." And what will, or what can, the devout stickler for the divinely paternal origin of Jesus Christ do with such testimony? It is a clincher which no sophistry can set aside, no reasoning can grapple with, and no logic overthrow.

45. His disciples, instead of representing him as being "the only true God," often speak of him in contradistinction to God.

46. They never speak of him as the God Christ Jesus, but as "the man Christ Jesus." (i Tim. ii. 5.) "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God." (Acts ii. 23.) It would certainly be blasphemy to speak of the Supreme Being as "a man approved of God." Christian reader, reflect upon this text. "By that man whom he (the Father) hath ordained" (Acts xvii. 3), by the assumption of the Godhead of Christ, we would be presented with the double or twofold solecism, 1st. Of God being "ordained" by another God; and 2d. That of his being blasphemously called a "Man."

47. Paul's, declaration has been cited, that "unto us there is but one God ­­ the Father." (i Cor. iv. 8.) Now, it is plain to common sense, that if there is but one God, and that God is comprehended in the Father, then Christ is entirely excluded from the Godhead.

48. If John's declaration be true, that "no man hath seen God at any time" (John iv. 12), then the important question arises, How could Christ be God, as he was seen by thousands of men, and seen hundreds of times?

49. God the Father is declared to be the "One," "the Holy One," "the only One," etc;., more than one hundred times, as if purposely to exclude the participation of any other being in the Godhead.

50. This one, this only God, is shown to be the Father alone in more than four thousand texts, thirteen hundred and twenty­six of which are found in the New Testament.

51. More than fifty texts have been found which declare, either explicitly or by implication, that God the Father has no equal, which effectually denies or shuts out the divine equality of the Son. "To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal with, saith the holy One." (Isaiah XI. 25.)

52. Christ in the New Testament is called "man," and "the Son of man," eighty­four times, ­­ egregious and dishonorable misnomers, most certainly, to apply to a supreme and infinite Deity. On the other hand, he is called God but three times, and denominates himself "the Son of God" but once, and that rather obscurely.

53. The Father is spoken of, in several instances, as standing in the relation of God to the Son, as "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts iii. 2.) "Ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." (i Cor. xi. 3.) Now, the God of a God is a polytheistic, heathen conception; and no meaning or interpretation, as we have shown, can be forced upon such texts as these, that will not admit a plurality of Gods, if we admit the titles as applicable to Christ, or that his scriptural biographers intend to apply such a title in a superior or supreme sense.

54. Many texts make Christ the mere tool, agent, image, servant, or representative of God, as Christ, "the image of God" (Heb. i. 3), Christ, the appointed of God (Heb. iii. i), Christ, "the servant of God" (Matt. xii. 18), etc;. To consider a being thus spoken of as himself the supreme God, is, as we have demonstrated, the very climax of absurdity and nonsense. To believe "the servant of God" is God himself, ­­ that is, the servant of himself, ­­ and that God and his "image" are the same, is to descend within one step of buffoonery.

55. And then it has been ascertained that there are more than three hundred texts which declare, either expressly or by implication, Christ's subordination to and dependence on the Father, as, "I can do nothing of myself;" "Not mine, but his that sent me;" "I came to do the will of him that sent me" (John iv. 34); "I seek the will of my Father," etc;.

56. And more than one hundred and fifty texts make the Son inferior to the Father, as "the Son knoweth not, but the Father does" (Mark viii. 32); "MY Father is greater than I;" "The Son can do nothing of himself" (John v. 19), etc;.

57. There are many divine titles applied to the Father which are never used in reference to the Son, as "Jehovah," "The Most High," "God Almighty," "The Almighty," etc;.

On the other hand, those few divine epithets or titles which are used in application to Jesus Christ, as Lord, God, Savior, Redeemer, Intercessor, etc;., it has been shown were all used prior to the birth of Christ, in application to beings known and acknowledged to be men, and some of them are found so applied in the bible itself; as, for example, Moses is called a God in two instances, as we have shown, and cited the proof (in Ex. iv. 16, vii. i), while the title of Lord is applied to man at this day, even in Christian countries. And instances have been cited in the bible of the term Savior being applied to men, both in the singular and plural numbers. (See 2 Kings xiii. 5, and Neh. ix. 27.) Seeing, then, that the most important divine titles which the writers of the New Testament have applied to Jesus were previously used in application to men, known and admitted to be such, it is therefore at once evident that those titles do nothing toward proving him to be the Great Divine Being, as the modern Christian world assume him to be, even if we base the argument wholly on scriptural grounds. While, on the other hand, we have demonstrated it to be an absolute impossibility to apply with any propriety or any sense to a divine infinite omnipotent Being those finite human qualities which are so frequently used with reference to Jesus throughout the New Testament. And hence, even if we should suppose or concede that the writers of the New Testament did really believe him to be the great Infinite Spirit, or the almighty, omnipotent God, we must conclude they were mistaken, from their own language, from their own description of him, as well as his own virtual denial and rejection of such a claim, when he applied to himself, as he did in nine cases out of ten, strictly finite human qualities and human titles (as we have shown), wholly incompatible with the character of an infinite divine Being. We say, from the foregoing considerations, if the primitive disciples of Jesus did really believe him to be the great Infinite, both their descriptions of him and his description or representation of himself, would amply and most conclusively prove that they were mistaken. At least we are compelled to admit that there is either an error in applying divine titles to Jesus, or often an error in describing his qualities and powers, by himself and his original followers, as there is no compatibility or agreement between the two. Divine titles to such a being as they represent him to be, would be an egregious misnomer. We say, then, that it must be clearly and conclusively evident to every unbiased mind, from evidence furnished by the bible itself, that if the divine titles applied to Jesus were intended to have a divine significance, then they are misapplied. Yet we would not here conclude an intentional misrepresentation in the case, but simply a mistake growing out of a misconception, and the very limited childish conception, of the nature, character, and attributes of the "great positive Mind," so universally prevalent in that semi­barbarous age, and the apparently total ignorance of the distinguishing characteristics which separate the divine and the human. We will illustrate: some children, on passing through a wild portion of the State of Maine recently, reported they encountered a bear; and to prove they could not be mistaken in the animal, they described it as being a tall, slight­built animal, with long slender legs, of yellowish auburn hue, a short, white, bushy tail, cloven feet, large branchy horns, etc;. Now, it will be seen at once that, while their description of the animal is evidently in the main correct, they had simply mistaken a deer for a bear, and hence misnamed the animal.

In like manner we must conclude, from the repeated instances in which Christ's biographers have ascribed to him all the foibles, frailties, and finite qualities and characteristics of a human being, that if they have in any instance called him a God in a divine sense, it is an egregious misnomer. Their description of him makes him a man, and but a man, whatever may have been their opinion with respect to the propriety of calling him a God. And if the two do not harmonize, the former must rule the judgment in all cases. The truth is, the Jewish founders of Christianity entertained such a low, narrow, contracted, and mean opinion of Deity and the infinite distinction and distance between the divine and the human, that their theology reduced him to a level with man; and hence they usually described him as a man.