Cocksuckers, for Christ's Sake

Why do so many professing Christians wait for a rapture? Don't they know there wouldn't be a "Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:1a) in scripture without one? In Revelation 4:1(e), John was called to "Come up hither," and the things he saw and heard while in the resultant rapture are the book we call Revelation, or-- as the publishers of my Bible express it-- "The Revelation of Saint John the Divine." This is not the subject of this post, but it does allow me to introduce this post with a modicum of authority.

Like John, I've had my own 'Come up hither.' It all started who- knows- when. But I was first consciously aware of it in the summer of 2008 (if not somewhat before), and it is currently ongoing, though at the present time the conversation there is not as readily discernible from the conversation here as it was in the five years between 2008 and 2013.

In the winter of 2012- 2013, the pique of each day's rapturous events became so intense that I was barely able to find time (or appetite) to eat: which was a blessing, inasmuch as I only had a twenty- five pound ham and five or ten pounds of rice to sustain me through one of the longer of North Dakota's substantial winters. This winter was a long season of gruelling night- and- day interrogations and examinations in a number of places. It seems I-- perhaps unlike John-- was caught up- and- down, and perhaps sideways in a number of directions, as it were. The examinations and cross examinations were occurring on so many courts simultaneously that I found myself lost in the maelstrom, like a basketball player wrestling for control of the ball at the hoop under mosh- pit- inspired 'prison rules.'

All this notwithstanding, I had an encounter in one place that winter with a man whom, though I hadn't known well, I had considered a good and intimate friend as soon as we met and all the days after, including the present one, though he crossed the river in 1998.

I don't like dropping names, but I tell you his was Arthur Olson for two reasons: he told me before he died that he wanted his family to know and understand that he was decidedly a disciple of Christ, and I have no idea whether he communicated this to them satisfactorily, if at all, before (or after) his passage; and, inasmuch as he is dead and his life is hid with Christ in God, I reckon he's safe from the sorcery of 'curious' witches and their longstanding penchant for rapturing the dead to peep God, as it were.

Anyway, as I've said, I encountered Art in one of the places I played basketball de jure that excruciating and ecstatic winter. After a presumably private conference with the holy Judge in his chambers, I was allowed a tour of the holy City to which Art served as my concierge. He introduced me to many, if not all, the holy Gangsters in the holy Mafia; all of which are God, more or less, to one extent or another. One of these is the One of Ones, I'm sure, but being as I couldn't see any of them, and only one dropped his name, I can only guess the One is he who invited me to sit in his chair which hovers over a planetoid engulfed in a perpetual blaze, as the comforting screams of the tormented erupt from the flames below. He's the one I call Pop, I think.

The last time I saw Art, to date, Pop stopped by to tell me, "Tom, Art's going to come suck my cock about you and Dori." I know God is salty-- even "potty- mouthed" compared to the 'sweet' devils who presume to supplant him-- but I was freaked out: especially because Pop was laughing his ass off, as if this sort of thing were funny to me. Shortly thereafter, Art shows up saying, "Tom, I'm on my way to suck God's cock to find out about you and Dori." Then they both fell apart laughing. As they were departing, they both kept repeating: "Don't worry, Tom. It's okay," and laughing hysterically. Pop said something that's still got me in fits. He said, "Now, Tom, you be careful who you call a cocksucker." That one stuck with me. He said it in such a titular tone, my blood ran cold: though they both roared with laughter; but enough of this.

The reason I relate this anecdote is to illustrate how it is so and what it means when folks (some of whom have no idea what they speak of) ejaculate the oft- repeated maxim: "As above; so below." God is (in my experience, at least) much saltier than he's generally given credit for being, and-- like the Godfather Corleone-- keeps his enemies closer. As I apprehend scripture, God is the "friend that sticketh closer than a brother" written of by Solomon in Proverbs (18:24), and to such an extent is he so as to have compelled his enemies to write what my grandmother called "God's love letter to [me]." Perhaps this is the reason the Jewry always presumes to be capable of teaching God a thing- or- two: he talks to them in their own language.

Naturally, getting your skull fucked by the Book of books is not existentially the same thing as skull- fucking a man's cock, but as a spiritual application it's certainly valid. This is going to get me talking about Jesus, who many Protestant churches say is gay-- if only by the implication expressed by the presence of out- and- proud queers in their pulpits; and congregations populated by the same.

John tells us in the first chapter of his gospel that Jesus is the Word by which the heavens were begotten. Likewise, Christ says that, "The sower soweth the word." (Mark 4:14), and thus begets the kingdom of heaven: inasmuch as "the good seed are the children of the kingdom." (Matthew 13:38) We know that the kingdom of heaven is earthly, godly, and heavenly: inasmuch as the same Christ commanded that we should pray "[God's] will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." (Matthew 6:10b & c) This means God's will should be done in earth, because [the earth] is in heaven. It also means God's will is not done in heaven. There's a war on for mastery of the kingdom of heaven, "and the violent take it by force." (Matthew 11:12)

The prophets known collectively as Motley Crue [in the overture to their prophecy entitled 'Saints of Los Angeles'] are the only ones I'm aware of who have ever put the proper inflection on "is" in the Lord's prayer [a.k.a. the 'Our Father'] so as to make it clear we are asking for God's will to be done in heaven, and that because we pray for earth; though Bill Clinton was certainly onto (or on) something when he said, "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." The significance of this distinction is that there is something called earth 'below,' where the "wandering stars" written of by Jude (13) blow in (or up) to this earth from. As above: so below. Because of the presence of the wanderers, we seem sometimes to be caught in the middle: only because of the crossfire.

The 'Our Father' makes it clear: we are not below; we are above. When we pray God's will be done here, we are asking that the wanderers go home. Then God's will can and will be done here. Thus, the maxim is proven, and the reason so many believe we are below is also understood to be the exceeding wickedness observed in the present world. The beginning of conversation is consummate sex in God, after all; but this makes the wrong kind of sense to some; and no kind of sense to most, if not all, others.

Proverbs 8 says of wisdom that she was with the LORD at his beginning, or at the least, when he first began to move: long before he created anything. Is there a real mother who knows not the reasoning of wisdom, in verse 30, when she says that, in that time before time, "I was by [the LORD], as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;"? Protestants continually choke on this jizz, but-- if God has no mother-- why was Adam formed of the dust of the ground which we call Mother (Genesis 3:23)? Where did the water in Genesis 1 come from? If Father didn't come from Mother: why was Jesus born of the virgin? If Jesus didn't marry his mother: how does new Jerusalem come down from God out of heaven?

This much I'll give you (only because it's obvious): There is no mention of water being created in Genesis 1. The answer to it's genesis is found in the oldest book in the canon: Job. Job 38 says of water the following: "8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued from the womb?... 28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? 29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?... 34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that the abundance of waters may cover thee [as they did the earth, in Genesis 1:2]?" [Be advised: the italics are not mine; but rather the King James translators' method of indicating words added to the text.]

What this indicates is that Father's way of conjugating with Mother is to speak to her [as in Job 38:34]. She 'comes' and comes when he calls. Thus, being born once of the word, we so speak: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23) Likewise, it is 'adultery' to 'marry' God and 'fornicate' with another 'mother.' This makes of the word of God a representative figure of cock- and- testicles: the seed of his stony oracles wrapped about in golden [Exodus 32] calfskin. Likewise, the fellowship of believers is apprehended by Jewry to be a family orgy around the golden- calf- god which is a man "instead of God" [Exodus 4:16c] 'like unto Moses.'

Thus, by spiritual application, Bible study is apprehended by some as a man 'sucking cock' with the devouring 'mouth' of his 'ear' until God's testicles explode, inundating the 'belly' of one's heart with the incorruptible 'seed' of God: the residue of which springs from the 'bunghole' of his mouth as rivers of Mother's living waters. Is it any wonder so many sodomites are drawn to scripture as moths to flame: that is to say, without knowledge? Where did Abraham meet Melchizedek, if not in fornication with the kings of sodomy [Genesis 14]? Likewise, it may be said of sodomy that it is blasphemy against all that is holy, though it were to never speak it's own name; much less our Father's, our Mother's, or ours.

As it is below; it's hillbilly kin above. We-- like the devils-- keep it all in the family. And just as the children of the sorceress whore [Isaiah 57:3] engage in many presumably 'divine,' spiritually- perverse rituals of sorcery- magic that appear to us as mere sexual deviance; so divine intercourse can be misapprehended as sexual and spiritual libertinism by the wizards in spirit peeping our family at the windows of our heavenly mansions. Thus-- through the utility of shibboleths [Judges 12:6]-- all are given license to serve their God in their way by the same word which states emphatically (though not exactly unequivocally) that there is but one true God. What this means is that the word of God is pure to devil and saint alike, and the little book that John ate (Revelation 10:10) tastes sweet but it leaves the belly bitter because of the presence of things in heaven that really shouldn't exist anywhere.

In light of this epiphany, I'm no longer troubled about Art's or Pop's proclivities; catholicism; Catholicism; loving Mother to the extent 'I do;' and many other things that once 'rested' so bitterly in my 'belly;' and I hope it likewise provides some relief from the 'wormwood' which troubles you. But I think the next time some sodomite asks me if he can share his Jesus with me, my response will be, "Keep your Jesus in your pants where he belongs, or my Jesus will chop your Jesus off and shove him down your throat." That's 'autoerotic asphyxiation,' in the tongue they speak. Just helping out. And, if I ever find out God is gay, I'll kill him and his NAMBLA Sunshine, Jesus; or die trying. I don't care to live unto such a 'God.' 'Nuff said?

The Last Error

It is recorded (in Matthew's gospel) that the chief priests and Pharisees had greater faith in Jesus than his own disciples did. The day after they had Jesus murdered, they appeared before Pontius Pilate, (whom they had compelled to murder Christ) "Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first." (Matthew 27:63 & 64)

Considering that the chief priests and Pharisees professed concern about the deceitfulness of the disciples; and not, rather, faith in "that deceiver": one might be disposed to think there's a mistake made in assuming the chief priests and Pharisees believed Jesus. Perhaps I've simply read the scriptures too many times to believe it's possible for a Jew to tell the truth on purpose. However, if body- thieves were their true concern in appearing before Pilate in regards to this matter: why bring the Romans into the affair at all? Why not simply set their own watch on the sepulchre? It's not like there were security guards shoo- ing creeps out of cemeteries at night, in those days. Notice, also: the guard detail was only requested "until the third day," though the contested word was, "After three days I will rise again." Four days is after three days, as is five days, six days, seven days, and so on. Why not a perpetual watch? What were they really worried about? My answer, in a word, is: authority.

As many times as the Jews tried to murder Jesus, they were unable to-- until they had constrained the Romans to do their dirty, priestly work for them: then Jesus died. Many are wont to say that Christ's resurrected body was rather glorious in comparison of his physiognomy pre- exsanguination at Calvary, inasmuch as he was able to move unhindered through solid walls and appear and disappear at his own discretion upon resurrection: things they claim he couldn't do before Calvary-- this even though they all readily allow he walked on water before Calvary. But those who tried to kill him at Nazareth before he was ready to die know better. There, "he passing through the midst of them [while they were pushing him over a promontory] went his way." (Luke 4:30) This was at the beginning of his public ministry, and was followed by numerous other futile attempts.

When the Jews roped the Romans into their conspiracy, however, they were finally able to get their own way with Jesus. Now, it stands to reason that, if anyone can keep a man in the grave whom no one is able to kill: it's the one who does at last kill him. Thus, it's at least as reasonable to assume that: only if the chief priests and Pharisees believed Jesus would the Romans be required to stand a watch at the tomb; the which the Jews could otherwise cover themselves, and that without bringing more international attention to an already too- scandalous affair. Consider also that the resurrection of the dead was not so incomprehensible as the scholars represent it to have been. Jesus, like Elijah and Elisha before him, had himself raised the dead numerous times.

Indeed, though "John [the Baptist] did no miracle:" (John 10:41) still Herod had greater faith in Johnny B than the disciples had in Christ. For when, after having beheaded Johnny B, Herod heard of Jesus: he mistook Jesus for JB, saying "This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him." (Matthew 14:2) Yet Jesus' disciples didn't believe in Jesus: though he did innumerable mighty works; and that before his resurrection.

Matthew's gospel also informs us of a general resurrection which occurred at the time of Christ's expiration at Calvary, wherein "the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matthew 27:52 & 53) The next day, the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate demanding a watch on the sepulchre. To be sure, the scholars make use of the terminology "after his resurrection" in the above citation to claim these dead saints were resurrected later than Jesus. However, Matthew uses this term to indictate how they came up; not when. Like in fashion as to how God made man "after our likeness:" (Genesis 1:26) so these dead saints resurrected in the same manner as Christ (which is to say "after his resurrection") on the day-- indeed at the time-- of his passing: before his burial; much less later than his resurrection. Yet the disciples didn't believe Jesus would rise.

The apostle Mark records that, after Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene post- resurrection: she went to the disciples with the news, "And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not." (Mark 16:11) When two others had seen Jesus, whom the disciples reckoned to be dead without remedy, "they went and told it unto the [disciples]: neither believed they them." (Mark 16:13) Why did they not believe? Why would they forsake their own lifestyles and occupations to company with a man they held in less esteem than that with which his murderers esteemed him? Whom did they believe in? What did they believe in?

My guess is: Jesus' disciples-- like Herod the tetrarch-- believed in John Baptist; and therefore Jesus was, to their way of thinking, the Lamb of God-- not the Son of God. It was none other than JB who, in referring to Christ, said no less than twice: "Behold the Lamb of God," after all. Every Jew who lives, or ever did, knows what a lamb is for, and when Johnny Beelzebub adds the qualifier, "which taketh away the sin of the world," (John 1:29) all shadow of doubt about the purpose of this Lamb dissipates into thin air. This is a lamb marked for slaughter, and that by the man whom "all men counted... that he was a prophet indeed." (Mark 11:32) According to this criterion, you may be assured it was JB, not Judas, of whom Christ said, "good were it for that man if he had never been born." (Mark 14:21)

According to Moses' law, no fewer than 1,074 lambs, 113 bullocks, 37 rams, and 30 kids of the goats were to be holocausted each year by the theocratic institution he founded to administrate the national interests of the children of Israel. These are institutional holocausts only. These don't include the various holocausts offered up by individual citizens at their own discretion.

These institutional holocausts were of a more generalized nature than were the holocausts demanded of the individual under Moses' law. If a man vowed a vow, a sacrifice of holocaust was required. If a woman gave birth, a holocaust was required. If a soul sinned, a holocaust was required. Just about everything that happened in the life of a man or a woman or a family or a tribe or the nation required blood on the altar, according to Moses' law. Probably the only thing bloodier than Moses' law is abortion.

To be sure, once this "last error... worse than the first" was committed, it was only a matter of time until classical Jewish positive thinking took over: turning error into righteousness and inspired brilliance, as it always has. The masterwork of this alchemical wizardry of delusion is the book of Hebrews.

The writer of Hebrews tells us the cold- blooded murder of Christ by crucifixion was necessary to cleanse God's heavenly abode. In the twenty- third verse of chapter nine, we read, "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these ["the blood of calves and of goats," verse 19]; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices [the blood of Jesus, verse 25] than these." What, if not "a murderer from the beginning," (John 8:44) does this make of God? To put it another way: If one were to "clean" your house by murdering your son and soaking your house with his blood, the only way this could be just and right-- much less necessary-- is if you were a perpetually cold- blooded murderer who raised a perpetually cold- blooded murderer (your dearly beloved son) and needed to be taught how it feels to lose someone you love dearly in like manner to the way you were wont to deprive them of their loved ones: isn't it?

Mind you: the writer of Hebrews is expounding on Moses' law in explaining why it was necessary to murder Jesus, and this is instructive. In chapter ten, for instance, he tells us twice how futile, and even wasteful, the perdition practiced as holocausts under Moses' law was. In verse four, he writes, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Again, in verse 11, he writes, "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." If killing (lambs) doesn't take away sins: how is murdering (the Lamb) supposed to?

The truth of the matter is, wrestling with Moses' law in an attempt to understand or explain Christ's crucifixion is gratuitous-- though academic-- entertainment, in light of God's law. It does, however, inform as to the nature of those who murdered him, and is therefore not altogether a waste of time. But, to cut to the chase: God said, "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13 & Leviticus 5:17) Does this imply murderers, sodomites, child molesters, bestiality practitioners, adulterers, etcetera, should not be killed? Is it right to pervert justice for righteousness' sake? If you swat a fly, have you broken one of God's commandments? Did David transgress when he slew the lion and the bear that were killing his sheep? Of course not.

What, then, does this word, "Thou shalt not kill." mean? To put it bluntly, this means, No blood on my altar. "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:" ( Jeremiah 7:22) means, No blood on the door, either. God is not bloodthirsty. God is not a murderer, and he doesn't desire children who are. Obviously, Christ wasn't whistling 'Dixie' when he told his murderers, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

David, the "sweet" psalmist and true "King of the Jews" wrote, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." (Psalms 40:6) Yet, nowhere is it recorded that he ever stopped sacrificing: much less that he commanded his people to stop sacrificing. Why continue to shove anything down God's throat which he "didst not desire"? What kind of morons do such things? Oh, that's right: the children of the devil.

All of this begs one simple question: If murdering Jesus was the "last error," what was the "first" error alluded to by the chief priests and Pharisees at their audience with Pilate? I think the answer is to be found in the bloodthirsty masterwork of delusion referred to as the book of Hebrews, wherein the alchemical high wizard of blood magic writes, "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." (Hebrews 12:22- 24) Notice: here, the wizard speaks not of the blood of calves, goats, and bulls but rather of the blood of the first murder victim recorded in scripture-- Abel.

"He was a murderer from the beginning."

The Kingdom of the Antichrist

Eschatologists everywhere agree on one thing: the Antichrist and his kingdom are coming attractions. This seems ironical, to me. After all, aren't they already here; and in power? Haven't the Antichrist and his kingdom presumed central- banker- preeminence in the divine economy since long before the birth of Christ? What could be more antichrist than to butcher the Christ and hang him on a cross until dead? The only thing that could be more antichrist than Calvary is the abomination made of Christendom ever since: wherein the 'central bankers' and their proselytes declare murdering the "Prince of life" (Acts 3:15) is eternal life in the divine economy. Let's go back to the beginning.

In Genesis 4, Cain murders Able. This becomes the strange sacrament of an equally strange economy of divinity, as recorded in verse 24 of the same chapter, when Cain's great grandson says of his own adherence to the strange sacrament of murdering the young and innocent, "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."

The patriarch Abraham then makes this murderous sacrament the cornerstone belief of Judaism, in Genesis 22, when he unquestioningly submits to the compulsion of "that God" to offer his son Isaac as a whole burnt offering. Of this debacle, the apostle James writes, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" (James 2:21 & 22) James goes on, In verse 23, to declare Abe's murderous impulse was the fulfillment of the commendation written of him by Moses, In Genesis 15:6, that "he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." However, the LORD says of this, In Jeremiah 19:5, "[The children of Israel] have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind;" giving "that God" of Genesis 22:1 a name.

At any rate, this sacrament of murdering the young and innocent is perpetuated-- albeit with a facelift-- In the law of Moses, in which the children of Israel are commanded to offer a bare minimum of 1,074 lambs, 113 bullocks, 37 rams, and 30 kids of the goats per year. All of these beasts were offered as innocent babes: in the first year of their lives. This updated tradition begins with the original observance of Passover on the eve of the exodus of the children of Israel from Goshen. Of this observance, the LORD says, "I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:" (Jeremiah 7:22) meaning they were, again, listening to a different God when they left Egypt than the one who called them out. [For more evidence of the errant nature of this first Passover observance, see my blog entry entitled 'Lies Preachers Tell #2.']

Ironically, in venerating the murder of Christ, the writer of Hebrews exposes the futility and fallacy of the belief that holocausting the innocent atones for the guilt of the wicked. In Hebrews 10:4, he writes, "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Notice, he craftily omits lambs, but this is a device intended to rubber- stamp John Baptist's indictment of Christ as "the Lamb of God." (John 1:29) Again, In Hebrews 10:11, he writes, "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." If the slaughter of innocent victims doesn't atone for wrongs done by those bringing the sacrifices: Why would God-- whose handiwork these sacrifices are-- mandate their perdition? To believe he would is not foolish or sensible. It's wickedness. Two wrongs don't make a right: they do make more wrong than one wrong alone.

Ezekiel nails their hides to the wall, in chapter 18 of his prophecies. In verse 20, he writes, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:" which is to say: murder is not atonement. Verses 21 & 22 say, "But if the wicked will turn [repent, that is] from all his sins that he hath committed... All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him... he shall live." Thus, Ezekiel properly identifies the utility of repentance as the only efficacious mechanism of atonement. By implication, therefore, we can extrapolate the following: Those who sacrifice another in payment for their own transgressions, do so that they might continue in their transgressions without repenting of them or suffering justice for them. This is the kingdom of Antichrist. What does this reasoning make of the sacraments and divine economy?

We who love God and live (as did Christ) to do his will are the sacraments; and God himself is the treasure and currency of the divine economy. For the riches of God we don't offer bread and wine. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." (Romans 14:17) We offer ourselves in subjection to his will. "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies [not someone else's] a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." (Romans 12:1)

It's not the kingdom of the Antichrist that's coming. It's the kingdom of the Antichrist that's going. When it goes, the "this world" of scriptural notoriety will become that world which ended by it's own design. Instead of letting God have his way with them, they got their own way with God. Good riddance.

The Apostles of Antichrist

In the gospel of Matthew, it is recorded that some (if not all) of the apostles were antichrists. Prima facie, the passage in question may seem innocuous enough (especially in the eyes of the minds blinded by the darkness of seminarian light), though in light of the things John writes in his first epistle concerning the identification of antichrists, the innocuous quickly becomes indictment.

In his final visit to Sodom (Revelation 11:8) before his crucifixion, Jesus went to the temple which-- though rebuilt twice since Solomon's death-- has always been known to the Jews as 'Solomon's temple;' not as God's temple; not as Cyrus' temple; not as Herod's temple. To this day, the eschatologists of Christendom still refer to it by the same title: Solomon's temple; and this in future tense.

At any rate, as he left the temple, his disciples came to him, imploring his admiration of Herod's reconstruction of the temple, which was ongoing. Jesus' response to their awe was, "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Matthew 24:2) He then retired to the mount of Olives "over against the temple," (Mark 13:3a) where his disciples came to him.

Many of the finer details in the gospels, while being mentioned in multiple gospels, disagree in their particulars from one gospel to another. So it is with this encounter and resultant exchange between Christ and the disciples on the mount of Olives, following the visit to the temple.

Mark says, "Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?" (Mark 13:3b - 4)

Luke says, "And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" (Luke 21:7)

Matthew says, "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us,when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matthew 24:3)

Now, in harmonizing these three accounts, we find the following: 1) In his account, Luke doesn't particularly mention the disciples or the mount of Olives: instead referring to the decidedly more vague "some" and "they;" and leaving the reader to infer the entire exchange took place at the temple. 2) Mark is the only one who puts names to Christ's interrogators. 3) Matthew is the only one who asserts one of the questions posed regards the "coming" of the one so interrogated. 4) The one thing they all agree upon is that those asking the questions seek a sign.

While the first three bullet- points serve as indictments of the apostles' recall and subsequent recounts, the final bullet- point serves as an indictment inasmuch as they all agree on it. This bullet- point indicates the heart condition of the ones interrogating Christ was of a markedly untoward nature inasmuch as Christ said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." (Matthew 12:39) Bullet- point 3) indicts the interrogators as antichrists.

The apostle John, in his first epistle general, writes, "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." And, "every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." ( 1 John 2:18 & 19 and 4:3)

Perhaps John wrote the foregoing in regard to our relationship with the world. After all, as Saint Augustine said, "we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself;" ('Catechism of the Catholic Church' c.a. 1994, paragraph 795) and Christ himself said, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me;" (Matthew 25:40) but how much more binding a condemnation is this passage from 1 John when applied to those in attendance upon the principal Christ? They were looking at him and talking to him in person, having born witness to his entire ministry: and denying his coming, though he was right there in front of them. They denied him to his face, and Mark says in particular that Peter was one of them.

Preachers and seminarians like to make infallible Gods of the apostles, but in light of the above citations, how realistic is it for them to so do? If there's nothing fishy about the apostles, why did the apostle Paul write to the Corinthians, saying, "such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Corinthians 11:13 - 15)?

Understand: I don't write these things to discourage reading, study, and research of the scriptures. On the contrary: it is my goal to encourage, as vehemently as possible, this most profitable exercise. But, especially when you eat the scriptures: don't forget the salt. "And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt." (Leviticus 2:13) And remember to savor the meat. As Christ said, "Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?" (Luke 14:34)

Universal Salvation

Pope Francis has, at times, come under fire for many reasons from all quarters, including the Catholic clergy. Some of this heat may be merited, but I've noticed that much of the perceived scandal surrounding this pope emanates from the misinformed nature of his would- be detractors. Much of Christendom is so egregiously misinformed as to make the state of the altogether uninformed enviable by contrast.

For instance, there's a spirit of error in the scriptures which Christendom professes belief in. This spirit of error is clearly seen in Genesis 22, when Abe agrees to barbeque the child of the promises-- Isaac-- as a whole burnt offering: presumably to the God who made the promises; though it was, of course, Baal he was willing to readily so serve. This spirit of error culminates in the cold- blooded murder of Jesus. This same spirit of error then compels the writer of Hebrews to say it was necessary to murder "the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" for mankind to be saved; and for God's temple in the heaven of heavents to be finally, truly clean. (Hebrews 9:23)

"Nothing but the blood of Jesus," the Protestants proudly sing, but if Jesus Christ truly is, as the writer of Hebrews says and his own resurrection attests, "the same yesterday, and today, and for ever," (Hebrews 13:8) then murdering him didn't change anything but God's esteem of Jews and all others who subscribe to their errors. Two wrongs don't make a right. Murder is not atonement. Murder is wickedness; especially when the one being murdered lives to save all but devils.

This spirit of error inhabiting Abraham and all his 'children in the faith' compels many Protestant preachers-- and, perhaps, Catholic priests as well-- to proclaim with the deepest conviction the markedly erroneous belief that "We are all God's children." I guess believing in Jesus is not the same as believing Jesus. It was, after all, none other than Jesus who pointedly put the kibosh on this belief in particular.

In Matthew 13, Jesus tells "the parable of the tares of the field," in which he says there are two types of inhabitants in the world: "the children of the kingdom," which he likens to a crop of wheat; and "the children of the wicked one," which he likens to tares, or weeds, among the wheat. (verse 38) In verse 39, Jesus says of the tares, "The enemy that sowed them is the devil;" and this reverberates with the declaration he makes concerning his Jewish contemporaries, in John 8:44, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning..." So, either we are not all God's children, or Jesus Christ told a number of lies. I'll take brother Jesus over your pastor at any odds you want to name, and go all in, all the time.

Now, the latest controversy surrounding pope Francis concerns his purported belief in "universal salvation;" and this again betrays the blinded condition of the eyes of the minds of so much of professing Christendom. This is, after all, a doctrinal fact as the pope's "learned" would- be detractors count doctrinal fact, inasmuch as it's certainly espoused as fact in the scriptures.

No meaner witness than the apostle Paul writes, in verse 10 of chapter 4 of his first pastoral epistle to Timothy, "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." Some "educated" idiots will, no doubt, find some tricky ways of misrepresenting the final declaration of this verse as a caveat which lessens the scope and thoroughness of the foregoing "all," and not-- as it in fact is-- a special condition of salvation. So be it. Devils is as devils does. And devils are not human, no matter what they appear to be.

It's queer, isn't it, how the reasoning of the greater part of the "theologians" has waxed progressively more clouded concerning the doctrine in the thousands of years since the final canonical word was scribed? "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:13 & 14)

Think about it: The only reason anyone would begin, as so many do, to believe God would damn any of his own children (the wheat in the field) and/or save tares (the devils in the world): is because they're one of those tares in the field; and they're hoping to gain preference over the wheat by working harder "for" the farmer (God, that is) than the wheat does. Of course they do so in negligence of this simple fact: The only seed they can sow is seed of tares. "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;" (Matthew 13:37) and "The sower soweth the word;" (Mark 4:14) but the word the devils sow is, like them, perverted and therefore perverse. The harder they work "for" the farmer, the more of a nuisance they become to the farmer.

The false prophets have always outnumbered the true, and unlike the true prophets, are rarely-- if ever-- recognized as false. Jesus said, "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets." (Luke 6:26) To be sure, false prophets are nonetheless prophets, and as all prophets do: they have their peeping- Tom ways of wizardry. Generally speaking, however, they're more likely to observe the caution of prudence than true prophets are allowed to.

The imprudent prophet Amos, in a time much like our own, wrote, "Therefore the prudent shall keep silence in that time; for it is an evil time." (Amos 5:13) But the "wizards that peep, and that mutter" (Isaiah 8:19) sure do raise a din whenever they deem it prudent to castigate a prophet as false or promote themselves as true. It may be the most poignant meme of our time is that of the snakes in D.C. castigating the Donald as guilty of all their own unseemly wickedness. All devils everywhere do the same at all times, these days. Perhaps it's imprudent of yours truly to so say, but I applaud the truthful imprudence of his Holiness. Godspeed all children of love; "for God is love." (1 John 4:8b)

Counting the Number

In regard to Bible versions and translations, the late Pete Ruckman was ever fond of saying, "Always correct the original languages [and, therefore by default, all English translations of them] with the King's English [meaning the King James Version]." I find this maxim altogether agreeable in spirit; even if it seems dyslexic in letter. The only thing I can say of the original languages is, "It's all Greek, to me;" but English is certainly not what it used to be.

In the early seventeenth century of our Lord, when the King James Version was published, English was a relatively static, mathematically- precise form of communication. It is not so today. Ebonics, slang, slothfulness, mischievous perversion, legal wile, and avarice (to name a few) have done what they could to make the language unreliable, in the centuries since. As a result of this fecundity, dead languages such as Latin are more precisely descriptive than English-- and that because they're dead.

Take a moment to appreciate this fact: In latter years, English has been rendered all- but- impotent, by fertility. In the contemporary parlance, this is comprehended as viral fecundity. When a computer's operating system has become so compromised by viral infections as to be unreliable, the operator is compelled to reset its cognition to the last operable setting-- even when that requires a return to factory defaults.

I consider the King's English the necessary reset in English- based biblical scholarship whenever clarity is desirable. All other readily- available English versions of the scriptures I'm aware of (Who has time to read them all?) were translated at times when the English language was in such a dynamic state of flux as to make them confusing, no matter how many dictionaries from various years are consulted. Scholarship should attain to clarity rather than surrendering to confusion.

One subject presently begging for clarification (on at least a daily basis) is "the mark of the beast," written of by the apostle John, in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 13:18, John writes, "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

As previously stated, English is not what it was at the time of the King James Version's publication. Many terms found in the King's English are defined differently today, while others are altogether improperly defined by current dictionaries. Take, for instance, "jealous." Odds are at least even (50/50) that the dictionary you use defines "jealous"-- at least in part-- as "envious." This is a perversion of a word allowed by popular slothfulness; not a proper definition of the term. Jealousy and envy are, in fact, diametrically opposed: as terms; and as states of existence. One cannot be jealous of what one does not own. Likewise one cannot be envious of oneself or one's own possessions.

To say otherwise is to make "the LORD, whose name is Jealous," (Exodus 34:14) a hypocritical transgressor for commanding his would- be people, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." (Exodus 20:17) Conversely, the perversion of these two terms justifies the Jews who "delivered [Jesus to Pilate to be murdered] for envy." (Mark 15:10) After all, if jealousy is envy, it was (as they claimed) godliness in the Jews that compelled them to murder Jesus (and the prophets before and after him).

The writer of Hebrews espouses this misconception, when he writes, in chapter 9, "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these ["the blood of calves and of goats" (verse 19)]; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices [the blood of Jesus (verse 12)] than these." (Hebrews 9:23) In essence, what this means is: the Hebrews who murdered Jesus did God and his children a necessary favor in cleaning God's filthy house in heaven with the only detergent strong enough to do the job properly: the blood of his only begotten son, full of grace and truth; sent via air mail, marked "Return to Sender; address unknown."

In the day when Thomas Wolfe wrote 'You Can't Go Home Again,' the word "demon" was defined as "genius;" not "devil," as it's currently defined. This is the reason there isn't one instance, in the King's English, of usage of the term "demon." What effect does such corruption of English have on our comprehension of scripture, as it's translated in the ca. 1611 King James Version, versus the changes our language has suffered in the four centuries since? Stated simply: The demonic devils are geniuses; and the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is green with envy.

So, when we read, "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count...." we might need to ask: "What is wisdom? What is understanding? And what does it mean to count?" Solomon wrote "Wisdom is the principal thing;" (Proverbs 4:7) which is to say, wisdom is the currency of princes. The wealth of princes is their people. By investing the currency of wisdom properly in judging his people rightly, a prince may attain to the great wealth of a good people. This applies to princes in heaven (see the warnings to the angels of the churches in Revelation 2 & 3) and on earth. Also, wisdom runs roughly parallel with understanding, though the latter term indicates an "educated" form of wisdom: one informed by knowledge; not apprehended by superstition; not expressed as mystery. To demonstrate this subtlety, we can again pick on Solomon.

Shortly after assuming "the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father," (1 Chronicles 29:23) Solomon went to Gibeon to offer a holocaust of a thousand burnt offerings and "call upon the name of the LORD." The LORD answered Solomon by saying, in effect, "I'm your genie in a bottle, Baby. Make a wish, and I'll grant it. [Just please stop killing all these poor, innocent critters.]" The scribe who scribed 1 Kings 3:9 records Solomon's reply thus: "Give... thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people?" 2 Chronicles 1:10 records the request this way: "Give me now wisdom and knowledge [which is to say an understanding heart], that I may go out and come in before this people: for who can judge this thy people, that is so great?" So you see how wisdom and knowledge combine to make understanding.

So, what did the King James' translators mean when they used the word "count?" According to the law of first mentions, it should always mean what it means in Genesis 15:6-- "...[Abram] believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Simply stated, this implies the translators defined the term "count" as an imputation of sorts. As I apprehend the doctrine, this is-- at least roughly-- so. There are many instances of this term's use throughout the doctrine, rendering an exhaustive investigation of them all prohibitive, here, but let's look at a couple more to verify, to the extent practicable, our contextual understanding of this somewhat enigmatic term's meaning.

In preparation for the first Passover, Moses (speaking for "the LORD" of verse 1 of Exodus 12) says, "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." (Exodus 12:4) This, at first blush, seems to indicate the "count for the lamb" as a 'head- count,' of those assembled to partake; though it, in fact, refers to the blood on the door(s) of the house(s) wherein a given lamb was consumed (or even, by implication, the blood on the door of a house where various lambs were consumed.)

Verse 7 of the same chapter states: "And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses [notice the plural], wherein they shall eat it [singular]." This means that, if more than one household were to partake of one lamb, this would have to be ascertained before it's being butchered: so the blood-- or the "count for the lamb"-- could be applied to the doors of all the houses to which a particular lamb was distributed.

Also consequential to numbering the count beforehand, waste was minimized. Verse 10 says: "And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire." So, in this case, the "count" is: an accounting reached in the understanding of the butchers; and recounted by the blood on the doors of the houses to which the lambs were distributed.

In application, therefore: a large household might require three lambs [one for each blood- streak on the door] to feed all it's members; or parts of three lambs might be consumed in one house [again: one blood- streak for each] in minimizing it's own waste and/or that of neighboring houses. Again: this usage of the term "count" implies an imputation, a reckoning, or an understanding.

Sometimes, when the King James' translators used the term "count," it was intended to convey a written record, or account, of a matter. One such instance which is not perhaps readily apparent as such is found in Moses' directions concerning the anticipated offering of firstfruits, found in Leviticus 23: "15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: 16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD."

Again, at first blush, this usage of the term in question seems to imply a discipline of numbering, though this is not so. My guess is: the most convenient way of keeping track of fifty days' passage would have been to scribe a mark for each day-- the way a prisoner tracks the number of the days of their incarceration on the wall of their cell. Even with a calendar, however: one mark (at the very least) would need to be scribed (or otherwise indicated) at the beginning of the tally: in order to assure, without any possibility of error, one had correctly observed the passage of fifty days. Do we not even so, today?

Another instance of this term being utilized to indicate the scribing of a written account comes from 1 Kings 3, in the recount of Solomon's one- thousand- beast holocaust mentioned previously. Just before the new king requests "an understanding heart to judge," he says, "thy servant is in the midst of thy people which thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude." (1 Kings 3:8) Solomon thus clearly delineates numbering (which we call counting) from counting. This is pretty simple: if it can't be numbered, it can't be written, either. This sort of thing is referred to by the apostle Paul as "endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying." (1 Timothy 1:4)

Where does all this lead us in our understanding of Revelation 13:18? Let's look at it, again: "Here is wisdom [which, in application, is superstition to a man without knowledge]. Let him that hath understanding [that is to say: a firm grasp of the wisdom of the doctrine and knowledge to apply it] count [that is: write; acknowledge; reckon; impute; comprehend; apply; etc.] the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

Mark this: counting, in King's English, is always an operation executed by the understanding; never by the abacus. Conversely, whenever the King James' translators referred to what we call counting, they called it telling [Cashiers at banks are still called 'tellers,' for instance.]; numbering; taking a number; etcetera: never counting. When John writes, "Let him that hath understanding count," he's saying the same thing Paul wrote in his epistle to the Romans: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." (Romans 16:17)

Likewise, when John writes of "the number of the beast," he's likely writing of what we would term the beast's count. This opens a whole new can of worms; one which I don't want to get into, presently. This blog is already too long for anyone to read. However, just as Christ is made up of many members, it seems the beast must also be a body of 666 members. Are they 666 churches? Are they 666 men? 666 nation- states? 666 religions? 666 corporations? 666 computers? 666 robots? Suffice to say, if the mark of the beast is properly counted, it will be counted to 666 somethings, according to the apostle John as he's translated by the King James translators. According to the Word of God, speaking in Matthew 25:31 - 46, these somethings will be what he refers to as the "goats" of the "nations."

Washing the Clean Unwashed

Apostolic succession is held in the highest esteem among the Churches of Christendom. In fact, like many traditional formulae, apostolic succession is apprehended by most Christians and Christian scholars as magical: inasmuch as it's "believed to have supernatural power over natural forces;" [see "magic," in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (ca. 1979)] and truly divine in that, without it, a given church's sacraments are considered invalid.

To borrow a figure from Revelation 13, this belief is beastly insofar as the presence of Christ (that is to say, the Holy Ghost) is not acknowledged as the only legitimizing element in the sacramental observance. On the other hand, the imprimatur of a long- dead apostle-- placed on a given man by the laying on that man of that apostle's hands, and subsequently passed from that man to other men by the laying on of that man's hands on those other men, and further passed from them to other men by the same 'handy' utility, and so on-- is counted so efficacious. In other words: apostolic succession is-- in practice-- a superstitious attempt to supplant Christ with (or by) his own disciples. Remember: the apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas; but Jesus' choice was Saul of Tarsus.

Saul of Tarsus is not the only case on record of the Holy Ghost superseding apostolic succession. In Acts 10, the apostle Peter has a vision. While praying, he sees "a great sheet knit at the four corners," full of unclean animals. This "vessel" descends from heaven to him three times, once for each time he denied Jesus; each time accompanied by a voice which tells him, "Rise, Peter; kill, and eat." Each time, Peter corrects the Lord, saying, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean." And each time, the Lord responds, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common," indicating the synonymous nature of common and unclean, as Peter uses the terms.

"While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them." (Acts 10:19 & 20) Here's the number three, again: one Gentile for each time the Lord told Peter "Feed my sheep [and/or "lambs"]" as recorded in John 21. These three are emissaries sent from another Gentile, named Cornelius, who'd also had a vision which had instructed him to send for Peter to hear of him the gospel of Christ.

Peter obediently goes with these "common" folk, and dutifully expounds the gospel to Cornelius and the Gentiles assembled in his house for the occasion. While he is thus holding forth, the Holy Ghost again supersedes apostolic succession: this time, by falling on the assembly before Pete or any member of his entourage has a chance to "give" them the Holy Ghost by laying their hands on them (as was done to the Samaritans in Acts chapter 8, for instance.) At this point, Pete shows us the true value of apostolic succession.

"And [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..." (Acts 10:48) Do you see the lack of integrity apparent in Pete's baptizing of Cornelius and his household? The Lord had already baptized (that is to say, washed) them in his Spirit-- the Holy Ghost. How then were they in need of Peter's cleansing? Remember what the Lord told Peter in his vision on the housetop: "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." Somehow, Peter thought that his baptism-- in the name-- was more efficacious than the baptism of the Holy Ghost. He washed those whom God had already cleansed-- as if they were still unclean commoners.

"Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts." (Zechariah 4:6)