Science – 3.1 False Preachers

 

 

 

 

VOLUME 2, Pt. 1

 

False Priests:

Nearly All Preachers

Throughout History

Are

False Prophets,

Bad Angels;

 

“He leads priests away stripped” (Job, in Job 12.19);

 

All Our Religious Leaders, All Priests, All Ministers, All Prophets, All Angels,

“Have Sinned”; “All” Have Been Bad, False Priests, “False Prophets”;

Sinning in Person, and in their Sermons, and in their “Inspired” Doctrines;

 

“As for you, you whitewash with lies” (Job 13.4);

“No One is Good But God” Himself,

(Mark 10.18 RSV);

 

“All Have Sinned” (Rom. 3.23; 1 John 1.10)

All the host of heaven will fall (Isa. 34.4 ff?);

The Bible Says that Essentially All Priests, Ministers, all

Religious Leaders, even the Saints and Angels in Heaven, are Really

Bad, and False; They, and their Holy Spirit- “Inspired” Doctrines and Sayings, their Sermons;

The Reason That God Destroys Heaven Itself

(Isa. 34.4; Rev. 21; 2 Peter 3).

 

 

 

 

Formal Copyright 2011 “Dr. Woodbridge Goodman, Ph. D.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some Relevant Quotes from the Bible, on Sins in Preachers:

 

 

 

 

“All have sinned” (Rom. 3.23).

“Let no one contend, and let none accuse, for with you is my contention, O priest” (Hos. 4.4).

“Prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit” (Jer. 6.13 NWT).

“From prophet to priest every one deals falsely” (Jer. 6.13 RSV).

“Now this is for you, O Priest” (Mal. 2.2).

“All the stars of heaven will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree. My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens” (Isa. 34.4 NWT).

“In that day the LORD will punish the powers in the heaven above” (Isa. 24.21 NWT).

“Because you have rejected knowledge, I … reject you as my priests” (Hos. 4.6 NWT).

“The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end? ” (Jer. 5.30 NWT).

“Like people, like priests. I will punish both of them for their ways and … deeds” (Hos. 4.9). “Satan disguises himself as an angel” (2 Corin. 11.14).

“Whoever exalts himself will be humbled” (Mat. 23.12).

“All the starry host will fall” (Isa. 34.4).”

The angel said to me, ‘Write this’…. Then I fell down … to worship him, but he said to me, ‘You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you.…’ Then I saw heaven opened'” (Rev. 19.9-11).

“And … angels were thrown down” (Rev. 12.9).

 

[Author’s Note: terms in quotes

usually indicate this term is in the Bible itself

unless otherwise specified)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

 

Vol. 2

 

 

FALSE PRIESTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Title Pages; Blurb; Author’s Notes; Abstract

 

 

Chapter 1: Longstanding Sins in “All” Our Priests, Ministers, P. 1?

 

Chapter 2: Prophets p. 36?

 

Chapter 3: Angels and Apostles 78?

 

Chapter 4: Spirits

 

 

Chapter 5?: The Destruction of Heaven

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preface

 

 

For centuries, most of us have learned most of what we think we know about God and Christ, from priests and ministers, in churches; priests and ministers, who quote apostles, angels, prophets, and so forth, from the Bible. But … are our priests and ministers and churches, really all that reliable? Have they quoted the Bible correctly, when they say that the Bible supports their authority? Are our preachers’ sermons and doctrines – and even the “Christ” they offered us – really accurate and true? Here and now, in this very book, we will uncover dozens, a hundred quotes from the Bible itself – that warn constantly of huge sins, in nearly all our holiest men and angels. And in all our priests and ministers; our preachers. The Bible warns about sins in them personally … but also sins and errors, even in their sermons; and even in their presentations of the most allegedly “inspired” and perfect “doctrines,” and sayings about God.

 

Can if be true? Could essentially “all” our holiest priests and ministers, bishops and archbishops, have been wrong? Wrong not just in their daily behavior, but also wrong in their sermons, their allegedly holiest, Holy-Spirit doctrines? Could the very picture of “Christ” that nearly all of us learned from them, be partially false therefore? In fact, all this can and must happen. Says the Bible, itself.

 

First 1) the Bible says that “all have sinned.” It adds that 2) only God himself is perfect, or fully knowledgeable. Then too, more specifically, 3) the Bible goes on to note sins in “priests” especially; the Bible even noted sins in 4) “prophets,” and 5) “angels,” and 6) “apostles”; even in priests who believe they are following “Christ,” the “Lord, Lord.” Even in they themselves, but 7) in their words, and 8) their most Holy Spirit-“inspired” “doctrines,” and sayings, sermons, about God. So that finally 9) the implied or explicit claim of our religious leaders – to be the reliable, even “infallible” voicepieces of God – are here found to have been false. Such claims of preachers especially, turn out to have been motivated by bad motives, and personal mistakes; like Pride and Vanity. Ultimately we will show here, the implicit and occasionally explicit claims of our holy men, that they accurately represent God to us, are simply, false. So that therefore, to really get to know God, we must go beyond all our priests and ministers. (And then? Even beyond the angels, as it turns out. But let’s consider preachers first)

 

Let us consider the sins of preachers first of all. Preachers often appear to be extremely “humble.” But deeper down, there is a massive vanity and pride in them: in that deep down, every preacher believes that he is good enough to speak about God, to sermonize to others, and to “teach” them. Indeed, a preacher stands before a congregation and speaks, based on the implicit, deep assumption that after all, preachers are good enough; their ideas and words about God are better than others, and others need to listen to them.

 

Armed with this deep confidence or Pride, many, many preachers even look forward to the Second Coming, and even the Apocalypse. Preachers and their congregations often look forward to the day when God returns to earth, to punish the wicked and reward the good. Preachers often look forward to this day … because they believe that they themselves have been good enough after all. And they believe that when God comes to earth therefore, they themselves, our preachers, will at last, get their just, great rewards from God. And yet however, we will be noting here, that this rosy scenario or sermon, is not really quite what the Bible really, fully said. First 1) the Bible continually warned about “false” things, even in our holiest men and angels. Second 2) for that matter specifically, even the Second Coming especially… involves some humbling and surprising punishments for, even especially, very, religious people. For Christians. And especially, for preachers.

 

The fact is – as we will be showing here – the Bible itself warned that all along, there have always been great sins and errors, even in our highest holy men and angels; on earth, and even in heaven itself. Specifically, most preachers will be found to have sincerely thought they were following God, and Christ; but in the Second Coming, even preachers especially, priests and ministers, are found to have been following, “worship”ing, a false idea of Christ (Rev. 13; 1 John 4 etc.).

 

Our preachers therefore have been far, far too proud and vain; far too self-confident and sanguine. In the “End,” in the Second Coming, God does not come to earth, simply to congratulate our preachers and churches on a job well done. On the contrary. We will be showing here that in the end, God comes to earth again … to tell our preachers especially, that they have always, from the very beginning, made extremely serious errors; not only in their personal behavior, but also in their most popular sermons and homilies and doctrines. In fact, in the End, Jesus arrives to tell especially our holy men that, from the days of the Old Testament and then of Jesus himself, our preachers made mistakes – and typically followed false holy men, “false prophets” from the “Lord.” Indeed in the End, the whole world is found to have been “deceived” even in its “worship” (Rev. 13); to have been following a “False Christ.” While here we will show that nearly all of our preachers (so far as their public sermons are concerned), have actually misunderstood the Bible; and so have presented even a false idea of Christ. So that in the end, our preachers have presented and followed, and led millions to follow … a False Christ.

 

If preachers can sin or err, then after all, no doubt their ideas about God and Christ occasionally go astray. And if so then inevitably, So that therefore, preachers’ sermons will often present a false idea of, among other things, Jesus himself. Or in effect, preachers will often present finally, to their congregations and even to the whole world, a “False Christ.” So that therefore, if and when God or Christ arrives on earth again, for the Second Coming, he does not comes to simply congratulate our faithful religious believers, or our priests and ministers. God does not come to congratulate all those modern Pharisees, who confidently, proudly think that they are good Christians, because they are following “Christ.” Rather, instead, God himself arrives in the Second Coming … to show most “Christians,” that they themselves were following a False Christ. That they were 1) huge sinners. Who were 2) “deceived,” under a strong “illusion,” “delusion,” even about their best and most “holy” ideas of, their mental picture, of God and Christ. In the end in fact, the whole “world,” nearly all those who think they are good Christians, are to be found to have been deceived; to have been following a false idea of Christ; or in effect, a “False Christ.” And the world will have been lead to this, by their religion, their “worship”; which were lead in turn finally, by … priests and ministers.

 

And so therefore, the Second Coming is not quite as positive or simple or painless, as most preachers all-too-“vain”ly suppose. God himself comes to earth the second time, not to simply congratulate those who proudly think they are following God better than anyone else; rather, God comes to earth especially to note sins, delusions … in even especially our holiest men, churches, and angels. God comes to earth to note longstanding, continuous sins even especially in our holiest men and practically “all” the angels and prophets; in them personally, but also in some of their allegedly most “inspired” and “holy” “doctrines.”

 

A million preachers to be sure, weekly present themselves, every Sunday, in front of a million congregations. To deliver to the whole world and all in it, their mental picture or “image” of God. And in doing so, they in effect present themselves as the reliable spokesmen for God himself. But here and now we will show that, among other things, that 10) in so presenting themselves, our preachers ignored and disobeyed, hundreds of parts of the Bible. That warned about sins in our holy men and angels. And that 11) warned against being too certain about God, like the Pharisees. That warned about the inevitable temptations to Pride and Vanity, inherent in being a religious leader; of and standing in front of “congregations” to pray prominently, proudly, conspicuously (q.v.). Finally, 12) “no one is good but God” himself. So that 13) all such people – all our preachers – have been simply, “presumptuous.” And even 14) “deceit”ful, among other things. Indeed, they have presented to themselves and then to the world, inevitably, the foretold “False Christ.”

 

Preachers to be sure, have dozens, hundreds of parts of the Bible, which they present to millions of churchgoers, to “prove” that the Bible itself, supported preachers and so forth. But here we will be showing that we must not simply take preachers’ word for this. We will be showing that the language and final message, of the Bible, is actually extremely complex; far more complex than the simple religion of “faith” in “miracles” or even “spirituality,” that has always been presented to us in church. The fact is, God himself told us that he had confused our “tongues,” our language, at Babel. So that to get at the “second,” “full”er, deeper, more righteous reading of the Bible, here we will need to at last, learn to make out way though the complex, any “double” language, the poetic double entendres, the polysemy, of the Bible. We will need to get far deeper into reading the Bible, and its language; in order to come up with a more accurate vision of Jesus for example. And then, we must try to make this vast complexity, this vast vision, “plain” and clear at last. And indeed, as it turns out, it is possible enough to do this: simply put, the Christ we see finally emerging from the ancient text itself, is a Christ who does not self-confidently declare himself to be God, or even to be the foretold “Christ”; but who instead, 99% of the time, merely asks others, “who do you say I am?” In the end we will see the real Christ, furthermore; as not emphasizing “faith”; faith in the authority of preachers and holy men and angels. Instead, the real Christ constantly 1) warned of many “false prophets” and deceitful priests and believers. Who would come after the time of Jesus, even in the “name” of Christ; asserting and even perhaps at times sincerely feeling that they are following the “Lord, Lord.” But the Bible warns, most of those who think they are Christians, who think they are following “Christ,” are actually to be found following finally, a false idea of Christ; to be following the foretold, False Christ.

 

Essentially all our preachers for centuries have presented to us all, to the whole world, to all the peoples of the earth, a picture or image of Christ … appearing to 1) support the authority of preachers and churches; 2) stressing total, blind “faith” in them; 3) in order for us to get big physical “miracles”; or failing that, good mental feelings or “spirit”s. If we follow that vision of Christ, we were constantly assured, we would get huge, amazing, spectacular miracles, or holy feelings, spirits. And 4) indeed we were firmly promised in a billion sermons, that if we followed this vision of Christ, we would get “eternal life,” in “Heaven.” And to support this vision, our preachers were able to find dozens, hundreds of (out of context) quotes from the Bible itself. And indeed the fact is, on the surface, the Bible presented many quotes that could be allowed to support a simple religion of simple “faith” in religious and other authorities; one that superficially seemed to support preachers, and holy men especially. But here we are about to employ a little more sophisticated kind of linguistic, poststructural reading of the Bible, and its language. In order to make its deep meaning finally, more “plain.” To reveal the truer and better vision of Christ, after all.

 

So what finally, is God or Christ, really like? How does he now suddenly appear, in his “second” analysis, in his Second Coming? Here and now suddenly, we will suddenly see, deeper down in the structure of the text of the Bible itself, the “full”er vision of Christ. In which 1) far from stressing the faith of preachers, Christ constantly warned of bad – or as it often said especially, “false” things, in priests and prophets, saints and apostles, angels. Here suddenly we see the “appearance” of Christ actually warnings about longstanding, continuous flaws, “false” and “deceit”ful things, “illusions” and “delusions” and “false prophets,” in every single aspect of religion, from “A” to “Z.” From “Aaron,” and the “anoint”ings and “angels” … to false “spirits,” and preachers’ “wisdom,” and many religious “Zealots” (or “Cananean”s or Pharisees). Here, we will be presenting at last, seventy or a hundred and more, neglected quotes from the Bible; quotes that finally present a very different Christ than what you heard in church. Though our preachers bend and “twist” these quotes daily, we will at last, at last straighten them out. And make them simple enough, “plain” enough at last. But give that simple vision, the right characterization at last. Finding here that Christ finally, did not stress the blind spiritual “faith” of preachers; as much as stressed faith or confidence, only in a science-based religion. A religion, a Christ, well proven … by “observ”ation, of material “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” and “proofs.”

 

And so indeed today, in the end, God does not come, as preachers have too proudly thought, to simply congratulate preachers and conservative, “faith”ful congregations. Christ does not come here, to rubber-stamp those billions who think they are good enough Christians, following Christ. Here indeed, in the End, God does not come to refer us all once again, for the billionth time, to the alleged perfection of the “angels,” the messengers from God. Instead, God actually comes here and now… to submit even our holiest men and angels especially, even the “household of God” itself, to the “fire.”

 

Christ in fact, comes even in part here and now, in this very book, to submit them all – preachers especially – to critical “fire.” In order to burn off false ideas and impurities; and thus to “refine,” (as in Malchi?), even our holiest men and angels. Indeed, our “second” and “fuller” vision of Christ, here, comes to show our priests and ministers especially, where they among “all have sinned.” To show our preachers and the whole world, where our holiest men and angels were partially or even wholly wrong; wrong even in their ideas, their sayings, about God, and “Christ,” or the “lord.” This we do, however, in the name of God; and not in malice. But to finally reveal to the whole world, the right idea, the fuller “appearance,” of Christ.

 

 

 

False Things in Priests, Churches,

From the News, Today;

Molesting Priests, Whitewashed

By Bishops

 

 

The Christ that we now present here, first of all, does not stress the authority of preachers. Or their sermons; their Christ. The Bible itself we will show here, often warned of huge and continuous sins and errors, in essentially “all” of those who have thought that they are following God.

 

Preachers to be sure, have at times, furtively noticed the parts of the Bible that warned about sins in holy things. But preacher then assumed, and then assured us all, that they themselves have always followed God; and that it is only in the End Times, in the remote future, that some preachers will “fall away,” and turn to a false Christ. But in fact, we will show here, that common vision is not quite right. The fact is, the Bible actually tells us that “all have sinned”; and as we will see here, the Bible added that essentially all our holiest men and angels, have always sinned … right from the very beginning. And furthermore, here and now, today, we can begin to see what some of those errors were.

 

What specific error has nearly every single preacher made? What sins have been committed, by essentially every priest; every minister; every deacon; every religious leader of every single variety? In church, we have all heard many exceedingly complicated ideas about God. But the core of it all, was a very, very simple Religion. In churches all over the world we were explicitly told, or it was constantly implied, that 1) our priests and holy men, were sufficiently reliable voicepieces of God and holy truth. And we were told that 2) we should therefore follow our preachers – and/or their sermons about God – with total “faith.” If we did that, if we followed the vision of Christ that our preachers give us in church, then we would get a) “miracles”; or b) at least “spirit”uality. And c) even eternal life, in “heaven.” But what we are about to show here, is that while parts of the Bible seemed to support the preachers’ simple religion of “faith” in “miracles” or “spirituality,” finally, what we always heard in church, is not actually what the Bible itself finally said, overall.

 

At first, it seems impossible. But we will be finding here, 1) the Bible itself told us that there have always been huge sins and errors, even in essentially “all” our holiest men and angels; and certainly sins in essentially all our preachers; in our priests and ministers and deacons, etc.. And 2) therefore, one “day” in particular, we are supposed to notice that. One Apocalyptic, heaven-shattering “day,” God is supposed to show you that there have always been longstanding sins and errors – in essentially “all” our holiest men and angels. We are supposed to suddenly see that there were massive sins and errors in our preachers and prophets. And not just in their personal lives, as so many sermons have claimed; but errors even in their most “inspired” dogmas and “doctrines,” their sermons and sayings about God and Christ, too.

 

In millions of sermons for thousands of years, our preachers have assured us implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) that they themselves, offered us all a reliable picture of God and Christ; an absolutely true and reliable Christ. But we will show here that our churchgoers shouldn’t have trusted so much in our preachers; they should have read the Bible themselves. The fact is, what we have always heard from preachers, wasn’t actually what the Bible itself really said. The fact is, we will see, 1) the Bible itself told us over and over, that there have always been huge sins, in essentially “all” our holiest men, angels, prophets … and in the preachers who followed them, all-too-religiously, all too faithfully. As we will be seeing here, the Bible warned us constantly about sins in all our holiest men … and 2) therefore, amazingly, God actually told us not to have too much “faith” in holy men, or their ideas about God; but 3) instead, we are supposed to base our religion, Christianity, on “science” (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.21-39; Deut. 18.20 ff).

 

And 4) if this seems to destroy our traditional Christian Heaven itself? Then after all, one Apocalyptic “day,” our traditional heaven itself, is supposed to be destroyed. In 5) order for us to see another, “second,” better, higher, more “mature” vision, Second Coming, of God. A second and better vision, coming of God, seen through, revealed by … the science of God. A science that does not blindly trust or have faith in priests and ministers, or their sermons about God and Christ. But a science that knows that practically all holy men sin and err, even in their most “inspired” moments. A science that therefore says we should always re-evaluate all allegedly holy things; in large part by looking to see if they get real, empirical, probable, physical results.

 

While furthermore? The record of science and technology to date – properly used – shows that we can expect this new scientific application, to be extremely fruitful; to guide us all in fact to the promised kingdom of good, of God, here on this material earth. As foretold.

 

Indeed, we can get to the foretold ideal life, the kingdom, here on this material earth; as foretold in the Bible itself. If we use far more science in religion. But to get there? We need to establish the superiority of the Science of God, over blind obedience to traditional … priests and ministers, and holy men.

 

But indeed, first of all, it is easy to establish the fallibility of priests and ministers and holy men; the Bible itself, mentioned it hundreds of times. To be sure, such quotes were “twist”ed by preachers eager to preserve their own reputation. But we can show that they way the texts were twisted finally, perverted the overall message of the Bible. Which in part was? Not to trust our holy men so very much, after all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1

 

 

The Bible Says

There Have Always Been

Huge Sins in Essentially “All” Holy Men and Angels:

1) Prophets, 2) Angels, 3) Preachers/Priests, 4) Spirits –

And 5) in Their “Inspired” “Doctrines

 

“All Have Sinned” – Including Especially, “All” Our Holiest Men, Prophets,

Angels, Apostles, Preachers –

And Their Holy, Sacred, “Inspired” Doctrines and Sayings,

On Earth, and In Heaven Itself;

Why Heaven is To Be Destroyed (Isa. 34.4 ff, etc.)

 

[Revised by Author, Dr. Griffin Gaddie Ph.D., Nov. 24, 2007, to page 188 END; p. 4 11/11/2010]

CONTENTS:

Chapter 1, Sect. 1: Bad Things in OT Prophets p. 1; Bad in All Prophets p. 20-;

 

Chapter 2: False Priests; Ch. 2 False Prophets; Ch. 3 Apostles Bad Angels; Ch. 4 All Other Special Gifts 146-; Chapter 5 Bad Spirits and Bad Inspiration 148-188.

 

Chapter 3/Addenda? Science conclusion; The End; Deceit of World, Destruction of Heaven]

 

 

At first, it seems impossible.

But the Bible itself says it: one “day,” you are supposed to discover that effectively all our holiest men and angels and priests, are “deceived.” And in that moment, essentially, your Heaven itself, and “all” in it – all our holy men and angels – are supposed to be destroyed. But all this, is in order for you to see the “second” and better vision – the Second Coming – of God.

 

And in fact, all this is beginning to happen, even now. Even now, contemporary common sense, science, Theology, biblical scholarship, are un”veil”ing sins and errors, even in our very holiest men and priests, and in their most “inspired” doctrines. But indeed, all this is so that the emerging Science of God can begin to show us the first “signs,” of indeed, a Second Coming; a second and better “appearance”/”parousia,” of Christ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction/Segue

 

 

Today, the newspapers are warning constantly that our priests and ministers have often sinned, in their personal behavior. While some scholars suggest that our priests and ministers – even our highest prophets and saints – have never been entirely reliable or good; even in their most allegedly “inspired” moments. Can this be right? In fact, it is time to note that the Bible itself confirms that our holiest men and angels, often sin and err; in their personal life, but also in their most “inspired” moments; the moments they try to picture or present God to us.

 

The Bible itself says for example, that 1) “all have sinned.” But does that mean that 2) even priests and ministers have sinned and erred? Even 3) prophets and angels? They and 4) their “inspired” sayings and sermons, said to be from God himself?

 

Consider first of all, preachers – priests and ministers. Of very Christian religion (and others); Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and all others too. For centuries many of our preachers have suggested that they themselves might now and then make relatively minor mistakes, or even “fall.” But still, preachers present themselves weekly as overall, the reliable voicepieces of God himself. Typically our priests tell us that while they themselves are human, and make minor errors, still overall, our preachers, and our prophets or apostles, were reliable enough. Any warnings about “false prophets” and bad priests, we are told, apply to everybody else, other than our own traditional preachers. While in any case the words, the picture of God that our preachers take from the apostles, and that they present to us in their sermons and homilies and religious lectures … are said to be all but “infallible,” and “perfect,” and “holy.” Our preachers assure us that if they ever sin, they have special “graces” and “gifts” that remove their sin; allowing them to preach reliable sermons. And even to be perfect or infallible at times. Particularly when they deliver church serves and sermons.

 

But should we entirely trust our preachers? The Bible is complex, and hard for most people to understand. Therefore, most people feel they need someone to digest or interpret the Bible to them; and most people go to preachers, who read/interpret the Bible for them. Indeed, most of us get almost everything we think we know about God, we get our mental picture of Christ, from preachers; priests or ministers. But finally, it is time to ask this extremely important question: are priests and ministers totally reliable?

 

Are priests and ministers reliable? And then, for that matter, are the prophets and angels that preachers follow, absolutely reliable? Amazingly, we will show here, the Bible itself said they are not. Amazingly, the Bible itself warned constantly, that for example, our preachers, our priests and ministers, have never been entirely reliable – and neither are their sermons, their excerpted quotes from the Bible; neither are their most allegedly “inspired” ideas of about God; the picture of Christ they give us in church. While indeed, the Bible even warned constantly, that even our higher holy men – even the “prophets,” the “apostles,” even the “angels,” the “spirit”s in heaven itself – were often wrong. While we will find here that they were wrong not just in their personal behavior. But also, even our holiest preachers, habitually present a false, wrong idea of God and Christ; they have always presented in effect, a False Christ to the whole world. And even to the churches, to even the “elect” and to the bishops and popes it now seems.

 

 

 

Section 1

 

 

BAD THINGS IN ESSENTIALLY

“ALL” PRIESTS

(Except for Christ Himself?)

 

 

 

The Bible often warned specifically, about priests and ministers.

 

Today and for some time, most of what the average person knows about God – or thinks he knows – comes from listening to priests; their sermons, their homilies. But like the angels themselves, as it turns out, the Bible itself warned that priests are unreliable intermediaries. The fact is, we will find here and now, there a) are many explicit warnings, finally, in the Bible itself, explicitly and especially a) about ancient “priests,” specifically. But b) not just or even especially, about priests of the past; but about essentially “all” priests, of all ages. Furthermore, those warnings were c) not just about priests of religions other than Judaism and Christianity; but even those within these approved religions.

 

 

1) Here are some a few general warnings about priests, from the Bible. Read these carefully. Because these warnings, like most warnings in the Bible, will be found to be eternally relevant; relevant to priests today, too. These turn out to be warnings about essentially all priests, of the past and present and future too:

 

 

“All have sinned” (Romans 3.23).

 

“Let no one contend… for with you is my contention, O priest. You shall stumble by day; the prophet also shall stumble with you by night, and I will destroy your mother. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me” (Hos. 4.1-6).

 

“And now, O priests, this command is for you. If you will not listen, if you will not lay it to heart … says the LORD of hosts, then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings; indeed, I have already cursed them…. Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung upon your faces, the dung of your offerings… ” (Mal. 2.1-3).

 

“An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.30-31).

 

“The priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are confused with wine …. They err in vision, they stumble in giving judgment” (Isa. 28.7-8).

 

“Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error” (From an unreliable voice however, in Job 4.18 RSV).

 

“Who is blind but my servant…. Who is blind as my dedicated one” (Isa. 42.18-19).

 

“The household of God” (1 Peter 4.17).

 

“Satan disguises himself as an angel of light”. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds” (2 Corin. 11.14-15). Or in the King James Edition: “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness.”

 

 

Warnings about “priests” also apply to all Protestant ministers too of course. For that matter, though “ministers” don’t like to tell you about this; but in the King James Edition, 2 Corin. warns us explicitly about “ministers.”

 

Preachers today, often try to say that these many Biblical warnings about priests and ministers, are just about priests of a) other religions than Christianity like “Baal.” Or b) some other priests of the past.

 

But note that many of these warnings warn of sins even in Judeo-Christian, Israeli holy men.

 

2) And of course, Jesus’ main target of criticism, were the priests of his day; including say, the “scribes and Pharisees.”

 

 

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites…. Woe to you, blind guides” (Mat. 23.13, 16).

 

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!… You serpents, you brood of vipers” (Mat. 23.29, 33).

 

 

3) The Bible also warned about even religious “teacher”s or “rabbi”s. Words which can be translated as “priest” or minister:

 

 

“They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the churches [/’synagogues’], and the greetings in the marketplace and to be called ‘teacher’ – or rabbi or priest, minister – by men. But you, do not you be so called; for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your father, the heavenly one. Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for your Leader is one, the Christ. But the greatest one among you must be your minister. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” (Mat. 23.6-13, NWT, my variation).

 

 

4) And the same passage says we are not to call anyone on earth our “father” either; though most Roman Catholics call their priests that:

 

 

“And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Mat. 23.9 RSV).

 

 

Matthew 23 therefore, is an amazing statement; it tells us that no one on earth should be called a “father,” or religious “teacher” or “rabbi,” or “priest.” Even though of course, priests today do precisely that. So are all priests and many believers wrong, on this account, as well as others?

 

Many priests will try to argue that this passage should be ignored, because after all, people in the Bible call others their “father.” Yet note that if you look at this carefully, it sets two specific conditions: call aa) no one on earth, bb) your own father. And when you look at the Bible, you will find that no good person in the New Testament seems to violate those two strict conditions, strictly speaking. At times, you will find, say aa) people mentioning fathers in general – but still, not referring to anyone as their own father. Or bb) people (like Paul) calling themselves a father – but still, not referring to anyone, as their own father. Or you will find Jesus speaking of our “father”s in heaven, like Abraham or God; but still, this is not speaking of anyone on earth as his own father. You will also find cc) others speaking of others’ “fathers”; but still, not of anyone as their own father. So that surprisingly, the Bible itself does not seem to violate the strict interpretation of this rule: to call no one on earth your father. Because, after all, you have only one father, in heaven; and focusing on anyone else, lessens that authority.

 

Indeed, we find ourselves in actual practice there are practical penalties for this. Specifically, that those many women in particular, that call their Catholic priests “father,” are infantilized, or never grow up. Because a) they continue to think of another as their “father,” they continue to think of themselves as children … and never grow up. And b) never really look for an authority above all human beings, than all priests.

 

For this reason, c) the current policy of the Church is that it allows, but does not require followers, to refer to priests as “father.” Ideally, it would not allow anyone to be a “priest” either, it would seem, from the proper, strict reading of Matthew 23.

 

Why did the Bible often begin to attack, warn about, “priests” and “father”s? There are many reasons. Some of which we will be exposing here, at last. The main reason is that our priests make many mistakes; and those that follow them all too faithfully or religiously therefore, will be following false leaders, the “blind” following the blind. Which means that when their leaders fail, they will follow them too, into the pit.

 

 

5) What are the sins of priests? Aside from say, an infantilizing patronization, above? Among dozens of huge sins of priests, we might note for instance, that it was largely the priests of his day, that killed Jesus, and persecuted his followers. It was the priests that aggressively pursued Jesus, to have Jesus arrested and executed … because of their exaggerated religious conservatism; their inability to allow anything “new” – like Jesus himself – into religion. It was therefore, basically their excessive dogmatic religious conservatism, that lead them to sin against God; being arch-conservatives, they could not accept anything new in religion … and so they could not accept the “new” testament of Jesus. Therefore, they had Jesus arrested and executed; largely on charges of heresy against their traditional sense of religion:

 

 

“Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests” (Mat. 26.14).

 

“The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him” (Mark 14.1).

 

“And the high priest Ananias [“Anan” = “White” or “cloud” in Hebrew?] – commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, ‘God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall!…. ‘” (Acts. 23.2-6 6).

 

 

We might think such priests are long past. But today’s priests are often just as conservative in their own way; they cannot conceive or allow anything “new” in Christianity, beyond Jesus, his first appearance. And they resist in effect, the Second Coming of Jesus.

 

 

6) Can even Christian priests be bad? Beyond false priests among the Jews – including the scribes and Pharisees – much worse than that, the Bible warned there were already many false priests and other religious authorities, even within what everyone thought was Christianity; even in the days of Jesus.

 

Jesus warned there were many who called him “Lord,” and presented themselves as this followers – and even thought of him as Lord – who nevertheless, were hypocrites too:

 

 

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell” (Luke 6.46).

 

“Not every one who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven'” (Mat. 7.21).

 

 

Peter added that there were already sins or there was need of “judgement” and “fire” in the “household of God” (q.v., priests) too:

 

 

“The time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God…. It begins with us” (St. Peter, in 1 Peter 4.17, in The Holy Bible; New Testament, Gospel book of St. Mark; 13.31-32. Revised Standard Edition, or “RSV”; from Mat. 2-3 etc.; “refining” Levitical and other priests in “fire”).

 

 

There were already bad things even in those who claimed to be following the “Lord,” even as early as in Jesus’ time (and in those who claimed to be following a “Christ” too).

 

 

7) And there are warnings about those to come later too, even in what is called Christianity, following the “Lord,” too.

 

Many priests, eager to avoid criticism of themselves, or to avoid seeing the “beam” in their own eye, will try to say that such warnings, only apply to preachers of the past. But it is clear that a) in general of course, things that happened in the past are mentioned by the Bible, because they are relevant for our time too. And b) in any case, the New Testament clearly mentioned false things in priests, even in New Testament – Christian – times. Even in and among apparent Christian priests, “ministers,” and so forth. Even among those who say and think and act in the name of the Lord, and Christ:

 

 

“No prophesy of scripture, is a matter of one’s own interpretation…. But False prophets also rose among the people, just as there will be false teachers [“rabbis”? preachers] among you…” (2 Peter 1.20-2.1).

 

 

8) Bad things in preachers, are to persist; and be found especially (but from the above, not only) in “later days” after Christ died.

 

And by the way, in mentioning bad, false people to follow after Christ – even coming in his “name” and after the “lord” – God not only named “priests” specifically above, but then begins to describe some of them by their specific qualities: a) being forbidden to marry, and b) enacting various food restrictions:

 

 

“The Spirit distinctly says that in later times some will turn away from the faith [note: “the” faith; that is religion; not faith itself] and will heed deceitful spirits and things taught by demons through plausible liars – men with seared consciences who forbid marriage, and require abstinence from foods which God created…[As many priests did]. Everything God created is good; nothing is to be rejected…” (1 Tim. 4.1-4, NAB).

 

 

9) The Bible also tells us that in general, that many (all?) of those who think they are following “Christ” in fact, will be found to have been following a “False Christ,” an “anti-Christ”; or “another Jesus” than the right one.

 

 

10) Then too for that matter, the Bible noted that often Satan’s favorite disguise or vehicle, was to come to us as an “angel” … or inside a priest or “minister”:

 

 

“Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness” (2 Corin. 11.13-15 RSV). “Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness” (2 Corin. 11.14-15 KJE).

 

 

11) So if none of our priests is trustworthy, what is their sin? In part, it is their inflexibility, we found out above. But in turn, perhaps it all related too, to Vanity and Pride. Preachers have a certain superficial humility. But that humility is superficial and deceptive. Because under that, there is a hidden, massive vanity: their vain idea that they themselves are “holy,” “Sacred,” “perfect,” or some such; the perfect voicepieces of God. Out of that, comes Pride; and the inability to look for sins in themselves, or in their own religious tradition:

 

 

You … boast of your relation to God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed…, and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, … then you who teach others, will you not teach yourself?” (Rom. 2.17-21).

 

“Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?” (Rom. 14.1-5-10-13-14-22-23).

 

(See also those who like their position standing before the congregation).

 

 

Related to problems with pride and vanity: priests in effect, a) by presuming to sermonize to us and dictate to us, cannot see the “beam” in their own eye; and also pass b) “judge”ments on others; while c) they imagine themselves to be “first” with God; and to be d) “wise” and e) “noble.” All of which are forms of Pride.

 

Priests will often disingenuously respond, that it is “secular” people who imagine they are “wise,” and who will found to have been “fools” in the end. But after all, priests secretly imagine their idea of God is “wise” too; so priests too are guilty of pride here too. As our quote here makes perfectly clear.

 

As does, say, this one:

 

 

“He also told them a parable: ‘Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully taught will be like his teacher. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?'” (Luke 6.39-41. See: call no one father … or teacher).

 

 

Finally of course, these specific warnings join many other generic warnings about “all” things in religion:

 

 

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” (Paul Rom. 3.23; cf. 1 Kings 8.46? RSV).

 

 

 

 

Early Conclusion

 

 

 

There are bad things in all holy men and angels – including specifically, “all” priests. Bad priests, again, are to persist in fact, even to the end of time. Only then, at last, they are fixed, “refined”:

 

“An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.30-31).

 

“For he is like refiner’s fire…; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi [the hereditary tribe of priests in Israel] and refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the LORD….

 

“No prophesy of scripture, is a matter of one’s own interpretation…. But False prophets also rose among the people, just as there will be false teachers [“rabbis”? preachers] among you…” (2 Peter 1.20-2.1).

 

“So now many antichrists have come…. They went out from us….” (1 John 2.19).

 

“As for you, you whitewash with lies” (n.p.).

 

 

Bad things therefore, were often found in holy men, priests, in almost every age. Not just in the Old Testament, but even in the New; even with Jesus himself around in person, to supervise. In fact, bad things were said to persist in holy men, even to the End of Time. Indeed we see many who claimed constantly to be working for the Lord, being judged negatively, in the Last Judgement Day:

 

 

“On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me you evildoers'” (Mat. 7.22-23).

 

 

Therefore, essentially all those warnings about ancient priests, mostly apply to priests of our own times too. So let’s pay attention to all those warnings already cited. And a few new ones too:

 

 

“This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests…. They wandered, blind, through the streets…. (Lam. 4.13-14).

 

“Both prophet and priest ply their trade through the land, and have no knowledge” (Jer. 14.18).

 

“How can you say ‘… the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie…. From prophet to priest, every one deals falsely” (Jer. 8.8-10, italics mine).

 

“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corin. 11.13-14 RSV).

 

“The Lord has scorned his altar, disowned his sanctuary” (Lam. 2.7).

 

“Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD’s servant? Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not. The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable. But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes… Who among you will give ear to this? who will hearken and hear for the time to come?” (Isa. 42. 19-23 KJE).

 

“They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the churches [/’synagogues’], and the greetings in the marketplace and to be called ‘teacher’ – or rabbi or priest, minister – by men. But you, do not you be so called; for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your father, the heavenly one. Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for your Leader is one, the Christ. But the greatest one among you must be your minister. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” (Mat. 23.6-13, NWT, my variation).

 

“Concerning Judas…. ‘His office let another take'” (Acts 1.16, 20).

 

“So now many antichrists have come…. They went out from us….” (1 John 2.7-18; italics mine).

 

“There is no man who does not sin” (1 Kings 8.46 KJE).

 

“My people – children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your leaders mislead you…” (Isa. 3.12).

 

“There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Prov. 16.25, 14.12; Bible, Revised Standard Edition, “RSV”).

 

“In the new world … many that are first will be last, and the last first” (Mat. 19.16-24-26-28-30).

 

“Though they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down” (Amos 9.2).

 

“And the chief priests … were seeking how to put him to death….” (Luke 22.4).

 

“I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter. I did not know it was against me they devised schemes, saying, ‘Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name be remembered no more'” (Jer. 11.19).

 

“From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem…. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him…. But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me….” (Mat. 16. 22-23).

 

“Peter said to him, ‘Even though they all fall away, I will not.’ And Jesus said to him, “… before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times” (Mark. 14.29-30).

 

“For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles…. I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man…. But what I do, that I will do, but I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed…” (2 Corin. 11.4-15 KJE).

 

“The word of the LORD came to me: ‘Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel…, ‘Ho, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed…. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd…. The shepherds have fed themselves, and had not fed my sheep” (Ez. 34.2-9). Therefore … Behold, I, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep” (Ez. 34.2).

 

“Who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?… If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits?… Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?” (1 Corin. 9.7-13; italics mine. Here Paul tries to justify getting physical things, for spiritual benefits … after often implying physical things are unimportant?).

 

 

Note by the way, that it was not the people, but the priests of his time – priests, and Pharisees – that attracted Jesus’ strongest criticism. And in turn, it was priests that most objected to Jesus; it was mostly the priests that had Jesus arrested (for heresy) and executed. Essentially then, the priests killed Jesus. In part because they were conservative and over-spiritual; and therefore could not accept that God could make a “new” appearance, in a mere ordinary looking man, standing in the flesh, on earth.

 

So that it was essentially the priests, as much as anyone, that killed Jesus, the first time. And we might expect that much of the opposition to the Second appearance of Christ, would likewise, come from priests and religious leaders.

 

 

The main sin in priests? Their narrowness; their narrow focus only on conservative, traditional things.

 

 

12) But also we will see, the real main sin of priests – aside from Vanity and Pride, radical over-conservatism – is their “hate” for the “world” of “secular” and physical, practical people; priests’ exaggerated love of “spiritual” and “religious” things, and their ignorance of practical things.

 

As we will see priests rhetorically over-stress their own importance, and their narrow métier of religious ritual and spirituality, and their day of the week, Sunday. And thereby, always misrepresent God’s will. The last thing priests ever notice, or admit, are the parts of the Bible that actually put the stress on practical knowledge, work; and that tell us this:

 

 

“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mat. 2.27)

 

 

Ultimately it is their narrow religiosity, and their lack of practical knowledge, the “power” of the practical sense, work, and science of God, that makes priests deeply stupid and evil people, who often work against God. Priests see only “part” of the Bible, as Paul confessed (q.v.). The part of the Bible that emphasizes Sunday, spirituality, and so forth. They even read to us, only the “religious” or priestly part of the commandment:

 

 

“Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy” (Ex. 20.8).

 

 

But our preachers have sinned against God, by looking at, obeying, emphasizing, only part of the Bible. Especially, they neglected to notice the other parts of the Bible, and of God. That told us for example, that if we are to honor one very religious day, the vast bulk of the week, 6/7 of it, is supposed to be devoted not to Sabbath, religious “rest,” but to practical work:

 

 

“Six days you shall labor, and do all your work” (Ex. 20. 9).

 

 

The command to do practical, materially (not, we will see, “spiritually”) productive “work” as it turns out, is at least equally the command of God, as the command to honor the Sabbath and religious things. In fact, as it will turn out, practical work is rather more important; even in the commandments, here, God tells us to devote the bulk of our time, of our week, not to religious things, but to practical work. Yet priests ignore or deny this side of God; and they give us only a misrepresentative part of God and his commandments.

 

 

13) As we should have known; Paul confessing that “we” religious persons – including Paul himself we now find – knew things only in “part.” And would not know more, until the End; until the destruction of heaven:

 

 

“Now I know in part, then I shall understand fully” (1 Corin. 13.12). (As you have understood in part” 2 Corin. 1.14).

 

 

14) It is because of these and other shortcomings in priests, finally – especially their over-religiosity, their lack of understanding of the practical virtues of work and practical “Science” and “knowledge” and so forth – that our priests are not the best leaders; and that indeed, we typically do not elect priests to run our country.

 

15) It is for these reasons that in fact, even according finally to Jesus himself, ironically, a half-religious “Samaritan,” is a better man than specifically, a priest:

 

 

“Jesus replied, “a man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by change a priest
was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levi,
when he came to the place and saw him, passing by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he say him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds… Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?’ He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him ‘Go and do likewise'” (Luke 10.30-37).

 

 

Here Jesus even more or less told us, in effect, not to be a priest. Saying that there are better men than “priests” or “Levi”s. And specifically, the better men it seems, are the half-religious ones who lack formal training in religion perhaps … but are just better – and more practical – people.

 

 

16) Jesus himself to be sure, was sometimes called a “Rabbi.” Or better translated, “teacher.” But a) in most Bibles, he was not called a “priest” in his own lifetime. While b) Jesus told others not to call anyone “rabbi” or “teacher” – or “priest” in effect – on earth. Indeed, c) many scholars argue that Jesus seemed to have thought of himself as a Rabbi, but not a “priest.” Here we suggest that d) history records that Herod or someone, made rabbis out of some carpenters, so that they could work on the rebuilding of the Temple, without violating rules that would not allow ordinary men into the temple; we here suggest that Jesus, son of a carpenter, acquired religious status, in this way. But if so, then it was again as something more like a Jewish “rabbi,” not a priest.

 

e) Indeed, it was not until Paul, that a long argument was advanced for a Christian priesthood; that called Jesus a “priest.” Paul arguing that Jesus was a priest, after the order of one “Melchizedek.” Yet f) Jesus himself, was not overly fond or priests – like “scribes and Pharisees.” Indeed, g) it was the priests that especially, had Jesus killed. So that if Paul (who admits that he himself was trained as a Pharisee) tries to make Jesus a “priest,” then we might remember that Paul himself however, also admitted that he himself was not yet “perfect,” even as he wrote his half of the New Testament (Heb. 5, 6, 7). Even as he wrote the argument that Jesus himself was a priest.

 

Indeed, there are many arguments against priests in general, throughout the Bible. As we have just noted, here.

 

 

17) And related to all that, note that some people say that there is no “temple” on earth, finally, in the End (from Jer. 7.4, Mat. 23.16, 26.61, Mark 14.58, John 2.15-19; 1 Corin. 3.16, 6.19, Rev., etc.; see our articles on the Bible’s negative opinions of “Church”es):

 

 

“And I saw no temple in the city” (Rev. 21.22).

 

 

 

18) So that amazingly, the priest is not, actually, what God really wanted us to be. God to be sure, told Israel that it was to become a “nation of priests”; but after all, God often thought “nations” were bad; and noted that often Israel did bad things. Indeed, God often sent evil spirits into Israelites. So that there is no guarantee even here, that being a nation of priests is a good thing, at all.

 

There are similar quotes in the New Testament too:

 

 

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the exiles of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chosen…” (1 Peter 1.1).

 

“Like living stones be yourself built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2.5).

 

“You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people … now you are God’s people” (1 Peter 2.9, 10).

 

 

a) But if Israel was chosen to be a nation of priests, if the Jews were once God’s chosen people … how is it that suddenly, the are instead, “chosen”? a) Is God capricious? Or perhaps, b) being “chosen” is not a permanent state? Or c) if there is any sense of being specially or uniquely “chosen,” then perhaps this letter should apply only to the official addressees; the “exiles of Pontus, Galatia, “Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”?

 

b) In any case, if we take literally the apparent command to be priests, taken literally, this would that mean we have no farmers, say. So that our culture would starve to death? (Cf. James 2.14-26).

 

c) Note that St. Peter wrote part of this … and Jesus called St. Peter “Satan,” in Mat. 16.23.

 

d) Read more closely, this tells us that we should perhaps, try to be a spiritual house; that we might or may be “built into” a spiritual house … eventually. Which might merely mean, first that aa) this might happen one day, but has not happened yet; or bb) that one day we will die, and our spirits will leave our material bodies, and the earth. Hopefully to live on in spirit; but no assuredly.

 

e) Or perhaps after all the mentions of “stone,” this is only to tell us that often we have only a quasi, half-, metaphorical “house” in our state of mind; not a real stone church, or house, often (in the days of Peter.

 

f) While indeed, we will find, we are not entirely sure that being “spiritual” is good here; or that we should have only “spiritual” things forever; since indeed, aa) God often promised us many material things. And bb) since in the end, our heaven is supposed to come down to earth, to be a material place here on this material earth (Rev. 21.1-11).

 

There are reasons therefore to take the exhortation to be “spiritual,” to be “priests,” not literally, or as a timeless statement, but as being for once, for a given time and place and people.

 

g) Indeed, our new breed of priests, which comes after the second vision of God, is not merely a “spiritual” but is also a physical, material place. And a) not merely in physical material churches; but b) all over the material earth.

 

h) Indeed, it is in the same letter that Peter himself notes that even our highest holy men – and in effect, priests – will after all, often be partially wrong, and will need to suffer “judgement:

 

“For the time has come for judgement to begin with the household of God.” (While as for those who are not even in the household, that is an open question in the Bible: “what will be the end of those?” 1 Peter 4.14).

 

i) Indeed it is hard to see how spirituality itself is timeless … when even our holiest spiritual men are often “false”; and

 

j) … when our very spiritual “heaven” itself – as even Peter admits in his next letter – is to be destroyed, one day:

 

 

“There will be false teachers among you” (2 Peter 2.1).

 

“The heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men” (2 Peter 3.7).

 

“The heavens will pass away with a loud noise” (2 Peter 3.10).

 

“The heavens will be kindled and dissolved” (2 Peter 3.12).

 

“But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3.13).

 

 

Finally indeed note that one “day,” the new heaven is supposed to come down; to be a place here on this material earth. As Revelation adds:

 

 

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven … had passed away… And I saw the holy city new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” (Rev. 21.1-2).

 

 

Given all this, perhaps it is better, for once, to take the letters of Peter to be about a particular time and place and people – and not, for once, to be timeless or universal. Because one day our spiritual heaven is supposed to rather, firm up; to be a place on earth. And as it turns out, good but practical people, Samaritans, are better positioned than priests, to see that, and now it comes about.

 

 

 

Conclusion, Looking Ahead

 

 

 

So what is wrong with priests? As we will have seen, and will see better in the future, it is in part, their a) vanity; in declaring themselves the perfect, sacred, holy voicepieces of God. But then too, it is b) their over-spirituality; failing to see the importance of the material side of life, and therefore, leading us to material poverty and death (James 2.14-26; see our writing on Over-Spirituality). It is also their c) dogmatic and inflexible, “stiffnecked” conservatism, and narrowness; that can only see God or God, in a “word,” in a book, but not in the material “world.” That is all but incapable of seeing good, God, in any “new” things not mentioned in old holy books.

 

19) Finally we will see, the great sin of preachers, is that they typically see only 1/7 of the larger picture of what God wanted; they see the importance of the “Sabbath” and spiritual things; but they neglect to notice that God actually demanded a balance between practical knowledge and work, and “religious” things. Or indeed in fact, priests often act as if every day should be like Sunday; that tell us that one commandment for example, tells us only to honor the Sabbath:

 

 

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Ex. 20.8; from 16.26).

 

 

Priests here, as usual, quote only a misleading part of the Bible; which means in this case, that they neglect to notice that actually, the commandments told us that the bulk of our time should be occupied not by religious things, but by practical “work:

 

 

“Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath” (Ex. 20. 9).

 

 

The first great sin of priests, we will see therefore, is a) that they are vain, in that they think they are the best voicepieces of God; that they are even “first” with God. And specifically, they think that only their own b) narrow priestly work or ideas, are all that we need to get through life, and get God’s blessings. Related to this, c) out of their vanity and narrowness, they rhetorically stress only misleading parts of the Bible; d) especially, only the spiritual part. While e) they thereby disobey, the larger, “full”er picture of God and good.

 

Typically for example, here a priest reads the fourth commandment (by some counts), above, as telling us only to “honor the Sabbath”; but here our priests neglect to note the other part of the text. Where God actually, told us to devote 6/7 of the week – and our lives – not to Sunday and religious things, but to “do your work”; using practical sense to do practical work.

 

Preachers will try to get around the commands by God, to do materially practical and productive work; hinting that their own “spiritual” work is “work” enough. But we will find if by their “fruits” we shall know what is really from God, then historically we find it is material work that has proven most fruitful; most from God; not the prayers and “religious” activity of priests. You can pray all your life for bread to appear out of thin air, and nothing happens; but work practically, plant a crop, and in five months or so, you will have food and bread to eat. f) Indeed therefore, our spiritual priests have failed to lead us to the full prosperity promised by God.

 

For these reasons, g) ironically we will eventually find, our priests are not really good; are not really following God. Ironically, h) rather than the priest, it is actually the Good Samaritan, the half- (or less than half) religious man, that is a better man than a priest. Because actually, God did not want us to be as “religious” as priests (“this man’s religion is in vain” James 1.26; “holding the form of religion” 2 Tim. 3.5); to be prayerful and religious and spiritual, fulfills only 1/7 of the commandment even, to “honor the Sabbath.” The fact is, God actually told us to devote most of our time to practical “work.” And thus, it is not the very spiritual man or priest, that really obeys God best; but actually it is the morally good but also practical, working man and woman, a person with practical knowledge and a practical job. Who is closer to God than a priest.

 

 

 

Looking Ahead

 

 

Discovering sins in the very prophets, spirits, angels and others, in heaven itself – and then in essentially “all” our priests too, even in spite of alleged protections of the Holy Spirit – is an Apocalyptic, heaven-shattering moment. And many priests might resist it. But as it turns out, there is a way through this.

 

When we find that all traditional religious authority – even the saints or angels in heaven itself – are temporarily, unreliable, then how then can we find the truth about God or good? In the past, some Biblical Critics, scholars, and theologians, have simply decided that our own natural or human instincts are good enough. As indeed, some elements (if not all?) of St. Paul seem to suggest. But finally of course, many priests note that following our own instincts (and “heart”?) … often leads to rampant, dangerous relativism and subjectivism and chaos. Where “every man does what is right according to his own” eyes. So we need a more objective, accurate way to find out what is good.

 

And as it turns out, even as heaven itself is collapsing, fortunately, God prepared a method to show us something more than subjectivism; another, better way to at last a better, fuller, more mature, higher, “Second” vision, of God; through in effect, science. Through the science of God. Which is not subjective, which is not “every man doing what is right in his own eyes,” at all. But which accepts only things that can be firmly proven.

 

To be sure though, there are many social scientists and preachers, who have mis-used science in the past; and claimed that many more things are scientifically sure in Religion, than real scientists would accept. And therefore, we will need a far more exact and demanding kind of science of religion, after all. And indeed, this fulfills prophesy; one day, even our priests are to be submitted to “fire,” and the destruction of their heaven. But as that happens, though many are painfully disillusioned, burned … finally, many are “refined”; they have their delusions and illusions and vanity “burned” away. And they become more “full”y good at last. Coming to see a “second” and better, more “mature” vision of God, Christ, after all. Which indeed, we will begin to see … even here and now. As we past beyond the narrow and substantially “false” Christ of priests – the Christ that stressed blind “faith” and “spirit” and “miracles.” To see at last the more “mature” vision of Christ … stressing in effect, finally, the better, “full”er science of God.

 

In the meantime though, until they learn and fully employ real science in the majority of their liturgies, and sermons, and practices, our priests have by no means been good; much less holy and sacred and perfect. All such pronouncements to that effect, were due to their mere pride and vanity and foolishness.

 

20) No doubt we will find, it is still hard for priests to learn to see, recognize a Christ that is not really just a “priest,” (after “Melchisidek”) as also, the son of “man.” And the son of a practical working “carpenter.” Yet it is only those priests who learn to see and value that side of God, of Christliness – the practical worker – that finally, really, will see the second and better, post-priestly, view of God and Christ.

 

As we shall see.

 

21) Finally too, as we will see here, God warned not just about specifically, priests; in the book of Jeremiah, among other places, that even our prophets and angels and other holy men, are unreliable. And that therefore of course, all those who have followed our holy men, all too faithfully, all too religiously – as priests have done – will have been following false prophets, false shepherds. And they will have been themselves deceived. And when our priests teach others to follow our apostles – or to follow they themselves, priests – therefore, our priests will have themselves been mislead; and now are deceiving others, deceiving the people, in turn.

 

Such things happened in the past, Jeremiah especially aptly warned; our prophets were false; priests followed them … and in effect, mislead all the people in turn:

 

 

“An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.30-31). (See also blind leading blind).

 

 

So how reliable have our priests and their vision of God, been? Priests have always assumed that warnings about they themselves, were merely intended to insure that they stayed on track; as long as they were loyally following the old traditional prophets and apostles, our priests assumed they were doing well enough; indeed, it is only if they depart from their tradition, that they go wrong. Along these lines, the moment of great error in priests, is always seen by them, as referring to some future moment; when unaccountably, they will depart from the present, assumed-to-be-true state. And yet however, there is an all-important wrinkle here. The fact is, the Bible as we will see, warned that … there have already, always been sins in the very holy men that priests today follow so faithfully, so loyally. So that continuing to follow that “tradition,” is no virtue or good thing, at all. Indeed, priests are simply following … false leaders. And the more loyally they follow them, the more deeply they have been lead into error.

 

That is, the Bible itself warns of bad things in the very prophets and apostles and so forth, that priests follow. Of course, logically, if there are a) bad things in our holiest men and angels, then of course, b) by following the prophets so faithfully, priests have not been faithful to the truth … but faithful to a false tradition, a False Christ. If – as we will find the Bible in fact says – even our prophets can sin and err, then b) naturally, there will be bad things in all priests; who followed them, all too faithfully, all too loyally, all too religiously.

 

While then too of course, c) if priests are bad, then naturally there will be sins even in the best believers, in the faithful churchgoers. Indeed, there will be sin particularly in the best, most religious, most faithful believers. Because, when your religious leader is himself false, then the more faithfully, the more loyally you follow him … the more deeply you are lead into the same errors as your leader. This is not mere speculation moreover; this happened in the past, Jeremiah warned, above: “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.30-31).

 

Preachers even in the time of Jesus and Peter, generated dozens, hundreds of sophistical apologetics, and interpretations of the old warnings; to try to explain all this away. But we will find that all priestly apologetics misuse the parts of the Bible they are supposed to be based upon (as we see in our section on sermonic excuses for the lack of Miracles especially). In this case among other excuses, priests often try to sermonize that these warnings about false priests following false prophets, only applies to some particular situation in the past. But while indeed there were particular situations in the past where this sort of thing happened, the Bible often tells its stories about the past, after all, with the idea in mind that such things may re-occur, in the future. So that the “past is prologue” or even “prophesy,” we might say.

 

Did the Bible really intend to warn just about ancient history? Is the era in which priests are found to be following “false prophets,” now firmly, totally, in the past? In fact, that seems unlikely. Especially when a) warnings about this situation, were often taken by priests to be referring to some later time too; when b) we see in fact sins in prophets today; and c) when it seems there are indications in the old accounts, that this huge sin in religion – false religious leaders, misleading priests, and the people – is to persist in fact, until the end of time; “when the end comes.”

 

It seems likely therefore, that warnings about bad priests following say, “false prophets,” is not just about the past; it is a warning about a typical shortcoming of essentially all priests and holy men of all eras; a sin that is to exist at least until, it seems like, the very End of Time. It is a sin that is typical of, endemic to, essentially all priesthoods; and no doubt therefore, the abuses described by the Bible, in priesthoods of the past, should be applied to priests in our own time as well.

 

While indeed, an independent look at priests – the things, the miracles they promise, vs. the things the material good they actually, provably do – also confirms what the Bible warned about: there are indeed many, many grave sins and errors, “false promises,” even in our holiest priests and ministers, specifically.

 

22) Indeed, we will see that there are warnings in the Bible about dozens, hundreds of elements of institutional religion; including warnings about not only angels and prophets, but also warnings about many things, sacraments and sacramentals, warnings about things that priests refer to an use daily; including “anointings,” “baptism,” “churches,” “grace,” “faith,” “pillars,” “prayer,” “religion,” and a hundred other of the special things that priests use in their services and profession. (See our section on problems with dozens of other, allegedly special graces, gifts).

 

So what finally should we say? Finally the Bible notes massive sins, in almost every single things commonly associated with the priestly life. Which reflects back on the priests who relied all too trustingly on them. These warnings add finally, to countless direct warnings by the Bible about specifically, “priests” and “ministers” themselves, by name. To finally triangulate, confirm, this final picture: priests and ministers have never been, and probably will never be, totally reliable. (It is doubtful therefore, that any future religious leaders, after the Second Coming, will call themselves “priests.” Rather perhaps, “elders,” or some such.)

 

Preachers present themselves every Sunday in church, as our religious leaders; they presume to tell us who God is, or what God is like, every week. But 1) are our preachers totally reliable? For that matter, 2) are the prophets and 3) the holy men, and 4) the angels themselves in the Bible itself, totally reliable? We are constantly told in church, that our priests and ministers are reliable; or that we should follow our saints and angels and apostles, and their ideas about God, with all but total “faith.” But what will find out, here and now, is that actually, that these assurances that we heard constantly in churches all over the earth, are not what the Bible itself really said. Actually, we will show here, that although parts
of the Bible seemed
to tell us such things, ultimately, the Bible itself overall, actually, constantly warned … that there have always been many, many false things, in our priests.

 

And next? God warns there have always been huge sins, even in our holiest men and angels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

END OF CHAPTER 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2

 

 

False Prophets

 

 

 

As we will be finding out, here and now, the Bible constantly warned about bad, false things in, specifically, “all” “priests,” “prophets,” “church”es, “gospels,” “apostles,” “scriptures”; even in many “spirits”; even in “Christ”ianity itself, and even its most revered doctrines or “laws” and so forth. To be sure, we will find here, there are dozens of quotes that, taken by themselves and out of context, seem to tell us our preachers and holy men are reliable. But here we will examine those quotes more closely; and we will show that more closely read in their immediate context, and/or in the context of the overall, larger message of the Bible, finally, in the end, far from stressing blind “faith” in holy men and angels, finally the very phrases that priests quote in their own defense, were “twist”ed by “all” our preachers. The fact is, read properly, we find that the Bible itself constantly warned about sins in all of our holiest men and angels. Sins, in their own, daily human mistakes; but sins too, even in their most allegedly “inspired” and “perfect” and infallible “doctrines” and sayings about God, too.

 

The shattering fact is, “all” our preachers, all our priests and ministers, and even “all” our holy men and even the angels in heaven itself, we will find, continually sin and err. And in effect, practically “all” of them have presented the world with, in effect, a false picture of God and Christ; they have presented in effect, a False Christ to us all.

 

The world, even the churches therefore, have all been following – as foretold – a False Christ. In this case, they have been following, after the preachers, a vision of a Christ that allegedly tells us that our preachers and holy men, and their picture of God, are very holy, sacred, and reliable. Whereas we will now show, that priestly picture of Christ, of God, was false. Actually, we will show, the Bible, the real Christ, constantly warned about preachers. And about all holy men, in fact.

 

 

 

“False Prophets”

 

 

Could even the very best and holiest prophets in the Bible itself, have failed us now and then? Consider at random, first of all, many dozens of biblical warnings, specifically, about “false prophets.”

 

Preachers occasionally will a) admit that the Bible often warned about prophets. b) But preachers like to – proudly, vainly – say, that all those warnings about “false prophets,” apply to everyone else, except to they themselves, and our own prophets, like Ezekiel and so forth; our own prophets, in our own Judeo-Christian tradition. But let’s look again; what does the Bible itself actually say? At times, in parts, the Bible to be sure, seemed to merely oppose prophets of other religions, like Baal; and to firmly support its own Jewish prophets, in Israel; from Ezekiel and Elijah and so forth. But let’s look closer. When the Bible warned of “false prophets,” did it really always mean, say … 1) just prophets of other religions? Like the religion of “Baal” and so forth? Or … 2) did it mean just some prophets of the past? Or … 3) prophets, say, in some still indefinite future? As it turns out, ultimately, most warnings about “false prophets,” were not just warnings about false things in everybody else’s religion, outside Christianity; ultimately the Bible intended to warn about false prophets … deep in the core of the Judeo-Christian traditions itself.

 

Look for example, at 4) some of the many warnings in the Bible, about bad prophets even in Israel. Consider that the Bible warns that even the prophets of Israel itself, often deviated from the proper God. Note that biblical warnings about false prophets, are not just about everybody else’s’ prophets; warnings are not just about prophets in other religions than Judaism and Christianity. Actually, there are warnings even about “thyprophets, the prophets of our holiest traditions in Zion, Israel and Judah:

 

 

“Prophesy against the prophets of Israel” (Ezk. 13.2).

 

Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee: and they have not delivered thine iniquity, (Zion), to turn away thy captivity; but have seen for thee false burdens and causes of banishment…” (Lam 2.14).

 

 

The countless sermons by preachers, that you heard over and over in church therefore – that warnings of false prophets apply only to other religions, other churches – are false, therefore. The fact is, there has always been falsity, said the Bible itself, a) even in our holiest prophets; in the prophets “of Israel.” b) Even “thy” own prophets. Even we now add, c) in the “land” of Judah/Israel. Even d) many prophets accepted by Jews – by “my people” as Jeremiah calls them – are often false:

 

 

“An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.30-31).

 

 

The Bible even warned that there are e) sins even Jerusalem, f) “her”self; among g) “her” own priests, in …

 

 

“Jerusalem. This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests…. They wandered, blind, through the streets… (Lam. 4.12-14).

 

“Both prophet and priest ply their trade through the land, and have no knowledge” (Jer. 14.18).

 

 

Amazingly, h) even the holy men, that were said to be sent by God himself, even to “we” Jews and Christians and Muslims, are often wrong. Including first of all, the prophets of Israel itself. To be sure, our preachers will try to say that all such false prophets were successfully excluded from our Bibles. But finally as it turns out, we cannot even be entirely sure of that. Here to be sure, we will honor the Bible itself, every word, so far as we know. But in fact, there were warnings in scripture, even about “scripture” and written “laws” and “gospels” (see our writings on Scripture). Even the prophets who wrote major books in the accepted, canonical Bible, at times confess they themselves were not entirely good “shepherds”:

 

 

“Thus said the LORD my God: ‘Become shepherds of the flock doomed to slaughter. Those who buy them slay them and go unpunished; and those who sell them say, Blessed be the LORD, I have become rich…. I will cause men to fall each into the hand of his shepherd, and each into the hand of his kind; and they shall crush the earth, and I will deliver none from their hand. So I became the shepherd of the flock doomed to be slain for those who trafficked in the sheep” (Zech. 11.4-7).

 

 

Here it seems, at least one major biblical prophet – Zechariah – is confessing that at times, he himself was a false or bad “shepherd.” And that those who followed him, followed him to their deaths.

 

To be sure, as many preachers assert continually, i) other parts of the Bible at times seemed to suggest that those who invoke the name of Christ, or some such, might be good. But finally we are showing here that this was not finally, the Bible’s final message, in the end. In fact, j) even, say, “the” prophets of Israel – and we now add, even those who speak in the “name” of the LORD God himself – are often deceitful liars:

 

 

“And the LORD said to me: ‘The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them…'” (Jer. 14.14; also 23.23-30).

 

“Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the LORD. I have heard what the prophets have said in my name, saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed!’ How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets…?” (Jer. 23.24-25).

 

“And her prophets have daubed for them with whitewash, seeing false vision and divining lies for them, saying, “Thus says the Lord GOD,’ when the LORD has not spoken. The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery; they have oppressed the poor and needy…'” (Ezek. 22.28-29).

 

 

In fact, we will be seeing here from the above quotes and others, that finally, particularly in the last books, j) the Old Testament appeared to begin to become rather disenchanted with all prophets altogether; and to all but banish all prophets; “the” prophets, in general. Along with related professions like “soothsayers” and “diviners” and “witches” and so forth; all those who claimed to be able to see the future.

 

So what should we say about prophets? We k) should note that for whatever reason, even being in the tradition or mainstream of Judah, Israel, is not enough to guarantee that one is good; the fact is, even God himself, it seems, deliberately often causes people, even many of his allegedly best, his most faithful believers, to be deluded.

 

 

“God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false…” (2 Thes. 2.11).

 

 

Many people try to say that God would not allow such a thing; God would not allow our holiest priests and ministers, even our holy prophets in the tradition of “Israel,” and Christianity, to sin and err. But that isn’t what the Bible says.

 

Especially furthermore, l) one “day” in particular, you are supposed to discover this on your own; or be told … this. That the Bible itself, actually warned about massive sins in essentially “all” our holy men; or especially priests. As we are telling you. Here and now.

 

Finally too, we will soon add, today most people know about the prophets, mostly from what preachers have said about them, in their sermons. But m) if our holy men, prophets, were entirely reliable, then still, what about our preachers, and their sermons? Are their descriptions of the prophets, in turn, reliable? We are beginning to show here that probably even most (even all?) of the original prophets of even Israel itself, were often false; says the Bible itself. But in any case, even if some of them were entirely good … then after all, the Bible is a very complex document that is very hard to understand; and so most of us primarily know about the prophets, only from what our preachers tell us about them. Most of what most people know about God and Christ therefore, is known through the intermediary agency of preachers; priests and ministers and deacons. But are our preachers and their sermons themselves, in turn, reliable?

 

 

 

 

An Early Prospectus

 

 

Are our preachers even today, reliable? Are they right and true, are they righteous, when 1) they present themselves weekly, as the voicepieces, the spokesmen, of God? Were they right 2) when they insisted that the writings of the prophets were reliable? Here we are beginning to show that, against what you always heard in church, there are many, many warnings in the Bible, about all kinds of religious leaders; including “prophets” in general. And as it turns out, these false prophets are not found in just other religions, but deep within the heart of what we call Judaism and Christianity, too.

 

Until recently, most preachers have not been able to honestly “face” such warnings; warnings about false things in the heart of Judaism, and then the heart of Christianity itself. Therefore, most preachers, have tried to speak of those Bible passages that warn of such things, of all these warnings about “false” elements in religion, churches, as if such warnings apply to everybody else; everyone except Christianity; or to their own church. Particularly, preachers try to imply that all such warnings about false prophets, refer to aa) to some other religion; like the prophets of “Baal.” Or to bb) the prophets of some past age; or cc) some future age.
But we will be finding out here in our present books, that amazingly, the Bible itself constantly warned about bad things … even specifically in dd) even the prophets and saints of Israel. In fact, the Bible began to warn about sin in ee) essentially “all” holy men and “the” prophets in general.

 

ff) And finally, as it turns out, there are sins aaa) even in prophets thought to be followers of “Christ,” and therefore thought to be Christians. Sins in bbb) those who operated under the “name” of God and God himself. Sins ccc) even in prophets that were accepted into the Christian canon, as being from God himself. Since “all have sinned,” after all. Even all Christians; and even all their holiest prophets too. And, what is more, furthermore, the Bible noted sins, not only in essentially all our “Christ”ian prophets, but also gg) allowed that there could be sins, even in their holiest most “inspired” and “infallible” doctrines too. As we will find, here.

 

All this seems hard to believe. And yet hh) furthermore, we will be finding here, one “day” in particular, we the people, are supposed to be allowed to see this. To see the parts of the Bible our preachers might have tried to keep secret, or that they our preachers themselves could not “bear” to “face.” In any case, one “day” indeed, we are supposed to be allowed to see the parts of the Bible that told us that after all, our holiest heroes and angels, were often simply, false.

 

In fact, though some preachers claim that parts of the Bible assure us that there are no “mysteries” or “secrets” in Christianity, in a sense there are; Paul said there were “mysteries” after all. And in any case, there are things that are not clear to anyone but God himself, much of the time. While things that were “hidden” are to be “reveal”ed in the end. So that ii) someone could say, that we ourselves, are about to reveal a real secret, the real “mystery,” the real code, of the Bible. The mystery that has been known to some theologians and some priests, but hidden from the great mass of people for so long. Though some preachers say there are no “secrets” in Christianity to priests, God himself often said that many things were often known just to God himself; and would be revealed only now and then, or in the End, to others. While we ourselves, will come to “unveil” here and now, a bit of an old “mystery” or code, from the Bible; a sometimes or to-some “hidden” theme in the Bible; but one that as a matter of fact has been known to scholars and some priests, for centuries. If not by the people. Here in fact, we will reveal some things at least often thought to be hidden, mysterious, secret. Specifically, we will begin to explicate, explain the “Day” of the Lord, and Judgement “day” a little better. To introduce the ordinary believer to at last, the parts of the Bible … and the “second,” more adult, more “mature” voice or message or theology, within it. The “second,” more mature, humble voice in the Bible; which knew that there have in fact, always been great sins and errors, even in our highest holy men and angels and churches, and many of their allegedly inspired doctrines. And if this seems to destroy the vision of God and good we got as “child”ren in church? To destroy our very heaven itself? Then one “day” after all, our heaven itself is supposed to be destroyed, we will have been seeing here.

 

Here and now in fact, we will initiate you the reader, into a side of the Bible that your preachers often did not want you to hear about: into the parts of the Bible that warned, first of all, that there have always been great sins in essentially “all” our preachers, and their teachings. Sins and errors in essentially all our holiest men and angels in heaven itself, in fact. And then, once you have seen this, you – and for that matter, our preachers too – are able to move on at last, to a higher, better, more “mature” theology; a second and better, “full”er vision of God.

 

 

 

Moses

 

 

Are there any flawless prophets at all? Even many of the holiest men of Israel itself, are bad, false shepherds at times. As we began to see say, in the case of Zechariah; and as we see again in say, Moses.

 

k) Many Jews and others, consider aa) Moses for example, to be an all-but perfect leader, and a great prophet (Deut. 34.10). Consider though, that even Moses himself, amazingly – and even the bb) “laws” of God that he was credited with writing in the Old Testament – were often criticized by the Bible. Criticized for example, by the apostle Paul.
Paul noting aa) problems with the “laws” of Moses; while bb) many noted that in the Bible itself, Moses was allowed to view, but not enter, the promised land (Deut. 34.4-5):

 

 

“You see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there” (Deut. 34.4).

 

“And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face” (Deut. 34.10).

 

“Yet Jesus has been counted worthy of … much more glory than Moses” (Heb. 3.3).

 

“Death reigned from Adam to Moses” (Rom. 5.14).

 

“The strict manner of the law of our fathers” (Acts 22.3).

 

“Man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (Rom. 3.28).

 

“For Christ is the end of the law” (Rom. 10.4).

 

“The law made nothing perfect” (Heb. 7.19).

 

“The law has but a shadow of the good things” (Heb. 10.1).

 

“The perfect law, the law of liberty” (James 1.25).

 

 

Indeed, many cc) Christians have come to claim specifically, that not only did Moses not enter the promised land … which is itself a shortcoming, a bit of inadequate “shepherd”ing. But furthermore, Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land … because of sins in Moses himself, or Judaism itself; because they were somehow, inadequate. Christianity suggesting eventually that d) humanity needed the “new covenant,” the new religion, of Christianity. To move beyond some perceived flaws in Judaism itself. (Jesus himself at times seeming to say he had not come to change an “iota” of Jewish laws; but then … only so long as heaven and earth remain, etc.; while heaven itself is in fact supposed to be destroyed). Amazingly, Paul for example, at first apparently told Jews to honor the “law”s of Moses. But then Paul noted problems with the “law” or “Torah.” And suggested that Christians were not really Jews; that Christians had another, rather different “covenant” or agreement – or set of “law”s – from God (Acts 13.39; Rom. 3.19, 7.5, 10.4; Gal. 2.16, 3.10; Heb. 7.19, 10.1).

 

Paul suggested in fact that the Jewish people, the people of Moses, had often sinned and erred (1 Corin. 10.4; so “the rocks shall melt like wax” Jdt. 16.15). While Paul then also suggested, that in spite of whatever laws or “covenants” or contracts that God had signed, with Moses and the Jews, with Jesus, God was moving on from the Jews, to working with the Gentiles, with the non-Jews; and God was setting up another, “new” agreement, a “new covenant” – and in effect, new laws – with them. Or a new covenant, beyond “law”; a contract with Christians, that was rather more generous and “grace”ful; not as severe as the old “law” of “Moses”; the old severe law, which had often prescribed even the death sentence, for very minor infractions.

 

Amazingly therefore, the Bible itself at times criticized even a major Old Testament leader – and prophet – like Moses. Though Paul did not want to foreground his differences with Moses and Judaism and the Old Testament (and its God), still, Paul himself began to for instance, find shortcomings, even in major Old Testament heroes and … prophets. Like even Moses himself (a “prophet,” Deut. 34.10).

 

 

 

 

Next, Christian ministers will often try to say, that such warnings about false things in ancient prophets, do not apply to Christians, and their prophets. But in fact, they do. First because in fact, the Bible began to often (if not always) doubt, in effect, it seemed, “all” prophets.

 

 

5) Soon in fact – undoubtedly because of much negative experience with prophets in general; their failed prophesies; even bad things in the prophets of Israel – the Bible began to a) warn about “prophets” in general, it seemed. “Prophets” are mentioned – and warned about – in very general terms. Indeed in fact, b) often “all” prophets are being warned about. Not cc) even just a few of the Jewish prophets, finally “every one”:

 

 

“How can you say ‘… the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie…. From prophet to priest, every one
deals falsely” (Jer. 8.8-10, italics mine).

 

 

Criticisms of prophets apply clearly, even especially, to prophets in Israel and Judah; in the heart of our own religion. But then furthermore, at times Israel seems about to attack and ban all prophets. And all those who tell the future (not just “prophets,” but also “soothsayers,” “diviners,” “witches,” etc.) altogether):

 

 

“… All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” (Paul, Rom. 3.23; cf. 1 Kings 8.46? RSV)

 

“Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error…” (Job 4. 18; 15.15, RSV).

 

“And you shall have no more soothsayers” (Mic. 5.12; Dut. 18.10-14; Isa. 2.6; Jr. 27.9).

 

“Do not listen to your prophets, your diviners…. For it is a lie which they are prophesying to you” (Jer. 27.9-10); cf. Mic. 3.7; Zech. 10.2; Jer. 50.36, 29.8, 27.9; 1 Sam. 6.2; Deut. 18.14).

 

The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule as the prophets direct; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.31).

 

“There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst of her … (Ez. 22.25 NWT).

 

“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me, says the LORD of hosts” (Zech. 13.7).

 

“This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests…. They wandered, blind, through the streets… (Lam. 4.13-14).

 

 

Here, indeed, are some statements that seem to begin to speak out against all prophets in general; all those who claim to have a crystal ball, or to be able to read, fortune-tell, the future:

 

 

“And if any one again appears as a prophet, his father and mother who bore him will say to him, ‘You shall not live, for you speak lies in the name of the LORD; and his father and mother who bore him shall pierce him through when he prophesies. On that day every prophet will be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies; he will not put on a hairy mantle in order to deceive, but he will say, ‘I am no prophet… ‘” (Zech. 13.3-5).

 

Nobody is good, except one, God” (Mark 10.18 NWT; Luke 18.19).

 

 

[These sayings confirm many other warnings about some allegedly holy things, even within the Judeo-Christian tradition: “Thus says the LORD….’kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.’ The sons of Levi did as Moses commanded, and about three thousand of the people fell on that day. Moses said, “today you have ordained yourselves…'” (Ex. 32.27-29). Compare this to New Testament sayings that anyone who hates his brother is not good.]

 

Preachers often try to say that the Old Testament only meant to criticize some prophets only. Say those who “steal… words” and so forth”:

 

 

“Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, says the LORD, who steal my words from one another. Behold, I am against the prophets, says the LORD, who use their tongues and say, ‘Says the LORD….’ When one of this people, or a prophet, or a priest asks you, ‘What is the burden [commands of] of the LORD?’ you shall say to them, ‘You are the burden, and I will cast you off…'” (Jer. 23.33).

 

 

But eventually the dozens of quotes just noted above, show that the Bible’s final message is essentially that almost “every one” of the prophets can fail us. Even especially those who claim to be speaking for the LORD:

 

 

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has make it into a lie. The wise men shall be put to shame… from prophet to priest every one deals falsely…” (Jer. 8.8-10).

 

 

Preachers will often try to claim, that it was just prophets of this or that past era or future era, that are false. But eventually, we will see far too many of these quotes which make it clear that the implication is, that so many prophets have been wrong in the past, that the whole profession is suspect. So that in fact, nearly “all” prophets altogether, are to be continually suspect. To the point that the Bible will eventually say that we should not “despise” prophesy; but we should always remember that many prophesies and prophets are always simply, false. And therefore, we should not have too much “blind” faith in prophets; but “test everything” in prophecy, with science. To see if it is true or not.

 

 

6) Again in fact, consider this: even the best, a) canonical prophets themselves, whose names oversee major books of the Old Testament, sometimes b) even confess,
themselves, that they themselves were often mislead, even fatally. Often they themselves were just as bad “shepherds” (see also Zechariah above); but they themselves had previously been mislead by other, earlier priests and angels. That finally they are lead as “lamb”s, to the “pit.” Or to finally, their own demise and execution. Even the greatest prophets, like Jeremiah, began to confess at times that they had often been deceived, mislead. Even to their own doom, and the doom of those who followed them::

 

 

“I was like a gentle lamb lead to the slaughter” (Jer. 11.19).

 

 

Given all these countless biblical warnings, about countless bad things in “prophets,” who today, if anyone, can say that he is himself sure that the prophets he follows, were always good? Or that he himself “has not sinned” in taking prophets too seriously (q.v.)?

 

Who indeed, is above sin and error? If Moses and the highest prophets in the Bible itself, were not? Should 7) any believers, should any of our preachers and Popes today, trumpet their own perfection and infallibility? Are they really better than, say, all the prophets? Even the inspired ones? Are our holy men today, really more than human? Are those today so much entirely better than those of the past? In fact we are probably somewhat better today. But we are in part better because by now we know, that even the holiest of us have often sinned and erred in the past; and will likely make mistakes again in the future as well.

 

Perhaps, as some say, Jesus himself was a perfect prophet. But as it turns out, that means, just Jesus; only Jesus himself. While everyone else – even the best Christians; and even their most inspired doctrines – as we will see, have sinned. Even in spite of a thousand alleged special gifts and graces, that many have asserted might protect them from error today. Even in spite for example, of occasional “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit. Because eventually we will find, though the Holy Spirit can help these fallible individuals, often it chooses not to.

 

So the bottom line is this: far from stressing total “faith” in our holy men and angels – or in this case, prophets – actually, the Bible warned constantly about bad and “false” things in them. And as we will soon see, in their most allegedly holy and sacred gifts, and sayings about what the “Lord said,” or “thus saith the LORD.” Ultimately therefore, the real message of the Bile … was not to urge very much confidence in holy men at all. (See also condemnations of other figures very much like prophets: “augurs,” for example). Rather instead, insofar as we are to have any confidence at all in our holy men and angels, finally we are to have confidence most especially in only those things they say, that have been proven, verified, triangulated, by science and material evidence. (As we will have been seeing in our volumes on the Science of God).

 

 

 

 

 

Beyond False Prophets in Judaism Proper, And the Old Testament:

False Prophets
in the New Testament; and

False Things in Christianity Itself, Too

 

 

 

There are many bad false things in our holiest men, prophets, therefore; from the days of Moses himself. But preachers of course, find it hard to “face” or “bear” this; to face their own massive sins. Indeed they believe they have been ordered to never face this; they believe they are commanded by God to ignore all this, and continue to have “faith” in their tradition, no matter what. 7) And to avoid having to look hard at their own inadequacies – and worse, the inadequacies of their own revered “Tradition” – our preachers, rather than simply facing and confessing such sins, have tried for centuries to generate explanations, apologetics – or actually, sophistical excuses – for any apparent failures in their sacred tradition. And among the dozens, hundreds of excuses that they have generated over the centuries, is for example, the claim that … all these warnings about “false prophets,” applied only to prophets of the past. Particularly, many Christians try to say that these note sins and errors in other religions, like the worship of “Baal.” Or to at most, the religion of specifically, Jews; as opposed to Christians. And yet as we will see now, warnings about the “prophets of Israel” and so forth, this is not just about Moses or “the Jews,” as many anti-Semitic preachers have hinted; as is often the case with Old Testament stories, these warnings are relevant to Christianity too.

 

First, a) in general, it is a major convention of Christian theology, that (in spite of some dispensationalist modifications, from Christianity’s “new covenant”), most things said by “God,” in the Old Testament, are at least somewhat relevant to Christian life. While b) specifically, regarding warnings about prophets? The apostle St. Paul for example made it clear that these things, false prophets in the past, or failures in our holiest men, occurred not just for ancient Jews; but that these tales of failures of Jews in the wilderness for example, were also warnings for Paul himself … and therefore, they were warnings about false things, even in Christianity itself. In the following passage, Paul was at pains to show that just like the Jews, even Christians too, could be mislead. Paul even went so far as to stipulate that the who were Jews following Moses, who had become lost wandering in the desert of Sinai, in effect had the “rock” even of “Christ,” and the holy “spirit” of God with them, already. And yet, Paul is at pains to make clear, they still failed. Even in spite of the help of (a prefiguration of?) Christ himself; even in spite of the inspiration of the holy spirit of God:

 

 

“I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness. Now these things occurred as examples for us” (1 Corin. 10. 1-6 NRSV).

 

 

Shockingly, c) here the apostle St. Paul himself, confirms part of our thesis: as St. Paul himself tells us that not even inspiration by the very “spirit” of God, not even having Christ himself with us, has ever been enough to protect people. Amazingly, shockingly, here a major apostle assures us that not even the spirit of God, not even Jesus himself, have ever been enough, to fully protect even some of the greatest canonical prophets, to protect even religious leaders like Moses, from as it seems, sin and error. From becoming even fatally false shepherds; false religious leaders, false prophets, that for a long while lead even the holiest people into the “wilderness” … to be “struck down” there. (Other indications of sin in even Moses? Note passages where God allows Moses to only see, but does not allow Moses to enter, the promised land; because of errors even in Moses himself; q.v. Deut. 34.4?).

 

Even in the New Testament therefore, we are beginning to see some sins or inadequacies in the Jews – that Paul tells us specifically and clearly, carry on to Christianity. Specifically, many Christian preachers often try to say that failures in Moses and so forth, were just failures of “the Jews,” suffered by them perhaps (among other proffered reasons) because they refused the new and better Christian covenant of Grace. But such preachers are being inconsistent. First note that these stories of acute failure in our religious leaders and believers, are not stories just about “the Jews”; these failures are of major figures – like Moses – that are found in the Christian Old Testament too, as part of the Bible itself. Indeed remember that normally, in most sermons, preachers quote the Old Testament often and favorably; normally implying that things that happened in the Old Testament, are not just entirely for “the Jews,” but are still important to us here and now today, in Christianity too. While here, Paul is quite explicit about it: Paul adamantly, pointedly draws the parallel between at least this aspect of Judaism and Christianity: both had a prophet like Moses himself, and even had God or even “Christ” and even the “spirit” of God with them, Paul insisted Yet both could still fail, and even perish in their own respective wildernesses. In part we will have found here earlier, not just because of inadequacies in the people; but inadequacies even in our holiest religious leaders; including “prophets,” or mighty religious leaders, patriarchs. Like even Moses himself (Deut. 32.50-52; 34.4). While somehow, even the presence of the spirit or inspiration of God, even the presence of the “rock” of the 10 Commandments (Deut. 31.24-32.3) carved on stone, or even in the presence of Christ, were still not enough to save us. And if many priests read this as putting the blame just on the people, God himself actually we will see, puts the blame just as much or more, on religious leaders like Moses. Indeed, warnings about “false” things in prophets and every aspect of religious leaders, becomes a major theme from God; found in dozens, hundreds of examples throughout the entire Bible.

 

Are Old Testament warnings about “prophets” specifically therefore, just intended to condemn only Jewish or Old Testament figures? As perhaps some Christians have hinted? That reading does not hold up. Paul himself explicitly drew parallels between Old and New testament above. While of course, if there is still anyone at all who still thinks that such warnings about prophets were entirely canceled by the New Testament and Jesus, might note that d) beyond Paul, Jesus and many other New Testament, Christian figures, often quoted the Old Testament and its God; for all the world as if they were still considered rather authoritative.

 

e) Preachers and other religious leaders to be sure, do not want to face so many biblical warnings about sins in preachers, or religious leaders. Or specifically, our subject here: they cannot face signs of sin in their own revered “prophets.” To try to avoid facing this, they love to try to proudly – and deceitfully – say that all the old warnings about bad religious leaders, false prophets, apply to everyone else; to everyone other than our preachers themselves. But our preachers need to truly follow Jesus at last. And learn to see the “beam in their own eye”; to see, “confess,” their own sins at last. Christian priests and churchgoers, need to at last “see” and publicly acknowledge and fix, gross sins and errors, in their own churches, their very own holiest traditions.

 

f) It is hard for preachers to face their own sins; or even worse, the sins of their own most holy and revered religious traditions. So indeed, rather than facing them, preachers have simply resorted to a simple, common human stratagem: they have blamed any apparent failures any temporary wanderings in their religion, not on themselves, or their prophets … but they blame them on … everybody else. Trying to the end, to evade their own responsibility for such things, preachers will insist that in the case of Moses and other prophets, it is not our religious leaders, the prophets and preachers that fail; but it is the People’s fault. Preachers insist over and over that they, and/or their own Tradition, church, or doctrines, are of course perfect and holy. So that if our religion seems to fail, it is of course not our preachers’ fault; or our religious leaders, prophets. If it often claimed that whenever religious leaders seem to fail, it is of course, always the fault of the people, not the leaders; the people did not have enough “faith” or confidence in their leaders. They did not follow and believe strongly enough, in their “heart”s. And yet however we will have been finding here that, over and over, the Bible clearly intends to note that a large part of the problem, the shortfall in religion, comes not from sins in the Pople, but from longstanding sins in our holiest leaders themselves; our prophets and priests, and their allegedly holiest Traditions and so forth.

 

Sins even in the prophets. Themselves. Not just in everybody else. Not just in the People. What we are dealing here, in this book and in the Bible itself, is not what the preachers thought. It is not perfect religious leaders, confronting just the disloyal and silly and stupid people. Rather, what we are dealing with, is an acute failure in management; in our “holiest” leaders themselves.

 

No doubt it will be extremely hard for holy men and preachers, to stop blaming everyone else for their own failures; but it is time that they learned to do so.

 

 

 

Our holiest Old Testament prophets – like Moses and Zechariah, to take just two examples at random – often failed, even by their own admission, if they became “false prophets” or bad “shepherds” now and then, clearly, all this indicts not the people … but rather, parts of Christian leadership.

 

Whenever Christian preachers are told about some of the hundreds of Biblical attacks on even the highest Biblical prophets and leaders and so forth, most preachers – until to”day” – have tried to assert that any such attack on “prophets” just meant … everyone else’s prophets; prophets other than our own, Judeo-Christian ones. But in fact we are beginning to see here and now, that Biblical attacks on prophets included attacks even many of the most sacred “prophets” in the Bible; included say, even Moses, patriarch and prophet. Furthermore we just noted here (with Paul), that such prophets were not entirely good, even when they had the “inspiration” of God and Jesus himself.

 

Preachers very, very often try to say that such warnings about prophets, apply to everyone else; to prophets other than our own Christian ones. g) And to be sure, of course, the Bible did attack aa) many prophet-like figures in other religions; like “soothsayers,” “witches,” “fortune-tellers,” “necromancers,” “witches,” “magic”ians, “augurs,” and others who, like prophets, often claimed to be able to see the future. Then too, bb) the Bible attacked specifically, the “prophets” of other religions, than Judaism and Christianity; like the religion of Baal. And to be sure, it cc) attacked prophets of various other times, in the past. While warning too, of dd) prophets of the future.

 

But finally, we will find here, often the Bible was attacking … ee) prophets and holy men that were physically inside Israel and Judah, themselves. Even ff) prophets were attacked that at various times, were regarded as “inside” the Jewish faith; certainly, as key parts of Judah/Israel culture. Indeed, the Bible, God, attacked prophets very close to the king and religious leaders of Judah (cf. Saul and the witches; Moses himself); and even in the very center of power. Indeed, gg) At times the Bible itself hh) even attacked holy men, prophets, that are considered canonical, and absolutely holy; as “pillars” of Judaism. Like Zechariah and Moses.

 

And it gets worse; eventually we will also see, this attack by God on the prophets, extends beyond Christian attacks on Jewish thoughts (though even there, these were partially veiled attacks on the Christian Old Testament). In fact, we will see, the Bible began to doubt, we will see, even the very holiest men and prophets, in the very heart of Christianity .
Even in spite of any and all alleged special “gifts,” “grace”s, “elect”ion. Or even, for example, in spite of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

Therefore, most of these warnings about false prophets, are not just for other religions, or even for Judaism; these warnings are ultimately about “all” prophets. Including the prophets of Christianity too, specifically.

 

h) This at first seems shocking, even shattering; even Apocalyptic. Is it possible? Can even the core prophets – and therefore the core traditions and prophesies – of Christianity itself, be partially, bad? Yet remember that the Bible itself warned of many sins in our holiest men and angels in general; and warned specifically that one “day” we would discover this very vividly.

 

a) A few Christian preachers that begin, one “day,” to finally note some of the above warnings about false things in religion, will often try to build a firm fire-wall, between warnings about such false prophets in Israel and the “Old” Testament, and they themselves. And their own traditions; in Christianity proper, in the New Testament. Yet this is hypocritical; normally, for centuries, preachers tried over and over to prove that the Old Testament was totally relevant to the New; Paul himself says (above) that the story of the spirit failing Moses, “occurred as examples for us” Christians. So that this excuse sermon of priests – like most sermons – turns out to be … false. (As we show more fully, in Sermons as Excuses).

 

The fact is, we will find, over the centuries, priests and ministers have developed dozens, hundreds of sermons, that seek to assure us that Biblical warnings about “false” and “deceit”ful and “delu”ded things in religious leaders – like Jesus’ warnings of “false prophets” – apply to everybody else. To everyone except our own priests and ministers, today. Among other things, we are told that such warnings apply only to a few prophets; to, say prophets of other religious traditions outside the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition; or to prophets of the far distant past; or to “just” prophets, as many say, “of the Jews.” Yet to be sure, note here, that if such warnings applied to the prophets “the Jews,” then after all, they thereby applied to many false prophets deep in what was also part of the the Christian tradition; the writings of the Jews having formed, after all, the Christian Old Testament. And though Christians might be said by some, to be partially separated from the Old Testament, to enjoy separate treatment, a “new covenant,” finally, after all, Paul said such things were relevant “to us.” While indeed, Christians retain the Old Testament, as part their Bibles, because after all, Christianity is still linked to most of the Old Testament; Christian ministers still constantly quote the Ten Commandments for example… as if these “Jewish” “laws” of “Moses” as some (even Paul) might call them, still had some jurisdiction even over, relevance to, Christians, after all.

 

Many priests indeed, do constantly try to insulate themselves, from warnings of errors in holy men, in “prophets.” Christian ministers often insist or imply that if other religion’s prophets are bad, our own canonical Biblical, Judeo-Christian prophets, at least, are perfect, and eternal. But remember here, from the above first of all, that the Bible itself warned that there were often false prophets, even in the heart of Israel and Judah. And furthermore, finally the Old Testament seemed to be all-but ready to condemn, generically, all prophets (and tellers of the future; “soothsayers” as we will add later).

 

While indeed, normally – except when it is inconvenient – Christians do consider that the Old Testament is relevant to Christianity.

 

b) Most importantly furthermore, Biblical warnings about false prophets isn’t just in the Old Testament; and it isn’t just warnings about prophets of the “Jews,” either. Remember from the above, that eventually the New Testament warned that “all” those in St. Peter’s – and our own – “present” Christian heaven itself, were flawed, and fated (2 Peter 3.7). And the “household” of the Christian God himself too.

 

And if “all” those in heaven itself are to fall, (as we found in our sections on the Destruction of Heaven) then of course, that would include … any and all Christian prophets too. (While if any are in Purgatory, as some Catholic might say, and might seem to escape the destruction of “heaven,” then after all, remember that if they are in Purgatory, it was because after all they had sinned; they were not good enough to get into heaven. So the prophets in Purgatory are if anything, worse than those in heaven, of course; more sinful then them; not less).

 

 

c) For that matter, note that Jesus himself warned of flawed, “false prophets” coming during, and right after, Jesus. So that we have false prophets, first of all, in the time of Christianity, therefore, and right after it too:

 

 

“Beware of false prophets” (Mat. 7.15).

 

“Many false prophets will arise” (Mat. 24.11).

 

“For false Christs and false prophets will arise” (Mat. 24.24).

 

“False Christs and false prophets will arise” (Mark 13.22).]

 

“Many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4.1).

 

“The mouth of the false prophet” (Rev. 16.13, 19.20, 20.10).

 

 

d) Worse, we are to have false religious leaders in what appears to be Christianity itself, by name; among apparent holy men who were to come, crying, quoting Jesus or Christ; claiming to come in his “name”; in the name of Jesus “Christ.”

 

Indeed, note that Jesus warned of problems with prophets, that were to persist, even after Jesus. And even in the Christian tradition; even among those who in effect, said or thought they were Christians; those who invoke the name of “Christ” and the “Lord, Lord,” etc..

 

 

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell” (Luke 6.46).

 

“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom” (Mat. 7.21).

 

 

e) Just so that there is no wiggle room here for Christians to get away, the New Testament even finally made it clear there would be sins – and specifically “false prophets” and false teachers – even among “you” Christian believers:

 

“No prophesy of scripture, is a matter of one’s own interpretation…. But false prophets also rose among the people, just as there will be false teachers [“rabbis”?] among you...” (2 Peter 1.20. Also 2.1).

 

 

There were therefore, to be false prophets, false teachers, appearing even in the “name” of Jesus and Christianity; as “Christ”ians therefore, logically. And specifically even “among you” Christians. Clearly therefore, when it spoke about “false prophets,” the Bible did not mean to warn just about everybody else’s religion; it meant to warn that there would be false things in what passes as Christianity, itself.

 

To be sure, most Christian preachers are very, very proud and vain; and do not want to face the exposure of sins in themselves, and their own Christian traditions. And to avoid having to “face” their own sins, they have traditionally delivered dozens, millions of sermons; sermons designed to try to prove, using quotes from the Bible, that such warnings about false things, warnings of false prophets – applied to everyone else, except they, themselves. Yet it is time for our preachers to at last look for the beam in their own eye. Here and later on, we will examine sermon after sermon, argument after argument, that attempts to defend even traditional Christianity; we will examine all the major sermons that defend its promises of miracles for example, particularly (in our writing on Sermons as Excuses). And we will show over and over, that while many such sermons intended to protect prophets, priests today, quote from “parts” of the Bible … they quote from
misleading parts
. While we will find that finally, in the overall text, God ultimately wanted everyone to know (eventually? As they grow up?) that anyone and everyone – even the very holiest men and angels in the core of the Christian canon – often sinned. Sinned both personally, in their day-to-day life; but also, sinned and erred, in their highest and most holy and “inspired” writings and doctrines and prophesies. As we will have begun to see here, in our writings about Moses as prophet, and so forth. And by the way, since we see even “inspired” leaders like Moses making mistakes, we will find in a separate chapter, that the common sermon that pretends that Christian “doctrine” is protected from error, by the “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit, turns out not to be true, either. So that our holiest men and angels can always err, at any time, in anything they do; without being assured of infallibility.

 

 

 

No Real Exceptions:

John Says Mislead Persons are

“Not of Us”; But …

 

 

To be sure, many Christian preachers will desperately, ingeniously quote parts of the Bible, that seem to assure us that our particular preachers themselves and their particular flock, are actually, among the few that are genuine, and were saved from error. In particular, one all-too-popular sermon, quotes so parts of the Gospel of John. Where John apparently asserting that the false deceived believers came “out of us” Christians; but then it is asserted, such deceived believers were not of “us.”

 

To be sure, after hearing such things, then our preachers – like John himself? – are typically eager to try to assert that even if false things came out of even our highest Christian apostles, the tradition they left however, was true after all; and the deceived persons ultimately were not part of us, part of real Christianity. But we will be showing here that after all, it was the deceivers that assured us of that. That in any case, after two thousand years of history between us and John, we cannot be sure who are the true followers, and who are the false ones. Indeed as it turns out, there are criticisms even of John himself – and his pronouncements and assurances of infallibility – after all.

 

For that matter, can we trust even the authentic words of John himself? As we will see, Jesus himself often noted sins even in “us” apostles; even many of the Twelve Apostles, by name. In fact, specifically, Jesus would not promise that John would be on his right hand, in the kingdom. Preachers present themselves every Sunday in church, as our religious leaders; they presume to tell us who God is, or what God is like, every week. But 1) are our preachers totally reliable? For that matter, 2) are the prophets and 3) the holy men, and 4) the angels themselves in the Bible itself, totally reliable? We are constantly told in church, that are priests and ministers are reliable; or that we should follow our saints and angels and apostles, and their ideas about God, with all but total “faith.” But what will find out, here and now, is that actually, that these assurances that we heard constantly in churches all over the earth, are not what the Bible itself really said. Actually, we will show here, that although parts
of the Bible seemed
to tell us such things, ultimately, the Bible itself overall, actually, constantly warned … that there have always been many, many false things, in our priests. And even in our holiest men and angels. (As we will see in our writings on false things in the Apostles, and so forth).

 

 

 

 

Are There Any Good Prophets,

Or Some Good Individual Prophesies?

 

 

8) The Bible therefore, is clearly full of warnings about false things in essentially “all” prophets, for example; even Christian ones. Even in their “inspired” moments. But were “all” our prophets therefore, totally bad, or false? Are
all
prophets, totally lying or deceived persons, all the time?

 

Perhaps to be sure, a) some
individual prophesies from the past, are partially good. And b) there might be some occasional persons, who are overall, reasonably good prophets; as parts of the New Testament suggest, in one reading.

 

aa) Jesus at times, says there will be prophets who are flogged, killed. And in some readings, that seems to suggest that this is a bad thing; that some of the prophets will have been “sent” by Jesus or God, that will be among those flogged and killed. So the implication in quotes like the following, might seem to be that among the many false prophets, there will be at least a few prophets, that are sent by Jesus that, some have suggested, will have been unjustly denigrated and attacked:

 

 

“I send you prophets, sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues” (Mat. 23.34 NRSV).

 

“They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God” (/churches; John 16.2).

 

 

b) Indeed, at times the New Testament, in Paul especially, seem to allow that many “shall” prophesy; and that some who do so will “edify” the church. And we are told indeed we should “earnestly desire to prophesy.” Which will be taken by many, to suggest that some prophets and prophesying, might be OK, sometimes:

 

 

“Your sons and daughters shall prophesy” (Acts. 2.17).

 

“He who prophesies edifies the church” (1 Corin. 14.4).

 

“He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks” (1 Corin. 14.5).

 

“So you can all prophesy one by one” (1 Corin. 14.31).

 

“Earnestly desire to prophesy” (1 Corin. 14.39).

 

“Do not despise the words of prophets [“prophesying” in some trans.]; but test everything; hold fast to what is good (1 Thess. 5.20).

 

“You must again prophesy” (Rev. 10.11).

 

 

Thereby, the New Testament does at first seem to continue to endorse, prophesy. But note that it is a very cautious prophesying. Indeed, note some key caveats, some qualifications, some conditions and fine print, on these apparent endorsements of prophets.

 

a) Note first, for example, that Paul for example here said there was at least one higher office in church hierarchy than “prophets” (1 Corin. 12.28):

 

 

“And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Corin. 12.28).

 

 

b) Then too, Paul asked whether many who thought they are prophets, really are: “Are all prophets” (1 Corin. 12.29)?

 

 

“Are all apostles? Are all prophets?” (1 Corin. 12.29).

 

 

c) Then amazingly, after speaking of the many apparent religious offices and functions, including prophesy, Paul spoke of … something still more “excellent,” than being a prophet and such “gifts.” And perhaps, even better than all these things; even better than being an apostle:

 

 

“But strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way” (1 Corin. 12.30).

 

 

Here Paul amazingly, in one possible reading, began to hint at something beyond the foundation of traditional Christianity; beyond “prophets” and apostles and so forth; pointing to a “still more excellent way.”

 

d) In any case, note that finally, Paul ultimately damns prophesy, with very faint praise; not coming up with great praise, but telling us merely not to “despise” prophesy:

 

 

“Do not despise the words of prophets [“prophesying” in some trans.]; but test everything; hold fast to what is good (1 Thess. 5.20).

 

 

e) Finally and most importantly, note from the immediately proceeding quote that right after telling us not to “despise” the words of prophets, Paul said that we should, even more surprisingly, “test everything” in religion – and specifically, perhaps, in prophesy. Amazingly, we are not supposed to have total faith in prophets it seems; but are supposed to “test everything” in prophesy, to see it is good or not. Paul here confirming Deut. 18.20 ff, etc..

 

So that ultimately, surprisingly we will be seeing later, Paul and the Bible, is pointing to a more “excellent way,” beyond even almost “all” traditional prophesy. Amazingly, we will find, Paul, in advocating “test”ing, begins to join seventy or a hundred or more other parts of the Bible. That began to suggest a notable improvement on all past religion, prophesying: in advocating “test”ing everything, ultimately we will find, the Bible itself began to outline a kind of “science” of God. So that ultimately, a kind of scientific “Test”ing turns out to be given a higher priority, than the testimony of prophets. While we will eventually find, God tells us not to trust prophets, or any other religious authorities; unless or until they stand up to examination by real, full, classic “science.” While as for the specific function of “prophesy”? Predicting the future? That is probably better developed, into more refined, less mystical forms of predictions. Including a) informed, educated guesses; and b) firmer scientific predictions.

 

Ultimately, we will find that the Bible itself says that any future Christianity, must not be mostly based on simple authority figures, like “prophets.” Indeed, here we have noted that a) the Bible itself warned about sins and errors in prophets, over and over again. While finally b) therefore, ultimately the Bible itself did not have such firm confidence in such things as traditional prophets. Amazingly, instead of firmly supporting prophets and their words – as preachers do – the Bible itself ultimately began to show that we must all try to progress beyond simple prophesying; to the “still more excellent way” of … practical knowledge and science.

 

Amazingly, we will see, Christianity is not supposed to be based on all-but-blind “faith” in holy men, like prophets for example. a) Prophets in fact, are warned about in the Bible, over and over and over again. The Bible warning not only about prophets of other religions, but b) also prophets in the Jewish tradition too; even in Moses himself. The c) Bible even warning about prophets in and among those accepted in the “name” of “Christ”ianity. Some d) might say that above “prophets” are “apostles”; but indeed we will see, Jesus himself often chastised even his own apostles and prophets by name. While we will find later, the apostles often confessed great sins in themselves; Paul confessing he was not “perfect” for example … even as he wrote half the New Testament. And e) finally, because of all these great sins and errors in even our holiest men, our holiest prophets, the Bible itself began to command us to move beyond too much confidence and faith in holy men; to a “still more excellent way.” Moving beyond faith in prophets and so forth, to – as we will be showing – a science of God. In which, no doubt, reasonable scientific predictions, replace cruder, wild-eyed prophesying.

 

In any case, by the time of Paul, the Bible began to say with increasing clarity, that no prophet is ever to be regarded as fully reliable, without firm, real, scientific confirmation and “test”ing. A standard that is even in fact, sometimes at least evoked in, say, contemporary Catholic confirmations of sainthood, canonization, for example. (Though the burden of full scientific proof has not really been fully met in any examination of saints and would-be saints, to date, we might reasonably “hope” that a far stricter and truly scientific standard, will be applied in all cases, in the future).

 

 

 

More on the End of Prophets

 

 

In any case, here it seems increasingly evident that none of our past prophets, are all that reliable. (Especially we will see, as mediated to us by priests). And indeed, beyond casting doubts on “all” holy men, and “the prophets,” the Bible itself began to speak of an end, to prophesy, and prophets.

 

We should have known; given all those warnings about prophets in the Bible itself, above, after all:

 

 

“The prophets are prophesying lies in my name” (Jer. 14.14).

 

“I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied” (Jer. 23.21).

 

“Why do you prophesy and say, ‘Thus says the LORD'” (Jer. 32.3).

 

“Prophesy against the prophets of Israel” (Ezk. 13.2).

 

“Prophesy against the shepherds of Israel” (Ezk. 34.2).

 

“You shall not prophesy” (Ams. 2.12).

 

“Beware of false prophets” (Mat. 7.15).

 

“Many false prophets will arise” (Mat. 24.11; 24).

 

“Many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4.1).

 

“Issuing … from the mouth of the false prophet” (Rev. 16.13).

 

“False prophets also arose among the people” (2 Peter. 2.1).

 

“… The time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God…” (1 Peter 4.17).

 

“Prophesy not to us what is right” (Isa. 30.10).

 

“Prophesy illusions” (Isa. 30.10).

 

“The prophet also shall stumble with you by night” (Hos. 4.5).

 

“The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad” (Hos. 9.7)

 

“And if any one again appears as a prophet…. Pierce him through when he prophesies” (Zech. 13.3).

 

 

And by the way, isn’t it committing the sins of “vanity,” “pride,” and “presumptous”ness, failing to be “humble” indeed, for our prophets to assert that they themselves are good, holy, and are repeating the word of God? When if anything finally, God warned of sins in our highest saints and angels … and prophets? When “all” those in heaven itself are to be found bad, and fall? How vain can anyone be?

 

And for that matter, isn’t it vain and proud for our priests and ministers to claim to be such perfect voicepieces of God, “sacred” and “holy” … when the very words of prophets they quote, are themselves almost certainly, often, bad? According to the Bible itself?

 

 

Finally, we will find, that for all the sins of say Liberalism, still religion always needs at least one of the basic liberal ideas: that we must always be a little flexible about what the “Truth” or “God” is. Since all of those who have proclaimed and pronounced and dogmatized and pontificated on Truth and God in the past, have been proven to make many mistakes, not only in their personal lives, but also in their official pronouncements. “Be liberal” in helping the poor the Bible said; perhaps it wanted us to be more broadly liberal in other ways too; not abandoning the “freedom” we have in Christ.

 

In fact, given all the mistakes clearly made by so many self-proclaimed “holy” men and “prophets,” no one henceforth, should ever claim to be all that holy, sacred, or perfect; not even especially, our religious leaders. “All have sinned”; “we all make mistakes.” Even in our most “inspired” moments. So that finally, anyone who claims otherwise, who claims to speak infallibly for God, are merely committing the sins of pride, and vanity. Failing to be truly, “humble.”

 

How many of even our best, most holy prophets, are to be found to be, at least partially false? Though at times the Bible seemed to allow that there might be some prophesy, even to the end, finally the Bible was cautious and qualified in its endorsements of prophets and holy men. God really warned that “all have sinned.”

 

And remember from the above that, more specifically as regards prophets, often it seemed (from the above) as if Israel, Christianity – or God himself – wanted question all prophets.

 

 

14) Or now, finally, God not only cast doubts on essentially “all” prophets; finally God wanted … to actively do away with all prophets, altogether, forever.

 

Prophesy seems to have had a very bad name, particularly from about the time of Zechariah to John, especially. a) To the point that God did not merely cast doubts on them; he spoke of actively removing them. And even it seems, actively punishing them with “piercing” (and executing them?):

 

 

“I will remove from the land the prophets…. And if any one again appears as a prophet, his father and mother who bore him will say to him, ‘You shall not live, for you speak lies in the name of the LORD’; and his father and mother who bore him shall pierce him through when he prophesies. On that day every prophet will be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies; he will not put on a hairy mantle in order to deceive, but he will say, ‘I am no prophet, I am a tiller of the soil'” (Zech. 13.2-5).

 

“The prophets and the law prophesied until John” (Mat. 11.13).

 

 

Above, it often seemed that the Bible was beginning to speak against “the prophets” in general. While here, God begins to speak of actively punishing anyone who claimed to be a prophet.

 

b) Indeed, some holy Jewish books, and the Old Testament, end, in some versions, with some books called the books of “prophets.” No doubt, after much negative experience with prophets, many religions seem to functionally give up on them. They try to end their holy books; or at least end the books of the prophets. In fact, right after some very negative assessments of prophets, in Malachi, Zechariah … the Old Testament itself abruptly, ends. As if many people – even priests – no longer believed in prophesy.

 

Indeed, the last few books, of our Christian Old Testament – like Jeremiah, Zechariah, Malachi – though written by prophets, contain some very, very, very negative assessments of many prophets; and it seems finally, of all prophets.

 

c) No doubt, the Jews were tired of prophets who prophesied an ideal, miraculous “kingdom” for them … when Judah and Israel were actually overrun by one empire after another. From Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Greece, Rome, to later Turkey, to the English.

 

d) Coming to doubt old promises, in fact Jeremiah finally all but self – deconstructed even himself, and all prophets and spokesmen for God – by telling us the “Lord said” not to trust those who tell us the “Lord said.”

 

e) How long did this disenchantment with prophets and holy men persist? After the Old Testament prophets, there was in fact, to be a gap of several hundred years in effect, after most of the Old Testament. For a while, c. 200 BC to 100 AD, we saw a number of non-Hebrew, Greek-influenced, Apocryphal, inter-testamental books; like the books of Tobit and Baruch and so forth. But these were written in Greek they say; not Hebrew. And they were considered somewhat off the main mark, of holy books; these were not accepted by Protestants into their Bibles, either.

 

And indeed, there is basically, a rather long gap, after the Jewish prophets, before any religious writings, seem to have much force; before any were admitted to form a new canon; like the New Testament of Jesus, of Christianity. Which was itself, not really fully formed, fixed, till about 367 or 382 AD. Several hundred or even thousand years, after the classic prophets.

 

f) And when the Bible resumed, after a long gap between the Old and the New Testaments? It put far less emphasis on prophets. Some say Jesus himself was a “prophet.”

Yet that is not the title normally given him: cf. “Son of God,” etc.. While his Apostles too were not normally called “prophets,” but rather, of course, “apostles.”

 

The New Testament then, is consistent with the idea that our religion, God, were laying less stress on prophesy. It did not really stress Jesus as a “prophet”; but above stressed Jesus as the “end” or attempted “fulfillment” of prophesy. As a savior, Messiah, and so forth. As something a little different than a prophet, in any case.

 

 

15) To be sure, the book of Revelation, the final book of the Bible, is a sum of old prophesies. But it is especially, about the final self-deconstructive prophesy; about the end of prophets; the destruction of heaven.

 

As we will find here, if applying science to religion – especially its promises of miracles for example – and if that seems to shatter our heaven itself, then after all we will be finding here at last, we must accept this; in part too because after all, the Bible warned that one Apocalyptic “day” we would discover something like this. One Apocalyptic “day,” we are to find that, after being “test”ed, a) many … and even b) essentially “all” holy men and prophets in heaven itself, are found to be at least partially bad.

 

The Bible in fact warned that false “prophets” and holy men would dominate Religion, and the world, until the End Time. When indeed, we at last find that the whole earth was deceived in major elements of its religion, its “worship.” Especially finally, God told us that the whole earth will, until the End, have been dominated by various false religious figures (Rev. 13.7) … including among others, a false “prophet” or two:

 

“And I saw three foul spirits like frogs coming from the mouth of … the false prophet” (Rev. 16.13 NRSV).

 

“Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in midheaven, ‘Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings….’ Then I saw … captured … the false prophet.… These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire…. And the rest were killed by the sword … and all the birds were gorged with their flesh” (Rev. 19.20-21 NRSV).

 

 

So no doubt, it is hard for believers to face the possibility that “prophets” and other holy men, are unreliable; that even our highest prophets in heaven itself might be bad and evil. And no doubt it is hard for believers to face the fact that, because of all these bad things … heaven itself is supposed to collapse.

 

But painful and unbelievable as all this is to traditional Christians, it should be possible for believers to at last “face” and “bear” the bad news that science delivers, on religion. On being told that after all, what we are seeing here is not the negation, but actually, the fulfillment of the Bible. We are not saying the Bible itself is false here; but instead, we are finding out the Bible is true. Albeit, true in a way that our preachers have not understood, until now.

 

The fact is, the Bible itself, we will find here, is true enough. Even when we find huge sins in preachers, and Christianity, remember this: 1) the Bible itself warned that there have always been huge sins in our holiest men and angels; even those in heaven itself (like Moses, etc.), as it turns out. Therefore 2) the Bible itself also, told us that therefore, rather than having total “faith” in old, pre-Vatican II religion, instead, we are supposed to develop religion, Christianity, into a “science” of God. And then 3) if our science should tell us that there were huge sins and errors in our traditional “Christ”ianity, in our highest saints and prophets – and indeed, if our science seems to intellectually destroy our traditional Heaven itself – then after all, our essential point here, is to suggest that after all, there is a way to accept this, and still remain true to the Bible itself. Our essential point is to say that in fact, if science and practical reason seem to find huge sins in essentially “all” our holiest men and angels, then after all, we can now justify that in Biblical terms; the terms acceptable to believers. Because the fact is, the Bible itself, God himself, told us that there have always been great sins in our holiest men and angels; and that 4) for that matter, we are supposed to see this particularly, one “Apocalyptic” “day”; when in fact, for precisely this reason, our “Heaven” itself is supposed to be destroyed; Heaven and essentially all the saints and angels in it.

 

The fact is, one “day,” you are supposed to see huge sins and errors in your holiest men and angels; and in many of their most inspired doctrines. And indeed, one “day” your traditional heaven of “faith” in “miracles” and “Heaven” is supposed to “dissolve.” While furthermore, 5) all this is to the good. Since even as we see sins in essentially all our ancient holy men and angels … we are also coming – even here and now – to another, better, second vision of God and good. A better science of God. That at last, separates the “sheep” from the “goats,” the “wheat” and “fruits” from the “chaff” or “straw.” That at last identifies the true elements of Christianity, the true understanding of the Bible itself; and that at last separates that, from … the false sense of Christianity that had, until very recently, totally dominated the whole earth.

 

These are large claims. But remember that the Bible itself told us, that one “day,” all this is supposed to happen. And by the way, all this is centered in part, around discovering sins in “prophets” in particular. We are told that one “day,” we are to see the elimination of many false prophets or prophesies, even from the very heart of Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

Ultimately, we are supposed to find that “all” our holy men and angels have sinned; including many “prophets” and prophesies. But in the end, among others, many prophets in particular – even some (with others) who were believed, “worshipp”ed with other false leaders, by probably, the whole earth (Rev. 13) – are done away with:

 

 

“And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were” (Rev. 10).

 

 

Our conclusion? Clearly a) there are to be false prophets; b) even among those who think they are following Christ, in c) the midst of “Christianity.” Even d) to the very end, itself.

 

 

 

The Day

 

 

False holy men therefore – including in part, false prophets – are allowed to dominate religion, Christianity, the Bible said. Right through to the “Day of the Lord,” the End Time. But indeed … here we will be finding that the Bible itself is true enough; and there is one particular set of prophesies we will probably be realizing, here and now, in fact. Since even here and now, many of us are perhaps, beginning to see the dawning of the “day”; when God in fact is beginning to expose false things in our holy men, even here and now. Beginning with the exposure of their authority; beginning here and now, with the uncovering at last, of the many parts of the Bible that began to warn of false things in essentially all religious authorities.

 

Perhaps in fact, today is the “day” for many of us. So what is that “day” about? In part, it can be seen as a metaphor; for the day we grow up or mature, beyond blind, “child”like faith in authority. As we grow up and “mature,” many of use begin to see sins and errors in our childhood heroes and authorities. Indeed, as we grow up, to the age of reason and beyond, we begin acquire critical thinking skills, and science. And to move beyond blind “faith.”

 

But to be sure, when that happens, we begin to indeed, see sins in our holiest men and angels. And at first, noticing sins in our highest religious heroes – noticing here for example, that our preachers over-emphasized the reliability of prophets and other holy men and angels – is a shattering, disillusioning experience. Yet note here that as we move beyond blind “faith” in authority, as we discover the science of God, we are acquiring something that may be more “fruitful” than blind faith in authority; we are acquiring practical, adult knowledge. With science, adult knowledge, comes technology, practical work skills … that get us better jobs, and “prosperity.”

 

And as for religion? In the past, many people thought that when we begin to acquire reason, knowledge, it destroys, attacks, too many good things. Indeed, it attacks our childhood heaven. But in fact, we will find here, this does not destroy what the Bible itself said. And in fact, all this begins to fulfill prophesy. As we acquire reason, adult knowledge, science, each of us will be able to see at last, which elements of our childhood religion were true, which elements correctly understood the Bible; and which elements were “false” “interpretations” of the truth, and of God. And as we do this, we will also be finding which elements of traditional religion were materially “fruit”ful … and which were the dead, un”fruit”ful “branches.” Which were the branches that indeed, should be thrown into the dustbin or garbage bin or garbage dump of History. Which were the bad writings on religion … which for that matter, which should ultimately be metaphorically “burned” in garbage dumps (cf. “Ghennah”). As so much unfruitful trash. Cleaned out of the temple and disposed of at last. So that we can concentrate at last, on what is good and true; on what works, and is fruitful.

 

No doubt, some Christian preachers will resist this; many preachers have always liked to assure themselves and their congregations, that they themselves are already good and true; and they believe that in the End, they themselves will be found to have been among the very few, undeceived persons on earth. Yet we will have been finding out here after all, that our holy men- like prophets – are not reliable. And therefore of course, those preachers – who followed the prophets of the Bible for example, all too “faith”fully, all too “religiously” – will have been mislead. By “false prophets” in fact. Just as God warned.

 

The fact is, “all have sinned.” Even our holiest prophets … and therefore too, we will see, the priests that followed them all too faithfully.

 

And so in the end, with our holiest prophets and angels and priests falling in our estimation … how can any preacher survive? Preachers assert they themselves will survive, like Shadrach, in the fire of critical examination, the fire of the End. But finally, to assert that, is more mere presumption and vanity. The fact is, our preachers too have sinned mightily. And so indeed, s we will find, God himself told us that in the End, even the very best preachers, the “sons of Levi,” need to be submitted to critical “fire” … and melted down, and “refined” (Mal. 2-3). Even preachers especially must learn to accept much pain; having their own impure theologies burned away. Before they are not terribly evil any more.

 

And if our preachers will not learn to see the sins of the churches? Then after all, one day God is supposed to begin to bring negative “judgement” down, on even Jewish and Christian prophets, and preachers. Even we will see, the very “household of God.”

 

 

16) Finally it is suggested that fully believing in prophets is childish. Given the execution of even Jesus, finally Paul was to begin to suggest that there were problems with prophesies; even whatever prophesies known to Christians like Paul and others. Such things saw life only “in part”; and as if by a “child”:

 

 

“But as for prophecies, they will come to an end…. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part.… When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part…” (1 Corin. 13.8-8).

 

 

No doubt, aa) we can only enter the “kingdom of heaven,” as a child; but once there, we are supposed to “mature,” Paul was to say elsewhere. Here it appears as if, by the time of Paul, all prophesy is coming to be seen as a “child”ish and vain pretension; while bb) some are coming to think that no one, after all can really foretell the future with much certainty (except scientists in limited spheres).

 

And so finally therefore – given their childish nature perhaps – we should even speak of a time when we grow up; and at that time, “as for prophecies, they will come to an end:

 

 

“But as for prophecies, they will come to an end…. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part…. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part…” (1 Corin. 13.8-8).

 

 

Perhaps this is what the Apocalypse, the destruction of heaven is all about: as we grow up, and learn knowledge and science, we begin to see that many of the ideas we learned as “child”ren in church, were after all, “child”ish, and substantially simplistic and “false”; and in that moment our religious heroes, and our traditional “heaven” are dissolved in our mind’s eye. But to be sure, at the same time that our simple ideas of miracles and so forth are dissolving, we are gaining a new, fuller, more mature, adult sense of things; a rational, adult mind after all. One that can see sins even in adults, even in prophets. And then learn to go beyond them, after all.

 

 

16) How many people have already gone through much of this? Finally, having seen many heroes fall in the past, having observed as an historical fact the record of many failed prophesies, the history of what has “come to pass” since the days of the Old and New Testaments, today, a) most people in actual fact, distrust any people who call themselves “prophets” today. Having intuitively understood the above, there is a modern distaste for prophesy, the “crystal ball.” For that reason finally, b) today, very, very few people today – even priests – call themselves “prophets.”

 

 

17) Indeed, related to prophets, the Bible warned about belief many kinds of people who pretend to tell the future, from Magic: “augurs,” “soothsayers,” “diviners,” fortune-tellers,” and so forth.

 

In fact, we will note something interesting here, in our later writing on magical elements in Christianity: the Bible itself often condemned many different magician-type professions, that are however, very, very closely related to (and even structurally identical with) the functions of prophesy. The Bible often attacked those and those, specifically, who claimed to predict the future: “soothsayers” and “augur”s or fortunetellers, (Deut. 18.10), and “necromancers” and so forth. All of whom have a mainly prophetic function; calling up the dead, and so forth, to find out about the future. So that the Bible is condemning prophesy here, in other, related forms as well; as it condemned “augurs,” “soothsayers,” and so forth.

 

18) In fact, many people today rightly think of most of prophesy as an old superstition; inherited from belief in magic. So that yet another prophesy was true; when it accepted “prophets,” the earth was mislead by magicians, “soothsayers,” and so forth.

 

 

 

The New Heaven on Earth

 

 

It seems as if our old heaven, allegedly full, it will have seemed to many, of sacred “prophets” and so forth, is collapsing. But if it is, then after all, one “day” this is supposed to happen; our old heaven is supposed to be dissolved … but then we are also supposed to see another, “second” and better vision, Second Coming, of God. And in fact, we will show, the foretold “second” and better vision of God and good is emerging, even now. In a way that incorporates all the best of oldtime religion; though “refin”ing it at last. And that second and better vision of God, is offered through … the science of God. As we will see later.

 

Is all prophesy altogether, for example, now over? Since prophets were often discredited, even in the Bible; since Paul suggested of prophesied, that “they will end”? At first it might seem that old ideas like “prophesy” are entirely over. But to be sure, Paul himself indicated something that was supposed to modify – and in effect, replace – prophesy. Which was in fact, scientific prediction.

 

18) In fact, our old confidence in “prophets” is all but gone today. But if our oldtime religion, our old heaven is collapsing, then after all, if it is, then another, “new heaven,” is supposed to appear. And in fact, a new science of God began to emerge in the Bible … out of prophesy, in part.

 

Remember, in fact, that Paul told us not to “despise” prophesy … but however, to “test everything”:

 

 

“Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5.20 NRSV).

 

 

This means, we are not supposed to despise prophesy or predictions totally … but we are to respect only those that turn out to be accurate, or are testable. Which means … that prophesy is supposed to become refined; to become in fact, a science. Based explicitly, on “test”ing. Said St. Paul; and as we will see, seventy or a hundred more quotes in the Bible itself. (As summarized in our writing on the science of God).

 

In fact, predictive science, is the foretold “refined” and viable form of religion, and specifically, of prophesy. Science took religious prophesy one step further; it looks thoroughly at past records and data, at the written data – and especially at the observable evidence of what really comes to pass in real life, in nature. And then, on the basis of that, science in effect, makes limited predictions of what will happen next. Science is a refined form of prophesy. Science for example, might observe what happens when you drop a four pound weight, on a half inch concrete slab, from a height of three feet; and then, on the basis of what it has thus observed happening in this situation, it will predict – or prophesy – that when you do the same thing, roughly the same results will happen in the future. Thus, scientists are actually … refined fortunetellers; or a much better kind of prophet.

 

And so finally, there is to be allowed, today, one kind of “refined” “prophets,” at least: scientific forecasters. There will always be need of those. Including – in the fields closest to religion and ethics – those social scientists who if, if they cannot “predict the future” of mankind with 100% reliability, can at least use as much hard evidence as they can; to give us reasonably good guesses, reasonably good predictions, about the outcome of this or that course of action.

 

The Bible therefore, was right: the old prophesy, even our old heaven, was already beginning to come to an “end” even in the time of Jesus and Paul; but a new and better heaven was already beginning to emerge. Specifically, if we follow Paul’s advice, and learn not to “despise prophesy,” but to “test everything,” then there emerges a kind of better replacement for the old “prophesy”: which is now better called, “prediction,” “forecasting.” And in fact, this new prophesy – better called “prediction” – has long been building; and it is immensely successful; since it is based not just on intuition, or religious dogma from often unreliable authorities and angels; but is based instead largely, on – just as Paul and God demanded – careful observation of the things that are “visible” in this life, the things that God made (Rom. 1.20 etc.); and “test”ing “everything.” With science, as we will see. Looking to see which predictions result in real “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds” … and which do not.

 

As we will have seen here, finally the Bible advocated scientific prophesy – or we call it “prediction” – over traditional prophesy. Finally, we are supposed to look to see if the things holy men and prophets prophesied, foretold, or promised, came true or not, if they did or did not bear real material, physical “prosperity,” “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “proof”s, bringing us material physical results, empirically -observable, in a very material, physical, and timely way, without “delay,” here on this material “earth”; in a way that we can “observ”e with our “eyes.” Since, as Paul confirmed, even the “invisible” spirits are known by observation of visible things (Rom. 1.20):

 

 

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made” (Rom. 1.19-20 NRSV; cf. Wis. Sol.? Apocrypha On science.).

 

 

Finally, it is only scientific prophesy – prediction – that fully fulfills what God wanted, and orders.

 

To be sure though, science itself is not always perfect. Indeed, some other, Apocryphal passages related to the above (in the Wisdom of Solomon; apocryphal for Protestants), tell us that in the past, some scientists did observe nature … but believed that nothing of God, no moral system, could be found there.

 

Yet for some time, there have been social philosophers and others – including some Natural Law theorists; indeed the authors of the Declaration of Independence (referring there to the laws of “nature, and nature’s God”) – who have come to feel that the laws of nature and technology, are laws from God. According to many, there is a structure in the universe, to which we creatures should conform. And in part, the structure of the universe itself, tells us what kind of morality is good for us. Which amounts to a kind of natural morality in the universe. (Paul: “For the Gentile does by nature what the law requires. While, as for the part of Paul that seems to condemn “nature,” has been mistranslated or misinterpreted; “natural man” just meant, mindless, spiritless man).

 

To be sure, to try to make out what God “wants” from us, by observing his material universe, is not easy. In the past, some thought that the universe could not be from God, because it seemed that the universe favored an immoral system of “nature red in tooth and claw” (John Locke?); or some similar, brutal version of social Darwinism. But to be sure, that is rather the Old Testament version.

 

While then too, finally making out what is good for man, in the natural order of things, is not so simple, that we can fix on just a few simple phases; like “red in tooth and claw.” Actually we find for example, regarding the apparent bloody-ness of the universe, that there is some safety and cooperation, even in the animal populations; wolves care for their cubs, mostly (if not always); ant societies are quite ordered and cooperative, and its individuals even altruistic in some ways. So that even in the animal kingdom, there are many kinds of behavior, “moral systems,” codes of behavior that favor not the selfish individual, but the species; each somewhat different, for different species.

 

Therefore, there may be one or more moral systems, roughly indicated in the nature of things, for man.

 

To be sure, “natural law” theory came in disrepute, in academe; because it was misused by churches, to claim that ultimately, all their old rules, were scientifically true. But the study of nature, natural law, should not ever be used to simply, dogmatically claim or assume, that this or that old moral system, is valid and good just in the nature of things. But rather, we should always henceforth, regard the nature of what the universe is, and what it or God wants – over even what is “natural” – as an open question; one always open to real science, and study … and verification and dis-verification of any and all hypotheses. Indeed, all good science is at once more certain, but also far more “humble” than priests; since it is never absolutely dogmatic, but always opens everything up to questioning, testing. Knowing that human knowledge is never perfect, even our thoughts about God, finally we never regard anything is absolutely fixed; all “knowledge” is open to confirmation … and dis-confirmation. Indeed finally, just what is “natural” is always an open question too; since all of Nature is never known to us. Though to be sure, we can always come up with some relative safe, fairly stable, classic answers to guide us as our morality; while experimenting cautiously, at some “new” ones too.

 

In any case, the Bible began to hint that our religion should not be dogmatic, as our churches are, but should instead become an open science.

 

And if our older holy men, and their theories, their moralities, do not deliver real, material results? Real observable “prosperity” and so forth? Then, finally, far from continuing to follow old holy words, our old fixtures and prophets in heaven, with total blind or strong “faith,” as our preachers told us constantly in church, instead – God told us we should not continue to follow and believe them any more. Instead, we should simply deduce that they were … false holy men, false prophets, false or bad priests. And that their prophesies or promises, were simply, false. And thus, we should simply … witness the demolition, dissolving of them, and their heaven.

 

God himself, the Bible itself, told us that we are not supposed to be “afraid” of this conclusion; afraid of crossing even the holiest men:

 

 

“Do not despise prophesying, but test everything” (1 Thess. 5.20).

 

“Understanding science” (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE).

 

“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or show speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18. 20-21).

 

 

 

And so it is.

 

According to God, himself. Finally, science is given some considerable authority even over holy men. Here for example, we are commanded by God, to evaluate even the holiest prophets – and holy men and angels and churches and their most sacred “doctrines” as it turns out; “all” – with a kind of “science.” Evaluating even holy authority, as true or false, according to whether they produce real material results, in a timely way, here on this material earth; here, by whether the things the promised or prophesied, “come to pass” here on this earth (as we will see), in a timely way … or not. And if even one of our holiest prophets turns out not to have done that, if he or his followers promise physical material “miracles” for example, but such things do not actually occur, if miracles do not arrive for us, in a timely way, here on this material earth, then finally, far from continuing to follow that prophet or holy man with total “faith,” instead, we are supposed to simply conclude, that the alleged holy man, was not a real, a good prophet, from God, at all. But was instead, just an egotistical, “presumptuous,” vain fraud.

 

And if one “day” we should look at all our Christian holy men, all over the earth, and discover that many of their promises, prophesies – of miracles for example – were not materially true? Then we do not need to follow him any more. We do not have to be afraid of whatever threats he issued in the name of God; because he was not a real prophet from God at all; but was simply, one of the many “false prophets.” That, after all Jesus warned, would indeed, run, dominate, the entire earth.

 

And if when we see this, our traditional Christian religion, our very “heaven” itself, begins to collapse? Then one “day” after all, our old Heaven itself is supposed to collapse. In order for us to learn to see next, something new and better.

 

19) In any case, we are here finding one major series of prophesies to be true, (the self-deconstructive one): as foretold, to “day” many of us are coming to see major sins and errors in our holiest men and angels and … prophets. And indeed, we are coming to see our traditional view of heaven – as being based say, on prophets, and faith – begin to dissolve. Even now. And in scholarly journals on traditional Christianity.

 

But even as our old heaven – based on “faith” or confidence in holy men like prophets – collapses, to be sure, we will be coming to see indeed, another, better vision, Coming, of God, to be sure. Emerging here and now, in part. As we begin to see, beyond prophesy, reasonable guesses, and scientific prediction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

END CHAPTER 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3

 

 

Bad Things in Saints,

Apostles

 

 

Intro

 

 

One “day” or another, as it turns out, the Bible itself said we are supposed to discover some heaven-shattering truths about our religion, our Christianity. What are these truths that are so disconcerting, so shattering? One of them is that … the Bible itself told us that our preachers, even our highest saints and angels in heaven, in the Bible itself, are not as totally reliable, as everyone thinks.

 

Today, all over the world, millions of people go to church, and trust and believe what priests, ministers – preachers – tell them about God. And of course, most preachers tell us, or constantly speak as if, the holy men and angels in our Bibles, were absolutely holy, sacred, and reliable. But amazingly, we will find here, that is not what these holy men themselves actually said.

 

Our preachers have always solemnly assured us, or have always spoken as if, they themselves and their sources – the sayings of holy men and angels in our Bibles – are absolutely holy, sacred, reliable. And indeed, our preachers and churches have over the ages, delivered many millions of sermons, all over the earth, that quoted parts of the Bible, that seemed to prove, indeed, how reliable our apostles and holy men are. But in our books here and now, however, we will be finding that our preachers read to us, only small, misrepresentative parts of the Bible.

 

The fact is we will show here, our preachers never quite really actually read, represented the Bible to us. Especially our preachers read to us, only small, misleading parts or fragments of the Bible to all of us. Particularly, preachers read to us only the parts of the Bible that seemed to support our preachers’ authority; parts that, taken by themselves, seemed to tell us that we should have all-but-blind faith in preachers, sermons, churches. But as it turns out, there are some extremely important parts of the Bible that our preachers never accurately represented to you, in church. Especially, the parts that warned … about false things in even our holiest men, and preachers.

 

For centuries, the whole world has gone to church, and dutifully believed and had “faith” in what preachers told them. But we will be looking at some parts of the Bible here, that your preachers systematically hid from us; parts that told us especially, that one “day” or another, we are supposed to discover that there are bad things, in essentially “all” our holiest men, preachers, angels. Bad things, in the highest saints, angels, prophets on earth; and even in all those in heaven itself.

 

As it turns out, if we at last read our Bibles a little more broadly than what we heard in church, we will find the the Bible itself was a self-critical (/self-deconstructive) book; one that warned constantly, that 1) there were always huge sins and errors, even in our holiest men and angels. And 2) not just in them in their own personal lives, as human beings; but 3) also possibly, even in their most “inspired” writings, as it seems from the following. Indeed finally, the Bible began to warn about … even itself. As it told us that finally, even the very “scribes” and “apostles” and so forth, that wrote our Bibles, were often … deceitful, deluded, lying, and so forth. Even when they were writing … the Bible itself.

 

 

 

Section I

 

Bad Things in Apostles

 

 

One “day,” our heaven itself is supposed to “dissolve” (2 Peter 3; Isa. 34.4, 65-6). And in fact, our heaven is beginning to dissolve for many of us, even now. As we are beginning to find out, here and now, that all our holiest men and angels sinned; sinned in their personal behavior, and also often in their “inspired” “doctrines.” Indeed, even essentially “all” the Twelve Apostles sinned.

 

Our preachers always assured us, that our religious leaders like the Apostles, were entirely good and sacred and holy. But to try to establish this, as it turns out, our preachers were dishonest; they read to us just misrepresentative parts of the Bible; parts that seemed to stress the authority, say, of the Apostles. Yet as it turns out here and now, while there were parts of the Bible that, taken by themselves, seemed to assure us that the Apostles were good, in contrast the Bible overall, actually, finally said something very different than what we always heard implied in church: finally the Bible itself actually said …that there were almost always ins in even the highest apostles and holy men and saints in heaven itself; and even in their allegedly most “perfect” or “inspired” doctrines too. In fact, even most of the original Twelve Apostles were often warned about, in the Bible. Even by Jesus himself.

 

1) First of course, obviously, the Bible would have warned about Judas.

 

2) But also amazingly, shatteringly, the Bible began to warn about the other Twelve Apostles too; even say, St. Peter himself (also called “Cephas”) for example. Amazingly, shatteringly, St. Peter himself – who is sometimes credited as the very founder of all Christian churches, of the Roman Catholic Church especially – often sinned and erred.

 

There are to be sure, misleading parts of the Bible; parts that seem to stress how true and good our holy men are. And our priests to be sure, like to quote just those parts of the Bible endlessly. In this case, millions of Roman Catholic priests especially, often believe that Peter was the founder of the Church, or first Pope; the apostle that Jesus handed on his authority to. (While they believe that Peter in turn, then handed on authority to others; popes). Priest therefore, like to quote the part of the Gospel of Matthew … where Jesus seems to support or endorse Peter; and to give him the authority to found, rule, the Catholic Church:

 

“Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesara Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do men say that the Son of man is?’ And … Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be found in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ” (Mat. 16.13-20).

 

But this is a good example, of how preachers have always misquoted and misrepresented the Bible and God, by quoting only misrepresentative fragments or “parts” of them. The fact is, now it is time to look at the rest of the text here; the part that priests deceptively left out. The part that tells us that right after Jesus seemed to express full confidence in his apostle, Peter, and to invest him with full authority … Peter in fact sinned. Sinned to the point that Peter was, amazingly, once called “Satan,” and a “hindrance to” Jesus, by Jesus himself.

 

First note a) Peter (who is by some accounts the first Pope), actually differs with Jesus; and “rebukes” Jesus himself. Or in other words, Peter tells Jesus that Jesus is wrong. On a major doctrinal matter in fact (on the necessity of the crucifixion):

 

“From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed…. And [Saint] Peter took him and began to rebuke him…. But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me….'” (Mat. 16. 22-23).

 

This is an excellent example, of how all our priests indeed, have been dishonest or adequate; how they have sinned against God and the Bible … by, in part, typically, quoting only misleading parts of the Bible. The fact is, taken by itself, the first part of the text here, would seem at first to have Jesus and God, firmly supporting Peter, the Apostle; his authority, and his Church. And yet, what is revealing here, is the second part of the Bible, that priests leave out, or fail to adequately and honestly represent. The parts where a) right after apparently being given authority by Jesus, Peter turns on Jesus … and “rebukes” Jesus, or tells Jesus that he is wrong on a critical matter of teaching. And especially when next, b) amazingly, shatteringly, here, Jesus himself, finally calls St. Peter, “Satan.” Which would seem to effectively revoke any authority Jesus gave to Peter; or to suggest that Jesus knew he was handing on authority, giving power to, an unreliable – and often “Satan”ic – individual, apostle.

 

This is amazing, and shattering. And many preachers will not be able to believe or “face” this; and they will resort to many sophistries, deceitful, unsound and invalid arguments, deceptive or false logic, semantic word games – which appear superficially convincing, but are false – to try to wriggle out of this. Some might argue for example, that God clearly was giving Peter power … and God could not give an evil man, power. Yet this argument, like all apologetic arguments, is not honest or good; and will not hold up to close inspection. Because in this case for example, we know that God in the Bible, is often picturing as giving evil beings powers. God authorized Satan for example, to undertake, found, the test of faith in Job 1 for example; while God often “sends” “evil” and evil spirits to punish people, in other parts of the Bible. So that the fact that God or Jesus, gave Peter authority, power, does not really say that Peter was Good, or that we should follow him. Indeed, the Bible told us that one “day” we are supposed to discover that the whole world was deceived, lead, by a false religious leader.

 

We will therefore, be devoting our books here, to reading the parts of the Bible our preachers deliberately, deceitfully left out of their sermons; or that they “whitewash”ed and “twist”ed. Especially, our preachers – for obvious reasons – left of seventy or more parts … where the Bible warned that our preachers and holy men were often evil, and unreliable. As in our present example; preachers “sly”ly leaving out, or somehow forgetting, the part of the Bible, that it would seem, one could never forget: the part where a major apostle, author of two books in the New Testament – and perhaps according to some, the very founder of all Christian churches – turns against Jesus and God; and is called “Satan” by no less than Jesus himself.

 

Our preachers have never been honest with themselves and others; or never had the stomach to “face” or “bear” these parts of the Bible (borrowing from Paul, on “solid food is for the mature”). But in fact, by now, a few of us have the honesty and courage to at last begin to open the seals, and to “face” this, the more terrible side of God and the Bible. To at last simply, honestly, face the parts of the Bible … where it warned about false things, even in our holiest men and angels.

 

Preachers will try a thousand arguments to avoid having to honestly discover the “beam” in the “eye” of their own faith. Among other arguments, they will claim that such statements are rare, and misrepresentative. But we will find dozens, hundreds of such examples, here. Indeed, these are not isolated examples; the unreliability of our holy men and angels, we will find finally, is a massively repeated, constantly re-iterated theme or voice or level, throughout the entire Bible.*

 

In fact, the moment that Jesus calls Peter “Satan,” isn’t even the only time the Bible itself criticized specifically, Peter, either. Eventually, other apostles like Paul, also criticized Peter, too.

 

The Apostle/Saint Paul specifically, attacked Peter, in Galatians. To be sure, Paul’s criticism Peter, has been “veil”ed in many translations, which have the text refer to Peter by his other name – “Cephas,” meaning “head” or “stone.” But today scholars (and say, the notes in the New American Bible; NAB, p. 272, 1968 Ed., # 62) assure us that indeed, “Cephas” was just another name for St. Peter. And therefore, when Paul attacks one “Cephas,” he was attacking no less than the Apostle/St. Peter:

 

 

“James and St. Peter/Cephas, and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised…. But when St. Peter /Simon /Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party/or Jews. And with him the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically…” (Gal. 2.9-12; my translation. Partly from RSV).

 

Cephas (which means Peter)” (John 1.42).

 

 

Peter therefore was at least once criticized by both Jesus himself, and the Apostle Paul. And on yet another major “doctrin”al matter in fact. Peter here – by his actions, deeds, his example – denying one of the major doctrines of Christianity: that Gentiles, Greeks, persons not born Jewish, should be admitted into full partnership, communion, with Jews, into Christianity.

 

And furthermore, the Bible’s criticism, exposure, unveiling of sins in Peter, did not end there. Aside from explicit criticism of Peter – as “Satan” and so forth – in the way that the Bible pictures Peter in action, in his “deeds,” we can see lots of cowardly and mean behavior in Peter, too. As for example when Peter is asked to witness that he knew Christ and Peter denied he even knew Jesus:

 

 

“Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, ‘I do not know the man.” And immediately the cock crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times” (Mat. 26.75; Mar 14.30. See also “Whoever denies me before men, I also will deny” Mat. 10.3; Luke 12.9; 2 Tim. 2.12).

 

The Apostle Peter therefore, did many bad things: telling Jesus that Jesus is wrong; denying major doctrines like the admission of Gentiles into the church, and the necessity of the crucifixion; denying that he even knew Jesus; lying; being hypocritical. Amazingly therefore, even one of our greatest and most powerful apostles, Peter, was often bad and evil. Bad enough finally, for Jesus himself to call Peter “Satan.”

 

And we might add, this was not some small, harmless series of doctrinal errors, a few false words or commands; in point of fact, later on, it might even be said that even Peter’s mere words at times, proved not to be just harmless lies; but often his words, seem to have actually caused the deaths of some people:

 

 

“But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart….’ When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died” (Acts 5.3, 5).

 

 

What we always heard in church then, was never the “full” story of what the Bible really, “full”y said; what we heard was only a misleading “part” of what God really told us. For centuries, what we heard in church, were only the tiny parts of the Bible that, taken by themselves and out of context, seemed to say that the Apostles and their writings – and our preachers and churches, that followed the Apostles, like Peter – were absolutely holy, sacred, and good. Yet amazingly, we are finding out here and not, that message is not what the Bible itself actually said, overall.

 

While there are parts of the Bible that seemed to tell us that our holy men are absolutely reliable, finally, we are about to read here at last, dozens, seventy, hundreds of parts of the Bible that your preachers chose not to read to you; or that they chose to “twist,” topspin, and “whitewash.” The parts where … the Bible became self-critical; and began to warn about even its own highest and holy authors.

 

What we will find here is that priests, often dishonestly quoted to us only misleading parts of the Bible; parts that especially, seemed to stress the authority of preachers and holy men. Parts that seemed at first, to say that the Bible supports the authority of apostles firmly, consistently. But here at last, we will be looking at the parts of the Bible that your priests never told you about, or never honest represented to you, in church. Particularly the parts that … warned about priests and holy men. And indeed, about “all”; “all have sinned.” And indeed, our investigations here will find that even our present day preachers – priests and ministers and all other religious leaders – have sinned too. In particular, first of all, essentially all our preachers, all over the world – until say about 1969 or so? – sinned, erred, deceived … in that they presented to the people, only misleading fragments of the Bible. Particularly, fragments that radically over-emphasized the authority of holy men. While our priests covered up the many, many warnings in the Bible itself … that essentially all our holiest men often sinned and erred; and not just in their personal behavior or will, we will find, but also … in many of their allegedly “inspired” “doctrines.” As we will see here.

 

 

3) Someone might think that after all, it was only the Apostle Judas, say, that was criticized by God. Or that it was say, just Judas and say, Peter. Actually though, a) Jesus himself also “rebuked” or told off, for example, at least two more of the original Twelve Apostles: Jesus rebuking James (and we will add later, John too):

 

“And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, ‘Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?’ But he turned and rebuked them” (Luke 9.54-5; some authorities add “and he said, ‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them”; RSV note f).

 

Once again therefore, Jesus himself noticed bad, evil things, even in his best followers – including by name, two more of the Twelve Apostles themselves.

 

 

b) For that matter, we might as well note, often the Apostles noted sins and errors not just in other apostles (above) – but also, in themselves. James for example, found sins in himself.

 

 

“For we all make many mistakes” [said James, of everyone, all saints, including himself]. If any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man…. But no human being can tame the tongue (James 3.2, 8).

 

 

 

4) After having himself criticized Peter (and possibly John; as “reputed pillars” only), then Paul for example, went on, to criticize, note sins in, even he, Paul himself. This latter-day apostle confessing, himself, that he himself was not yet “perfect.” Even as he was writing half of the New Testament (Cf. “inspiration”):

 

 

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on” (Paul, of himself, in Philip. 3.12).

 

 

There are many important admissions of sins, among apostles. But for some, this particular admission, by an Apostle himself, is especially alarming, as we will see. Because if apostles are infallible? Then they have deconstructed themselves: an allegedly infallible source, just told us he was fallible.

 

But more than that, its because, note, it is often claimed – in the doctrine of “inspiration” – that even if our holy men constantly sinned, this is not important. Because – as it is claimed – they were at least accurate and good, when they performed key religious deeds; when they wrote the Bible for example. Or when they wrote official church “doctrine.” Specifically, it is occasionally admitted by some priests, that our apostles like Peter and Paul often sinned (in the “Poor Peter” sermon, for example). But it is very often claimed today, that though apostles often sinned in their personal behavior, they were at least temporarily protected from error, when they did important work. By “inspiration”: by the Holy Spirit coming into them, “inspir”ing them. But note that here, in Philipians 3, Paul is in the very act of writing one of the epistles of the Bible; but here, in the act, midst of writing part of the New Testament, Paul admits he is not “perfect.” Even as he was writing part of the Bible.

 

To be sure, we will need to spend at least an entire chapter on the subject of “inspiration.” But already anyone should begin to see that … there is a case shaping up that finally, not only are there sins in our holiest men and angels in their personal behavior; there are also sins or errors even when they are performing critical religious tasks. Including writing the Bible itself. (As expounded upon, in our writings on “inspiration,” “false spirits,” and “scripture”).

 

 

 

5) Then John too, is also specifically mentioned by God, as not being definitely, a reliable successor to Jesus:

 

 

“Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee [one said by many to be St. John] came to him with her sons, and kneeling before him, she asked a favor of him. And he said to her, ‘What do you want?’ She said to him, ‘Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one to your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered … this is not mine to grant'” (Mat. 20.20.23. Mother Salome? Cf. Mark 15.40).

 

 

When we tell our preachers about all these negative references to Apostles like John – even by Jesus, even by themselves – often our priests will try to tell us that at least one disciple was “loved” by Jesus. That John was the “disciple that Jesus loved,” as referred to in say John 18.23, etc.. Many preachers will often try to piggyback on this, to hint that they themselves, were the disciple that Jesus loves. In passages like the following:

 

 

“One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved” (John 18.23).

 

 

But note that a) for most of us, the identity of the disciple that Jesus “loves,” was never clear in the Bible. Or b) even if it was, Jesus after all, loves sinners. So that the fact that Jesus “loved” him does not prove that any disciple was good.

 

c) For that matter, note that Jesus himself at times rebuked, specifically, John:

 

 

“And when his disciples James and
John saw it, they said, ‘Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?’ But he turned and rebuked them” (Luke 9.54-5; some authorities add “and he said, ‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them”; RSV note f).

 

 

 

More;

Are “All” Apostles Bad and Evil, Often?

 

 

That concludes our quick survey, of places where the Bible condemns elements of our holiest Apostles, by name or description. But then of course, there are many other condemnations of such people as the Apostles, in general language. Even “all” of them.

 

 

6) For example, there were warnings about “false apostles,” warnings that even apostles in general, as a species, could be false, after all:

 

 

“Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen” (2 Corin. 11.13).

 

 

Preachers will typically misuse this quote, by claiming that this refers only to some disciples, that were never admitted into our Bibles, or the canon. Yet to be sure, even if true, this begins to hint there might be sins in all apostles in general; and that they should all be carefully examined. (Indeed “test”ed below; Rev. 2.2).

 

While in any case, above we just found that the Bible often named even canonical apostles, specifically and by name – like Paul, James, Peter – as having been bad. Specifically, and by name; even these, accepted, canonical fixtures, “pillars” of the New Testament.

 

And there are other hints that “all” our apostles are bad. (Including those above).

 

 

7) In fact, the quotation by James above, seems to condemn potentially,
all
of the original twelve apostles. Since James here notes that “we all” make many mistakes. Which, coming from an Apostle, would therefore seem to include, it seems, not only James himself … but even all the apostles, and all holy men. (A reading supported by other Biblical quotes elsewhere: “all have sinned,” etc.).

 

Preachers here of course, will seize on a small part of this text; and try to save James’ reputation (and their own, as followers of the disciples). By quoting once again, just another misleading part of the text; the part that suggests that perhaps James might at times at least, be perfect; when he “makes no mistakes in what he says.” As when say, he or a preacher, manages to quote scripture perfectly, say. Yet our own experience with holy men, is that even when they quote a few words perfectly, they commit sins constantly, in that they quote them in a fragmentary and misleading way. Indeed, the Bible next addressed this very issue in yet another part of the text, the words of God, that preachers ignore and disobey: the part where the Bible said next: that after all, what we say, the “tongue,” is unreliable. So that the example of someone speaking perfect was purely hypothetical, incomplete, and misleading; in actual practice, and according to later information from the Bible itself, no one can really speak perfectly, after all. “No human being can tame the tongue.” (Nor does God or the Holy Spirit and “inspiration” chose to straighten them out, we will show; until the second coming).

 

One apostle after another is criticized therefore; sometimes, by name. Often by other apostles; and sometimes by Jesus himself. Furthermore the criticisms of Apostles in the Bible by no means stops with just the few examples above; as it turns out in our books here, there are seventy or a hundred or more, criticisms of our holiest men and angels, in the Bible itself. And at least dozens, just about various members of just the Twelve Apostles alone. In addition to Paul, (the “thirteenth apostle” we might call him?).

 

 

8) Many preachers chose to ignore Paul, in part because he is hard to read. And in part, because Paul begins to obviously, admit, confess, sins in himself. Thereby, reflecting badly on the Bible, and on the preachers that follow it religiously. And yet however, no doubt, “all” our holy men sinned; and all that is going on here, is that only Paul is really honest enough, just for a moment, to admit it; to see the “beam in his own eye.” And then Paul – like James before him – even goes on to suggest sins in all “our” apostles.

 

Paul – like James – went on to admit again, not only sins, im”perfect”ions, even in himself. But also Paul went on – like James – to imply that a) all the apostles, “our” – and therefore, canonical, Christian apostles, including Paul himself.

 

Read the following:

 

 

“For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophesy is imperfect” (St. Paul, 1 Corin. 13.9.).

 

 

Again therefore, it is not – as most preachers claim – that the apostles personally sin, just in their “will” now and then; or merely in their personal behavior. Actually, they are “not … perfect” even as they are writing the Bible itself.

 

And then furthermore, this just gets bigger. Note b) that “imperfect”ion shows up not just in their personal behavior or will … but also even in some of their highest and holiest works too; in their “knowledge” and c) “prophesy.” Which it is often claimed, were protected from error (by “inspiration,” etc.).

 

And so, just these few examples, would already seem to be devastating, conclusive enough: the Bible did not support its own authority, or specifically the authority of apostles, as much as priests assumed. Indeed, not only did it note personal sins and errors in many of our holiest Twelve Apostles, even by name, it often began to notice sins in them, even by their own admission; and even in the act of writing the Bible itself; and even in their most serious religious, Christian works, like the “knowledge” they spread, and even their “prophesy.”

 

Sins and errors by apostles therefore, were not superficial, or inconsequential; their sins were widespread, and deep. And eventually we will see, devastating. As we can already begin to suspect, just from these few examples above. Yet suppose, after this brief introduction, we go on next …for a few hundred more pages; noting one more example after another, where the Bible itself, criticizes its own traditions, its own holy men, and their most holy sayings and doctrines. Let us indeed, note seventy or a hundred such examples, so that at last, the people see the whole, “full”er picture of what the Bible actually said. So that next, finally, we can move on to the second and more accurate vision of God.

 

 

9) Again indeed, it looks like “all” our holiest men – all our apostles for example – sinned mightily, and frequently. Even in their more important religious works, too.

 

 

“For we all make many mistakes” [said James, of everyone, all saints, including himself]. If any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man…. But no human being can tame the tongue (James 3.2).

 

 

The quotation by James above, once again seems to condemn potentially,
all
of the original twelve apostles. Or even, all Christians. Since James here notes that “we all” make many mistakes. Which, coming from an Apostle, would seem to include at least, a) not only James himself … but b) all the apostles; and c) even all holy men; and d) all Christians; and e) all human beings in fact. A reading supported by other Biblical quotes elsewhere: “all have sinned,” etc.. And not just them personally, but also the “word”s they speak. Including presumably, sermons and so forth. And perhaps even the holiest words they write, as well. (See our notes on “scripture”).

 

There are enough hints here therefore, that none of even our highest holy apostles, are entirely reliable; not just in their a) personal, daily behavior, but even when they are engaged in as crucial, central religious “works,” as b) preaching holy sermons; c) even writing holy books; d) expounding “knowledge” of God; and e) issuing “prophesy.”

 

 

10) There are plenty of hints in the Bible therefore, of real, disastrous sins in our holiest men. And not just in them personally, but in one aspect of their holiest work, after another. But what specific sins might our holy men have committed? In part, we will suggest, almost all holy men typically commit the sin of “Pride” and “vanity.” Though many holy men and specifically apostles appear humble, superficially, deeper down, there is a hidden vanity in all holy men; in that they are presented as the voicepieces of God, himself. Often as the authors of our holiest books; as are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul.

 

More specifically, the Apostles often fell victim to a particular kind of vanity; one warned about by Jesus himself. Specifically: the apostles often fell into the vanity, of hoping that they would be “first” among all apostles; or we add, first with God (after Jesus).

 

Here is some text, to describe that:

 

 

“They had argued with one another who was the greatest. He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, ‘Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all'” (Mark 9. 34-35).

 

“Jesus called them and said to them, ‘You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many'” (Mark 10.41-45, NRSV).

 

“Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee [including John] came to him with her sons…. ‘Declare these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered … ‘whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve (Mat. 20.20-28; not 20.8 NRSV. Mark 10.25-ff).

 

“Many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able…. You will stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us.’ He will answer you, “I do not know where you came from’… He will say, “I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!’… Some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last” (Luke 13.24-33; not other references to pay and so forth in Mat. 20.8; 10.31?).

 

 

Above, the apostles are battling for status, relative to each other; they want to be first among the apostles, and “first” relative to ordinary people. But there, Jesus is suggesting a criticism of them, and all those we might think are “first” in the churches, including all apostles. Jesus suggesting no doubt, that those who think that they are “first” after all, a) are vain, not humble. Jesus also explicitly telling us that b) believers should not come to lord their status over others, but to help others.

 

And furthermore, importantly, Jesus notes that those who refuse to be humble, and who imagine they are “first” with God … after all, may in the End, be found to have been “last,” after all. No doubt, because of their vanity; in declaring themselves “first” with God. (Cf. our “second” everything).

 

In effect, the Apostles were furthermore, presented as declaring themselves in effect to be “first” with Jesus; since writings are presented in their names, as definitive, holy, scripture. As the first voicepieces of God.

 

 

11) So what can we say about, say, all the Apostles, collectively? About the Twelve in particular … but perhaps all apostles altogether, collectively? Finally, there are far, far too many criticisms of many them in the Bible … for them to be presented by preachers today, as infallible authority. Indeed, there are many blanket indications of sins, by the Bible, in “all” apostles; and even all human beings: “All have sinned,” we were eventually told, in general.

 

And specifically, as it turns out from the above, that “all” includes all the Twelve Apostles. (While furthermore we found out in our section on the Holy Spirit, none of them were every reliably protected from error by the Holy Spirit, either).

 

 

12) If this seems harsh, note that for that matter, though the apostles as they are presented to us today are in effect very vain – presenting themselves as authors of the Bible, etc. – if we look closer to be sure, at times we will find a kind of humility in some of them. But at the same time, this humility takes the form of … questioning themselves. And therefore, indicating … weaknesses in themselves.

 

Look below, for example. Where Jesus began to say that (at least?) “one of you will betray” me. Here, note, each and every one of the disciples was so uncertain of himself, that none of them could be sure, that they themselves, would not be the they could not be sure that they themselves would not be the traitor. Famously in fact, after Jesus says that one of them is to betray him, they all asked Jesus, “Is it I, Lord”?:

 

 

“When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples; and as they were eating, he said, ‘Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.’ And they were very sorrowful, and began to say to him one after another, ‘Is it I, Lord?'” (Mat. 26.20-22).

 

 

 

Once again therefore, the apostles cast doubts on the fidelity of …themselves; all of them.

 

 

13) Like Peter, “all” the apostles failed Jesus in practical matters too, it seems. When particularly, the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, “all” abandoned him. Everyone ran away:

 

 

 

“They all forsook him, and fled” (Mark 14.50).

 

 

 

 

 

Still More Sins in the Apostles

 

 

 

14) Few if any apostles or holy men, are really as reliable or as wonderful, as our preachers presented them. The Bible itself often noted sins in all of them. Furthermore by the way, note, those who try to argue that this or that special gift – like “inspiration” – protected the Apostles at important moments, should note that even the sacraments – like the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper, the “body” and “blood” of Jesus; dining with Jesus himself at Passover – did not make even the Apostles good. Or for that matter, dining with, hanging out with, Jesus himself in person, did not do it either.

 

As proof of this, consider the following scene, where the apostles’ are taking communion or Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper. With, as it turns out, Jesus himself, live and in person. Note that here, a) even being an Apostle, even b) taking Communion, even c) taking it with Jesus himself, still did not make them immune to sin; immune from betraying God:

 

 

“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying ‘This is my body. But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table'” (Luke 22.15-21).

 

 

Confirming this later, we will be finding in our writings on spirits, inspiration), that even the Apostles were not fully protected by any other special saving graces or gifts aside from communion, the “blood”; not even by the “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit.
(See our chapter-length refutation of the doctrine of “inspiration”).

 

 

15) What other sins might the apostles have committed?

 

Jesus warned specifically, about a particular kind of false apostle: there were many apparently powerful disciples, who were thought to be following God, or who even thought themselves, that they were following a “Christ.” And who used his “name,” crying “Lord, Lord.” But even those who invoke the “name” and titles of Christ, might often be a) deceived or b) hypocritical:

 

 

“‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits…. Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers'” (Mat. 7.15, 20, 21-23; Luke 13.23-29).

 

 

16) Perhaps the most grievous possibility for error among disciples, apostles, is the following though. Note that of course, the disciples usually thought they were following God, following the true Christ, or the right idea of Christ. Yet Jesus constantly warned that there would be many false ideas about Christ out there; even a) “False Christ”s. Just as b) John warned about an “anti-Christ.” And c) Paul warned about “another Jesus” than the right one. Or collectively, we might say, d) anyone might get the wrong idea or picture, even of Jesus himself.

 

So there is a major possibility of error here, in this way: it is actually hard to know who really was the Christ, or what Jesus was really like. So that anyone might err, even in their best descriptions of who the Christ was, and what he was like. No doubt, there were many who or even sincerely believed they were following “Christ,” who were actually following a false Christ. Or the wrong idea of Jesus.

 

e) Indeed, the texts here often warned that eventually, the whole earth would be “deceived,” under a strong “delusion,” or “illusion,” of who or what God was. So that it seems inevitable that at least some – and perhaps all – apostles, would be deceived specifically, in this way.

 

 

 

Implications?

 

 

17) What are the larger implications of all this? If none of our apostles are all that good, even by their own admission? Even in many of their allegedly “inspired’ moments? Actually the implications of course, are heaven-shattering. If essentially “all” our holiest men – like the Apostles themselves – have sinned and erred, even in moments they were thought to be specially protected, then after all, a) anyone else could likewise fall. And b) worse though, it would seem that our Bibles themselves were written by … unreliable men. Who moreover, were not effectively protected from error, even in their holiest moments; even when they wrote our Bibles. Suggesting that even the Bible itself, might err. (See “Scripture”).

 

 

18) Today of course, there are many of our more educated religious leaders especially, who are indeed, secretly convinced that our holiest men often made great errors. Though they don’t want to publicly admit that, for political and social reasons.

 

19) Many preachers today secretly do not really believe in our old holy men that much. With good reason. Yet, many of them remain working for churches; partially out of a) habit, and b) for an income, perhaps; or c) to try to reform Religion from within. Or, related to this, d) because they believe that they themselves, are rather like new, better apostles. Who might simply (if rather surreptitiously; “subtly,” like a “serpent”) correct whatever errors the old apostles made. Pouring new wine into old wineskins. Yet the Bible hints that such surreptitious measures will not ultimately be satisfactory.

 

To be sure though, many today believe that this or that living member of the church, is in effect, a “successor” to the apostles. As claimed in part, in the doctrine of “Apostolic Succession,” in the Catholic Church for example. Here many Roman Catholic Popes have claimed that they themselves were authorities, modern or contemporary Apostles in effect, (with even the power to modify old apostolic ideas?) … by what is called the doctrine of “Apostolic Succession.” In which it is claimed that aa) the Apostles were given authority by Jesus. And then bb) the Apostles in turn, chose their own successors; passing on their authority to their chosen heirs. Particularly, the Church says, from Pope to Pope. Rather as kings chose their own successors (to some extent) in the past.

 

Even though the whole idea of chosen successors, is really an ancient idea, long ago rejected, along with kings, by the democratic revolutions; which fought against aristocrats choosing who would succeed them; demanding that all the people be allowed to vote for their rulers. Yet old-fashioned as this idea of chosen successors is today, it is still an enormously popular doctrine in the Catholic Church. It is even the chief argument for the supremacy of the Catholic Church, over the other churches, in fact; it being argued that only the Catholic Church, has the only true line of succession. That Jesus chose Peter … and then Peter chose the next Pope; and then the next chose the next. And so forth and so on. So that the ideas and authority of Jesus, were based on in an unbroken line or “tradition.” Or so the theory goes. So that in effect, more or less, it might be said by some, that we always have a modern, contemporary apostle: your current Pope.

 

And yet however, there are many problems with this doctrine. And the main one is that … the original apostles themselves, were never all that reliable; and it seems likely anyone continuing in their tradition, therefore, would if anything, share their unreliability. Some bad habits of earlier apostles (and perhaps inherent shortcomings in the very role of “apostle”) being carried through, by succession.

 

For that matter, we should here and now take a look at the Biblical passage which is most often cited by the Church, as the core foundation of this doctrine of modern religious authority. Specifically, the passage used was on the moment, specifically, after Judas died. Judas – the chief traitor to Jesus – had just died. And that being the case, the apostles needed to appoint a successor; to keep “twelve” apostles. But in this case, notice a curious and ominous thing here: in effect, note, Apostolic succession was based on appointing a successor to … Judas. Which is, after all, not a very esteemed position.

 

Here is the passage; look at it carefully, and consider the language here:

 

 

“Concerning Judas … falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out…. ‘His office let another take'” (Acts. 1.16, 18, 19).

 

 

This is the foundation of the doctrine of “apostolic succession”; this very passage. Where the apostles must appoint a successor, to Judas. But notice at last, something rather alarming here: in effect, the apostles are looking for a successor to … Judas. The most famous traitor to Jesus, of all. And so we hypothesize here that … in effect, we are being told here that any alleged successor, will be in effect, successor to Judas; whose “office” might well be after all, traitor to Jesus.

 

Today it a) is widely assumed that of course, the apostles are looking for a more honest man, to replace a bad one. b) Yet after all, if all the apostles could and did sin, then after all, no really, fully good one, can ever be found. c) Indeed, then too, anyone who says he is an “apostle” – or in some other way “first” in Christianity or the Church – in effect, is declaring himself to be “first.” And is therefore likely to be found “last” by God, after all. (As per the above information on “first” vs. “last”). ]

 

Indeed, d) the language used in the Bible, is typically ambiguous, ambivalent; and open to this understanding. “His office another take”: though it has been widely assumed this means, aa) let a more honest man take the office of the twelfth apostle, given all the many sins of apostles, and so forth … we should be alert to the possibility that after all, the whole doctrine of succession is based on succession to Judas; and that after all, the office that is open, and being continually occupied, is really the office of … traitor to Jesus.

 

Indeed, it is inevitable that anyone and everyone who follows Jesus, will betray him one way or another; no one is perfect, and everyone therefore, to some extent – even a Pope; even like Peter the first Pope – inherits the office not just of “apostle,” but also, traitor to Jesus. Like Judas.

 

So indeed, all Apostolic successors inherit the office of Judas. Which is not a very august office after all. The office that appeared to be “first” with God, is in many ways, “last.”

 

 

20) There are in fact, many, many bad things in following the apostles too closely or faithfully. Or, if you must have “faith” in what was written in the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, Paul? Then for once, finally, take careful, faithful note of what they actually said in the Bible itself: where amazingly, they told us again and again, themselves, that they were not totally reliable: that they were not “perfect”; that “we all make mistakes”; that Peter was a “hypocrite,” and so forth. (And that Peter was even at times, “Satan” himself.)

 

Ironically, if you really have faith in the Bible … then … you will not follow its suggestions very slavishly, or very religiously. Since the Bible notes … sins, errors, even in itself; its own holy men. Indeed, our apostles themselves, tells us in effect, not to have too much confidence in they themselves. Even they, the chief angels or messengers from God.

 

 

 

The Apocalyptic, Heaven-Shattering

Solution

 

 

21) And if these, the chief messengers from God, were unreliable? Then to be sure, no doubt, a) the vision of God or Jesus that we got from them, is also partially flawed, partially false. So that b) finally in effect, the “Christ” that we got from the apostles, the one we thought we saw, is likely … partially … the foretold “false Christ,” or “anti-Christ,” or “another Jesus” than the right one.

 

c) This is a heaven-shattering revelation. Yet finally, there is too much evidence to support this. So that finally, d) there is one more warning about holy men that we should consider, when considering the Apostles: one “day,” we are to find that essentially all our holy men were deceived; and that all the world was following a false Christ.

 

Yet if the whole earth was long ago deceived, in its vision of Christ, e) there is no need to despair; because after all, for some time, we have begun to see promises, hints, even signs … of a foretold defeat of that false vision; of a “second” and better, more “mature” vision, coming, of God to earth. Emerging largely from the growing … science of God. Which can at least begin to separate out at last, the good from the bad, un- “fruit”ful “branches” of Christianity, or of individual doctrines. And so show us who, what, Christ was really like.

 

 

 

 

The Second And Better Vision of Christ:

From The Science of God

 

 

The uncovering of sins in our holiest men and angels – including say Apostles – is shocking; even heaven-shattering. Yet surprisingly, after these upsetting, even Apocalyptic revelations, we will be showing here, a solution to all this begins to show up right away.

 

23) The fact is that the Bible itself, began to chose a kind of “science,” to discover which things are true and which things are false, even in our “apostles”; choosing science, “test”ing, as an authority, even over and above, “apostles.” The Bible itself beginning to outline a second and better vision of God and Christ; one based amazingly enough, more on science than on apostles.

 

Note that the Bible itself, warned that there had already been many “false apostles,” already, by the time the books of John were written (c. 90 AD?). While amazingly, the Bible itself told us that contemporaries of the apostles (or people who came slightly later in time?) … were authorized – even commanded, by God himself, to “test the apostles”; and accept or even reject them, as good or bad, true or false. Using “test”ing – and ultimately, science – as their authority. As an authority even over the title “apostle.”

 

This seems amazing to state. Or actually, it is even revolutionary, relative to the religion of total “faith” in religious authority, that we were always taught as children in church. Yet amazingly, the Bible itself presents in effect an endorsement of science over specifically, apostles … in a casual and congratulatory manner. In the following:

 

 

“I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear evil men but have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and found them to be false” (Rev. 2.2).

 

 

Here, the Bible began to speak even casually, in an offhand way that simply accepts … the “test”ing of “apostles”; a “test”ing that is given so much authority, that … those who are accepted as apostles can even be judged as true or “false,” on the basis of such testing.

 

So what is the exact nature of such tests? Which has authority even over apostles? We will find, that it is a kind of science. Which can “test” and even “judge” even apostles; and show us even, a second and better and truer vision, coming, of Christ.

 

As we will show, more fully, later. In our writings on the Science of God.

 

 

 

 

 

Optional Epilogue:

 

After the Collapse of Absolutist Authority,

Monarchies, Churches:

Democracy, Moderate Liberalism; And

More Criticisms of Apostles, the Bible,

From Scholars Outside the Bible Itself

 

 

To be sure, earlier science was often inflexible and arrogant, on its own. And made mistakes, particularly when it looked at religion. And so we will have needed a slightly humanistic, modest, post-modern, science. Based largely on the (relatively) new social sciences of Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology. As they impact and merge with Religious Studies, rational Theology, Biblical scholarship. These to be sure, are not quite as “hard” sciences as Physics or Biology; but today, in many respects, they are objective enough; particularly, Anthropology. (Which at times has been spoken of favorably, by the Vatican).

 

In any case, we will need a “soft”er science, to be sure. One that is humble; as humble as the Bible … and rightly understood, as humble as the Apostles, at times.

 

To discover that the Bible was a self-critical, humble document, that often hinted at sins in even our holiest men and angels – and even their inspired doctrines and so forth – will be apocalyptic, to most Christians. Who are raised with a very proud vision of infallible authorities, presenting firm and indubitable truth. Yet we will have been finding here, that such hopes and trumpetings, were extremely “vain.” And were not what the Bible – and for example, the apostles – really, actually, said.

 

Ultimately, we will be finding here, the Bible is far, far more modest and humble and hesitant, self-questioning document, than churches today know. So that anyone who really understands the Bible – and has “faith” in it for that matter – will know to question even highest religious authority, after all. And to assume that if God himself is great and perfect … no one else is. Not even our highest saints and angels. And furthermore, this holds true of even our holiest apostles. Which means of course, that even some of the best ideas of God that we had – from the Apostles themselves – must have been wrong in some respects, at least.

 

So that therefore, we should henceforth, a) be far more modest people; even about our best sense of God, and b) even our churches should from now on be far more modest about themselves and their tradition. And c) if we begin to rely a bit more on our own minds, and hearts, and to defer slightly less to churches on this account, of course, we should not become arrogant, doing what is right in our own eyes totally; having before us the example of other arrogant human beings, that thought they were the voice of God, and yet failed. Standing before us in history.

 

And d) as for God? No doubt, we should trust and have faith in he himself; but given the fallibility of all known messengers from him, we should have faith only in … God himself; God as he stands in himself, and totally apart from and independent of all merely human, fallible – or even “holy” and “sacred” – ideas about him. To those who say they speak infallibly for and of God, we should say: God is God, and you are not. Or say: “God is in heaven, and you are on earth. Therefore, let your words be few.” Or: “no one is good, but God.”).

 

For many years, our radical liberals attacked all “authority.” Yet to be sure, after a century or two of such “soft” ideas … in “democracy,” “modernism,” “liberalism,” “multi-culturalism,” “post-modernism,” and so forth, finally, we will need to achieve a balance, between such … modesty and openness and multi-culturalism and subjectivism. A balance between it and some respect for conservative tradition. And with science.

 

 

24) The sins in our holy men, that we are relating here, many seem revolutionary to ordinary people today. However, they are not some “strange new doctrine,” but they were widely intuited by our more intelligent biblical scholars long ago. Many things said here were known long ago. For example, a) the usefulness of science, even in religious studies, was known by Plato (see his remarks on “Boreas”). While the b) self-critical or c) even questionable side of ancient authorities, like apostles, has long been known by an educated elite or “elect.” While for some time, beginning with early advocates of “democracy,” and then later, “radicals,” “moderns,” “liberals,” and others … there have already long been many who began to allow the application of popular (Middle-Class) knowledge and science, to even, finally, Christianity. And to accord that application, that science, some authority of its own.

 

So that finally, following the Biblical injunctions to follow science, finally then too, in addition to many internal criticisms by the Apostles found within the Bible, outside the Bible itself too, there have already passed many generations of scholars and practical persons. Who for centuries already, have been noting indeed, what appear to be errors even in the Apostles. (See “The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs,” 2nd Edition, by Roy Harrisville & Walter Sundberg, Willian Eermans Pub. Co, Grand Rapids, Mich., USA, 1995, 2002).

 

Most of what we are doing here therefore, has actually been suggested by others, earlier. Though to be sure, perhaps it will have taken this particular book, or something like it, to put it all together, and dramatize it in such a way, and at the right time, to have at last, a real effect.

 

 

a) What have, say, our scholars’ and professors’ findings been? Among other things, many scholars have suggested that much of the Bible … was not written by the people under whose name it often appears, or to whom it was credited. Could a) Moses have written the sentence, “and Moses dies” for example, in the book of the Torah credited to him?

 

Likewise, b) the gospels for example, which appear under the names of apostles – Matthew, Mark, Luke, John – and which imply that these apostles are their authors … by and large, scholars now say, could not have been written by the apostles to whom they are attributed. For various reasons. Scholars suggest that Peter for example, could not really write the letters said to be from Peter in the Bible … because for example, Peter was just an unlearned fisherman; whereas the language of the letters is rather more polished, more educated.

 

But our essential point in our books here, is to finally prove firmly, that … all this was authorized by the Bible itself. And therefore, this should be accepted at last, by the conservative Christian community: because it is in the Bible itself. In fact, the apostles themselves, criticized themselves (as we just found out above); and the apostles themselves finally told us to use “test”ing and science, we will find, to find out what is true; therefore valuing “test”ing and science, even above most of apostolic authority. Amazingly enough.

 

At first, it seems impossible. But there it is.

 

 

25) To be sure, the emerging Science of God, Religious Studies, biblical scholarship, has long since begun to notice some painful, disillusioning, shattering things. Consider in fact, the next main sin scholars say they find in the Bible and in apostles: contradictions, for example, between the different books of the Bible; especially conflicting statements between the three “synoptic” or somewhat similar gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke – and the fourth gospel, of John. And the letters of John. Contradictions which even give us finally, a rather contradictory … Christ himself.

 

Jesus for example, in some gospels (Luke 14.26?) tells us to “hate” our families, and our life in this “world” … while parts of John tell us that Jesus “loved the world”; and that anyone who “hates” his “brother” is evil (q.v.):

 

 

“If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14.6).

 

“Do not love the world or the things in the world” (1 John 2.15).

 

 

Such pronouncements, telling us to “hate” our father and brother, flatly contradict – go against – other Biblical pictures of Jesus; that tell us to “love” our “brother” and the “world” so forth:

 


“For God so loved the world” (John 3.16).

 

“Any one who hates his brother is a murderer” (1 John 3.15; also 1 John 2.9-11, 3.10-15).

 

“He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still” (1 John 2.9).

 

 

These contradictions are extremely serious: indeed, they are sins. Indeed ultimately, they mean the Apostles – or whoever wrote our gospels – often give us finally, a self-contradictory – and therefore false? – Jesus. So that ultimately, out of all this, we get even, a “false Christ.” One that one minute tells us to “love” our “brother” … and then the next minute, tells us we must “hate” him. Such a vision of Christ cannot be true, logically. (And the Bible backed logic: God himself was called the “Logos,” which is conventionally translated “word,” but is often better translated by its closest English cognate, “logic.”).

 

Building on the Apostles’ occasional, humble warnings about the apostles themselves, faithfully following their warnings about false and inadequate things even in our holiest men, many scholars after them, following their self-critical side, began to notice as a matter of fact, some even shocking sins and contradictions within and between the apostles. Shockingly in fact, God in some parts of the Bible, seemed to be flatly contradicting what he said in other parts. Furthermore, those conflicts were so strong, that it seemed impossible to “harmonize” or reconcile them all, with each other; to form any consistent or “systematic” Theology. Or indeed, to even come up with a clear vision of Jesus Christ, himself.

 

In fact no doubt, because of inadequacies not in God himself, but in “all” those – apostles and otherwise – who tried to report his words, the end result of what much of “Christianity” did, was catastrophic; ultimately, a good, clear, honest portrait of Christ … was lost. By bad apostles. And we were given a false Christ, in effect, in parts of the Bible, it would seem. Or in parts … as interpreted by priests.

 

Yet if our priests could never come up with a logically consistent, non contradictory vision of Christ, if they could support their vision only by telling us to abandon all Reason and Logic and Science and Sense, to have total “blind” “faith,” finally we will have found here, that is not what even the Bible itself ultimately wanted. Actually, if there are “signs” of sins and errors – like logical contradictions – in our holiest men, and their doctrines, then, instead of just continuing to follow them with total, blind “faith” … actually we will see, God gave us a kind of “test”ing and “Science,” that is authorized to actually …have some authority, even over any and all alleged “apostles,” for example. And indeed, to a large extent (51%?) over any and all religious leaders, amazingly enough. As we shall see.

 

In any case, science turns out to be so important to the Bible itself, and God himself, that finally, from now on, each and every church, each and every liturgy, from now on, should contain some strong acknowledgment of it. As we will see, in our writings after this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

END OF CHAPTER 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 4

 

 

BAD THINGS IN ANGELS;

EVEN THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN;

In The “Messengers” (Greek: “Aggelos”) from God;

Evangelicals

 

 

Many of us look around us, and there seem to be many bad things in our religion; we pray for miracles, and yet they do not arrive; we read the newspapers, and they are full of stories of priests molesting little boys. So what do priests say about this? When faced with repeated, reasonably clear signs of sin and error throughout Christianity – when we pray for miracles especially, but miracles do not arrive; or when we see priests molesting little boys – preachers typically try to ignore such things. And hide their heads in the sand. Or if at times they finally try to address such things, they use false logic, we will see (in Sermons as Excuses). They quote misrepresentative parts of the Bible, to support many bad defensive arguments, sermons, known as “apologetics.”

 

Preachers use many of these false, deceitful arguments – “apologetics” – to try to defend their faith. To try to defend their idea that our holy men are absolutely reliable. And at times, they defend the “angels.” To do this, they try to establish for example, that, say 1) heaven itself is wholly good and eternal. And then, 2) related to this, that to get to heaven you therefore must be entirely good, or “perfect.” So that they claim, 3) logically, all those in heaven, are good, even perfect; especially say, “angels.” But here again, what we always heard in church, isn’t really what the Bible said. Actually, we will have been finding out here, that the Bible itself said 1) there are actually, sinful things in heaven itself. Indeed 2) in fact, there are many imperfect beings in heaven; Satan himself, a bad angel, seems at times to be found in heaven, or to stand beside God. And for these and other reasons, we will find that specifically, finally, 3) a) logically – b) and as we will also find, God said – the very angels in heaven itself, are often very bad; even evil.

 

Is it possible? Can even, say, all the angels in heaven itself, be bad? And if they are often bad … then how what does that mean for our religion? For Christianity? Many people might think that “angels” do not exist, or are unimportant. Note however, that the word “angel,” actually means “messenger.” So that essentially, the word “angel” was used to describe … any and all, messengers from God. Which of course, are important; for most of us, almost everything we know (or thought we knew) about God, came to us not directly, but through intermediary agencies, messengers: apostles and their writings, priests and their sermons. So if here we are about to find that even the angels often sinned and erred? Then this is extremely serious. Finally, if the very messengers from God themselves, were flawed, or unreliable, if the very medium through which so many of the alleged messages from God came to us, was itself corrupted? Then after all, how can we be sure we ever, really got accurate sayings, from God, at all? That we ever got an accurate description of God, and what he wants? Since the very messengers that delivered His message – the angels, the messengers – were themselves, unreliable. And yet indeed, we will find out here, that the Bible itself – or even God himself, if you will – told us over and over, that there were bad things, in essentially “all” holy men … and angels.

 

All the angels fail God – and us, as it turns out. So let’s look very closely at the angels here and now therefore. First, again, word “angel” means roughly, “messenger” (from the Greek “aggelos,” “agios,” etc.). And angels in the Bible, are indeed presented as being essentially, messengers from God.

 

Where did the stories about the existence of angels in heaven, come from? In part, probably from the fact that real kings and over”lords” on earth, often had messengers; messengers who, being from the courts, often wore fine robes, and spoke well. And who after all, brought messengers from the “lord.”

 

But gradually, it came to be thought that such things as messengers, were so useful, that they must have a place in heaven, among the gods. And so eventually stories of messengers, in or from heaven, were generated in many cultures. In fact, Historically, stories and pictures of Jewish and Christian angels, might have been influenced in part from, or might have themselves influenced, other, actually related figures, in Egyptian and Greek culture for example. Including especially for example, winged Hermes, or Mercury; god of transport, theft, and … messages. Often, conventionally, such figures are pictured in paintings and carvings, as having wings; probably to symbolize their ability to transport information, messages, goods, from great distances; even through the air (in spoken and shouted messages). And even from the “lord,” or even from the heavens; which they could reach, like birds, thanks to their wings. Thus the Roman god Mercury, specifically, is often pictured as having wings on his feet. (So that “Mercury” was used to symbolize the transport of messages, in modern times, by various commercial establishments. As you can see in the current “FTD,” telegraph or phoned-in, remote flower delivery service). There were also angels or similar winged figures, in Egyptian and Babylonian myths too.

 

Eventually, many of these winged figures and messengers, are said to be the messengers, specifically, from “the lord.” Either the local over-“lord,” or perhaps even God in the heavens. And yet however, important and even revered as these messengers were … still, there are many occasional warnings about such messengers. Even about “angels” specifically. Even in the Bible itself. As it will turns out, here.

 

Are the angels really totally reliable? As it turns out, in the Bible we are told not to “bow down” to angels for example. While we should add here too, that say, 1) if angels are related to other winged figures like Mercury (and other similar figures in Egyptian legend), or 2) if they are basically, messengers, then after all, there are problems with them. Note that in fact, messengers are sometimes unreliable. In fact, 1) the Greeks and Romans acknowledged Mercury and others, even rather as gods; calling them the gods specifically of transporting goods, and messages. But like all messengers, there were hints they were not entirely reliable; Mercury for example, was the god not only of it seems, transporting messages, and transport of goods … but Mercury was also the god of thieves.

 

How does this make sense? Many old myths at first, seem surreal, illogical. How is it that Mercury is both the god of thievery, and 2) god of messengers from the gods? At first, it seems impossible to imagine a link between such functions – transporting goods or messages, even from the god, and thievery. But finally, we might begin to explain the logic (“logos”) that unites them, at last, here. And to explain the problem with messengers, and all media, in fact. Specifically, the link between messengers and transportation is of course, both move things over long distances. But what next, s the link between messengers, and thievery? No doubt, we suggest here, it is this: many things, like messages, are often garbled, lost, or stolen, in transmission; just as many physical things, goods, being moved from place to place … are often damaged, stolen or hijacked. Indeed, today many famous modern and post-modern thinkers – from Marshall McLuhan to Derrida – became famous … for telling us that the medium though which our messages travel, even the very language by which it is conveyed, often distorts, changes, dominates, the message. So that an old school thinker would say that … our messengers and their media, inevitably lose, destroy, part of whatever messages we send.

 

Transportation and communications channels are, overall, a “good” – or are a “god,” as Greco-Romans would put it. (Some etymologists speculate that our word “god” is just a shortened version of the word “good”). But good or useful as transportation and communications are, they are also sometimes, unreliable. Often the carriers, the media, the messengers that transport or move things from one place to another, are not always themselves entirely reliable. When we move things, things get broken sometimes. And likewise, messengers from point to point, for example, are not entirely secure, from mutilation and theft. Our TV signal might have static on it, or cut out; it might be intercepted. Our Internet might go down. One computer program might not translate into another … and data may be lost, or garbled. While a Post-it note might fall off a document. Or someone re-telling a story, might forget part of it, and tell the story wrong. Or we might send a present in the mail to our nephew in New York … but the present got stolen by a cleric, in the mailroom.

 

Many things can go wrong, with data or objects transported from one point to another. What we send, is not always what is received. We hypothesize here, that it primarily for this reason, that “messengers” and other transport specialists, even the gods or messengers of the Lords, were often respected and valued … but not entirely, absolutely trusted. Indeed, “wing’ed Mercury,” was known as the god of transport, of messages … but also, of thievery. While likewise, as it turns out, even the Bible itself began to warn about … “angels.” A warning which turns out to be extremely serious, or course. Since if the messengers from “the LORD” were unreliable, then after all, it may be that … we don’t really know what God really said, or what God is really like. Since nearly all the information we have about God, came through unreliable channels. Since the messengers might have lost or stolen or mutilated, many of the words they carried to us. (Cf. Marshall McLuhan, “the medium is the message,” and Poststructuralism, vs. representational realism etc.).

 

Recognizing at least part of the problem here, eventually, today, many priests of the Roman Catholic Church say, put rather less stress on saints and “angels,” than they once did. Yet to be sure, generations of – especially Catholic – priests or preachers, often strongly supported angels. So that angels were regarded as sacred, by the vast majority of churchgoers. But if one or two parts of the Bible seemed to respect angels, at the same time, those millions of preachers who stressed the “authority” and usefulness of angels however, neglected to … read their Bibles closely enough; or to pay adequate attention to some
other
parts of the Bible. No doubt, messengers are extremely useful, and should be respected. At the same time however, we should all know that messengers, media, can betray us at times. And for that matter, regarding the angels, the messengers said to be specifically from our “lord”? We need to call our priests’ attention at long last, to the parts of the Bible where God himself – and even the angels, themselves – told us that angels are sometimes unreliable. That angels should not, certainly, be “worshipped.” Nor even, particularly, entirely, trusted.

 

And by the way, the word “angel” does not apply just to the familiar winged creatures we know from cartoons and the Bible; more broadly, it meant “messengers.” And in a sense, the word – and our discussion here – applies to … all kinds of messengers from God; including apostles, saints, prophets, priests, and their sayings, sermons, writings. All are – or purport to be – in effect, messengers from God. And so if there are problems with “angels,” then there are problems with … essentially, all our holy men.

 

 

 

The Bible Warns About Angels

 

 

1) Many priests still revere angels rather too much. While they seem ignorant of the many warnings in the Bible about angels. Like first, say, the warning that we should not “worship” angels:

 

 

“And the angel said to me, “write this….’ Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, ‘You must not do that! I am a fellow servant'” (Rev 19.9, 10 NRSV).

 

“Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self abasement and worship of angels” (Col. 2.18).

 

 

Here by the way, not only are we a) told not to worship angels; but also we are told that b) angels after all, are fallible creatures, rather like we human beings; just “fellow servant”s. (See also below; worshipping angels distracts from worship of Christ).

 

 

2) And so indeed, the generations of priests who radically over-stressed angels (see angels in Art History, church paintings and sculptures, etc.), did not read (or convey to us) their Bibles, well enough. Millions of priests failed especially, to notice dozens of passages, where the Bible itself warned even, finally, of great, huge sins in angels:

 

 

“Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corin. 11.14).

 

“His angels he charges with error” (Job. 4.8).

 

“Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight” (Job 15.15 KJE).

 

“Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error…” (Job 4. 18; 15.15, RSV).

 

“Though they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down” (Amos 9.2).

 

“For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places…. Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist…. Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit ” (Eph. 6.12-17 NRSV).

 

“God did not spare the angels when they sinned” (2 Peter 2.4).

 

“Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers … will be able” (Rom. 8.38).

 

“Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again” (Gal. 1.8-9).

 

“Do you not know that we are to judge angels” (1 Corin. 6.3).

 

(Cf. “An angel, a mediator”; Job 33.23. Angel means “messenger” only?).

 

 

Here note that above, particularly Paul a) not only warns about some problems with angels; he b) warned of problems with them specifically in relation to the “gospels”; to the transport of messages from God. Which proves our point of course. But notice too that if Paul begins to notice problems with angels – and our gospels too? – Paul c) began to note a partial solution: “say again” the same things. So that if one message is lost, garbled, or stolen … another may get through. [Though to be sure, Paul himself says this twice … on after all, the same page. So that we are not really given separate transmissions, by which we might accurately triangulate God’s actual position, as you might say].

 

 

3) In spite of countless such warnings, in the Bible itself, still, our priests always ignored and disobeyed much of the Bible; and the worship of angels often entered into the Church. In part, from what are called “syncretistic” influences (q.v., Catechism). Or similar sources from other religions, that merged into Christianity in the early days.

 

What happened? What many say, is that a) because the Church wanted to spread itself and Christianity all over the earth, the Church often allowed some compromises with local gods and so forth; specifically, it often partially admitted local gods, into Catholicism, as say, new “angels.” In this way, local religions could be gently co-opted into Christianity; making the transition from local pagan religion to Christianity, smoother. By giving local gods, at least partial recognition: as new “angels” especially. Yet b) to be sure, there are of course problems with maintaining the purity of Christianity here; retaining for that matter, its original message, indeed. So that, the current Catechism begins to mention “syncretisms.” And without specifying, it begins to hint they were not good. Since they admitted into Christianity extraneous, incompatible elements. Or we might say here, they indeed, garbled the real message from God.

 

 

4) Angels, messengers, for all their sins, are of course extremely useful. Yet because of their occasional inadequacies – and because sometimes angels began to acquire too high status, in local regions – it was finally specified in the Bible itself, that no angel was ever given very high status by God. Especially it was written down, that Christ especially, was far superior to all angels. That it was (probably) Christ, not angels, that God favored. The Bible telling us in any case, that angels are not found sitting at God’s “right hand”; while God did not “subject the world” to their rule:

 

 

“To what angel has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand'” (Heb. 1.13).

 

“For it was not to angels that God subjected the world” (Heb. 2.5 NRSV).

 

 

This message is particularly important … if (as we will see below) … in effect, we regard our priests and bishops, as “angels.” Since here we are told that the “world” should not have been “subject” to them.

 

In spite of many such warnings, many preachers and churches however, still loudly, vociferously supported angels. Many priests supported them adamantly – indeed for some reason, the support for “angels” was particularly breathy and anxious – until about c. 1963 and Vatican II. Or slightly thereafter (since Vatican II left many extremely important things unfinished).

 

A very few Catholic priests especially, support angels strongly, still. And to defend their claims, they typically, just quote the small parts of the Bible that seem to present angels as authorities. But priests thereby, ignored another part of the word of God; they ignored, disobeyed, all the parts of the Bible like those we just quoted above. Where God warned constantly that we should not worship angels; that angels were often bad, and evil.

 

 

5) For that matter, note, Satan himself is or was, an angel in heaven, many say. And has angels working with him:

 

 

“Satan and his angels” (Rev. 12.7, my transl.).

 

 

6) And if the heads of churches, were known as angels? Then after all, even they specifically, often sinned:

 

 

To the angel of the church in Sardis … I have not found your works perfect” (Rev. 3.1, .2).

 

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus…. I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear evil men but have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and found them to be false…. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first” (Rev. 2.1, .2, .4).

 

“To the angel of the church in Thyatira … I have this against you…” (Rev. 2.18, 20).

 

“And to the angel of the church in Pergamum … I know where you well, where Satan’s throne is…. Repent then (Rev. 2.12, 13, 16).”

 

 

Even the angelic leaders of our churches – human or otherwise; whoever they are – are to be doubted … said God. Even if “we” apostles and holy men, even an angel from heaven, say something that does not seem right, then we are to question it (Gal. 1.8).

 

This means there are problems in our holiest Christian churches. Since the above quote, the New Testament told us in effect, that there were already bad angels, even in the very first Christian churches. The New Testament explicitly criticized, above, even those manifestly Christian “angels,” who were in charge of our own, foundational churches. There were explicitly, sins in even the angels of our very first Christian Church; even in churches overseen, for a time it seems, by St. Paul and St. John themselves. (Paul especially is mentioned visiting these churches, in books of the Bible; in the time when Paul was given the “mission to the Gentiles” for example. Indeed, at least one of these churches is the addressee of one of Paul’s letters: Ephesians, are members of the church of Ephesus, mentioned – and criticized – by John in Revelation).

 

Herein, even those angels, who had some executive authority, and that oversaw our earliest Christian churches, are firmly warned about.

 

So what should we finally say about angels here and now? About the Messengers of God? And what should we say about the churches that relied so heavily upon them?

 

 

7) The fact is, we find here, the angels themselves are so bad, that one “day,” not just Satan and his angels, but even “all” the angels, it seems, are to fall from heaven. As heaven itself is destroyed:

 

 

“All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree. For my sword had drunk its fill in the heavens” (high places? Isa. 34.4-5).

 

“Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven” (Rev. 12.7-8).

 

“And his angels were thrown down with him” (Rev. 12.9).

 

“The heavens shall pass away with a great noise” (1 John 3.10 AKJV).

 

“The heavens being on shall shall be dissolved” (1 John 3.12 AKJV; John saying it twice, by the way. While we in turn, quote this in two different Bibles, in our books here. In order to make sure the message is not garbled).

 

 

 

 

Some Conclusions on Angels

 

 

The millions of sermons that we heard worldwide, for thousands of years, that supported “angels” so strongly therefore, were unreliable. Those millions of priests therefore, who loved to sermonize endlessly about the goodness of “heaven” – and say, its “angels” – ignored or went against much of the Bible – and we would say, they disobeyed much of God. What we heard about angels, in billions of sermons in millions of churches, all over the earth, for thousands of years … was not exactly right. The fact is, the Bible itself did not stress angels; God actually, in fact, warned constantly, against problems in heaven … and in angels in particular.

 

Against the many generations of preachers then, who (until recently) dominated the whole earth, with assurances that “angels” were “looking over us,” we should remember first of all, what the fuller, overall Bible actually said.

 

Finally we should begin to remember all those remarks where God warned generally, about bad things in “heaven,” and even “all” in it (Isa. 34.4, etc.):

 

 

“All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree. For my sword had drunk its fill in the heavens” (high places? Isa. 34.4-5).

 

 

Importantly, these warnings of course, also begin to warn about all of traditional Christianity in effect. Which once relied all too heavily, on angels. (As you can see in any History of Art; which is full of angels in church paintings, sculptures, stained glass windows, etc.). Or in effect, on unreliable messengers, “authorities.”

 

Particularly, we should remember that since the very angels are bad, then a) all of Christianity will have been effected. Since angels are “messengers.” The messengers from God. And b) more broadly, that role would include too, say, all those who said they were relaying the will of God to us; all the apostles, saints, prophets, churches, priests.

 

As heaven falls therefore, it is not just a few winged creatures; it is “all” in heaven, after all. Which would indeed include … any and all priests, bishops, prophets, and so forth. All who might be included at times under the label “angels”; but who in any case are also condemned, specifically, in other parts of the Bible too. (See our writings on “Apostles” specifically, for instance, and “priests”).

 

 

8) Furthermore, as expected from the above, clearly some sin does persist, in the very angels of our churches, today; in current priests and bishops. a) First, note, the Bible warned about angels, or messengers from God … and in effect, priests in general are (alleged) messengers from God. Then too b) specifically, if the Bible constantly warned about bad things in angels, but priests or bishops today still firmly support angels, then clearly those priests or bishops … are not really following God.

 

Typically in fact, when preachers who support angels – or heaven – are confronted with such evidence of bad things, even in their angels in heaven, preachers will often, still try to defend their false beliefs, by way of “apologetics,” or deceitful cover-ups, “whitewash”ing and scripture “twist”ing arguments. Typically, priests who continue to support angels, sermonize that any bad angels that the Bible might have warned about, are in the a) past; or b) in the far distant future.

 

Especially c) many priests will assume or say, that any references to bad angels in heaven, refer to a specific, particular – they think, far-distant – moment of angelic rebellion, corruption. To a specific moment spoken of in the Bible, when angels go bad. When Satan and his angels rebel:

 

 

“Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven” (Rev. 12.7-8).

 

“And his angels were thrown down with him” (Rev. 12.9).

 

 

To be sure, there is supposed to be especially, a particular moment, when the angels are particularly rebellious; referred to indeed, in Revelation, above. But aa) we are in effect noting here that most of the angels were already
partially bad, even before the big rebellion. Recall all the warnings about angels in the past, above.

 

Then too, importantly, bb) Peter for example, noted there would be bad things, even in his own, “present” – and therefore Christian – heaven. And with “us,” and therefore, us, we, Christians:

 

 

“For the time has come for judgement to begin with the household of God; and … begins with us” (1 Peter 4.17).

 

“The heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire” (2 Peter 3.7 RSV).

 

“The present heavens” (NRSV).

 

 

Those millions of preachers therefore, who assumed that the angels were wholly good, or that any bad angels, occur only in some future date, some future “corruption,” are wrong. Bad angels clearly existed from early days; clearly a) the Bible warned about many angels being bad already, well before the destruction of heaven and the End Time. While b) then too, since “angel” means “messenger” from God especially, then after all, all the many major religious roles – priest, prophet, apostle, etc. – are in effect, conveying messages from God after all, in sermons and doctrines and so forth; so that they too are in effect, angels. Yet note that these professions are also condemned, as the Bible attacked “apostles” and so forth too. (By the way, for further research on this, a reader might also check – c – the many references to messengers of various kings in the Bible; to see how reliable or unreliable they often were).

 

So d) that all these alleged voicepieces of God, are actually, attacked constantly, in seventy or hundreds of places, in the Bible itself, in many different ways, from many different directions. So that there can therefore be no doubt, that the Bible clearly intended (some of?) us to hear this message. Whether our priests want us to hear this message, or not, we should not let them steal it from us today, or let them garble or efface this. The real message of the Lord.

 

Let it not be lost or effaced, this time.

 

 

 

Optional Epilogue?

 

 

Faced with such evidence against them and angels, some preachers then might try to say that the rebellion of the angels is not in the future, but in the past. And even say, that old heaven is already destroyed fully; and that therefore, we have a new, good heaven today, in Christianity. But the great purging of heaven, we can show, has not been completed in the past, even with the coming of (early) Christianity. In part since St. Peter, above, is still obviously speaking of the destruction of heaven, as something yet to come,
some time after Peter; and is “wait”ing for what happens next – for the coming of the “new heavens” – even as Peter wrote his letters that formed part of the Christians’ bible, the New Testament:

 

“We wait for new heavens and a new earth” (2 Peter 3.13).

 

Therefore, the occurrence of bad angels, is not just in the future; nor just in the past either; but indeed, there have almost always been bad angels throughout history. Indeed in a sense, they are always “all” bad; since indeed “all” those host of heaven are bad (Isa. 34.4). While as a matter of practical sense, we find all angels, messengers, all media and intermediary agencies and transporters, to be at least somewhat unreliable. Just in the nature of things.

 

e) Indeed, the angels are bad until the new heaven comes to earth. Heaven is not good until after the Apocalypse, around the second new heaven comes to earth; around the time of the Second Coming (Rev. 21). And most Christians intuit that not all the events of the End Time, have been entirely completed in the past. So that both heaven and the angels, remain uncorrected, as yet.

 

Then too, even if the angels were to go bad at some future date, then it would seem logical to suggest, they would have already have had to have something bad in them, from the start. That is, if the angels were to become especially bad one day, and to rebel against God, then they must have been partially false, or had weaknesses in them, right from the start.

 

That is, if the angels were made perfect originally, then we might well ask, how could they ever go wrong? For angels to become really bad, corrupted, they must have had something corruptible in them, from the start. Therefore, if they ever sin later, the angels (like man) could not have been made entirely perfect, in the first place; since they must have had in them, from the start, a number of weaknesses; including the susceptibility to corruption and sin.

 

Therefore again, when God refers to bad angels, he is not referring to some future development; logically in fact, they must have been at least partially bad, inadequate, right from the start; they were made partially imperfect. If they had been perfect from the start, then there would have been nothing in them, that would have allowed them to become bad, to be corrupted, later. Logically they must not have been entirely perfect from the start; the angels must have been at least, say, corruptible.

 

The angels therefore, were never entirely good. Any references to bad angels therefore, do not refer just to some future development or “corruption” and “rebellion”; clearly, for many reasons, they were always partially bad.

 

 

9) To be sure, there is a particular part of the Bible – Luke 1 and 2; Mat. 1-2; the annunciation or announcement that Mary is to have a sacred child, Jesus – where there are many apparently favorable mentions of angels; announcing the coming of Jesus, and so forth. Including, to Mary:

 

 

“In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron and her name was Elizabeth…. And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord…. ‘Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabether will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John….’ And Zechariah said to the angel, ‘How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.’ And the angels answered him, ‘I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you the good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass'” (Luke 1.5, 11-13, 18-20).

 

 

“In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin … Mary” (Luke 1.26-27).

 

“He will give his angels charge of you, to guard you” (Luke 4.10).

 

 

Yet to be sure, a) Protestants of course, might note that all this is in connection specifically with talk of Mary, or Marion worship; which is Catholic, not Protestant. While b) by the way, we will find later, that this makes sense in light of an old practice among human “lords” or kings: in ancient times, it was sometimes said that the lord of the manor or religion, had the right to sleep with any woman he wanted to; or say, particularly, with newlywed virgins, before their wedding night. By the rights of the senior lord, or “les droits de la seigner” (SP?); or “noblesse oblige,” obligations toward and from nobility. It is in this context that the annunciation makes traditional, human sense: the local lord sends a messenger or angel to let a local “virgin” know, that the “lord” will come over her:

 

 

“The angel Gabriel was sent…. And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!’ But she was greatly troubled by the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, ‘do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God'” (Luke 1.26-30).

 

“And Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I have no husband?’ And the angels said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Luke 1.34-35).

 

 

All this, the visitation of angels, a virgin who gets pregnant, is taken to be quite aboveboard. Yet notice that here even Mary herself – said by the Catholic Church (with no biblical ref.?) to be “full of Grace”; said in the Bible (by an angel) to be “blessed … among women” (Luke 1.42; though note this is a relative endorsement) – is herself, “troubled” by all this.

 

So here we might finally show the faithful reader, what contemporary scholarship, historical science, might do with such a passage; giving a little historical background. In the days of Jesus and Mary, in Galilee, the local capital and “lord”ship was being shifted. In many ways.

 

There had always been instability in the local “lord” ship. The forefather of the Herods – Antipater; “for-father?”), cooperating with Pompey in the Roman occupation of Palestine in 63 BC, had become procurator of Judaea, in 47 B.C.; then appointed his son Herod, governor of Galilee that same year. Thus creating great instability on the crucial question of who the “Lord” was, and also building the background for the story of Jesus: in this era, Herod had many wives … and therefore, many “sons” competing for succession to his throne. The competition was so keen, that some sons tried to kill each other (and even their “father”) Herod, so they could become the “lord” or “king” of the “kingdom.” While, aside from the number of legitimate lords, there would no doubt have been illegitimate ones, too. Hearing of some such, Herod the Great, made some effort to kill some of them (hence the flight to Egypt). Among others, Herod successfully executed in 6 BC, Aristobulous and Alexander “his sons by Mariamne … or “Mary.” Thus we had by 6 BC, problems note, with “sons”s of the Lord, by a “Mary.” A son of the Lord who was finally, executed. Note the parallels with the story that eventually became known as the story of Jesus.

 

The most important general background information though, is that there was great instability as to who was the legitimate “lord” or ruler of Israel. Eventually, historically, the kingdom of Herod the Great (d. 4 BC) was divided – in Jesus’ day – by Herod the Great, among his sons 1) Archelaus, 2) Herod Antipas, and 3) Philip. All of these sons of the lord, were important; Archelaus was given rule over the most important territory perhaps, being made king of Judea and Samaria, including Jerusalem, for a while. Though like his father, Archelaus was considered a foreign “oppressor” (Ency. Brit.); and was recalled to Rom in 4 BC and 6 AD, and finally removed; “According to Mathew (2:22), it was fear of Archelaus’ tyranny that lead Jesus’ family to settle outside his domain at Nazareth in Galilee” (1998 Ency. Brit., v. 5, p. 880). Antipas ruling Galilee, and “Was the Herod who executed John the Baptist and who was ruling at Jesus’ death” (Columbia Ency., 3rd ed., p. 942).

 

We suggest here (follow hints from many scholars) that this was the situation that gave rise to the story of Jesus therefore: Herod, the “father” and “lord” and “god,” had a number of “sons,” some of whom were troubling; one by a “Mary” (that he might have tried to execute at birth, but failed; managing to execute only later?). The “lord” “god” with many sons, legitimate and illegitimate, partially sponsored – but at times chastened and even killed – his sons, depending on how “faith”fully they followed their “father” and “lord.” Thus in the history of the Herods, note, a “lord” and “father” (“anti-pater” = forefather?) killed a son of Mary (Mariamne). Which would seem to be part of the root of the story of Jesus; a son of the “lord,” and of a Mary, later executed. But there being many “sons” of the “lord,” the story of other sons gets mixed in.

 

By the way, the stories of all the sons of Herod seem relevant here; here was also another son Philip, who ruled East of Galilee; a very Hellenizing or Greek-influenced kingdom (wife Salome; the same?); who helped build Caesarea Philippi; his name, “Philip,” is based on the Greek word for “love.” And his kingdom was longer lasting; until AD 34. Thus there was … also a) a “son of the lord,” who b) seemed to emphasize “love” (as God, Jesus does in John). Who c) dies in 34 AD; about the same time that Jesus was said to have died. And in further parallels with the Jesus story: one issue at the time, was d) who as the real or best “son” of the “lord”? And e) who was to be officially recognized or “Christ“ened, and made ruler?

 

No doubt very son of Herod, f) like Jesus, the son of the lord, the son of Love – Philip or another son – wanted to come to Jerusalem to rule the whole country. But to be sure, the son of Love,” Philip, dies in 34 AD. (And Herod Antipas, after 39 AD.). Just as another son, Archelaus, had been banished decades before. Thus g) disappointing any local followers of this or that “son.”

 

Before they died though, Herod’s many sons – the sons of the Lord – created a chaotic history; many of them competing for supremacy, for the role of the true, acknowledged or “Christ”ened head h) of the “kingdom.” Another issue, i) was … how Jewish would our rulers be? Since Israel had been occupied by Rome, most of its even local “Jewish” rulers – like Herod – were very influenced by Greco-Roman culture; and there would be pressure to “Hellenize” Jewish culture; and j) including especially “temples”; especially as these Greco-Roman leaders, like Herod the Great, rebuilt the “temples.” All concerns, terms, found in the Gospels.

 

To this we might add the following facts (in part from the book Crossing Galilee, by Sawicki): in the days of Mary and Jesus, Herod Antipas was taking over the region as the son of the Lord that would rule the region. And as part of that, the logical capital – and lordship – was being physically shifted as well. From the itself-recently rebuilt provincial capital at the city of Sepphoris, (which was built up by the Hasmoneans, but especially built up by Herod the Great, with some important new “water” works, aqueducts, by the way; as per “Crossing Galilee,” by Sawicki, p. 24-29 etc.). To another city, right on the sea of Galilee itself; that is, to Tiberias, in 19 AD. Which was being newly built by one of Herod the Great’s sons – eventually ruler of the region – Herod Antipas. The main Herod who ruled in Jesus’ day, they now suggest; or certainly in Galilee.

 

This therefore, was the world in which Jesus lived; Nazareth being essentially between Sepphoris and Tiberias. The k) very route any local “lord” or “god” (like Herod Antipas or whoever) would take, on any trip to the Sea of Galilee. And l) Jesus himself lived much of his life close to this axis; fleeing from Bethlehem (“City of Bread,”) to Nazareth and Galiliee, to escape being killed as a false pretender or “son” to the throne, the kingdom. Incidentally, this route or axis or region, would became dramatically important, m) as the capital of the local “kingdom” itself was finally, in 19 AD, shifted from the old capital or lord’s residence, in Sepphoris, to the new one, Tiberias, on the sea of Galilee. When Jesus was about 19 years of age. Thus Jesus lived in the middle of a shifting lordship. Nazareth being just south of a straight line from Sepphoris to Tiberias and Galilee. With Bethlehem too, very close to Jerusalem, and the local lord, Herod.

 

All that, we begin see in effect, were aspects of local History in Jesus’ time; that that we suggest, created the background (and essential?) story of Jesus: the climate of anxiety about who was the “lord,” or the legitimate “son” and heir of the “lord” and the “kingdom.” The execution of many possible “sons” of the Lord. That was the background mood of the gospels.

 

All this History, many have hinted, seems to form part of the story of Jesus: there was a climate of anxiety, in the region, about who the legitimate, “Christ”ened “son” of the “father,” the new “lord,” was going to be. Many “son”s had been born, and assumed authority in various areas in the religion: including 1) one who tried to rule Jerusalem (Archelaus), but was rejected by the Jews; then 2) another son of “Love,” Phillip, who ruled east of Galilee; then another, 3) Herod Antipas, who ruled around Galilee, and who was also physically shifting, destabilizing the axis of “lord”ship, by moving the local capital from Sepphoris, to Tiberias. In addition to all this, there had been 4) a “son” of the Lord, and a son of a “Mary,” who was executed. While 5) there might well have been other illegitimate sons, (born by “les droits de la seigneur” or “noblesse oblige”? Check our spelling here). And we suggest that the story of all these sons, formed at least the background story of Jesus; and perhaps a confused amalgam of all these “sons” of the “lord” created the story of Jesus: a “son” of the “lord” and “father,” born of “Mary”; living largely around Nazareth, on the important axis between the old “temple” and capital and lord in Sepphoris, and the “new” one in Tiberias, Galilee; or the other side of Galilee too, where the “son” of “love,” lived. In the final story of Jesus that we have in the Bible, it is said that someone – thought that the “son” of the “Lord” and “Mary,” had nearly become the offical ruler or “Christ,” the new “Lord” of the newly reborn “kingdom”; but it was thought by many Jews that the “son” might have rebelled too much against the “Father” and “Lord”; and it was not even certain who his “Father” was. And so, finally, the “son” and possible “Christ,” was finally killed, executed.

 

Yet of course – continuing the story line – since he Jesus (and/or the many related “sons”) had been considered good by many, there were many of old followers to this or that “son,” that remembered him well, and thought he should have lived to the the christened lord, and ruler of the kingdom. And they spoke well of this (or that) “son,” this or that possible “Christ,” when various early historians and compilers and redactors – or we might say, “messengers” of the Lord – showed up to try to assemble a coherent narrative, to put the pieces together. As Luke did, in his turn:

 

 

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus [“lover of God”],” Luke 1.1-2).

 

 

But we might suggest, after all, Rome tired of many Jewish pretenders to the local throne and “kingdom”; and so Rome burned Jerusalem, in “fire,” in 70 AD. Killing perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of Jews. Therefore, much of the historical records – and even any living memory – of the true situation in Israel, would have extinguished. Therefore, when curious parties came around, collecting the various tales of this or that “son” of the “lord” and compiling them, many might supposed that various stories of various lords and “sons” of the “lord” might have been confused, conflated, merged. At times, it looks from the above, for all the world as if the story of “Jesus,” was in effect, a composite of two or three or more competing, legitimate and illegitimate “sons” of Herod especially; or sons of other “lord”s who were pretenders to the throne, to the title “Christ” and “king.” (As narrated especially, of course, by Josephus).

 

In any case, until know, almost all we knew of the story today, has been from the “narrative” of various messengers, angels of the various Lords; like especially, Luke. But to be sure, even most of the highest and best messengers and angels – and “scribes”; writers of history, including religious stories and gospels – the Bible told us, were often unreliable. And so many scholars today, are trying to cross-reference, triangulate the real story, the “historical Jesus,” from as many sources of information as they can find. Including not only closer and closer readings of the Bible itself, but also … interdisciplinary data from archeology, History, and so forth. And we will see that finally from all of this, there is emerging in fact, a better idea of the historical Jesus. Or, in any case, the most effective, useful vision of Jesus; which we find, when reading, seeing Jesus a “second” time … as advocating in fact, real scholarship and … science. Which alone, seems able to clear all this up. And to give us both the historical Jesus (if any); and the most useful and fruit-producing Jesus.

 

But to get to the truth, to reality, to be sure, we will need everyone to be acutely aware … of indeed, the great usefulness – but also the humanity and occasional imperfection – of perhaps all “messengers” or “angels” from the “lord.” after all. After all, no one is “perfect,” except for God himself. No human being is perfect. And almost no “angel” either. We need to keep this in mind, when reading our Bibles, and reading History; and trying to assemble, cross-reference at last, the truth.

 

No doubt, many conservative preachers do not like such work; do not like the Jesus Seminar especially. And yet however, such work is extremely useful. Though we will need to go beyond many existing studies, here, in some ways.

 

 

10) Incidentally, there are some preachers who vaguely know about sins in angels and holy men, already. But some hold that there might be at least however, one good angel: some say, that even when the angels in heaven fail and fall and rebel, still, in the end, one angel – the archangel “Michael” – they speculate, remains faithful to God. Such speculations are based on a section of the Bible that says, to be sure, that in the End times, no one helps God … except one “Michael.” Who, some claim – without much proof? – is the arch-angel, Michael:

 

 

“There is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince” (Dan. 10.21).

 

 

It is not certain that this text refers to an angel, to be sure; and not to a human being. To be sure, it might remotely be imagined after all this, that there is one good angel, in heaven. But to be sure, even those who for a time stand next to God himself, even in heaven itself, it seems, are fated. So that even a single good angel, might rebel, and be struck down by God:

 

 

“Strike, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stand next to me, says the LORD of hosts…” (Zech. 13.7).

 

“The LORD will punish the host of heaven, in heaven…” (Isa. 34.21 RSV).

 

 

The Bible even tells us that “all” the host of heaven shall rot away:

 

 

“All the host of heaven shall rot away…. All their host shall fall…. For my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens…” (Isa. 34.4 ff).

 

 

Some scholars might like to say that in the end, there is one good angel; say, Michael. Yet many scholars are not sure who the good “Michael” is; whether he is an angel, or a human being. In any case, if “all” in heaven are to fall, it seems unlikely that any angel from heaven – even the arch-angel Michael – is reliable, either.

 

 

11) Many ordinary believers have not been told this by their pastors; because the pastors do not want the people to know such things. But given all this and more, today it is accepted, even in many churches, in their more educated ranks, that the “angels” specifically, are not all that reliable.

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

 

For centuries, many churches assured us that “angels watch over us.” And yet, we find here that the Bible itself often warned that even the angels in heaven, were not entirely good; and that “all” those in heaven itself, would fall, in the end. For this reason, in the New Testament – in the book of Hebrews especially – God finally told us that at the very least, faith, belief in angels, was never supposed to replace or rival, Christ. In fact, the Bible sometimes said that even just “bowing” or praying to angels, was bad. In part, this was because the angels themselves, were just not good enough. While related to this, “worship of angels,” distracted us from belief in Christ; a Christ who was, after all, better than all the angels, it was said.

 

These indeed, are the core ideas behind many biblical passages that warned about angels. Like, again, the following:

 

 

“It was not to angels that God subjected the world” (Heb. 2.5).

 

“Self abasement and worship of angels” (Co. 2.18).

 

“Neither death, nor life, nor angels” (Rom. 8.38).

 

“What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” (Acts 23.9).

 

“To what angel has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand?'” (Heb. 1.13).

 

“Do you not know that we are to judge angels?” (1 Corin. 6.3).

 

 

Many preachers have tried to suggest that such warnings are about angels of the past, or future; any time but our own. However, it is clear that the Bible spoke of sins in Peter’s own “present” heaven; and sins even in the “household of God”; and continuing on, even after Jesus. Indeed, bad things are to persist in angels, to the end of time. As it seems clear from all the above references, angels have really been bad from ancient times; and their sins are going to persist, to the end of time; when heaven is destroyed.

 

This ongoing, continuous corruption of essentially all angels and holy men, is confirmed again, in the biblical remark that essentially “all” those in heaven – including the household of God, and including the angels – are flawed; all except God himself. And all are doomed it seems. Indeed finally, there are references to all in heaven falling:

 

 

“All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree. For my sword had drunk its fill in the heavens” (high places? Isa. 34.4-5).

 

“Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven” (Rev. 12.7-8).

 

“And his angels were thrown down with him” (Rev. 12.9).

 

 

12) So what should we say finally, about, say, our preachers? About the many priests that stressed angels? Since a) most preachers have followed what the angels – to include the many different types of messengers of God; from prophets to apostles – have said, then preachers have been deceived. Or we b) might suggest here, that logically, perhaps, preachers too are in effect, messengers of God, themselves. As they claim in effect; their sermons relay messages from the Bible and God. As they claim. Indeed, there are parts of the Bible that seem to suggest that some preachers might be angels (see the “angels of the church”es in Rev. 1-3). But if preachers are angels, then they are just like other angels, unreliable. As most messengers of God are.

 

While for that matter we will soon see, c) specifically, the Bible began to warn specifically about “priests,” as a matter of fact. As well as about angels. So that preachers are warned about in a number of ways. Making them eminently unreliable, when they comment on angels and so forth.

 

 

13) God warned us that in fact, one “day” we would see sins in our holiest men and angels; that the whole earth was “worship”ing a false idea of God (Rev. 13). And we have seen that in part here … as we see the idea preachers had of “angels” was wrong.

 

 

14) Many already have indeed, already seen in their minds’ eye, as they read this, the angels falling from heaven. But to be sure, all this has even more disturbing consequences. Because in effect, almost everything we know about God and Christ, in turn, is what was told to us by various “messengers”: angels, saints, and so forth. In the Bible and so forth. But if all our messengers were unreliable, then after all, how can we know what Jesus Christ was really like, for example? Nearly all we know of Jesus, was given to us by various intermediary agencies, like prophets, apostles – and “angels.”

 

So if they themselves were flawed, even in most of their (allegedly) most sacred, inspired moments, then … how can we be sure that even the idea of “Jesus” or “Christ” that we have, is right?

 

Indeed, given the unreliability of past sources, it seems likely that the whole world has been deceived; and has been following a false idea of Christ; or following a “false Christ.”

 

 

 

15) So nearly all our angels and holy men, therefore – or at least most of our preachers – are here found to have failed us, over and over. To have deceived themselves, and others. And to be following a false Christ. So what then is our conclusion? Where do we stand in history? Finally, if we continue to trust and follow the Bible itself, (as opposed to what preachers sermonized about it), then finally, there is only one series of prophesies in the Bible, to describe what we are seeing, here and now: we are discovering here and now, that the “day” when we discover that all our holy men were “deceived” or deceptive, that the whole earth was deceived in what it “worship”ed … is for many of us, now.

 

The fact is, when we look at our Bibles ourselves, perhaps we might continue to hold to the Bible itself, conservatively (in spite of signs of sin even there). But if we do this, then we note – even in the Bible itself – a) many warnings of false things in our holiest men and angels; and b) a warning that those false things, false holy beings, will dominate the entire earth (Rev. 13). The “world” … but also its “worship”; its religion:

 

 

“And they worshipped” (Rev. 13.4).

 

“It was given authority over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it” (Rev. 13.8; cf. Isa. 66.18, where God, not a devil, unites “all nations and tongues”).

 

 

 

Here, the whole world is supposed to be found to be deceived – even in its religion; what it “worship”s. Even in its best idea of “Christ” is deceived, mislead by a “false Christ” or “anti-Christ” or “another Jesus” than the right one. And in fact, here and now, we seem to be finding, exactly that. All our holy men sinned, when they assured us that our angels and other holy men were absolutely reliable, for instance. And since they taught this false doctrine all over the earth, then essentially, the whole earth has indeed long since been “deceived,” under a strong “delusion” or “illusion” or “enchantment,” or false promise or lie. Exactly as foretold.

 

 

16) But while the whole earth was long deceived, one “day” though,
God is supposed to begin to expose all that; and begin to show us last another, “second,” better vision of Christ. And that is perhaps beginning to happen, even here and now, in these very pages. Here and now.

 

Here we have begun to expose – as God told us we should – the sins of our holy men and angels. Or we will see especially, preachers. And this is not just a devastating apocalyptic experience though; seeing and exposing those sins, will enable us to move on soon, to the second and better vision, Second Coming, of Christ.

 

As foretold, many of us are still in the moment that God described; when essentially all our holiest men and angels are “deceived”; they and the religion that controls the whole “earth.”

 

But fact, this should not be so frightening as many thought; it seems increasingly clear, that by about 1963-69 or so, some our preachers and people, were already moving beyond the old misunderstandings. Many preachers began to suspect that in fact, their own sermons and ideas about God, were not all that certain. So that already, our traditional vision of heaven was already dissolving for many of us.

 

 

17) Indeed, much of our old heaven dissolves for many of us individually, on the day we grow up or “mature.” When we begin to see sins even in our most idealized authorities. When we begin to notice that even our preachers were often extremely mistaken, “deceived”; or even, deliberately lied to us. And/or, lied to themselves too.

 

 

18) But what exactly is it, that begins to take the place of our old total, blind “faith” in authority, in angels and preachers? In fact we will see it is …a better, second vision of God and Good; a view of God or Christ, as endorsing … a kind of science. A kind of science that makes us far more productive, fruitful. So that finally, we can get past all these errors, to something better. To a science which also after all, doubts angels.

 

 

19) In fact, for that matter, what is the status of angels, today … as far as theologians and the Church are concerned? And where does all this lead?

 

Already in fact, “angels” are somewhat de-emphasized, at times, in the Roman Catholic Church itself. In part because of essentially, a) the above reasons.

 

b) But also because theologians and religious historians, believe that many of our “angels” in the Church, were said by some, to be often “syncretistic”; to have brought in, co-opted traditions, figures from other religions under the name of “angels” (and “saints” too).

 

 

20) Then too, many others have noted practical problems with angels too; many people, women, prayed to angels for miracles and so forth; and though some women and priests particularly said they got results, many more felt they did not. Many found from practical experience, that the angels were not responding as reliably as many priests had promised; that prayers to angels, were not getting firm results. Thus not only the Bible, and science, but also practical experience, was teaching many of us that the old promises were false.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

So what is our conclusion, about angels? Or indeed, about all holy men? Our conclusion is that they are not reliable. While any their assurances that they are reliable, are mere vain deceits.

 

Many others have long since reached this conclusion. And indeed, what we are seeing today – outside the Bible itself, in contemporary life – is that most angels have already fallen, for most people, so to speak. Many people have already long since begun seeing these many severe problems with angels; even in the Bible itself. And certainly in everyday experience. For that reason, though many preachers do not advertise this, already long since, even many churches themselves, have begun de-emphasizing angel worship, for example. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which once had many angels, began de-emphasizing elements like angel worship. While secular and other elements of culture of course, scarcely believe in them at all.

 

Given all this, it seems clear that for many of us, many of our angels “fell” long ago; fell from perfection, and fell from our high estimation too. And indeed, we should say, much of the Apocalyptic demolition of heaven, of the household of God – and essentially, nearly all the angels in heaven – began some time ago.

 

And so indeed, many have long since passed through the “fire.” They have already seen the rebellions of angels and holy men, their departure from what the Bible really said. And many have already essentially seen, their subsequent exposure; their expulsion of heaven; even the destruction of heaven itself. Indeed then, all that is all but safely over, for our intelligencia. For millions of intelligent people. Who long ago noticed signs or false things, in our heroes in heaven.

 

Indeed for many of us, the angels are already exposed, and heaven began to collapse – in the “dark night of the soul” and so forth; in the “Enlightenment” – a long time ago. Those who could read their Bibles on their own, long ago began noticing sins and errors in our holiest men and angels; and seeing many traditional beliefs – heaven – collapse in their mind’s eye.

 

 

21) Though our books here are for those who have not yet noticed such things; or who have not been able to “bear” or “face” such things; believing that God, the Bible, did not allow such thoughts. Here though at last, we are writing a book or two … to show those “left behind,” that the Bible itself allows the conclusion that our scientists and intelligencia and practical people have come to long ago: there were many sins and errors in our holiest men and angels.
In our heaven itself. But if son, then after all, here at last, even the most ardent “believer” can find the authority even in the Bible itself, to at last face this. Since we have shown here, the Bible itself says this over and over again. And since therefore, what we are doing here is not … contradicting or denying the Bible, when we notice sins in heaven; indeed, we are fulfilling prophesy, fulfilling the Bible. We are mere witnessing to the foretold, prophesied … failure of the angels and holy men; the destruction of heaven. But then next, as we will see soon, the second and better vision of God.

 

 

22) And do we mere human beings have the right, authority, to do this? To judge even the angels? Note aa) that human beings as fallible as Peter, were given the right to “lose” and “bind” things in heaven itself. While finally, b) they were given the right “to judge angels” specifically:

 

 

“Do you not know that we are to judge angels?” (1 Corin. 6.3).

 

 

This is helpful: it once again affirms that angels are not to be entirely trusted. But it raised another problem: who specifically is the “we” that are allowed to judge even angels? The somewhat larger context, suggests the statement here, is in effect, about jurisdiction; suggesting that religious complaints and infractions, be handled locally, among members of the church, “brothers” and “saints,” “you” of the church. (While larger civil matters handled by “Caesar” and civil “authorities” and “governors” as the Bible says elsewhere?). In any case, the “saints” it is asserted, can “judge” the “world” and “angels”:

 

 

“For what have I to do with judging outsiders? It is not those inside the church whom you are to judged? God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you.

 

 

When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Do not you know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? So you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life! If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong…? ‘All things a lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful…. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ…. Shall I therefore take members of Christ, and make them members of a prostitute…? Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body” (Corin. 5.12-13, 6.1-7, 12, 15, 18-19).

 

 

Strictly speaking a semantic nuance here: note a) these phrases includes many questions; thus, there are many questions here, that seem to be statements, but which technically are not. So that the text here is extremely hesitant, and not definitive.

 

Then too in any case, b) if it is the “Saints” (Gk. “Agios”; cf. “hagia”) that are to judge, then the Bible often questioned saints … like the Apostles (q.v.).

 

Indeed, c) the word for “saints” used here – “agios” – is probably related to that used for “angels” – “aggelos” (from “aggelon” vessel?; and “hagiasmos” holiness, “hagnos,” physically pure, clean). But in that case, the judges are also flawed. d) As one might expect; the rest of the Bible often tell us to “judge not”; and that only God himself will “judge” most ultimate things, at the end of time, Judgement Day. Those who judge others, are often said in the Bible, to be found guilty of the very things they accuse others of in fact.

 

No doubt we are all to be clean vessels. And those aa) in-house, in the churches or in Christianity, to come extent judge others in house: angels can judge angels, to some extent. “As in all the churches of the saints” (1 Corin. 14.33). While bb) indeed it seemed at times that Peter with his “key” was given such powers. So that someone in the church, might judge, say, fellow saints. Yet cc) Paul here, could not very explicitly say that he is not to be subject to the laws of the Roman or civil governors. Not only because they occupied the land, but because elsewhere he often deferred to them. Some Christians say they must obey civil authority unless it is wrong; though other parts of Paul told us to obey our “governors” and so forth; while others warned of being “lawless.”

 

 

“Be subject to the governing authorities…. For there is no authority except from God…. Therefore he who resists the authorities ….” (Rom. 13.1-2).

 

“Be submissive to rulers and authorities” (Tit 3.1).

 

“If I boast a little too much of our authority” (2 Corin. 10.8).

 

“Angels, authorities and powers subject to him” (1 Peter 3.22).

 

Slaves obey your masters (q.v.).

 

 

Ultimately dd) the Bible is rather ambiguous on who is “authority”; Jesus himself was asked on what authority he did things; and seems to have claimed the “Father” authorized him (John 8.28: “I do nothing on my own authority”). Ultimately no doubt God is authority; but who speaks for God, perfectly? When James said that no one’s “tongue” is ever perfect? When even the highest apostles often sin?

 

Finally, ee) there is no absolutely certain authority in anyone but God himself. And you can tell anyone, who judges you: God is perfect … but you’re not God. Or “only God is good.” And no one really knows, until the end, who really speaks for God.

 

At the same time though, ff) insofar as any authority and power to judge is invested in any human being, we will be finding roughly, that as a rule of thumb, just using common sense, overall, perhaps overall, we should obey most conventions, accepted civil and criminal law, overall; but with only few occasional exceptions, when conventions seem outdated and false. Or gg) especially though, we should also begin to follow, to some extent, what a well established
science of God
begins to tell us. As we will see.

 

No doubt, the saints had authority over “unclean spirits” (Mat. 10.1), but that is not so much. In any case, it seems here that not only the angels, but also the saints can be overruled, too. Though to be sure, we should all always be cautious here, and have some respect for authority or tradition; while at the same time though, acknowledging that even “laws” at times are changed by lawmakers, after all. And that our holiest men and angels – and even apostles, like Paul – often confessed that they themselves often “made many mistakes,” (James) and were not yet “perfect,” even when they wrote what they said, in the New Testament.

 

No doubt, we want to avoid rampant subjectivism, where “everyone does what is right in his own eyes”; and so we retain some repect for many traditions (say, very roughly, 80%?); while leaving room for controlled moral experimentation and our own sense of things (given authority in10% of cases in our own life?); and the determinations of a science of morality too (10%?).

 

Here in fact, we are examining the case where the authority of churches especially, saints and angels and essentially all other church authorities, have failed us radically. So that here, with all of religion, we are in the 10 or 20% realm … where indeed, nothing is all that certain.

 

So what should we follow? Therefore we might follow science. And then to some extent, hh) honor some governmental authorities and their laws: who say that things not being certain here, therefore some individual “freedom” and “liberty” and individual discretion, should therefore be – and by the “freedom of religion” laws is – allowed. Many churches try to tell us we must follow them; but most governments tell us we don’t have to. And that anyone who forces us to follow a religion, or who does things for a religion that violate civil and criminal law, is in violation of governmental law.

 

All religious authorities having been found here, obviously, by present testimony from the Bible itself, not entirely reliable; indeed, often “false.” Often indeed, even especially in religion, “The wicked are in authority” (Prov. 29.16). While Paul himself admitted that he himself was not yet “perfect.” While ii) by the way, we ourselves here, by the way, do not acknowledge any religious figure on earth, today, or ever, as authority; short of God himself, live and in full. When God himself shows up live and in person and tells us something, then we will believe it; and not anyone else. Since all other religious “principalities” and powers and intermediaries between us and God, have proven all too often false; and even, often, evil. Especially when they over-emphasize their own (even allegedly God-given) authority.

 

We do not of course “despise” authority here; indeed, we honor many authorities, partially; and when authorities conflict, we compromise; using however in particular, a kind of science to help too. As we will see.

 

 

23) And if our own determinations here contradict priests and church authorities – bishops, popes, ministers, and so forth – to date? Then after all remember from the above, that a) our priests relied all too heavily, on what we now find to have been, unreliable intermediary agencies; like angels. Therefore, having followed “false shepherds” in effect, our priests of course, have been mislead, themselves.

 

For that matter, we will also find out here too, soon, b) that for that matter the Bible itself also began to speak very negatively and explicitly, about priests and ministers, in particular, specifically, in themselves. The Bible itself began to say that they had bad things in specifically, them, often in ways apart from their dependence on angels. So that finally, as foretold:

 

 

“He leads priests away stripped, and overthrows the mighty” (Job 12.19).

 

“As for you, you whitewash with lies” (Job 13.4).

 

“Will you speak falsely for God, and speak deceitfully for him? Will you show partiality toward him” (Job. 13.7-8).

 

“He leads counselors away stripped, and judges he makes fools” (Job 12.17).

 

“Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight” (Job 15.15 KJE).

 

“Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones’ (Job 15.15; Eliphaz RSV).

 

“For with you is my contention, O Priest” (God says, in Hos. 4.4).

 

“An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.30-31).

 

“From prophet to priest, every one deals falsely” (Jer. 6.13).

 

“Both prophet and priest are ungodly” (Jer. 23.11).

 

“I reject you from being a priest to me” (Hos. 4.6).

 

“Now, O priests, this command is for you” (Mal. 2.1).

 

 

Finally in any case, our new media studies are based in large part on “science”; and we will find, all this therefore conforms to the specific agency – science – that God told us, was to finally have authority over our holiest things; even presumably, over the very angels in heaven itself.

 

Indeed:

 

 

“It was not to angels that God subjected the world.”

 

“Do you not know that we are to judge angels?”

 

 

 

And if our holiest men and churches are angels, or have them? Then:

 

 

 

“I know your works; … to the angel of the church … I have not found your works perfect in the sight of God” (Rev. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3).

 

 

Here we are finding essentially, that if you honor the Bible itself as authority, then it is time to note that the Bible itself often warned about essentially all holy men; including priests, and even apostles like Paul.

 

And next, for that matter, having noted many of the places, at last, where the Bible warned about holy men and angels … later, we will begin to note where the Bible told us to use a “Science” to begin to examine next, their promises, as compared to their actual job performance. Their prophesies, versus their actual, empirically provable “works.” In this case, soon, we will look at the promises of priests and churches – particularly their promises of big huge miracles – and them compare their actual performance, their works, to what they promised. While there too we will find that, when examined by their works, once again by this standard too … our angels and priests, are again, not as good as they advertised.

 

Indeed then, if you acknowledge the Bible as authority, then note that the Bible is a self-critical authority; it criticizes itself, often, and “all” those who are in it, short of God himself. While we can never know what God himself is like until after death perhaps; since all intermediary agencies that claim to speak for him, are themselves unreliable, false authority.

 

Furthermore we will find, recognizing sins in religious authority, finally the Bible itself posed as authority, a kind of “Science”; that can “test” even angels and saints, and even all religious authorities over them too. To see which are true and which are false, dead, unfruitful branches. And of course, when we apply science to even the highest religious, Christian authority, we find that it is not just God himself in the Bible itself, that condemns angels (and by extension, the priests who believe in/were them), and religious authorities; it is also experience and science too. As we will see, in our writings on the Science of God. When we begin to examine promises of physical “miracles” especially; but also when we begin to examine the fruits of spirituality, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 5?

 

All Other Miscellaneous Additional,

Special Gifts, Sacraments, Etc., –

Often Fail

 

 

Many of us see sins in our holiest priests and bishops; and even in the prophets and angels. But are there any additional, special gifts, that can help us and our religion?
Even when our priests, prophets, saints, fail?

 

Whenever churchgoers begin to discover shortcomings in the major elements of religion – in churches, in priests – next, almost every preacher or church tries to defend themselves. Often, by picking out of the Bible, some other, almost random, small thing from the Bible. Preachers then trying to make this or that small thing – like baptism or the Eucharist or “election” or “anointing” – into a special gimmick that can make our religion and church good, even when most preachers and churches seem to often, sin.

 

When major preachers and churches seem to fail us, our churches and preachers begin to try to discover some special grace that will protect them from the sins and errors of other religious institutions and workers. To do that, there are many different methods (see Sermons as Excuses for the Lack of Miracles). But among other approaches, many ministers and denominations, take some almost random phrase or gift mentioned in the Bible … and then try to make it up, into some allegedly special gift or grace. Trying to say that it is a special quality or gift, that, will always help this or that particular church or denomination, even when all else fails.

 

Probably, you yourself have heard many such sermons, without realizing it; there are many such alleged special gifts: like “anointing”; the “Eucharist” or Lord’s Supper, including the “blood” of Jesus. And there are dozens of other things, things mentioned in the Bible once or twice, that have been seized on by frightened priests, in the hope that they will at last, be some kind of guarantee that our priests of this or that church, have at last found some neglected word or concept or object, that will save them from sin or error. But as it will turn out, 1) first the Bible itself noted huge inadequacies in all the major elements of traditional Christianity: including, we will eventually see, “prophets,” “angels,” “apostles,” “church”es, “gospels” and “scripture,” religious “law,” “priests,” “Christ”s, “saints,” and even “faith,” etc.* And then also finally, 2) the fact is, too, that if you look up each of the more minor virtues or gifts too, in a concordance, you will find that each of them also has something wrong with it.

 

When we begin to notice flaws in all the major elements of traditional, pre-1969 Christianity – in prophets, priests, angels, faith, etc. – then many preachers and churches, desperate to try to continue to defend their own prideful authority, will try to find some minor saving grace, that the major sweeps somehow missed, and failed to expose. When churchgoers discover that even “faith” and “angels” and even “priests” and so forth can fail us … then many preachers will fix on some small thing in the Bible whose flaws were not noticed in major surveys, and try to assert that this or that tiny thing is the key to salvation; like “anointing,” or “elect”ion, or “baptism,” etc.. But finally, we will find, these are merely semi-spiritual gimmicks. Those serious investigators, who have the patience, will find that the Bible itself, finally picks off even these stragglers. The Bible itself finally noting flaws, in things like “baptism,” “tradition,” “anointing,” “sanctification,” the “blood,” whatever. Finally as it turns out, there is nothing at all here on earth, available to human beings, that is absolutely reliable and good, and that can save us from sin and error. And not just because of our own failure to “believe” and “accept” them in our “heart” or some such. As it turns out of course, even “accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior,” can go wrong. Since there are many false ideas of Christ out there in churches, for example. So that therefore, you cannot be sure, when you accept this or that idea as “Christ,” that you are really accepting … the right idea of Christ.

 

To be sure, a every few of the special graces or gifts that individual churches or denominations often focus on, can be occasionally, somewhat useful; but none of them is ever really quite good enough; any one of them can fail us, and even make our situation much worse. And often, does exactly that.

 

When miracles do not arrive, or when following our religion does not seem to bring mental or spiritual solace, many preachers will try to suggest to us, this or that minor virtue or gift. But we find that none of the standard gifts offered by priests are good. And if our priests then try to excuse that, – particularly by suggesting that if in actual practice, it seemed to fail us, that is because we did not accept that gift, with “faith,” in our “heart” – finally we find in actual practice, that these excuses do not work either; that it doesn’t matter what we do, still the big huge miracles preachers often promised to us for instance, still do not come.

 

The fact is, there are extremely serious, literally fatal shortfalls, sins, in the midst of all of traditional Christianity; particularly its promises of physical miracles, but also in its “spirituality” we will find. And what is more, we will find, there is no special gift or grace, that can fix it. As it turns out, what we will find out here, is that any and all such alleged special gifts almost always fail us. And not just because a) our will does not accept this gift in our “heart” with “faith” or some such. Or in other words, all these gifts fail us, and not just because more things than just this gift are needed (like “faith” in our “heart” as preachers constantly sermonize). And they do not fail just because b) whatever good such special gifts have, can be and often is, taken away by God. But c) also because, there were always internal flaws and sins, in each of them, individually. Flaws that make them far less effective than many churches try to make them out to be; flaws that make most of them in fact, literally fatal.

 

So that – as we will see – all these alleged special gifts fail us, disastrously. And – as we will see with regard especially to the alleged special saving gift of “inspiration” – the most common apologetic sermon by priests, to try to explain this failure – that these special gifts fail us, only because we fail to accept them faithfully in our heart, etc. – is not true, either. The fact is, we will find, that these special gifts … have bad things, just by and in themselves.

 

To prove that individually though, will take more time than we have right now. So let’s here and now, just note briefly, many of the most common special gimmicks that preachers present … and in most of them, note one example where the Bible itself notes shortcomings, frequent failures, in one after another of these things; in what were touted by this or that church, as their own alleged, special saving gifts from God.

 

So for example: 1) even the “anointed” priest can “sin” (Lev. 4.3); 2) even those who take 2) the Euchcharist, the Lord’s Supper, communion, with Jesus himself, even with their “hand” on his table, can sin later, and “betray” him; 3) likewise the “blood” therefore fails us, and indeed the Jewish God told us never to consume blood; 4) even the “elect” can be “deceived” it seems, “if possible”; 5) even “righteousness” can become unrighteousness, or we can be “righteous overmuch”; 6) “Grace” can be lost, and the “staff” called “Grace” “broken”; 7) “santification” has problems and can be spoiled or forgotten (Num. 20.12; 2 Ch. 30.3); 8) “offerings” and 9) “sacrifices” (“The sacrifices of the wicked is an abomination”; Prov. 21.27, Jer. 6.20; etc.; “offerings” Mal. 2.3),
on the 10) “altar” can be refused by God.

 

Likewise, if you look these in a concordance – and any other special gimmicks the preacher tries to spring on you – you will find that there are problem with each and everything the preacher tries to bring up; including 11) “church“es; 12) “tradition“; 13) “pillar”s; 14) “rock“s; 15) the word “sacraments” come from “oaths,” which Jesus tells us not to make; 16) while “mysteries” are after all things uncertain and vague and therefore unreliable; of various 17) spiritual “gifts,” or charisms, there is almost always one higher; (q.v).. And there are problems with 18) relics, good luck charms, sacred objects like “cross”es, etc.; which can become “idols”; thought of like the forbidden
“pieces of wood” and bone thought to have powers; as if a piece of wood could speak. (See church on “superstition”). Then too, 19) God they sometimes say answers all prayers; but God can refuse to hear many “prayers.” 20) Likewise, there are many kinds of “baptism” ... and even the best is not enough by itself; since you have to be born of “water” and the “spirit.” 21) Even “discernment” is not enough; since people with this can be “taken,” deceived, even in the “discernment”s and “wisdom” (Prov. 19.12? Isa. 44.18). Likewise, 22) “doctrine”s; 23) “dogmas” “infallible” or otherwise; and 24) special things communicated “orally,” or by the “tongue” or related to that, 25) “tongues.” Even 26) “the cross” in itself, as an object, or when duplicated, becomes a mere piece of “wood,” or therefore an “idol”; while the sentiment associated with it – self-sacrifice – can at times be bad or unnecessary too (when we seek “prosperity” and fruitfulness). Then too 26) liturgies are full of prayers and words, that can go astray. Likewise 27) even the “perfect” we will see. Then 28) “covenant”s come and go. Then too, various types of 28) “body.”

 

All these things are spoken of at times, in the Bible, as good; but then later, the Bible mentions limitations in them. 29) While a through look at a concordance will find that probably any other alleged special grace your preacher claims, is ultimately warned about in the Bible itself. 30) Or if it isn’t warned about specifically, then remember that it is a preacher and an church that is presenting such ideas to you …while the Bible warned about priests, and churches.

 

In any case 31) in addition to what the Bible said about these, we will be noting finally that the Bible told us to honor “science” and experience; what we see “come to pass” in real life. While in turn, practical experience also confirms inadequacies in each and every one of these, and more.

 

Practical experience teaches us that many who have had one or more of these, in real life, still often seem to fall, sin, and do or experience, bad things. As a) did Job for example; who was “righteous” but still suffered disease and disasters. For b) another example, you can take Holy Communion, the Eucharist, the Lord’s Supper, and consume the “blood” and the “body” … and yet, still have bad, impure thought. And even sin mightily. Even right after receiving the Eucharist, you can sin right in the parking lot. Right after taking this or that allegedly saving, special gift.

 

Not only Biblical warnings therefore, but also experience teaches us too, that these alleged special gifts also fail us. And are essentially, just false “idols.”

 

Today in fact, even the Church recognizes that most of these, even the Eucharist, are not good or effective, in themselves. Unless you have, either 32) “faith,” or 33) “contrition”; meaning sincere guilt over past bad deeds; so that you are 34) in a “state of Grace.” 35) But we will be noting problems even with “faith,” and things in our “heart” too, here. Particularly with regard to getting the “miracles” that holy men promised us. Since it appears that you can have all the sincere “faith” in your “heart” in the world, for example, and yet you still won’t see people walking on water, or making bread appear out of thin air, as our holy men promised.

 

To be sure, we might better say, that none of these alleged special saving gifts is effective in itself; most are mere placebos in fact. 36) Really, the only thing that is good is that you have, say, the simple, sincere will to be good. (Which is close to, but not the same as, believing, “having faith in” in these and other related things, in your “heart”). But this is something that is better reached, directly. Just knowing what to do, and doing it. Without pretending that this or that gimmick will do it for you.

 

In partial or growing recognition of this, there are many hints in current theology, Catechisms, that the most important thing, is not that we touch this or that miraculous or magical object (which is basically a placebo); but what is really important, is what is in our “heart”; or more exactly we would say, our inner will and desire to be good. None of these alleged special saving gifts, some preachers will now admit, will work … unless our “heart” wants God; or better, wants to be good.

 

In the past though, while the churches at time called attention to this important proviso – the need to have “faith,” and a good “heart” – finally even that formula, went disastrously wrong, many times. More exactly then, we will need to more accurately describe the necessary quality; which is related to these, but more specific. And basically, the essence of saving yourself from evil, is just something more like, goodwill, say; a sincere internal desire, to be good. Especially to be tolerant and good, to like or even “love,” your “neighbor.” Which after all, is a) one of the two commandments focused in on, by Jesus, finally. And b) the one that is said by Paul to “fulfill” at least, “the law.” And c) the one that is accepted by other moral systems, as the central, “Golden Rule.” If you love others as yourself, presumably, you will be following the Golden Rule too: treating others as you want to be treated yourself.

 

To be sure then, all the sacraments and sacramentals and other oaths and relics and baptisms and churches and sermons in the world, cannot help us, if we do not have the inner desire in our hearts to be good. So that in effect, the common factor, the thing that is actually good … is our good will. (Some might say “Love” in our “heart”; but after all, you can love the wrong things, love a false idea of Christ say).

 

Many priests more or less know this; but they think that some people need a crutch, to help them find the confidence to have good will in their heart. Yet finally, such crutches do more harm than good; as people will eventually find that that all these things are mere gimmicks – and distractions, from focus on what really is important; what really does work. In effect, people tend to focus on these things in themselves obsessively … so that they become, finally, really, “idols.” So that it is better to go to the real thing, more directly.

 

But in that case, why not just acquire the will, or why not work on your will … rather than playing around with such placebos, false
idol intermediaries? Why use so many distracting and ineffectual – even evil – middle men? Why not get to the true essence of it all? The irreplaceable common element? The thing that makes them all work? Which is again, roughly, say, probably something like simply … sincere desire to be good.

 

Everything else, is at best a placebo; and more often than not, anything else – any of these alleged special graces – just distracts from the core of it all. Such intermediary agencies are typically mistaken for ends in themselves; thus becoming “idols,” as Protestants particularly note. And doing us more harm, than good. Like the women, noted by Psychiatry today, who do their “rosaries” so frequently (see “prayers” above), that they become mentally ill, Obsessive-Compulsives. Or become insane; dominated by a fixed idea, or a kind of “demon” or evil spirit; that leads them to repeat useless actions or thoughts obsessively, rather than going out and getting a job, for example, to take care of their problems.

 

The fact is, our preachers often regarded such things as being at least good placebos, and at worse, harmless. But in fact, as it turns out, they are typically extremely harmful idols. Causing people to fix obsessively, on things that cannot talk, cannot act to help them.

 

Many preachers today have thought that such things, if they do not work physical miracles, can at least help our peace of mind and “spirit”; particularly if we believe in our “heart.” But finally by the way, even some kinds of sincerity, even the “heart,” (and related to that, even “love”?) can fail: since the Bible warned constantly that “hearts” are often “deceived” and “false.” To be sure, “love” is a great gift. But real love of God should lead to … say, reading the Bible more closely. And thereby discovering … something other than all this.

 

So what finally, is the answer? Finally, 37) we will see, the best asset for each of us – by whole orders of magnitude better than any of these – is actually … the “science” of God. Which to be sure, is itself not perfect either; but which has historically proven to be extremely fruitful in real life; to bring real health and prosperity, often; far more reliably than praying and having faith and having this or that allegedly special saving “gift.”

 

All these traditional religious gifts lead to idolization, fetish-ization. But science in contrast, at its best, is always aware it can be fooled, and is never absolute; that many old scientific theories are often proven false. And that nothing is good, until it is proven effective in real material life. Science knows too, that knowledge progresses … so that likely nearly all our past forms of knowledge will be superseded one day or another. So that science knows, that it must always seek current material evidence for its claims. We might follow this or that method for a while … but if it does not work, far from continuing to following it with an obsessive-compulsive drive, instead, we are supposed to deduce that after all, it was a “false” idea, an idol that did not work; and then we are to move past that, to something that does get real material results.

 

And that at its best, is part of the great, truly Christlike strength of science; a systematic, built-in, non-dogmatic, Christlike, humility. Which almost never claims to be “perfect,” but is always working to prove itself to the best of its ability. And not with gimmicks, or empty words. But with real material results: empirically-observable “fruits,” “works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “proofs.”

 

And science has proven to be far, far, far more effective than these religious virtues. You can pray all day, you can swallow a thousand “host”s, you can “love” like crazy … and yet still, the “mountain” next to you does not move; you cannot walk on water; you might not even get enough food to eat. Whereas, a little science and technology and earth-moving machinery, and you can get many wonders done.

 

So that finally, by the best standard, by the standard of God – “fruits” – science and practical knowledge, are far, far better, far more godly even, than all the allegedly special and salvific prayers, gifts, “heart,” sacraments, anointing, prayers, sacramentals, relics, baptisms, sanctifications, etc., advocated by priests … who fixated on, festishized, minor things; making them into mere idols in effect. While neglecting “larger matters of law.” All these things became far more important, to our priests … who did not even read, for that matter, their own Bibles closely enough. Closely enough to discover the science in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

END OF CHAPTER 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5

 

 

The Bible Warns About

False Things –

Even in “Spirit,” the “Holy Spirit,”

And Therefore,

Inspiration;

Also in

The Apostles, the Angels

 

 

 

Section 1:

 

False, Bad Things in

THE HOLY SPIRIT, And

FALSE SPIRITS

 

(See also Over-Spirituality)

 

 

Churches typically speak as if the holy men and angels in the Bible, and our preachers and churches, are absolutely reliable; that they are relaying the holy word of God to us, without error. But we have found earlier, that what you often heard in church, is not always true. Actually, we will have been finding here, that 1) the Bible itself noted sins and errors, in every aspect of religion and Christianity, in heaven and on earth: in “prophets,” “churches” and “temples,” saints, “apostles” (both most of the Twelve by individual names, like Peter, Judas, John, and “all” generically), “angels,” in “heaven” itself, in “Christ”s; in “all” in fact.

 

So what do preachers say, when cornered with a few of the hundreds of quotes warning of bad things, in our holiest men and angels? a) Some preachers will partially admit some minor sins in our holy men. But then, they try to maintain the position that they are still basically holy and sacred. To do that, our preachers have come up with a number of arguments, apologetics, that would seem to defend their status. Especially, when we note the dozens, hundreds of parts of the Bible, that note sins in holy men, preachers like to say that now and then, to be sure, even an Apostle might sin personally. In their personal lives. But, preachers sermonize, b) outside their minor personal sins, when the apostles wrote our Bibles, or did other important work … they were for that moment at least, supernaturally protected from error. Protected specially, they claim, the “inspiration” or indwelling protection, of the “Holy Spirit.”

 

This idea eventually became a now-famous doctrine; the doctrine of “inspiration.” According to this doctrine, aa) it can be admitted that our apostles and holy men, were flawed human beings – like the Apostle/ St. Peter. And bb) it can be admitted that they sometimes, can make many, many mistakes in their personal lives. Even “poor St. Peter,” as they say for example, might now and then do something less than perfect, in his personal life. Peter for example, might “rebuke” Jesus now and then (Mat. 16); and Peter might at times have denied he even knew Jesus, in order to escape being arrested by soldiers. But these are just minor personal peccadilloes, preachers say; they prove that Peter was human, and had human weaknesses. But cc) still, our preachers now assert, whenever Peter or his followers left off informal living, and began to speak seriously, then he was for a moment at least, protected, inspired, by the Holy Spirit. Which prevented him and his normally weak and sinning successors, from erring. At least in those critical moments in our religion.

 

Preachers of course, might be willing to admit that they themselves and other holy men, might now and then commit small personal sins. Such things will be evident to many churchgoers, in any case; who know that now and then “Father” comes in late to work; and may even lie to conceal it, etc.. Or they might know that their minister is bad in math, and makes mathematical mistakes. Or indeed, some churches even begin to read their Bibles … and find out that the Bible itself said that major holy men and angels often sinned. But preachers want to maintain the myth of their own perfection, or at least the perfection of, at least, their “scripture” and “doctrines.”

 

And so finally, preachers over the years have developed many ways to try to partially admit, that at times, various holy figures might make minor errors; but they want to say that however, these are only minor sins, weaknesses in their emotional makeup, in their personal behavior. While they want to say, such errors … did not effect the apostles when they performed serious duties; when say, they wrote the gospels and so forth.

 

And to justify this, preachers claim that the Bible suggested that indeed, when our holy men were doing something serious or official, relating to our religion, at such times, they were temporarily at least, protected from errors. By the Holy Spirit coming, into them, and protecting them, at least for a moment. Especially, when our holy men began say, aaa) formally outlining religious “doctrine,” especially. And bbb) when they were writing our bibles. And when cc) speaking “ex cathedra,” speaking officially from the Papal throne. At such times, it is claimed, these normally fallible human beings, who often made errors in their personal lives as they say, were for a moment at least, temporarily protected from sin and error. By the Holy Spirit coming into their minds. Guiding – or as they say “inspiring” – them. At least for a moment. For especially, especially important moments in our religion. As for example, when the Apostles and saints wrote our Bibles; or when they defined official church “doctrine.”

 

Over the years, more and more churchgoers have become literate; and have begun reading their Bibles. And many of them have begun noting some of the parts of the Bible that criticized our holy men. And so, to defend themselves and their ideas, our preachers developed a number of arguments, defenses. And among them, this doctrine – the doctrine of “inspiration” – has been enormously popular. It is thought to be the ultimate defense of the authority of churches and apostles, even in the face of numerous criticisms of apostles, churches, and “all” holy things, in the Bible itself. And there is something honest about it; in that at last, does admit, partially, that there are some errors in holy men. But at the same time, it seems to produce a hedge against the whole of our religion, collapsing. Because it works to prevent the next conclusion from this: that since our holy men often erred, and our holy men wrote our Bibles and govern our churches, therefore, both scripture and churches are bad, too. This doctrine would try to limit the damage, and even turn all this into an asset; it is admitted that there have been personal sins in holy men; it is said by many churches, that thanks to the “inspiration” and temporary protection of the “Holy Spirit” – normal weak human beings – like say Peter, some would say – might make minor personal errors in their personal lives; but when they were doing serious church duties, they were are least temporarily protected from sin and error. And this they say, should indeed, make ordinary churchgoers feel better as they say; to know that fallible human beings like themselves, could nevertheless be of service to God; and even write “perfect” “scriptures” and “doctrines.”

 

This therefore, is the doctrine of “inspiration.” And it is immensely, fantastically popular; in fact, is one of the main ways that priests continue to defend at least parts of their own authority. [By the way, we do not attack “authority” here; we are not the foretold “despisers of authority”; we merely say that the real authority from God, is not priests, but science]. Indeed, “inspiration” of the “Holy Spirit” is probably, one of the “pillars” of modern Christianity. 4) And yet, we will find here, that while “inspiration” is a very, very popular argument among preachers today – while it really is in fact one of the “pillars” of modern Christianity – it … is not any more true, than anything else preachers and holy men have said to us.

 

The fact is, the 1) doctrine of “inspiration” – and 2) indeed, the defense of all “doctrines” too – is probably false. We will be finding out here and now, that in fact, the Bible itself warned that there have been sins and errors, in basically a) every single aspect of Christian religious life; and that includes … errors in specifically, b) “spirits.” And we will see, c) errors even in “inspiration” from the “Holy Spirit,” too. While for that matter, d) the Bible in effect noted sins in “doctrines” too.

 

 

“People teaching as doctrines the precepts of men,” etc. (Mat. 15.9).

 

“Carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4.14; cf. “spirit” as “wind”).

 

“Let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ” (Heb. 6.1; cf. authority of Christ).

 

 

 

 

Shortfalls in the Omnipotent Holy Spirit

 

 

The doctrine of inspiration is not reliable. Because, the fact is, God warned of sins and errors in essentially, practically every aspect of Christianity. And especially, first of all, 1) sins in “spirits” in general. And therefore, in 2) spirituality. While 3) as it turns out, there are problems, or shortfalls, even specifically in the Holy Spirit; there are things that even the Holy Spirit does not always handle or correct; things that are important. So that finally 4) there are sins or shortfalls, in “inspiration.”

 

More specifically, regarding the Holy Spirit particularly … as it turns out, even if the Holy Spirit is real, and is perfect … on the other hand, a) no one can ever be certain that a given spirit, that seems to be helping us in any given situation, really is the authentic Holy Spirit; and not, actually, a false spirit. A false spirit, pretending to be, the Holy Spirit. Then too, b) at times, the Holy Spirit chooses not to protect people, even people engaged in crucial religious tasks; even when they are trying to write “doctrine” it seems. While c) related to this, we will find that in the Bible, often even those who might be thought to have authentically had the real, genuine Holy Spirit – and therefore, real “inspiration” – often later lost it.

 

Our preachers therefore, often spoke of the wonders of “spirit” and “spirituality” – and “inspiration” by the Holy Spirit – to be sure. And they often claimed that these things protected preachers, churches, from crucial errors. But those preachers who stressed “inspiration,” apparently did not read their Bibles closely enough; they did not notice that the Bible itself constantly warned about 1) just how many dangers there are, in even spirits in particular; how 2) easily even spirituality can go wrong. And how 3) even holy men with the authentic Holy Spirit in them, apparently lost that spirit. Or still, even after having received the spirit, still somehow, made mistakes. How perhaps even those with the spirit in them, lost it; or the Holy Spirit chose not to work in them, even in the most crucial moments … of writing scripture and doctrine.

 

So that amazingly, we will find here, the alleged saving protection of the Holy Spirit, or of “inspiration,” is not really a true doctrine; it is not really what the Bible itself says.

 

 

 

False Things in Spirits

 

 

First of all we should note this: the Bible itself, constantly warned about false things, in nearly every aspect of religion, of Christianity; from “prophets” and “apostles,” to “priests” and so forth. As we found earlier. But finally, it is time to add here, the Bible noted false things particularly, specifically, in “spirit”s. Even in spirits that seemed to come from, be, “Christ.” Or that seemed to operate in the “name” of the “Lord, Lord.”

 

1) Here in fact, are a few of the dozens of warnings in the Bible about various false things in spirits, generally. The Bible noting especially that there are many “false spirits”:

 

 

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you will know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already” (1 John 4.1-3; see also ref. to “men of Spirit” deceived, n.s.).

 

 

“Cast out the spirits” (Mat. 8.16).

 

“The unclean spirit” (Mat. 12.43).

 

“The spirit of jealousy” (Num. 5.14).

 

 

So first of all, though many think “spirits” – and in effect, spirituality – are good, in fact, the Bible tells us to watch out for them; many spirits are bad, “evil,” and so forth.

 

2) Amazingly, too, even a spirit sent by God can be an evil spirit. Since God apparent uses evil spirits for his own purposes:

 

 

“God sent an evil spirit” (Judges 9.23).

 

“An evil spirit from the LORD” (1 Sam. 19.9).

 

“And gave them authority over unclean spirits” (Mat. 10.1; to cast them out … an to use them).

 

 

3) Crucially, it is time for all to note that God warned that Christians are not immune to these bad spirits; and they accept them into their own Christianity. a) At the very least, many “different” spirits from what some Apostles would emphasize, can influence even Christians, Paul noted:

 

 

“If you receive a different spirit [from the one from Paul] … you accept it readily enough (2 Corin. 11.4).

 

 

b) False spirits are to be continually attacking and perhaps infecting Christianity, it seems. Since John saw fit to warn us about them. And note especially, that to fix this problem – of false things in our Christianity, even false spirits – instead of just “believ”ing and having faith whatever spirit we see or feel, instead … we are supposed to “test the spirits” to see if they really are from God or not:

 

 

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you will know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already” (1 John 4.1-3; see also ref. to “men of Spirit” deceived, n.s.).

 

 

And note, c) these false spirits, being current in the time of John and Paul, are not limited to the end times.

 

 

4) To be sure, false spirits will hold even more sway, in the end times:

 

 

“In later time some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods… (1 Tim. 4.1-3; cf. traditional celibate, unmarried priests, Lent and meatless Fridays, etc.).

 

 

5) And note by the way, that the things that false spirits support here, above, on their own behavior: a) forbidding marriage. There are many priesthoods that do not allow priests to marry. Then too, b) these false doctrines set up food prohibitions; rather as the Vatican set up “meatless Fridays,” until Vatican II or so?

 

As it turns out therefore, first of all, there are many problems with spirits in general; many are “false” and even “evil.”

 

 

6) Amazingly, for that matter, heaven itself is not immune or proof, from evil spirits. Remember that it is said that a) Satan himself was once an angel; and at times is found in heaven. Then too b) the Bible told us precisely, that there have been false spirits in spirituality; or spirits in “heavenly places”:

 

 

“For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against … the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6.12 NRSV).

 

 

Related to this, note that of course, “heaven” is often thought to be a spiritual place; where our spirits but not our physical bodies go, after death. But if so, then note another problem with our spirits, and spirituality: while there were parts of the Bible, that seemed to say that nothing imperfect could ever enter heaven, other parts told us that even b) Satan himself was now and then in heaven. While for that matter, we will have been finding earlier, that there are many false things in heaven itself; to the point that God said that … heaven itself is supposed to be destroyed, one “Day” (2 Peter 3; Isa. 34.4; Mark 13.31; as summarized in our Destruction of Heaven).

 

So that, actually, not only are there problems with “spirits” in themselves, and in general; then too, even the great home of “spirit” and “spirituality” – heaven itself – is not itself, very secure at all. Indeed, heaven itself is fated to be “dissolved.” According to the Bible itself.

 

 

7) And there is a rather devastating logical conclusion from this in turn; as it turns out first of all, we can draw a logical conclusion from this in turn; and note that being “spiritual” is not necessarily good. Since, if there are many false spirits, then just when we are following a spirit, and being spiritual … then after all, we might be following a false spirit.

 

 

 

Section 2

 

Shortcomings, Even

With the Real Spirit of God Himself

With a) Spirituality

 

 

8) While indeed, verifying this logical conclusion, we will find, St. James noted that there is a kind of evil even in those who think they are – and might really be – following the genuine spirit of God (James 2.14-26).

 

Even having a real spirit from God himself, is only part of what we really need to live. And those preachers who have or give only “spirit”s to others – and not material things too – are found to be often literally fatal, bad shepherds.

 

In a book-length treatment of this subject in fact, we will comment, from James 2.14-26, on dangers of over-spirituality. As James described it: those many preachers who give us only fine words, sermons, but who do not take care of our food, or take care of the material side of life … turn out to be evil people. In that they give us spiritual things … but not the material things we need too. So that they leave persons who are starving to death from lack of material food, with mere spirits, and hot air; leaving us to starve to death. For lack of physical necessities.

 

There is therefore a great danger, even in those who have the authentic “spirit” of God. Because those who have so much interest in “spirit,” often overlook the importance, of other aspects of life; of say, material things. So that indeed – as James warned – over-spiritual priests and believers, are often very ineffective, in guiding us through all of life. In fact – as James noticed – because of their disinterest in taking care of the physical, material side of our lives, often they leave people literally starving to death, without helping them:

 

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to hem, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has not works, is dead” (James 2.14-17).

 

The problem James is point to is this: that if man does not live by “bread alone,” he does not live on spirit alone either. We are partially physical beings that need material food for example … or we starve to death. Therefore, preachers that offer us mere sermons, kind words, kind ideas – or, kind spirits that a spiritual person might say to many of us – are often inadequate, even fatal.

 

Because spirituality does not look at the whole, “full” man. The fact is, is man does not live by bread “alone,” he does lives by physical bread in part. Man is not just a “spiritual” being; he also has a physical body, living in a physical world. And he needs not just kind words, spirits, but also real material things, just to stay alive. While those over-spiritual preachers, who do not know this, and take care of the physical side of life too, are woefully inadequate to guide us safely through all of life.

 

Indeed, in fact, expanding past what James was descrying, we will be noting later that over-spiritual preachers not only passively leave already-dying persons, to die, without helping them adequately; their radical over-emphasis on spirituality, their attacks on material sense, finally actively lead millions of people to material ignorance, dysfunctionality, then poverty, and premature death. Because our spiritual preachers taught us to ignore, give up on, material sense. Which turns out to be physically fatal. Rather like the Devil who “tempt”ed Jesus, to ignore physical laws like gravity; and tempted him to jump off a high place. As it turns out then, there are huge penalties to ignoring, neglecting, denying, the rules of the physical universe. And those who teach others to ignore those rules – as very spiritual people often do – do not merely leave materially impoverished people without adequate help; they often actively tempt then into acts that will cause them unnecessary suffering, and even physical death.

 

No doubt, “man does not live by bread alone”; but if he does not live by bread “alone,” then he lives by real material food in part. So that those many preachers who give us primarily only kind words, spirit – “faith” and “hope” and so forth – but who do not also take care of the material side of life equally as well … are actually, James correctly noted, bad, evil persons. False shepherds that lead us actually to dysfunctionality, and death. Because they have taught us to ignore the material side of life. (See our book-length treatment on this in Over-Spirituality). And those who ignore the material laws of life – who say, stop eating mere physical food; or who jump over cliffs – of course, come to grief.

 

So that ironically, the Bible itself notes huge sins, in spirituality itself. And even in those who are following the real, authentic, spirit of God. Even that, as it turns out, fail us, and lead us to our deaths. If our preachers do not also offer some other things, in addition to spirit. Like especially, material sense (or in other words, we will find, the science of God).

 

 

 

Even the Holy Spirit

And “Inspiration” Can

Leave You, and Not Help You

 

 

There are therefore, huge sins in what might be called even, authentic Christian spirituality; in effect, sins of omission; sins that come out of the fact that spirituality is not all we need in life. And those who give us only – or largely – just that, leave out many other essential vitamins, you might say. They give us one thing we need to live … but then leave us dying for lack of the other things. (So that, incidentally, in effect, once again our preachers mislead themselves and us, by looking only at “part” of what we need; only “part” of what the Bible called for).

 

Yet preachers to be sure, are often very vain; many frequently tell us they are “perfect,” or “holy,” and “sacred.” Therefore, they cannot see their own sins very well at all. They are too “proud” to even look for their sins; or to look seriously for them; since they believe they cannot have any sins; especially in their spirituality. They are thus too proud to find the “beam” in their own eyes; in the eye even of traditional “spirituality.”

 

 

9) There are more signs that the Holy Spirit of God or Christ often does not protect us, too.

 

a) Consider again, the people in the wilderness, following Moses:

 

 

“I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters…. All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness” (1 Corin. 10. 1, 3-5 NRSV).

 

 

Obviously somehow, though the Holy Spirit is said to be perfect, and is “with” us always, as is the “Counselor,” to protect us on many occasions, it somehow fails to help us. Or chooses not to help us. Here, the people of Moses in the wilderness, were said to have had the “spirit” of Christ … and yet, “nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down.”

 

The moral of this? It seems there are some conditions where you can actually have at least the spirit of Jesus or Christ … and yet either aa) it chooses not to protect you, or bb) in any case, it is not enough. You can have the spirit of Christ at least … and still be struck down.

 

b) Related examples – of perhaps having the spirit, but then not being protected by it – can be found not only in examples from the Bible, but from our normal life. Consider that no doubt, many of us have seen people take the Eucharist in church services – and taking the “Body” and “blood” and some would therefore say, part of the “spirit” of God into them – and yet, practical experience tells us that even people who have gotten all that … can sin. Even in the church parking lot; right after having received these special gifts.

 

c) Indeed, Peter sins greatly, even after having eaten with Jesus himself in person; sins to the point that Jesus called Peter “Satan” on at least one occasion:

 

 

“From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.’ But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of man'” (Mat. 16.21-23).

 

 

Later we will argue that here, Peter is even sinning on a doctrinal matter; perhaps even when trying to define doctrine. And if it is not “formal,” then after all, which of the apostles’ actions were formal, after all? If food prohibitions were removed by a “dream” for example? As we will see below.

 

So what can we say about the protection of the Eucharist, of the blood and body of Christ? And even eventually, of the spirit? Obviously, it seems that if the Holy Spirit is real, still, its protection is not infallible, or complete. As we see in examples from the Bible… and from our own real lives as well. As we will find in real-life experience, many people alleged to have received the Holy Spirit, still do bad things, even after that.

 

d) A few more examples:

 

aa) Here for example, it is often said that “Cephas” – which means “Peter”; meaning St. Peter many assume – once got the real, authentic, Holy Spirit, when Jesus “breathed” on him:

 

 

“‘You shall be called Cephas’ (which means Peter)” (John 1.42).

 

“He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, thy are retained'” (John 20.22-23).

 

“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts. 2.4).

 

 

Yet note, that even after having received the authentic Holy Spirit, and even after having worked wonders because of it, even Cephas/Peter himself, made mistakes. So that even Peter is “condemned.” By no less than St. Paul himself:

 

 

“James and Cephas and John, … were reputed to be pillars” (Gal. 2.9).

 

“But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned (Gal. 2.11,13; see also Mat. 16.23).

 

 

What should we conclude? Indeed, the Bible often notes in effect, that even those with a real genuine spirit – “breath,” or “spirit” of God (Gk. “pneumatikos”) of “Christ” himself, even the Holy Spirit by name … can still, somehow, fail. As Cephas or Peter fails. And by the way, they fail even in a major doctrinal matter, we will suggest. According to no less than the Apostle Paul.

 

And this is by far, not the only case, where someone who is reputed to have had the Holy Spirit, somehow failed in spite of that. St. Paul noted for instance, Moses and his people, in the wilderness, had the spirit of God … and yet, many still sinned, and were struck down.

 

So it seems the doctrine of “inspiration” is probably not true.

 

 

 

Why Doesn’t the Holy Spirit Protect Us? How?

 

 

10) The fact is, we were assured that the Holy Spirit or a “Counselor” had been sent to “protect” us (q.v.; note vacillation in names here). But it does not protect Christians very reliably, in everyday experience … or even to protect the holiest men in the Bible itself, from Moses to Peter. Not in our examples above. For that matter, we have the same problem here with the Holy Spirit, as in the rest of Christianity: how is it that good people like Job and others of us, experience evil, and have bad things happen to us? Even though God presumably could protect us, if he wanted.

 

 

11) So why not? What is wrong? Why doesn’t “inspiration” work? Ultimately there is no good answer here.

 

At first it would seem impossible; the Holy Spirit is absolutely “holy” and sacred, after all; as we agree here. But in fact, God himself is absolutely holy … and yet often God himself, does not save us.

 

To try to explain this, preachers often say that in part, God, the Spirit does not help us, because, perhaps, God wants us to do our part as well. So that in effect, often, in one sense, something more than God’s efforts is needed, for our salvation; and that is our own “work” and efforts. Many preachers suggest this; that all the good things in the universe cannot help us … unless we ourselves accept them. In our “heart” and so forth. Yet to be sure, no doubt Moses or others accepted the Spirit in their heart… and still often failed in many things. In key things that God said he wanted for his followers; like long life, and so forth.

 

So why doesn’t inspiration work? Note for example, that for whatever reason, there are many people in the Bible, who seem to have had the Holy Spirit … and yet somehow, incredibly, they did not triumph. Even when they actually had the spirit itself in them, it seems.

 

The fact is, we will find, even if God can do anything, still, there are many things he usually chooses not to do, nevertheless; and in particular, if no doubt the Holy Spirit could prevent us from sinning or erring, always, somehow, it does not always do so.

 

 

12) Perhaps the reason is that those many people who think they are being good by following preachers, are not so good after all.

 

Preachers often say in particular, that God sends the Holy Spirit especially, to be with apostles and believers, “always.” And therefore, they claim, none of our Christian institutions can ever be corrupted, or be wrong. But we will have found here and elsewhere, from experience, that even the alleged protection of “inspiration,” of the Holy Spirit, does not necessarily protect our holiest men and institutions, always. As one might well suspect, since God sometimes spoke of many of these holy institutions and people at times, as flawed. In spite of the alleged protections of the Holy Spirit (as we will be seeing here). Earlier we noted problems in Moses and Paul and Peter, even after they might be presumed to have gotten the spirit. Even when they thought they were being good it seems likely.

 

Indeed, in point of fact, many people in the Bible sin, even after having explicitly received the Holy Spirit. Even St. Peter for example, was said to have had the Holy Spirit “breathed” into him (Acts?) … but still, even after that he, as “Cephas,” erred, and was condemned by St. Paul.

 

And many preachers still sin today, in spite of many such alleged special protections. But here we have been noting that the Bible did not stress inspiration so much, or guarantee it; while the Bible itself warned that there would be many sins and errors, even in priests and so forth. So finally, we conclude that our preachers are simply often wrong and bad. And if they suffer, therefore, that is the reason why: they vainly think they are entirely good, or have special protections, but that is just their vanity. Actually they are bad people, who are merely vain. And that is why they and their followers often suffer.

 

 

13) Today, current church pronouncements avoid our conclusion. And instead they to defend the idea that even if the spirit does not always protect us, it would protect Popes and others, at least, in a major doctrinal matters.

 

a) Yet we will find that arguably, Peter and others, were involved in major doctrinal matters, when they still sinned badly. So badly that Jesus called Peter “Satan.” And when James said “we all make mistakes.”

 

For example, suppose we concede for purposes of argument, that Jesus “breathed” his spirit – or even the Holy Spirit, some say – specifically onto or into, say, St. Peter among others (q.v.):

 

 

“He breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit'” (John 20.22).

 

 

Jesus here is said to be giving the apostles the Holy Spirit, and therefore “inspiration” as it is called today. Note however, that even after that, even after having ostensibly received the spirit … apostles like Peter, often made major mistakes. Even in matters of doctrine.

 

aa) First, Peter disobeyed major doctrines. Even after Peter was breathed on, for example, St. Peter himself for example, made a mistake regarding communion, fellowship; Peter was accused of not allowing Jews and Gentiles, to mix in church fellowship. Which was a major doctrinal mistake; Peter not allowing Gentiles, or those not born Jews, into full communion with the church, in effect. Which would have ended Christianity, if this had been enforced doctrinally; since Christianity caught on primarily not among Jews, but among Gentiles: Greeks, Romans, and so forth. If non-Jews had been excluded from major church events, no doubt, Christianity would never have caught on. While of course in any case, eventually became a major Christian “doctrine.” As Paul argued that “uncircumcised” “Gentiles” and so forth, should be allowed into the church that Jesus founded.

 

In fact, we are not the only ones noting Peter creating major problems here, and crossing even what was to become doctrine: St. Paul called St. Peter a “hypocrite,” or a false, “insincere” leader (Gal. 2.13 KJV & RSV?). For precisely, pretending to follow Jewish food restrictions and fellowship rules, as if they were doctrine … but only sometimes, and with some people. So that Peter was not in effect, admitting Gentiles into full communion in the church, or was “not acting consistently with the truth of the Gospel,” n some other way, according to Paul:

 

 

“But when Cephas [“which means Peter” in John 1.42] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, and live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?'” (Gal. 2.11-14 NRSV).,

 

 

Here, Peter is not obeying the “gospels” it is said. Which surely, defined these doctrinal things firmly, when they presented them as the word of God. Thus Peter here is first of all, at the very least, disobeying some major doctrinal issues.

 

bb) Typically today, most preachers and churches will partially admit that Apostles or Popes, at times sinned in minor ways; they may even have disobeyed doctrines, in their personal conduct. But they claim that these were just minor peccadilloes; not major sins. Or they claim that in any case, such sins did not prevent them from being “infallible,” when they were formally announcing Christian “Doctrine” and so forth. Yet note for example, that first of all, Peter here is at least disobeying a major, already partially established doctrine: Paul himself, said that Peter acted inconsistently on the matter of who – Jews or Gentiles – was admitted to fellowship, and even communion (Gal. 2.13). Which was a violation by Peter, on a major doctrinal matter. Therefore at the very least, here an Apostle, Peter, was continuing to sin, even crossing a major doctrinal issue.

 

 

cc) Here to be sure, some apologists will continue to say that still, Peter was just sinning in a minor personal way; Peter had made formal doctrines, and continued to believe in the doctrines … but was just personally incapable of following some doctrines. Falling short, just as a personal failing, a mere emotional outburst.

 

aaa) But suppose then, we do take say, Peter’s opposition to the crucifixion, not as his formal attempt to found doctrine, but as a “mere” impetuous action. Then after all still, it was a bad act.

 

bbb) Or arguably, in fact, Peter was intending to establish, or had de facto established, a doctrine … that was already in conflict with Paul, and that was reversed in later Church Doctrine. So we might argue here that Peter in fact, had made a major doctrinal error … some time after having received the spirit of the Holy Ghost.

 

Most preachers today try to say that Peter refusing to admit Jews and Gentiles to the same table, was just a personal flaw, a personal act. But note that Jesus often said that we teach by example; if Peter acted this or that way, then in a sense, that was a teaching.

 

Jesus himself at times said that we should teach by example. And often take the deeds of holy men, as defining what is doctrine … rather than their formal words. Jesus’ followers once walked through a field of corn on a Sabbath … and plucked corn for themselves to eat. Even though … the Old Testament God had sternly fixed a law, that no one was to do any work at all on a “Sabbath”; even food gathering. A “law,” a “doctrine,” so fixed, that there was a death penalty for disobeying it. Then too, Jesus was also accused of healing the sick they say – and therefore working – on a Sabbath. Yet when accused of violating this formal written doctrine, set in “stone,” Jesus said in at least one place, that often, we should do as many people commonly do, rather than what they say in written doctrine. In this case, taking their deeds as doctrine, in effect. Specifically, Jesus asked which of us, if one of our sheep was in trouble on a Sabbath, would not try to save it:

 

“And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And they asked him, ‘Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?’ so that they might accuse him. He said to them, ‘Which man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out…? Then he said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ And … it was restored” (Mat. 12.11).

 

“One sabbath he was going though the grain fields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck ears of grain. And the Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?’ And he said to them, ‘Have you never read of what David did, when he was in need and was hungry'” (Mark 2.23-25).

 

 

“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death” (Ex. 35.2; see better, specific prohibitions on collecting food: “Therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days; remain every man of you in his place” Ex. 16.29 etc.).

 

 

Here Jesus himself, on at least one occasion or two, told us to even at times aaaa) ignore sacred writings – doctrines, laws – that told us to do no work on the Sabbath, to not even collect or prepare food. Jesus telling us to collect food, and save our sheep and so forth, even on a non-working Sabbath day. Ignoring the doctrines, laws, when necessary. bbbb) Because in effect, everybody else did it. (Though Jesus posed this as a question to be sure: “which of you” would not do this? And though Jesus said the opposite thing next: telling people at times, to do what the Pharisees say, but not following their “hypocritical” actions.) Thus in fact furthermore, Jesus is telling us that the acts of many holy men, are not just personal acts … but define doctrine.

 

Finally, to be sure, the Bible is equivocal here. (As will be seen, Jesus himself later reversed this, and claimed we should follow what Pharisees “say” but not what they did). But in any case, ironically, we will find in many places that the Bible itself does not firmly support any doctrines, in fact; if anything, it often tells us that often a holy man’s behavior is better clue, to the best laws; rather than his words and formal written doctrines. Which both suggests that formal written doctrines are not so important; while the actual behavior of Peter was more important in defining doctrine, than previously thought.

 

At least once or twice therefore, it was Jesus himself who told us that often, real doctrine is defined not by formal or written words, always; not even formal laws written in scripture it seems (as the prohibition on working on a Sunday is). Rather Jesus said, we should often take the common actions of others, as defining what is good. (A principle of common law, in fact). Thus, when Peter acted insincerely, he might be taken almost, as defining doctrine, for some. Thus, Peter in effect, by some standards, was defining doctrine; and when Jesus corrected Peter, Jesus told us that at least one doctrine by an apostle had been wrong. (While in any case, if our apostles only make personal errors often, then we should always be alert to errors; since even when they seem to be defining formal doctrines, they might after all be suffering a personal failure).

 

Indeed, though here and there the Church at times stresses formal written teaching as doctrine, the teaching of the Church elsewhere, is often that there were many doctrines defined not formally in writing; but in “oral” sayings. And presumably, patterns of behavior.

 

Indeed, it is a common saying that we “teach by example.” Thus it would seem that the Church cannot both hold – with Jesus at times – that non-scriptural oral “tradition” or informal behavior is important, even over written scripture and doctrine … and yet at the same time tell us that we should honor only firm, formal pronouncements made from the throne, ex cathedra. So which is it? Oral “tradition” or firm formal written statements?

 

dd) Another example of bad, possibly bad defining behavior, bad doctrines, from Peter? Consider next, the moment that Peter differed with Jesus himself, on the absolutely central doctrinal matter of the necessity of the crucifixion:

 

 

“From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.’ But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of man'” (Mat. 16.21-23).

 

 

Here again, Peter is at least, personally differing with Jesus in person, no less, on a major doctrinal issue: the necessity of the crucifixion. Furthermore, in differing with Jesus, “rebuking” Jesus, he is differing with yet another issue: the authority of Jesus. Both of which in effect, Peter says “God” surely must oppose or “forbid.”

 

To be sure, these differences are presented here, as emotional outbursts; not as formal statements of doctrine. Yet to be sure, if oral statements and behavior teach us, then … Peter is teaching badly. Or against Jesus. And on major doctrinal matters. In this case, to be sure, perhaps before the Holy Spirit … or perhaps not. Since one would have thought that Peter would have gotten some spirit, even before Jesus died.

 

Apologists might claim again, that Peter’s failure to honor all the words of Jesus for example – including major doctrinal pronouncements it seems – was just a personal failure, a weakness of his “will” as they say. Peter might break the rules, they say. Or he might personally fight them. But when Peter pronounced firmly on what the rules were, he did not err. That is to say – as they now say in the doctrine of “Papal Infallibility,” from Vatican I ? – Peter often made personal mistakes. But Peter was infallible, they say, protected by the Holy Spirit, when he made formal announcements of what was to be formal, accepted doctrines.

 

aaa) Yet by that standard, one might wonder, whether any of the Apostles, ever made many such very firm statements of “doctrine; aaaa) most of what we have from them, are indeed, just their informal actions
in the Bible. Indeed to, those were said to be quite important; remember, bbbb) Jesus told us that we should pay attention to what people do, as much as what they say or what is written; and cccc) the Church confirmed this again, in its support for “oral” statements. Suggesting that dddd) often doctrine is defined, merely by actions. Therefore actions are important. Even impulsive oral statements.

 

Then too, eeee) in the Bible we are judged by our “deeds” or actions; not just thoughts and words. While confirming the general looseness of all attempts to define doctrine in the Bible, ffff) we should consider Paul’s attacks on “laws.” Or for that matter, indeed, whatever the disciples said, was often vague; indeed, gggg) some key things later taken as doctrines, are narrated by Peter as occurring to him a “dream” for example. Which would not seem to some, to be a very, very firm pronouncement. And therefore, not really doctrine. If things pronounced formally ex-cathedra in writing are to be regarded as alone, important.

 

Indeed, hhhh) we might conclude, if God protected Peter, the first Pope, only during his formal statements … note that he protected very few statements, if any at all. Peter being a notoriously impetuous and informal person, as many scholars say.

 

Related to this, note that if a full serious presentation of an idea or doctrine, “Ex cathedra” or “from the throne” say, is the standard of what is to be regarded as authoritative, then Peter was not on a throne when he said many things that are taken as doctrines today.

 

So there are many things here, where Peter seems to be erring, even in major doctrinal matters, and even in what the Church itself might – or anyway, Jesus – would at times have considered defining moments and actions. Even after – especially in the case of his behavioral definition of table fellowship – receiving the Holy Spirit.

 

Therefore once again, it seems that the protection or “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit, is nowhere near as certain or as effective, as many have implied.

 

iiii) Indeed to, it appears that the Church has somewhat inconsistent standards, as to what is regarded as firm or definitive, here.

 

jjjj) Indeed today, given the many times that once-firm doctrines were found to be wrong, though the Church often implies that some of its own pronouncements are firm, ex cathedra doctrines, real authority in the Church, we find when we question them, is rather cagy and evasive, about telling us which
of its sayings are really firm, ex cathedra … and which are not. To objective historians of the church, it seems clear that the Church has had to reverse itself in the past, in many key matters of doctrine; to the point that it is cagy about even declaring what things are doctrines, today. Thus allowing itself some wriggle room.

 

By the way, the moment that Peter “rebukes” Jesus on the necessity of the crucifixion, particularly, is a very interesting moment. Those Catholics who support the current doctrine of “Papal Infallibility,” the authority of the Pope, might note that here Peter – arguably the first Pope, many have said – is telling Jesus he is wrong.
And kkkk) what is more, note, Jesus – whose words at lest, surely, should be taken seriously, as “doctrine” – is calling Peter “Satan.” Which, even if it was an rather informal statement, still should seem rather alarming. While his statements that Peter was a “hindrance” to him, begins to specify things rather formally too:

 

 

“From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.’ But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of man'” (Mat. 16.21-23).

 

 

This is a moment that proponents of papal infallibility fail to adequately notice: the moment the first pope, Peter, tells Jesus that he, Jesus, is wrong. That Jesus is wrong, on a major doctrinal matter in fact: the necessity of the crucifixion. And the moment that Jesus himself … told Peter in turn, that Peter was not only wrong; Peter was “Satan.”

 

All of which suggests that the Bible itself, is not quite as firm in even major “doctrine”s as has been supposed. And that even the “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit, is not quite as reliable or definite, as one would hope, either. Not even in matters of “doctrine.” Not even in the matter of “Papal Infallibility.”

 

So it we want certainty, we will probably have to go beyond all this. To something rather different.

 

 

 

More?

 

 

 

It seems therefore, that again in the again, though people are said to have the Holy Spirit, still even then, they can sin and err. No doubt God, the spirit, could chose to preserve humanity from all evil, and sins; but he chooses not to do so. Even though an all-powerful Holy Spirit is always around us, God did not choose to allow it to act, always. So that an infinitely powerful force stands next to us to help us at times …but does not always choose to do so. Indeed, we see example after example of people who are thought to have the spirit, but have a false spirit; or who had the authentic Holy Spirit perhaps … but lost it. And so forth. Indeed, the Holy Spirit might be there … but it chooses who to protect and who not; and we will find there is no way to know which of us it is.

 

Consider here in fact, also, your own practical, personal experience with the Holy Spirit. You might remember receiving the Eucharist or communion, in the name of the “father, the son, and the Holy Spirit” … and then, still be able somehow to sin right after that. Somehow, losing the spirit it seems.

 

Finally therefore, we will see in fact, that given all these variables and options and uncertainties, there is no guarantee at all, that any specific thing at all, is for sure protected by “inspiration,” or by the Holy Spirit.

 

Finally, there is nothing very firm here, at all. Indeed finally, Jesus and St. Paul will go on to rather firmly attack even formal written “laws,” laws “written in stone,” things that were “said,” or even written in the Torah, the “law,” the Old Testament. So that finally there is no very firm doctrines or laws here at all, anywhere at all. If we are to have laws or doctrines at all, they are often defined by common morality, as in common law, as much as anything else. Not by apostles who frequently make serious mistakes; and often even tell God himself he is wrong. As Peter (and Jesus?) did, above.

 

Is scripture, the Bible, inspired? Then note scripture must have been right, when it had Paul say that Peter was a “hypocrite,” or acted “insincerely” (Gal. 2.13).

 

 

14) Or surely, if our scripture was infallible, inspired … then it was inspired … in all those times when the Bible itself after all, warned about “false” things in prophets.

 

Or again, if scripture is inspired – then it was inspired when Paul – in the Bible note – admitted in a rather formal way, firmly, that he himself was “not yet perfect”; which surely – being in the Bible and rather firmly said – must have been formal; in scripture; and therefore, doctrine:

 

 

“Not that I … am already perfect” (Paul, in Php. 3.12).

 

 

Or if the sayings of Jesus in scripture were particularly “inspired”? Then Jesus was inspired when he called Peter, the first Pope, “Satan” in Matthew 16.23:

 

 

“He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things'” (Mat. 16.23 NRSV).

 

 

Finally therefore, there is nothing so very, very firm in our religion at all. Not in the informal interjections of course. Nor in the very firm pronouncements of doctrine, by even the first pope. Who, if we are to take the Bible seriously, was called “Satan” by Jesus, by God, himself. Jesus thus suggesting there is no very clear, firm, reliable, absolutely good authority or “doctrine,” in our popes, in our Church, at all. Should we indeed follow with total faith, the heirs of a man called “Satan” by Jesus himself?

 

Given the bad record of “prophets,” and “inspiration,” just to start, it would seem better to begin to suggest here and now today, that from now on, no one ever, henceforth, should ever claim anyone to be “inspired” or “infallible” again. Since much of the Bible finds sins even in the holiest men, above.

 

So again, why does the Holy Spirit often not help even those it once occupied? Perhaps for its own mysterious reasons, it chooses not to do so, on all occasions. (Even, as it turns out, in very, very important moments; relating to important doctrines.)

 

Or perhaps, people reject the Holy Spirit, and thus lose its protection, or chase it out of themselves, even in critical moments. In either case, protection is lost.

 

 

If we have the Holy Spirit, it seems we can lose it in an instant. We cannot be sure therefore, that it will not be lost by us, in a crucial moment.

 

 

15) And we were given examples in the Bible, where there were times even apparently the Holy Spirit, or spirit of God, had been in someone – but left key persons, even at key moments; and did not protect them. In part because many persons, even after having gotten some special protection, still somehow willfully sinned, and rejected some aspect of God’s teachings and laws … and lost that protection.

 

 

“The breath of our nostrils [spirit], the LORD’S anointed, was taken” (Lam. 4.20; in a concordance, see many other references to people with the “spirit” of God, in the OT; people who later erred).

 

 

 

 

Conclusion?

 

 

 

Whatever special saving graces and gifts and spirits God offers us, it now clearly seems that none of those alleged special gifts are entirely reliable. None fully worked, every time, or in every case. (Even in the example of being “Saved” by Jesus, perhaps we are once saved, always saved in some abstract sense; but still, we can slip into sin even after that somehow. While in any case, we can still err; we can do our math problems wrong and so forth). If fact we will have been finding here, even St. Peter made very serious errors in major doctrinal matters, even after having received the Holy Spirit. As when St. Paul criticized him, “Cephas,” as being an “alleged” but “hypocritical” “pillar” of the church; (for specifically, not consistently admitting Gentiles, non-Jews, into table fellowship; into the Eucharist; a major doctrinal error).

 

In either case, the Holy Spirit somehow, for whatever lets them lose that spirit … and fail. Just as God is all-powerful and all good … but allows evil into the world after all.

 

In any case, the Holy Spirit of course no doubt could save us whenever it wanted, still somehow, the Bible shows that the Spirit somehow, did not really, consistently chose to protect every particular person or religious thing; every time; inevitably. Even those it had previously or for a moment, guided. Even our very holiest men and institutions often slipped; even St. Peter for example. And as will be seen, even our churches and their doctrines too. Indeed, we will see, the Bible itself noted flaws in many religious and Christian things, obviously it implied that the Holy Spirit was not always effectively protecting us; or was not enough, somehow, in some sense.

 

 

16) But in any case, among other things: how do we square this with, say, promises that “God sent the Holy Spirit, to protect us,” as they often say, in church? Perhaps we might consider some semantic nuances of the kind of language used here; in such phrases as “sent to protect us.” Note that we say, for example, that the government, for example, sends police all over our cities, “to protect us”; but note, this phrase merely says that they will protect us often, or that the police were sent to help us; but it does not guarantee that they will always successfully protect us in every occasion. There are times when there are policemen all over a city, “to protect us” … and yet, that protection is not enough; we are still victimized by a crime.

 

So that likewise, surprisingly, having the Holy Spirit always there to protect us … does not guarantee that we will be immune from harm. Because it often somehow, chooses not to, or fails to, help us.

 

But especially, there is this devastating problem with alleged protections from the Holy Spirit: the Bible tells us there were problems with “spirits,” in general. Especially that there were many “false spirits.” So that we will find, in fact, that many who think they are protected by the Holy Spirit, are actually being taken over by a false spirit. A false spirit, pretending to be the Holy Spirit.

 

Of special importance, is this: even when a holy many thinks he is being protected by the Holy Spirit, he needs to carefully “test” the spirit anyway (1 John 4); because … he might be feeling actually, a false spirit, pretending to be the Holy Spirit. Indeed, God often warned that the favorite disguise of evil and Satan, is to come to us, appearing as … a holy man or spirit.

 

Satan himself, evil itself, the Bible warned, often comes to us, “disguised as the angel of light.” The worst things in the world, often come to us disguised as, hidden in, the things that seem best … and holiest. Therefore finally, no priest of Holy man can ever be sure, when he feels or asserts that he has the protection – or “inspiration” – of the Holy Spirit (or any other special gift from God), that he is really getting the authentic, real thing. And not, instead, a false spirit; a false spirit posing as, or being misperceived as, the Holy Spirit.

 

Would God allow evil spirits, to mimic the Holy Spirit? Many will say God would not allow such a thing. And to be sure, many say it is one of the great contradictions in Christianity, that an allegedly good God, somehow created and allowed, evil (the problem of Evil it is called; of Theodicy). Curiously though, the God that many call a good God or LORD, does allow evil. Even in every aspect of religious, Christian life; even in actions said to be overseen by the Holy Spirit.

 

For that matter, God even allows specifically, “lying spirits.” God allows lying spirits to mislead some people. (And again, as above, allows his own spirit to leave others?):

 

 

“Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.’ Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has spoken evil concerning you.” Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, ‘How did the Spirit of the LORD go from me to speak to you….” (1 Kings 22.22-4).

 

God sent an evil spirit” (Judges 9.23).

 

“An evil spirit from the LORD” (1 Sam. 16.14).

 

“LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these” (2 Chron. 18.22).

 

 

Often lying spirits – and even Satan himself, in Job 1 for example – show up in front of God himself. And ask to be allowed to do their evil work. While God allows them to do that. Curiously in fact, God does not just passively allow evil; he is often pictured even actively directing evil spirits. While likewise the Apostles were given powers over evil spirits.

 

 

16) And if apostles were guaranteed the power to “cast out evil spirits”? Remember that apostles were often bad. So that after all, perhaps they did not know to cast out the right spirit. Or they could not tell there was an evil spirit in they themselves, and did not try to remove it. Because in any case, we will see, many apostles … did evil things often. And somehow, again, God did not help even them, even the apostles. For whatever reason. Paul warned that many believers received a “different spirit” than the one he himself taught:

 

 

“If you receive a different spirit” (2 Corin. 11.4).

 

 

God had promised to put his Spirit upon the descendants of Abraham and so forth:

 

 

“I will pour my Spirit upon your descendants” (Isa. 44.3).

 

 

Yet God also allowed – and even directed – evil spirits to trouble people. And in any case it seems, whatever good our spirits did us, at times they often fell short. Somehow therefore, we need more than spirit.

 

 

17) Perhaps those who say the same prayers endlessly, without stopping to think, need in addition to spirit, a “mind”:

 

 

“We have the mind of Christ” (1 Corin. 2.16).

 

“My spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful” (1 Corin. 14.14).

 

“Be renewed in the spirit of your minds” (Eph. 4.23).

 

 

Preachers often just teach belief, “spirit,” and attack the “mind” or intelligence, because it criticizes things in their own spirit. They attack it with parts of the Bible, like these:

 

 

“The mind of the wicked is of little worth” (Prov. 10.20).

 

“Your mind utter perverse things” (Prov. 23.33).

 

“Divination, and the deceit of their own minds” (Jer. 14.14).

 

“Those who prophesy out of their own minds” (Ezk. 13.2).

 

“Let a beast’s mind be given to him” (Dan. 4.16).

 

“Their senseless minds were darkened” (Rom. 1.21)>

 

“In the futility of their minds” (Eph. 4.17).

 

 

But while there are individual things in some people’s minds that are bad, the mind and “wisdom” over all are extremely good, as are good productive ideas and thoughts in our minds. So we will find that ultimately, God told us that in addition to some spirit, we also need many other things; a critical intelligent “mind” among them. We are to love the LORD …

 

 

“With all your soul, and with all your mind” (Mat. 22.37; Mark 12.30).

 

“I my self serve the law of God with my mind” (Rom. 7.25).

 

“The LORD will smite you with … confusion of mind” (Deut. 28.28).

 

“I am with you, as is your mind so is mine” (1 Sam. 14.7).

 

“Have this mind among yourselves” (Php. 2.5).

 

 

Confirming the importance of the mind, are also many positive biblical remarks on “wisdom:” and “intelligen”ce and science.

 

So let us continue to apply our minds and intelligence to religion, Christianity. Even to “spirit”s. As it turns out, that is really what God wanted.

 

 

 

Jesus “Breathes” the Spirit? Or Not?

Even St. Peter Sins Even After That;

“Apostolic Succession?”

 

 

18) “Spirit” is even more uncertain than mind. Indeed, for example, it is often not clear whether someone really got the Spirit or not. All those who claim to have gotten it, could be a) lying, or b) mistaken. Because again, a) there are many liars. And b) there are many false spirits; spirits that could be posing as the Holy Spirit. God in fact having warned earlier, that one of the Evil One’s favorite disguises, was to come to us disguised as a holy one; the “angel of light.”

 

Ultimately, part of the claim to authority of many Christian churches, their claim to have the same authority from God, as Jews, is this: a) though the disciples and prophets often personally sinned, b) finally Jesus “breathed” on his Gentile and other disciples … and c) it is claimed, Jesus thus gave them the Holy Spirit. And we are told, d) the bible promised that the Holy Spirit (and/or some other “counselor”) would protect those who had it. Indeed the Church implies, that the indwelling protection of the Holy Spirit was given to the original Twelve Apostles (except for Judas?). To e) protect them especially at key moments; especially when they are writing official formal church “doctrines” or rules, official ideas about God. As when the Apostles wrote the scriptures; when they wrote the Bible itself.

 

And so the doctrine of “inspiration” is used to try to assure us all, that even if our holy men do made mistakes now and then, still, they don’t make mistakes in key moments. Like the moment they were said to have written the gospels for example. Following one or two lines on inspiration in the Bible. To be sure, the word “inspiration” did not occur in the original New Testament gospels at all; and is found only in Paul. While his remarks on “scripture” are uncertain; since there was no full canon or fixed Bible in his time, we cannot even be sure what he meant by scripture. But here in any case is Paul, telling us that scripture is inspired:

 

 

“All scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3.16; cf. “the horror you inspire has deceived you” Jer. 49.16).

 

 

And f) furthermore in this way, it is claimed that by giving certain people like the Apostles the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God gave his (only?) earthly authority, to the Apostles … g) and to those the apostles chose, as their successors; to succeed them. According to this doctrine – the doctrine of “Apostolic Succession” – Jesus passed on his authority to the Apostles, and only to them; rather like a king passes on his authority to his personally chosen successor. So that only those in this line, can pick who their own successors in turn, and determine who the future authority of God will be given to. While h) in actual practice, it is claimed by the Roman Catholic Church, that the apostles chose … only the early Popes to inherit this authority. By what is now called “Apostolic Succession.”

 

Much rests on “spirits,” then. Apostolic Succession for example, is one of the major pillars of the Roman Catholic Church. However of course, this claim is disputed by Protestants; who do not acknowledge the popes or the Church, as authority. Protestants therefore argue against many parts of this chain of thinking, by way of several arguments (q.v. in history). Though we won’t repeat all the many arguments here against especially papal authority, we might however note a few quick problems with some of these claims of authority. First of all we have noted that the Bible itself warned constantly of serious sins in essentially “all” our holy men; all the time. While here and now we are adding, there are uncertainties in matters of “spirit,” and “inspiration.” Including even say, the key passage; where it is claimed that God gave his spirit to the Apostles.

 

Trying establish their own authority, churches often claim in particular, that the New Testament said that Jesus “breathed” on the disciples; and told them to “receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20.22):

 

 

“He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.'”

 

 

This, they claim, meant that the disciples got the Holy Spirit and kept it; and promised that it would protect them from errors, and preserve their sole authority. But many ordinary people do not realize how tricky and equivocal, biblical wording normally is; here in this case, technically, we cannot be sure, with this wording, for example, that Jesus was “breath”ing, specifically, the Holy Spirit.

 

Technically note, the text merely says a) that Jesus breathed on them; and b) then, told them to receive the Holy Spirit. Though this passage is written in such a way as to seem to imply that Jesus was in effect, breathing the Holy Spirit, and giving the apostles the Holy Spirit, very technically speaking, the text does not say that with total, unequivocal firmness. Note that after all, these two statements might be disconnected; Jesus might have a) merely breathed, and then to be sure, b) told them to receive the spirit. But technically there is nothing in the text to say firmly, that a) by Jesus breathing, he by that act gave them anything but air; much less, specifically, the Holy Spirit. b) Perhaps that is, here Jesus merely breathed air – and then, in an unrelated aside, told them that it would also be good to receive the spirit. Furthermore, even if Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on them, there is no information in this particular place, that says that they actually accepted it. Technically, the Bible left out some absolutely key information here; technically, it does not specify that Jesus was breathing anything but air onto the Apostles. While wishing – in a perhaps unrelated aside – that they would get the Holy Spirit.

 

To be sure, it seems ungenerous to read the Bible this closely, this technically. And to be sure, later parts of the Bible suggest the Apostles did get the spirit, at times at least. Yet it is worth noting how closely such passages can be read; and how uncertain the “spirit” in particular often is.

 

And if other parts of the Bible suggested that God himself would give us some kind of spirit, or a “counselor,” then there are other problems with that. Consider for example, that cc) even if we accept or concede that Jesus was blowing the authentic Holy Spirit into the apostles … the text does not clearly and unequivocally say, here at least, that this infusion was accepted. Or that it “took,” as they say of immunizations. Indeed, this is a major problem with the Holy Spirit acting on us; it seems to require not only the will of the Spirit, but our own will too; in accepting it. The Holy Spirit indeed, is all around us all the time; but often people do not take it in; therefore, though “the spirit is there to protect us,” as you might say, it often does not succeed in actually protecting us, for many various reasons. Rather as a policeman is there to protect us … but might not always succeed in doing so.

 

While then too, often there are bad, false spirits out there; and so taking in a spirit is not good.

 

Therefore, this whole episode of Jesus “breath”ing and so forth, therefore, is far more ambiguous and indecisive than our apologists make it out to be. Technically, there is nothing in this specific text (John 20.22), that guarantees that the Apostles did receive the Holy Spirit at this moment.

 

And for that matter, even if the Bible tells us when the spirit of God protected some ancient people at times … how do we know when that spirit is in current people today, and when it is not? What assurances does God make? In modern activities, for which there is no scripture?

 

Note too that there are further uncertainties regarding inspiration, breath, in other parts of the Bible. Consider in any case, that often, even those who did authentically have or accept the real Holy Spirit in them, those who really actually had the Holy Spirit … still often apparently let it out, inadvertently; or lost it. (See rejecting it, above). Specifically, consider Lam. 4.20, for example. Where the Jews loose their “breath.” And their spirit?

 

So those many translators who are in the habit of translating “breath” (“pneuma”) as “spirit,” should note that therefore, by having lost their breath, have lost the spirit. (Confirming the loss: here, the Jews are taken over by their enemies.)

 

Thus in fact, even if someone has the Holy Spirit for a time, the Holy Spirit can, if not totally “leave” us, it can be rejected by us, breathed out. To add to what we noted above.

 

 

19) For such reasons no doubt, many parts of the Bible finally began to cast doubts on “spirits” and “spirituality”; calling them mere “wind” at times, like the desiccating dry “East” “wind” especially. Telling us we should not sow to the wind, or breath, or air; or else we will end up trying to fill our bellies with empty air.

 

 

20) No doubt the Holy Spirit itself is good; but it is often “sinned against” in the sense that … people cannot accurately identify it; yet they like to quote it. And so they end up claiming its authority, over many false things.

 

 

21) So we might add, even if such a thing as a near-perfect prophesy is possible (outside science), it is so rare, no doubt, that inevitably, most of those claiming such things for themselves, will almost inevitably, in the vast majority of cases, be actually, just giving into, beyond mere “wind,” to pride and vanity; or in other words, to vain imaginings, or the foretold “delusions,” “illusions,” “lies,” magical “enchant”ments, etc.. To insubstantial things, which turn out to have been far less solid that had been hoped.

 

 

22) If indeed, if, even after having had the Holy Spirit “breathed” on them, even St. Peter could be “hypocritical,” if even Paul was not yet “perfect,” even as he wrote more than half the books of the New Testament; then after all, it would be hard to defend the doctrine that the “inspiration” of “scripture,” is all that effective, even if it is real.

 

 

 

Solution?

 

 

Indeed, if our actual common experience of sinning even after having received the host in the “name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost”; and if the historical record of all sorts of “perfect” people and “eternal” kingdoms and so forth show them to have failed too; then finally, it would seem that the doctrine of “inspiration” is a “deceit” or failure. And that practically speaking, all those who claim infallibility, or special “inspiration,” are almost overwhelmingly likely, to be merely … vain and egotistical, deluded persons. Or persons “under a strong delusion,” the illusions of lies, etc.

 

 

23) Which is what contemporary Liberalism in fact, was founded in part, to note: that in effect, practically all those who claim to have found absolute truth or “doctrine,” that claim to be totally, perfectly right or definitely divinely “inspired” … should now be found to have been merely, vain, proud, and deluded; deceived.

 

Finally, we will be seeing here over and over again, even our very highest prophets – and for that matter, saints and apostles – were not good enough; even in spite of alleged protections from “inspiration.” Or indeed we will find here, that these prophets and religious persons, are best described in Biblical terms … as being specifically, the foretold “deceived,” “delu”ded people, that the Bible itself, after all, foretold. All these would-be, prophets and saints, who were presented to us as the reliable voicepieces of God – as in effect, “first” with God – are now being found in the end, in point of fact, to be vain, egotistical, deceived; to have been really “last” of all, in many respects.

 

Our authorities, prophets, were not good enough. And therefore, we will need to simply walk past them; to find the truth about life, and God, by another method, than simply listening to traditional authority, listening to the prophets.

 

To be sure though, Liberalism often errs in the opposite direction to posing too much authority; by its libertarianism, and posing too little authority. (Which Paul or others condemned).

 

 

24) So what finally is the solution, regarding say the “spirits” like the Holy Spirit? And alleged “inspiration”? As we will be showing here, there is nothing in life that is entirely certain. But among many relative uncertainties, still some things work at least fairly well. And in this case, we will find, the Bible actually finally gave us a rather reliable way to tell which spirits are good and which are not. And to find out in general what things, sayings, doctrines, are good or from God, and which are not. And that way is – as we will find the Bible itself tells us – to “test” all holy men and spirits (or ideas, etc.) with the Science of God.

 

There are many false spirits out there; some of them sent by God himself, the Bible said. So how finally, how do we identify and acquire, the authentic, good spirit? The Holy Spirit? Finally, the Apostle St. John and others began tentatively (John 21.25), to a) once again warn us that many spirits are false, and will mislead many Christians. But then he began to b) tell us how to resolve this … by telling us to “test” the spirits; or beyond that Paul began telling us to “test everything” (1 Thess. 5.21; Mal. 3.10), testing the spirits even (1 John 4), with “science” (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE); to see which spirits were good, and which were not, after all.

 

a) John warned again there are many false prophets, and therefore in effect false spirits:

 

 

“Many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4.1).

 

 

And false spirits presumably utter false spirits.

 

b) But then John begins to open up the idea of fixing this – by somehow “test”ing “spirit” in specific:

 

 

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4.1).

 

 

Many preachers will tell us God ordered us to never “put the Lord your God to the test”; but we will find that a better translation of this, was to tell us merely not to “tempt” or “test” the patience of God with immoralities. Since indeed elsewhere, God told us to “put me to the test, says the Lord” (Mal. 3.10).

 

And so indeed, furthermore, John tells us to “test” the spirits, for example, to see if they are from God or not.

 

To be sure, we will eventually find that St. John’s “test” though, was not quite the full scientific testing that God eventually requires, however. Here, St. John seemed to believe that all we needed to find out which spirits and people were good, was to demand a sort of loyalty oath from them. John implies that those who confess or swear that Jesus Christ “has come in the flesh,” are thought to be good. (Meaning the first resurrection? Or that Jesus Christ is present in John or some bishop?). While those who do not swear this, it seems, are found to have bad spirits in them:

 

 

“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already” (1 John 4.1-3).

 

 

Yet after all, this would seem to apply a simple oath to find out who is good and who is not. Though, a) Jesus once told us once not to make any “oath”s; let our simple “yes mean yes,” and our no mean no. Indeed, there are many false oaths.

 

Then too, b) as St. Paul noted above, even the highest apostles and “pillars” of Christianity, like John and Peter; even those who confessed Jesus Christ as Son of God, with various oaths no doubt – still often made critical mistakes. Suggesting they did not have an infallible spirit in them always.

 

Therefore, we should not be surprised if even an apostle, like John, speaks rashly; speaks in a way that many would interpret to say, that a mere loyalty oath, merely hearing someone “confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” is enough to insure that they are good.

 

c) As a matter of fact, John’s writings and gospel, are notoriously different from – and even in conflict with – the other, “synoptic gospels.” In fact, John, if he is relying just on some kind of loyalty oath, or doctrinal swearing, seems to contradict some things Jesus himself said. Jesus saying elsewhere, that many would come, who would acknowledge Jesus in verbal statements, who would cite his aa) “name,” and so forth, bb) calling him “Lord, Lord,” and yet be still be simply, “liars” or “hypocrites”; still be “false.” While cc) others could be “deceived”; would sincerely believe they were following Jesus, and invoke his name and so forth … and yet, say, be following a “false Christ” or “antichrist.” Or “another Jesus” than the right one.

 

Remember for that matter, that dd) there were problems, sins even in people and spirits, that called Jesus Christ, “Son of God.” As in fact, even the demons acknowledge Jesus, in the New Testament. Yet of course, they are still demons. And they are not good:

 

 

“Two demoniacs met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. And behold, they cried out, ‘What have you to do with us, O Son of God?” (Mat. 8.28-9).

 

“And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon; and he cried out with a loud voice, ‘Ah! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God'” (Luke 4.33-35).

 

 

Even those with demons, sometimes acknowledge Jesus as “Son of God,” come in the flesh … and yet they still are demoniac. So that finally we will see, for all its usefulness, we will need much more than John’s brief “test” to find out who is really good and who is not; we will need, as it turns out, a “full” science of God.

 

d) John’s “test” therefore, is not quite enough. To be sure, priests like to assure us that John was the “disciple that Jesus loved”; and therefore his “test” is perfect. But the Bible does not make that clear; and in any case Jesus loves sinners. So let us not assume that John is perfect. Indeed, when asked, Jesus would not promise John’s mother that John would be high in the kingdom. While we will see that the Apostles often confessed themselves that they were not “perfect,” (Paul), and that “we all make many mistakes” (James).

 

Therefore, though John’s “Test” of the spirits might have some limited use, we will need to go beyond John; and check the rest, the other parts of the Bible. To uncover finally, the “full”er science that at last, begins to tell us so many things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Epilogue

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25) By the way: some scholars say there a) are only two mentions of the word “inspiration” proper in some Bibles (in J.I.P.’s – J.I. Packer’s – article, “Inspiration,” the New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas, ed.; though more about “inspire” in many). b) One of them in Job, is by Elihu. Who to be sure, is in the Bible, but who is is not fully approved of by God. Elihu says:

 

 

“But truly it is the spirit in a mortal, the breath of the Almighty, that makes for understanding” (Job 32.8 NRSV).

 

 

Yet a) here note, the NRSV speaks only of the “breath” not “inspiration” of the Almighty. More importantly, b) “righteous” Job often speaks negatively of such “windy” persons as Elihu and his companions, “as Miserable comforters” and so forth (15.2); while c) in the end, the LORD himself turns against some people like Elihu, and his words:

 

 

“The LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: ‘My wrath is kindled against you and your two friends [Eliphas with Bildad and Zophar? Or Elihu too?]; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has'” (Job 42.7 NRSV).

 

 

Possibly Elihu is not one of the two friends; and so he is not directly criticized by God; but he is criticized by Job. The Job that God had called blameless.

 

Indeed, d) Elihu differs from God in at least one way: he is mad at Job … whereas Job was said to be “blameless” by God:

 

 

“Elihu … was angry at Job” (Job 32.2,3).

 

“The LORD said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and turns away from evil'” (Job 1.8).

 

 

If Job is “blameless,” and turns away from evil – and remains that way, as a good man should – then surely, he cannot say wrong things; therefore Elihu, who blames Job for he thinks, wrong words … must be wrong.

 

e) Therefore, we cannot trust Elihu – and we cannot trust him when he says that anything is “inspired.”

 

f) And there is something else worth mentioned here: there are statements in the Bible, seemingly approved of by God … that however, perhaps, God does not approve. Specifically, God included the speeches of many devils, demons, and even Satan, in the Bible. Yet presumably, he did not necessarily approve of such speeches. Therefore, surprisingly, there are statements in the Bible by demons; that God might not approve. Since God narrates the statements of demons and so forth. Like the speech by Satan, in Job 1.

 

Therefore, amazingly, even if “all scripture” is “inspired,” that is not quite to say it is all true. The writing down of bad, false thoughts of demons and so forth, of bad people, was allowed into the Bible, in order for God to show the thoughts and deeds of bad people; but of course, such words were not advocated or said to be true by God. Quite the opposite.

 

And though this seems obvious, actually, huge mistakes have been made by major churches, because of it; as we will see for example, nearly all of Christianity – until very recently – accepted the whole idea that God sometimes sends us evil, to “test our faith” as they say; an idea that comes indeed, from scripture; from Job 1. And yet however, as we will see in our writings on “faith,” there is a problem with this: to be sure, the whole idea of a “test of faith” is in the Bible, all right; but it is proposed not by God himself, but by … Satan.

 

Amazingly in fact, we will find that it is not always easy to tell this, but often many very, very popular and massively influential sayings in the Bible, are to be sure “in the Bible” as they say; but our many enthusiastic preachers neglected to read their Bibles a little more closely … to find out that these statements were written by figures that ultimately, the Bible itself told us, were unreliable; even “Satan”ic. Indeed, many statements have come to us out of “the Bible” that were actually, uttered not by God himself, but by devils.

 

It is in light of this we might consider, after Elihu, what is in some Bibles g) the only other mention of “inspiration” (along with an interesting occurrence of “doctrine” too; St. Paul’s insistence that:

 

 

“All scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3.16).

 

 

Here note , aa) even things “inspired” by God, are said to be merely “profitable” for other uses. “Useful”; which does not seem like a very, very strong endorsement. While bb) we will find in writings about “scripture” and written “law” and so forth, that as for “scripture” and writing and “scribes” in general, it is never quite sure which writings are Biblical scripture; or whether all writings are thought to be that (“graphe”; see Scripture). cc) While in any case, Satan himself, and his words, is found in Scripture; but that does not mean they are good. We will also note the “test of faith” is in the Bible … but is also proposed by Satan.

 

dd) It is time to tell our priests that if things in the Bible are sacred, then after all, we should aaa) read our Bibles very closely. And bbb) especially, note carefully just exactly who the Bible says is speaking at any given time. And ccc) finally, especially, note what the overall Bible says about their reliability. In this case, we have things in the Bible about inspiration … but note that one of the sources, Elihu, seems to conflict with Job, and perhaps with God. And curiously too, so does the other source, Paul. If at times Paul seemed to suggest that all scripture is good, then after all, it is time to note elsewhere in scripture, in a “part” preachers missed, Paul admitted that he himself was not yet “perfect,” even as he was writing a letter in the Bible:

 

 

“Not that I … am already perfect” (Php. 3.12).

 

 

Finally, if we do really honor scripture, and read it closely … we find that scripture questions itself, finally; it even tells us that many things in the Bible were authored not by God himself, but people God did not fully approve of. From Satan, Elihu, to Paul. People who differed with God, and were im”perfect” often. Even after having received the Holy Spirit. Even as they appeared to define the very doctrine of “inspiration.”

 

And so here indeed we will find, “the man of the spirit is mad.” And heaven itself, the spiritual realm – and “inspiration” of the holy spirit – evaporates “like smoke,” (Isa. 51?) when we look at it closely. There is nothing solid in inspiration – or “doctrine” either therefore (as found in the same quote; 2 Tim. 3.16, above). Our spiritual men are often nothing but “windy comforters” at best. While at worst, things can be “inspired” … and yet be found finally to have been literally, the words of Satan himself.

 

So let us now move beyond “inspiration” and “doctrine” too. To find out what God himself actually supports. Insofar as the Bible itself is taken to be the word of God, let us see what it finally supports, in the end. Which turns out not to be primarily “inspiration,” or “faith,” or “revelation,” or “spirituality” etc… Not at all. Those things are found in the Bible of course; but as we have read the references to them very closely, we have found that they are inserted in the text often … as the words of people that, the Bible itself tells us, “make many mistakes.” They are the words of people who are “imperfect.” And for that matter, they remain particularly imperfect, in the very moment they claim the Bible supported “inspiration.” Perhaps even in the very moment our holy men wrote the Bible itself, believing they did it under the influence of the Holy Spirit or the LORD.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

There are countless signs and warnings about authority figures, even the highest priests and angels, even by the Bible itself. But if you must finally trust and have faith in something? Then trust in at least, say, the Bible itself. But trust especially our final finding here: that the Bible is a) in effect, a self-critical document. One that looks – as Christ commanded – for the beam in its own eye. One that finds fault even with “all” those who wrote it; even in most of their “spirit” -“inspired” moments.

 

So b) if you must acknowledge the Bible as a positive authority in any way? Then note first of all, the Bible has many ideas at times firmly offered; but ultimately the Bible is an authoritative … warning about problems even in “all” authority. We will have begun to show here and elsewhere that at times to be sure, the Bible at one level of the text, seemed to offer statements to support a simple, blind, serf-like faith in whatever priests or clerics have called the words of the local or cosmic “LORD,” or in “prophets,” or “spirits,” or “clerics” have said about him. But finally, a closer look shows a “second” and better, fuller vision of what God was saying. Ultimately, instead of stressing the cleric or preacher’s blind “faith” in such agencies, finally the Bible itself – as we will have begun to see here, and will see more fully elsewhere – began to tell us to … begin to always critically examine – even “test” – even the “spirit”s and prophets and saints and apostles. In the end God and the Bible did not stress faith in traditional religious authority as much as those authorities have represented to us. Instead of stressing faith, God actually told us to … test or examine even the very highest religious authorities, against practical knowledge and experience and science. As we will see.

 

We have just showed in fact that ultimately the Bible itself cast severe doubt on what became ironically, the highest traditional pillars of traditional “Christianity”: it cast the severest doubts on a) “priests” and “ministers”; on b) prophets; on c) saints and angels; and d) even on the “spirits.” Even the holiest ones. Instead of having complete confidence in these pillars of traditional religion, Christianity, the Bible itself actually, eventually, began to note sins and errors in essentially “all” of them. “All have sinned” we were told; while even the “inspiration” of even the Holy Spirit, seems to have failed us in the wilderness; and to have seriously failed to help even apostles and saints, like St. Peter (who ends up being called “Satan,” by Jesus himself, in Mat. 16.23).. So that – as we will be seeing next – the Bible itself began to tell us to have even slightly more faith, if anything, in … critical “test”ing of the spirits. If we are to trust the Bible, trust it when it tells us to rely in fact, in a sort of Science of God. Rather than having a total, “child”like, “blind” faith in traditional religious authorities – like “priests,” “prophets,” and even “spirits” and so forth – eventually God commanded us to “test the spirits” as John said; to “test everything” as Paul added (1 Thess. 5.21). While – as will become clear in our other books in this series – that “test”ing was eventually to be clarified as … being scientific in nature (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.20-39; Mal. 3; etc.. See our books on The Science of God, the Science of Jesus, Natural Religion, Immortality and Resurrection).

 

As it turns out, religion, real Christianity, was never supposed to be based on faith in priests, prophets, saints and apostles, angels, or spirits either; it was supposed to be based as we will be seeing soon, on a critical science of God. And if believers at last come to see and “believe” that, then as we will be seeing soon, we can all come to what the Bible really promised: not just to an imaginary, daydreaming, Walter-Mitty, “spiritual” kingdom; but to a real, materially real, scientifically-probable fruitfulness; a real kingdom; a real resurrection. A real immortality.

 

The Bible is totally true; but true in a way that our preachers have not, until now, understood. Exactly as promised, we can get to the promised life, the “kingdom,” of peace or prosperity, of fruits. But to get there to be sure, there are many old ideas from the past, old false theologies, that need to be respectfully put aside, at last. In fact there is a false idea of Christ, a False or incomplete Christ, held by many priests, even today; that must be at least … filled out quite a bit. There is a priestly, exaggerated idea of the value of “faith,” that needs to be explained, filled out … with a greater appreciation of Science. As foretold, there is a moment of critical destruction, and honest assessment, a long and painful look at the “beam” in the “eye” of traditional Christianity and its vision of Christ, that must be passed through. Before our vision of Christ and God becomes full enough, big enough, exhaustive enough, to cover the fuller spectrum of what the Bible actually said. Or of what a human person needs to live the materially fruitful life.

 

The life that after all, the Bible itself promised. As we will be seeing in our other works, soon.

 

The bottom line here though, was that the Bible itself warned about every element of traditional religion; including specifically the Jewish and Christian elements. To the point that no one can be sure who in religion is truly good, truly Christian, it appears, until the end of time. When God himself judges … and informs us.

 

 

 

 

(For more material on the sins of preachers; of priests and ministers and all other religious leaders? See our material on preachers, clerics as clerks, and magicians. In our writings on Miracles, Clerics, etc.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

END OF BOOK ON

FALSE PRIESTS?

See Optional Addition as Well


 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s