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)