Inerrant Lie #25

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

There are a number of dualities in the doctrine of the 'Holy Bible' which go unnoticed generally by those “theologians” who claim the Bible is “the word of God.” One of these dualities consists in the manner in which the Bible claims responsibility for “transgression” against the law is assigned by the LORD (a.k.a “God”; “the Lord”; “that God”; “the LORD God”; “the Lord GOD”; “the LORD”; “the most high God, possessor”; etc.).

Another of the dualities which pervade the doctrine of the 'Holy Bible' concerns what the canon claims the proper response of the individual in regard to the perception of “sin” in one's own life should be. There are two schools- of- thought;– each propounded in biblical scripture as the only school- of- thought in the respective matter–: in both of these dualities. This makes four “minds” on two matters from what is purportedly “one” God.

The anonymous writer of Hebrews likewise opposes himself numerous times in the thirteen chapters he contributed to the canon. In doing so, he manages to succinctly betray some of the inconsistencies of the Doctrine as a whole, at times. Jesus of Nazareth might conceivably describe the book of Hebrews as the ruminant savor of the essence of leaven, “hid in three measures till the whole was leavened.”

In Hebrews 8:7, the anonymous author shares his (presumably) learned assessment of the law of Moses in comparison to “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” ‘Anonymous' writes, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." This is as much as to say, because “that first covenant” was faulty, a second was made.

While it may be true “that first covenant” was faulty: fault in “that first covenant” indicts the entire canon of ‘Holy Bible’ scripture, including, immediately, the next two verses in Hebrews (and He who purportedly wrote it all), as altogether unreliable: inasmuch as “that first covenant” (the law of Moses) is a substantial part of the canon– as is “the second” covenant the anonymous writer of Hebrews compares repeatedly to “that first” in his thirteen- chapter contribution to the canon. (There was another ‘first covenant’ made: with Cain– after he murdered his brother Abel– in Genesis 4.)

[This word, “that first covenant,” is a misnomer or anachronism: in light of all the covenants attributed to one- variant- or- another of “the LORD” in the ’Holy Bible’. What about the covenant with Noah, sealed (Genesis 9:13) in the sky? The LORD’s covenant (made perhaps with ‘Himselves’, in Genesis 11:7) to confound the tongues at Babel; His “covenant of the day” (if He has one); His “covenant of the night;” and many others also obviously pre- date the covenant the anonymous writer of Hebrews refers to as “that first covenant.” This is to say nothing of the covenants with Abram (called “Abraham”), Isaac, and Jacob (called “Israel”): upon which Moses' “first covenant” (as the writer of Hebrews refers to it) is predicated.]

In light of the fact that “the second” covenant, mentioned in Hebrews 8:7, is sealed in human sacrifice; which is murder; which is sin: is the doctrinal and doctrinaire presumption that “the second” covenant [“JESUS”] “taketh away the sin of the world [John 1:29]”-- as opposed to fulfilling the sin of the world [2 Corinthians 5:21]– ironical; or subtle? Either way, it places the beginning of the current “Church Age” in the fourth chapter of the first book of the ‘Holy Bible'; there to be discovered in a conversation which can only be described as sorcery, inasmuch as it takes place between the- children- of- Adam- and- Eve and the LORD to whom Adam- and- Eve were already dead [Genesis 2:17] before their children were born. 

“He was a murderer from the beginning [John 8;44c].”

In Genesis 4, we're told Eve’s “man from the LORD [Genesis 3:1],” “Cain, who was of that wicked one… slew his brother [1 John 3:12];” and got “busted” by the LORD. There is no indication, in the text of Genesis 4 (or the canon, perhaps) that Cain ever regretted (much less repented- of) murdering his brother. It is however recorded Cain pitied himself: before- and- after the devotional [Leviticus 27:29] “sacrifice” of his twin brother Abel.

For his whining self- pity (or was it for the service wherewith he served the LORD in ‘sacrificing’ his brother?), the LORD rewards Cain with an insurance covenant, saying: “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him [Genesis 4:15].” Subsequently, Cain’s great- great- great- grandson, (Lamech) turns Cain's insurance covenant into a religion.

Genesis 4:23 & 24 reads: ‘23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold [seven… seventy and seven: 777, the favorite number of all Christians].” From here, the race is on to be “[The] mighty hunter before the LORD [Genesis 10:9]” to murder the sacrifice- to- end- all- sacrifices: (presumably) Jesus Christ; “...then began men to call upon the name of the LORD [Genesis 4:26].” In Genesis 22, an Abrahamic covenant based on human sacrifice is recorded.

In Genesis 22, “Abraham” (Abram) is instructed by “that God” to offer his son, Isaac, as a “burnt offering” to the LORD. It is noteworthy and strange that, while “Abraham” (Abram) argued and supplicated for Sodom to be spared, he nonetheless wordlessly complies with this murderous conspiracy against his own son. “The angel of the LORD” disallows “Abraham” (Abram) to follow through in murdering his own son– but nevertheless rewards Abe's willingness to comply.

“15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice [Genesis 22:15 - 18].” Obviously, encouraging and rewarding infanticide does nothing to dissuade it's practice.

[It's worth noting here, in light of Revelation 14, that when Isaac asked Abe “where is the lamb for a burnt offering [Genesis 22:7]?” as they twain made their way up mount Moriah that day: “Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering [Genesis 22:8].” Saint John the Divine seems to confirm Abe’s prognostication, in Revelation 14. Revelation 14:9 - 12 reads: “9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall… be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night... 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”]

After Abe- and- Isaac's adventure on mount Moriah, child sacrifice (perhaps predictably) becomes an– if not The– Abrahamic Family Tradition. In the book of Exodus, Moses lets slip a number of evidences that point to the assumptive fact that, if the children of Israel ever were in Egypt, they practiced a child- sacrificing religion before Egypt; in Egypt; and after- exodus- from Egypt: in light of the Doctrine generally.

In Exodus 16– on that day in which manna first allegedly fell from the sky to feed the children of Israel during their wilderness sojourn– Moses tells us the Israelites had a “Testimony”: before Moses ever went up the mountain to receive the oracles, much less came down and broke the oracles “under the mount.” The narrative of Exodus 16 tells us Moses (presumably at the LORD’s behest) had Aaron capture some of the manna in a pot, to be kept for posterity. The only overt mention of this mysterious “Testimony” in the canon is in Moses' record of the collection of the witness- manna.

“33 And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the LORD, to be kept for your generations. 34 As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept [Exodus 16:33 & 34].” The fact that, in these two verses, “the LORD” is synonymous with the mysterious, otherwise- nondescript “Testimony,” clearly indicates not only that a religious tradition was extant in the Hebraic culture before “that first covenant” (which was sealed in the testimony of the oracles Moses broke under the mount); but also that the LORD was presumably amenable to this mysterious religious observance which preceded Moses and the oracles. This “Testimony” resided, it would seem, in the tabernacle of Molech.

This mysterious “Testimony” is never again overtly mentioned in the ‘Holy Bible'; but the anonymous writer of Hebrews may allude to it when he writes of: “Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and… the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh [That's what oracles do.] better things than that of Abel [Hebrews 12:24].” It seems, at any rate, that the religious tradition practiced by the children of Israel at the time of their exodus from Egypt was sacramentalized in child sacrifice.

The prophet Amos, in speaking for “the LORD,” writes: “25 Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? 26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves [Amos 5:25 & 26].” “Moloch” is a shibboleth for Molech, a child- eating- derivative of Baal: “the abomination of the children of Ammon.” [This passage from Amos is quoted in the New Testament by the martyr Stephen, in Acts chapter 7.]

.In Leviticus 20, “the LORD” tells Moses: “2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name [Leviticus 20:2 & 3].” This doesn't mean child sacrifice was not practiced under “that first covenant,” however.

Leviticus 27:29 indicates what might be a prominent, pervasive, ever- practiced, never- spoken- of- except- to- blame- it- on- someone- else statute of Moses' law. The fact that this statute exists is chilling. The presumptive ‘fact’ that “the law and the prophets” culminate in the “Gospel” of murdering (“Christ”) Jesus of Nazareth is absolutely horrifying, considering Leviticus 27:29 (beginning with verse 28): “28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. 29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.” There is at least one such “devotion” (as prescribed in Leviticus 27:29) recorded in the ‘Holy Bible'.

In the times of the judges, a Gileadite named Jephthah (who was the judge of “the people” for an indeterminate period of time) is recorded making “a singular vow” dedicating “whatsoever [came] forth of the doors of [his] house to meet [him], when [he returned] in peace from [war with] the children of Ammon” to the LORD, “a burnt offering [Judges 11:31].”

Upon his victorious return from the battle, “[Jephthah’s] daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances.” After allowing her two months to “bewail her virginity,” Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed:” a virgin burnt like a witch– faggots under her–; on the LORD’s altar.

Another evidence of the Hebrews' “former- of- all”- religion comes from Moses' conversation with the LORD in the mount prior to receiving the oracles. Before he was told by the LORD to “...anoint [Aaron and his sons], and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto [the LORD] in the priest's office [Exodus 28:41]”-- much less having done so (which is recorded in Leviticus 8)-- Moses records the LORD telling him: “And let the priests also, which come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them [Exodus 19:22],” in the directions the LORD provided Moses in preparing for His fire- on- the- mountain delivery of the ten commandments.

Whose priests were these? Aaron and his sons hadn't yet been sanctified and anointed to serve as priests. The Levites hadn't yet been set aside for service to Aaron and his sons. Like their pre- extant religion: the identities of these priests is a “mystery.” Nonetheless, the text of Exodus 12:2 - 4 may allude to the extant institution of what Roman Catholics refer to catechetically as “the Domestic Church”-- in which the head of a given household is the priest thereof– in the Hebrews' Goshen conclave.

Preparatory to the sacrifice of the inaugural Passover observance, the LORD tells Moses: “2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: 4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.” Inasmuch as the killing of the “holy” sacrifices was the peculiar occupation of the Aaronic priesthood under Moses' law, this passage from Exodus 12 seems to indicate the heads- of- households were the “priests” alluded to in Exodus 19:22.

[It is worth noting, here, that the only church which takes precedence to “Holy Mother Church” in ‘The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church’ is the Domestic Church, which is defined as each family by itself. It is likewise noteworthy that the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church lays claim to Levitical lineage of a spiritual nature or manner for its authority to perform the sacrifices of the Eucharist.]

Again, Moses (perhaps accidentally) alludes to that religious tradition which pre- dated him and his law when he records removing “the Tabernacle of the congregation” to a spot “afar off from the camp [Exodus 33:7].” [This is obviously not the LORD's sanctuary, which was placed in the center of the camp, surrounded by the Levites, with the tribal camps “far off about the tabernacle of the congregation” -Numbers 2:2]

The first overt mention of this already- extant “Tabernacle” in the canon follows no less than fifteen referrals (by the LORD) to the proposed, future “sanctuary” of the LORD as “the tabernacle of the congregation.” Ironically, it also occasions Moses' application of the name given (by the LORD) to the LORD’s “sanctuary” to this already- extant “Tabernacle.”

The first mention of the term “tabernacle” in the ‘Holy Bible' likewise seems duplicitous. In Exodus 25:9 (beginning with verse 8), “the LORD” says to Moses, “8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. 9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.” In light of the fact that the “Tabernacle of the congregation” already existed, this statement from the LORD implies the “pattern” for the LORD’s “sanctuary” and “the instruments thereof” (which the writer of Hebrews refers to as “the patterns of things in the heavens”) was what Amos referred to as “the tabernacle of your Moloch”: a place to butcher humans. It would seem even the situation of the LORD’s sanctuary within the camp was borrowed from the already- extant “Tabernacle,” in light of the Tabernacle’s removal outside the camp, recorded in Exodus 33:7 (above).

From this point on (that is to say, from the very first mention of the word tabernacle in the canon), it becomes impossible to tell which of the two tabernacles is indicated in any mention of “the tabernacle of the congregation” in the canon; and terms such as “tabernacle of witness” and “tabernacle of the testimony” further obscure the issue unto oblivion. Likewise, it's never clear what differences (if any) exist between that original religious tradition and the one Moses inaugurated. In many particulars, it actually seems the LORD adapted the Hebrews' extant religious tradition to His own use. Or did the LORD simply change names?

The name Baal means “the Lord.” If “the LORD” is Baal (or Moloch) playing “Wizard of Oz” from behind a curtain (or vail), this would explain why Amos writes, “... we may not make mention of the name of the LORD [Amos 6:10]”: if the context of the LORD’s warning to Moses and “the people” to “make no mention of the name of other gods, neither [to] let it be heard out of [their] mouth [Exodus 23:13]” is understood to be a renunciation by the LORD of the name by which He was formerly known. Perhaps the ‘Holy Bible' is what it reads as: a top- secret Baalite operation, under- cover- of- another.

The problem that arises with acceptance of the covenant made through Moses as faulty is the confusion- inherent- in- making- a- second- covenant with a “God” who can't get it right the “first” time. Appropriately, the anonymous author who claims “that first covenant” was faulty (Hebrews 8:7) provides his own evidences to this effect elsewhere in his own scriptural contribution, if no one else does in their own. For instance, in the tenth chapter of Hebrews, two statements are made which cast the practice of Mosaic law in a carnival light of bloody- vanities- of- vanity.

Hebrews 10:11 reads, “And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:” making the lion’s share of Moses' law– the offering of sacrifices for sin– a “vanity of vanities.” Hebrews 10:4 says, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” If– as a solution– blood sacrifice is “not possible”: what kind of “God” requires it as the solution it can never be? Is the offering of “the blood of bulls and of goats” meant as an overture: the intent of which is to ‘inspire’ the children of Israel (through blood- drunkenness) to continue in the already- extant practice of sacrificing another, presumably ‘more efficacious,’ sort of blood?

What will provide The Solution which it is “not possible” for “the blood of bulls and of goats” to provide? the blood of “devotional” human sacrifice? The anonymous writer of Hebrews seems to imply as much when he writes such things as: “13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ… [Hebrews 9:13 & 14]?”

Of the three remedies mentioned, in verse 13 of Hebrews 9 (blood of bulls; blood of goats; ashes of heifer): only one was ever intended to purify the flesh– and it wasn't blood. That which is blood in Hebrews 9:13 is unable to do what it was prescribed to do, according to what this same anonymous writer unequivocally asserts in Hebrews 10:4 & 11. Such confusion “as God” describes a lying wonder. Why make any covenant with such a “God”?

The “sweet psalmist of Israel,” David the son of Jesse, (referred to repeatedly as “the prophet” in New Testament scriptures which quote his “sweet” psalms as The Prophecy of the New Covenant ubiquitously) wrote in terms amenable with those of the anonymous writer of Hebrews' (in the above citations from chapter ten) concerning the vanity of sacrifice- and- burnt- offering.

In the “sweet” psalm (which he allegedly wrote, “when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after [David] had gone in to Bath- Sheba"), David writes, “For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering [Psalms 51:16].” These two statements concerning sacrifice and burnt offering come from The King of the Jews, presumably at a moment when the consequences of “sin” [a human ‘sacrifice’ named Uriah; and the prophetic, connubial “comfort” David afforded Uriah’s widow, before the ‘devotion’ of her husband upon the altar of the LORD (1 Chronicles 29:23)] weigh with a certain weight upon his mind: and David's cogitations (like those from Hebrews 10 above) indicate the practice of Moses' law is a “vanity of vanities,” inasmuch as the LORD delights not in that which He desires not. Sacrifice and burnt offering are a heaviness to HIM [Hebrews 12:29], according to The King of the Jews.

In chapter eight, the writer of Hebrews figleafs the fooled- me- twice brain- fart of verse seven in the next five verses, citing “the second” covenant (mentioned in verse 7) as the fulfillment of a prophecy from Jeremiah (31:31 - 34) concerning a promised “new covenant.” Hebrews 8:8 & 9 reads:”8 For finding fault with [the people], he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9… because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.” 

[The anonymous writer of Hebrews' citation (Hebrews 8:8c - 12) of Jeremiah's prophecy (Jeremiah 31:31 - 34) is mostly a direct quote, the exceptions being: the final word of verse nine, starting at “because…”; and verse 12, which is (like the tail- end of verse 9) a leap- of- imagination from a standing- start on Jeremiah's text. He also quotes a portion of this prophecy from Jeremiah (verses 33 & 34) in Hebrews 10:16 & 17; and it is likewise not a direct quote. (Most of Jeremiah's text is in fact omitted in the text of the latter reference.)]

The LORD’s fingering of “the people” as faulty in Hebrews 8:8 (and Jeremiah 31:32) obviously contradicts the anonymous author of Hebrews’ statement, in verse seven, to the effect that the fault of “that first covenant” was found in the covenant itself. Either the author of Hebrews' assertion of 8:7 that “that first covenant” was faulty (which he supports by putting his own words in the mouth of Jeremiah's LORD) is a lie; or the LORD lied when He put the blame on the people; or both. Maybe Jeremiah's prophecy itself is a lie. Be that as it may: It is worth noting the manner in which the author of Hebrews puts words in the mouth of Jeremiah's LORD (the “author” of “that first covenant”) in supporting his own allegation of fault in “that first covenant.”

“Because…” in verse 9 of Hebrews eight signals the beginning of a personal “insight,” (which the anonymous author of Hebrews credits “the LORD” for) with which the writer of Hebrews figleafs some of, and replaces the rest of, Jeremiah's text to the end of verse 9 (the end of verse 32, in Jeremiah 31); and refers to the allegation of fault levyed against “that first covenant,” in verse seven of Hebrews 8. “That first covenant” was faulty, “because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord,” according to the words the author of Hebrews puts in the mouth of Jeremiah's LORD.

The caveat is that-- while there are clear answers in the ‘Holy Bible' as to who the LORD holds responsible for a given individual’s transgressions; and what the proper response of an individual should be to the perception of “sin” in one's own life (these being the most prominent and pervasive themes in both covenants alliterated in Hebrews): there is no integrity in the Bible’s prescribed remedies to these dilemmas. This is so because both covenants are a diversion from the truth. [For the truth: see Genesis 1:26 - 31.]

While it may be the case that– as per Moses' law– “almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission [Hebrews 9:22],” it is no less true that “the LORD” told Ezekiel and other of the prophets: “When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed [which is to say, repents], and doeth that which is lawful and right [which is the same thing], he shall save his soul alive [Ezekiel 18:27].” This is as much as to say, the only reason for sacrifice of any kind is an inability to repent. Goodbye, Jesus Christ and Moses. So much for the proper response of the individual to guilt- awareness.

As to whom the LORD holds responsible for a given individual’s transgressions, again the ‘Holy Bible' is of a double mind. While “the LORD” allegedly said “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth… of them that hate me [Exodus 20:5c & d, et. al.]”: it is also at least as true that Moses said “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin [Deuteronomy 24:16]." [This latter citation from Deuteronomy is later cited, in 2 Kings 14:22, and attributed there to “the LORD.”]

To this latter statement from Moses, Ezekiel says “the LORD” agrees: alleging “the LORD” essentially quoted Moses' pronunciation of Deuteronomy 24:16 in paraphrase, saying “2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb… The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? 3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb… 4 Behold, all souls are mine… the soul that sinneth, it shall die [Ezekiel 18:2 - 4].”

It is said Jesus of Nazareth was called “Christ” because he was anointed by God to “rule all nations with a rod of iron [Revelation 12:5, et. al.]”: but the truth is John Baptist and “the people” anointed Jesus of Nazareth; and that as a “gift [Leviticus 17:11 & John 3:16b]” of the altar-- as per the formalities of Moses' law– when Johnny B said of Jesus of Nazareth, “...Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world [John 1:29].” John Baptist was, after all, a priest by virtue of birthright; the only son of “a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: [whose] wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth [Luke 1:5].”

Furthermore, Saint Matthew (in his gospel) says of Johnny B– who baptized Jesus of Nazareth– that “Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan… were baptized of [John] in Jordan, confessing their sins [Matthew 3:5 & 6].” While Saint Luke says of John Baptist that his conspiracy to anoint the altar of the LORD with the blood of Jesus of Nazareth included “the people [Luke 3:10]” generally; publicans (Luke 3:12); “and the soldiers likewise [Luke 3:14].” And Saint Mark says of Johnny B, “...all men counted John [Baptist], that he was a prophet indeed [Mark 11:32].”

Therefore– by the authority vested in Johnny B as a priest of “the LORD”–: when John Baptist fingered his cousin, Jesus of Nazareth, as “the Lamb of God”, this pronunciation was in effect the anointing of the offering for sin, “with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” as prescribed by Moses in his law concerning the offering of sin offerings for individuals and the congregation (Leviticus 4:15, et. al.).

Conversely, when “Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan… were baptized of [John] in Jordan, confessing their sins [Matthew 3:5 & 6]”: this was tantamount to “Aaron… [laying] both his hands upon the head of the [scapegoat], and [confessing] over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head [Jesus, in this case] of the goat [John the Baptist] [Leviticus 16:21].”

The fact that Jesus of Nazareth's identification by John Baptist as the offering for all sin betrays the endemic, priestly corruption and perversion of the laws of Nature and Moses' law in John Baptist and his Levitical forebears is seemingly never mentioned, to date, by any of the presbytery who, like the anonymous author of Hebrews, unanimously believe the sacrifice of Jesus efficacious to take away the sin of the world. This corruption is, however, immediately apparent in several particulars.

For one: Jesus of Nazareth (whom John Baptist called “the Lamb of God”) was, by all accounts (including his own), of male sex. That is to say, Jesus was a man at the time of his “passion.” This is contradictory to Moses' law concerning sin offerings. Moses wrote, “And if he bring a lamb [i.e.: instead of a bullock or a kid of the goats] for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish [Leviticus 4:32].” This is as much as to say that– if “the Lamb of God” were a human– the cannibals who offered the sacrifice would have better chosen (as per Moses' faulty “first covenant”) the Blessed Virgin rather than her Immaculate Conception, the “Son of Man,” Jesus of Nazareth.

Also (as stated above): the mortal victimization of innocent human beings is itself a sin. Only a pervert would consider murder a remission of sin and not rather “the great transgression [Psalms 19:13]” of presuming upon the life and inheritance of another human being. Sin under pretense of goodly intent is nonetheless sin. “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Again: though Jesus of Nazareth is “called the Son of God [Luke 1:35],” by perverts such as the apostles, the angel Gabriel said of Jesus, “32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David [see Psalm 89:38 & 39]: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end [Luke 1:32 & 33].” Stated simply, this means Jesus of Nazareth is the son of David; and his kingdom is forever the house of Jacob. All other claims– including Jesus' own claim to be “the Son of Man”-- are, at best, pretense.

Even were Jesus of Nazareth (as he himself claims) “the Son of Man”; a beastly “Lamb” as John Baptist and his subscribers claim; “the Son of God [Matthew 8:29, et. al.]” as is generally believed by the apostles and their proselytes; and (wonder of wonders) not an “abomination of desolation [Matthew 24:15, et. al.]” as a holy sacrifice: this would still not “take away the sin of the world,” as John Baptist claimed, without the nature of the “taking- away” operation being one of wilfull, voluntary self- damnation by those so taken away. For, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers [Deuteronomy 24:16]”; and “the soul that sinneth, it shall die [Ezekiel 18:4].”

“For every man shall bear his own burden [Galatians 6:5].”

The ‘Holy Bible' is patently double- minded (i.e. schizophrenic) in it's treatment of these two subjects of investigation, et. al: 1) who the party is who is ultimately responsible for a given individual's transgressions; and 2) what the proper reaction of a given individual should be in response to the perception of “sin” in one's own life. The lies written in the selected passage from Hebrews 8 are symptomatic of the duplicitous dualities expressed in respect of these two points of legal doctrine in the canon generally. The symptom (Hebrews 8, in this case) betrays the causative disease.

The implication expressed in Hebrews (et. al.) is that the culmination of the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31 - 34-- and all other prophetic promises in the Old Testament canon-- is fulfilled by the cold- blooded murder of Jesus of Nazareth (presumably as an accidental holy sacrament) “by how much also [Jesus] is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises [Hebrews 8:6].”

The problem with this point of view is that the murder of Jesus of Nazareth is really the same old “religious” abomination birthed in Genesis 2, practiced by the sons of Adam in Genesis 4, and regurgitated as something new in the gospels; though it remains what it always was: murder for the sake of subverting the dominion given [Genesis 1:28] to the sons of God.

“This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance [Matthew 21:38, et. al.].”