Inerrant Lie #46

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

As mentioned in 'Lie 18', the writer of Hebrews claims the Jewish nation helped 'make' Jesus. Therefore Hebrews 2:9-- while it reflects the esteem the Hebrews had of their own idolatrous handiwork-- though an egregious error and lie, is not surprising, per se. They are, per the Doctrine, an upside- down people, if only by the easy virtue of the odd number of convolutions inflicted upon the Doctrine by their rulers.

Speaking of the shameful mess of prideful bliss made of the Doctrine by the Hebrews, the "son of man," Ezekiel wrote: "I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him [Ezekiel 21:27]." The last overturning rendered by their handiwork, as I read, is Calvary. For, "last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, they will reverence my son [by hook or by crook; by flame or by fire; or by and for vanity, Solomon's "all [Ecclesiastes 1:2]" -Matthew 21:37]." Now, it's God's turn to twist them round, as I read.

It seems-- as the plethora of monikers (expletives included) presumably attributable to him indicate-- that there are any number of ways to apprehend Jesus. I agree with John the Divine that he is the Word of God made flesh, if only because that's what he said of himself (if "good seed [Matthew 13:37b]" ain't weeds). To come to Christ by another 'way' seems second- best, at best, to me. Who else in the lineup of usual (or even unusual) suspects are we supposed to believe?

If we take Jesus at his Word of God, he cannot be Christ, at any rate, for according to the Word of God, "the things concerning [him] have an end [Luke 22:37]"; while Christ has no end we don't wholly partake in, inasmuch as we are Christ. But if anyone in the canon told the whole truth, at least in part, even with ulterior motives-- it is he. Perhaps Jesus tells the most comprehensive of the lies we encounter in scripture, and because of the fulness of his lies, they appear as more comprehensive truth than all the other lies.

Hebrews 2:9 says, "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man [Hebrews 2:9]." This verse is rich. It is, essentially, blindingly brilliant darkness, but the most immediately conducive lie to our present subject is: "Jesus... was made a little lower than the angels."

Peter said of Jesus, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God [Matthew 16:16b]." To which Jesus responded, 'This is the word of my 'God' [Matthew 16:17],' to paraphrase. If Jesus is our Christ, we had an end, and the whole ball of wax was a Jewish conspiracy to kill everything, just so their exceeding wickedness could finally rest in peace, with them in it, as they've ever been. What has this to do with God or us? None of this would matter, for we are nought but Death, already, were it so.

So, while it may be true that Jesus was 'made lower', it is also true that his Father in heaven was, like his beloved, 'made lower.' Thus, the resurrection is evidence that dead things enter the matrix via the womb. I guess The Lie of these lies is that Jesus' Father in heaven is the God of any but the dead. Where's the lie? in the letter, or the spirit of this 'doctrine'? Is it not in both? How could the dead ever get 'made'? They're stolen from their rest 'in peace'.

Notice the subtlety of Jesus' Father which is in heaven: According to him, Jesus is the Son of the living God, making the living God his mother. God is not "the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore [Isaiah 57:3]." The aforementioned whore is, however, "the God of the dead [Matthew 22:11d]; not the God of the living:" ; "ye therefore do greatly err [Mark 12:27]."

As to Jesus being 'made lower': when he was pleading his 'Father's' case before Pilate, Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then [as in now] would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now [as in then] is my kingdom not from hence [John 18:36]."

Inerrant Lie #45

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

My mother always said a partial truth is a lie altogether. By this barometer, the respective bureaucracies of every government under the sun are manned entirely by liars. Not only do bureaucrats never tell the whole truth: they rarely tell even a portion of the same. Same goes for news agencies; corporate boards; insurance adjusters; medical billers; truck drivers; school teachers; preachers; anyone who enters into 'non- disclosure agreements': just about anyone who makes a living is required to lie about something to obtain and to keep their job.

In his gospel, John the Divine writes a lie of a sort to make a bureaucrat (such as 'righteous' J. Edgar Hoover, for instance) envious. The reason this lie would be especially impressive to a government employee (not to mention 'the father of lies') is that it is at once true and false. This lie is written so: "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized [John 3:22];" the 'lie', here, being, "Jesus... baptized."

The next verse of John 3 indicates John Baptist's 'baptism' as the definitive model of the term "baptized," as used by John the Divine in verse 22. We know this to be so inasmuch as Jesus did indeed baptize: though John himself admits: "Jesus baptized not [John 4:2a]."

In fact, the latter [b] half of John 4:2 divulges it was Jesus' disciples-- not Jesus-- who 'baptized' (still do, for that matter) after John's 'baptism'. By this, we understand that, when John writes (in 3:22) that "Jesus... baptized," he's projecting the taint of the disciples' deeds onto Jesus: making him responsible for their works and Johnny B's. As children, we called this "pinning the tail on the donkey." Bureaucrats call it "passing the buck."

One refrain repeated in nearly every sermon preached by the late Pete Ruckman, is: "A text without a context is a pretext." Accordingly, both John 3:22 and John 4:2 are pretext, insofar as the only way to resolve one with the other (not to mention with the truth) is to take them both out of their given context-- John Baptist's 'baptism'-- which is the pretext.

Contrary to 3:22, Jesus did not baptize after John Baptist's 'baptism'; but contrary to 4:2, Jesus did baptize. In fact, "the Word of God [John 1, et. al.]" tangibly demonstrated the difference between his baptism and Johnny B's at the wedding in Cana. "This beginning of miracles [John 2:11a]" is likewise recorded by John the Divine.

To understand the figurative value of the water- turned- into- wine in Cana, one may consult with Paul's words about baptism to the Ephesians: "That [the Word of God] might sanctify and cleanse [the church] with the washing of water by the word [Ephesians 5:26]." Baptism is the operation by which the inner man is sanctified and cleansed, definitively: a thing Johnny B's 'baptism' can't pretend to do. True baptism is poured in, with Spirit [John 6:63]; not poured over, or immersed in.

While his disciples were/are rub- a- dubbing with Johnny B, Jesus was/is sanctifying and cleansing those who would/will receive his words with the hearing of the same. Thus the lie is really twofold: 1) that "Jesus baptized not [John 4:2a]."; and, 2) that John Baptist did [John 3:23, et. al.].

Inerrant Lie #44

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

It's all God's fault. Not only did God create the heavens and the earth, but all things else besides. Everything perfect and otherwise is God's fault. Even wickedness in the heart of a man is God's faulty doing. This belief is expressed and implied many times in scripture. It is also a lie of lies.

According to the Hebrews, their own murders of the prophets-- the chosen of God-- and of the Christ of God: is God's fault. After all, "Was not Abraham [their] father justified by works, when he had offered up [God's chosen] his son upon the altar [James 2:21]?" thus setting the precedent which the Jews followed to Calvary and beyond? This, too, is God's fault. It was, according to them, none other than God who commanded Abraham to murder his son Isaac [Genesis 22:2], as a sacrament to the God who chose Isaac [Genesis 17:19].

Clearly, the confusion of Babel clung to Ur of the Chaldees-- inclusive of Terah and his house-- when they fled Babel, in corporate fashion, to enter into the land of the Canaanites. Yet, even Abe's confusion is God's fault, according to Moses, who says of Abe that he "departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him [Genesis 12:4a & b];" which is another lie.

The eightieth Psalm contains a repeating refrain which aptly demonstrates this fallacy of the Hebrews: "Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved [Psalms 80:3, et. al.]." This is confusion. The word "again" indicates their belief that it was God who 'turned' them out of the way to begin with. The imperative to "Turn us" places the responsibility for their repentance on the God whom they've offended. "Cause thy face to shine" means: 'take our abuse with a smile;' or, 'change your piss- poor attitude [Genesis 4:7].'

The root of this bitterness is found in the words and works of Moses. Moses, to this day, is praised vociferously from pulpits the world over for his endless chiding of God for God's 'evil intentions [Exodus 32:12f & g]' concerning Moses' people [Exodus 32:7], the Jews. Preachers call this "standing in the gap," or "making up the hedge," etcetera, when what it in fact is, is rebellion.

In chiding God in defense of the rebels, Moses sanctifies the rebels at the expense of God's expulsion from their 'camp [Exodus 33:3b - d]'. For this, the preachers and false prophets praise Moses. Prophets are sent from God to the people: to stand in the gap in God's 'defense'; to plead his cause before them. Yet this people sends the prophets back to God to plead their cause before him: as representatives of their own 'legal' defense; turning the world upside down.

Even the prophecy of Esaias is infected with this spiritual malady, to some extent, as demonstrated by his words in Isaiah 63:17: "O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance." Again, it is God who has turned out of the way, according to this passage of Esaias'. This is the belief given expression in the word "Return," above.

Beyond simply being a lie, this belief that 'it's all God's fault' is nothing short of false witness against God, as the scriptures express it. According to the scriptures cited above (et. al.): it is God-- not the Jews-- who is found to be 'out of the way'. This turn of phrase, 'out of the way' is perhaps the simplest definition of the term "deviant" extant. It certainly defines the term, at any rate. To say God is found deviating from the way is to call God a devil. Any 'God' who is deviant is a devil. Deviation defines devilishness. While it may be true that the 'God' of the Jews is a deviant devil [John 8:43 & 44], God who is love [1 John 4:8b] is not deviant. It takes a devil to say otherwise.

"30 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin: 31 That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt [Isaiah 30:1 & 2]!"

Inerrant Lie #43

As stated in #42: Judas is not written much of; especially considering how great a deal is made of him forever after the day Matthew says he "repented... and hanged himself [Matthew 27:3d - 5]." That which is written is as sketchy as those who wrote it. I like Matthew's version, if only because-- in Matthew's account of Judas' demise, and only here-- am I relatively sure at least one of the Dirty Dozen took the first step from Jewry to God: repentance.

Also as stated in #42: there are discrepancies in the respective accounts (numbering two) extant in the canon concerning Judas' 'final end'. Luke, in 'The Acts of the Apostles [Acts]', records Peter recounting the death of Judas-- likely sometime before Pentecost the year it occurred-- on one wise; while Matthew, perhaps many years after, records the events in otherwise fashion altogether.

As sketchy as this amalgam of events is another, and of no less importance to any Jew worthy of ancestry: Judas' final act concerning the settlement of his estate; a.k.a.: 'the disposition of his soul in earth'. "What's it worth?" Pete seems to ask. Both accounts record a final lightening of the inheritance he passed on at his own soon- to- follow death-- by perhaps as much as one hundred percent.

Like the widow with two mites, Judas may have put his all 'in the treasury' when he-- according to Matthew-- cast the thirty pieces on the floor of the temple. Pete seems to 'not know' about this settlement while obliquely acknowledging it took place. Both claim this arbitration occurred immediately preceding Judas' death. But again: the two are not one.

Though Pete mentions Judas in Acts 1:16, who's to say the "he" mentioned in verse 17 isn't Jesus of Nazareth-- not Judas Iscariot? The "this man" of verse 18 could, as a matter of oratorical form, indicate the speaker-- if not for the sorcery the address would then obviously require.

Pete's subsequent description of the "this man" he mentions in verse 18, resembles Jesus more than Judas. "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity [Jesus was "accursed of God," (becoming "sin for us," Paul says) having, like Judas, hung to die; and-- according to Matthew-- having been so valued by those who 'bought' his soul as worthy of the silver paid for the field.]; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst [Unlike Judas, Jesus' bowels were spilt when he 'fell' upon his 'lifting up'.], and all his bowels gushed out [Acts 1:18]." "...and forthwith came there out blood and water [John 19:34b]."

Perhaps the one Peter refers to as "this man" is one of the high priests. There were two of them-- Annas and Caiaphas by name-- at the time of Judas' and Jesus' coincidental 'last day'. 'One' of them may have "bought with [the thirty pieces of silver] the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8 Wherefore that field is called, The field of blood, unto this day [Matthew 27:7 & 8]." Who's blood?

According to Luke, Pete may have been confessing one of the high priests as a 'made man' among the Twelve. Was his wild deviation from the witness provided by Matthew a revelation into the reasons Jesus 'died' without Peter? "For [Jesus of Nazareth] was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 Now this [priest] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood [Acts 1:17 - 19]:" might be a 'more literal translation' of Peter's confession in Acts 1 concerning 'Judas'.

Does it speak ill of him who was not willing to die with Jesus to speak ill of one who-- though saying he wouldn't die with him-- knew of no way to live without him as soon as he comprehended something Pete likely knew all along: Jesus' was innocent blood? Pete's tale entirely contradicts Matthew's, regardless the reasons. Would Matthew lie on Judas' behalf? Who would Petey lie for? "Who should be the greatest [Mark 9:34b]?" Jews is Jews. Perhaps they both lied.

Inerrant Lie #42

Judas Iscariot does not enjoy the same sort of unconditional positive regard from the 'scholars' as the rest of the Dirty Dozen does. Every one loves to hate on Judas-- to the point that he is rather regarded in an unconditionally negative light. Perhaps it is due to this bias that the lie about Judas' demise stands completely unchallenged to date.

Judas is a somewhat enigmatic character in the gospels. Not much is written of Judas. Everyone knows their preacher says Judas is the only one who betrayed Jesus of Nazareth-- though this interpretation of events itself runs contrary to the narrative of the gospels. Three of the four gospels include the word "also" before "betrayed," as in, "Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him [Matthew 10:4b & c (et. al.)]."

"Also," (as used here) like Judas himself, is a somewhat enigmatic term. It's usage could indicate that-- besides being a chosen disciple-- he also betrayed him who called him into the ministry. It could also indicate that Judas wasn't the only disciple who betrayed Jesus, but that he also did-- in collusion with a larger conspiracy to do so. If the latter is the case, Judas is the 'scapegoat,' or 'fall guy,' for the nefarious political maneuvering of certain others in Jesus' inner circle.

In fact, what little we do read of Judas presents more questions than answers. For instance, when "Satan entered into [Judas (John 13:27a)]": did he first 'jump out' of Peter? It was, after all, Pete to whom Jesus had last said, "Get thee behind me, Satan [Matthew 16:23c & d]." Also, the indignation John attributes to "one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot [John 12:4 & 5]," concerning the ointment of spikenard which Mary poured on Jesus as he and his disciples dined with her and her family in Bethany, Matthew attributes to "his disciples [Matthew 26:8]," while Mark records it was an amalgamative "some [Mark 14:4]."

Why do the things written of Judas-- like the false accusations lodged against Jesus-- so often not agree one with another? It is, at any rate, understandable that the disciples might be offended by the one disciple of whom it is written that he did repent. After all, if any of the other disciples felt a need of repentance, it's not recorded that they discerned this; much less that they actually repented of anything, though their general unbelief is recorded in all the gospels.

Of the morning of the day of Jesus' crucifixion, the same disciple who records "Repent [Matthew 4:17]," as Jesus' first word, when he began to preach, says, "Then Judas, which had betrayed [Jesus], when he saw that [Jesus] was condemned, repented himself.... [Matthew 27:3a - d]." He goes on to say of Judas, "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself [Matthew 27:5]."

After Jesus' assumption, preparatory to which he had led the disciples out of Jerusalem "a Sabbath day's journey [Acts 1:12b]," the disciples returned-- like dogs to vomit-- to Jerusalem; having been warned (prior to his crucifixion) by him to whom they referred as "Lord, Lord," to flee Judaea at his crucifixion, and likewise commanded by the same Jesus to go before him into Galilee in expectation of his resurrection: to reconnoiter with him there.

Upon their return to the city of desolate abominations, Peter commenced a pow- wow on the disposition of Judas' 'bishoprick', citing a Psalm of David-- not the word of the Lord who, having been received up into heaven, had never left them-- as the authority and inspiration for this renovation.

.

The fact that Jesus had Saul of Tarsus pigeonholed to fulfill Judas' ministry is beside the point-- except inasmuch as the disciples' choice of Matthias highlights their divergence from Jesus' will: which is endemic to the disciples' lack of repentance. In this board meeting, Peter says, presumably of Judas (who Matthew- - see above-- says threw the silver on the floor of the temple, repented, and hung himself): "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out [Acts 1:18]."

This is a wildly disparate description of Judas' demise than the one offered by Matthew, and the two cannot be resolved as one. A man who hangs himself is discovered heads- up or headless, not headlong; and neck- stretching does not induce bowel- gushing. The two are not one.

Either Pete or Matthew (or both) are lying. The question is: who's lying and why? and what light does the 'brilliance' of lies cast on the darkness inside the liar? Is the only disciple who did die 'with' Jesus the only one of the twelve with him today? It was, after all, to a thief like Judas, who died 'with' him, that the same Jesus said, "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise [Luke 23:43c]," and that because of the thief's repentance.

Inerrant Lie #41

Three books of scripture are attributed to the Big Solomy, the son of David, whose practical 'wisdom' compelled the violent overthrow of the Davidic kingdom by ten of the twelve tribes of Israel. Some of the psalms are likewise attributed to the Big Solomy.

Some say the only thing amiss about Solomon was his penchant for the flesh of 'strange women'. The Big Solomy's sexual perversion is, however, more the symptom of disease than the disease itself [Ecclesiastes 3:18]. Ecclesiastes 1:2 makes it clear that the Big Solomy entertained deeper frustrations than strange flesh alone.

In Ecclesiastes 1:2, Solomon writes, "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." This is an obvious lie, and one retold by the 'sweet' psalmist's preacher- son four more times in the twelve chapters of Ecclesiastes; the final instance appearing in the eighth verse of the final chapter.

Is God vanity? Is his creation? what about his children? what about his Christ? Certainly all is not vanity. This requires no great documentation to prove, but it does beg the question: what 'God' did the Big Solomy preach about? If not Satan, what 'God' is all vanity all the time?

Mind you: I'm not saying the Big Solomy disdained the words and work of God in calling them vanity. His 'God' doesn't think that way. It is precisely because Satan perceives God as vain that he envys him and all he says and does. Fools get Gold Fever for fools' gold.

As such, this lie that "all is vanity" is true to the one who wrote it and to the fools who love and praise him as 'the greatest king ever.' The lie is the implication that Solomon's 'God' is the same as Jesus' Father. These are not equal, and Solomon's own words aptly describe the difference between them.

"There is [God and his children] that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is [the Big Solomy and his 'God'] that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty [Proverbs 11:24]." The latter half of this selection from Proverbs, is the most apropos epitaph of Solomon and his 'God' I know of. For them all is vanity.

Inerrant Lie #40

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

While the children of Israel are the subject of the "song of Moses [Revelation 15:3a]": it is addressed to the heavens and the earth [Deuteronomy 32:1]; not to the children of Israel. Therefore the subject of this song-- the children of Israel-- are referred to as "they"; instead of the customary "we," "us," etc. by which the tribes of Jacob are usually referred to in scripture, and especially in prophecy.

This is not to say that-- for instance-- when Nahum addresses his prophecy to the city of Nineveh, the LORD isn't actually speaking of Jewry in the same prophecy. The Jews are an exceptionally racist people, after all. It's therefore no wonder if the LORD keys on their exceeding race- based megalomania in the same way they do: by making even those things 'all about them' which ostensibly have nothing to do with them at all. Compare, for instance, Nahum's word about Nineveh's "wicked counsellor" ["There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against the LORD, a wicked counseller.... I will make thy grave; for thou art vile (Nahum 1:11 & 14d & e)];" and the historical record of Moses' demise [Deuteronomy 34:4 - 6]. This is one of the meanings of the "multiplied visions" and "similitudes" spoken of by the LORD in Hosea 12:10. It truly is 'all about the Jews,' in the Book of books they wrote. They're peculiarly special, you know.

At any rate, the song of Moses reveals that Paul's "spiritual Rock [1 Corinthians 10:4]" is not the cornerstone of the house of Israel, saying: "For their rock is not as our Rock even our enemies themselves being judges [Deuteronomy 32:31]." So what kind of rock did the children of Israel choose to build their house on? The answer is: a mineral rock; essentially a cow- lick. As their 'greatest of prophets,' John Baptist said: "he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth [John 3:31b & c]."

Psalms 125:1 identifies the everlasting rock of the children of Israel's security thus: "They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth forever." Therefore, the cornerstone of their house is-- according to scripture-- the mountain Abe attempted to murder Isaac upon [Genesis 22:2 & 2 Chronicles 3:1]; the home of Melchisedec [Palms 76:2], who blessed Abe for 'saving' those exceeding wicked cities in the vale of Siddim [Genesis 14:18 - 20]; the mountain upon which the Jews murdered their sacrifices and sacrificed their abominations [Isaiah 66:3] in the temple built to "the name of the LORD [2 Chronicles 2:4a]" Solomon [John 10:23, et. al.]; the high place of Baal [Jeremiah 19:5] above the city of Baal [2 Samuel 6:2]; in a word, the 'bloody rock [Ezekiel 24:7 & 8]' of their 'menstruous [Ezekiel 36:17]' 'righteousness [Revelation 17:6].' It is a lie that this 'rock' "cannot be removed."

In the course of that visitation of Jerusalem which ended in his murder, Jesus cursed a barren fig tree, and when the disciples saw how quickly the accursed tree withered away, they marvelled and remarked upon the suddenness of its demise. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done unto the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done [Matthew 21:21]." This is also recorded in the eleventh chapter of Mark's gospel in nearly identical fashion; with the one major difference being that Mark says this occurred over the course of two mornings, while Matthew seems to imply it was a single- morning event. We know which mountain he so spoke of inasmuch as this was done and said "in the morning as he returned into the city [of Jerusalem (Matthew 21:18a & Mark 11:12)]."

Likewise we know that if it weren't God's will to destroy that mountain, it would not be possible for it to be so destroyed: no matter who petitioned God for its destruction. As John states it: "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him [1 John 5:14 & 15]." Therefore we know that it is actually God's will to prove Psalms 125:1b a lie. Either that or Jesus told a lie; or Matthew and Mark put a lie in Jesus' mouth. My bet is that the lie is to be found in the pen of the psalmist. God's will be done.

Inerrant Lie #39

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

As covered in 'Lie #6,' there's no small discombobulation between the various gospel accounts concerning the particulars of Peter and Andrew's call to join Jesus' ministry. According to Mark, however, one of the first things that happened upon their joining Jesus' 'Traveling Tentless Revival and Faith Healing Spectacular' was a Sabbath- day healing in a synagogue in Capernaum.

Mark says that in that synagogue was "a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God [Mark 1:23 & 24]." This sort of thing occurred a lot with the spirits of the 'unclean.' They were always identifying Jesus 'correctly,' (presumably).

Some time later in Jesus' three- year public ministry, as Jesus and 'The Dirty Dozen' were entering Caesarea Philippi to preach and heal there, Jesus asked the disciples "But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ [Mark 8:29b - 30]." Matthew says Peter added to this ejaculation, "...the Son of the living God [Matthew 16:16c]." Jesus' response to Pete's 'confession' is likewise recorded disparately from one gospel to another; but Matthew says Jesus said to Pete, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven [Matthew 16:17b - d]." Mark simply records that he told them to-- like 'unclean spirits'-- keep their mouths shut about this; to which Matthew concurs.

In comparison one with another, these things don't seem sensible. If it was the Father who revealed to Pete who Christ was: who revealed Jesus' identity to the many unclean spirits he cast out in the presence of Peter and the disciples? Paul adds mud to this already- murky stream, in his first epistle to the Corinthians.

Paul writes to the Corinthians: "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost [1 Corinthians 12:3]." The first part of this verse I find credible. It's the last part that has my head spinning. Let's take it in order.

The first part of 1 Corinthians 12:3 amounts to a frank admission-- and this from a Jew (wonder of wonders)-- that Moses spake not by the Spirit of God. After all, it was Moses-- whose disciples demanded Christ be crucified-- who said, "...(for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) [Deuteronomy 21:23c]." This altogether harmonizes with my cognition of Moses. As each are represented in scripture: Moses lies more than the Devil. Nonetheless, this does beg the question: why-- with this in mind-- would Paul believe Moses?

In his epistle to the church in Galatia, which begins with a curse doubled [Galatians 1:8 & 9], Paul writes: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree [Galatians 3:13]:" so what spirit is the epistle to the Galatians written in? "...no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed [1 Corinthians 12:3b]," after all.

The second part of 1 Corinthians 12:3 ["no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost"], however, is a different story. It tells on someone else's lies-- someone other than Moses, that is. The only question is: whose? Is it purely a Pauline fabrication? Did Jesus cast the Holy Ghost out of those 'afflicted' with it to keep his identity obscured? Is the Holy Ghost an 'unclean spirit' as far as the apostles who wrote the gospels are concerned? Or did the apostles altogether lie about these things and more for their own Jewish reasons which I can't begin to imagine? Either way, if at least the latter half of 1 Corinthians 12:3 isn't a lie, it certainly tells on a number of them.

Inerrant Lie #38

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

Man, in his own estimation of himself, is 'the measure of all things.' While this is not necessarily untrue, the manner in which this philosophy is understood and acted upon is oftentimes disingenuous. Just because man is 'the measure of all things' doesn't mean all things but man are mean or unnecessary. To disdain all lesser things is definitively ungodly.

Once upon a time, man was greatly chagrined to find the earth-- and therefore, by default, he-- is not the center of the universe, and that God's creation clock isn't delimited to man's twenty- four hour convenience. For these disillusionments (among others), he has-- to no small extent-- despised science, and God, ever since. "Verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity [Psalms 39:5d]."

This tendency to make more of man than he in fact is also applies to what is commonly referred to as 'hero worship.' We observe this phenomenon often in relation to the overly- high esteem some have of the prophets and the apostles who were, after all, only men. Some-- like Paul in Philippians 2:6-- make more of Jesus of Nazareth than he made of himself. It's a sort of disease peculiar to humanity, it seems. "Always root for the home team," some say. If they only knew how to stay home instead of wandering like a bird with the palsy [Proverbs 27:8], this indiosyncrasy might be charming.

Paul exposes his 'manly' vanity in more instances than the one in Philippians, mentioned above. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, he writes to them: "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope [1 Corinthians 9:9 & 10]."

No doubt: this is a 'nice sentiment'; but it's simply not true. I think God must be a cowboy, at heart. God does deeply care-- and take care-- for oxen. If he who made the heart of a man cared not for cattle: man's egomania would be well- warranted-- to the point of all- out, open rebellion against God. The beeves are some of his most noble creations. I never knew what a mother's love really looked like until I was allowed to candidly observe the behavior of cows with their calves. There's nothing feigned about that affection. And for simple, clean industrial power, it's nearly impossible to beat a 2,500- pound bull. Before John Deere and Caterpillar, it was the ox that moved the mountains.

If God cares not for cattle, why is "cattle" the last word in the book of Jonah? "Then said the LORD [to Jonah], Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not labored, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night: And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle [Jonah 4:10 & 11]?"

The final chapter of Isaiah's prophecy likewise refutes this vain notion of Paul's that 'God cares not for the oxen.' Verse 3(a) of Isaiah 66, reads: "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man..." In my Bible, "is as if" is italicized: meaning these words weren't in the original manuscript which the King James translators worked from; and they thought the sense of the text required the addition of these words to be properly expressed. Thus, the original read, "He that killeth an ox-- he slew a man..." So Moses' 'facelift' on Cain's murderous 'sacrament' ultimately makes no difference. Blood- guilt is blood- guilt.

In fact-- according to the Doctrine-- Paul's insistence that 'God cares not for the oxen' is tantamount to calling God "that wicked one [1 John 3:12]" who 'gave' Cain to the world. Proverbs 12:10 says, "A righteous man regardeth [i.e. 'taketh care for'] the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." Is God not righteous? I say he is; and Paul is not the center of the universe. God loves the beeves, and those who waste them [Hebrews 10:4] in copious 'sacrifices' to a God who doesn't eat such meat [John 4:32] will get the baptism of fire spoken of in Isaiah 66:15 & 16 and Revelation 18:8, et. al.

Considering how God cares for the oxen: How shall those who murdered his only begotten son-- and all others who say it was necessary to do so-- be judged for their egomania? Is this the 'inconvenient truth' Paul attempts to 'fig- leaf' in 1 Corinthians 9:9 & 10? Buffalo shibboleths is all it means to me.

Inerrant Lie #37

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

The apostle Matthew-- who, in his gospel, calls Jesus "the son of David [Matthew 1:1b]"; not the Son of God, or even the Son of man-- says Jesus told a lie.

In the twenty- third chapter of his gospel, Matthew alleges: "1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not [Matthew 23:1 - 3]." "Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do": like divorce [Matthew 19:10]? what about bearing false witness [Matthew 26:59] against the "bridegroom [Matthew 9:15, et.al.]" in his trial- by- murder [Matthew 27:42]? Perhaps Matthew is the 'Anonymous' author of the book of Hebrews.

In Matthew 19, we read a passage which makes the above passage from chapter 23 impossible for me to believe. The Pharisees pose a question of Jesus: "Is it lawful for a man to [as per Moses -Deuteronomy 24:1] put away his wife for every cause [Matthew 19:3d]?" The response they receive of him is, in a word, 'no.' In verses 4 and 5, Jesus tells the Pharisees marriage is a gift from God. He then goes on, in verse 6, to say, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder [Matthew 19:6c & d]."

Jesus, in further indicting Moses and his disciples [John 9:28d] goes on, in verse 8 of Matthew 19, to call them both perverters of God's word, saying: "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Why would this same Jesus [John 14:6c] exhort-- as Matthew alleges he did, in Matthew 23:1 - 3-- anyone to "observe and do" the perversions commanded by the same Pharisees he so rebuked in chapter 19?

I say either Jesus or Matthew lied, in Matthew 23:1 - 3. My money is on Matthew.

Inerrant Lie #36

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

It's unclear-- given the "Chicago Doctrine"-- whether people refuse to read the Doctrine they profess undying, uncompromising 'belief' in; or if-- when they read it -- they refuse to pay attention to what they're reading; or if the 'scholars' who have read, studied, and searched the scriptures have been the sort of individuals who refuse to do simple arithmetic, and indeed avoid it like the Plague. Perhaps those who have 'crunched the numbers' have been 'marginalized' as 'crazy' by the 'blind- faithers' who only 'want to believe,' and don't care what they believe.

Either way, there's a lot of eye- openings, concerning the integrity of scripture, awaiting those who will do simple arithmetic. Moses' fraudulent pedigree is one such 'rude awakening.' Once you realize Moses couldn't tell the truth about his own origins: do you really trust him to tell the truth about humanity's genesis? What can a man who can't tell the truth about who his parents were be trusted to tell the truth about?

One of the kings of Judah is recorded, in the Chronicles, to have been two years older than his father: a 'fact' the 'scholars' apparently don't 'bat an eye' at. Of this king, 2 Chronicles 22:2 says, "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri."

What I find stunning about this passage, all- in- all, is that the last verse of the preceding chapter says of the same Ahaziah's father: "Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired." If you can add eight to thirty- two, you know there's no way Ahaziah was forty- two years old at the passing of his forty- year- old father. This is as impossible a thing as Moses' presumption to have been Amram's child.

So, what 'gives?' I honestly don't know if this is Ahaziah's attempt to claim 'self- generation'; or if it's simply an 'honest mistake' on the part of the scribe who wrote the entry concerning him. Either way, the same ascension to the throne is recorded in a more mathematically- sensible manner in 2 Kings. There, it's recorded: "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel [2 Kings 8:26]."

Therefore, according to the scribe of 2 Kings, Jehoram-- Ahaziah's father-- begat him at the sensible age of eighteen years (as opposed to two years before his own birth), and 'The- Only- Man- Who- Ever- Created- Himself' didn't die at the hand of Jehu, king of Israel, after reigning only one year in Jerusalem. That makes better sense to me, at least. Call me crazy, if you must.

Inerrant Lie #35

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

One of the 'prettier' English synonyms for a lie is equivocation. This term describes an operation observed over and over again in the study of Judaic scripture. From Moses calling Abe's disobedience in Genesis 11 and 12 'obedience,' to the scholars' apprehension of the apostles' inference that Christ said Johnny B was Elias as truth (presumably because it's impossible for those knuckleheads to have ever gotten anything wrong) it never ends. Equivocation is the bread- and- butter of professional 'Christianity.'

One such 'equivocation' occurs in relation to Joshua's account of a battle which took place in the 'promised land' of Canaan. After the children of Israel laid waste to the Amorites who besieged the Jews' 'homeboys' in Gibeon, a number of kings organized another 'federation' against Josh and his 'crew' of battle- hardened 'one- percenters,' thinking to gang- bang the Jews out of existence before they got any stronger or took any more 'turf.' Inasmuch as the children of Israel couldn't seem to find any better place to 'hang' than in the valley next to Jericho-- which was reduced to a pile of rubble-- no matter how many serviceable cities they took from the indigenous inhabitants of the land: I assume the 'federation' of adversaries were forced to come down to the Jordan valley to 'bang' on them.

At any rate, the 'Jew crew' slaughtered them there, and then went to their cities, and took their 'turf' from their 'old ladies' and their children: presumably 'snuffing' them all. In point of fact, so thorough was the 'genocide' thereby waged, that Joshua wrote of it: "And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe [Joshua 11:14]." There's only one problem with the integrity of this statement that I'm aware of: Cattle breathe.

Inerrant Lie #34

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

As noted in the previous post: there are many clerical discrepancies between the inventories listed in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. These are not trivial discrepancies. The previous post dealt only with the 'irregularities' in the respective inventories of the people who were said to have returned from Babylon to Jerusalem. There are also discrepancies in the respective inventories of the "treasure of the work [Ezra 2:69a, et. al.]," which was contributed by the people upon arrival at Jerusalem.

Of the gold of these 'freewill' contributions, Ezra writes, "They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold [Ezra 2:69a];" while Nehemiah says, "The Tirshatha [at that time, this might indicate Ezra] gave to the treasure a thousand drams of gold... And some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasure of the work twenty thousand drams of gold... And that which the rest of the people gave was twenty thousand drams of gold... [Nehemiah 7:70a, 71a & 72a]." According to Ezra 2, this leaves 20,000 drams of gold unaccounted for by Nehemiah. I'll grant the "50 basons" of indeterminate substance, listed in Nehemiah 7:70b might make the difference; but this certainly does not explain the remaining irregularities in these two passages.

Of the silver of these offerings, Ezra writes, "They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work... five thousand pound of silver [Ezra 2:69a & b];" while Nehemiah writes, "And some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasure of the work... two thousand and two hundred pound of silver. And that which the rest of the people gave was... two thousand pound of silver... [Nehemiah 7:71 & 72a & b]." The sum of silver accounted for in these two verses of Nehemiah is 4,200 pounds. This leaves 800 pounds unaccounted for by Nehemiah, according to the tabulation of Ezra 2.

These people also gave priests' garments. Of the offering of these, Ezra writes, "They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work... one hundred priests' garments [Ezra 2:69a & c];" while Nehemiah says, "The Tirshatha gave to the treasure... five hundred and thirty priests' garments. And that which the rest of the people gave was... threescore and seven priests' garments [Nehemiah 7:70b & d; 72a & c]." Unlike the other offerings-- each inventory of which is smaller in Nehemiah's tally-- Nehemiah actually accounts for 497 more priests' garments than Ezra; meaning, perhaps, somebody was wild about playing dress- up.

Inerrant Lie #33

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

When the children of Israel, at the request of Cyrus king of Persia, returned to Jerusalem from Babylon to rebuild the 'temple to the name of the LORD' which has always been referred to as 'Solomon's temple,' they 'scrupulously' inventoried all that went in the 'wagon train.' This accounting was recorded by "Ezra, the priest, the scribe [Ezra 7:11a & b]," in chapter 2 of the book by his name. Not only were the people 'dutifully' numbered and recorded: the religious artifacts returned from the temple at Babylon were also so inventoried.

This inventory was later copied by "Nehemiah, the Tirshatha [Nehemiah 10:1b & c]," in the book bearing his name. The number of discrepancies in these two ostensibly identical inventories is too large to mention one- by- one. My 'nose' first twitched on the scent of herring as I was reading Nehemiah, and noticed the absence of the infamous number "six hundred sixty and six," therein.

In Ezra, we read the following: "The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six [Ezra 2:13]." This is easily memorable because of the much- feared- and- hated number. However, in Nehemiah's copy of this same inventory, we read: "The children of Adonikam, six hundred threescore and seven [Nehemiah 7:18]." There is an obvious discrepancy, here, of one. In all, I count no fewer than twenty such discrepancies between these two accountings.

The 'bottom line' of Ezra's tally reads: "The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women [Ezra 2:64 & 65]." In- and- of itself, this tally is faulty. If you add all numbers given in the inventory: the sum comes to 27,829. This leaves a difference of 14,531 persons between the inventory and it's summation. These are uncounted people who are nonetheless tallied.

Nehemiah's inventory and tally are presumably copied from Ezra's-- though some years later: "in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king [Nehemiah 2:1b]," at the earliest. As I've said, Nehemiah's inventory-- as recorded in Nehemiah 7-- differs from Ezra's in no fewer than twenty particulars; though it is presumably a direct copy of the same.

The tally recorded by Nehemiah states the following: "The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their manservants and their maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and they had two hundred forty and five singing men and singing women [Nehemiah 7:66 & 67]." Compared with Ezra's tally: this is exactly the same in number-- except for the addition of forty- five 'singing men and women.'

The sum of all numbers given in Nehemiah's inventory is 30,101. This leaves a difference of 12,259 persons unaccounted- for in his summation; and is 2,272 more than the sum of Ezra's inventory. Again: these are uncounted people who have been nonetheless tallied.

I suppose the question all these discrepancies in such 'meticulous' accountings begs is: Do these differences reflect the human- trafficking of Jews? or do they rather reflect the Jewish 'passion' for human 'sacrifice?' or both? I smell the 'first love' of wolves-- putrefaction-- here, in any case.

Inerrant Lie #32

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

The anonymous writer of Hebrews tells a passel of fibs, which are likely-- for the most part, at least--the lies of others, faithfully retold by 'Anonymous.' Many are quite obviously Moses' lies, which the author claims to wholeheartedly (in hole- hearted fashion) believe in-- in spite of the overwhelming body of evidence extant that Moses was a pathological charlatan.

One such lie is found in the ninth chapter of this singular tome. In Hebrews 9:22, 'Anonymous' writes: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." When he refers to "the law," the 'unknown' author obviously means to indicate the Mosaic Law; though his 'indication' is actually an indictment.

In Ezekiel 18, we encounter the true way to remission of sins, which -- in a word-- is the first word uttered by Jesus of Nazareth, upon commencement of his public ministry: "Repent [Matthew 4:17c]." Ezekiel writes: "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed [this is called 'repentance,' or 'penitence']... All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him [Ezekiel 18:21a & 22a & b]." "They shall not be mentioned unto him," describes-- in a word-- remission.

All this notwithstanding, 'Anonymous' tells on Moses' 'bloody' fallacies in at least two places, himself. In Hebrews 10:4 we read: "For it is not possible that the blood... should take away sins." Seven verses later, we likewise read that these same bloody "sacrifices... can never take away sins [Hebrews 10:11]." Is it a lie to faithfully repeat a lie in which one has believed? or is it 'simply' pathetic?

Inerrant Lie #31

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

In English, we often use 'fig- leaf' devices such as euphemisms and dysphemisms to 'cover- up' our lingual 'sleights- of- hand.' This is somewhat more honest than the way in which similar 'tricks' of vernacular are 'fig- leaved' in Hebrew: inasmuch as both operations-- euphemizing and dysphemizing-- are, in Hebrew, 'covered' by one and the same utility: a peculiarity the dictionary refers to as a 'shibboleth [Judges 12:5 & 6].'

In 1 Kings ['commonly' referred to as the 'Third Book of the Kings'], we encounter what must have been a particularly tasty 'fig' referred to by the scribe thereof as "Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom." I say she must have been particularly 'tasty' inasmuch as she was taken by her own son as queen and, in turn, bore him the son that replaced him as king.

1 Kings 15:1 & 2 reads: "Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat reigned Abijam over Judah. Three years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom." Later in the same chapter, we read: "And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah. And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was [the same] Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom [1 Kings 15:9 & 10]."

Notice how liberally the fig leaves are strewn over the passages concerning this same queen, in the Chronicles. In particular, notice how all the names but Asa's are 'shibbolethed'-- her father's beyond recognition. "Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam began Abijah to reign over Judah. He reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah [2 Chronicles 13:1 & 2]." How does "Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom" become sensibly, or responsibly, "Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah?"

Furthermore, 2 Chronicles says of Abijam (or Abijah, as the case may be) that he married-- not only his own mother, but-- fourteen wives [2 Chronicles 13:21]. To further 'cover' the incestuous nature of this period of the nation's history, the scribe of 2 Chronicles makes no mention of Asa's mother or her name. This may be more shibboleth than lie; but, given the extraordinarily deceptive nature of the 'Chronicle' of it: it may as well be apprehended as a lie altogether.

At any rate, my guess is: 'Mikki' was hot as hell on Easter Sunday.

Inerrant Lie #30

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

The book of Joshua was not necessarily written by Joshua, but it was written about the leadership of Joshua during the children of Israel's attempt to conquer the promised land after the death of Moses. Toward the end of this less- than- triumphal account of “holy land” conquest, the writer of the book of Joshua attributes a lie to Joshua which is perhaps optimistically ignored by scholars as a lie– and instead considered a “statement of faith.” It is nonetheless a lie: one which has always been a lie; and is a lie to this day.

Joshua 21:43 - 45 says Joshua said: "43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. 44 And… rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers…. 45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass." This lie is, at best, a transubstantiation of a deception as truth and that likely based on good intent. Wishful thinking, in other words. The inspiration for this lie is presumably an accounting taken of the territories of the promised land not yet taken by the children of Israel, of all things.

This tale of the account taken of territories of the promised land not yet taken by the tribes of Israel begins at the start of the thirteenth chapter of the book of Joshua. Joshua 13:1 - 7 says, “1 Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him… there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. 2 This is the land that yet remaineth: all the borders of the Philistines, and all Geshuri, 3 From Sihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the borders of Ekron northward, which is counted to the Canaanite: five lords of the Philistines; the Gazathites, and the Ashdothites, the Eshkalonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avites: 4 From the south, all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that is beside the Sidonians, unto Aphek, to the borders of the Amorites: 5 And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baal-gad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath… 7 Now therefore divide this land…”

The rest of verse seven of Joshua 13 is a clumsy and confusing segué into a description, beginning with verse 8, of the land Moses gave to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh on the other (east) side of the Jordan. This description takes the rest of chapter 13. Verse eight of Joshua thirteen is also the beginning of a longer, more general historical account of the progress which had been made on both sides of the river Jordan, by the time Joshua was told by the LORD, “Now therefore divide this land,” at the beginning of chapter thirteen.

Chapter fourteen of the book of Joshua begins thus: “And these are the countries which the children of Israel inherited in the land of Canaan [the west side of the Jordan], which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance to them [Joshua 14:1].” The boiled- down essence of the next four chapters of Joshua is that two- and- a- half tribes had received their inheritances on the west side of Jordan– in the land of Canaan, that is to say– by the time “Joshua was old and stricken in years,” at the beginning of chapter thirteen. Everyone else was left in the lurch.

It's worth noting that, when Joshua 14:1 says that some of the land had been “distributed for inheritance”: this word “distributed” apparently indicates the land under consideration had been taken by the tribes to whom it– according to Joshua, Eleazar, and the fathers of the tribes– belonged, in light of the narrative of the next three chapters of Joshua and the first chapter of the book of Judges. Also it seems these were the only three tribes who tired of convalescing (with Joshua, Eleazar, and the fathers of the tribes) in Gilgal (and later in Shiloh) to the point of demanding an inheritance to fight for and take possession of: in light of the narrative of the book of Joshua, generally. [A half- part of one of these tribes– the tribe of Manasseh– was no doubt antsy to get back across the Jordan to their own possessions on the east side.] The rest of the tribes must have been “waiting upon the LORD.”

After all, the LORD had promised to drive most of the inhabitants of the land out of the land before the children of Israel. In Exodus 23 (verses 28- through- 30) Moses records the LORD telling him– sometime after the delivery of the ten commandments and before the children of Israel left mount Hor, where the commandments were given–: “28 I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. 29 I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. 30 By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land." This promise came forty years before the children of Israel entered the promised land and concerns the lion’s- share of the inhabitants of the land inasmuch as the Canaanites were by far the most populous people inhabiting the land.

At any rate, it isn't until the eighteenth chapter of Joshua that the narrative of the book of Joshua finally circles back to the seventh verse of the thirteenth chapter of Joshua (“Now therefore divide this land…”) with the declaration, “And there remained among the children of Israel seven tribes, which had not yet received their inheritance [Joshua 18:2].” Theirs was the land which had yet to be possessed, spoken of by the LORD in Joshua 13.

Now (in chapter 18), in response to the LORD’s command to divide this land: “3… Joshua said unto the children of Israel, How long are ye slack to go to possess the land, which the LORD God of your fathers hath given you? 4 Give out from among you three men for each tribe: and I will send them, and they shall rise, and go through the land, and describe it according to the inheritance of them; and they shall come again to me. 5 And they shall divide it into seven parts: Judah shall abide in their coast on the south, and the house of Joseph [Ephraim and half of the tribe of Manasseh] shall abide in their coasts on the north. 6 Ye shall therefore describe the land into seven parts, and bring the description hither to me, that I may cast lots for you here before the LORD our God [Joshua 18:3 - 6].”

The rest of chapter eighteen, everything in chapters nineteen and twenty, and most of chapter twenty- one of Joshua describes the resultant allocations of the land divided among six of the seven tribes remaining and of the cities given to the Levites (in this case, the seventh tribe, as per Joshua 18:2) out of all the tribes. It is after this accounting, at the end of chapter twenty- one, that Joshua allegedly tells the lie, “...the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein [Joshua 21:43].” It must be that Joshua considers the deed spoken a deed done (transubstantiationarily, at least) once the lot is cast: if this confirmatory statement at the end of the twenty- first chapter of Joshua concerning the faithfulness of the LORD is ought but a heavy- handed gaslight. However, the truth is that the children of Israel have never had the promised land to themselves.

To see how patently false this claim is, one need look no further than the beginning of the next book in the canon. In the second chapter of the book of Judges, an event is recorded and memorialized by the name of "Bochim." This event took place while Joshua was still alive; and it seems, in light of verse six of Judges chapter two, that it must have taken place immediately before, during, or immediately after Joshua cast lots to divide the land which had yet to be taken (the land spoken of by the LORD in the first seven verses of the thirteenth chapter of Joshua). It could be the same angel of the LORD speaking in both passages.

"1 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. 2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice…. 3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you [the promise of Exodus 23:28 - 30 breached]; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you [Judges 2:1- 3].” Three verses later, there seems to be a time- stamp on this “Bochim” encounter.

The sixth verse of the second chapter of the book of Judges says, “And when Joshua had let the people go, the children of Israel went every man unto his inheritance to possess the land.” This is exactly what one would reasonably expect the children of Israel to do, immediately after “Joshua cast lots [upon the land] for them in Shiloh before the LORD [Joshua 18:10]”: go to possess the land distributed to them by the lots Joshua cast.

Though it does not necessarily matter when the Bochim event occurred, it (Bochim) is the simplest proof of the disingenuous nature of the statement, at the end of Joshua chapter 21, that “the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers.” It is therefore offered here, as such, in the hope of as- briefly- as- possible concluding a matter the biblical account of which is obviously extremely muddled by non- linear accounts, anachronisms, lies, and so on.

For instance, in the immediately- adjacent biblical testimony, there are many statements which run contrary to the lie Joshua is credited with in Joshua 21. Some of these are found in the book of Joshua; some in the book of Judges. In the book of Joshua, there is this statement concerning the Jebusites (a tribe of the Canaanites the LORD promised– in Exodus 23– to drive out of the land): “As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day [Joshua 15:63].” The onus of accepting the Jebusites and allowing them to remain among the tribes of Israel is conversely and likewise laid on the Benjamites in Judges 1:21, which reads, “And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day [Judges 1:21].”

Also in Joshua, there are at least two more statements concerning the tenacity of the Canaanites. Joshua 16:10 says, “And [the Ephraimites] drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute.” While Joshua 17:11 & 12 says, “11 And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher Beth-shean and her towns, and Ibleam and her towns, and the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, and the inhabitants of Endor and her towns, and the inhabitants of Taanach and her towns, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns, even three countries. 12 Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.”

In chorus with the latter citation from Joshua 17, Judges 1:27 says, “27 Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land [Judges 1:27].”

Finally, there is this summation at the end of Judges chapter one, which reads: “29 Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. 30 Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries. 31 Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob: 32 But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out. 33 Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became tributaries unto them. 34 And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley: 35 But the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became tributaries [Judges 1:28 - 35].”

Notice how, in the above passages from Joshua and Judges, the onus is on the children of Israel to do what the LORD said He would do: drive out the Canaanite, the Hivite, and the Hittite. That is to say: for waiting upon the LORD (Isaiah 40:31, et. al.)-- which the ‘Holy Bible' advises, et. al.-- the children of Israel are rewarded with the curse of Bochim.

Never in biblical times (or accounts), nor in the more- or- less contemporary times since 1947 (C.E.) has the LORD, their own hand, or any other source ever given the children of Israel the promised land free- and- clear of any- and- all previous claims. If possession is nine- tenths of the law, the children of Israel are and always have been trespassers and thieves as a nation: in the land of promise and elsewhere. No matter where– except Ur of the Chaldees– the children of Abraham were to be found, someone who didn't want to share the land with them was always there before them. If the Annunaki hadn't simply disappeared somehow, the same might perhaps be said for all of us.

Inerrant Lie #29

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

The book of Deuteronomy is (for the most part) a recount, given by Moses, of the events which he experienced with the children of Israel in the forty years he wandered with them in the wilderness between Goshen and Shittim; and a refresher course on the canon of law which was delivered to Moses purportedly by the LORD, after Moses eloped with the children of Israel from Egypt. In rehearsing their shared exploits on the east side of Jordan to the people he led out of Egypt (prior to allegedly being whacked- out and buried by the LORD his God), Moses says to the people, "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants… [Deuteronomy 3:11a]."

This lie-- like the one told in Numbers 31:7 about having slain "all the males of Midian"-- comes back to take a bite out of Moses’ veracity. Everyone's heard of the “champion… of the Philistines, named Goliath;” and how little Davey (just before exchanging holy vows with king Saul’s son, Jonathan) shot him down with a pebble from a brook and launched by a sling: in the time of the kings; long after the conquest of the promised land; and likewise after the times of the judges. Such is the fate of giants who bring spears and swords to gunfights. Yet even the killing of Goliath wasn't the end of the lineage of giants “Moses the man of God” claims Og was.

Perhaps it is in the interest of protecting the integrity of that mighty “god to Pharaoh [Exodus 7:1]”-- Moses “the man of God”-- that the scribe who recorded Davey's encounter with Goliath chose not to call the “champion of the Philistines” a giant. However, this fig leaf (if such it is) is likewise uncovered by posterity, when the King of the Jews goes to war with the Philistines years later.

Purportedly, in four separate battles with the Philistines, David's army encountered four sons of Goliath; and killed them all. Of these encounters, 2 Samuel 21:22 says, "These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants."

Obviously, Moses either didn't know enough about the lineage of the giants to speak authoritatively on the matter; or he was too busy rallying the children of Israel for the coming conquest of the promised “holy land” to tell the truth about it. Either way, according to the account of later events: it was a lie to say, “only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants.” Either that, or David's scribes lied about Goliath and his children.

Inerrant Lie #28

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

When-- after forty years of death- watch was accomplished in the wilderness-- the children of Israel finally began to conquer territory in their “land of promise” and claim it as their own: they received a special instruction concerning the land they were not to take.

This OPORDER, as it were, is recorded in the past tense in Deuteronomy 2:19. Moses says ”the LORD” told him (before the respective contest): "And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession."

Eighteen verses later, in the same chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses unequivocally claims innocence in regard of the foregoing mission prerogative, saying: "Only unto the land of the children of Ammon thou camest not, nor unto any place of the river Jabbok, nor unto whatsoever the LORD our God forbad us [Deuteronomy 2:37]." 

In chapter 3 of Deuteronomy, Moses recollects how the children of Israel-- after destroying Sihon of Heshbon-- proceeded to destroy Og king of Bashan. In verse 4, he says, "we took all of [Og's] cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them..." Prima facie: no problem. But in verse 11 of chapter 3, the vail lifts. Moses says, "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the Ammonites?"

The controversy which presents itself here, in light of Moses' unequivocal claim to have abided by the foregoing prohibition on Ammonite entanglement, is that– besides being told not to distress the Ammonites– Moses was told, “nor meddle with [the Ammonites].” This means the children of Israel were to have nothing, good or bad, to do with the Ammonites. Everything Ammonite was a “no- go.” How does one "behold" a "bedstead" behind no- go lines without ‘crossing the line’?

Further evidence that Moses' claim (in Deuteronomy 2:37) of having adhered to the prohibition on conquest of Ammonite territory declared by the LORD (Deuteronomy 2:19) is fishy comes five verses later: in verse 16 of Deuteronomy 3.

In Deuteronomy 3:16, Moses admits-- in spite of his earlier protestation to not have come "unto any place of the river Jabbok [2:37b, ibid.],"-- that he "gave [to the Reubenites and Gadites] from Gilead… even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon." How does one go “unto the river Jabbok” without coming “unto any place of the river Jabbok?”

Joshua also rebuffs Moses' hands- off affirmation from Deuteronomy 2:37, writing: "24 And Moses gave inheritance unto the tribe of Gad…. 25 And their coast was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer that is before Rabbah [Deuteronomy 13:24 & 25]." Again: how does one ‘give’ “half the land of the children of Ammon” to someone else without meddling with the Ammonites? Someone lied about something here.

Inerrant Lie #27

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

How many times have you heard someone say, "Jesus of Nazareth was either God- in- the- flesh or a raging lunatic!"? This ultimatum, whether it applies to Jesus of Nazareth or not, applies more acutely (and appropriately) to Moses. Jesus of Nazareth commanded the spirits and apostles that worshipped him as “the Holy One of God” (and other appellations of such like) to observe silence. The number of times Moses says, “I am the LORD,” on the other hand, is staggering.

Back in the early nineties, when the alphabet- soup of federal agencies surrounded the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX: CNN had an analyst [or maybe it was Janet Reno herself] on- air talking about David Koresh (the pastor of the Branch Davidians). They played audio of Koresh reading a passage of Moses as proof of how evil Koresh was, saying he clearly had a messiah complex and might be the Antichrist. They represented the audio they played as Koresh's own words, which they clearly were not; but what does this say about Moses, whose words they actually were?

One such passage is to be found in Deuteronomy 11. Beginning in verse 13, Moses says: "And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day… 14 That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season… 15 And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full." This is a staggering claim for a man to have made so many thousands of years ago.

These days, the U.S. Air Force has Operational Weather Squadrons which manipulate weather conditions in the theater of conflict to assure maximum advantage to U.S. troops in- theater. Nonetheless, even now, preachers insist, “Only God can control the weather.” Why do they believe Moses, when they revile and scorn as lunatic any contemporary who speaks as Moses did?

Back in the fall of 2015, I attended church on a Saturday evening at a church in Santa Clarita, CA, which is in Los Angeles County. California had suffered from drought for seven years or so, at this time; and, for some reason, the head pastor of the church I visited that Saturday evening chose that moment to lead his congregation in a prayer service begging God to bring relief from the persistent drought– before he commenced the message he delivered that evening.

The substance of that particular pastor's prayer that evening about the drought concentrated on his adamant, repetitive assertion that only God could do anything about the weather. I used to live in Sclarita (as Santa Clarita is referred to by the “locals”) in the 1990’s, and even then it was obvious someone was engaged in weather modification exercises to anyone who chanced to look up at the sky over that valley on any given day. Chemtrails abounded with regularity. Everyone noticed and commented on them in conversation about town. It was no secret.

At any rate, when the aforementioned head pastor was done laying on the floor wriggling like a worm and pleading to be heard and obeyed by God concerning the drought, there was a moment taken for “prophetic testimony,” in which the congregation was encouraged to share anything they felt the LORD was impressing upon their hearts regarding the subject of the drought. We waited for an uncomfortably long time, until one old man finally made his way up front to the microphone to say, “God will provide a solution to this problem.”

I suspect churches all over the L.A. Basin were exercising their prayer- prerogative in precisely this same manner, that particular weekend. On the following Monday morning, one of the things which caught the eye of many of those who perused the L.A. Times newspaper was a public notice announcing that NOAA had filed for and received permits to engage in weather modification exercises in the skies over L.A. County over the course of the winter immediately following. That may be the first year (2015) in which meteorologists assigned names to particularly dangerous winter storms.

One of my acquaintances in Santa Clarita was killed by “Lucifer,” that winter. I think it's all- but certain that, that Saturday and Sunday, all the pastors in the L.A. metropolis were doing the same thing that pastor did that Saturday evening when I visited his church: praying God end the drought; and praying so exactly as that pastor had done: forcefully and repetitively declaring only God could do anything about the weather. I think the pastors of L.A. already had the scoop on NOAA’s plans for weather modification before that weekend began. Perhaps they didn't know NOAA would obtain permits, that year. They had never bothered with permits in previous years. Moses would have been proud.

At any rate, whether or not Moses could make it rain, and even whether Moses is the LORD is beside the point. The point is that weather modification was not a science, much less a given, in Moses' day; and Moses most likely lied every time he said “I am the LORD,” regardless of whether he did so at the LORD’s behest. Either that, or the scribe who wrote, “[the LORD] buried [Moses] in a valley in the land of Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day [Deuteronomy 34:6]” lied. No man can literally bury himself; and if Moses were the LORD: why would he?

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.].”