THE BIBLE BACKS SCIENCE, OVER FAITH;
Vol. 1 GOD RETURNS TO EARTH – IN
THE SCIENCE OF GOD; or, THE FULLER SCIENCE OF GOD;
Sins in All Preachers
In “All” Priests and Ministers,
And Their Most “Inspired”
[Copyright, 2011. Edited, to p. 155, July 10, 2011
Chapter 2 Sins in All Priests p. 1
Chapter 3 Spirituality p. 52;
Chapter 4 Science p. 101-147
Chapter 5 The Day & Conclusion 147-212
Chapter 6 Dest. Heaven Sum p. 212-]
“I have written something to the church;
but Diotrephes [“two cultures”], who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.
So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, prating against me with evil words.
And not content with that, he refused himself to welcome the brethren, and also stops those
who want to welcome them and puts them out of the church” (3 John 9-10).
Destruction of Heaven Introduction
At first, it seems impossible. But one “day” or another, God is supposed to expose massive, longstanding sins in “all” our holiest men and angels, on earth and in Heaven. And then? God is going to destroy our Heaven itself. Because of longstanding sins in essentially “all” our holiest men and angels, on earth and in Heaven, sins in all of them, right from the very start, one “day,” the Bible itself told us, God is going to dissolve Heaven itself, in “fire.”
At first, this seems utterly impossible; the idea that Heaven is supposed to be destroyed, is absolutely contrary to everything we heard in church, over and over. And yet? Finally there is really no doubt. That is exactly what the Bible itself said, over and over again.
First, there are sins in essentially all holy men; even the saints and angels in Heaven itself:
“The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad” (Hos. 7.9 vs. St. Paul Acts 26.24).
“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.21, 6.13).
“All have sinned” (Rom. 3.23).
“If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar” (1 John 1.10).
“Let no one contend,… for with you is my contention, O priest…. I reject you from being a priest to me” (Hos. 4.4-6).
“From prophet to priest, every one deals falsely” (Jer. 6.13).
“Prophesy against the prophets of Israel” (Ezk. 13.2).
“The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad” (Hos. 7.9 vs. St. Paul Acts 26.24).
Grace and other special gifts seen to “Wash away your sins” (Acts 22.16); “Sins are covered” (Rom. 4.7). But they are merely “Whitewash”ed. So: “I took my staff Grace, and I broke it” (Zech. 11.10).
“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter” (Mat. 7.21).
“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.21, 6.13).
God warned that there have always been massive sin in essentially “all” our holiest men and angels, and their most Holy Spirit inspired doctrines. Even in spite of any number of alleged special saving gifts and graces, from “angels” and “anointing”s and the “blood,” and “forgiveness,” to our “worship” and so forth. Indeed, in spite of all that, there are huge sins in all. And for that reason? One “day” or another, God is expose and punish sins in all holy men; even those spiritual men in Heaven itself:
“The LORD will lay waste…. And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest” (Isa. 24.1-2).
“All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall … like leaves falling from the fig tree. For my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; behold, it descends for judgement…” (Isa. 34.1-4-5 RSV).
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the … spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6.12-17 NIV).
“If God did not spare the angels when they sinned” (2 Peter 2.4).
“The LORD has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up and high” (Isa. 2.12 RSV).
“Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know” (Prov. 27.1).
“Though they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down” (Amos 9.2).
“On that day the lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven” (Isa. 24.21).
“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter” (Mat. 7.21).
“Though they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down” (Amos. 9.2).
There is no doubt then. One day, you are supposed to suddenly notice longstanding, continuous sins or errors, in essentially “all” our holiest men and angels; all our priests and ministers, bishops and popes, all our religious leaders – on earth, and in heaven. God is supposed to show you that none of our holy men or churches, were ever quite as good as they themselves told us, or that they were popularly taken to be. Neither they, nor even their holiest “doctrines” and sermons and sayings about God, were ever really fully good or accurate. And in the moment, the awful “instant” that you yourself see that? Your childhood heaven – your “Faith” in priests, churches, “miracles,” and even “spirituality,” as the Bible itself said – is supposed to collapse. In order for you to see something better.
Child-Molesting Priests –
And All Our Bishops Covered it Up
One “Day” or another, God is supposed to expose, huge sins in our holiest men and angels. And indeed, God is beginning to show many of us longstanding sins in our holiest priests and ministers, even now. Consider especially the public’s discovery, c. 1995-2005, that many Roman Catholic priests were homosexual child-molesters. This has been a discovery that just by itself, has seemed heaven-shattering, apocalyptic, to many of the faithful.
To some extent, indeed, as we read the latest stories in the newspapers, about child-molesting priests, and dishonest bishops, it seems that the foretold destruction of heaven, by God himself, was at last beginning, for many formerly blind believers, not long ago. But to be sure, the lessons of the pederast, pedophile priests, will likely soon be forgotten; drowned out by the churches’ constant proud, vain assertions of their own holiness and sacredness. The larger lesson of all this, will soon be forgotten. So that soon, Catholics and Protestants will sink back into self-congratulatory vanity; back to simply congratulating themselves daily, on the perfection of their own churches, of their vision, their image of God. Indeed, the lessons of History, and of experience, will soon be drowned out, by the eternal Vanity of the churches. And believers will soon reconstruct their blind belief in the churches, reconstruct another “perfect” “Heaven” for themselves. Unless we begin to recall and draw out the more humbling lessons of recent and ancient history; here and now. By noting that the recent exposure of child-molesting priests, is actually just part of a larger prophesy, a larger, shattering moment.
Rather than just forgetting about the many Pedophile Priests, Catholics and others, desperately need to keep firmly in mind, the larger, humbling lesson of this historical blip on the radar; in order to see something far larger, and far more important, behind it. Indeed the scandal of discovering that our priests were sexually molesting children, is only the visible tip of a much larger iceberg, under the surface of the water. Here and now we should note, first 2) an even worse implication, to this same molesting-priests problem. Specifically, it is time for everyone to note that not just ordinary priests, but also the highest church officials, the Bishops for example, also sinned here. Probably every one of the 400 or more active bishops in America, had at least one such child-molesting priest, in his own district or diocese, for a time. So that undoubtedly every single bishop in America knew about- or should have known about – the bad priests; the child-molesting priests. Yet our highest bishops and even our Pope, did nothing much about it. Indeed, they just made it worse; ignoring or “whitewashing” it. Probably almost every single bishop in America, knew that his own priests were often sinning; and yet every bishop covered it up, or in biblical language “whitewashed” it.
So here we begin to see a larger sin, within the Pederastygate scandal: it was not just ordinary priests, but our highest religious leadership that lied and deceived. While that awful revelation … leads to others, in turn. Consider this: 3) even worse, finally? In effect, our bishops, lied to us, when they stood before us every week, and spoke as if their church was absolutely holy and perfect. But the fact is? That almost all our bishops, cardinals, knew that for all practical purposes, their very own churches were not quite “sacred.” Or “holy.” Or “perfect.” Nearly every bishop worldwide in fact, deep down knew that their priests and churches, were never quite as good, many traditional Church doctrines and sermons had constantly told us. Nearly every bishop had at least one pederastical priest in his district or diocese; and knew about it, or should have known. Yet? Amazingly, bishop after bishop – and indeed, all our religious leaders – stood before us every week, and pretended that our Church was absolutely holy and sacred.
If at times they began to “confess the sins of the Church,” they did not confess the sins of the church well enough. When bishops discovered there were sins in their churches, for example, 4) did they warn us? Did they honestly, forthrightly, unambiguously, prominently, and adequately warn the people? In fact, they did not adequately warn us about constant signs of evil, in their churches. And their failure to adequately stress the sins in their churches … caused great harm, and was a very great sin. So that for example? Since they did not know of these sins, Mothers continued to confidently, unknowingly, bring their young sons to be altar boys … and to be sexually molested by their priests. If there are sins in the churches? The people must be told … so they can protect themselves against them. But here, the people were not warned. As we will be showing here, the Church was lost in Vanity; and incapable of seeing and adequately confessing its sins, publicly; enough to warn others.
There were great sins in Church; worse than many Catholics think. Our religious leaders were vain, and dishonest; they did not warn us adequately about sins in our holy men. Instead? a) Nearly all our religious leaders, until very late, kept mostly silent, about the details of their own sins. Or b) our leaders were even actively denying such sins. Later, when the press brought their sins into the light, many bishops began trying c) cover up those sins still; or to “whitewash” those sins. In fact, here is the truly greatest evil, in the molestation scandal, that has yet to be talked about: d) our highest Church leaders, our bishops and cardinals, our Pope, from day to day, continued to assure us, or speak as if, our church was “holy,” and “sacred,” and all but “perfect.” Here in fact, is the really great sin, in our Church leaders: even as they knew better, they prettified the Church; when they saw sins and errors in it, they just cosmetically painted over, they “whitewashed,” its herpes sores. All our religious leaders ignored or just painted over, covered up, massive cracks in the foundation; propping up the falling pillars. And because of that? Many more young boys were sexually molested.
And so indeed, there are a number of shocking and truly important – and ominous – sides to the priestly molestations scandal: first, we see that 1) individual priests and ministers are often bad. But worse? Even 2) our highest religious leaders, are often bad too. And worse? In Pedersastygate therefore, we see an early “sign” that after all, 3) there can be – and are – massive sins, even especially in our churches. And worse? 4) We cannot rely on our religious leaders to fix them.
Such sins – and worse sins in fact – have existed in the churches for centuries, for millennia. Yet the churches themselves are incapable of fixing them, or publicly making their sins known, on their own; instead, churches continually whitewash their own sins – and continue to proudly present themselves to the people, using words like “holy” and “sacred” to describe themselves. In fact, it was not through the efforts of priests – who simply lived with these sins, for 2,000 years – but only through the efforts of the “secular” media, that the priestly molestations were finally exposed. The highest church authorities, even the pope himself, did not really begin to move on this problem … until the cat was already well out of the bag; until the problem had already been thoroughly exposed by the popular press. While likewise? The Church will undoubtedly not move to fix even worse sins in itself. Unless or until they are exposed first, by the popular press. Or? Unless the Church begins to see a “second” and fuller appearance of Christ: until the churches at last see and follow the Christ of the Bible … who over and over, urged especially priests and popes and religious leaders, to publicly, continually, specifically, daily, confess their sins at last. Sins not just in their personal behavior – but far more importantly, sins and errors in their allegedly holiest church doctrines.
Intimations of the End
For many centuries, theologians, scientists, even most higher-echelon religious leaders, have known that their churches often sinned and erred. But consistently, those sins were never as prominently, publicly confessed, as they should have been; so that the people would be effectively warned; so that they would approach their churches and holy men with all due caution. Instead, the sins of churches have been, mostly, covered up; “whitewash”ed, by each church. At most, preachers would now and then confess in an occasional sermon or homily, that they themselves, personally, might have been bad, or might have fallen now and then. But those sermons were the exception; compared to the thousands of other sermons, that asserted the holiness of the Church; and the constant impression that the preacher gave, that he was, after all, the voicepiece of God himself. And then too, of course, 1) even when preachers, bishops, religious leaders, would occasionally be humble about their own individual abilities, most often they would however continue to assert that assert that 2) however, God could use imperfect people like themselves, to deliver perfect sermons, or to at least adequately represent God to us. Or 3) preachers would ambiguously allude to their own occasional, personal inadequacies … but they would assert that at last their church itself, its doctrine and so forth, was still “perfect” or “sacred,” or “holy.” But this means that the public was never adequately warned, about massive sins and errors, in every aspect of religion. So that all too many millions of people, simply, trustingly, and all-too-faithfully, turned themselves straight over to … unreliable, partially blind, and often even evil religious leaders. So that mothers took their sub-teen sons to churches to be altar boys … and delivered their children, all too trustingly, all too faithfully, straight into the arms of pederasts. While as will be seen here, the millions, billions of those who followed our churches, were harmed in countless other, even more serious ways. By preachers and their false theology, their false idea of Christ: their false promises of “all” and “whatever” miracles we “ask” for; their false “spirituality.” As will be seen.
The molestation scandal, is a useful first example, of some horrible sins in holy men – and deep in the churches, in fact. Thanks to these newspaper revelations, a last the People are being warned about at least, a few of the sins or their priests and bishops. But today it is time to begin, here and now, to look harder, at Pederastygate. And at these first “signs” of sin in holy men. While now in fact it is time to begin to ask, just how much deeper – and how much higher – do the sins in holy men go? In attempting to at last, see the bigger picture, the full scale of this awful problem, it is useful to look particularly, at what the Bible itself often said; what God himself often said. First, remember, we will have found that 1) according to the Bible itself, even priests can commit sins; 2) while in actual practice, we have found that priests can and do commit sins as notable as homosexual child-molestation. And 3) furthermore? Now it is time to note that the problem, the sin, goes higher: essentially every single Catholic bishop, and Cardinal, and Pope, had at least one child-molesting priest in his diocese, at one time. Therefore? Undoubtedly therefore, very single bishop – including the Pope, the bishop of Rome – knew, or should have known, about such things – but covered them up; “whitewash”ed them; every bishop lied. While 4) worst of all? In effect, every religious leader knew that things were not entirely perfect or “holy” in the Church. And 5) as their really significant and egregious sin? They did not do enough to expose this problem, and warn people against following their false religious leaders, all-too-religiously, all-too-faithfully. They did not do enough to prevent loyal churchgoers, from continuing to faithfully deliver their sons and daughters to pederasts.
So what has been, their really far more serious sin of priests, bishops, churches? Their great sin … was that they did not ever warn the people – adequately – that there would be severe penalties from God, for trusting and following the churches too piously, too faithfully. Instead, we were constantly told in countless church services and official pronouncements, in this time-frame and throughout the history of the churches, was that the churches are “holy” or “sacred,” or something like that. In the very moment when priests were sexually molesting children, young boys, then as always, almost every Catholic priest and bishop, knowingly, continued to mostly present themselves, as the all-but-perfect or certainly authoritative, voicepieces of absolute holy truth. Even as they knew that many of their priests (and bishops) were homosexuals (especially in New York and California), even as they knew that there was plenty of corruption in the churches, all our bishops continued to deliver, overwhelmingly, the same proud, self-flattering sermons, homilies, and liturgies; sermons that still spoke as if our church was “holy” and “sacred.” Now and then a priest or bishop, to be sure, might issue one or two vaguely-worded public statements; statements that might indirectly acknowledge some problem; but acknowledge it in a very general, vague, indecisive way. (See for example, the current catechism, very, very vaguely acknowledging that the church might be imperfect until the second coming: CCH, sec. 670, 677, 769, 825; offering very useful but still far, far too vague and unsatisfactory admissions). Now and then a preacher would deliver a sermon or homily, appearing to confess that he or she personally was sometimes bad; but then that sermon would assert that still however, the priest and church, did not err in their firm “doctrines” and so forth, or in their liturgies and doxologies and so forth; so that they were still effectively delivering the real Christ, God, to us all. Though finally? We will begin to show that they did not perform as well as they constantly so proudly and presumptuously proclaimed.
Perhaps the great sin of preachers and churches, in fact, is Pride and Vanity. The secret, hidden vanity in their implied and often explicit claims, to be a reliable voicepieces of absolutely holy truth; the voicepieces of God. Even as the popular press and everyday experience was delivering constant “signs,” evidence, of sin in our priests … our bishops and churches continued to mostly deliver the same old traditional services, the same assurances that our churches and holy men were good enough, in the vast majority of churches. Though now and then, one leader or another, might make some very vague acknowledgment of some unspecified “unworthiness” in holy men? Overall, as usual, the vastly predominant message, the vast majority of homilies that most ordinary churchgoers heard in church, was the same traditional, essential liturgical message: that your church was the effective repository, the adequate – and sometimes even “sacred” and “holy” and even “perfect” – representative, of God himself. Representing God adequately, they constantly claimed, in the sermons; the liturgies; in the communal host; the monstrance; the Bible, etc.. Whatever their allegedly “minor” or strictly personal sins might be, the churches overall, adequately and effectively continued to speak for God; and to assume the “mantle,” the implication, the clothing therefore, of being itself, holy and sacred. Indeed, from day to day, every day, the Church, when it does not directly state that it is holy and worth following, constantly implies that: as it presents itself after all, every day, century to century, as the reliable voicepiece of God. Even commanding us at times, to follow it; faithfully, and with all but absolute fidelity and loyalty. But as it turns out? The churches were never as good as they claimed to be, or as many believers thought that they were.
And here is the problem: since they trust and believe and have all too much faith in their holy men and churches? The people, will have trusted their holiest men … even when they sinned and erred. Like the blind, following the blind. So that thus? Many – like the young victims of the Pederastical Church – will have been lead into – as we will see – even more massive sins and errors than having their children sexually assaulted by priests. Millions, billions in fact, were mislead. Led into even worse disasters. By the very holy men that presented themselves to us, as our priests and ministers; as the very “angels of light” (2 Corin. 11.14 ff).
And this indeed, is perhaps the most insidious evil of all: when the greatest evil, presents itself to us, as the very greatest good. Yet that is what we will see now, in all our churches; Catholic and Protestant both. And worse, this will be soon forgotten. Unless we begin to note … some of the larger implications, of 1) “just” a few thousand pederastical priests. Unless we firmly note the first, larger problem: 2) that all our highest religious leaders, bishops, are unreliable and dishonest.. And then? 3) Note at last, constant Biblical warnings about all of this. And what they lead to.
The Bible Warned
Especially Priests and Prophets
Today it may still seem shocking, to the vast bulk of faithful, pious believers, to hear about the sins of priests and holy men, in Pederastygate. Anyone who really read and knew his Bible however, should not be so totally surprised; though our priests never told you about this much in church, the Bible itself long warned about bad and false things in essentially “all” our priests and other holy men. Indeed, in the Bible, as we are about to see in this chapter, there are countless warnings about bad things, in priests and churches; and bad things even in the highest prophets and angels and apostles in our Judeo-Christian heaven itself. And these warnings are not just about holy men in other religions, other heavens, outside Christianity; but “all” of them, inside Christianity too: “all” have sinned, the book of Romans tells us, speaking even of Christians. (While we will see that there is no special grace, from “anointing” and “baptism,” to “worship” and “zeal,” that reliably, permanently removes those sins). While indeed, even those claiming to follow the “Lord,” have often been hypocrites; or have often followed a false idea of the Lord or Christ; a “false Christ.” Just as Jesus himself warned would happen. So that sins are found throughout what is considered to be Christianity.
This will be still be hard for many proud and vain preachers and churchgoers to believe or face, however. Most churchgoers and religious leaders, want to believe that they themselves have been good enough already. And yet finally, it is time for our “good” believers, to face the fact that there were evils, even deep within what they thought was “good,” and from God. So that the more carefully they followed the “good”? The further they were lead into the “pit.” (Like the “blind” following the “blind,” etc.).
There is in fact, really almost no excuse for believers not knowing this. Since surely today, 1) almost everyone knows the importance of reading. While 2) once you can read, you should be able to see that the Bible itself often went out of its way, to let us know that “all” have sinned. Finally even the most casual reader of the Bible, 3) should have been able to pick up bits of the sacred text … warning especially about “all”; including priests and holy men. Even 4) our holiest men and angels in heaven itself. Even those in the very “household of God.” Indeed, “all” means “all”:
“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3.23).
“There is no man who does not sin” (1 Kings 8.46 KJE).
“The time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God…. It begins with us” (St. Peter, in 1 Peter 4.17, in The Holy Bible; New Testament, Gospel book of St. Mark; 13.31-32. Revised Standard Edition, or “RSV”).
“No one is good except God” (q.v.).
“All” have sinned the Bible said, over and over; while especially our holiest men have sinned. And furthermore as we will soon see, contrary to what every church claims, from “anointings” and “baptisms,” to “spirit” and “zeal,” there is no special grace or gift, that permanently removes the sins of the past (as noted in our writings on sins in all aspects of religion, including “special” graces and so forth).
For this reason? It was not even the people, but was especially the priests, who were criticized, “judge”d by God in the past. While it is especially and specifically priests that are to be judged by God, in the end as well:
“Let no one contend, and let none accuse, for with you is my contention, O priest. You shall stumble by day, the prophet also shall stumble with you by night; and I will destroy your mother. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me” (Hos. 4.4).
“Hear this, O priests, pay attention, O house of Israel, O household of the king, give ear! It is you who are called to judgement. For you have become a snare… and a net…. Now Ephraim has played the harlot, Israel is defiled. Their deeds do not allow them to return to their God…. The arrogance of Israel bears witness against him…. And Judah stumbles with them. With their flocks and their herds they shall go to seek the LORD, but they shall not find him; he has withdrawn himself from them. They have been untrue to the LORD, for they have begotten illegitimate children” (Hos. 5.1, 3-4, 5-7 NAB).
“An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.30-31).
“From prophet to priest, every one deals falsely” (Jer. 6.13).
“Who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire.; he will sit … and he will purify the sons of Levi [the tribe of priests]…until they present right offerings” (Mal. 3.2-3).
Most preachers do not, cannot face this. Many will have read a few misleading parts of the Bible, as assuring us that many priests and churchgoers escape from sin and error, thanks to “Grace” or “faith” or some other special gift. But here we will be showing among the great sins of our preachers is that they always read and following only misleading parts of the Bible; while they ignored the larger message of the sacred text. While in this particular case? Preachers read to us in church, only the parts of the Bible that seemed to flatter preachers; that seemed to assure us that our preachers are true and good, and will have recovered from any major sins; while preachers however did not read to us in church, or themselves adequately face, the hundreds of other quotes. Where the Bible suggested that after all, the testimony of holy men was not reliable; and that all our holy men sin and err, all the time. Even in their most allegedly perfect and inspired moments. Particularly, preachers’ sermons and homilies and writings, are not to be entirely trusted. Because “all” people make mistakes. And indeed, even our language, our “tongues,” our speaking, are not reliable. So that finally – as we will see here – we should not trust any mere sermons or any speeches or even allegedly holy words at all. But should trust the evidence of what actual, physical, good “works” people do.
Here and now however, it is at last time to reveal the “full”er nature, appearance, of God. As foretold, a “book” is being presented, “opened” here … that begins to show who the really good people were, and who was not as good as everyone thought (Isa. 28.5-29.11-18-24). “And those who err in spirit will come to understanding” (Isa. 29.24).
Specifically, we will have begun here with … a very long review, of the many, many parts of the holy ” book”s that priests and churches suppressed; the parts of the Bible that they semantically “twist”ed or “whitewashed.” The parts of the Bible where it at last warned that many, many priests – and perhaps all of them – finally, failed. Failed to the point that God condemned “you, O priests” above; condemning them even to the end of time.
If God criticized the highest saints and apostles in heaven – the very figures that priests follow religiously, after all – if the very apostles were often wrong and evil, even in doctrinal matters – and so wrong that Jesus would call them “Satan” – then logically of course, our priests – who follow the apostles and their writings, all too “faith”fully, all too loyally – will also have been deceived, and mislead. Because priests will have been following “false prophets” after all. So that the condemnation of angels and prophets and apostles, was already implicitly, a powerful condemnation of the priests. Who after all, followed these false religious leaders. Into the pit. The blind, following their equally blind leaders.
But some – preachers especially – will not be satisfied, by indirect evidence that preachers are bad. Just by association with bad apostles. Some preachers will secretly think that even if the highest apostles were often bad and evil, our modern preachers however, might secretly correct for their errors; and succeed in being perfect, themselves. For this reason, it might be useful to look at parts of the Bible that at last, began to very directly criticize specifically and by name, priests:
“He leads priests away stripped” (Job 12.19).
“An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.30-31).
“From prophet to priest, every one deals falsely” (Jer. 6.13).
“It is the anointed priest who sins” (Lev. 4.3).
“Becomes a priest of what are no gods” (2 Chron. 13.9).
“Anointed priests whom he ordained to minister” (Num 3.3).
“The hands of compassionate women have boiled their own children; they became their food…. This was for the sins of her prophets, and the iniquities of priests” (Lam 4.10-13). “The breath [wind/”spirit”] of our nostrils, the LORD’S anointed, was taken” (Lam. 4.20).
“For with you is my contention, O priest.… I reject you from being a priest to me” (Hos. 4.6).
“Now, O priests, this command is for you. If you will not listen, if you will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name, says the LORD of hosts, then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings; indeed I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung upon your faces, the dung of your offerings, and I will put you out of my presence” (Mal. 2.1-3).
“Moses said nothing about priests” (Heb. 7.14).
“He would not be a priest at all” (Heb. 8.4).
Priests today of course, conveniently “forget” to emphasize these parts of the Bible. Instead – like their predecessors the Pharisees – they love to stand proudly, praying in fine robes, in front of congregations (q.v.), enjoying the prestige they have as the alleged voices of God. But in reality, they have never really been as good as they themselves thought. Particularly, they quote mere, misleading parts of the Bible; especially parts that stress their own priestly authority. While all our priests leave out – or topspin or “twist” “whitewash” – those parts of the Bible where God after all, warned constantly about priests.
But today, most of humanity is “mature”; and grown-up enough to face the truth. Therefore, it is time to direct all the people, to learn to read and face, all of their Bible; especially the parts that were never honestly presented in church. The parts that warn about huge sins in our holiest men, angels, and priests.
Among other things, it is time for the people to remember that indeed, it was not just the people, but was especially the priests and the very religious followers – the “scribes and Pharisees” and “priests” – who had Jesus himself arrested and killed. It was especially the priests, that wanted Jesus arrested from contradicting their idea of religion; it was most of all the priests that had Jesus himself arrested and killed, on charges in large part, of going against them, and their church:
“The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him” (Mark 14.1, Luke 24.20; John 12.10).
Many people today will claim that warnings about priests, referred not to Christian priests, but only to other priests; Jewish rabbis of the past, say. And yet however, Jesus himself warned the there “will” be false prophets and presumably false priests even after Jesus; and that many would present themselves as Christians, invoking his name as they call out “Lord, Lord.” Even here though, priests will assert that Jesus did not specifically name they themselves; or that they themselves are the one true body of priests, after all. And yet, aren’t essentially all our preachers, following … apostles? And if Jesus called the apostle Peter “Satan” for example? Then … aren’t all preachers following “Satan,” after all? (See also Satan, as the main advocate of “faith,” in Job 1).
Are There Biblical – Especially New Testament – Statements in
Support of Priests?
The Old Testament at times supported “priests” – but many other times, warned about huge sins in them. In the New Testament, Jesus himself was killed in large part, by priests.
To be sure, there were always parts of the Bible, that seemed to support priests; or that at least, could be “twisted” in such a way, by priests, to deliver such a message. But which texts do priests use to support their own authority? Consider first, the Old Testament: there are to be sure, 1) many texts in the Old Testament supporting priests. But for that matter, there are also even more parts of the Old Testament, warning about sins in priests after all. But in any case, 2) the Old Testament, and its sayings about Jewish priests, is sometimes not as relevant, some say, to Christianity, as the New Testament of Jesus is. So let’s turn to the New Testament specifically.
Which New Testament texts – might priests use to try to show that the Bible favors
priests? It is a) oddly difficult, to find Jesus saying good things about priests. Or not so odd: considering that most very, very early Christians probably still thought of themselves as Jewish, and followed mostly Jewish priests. While b) finally moreover, the very earliest Christianity, soon had severe problems with those priests; Jewish priests had Jesus arrested as a heretic and insurrectionists; and more than anyone therefore, it was the priests that killed Jesus himself.
For these and other reasons no doubt, c) we don’t find that many New Testament endorsements of “priests” per se, by name, in the New Testament. Indeed, not even in say, Paul. Instead, we hear Paul at most supporting “leaders.” Or the “fellow worker and laborer.” Like these:
“Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you of the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith” (Heb. 13.7).
“Obey your leaders” (Heb. 13.17).
“When Timothy comes … let no one despise him…. The household of Stephanas were the first converts…; I urge your to be subject to such men and to every fellow worker and laborer” (1 Corin. 16.10-16).
In fact, d) one of the very few favorable references to “priests” by name, in the New Testament, was only from St. Peter. Whose aa) statement was however, a quote from the Old Testament though. And was a quote that might be thought to not extend to the new covenant of Jesus:
“Be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19.6).
As it turns out, there are many objections to this single favorable, New Testament quote about priests; among other objections, first, it is really from the Old Testament, and might not extend to the “new covenant” of Jesus and the New.
While bb) furthermore? As we will see, this quote – “Be to me a kingdom of priests” – is in itself, semantically ambiguous. While here as usual, priests take the one reading that flatters their own authority … as they ignore the other, better reading, that does not support priests so firmly. Specifically? Often this above quote, is read to us in church, as a solid prediction and promise to us, from God: that we the people, will assuredly follow priests and thus of course be holy. Yet? Here as always, there is another reading, that does not flatter priests as much: it probably should be read probably as some kind of conditional statement; or ideal. But not an ideal that God expected would be fulfilled. Rather, it was presented as an ideal goal: we should try
to be a nation of good priests; but there is no guarantee here from God, that we will succeed in that efforts. Here, “be to me,” seems best read not as a statement assuring us that we will all be good priests; but as merely expressing the hope that say, the people of the Old Testament, of Israel would become holy. A hope or desire of God that – by the way – has never quite been met. Since the Bible itself is full of accounts of how Israel and its people – in spite of the hopes God put in it; in spite of occasional “eternal” triumphs – still, often failed God. Indeed, the Old Testament is full of passages that show us priests failing God, to became bad and evil (as in the tale of the Good Samaritan for example).
Is there any reliable endorsement of a Christian priesthood here or anywhere in the Bible, in fact? There are amazingly few such endorsements in the Bible. Continuing with this single, lonely alleged example, we are furthermore, noting many problems. Among others? It cites the Old Testament; where God was endorsing, if anything, a Jewish priesthood specifically; not a more modern Christian one. Then too? The wording, as we have just noted, in ambiguous, semantically: many read it as having God assure us of success in being good priestly persons; but the wording itself does not quite nail that meaning down. And for that matter, regarding the potential shakiness of this very quote? We should note that cc) in the New Testament restatement of this remark, it is specifically the Apostle Peter, that makes this remark; it is Peter who seems to assure us that God wants us to be a nation of priests. Yet Peter himself, as we will be finding here, had some problems, in himself. As we will be seeing here, Peter often warred with Jesus himself; Peter often “denied Jesus,” and so forth. While Paul called Peter/Cephas, a “hypocrite.” To say nothing yet, of what Jesus finally said about Peter, in Mat. 16.23. Where Jesus finally told us that Peter himself, was “Satan.”
No doubt, there are parts of the Old Testament, that support a specifically Jewish priesthood, for Jews; but are there any really firm endorsements in the New Testament, of a specifically Christian priesthood? Preachers of course, will have kept looking for centuries, for passages from the Bible, that could be used to bolster their profession or avocation Yet here we will be finding that often the very few positive quotes from God, that they used, do not quite unambiguously mean, what we were told they meant, in church. Often the very few sentences that seemed to support Christian priests and their faith, are even in themselves, far more ambiguous than most people knew: many of these very sentences have a “second” meaning, even within themselves. In addition to problems with “be to me a nation of priests,” we might also note problems with the one or two other pillars of priestly authority. In particular: why were we hearing in Paul, say, not about following specifically, “priests”? But instead, about following “leaders”? And “fellow workers“? As it turns out, these and all other details of linguistic construction, in the Bible, turn out to be extremely significant. Ultimately we will be showing here, the Bible itself, God himself, clearly wanted to deliver a Bible to us … that for some time, was to be perceived as having at least two, rather conflicting major voices, or themes, or theologies, in it: 1) a “first” voice that supported priests and their spirituality and faith; 2) but then another, “second” voice; one that warned constantly about massive sins and errors in our holy men. While what we will be finding here? Is that amazingly, the “first” voice, turns out not to be the one finally favored by God; not at all. Finally, God did not want us to follow, explicitly, “priests,” as much as persons who do “good works.” Good workers; not priests.
Did the Bible, God – and especially the New Testament – really support specifically our Christian “priests” all that firmly, therefore? Consider, first of all, all the many warnings in the Bible about, specifically, “priests”; even those in Israel and the Judeo-Christian tradition; indeed apparently, even those in Heaven itself. Then too? If that was not damning enough, consider among other things … the historical background situation, of the New Testament: Jesus himself after all, was killed by especially, priests. The very people who, more than anyone else, wanted to kill Jesus, were the priests of his day. Who wanted to kill Jesus, because Jesus dared to cross some of their favored religious ideas. (Particularly for claiming to be yet another coming of God, to earth and flesh). So that? More than anyone, ironically – and significantly – it was precisely the priests who, more than anyone, killed Jesus:
“The chief priests and the scribes were seeking to arrest him by stealth, and kill him” (Mark 14.1).
“Our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him” (Luke 24.20).
“The high priest tore his robes, and said, ‘He has uttered blasphemy!'” (Mat. 26.65).
Why don’t we see many very strong endorsements of “priests” therefore, in most reliable translations of the New Testament? Likely, there were very few such endorsements, in the original texts. Logically, it would have been surprisingly hard, and rare, for any early Christians to really enthusiastically assert, that priests were always good. Since indeed? It was precisely the priests, that has just executed their leader, Jesus himself. On charges largely, of heresy, or “blasphemy.” Therefore, we should indeed, not expect too many strong endorsements of priests, or even a Christian priesthood, in at least in the New Testament. Rather at most, we find a few statements that are equivocal at best; and then? Dozens of remarks condemning priests, in fact.
A great reluctance to endorse priests, seems indeed, to be evidenced in the language and structure, the “tongue” of the New Testament. In general, the text is at best ambiguous on this as in many other key topics. While in general, we will see that there are really two major voices, or schools of opinion, on this and related subjects. To be sure, there is a voice in the New Testament, that seemed superficially, to support religious “leaders”; still, that was not quite an unequivocal statement in support of “priests,” by name. No doubt much of the New Testament was probably dictated, from a time when there were e) still vivid memories of Jesus being executed by priests. And a time when therefore, there was not quite a fully established, independently, specifically “Christian” priesthood. That is, perhaps, f) in spite of the execution of Jesus by priests, some very early converts, if anything, probably still thought of themselves as Jews, and wanted to follow the Jewish “temple” – and its priests – basically. Indeed, early on, Christians like Paul were often (if not always) at pains to try to prove they were totally obedient to the Old Testament – or some would say even to Judaism – and its God. While very idea of Christianity splitting away from Judaism, to become a separate religion, with its own temple or church and priesthood, would have seemed like simply, blasphemy or heresy or apostasy or schism. So that? T he very idea of “Christian” priests, or indeed of “Christianity: as a religion entirely apart from Judaism – and its temple and priests – was perhaps, alien to the very first converts; and seemed like simply, a heresy.
These are some reasons why there wouldn’t there be many statements in support of priests, in the New Testament. To be sure, many would say that the apostle Paul for example, attempted to set up such an arrangement, to set up a Christian priesthood; when Paul suggested that Jesus himself was a new kind of high priest, after the order of “Melchizedek” (in Heb. 5,6,7). Yet even this, would only set up Jesus himself, specifically, and no one else, as a priest, it would seem technically. While it is not clear that this was accepted by Jews; or that it was accepted by many, that Jesus would set the pace, for an priesthood that was entirely independent from Jewish rabbis and so forth. Indeed? Note that Paul’s argument was taking pains, to try to establish that the priesthood of Jesus, was consistent with a pattern set in Judaism; when one “Melchizedek” was made a priest. Here therefore, we do not see the very firm establishment of a specifically, Christian priesthood; not at all.
Given all this and more, many scholars (especially Protestants), have long suggested that, curiously enough – though for reasons that we can now begin to understand – the New Testament was often curiously reluctant and equivocal, about setting up a specifically Christian priesthood. Related to this: it has likewise been suggested that the early “churches,” were really just groups of people, meeting informally in houses; congregations or meetings. Because again: many early Christians would have had many reservations, about setting up a specifically Christian priesthood, and related to that, setting up their own churches, independent of, or in replacement of, the main Jewish temple in especially, Jerusalem. Such an act, would have been perceived by many, as an obvious rebellion against the Jewish tradition, and its God. While still other early Christians would have been quite shy about setting up any priesthood at all, for rather the opposite reasons. Not because they wanted to remain loyal to the Jewish church or temple and its priesthood; but precisely because they wanted to get as far away from all that – and from all priests – altogether. Since the priests, after all, had just killed Jesus himself. And g) for that matter? Jerusalem had become a possession of Rome, around 64-63 BC; and then, when Jerusalem rebelled against Roman rule? Jerusalem itself was burned to the ground by Rome. In 70 AD. So that first of all, the Temple – and its priesthood – were largely destroyed. Priests were probably being killed by the Roman occupiers. While any survivors, any surviving priests – Jewish or Christian – were no doubt, not highly favored by later Romans. So that it would not have been politically wise, one would think, for anyone to present himself too zealously, as a very prominent and very traditional, Jewish or Christian priest. Indeed, the New Testament began to note that the first rather priestly followers of Jesus, like Stephan and others, were soon, killed, “martyred,” by the Romans and Jews themselves.
Did the New Testament really favor “priest” at all, ever, therefore? We will have begun to see here, that there were many forces at work in the time of early Christianity, that would tend to ensure that there would be surprisingly few statements in the New Testament, unequivocally in favor of “priests” in general; and especially, distinctively, specifically, Christian priests. Among the dozens of factors at work here, especially, finally, we should all consider the h) dozens, hundreds of statements in the Bible; where God himself continually noted sins in apparently, his own priests. Finally in fact, we will be reviewing dozens, hundreds of negative remarks, by God, regarding acute failures and evils, even in his own priests. Indeed, finally God issues statements that suggest that we should not even have a Christian priesthood. Or that, if we do? God suggested that if a Christian priesthood was ever formed, it would never be entirely reliable. Especially since priests tended to follow “false prophets,” and so forth; while indeed eventually, all the religious leaders that priests followed, would themselves be shown to have been largely false; and were fated to be dissolved in the destruction of Heaven itself, by God himself.
Therefore, if Paul and Peter every appeared to attempt to establish that Jesus himself was a priest, and thus tried to endorse a Christian priesthood (Heb. 7, 1 Peter 2.5-9; Rev. 1.6, 5.10, 20.6)? Actually, that was a claim, an effort, that was surprisingly hard to justify, in a way consistent with the rest of the Bible. If there were ever any “parts” of the Bible, that really unambiguously supported priests? There were also far more parts – another whole thematic voice, in the Bible itself. That warned constantly, about priests. That in pact, warned that it was priests, more than anyone else, who killed Jesus.
Eventually to be sure, St. Peter twice suggested that someone or another, was “a chosen race,” forming a Christian, holy priesthood (1 Peter. 2.5-9). “A royal priesthood, a holy nation.” But here Peter quoted an ambiguous phrase, from the Old Testament; one that probably referred originally to just Jews. While finally? Generations of Protestant scholars, might note that finally after all, Peter himself was such a sinner – that Jesus himself finally called St. Peter, Satan; in Mat. 16.23.
The fact is, that it was especially, the priests that killed Jesus, in the first coming. And i) likely, unless our preachers and the people take heed today, given this record, it may well be the priests, who are the greatest enemy of the Second Coming of Christ, as well. No doubt in the Second Coming, the priests especially – or their immediate lay associates – that will again try to kill Jesus. Some priests will no doubt again try to kill Jesus in the Second Coming … for the very same reasons as the first time: for him daring to note sins in holy men, in “scribes and Pharisees.” For challenging their authority, in many ways. For saying that he, Jesus, is God come again, to physical material earth, and to physical “flesh.” Indeed, the priests killed Jesus the first time; and no doubt, though many preachers today are more sensible, there will be priests in the more activist/secular/political branches of the churches especially, that have not been adequately trained, that have not adequately learned the lessons of the past; and who will be working to have the Christ of the Second Coming too, arrested, jailed, and killed.
And as this happens? In church, your priests will constantly read to you, misleading fragments of the Bible, that seem to support the authority of priests. Yet as of today, those countless believers who have been loyally, faithfully following priests all their lives (and collectively, for centuries), should remember how selective and distorted our priests’ quoting the Bible has been. It is precisely in fact to counter that, that here we have begun quoting some parts of the Bible, that priests do not tell you about in church. That priests have suppressed, and disobeyed. In order to try to partially preserve the people from their priests, among dozens of other quotes, it might be useful for the formerly blind believer, to memorize say, the following quote. And never, ever, forget it:
“Our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him” (Luke 24.20).
If all our preachers and churches in fact, have already in effect, denied and disobeyed it, there was always however, already, a first outline of a second and better, fuller coming of Christ, in the Bible itself. A second and fuller picture of Christ. And anyone can discover it … just by re-reading the Bible itself. While paying particular attention to the parts that priests disregarded and disobeyed; or that they conceptually “twist”ed and “whitewashed,” and denied.
For thousands of years, too many people have followed their priests all too well. Here and now however, it is time to take a far more critical look, at preachers, and their sermons and homilies and theologies. In particular, it is time for the people to be told that the Bible really has at least two major, rather different themes in it. To be sure, “parts” of the Bible, seemed to support priests, ministers, prophets; whom we have called generically, here, “holy men” and “angels.” And those parts of the text, seem designed for (and by?) priests, to support their own authority. While priests tend to only quote and teach, only that theme, those parts, of the Bible: the part that supported priests, and a spiritual/ascetic way of life. But in doing this, priests radically and culpably, criminally, falsely represented the Bible and its larger, fuller message. The fact is, alongside the 1) first-quoted parts of the Bible, that seemed to support priests and holy men? There were 2) always other parts; a “second” voice. That noted massive sins in holy men.
Often we see the two voices, first and second, at work even within single sentences. Often the very phrases that seem to support priests most adamantly … are rather systematically open to a second, more critical reading. For example? We have just begun to consider the major Biblical passage that preachers make to defend their status based on the quotation, “be to me a kingdom of priests.” Among earlier objections to their many sermons on this passage, we might that the above-phrase, is a) just one example. Which must be weighed against dozens more warnings about priests. And furthermore, b) even this single example, is in itself, not unequivocal in its support of priests; it is ambiguous. It is open to two or more readings.
Does this quotation – “be to me a kingdom of priests” – really tell us to follow priests? Or c) does it instead, tell all of us, each of us, to be our own priests? And, d) if it does order us to try to be priests – does it guarantee that we will be successful? Or e) does tell us what kind of priests, are good? Does it tell us which group of priests, is the right one? Or indeed, f) is this command to be priests, even surely directed to we ourselves, and not just some historical persons in the past?
For once, let’s look at the fuller context, of the rest of the Bible. In this case, it often noted sins for example, even specifically in the prophets and people of Israel. Given that, it now seems likely that the above quotation, was a command, a directive from God, to try to be good. But the text did not really guarantee our priests’ success. It did not guarantee that we, or even Israel itself, or our priests, would be entirely successful; or that we had attained that status. Indeed, later history shows that Israel itself, often did bad things, and went against God. So that the Bible more carefully read, warned that all such injunctions or prognostications, were conditional; would come true, only if the people really heard and followed God fully: we would become a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” only “if you obey my voice” (Ex. 19.5). While there were constant warnings in the Bible that many priests did not really obey the right voice; either through simple disobedience, or inability to “discern” what exactly it was, that God was saying.
Indeed, we are finding here that even our allegedly Christian priests, did not really, fully hear and obey the voice of God. Finally, our priests seriously misread the Bible. They read or stressed, only the parts of it that could be mis-used, to support their own priestly authority. While preachers never adequately read to us, the parts of the Bible, the elements of the “voice” of God, that told us to “prophesy against the prophets of Israel” (q.v.). In spite of their many pretenses, preachers were never fully good or honest. They proudly read to us the fragments of the Bible that, taken out of context, seemed to support their own priestly authority, and that of the “Lord”s they worked for. But they never quite told the whole, full story.
Indeed, there are finally hundreds of quotes in the Bible, that confirm that the Bible finally warned about priests and holy men. And the Bible is not just warning about honest mistakes; it also warned that many of our ministers are delivering false messages … and are being deliberately and consciously false. As just one example among hundreds? Note Paul, as he warned there were already many false apostles in his own time, even in the first Christian Churches. While Paul confirmed that many holy men are really agents of “Satan”:
“Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds” (2 Corin. 11.13-15 RSV; cf. KJE).
“Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. It comes as no surprise that his ministers disguise
themselves as ministers of the justice of God” (NAB).
Today, many say that “God would not allow” such an evil thing; would not allow it to happen, that our very angels and priests, those who present themselves to us as the very essence of all that is good, could be actually … agents of literally and by name, the devil himself. Yet that is what the Bible itself often told us. According to the Bible, Satan’s favorite disguise, is to hide himself in, present himself as, the very things we thought and were taught were absolutely holy. Satan’s favorite disguised in fact, is to present himself to us … as a priest, or minister, or apostle, or angel. Or indeed, Satan is referred to as an “angel” in the Bible.
Clearly therefore, neither the angels of the church – nor the priests or ministers – are very unreliable. The Bible warned that “all have sinned”; and it spent lots of time describing sins in particularly, preachers; in priests and ministers. Indeed, the Bible finally tells us that many priests and “ministers,” are often agents literally, of Satan himself.
The Two Voices;
Two “Part”s of the Fuller Truth
Therefore, should the people, should you yourself, really be so faithfully and religiously, following what your priests and ministers say? So faithfully? Should you be reading the Bible, only the way that your preachers tell you to read it? Should you continue to listen only to the parts of the Bible, that seem to support preachers? And ignore the rest? If so, you are ignoring some key parts of the Bible; you are ignoring and disobeying, some key parts of God.
The fact is, we will be showing here and elsewhere, that there are two major themes, or “voices” in the Bible, regarding holy men and their authority. First, 1) there is a minor voice or theme in the New Testament, that seems written to support “leaders”; which preachers say, means preachers and churches. And that voice today, furnishes generations of preachers, some quotes; quotes to “prove” they are perfect or from God. While preachers have quoted these parts of the Bible, a million times, over the centuries; to the whole world. But to be sure, we will be noting here at last, the 2) “second” theme in the Bible; a “second” vision of God. Where God actually … warns constantly about huge sins in holy men and angels. And surprisingly? We will show that this “second” vision, is actually “first” in importance, in the end. (St. Paul seemed to feel at times that the physical man was “first,” and the spiritual “second”; but Paul’s numbers are different than ours. And then Paul confessed his own knowledge was im-“perfect” and would “pass away.” While Paul dimly intuited a “third” heaven too; something more like our second).
The Bible therefore, seems at first, to be of two opposing mind, regarding both Jewish and Christian priests as it turns out; at times it supported them … but then, other times, it warned about them. So that by themselves, quotes by preachers of just the single supportive voice, are in themselves misleading; often right after that voice that seems to support priests, or before it, there has always been another, “second” voice, that delivers a caveat, a qualifier, a caution, about priests after all.
It seems hard to believe it. But first of all? The Bible’s overall message has often been said to be multi-dimensional or “poetic”; to often deliver two or more significantly different messages, even in a single sentence. As the Bible itself seems to have acknowledged at times,
“For God speaks in one way, and in two” (Job 33.14; a spiritual 1 Tim. 3.8, Mat. 6.24, Luke 16, resolved in favor of science in 1 Kings 18.21 et passim.).
The Bible often advocated elements of language – like proverbs and figures of speech – that spoke at two different levels:
“That men may know wisdom and instruction … understand a proverb and a figure …and their riddles” (Proverbs 1.2, 6). “Parables” (Mat. 13.13-34).
At times though, to be sure, we should be troubled by such things: a language, a Bible, that utters phrases that could mean two or more entirely different things? Is a document that is extremely hard, even impossible, to follow; some would even say that any such document is simply, unreliable.
And as a matter of fact, even the Bible itself, seemed troubled by the “confusion of tongues,” or languages. And specifically, by “double”ness; by language with two or more rather different meanings. As language was used by oracles and priests and others, from the days of the Oracle at Delphi. Especially, the Bible itself was disturbed by a “double-tongued” language; and/or one that presented two levels of text; including a level of the text that was hidden, or “veil”ed:
“Even if our gospel is veiled … it is veiled only to those who are perishing” (2 Corin. 4.3; 3.15-16).
The Bible itself was sometimes troubled, it seems, by the morality of using a language that had two or more, often even opposite meanings or levels in it. And to resolve that? At times, as we will see, it seemed to want to finally, just favor just one or the other voice. To resolve the conflict. But which voice did the Bible finally favor? In part, the conflict is between a 1) priestly – or as we would say here (to avoid the “P” controversy), especially, a spiritual voice; and a 2) a more practical, kingly, materialistic voice. And almost the entire text of the New Testament, vacillates, often, all but continuously, from sentence to sentence, word by word, between the two. Often a single biblical writer – like St. Paul especially – seemed to want to favor, say, the spiritual voice, over the materialistic one. But often even Paul would vacillate between the two readings. While another writer, like James, would at times … speak rather against a just spiritual religion, after all (James 2.14-26).
If we hear two rather different voices, then which one should we follow? For centuries, priests themselves acknowledged finally two different “callings” in the text; one to a 1) priestly life, and another to a 2) good but more practical working life, in the laity. While priests asserted – of course – that it was the priestly calling, that was superior and “lofty”ier. Yet finally we will see here, that we should all have heard both voices. Of these two voices in the text, in the end, we are not supposed to have just one, or the other – either just spirituality, or materiality – but really, both. Or indeed, the merger of both is what is indicated, of the End: when God pours his “spirit” on “flesh,” when heaven comes down to earth. Finally we are to see both things, once thought to be in opposition, come together: so that the old spirit/matter, god/earth, hierarchical dualism, ends. And we do not have to choose one or the other any more; but, when we see God not just “in heaven,” but immanent, on earth, we can have both at once. To be sure though, while priests often look forward to this moment? Priests have never understood that they themselves, never ally fully understand the nature of this merger; priests are always over-spiritual, and never understand that the return of God to “flesh” after all, means that “flesh” and “world” themselves, always had far more importance than priests thought.
At first therefore, the two voices, the two callings, the two sides of life – spiritual, and earthly – appear to conflict, hopelessly. Yet finally? They are both important; and are both supposed to come together. As say, the following quote might begin to suggest. As Paul spoke of choosing between two churches, he may also have been sending us a message, on what to do about the two “paths” or vocations; of the lay person, vs. the priest. To be sure, Paul wants to affirm that finally he follows “God.” But following God, we are saying here, does not, mean following just a spiritual life. Indeed, our major point is that there are two sides of God: the spiritual, but also the physical. While indeed, Paul speaks of a “double pleasure,” and understanding not just “part” of God, but understanding and following him more “full”y. And not “vacillating” between two different voices:
“I hope that you will understand fully, as you have understood in part, that you can be proud of us as we can be of you, on the day of the Lord Jesus. Because of this, I wanted to come to you first … that you might have a double pleasure…. Was I vacillating….? Do I make my plans like a worldly man, ready to say Yes and No at once?… With him it is always Yes” (2 Corin. 1.13-19; on visiting two churches and?).
As we will see in our later writings, specifically on the language of the Bible, its many layers, or polysemy? There are first of all, dozens of quotes in the Bible to suggest alternative readings of everything in it; quotes that assure us that the Bible is full of poetic, artistic language, and stories that are open to more than one reading; full of “figures” of speech or metaphors; “allegories,” “parables,” and so forth. And yet then too, the Bible was often worried about that; about the “confusion of tongues,” say. And those who spoke in a “double-tongue”ed way. Indeed, the Bible itself knew that many of its own words, seem to have a double or triple meaning. It at times hinted that its own message was not “secret” or “veiled”; both other times suggested that indeed, part of its message might be hidden from many. Yet any hidden-ness was never fully endorsed, some would say. Or in any case, it now seems that if there were say, two messages in the Bible? That we finally need both. While most preachers assume that it was only the “spiritual” meaning that was to be triumphant? Finally, that is not what we will be finding here, in the end. In the end, we need both. Which means? That if the too-materialistic masses need to be more spiritual … on the other hand, our too-spiritual priests, need to learn to be more materialistic. To achieve the right balance, the fuller outline of truth. In the end, our very spiritual Heaven is destroyed, after all. And “God” returns to “earth.”
Many scholars have noted that the Bible was often written in “poetic” language; the Bible often spoke in fact, in phrases that often conveyed two rather different – even often rather opposite – meanings. But what should we do, when a holy document, delivers two rather different, even conflicting, messages? Priests have probably always thought that they themselves at least, had discerned and followed the primary voice and meaning: they at times told us all that we must become priests, and all become one-sidedly spiritual. Some even suggested that we should all become priests. Yet actually, we will show here that the Bible finally, id not really support priests all that firmly. And indeed, surprisingly? The best, more balanced reading of our holy books, says that if lay or secular people often made mistakes – if they were too materialistic, or “worldly”? On the other hand, our priests always simply go to the other extreme; priests are too spiritual, and overlook and deny the material side of God.
Here and now though? We can now begin to unpack, unveil, both of the two major readings of, callings or vocations in, the Bible.
First 1) we need everyone to understand that the Bible had two major voices in it. To be sure, God was impatient with those who were “double”-tongued and so forth (Ps. 12.2 vs. 2 Corin 1.15; 1 Tim. 3.8; Isa. 66.18; Luke 17.34; Rev. 19.20; Php. 1.23 ff). But finally, the Bible itself, God himself “speaks in one way, and in two.” And so, next: 2) what are the two major themes or messages? They are first: a) a literal physical meaning and promise in texts. And then a b) spiritual metaphorical reading and promise. The two main layers of the Bible, in other words, are first of all, passages that seem to, at the literal level, promised even huge physical material benefits to following God; to promise aa) at least physical “prosperity,” and even bb) physical “wonders”; and some even say, cc) riches, and even dd) physical “miracles.” But then, after that? Since no doubt priests especially had problems in the physical sphere, problems say actually delivering on “all” and “whatever” physical miracles we ‘ask” for? (As when Paul hinted, when he asked, “do all work miracles”?) Then next, our priests began to suggest that after all, perhaps religion should not be concerned with the physical side of life; but should begin to emphasize delivering just mental or “spiritual” things.
These therefore are perhaps the two major readings – and indeed, the two major, rather different theologies and life paths, the significantly different two kinds of promises – that the Bible itself seems to offers us: the 1) literal promise of real physical things; and/or the 2) promise of mental or spiritual results.
Is one better than the other? Our priests of course today, are widely known to advocate especially just the side of the Bible that seemed at times to put down the “materialistic” life, or the life in pursuit of “riches” or “possessions.” Priests of course, famously, follow spirituality. And they follow the parts of the Bible that seem to support spirituality, over physicality; the times that say Paul might have seemed to have suggested at times that the “spiritual” was “second” in time, but “first” it our importance (q.v.) But what we will be finding here, will be that Is that essentially, priests have never really fully understood the fuller, mind-and-matter message of the Bible. Finally we will be finding that God often warned about priests and holy men. And in part the reason was, that they were always unwise, in their choice to be so one-sidedly spiritual, and to reject God’s physical side; which we might call the fuller Nature of God.
God and the Bible, we will be showing here, really had not one, spiritual side. But two major sides: the 1) spiritual, but also the 2) physical side. So which one should we choose? This question troubles many in the holy books themselves; which often discussed the problem of “double”ness, and so forth. And eventually, our priests decided that they should stress and follow, only the spiritual side, after all. Jesus himself for a moment, suggested that “no servant can serve two masters,” “God and mammon,” (Luke 16.13); and many priests have said that Jesus meant that we should not follow riches, the material side of life. Yet in the end, we will show, “mammon” is a hard word to translate. (Perhaps relating to the multiple mammaries of the statue of Artemus, at Ephesus?). In the common priestly reading, it is read as telling us not to take any heed of the entire physical side of existence, and of our lives. While indeed, many parts of Jesus seem to lean that way. But finally, we will be showing here that the Bible itself began to note that those persons who are too spiritual, and who are too disdainful of the physical side of life? Are neglecting, denying, part of God. The God who “fills “all things,” in Heaven “and earth.” The God who promised us material, physical rewards, for being good. So that, regarding Jesus’ apparent condemnation of “mammon”? Perhaps it is best read, not as condemning a desire for modest material necessities, but merely condemning excessive Greed. Perhaps Jesus is best not read, as entirely despising the material side of life (and God); but only as speaking against really excessive Greed for material things; for not righteous but only “unrighteous” riches.
In any case though? If at times the Bible itself seems quite spiritual, and to be rejecting the physical side of life entirely? Other times, it goes exactly the opposite way. Indeed, the Bible – and often our churches – usually promised us not just one or the other, but both. Both 1) physical wonders, and 2) spiritual things. While our final position, will probably be this: 3) the Bible indeed, valued both the spiritual but also the physical side of life. And if at times our holy men (even Jesus himself?) seemed to very strongly stress just the spiritual side of life? Even Jesus mentioned that we might seek spiritual Heaven first; but that after all, regarding physical things like food and drink? These things “will be yours as well.” Since our Father in heaven “knows you have need of these things.”
Especially though? What we see here is that indeed, the message of the Bible, and of religion, was long ago, schizophrenically, dualistically split, into two quite different promises: promises of 1) physical wonders, vs. 2) promises of only spiritual things. While our priests became specialists, in the spiritual side of things; and priests suggested at times that only the spiritual side of life was important? But finally? The Bible overall, saw the importance of both sides of life, spirit and matter. And finally, especially? If for a while, our priests split off spirituality, into a separate sphere? One “day,” in the End, we are to see two dualistic halves of life, finally merging: seeing the old spiritual Heaven “dissolve.” And as for the “new heaven”? It is supposed to come down; to be joined to the physical earth. So that in the end, the “double” or “dual”istic split, between mind and matter, spirit and world, is to be ended. Indeed, as the Bible said, in the end we do not see just the “triumph of the spirit,” as priests assume. Rather instead, we see “spirit” joining, or spirit be poured on, “all flesh.” We see spirit, merging with material life. Spirit, re-joined to matter. In the end therefore, the one-sided spirituality, the anti-materialistic “world”-“hating” of preachers, was never right. God is not just a spirit; and the final reality is not just a spiritual one. The reality is, spirit returning to, merging with, physical, material existence.
The Bible therefore, contains two rather different, rather conflicting, messages, themes: 1) physical promises, vs. 2) spiritual things. The Bible furthermore, was itself at times troubled by the inherent conflicts in this split, “double” message. And it was troubled by the extreme separation, between the two callings or vocations; the 1) practical worldly lay people, vs. the 2) priests.
So how finally, was this split to be resolved? Priests have usually assumed, and assured us all, that if there were two sides to God or life, it meant that finally the spiritual side must simply triumph over the physical side. Yet that key message, the very core of so many sermons, the very core belief of the priesthood, we are about to begin finding here, was substantially, false. The spiritual religion that we have always gotten from Priests was in fact, largely false; one sided. So finally? To repair this, the Bible itself began to see … God speaking of another sort of return of God, to this physical earth. In the Second Coming; and the appearance of a “kingdom” of God, not just in Heaven any more; but here, on this physical, material earth (Rev. 21).
God warned constantly, about sins in priests, holy men. And, as we have begun to see here, there were many different kinds of mistake, that preachers have made. But in the end, the truly great mistake that priests typically made? The great mistake, their great sin … was rhetorically over-stressing the “spiritual” side of life; and neglecting and degrading, the physical side of life and of God.
But furthermore? This radical conceptual split, between spirit and world, was a horrible, priestly mistake; one that, after all, the Bible itself was aware of. And so, we will show here, the Bible itself began to speak of how that awful schizophrenic split, that “double”ness, was to be resolved, fixed, one “day.” But if at times, our priests suggested that it could only be resolved, by the utter triumph of priests, and their spirituality? That common priestly vanity, is not the truth; that was not the final vision contained and endorsed, even in the Bible itself. What we actually see in Revelation, the final book of the Bible, is a return to spirit and God, to physical life. God, returning to this physical, material earth. As the old spiritual Heaven is “dissolved”; and the new heaven visibly descends to this physical earth. To form a kingdom here, in physical form, on this physical, material earth (Rev. 21).
Or, as the major part of all this process? Here we see Religion, joining Science. We see God advocating a Science of God. A discipline that, in combining religion and science, fulfills part of God’s plan; by conceptually merging “spiritual” thinking, with materialist/empirical thinking, at last. And thus? Here we begin to see the lost links between Heaven and Earth; spirit and world; spirit and flesh. In effect, with the Science of God, we see God – precisely as foretold – leaving and dissolving, a spiritual heaven; to reappear, on this physical earth (Rev. 21).
So that here, the great strength but also the great sin or preachers – their radically one-sided spirituality – begins to be ended, or improved, fulfilled. The priestly dualism, the radically dualistic pair in the Bible, the two opposed readings – spirit vs. matter say – are finally, resolved. By a merger of the two. God returning to earth. And/or matter; by perhaps a “new nature” in each of us. As our physical “bodies,” though physical, also “put on” spirit; or “put on immortality.” As the Bible said.
For centuries in fact, our preachers have been vaguely aware of some such things; but they never quite fully understood how it all might happen. Most thought that the return of God to earth, in the Second Coming, meant just the destruction of the physical earth of world; and the utter, one-sided triumph of a spirit heaven, obliterating the “world.” But that common priestly vision or image, is not a balanced, “full” vision or image of God and of the Bible; not at all. The fact is that all along, the Bible spoke of the importance of physical things. Indeed, from the “beginning,” God made the entire physical universe, and said it was “good,” not evil (Gen. 1). While, if our religion and its ideals seemed to float away from the surface of this physicalistic world for a while? If it seemed for a while to speak only of an immaterial “heaven”? Then if so, one “day” or another, that one-sided vision, is supposed to be exposed, exploded. In favor of a God, a “Heaven” that after all, return to this physical earth. While our coming Science of God, helps this process. To be sure, many churches have long claimed to do this already: to be Heaven or God, the promised “kingdom of God,” on material earth. Though finally, we will be showing here that the churches often did not quite do as well, in this, as one might hope. Indeed, the Science of God, does a much, much better job, at that critical task: of helping bring a spiritual-seeming God, back to material referents.
In fact? Our priests, in their chronically one-sided, literally fatal over- spirituality, were never close enough to God. But the Science of God, begins to help fix this. And it does I all in an eminently Biblical way; indeed, it helps many ancient biblical prophesies, simply, come true. Here, as foretold, we will accept not one, or the other, but both the two sides of God; but both. Here we will be regaining the picture of God, of life, that is both spiritual … but also very physical too. Once again.
To be sure, this will be hard for some priests. Since they have to at last, see and face, their inadequacies, and even their sins. Though surely? Some priests should finally embrace … the return of God to earth. After all. Even if the return of God to earth, means God exposing sins in, and “refining,” even priests themselves; even the very “household of God” itself.
Can a preacher accept this? Can priests accept chastisement, rebuke, from God himself? Surely they should. There are in any case, two voices in the Bible; a 1) physical one, and a 2) spiritual one; a 1) lay calling, and a 2) priestly one. But these two voices, these two different callings, often appear to conflict. So how do we fix that? Or how does God fix this? The Bible began to describe how this is resolved, in part with reference to the various “apocalypse” prophesies; though especially, we will find here, the neglected but finally key part of the Apocalypse: God fixes all this … first of all, 1) by continually exposing the errors, the imbalance, in priests, and priestly thought. And then 2) God finally fixes this – by one day especially, God appearing on earth to expose errors in holy men on earth; and then by destroying (our priestly, over-spiritual) Heaven itself. And replacing it all with a new heaven, that clearly comes down to merge with this physical earth (in Rev. 21; after Isa. 65-6 etc.). God speaks not just in one way, but in two; but one day, that split is supposed to be dramatized … and then, out of that crisis, finally resolved. As perhaps it is even here and now, in part. When we begin to see God, religion, linked to science, we link spirit to earth, pour spirit on flesh again.
Yet in the meantime? Until our answer is heard? There will have been millions of people, who were polarized. Who did not really adequately, “full”y, see both sides of God and of life; who were either 1) too materialistic, or 2) too spiritual. Priests of course, have constantly warned everyone else, the people, about being too-materialistic. But what they have rarely seen, and never adequately practice, are the parts of the Bible that warned that there are sins, a kind of excess, even in their own spirituality. And in their own priestly life. So that, as it turns out, the Bible itself finally delivered two rather different opinions on priests, specifically: at times it 1) delivered a very few positive-seeming statements about priests and their very spiritual life; 2) but then the Bible finally delivered countless warnings about priests and holy men.
Of course, our preachers rarely noticed, or certainly rarely repeated, the negative opinion of priests, much in church. So that the vast bulk of humanity, worldwide, has never heard what we are saying here and now. Yet here at last, it is time to reveal to the people, the second voice of God. Though to be sure, it will be utterly shocking, even heaven-shattering, to a billion believers. Because of course, this second voice of God, found in the Bible itself, at times almost exactly and totally reverses, overrules, and cancels, the first, ascetic voice, that priests taught us was the only voice or message from God.
To those millions, billions of people raised by priests and ministers, who were told from infancy that our priests were holy? And that material things are unimportant? Hearing and seeing at last, the fuller picture of God, the second and fuller appearance of him, will be literally heaven-shattering, “fiery,” and immensely disillusioning and painful. Since that second voice, often says things rather exactly opposite to what we heard proclaimed as holy in churches; says things rather directly opposed to our priests and ministers; even to the saints and angels in heaven itself. Indeed, what we are seeing and hearing here, are first of all, among other things, God’s constant warning of deep sins and errors in “all”; sins especially in our holiest men and angels. And perhaps, in the duplicitous, equivocal language they have used? Priests and holy men often used a special language, that often said two rather different things at once. Indeed, it was a “poetic” or equivocal language, that tried to cater to two very different theologies. The New Testament especially, was written/translated, into a language that equivocated between 1) a “first” voice, that supported priests and prophets and churches. But then? A 2) second voice. That confessed that after all, even priests and prophets often make many mistakes. So that we will need to go beyond our holy men.
As we will be seeing, nearly every passage in the Bible, is in effect, an omnibus, that presents quotes to support either of these two major positions. For example? You kind find quotes that support either the 1) priestly, or 2) non-priestly positions, in a single passage like the following. Which on the one hand, offers statements that could be read in church, as supporting the 1) idea that preachers, and their sermons, might “make not mistakes,” and might be “perfect.” But the many preachers who focused in on just that half of the text … that 2) warned that religious “teachers” often make mistakes, even among the “brethren”; that indeed we “all make many mistakes.” And though hypothetically anyone who made no mistakes in his speeches (/sermons), would be “perfect”; but this passage goes on to say that not only are “all” of us imperfect and make mistakes; but also … specifically, it is impossible for our “tongue,” our speeches, to always be good. In particular? It seems that the tongue “boasts” of big things, while indeed priests used to boast of the huge miracles and/or Heaven they would bring us. So consider this warning in that light:
“Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren….
For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man…. [But] the tongue is a little member and boasts of great things…. The tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, straining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind, but no human being can tame the tongue – a restless evil, full of deadly poison…. Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good like let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom” (James 3.2-13 Revised Standard Version of the holy Bible henceforth “RSV”; boldface emphasis, our own).
Earlier, the Old Testament especially set up a priesthood; but it also 1) warned about “priests” explicitly and by name. While 2) here in the New Testament, we see it expanding that warning; when it mentions being “perfect,” but then speaks of problems in religious “teachers.” Indeed, the Bible warns about 3) “all” of even the Christian brothers or “brethren.” While 4) specifically? It warns about everyone’s speeches, our “tongue”; or in effect, including preachers’ sermons. While for that matter too, 5) with possible references to sermons that make big promises – like promises of giant miracles – James 3.2-13 above, specifically warned, of “boasting” tongues. And to resolve those false things? The text above 6) refers to the unreliability of language, tongues, and in effect mere verbal or written arguments. While it suggest finally that the only way to cut through the basic dishonesty of the “tongue” and arguments, apologetics … is to simply begin to look at actual, physical, empirical outcomes; physical results. Or here: “show … works.”
The Bible we suggest, was written in such a way as to give some material, to each of two sides, of a sort of theological debate. To give a sentence or two, to 1) priests, spiritual persons, in apparent support of their profession; as well as to 2) more practical working people. Yet priests have never honestly or fairly or fully represented both sides of this debate; they themselves obviously thought that the Bible itself favored the priestly side; that is why themselves became priests. Though here and now? We will be showing that amazingly, finally, of the two voices in passages like the above? Rather clearly, amazingly, the text does not give the priestly voice, the blue ribbon. Rather instead? Instead of valuing the typical priestly life (today) spent delivering sermons, speeches, the text, God, finally … warns continually about priests and their speechifying, sermonizing, pontificating life of the “tongue.” While finally God himself gives the gold metal to… ? The good but practical, honest, materially productive physical worker, working with his “hands.” Or the good but also materially-productive leader or “king,” who is not just spiritual. But who also – especially – guides us all, to physical prosperity. Here on this material earth.
The Bible therefore, to be sure, contains two major voices, themes, in it: one that favors 1) priests and the spiritual, sermonizing life. But 2) then the text also consistently, in passage after passage, began to note sins and errors in the one-sidedly spiritual, clerical life. While calling continually, for a healthier consideration for … materially-productive activity and orientation. For the orientation not of our mostly speechifying, spiritual preachers today (c. 1955); but of a religion, a credo, that is oriented far more, to producing real physical rewards, here on this physical earth.
Ultimately the Bible, God, in fact outlines and approves a religion that begins to severely criticize … preachers, therefore. And their typical spirituality. In favor of a religion, a true Christianity, that obeys the voice that preachers always thought was “second”ary in the text. But that now, in the end, turns out to have been “first” in the eyes of God, all along: the non-priestly, more practical voice, after all. Of non-priests. Or of specifically, the Science of God. As we will be seeing.
Ultimately therefore it becomes clear that warnings in the Bible about bad things in people in general therefore, do not refer just to ordinary non-priests or “lay” people; God explicitly began to warn about fundamental flaws in “all” people. While for that matter? God began to warn especially about flaws … in preachers. And in our highest saints and angels.
Many preachers to be sure, will – as they always have – constantly try to wriggle out of this. They will try to refute all this; to reinforce their own authority, and/or their own vanity and pride, their own high opinion of themselves; as they offer their sermons every week, as the very infallible Word of God himself. Yet we will rather clearly show here that while there was
one layer or voice in the Bible, that seemed to support priests and prophets, finally that layer was … qualified, and finally canceled. Even in the Bible itself. By a second higher, more consistent, more authoritative voice. One that told us that after all, “all have sinned,” even preachers. And that indeed, our alleged preachers and holy men and angels, were – amazingly – seemingly all but ultimately and forevermore, substantially canceled, condemned … by God himself.
At first, it seemed impossible. Since of course, many preachers will quote misleading parts of the Bible, one voice in the Bible; to “prove” that they themselves, and/or their ideas or sermons about saints and angels and God, are holy and reliable. But here we will have already begun to note a few of seventy or a hundred or more warnings, in the Bible itself. Warnings from God, about sins and errors in the very heart of essentially every thing that was ever presented to us as holy or Christian. About sins in everything perhaps, except God himself; and only God as he exists in himself, totally apart from our inevitably flawed human characterizations of him. Since even what a preacher calls “Christ,” will always be his own distorted vision of him.
So that finally, sins will persist in believers; even in those who continually invoke the “name” of the “Lord, Lord.” Sins will persist to the very end. Right through to the very “day”; the day when we see God as he really is. And when judgement comes:
“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).
What though, does God really, finally say about specifically, preachers? God did not think as much of them, as preachers themselves, and the faithful, always thought. There were even times, when it seems that God cursed essentially all priests, and those who followed them. And hinted that massive sins would continue in priests, until the “end”; the end of time.
“And now, O priests, this command is for you. If you will not listen, if you will not lay it to heart … says the LORD of hosts, then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings; indeed, I have already cursed them…. Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung upon your faces, the dung of your offerings...” (Mal. 2.1-3).
“An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.30-31).
Preachers to be sure, proudly love to stand in front of congregations, to appear as all-but-infallible authorities; they love to present themselves as the very voicepieces of God himself. But the fact is, there are countless warnings throughout the Bible about pitfalls, sins, in every single aspect of religion – and about bad things especially in preachers. Even in their moments of spiritual “inspiration.” To be sure, Christian preachers have thousands of stock replies, standard sermons, common apologetics arguments, allegedly based on the Bible; to try to get around and deny their own errors. But indeed, preachers have not been good or honest here; they have only read and followed, only the parts of the Bible they like; the parts that stress priestly authority. While they have just left out, the other parts. The parts they did not like, or could not face.
Preachers just leave out or ignore the parts of the Bible, of God, they do not like. Or if they do notice them? To continue to dishonestly defend themselves, many priests will mention God’s criticisms … but then our pastors will “twist” God’s statements, a dozen different ways. Many priests will claim, among other thing, that warnings about bad and especially “false” things, about moral failures, in religious people and priests – are only, say, about 1) believers and priests of the past. Or our 2) our preachers today will assure us that any such warnings about believers and priests, were only meant to warn about preachers of other religions, other than Christianity; like believers in say, “Baal.”
Clearly though, many biblical warnings from God, about “priests” and “ministers” and so forth, are a) for “all”; b) especially about sins in holy men; and for c) all time; d) even in the time of early Christianity. Often, e) those warnings are explicitly about false things, sins, even in the apostles. And even f) in those who like Peter, at times had the authentic Holy Spirit. While g) furthermore many of these bad things, even a false Christ, came from out of “us” true Christians. There are indeed, h) false things, in those who present themselves as our own Christian “ministers” and so forth. Even in those i) who seem to be the very “angels of light”:
“Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness” (2 Corin. 11.13-15 RSV). “Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness” (2 Corin. 11.14-15 KJE)>
“As for you, you whitewash with lies” (Job 13.4).
“You … boast of your relation to God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed…, and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, … then you who teach others, will you not teach yourself?” (Rom. 2.17-21).
“So now many antichrists have come…. They went out from us….” (1 John 2.19).
“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corin. 11.13-14 RSV).
Preachers have not been honest. Priests have not been honest, in this way especially: they quoted or stressed only parts of the Bible; especially the parts that could be read as flattering priests and their authority. While they ignored or “twisted,” as we will see, the other more important, “second” voice in the Bible. The voice that God used over and over, to warn us all of massive sins, in all holy men. And especially and by name, priests.
Finally, when dealing with priests, it is best to remember this:
“Nobody is good, except one, God” (Mark 10.18 NWT; Luke 18.19).
To be sure, our preachers have spent 2,000 years trying to find parts of the holy books, that might support they, themselves. And to many people, they have found a few such passages. Yet what they have found, we are showing here, is at best, just one voice or theme, in the Bible, at best. While finally, the theme or motif that seemed to firmly support priests … evaporates, under close inspection.
Though most men and women have not clearly perceived this, until today, God himself, the Bible itself said, actually speaks in “two voices”:
“For God speaks in one way, and in two” (Job 33.14; a spiritual 1 Tim. 3.8, Mat. 6.24, Luke 16, resolved by and in favor of Science, in 1 Kings 18.21). “I am hard pressed between the two” (Php. 1.23; cf. Luke 16.13). “Let two or three prophets speak” (1 Corin. 14.29). “The testimony of two men is true” (John 8.17); the “evidence of two or three witnesses” (Mat. 18.16). “The two shall become one” (Mark 10.8). And another, on two coming together.
In effect, we are saying here that essentially all our preachers have always presented a false religion; one based just on one half the Bible or less; on mere “parts” of it; or one of two major themes in it (see Paul on “part”s). The fact is that the Bible
contains two major voices, two major levels. And finally, the spiritual voice that was thought “first” by preachers, is not the best one. First to be sure, there is 1) the level that we all heard preachers support constantly in church; the voice that seems to support the priestly life; to support even ascetic priests, and their “hate” against the “world.” But then, over and 2) against that, the Bible was utterly filled with … a far more practical voice. The voice of a working person; a good but materially practical person, following a Christ that “loves the world.” A voice moreover, warned about priests and holy men.
Why did priests never quite hear or see or adequately balance out their extreme over-priestly spirituality, with enough attention to that second and better voice? It was no doubt in part, out of human weakness it seems (or even demonic rebellion, and pride and vanity?), that priests have always read to us or emphasized, only the parts of the Bible, that seemed to support priests. It was largely, out of pride and vanity – and desire for power over others, power over the world. That preachers dishonestly and vainly, read to us, only the parts of, the voice in the Bible … that stressed the authority of preachers. While they even systematically, even willfully, left out the other part, of God. It seems clear enough, that they constantly quoted or stressed only the parts of the Bible that – taken out of context, by themselves – seemed to flatter our holy men themselves; and to thus augment their unjust power and influence, over others. But here we are showing that first of all, in doing that, preachers 1) did not really understand, or 2) follow, the Bible or God well enough. They read to us and followed, obeyed and understood, only half the Bible at best. Their 3) great sin in fact? Is perhaps that they read and followed, only one, “first” theme in the holy book; the parts that could be taken to flatter priests or other holy men. While they constantly ignored and disobeyed, the other great, “second” voice or theme in the Bible. In effect, essentially “all” our priests historically, have constantly spoken falsely of the Bible. And they have spoken falsely of God, constantly. By quoting just misleading parts of them. And indeed? Our priests and the very angels of the churches, have always … rebelled against most of God.
How extensive, how obvious, how deliberate, how culpable, has the sin, the disobedience of our preachers been? Sometimes their deceptive practices are ludicrously obvious, to anyone who reads his own Bible. But finally their mistakes, their blindness, are so laughably obvious … that one can only conclude that even they themselves, must often noticed that what they said, was just not really true to the holy texts.
How willfully blind – and even deliberately deceitful – have all our preachers been? Consider as an example, one of the most common sermons, one of the most common biblical parts, that once appeared on church marquees, all over America. Consider this isolated part, that preachers particularly loved (c. 1950-1964):
“Lift up your eyes to the heavens” (Isa. 51.6).
What line, would at first, seem less offensive, and more compelling? What could seem to be greater proof of the eternality and importance, of our preachers’ Heaven itself? Indeed, this tiny line or fragment of the Bible, fit nicely into advertising spaces outside churches. And taken by itself, it seemed moreover, to firmly support the priestly theology that was constantly presented to us all: it seemed to be intended to prove to us all, that God was a priestly, spiritual being, and that a spiritual “Heaven” particularly, should be our only and main goal in life. Yet let’s look a little closer here; when we do, we find that here, our preachers were even ludicrously or laughably, clearly, dishonest. Here it becomes absolutely clear, that they were dishonestly presenting misleading fragments of the Bible. That they were presenting only misleading fragments of the Bible, or one theme in it; while disguising, denying, the “full”er message of God. This becomes obvious … when we simply begin at last, to simply read the fuller body around the isolated sentence above; when we simply read what the text said, before – or in this case, after – the above.
For centuries, preachers have emphasized only the tiny fragments of the Bible that, taken out of context, seemed to support preachers and churches, and their authority and prejudices, their limited worldview. But what happens, when we ourselves, take a longer look, at the entire Bible? To see what indeed, the fuller Bible has actually been trying to tell us, here and elsewhere? Clearly, when we look at the larger context, we see that our preachers must have been even consciously deceitful, when they let the above fragment stand, as if it was “the” word of God. Because when we read the larger quote, we find that our preachers very clearly left out, the very next part of the very same sentence. Let’s look at the larger context, which actually, finally delivers a message … that is all too obviously and exactly opposite, to what preachers claimed:
“Lift up your eyes to the heavens… for the heavens will vanish like smoke” (Isa. 51.6).
Far from intending us to always consult Heaven, spirituality, and to look continuously up to the preachers’ heaven? Actually, we see that in one very compelling reading, the Bible was actually making precisely, the very opposite point, to what we were always told in church. Far from assuring us of the permanence of “Heaven,” the Bible was here assuring us that Heaven itself would indeed, vanish. Indeed, the text was really telling us that the preachers’ Heaven would vanish “like smoke.”
How obviously dishonest, how thoroughly dishonest, how even laughably dishonest and unreliable, have our preachers been? How strongly should be condemn them, for hearing and obeying, only one misleading voice in the Bible? Here as usually, we will be finding that 1) our preachers’ quotes have been so thoroughly, systematically blind, that we can only assume that there was a fairly strong element of their own will and deliberate, semi-conscious assent to their “mistake.” Indeed, we can only assume that they were often rather deliberately dishonest. So that finally, they are culpable, blamable. Furthermore, 2) their dishonesty, was not subtle, or minor: it was so extreme, as to amount to often, twisting the real meaning of the text, into exactly the opposite, of what it really meant. In this example, the message on the marquee and in the sermons inside, was so misleading, as to be Satanically misleading and dishonest. It was something like leaving the “not” out of “thou shalt not kill,” and presenting “thou shalt kill,” as the word of God. So that this was no small error: it twisted the word of God, into its exact and precise opposite. 3) Suggesting even fully Satanic intention or influence; distorting the word of God into its exact, evil opposite. So that? 4) When dealing with preachers, you should be aware that they are not even always, innocent fools, following vague biases, and making innocent mistakes: given the obviousness and extremity of their distortions, a certain percentage of preachers, must be conscious, deliberate deceivers. And therefore? Many priests and ministers must be very intelligent and resourceful, conscious, deliberate and ruthless enemies of God. Fully deserving not mild contempt from us; but deserving the immense caution that one should have, in dealing with agents of – or even the person of – Satan himself. As the Bible warned, of many priests and “ministers,” (NRSV?).
Given examples like this one, is such a laughably-obvious distortion of God … that we can only assume, it was willful, and deliberate. Or so thoroughly foolish, as to finally be … fully culpable. When we look at examples like this one, of our preachers selectively reading just parts, one theme in the Bible … while all too obviously ignoring the “second” part of the story? When we see examples this thoroughly wrong … we can only say that these mistakes are so laughable and obvious … that we finally, must holy preachers fully accountable for them. They either knew, or should have known, better. But finally, we should not just laugh this off.
Could this distortion of God, of Christ have been – not an accident? Suppose we look at a few more examples; examples that show that the misleading presentations of the Bible, by preachers, is so obvious and egregious, that finally we must assume that it was at least a semi-deliberate, conscious deception. Finally, there are just too many glaring examples of this, for it to have been a simple accident. As another, corroborating example? Consider especially, the next insert. This represents a biblical fragment that is often read is to Catholics especially. While this is especially important; since this misleading fragment, has always been presented as the very core, the very “heart,” of the Catholic Church’s claim to authority. So indeed, let’s consider the following fragment of the Bible, very, very, very carefully. The fragment that Roman Catholic priests quote continually – to assure us that God intended to tell us, that they and their Church, based on St. Peter, the “Church of St. Peter,” are absolutely reliable. The fragment that was read to us daily, to a million churches, for two thousand years, to billions of human beings. By preachers eager to use it to convince us all, that the Bible itself firmly told us that an apostles like Peter – and the church he founded – would be absolutely reliable; a firm “rock” that would never be shaken, and never defeated. Here it is, perhaps the most famous and influential quote in Catholicism:
” ‘Who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven'” (Mat. 16.15-19).
The above statement, is part of the very foundation, or certainly one of the major pillars, of the Roman Catholic Church, and to some extent, of all Christian churches. This is the fragment constantly quoted to us all, by preachers eager to assure us that Jesus had full confidence in, particularly, the apostle Peter. This is the quote, used constantly by a million priests over the years, to “prove” that Christ supported especially Peter, as the “rock” of the Church; and that Christ furthermore, intended to firmly set up a Christian church, based on especially, Peter. And the successors that Peter chose. Yet while this was the claim, made a million times by a million preachers? Here and now however, it is time to note that these lines, that we heard constantly in church, are a mere, misleading part of the larger, fuller story told in Matthew 16. Indeed? Priests of the “Church of St. Peter” always “forget” somehow, to note or adequately stress, what was said next,
in the Bible. At first, note, Jesus indeed seemed to support, above, Peter, and his Church. Christ appearing to support Peter as indeed, a “rock” on which a very firm “church” would be built; a church that would have all the authority – keys to – heaven and to God himself, it seemed. A church, a kingdom, that would never fail. Or so we were told. But now? In the words of Paul Harvey, it is time to look at the surprising conclusion, the other part, the “rest of” of the story:
“Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed…. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.’ But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance [stumbling block] to me'” (Mat. 16.21-23 RSV).
“He turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me'” (KJV, Gold Seal Edition, National Bible Press, Phil.).
What does Christ really, finally say here? Did Christ really firmly, finally, endorse the apostles, and their Church, as firmly as our churches insisted? Everyone should at last, read and heed, at last, this second part of the text. Everyone now, should very, very, very carefully read the parts of the Bible, that preachers left out. Or that they failed to adequately foreground. Those who do this, are about to experience an Apocalyptic shock. Incredibly, 1) preachers somehow “neglect”ed or “forgot” to adequately note, some key parts to the text. They 2) neglect to note that the text in fact, finally ends up with precisely the opposite point, to what Catholic priests claimed. That right after Jesus appeared to express great confidence in Peter, and his church, Peter began to turn on Jesus. Indeed, 3) Peter declared that Jesus was wrong – even in a major doctrinal matter; like the necessity of the crucifixion. Note that Jesus had been telling the apostles that he Jesus, must be crucified, specifically. Which today is taken as being a major truth, a major doctrine, of Christianity: Jesus had to die, they say, in order to save us. By substituting, some say, his own life, for ours. But here, Peter turns on Jesus himself, and says Jesus is wrong. While Peter in fact, is going against Jesus, specifically on the matter of the necessity of the crucifixion; the very cross that was to be the main symbol of Christianity:
“Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed…. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you'” (Mat. 16.21-23 RSV).
Curiously – predictably, culpably – Catholic priests failed to emphasize, the part of the text where Peter – the founder of the Catholic Church and the first pope – turned on Jesus himself, and said Jesus was wrong. Wrong furthermore, not only in his prophesy (“this shall never happen”), but also wrong on a major doctrinal matter.
Indeed, 4) shockingly, preachers left out the real end of the story. Where Jesus himself, began to turn on apostles like specifically, Peter. Where Jesus even finally, ultimately warned us that Peter, the basis of the Catholic Church, was actually, “Satan”:
“He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance [stumbling block] to me'” (Mat. 16.21-23 RSV).
It is hard to imagine, a more obvious, flagrant, and outrageous – and unfortunately, more immensely destructive – mis-statement of the Bible, therefore, than the homilies of our Roman Catholic priests. It is hard to imagine, anything more outrageous and evil, than presenting and emphasizing, only the part of the Bible, that seemed, taken by itself, to give full authority to apostles like Peter; and to any “church” he founded. While our preachers left out the concluding second part of the story: where the Bible clearly concludes, with a few lines that make precisely and exactly, the opposite point to what priest have claimed. Where Jesus effectively, adamantly, retracts any apparent confidence he had in Peter, and the church he founded. Where Jesus in fact, says explicitly and by name, to Peter, that Peter is even, a stumbling block, and hindrance to Jesus. Where Jesus himself firmly says that Peter is even in fact … Satan himself.
No doubt, the language of the Bible is very difficult; and many simple readers miss such things. But this is all too obvious, too extreme, for anyone who can read very well, to simply, accidentally, miss it. We can only conclude that, when most priests have misused the above, we are therefore, dealing with a conscious, deliberate, demonic deceit. By preachers.
Some might have more or less seen it; but were simply, emotionally unable to face it. No doubt to be sure, it is extremely hard, even shattering, for believers in the Apostles, and churches, to face this side of the Bible, and of God. Likely in fact, many people will never face what we are seeing here; many will go into classic Denial, of this part of what God finally told us. Many will fail; they will not be able to face this, the painful side of God. Many will therefore, be unable to finally, face God … when he tells us that even our holiest religious leaders, like Peter, the very things we were told are the essence of all that is absolutely good … were actually often evil; that they were evil to the point of being one and the same, as “Satan.”
Many will to this very day, find this seemingly impossible to face. But on the other hand? Whether they can stand it or not? Whether they can wrap their minds around this or not? Here at last, everyone should at last, “see” it. The Bible itself, indeed, said it often enough, and firmly enough (see also say, 2 Corin. 11.14). To be sure, there will be many whose conscious minds will go into Denial and Repression, once again. There will be many who will not be able to conceptualize this. But here and now? It is being with perfect clarity and plainness, being presented to everyone.
Can Catholic priests, and Catholic churchgoers, ever really face this side of the Bible, and thus face God? Can they face the part of the Bible, of God, that constantly warned of huge sins, even in our holiest men and angels? That warned of massive sins, evils, even in the very apostles that founded our churches? Can Catholics particularly, ever learn to “face” the part of the Bible, where Jesus himself, called St. Peter, the very founder of their church, “Satan”? Can Catholics really face this second, fuller, heaven-shattering presentation of Jesus? Can they face Jesus – as he tells us that even our holiest religious leaders, were really often … Satan himself? As he begins to do … this:
“Jesus began to show his disciples…. He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance [stumbling block] to me'” (Mat. 16.21-23 RSV).
Of course, to see and accept his, is heaven-shattering. Of course, this is incredibly painful to believe, or face. This absolutely contradicts and even shatters, the whole image and theology of God, that we were presented with as children or innocent adults, in churches all over the earth. But finally, there is no way to deny this: we are now seeing this sort of thing confirmed consistently, over and over. And not just in daily experiences with the Pederastical and other churches, but now we are also seeing it confirmed, a thousand times, in the Bible itself. As we compare the misleading fragments that we always heard, in church, to what we actually now read, in the fuller Bible? We find that the truth of God was often … exactly opposite to what we heard in church. And when we see that? Then our childhood Heaven begins to dissolve. We see that our holiest heroes and angels and saints and apostles in heaven … were all too often, agents of the Devil himself. And the “Christ” they presented to us? The Christ that absolutely, firmly supported apostles and churches? Was simply, one of the foretold “False Christ”s, after all. Exactly as foretold, Satan himself came to us all … disguised as precisely, the very things that were presented to us as most holy and sacred and good: as our Christian preachers; as our churches; as Christ himself.
This may seem impossible to believe or face. Yet to be sure, a major goal of our books here, is to at last, show believers, how they can face the many signs of sin and error in our holiest men and churches. But showing them that after all, seeing this, noticing this, does not go against the Bible or God himself. Indeed in fact? All this is precisely as foretold, as authorized, as commanded … by the Bible itself.
To be sure, this will be extremely painful, for most people. But this very revelation – and even the feeling of immense pain and disillusionment that we get from it – in fact, begins to fulfill yet another aspect of the Apocalyptic prophesies. First of all, the pain and anger and fear a believer feels, matches the anger that some deceived persons feel, on first seeing Christ as he really is. Then too? The feeling of pain, exactly matches the “fiery” sensation foretold. Indeed, the dis”illusion”ment and dis-“enchant”ment was foretold; and that disillusionment, the shattering of our childhood dreams, is also of course, extremely painful. It is not a pleasant experience, to find our most cherished childhood dreams, exposed and demolished. Indeed in fact, it fulfills the crucial part of Apocalyptic prophesy; the part that in itself, has been so difficult for preachers to see: the most important, key part, that preachers could never face, or publicly admit.
Indeed, all this begins to fulfill the prophesies of … the Destruction of Heaven. The moment that God himself begins to expose massive sins in our holiest men; and our traditional Heaven begins to dissolve. When we find that our traditional “Christ” was a False Christ; an avatar of Satan himself. But when we however, at the same time? Begin to get a second and better idea of God. Who seems to urge, first of all, a critical attitude toward holy men. No doubt we are to avoid unnecessary “disputes” about “words,” and “quarreling” and so forth; but on the other hand, as it will soon turn out, God considers a quite critical and scientific objectivity toward holy men, to be absolutely necessary. Since they often sin, we are to be prepared too, to simply “rebuke” them in the strongest possible language.
An Early Conclusion
Given this? What must we finally say? About essentially “all” our traditional priests and ministers and churches?
Obviously – to use the language of Jesus himself – essentially 1) all priests and holy men, have never been as good as they allowed themselves to be perceived; 2) indeed, to use the very words of Jesus himself, they have been “Satan”ic. They 3) have been demonically, satanically deceitful; in their self-deceit, and their deceit of others. From evidence just as what we are presenting here, it is clear that essentially all our preachers have clearly and criminally “twisted” the meaning of the Bible unbelievably. Indeed, 4) their rhetorical sophistries and lies, twisted the meaning of the Bible – even into the exact opposite of what God actually said. Preachers clearly, obviously, 5) read only one voice in, one side of, the Bible and of God. While 6) all our preachers clearly neglected, denied, and tried to destroy, the other voice, the other side, of life, and of God. Furthermore? Given the systematic and flagrant and obvious nature of their distortions? We must finally say that theirs was even 7) a culpable, and often even semi-conscious, or often even conscious and deliberate, rebellion. A rebellion against the fuller understanding of life. Or indeed, a rebellion against the “full”er outline, of God. Or to put it more simply? Essentially, long ago all our preachers, even the angels of the church, denied and rebelled against God. And they finally, worshipped or followed “Satan”; the figures that Christ himself warned, were really, actually, often, devils.
Essentially all our preachers, have been either “fool”ish, as the Bible might say, or they were deliberate rebels against God himself. And as we will show elsewhere, this was not a mere, abstract mistake; there 8) was a dark emotional underside, to their false theology, of a bloated love and spirituality: the hidden flip side of their “love,” was actually, “hate.” Hate for life in this material “world.”
Worse? Finally, historically, 9) our spiritual priests especially, deformed by their secret hate, successfully often mislead the entire world. With in effect, a false Heaven. Or in effect, they deceived the world, with a false, one-sided idea of Christ. With a False Christ.
Can this shattering discovery, really be true? Can this be true, even to the Bible, itself? In fact it can be. The Bible itself told us, remember, that one “day,” God was going to unveil, expose, massive sins in essentially “all” our holiest men and angels; on earth, and in heaven as well. While in this moment, the “Apocalypse” is fulfilled. Especially, the important part of it, that our priests have never quite seen. The missing piece of the puzzle: the all-important, Destruction of Heaven.
Can you yourself face this? Or will you go back to church, and listen to and believe, your preacher, as he twists all this around, and assures you that it cannot be true? Will you simply forget, the Bible’s many warnings about false things in especially, “priests” and “ministers”? Will you forget that Jesus himself, called the founder of all churches, “Satan”?
It would be better if you did not forget that. It would be far better, if you learned to face even this heaven-shattering, Apocalyptic moment. This moment of awful realization.
In the past, millions have not been able to face this. But perhaps they can learn to face this now. On finding out here that after all, there is a positive side to all of this. Since when you learn to “face” this, you will also be beginning to see a “second” and better appearance to Christ. As you see Christ advocating not blind “faith” in preachers and holy men; but advocating a critical, Science of God.
Or indeed? Perhaps it is about nothing much more or less, than growing up; becoming “mature.” Learning that there were warts after all, even on our very holiest heroes. Learning that it was not some future religion, but historical Christianity itself, that was the foretold deception of the world by a false Christ.
It is shattering? Is it immensely painful? It can be. But then you can get over it. It’s not much worse, than finding out there is no Santa Claus. And/or by then moving on. To the second and better presentation of Christ.
Finally therefore, we have come at last, to the really frightening face of God. We have come to uncover the heaven-shattering, “second” understanding of God. We have come to the apocalyptic insight: that, exactly as the Bible itself continually warned, essentially all our preachers and holy men, and their “heaven,” and their “Christ,” were …merely the foretold false prophets, following a False Christ. Deceiving the whole “world,” with a false “worship,” and a False Christ. Just exactly, and precisely, as the Bible foretold (Rev. 13, 1 John 4, etc.?). Indeed, the author of the writings of John, warned that false christs, anti-christs, had already come, even in the days the New Testament was first being formulated (c. 30 D- 110 AD). While John himself admitted, that they had come out from the midst of “us” apostles, out of the company around John himself, and others of the first disciples:
“Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come…. They went out from us…” (1 John 2.13-19).
The deceitful aspect of the future End Times had already begun in the time of the foundation of Christianity. And furthermore, John in Revelation, noted that such religious deceivers, and their false “worship,” would eventually deceive the whole world:
“Men worshipped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshipped the beast, saying ‘Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?’ … And all who dwell on earth will worship it” (Rev. 13.4-8).
The Bible itself warned that one day, we would see that the whole “world” would follow a false religious leader, and his false “worship” (Rev. 13). Readers here should note, furthermore, a) that if it was to be a false “worship,” then it was a religion. While of course therefore, priests or preachers, will have been involved, in this. Since almost every religion or worship, needs preachers. While then too, since the deception of the whole world b) involved a false “Christ,” then of course here again, religion – and preachers – are implicated.
Of course, it seems shattering; impossible to believe. But in a way, no one should be so entirely surprised by this. We have been showing for many pages, that the Bible warned continually of sins in preachers. To all those who actually read the Bible. While here and now, we are now adding still more portions of the text; that indicated that preachers will have been mistakenly following, specifically, among other things, not only “false prophets,” and so forth; but specifically, a wrong idea of “Christ.” A false Christ. Following a false idea of Christ … and then presenting that false idea, to the rest of the whole world. Thus deceiving themselves, and/or the whole world, after all. Precisely as the Bible itself warned.
Why would anyone now fail to see this? There are many things that make seeing his, extremely difficult. First, 1) many of us were told from infancy, that respect for priests is the core of truth and good. And it is very hard for many, to believe that what we constantly heard in churches all over the world, from infancy, might not be entirely correct. Then too 2) as for preachers themselves facing this? Many preachers, for very human reasons, do not want to “face” this. Out of their own human weaknesses, like Vanity; they do not want to face that their own authority, might not be entirely legitimate or good. Thus? They do not want to hear this second voice; or tell the world about it. Or 3) perhaps many preachers – rather patronizingly – believe that the rest of the world is not “mature” to face this voice. Though perhaps they themselves are not mature enough themselves to face it. Since by today, even the whole world, even the average 7-year old, is well-enough educated, mature enough, to begin to be told about, the parts of the Bible that did not over-stress authority; but that warned that even our holiest priests often sin and err. By now, most people already know much of this. If not all of it.
Surely, for example, 1) universal education. And then? 2) The revelation that hundreds, thousands of Catholic priests, were sexually molesting children? Should have prepared even the dullest believer, for the hint that there was something wrong in traditional religion, in traditional Christianity. While 3) similar scandals in Protestant churches (Swindall, Jim and Tammy Faye Baaker, etc.), and 4) the classic Protestant criticism of Catholicism, should have long since prepared Protestants for this. While then too 5) science and 6) even the New Atheism, should have begun to warn even the blindest believers, that something was up. While 7) our own long, slow process, revealing constant Biblical warnings of such things? Should surely … have at last, allowed many to wake up.
Given all that? By now, surely most of the world can at last face, say, 1 John 2.19. Which seemed, at least for a moment, to have intended to rather boldly and more openly warn, that many sins, even a false idea of Christ, came even out of “us,” out of even Christians and the earliest Christian apostles. Like John himself:
“So now many antichrists have come…. They went out from us….” (1 John 2.19).
To be sure, though, even apostles, in spite of an occasional moment of actual modesty and self-doubt, really wanted to hold on to their own prestige and comforting self-love, a little while longer. So that? Although an apostle like John might for the briefest moment, begin to suggest that false things had been found even in the apostles, or in John himself? Still, John’s inherent Vanity would not allow that brief moment to stand, very long. So that very shortly after the above admission, the Apostle was extremely eager to double back on his all-too-brief moment of real humility. So that very soon after admitting that false things came out of his own immediate tradition … John was anxious to try to distance all that, from he, himself. And the churches that were to follow. As John sought to assert that of course, the errors that were made, were all in the past; that those who made them had been carefully, successfully separated out from those who were good and holy. And though John for a brief second, admitted that even “us” apostles made grievous errors? The next second, John himself begins twisting, nuancing the phrase “from us.” To try to suggest that after all, it was not John himself, and his tradition, that were wrong. As John tries anxiously to say that 1) while such sins came out of “us,” 2) they are not of “us”:
“So now many antichrists have come…. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for it they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all know”” (1 John 2.19).
Uncomfortable with his own brief admission, regarding “us” apostles, John spends some time, semantically twisting the word “us.” While as part of that effort, he seemed to suggest that his own group, since separated out of the wrong crowd, had some special graces or gifts, that uniquely preserved his own followers, from errors; an 1) “anoint”ing, probably by the 2) “Holy One,” or Holy Spirit. Yet to be sure, we will have been finding out here, that if the “Lord gives,” he also “takes away.” Though for a long moment – for two thousand years – our preachers, our churches were to assert that this or that special gift or special grace, would efface the sins the Bible warned they would have? Finally, we will be showing, the Bible revealed sins and errors even in those special gifts and graces, in their own turn. First, for example, 1) we will already have begun above, to briefly indicate problems even with say, the alleged special protection of the Holy Spirit. While 2) as for anointing? Here as always, to refute the vain, first voice of self-satisfied preachers, we need only look up their keywords, in a Biblical concordance. To discover the parts of the Bible, where God himself warned about problems, insufficiencies, in each and every one of our alleged special gifts. Including anointing, say. Clearly a) ancient priests were anointed; and yet God criticized priests constantly. While b) for example, in the following passage of Leviticus, God clearly assumed that “anointed” priests would sin. As it made provision to now and then – temporarily – cleanse the failures, of even anointed persons, anointed priests:
“If it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, let him offer for the sin which he had committed a young bull?” (Lev. 4.3).
“Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead” (Dead, after having betrayed Judaism and David; 2 Sam. 19.10).
“The breath [spirit] of our nostrils, the Lord’s anointed, is taken in their pits” (Lam. 4.20).
“This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests… They wandered, blind….” (Lam. 4.13-14). “Our eyes failed…. our end had come” (Lam. 4.17-18).
The text of the Bible simply assumes, and makes provisions for, anointed priests sinning. And if even the “anointed” priest sins; and if the sacrifice of a bull might temporarily remove whatever anointing did not? As it turns out, each and every successive remedy is only temporarily effective. And if it is said that the blood of Christ permanently cleanses us? Them surely however, it must be the blood of the right Christ; not the false Christ everyone has followed. And how can you be sure you have the right Christ? Is it the Holy Spirit? Note that those in Lamentations for a while had the spirit, the protection of God; yet in the end, even that holy breath, the spirit, was “taken” from them.
So as essentially all our priests and prophets, prove to be dishonest, and fail us? As one after another of all the sacraments, all the dozens, the hundreds special gifts and graces, fall and fail us too? Finally, what is the real answer? Finally, there is nothing that is perfect, it seems. But of all our gifts, the one gift that at last, admits its own imperfection, and thereby becomes our greatest and only gift from God? Is a methodology, a theology from God, based on “test”ing everything. Alluded to here imperfectly but partially, in say, Lamentations
“Let us test and examine our ways, and return to the LORD!” (Lam. 3.4).
“Thou wilt requite them, O LORD, according to the works of their hands” (Lam. 3.64).
To be sure, the “day” when this happens, will not necessarily go well for those who think they are believers. Or for priests, in particular. As Lamentations noted of an earlier “day,” that became the model for the future, foretold “Day”:
“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).
“They wandered, blind, through the streets, so defiled with blood that none could touch their garments” (Lam 4.14).
END OF CHAPTER 2