God’s Science v.1 Dest of Heaven:, Ch, 3 Sins in Spirituality





Vol. 1 The Destruction of Heaven


Chapter 3:





Its Hateful Side




“If anyone 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” (Jesus, in Luke 14.26).


“He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (John 12.25).


(cf: “He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. He who loves his brother abides in the light, and in it there is no cause for stumbling. But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. I am writing to you, little children” (1 John 2.1-12).


“If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar” 1 John 4.20).






Many have thought that spirituality – and especially, the Holy Spirit – would always save priests, from being bad. With the Holy Spirit’s protection, its “inspiration.” Yet we will be finding here, that there are many problems with spirits. Even with the Holy Spirit itself.


Among the problems with the Holy Spirit? It was often all-too-easily lost:


“The breath [spirit] of our nostrils, the LORD’s anointed, was taken” (Lam. 4.20).


“This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests” (Lam. 4.13).


In fact, on the final “Day,” things do not necessarily go very well at all, for prophets – and priests. Things go badly for priests because, explicitly, of their continuous sins and errors. Sins and errors made, moreover, even in spite of the alleged protection of the “breath” or spirit of God. Since they essentially, lost that spirit, without knowing it. And took on a false spirit, instead.


Can priests face this? Probably many of our more intellectual priests secretly know, that there have been huge sins in our priests’ performance, in the past. But until today, they have not adequately, publicly faced this. To be sure, now and then, a churchgoer or priest will at last, on his or her own, begin to notice the outline, of the second part of the Bible; of the voice that warned continually, about false things in holy men and priests. And the need for accurate assessment of them, by “test”ing, according to their material “works” of their “hands.” But then? In a desperate rear-guard action to still preserve their reputation? Priests will diligently ignore that. Or they and their Churches will desperately peruse the Bible, for dozens of special gifts, that might somehow, lift their priestly imperfections and sins, permanently. And among them, they will focus especially, on the alleged “inspiration”al protection, of spirit; the Holy Spirit.


But just as the Bible criticized priests and prophets, we will find that it also eventually criticizes and notes problems with, each and every one of all the other alleged special saving graces and gifts; from “anointing” and “baptism” and the “blood,” all the way through to the Holy Spirit. And then to very end of the alphabet. Finally, there is only one gift from God that holds up; and that, through being uniquely humble at last. By admitting that it is itself not a perfect gift; but one that should continually present itself for re-evaluation and correction. By the latest empirical evidence. By what “comes to pass” in real life; being judged continually, by its latest “fruits,” works,” “signs,” “deeds,” “proofs,” … and “test”s.


When Christians, churches, pastors are confronted with hundreds of warnings by God, of bad and especially “false” things, even in Christian churches and holy men, most do not want to honestly face this; they do not want to face the possibility that their own beliefs, their own church, might often be wrong. Instead, they begin looking for biblical quotes that would allow they to suggest that to be sure, everybody else’s church is bad; but their own church is alone good. Catholicism calls itself “the one true church” for example. But to be sure, perhaps to think this, is just the sin of Vanity and Pride.


Traditionally to be sure, various church denominations sought to find some objective quality, or some special gift, that makes them better than everyone else. Or that will admit that even holy men sin – but then, remove that sin. Particularly, to try to do those, most sought some single special quality or virtue, in the Bible, that was a special virtue, that would assure that they alone who follow it were good. The allegedly special saving qualities varied from Church to church: “baptism” among Baptists; a special helping of the “Holy Spirit” in the charismatic churches like the Seventh Day Adventists; becoming a lay “priest” among Presbyterians; possessing the only valid and good communion, or “Eucharist,” in the Roman Catholic Church (as well as allegedly having the only alleged legitimate successor to Peter, by “apostolic succession,” etc.). Yet we will show, it is extremely hard or often impossible to scholars to date to tell, from reading the Bible, who the good “us” really was; and which church is the “good” one. And as for these many different, allegedly distinguishing virtues? As we note later, each of these turn out to be only gimmicks; none of them hold up to closer inspection. It would be best for members of allegedly distinguished churches, to realize that the Bible itself finally warned of sins not only a) “all”; and b) warned about “vanity.”


God eventually warned of extremely serious, fatal failures, sins, in essentially “all” religious leaders; including by name, “priests” and “prophets,” above. Furthermore, it noted failures, inadequacies, in every allegedly special gift from God too: including specifically here, the very “anointing” that John favored. Later, we will examine a few dozen major alleged special graces … and find sins and errors and inadequacies in each and every one of them. So that finally, to believe that this or that special quality or grace (except for Science) saves us assuredly, is simply Vanity. And is to be essentially, just another proud religious person, or Pharisee. (As we will see in our alphabetical, A-to-Z survey, of Biblical warnings about every single major aspect of religion and Christianity; including all alleged especial graces, from “anointing” and “baptism,” to “worship” and “zeal.” Found in part, in our Bibliographies?).


Surprisingly, shockingly? Even “spirituality” fails.




Dishonest Apologetics Excuses

From Preachers:


Does the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit

Always Protect Preachers from Serious Mistakes?



Will preachers ever be honest and truly humble? Will they ever begin to read to themselves and others, this side of the Bible? The parts that warn about … preachers? Will our priests and ministers ever let themselves hear, face, and finally obey, this side of the Bible? Will they very heed and obey, this side of God? Or will preachers continue to deny and disobey this part of God, for the rest of their lives? Rather than “face” this God, our preachers have generated dozens, hundreds of sophistical, false arguments, to try to defend themselves. Arguments that to be sure, are hinted at in one “voice” in the Bible; but arguments that ultimately, we will see, were rejected by the Bible itself.


Will our deceitful preachers ever be honest? Will they ever admit or confess, or honestly “witness,” what God really said about preachers? Confess it all this publicly, daily; as it needs to be confessed? Some Christian priests and churches will have incompletely and inadequately faced this. A few now and then, sometimes inadequately and incompletely acknowledge this; when they acknowledge that they and even the Twelve Apostles, occasionally
made mistakes in say, 1) their personal lives. 2) But here our preachers attempt to make a distinction, between their personal sins … versus their official pronouncements, or 3) sermons. Preachers typically admit that they themselves are imperfect human beings, in many ways; but they claim that they do not err, however, when they are speaking about core “doctrines” of the Church.


Holy men, they say, are often protected from error at critical moments, it is often said; by a famous doctrine called “inspiration.” This is an extremely common claim, in many churches. Specifically, the claim in the theory of “inspiration,” is that while most humans normally sin and err often, still it is claimed, when the Apostles or others wrote or narrated the Bible itself, or when they or other holy men speak or write in a serious way about God, they were at least temporarily protected from sin and error; by the “inspiration,” or protection, of the Holy Spirit.


The Bible sometimes spoke not just of God the Father, and of Jesus the Son; but also many say, it spoke of a third member of the Trinity, a “Holy Spirit.” A sort of invisible spirit that came from God. And it was said that Jesus, when he spoke of a “counselor” coming after him to help us, spoke of this spirit. While indeed, the Holy Spirit was apparently pictured, in say John 20.22, a being exhaled by Jesus, into the nostrils the apostles; as Jesus was said to have “breath”ed a spirit into them (in John 20.22. See also the spirit, in Acts). Yet while indeed parts of the Bible seem at first, to have told us that God had sent a Holy Spirit – and/or a “counselor” – to protect believers and preachers and holy men from errors, at times? The fact is, God did not guarantee that this protection of the Holy Spirit would always inevitably work. Even in the most critical moments, when working with or even writing scripture.


Parts of the Bible suggested that God, Jesus, is always “with” us in some way, in “all things.” The fact is therefore, that the Holy Spirit of God is probably always around us. Or indeed, God himself “fills all things”; and God himself therefore is always all around and even in us, to help us. Yet, a) though the Holy Spirit or God are always around, to help us? Still, experience teaching us that nevertheless, most of us still sin and err. Though God is always around us, God gave us free will, to refuse to listen to God. And so? Often b) God and the Holy Spirit apparently, just stand by … and let us sin.


So the protection of the Holy Spirit, first of all, is not quite as strong as preachers said; not strong enough to always protect us from sins. No doubt of course, God and the Holy Spirit, could protect many of us from sin and error and death. Yet often they somehow, chose not to. Clearly, the fact that God is always here, or that a Holy Spirit is always there to help us, and can guide us; but that clearly does not mean that they will help us, or successfully save us. God is always around us in everything; and yet nevertheless, experience teaches us that we still sin and err.


So what do our preachers say c) next? Next they claim that to be sure, God lets us sin and err constantly, in our day-to-day personal behavior; but they assert, God steps in, and prevents sin … at least in our holy men; when our holy men are doing something serious; when our holy men were writing our Bibles, and speaking formally for God, defining God’s major “doctrines” and so forth. Yet it becomes clear from a closer reading of our Bibles, that in actual fact, even after receiving the Holy Spirit, even the Twelve Apostles made major errors, even in major doctrinal matters. St. Peter or “Cephas” for example, made major doctrinal errors, even after receiving the spirit in John 20.22. First as St. Paul himself said, Peter/Cephas erred and was an “insincere” hypocrite, when he at times admitted Gentiles to table fellowship – but other times, refused (q.v.). Then Paul also noted another failure of the Holy Spirit of God to protect even the people lead by Moses himself: Paul noting that the Jews in the Wilderness had the “rock” and spirit of God … yet still erred. Then too, even after having received the Holy Spirit … Peter has a “dream,” that is taken to drop or reverse, many Jewish/Old Testament laws from God, restricting the kind of food we can eat. Then too? Even though Peter was in the very company of the physical Jesus himself – and of his spirit too – still, Peter often sinned; denying Jesus, and turning on Jesus. To the point that Jesus called Peter “Satan,” in Mat. 16.23. Furthermore? There, in Mat. 16, Peter erred gravely, in a major doctrinal matter: when he assured Jesus that the crucifixion should not take place; and told Jesus that Jesus was wrong on this critical, core, doctrinal matter: the necessity of the crucifixion (Mat. 16). So it seems that even Apostles can sin. Even when they are in rather direct contact with God himself, and presumably also his Spirit. Furthermore? Even the highest Apostles like Peter, are pictured as sinning … even when, by their behavior, the things they did, they are attempting to define major, core doctrinal matters.


And it was not just Peter who sinned, even after very direct action by the Holy Spirit; St. Paul himself was to confess that Paul seems uncertain, whether even he himself has the right spirit – even as he is writing his half of the New Testament (1 Corin. 7.40; “Not that I … am already perfect” Philip. 3.12).


Here to be sure, we accept that the Bible itself is authoritative. Perhaps somehow the Holy Spirit did step in, to protect at least the correctness of our Bibles (like the Revised Standard Version, 1st edition?). But? Even if the Bible itself is entirely accurate and protected from error … it seems clear enough, that most priests and ministers, are not similarly protected, in their day-to-day sermons. Or even in their most serious writings. So that? Even if the Bible itself was totally right and protected … we cannot however, trust our preachers sermons, on the Bible. The Bible is protected … but our preachers, and their sermons, are not.


Are Church and their “doctrines” however, protected from error? Even if the spirit protected apostles when they uttered a doctrine, does it also infallibly protect preachers, when they try to understand the doctrine, and present it to others in the churches? Some churches may say it does. But even the Catholic Church, in some readings, extends infallibility, only to a limited set of pronouncements. While it is never quite sure which pronouncements those are.


So as it begins to turn out? Not only did the Bible warn continually about preachers; but it finally warned that even the many alleged special protectors of preachers, churches – like the Holy Spirit itself – still somehow, fail to protect any of us – even apostles, and presumably even priests – from sin and error. Even in the most important moments. And it is not just the “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit that fails; in our later writings we will examine a few dozens of the alleged special things that might protect us and holy men from error; and we will find that though the Bible hinted at many of them? Finally the Bible pictured each and every one of them, often, failing.


So that finally? Preachers are not only said to be typically to be sinful, by the Bible itself; but furthermore there is no special quality or gift, that can be relied upon to absolutely protect them from further sins and errors.


For preachers to think anything else? Is just their own Vanity, and Pride.




Preachers Speak Only One Voice




The Bible to be sure, contains at least two major themes or voices or callings; the 1) spiritual priestly voice and calling, and the 2) more practical, scientific calling; Heaven and Earth, respectively, more or less. And of the two of course, our preachers decided that the one to follow, was to listen to the call to become a spiritual priest. And yet however? We are finding here that the priestly vocation was, in many respects, the wrong choice.


Given so many problems with priests and churches, failures even in all their sacraments and so forth, what finally is the solution? For many years, it came to be thought by priests that spirituality was the answer; based on hopes that the Holy Spirit especially, would correct our many sins and errors. And so indeed, priests came to base themselves largely on the Holy Spirit. To the point that to be religious, and to be “spiritual,” have until this very day, been thought to be synonyms; to be one and the same. Indeed, spirituality became the very heart of the priesthood especially; and spirituality is one of the two main themes in the Bible. And yet to be sure? Here and now we are beginning to note problems with, sins in, spirituality itself.


Where and how did spirituality begin to emerge as a major voice in Christianity? There had been many, many warnings, that one allegedly perfect and holy thing after another, would fail us; that even our holiest men and angels were often bad. Bur rather than face the imperfection of all things on earth? (After Paul and Plato; noting things on earth are only im-“perfect,” “dark” “shadows,” of the ideal “models” or “forms” or “God” in “heaven”). Rather than facing the failure of one after another allegedly perfect things? Instead, all our churches and preachers, went on to look at yet another, possible special quality or gift; one that would never fail us. Everyone spent centuries, millennia, moving on to the next glittering toy; to some other novelty, that promised to at last become the holy grail; the special grace or gift or sacrament, that would at last, be eternally perfect. That would at last make us or our church, better than all the rest; or even make us holy and perfect. But this search was to be in vain. Indeed, it was motivated by Vanity.


At some point, some church leaders noticed Bible warnings about church leaders. And so we next find many apostolic writers in the New Testament, apparently trying to find some single true thing, on which to base themselves. Some way to distinguish good doctrines and so forth, from bad ones. Which was not easy … if even our best idea of Jesus, of Christ, could be a false perception. But many hundreds of things in the Bible were examined; from “angels” and “anoint”ments and “blood,” to “righteousness” and “sanctification,” “worship,” and “zealotry.” To see if one or more of those, in particular, might be the one gift that could save us; the one true, certain point. The Archimedian fixed point, from which we could lever, move, the whole universe. Any though whole churches came to base themselves on one of this or another, as its own special fetish – as the Baptists eventually for example, came to fix on baptism – eventually most came to stress especially, the “Holy Spirit.” And out of that, “spirituality.” Especially, early on, there emerged a group of people that stressed spiritual things, over physical things. This group of people we might suggest, were to become in effect, the new Christian priesthood. As we suggest here and elsewhere.


The writings of Paul and John particularly, seem to evidence some conflicts between competing, but often-unnamed, early Judeo-Christian groups, over which elements of Christianity should be stressed. Scholars in particular, suggest that one of these groups, because of its rather excessive focus on “spirit,” over material things, was “Gnostic.” Though we suggest here that whatever Gnosticism there was in early Christianity, it was never quite firmly suppressed, even when Gnosticism was officially condemned. Because in effect, the over-spiritual orientation continued … as the very basis, the very foundation, of the new Christian priesthood. In the New Testament especially, we see a conflict, between essentially two voices; the 1) more materialistic, and the 2) more spiritual. And we can see criticisms, surprisingly, of both views. But surprisingly, we see far more criticisms of the spiritual group, than our priests ever noticed or admitted.


Clearly to be sure, the works of John and others, were often quite spiritual. And indeed, we constantly hear of the necessity of turning our back on material “possessions,” and the “lusts” of the “flesh,” and “riches,” and the “world.” Which in one reading at least, stand basically for this entire physical existence. As opposed to spiritual things; and our spiritual Heaven. Yet to be sure, though, 1) much of the Old Testament, and even much of the New, was spent apparently offering us very physical, material things. While 2) God made the entire physical universe, and said it was “good,” not evil (Gen. 1).


Ultimately therefore, any very strong spirituality, really is not Biblical; and cannot really hold, biblically or intellectually. As we will be showing here and elsewhere. And among the many things that turn out to be 3) wrong even with spirituality itself? Is that it is based surprisingly, in part, not on the spirit of “love,” but on the spirit of “hate.” Indeed, the ascetic or spiritual or preacherly voice in fact, has countless problems. Here we have already noted the many biblical warnings against preachers, that it ignores; the half of God it disobeys. But having noted that, it is time to note among other major sins, especially, its exaggerated “hate.” Hate for the “world.” Which is bad first of all, in that it after all, is hate. Not love.


Consider in fact, the stark hate, inside spiritual holy men, their hate for others, for even their own families, for even the whole “world.” As found say, in this statement:


“If anyone 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” (Jesus, in Luke 14.26).


Many preachers try to suggest that the word “hate” is simply wrong; mistranslated. And yet nearly all the major Bibles, translated by the greatest biblical scholars in the world, all decided this was the correct translation, after all. And furthermore, there are other passages that confirm a strong sentiment.


Finally indeed, there is a priestly voice in the Bible that is quite spiritual, ascetic; and that is adamant about not being too attached to material “riches.” And related to that, to the “world.” And the “flesh” and so forth:


Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father put is of the world. And the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever. Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come” (1 John 2.15-18).


Here and elsewhere we can begin to see the dark underside of priestly spiritual love for the spirit; the dark underside, the other side of this same coin … is “hate.” Hate for the whole materialistic “world.”


In the quotation above, we hear the voice of a typical priestly, ascetic, ministerial quote from Jesus or one voice in John; telling us to “hate” our family, our brother; and not to love the “world.” But after all, it does not really quite sound like Jesus, say, to “hate” anything. So, although Jesus may at times have given voice to the spiritual priestly voice (especially in the non-synoptic writings attributed to John)? As it turns out, this voice of “hate” was rather too extreme, and uncharacteristic of the Jesus who after all, told us that to “love God,” and then “love your neighbor,” was the core essence of being Godly.


Obviously therefore, the extreme ascetic voice, of “hate” for the “world,” finally could not stand. And had to be balanced out. By the presence of a second voice throughout the Bible itself. So that after this, the hateful priestly voice, was canceled out in parts of the Bible that preachers however, long denied and neglected. For example? 1) First, the “hate” message in John for example, was balanced by elements in John, that stressed “love:


“This is my commandment, that you love one another” (John 15.12).


Outside of John, the Love message was extended quite a bit; beyond loving “one another,” to loving nearly everyone:


“Love your enemies” (Mat. 5.44; Luke 6.27).


“And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor” (Mat. 22.39).


“So faith, hope, love abide, these three… But the greatest of these is love” (1 Corin 13.13)


Other writers like Paul emphasize love heavily (1 Corin. 8.1, 13.1 ff).



Then? Next, 2) the specific hate for the “world” was specifically balanced out. In part by 1 John 2.8-11 and the justly-famous John 3.16. Which seem to directly, flatly, absolutely contradicts the hateful passages. With a very, very different – even exactly opposite – voice. With a very, very different Christ, than the Christ of ascetics in fact. A Christ that is far more “loving” toward our “brother” and even towards the “world.”


There is a very spiritual, riches-hating voice in the Bible. Yet early Christianity clearly, seems to have had some doubts about the need for or goodness of any priests at all. Especially regarding their “hate.” Verifying this, as we look more closely at many parts of the Bible, we begin to see some parts of the Bible, a picture of Christ, that absolutely, directly, flatly go against the priestly voice; the voice that “hates” this material life and so forth. Indeed, the next major parts of the Bible attributed to John, even says that the first part, the priestly, ascetic view that “hates” the “world” and your “brother,” is simply, false and evil:


“Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment which you had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard. Yet I am writing you a new commandment, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. He who loves his brother abides in the light, and in it there is no cause for stumbling. But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. I am writing to you, little children” (1 John 2.1-12).


“If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar” (1 John 4.20).


At first, it is shocking to see two such clearly, even absolutely contradictory voices in the Bible; one telling us to 1) “hate” the world, and our own biological families; in favor of a spirit. It is shocking just to hear this voice of extreme hate; and 2) even more shocking to see it very, very directly and flatly contradicting even … other parts of the Bible itself. Like those that told us to “love” our neighbor, and our family.


So what should we say? What is the final problem, and resolution, if any? First, we must simply admit, that the Bible itself contains two, often absolutely, directly, perfectly opposite voices in it. But before deciding how to resolve this, we might try to get our labels or nomenclature straight: by what name, should these two voices be known? Some 1) might suggest the word “priestly” for the first voice of spirituality. But to be sure, this would run into historical disputes. Today, fundamentalist/Evangelical scholars in particular, are not so sure about a well-known scholarly analysis of specifically Genesis; that found a “priestly” voice in it, or “P.” Today, some scholars are less certain than in the past, that the “P” voice even holds specifically in Genesis. But here and now, we might better call this first voice say, a spiritual, ascetic voice. And we can admit that this voice is found fairly often, throughout much of the Bible. Indeed, today a typical priest might say it is the main voice in the Bible, overall.


Indeed, we ourselves might say that this first, spiritual voice, obviously can be found in the texts; we have just quoted some examples of it, above. Ultimately though, we will also have begun to show here and elsewhere, that this first, spiritual voice, is finally not the predominant or prevailing voice, in the end. In fact? Given the huge contrast between 1) the “first” priestly/ascetic voice, “hating” our brothers, and the world; but then the 2) “second” statement? The one that very, very strongly criticizes the first? Finally, we will have to conclude, with this surprising, even apocalyptic scenario: the Bible itself ultimately all but rejected the spiritual (/priestly?) voice. As being very, very firmly wrong. As presenting a false Christ in fact. Indeed, though elements of “John” seem quite spiritual and world-hating, finally remember, even John himself had to conclude, with these messages. Which were rather clearly, in the world-loving voice, after all.


While again, John’s condemnation of “hate” for our biological family, is so adamant – and so consistent with the materialism of the rest of the Bible, as we will show – that finally, the adamant rejection of the ascetic, world-hating voice, must be regarded as all but conclusive, and final:


“He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. He who loves his brother abides in the light, and in it there is no cause for stumbling. But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. I am writing to you, little children” (1 John 2.1-12).


“If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar” (1 John 4.20).


To be sure, we had a picture of “Jesus” or “Christ” earlier, no less, telling us to “hate” our brother and sister. And yet? That spirituality – and indeed, that “Christ”? – is finally, rather firmly rejected, even in John himself. While, related to the rejection of a spirit that “hates” our brothers? Parts of the Bible, to be sure, seemed for a moment to parse this, by telling us merely to hate or reject our physical,
biological families; and to embrace our spiritual, Christian associates – brothers – instead (see Jesus on his mother and brothers waiting outside, vs. his true brothers). Yet? Eventually, John and others would more often, begin to suggest that the material body, the flesh, was still important (2 John 7).


Though 1 John began telling us not to love the world, even John finally gave us a Christ who even “loves” the “world,” in John 3.16.



End of the Two Voices:

Spirit, Heaven, Returns to Flesh, the Physical Earth



To be sure, it seems there were two voices in the Bible: the spiritual hate of ascetic preachers, vs. the materialistic, rather Old Testament love of this physical existence, and the world that God made. These two voices moreover were at times, in direct and adamant conflict with each other. Yet finally, we will see, the conflict between those two voices was not really supposed to be resolved by the simple, utter triumph of the spiritual, over the physical (as to be sure, parts of the Bible – on “two masters” and so forth – at times seemed to suggest). Rather instead, if we read the entire Bible more carefully, we find that the dualistic heaven/earth, word/world, spirit/flesh split is supposed to be simply, healed. As God and spirit, are “poured on” all flesh; as Christ returns to physical earth.


Though for a while, religion retreated into spirituality? Into Heaven? Into accepting our imagination or spirit, as all we needed? Finally, against seemingly all our priests (as they have been until today), for example, the Bible itself finally settled on stressing for example, a Christ that “loves” the “world.” A Christ that loves even this physical existence. A Christ that became even “flesh.” Indeed finally, even the at-times adamantly world-hating and spiritual John, finally suggests that the true Christ, is one that is not just a spirit; but is one that inheres even in physical, material “flesh”:


“Many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you hare worked for, but may win a full reward. Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God” (2 John 7).


Here again, the tradition of John is quite adamant: the real Christ, and indeed the test of a Christian, is acknowledging a Christ that comes not just as a spirit; but in real, physical, material “flesh.” While those who do not agree to that? Are simply heretics and “deceivers.” This view of the necessity of a very physical Jesus, seems confirmed in other apostolic traditions too; like the end of Luke 24.36-43. Where the resurrected Jesus himself, in the text insists that he is not a spirit. But a real flesh-and-blood person.


For a while, our religion was quite spiritual, and dominated by the spiritual voice. Ultimately though, it began to insist on a Christ that was very realistically effective, manifest, in this physical, material existence; this “world.”


While as for all those earlier condemnations of the “world”? Many theologians were to try to suggest that after all, these never intended to condemn this material existence; but only say the “world” of bad men and so forth. (As per the definitions of “world,” “flesh,” in the New American Bible glossary, c. 1967 ed.). While those of a more confrontationalist frame of mind, might well contend that there was in effect, a war or contest between the spiritual and the physicalistic voices; even the between a spiritual-seeming Christ and a physical one; even between ascetic monks, and practical materially involved lay persons. While finally? The physical Christ is supposed to win. Even in the Bible itself. Though more exactly? We will show that the spiritual and the physical, are to merge into one.


What did the Bible itself say? The Bible remember, at times suggested that God speaks in “two” voices. So what are the two voices of God? One is it seems 1) a spiritual (some would say, “priestly”) voice. Or better-said, there is a Gnostic /hierarchically dualistic /hierarchically Platonic /spiritual voice. But while this voice has often been admired as the “loft”iest and best voice of all? And though the related voice of priests, has often been thought to be “first” with God? Finally it is time to show how this “first” is rather “last” in all too many hidden ways.


What’s wrong with being spiritual? The big problem, is the very, very dark underside of spirituality: the dark underside of “love” of “spirit,” is … ironically, a very, very intense “hate.” “Hate” for the “world.” Eventually we will be showing that amazingly, the very spirituality that everyone thought was the very essence of all that is good and holy, the very defining essence of Christ himself? Was actually … a too narrow, one-sided, hopelessly False Christ. A false theology. One that finally descended into “hate”; even as it invoked “love” as the highest virtue. So that this theology disappears, cancels itself out, in contradiction even with itself. To say nothing of its conflict with the rest of the Bible. And all of material life. Finally therefore, the ascetic voice, that we heard so much about in church, that we thought was “first” in the eyes of God? Turns out to be not so high, after all. Indeed, it was secretly a rather “hate”ful and “Satan”ic voice, as Jesus suggested. It told us to “hate” the “world,” and to become an ascetic priest or monk, mortifying the flesh. And this “first” voice loses finally. In part because it is lost in hate; even as it insists on “love” as the core commandment of all. And it loses too – because of its flat contradiction to another voice in early Christian communities; and in the Bible itself. Its flat contradiction to 2) the second voice. The one that we now focus on, in our books. The voice that surprisingly, turns out to be far, far kinder; speaking of “love” and not “hate.” The voice that insists furthermore, that God, Christ, is not just a “spirit.” But is found in real physical, material things; even in material “flesh” and the “world.”


Two thousand years ago, many priesthoods, many monkish orders, were going to be founded largely on the idea that Jesus and God were all about spirit, and not physical things. Yet though there were many such people to be found within the New Testament itself, finally we will see here and elsewhere, the Bible itself began to reject the emerging, unnamed but clearly over-spiritual class of people (see scholarly articles on Gnosticism, the opponents of Paul, and so forth). Eventually we have seen, even the very, very spiritual John, who presented a “Christ” that told us to “hate” the “world,” ended himself, correcting that against a Christ who has come to “love” and save the “world”; with the insistence that indeed only those who see Christ in “flesh” can be considered true Christians; with indeed dissolving of our spiritual “heaven.” And a new heaven, that comes down to earth. To be a very physical place, on this physical earth:


“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was not more. And I say the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God… saying ‘Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them'” (Rev. 21.1-3; note next the very, very concrete description of this kingdom, the materials it is made with).


Ultimately John’s Revelation, pictures heaven coming down to be finally, a place on this material earth. And furthermore, the entire ending of Revelation is dedicated to a very, very graphic, detailed, physical description, of a clearly very, very physical kingdom.


Finally, consistently with John’s insistence that Christ came in the “flesh,” the Gospel of John ends by insisting on a narration of a very physically resurrected Jesus. A Christ that is not just a spirit, but that is a physical person. One who needs actual, literal, real physical food. Who returns to this physical earth. And in physical form. And who needs to catch real literal physical fish, to physically eat:


“Just as the day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know it was Jesus. Jesus said to them, ‘Children, have you any fish?’ They answered him, ‘No.’ He said to them, ‘Cast the net….. Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast'” (John 21.4-6, 12).


To be sure, his spiritual disciples had trouble recognizing this Jesus (q.v.). But here and now, we are coming to see him clearly enough: this Jesus emphasizing not just “fruits of the spirit,” but real, actual, literal food, it seems clear enough: Jesus asks for “breakfast.” Fried fish.


This Jesus, who is physical enough to ask simply for breakfast, is finally seconded in the words of other apostles. It is seconded especially by say, the likewise, even more adamantly physical Jesus, of Luke. As Luke’s resurrected Jesus, after his first resurrection from the dead, very explicitly and adamantly and specifically insists, that he Jesus, is not just a “spirit.” But is real “flesh.” Jesus insists that he is a very physical person who needs breakfast; he needs something physical to eat:


“Jesus himself stood among them. But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. And he said to them … ‘See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have…. Have you anything here to eat?’ And they gave him a piece of broiled fish” (Luke 24.36-43).


There will have been countless efforts – including many hints in the Bible itself – to “spiritualize” all of religion; and to insist that Jesus himself for example, was not really a physical entity at all, but was primarily a “spirit.” But this “first,” rather spiritual/Gnostic idea, was eventually rejected, even within religion itself; even within the Bible itself. Which finally pictures a Christ who explicitly insists that he is not a “spirit”; and who asks for physical food to support this “flesh.” The physically-resurrect Christ asking in fact, simply, for a breakfast of fried or broiled fish.


It may be, that our very spiritual priests long ago, secretly came to disbelieve in this physical side of religion, in this physical Christ. To present their own “spiritual” Christ. But that spiritual Christ? Was after all, as we will finally show … simply, the foretold … False Christ.


To be sure, a physical Christ is nowhere in evidence today. And even in the Bible, the resurrected Christ soon disappeared; within 40 days, he was said to have disappeared in fact, into “heaven” (in Acts). Still, Christianity was founded on physical promises. And though it had trouble furnishing all the physical miracles it promised, and began to suggest that it was all just metaphors for spiritual things? Perhaps our priests did not really know how to look at physical reality, and find God or good in it. Rather than just in dreams and spiritual “hope”s. While a Science of God should fix that. Or even just our brief review here, of the physical side of God.


Arguably in any case, the central point of our books here, will be first that there are two main voices in the Bible itself: the 1) spiritual, anti-materialistic, Platonistic dualistic priestly voice and vocation, that loves invisible spirit and even “hates” the material and other “world”s. Versus 2) a “second” voice. That allows that there can be good, even God, in this material existence, and in physical things. This is important in itself. But the really important thing in our present works – is that we will be showing in our books here, that contrary to what the preachers thought, it not the “first” spiritual voice, that is the best; it is the “second,” more fleshly, worldly voice, that is the best one … even according to the Bible itself. The very voice that preachers thought was “secondary,” “last,” and even evil – turns out in the end, to actually be “first” even with the Bible itself. (To say nothing of with ordinary people).


To be sure though, the Bible voiced both of these two very contrasting views. So that these two voices are often in rather dramatic conflict with each other. Indeed, one minute Jesus tells us to “hate” our brother and sister; and the next we are assured that anyone who says any such thing, must be bad and evil (above). One minute we are told to “look up to the heavens”; but in the very next breath, we are told that the heavens will be destroyed. The stark contrast, conflict, between these two voices in fact could hardly be more dramatic. So that many people from all this, might reasonably decide that the Bible so thoroughly and continually contradicts itself, that it ultimately cancels itself out, totally. So the best thing to do is never to join any church at all. Or to simply leave Christianity altogether. Since all have sinned incredibly; and even the Bible itself seems unreliable and self-contradictory.


Here we support the Bible itself though. But for purposes of discussion, we will need to flatly and dramatically contrast these two different voices, before seeking a conciliatory position. Perhaps our core point is that the Bible contains two very different major levels or voices: one which expresses the 1) ascetic over- spirituality; which we might after all call the ascetic spirituality of many traditional priests and monks. And their spiritual “hate” for the materialistic “world” and material things, the “flesh.” Elements which have sometimes been formally repudiated by this or that church; but which can always be found still, in almost all priesthoods. In their monastic vows of “poverty” for example, you can still see the rejection of at least, physical/material “riches.”


Yet as matter of fact, the traditional monastic orders and so forth, actually had a way on their own of characterizing these two voices – as different “paths” or “vocations” or “callings,” etc.. Many traditional theologies acknowledged that 1) there was a spiritual voice … that was thought to be “calling” us the priesthood in effect. To a single, not married life. Removed from the world of commerce. Dedicated not to physical possessions or riches, but to mental or spiritual attainments. But as against that – and given some status – our churches once held that there was a second voice; that 2) is the voice of good but more practical lay persons. Persons who are good, but who do not become priests. People who also often believe, more than priests did, in the importance of physical things. In doing good work, farming and building things; to keep us physically alive and healthy and viable. And though priests often emphasized the spiritual calling – as they would, being priests? Still, at times they acknowledged some kind of validity to those who did not become single, impoverished priests; but who say, married. And had families, sons and daughters and wives. (Marriage was a key difference. An increasing priestly acknowledgment of the acceptability of marriage, began to appear perhaps with Vatican II. But certainly from c. 1980, the Church’s acceptance of marriage, as being acceptable. Though to be sure parts of the Bible – Paul especially – suggested that it was better not to marry; so as to be free from “worldly” concerns; and to devote yourself more to religion and God; as Paul noted say, in 1 Corin. 7.8 – 28, and others in Mat. 19.10, 22.30; vs. however 7.36. 1 Tim. 4.3, etc.).


For many centuries, by the churches, the priestly life to be sure, was presented as the only good, true, or best way of serving God; while the “lay” or practical working life, was thought to be all too “worldly” and not spiritual enough. So that priests saw it as their duty therefore, to teach, sermonize the whole “world” to stop caring so much about material things; and to learn to be more spiritual. Yet in doing this, our preachers were not quite entirely true to the Bible itself. Which had often suggested that there were sins even in the priestly life in particular. While the Bible began to note some problems, even with spirits; like “false spirits.” Even as the Bible retained a tie to material life, and material – not spiritual – things.


In any case though, we might note that are many ways what we are calling two “voices,” have been parsed or described, in the past; some said that 1) the Old Testament and the religion “of the Jews” was more physical; but the New Testament was more spiritual. Another scholarly account for a while found 2) a “P” or “priestly” voice in say Genesis, versus other accounts. While 3) some scholars found a materialistic Jewish account, vs. an Idealistic/Platonic/Hellenistic, Greek philosophical influence. Others found a 4) Jewish, Judaizers or Zionist voice, vs. Christianity, or 5) a spiritual Gnosticism. But perhaps the most accurate traditional taxonomic recognition, was when at times 6) the Church itself suggested that there was a more worldly or “lay” track or path in the Bible, vs. a “calling” to the priesthood. Though here finally 7) we prefer for no particular reason, to characterize and summarize and clarify this division, as being a division between two “voices,” or theologies. Though we might partially accept the old ecclesiastical description, as consisting of the priestly calling. Versus a good lay existence. To be sure though, we here begin to simply reverse the value put on these two different ways of life. For us, the “first” view, the spiritual theology of priests, was never quite right. Whereas the good but practical lay person, who is not too spiritual, but is devoted to physical life, will be found here to have been much closer than priests, to the fuller, balanced theology of the Bible. This we suggest, is one of the startling reversals of fortune, predicted in the end time. As the lay life style that priests thought was all but “last” with God, turns out to actually have been first, after all. Since the lay life, dedicated to producing material things, was far more cognizant of and obedient to, the physical side of God.


Here therefore we champion the good but practical working man; over the priest. Jesus as physical being, concerned with helping the physical – not just spiritual – side of life. In contrast, we suggest the very spiritual viewpoint of Priests, has never been so good as priests proudly thought; their spirituality was always over-done and rhetorical. Indeed, priests’ spirituality was never even consistent with much of the Bible itself. A Bible which after all, insisted on a Jesus who lived in the “flesh”; in which an Old Testament God constantly promised us real, physical, material goods for following him. So that ironically, our very spiritual priests … were never really following Christ or God. Though they claimed to follow and even speak all but perfectly, for God himself, their view was rhetorical, Gnostic, over-ascetic; or as we term it, over-spiritual. Or worst of all? Priestly spirituality represented only “part” of the finally, “full”er picture of God, given in the Bible itself. It represented only one voice, of two. Worse it presented as “first,” a view that was actually, last in the eyes of God.


But if all our priests here sinned again? Then after all, one day or another, they are supposed to see their sins, and be corrected.


Until today, basically all our preachers have almost always misquoted the Bible, by emphasizing only its spiritual side. While they left out, ignored – and disobeyed – the Bible’s statements on the importance not just of spirit and “Heaven,” but this material life as well. Yet finally, one “day” in the End, they are supposed to be corrected. Indeed, the very nature of the eschatological “End” is supposed to be a correction, in many different ways. Not only in that it is supposed to simply confront priests and their spiritual “heaven” and their Christ” and repudiate them. But also in that the very nature of the end, involves … presenting a “new heaven,” that is in some ways different from the first; in that the new heaven …at least partially comes down, or sends down again major representatives, to exist not just in spirit, but in material form, on this physical earth. (Related to this; many scholars in fact, properly see the eschatological “End” as being essentially about the end of priestly hierarchical dualism, Idea-ism. That put too much value in wholly abstract thinking, ideas, spirit, and “Heaven,” but grossly and criminally, evilly underestimated the importance of material life, our physical “bodies,” “flesh,” and world.”).


In any case, it will become clear here, that priestly New Testament spirituality and philosophical Idealism, conflict far too much, with God. The God who had been quite materialistic; who had made the physical universe and had said it was “good”; who had promised very material, physical rewards to those who follower him. So that priestly idealism, even contradicts, wars against, God himself.


So how to fix this? To fix this, the whole idea that all we need is a kingdom of “spirit,” must be rejected. As it was rejected in point of fact, in the Bible itself. Particularly, the end of the hierarchical dualism of priests, is even pictured in the book Revelation; pictured there as quite properly showing 1) the priestly spiritual “Heaven” being dissolved; and 2) major elements of the “new heaven,” finally coming down, to be a place on this material, physical earth. So that God himself, seeming in the flesh, is to be found with and among, physical material “men.” Rather as in the first appearance of Christ, when “God became flesh,” and came to this “world,” likewise again, in the Second Coming, God leaves heaven in part. To come in a more dramatic way, to this physical earth.


“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was not more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them…’” (Rev. 21.1-3).


The fact is, God has never been just in a spiritual “heaven”; he was always been “above all heavens.” Or indeed, he has always filled all things, in heaven “and earth.” So that the fixation of priests on spirituality, and Heaven is just not correct, biblically speaking.


To be sure? After the precedent of fully two thousand years of a radically over-spiritual, world-“hate”ing priesthood? It will take a really hard slap in the face, a really extremely dramatic and hard-hitting expose, to really get our priests’ attention, and turn them around. Yet after all, the Bible itself began to provide a motif, that should do that.


To be sure, for centuries, our preachers have heard and obeyed, only “part” of God. They have seen only, part of the Bible. Probably one of their favorite lines, the pillar of a millions sermons, for example, was this mere broken fragment of the text of the holy books:


“Lift up your eyes to the heavens” (Isa. 51.6).


This line, was set stark and alone, in black and white, on a million church marquees; and this line presented by itself, formed the heart of a million Baptist sermons. This was one of the line that was used to assure us all over and over, that God wanted us to focus always, not on material things, and the earth, but on “heaven.” But what after all, was the problem with those preachers, and their million sermons? The problem was that their radical emphasis on spirit and Heaven, was only half the story; it was less than half of the bigger, “full”er, truer picture of God. In our preachers’ even despicable, criminal partiality and narrowness and dishonesty and deceitfulness, preachers never bothered to look to see, or face, what the Bible more fully said next. They looked at tiny fragments of the text, that taken out of context, seemed to support their rhetorically-exaggerated spirituality. And they counted on the confusion and laziness of their followers, to never bother to pick up their own Bibles and read … what the Bible said next. Priests expected that the laziness and confusion and slavish conformity of their followers, would keep them from picking up their Bibles themselves, and learning to see that right after appearing to deliver a very spiritual message, right after tell us to always look to the “heavens,” the Bible actually said this, next:


“Lift up your eyes to the heavens … for the heavens will vanish like smoke” (Isa. 51.6).


And regarding “spirituality”? You have constantly heard from priests, in church, the parts of the Bible that seemed, taken by themselves, to support spirituality. But now, consider the rest of what the Bible, God, more “fully” said. Consider say, these lines on spiritual things:


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


“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).




The Inspiration of the Holy Spirit;

Does not Protect Preachers



Everyone makes mistakes. But preachers have always been doubly evil – precisely because they have believed that they themselves, were so very good. Secretly believing that they and only they, really know and follow God (certainly as compared to ordinary folks, 1 Peter 4.17), and in spite of their colossal Pride, convinced that they were nevertheless “humble” (and therefore utterly unable to detect their pride?), soon enough, in the days of John and thereafter, the new Christian priesthood was all but utterly blind to its own deeper sins; its own doctrinal errors. Its own systematic Pride and Vanity. Because of all this, our new Christian priesthood, was evil and crippled from the very beginning. Crippled especially by a huge, even colossal but hidden, Vanity and Pride. The vanity of declaring themselves to be the reliable – even often-infallible – voicepieces of God. In spite of constant warnings from God about specifically, priests. Or indeed, constant warnings from God about all holy men, prophets and angels.


To be sure, for centuries, some priests noted warnings about priests in the Bible. But over the years, they came to mis-conceptualize those warnings, in a peculiar way. In effect, 1) they thought of their religion, their churches, their doctrines and dogmas, as something wholly perfect and divine; and not created by human beings at all. Thus their own major work, was no longer thought to be their own creation at all; but divine. While all those warnings from God about imperfection? They were taken to just mean 2) that the institutions of religion were perfect … but it was just that priests at times failed to live up to those divinely perfect standards. But here was where priests made their major mistake: they set up a radical dualism, in which there was an allegedly perfect vision from God, having very little of the human in it, vs. our own failed human attempts to be as good as that image. The great mistake here though, was that holy men and priests failed to recognize that after all, all-too-human beings, apostles, had set up our churches, our religion, in the first place. So that therefore, there could be human errors, even in the fundamental structures of the churches themselves. There would be human errors, even in the idea of God and Good, that they set up. (Or what was added to, as Paul said, the “foundation” laid by the apostles. Though even Paul might have questioned his own foundation finally; Paul confessing he was not “perfect.”)


This remains the major sin or preachers: failing to note their own active role, in constructing religion. Failing to note that they themselves inevitably helped mold and construct, the popular idea of what God and good were like. And this was where they failed in humility. Their fundamental mistake, was that they heard the warnings about bad things in priests – but they read those warnings as being 1) warnings not about possible errors in the fundamental structure of their religion; but 2) only their failure to conform to those structures. The great error of priests, was to think that any warning of failure in priests, were just warnings that often priests failed to follow the rules; they did not realize that after all, our religion from the very start, the formation of the rules, though attributed to the Lord, was in part also in the “hands” of fallible priests, fallible men, after all. So that? Likely human errors crept into even words, rules, laws, attributed to the Lord. And the great sin of priests? Was not failing to conform to the rules; but formulating or construing the rules themselves, wrongly. The great sin of priests, was failing to recognize that their very idea of “Good” was after all, to some extent, their own idea. And therefore, their “Good,” their “God” itself, could be … often, composed of their own misconceptions. And therefore? There was often no really great virtue in following “God”; since thereby, they would only be following … human misconceptions. Here our priests lacked real humility; the humility that would remind them that they not only failed to follow the rules of their church; but they themselves probably mis-conceptualized God as well; and then in effect, when they preached, they presented a false God to the world. Priests typically think of warnings about priestly sins, as being about priests failing to follow the rules, the priestly idea of God. They do not realize that the real errors, the real sins, are deep in the heart of what they think is “good.” In their misconception of the Good itself; Christ, himself. Though to this day, our preachers confess their own violations of the rules … they however usually insisted that however, their rules themselves were always good. Their tradition always insisted violently
– and often enforced with literal violencethat it had made no fundamental errors in understanding the basic principles, or doctrines. Or in the basic picture of “Christ” that they gave to the world.


But how could they have missed it? How could they have failed to see their own responsibility for the rules themselves? In part, it was lack of historical sense; your average person today, receives a huge body of rules, from History; rules made very long ago. So long ago that no one remembers human beings, playing much of a role in their formulation. Indeed, it seems plausible that the rules were simply dictated by some Divine agency; with no human intervention or involvement at all. Yet to be sure, you would think, anyone who read their Bibles, should have noticed that God was warning continually, that mere fallible human beings, mere clerics and their errors, played indeed far too large a role, in the statements attributed to “the Lord” (as noted in say, Jeremiah?). Anyone who read the Bible, surely could not have missed the fact that the all-too-human apostles founded our religion; and even the Apostles made mistakes. So that indeed, at one point Jesus himself, called St. Peter, “Satan” (Mat. 16.23).


Surely at least some priests could not have failed to notice that? Could not have failed to notice constant warnings from God about priests – and even apostles? About the people most involved in founding our religion? In fact, now and then, a priest or minister at last, notices that. But over the centuries, our ministers have found a way to insist that their human flaws, never infected the core of their religion. For some time, our priests and churches acknowledge that our religion was often in “weak” and “frail” and all-too-human hands, and therefore might seem to have been in constant danger of being infected, by human mistakes. But, they have come to claim, God, they have always said, sent the Holy Spirit to temporarily protect them from errors, in critical moments. God himself they say, sent the Holy Spirit to enter us, and to protect us; in a moment of “inspiration,” or taking in the spirit. And though the Apostles themselves, like Peter, are pictured even in the Bible, as constantly making mistakes? It is claimed today that the spirit of God, now and then entered the Apostles. And at least temporarily protected the Apostles from human weaknesses and mistakes. In critical moments. In the moments say, when they formulated major “doctrines” or rules. Or especially, in the moments they wrote the first versions of the Bible itself. So that, though “all have sinned,” even the apostles that founded Christianity, it is today widely asserted that these often-sinful founders, were temporarily protected by what came to be called “inspiration.” We are continually assured that though the founders often made human mistakes, still, at least in crucial moments, in the moments when they spoke on major matters of doctrine, they spoke with special, spiritual protection, or “inspiration.” To keep them (or at least the apostles and so forth) from error.


This concept, of “inspiration,” became massively popular. In fact, “Inspiration” is still a major pillar of churches, to this very day. In this doctrine, it is in fact, partially acknowledged that now and then even priests, even apostles, will sometimes sin. But their sins are minor; it is asserted that they never sin or err, when it comes to their important work; presenting a picture of God to the world. Thus? Though the bible pictured holy men sinning continuously, our holy men today assert that though they now and then sin in relatively minor things, they and other holy men, never erred, they were “infallible,” at least for important moments that defined the Churches – and defined God in effect. They were protected when they are talking about, describing, outlining the rules and “doctrines” themselves; they were infallible even, when their pictured God to themselves, and then to us.


That is the common theory that now supports the authority of every priest, of every church; the theory of “inspiration.” But the problem is, that this very common theory, that is the very backbone of most churches … is just not true. The fact is, as we are about to show here, 1) the Bible constantly pictured holy men making errors. Errors 2) even in major doctrinal matters. Even 3) after having received the Holy Spirit. While 4) indeed, the Bible warned constantly that there were often problems with protective “spirit”s in general. There are many “false spirits” out there, after all. So that even when we thought the “Holy Spirit” was protecting us? It might have been a false spirit, merely pretending to be holy, after all.


What can go wrong, with the protection of the Holy Spirit? With “inspiration”? There are many ways that even the Holy Spirit fails us, even in extremely important moments. First, note that the Bible warned about problems with “spirits” in general. For example, 1) note that in the tradition of “John,” above, God often warned about “false spirits”; false spirits presenting themselves posing as holy and from God (1 John 4 etc.). No doubt therefore, just when this or that holy men, thought he was getting a spirit from God? Just when many people think they have the “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit? Many may really have … a “false spirit,” claiming to be the Holy Spirit. God warned indeed, that Satan himself often comes to us, disguised as the things that are very good; Satan comes to us disguised as the very “angel of light.” So? Just when we think we are receiving the Holy Spirit … we may be receiving a false spirit, after all. (Note that as a matter of fact, Paul seems to feel a moment of doubt, about the spirit supporting him, when he begins to set up a Christian priesthood that does not marry; Paul says he “thinks” he has the spirit, when he sets that up. In 1 Corin. 7.40 RSV. So that significantly, it is particularly in the setting up of a spiritual priesthood, separate from the laity, that Paul expresses doubt about his inspiration).


Then there is another problem, with inspiration: 2) there must surely always be here, a temptation from the sins of Vanity and Pride. It no doubt feels good to claim one is filed with a holy spirit, and that one is therefore speaking infallibly for God; it makes one feel good, and powerful. But here remember? Everyone likes to feel as if they are speaking for a power larger than themselves; but deep down, often, they are speaking merely from personal Pride.


And then 3) another major other problem, with “inspiration” and the Holy Spirit? No doubt, the Holy Spirit is infinitely powerful, as many say. And indeed, God is infinitely powerful. And furthermore, just as the Bible says, they are always there, they are always around somewhere (or indeed everywhere), to help guide us. And yet? Though God and the Spirit are all around us all the time? Still, experience teaches us that … often we sin anyway. Somehow it seems, the Holy Spirit was not quite enough. Or perhaps we were not entirely sensitive to its voice, and did not hear it correctly. So? Although technically as promised, the spirit of God is always there to protect us … often as a practical matter, it is not effective. Since we do not hear it correctly. Or for that matter again, we “accept a different spirit” from the right one. We mistake a false spirit, for the Holy Spirit. As Paul hinted somewhere.


It is not just our own personal experience that suggests this; we see examples in the Bible too. The Apostles for example, had the holy spirit “breathed” on them by Jesus himself in person (John 20.22); and yet, even after having received the authentic Holy Spirit or holy wind, from Jesus himself? Peter still made lots of major mistakes, even after that.


And what is more? Peter even made major errors in doctrinal matters – as shown by his actions and words. For example? Peter contradicted Jesus at least once for example, on the critical doctrinal matter, of the necessity of the crucifixion (Mat. 16); Jesus was telling Peter that Jesus must be crucified … and Peter simply and adamantly told Jesus that this doctrine, from Jesus, was wrong (“Heaven forbid, Jesus!,” Peter says; “This will not happen!” Paraphrased from Mat. 16). Peter here note, was contradicting at least two major ideas that were to become doctrines of the Church: first, in telling Jesus he was wrong, Peter was going against the a) doctrine of the authority of Jesus. And second? Peter was opposing Jesus, especially on and the b) the necessity of the crucifixion. Which became another major doctrine of the Church. These were very, very serious errors, by Peter, the founder of the Church … on major doctrinal issues. If disciples are said to define doctrines, not only by their words, but also their actions? They Peter was attempting to define two major, false doctrines. When he went against Jesus. While later, Paul complains too, about Cephas/Paul; that Paul in effect outlined another false doctrine, by not permitting table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians.


It seems clear that therefore, you can have the Holy Spirit next to you – indeed, as in the case of Peter, you can have Jesus himself in person, literally standing next to you, trying to help you. And yet? The Bible makes it clear, you can still fail to accept that protection correctly, or hear a false spirit … and next, make massive mistakes. Even in major doctrinal matters.


That might be in fact, one of the main problems with the massively popular doctrine, that holy men are protected from really serious error, by “inspiration.” (Aside say, from – 4 – logical circularity? The doctrine of inspiration itself is holy, because God inspires all doctrines … like the doctrine of inspiration?). The problem is that to be sure, the Bible (in some readings) seems to assure us that a) there is a Holy Spirit. One b) that is always there to help us. But for various reasons, its help is often not, in itself, enough. For various reasons, the spirit is there, God is always all around us in fact; and yet, that is not quite enough, to save us from sinning. All the disciples received the spirit above … and yet sinned and erred after that, it seems. Like Peter.


More examples? Take 1 Corinthians 10.2-5, for example. There, Paul seems to confirm that God and his “spirit” were always there, for example, to help the people of Moses, in the wilderness. And yet, Paul says, though the spirit of God was always next to the people of Moses? Still, many of those people sinned. The people of Moses, Paul said firmly, had the real, authentic, “supernatural” or “spiritual” aspect of God, seemingly “rock,” the Holy Spirit of Christ himself. Yet Paul insists, they still sinned and erred. As Paul says in this passage:


“I do not want you to be ignorant … brothers, that our forefathers … all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased
with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did” (1 Corin. 10.1-4-6 NIV).


“All ate the same supernatural [“spiritual”] food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness” (1 Corin. 10. 2-5 RSV).


Therefore it seems clear enough, that yet another major pillar of the churches – the doctrine of inspiration – simply does not work; it is not true. Not only did 1) the Bible rather explicitly begin to warn specifically about problems with many “false spirits”; it even noted problems 2) even with what seemed to be the authentic Holy Spirit. Or even the direct presence of God himself, standing next to us. Though they are there to help protect us … that does not mean that they will always succeed in doing that.


From reading the Bible more closely, it seems clear enough that even the Holy Spirit and its “inspiration” specifically, did not fully protect even in the very Apostles themselves; even in major matters, like core church doctrines on the authority of Jesus, and the necessity of the crucifixion. In the Bible, the apostles are sometimes rather firmly pictured, some would say, as having received the authentic Holy Spirit, having it “breathed” into them, from Jesus himself, in person, in say John 20.22 for example. Yet? Even after that, even after having receiving the Spirit from Jesus himself in person? Even after that, even most of the Twelve Apostles, still sin. And make grave mistakes. Even in major matters of doctrine. Even St. Peter for example, after having allegedly received the authentic Holy Spirit from Jesus himself, is pictured as making very serious mistakes. Mistakes even in core doctrinal matters. Peter contradicting say, the a) authority of Jesus; the b) necessity of the crucifixion. So that? Finally, amazingly, shatteringly, even the Apostle Peter, author of two books of the New Testament itself, is ultimately condemned by Jesus himself. As Jesus finally called St. Peter, in fact, “Satan.” In Matt. 16.23.


Finally in fact? To really understand what the Bible really, actually, ultimately said? It might be useful to look at particularly, this last key passage: the passage where Jesus himself, called St. Peter, “Satan.” It’s a good example of just how little confidence Jesus himself, had in even the Apostles themselves; and for that matter, in their “inspiration.” It is also a good example too, of how all our preachers have been as unreliable as Peter, even in doctrinal matters; how they have distorted the Bible and God, by presenting only misleading parts of them. By presenting only parts that, taken out of context, taken by themselves, seem to stress the authority of holy men and preachers. While our preachers have left out, or twisted, all the many, many places where … the Bible warned about huge sins in our holy men. Even in many of their most allegedly “inspired” moments.


Yet it is becoming clear that our Roman Catholic priests – like all preachers – have been extremely dishonest or deceitful. They have “deceived” themselves, and/or the whole world. By as usual, reading and stressing … only one misleading part of what God said. While all our Catholic priests dishonestly left out, or failed to stress, the larger picture.


In particular? Our preachers failed to note the many times God warned about “spirit”s; “false spirits. And warned that many would take in false spirits, thinking they were taking in the spirit of God:


“I bethrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband. But I am abraid that as the serpent deeived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray…. For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough” (1 Corin. 11.2-6).


To be sure, it is painful and even heaven-shattering, even Apocalyptic, for those trained to believe and have faith, from infancy. But today the world is well-enough educated, moral enough, mature enough … to be allowed to see, in part here and now, a bit of the larger truth. The fuller picture. The second and fuller picture, of what God and Jesus really, fully said.


To be sure, it is extremely painful; even Apocalyptic. But indeed, we were told constantly throughout the Bible itself, that one “day” or another – perhaps one special “day” in particular – we would be seeing just exactly this. One “day,” you are supposed to see another, “second” “appearance” to Christ. And on that “day,” or a related moment in the End Time, this second appearance is supposed to clearly begin to reveal sins, even in our holiest men and angels; like the apostle Peter.


Indeed, we are here and now in part, coming to see at least a preview of the foretold, heaven-shattering second appearance of Christ. Here and now, we are seeing the second, fuller story. The fuller manifestation of God and his full message. A message which – exactly as foretold of the Second Coming – 1) pictures a second appearance to God. Which 2) exposes sins, our most elevated and lofty priests, and even 3) saints and apostles. Noting that 3) those we thought were “lofty” and “high,” are really, liars and “fool”s. And when we discover that? As foretold, 4) our Heaven itself collapses. As foretold.


But if so? Then after all, there is less reason to fear than many might have thought. There is first of all, no need for any further physical destruction, say of the “world,” to complete the “Apocalypse”; the “world” has been destroyed already twice over, in the Flood, and then when the world was conquered, “overcome,” by Jesus. While there have been plenty of immensely destructive wars, already, throughout history; enough to fulfill ancient prophesies of wars and for forth. So that there is no need of any further physical destruction to complete prophesies of an Apocalypse, say. All that really remains in any cause for our own time? Is not the foretold destruction of the “world”; but a more important moment in the End Time, that our priests never noticed … or that they were never able to face. Or that they chose never to tell us about.


And what again, is that moment? It is not the destruction of the layperson’s “world”; it is the destruction of the priest’s spiritual “Heaven.”


As we re-read our Bibles, as we here and now have started foregrounding the denied half of God? We are coming even here and now, to clearly see a second appearance to Christ … dramatically warning of a series of huge mistakes, culpable and grievous doctrinal errors, in essentially “all” our holiest men; including say, the apostle Peter; and the church he was said to have founded. As we have begun to re-read our Bibles here, we have begun to see Christ … here and now exposing huge sins in our holiest men. Sins even in the very apostle that is often credited as the chief founder of our Christian churches; or of the Catholic Church especially. Even in Peter … the author, even for Protestants, of two books in the New Testament.


It is a shattering, new appearance. After merely re-reading our Bibles a little more closely here, already we are coming to a second appearance of Christ (as in Emmaus, Luke 24.27-36). A Second Appearance or “Parousia.” One which – exactly as foretold – clearly reveals Christ again; but Christ exposing massive sins in our holiest men and churches. Christ himself in fact, explicitly, firmly retracting any apparent earlier expression of confidence in say, Peter or his successors, his followers.


Suddenly we Jesus again. But this time? He is literally, calling one of the major founders of our churches, Peter, “Satan.” With an exclamation point:


“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.'”


Is this possible? Is the Bible true? But true in a way that … most of our priests and ministers did not know? Or in a way that those who did know, hid from us?


Could it really be, that the whole world was deceived, by false prophets, false priest, and a false idea of Christ? And a “false spirit”? Could essentially all our (in this case Catholic) priests, have been any more transparently, deceitful? In fact, remember? The Bible itself said that one “day” or another, this very day would come. And we would see these very things; see desolating “abominations,” even in the holy men, churches, and altars (q.v.).


We might well begin to close, with quotes like this one:


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









Our preachers – priests and ministers, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. – have proudly presented themselves to us for centuries, as the sacred voicepieces of God himself. In doing this, they faithfully followed one reading, of the Bible, and its presentation of prophets and apostles. And based on their understanding, our preachers preached to – and basically convinced – the West, and through that the world, that indeed, our clerics were the very voicepieces of God himself. And yet?


And yet? Today it is undoubtedly time for our many millions of faithful churchgoers, to reconsider. It is time for the whole “world” full of people, who have all-too-faithfully, all-too-religiously trusted and believed and followed our priests and apostles … to say, consider very carefully at last, the seventy or more passages from the Bible, that we will be presenting here at last. The passages that our preachers 1) ignored; or 2) “twist”ed. Or 3) “whitewashed.” The passages where God himself clearly warned over and over, about longstanding, continuous sins and errors, in our holiest men and angels. Sins in they themselves, not just in their personal behavior, but in their very idea of inspired doctrines. Indeed, it is time for the world to finally take note of the sins and errors, even in the very (vision of) “Christ” that they offered to the world. It is time to note in fact, that if the Bible is correct, then our priests presented to us an essentially, False Christ. To the whole world. And deceived the whole world with it. As foretold (Rev. 13, 1 John 4, etc.).


Do priests know this? Were 1) all our priests deliberately deceiving the whole world, with a false image of what Christ really said? Were they deliberately, consciously deceiving us all … out of say, a desire of priests, to control the world? To have power? Or more exactly: to force their idea of morality upon us all? Or 2) were many priests, just innocently erring? Did they just simply, honestly, fail to notice the seventy, the hundred and more warnings in the Bible, about priests, for example? Finally, given the fact that priests are supposed to be quite dedicated to reading the Bible? It seems unlikely that they would miss so many negative references to holy men. Though to be sure, perhaps they were simply – as the Bible said of some – lacking “intelligence”; or were “foolish.” Indeed no doubt, many were taken in by 20 centuries and more, of apologetics sophistries, that tried to “twist” and “whitewash” the sins of holy men, with clever but dishonest arguments. Like the doctrine of “inspiration.”


Yet likely, more than a few priests are smart enough; and are already secretly, conscious enough, of the many problems that theology and science have noted, in traditional Christianity. So that we might even assume, that some of them are willing to publicly confess all this. Though many others might well stand together, in an even conscious conspiracy; with “seared consciences.” Having no scruples about deceiving all of mankind; so long it is in the interest of their own power. And/or, in the interest of a Morality, an Ethics, a Religion that they believe, though flawed and largely false, is still better than nothing; still good enough to present as sacred. Even as a lie, many probably think it is a “white” lie. Especially they may feel, even if our Christ is a false one, still he is partially true; and in a world that, many are no doubt convinced (though hearing many confessions?), is full of real sinners or criminals, many preachers no doubt feel that traditional Christianity is still good enough, to slow down some really even more sinful lay and secular people, from committing gross crimes.


So what will be the reaction of priests, to this? Some may be honest enough, and good enough, to finally see. And then to confess the longstanding sins of holy men. In order to become good and honest persons themselves, at last. Yet to be sure? Perhaps there will be – particularly in the larger and more rigorously-controlled churches – some who after all, will simply turn on the Second Jesus; and try to kill him. The same as their predecessors, the Pharisees, successfully killed the first coming of Christ.


Note that in fact, there were many people partially responsible for the killing of Jesus: perhaps the 1) lax apostles, that did not “watch” or defend him; or 2) the disciples like Judas, that actively betrayed him; or 3) perhaps it was the Jews, or the people who asked for Barabbas to be freed, rather than Jesus. Or 4) maybe it was the Romans? Especially the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate? Or maybe it was … someone else. Many people were partially responsible for the arrest and execution of Jesus, in his first appearance. But we might as well note, that 5) more than anyone else, the persons most involved in the arrest and execution of Jesus … were the priests. Jesus himself warned in fact, that it would be especially the priests, that will kill Jesus himself, the first time:


“Jesus began to tell his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed…”


Other passages from the holy books confirm Jesus’ warnings. Many passages make it clear, that the main charge against Jesus was a religious one: Jesus was accused over and over, of breaking religious laws of the Jews, by the Pharisees, with their idea of God. So that, the offense of Jesus being seen to be largely religious? It was especially the priests of his day, that sought to have Jesus arrested, and killed:


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


“When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death; and they bound him and led him away” (Mat. 27.1).


“The chief priests and the elders persuaded the people to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus” (Mat. 27.30).


“Our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him” (Luke 24.20).


Clearly, in many respects the greatest and most effective enemies of Jesus, have been the priests. It was the priests, more than anyone, who denied and killed Jesus the first time. While they crucified his message, every single day, with their false sermons. Though Jesus himself had warned us all that they often worked for – or even were – “Satan” himself, the people never read their Bibles; but only listened to what the priests said it said.


So what might we finally expect from our priests today? Priests killed Jesus the first time. For daring to suggest that God might descend to this world, and flesh. And no doubt, though many will at last see, and be saved? Some might well continue on just as they have before; and no doubt they will be happy to crucify the Second Appearance as well. Or to turn on the message-bearer; eager to maintain their illegal dominance.


So can we now say all this, with impunity or safely? It seems doubtful. Priests killed Jesus the first time. And no doubt, some priests will try to kill our second appearance of Jesus as well. Indeed in a sense, they have murdered Christ every day; by presenting their false doctrines, their false Christ to the masses. Every day.


Can any priest still learn, with the apostles, to ask of themselves, “is it I?” that is to betray Christ? Perhaps a few preachers can see this; and face it; and confess their sins. Yet no doubt, a million priests will try to “prove” in their sermons and homilies, that our word here, the second appearance of Christ, is wrong.” And many priests of course, will respond with a thousand sophistical arguments that we do not have time to address here; to try to “prove” that the second appearance of Christ is a false one. But by now, it seems reasonable to suppose that our readers, by now, should have some critical perspective – and forewarning – about priests. To remember that indeed, it was priests more than anyone, who killed Jesus the first time. And though many priests today may well turn and see the light? Likely it will be priests, or other very religious zealots, that will seek to end the second appearance of Christ, as well. Particularly for daring to suggest that God is not entirely ‘spiritual,” but is to descend to this physical material earth, to exist in the “world,” and in “flesh.”


To those who love priests … with no love for their enemies; no love for Second Christ? We might close with a final review of a few more passages, where the Bible itself, God himself, noted that our preachers and priests, have not been entirely perfect.


Or indeed? We might close with a hint at the next dozen or so major elements of our book: the biblical warnings not just about priests, but about every single other major element in religion; from angels and anointings and apostles; to say, churches.







Priests and bishops, preachers of course, form or control most churches. Yet? If priests are not reliable? Then how reliable can the churches be, that they control? Logically of course, given so many bad things in preachers, the very core of churches, it would seem unlikely that any church could be all that good. While in fact, we will see, the Bible itself began to warn about the founders or overseers of churches. And about churches themselves, as well:


The Bible 1) noted many sins even in the Apostles – like Peter – that founded our first churches. Eventually the 2) Bible began to note problems explicitly, specifically, with the very first Christian “churches” and congregations themselves moreover. Paul’s writings for example, were often letters addressed specifically to churches or congregations; and Paul devoted most of his writings, to noting problems, sins, in these, the first, foundational Christian churches. Paul’s writings take their names, from the churches he was writing to: the churches at Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, the church in Rome, and so forth. But note here? Paul did not simply congratulate the churches are being perfect; far from it. Indeed, Paul found countless sins and even perhaps major doctrinal errors, in most of the first Christian churches that he personally visited.


Rather than read through Paul’s many criticisms of the first churches under Paul’s review however, suppose just for the sake of finishing up our concentration on John? We list a few things that John said about the churches of his day. Note that though at times John assured us that “us” Christians were escaping sin and error, on the other hand, John addressed the final book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, to Christian churches; the “seven churches that are in Asia” (Rev. 1.4). For that matter, though at times, at first, John says positive or encouraging things about these churches … later on, John made it clear that not there were huge sins in these, some of the very first, foundational, Christian churches. In fact? Though John congratulates at least one church, for exposing sins even in “apostles”? John has severe criticisms for almost every one of the seven Christian churches that he reviews. Criticisms, even the very (presumably, priestly) heads – even the very “angels” – of the first Christian churches. John’s Book of Revelation in fact, not only noted many sins in churches under his purview; he even explicitly addressed even the “angels” at the head of the very first churches. While his book, the Apocalyptic last book of the Bible, began to expose sins in the very angels that oversaw some of our very first Christian churches; the angels or head of the churches that were in effect the very foundational models, of all later Christian churches:


“To the seven churches that are in Asia” (Rev. 1.4).


To the angel of the church … I have not found your works perfect” (Rev. 3.1, 2 Revised Standard Version, or “RSV”).


“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 RSV).


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


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


The saintly author of Revelation – nominally John – personally reviewed several of the first Christian churches … and severely criticized them. Even they, the very first churches, reputedly founded or overseen even in person, by one or more of the original Twelve Apostles like John, or later Paul, still made gross errors it seems. Errors noted in the Bible itself. As Revelation makes clear, not even the very patron angels of the churches, not even those angels or human persons who were allegedly protecting those churches from error, were good enough, themselves.


Then too? Consider once again, the lines often cited by the Catholic Church, to prove that its own church was authorized, approved by God. By “apostolic succession” as they say, the Catholic Church claims that 1) Jesus gave the apostle and saint, Peter, full authority to found and run an infallible church. While it is claimed that 2) Peter passed this authority on, to the popes that came after him. But let’s recall what happened, when we looked closely at the biblical passages that are used to support this claim. The Church, Roman Catholic priests, love to emphasize just misleading parts of the fuller quote. As they read or stress the following, part. Preachers typically quote or verbally stress, only the first part of the text; the first voice in the passage. Our preachers read to us in church, or stress, only the part of the story, which seems to have Jesus expressing great confidence, in priests, in apostles. In church in fact, we constantly hear only this misleading part of the text. Which seems to show Jesus expressing absolutely, firm confidence in Peter. Which seems to picture Jesus firmly, explicitly assuring us that Peter is a “rock,” and that Jesus is founding his church, on that rock:


“Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answers, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah!… I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death [gates of Hades; Hell] 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'” (Mat. 16.16-18).


Catholics will recognize this line; since it has been quoted a million times in churches, by Roman Catholic priests. It is continually, proudly quoted by priests … because, taken in this form, it seems to emphasize our priests’ authority, or the authority of their Church. It is quoted over and over; because, in this brief excerpt, it seems to have Jesus himself, calling Peter a firm “rock.” And it seems to have Jesus himself, assuring us all, that Christ intended to found a Church; and to found it on Peter (and his successors?).


Because this brief quote, taken by itself, seems to support holy men like Peter, and the Church? This single line is therefore delivered in Catholic churches constantly, interminably, hypnotically. Indeed, it is the very centerpiece, the very pillar, of the Roman Catholic Church’s claim that it is the “one true church”; its claim that Jesus himself admired St. Peter, and gave him lots of authority, to found a church. (And then pass on his authority to the popes, by “apostolic succession” as it is called.) Yet? The great sin of priests, we have been saying, is in part their Vanity; in declaring themselves the reliable voicepieces of God. And then too? One of their great sins, is that they have always supported their vanity, their claim to authority and perfection and holiness … by misquoting the Bible. By presenting to us misleading fragments of the text. Fragments that do not tell the whole, larger, “full”er truth. Fragments that present a “first” voice, that supports priests and apostles and churches. But fragments that leave out, the “second” voice; the voice that warned, after all, of huge sins in holy men.


But to at last begin to uncover and correct, yet another massive sin, in all our holy men? Suppose we here and now, at last, begin to look at the “second” part of the text above. Suppose we begin to simply present and read, what Jesus said and did, right after the above passage. Let us all for once, read not only the passage where Jesus seemed to call Peter a “rock” and so forth; but also let us now look at last, at what the Bible said next. In the second part, of the very same passage. Now at last it is time for everyone to learn to always recall, the “full”er picture of God. To recall what the Bible says next, just a sentence or two later:


“Jesus began to tell his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed…. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.’ But he [Jesus] 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 men'” (Mat. 16.21-23 RSV, the Holy Bible).


Our priests have always been eager to show that the Bible supports priests, and their churches. But our priests were not honest; though their semantic sleight-of-hand was so quick, most churchgoers never notice it; it all happened so very fast. But here and now, suppose we slow it all down, and look at it carefully. The fact is, that taken just by itself, the “first” part of this story, does indeed (in some readings), seem to have Jesus himself, expressing very, very firm confidence in Apostles like Peter. Calling Peter a “rock.” And furthermore, taken just by itself, Mat. 16.17-19, seems to firmly show Jesus, deliberately setting up a totally reliable “church,” on the basis of apostles like Peter. A church that cannot ever fail; a church that can withstand, break through, the very gates of Hell itself. A church that can conquer Death itself. A wonderful, perfect, Catholic Church some said. And yet however? Can we here and now begin to at last, here and see, the “second” part of the story? Can the reader him- or herself, begin to see it? See the moment when Jesus comes back to … 1) in effect, revoke any apparent confidence in our priests. When the Bible 2) shows our highest and loftiest apostles like Peter himself, going against Jesus, and telling him that he, Jesus, is wrong. Our 3) founding apostles telling Jesus that he is wrong … even on major doctrinal matters, like the a) authority of Jesus himself; and b) the necessity of the crucifixion.


And so finally? Can we call the reader’s attention at last, to what Jesus himself is pictured as really, actually, finally saying, on second glance? In the second part of this very same passage? Where Jesus himself tells us that Peter is “Satan”:


“Jesus began…. 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'” (Mat. 16.21, 23).


Can loyal churchgoers, and Catholic priests, ever be honest? Will they ever honestly face, this second part of God? This very day we therefore ask this: can you yourself, the reader, here and now, face this? Please try. In the name of learning to see the false Christs; and in the interest of later seeing the right Christ, after all.


To those who can now “see” at last? To those who can face it? To those who can now see the second appearance of God? To those who can now see, it should be abundantly clear enough, “plain” enough, that preachers – in this case as it happens, Catholic priests – were never very perceptive; or if they were perceptive, they were never honest. In this case, clearly they have been even, incredibly, literally – to use the language of Jesus, above – “Satanically” dishonest. Clearly, all our preachers have always, grossly misquoted the Bible. They have betrayed God. And they have deceived the whole world. And their usual method? They have done that, in part by stressing, observing, mere misleading fragments of God and of the Bible. They presented to us, in church, only the 1) parts of the Bible, that seemed to stress the goodness and authority of priests. But 2) all our preachers left out, the larger picture. The larger picture, the fuller appearance of God. The parts of the Bible, where Jesus and God firmly warned us about our holiest men and angels. Where Jesus himself for example, warned adamantly, about Peter and his Church; where indeed Jesus finally retracted any apparent support for them. When Jesus finally said that Peter was, literally, “Satan.”


Given all that and much more? Given – as we will see, not only these criticisms in the Bible itself, of not only specifically, “priests,” but also “apostles,” and even the “angels” of the “church”es? Given all that and more; criticisms as we will see, of every single other major aspect of religious life, from “angels” to “zeal”? Given all that … which “Christian”s or churches today therefore, can be really sure that they themselves are following the right, true idea of God? How can any church today be sure it is itself, good and true – when even the very first churches, even those founded and/or overseen by the first apostles themselves in person, even churches perhaps even overseen even by “angels” – were themselves, often horribly wrong? How can any church today ever be sure it alone is good and true … when after all, churches today are to some extent based on the original churches. But even the original churches, were often wrong.


Finally, the conclusion it seems clear, plain enough. Given constant Biblical warnings about huge sins in essentially “all” our holiest men and angels, even in their most “inspired” moments – and then given the actual present evidence that priests of one major such error; the way priests have distorted the message of the Bible, regarding the unreliability of priests, for example? Given all that? Finally we must begin to simply conclude that God never wanted us to have much confidence or “faith” in holy men, like priests. In them personally … or in their church doctrines or dogmas, their picture of “Christ,” either. Finally, it becomes clear, the Bible begins to question even “faith”; and tells us that we should never have had so much “faith” at all. Instead, against all of them, we should always balance and prefer, the testimony of a more critical theology; a science of God.


When all our priests and angels, prove unreliable, to what should we finally turn, next? Amazingly we will see, the Bible itself gives us an answer. And the answer the Bible itself finally gives, is not “faith” in holy men, or in their vision of God and good. Rather instead? Given so many gross errors, in our holy men and angels? Instead of trusting or having much faith in them, instead, we are supposed to turn to … the international body of scientists and scholars; religious and otherwise. Finally, because of continuous sins in all our holy men and churches, the Bible told us to never have much faith in them of their “image” of God; but to constantly double-check them and all their claims. Checking everything they say with … critical science.


No doubt, some churches and priests will contest this. But to such persons? You might simply quote this line from the Bible. The line delivered by Jesus himself, to St. Peter, the founder many said, of many Christian churches:


“Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God” (Mat. 16.23).








Or for that matter? We should deliver to our preachers, a few lines from the Old Testament God, himself, warning especially about “prophets”:


“What can I say for you, to what compare you, O daughter of Jerusalem?… (Lam. 2.13). “Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity” (Lam. 2.14). “Ah, this is the day we longed for; now we have it; new see it! The LORD has done what he purposed, he had carried out this treat; as he ordained long ago, he had demolished without pity; he had made the enemy rejoice over you, and exalted the might of your foes…” (Lam. 2.16-17). “Look, O LORD, and see! With whom as thou dealt thus?… Should priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?… Thou has slain them…. Thou didst invite as to the day of an appointed feast my terrors on every side; and on the day of the anger of the LORD none escaped or survived” (Lam. 2.20-22).


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


“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 not prophet, I am a tiller of the soil'” (Zech. 13.4-5).


“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me…. And I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested” (Zech. 13.7, 9).


“Let no one contend, and let none accuse, for with you is my contention, O priest.… My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me” (Hos. 4.4-6).


“This was for the sins of her prophets, and the iniquities of priests” (Lam. 4.13).



God warned constantly about sins in every aspect of religion; from priests to spirits – to prophets.


And of course, related to that, we were warned constantly about sins in temples, churches:


“From prophet to priest, every one deals falsely…. Do not trust [believe] in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the LORD’” (Jer. 6.13, 7.4).


“And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty” (Rev. 21.22).


“In the temple he found those who were selling…. And making a whip out of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple…. His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘Zeal for thy house will consume me'” (John 2.14-17, citing Ps. 69.9).


Finally, of course, the churches are not reliable. To say the least.





The Heaven-Shattering Revelation:


Historical Christianity, as The Realization of Apocalyptic Prophesy

The Deception of All Mankind, by Churches and Priests –

And Their False, Spiritual Idea of Christ,

The False Christ



There were problems, sins, as it now seems clear, in our priests and prophets; there were surprising sins, in even their spirituality itself, especially.


We should not have been surprised to find this out; it now seems clear enough, that the Bible warned that essentially all the priests, all over the world, were often false. But if that is so, then what are the logical implications and entailments of that simple but devastating fact? First note this: essentially, priests and religion have had extremely “high” and “lofty” status for centuries; and indeed, in some sense, they have dominated the whole world. Many people worldwide have often said, historically, that their highest value in life, is their “religion”; and indeed, churches, religion, largely dominated must of Western society, c. 400 AD (about the time when Christianity was made the official religion of Rome), up to say, 1970, or even the present day. While finally, if religion, Christianity, dominated the Western nations? Then after all those Christian nations in turn, dominated the whole world. So that in effect finally? Priests dominated the whole earth, c. 400 AD – 1970 AD. But the problem? First: our priests were often wrong and false. Indeed? Since our priests were often false moreover? Even in their most “inspired” moments? Then no doubt they often erred, even in their presentation of Christ himself. The image of Christ that they gave the whole earth, the whole world, was a False Christ. Priests read misleading excerpts from the Bible, to allegedly prove that The Lord firmly supported apostles and priests and churches and spirits; while on closer, second look? We find that all our priests – and ministers – were incredibly dishonest; even “Satan”ic (Mat. 16.23; 2 Corin. 11.14).


What does this imply, therefore, finally? It means that one more apocalyptic prophesy has been fulfilled.


Note that it has long been foretold in the Bible itself, that one day could would reveal that the whole world would be dominated by a number of false, “beast”ly figures, including a false or “anti-Christ.” And for that matter, it was said that the world was already beginning to be so dominated, even in the time of Jesus and John. So that the “end” was already beginning, even c. 30-90 AD, in the time of John. Even in spite of the alleged infallible protection of “spirits” like the Holy Spirit.


Amazingly, the Bible itself warned about this all along. Indeed, Jesus himself warned about it:


“False Christs and false prophets will arise” (Mat. 24.24; Mark 13.22).


Not “only” Jesus, but also John, confirmed that many false images, false ideas of Christ, already existed by the time of John, even in the time when the New Testament itself was being written. And they came out of the heart of early Christianity itself, and the Apostles, like Peter.


Many preachers will have tried to say they and their own specific churches, are the only ones that have long ago, successfully evaded “false” things in Christianity. But we will show that the Bible warned that such things would persist, even in what calls itself Christianity, right to the very end of time. Almost every church thinks it is the only right, true church, that was not deceived. But some say no one but God alone, knows which church is the right one (if any; Ezk. 24.14, 34.17; 1 Corin. 4.4, 11.32; Mark 2.7), and he only will real it, on Judgement Day. While ii is hard to imagine that any church at all is totally right; when nearly all churches follow apostles, prophets … and yet the Bible warned that “all” these “have sinned.” And when the Bible often told us not to “judge” others, lest you “be judged” yourself (Luke 6.27); and tells us to “look for the beam in your own eye.” So that those who judge others, are merely “presumptuous.” At most you might judge those in your own church; but God judges those outside (q.v.).


It is better than no “Christian” firmly judge others though; especially since it seems certain that essentially almost all existing ideas of God and specifically Christ, in all churches, must be wrong. Finally in fact: could a false idea of Christ, have found its way into your own church? That seems inevitable, given the above. (Or even into the holy books themselves? Even the Bible itself?) Could our own image of Christ today, have incorporated false elements and rumors? Here, we will honor the Bible itself, and assume that every word in it is true. But we will note that among the many warnings that the Bible issued … were dozens, hundreds of warnings of deceit and delusion, even particularly among those who think they are following “Christ,” among those who think they are Christians. Again, remember, Jesus himself warned that until the last day, many who thought they were following him, Jesus, or the true Christ … would be insincere. Or mistaken:


“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).


Finally therefore, the Bible itself warned of false, evil things, sins and “illusions” and “delusions,” even among those who sincerely thought they were following Christ. So that in effect, the Bible warned of false things, a false idea of Christ, even among “Christians” therefore. Indeed, many people, we were warned, were already following a false idea of Christ, false Christs, anti-Christs … even in the days when the New Testament was being written. Therefore, being a “Christian,” even sincerely following an ancient, “tradition”al “Jesus” or “Christ,” is not good enough; you might be following, after all, a very old, traditional, but ancient, false idea of Christ. Indeed we will be revealing a shattering fact here; we will be showing here, that 9/10 of those today, who think and say they are Christians, including priests, have been following a most false idea of Christ. In point of fact.


Paul warned that there would be in effect, false religious leaders – or “preach”ers in effect – who would mislead many; and since they were speaking falsely constantly (as we add here), Paul in any case affirmed than in effect, our religious leaders would be teaching even Christ falsely. So that they will have presented in effect, what others called a “false Christ.” Though Paul more moderately called it “another Jesus” than the one Paul taught:



“I bethrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray…. For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough” (1 Corin. 11.2-6).


Here Paul speaks more realistically than others might: it becomes clear enough that bad and false preachers, since they get so many things wrong, will inevitably get Jesus himself wrong. And will present a “false Christ” in effect.


So that if our preachers have often been every, very bad indeed; as it seems certain from all the above? Yet everyone followed them religiously? Then one Apocalyptic prophesy has been fulfilled: in effect, 1) the whole world has been mislead even in its religion, its “worship” (Rev. 13). And 2) in the name of an essentially, false Christ. Which exactly matches what the Bible warned about.


So here finally, we come to the Apocalypse, again. To its fulfillment.


We should have known: there were many, constant warnings in the holy books themselves, that there were already many false things in religion being offered in the time of Jesus and John; offered even in the name of Christ and so forth too:


“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).


“As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us” (1 John 2.18).


Furthermore, it was predicted that some kind of beastly beings, perhaps allied to a false Christ or two, would indeed, one day dominate the whole earth (excepting only a very few; perhaps 144,000 people worldwide? The number of the 12 tribes of Israel?):


“And authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it.” (“Every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb”; numbering 144,000 members of the tribe of Israel? Rev/ 13.7-8).


“And makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first” (Rev. 13.12).


“It deceives those who dwell on earth” (Rev. 13.14)


“And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth, by the means of those miracles” (KJV).


By various false things – including false promises of physical “miracles” (KJV), and a false “spirit” (1 John 4.1) – a massive false presence, was already beginning to make itself, even in the very first days of Christianity; when Christianity itself was forming. While elements of Christianity were already concerned that these false concepts, false Christs, would infiltrate Christianity itself. Though John for example, for a moment, seemed confident that no such false things had entered he and his own followers – “us” as he said? Still, perhaps there were other, non-Johannine communities, churches. That were not so protected. Or perhaps John was simply flattering himself, when he thought that the himself had succeeded where the whole world was foretold to fail. Indeed, Paul seemed to prefer his own vision of Jesus; and dared to contend with other “gospels,” and other apostles; including no doubt Paul. And their “another Jesus” than the one he himself was offering. (The apostles in fact, at times did not agree with each other; Paul criticizing Cephas or Peter for example. While James and others in Jerusalem, seemed to tolerate Paul … so long as he stayed out of town; Paul was given the ministry to the “Gentiles,” or those outside of Jerusalem.) As for John himself? Jesus would not guarantee to the mother of one John Zebedee, that this John would stand next to Jesus in the kingdom (q.v.). If John was the “disciple that Jesus loved”? Then after all that proves nothing; since Jesus loves sinners.


The New Testament is full of accounts of the apostles failing; over and over. And if our accounts of Christ came from apostles? Then likely even the picture of “Christ” that many have, will be wrong; will be a “false Christ.” Indeed, the apostles it seemed, were sometimes not entirely in agreement, as to exactly who or what Christ was like, and what rules Christ was proposing. And at times, some of the apostles themselves, like Paul and John, went so far as to mutter warnings about “false Christs,” “anti-Christs,” and “another Jesus” than the one that they preferred. Warning that already, false Christs were proliferating, even in the time that Christianity was still in its first birth-pangs; still being defined, for the first time. So that the foretold End Time deception, of a false Christ, had apparently already begun. Even the very first days of the foundation of what came to be thought of, as Christianity.


And so the question would be: could one or more false images of Christ, have crept into
historical Christianity? Right from the very beginning? Could false things have crept into the very earliest roots, of the still inchoate, still vulnerable heart of what was to become historical Christianity? Paul insisted that his own “foundation” was sound; but he sometimes suggested that even himself was not “perfect”; and he cast doubts on those who would come after him, to build on top of the foundation that he had established. (Indeed, Paul began to note the necessity of a “day” when “fire” would come to “test” the “work” of those who would come after him).


Yet no real fire has fallen very strong yet, it seems; there were too many voices in the Bible, that seemed to be quite confident about the Christianity that was then forming; the Christianity that would dominate the world. Many parts of the Bible were quite confident about seemingly, all its apostles; and the institutions that were already forming. But even in our Bibles themselves, here and there, the voice that seemed so entirely confident about all apostles, and priests … was never quite the prevailing voice; there was always another voice in the text. Warning about possible sins and errors, even in our holiest men. Even in the very earliest days of the foundation of what we came to call Christianity. While indeed? This voice also warned that actually, at some point, Christianity would be taken in by false ideas; that ultimately, a whole crowd of false prophets, odd beasts, and probably a False Christ, would manage to dominate the whole “world”; “all nations,” all tongues, all peoples. And their religion; their “worship” (Rev. 13 etc.).


So? Although our churches have often been quite proud and confident abut themselves? Though they have been quite lofty and proud, in their claims to accurately represent Christ to us all? The fact is more closely read, the Bible itself was not at all sanguine, about the inviolability of Christianity; about its immunity to deception by especially, a false idea of Christ. Far from it: Jesus himself had warned that false Christs would come; and the very early Christians were already warnings about many “false christs” already in their midst. While the final book of the Bible – Revelation – written c. 90 AD, ended with a vivid picture, a prophesy, of essentially the whole world being, even “soon,” taken over, by false religious leaders. False leaders who would claim – and even genuinely think – that they were following a real Christ; crying “Lord, Lord.” And citing his name, citing Christ it seems, as their authority.


Thus? There is the very real historical and biblical possibility … that almost the very earliest Christianity that we know, was already, heavily imbued with … false images of a false Christ. Specifically? The view of Christ as strictly, one-sidedly, or permanently “spiritual,” has been a False Christ.




The False Christ:


The Churches’ Christ of

“Faith” in “Miracles” and “Spirituality”



The New Testament is full of warnings, about “false Christs,” and “anti-Christs,” and “another Jesus” than the right one. We were warned that false Christs “will” arise after the time of Jesus, c. 25 AD. While John confirmed that already, in his time – c. 90 AD – already “now many antichrists have come.” And Paul confirmed that some were already, in this time (fl. 53 AD), preaching “another Jesus” than his own:


“For false Christs and false prophets will arise” (Mat. 24.24; Mark 13.22)


Now many antichrists have come” (1 John 2.18).


“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).


I betrothed you as a pure bride to her one husband. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit … or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough” (2 Corin. 11.4).


The Bible makes it clear that already, in the first days when what we call “Christianity” was forming, there were already many false Christs around. And then Revelation warned that these various false Christs, would be added to other false religious forces, false spirits and false leaders … to dominate the whole world:


“The beast was given a mouth…. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13.5-7-8).


The Bible itself warned constantly about countless “false” things, and unexpected twists, in every single aspect of Judeo-Christian religion; from the “angels” and “anointings,” to the “church”es … and “zeal” for the Church. And it warned that essentially, the one “day,” we are to discover that “all” our holiest men and angels have sinned; and that they have lead the entire “world” into a false “worship,” of, among other things, a “false Christ.” While the Bible made it clear that … all the elements of a false religion, even false Christs, were
fully in place, already, in the time of the Apostles; when our Bibles were being written, and/or our churches and Christianity itself, were being formed.


Finally then, consider the heaven-shattering implications of all that has been said here. First of all 1) priests of course dominate churches; and 2) churches, religion, largely dominates the world. Yet more than that? Note that 3) it was priests and churches who after all, who largely defined God and Christ, for the great bulk of humanity. Yet 4) priests and 5) churches, we have found, are unreliable. And 6) the things they presented – their faith in miracles and spirit – were partially, false. Including finally, no doubt, their vision of Christ; the Christ that all of us learned in church, and that many of us believed in. So that? 7) Traditional priests presented a False Christ to the world. Indeed, 8) apostles like Paul and John were already warning that, specifically, false Christs had already come, even in their own time. While we confirm that the core principles of traditional “Christianity” – faith in miracles and spirituality – were false. And yet? 9) These false principles, false churches, eventually dominated the West; and the West dominated the “world.” So that? Then 10) therefore? We must soon conclude that most of the apocalyptic prophesy, actually came true long ago: a false regime, a false Christ, a false “worship,” has long dominated the earth, the whole “world.” Indeed, traditional miracle-promising and spiritual Christianity, was actually, the forewarned False Christianity.


Today therefore, we must all come to this shattering, Apocalyptic, but logical conclusion: that fact, many – or even essentially “all,” we will show here – of our priests were flawed; even in their most inspired moments? Then no doubt, they made mistakes, even when the pictured Christ to us. And this would mean? That in effect … our priests presented a false Christ, to the world. And all those who for centuries, have thought they were Christians? Who say and think that they are following “Christ”? Must now be found, logically, to be wrong. Must now be found – just as the Bible forewarned – to have been wrong. To have been following … the foretold “false Christ” or “anti-Christ.” Or “another Jesus” than the right one.


Is this just speculation? First 1) the Bible itself warned about it. And 2) our own look at what the Bible said, versus what priests said? The image of Christ they presented to the world? Confirms it: priests especially, picked up a false image, a false idea of Christ. And with that false image, they dominated the whole world.


As foretold.


At first, it seems impossible. But if this seems hard to face or bear, remember that 1) all this was foretold by the Bible itself. Indeed, the Bible warned constantly about “false” things throughout religion; even “false Christs.” While finally the Bible itself warned, that the whole “world” would eventually be found to be deceived, even in its worship. By in particular, a false Christ. While there were statements that the anti-Christs had already begun to arrive, in the time of Jesus or John.


So that? The False Christ appeared long ago; and founded traditional Christianity.


But if so? Then we have come here today, to reveal the second and better appearance of Christ. Who – as we will see – personally insists that he himself is not just a “spirit”; but is “flesh and bones.” So that he begins to return the spirit, to this physical earth again.


One “day” after all the Bible itself told us, we are supposed to discover, or be shown by God, that we have been deceived, even in our religion; even in our “worship.” One “day,” God or Christ as he really is, is supposed to return to earth … to expose sins in our holiest men and angels. But there is a positive side to this too: since Christ arrives to correct, “refine,” the old preachers’ vision of who or what God, Christ, is really like. To give us a “second” and better “appearance,” a Second Coming, of Christ. A second coming that will clear up the sins and confusions in our religion. By returning religion, priests, spirit, to this physical, material earth.


Once again. In a Second Coming of God to earth. After all. As we will see, next.



















































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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s