ISLAM AND THE WORSHIP OF ALILAT/ APHRODITE

image of ancient cross

Islam and the Worship of Alilat/ Aphrodite

The Arabs, Islam and ALILAT ( Allah as the Hermaphroditic Daemon Lucifer/Aphrodite/Venus/Freya/Quetzalcoatl)

Formidable, heroic acts of worldly “ greatness” that men and women over the ages have committed or produced, have invariably been reduced to two governing traits and motives. The first process is deemed to stem from a chain of discovery; the product of benign and contemplative reason. The second process is thought to stem from the wilfull; the plainly brutish and animistic; the irrational and instinctive. The comingling of the two traits and strains of motivating methods rarely gives rise to potency or greatness, at least in the esteem of mankind and this transient world of experience, which men and women have, in the futility of the quest and chase after fortune and fame and riches and power, perennially sought and struggled for. Middle ground just does not breed greatness, yet greatness remains the goal of all heroic acts. The “ via media” just does not allow for individuality, yet all the great are invariably great individuals. Admixture just does not highlight extremes, yet extremes determine the course of all heroic acts, and rarely admit or allow anything but the selective.. Heroics of any sort demand the limelight. They find no satisfaction with shadows and shade. They shun all mediocrity with a vengeance. The formidable, the heroic, the great, the famous, the rich, fortunate and powerful, have always been the shaping and governing influences of society, of history..
But in all this chasing after the heroic, the great, the rich and the powerful, there is still a voice: that “ still, small voice” which formed original humanity from the dust of the ground, which perennially sends out its sweet prophetic canticle with the wisely veiled retort that “ the meek shall inherit the earth”. It begs the question: where is greatness then? It supplies the answer: In the meek…
Though the “ heroic element, quest and drive” in mankind has inspired and produced over the ages scores of individuals who have left lasting impressions in this world; as our lawgivers, as our artists, as our prophets, as our wits, as our priests, as our educators, as our leaders, as our warriors, as our haters, as our lovers, as our virtuous, as our decadent, as our innovators, and as our healers and destroyers, yet so very, very few, can actually be said to have been free of that “ vain quest” which the wise King Solomon of old claimed was the besetting ( and besotting) sin of all mankind, and of “everything under the sun”. Having himself traversed the extremes of Gnostic philosophy, worldly wisdom, decadence and pleasure, science, fame and fortune and “ greatness”, having in so many ways been to history an example of what not to do and what not to be, all that the now-wise-king could convey to posterity was that all questing, all greatness, was mere chasing after vanity, and mere pissing against, and reaping of, the wind..
All our greatness, therefore, all our quests and aspirations for the heroic, are, in the end, mere “ vanity”, and puffs of wind. According to Solomon the King, who had in the end of his days become penitent and had ceased from chasing after the “ vanities” and “ greatness” of this fallen and corrupted world, having, through much vain questing after wisdom and knowledge only reaped the “ wind”, the end result was simply summed up as “ vanity”. He had, finally, found his true vocation, and by “ fleeing the vanity of this world”, had become the truly great and truly heroic, and the greatly inspired as well as greatly inspirational, “ preacher of Israel”.. Yet in the end, his parting sermon was that “ all was vanity” and that to simply “ fear God” was true Wisdom; a wisdom entirely at variance with the profane “ vanity and wisdom of this world”….
That Islam seeks a “ greatness” is undeniable. That the greatness it seeks is mere vanity is also undeniable. That it seeks the greatness of this world and is not afraid to impose its bestial will on that world by force, by sword, tribute ( head tax) or wilful conversion, is also undeniable. That it claims its greatness and irresistible temporal success is from the deity they worship: Allah ( whom they in ancient times prior to the false prophet Mahommed’s appearance they worshipped as “Alilat”, the daemon spirit of the morning star called Venus, as depicted in the flag of Islam: the “ star” in the crescent moon), is likewise undeniable. Yet in all this undeniability, we must deny them the greatness they boast of; the wisdom they lay claim to under the pretense of justly “ fearing their deity”.. Islam defiles itself with its own boasting; its own vanity, and by this befouling bellies the fact that it not only has no resident wisdom, but that it has no resident “ meekness”, and will therefore be cast out, and will never truly “ inherit the earth”….. The raging, foaming maw of this beast called Islam may have its dog-day for a short while, but its days are counted and numbered, and its attempt to challenge the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: the Holy Triune Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is soon to be quashed and scattered by the winds they so zealously piss against.. The days are indeed numbered for the transgressors, including proud and vain Islam…
The peculiar penchant of the Islamic Eastern mentality is to meander and muddle through things entirely disparate in their own right, and to attempt to somehow alchemically mix and mingle things and concepts that should or ought never to be concocted, and to join things and ideas that even nature never thought to be joined. In response to this wayward characteristic mentality we may find a universally embedded adage which rings equally true for all time, through all nations, through all tribes and peoples, yet one which the ignorant historian and anthropologist is rarely prepared to consider or admit of. “ As their gods are, so are the people” is a thoroughly Biblical adage which simply teaches that we can know a tree by its fruits, and that a “ bad/evil tree” ( the “ gods” of the people/ followers) will invariably bear “bad/evil fruits” ( the “ people/followers” of the gods). A “ god” is simply to be regarded as any primary object of veneration and belief. Sticks and stones and elements, just as much as spirits and daemons, can be regarded as primary objects of veneration and belief, and therefore as “ gods”. This point was the great historical bone of contention between the true God, the God of Israel ( who was worshipped under the names of ELOHIM and YAHVEH), who was ONE Godhead in THREE persons ( Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), and the entire concert of deities, heroes, gods and demigods which the deluded followers of every other nation on earth excepting the Faithful remnant seed amongst the nation of Israel, invariably bowed down to and gave their allegiance.
When King David, the natural father of King Solomon, claimed in an inspired psalm that “ the gods of the nations were ALL daemons ( fallen angels that could never be saved or repent)”, he made no exceptions, nor gave the slightest hint of a dispensation to any people other than the believing remnant in the nation of Israel. None on earth, amongst ALL exising peoples, except the nation of Israel, were given custody of the worship of the one true Godhead. When Israel became vain with their own successes and greatness, they began to seek out and assimilate other gods, other daemons, as King David affirmed, and King Solomon and all the prophets of Yahveh/Elohim confirmed. When Israel turned to persecutor of the truth, having once been the only custodian of the truth, at the advent of their long promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, whom they slew at the hands of Rome, they became “ blinded for a season” ( prophetically now almost 2000 years). The lot of custodianship then fell to the “ true remnant of believers in Israel”, who in those early days of The Faith, were scornfully styled “ the sect of the Christians”. This “ sect” was to spread the “ Faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” in the true God and His Messiah, Jesus Christ, to the four quarters of the world within the lifetime of the 12 Apostles themselves.. The Holy Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets of the Hebrews, which until this time was held and preserved by the nation of Israel, was to find its fulfilment and exposition in the Books of the New Testament, which were, under direct inspiration from the Spirit of Yahveh/ Elohim: the only TRUE God, penned by the Apostles of Jesus Christ and their disciples in the language of the Gentile world, namely Greek. The CROWNING prophecy to mankind; the final and ultimate declaration and blueprint for the future, was given by the Holy Spirit of God to the beloved Apostle John the Evangelist on the island of Patmos @ 95 AD. This Book and Vision, called the “ Apocalypse ( Revelation) of Jesus Christ” was given by God in order to fulfil the Apostle Paul’s prophecy to the Corinthians that there would shortly come a time when “ tongues shall cease, and prophecy shall fail”, namely, that the miraculous manifestations and gifts of Pentecost would temporarily ( for almost 2000 years) cease, and no further inspired prophecy would be given to mankind from God AFTER the Apocalypse.. The Apocalypse is therefore to be regarded as the FINAL SEAL of all prophetic utterance to mankind.
With the gradual loss of purity in the early church of the first two centuries, both inside and outside of Rome, a number of prominent heresies came to the fore and proceeded to insinuate themselves within the Christendom of the day.. Three of these were to be embraced by the Arab nation, the Saracens, at about the time of the appearance of the false prophet Mahommed. The EBIONITES, who were known as the “ Judaizing” sect in the New Testament Scriptures, sought to integrate Jewish tooth-for-a-tooth and eye-for-an-eye LAW with some tenets of Christianity. This heresy, with certain Baptistic Mandaean influences, in conjunction with the disciples of Simon Magus and the Greek Prophets ( particularly Plato and Pythagoras), produced a little-known “ heresy of the Elkasaites”, who found a haven in Arabia and flourished there. The GNOSTICS were known as the disciples of the apostate and heresiarch Simon Magus, who died in Rome opposing the Apostle Peter. They were also known as Neo Platonists and Pythagoreans, and mixed Pagan Philosophy with Mysticism and pseudo-Christian doctrine ( particularly that of the Pythagorean sect of the Essenes). In their midst was bred the mystery school of “ Militant Mithraism”, which worshipped the Persian deity “ Mitra” as both male AND female, namely as the pagan daemon Hermes AND Aphrodite ( from which concept we receive the term “ hermaphrodite” for a creature with both sexes)…
The first challenges to the established corpus of Sacred Scripture which until then had been universally ( at least within the Christian Fold) regarded as completed and SEALED with the deliverance of the Apocalypse by God the Holy Spirit through the pen of Saint John the Evangelist, came from the quarters of the false prophet ELKASAI, and also a new heretical movement called MONTANISM; both of which heresies maintained that there was a continuation of prophetic utterance BEYOND the Sacred Scriptures and the Apocalypse, and that Elkasai and Montanus, were of equal prophetic inspiration as the original authors of the Old and New Testament Scripture. This diabolically false notion that there would come a “ prophet for every subsequent age” was shortly thereafter embraced by another GNOSTIC false prophet called MANI ( the founder of Manichaeism, which was a revival of Pythagorean Buddhism in the Eastern and the Western parts of the Roman Empire). Shortly before the arrival of Mahommed, the heresy of the EBIONITES, which blasphemously denied the Godhood of Jesus Christ and the Tri-Unity of the Almighty Godhead ( the cardinal founding doctrines of Christianity) had sired the ARIAN/ UNITARIAN movement of the false Bishop ARIUS, and the sect of the Montanists had, through their most able convert Tertullian, insinuated themselves in the chair of Saint Peter at Rome. From that point onward and to this very day, Roman Catholicism has remained a MONTANIST heresy mingled with GNOSTICISM.
As a young man, the Arab Mahommed, during his mercantile journeys to the Levantine countries, was initiated into ARIANISM by the Monk SERGIUS of Syro-Phoenicia. From ARIANISM Mahommed received the pseudo-Judaizing elements of the ancient EBIONITES against which the New Testament Scripture persistently warns us. From The disciples of ELKASAI in Arabia, Mahommed had already received initiation during his youth. As Mahommed grew in vanity, imbued as he became with the flatteries of Sergius the Arian and the Elkasaites, and under the complete ecstatic possession of the tutelary god/daemon of the Arab nation ( Alilat/ Allah/Aphrodite/ Venus, whose image he had seen and worshipped in Arabia as the “ black stone of the Kaaba”), in a series of lengthy Pythonic verbal ejaculations, gave to his scribes ( whilst shamanistically shivering under a blanket and under the possessive influence of his “ Alilat/Allah”, whom the pagan Arabs styled “ Khabar” or “ Akhbar”, meaning “ Great” in the Arab tongue) what, with certain redactions, became their revered yet quite unholy Al-Coran ( Koran)…
In order to fully perceive and comprehend who this Alilat/Allah is, we must turn to the words of the pre-Christian historian Herodotus, who wrote his famous “ Histories” several centuries prior to the appearance of Mahommed. It is Herodotus who informs us that Allah/ Alilat, the supreme deity of the ancient Arabs, is none other that the Aphrodite of the Greeks, and the Venus Urania of the Latins…
Herodotus the ancient historian, when speaking of the daemons worshipped by the ancient Persians, continues as follows:

….”They are accustomed
to ascend the highest parts of the mountains, and offer sacrifice to Jupiter, and they call the whole circle of the heavens by the name of Jupiter. They sacrifice to the sun and moon, to the earth, fire, water, and the winds. To these alone they have sacrificed from the earliest times : but they have since learned from the Arabians and Assyrians to sacrifice to Venus Urania, whom the Assyrians call Venus Mylitta, the Arabians, Alitta, and the Persians, Mitra….” ( On Persian worship, Herodotus “The Histories” Book 1)
And again:
….”The Arabians observe pledges as religiously as any people
and they make them in the following manner : When any
wish to pledge their faith, a third person, standing between
the two parties, makes an incision with a sharp stone in the
palm of the hand, near the longest finsfers, of both the contractors ; then taking some of the nap from the garment of
each, he smears seven stones, placed between them, with the
blood ; and as he does this he invokes Bacchus and Urania ( Alilat,Aphrodite).
When this ceremony is completed, the person who pledges
his faith binds his friends as sureties to the stranger, or the citizen if the contract be made with a citizen, and the friends also hold themselves obliged to observe the engagement.
They acknowledge no other gods than Bacchus and Urania,
and they say that their hair is cut in the same way as Bacchus’s is cut ; but they cut it in a circular form, shearing it round the temples. They call Bacchus, Orotal ; and Urania,Alilat…..”

The extremely licentious and diabolical identity of the Arab Allah/Alilat, which daemonic deity has absolutely no connection with the one true God of the Bible and Scripture, whose correlative amongst the Greeks was called Aphrodite, amongst the Latins Venus, and amongst the Germanic and Scandinavian nations as Frigga and Freya, and the Meso-Americans as Quetzalcoatl, may easily be discovered in the acts of the heroes and gods and myths of all these nations, and every other nation on earth.
The following definition of the name “lucifer” is taken from Wikipedia, and clearly illustrates the correlation between Satan/ Lucifer and Venus Urania/ Phosphorus ( otherwise worshipped and known as Aphrodite/ Freya/ Alilat/ Allah/Quetzalcoatl)…:

Lucifer (/ˈluːsɪfər/ or /ˈljuːsɪfər/) is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew wordהֵילֵל in Isaiah 14:12. This word, transliterated hêlêl] or heylel, occurs only once in theHebrew Bible] and according to the KJV-influenced Strong’s Concordance means “shining one, morning star, Lucifer”. The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate, which translates הֵילֵל as lucifer,[Isa 14:12][4][5] meaning “the morning star, the planet Venus”, or, as an adjective, “light-bringing”.] The Septuagint renders הֵילֵל in Greek as ἑωσφόρος[ (heōsphoros),a name, literally “bringer of dawn”, for the morning star..
…….As a noun, it meant “morning star”, or, in Roman mythology, its divine personification as “the fabled son of Aurora and Cephalus, and father of Ceyx”, or (in poetry) “day”. The second of the meanings attached to the word when used as a noun corresponds to the image inGreek mythology of Eos, the goddess of dawn, giving birth to the morning star Phosphorus.

Indeed, what one believes in and venerates, is what one becomes like. The Bible repeatedly attests to the reality that the whole world worships, and is led by, Satan/Lucifer. In Isaiah 14 we have the very name of Satan mentioned ( Lucifer) as well as a prophecy of his original personal fall from grace and his eventual downfall and judgement. Fallen angels/daemons such as Lucifer can never repent or be saved.
5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. 6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.4 7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. 8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. 9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.5 6 10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? 11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!7 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

( Isaiah 14; KJV)

The religion of the Arabs, namely Islam, has its predecessors and its successors, known to all posterity as the worshippers of APHRODITE the “ Morning Star”( Venus Urania), whom, according to the weighty testimony of Herodotus, they styled in their own language as ALILAT, and from which name of Aphrodite they derive the name of their highest Deity “ ALLAH”, which is none other than Aphrodite/ Venus Urania. According to Herodotus the Historian, …”These used to be idolaters
and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom
in their own language they called Khabar, which means
great.” In their present form of worship of their ancient daemon, Aphrodite/ Alilat/ Allah,Islam continues the use of “ Akhbar” ( meaning “ great” in Arabic), which of old was termed “Khabar”.

Saint John of Damascus in his famous compendium on the Christian Faith “ De Fide”, writing almost 12 centuries ago, had the following expositions and admonitions to relate concerning the Islamic “ forerunner of Antichrist”, and the worship of Aphrodite/Lucifer/ Satan as the “ morning star”..

101. There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which
to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael,
was was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they
are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also
called Saracens, which is derived from Zappocq KSVOL, or
destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel:
‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’
(99) These used to be idolaters
and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom
in their own language they called Khabar, which means
great. ” And so down to the time of Heraclius they were
very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false
prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst.
This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New
Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an
Arian monk,(101) devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a
show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had
been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some
ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it
to them as an object of veneration.
He says that there is one God, creator of all things, who
has neither been begotten nor has begotten.
(102) He says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron.(103)
(99 Cf. Gen. 16.8. Sozomen also says that they were descended from Agar, but called themselves descendants of Sara to hide their servile origin (Ecclesiastical History 6.38, PG 67.1412AB) .)
(100 The Arabic kabirun means ‘great,’ whether in size or in dignity. Herodotus mentions the Arabian cult of the ‘Heavenly Aphrodite’ but says that the Arabs called her Alilat (Herodotus 1.131) .)
(101 This may be the Nestorian monk Bahira (George or Sergius) who met the boy Mohammed at Bostra in Syria and claimed to recognize in him the sign of a prophet.)
(102 Koran, Sura 112.)
(103 Sura 19; 4.169.)

……
(107 The Ka’ba, called ‘The House of God,’ is supposed to have been built by Abraham with the help of Ismael. It occupies the most sacred spot in the Mosque of Mecca. Incorporated in its wall is the stone here referred to, the famous Black Stone, which is obviously a relic of the idolatry of the pre-Islam Arabs.)
(108 Gen. 22.6.)

Then we say : ‘Let it be Abraham’s, as you so foolishly say. Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on it or tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for venerating the cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and the deceit of the Devil was destroyed.’ This
stone that they talk about is a head of that Aphrodite whom
they used to worship and whom they called Khabar. Even
to the present day, traces of the carving are visible on it to
careful observers….” ( Saint John of Damascus, “ De Fide”)…
Though the present day Arabs may be descended indeed from the Patriarch Abraham through Sarah and Keturah, they are in no way to be regarded as of the FAITH of Abraham, and are certainly NOT to be classed as possessors of an “ Abrahamic Religion”. Islam is an admixture of the ancient worship of Alilat/Allah/Aphrodite/Lucifer with the Heresy of Ebionite Arianism. Modern sects such as the Quaker Unitarians, Socinians, Mormons, the Freemasons and Rosicrucians ( who are all of Ebionite/Unitarian/ Islamic Ismaili origin), as well as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, must also be classed as holding to, and furthering, the tenets of Ismaili Islam…

It is time for all lovers of the truth to shake off the shackles of ignorance regarding the fact that Islam is the religion of the coming final Antichrist, who will be a Jewish convert to Ismaili Islam from the tribe of Dan, as the early church invariably affirmed and taught and warned, and who will introduce universal decapitation/beheadings for all opposers of Islam once the Emperorship of Europe is handed to him by the final Montanistic Pope at Rome ( the great False Prophet).. It is also an undeniable fact that the notion of “ HALAL” is intimately linked to the ancient mode of sacrifice to Alilat/ Aphrodite, namely Lucifer/Satan..
True greatness is judged by unfeigned meekness. Whosoever shall live by the sword shall die by the sword… What one sows one shall reap. The licentious and murderous nature of Islam may very soon see it as the dominant religion of the masses precisely as the ancient worship of Aphrodite and Venus was at one time the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. It is then that we shall find, from Europe, the French Maiden ( the guillotine)once again oiled and readied for mass extermination of Christians: Eugenics on an unprecedented scale… As the gods are, so are the people. Islam is Satanism made respectable, and Allah/Alilat is Lucifer himself, the great rebel against Almighty God.

THEOSIS: The Primordial Apple of Temptation

image of ancient cross

THEOSIS:
The Primordial Apple of Temptation.
The notion that a mere creature, whether angel or Man, may, often through arduous psychological and physical discipline, aspire to and even attain mystical Gnostic “Deification”, “ Divinization” or “ Union” and “ Oneness with God”, is as old as the Garden of Eden itself. It may be assumed that, infact, it is a little older still, since the very serpent ( the fallen angel Asclepius/ Venus/ Lucifer) that offered the Hesperidian Apple of Gnosis and Theosis to Eve and then Adam through Eve, had itself some time earlier sought such a spiritual elevation but, having failed in the proud and vain quest, was relegated to perpetual shame by being cast out of Heaven itself, as the author and originator of sin and evil in the Heavenly and Cosmic realms. The vain quest for Mystical and Gnostic Deification, or “ Absorption” or “ Union with God” is indeed, the very Hesperidian “ Apple of Gnosis and Temptation” that, through the agency of the daemon Asclepius/ Venus/ Lucifer in the form of a serpent, brought death and sin not only to the then innocent and pure human condition, but by reflex to all nature itself.
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
(Genesis Chapter 3: 1-7 KJV)
This primordial SIN is the very origin of Original Sin in the human condition, which the disobedience of Adam, by giving credence and heed to the serpent’s cunning guile via the agency of his wife Eve, conveyed to all his posterity as a deadly Reality and TENDENCY ( though certainly NOT a NECESSITY nor an INEVITABILITY to individual “ sins”) toward the rebellion of sin; that “ sin which worketh in our members” so long as we are in this human condition ( as the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, clearly adumbrates); the denial of which original sin (if we deny that it exists and “ is in us”, according to the Apostle John) openly manifests the denier as being devoid of the truth. When speaking of Original Sin, the Apostle John declares thus:
“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” ( 1John 1:8 KJV)
Mystical THEOSIS, therefore, under the subtle, yet quite blasphemous, screen of “ Union”, “ Oneness” and even “ Absorption” into the Deity, often by protracted physical and psychological self-flaggelating exercises ( therefore without actually “ dying daily to one’s self-willed impulses” by “ denying oneself, taking up the cross and following Christ Jesus through meek humility of mind” and seeking the will of Almighty God rather than our own will and fancies, including “ self- transformation” and mystical methodology designed to attain to “ Theosis”), that have a mere “ semblance and outward show of Godliness” and “ feigned humility” that simply feeds inward aspirations to personal deification, is the very sin of Luciferic pride and self-elevation that the “ wise of this world” and those “ false ministers of righteousness” that “parade as angels of light” and even “ministers of Christ” regard and further as the crowning Heroic and Herculean feat of the so-called “ spiritual earthly QUEST” and “ Ladder of Ascent to Heaven”…..
It remains true that the early Church Fathers often spoke of the fact that as Christians we indeed were MORE than only human, for we are then not merely “ men” and “ women” but are raised to a level “ a little lower than the angels”, and are therefore styled “ sons of God” in imitation of the angelic orders who were similarly styled “ sons of God” or “ ben Elohim”, in Hebrew. This elevation to what Scripture terms as “ lesser Gods”, implies NOT that we become creator Gods or are unified with or somehow absorbed into the Holy Deity, but that we assume, by the resurrection of Christ, a NEW nature which is “ partly Angelic” and above our present human nature, yet retain fully our existing personality. The Pythagorean and Buddhistic and Kabbalistic notion of “ self-annihilation” and the “ absorption of the individual into the collective consciousness” or even ( and especially) the “Godhead collective”, is entirely alien and foreign to the Biblical and Christian theology and governing principle of “ self-denial”.
This transformation of our nature is NOT a “ progressive evolution” nor a “ ladder of ascent to deification” ( THEOSIS), but quite the contrary is an instantaneous assumption of a new nature that occurs at one’s conversion, BAPTISM, and Chrismation/Filling with the Holy Spirit… In other words, the fallacy and blasphemy of Theosis, whether considered as a Christianized or a Pagan phenomena, is based on an EVOLVING ladder of ascent and self-transforming metamorphosis of the human condition from, to put it metaphorically, a “ larval-like spiritual state” to a fully-fledged “ butterfly state” that experiences purgation ( Katharsis) struggle and growth inside an “inner- cocoon” of psycho-somatic substance and energy ( “Energeia”), only to emerge eventually as a fully grown “ new being” or “ god”, much like a moth or butterfly would emerge from a worm-like larval cocooned state into a fully-fledged winged moth or butterfly.
This was the very teaching of the ancient Pagans and Pantheists, especially the Orphics and the Kabbalistic Pythagoreans such as the Druids, the Buddhists, the Essenes and the Druzes, who coined the presumed metamorphic process term “ APOTHEOSIS”, which blasphemy the Papacy and the Roman Church absorbed and styled “ SAINTLY CANONIZATION/ Divinization”, and which the HESYCHAST movement in Greek Orthodoxy and the “ QUIETIST” movement in Romanism and Protestantism further to this very day. The Spiritual excercises of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, may also be grouped with the theology of Theosis amongst the MYSTICS. The antinomian Rosicrucian and Masonic Orders and sects such as the “ Familists” ( Family of Love) of Henrik Niclaes, were also instrumental in relaying to the western church the eastern doctrines concerning THEOSIS under the infamous banner of being “ godded with God”. The present-day Mormon blasphemies teach the very same doctrines also.
Mystical Gnostic THEOSIS is the basis of subtle doctrines of daemons that concern themselves with “ SELF-TRANSFORMATION” and “ INNER GROWTH”, popular amongst Tel-Evangelists and the Charismatic and Pentecostal Movements, in vulgar and vain imitation of the Biblical allusions to a Christian’s progressive “ growth in Grace” which has nothing in common with mystical THEOSIS nor some “ spiritual ladder of ascent” or “ self-transformation”, but concerns the progressive cultivation of “ virtue” and subsequent “ favour” with Almighty God and with men…
Egyptian “ mummification” of the dead was similarly introduced in ancient times as a symbolized means of transferring and transmuting the dead human condition from the purely material to the “ divine” THROUGH this supposed “ larval/cocooned metamorphic process” of deification; the futility of which attempts remain proverbial for all time…..
“THEOSIS”, Divinization, Deification, “APOTHEOSIS”, therefore, though containing a semblance of Godliness, Humility and Biblicalism, has perennially been the great “ Apple of Temptation” which the serpent Venus/Lucifer dangles before those who, struggling to stay on the “ straight and narrow path that leads to salvation”, take the bite of Gnostic rebellion and vanity, and enter the “ broad way which leadeth to death” by an all-too great a preoccupation with the process of death and/or the “QUEST” to escape from it, through the cultivation of self-flaggelating self- knowledge/gnosis, and through false-humility, will-worship and spiritual pride, which in fact become the greatest form of inner self-elevation and eventuate in the ultimate “ rebellion against Almighty God Himself” through the proclamation of one’s own Deification/ Godhood… This is the great sin of all Antichrists, and will very soon culminate in the final great sin of the final great ANTICHRIST, who, having taken the doctrine of THEOSIS to its logical end, will proclaim himself to be almighty God in the very Holy of Holies of the soon to be rebuilt Jewish Temple at Jerusalem, and will not only usher in the final great persecution, but will invoke the final wrath of Almighty God upon the entire world of men…
There is not a single Religion in the world which does not adhere to some form of THEOSIS/APOTHEOSIS as its crowning goal and philosophical/spiritual quest. The secret means of attaining such a state has always been daemonic possession through THEURGIC invocation, meditative incantation and exercise. For this reason Simeon the New Theologian ( the founder, or rather the reviver in Eastern Orthodoxy of the Praxis, Methodism and doctrines of Pythagoras) was initially rejected by the Church as a rebel against the authority of Bishops and a practitioner of mystical/magical THEURGIC exercises and pagan novelties such as vegetarianism.
The mystical notions of THEOSIS and THEURGY promulgated by the disciples of Zoroaster/Saturn ( also known as Nimrod/Osiris) which sought to revive the rule of Saturn/Nimrod/Moloch in memory of the so-called “ Golden Age of Saturn” when the whole world was united in hedonistic humanism under Nimrod/Zoroaster’s famed “ Tower of Babel”, shortly after the great deluge of Noah some 4200 years ago, through a continuing stream of secret brotherhoods and trade guilds to the author of all Gnostic Apostasy, Hermes Trismegistos ( otherwise known as the evil apostate of the Jewish tribe of Dan: Huram Abiff) the founder of the great Hermetic Gnostic “ Mystery of Iniquity”: then the Kabbalist Pythagoras ( the Buddhists, the Essenes and Therapeutae, and the Druids) and subsequently Simon Magus, and their Neoplatonic/Gnostic disciples such as pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Cerinthus, Hypatia and Apollonius of Tyana: and on to Merlin and the Druid King Arthur of “ Arthurian Romance” fame, then Charlemagne and his Chivalric Renaissance; in turn gave rise to Islamic Ismaili/ Druze and Dervishistic FREEMASONRY and ROSICRUCIANISM, which secret orders invariably taught the doctrines of Hesychastic/ Quietistic mystical THEOSIS and THEURGY from which quarters, via the monks and crusaders of the middle ages, they have infiltrated and insinuated and embedded themselves in both Eastern and Western Christendom ( both Church and Society) to such an extent that their own disciples are now recognized and accepted as canonized “ saints”, both in the east and west, and follow the monastic orders and philosophical tenets that the pagan Kabbalist Pythagoras made popular at Samos and Crotona, and through his disciples the Buddhists, Essenes and Druids, throughout the entire known world…..
When we consider that all modern “ science falsely so-called” stems from the Pagan Philosophers such as Pythagoras, Epicurus and the Stoics, and that Science, Sport and Entertainment were ALWAYS associated with secret societies and social orders of INITIATION, particularly Theosophical orders such as Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, and that the goal of the Sporting ( Olympian), Entertainment ( Thespian) and Scientific ( Rosicrucian/Gnostic) industries has perennially been to elevate the human condition to GODHOOD ( under the pretense of the “ betterment of mankind” and the “ attainment of happiness”) through the carrot lie of humanism and the so-called “ Rights of Man” ( liberty, equality and fraternity; ie Godless antinomian hedonism), we may safely conclude that the Biblical adages which state that the “ whole world lieth in wickedness”, and that “ whosoever is a friend of this world is the enemy of God”, and that the god of this world is in fact Lucifer/Venus/Asclepius, remain ever-increasingly true to this day..
Through mystical THEOSIS man infact has rebelled against His maker, and under the pretense of spirituality and religious humility and will-worship has sought to vainly elevate himself in the same rebellious way that Lucifer/Venus did before the fall of Man in the Garden of Eden.. The Devil still offers his Hesperidian apples of mystical/Gnostic THEOSIS as temptations to the unwary pilgrim and sojourner in this world, and beckons him or her to take a bite at the expense of their eternal soul..
This “ doctrine of the deep things of Satan”; the doctrine of THEOSIS, has fallen, like the fabled “ emerald tablet” from the very crown of the Devil/Lucifer/Venus himself… Whoever seeks this unholy grail must reap an unholy reward in eternity. May God preserve us all from this ultimate temptation to sin, death and rebellion, and help us to resist the Devil that he may flee.. May God set a hedge around His Christian children, the TRUE “ sons and daughters of God”, who need seek no further than their new birth in Christ Jesus; their growth in Grace, their true Sainthood, Holiness, Purity, and Righteousness of Life ( if they indeed be true Christians); as fully transformed “ new creatures in Christ Jesus”; baptized and enlightened and filled with the Spirit of God, the “ Spirit of Holiness” without which no man or woman may see God. May we indeed learn to lean on the shoulders of our beloved Jesus Christ when exiting the weary and toilsome labours in the field of this world, in the full knowledge and belief that “ our beloved is ours, and we are his”, and that striving to maintain anything but Holy Virtue, Grace, Faith, Hope and Charity in this world will inevitably miss the mark and fall short of the aim and goal of all human existence. “ Vanity, vanity, all is vanity” said the wise and repentant King Solomon, having by then become a Preacher. All vain striving for THEOSIS is, likewise, a fruitless and dangerous endeavour which merely mimicks Godliness, but denies the power thereof. Our striving must be to “ enter through the narrow gate” and leave all striving for the broad gate of this vain world to those who are the children of vanity, rebellion and strife. The Truth of God must be LOVED and not merely handled.. God’s people, indeed, perish for a lack of knowledge.
May our Lord Jesus Christ raise up worthy servants and shepherds to regather His scattered sheep who are now being devoured by the wolves of hypocrisy and deceit, who preach “ another Jesus” yet hide beneath the sheep’s clothing of a Christian. God preserve us from false brothers and sisters, for the Devil goeth about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour… MARANATHA……..

THE KHAZAR EMPIRE & MODERN JEWRY

image of ancient cross

THE KHAZAR EMPIRE & MODERN JEWRY

Scripture commands all Gentiles to boast not against the Jews. This is an undeniable fact derived from, and especially, the writings of the Apostle Paul. Though the Jews are currently, and have been for the past two millennia almost, blinded for a season, anyone who touches them touches the apple of God’s eye as, once again, the New Testament maintains.. As individuals they may be Faithless and Blinded and, like any unbeliever, bound for a painful uncertainty in eternity, but the time shall come when they too shall see the imprints in the hands of the returning Christ/Messiach, and shall repent en-masse and believe, and become the crux of Christ’s Kingdom on earth, having firstly, however, thrown their lot in with the final Antichrist/World Emperor ( descended from one of their own tribes, namely the tribe of Dan, as the prophet Jeremiah prophesied)….
The question of the identity of the first diaspora of the 10 tribes is an involved one… What is certain is that they were dispersed into the cities of the Medes/Madai ( from whom the “Sar-Madai; the Sarmatians, who were the progenitors of the Slavic Nations descend) and “beyond the river Sambatyan”, where they kept up some of their traditions including circumcision… There is, however, a convolution of history which has generally been omitted… In the missionary journals of the Reverend Wolff, and numerous other travellers and explorers of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, we find encounters with the descendants of the TRUE dispersed tribes all the way from Crimea to Mongolia, and from Bactria and Afghanistan to Yemen.. Interestingly, Afghani, after whom the country of the same name was named, is known to have been of the tribe of Benjamin, and many of the tribes of Afghanistan, particularly around Kandahar ( the “Gandhara” of the Buddhists), to this day refer to themselves as the ” Bani Israel” or the “sons of Israel”. This is also true of the tribes occupying the region of Pakistan and western India as well… Tamerlane the Tartar claimed descent from the tribe of Dan, as do many Yemenis, and some of the Turkish tribes as well… The Moghul empire also was of Israeli stock…
Following the fallacious theories of Arthur Koestler ( the author of “The Thirteenth Tribe”), most conspiracy theorists on the subject of the supposed Khazar descent of modern Jewry, have toed the National Socialist line which Hitler used to justify mass genocide and the attempted extermination of the Jews of Europe.. This theory presupposes that the eventual dissolution of the Khazar Empire sent mass-migrations of Jewish Proselytes into Northern and Western Europe ( which is completely denied by history, since no such movement of an Eastern nation into western Europe is recorded as occurring in ANY annal of history between the 7th and 11th centuries, nor during any subsequent century), rather than accepting the fact that the majority of the population of Khazaria converted to ISLAM and merged with their invaders during the various waves of invasions to which its inhabitants were subjected to..
The Khazar conversion to Judaism WAS NOT to last past the 11th century or so, as history confirms, yet the presence of Ashkenazi Jews in northern Europe, Poland and Russia both preceedes the 8th century ( the century of conversion) AND succeeds the 11th century.. Hitler, who was a Rosicrucian, basing his theories of racial superiority on the work of Nietzche AND the most famous British/Scottish Rosicrucian of the day; Lord Bulwer Lytton ( the author of “ The Coming Race”) , received his racial theories largely from the legacy of the “Anglo-Celtic-Aryan-British Israelite” Movement, who were preparing to divide Europe into 10 regions based upon the very flawed and diabolical “ replacement theology” of John Calvin and Theodore Beza in Protestant Geneva, but needed a “scapegoat” and an ” excuse for their lies” as well as a “prophetic justification” from the Word of God, in order to revive the 10 toed Kingdom of the Prophetic Beast of the Apocalypse of Saint John; largely from the area of the ancient Roman Empire, and its three preceeding empires; that of Greece/Macedonia, Persia/Media, and Babylonia..
The Rosicrucian Society of which Jakob Boehme was imperator in Germany ( Boehme was a favourite of the Nazi party via the legacy of the works of the false prophet Jakob Lorber et al) during the time of the “Fama Fraternatis” gave rise to the “Philadelphian Society” in England of John Pordage and Jane Lead, from which quarters the doctrine of “Aryan/British Israelitism” ( an issue of the false “replacement theology” which Calvinism in Geneva furthered) first came to light through Richard Brothers, one of their members, who was also associated with continental Masonic Martinist lodges, particularly the legacy of Louis Claude de St. Martin ( a disciple of the Rosicrucian Jakob Boehme)…
The “convolution of history” to which I alluded earlier, concerns the fact that the very descendants of Japeth; the Anglo-Celtic-Aryan nations, who peopled Europe and have embraced this false “replacement Calvinistic theology theory” , where the literal promises to the literal Jews are handed over to the literal promises of the literal Christendom, have been the ones who have gone into Afghanistan, Crimea, and other areas of the world which still harbour the TRUE descendants of the Israelite dispersion, and have systematically waged war against them in order to wipe them out so as to SUBSTITUTE the literal promises given to the literal Israel ( Jewry) by appropriating them to themselves, and to cover their own tracks and lying agendas.. Hitler made the attempt, and Stalin continued it, and Mao likewise.
No, unfortunately the Khazars DID NOT give rise to Ashkenazi Jews, as history affirms.. Nor was there a secret “thirteenth tribe” as Koestler vainly imagines, since “Dinah”, the daughter and the thirteenth issue of the Patriarch Jacob ( Israel) DID NOT produce a tribe nor any descendants… Though the Jewish nation is certainly not innocent ( no nation is), only ONE of their tribe is to be cast out of an inheritance when Jesus their Messiach returns to establish His Father’s Kingdom on a renovated earth.. The tribe to be cast out is the tribe of Dan…
The tribe of Dan largely founded the ISMAILI DRUZE race and religion in Phoenicia/ Modern Lebanon, and is the tribe from which the final Hermes/ Odin/ Antichrist shall come. The ancient name of Mount Hermon in Lebanon, the home of the Druze/Druid religion/Masonry, was “Sion”, as opposed to the hill of “Zion” in Jerusalem.. The “Protocols of Sion” are the issue of the DRUZE freemasonry ( into which Madame Blavatsky of “ Theosophical Society” fame, was initiated according to her own admissions), and have little to do with the Zionists.. The famed “Priory of Sion” harkens back to the Druze/Druid/Pythagorean fraternity of Lebanon, who had close links to the ESSENE Order in Israel, and the Druids of Western Europe. Their counterparts in the East were the Buddhists: all being disciples of the father of modern Freemasonry: Pythagoras of Samos ( whose father was of noble Tyrian/Phoenician lineage, and came from the region of Lebanon), who in turn was a disciple of the FIRST Philosopher; Zoroaster/Zarathusht, whom the Jews and Greeks understood to have been the very same as Nimrod/Osiris, of “ tower of Babylon” fame…..

Much has been touted over the past few centuries, particularly in Protestant circles that have concerned themselves with Prophetical Exegesis, as to the origin of those enigmatic northern nations which the Prophet Ezekiel prophesied would descend upon the nation of Israel just prior to the return of their Messiach; Jesus Christ, to establish His Father’s Kingdom on a renovated and rejuvenated earth; namely, the nations of Gog and Magog, and, after an interregnum of 1000 years, would repeat the dastardly deed, having succeeded in gathering all nations under their bitter wings for the purpose of destroying the nation of Israel in their own land… Historical legends surrounding these northern nations from the time of Alexander the Great and onwards, have created a convenient screen of smoke around the real protagonists in question, yet simultaneously have managed to relay the blame on more innocent shoulders..
The ancient name of the race of Gog ( who was historically known as “ Cauc”) is forever imbedded in the great mountain range north of Israel from which his descendants, along with the progeny of Magog ( the ancient name of the Scythian/Magyar/Tartar/Mongol/Amerindian & Eskimo tribes), have perennially descended upon more southern and eastern latitudes for the purpose of conquest and rapine… The mountain range is of course the Caucasus; the home of those northern barbarian nations to which history has bequeathed the name of “ Caucasian”…
Historically, the Caucasian ( Aryan “ longheads”) Race was infact a great “ confederacy” of Japhetic nations which resided in the Caucasus mountains; having the Scythian nations ( Magog) as their northern and north- eastern allies and neighbours.. The crux of the “Race of Gog” consisted of several tribes that included the nation of Albion ( the Angles and the Saxons/Sacae and the Albans/Albanians), as well as the British Khumry ( Cimmerians and Phrygians), and several other Gaulish/ Celtic, Gothic/Getae and Aryan Tribes…. The nations descended from Magog, however, were, as Herodotus affirmed, a populous nation dedicated to the religion of Shamanism.. Their chief name was that of the “ Scythians”, who were divided into three major branches; the ROYAL branch being the progenitor of the “ Scoloti” or “ SCOTTISH RACE” ( the name of SCOT is derived from SCYTHE/SCYTHIAN/ Scoloti, and even their famed TARTAN skirt by which each clan was distinguished, harks back to their north-eastern land of origin: TARTARY- the home of the Finno-Ugrian-Magyar, Turkic, Scottish and the Mongol Tribes)… The spread of these Ugric-Mongol Tribes over the Bering Strait and into the Americas, Greenland etc, has indeed confirmed Herodotus’ statements as to the history and widespread nature of the Scythian Tribes, who had even in his day spread to the ends of the known earth and beyond…
The Royal Magog tribe ( Scythian) is therefore to be found in the Scottish race, whereas the main body of the descendants of Gog ( the Caucasians) are represented by the Anglo-Saxon- Aryan race…The confederacy also lists a third tribe, that of the “ RUS”, or “ ROSH” as a head tribe of the armies of Gog and Magog.. History has named a NORWEGIAN TRIBE called the “ RUS”, who conquered the Slavs of present day Russia and gave them their own name as well as their Royal Lineage; forming in their own right the white Russian people… The Slavic tribes, who have been falsely equated with Gog and Magog and Rosh, were in ancient times known as the descendants of the MEDES/MADAI; the SAR-MADAI ( Sarmatians); and it was to the “ cities of these Medes” that a number of the 10 scattered tribes of Israel migrated at the time of Shalmanasser’s captivity of Samaria and dispersal of the Kingdom of the 10 tribes of Israel….
So we may thus fathom and discover how history has been contorted in order to counterfeit the identity of the actual “lost” 10 tribes of Israel, and by whom, and for what possible reasons.. The entire world is being groomed and herded into a great confederacy in order to attempt the complete destruction of the real descendants of the Tribes of Israel.. After an initial period of false world peace and the establishment of a new “ Golden Age” under the aegis of the final world Emperor/Antichrist and the final Pope/ False Prophet, the unleashed fury of Rosh, Gog and Magog will descend upon the nation of Israel itself at the valley of Megiddo in Israel… It is then that Jesus Christ, the only Messiach and Saviour of the World, will descend from the heavens in triumph to exact vengeance on behalf of the innocent and the nation of the Jews, who for so long have rejected Him; having also crucified Him by the hand of Rome… It is then that the Messianic Kingdom will be established on earth, and the “ Father’s Will Be Done On Earth As In Heaven”…….

…… boast not indeed against the Jews, for the tables of persecution will soon be turned in favour of the victims… the wages and stakes of not loving the truth, are all too high in eternity….

THE BIBLICAL TONGUES AND THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT

image of ancient crossTHE BIBLICAL TONGUES AND THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT

The following brief article on the use of “ tongues”, or the “ charismata” ( glossolalia) in early Apostolic and sub-Apostolic times, is posted here in order to illustrate the true and the false notions concerning “tongues” which are and have been entertained in more recent times. The Prophet Joel spoke of the “ former” and the “ latter” rain outpouring of the Spirit of God “ to all flesh” ( believing remnant of Israel and then subsequently the Gentile believers from all nations during the early church era). His typology and imagery was taken from the curious meteorological phenomena in Palestine which accorded with the agricultural cycle of sowing, growth, and reaping, and which Joel used to illustrate the fact that the future “ outpouring of the Holy Spirit” on the day of Pentecost, would NOT be a permanent fixture, but would, according to the prophecy of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13, soon after the event “ CEASE”. In Palestine, seed sown in the fields depended on good soaking rain to fall in order to “ germinate” or “ establish” the seed for growth. This event was known as the “ former rain”. The “ later rain” was a period near the END of the annual agricultural cycle prior to harvest on which the farmer or peasant relied on to fall and give a “ plentiful harvest” by “ bloating” the seed/corn “ in the ear”. Once again, the rains were considerable, but if they fell DURING the growing season of the plant, ( namely between the former and latter rain downpour periods) they would inevitably destroy the crop, and were regarded as a dearth-causing blight. By the time of Bishop Hippolytus of Porto, nearing the end of the second century A.D., it became apparent that the original “ manifestations” of the charismata with tongues ( given to the Apostles and their early disciples, the last of which died out near the end of the second century A.D.), had CEASED, and that the “germinal church seed” had been fully established in the “ field of the world”. The heretical Montanist movement, however, claimed to be “ continuing” the early charismata, and through the formidable influence of their ablest disciple, Tertullian, the false notion of the continuation of the “ charismata” entered the Catholic Church and was soon embraced by the Western ( Roman) Priesthood and what later came to be called the “ Papacy”. Saint Gregory Nazianzus, when referring to the “ false spirit” of the “ new prophets” ( the Montanists), claimed that the spirit was a demonic one ( from the daemon “ Cybele”), and to be avoided at all costs.. Earlier, in the mid to latter part of the second century, Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon had made the same claims against the then newly emerging Montanist movement and heresy. Montanism became the base for the growing pretensions to “ Papal Infallibility” and the platform upon which doctrines concerning the Roman Catholic supremacy, as well as the so-called teachings about the “ continuation of the charismata/gifts”, would be perpetuated. The fact that there is a “ continuing line” of claimants to the perpetuation of the charismata over the last 1900 years, from Montanus to Mani to Mahommed to the Paulicans to the Cathars and Albigensian heretics to the Franciscan Spirituals to the Anabaptists of Munster to the Rosicrucian sects such as the Quakers and the Shakers and the Mormons to the Irvingite, Welsh, and Azusa Street “ Revivals” and the modern “ Pentecostal and Charismatic” phenomena proves well the false and counterfeit nature of these fake and evil spiritual movements. Like Nadab and Abihu of old, myriads of men and women have kindled an “ evil fire” on the altar of God’s indwelling presence over the last 19 centuries, and continue to do so at their peril. It is our firm belief that “ signs are for the Jew FIRST”, and that no “ latter rain” outpouring can or will occur except “ to the Jew first” during the near yet future time of the return and appearing of Elijah and Enoch; the only two “ witnesses” who have yet to die, and do so at the hands of the final world Emperor Antichrist. All previous manifestations of tongues and the charismata, since the late second century A.D., have been counterfeit manifestations and a “ blight” to the crop of God. They have been little more than a pseudo-christian form of demonic possession and shamanism, and men and women everywhere are warned to flee for their eternal lives these past and present movements which are consuming the Christian world with an “ evil kindled fire”, just as the Montanists of sub-Apostolic days had done, and which their present disciples in the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, continue to do. Christ Himself in the Book of Matthew warned the Christian Church that there would come a movement which would call Him “ Lord, Lord” ( claiming to be “ born again”), and would prophecy and perform works of wonder ( the charismata), to which he exclaims “ Be gone from me, ye who work iniquity; for I never knew you”….. We must all await the soon return of Elijah and Enoch “ to the Jew first” who will inaugurate the TRUE “ latter rain outpouring of Joel”, and restore sanity to the faithful remnant of Christendom and empower the persecuted Church to withstand the coming holocaust of the final Antichrist Emperor and False Prophet, and the treason of false brethren and sisters. May God Almighty have mercy on the believing remnant, and may many be led to Righteousness in Christ in preparation for the looming world-wide persecution…. MARANATHA….

ON THE BIBLICAL TONGUES by Bishop A.R.Faussett from his “ Cyclopedia”

Mar 16:17; Act 2:1-13; Act 10:46; Act 19:6; Act 19:1 Corinthians 12,14. The Alexandrinus manuscript confirms Mar 16:9-20; The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, omit it; “they shall speak with “new” (“not known before”, kainais) tongues”; this promise is not restricted to apostles; “these signs shall follow them that believe.” a proof to the unbelieving that believers were under a higher power than mere enthusiasm or imagination. The “rushing mighty wind” on Pentecost is paralleled in Eze 1:24; Eze 37:1-14; Eze 43:2; Gen 1:2; 1Ki 19:11; 2Ch 5:14; Psa 104:3-4. The “tongues like as of fire” in the establishing of the New Testament church answer to Exo 19:18, at the giving of the Old Testament law on Sinai, and Eze 1:4 “a fire enfolding itself”; compare Jer 23:29; Luk 24:32.
They were “cloven” (diamerizomenai), rather distributed to them severally. The disciples were “filled with the Holy Spirit”; as John the Baptist and our Lord (Luk 1:15; Luk 4:1). “They began to speak with “other” (heterais, different from their ordinary) tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Then “the multitude were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language; and they marveled saying, Behold are not all these which speak Galileans? and how hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born, the wonderful works of God?” This proves that as Babel brought as its penalty the confusion of tongues, so the Pentecostal gift of tongues symbolizes the reunion of the scattered nations. Still praise, not teaching, was the invariable use made of the gift. The places where tongues were exercised were just where there was least need of preaching in foreign tongues (Act 2:1-4; Act 10:46; Act 19:6; Act 19:1 Corinthians 14).
Tongues were not at their command whenever they pleased to teach those of different languages. The gift came, like prophesying, only in God’s way and time (Act 2:1-18; Act 10:46; Act 19:6). No express mention is made of any apostle or evangelist preaching in any tongue save Greek or Hebrew (Aramaic). Probably Paul did so in Lycaonia (Act 14:11; Act 14:15; he says (1Co 14:18) “I speak with tongues (the Vaticanus manuscript, but the Sinaiticus and the Alexandrinus manuscripts ‘with a tongue’) more than ye all.” Throughout his long notice of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 he never alludes to their use for making one’s self intelligible to foreigners. This would have been the natural use for him to have urged their possessors to put them to, instead of interrupting church worship at home by their unmeaning display.
Papias (in Eusebius, H. E. iii. 30) says Mark accompanied Peter as an “interpreter,” i.e. to express in appropriate language Peter’s thought, so that the gift of tongues cannot have been in Papias’ view a continuous gift with that apostle. Aramaic Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (the three languages over the cross) were the general media of converse throughout the civilised world, owing to Alexander’s empire first, then the Roman. The epistles are all in Greek, not only to Corinth, but to Thessalonica, Philippi, Rome. Ephesus, and Colosse. The term used of “tongues” (apofthengesthai, not only lalein) implies a solemn utterance as of prophets or inspired musicians (Septuagint 1Ch 25:1; Eze 13:9). In the first instance (Acts 2) the tongues were used in doxology; but when teaching followed it was in ordinary language, understood by the Jews, that Peter spoke.
Those who spoke with tongues seemed to beholders as if “full of new wide,” namely, excited and enthusiastic (Act 2:13; Act 2:15-18), in a state raised out of themselves. Hence, Paul contrasts the being “drunk with wine” with being “filled with the Spirit, speaking in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” (Eph 5:18-19). The ecstatic songs of praise in the Old Testament, poured out by the prophets and their disciples, and the inspired musicians of the sanctuary, correspond (1Sa 10:5-13; 1Sa 19:20-24; 1Ch 25:3). In 1 Corinthians 12 and 1 Corinthians 14 tongues are placed lowest in the scale of gifts (1Co 12:31; 1Co 14:5). Their three characteristics were:
(1) all ecstatic state of comparative rapt unconsciousness, the will being acted on by a power from above;
(2) words uttered, often unintelligible;
(3) languages spoken which ordinarily the speaker could not speak.
They, like prophesyings, were under control of their possessors (1Co 14:32), and needed to be kept in due order, else confusion in church meetings would ensue (1Co 14:23; 1Co 14:39). The tongues, as evidencing a divine power raising them above themselves, were valued by Paul; but they suited the childhood (1Co 14:20; 1Co 13:11), as prophesying or inspired preaching the manhood, of the Christian life. The possessor of the tongue “spoke mysteries,” praying, blessing, and giving thanks, but no one understood him; the “spirit” (pneuma) but not “understanding” (nous) was active (1Co 14:14-19). Yet he might edify himself (1Co 14:4) with a tongue which to bystanders seemed a madman’s ravings, but to himself was the expression of ecstatic adoration. “Five words” spoken “with the understanding” so as to “teach others” are preferable to “ten thousand in an unknown tongue.”
In Isa 28:9-12 God virtually says of Israel, “this people hear Me not though I speak to them in their familiar tongue, I will therefore speak to them in other tongues, namely, that of the foes whom I will send against them, yet even then they will not hearken to Me.” Paul thus applies it: ye see it is a penalty to encouuter men of a strange tongue, yet this you impose on the church by abusing instead of using the tongue intelligibly. Speakers in foreign tongues speak like “children weaned from the milk, with stammering lips,” ridiculous because unintelligible to the hearers (Isa 28:14), or like babbling drunkards (Act 2:13), or madmen (1Co 14:20-23).
Thus, Isaiah (Isa 28:9-14) shows that “tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.” Tongues either awaken to spiritual attention the unconverted or, if despised, condemn (compare “sign” in a condemnatory sense, Eze 4:3-4; Mat 12:39-42), those who, like Israel, reject the sign and the accompanying message; compare Act 2:8; Act 2:13; 1Co 14:22; “yet, for all that will they not hear Me,” even such miraculous signs fail to arouse them; therefore since they will not understand they shall not understand. “Tongues of men” and “divers kinds of tongues” (1Co 12:10; 1Co 12:28; 1Co 13:1) imply diversity, which applies certainly to languages, and includes also the kind of tongues which was a spiritual language unknown to man, uttered in ecstasy (1Co 14:2). It was only by “interpreting” that the “understanding” accompanied the tongues.
He who spoke (praying) in a tongue should pray that he might (be able to) interpret for edification of the church (1Co 14:13; 1Co 14:26-27). Hebrew and Aramaic words spoken in the spirit or quoted from the Old Testament often produced a more solemn effect upon Greeks than the corresponding Greek terms; Compare 1Co 16:22, Maranatha, 1Co 12:3; Lord of sabaoth, Jam 5:4; Abba, the adoption cry, Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6; Alleluia, Rev 19:1; Rev 19:6; Hosannah, Mat 21:9; Mat 21:15. “Tongues of angels” (1Co 13:1) are such as Daniel and John in Revelation heard; and Paul, when caught up to paradise (2Co 12:4).
An intonation in speaking with tongues is implied in Paul’s comparison to the tones of the harp and pipe, which however he insists have distinction of sounds, and therefore so ought possessors of tongues to speak intelligibly by interpreting their sense afterward, or after awakening spiritual attention by the mysterious tongue they ought then to follow with “revelation, knowledge, prophesying or doctrine” (1Co 14:6-11); otherwise the speaker with a tongue will be “a barbarian,” i.e. a foreigner in language to the hearer. A musical tone would also be likely in uttering hymns and doxologies, which were the subject matter of the utterance by tongues (Act 2:11). The “groanings which cannot be uttered” (Rom 8:26) and the “melody in the heart” (Eph 5:19) show us how even inarticulate speech like the tongues may edify, though less edifying than articulate and intelligible prophesying or preaching.
Either the speaker with a tongue or a listener might have the gift of interpreting, so he might bring forth deep truths from the seemingly incoherent utterances of foreign, and Aramaic, and strange words (1Co 14:7; 1Co 14:11; 1Co 14:13; 1Co 14:27). When the age of miracle passed (1Co 13:8) the tongues ceased with it; the scaffolding was removed, when the building was complete as regards its first stage; hymns and spiritual snugs took the place of tongues, as preaching took the place of prophesying. Like all God’s gifts, tongues had their counterfeit. The latter are morbid, the forerunners or results of disease. The true tongues were given to men in full vigour, preceded by no fanatic madness, and followed by no prostration as the reaction. Practical, healthy religion marked the daily walk of the churches in which the tongues were manifested. Not these, but the confession of Jesus as Lord with heart and tongue was the declared test of real discipleship (1Co 12:3; 1Jo 4:2-3).

AL-HAKIM, MITHRAISM, AND THE SLEEPING EMPEROR THEME

image of ancient cross….Al-Hakim, Mithraism, and the sleeping emperor theme….

Modern Freemasonry IS infact Persian Mithraic Zoroastrianism, which was conveyed by the Crusaders and the Roman Monks from the Levant to Europe and beyond, via the Theosophical Unitarian syncretistic religion and initiation rites of the Druzes of Mount Hermon in present day Lebanon ( the Great White Brotherhood). All Initiatory Orders were and are known as “ religions of the handshake”.. Mithras, whom the Greeks worshipped as Phanes, or Protogonos, otherwise known as the “ spiritual/intellectual Apollo” ( the “ dark sun”, or Mercury/Hermes- the mediator and psychopomp of the Greeks), being associated with the realm of the mind and thought, the counterfeit mirific “ Logos/ Word of Power”, was also known to the Romans, in his martial aspect, as “ Sol Invictus”. The Viking Scandinavians, particularly the Danes, called themselves the “ sons/ warriors of Odin”, who was none other than Hermes/ Mithras/ Mercury; the “ dark sun”, and brother of Apollo. His religion was the GREAT counterfeit of the Christian religion, whose philosophical supporters in the centuries after the birth of Christianity were in the main of the NeoPlatonic/ Gnostic School that harkened back to Ammonius Saccas at Alexandria, and before him to Simon Magus the Samaritan. In more recent times, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, who was instrumental in the founding of the modern “ Theosophical Society”, having been initiated by her own admissions in the “ Great White Brotherhood of the Druzes” in Lebanon, during her travels, has successfully conveyed to the western world the tenets of Druze Fatimid Ismailism openly, as the “ externalization of the Druze hierarchy”, and the synthesizing religion of the coming Antichrist/ Emperor of Europe and the whole world, whose political platform is called “ SYNARCHY”….
Mithraism was the Persian branch of the ancient Bactrian Zoroastrianism.. Zoroastrianism; the parent of “ Hegelian Religio-Political-Philosophical Dialectics” ( for a better term) was a religion of dualism, yet in Persia it sired Mithraism; which could perhaps best be described as a religion of “ Unitarianism”, very similar to that established in Egypt by Akhenaton.. Whereas Zoroastrianism elevated the Dualism of Ahriman and Ahura Mazda, Mithraism appears to have united BOTH extremes in the worship of Mithras/Phanes ( Hermes); the “ synthesis” of the original dialectic, and partaking of characteristics common to both of the opposing Zoroastrian deities.. The birthday of Mithras, as with the “ Sol Invictus” of the Romans, was the winter solstice; 25th of December…
The purported secret yet cyclical “ birth” of a counterfeit “ saviour”, Mithras/ Phanes ( the Greek Hermes), from a rock in the Cave of a mountain, became a repeating theme amongst all the esoteric societies world-wide to such an extent that the tenets of Mithraism succeeded to permeate ALL religions that based their existence on “ the sword and the torch”, both in the West AND in the East… The theme of the “ sleeping emperor”, or the “ once and future king” is to be found in all nations that embraced the Unitarian secrets of Mithraism/ Hermeticism at one time or another; from Nero to the Druid King Arthur, from Charlemagne to Ogier the Dane, from Fionn mac Cumhaill to Frederick Barbarossa and many others.. In modern Freemasonry ( according to “ Andersons Constitutions”) all of these figures were associated with the Lodge as masters and even grandmasters. We must remember that the theme of the “ cave of initiation” is prominent in the legends surrounding Guatama Buddha, of Mahommed, of Christian Rosenkreutz ( founder of modern Rosicrucianism), and countless other Secret Initiatory Orders.
When Saint John Damascene declared in the last decades of the eighth century that the final Antichrist would come from the Arian Mahommetan tradition of Islam ( submission), he may indeed have foretold of the figure of their long-awaited, “ sleeping emperor”; their “ Imam Mahdi”, who would once again come forth at the end of time from his hiding place, and would put down all opposition to Islam, and establish the new “ Golden Age of Saturn”; the Ebionite/ Gnostic “ Theocratic Kingdom on Earth”, which the heretic Cerinthus prophesied of in the first century A.D…
To this day, the Ismaili Fatimid sect of the Druze await their “ sleeping emperor”, the Fatimid “ mad Caliph” Al-Hakim, who was the first to dare to attempt the full and complete annihilation of Christians in the middle east, and of Christianity itself, and to attempt to destroy all the known Christian Holy Places.. In 1005 AD he established in Cairo a “ secret Lodge” called the “ House of Knowledge”, the Dar al-Hikma, and subsequently proceeded to destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1009, and even the Church of the Resurrection some time after. It is from this “ House of Knowledge” that various centres of secret missionary activity branched out to establish “ schools” and “ lodges” in Yemen ( Dhamar),Lebanon, Damascus, Bactria, Tibet, and eventually Germany itself through their disciple Christian Rosenkreutz. Al-Hakim was and is venerated by the Druzes of Lebanon and environs as “ God on Earth” to this day, whose return is expected at any moment by the sect, after his mysterious disappearance without a trace near Cairo in Egypt in 1021 AD… He is regarded as an incarnation of the “ sleeping emperor” by many, who shall emerge from a mountain cave, unify Islam, and destroy the infidel… The Druzes, who call themselves “ Unitarians” and have secret Lodges and initiations identical to Hermetic Mithraism, interestingly, are a mixed race of, amongst others, Phoenician AND Jewish stock, namely the tribe of Dan, which resided in the northern parts of Palestine at the source of the Jordan and the foothills of Mount Hermon, as well as in Yemen, Sparta, and Bactria… When the prophet Jeremiah prophesied that the Antichrist would come with his horses from the tribe of DAN ( as the early Church believed) could it be that he had in mind the “ sleeping emperor”, the “ Imam Mahdi” of Ismaili Islam? It can be, it seems, no other…..

THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF SION, WORLD GOVERNMENT, AND THE VENETIAN CLUB OF ROME MODEL ( Part 1)

The PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF SION, WORLD GOVERNMENT and the VENETIAN CLUB OF ROME MODEL ( Part 1)

The perennial goal of World Government has been, at least since 476 AD or thereabouts, to reunite Europe according to its maximum boundaries of extent during the time of the Caesars, and from there to extend that rule to the four quarters of the earth, starting with the boundaries of the preceeding three great Empires; Greece/Macedonia, Medo-Persia and Babylon under Nebuchadnezzor. The model of the Club of Rome appears to serve as a “mirror image” of that which is to occur within the bounds of a new and revived, and then “expanded”, Roman Empire. In other words, it is still the “old boundaries” of empire which will comprise the final ten-toed kingdom of the last days; whereas the Club of Rome model will undoubtedly reflect the final Empire in a regionalized and extended form, rather than being the “crux of government” itself.. In its widest extent, the Roman Empire included North Africa and the Levant ( Middle East) and ofcourse Turkey. If we superimpose the other three Empires, that of Greece, Medo-Persia and Babylon onto a map, we will see the “magnum opus” and “great plan” of World Government as a unification of all four empires; the “four points of the compass” of the ancient world, for it is from these ancient boundaries that all nations of the earth derive their origins. Some may say that the Chinese and the Australian tribes are autochtonous and original, but unfortunately they are greatly mistaken. Even the Chinese, who were of old called “Cathays” or “Accadians” came from the region of Sumer, and to this day their linguistic characters reflect their Sumerian form. The Australian tribes were, until recently, regarded as originating from the Hindu Cush via Sri Lanka, and their predecessors and fellow tribes are to this day evident in the “Veddas” and ” Gymnosophist” tribes of Sri Lanka and India respectively.. Even their language and speech has similarities with the Hindu and the Sanskrit form… All nations stem from the region of Armenia, and none are autochtonous on their own… What the regionalization plan of the Venetian Club of Rome has done is to employ racial demographics in their model rather than “distribution of central points of government” according to the Biblical Prophetic model…The great image of Nebuchadnezzor, which represented the amalgamated Empires of World Government, must be remembered had four empires, not merely the Roman, as its composite parts.. The 10 final “toes/kingdoms” of the final World “Government”, which will be unified under the blasphemous doctrine of ARIANISM ( the Muslims, the Jews, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Gothic nations, the Vandals, and even secret societies such as the Freemasons, Rosicrucians, as well as Unitarian sects such as the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Mormons, all hold the doctrines of Arianism in common, which is principally concerned with the denial of the Godhood of Jesus Christ, and the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity of the Almighty Godhead..) The invading Gothic tribes which divided Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire around 476 AD, bequeathed their Arianism to the Arab tribes as well as their architecture.. The apparent differences between the East and West are just that; “apparent” only.. The time for the battle between Israel and the rest of the world; the “real Armageddon”, will come AFTER an initial period of Peace and NOT before a period of Peace, as many have predicted, and as Albert Pike and Mazzini planned. The coming war is not between East and West, but between two or more factions of the same organized plot. The nations are currently stirring and in foment precisely because the time is ripe for the advent of an “order” out of their mas-induced “chaos”, and they are feverishly unifying East with West with North with South, for the sole reason of reawakening the “great image” of Nebuchadnezzor by the year 2025, according to Albert Pike’s determinations… The Mayan Doomsday Calendar falsifications concerning the year 2012 etc.etc. is a preemptive decoy and false Armageddon stageing in order to deceive “the very elect” if it were possible.. In its time, the Club of Rome “decoy” also served its purpose of dissemination and misinformation, by deflecting the true crux of future World Government away from Europe and finally the Middle East ( the World Agenda has always sought to move World Government finally to Jerusalem), yet in racial regionalization terms it remains an accurate blueprint of coming world power distribution.
We must not forget Mazzini, the co-conspirator in Europe of Albert Pike, known as ” Mazzini of the short-dagger”, the “father” and “founder” of the modern Mafia ( the “M” in Mafia stands for “Mazzini”) and the “Young Italy, Egypt and Turkey” movements which originated the modern states of Italy, Egypt and Turkey, for the sole aim of European integration ( as we see now occuring in the countries surrounding the Mediterranean). Democracy, like Imperialism and Fascism, ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism… Under the banner of democratic emancipation the modern “ young turk” movements, particularly the “ Arab Spring uprisings”, are setting the stage for world-unification and a false-Armageddon; then a false “world-peace”, and finally the unleashed fury of social-eugenics on an unprecedented scale; the ritual murder of countless “anti-socials”, particularly Christians…..
Albert Pike is not the only curio who has espoused 2025 as a formative date for World Government from Jerusalem… The Raelian Movement also claims that the year 2025 will see World Rule from Jerusalem, and they have already submitted plans to the Israeli Government for a “landing pad superstructure” to be constructed in Israel for the reception of “philosopher king/Elohim” world leaders and their ( man-made) “flying UFO craft”…..!!! It is not, however, the Jews who are setting this stage, but the “Great White Brotherhood” which is based on Mount Hermon in Lebanon ( “laban” means “white” in Aramaic, Syriac and Hebrew).. This Druid brotherhood of Pythagorean “philosopher-kings” is otherwise known as the DRUZE/ISMAILI sect of Lebanon, into which Madame Blavatsky was initiated. The Druzes still hold the “golden calf of Dan” in their underground secret chambers, and lay claim to descent from the princes of Tyre as well as the Jewish tribe of Dan, in the vicinity of Mount Hermon, Lebanon..
The reason why Mount Hermon/ Lebanon is so strategically important to the secret societies of the world, is that, according to the Ethiopic Book of 1 Enoch ( which is quoted by Jude in the New Testament as authentic), the Angels that “ fell from their first estate” prior to the Deluge of Noah’s days, formed a “ pact” and took the “ oath” of allegiance against Almighty God and His Christ on Mount Hermon, and it was on Mount Hermon that the daughters of men intermarried with the fallen angels who took on physical forms and were able to propagate AFTER their fall from the Heavenly Realm, with the daughters of men. This primordial “ descent of the daemons ( anciently styled “ gods” by the heathen)” gave birth to a race of Nephilim, or “ giants”, who wreacked havoc with the inhabitants of the known world prior to the Deluge of Noah, and also after that.. The last of these Nephilim were destroyed during King David’s time ( Goliath being one of them). Mount Zion is known also in Scripture as the “ congregation of the North”, whereas, according to the secret lodges of Lebanon, this Biblical expression refers NOT to Mount Zion ( Moriah), but to Mount Hermon, which geographers in olden days called SION.. This difference is not one of mere semantics, but is vital when considering the origin of the notorious “ PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF SION” ( the “ Priory of SION”, ie; Mount Hermon in Lebanon; the headquarters of the Druze sect and Masonry). The real authors of these Protocols ( which are a genuine document though NOT authored by the Jewish Sanhedrin nor the Zionists. Zionism is the “ false flag” secret societies use to deflect discovery of the Druze origin of the “ Protocols”) are the “ Elders” of the Druze Cult; the head organ of the “ Great White ( Laban) Brotherhood” of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky/ Theosophical Society fame.
The ancient name for Mount Hermon was SION, as opposed to “ZION”, the hill of Jerusalem.. The protocols of SION ( NOT “Zion”) are the genuine issue of the Druze/Ismaili Freemasonry, with origins in the tribe of Dan, and NOT the Jewish Rabbis and Sanhedrin in general. It is an interesting fact of Medieval history that the Crusader Knights ( particularly the Templars, Teutonics and Hospitallers) intermarried with the Druze women, and received the Druze/Hashishim initiations before transplanting them to Europe… The famed “Priory of Sion” ( note the spelling) was a secret DRUZE order of Knighthood…
The Protocols were given through these channels to modern Masonry in the west. They harken back to the builder of the Temple of Solomon in the 11th century B.C.; Huram Abiff, anciently known and revered as Hermes Trismegistos.

BISHOP NEMESIUS OF EMESA AND TRUE CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY AND MEDICINE

Bishop Nemesius of Emesa and True Christian Anthropology and Medicine
Though remaining relatively obscure to subsequent history, Bishop Nemesius of Emesa in Syria, who flourished in the latter part of the 4th century A.D., was in his day an accomplished Christian Philosopher whose influence and teaching was bequeathed to Christian Orthodoxy via the formidable authority of Saint John Damascene.. Nemesius’ only surviving treatise, ” On The Nature of Man” was the major source for John Damascene’s physiologico-anthropological interpretations and views as found in his grand compendium ” On the Orthodox Faith”…

Mixed views were brandished about on Nemesius by all contending sides, none of which have been founded on solid ground.. When we read his work, as a philosopher in the tradition of Justyn Martyr, Nemesius is decidedly Orthodox… Indeed he quotes profusely from Origen, Galen, Plato, Aristotle and Porphyry, but solely for the purpose of denying their wayward speculations on the human nature any validity., or of qualifying and gently correcting their mistaken notions.. With dexterity and aplomb he philosophically strips the philosopher of his yellow robe, and displays him fully in his most vulnerable and naked state..

Yet in all his dexterity Nemesius remains calm and decidedly Christian and Orthodox.. His ” On The Nature of Man” was subsequently regarded as the true teaching, and most accurate basis, upon which an Orthodox understanding of human nature; psychology, pneumatology and physiology, could be based, to which fact Saint John Damascene’s approval of Nemesius unashamedly attests… As the legacy of the Muslim medico-physiological traditions of Avicenna and Averroes gained more and more acceptance in the West, with the revival of Hippocratic Galenism and later on Rosicrucian Paracelsianism, the legacy and memory of Nemesius began to wane and was soon extinguished…

His teachings, however, strike very little common ground with Hippocratic Galenism or Paracelsianism or the speculations of Avicenna and Averroes… Yet it is those very teachings that were for centuries regarded as normative in Christian Orthodoxy… Have things really changed that much to warrant the dismissal of Nemesius? Whose legacy should carry greater weight; the Christian Orthodoxy of Nemesius, or the word of Muslims such as Avicenna and Averroes, and the pagan Hippocrates and Galen, or Rosicrucians such as Paracelsus? Should a revival of Nemesius’ legacy benefit us in not only rediscovering the truth of the human nature and physiological, psychological, and pneumatological theology, but of combating the ” new priesthood” of the medical profession which not only seeks to dominate the health of the body, but now attempts to dominate the health of the mind and soul; both formally the duty and prerogatives of Christian Orthodox Clergy?

Nemesius; rejecting the doctrines of Origen and the Heathen Philosophers, particularly the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, was unjustly classed with the NeoPlatonic school of Ammonias Saccas and Origen ( the Alexandrian School in Egypt), against which school he expended considerable labours for the purpose of refutation. I have commenced to redact into today’s English the first edition of Nemesius ( in English), which was completed and published anonymously in London, 1657, and am including the first Five Sections below with a copy of the title page of the first edition (second printing).
The implications of a possible revival of Bishop Nemesius’ Philosophy are startling, and challenge wholescale the present wayward tenets of modern medicine, and most of the Nominalistic and Scholastic and Rationalistic Theological and Scientific misconceptions which have governed both Western and Eastern thought since the early middle ages; right down to the present day.
It is my intention to complete this small project of rendering the original English translation of Nemesius into a more modern and understandable format, over the coming months, and I would encourage the reader to study Nemesius’ work carefully; weighing every word and concept against the words of Scripture, from which he quotes copiously, and to which Apostolic tradition he remained ever true and entirely devoted.
It seems to me that it is quite impossible to fully grasp the complex Apostolic teachings on psychology, pneumatology, and physiology, without reference to this compendium of anthropological philosophy which the legacy of Nemesius, largely via the works of John of Damascus, has conveyed to the Christian “ lover of the truth”.
In Nemesius, all contradictions regarding anthropology, predestination, and theology in general, are reconciled in such a simple yet pertinent manner, that upon reading the work one is left with the lasting impression that herein lies the very legacy of the Apostles and their disciples; particularly Luke the Physician; the author of the book of Acts and the Gospel of that name.
The somewhat rough draft before us here will no doubt serve as a tasty morsel of “ better things to come”, and so I leave the reader to careful study of Bishop Nemesius’ incredible work: “ The Nature of Man”…. ( P.C./aka “ voxsolus”)

Nemesius, bp. of Emesa
Nemesius (4), bp. of Emesa in the latter half of 4th cent., of whom nothing is certainly known but that he wrote a rather remarkable treatise, περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου, de Natura Hominis, of which cc. ii. and iii. wrongly appear as a separate work, entitled περὶ ψυχῆς, de Anima, among the writings of Gregory Nyssen. Le Quien (Or. Christ. ii. 839) places Nemesius fifth among the bishops of Emesa, between Paul I., who attended the council of Seleucia, a.d. 359, and Cyriacus, the friend of Chrysostom. The date of his writing is tolerably certain from his mentioning the doctrines of Apollinaris and Eunomius and the Origenists, but not those of Nestorius, Eutyches, or Pelagius. He could hardly have avoided mentioning Pelagius if his teaching had been known to him, in the part of his treatise relating to free will. That he was bp. of Emesa is stated in the title of his treatise in the various MS. copies, and by Maximus (ii. 153, ed. Combefis) and Anastasius Sinaita (Quaest. xviii. and xxiv.) in quoting his work. He is also quoted, though without his name, by Joannes Damascenus, Elias Cretensis, Meletius, Joannes Grammaticus, and others. The treatise is an interesting work which will well reward perusal, and has received much praise from able judges of style and matter. Nemesius establishes the immortality of the soul against the philosophers, vindicates free will, opposes fatalism, defends God’s providence, and proves by copious examples the wisdom and goodness of the Deity. He gives indications that he was not ignorant of the circulation of the blood and the functions of the bile (cc. xxiv. xxviii. pp. 242, 260, ed. Matthaei). The best ed. is by C. F. Matthaei (Halae, 1802), reprinted by Migne in Patr. Gk. The treatise has been translated into most modern European languages, into Italian by Pizzimenti (no date), English, G. Wilkes (1636 and 1657), German by Osterhammer (Salzburg, 1819), and French by J. R. Thibault (Paris, 1844). Cf. M. Evangelides, Nemesius und seine Quellen (Berlin, 1882).[E.V.]
( Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature by Wace & Percy)..

To the Reader

Courteous Readers,
This Book, which directs you to the knowledge of your Human Natures, ( which ought to be your continual studies) was Originally written in Greek, by the knowing Pen of Nemesius, surnamed the Philosopher, one of the chiefest Luminaries in the Ancient Church. To praise this Piece, were to derogate from its worth, the Title carrying the best commendation. Censure it if you please; but let your judgements be squared by reason, not biased by common opinions, which commonly raises those things to the greatest, which merit the least estimation.

Farewell.

NEMESIUS

Of the Nature of Man.

Cap.1. Sect.1.
I. The Definition of Man: A querie touching the Understanding; and the opinions of Plotinus, Apollinarius, Aristotle & Plato concerning the SOUL & BODY of MAN.
II. MAN partaking in somewhat with every Creature, is a medium knitting together the whole Creation, & a manifestation of the Unity of the CREATOR of all things.
III. The Agreement, and comely order of GOD’S Works, of all which MAN is the true Epitome.
Good men, ( and of those not a few) have defined Man to consist of an Understanding Soul and a Body; and so true is this Definition, that it may seem he could not otherwise be, well, defined. Yet, when we term him an Understanding soul, it may appear doubtful to some, whether the Understanding coming to the soul ( as one distinct thing comes to another) did beget Understanding in the Soul; Or, whether the Soul does naturally contain in itself this understanding, as the most excellent part thereof; and, as being the same to the Soul, which the Eye is to the Body.
There be some, ( and of this opinion is Plotinus) who thinking the Soul to be one thing, and the Body another, do therefore affirm, that MAN is composed of these three, a Soul, a Body, and Understanding. Of this mind also was Apollinarius Bishop of Laodicea: For, having laid this as the Foundation of his own opinion, he made the rest of his Building agreeable to the same Groundwork.
Others there are who divide not the Understanding from the Soul in this manner; but suppose rather, that the Understanding is a principal of the Soul’s essence. Aristotle conjectures that a certain potential understanding was made together with MAN, which might become actual in time; and that the Understanding which comes to us from without, ( and whereby we acquire an actual knowledge) pertains not to the actual Essence of the Soul; but, assists in the knowledge and speculation of things: By which means it comes to pass, that very few, or none, but men addicted to the study of Wisdom, are thought capable of this Actual understanding.
PLATO seems to affirm that MAN consists not of a double essence; that is to say, jointly of a Soul and a Body: but rather, that he is a soul, using ( as it were Instrumentally) such a Body: and perhaps by fixing the mind upon that only, which is the most excellent part of Man, he seeks to draw us to such a serious consideration of ourselves ( and of the divine nature) as might win us, the better, to pursue virtue, godliness, and such good things as are in the Soul: or else by persuading that we are ( essentially) nothing else but soul, he would, peradventure, allure us to renounce the desires of the Body, as things not primarily pertinent to MAN as MAN; but, chiefly belonging to him, as he is a living creature; and so, by consequence, appertaining to him as he is a Man, in regard Man is a living-creature.
And it is indeed confessed ( not much otherwise) of all men, that the soul is far more to be esteemed than the body: and that the body is but as it were an Instrument moved by the soul, as is evident in death. For if thereby the soul be divided from the body, it is immediately as much without motion, as a Workman’s Tools when he has cast them aside.
This is manifest that MAN in some things participates with creatures void of life, and that he is partaker also of life, as those living-creatures be, which are unreasonable: and that he is endowed likewise with understanding, as are Creatures reasonable. With inanimate creatures Man partakes in this, that he has a Body, and in his mixture of the four Elements. He agrees with Plants, not only in that which is afore-mentioned, but in having also both a nourishing and a seeding-power. His coherence with unreasonable Creatures ( over and above all the former particulars) is, in having a certain voluntary motion, appetite, anger, and a power enabling him to feel and breathe: for all these are common both to Men and unreasonable creatures. Furthermore, he communicates with Intelligent incorporeal Natures, in reasoning, understanding, judging, and in pursuing virtue and a good life, which is the chief end of all virtues.
These things considered, MAN stands in such a Being as comprehends the sensible and intelligible Nature. In respect of his Bodily powers, and of his Bodily substance ( which is subject unto sense) he agrees both with living-creatures, and with things void of life. In respect of his Reasonable part he communicates with Substances which are bodiless ( or spiritual) as has been said before: For, GOD, the Creator of all things, has seemed by little and little so to collect and knit together sundry differing natures, that all created things should become ONE. And indeed, it will be a manifest proof unto us, that there is but One Creator of all things, if we well consider how fitly he has united the substance of individual things by their particular parts; and all the several species ( throughout the world) by an excellent sympathy.
For, as in every living creature he has joined the parts insensible with such as have sense in them ( as bones, fat, hair, ( and other insensible parts) to the flesh and sinews ( which are sensible) compounding the Living-creature both of sensible and insensible portions; and declaring that all these together make but one living-creature: Even so he has joined one to another, every particular species which was created, by ordering and compounding that agreement and disagreement which is in their natures; In so much that things inanimate do not greatly differ from Plants which have in them a vegitative and nourishing life; neither are Plants wholly differing from sensible living creatures void of reason; nor are those unreasonable creatures so alienated in all things from creatures endowed with reason, as that they have no natural alliance or similitude, whereby they may be linked one to another.
For even in stones ( which are inanimate creatures, not having in them, for the most part, so much as a vegitative life) there is otherwise a certain power, making them to differ from each other even in their stony properties: but the Loadstone seems very far to exceed the nature and virtue of other stones, in that it both attracts Iron thereunto, and also detains it ( being so attracted) as if it would be nourished thereby. Neither does it exercise this virtue upon one piece of Iron alone; but, by that one piece, links fast another, and imparts his own power to all other pieces which are contiguous thereunto: yea Iron draws Iron, when it is touched by the Loadstone.
Moreover, when the CREATOR passed from Plants to living-creatures, he rushed not ( as we may say) all at once, into things whose nature is to remove from place to place; and, to such as are endowed with sense: but, he proceeded, rather, by degrees, and by a natural and most comely progression. For, the Shell-fishes called Pinnae, and Urticae, are so made as if they were certain Plants, having sense in them. For, he fastened them in the Sea with roots, and covered them also with shells as with bark. And, as therein he made them to participate with Plants; so, he gave them likewise ( in some measure) the feeling-sense, which is common to living-creatures. They agree with Plants in being rooted and fixed, and they communicate with living-creatures in their feeling. In like manner the Sponge ( though it be rooted in the Rocks) is of itself, opened and contracted, according as the passanger approaches toward it, or departs from it. And therefore, Wise men have anciently termed such things, in English, “ Life-Plants”, if by a new word I may so name that which is partly a living-creature, and partly a Plant.
After the Fishes called Pinnae, he proceeded unto those, which ( being unable to pass far from their station) do move only to and fro within some certain space, such as are the most part of those, which have shells, and are called the bowels of the earth. He went further, and added ( in the like manner,) something to everything in particular ( as to some things more senses; and to some other, more ability to remove themselves from place to place) and, came next to those unreasonable- creatures which are more-perfect. Those, I call more-perfect-creatures, which have obtained all the senses, and, can also remove themselves to places far distant.
And when GOD passed from unreasonable-creatures to MAN ( a Creature endowed with Reason) he did not perfect him in himself, ( and, as it were, all at once;) but, first, ingrafted into some other living-creatures, certain natural wiles, sleights, and devices for the saving of themselves, which, make them seem to be almost reasonable-creatures: And, having done all this, he, then, brought forth MAN, which is, indeed, the true Reasonable-Creature.
The same Order ( if it be well considered) will appear in the Voice, which from the noise of Horses and Oxen is brought, by little and little, from one plain simple sound, unto the voices of Crows and Nightingales, ( whose voices consist of many notes, can imitate what they are taught) and, so, by degrees it is terminated in the Articulate voice of MAN, which is distinct and perfect.
Furthermore, he made the various expressions of the Tongue to depend upon the Mind, and upon Reason; ordaining the speech to publish forth the motions of the Mind: And, in this wise, by a sweet Musical proportion, he ( collecting all things together) incorporated all into ONE as well, things intelligible, as things visible, and, made MAN as a means thereunto.
Section 2.
I. Why MAN was first made, and why he has in him somewhat of the Nature of all Creatures.
II. II. MAN is the Bounder between visible and Intellectual things, and becomes either an Earthly or Spiritual MAN, according as he is inclined to Good or Evil. A distinction between the Goods of the Mind and Body; and between the life of MAN as he is Man, and as he is merely a living-creature.
III. The opinion of the Hebrews touching the mortality and immortality of MAN.
These things considered, Moses in expressing the Creation of the World, did very properly affirm that MAN was last made. Not only, because all things being made for MAN, it was most convenient, that all such things ought first to be provided, which were necessarily pertinent to his use; and that he who was to have the use of them, should afterward be created: But, in respect both intellectual and visible substances, were created, it seemed also convenient, that One should be made, by whom those two Natures should be so united together, that the whole World might become ONE; and be in its own self so agreeable, that the same might not be at variance, or estranged from itself. Even to this end, was MAN made such a living-creature, as might join together both Natures, and ( to sum up all in a word) therein was manifested the admirable wisdom of the universal CREATOR.
Now MAN being placed ( as it were) in the Bounds between the Reasonable-nature, and that which is Irrational; if he incline to the Body, settling the main part of his affections upon corporeal things; he chooses and embraces the life of unreasonable-creatures; and, for that cause, shall be numbered among them, and be called ( as Saint Paul termed him) An earthly MAN, to whom it shall be thus said, “Earth thou art, and to Earth thou shalt return”: yea by this means he becomes ( as the Psalmist affirms) like the Beast which has no understanding. But, if he incline rather to the Reasonable part, and condemning Bodily lusts and pleasures, shall make choice to follow that blessed and divine life which is most agreeable unto MAN, he shall, then, be accounted a Heavenly MAN, according to that saying; “Such as the earth is, such are they that are earthly; such as the heavenly are, such are they that are heavenly”: and indeed that which principally pertains unto the Reasonable-Nature, is to avoid and oppose Evil, and love and follow that which is Good.
Of God things some are common both to the Soul and to the Body ( of which sort the Virtues are) and these have a relation unto the Soul, in respect of the use which it makes of the Body, being joined thereunto.
Some good things pertain to the soul only, by itself, ( so that it should not need the help of the body) as godliness, and the Contemplation of the nature of things: and therefore so many as are desirous to live the life of MAN as he is a MAN, ( and not only in that he is a living creature) do apply themselves to Virtue and Piety. But we will anon show distinctly what things pertain to Virtue, and what to Piety, when we come to discourse of the Soul and of the Body: For, seeing we do not yet know what our Soul is in respect of the substance thereof, it is not yet convenient for us to treat here, of those things that are wrought by it.
The Hebrews affirm that MAN was made from the beginning, neither altogether mortal, neither wholly immortal, but, as it were, in a state between both those natures, to the end that if he did follow the affections of the body, he should be liable to such alterations which belong to the body; But if he did prefer such good things as pertain to the soul, he should then be honoured with Immortality. For, if GOD had made MAD absolutely mortal from the beginning, he would not have condemned him to die after he had offended; because it had been a thing needless to make him mortal by condemnation, who was mortal before. And on the other side, if he had made Man absolutely immortal, he would not have caused him to stand in need of nourishment; for, nothing that is immortal needs bodily nourishment.
Moreover, it is not to be believed, that God would so hastily have repented himself, and made Him to be forthwith mortal, who was created absolutely immortal: For it is evident that he did not so in the Angels that sinned, but ( according to the nature which they obtained from the beginning) they remained immortal, undergoing for their offences, not the penalty of Death, but of some other punishment. It is better therefore, either to be of the first mentioned opinion touching this matter; or, else, thus to think, that MAN was indeed created mortal, but, yet, in such wise that if he were perfected by a virtuous and pious progression, he might become immortal: that is to say, he was made such a One, as had in him a potential ability to become immortal.

SECTION 3.
I. Our Author shows why the Tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden; &, that it was, at first, expedient for MAN to be ignorant of his own Nature.
II. MAN by the Transgression, attained that knowledge of himself, which diverted him from the way of perfection and Immortality.
III. The Elementary composition and nourishment of Man’s body: The reasons also why it needed feeding, clothing, caring, etc. and why MAN was made a Creature sensible, and capable of Arts and Sciences, etc.

It being inexpedient, rather than any way helpful, for MAN to know his own nature, before he came to his perfection, GOD forbade him to taste of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: For there were, and doubtless as yet there are very great virtues in Plants; but at the first, ( in respect it was in the beginning of the world’s Creation) their virtues being ( before the curse) pure and void of all mixture, had in them a strong operation: and it is not therefore strange that there should be ( by God’s providence) the taste of a certain Tree, that should have a power given to engender in our first parents, the knowledge of their own nature.
The cause why God would not have MAN to know his own nature, before he had attained to perfection, was this: lest he knowing himself to stand in need of many things should ( as by the sequel we find it manifest) labour only to supply the wants of his Body, and utterly cast away the care of his Soul; and for this cause did God forbid him to taste of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.
By disobeying this commandment, MAN attained to the knowledge of Himself, but thereby fell from the state of growing to perfection, and busied himself in taking care of such things as the body needed: For ( according to the words of Moses) as soon as he had eaten, He knew that he was naked, and immediately sought about to get a covering for his nakedness: whereas, until then, God kept him as it were in a Trance, and in such case that he knew not himself.
When he fell away from the state of growing to perfection. He fell also from his immortality, which by the mercy of his Creator he shall recover again at the last. In the meantime it was granted him that he should eat flesh ( whereas before his fall, God willed him to be content with such things only as grew out of the earth, all which he had provided for him in Paradise) yea the first means of growing to perfection being become desperate, it was permitted him to feed as he would.
Now, seeing MAN consisted of a Body ( as of one of his parts) and seeing every ( inferior compound) body is composed of the four Elements, it is necessary that such things should happen unto him, as the Elements are subject unto; That is to say, Cutting, mutation and flowing. By mutation I mean mutation in Quality; and I term it Flowing when he is emptied or purged of such things as are in him: For a living-creature has always his evacuations, both by such pores as are manifestly seen, and by such also as we see not; whereof I shall speak hereafter.
It is necessary therefore, that so much should be taken in again, as was evacuated; seeing else, the living-creature would perish through defect of what should re-enter to supply the want: And ( if the things evacuated be either dry, or moist, or spirits) it is as necessary that the living-creature should have a continual supply of dry and moist nourishments, and of spirits.
The meats and drinks which we receive, are made of those Elements, whereof we also are composed: for every thing is nourished with what is agreeable and like unto it, and ( in diseases) we are cured with what is contrary ( to the disease).
There be some of the Elements which we sometime receive into our Bodies immediately of themselves; and sometime use means unto the receiving of them; as for example, we sometime receive water of itself; sometime we use Wine and Oil, and all those that are called moist fruits, as a means to receiving of water. For wine is nothing else but a certain water coming from the Vine, and so or so qualified. In like manner we partake of Fire sometime immediately, as when we are warmed by it; sometime also by the means of such things as we eat and drink: for all things contain in them some portion of Fire, more or less. We are in like case partakers of Air: either immediately when we breathe it, and have it spread round about us, or draw it in by our eating and drinking; or else by means of such other things as we receive into us.
But as for the Earth, we seldom or never receive it immediately, but by certain means. For, we eat the corn which comes of the earth. Larks, Doves, and Partridges feed oftentimes upon the earth; but Man usually feeds on the earth by the means of seeds, fruits, berries, and by the flesh which proceeds from things nourished by the Earth.
And forasmuch as God respecting not only a decency, but also the furnishing of us with a very quick sense of feeling, ( in which man exceeds all other living-creatures) he has clothed us neither with a tough skin as Oxen and other beasts, that have a thick hide; neither with large thick set hair, as goats, hares and sheep; neither with scales, as fishes and serpents; neither with hard shells, as Tortoises and Oysters; neither with a more fleshy bark, as Lobsters; neither with feathers, as birds; and therefore ( wanting these coverings) it is necessary we should have Raiment [Clothing], to supply that in us, which nature has bestowed on other living creatures.
These are the causes why we stand in need of nourishment and clothing: And not only for the same ends are our houses become necessary; but also that we may escape the violence of wild beasts, which is none of their least commodities.
Moreover ( by reason of the distemperature of qualities in the human body) Physicians and their art are likewise needful, that thereby ( as often as occasion requires) those things which are rent asunder, may be fastened again together for the preservation of health. And whereas the alteration consists in the quality, it is necessary that we bring the state of the body to a just temperature by the contrary Quality: For, it is not the Phycian’s purpose ( as some think) to cool the Body which has been in a heat, but to change it into a temperate state; seeing if they should cool it, the disease turns ( not to the health, but) to the contrary sickness.
Now in regard of Arts and Sciences, ( and by the necessary use which we have of such things as they accomplish) it so comes to pass that we need the mutual assistance one of another, and by that need which we have each of other, many of us assembling together in common, do thereby the more conveniently bargain and contract for such things as may serve to supply the necessities of life.
This meeting and dwelling together, was anciently termed by the name of a City; by the near neighbourhood thereof, men received aid and profit by each other’s arts & labours, without the discommodities of long and far Travel. For. Man was naturally made to be such a living-creature, as should be sociable, & delighted in neighbourhood. And forasmuch as men could not otherwise be so conveniently provided of useful things; it is evident that the study of Arts, and the necessity of Traffic [Business] were the first occasions of erecting Cities.

SECTION 4.

I. Of the two Priviledges which MAN has obtained above all other Creatures, ( viz.) to be capable of the Forgiveness of sins, and Immortality: The Justice and Mercy of GOD in vouchsafing the pardon of sin to MAN, and denying the same to Angels.
II. Man only is a creature capable of learning Arts and Sciences: A Definition of Man, and Reasons justifying every branch of that Definition.
III. The World was not made for the Angels, nor for any other, but MAN only. To him was committed the government of the Universe, with a limitation to use, not abuse the Creatures.

There are also two Priviledges which Man has specially gotten above all other. One is, to obtain pardon by Repentance; the other is that his body being mortal should be brought to immortality. This ( priviledge) of the body, he gets by means of the soul; and the priviledge of the soul, by reason of the body: Yea, among Reasonable creatures, Man only has obtained this Peculiar, that God vouchsafes him the pardon of sin upon repentance: For neither the Devils nor the Angels are vouchsafed pardon, though they do repent.
Hereby the most exact Justice, and admirable mercy, of GOD is both fully proved and evidently declared: For, good cause is there why pardon should not be granted to Angels, though they do repent; because there is nothing in them, which naturally allures or draws them to sin; and in regard also that they ( of their own nature) are free from all passions, wants, and pleasures of the body.
But MAN, though he be endowed with Reason, yet he is also a bodily living creature, and therefore his wants ( in that he is such a living creature) together with his passions, do often blind and captivate his reason. And therefore ( when he returns again by repentance, and applies himself unto virtue) he obtains mercy and forgiveness: For as it is proper to the Essence of MAN to have the ability of laughing ( because it agrees to man only, to all men, and ever to man) so ( in respect of those things, which proceed from the grace of God) it is proper unto Man above all Creatures endued with Reason, to be delivered, by Repentance, from the accusation and guiltiness of all those things wherein he has formerly transgressed. Yea, this Grace is given to MAN only; to all men; and ever to man, during the continuence of his life in this world, and no longer: for after Death there is no more Forgiveness.
Some there be who give a reason why the Angels could no more obtain pardon by repentance after they had fallen; and it is this that follows. The Fall of Angels, was ( as they affirm) a kind of Death unto them; and God vouchsafed them the tender of a pardon before their uter falling away, when like account was to be made of them, as is made of Men during this life: But because they accepted not the grace offered, they received afterward ( as a just reward) punishment everlasting without pardon. And hereby it plainly appears that such as refuse Repentance, do reject that which is a special good gift of God, and peculiar to MAN.
This also is one of the things proper and peculiar unto MAN, that of all other living creatures only the body of MAN should arise again after Death, and aspire to Immortality. This priviledge the body gains in respect of the immortality of the soul; as likewise the soul obtains the other ( that is to say, pardon after Repentance) in respect that the Body, is weak and troubled with many passions.
It is a thing proper also, to MAN only, to learn Arts and Sciences, and to work according unto such Arts: For which cause they who define him, say thus; MAN is a living creature, endued with Reason, mortal, capable of Consideration and Science.
He is termed a living-creature, in that he is a substance having life endued with sense: for, that is the definition of a living-creature.
He is said to be endued with Reason, that he may be distinguished from unreasonable-creatures.
He is called mortal, to make a difference betwixt him and the Reasonable-creatures, that are immortal.
And this clause [capable of Consideration & Science] is added thereunto, because we come to Arts and Sciences by learning of them, having in us naturally a certain potential ability to receive both understanding and Arts; but, not actually attaining them save by study and practice.
There be some, who say that this last clause was lately added to the Definition; and that it had been good enough without the same, were it not, that some bring in their Nymphs, and other petty Deities of those kinds, who are said to live long, and yet not to be immortal; And to distinguish MAN from those, these words, Capable of consideration and science were judged needful; because, none of that sort are thought to learn anything; but, to know naturally, whatsoever they are said to know.
The Jews are of opinion that the whole World was made for MAN ( even immediately for his sake) as Oxen with other beasts for tillage, or to bear burdens; and, as grass was made for the Beasts. For, some things were made for their own sakes; and some for the sakes of others. All reasonable-creatures were made for their own sakes: Unreasonable-creatures and things without life, were ordained for others, not for themselves.
Now if such things were made in respect of others, let us consider for whom they were, indeed, created. Shall we think they were made for the Angels? Doubtless, no wise man will say that they were made for their sakes; because, the things made for the respect or sake of another, must concern either the making, or the continuance, or the recreation of those things for which they were made: For, they are made either in respect of the propagation and succession of their kind; or of their nourishment; or to cover them; or to cure them, or for their better welfare and rest.
Now the Angels need no such things; for they neither have any succession of their kind, neither want clothing, bodily nourishment, nor any thing else: And, if Angels have no need of such things, it is then evident that no other nature having place above the Angels; can have need of them; because by how much higher the place of it is, so much the less need has it of supply or assistance of another.
This being so, we must seek out a Nature which is endued with Reason, and yet needs such things as are aforementioned; and what other nature can be found of that sort, if MAN be passed over? Surely none: And if no other can be discovered, it follows by good reason that both things void of life, and unreasonable-creatures, were made for the sake of MAN; and if they were ordained for him ( as it is evident they were) then, that was likewise the cause why he was constituted the Governor also of those creatures.
Now, it is the duty of a Governor, to use those things which are put under his government, in such manner and measure as need and convenience shall require; and not to abuse them untemperately, or to serve voluptuously his own delicate Appetite. Neither ought he to bear himself tyrannously or ungently towards those whom he governs. For, they that so do ( yea and they that use not mercifully, their unreasonable-cattle) are therein great Offenders; neither performing the part of a Governor, nor of a just man, according to that which is written, “ The just man has compassion upon the life of his Beast”.

SECTION 5.

I. It is here proved, that neither things without-life, nor the unreasonable-creatures, were made for themselves; First, by arrangements taken from the consideration of the nature and use of things without life.
II. It is proved also by considering those creatures, which are void of reason, and which are ( for the most part) very serviceable to MAN.
III. And lastly, it is proved by considering those things which seem to be rather harmful than profitable to Mankind.

But some perhaps will say, that nothing was made in respect of another but everything in respect of itself. Therefore, distinguishing first between things inanimate and those that have life, let us observe whether things void of life are likely to have been created only for their own sake.
For if those things were made in respect of themselves, how, or upon what should living-creatures feed? We see that Nature out of the earth produces food both of fruits, and of plants, to every living-creature, some few excepted, whose feeding is upon flesh; yea, and those creatures which are nourished by eating flesh, do feed on such beasts as are sustained by eating the fruits of the earth: For, Lions and Wolves, feed on Lambs, Goats, Harts, and Swine. Eagles also, and all sorts of Hawks, devour Partridges, Doves, Hares, and such like; which are fed with what springs out of the ground.
Moreover, the nature of those Fishes which devour one another, does not so extend itself to all fishes, that they do generally devour the flesh of one another; but it breaks off in such as eat weeds and such other things as grow in the water. For, if all sorts of fishes had been inclined to eat the flesh of one another, so that no kind of them could feed on any thing else, but on the flesh of themselves, verily they could not have long continued ( no not for a small time) but would have been utterly destroyed, some of them each by other, and the rest for lack of meat.
To the intent then, that it might not so happen, certain Fishes were so made, that they might abstain from the flesh of the rest, and feed ( if I may so term it) on the grass of the Sea, that, by them, the other sorts of fishes might be preserved. These fishes feed upon weeds; other fishes feed upon them; Those, again, are food for other greater fishes. So, by the feeding on such fishes as last of all do eat the weeds of the Sea, ( which come of the slimy waters) the substance of the rest of the fishes is successively continued.
Having reasonably demonstrated, that the Plants were not created in respect of themselves, but in regard of the nourishment and nature both of Men & of other living-creatures, it will be thereby manifest that such things also were made in respect of Man and other living-creatures, which are means and causes of the increase and preservation of those inferior things: And if that be so, it will be as apparent that the motions of the stars, the firmament, the seasons of the year, the showers, and all such like things, were made in respect of those things without life afore-mentioned, and to the end that nourishment being continually administered unto them, the nature of such fruits might be perpetuated, and that Men and living-creatures also ( for whom those were ordained) might be preserved, by them.
It rests now to consider whether the nature of unreasonable-creatures, was made in respect of itself, or for MAN’S cause: and sure, it cannot but be very absurd, to affirm that things incapable of understanding, and living only by an instinct of Nature( yea, things groveling toward the earth, and by their very shape declaring their bondage) should be brought into the world for their own sake. Much might be spoken to prove the contrary, even so much as would spin out this one point to the length of a Treatise, if I should handle the same at large, and therefore I will briefly mention in this place, those things only which are of greatest weight.
By seriously considering ( as it were in a glass or image) those things which are without us by such things as are within us, we should make a plain demonstration hereof; yea, and by considering the very substance of the things themselves, which are in question. For, if we ponder in our mind that part of our selves, which is irrational, and the parts thereof ( I mean appetite and anger, which are ordained to serve the Reasonable-part) we shall there see, that Reason rules, and that the unreasonable-parts, are ruled; that Reason commands, and that the other are commanded, and serviceable to such uses, as Reason will have them to be subject unto; if MAN preserve that condition which does naturally appertain unto him.
Now then, if our part which is reasonable does bear rule over our unreasonable-parts, which are within us; seems it not much more probable, that our reasonable-part should have dominion over such unreasonable-things as are without us? And that such things were ordained to serve our necessities? Especially seeing it is according to the law of Nature that the unreasonable should be subject to the reasonable, as has been declared by those things which are in our selves?
This may be further manifested, by considering that diverse creatures are made even fit for the necessary services of MAN. For, Oxen and all bearing cattle are naturally fitted for the tillage of the earth, and for bearing of burdens. Sundry other beasts of the field also, and many fishes and fowls, for dainty feeding, yea, and singing birds for our delight and recreation.
And al-beit all things do not always serve to such pleasing uses, but that there are some which may seem rather to harm and destroy man; it is to be considered that when those things were created, the special end of whose creation was at first for man’s service; all other things which might be otherwise useful were then created also, that in the Creation there might be no defect, or want of such things whereof there might be afterward any use.
Neither were such things as are now accounted harmful, exempted utterly from the profitable fruition of man; but he by reason, does, or may, fruitfully employ to his advantage, even the most venomous things. For, he uses poisonous creatures to the curing of such harms as come by those, and other venomous beasts, and to the curing of many infirmities other ways occasioned. Such are the confections called …….( whereof our Triacle is one sort) which reason has invented, that by their own power those things might be made to concur themselves, and procure health and safety ( as it were) from conquered enemies.
Man has also many other things of great virtue given unto him by his Creator, which being contrary to those mischievious things, have in them a power to withstand or qualify their virulent operations; to remedy their hurts, and to defend him from their secret assaults. One thing serves to one use, other things to other uses, and God has so provided that all things should be helpful for the benefit and preservation of Man, yea and some things there be which are serviceable no way else.

SECTION 6…………. ( to be continued)……..

REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY, THE TEN LOST TRIBES, & THE COMING OF THE ANTICHRIST (Part 1)

“WILL THE REAL ISRAEL PLEASE STAND UP”

Any serious discussion on the similarities and/or differences between the Two Covenants; the Old and the New Testaments, must inevitably seek to understand, by “ rightly dividing the Word of Truth” the prophetic role of both the Nation of Israel; the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the role of the Christian Church in History and Prophecy.. That the temporal promises to the literal Jews are actual and true, cannot be denied. Both Old ( Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zachariah, for example) AND New ( particularly Paul’s Epistles and John’s Apocalypse) Covenants attest to this fact. Even the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, warns the Christian Church of his day not to become too confident in prematurely assuming that the literal Jews had been done away with and had therefore been replaced by the Christian Economy.(Romans 11:1,2,19-28). Far from it, Paul, whilst confirming the fact that the Christian Church was indeed prophesied of by the Jewish prophets, and referred to in types by the Jewish Law and Ceremonies, and understood by both as “Israel” in a “ spiritual” manner only, consistently affirms that this spiritual “Israel of God”( Galatians 6:16) in NO wise replaces the promises, nor absorbs the promises, that God has given to the Literal Jewish Nation. We see from Paul’s statements that the covenantal promises made to temporal Israel are permanent, and any share in these promises by the Church of the New Covenant are solely to be considered “ in conjunction with” and not “ apart from” the future promises given to the literal Jews.
The Apostle Paul conveys five major vital points of concurrence between the promises made to the Literal Jews and the Christian Economy:
a) The “ blinding in part” of the Jewish people as an entire nation being the “ full sight of the Gentiles” ( Romans 11: 25);
b) The “ engrafting of the Gentiles”( the wild olive tree) into the “ spiritual seed of Abraham”( the good olive tree) ( Romans 11: 19-24);
c) The temporary casting out and rejection of the literal seed of Abraham, the Jews, and the fact of their future restoration to full covenant standing with God at Christ’s “ parousia” ( second coming) ( Romans 11: 26);
d) The “ dearness of the literal Israel ( seed of Abraham) to the Father”, and therefore the “ dearness of the spiritual (seed of Abraham) to the Son” ( Romans 11: 28);
e) The notion that the Church as typologically representative (in a spiritual manner) NOT of the entire Jewish Nation, but of the Levitical Priesthood only, who held no “ temporal inheritance” and were “ pilgrims on this earth”, is, once again, the ONLY spiritualizing Apostolic concession given to the Church, ( Hebrews 11: 13) and remains the key to a full understanding of how and why Christians ( the Church) are to be understood as a “ priesthood of all believers”, which was in the Old Testament represented by the Levitical Priesthood, whose tabernacle and temple service hearkened in type also to a still HIGHER order of priesthood; that of Melchizedek, the Gentile/Canaanite king of Salem, to whom even Abraham gave tithes… ( Hebrews 5: 9-11).
The thorough consideration and interplay of all of the above points must be considered when assumptions are made in favour of, or against, the notions that the church has replaced literal Israel, or that perhaps literal Israel has replaced the church, or that literal Israel has been discarded, or that the church has or will itself be eventually discarded. The correct doctrine is that the Old Covenant Jews always possessed a “ remnant” of believers who embodied and embraced the OT “ Faith of Abraham”, into which remnant, or “ seed of Abraham’s Promise”, the Gentile believers of the New Covenant have literally been “ ingrafted”. This implies, just as the Literal Israel of the Old Covenant were “ not all of Israel”, but only the “ remnant who held the Faith of Abraham” and “ hoped in the coming Messiah” ( the “ Emmanuel, or “ God-With-Us” of the OT prophet Isaiah), and were “ pilgrims in this earth”, that so in the case of the Literal Church of the New Covenant, only those who share in the “ Faith of Abraham” and “ await Christ’s appearing” and have “ no place to lay their head” in this wicked world, may actually be considered as co-heirs of “ Abraham’s Promise”.. This vital point also implies that just as the vast majority of the Jewish population were “ not all of Israel”, so the greater population of professed Christendom is “ not all of Christ’s”, but only the remnant, once again, who “ await His appearing”. Matthew 7: 21-23 conveys forever the frightening reality of the foregoing conclusions; that only a “ remnant” of Christendom ( just as a “ remnant” of Jewish Israel of the OT) will be saved, and that vast numbers of outward so-called believers ( who even claim to believe in Jesus “ as Lord”) will be cast out with the worldly and the wicked. “…..
MATTHEW 7: 21-27
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 25:11; Luke 6:46; Luke 13:25; Acts 19:13; Rom 2:13; Jas 1:22); 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?( Jer 14:14; Jer 27:15; Luke 13:26); 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Ps 6:8; Matt 25:12; Matt 25:41; Luke 13:25; Luke 13:27); 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Jer 17:8; Luke 6:47; Rom 2:13; Jas 1:25); 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand (Ezek 13:11; Rom 2:13; Jas 1:23); 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Hebrews 10: 26-31 enforces the fearful finality of a relapse into habitual sin AFTER Baptism, Regeneration, and Cleansing by the Blood of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice, and explains the reasoning behind Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:21-27:
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, (Num 15:30; Matt 12:31; Heb 6:4; 2Pet 2:20; 1John 5:16); 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; Deut 19:15; Matt 18:16; 2Cor 13:1); 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. (Deut 32:35; Deut 32:36; Rom 12:19); 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

And likewise James 2: 14-26 has the following to say to those who believe that one can be saved by Faith without that Faith being followed and “ perfected” by devout and godly Works of Righteousness:
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? (Matt 7:26; Jas 1:23); 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, (Luke 3:11; 1John 3:17); 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.7 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (Mark 1:24); 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? (Gen 22:10); 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6); 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? (Josh 2:1; Josh 6:23; Heb 11:31); 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

For the above mentioned reasons, and in light of the fact that the OT Church, as well as the NT Church, have always consisted of a “ remnant of Faithful Believers” which will be kept, whereas the majority of mere “ outward professors” will be discarded ( as depicted in Matthew 7 and elsewhere); both in the OLD as well as the NEW Dispensations, we come to the understanding that, since “ God is no respector of persons”, ANY attempt to attribute FULL rights of the Abrahamic Covenant and Promise to both outward Literal Israel AND outward Literal Christendom, must fail, and fail dismally.. Hence the confusion when attributing ALL the promises of Literal Israel to “ literal Israel”, and ALL the promises of literal Israel to “ Literal Christendom”; or even a “ spiritualized Christendom” for that matter… All of these must fail, since the “ seed of Abraham’s Promise” are the remnant of Faithful and Obedient believers scattered throughout the Old AND the NEW Covenant Dispensations, and do not comprise “ in toto” the complete body of professors to either the Jewish OR the Christian Covenantal outward body of believers. In the Old Covenant, those who possessed the “ Faith of Abraham” looked FORWARD to the source and fulfillment of that Faith in the coming Messiah nonetheless.. The New Covenant Faithfull, however, now look BACKWARD to the source and fulfillment of the same Faith in the Messiah who CAME, and who will also COME AGAIN…
The Covenant God made with Abraham is indeed an everlasting Covenant, but it is one which is qualified by FAITH and WORKS of RIGHTEOUSNESS ( according to James the Apostle), and NOT by racial descent only.. The Mosaic Covenant, however, was intimately associated with the race and people of literal Israel and, according to the prophet Zechariah who wrote his “burdens” and prophecies @ 518 B.C., at one point in their history ( some time after Zechariah’s days and before the time of the Maccabees’ cleansing of the second temple which Antiochus Epiphanes, the Syrian King, had defiled by entering the Holy of Holies and sacrificing a pig in honour of Jupiter/Zeus on the altar ) was actually “ broken” by God due to the great extent of national sin, only to be “ rejoined and renewed” AFTER the nation of Israel had been purged and chastised, and had finally fully repented and returned back to God the Father… Yet in the midst of the breaking of the national (Mosaic) Covenant, the everlasting Covenant made with Abraham’s “ Faithfull Seed”; the “ church of the Remnant of believers”, remained intact and inviolate.. So it is, that the everlasting Covenant God made with the spiritual seed of Abraham, both Jew AND Gentile, would continue only and always in the “ Remnant of the Faithfull” who awaited the Messiah’s appearing, and who “ do the will of God” and not their own will.
Zechariah 11 :
1 Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars. 2 Howl, fir tree; for the cedar is fallen; because the mighty are spoiled: howl, O ye oaks of Bashan; for the forest of the vintage is come down. 3 There is a voice of the howling of the shepherds; for their glory is spoiled: a voice of the roaring of young lions; for the pride of Jordan is spoiled.
4 Thus saith the LORD my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter; 5 Whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, Blessed be the LORD; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not. 6 For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD: but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour’s hand, and into the hand of his king: and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them. 7 And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock. 8 Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me. 9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. 10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. 11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. 12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. (Matt 26:15; Matt 27:9); 13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. 14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
15 And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. 16 For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces. 17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened. (Jer 23:1; Ezek 34:2; John 10:12);…..

Jameisson, Fausset and Brown, in their famous commentary on the Bible, had the following comments on the breaking of the covenant with the outward people of Israel during Zachariah’s day, as found in Zechariah 11: 11-12:

10. covenant which I made with all the people—The covenant made with the whole nation is to hold good no more except to the elect remnant. This is the force of the clause, not as MAURER, and others translate. The covenant which I made with all the nations (not to hurt My elect people, Ho 2:18). But the Hebrew is the term for the elect people (Ammim), not that for the Gentile nations (Goiim). The Hebrew plural expresses the great numbers of the Israelite people formerly (1Ki 4:20). The article is, in the Hebrew, all the or those peoples. His cutting asunder the staff “Beauty,” implies the setting aside of the outward symbols of the Jews distinguishing excellency above the Gentiles (see on Zec 11:7) as God’s own people.

11. poor . . . knew—The humble, godly remnant knew by the event the truth of the prediction and of Messiah’s mission. He had, thirty-seven years before the fall of Jerusalem, forewarned His disciples when they should see the city compassed with armies, to “flee unto the mountains.” Accordingly, Cestius Gallus, when advancing on Jerusalem, unaccountably withdrew for a brief space, giving Christians the opportunity of obeying Christ’s words by fleeing to Pella.
waited upon me—looked to the hand of God in all these calamities, not blindly shutting their eyes to the true cause of the visitation, as most of the nation still do, instead of referring it to their own rejection of Messiah. Isa 30:18-21 refers similarly to the Lord’s return in mercy to the remnant that “wait for Him” and “cry” to Him (Zeph 3:12; Zeph 3:13).

And in the time of the prophet Hosea, shortly before the fall of Samaria in the early 8th century B.C., a similar breaking-off had occurred between God and the literal people of Israel. Hosea 1: 8-11 describes the consequences as well as the final results ( the restoration to covenant favour) of this event, and the promise of a distant future restoration of the Jews under their Messiah as their “ one head”:

8 Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. 9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. 10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. (Gen 32:12; Rom 9:25-26); 11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel. ( Isa 11:13; Jer 3:18; Ezek 37:16; Ezek 37:22; Eph 2:14-16);

Bishop Fausset expounds this event in his Bible Cyclopedia as follows:

(“not My people”.) Jezreel, Lo-ruhamah (“not loved”), and Lo-ammi are the three children of the prophet Hosea’s wife, Gomer, taken by God’s command. “Jezreel” symbolised the coming destruction of Jehu’s line, as Jehu had destroyed that of Ahab of Jezreel; also that as Jezreel means both God sows and God scatters, so God will yet sow Israel whom He now scatters (Hos 1:4-6; Hos 1:9-10; Hos 1:11), “great shall be the day of Jezreel,” i.e. great shall be the day when they shall be God’s seed planted in their own land by God (Jer 24:6; Jer 31:28; Jer 32:41; Amo 9:15; Hos 2:23). “I will sow her (Jezreel, the sown one, Hos 2:22) unto … Me in the earth.” Not only Judaea, but the whole earth shall be the seed plot wherein Gentile nations shall be the spiritual growth of the Jewish seed sown everywhere (Mic 5:7; Rom 11:12; Rom 11:15; Zec 10:9). Lo-ruhamah, changed into Ruhama, means that He will first withdraw His “loving mercy” and at last restore it. And Lo-ammi, changed into Ammi, that He will make Israel, now “not His people” owing to apostasy, to become again “His people.” The three children symbolize successive generations:
(1) Jezreel represents the dynasty of Jeroboam I, ending with Jehu’s shedding the blood of the last of the line at Jezreel;
(2) Lo-ruhamah, a daughter, represents the effeminate period which followed;
(3) Loammi, a son, represents Jeroboam II’s vigorous dynasty, which however brought no revival of religion; still Israel was not God’s people really, and so should be no longer so in name but cast away.

Some have attempted over the centuries to enforce the Covenantal promises to the literal seed of Abraham, by persecuting the New Covenant Church. In like manner, many have attempted to enforce the promises to the “ spiritual seed of Abraham” by persecuting literal Israel, and denying them any historical spiritual rights to being at least in part members of a “ Faithful Remnant Church” during the OT Dispensation. Others, like the pagan Roman Emperors, have denied any such rights to either, and have sporadically persecuted both. The “ remnant of the Faithfull”, though never a secret body of believers as some have implied, but always outward and openly ready to suffer for Messiah’s sake by “ letting their light shine forth” and “ not hiding their light under a bushel”, have perennially been the REAL subjects of ferreting, inquisition, persecution and attempted extermination.
Indeed, until shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70/71 AD, and the subsequent complete dispersion of the Jewish nation by the Emperor Hadrian, by the mid second century AD, shortly after the revolt of the false Messiah Bar Cochba, the wrath of the Jews against the very early Christian Church was still extreme, and hence the early Church, by Apostolic sanction, had to sever all symbiotic associations with unconverted Jews and Jewish heretics such as the Ebionites and the Elkasites, who had, until then, been their chief persecutors, and the first instigators of such persecution.
Subsequent to this dispersal of the power of the Jews and their banishment in the first half of the second century AD, the role of persecutor changed. The opportunity for the Jews to persecute the Christian Faith had dwindled, and the new opportunity was seized upon by the Emperors of Rome in imitation of Nero; the murderer of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and the first Roman Emperor to openly attempt the annihilation of the “ new sect of the Christians”…
(From McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia):
“…..Nero:
A Roman emperor, celebrated in the history of the world as a tyrant and a debauchee, figures in ecclesiastical annals chiefly because of the intolerant and persecuting spirit which he manifested towards the followers of Jesus in the Eternal City. His full name was Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus (originally Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus). He was the son of Domitius Ahenobarbus and of Agrippina, daughter of Germanicus, and was born in 37 at Antium. After the marriage of his mother, in third nuptials, with her uncle, the emperor Claudius, Nero was adopted by that prince, and Nero’s name changed as above given. His education was carefully looked after. He was placed under the tuition of the philosopher Seneca (q.v.), and appears to have improved his opportunities. He is said to have persevered in his studies, and to have made great progress especially in the Greek language, of which he exhibited a specimen in his sixteenth year by pleading in that tongue the rights or privileges of the Rhodians and of the inhabitants of Ilium; but he possessed little oratorical skill (Suetonius, Nero, c. 7; Tacitus, Annales, 12:58). Nero was so much trusted by Claudius that he finally married him to his daughter Octavia. When he was about seventeen years of age Nero’s abandoned mother poisoned her husband, Claudius, and by means of her criminal favors succeeded in raising her son to the throne (A.D. 54),………”
“Neronian Persecutions were really the first severe trials which the Christians of Rome had to endure. They occurred in A.D. 64, and were instigated by Nero (q.v.) himself. Although we possess no positive information as to the manner in which the first Christian community was established at Rome, it appears certain that it was not originally instituted by the apostles. It is more probable that the frequent intercourse of the Roman Jews with Palestine and Jerusalem led at an early time to the introduction of the new doctrines, the believers still remaining connected with the synagogues. They became gradually more numerous; and the frequent controversies which here, as in other cities, arose among the Jews, partly on their own tenets, partly concerning the person and the coming of Christ, led at last to open disturbances, and gave occasion to the emperor Claudius to publish in 41 a strict edict banishing all the Jews, including those who acknowledged Christ. The edict, however, did not receive a very severe execution, only the leaders, such as Aquila, whom we find mentioned in the N.T., being banished. As to the others, there was probably some alleviation made in the decree; but while allowed to remain at Rome, they were not permitted to assemble in the synagogues until a new edict, promulgated about the end of the same year, again restored them this privilege also, and guaranteed the Jews religious liberty throughout the empire. This temporary closing of the synagogues, however, led the Christians to organize places of worship for themselves, and to form an independent community. Their number now increased so rapidly that St. Paul, who had been informed of their position by Aquila at Corinth, expressed in his Epistle to the Romans the desire to visit them, which he fulfilled three years later, when he was led as a prisoner from Cesarea to Rome, remaining there a while, and laboring for the new religion with such success that Tacitus speaks of the Christians of Rome as “an immense multitude.” The rapid increase of the Christians made them of course unpopular at Rome. Suetonius, in his Nero (chap. 16), speaks of them as a “dangerous sect.” They were mistrusted because they abstained from participation in the sacrifices and other heathen ceremonies, and were hated because they were believed secretly at work against the peace of Roman citizens. They were accused of misanthropy, and were suspected of all manner of crimes. But no open intent to persecute them manifested itself until Nero ordered ceremonies after the great fire, and the Christians failed to participate. They were now accused as the authors of the conflagration; first, probably, by friends of the court, in order to turn public animosity from Nero, who was by many believed to have favored the burning of Rome. The emperor himself took up the public rumor, and acted upon it as a verity. “He inflicted,” says Tacitus, “the most exquisite tortures on those men, who, under the vulgar appellation of Christians, were already branded with deserved infamy,” and a vast multitude, or as Tacitus has it, “ingens multitudo,” were put to death in the most shocking manner. Indeed, it appears from the detailed accounts of Tacitus that Nero’s proceedings were quite different from mere capital executions according to the Roman law; for the Christian martyrs were not simply put to death, but their execution was made to gratify the bloodthirstiness of the tyrant, and to serve as an amusement to the people……….”
McClintock and Strong in the Cyclopedia also state the following concerning the Emperor Hadrian and the Jewish revolt under Bar Cochba:
“…..Hadrianus, P. Aemilius
the 14th Roman emperor (from A.D. 117-138), was a relative and the ward
of Trajan, and married Julia Sabina, the granddaughter of Marciana sister
of that emperor. In regard to the place of his birth, the statement of
Spartianus (De vita Hadricani, 1) that he was born at Rome Jan. 24, A.D.
76, is generally regarded as the more reliable, though others name Italica in
Spain, where his ancestors had settled in the time of Scipio (see Eutropius,
8:6, and Eusebius, Chronicon, No. 2155, p. 166, ed. Scaliger). Aided by
the preference of Trajan’s wife, Plotina, and showing himself capable in the
positions entrusted to him, he rose rapidly, and on the death of Trajan
succeeded to the empire,………”
“The peace of his reign was broken by one serious war. Among the Jews a
spirit of discontent had been kept alive ever since the capture of Jerusalem
by Titus. Wishing to eradicate this spirit by the destruction of the Jewish
nationality, Hadrian issued an edict forbidding the practice of circumcision,
and determined to erect on the ruins of Jerusalem a new Roman city, to be
called after himself, Aelia Capitolina. Consequently a furious revolt of the
Jews broke out under the lead of Bar Cochba, a pretended messiah, and it
was only after having suffered great losses, and having almost exterminated
the Jewish nation (500,000 Jews were said to have perished), that the
imperial armies succeeded in crushing the revolt, although the able general,
Julius Serverus, had been called from the distant shores of Britian to lead
them. Aelia Capitolina rose over the ruins of the Holy City, but the Jew
was forbidden, on the pain of death, to enter it, and from that time the race
was dispersed through the world. Antoninus Pius annulled the prohibition
of circumcision. Hadrian died at Baiae July 10, 138; but his last days had
been marked by such outrageous cruelties that Antoninus, his successor,
with difficulty secured the customary honors to his memory.…….”

The Ebionites, who were the first “ Judaizers” as recorded in the New Testament Scriptures, and the first to raise up persecution against Christians ( though themselves claiming in part the Faith of Christ) gave rise to a number of Judaizing sects, such as the Mandaeans and the Nasoreans shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. But it was not until the arch-heretic Christian Priest ARIUS, a disciple of Lucian of Antioch, during the late 3rd and early 4th centuries A.D., who openly denied the Godhood of Christ, that the original Ebionite doctrines came into more universal acceptance within Christendom itself, and threatened to overwhelm almost the entire Roman Empire with their heresies and blasphemies against the person and nature of Christ/ Messiah. Within a few centuries of Arius’ advent, however, the great majority of the invading pagan nations which overran the Western Roman Empire converted to Arianism, whereas the Eastern Roman Empire remained at least nominally in catholic orthodoxy until @ 1453 A.D.; the time of the fall of Constantinople to the invading Turks. The Turks, however, brought with them merely a new form of Arianism; the doctrines of Mahommed and Islam, which differed very little from the Arianism of the Gothic invaders of the Western Roman Empire during their marauding conquests in the 5th century A.D…
(McKlintock and Strong had the following to say on the Ebionites):
“…..Ebionites
a sect of Judaizing Christians who received the doctrines of the Gospel
very partially, and denied the divine nature of Christ. They do not appear
to have been at any time numerous, and it is doubtful whether they ever
obtained such consistency as to have a definite creed.

1. The Name. — The name is derived from the Hebrew ˆ/yb]a,, poor. This
term was anciently applied in derision to Christians in general (Epiphanius,
adv. Haer. 29:1), and came later to designate Jewish Christians (Origen,
cont. Celsum, 2:1).

2. History. — Dorner (Person of Christ, Edinb. translated 1:189 sq.) traces
the Ebionitish tendency as far back as the Epistle to the Hebrews. “From
that zeal for the law with which Paul had to contend, the Judaizing spirit
was led not at first to impeach the Christology, but rather the Soteriology,
or the work of Christ. But the consequence of the legal stand-point soon
showed itself. The party which the Epistle to the Hebrews had in view
must have over-estimated the law of the O.T. regarding holy times, places,
acts, and persons alike, and have been wanting in the Christian knowledge
which knows how to secure to the O.T. its abiding significancy, which it
has as a divine institute without imperiling the newness and conclusive
completeness of Christianity.” Epiphanius traces the origin of Ebionitism to
the Christians who fled to Pella after the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 66
(adv. Hoer. 29:1). According to Hegesippus (Hist. Ecclesiastes 4:22),
one Thebutis, at Jerusalem, about the beginning of the second century,
“began to corrupt the Church secretly on account of his not being made a
bishop.” “We find the sect of the Ebionites in Palestine and the surrounding
regions, on the island of Cyprus, in Asia Minor, and even in Rome. Though
it consisted mostly of Jews, Gentile Christians also sometimes attached
themselves to it. It continued into the fourth century, but at the time of
Theodoret was entirely extinct. It used a Hebrew Gospel, now lost, which
was probably a corruption of the Gospel of Matthew” (Schaff, Church
History, 1, § 68, page 214).

3. Doctrines. — Dr. Schaff sharply distinguishes Ebionism from
Gnosticism as follows: “Ebionism is a Judaizing, pseudo-Petrine
Christianity, or a Christianizing Judaism; Gnosticism is a paganizing or
pseudo-Pauline Christianity, or a pseudo-Christian heathenism. The former
is a particularistic contraction of the Christian religion; the latter a vague
expansion of it” (Church History, § 67). According to the same writer, “the
characteristic marks of Ebionism in all its forms are, degradation of
Christianity to the level of Judaism, the principle of the universal and
perpetual validity of the Mosaic law, and enmity to the apostle Paul. But,
as there were different sects in Judaism itself, we have also to distinguish at
least two branches of Ebionism, related to each other, as Pharisaism and
Essenism, or, to use a modern illustration, as the older deistic and the
speculative pantheistic rationalism in Germany, or the two schools of
Unitarianism in England and America.

1. The common Ebionites, who were by far the more numerous, embodied
the Pharisaic legal spirit, and were the proper successors of the Judaizers
opposed in the epistle to the Galatians. Their doctrine may be reduced to
the following propositions:
(a.) Jesus is, indeed, the promised Messiah, the son of David, and the
supreme lawgiver, yet a mere man, like Moses and David, sprung by
natural generation from Joseph and Mary. The sense of his Messianic
calling first arose in him at his baptism by John, when a higher spirit
joined itself to him. Hence Origen compared this sect to the blind man
in the Gospel who called to the Lord without seeing him, ‘Thou son of
David, have mercy on me!’
(b.) Circumcision and the observance of the whole ritual law of Moses
are necessary to salvation for all men.
(c.) Paul is an apostate and heretic, and all his epistles are to be
discarded. The sect considered him a native heathen, who came over to
Judaism in later life from impure motives.
(d.) Christ is soon to come again to introduce the glorious millennial
reign of the Messiah, with the earthly Jerusalem for its seat.

2. The second class of Ebionites, starting with Essenic notions, gave their
Judaism a speculative or theosophic stamp, like the errorists of the Epistle
to the Colossians. They form the stepping-stone to Gnosticism.
Among these belong the Elkesaites” (Schaff, Ch. Hist. 1, § 68, 214 sq.).
The pseudo-Clementine homilies teach a speculative form of Ebionism,
essentially Judaizing in spirit and aim.

4. Ebionism has reappeared, since the Reformation, in Socinianism (q.v.),
and in the other forms of what is called Unitarianism (q.v.). Some Unitarian
writers have undertaken to show that Ebionism was the original form of
Christian doctrine, and that the Church doctrine as to the person of Christ
was a later development;.. A far abler advocate of the Socinian view is Baur,
“Baur agrees with the old Socinians in the statement that the Jewish
Christianity of the apostolic age was Ebionite. But, unlike them, he holds
that we find within the canon a great departure from, and advance upon,
this humanitarian doctrine of Christ’s person. He professes to discover in
the New Testament the consecutive stages of a progress which, beginning
with the Unitarian creed terminates in the doctrine of Christ’s proper
divinity. There occurred at the end, or before the end, of the apostolic age,
a reaction of the Jewish Christianity, which with Baur is identical with the
Judaizing or Ebionite element; and this type of Christianity prevailed
through the larger part of the second century…..”

It is to the heretical doctrines of Arius and the Ebionite and Elkasaite Judaizers, by historically proven descent, that Mahommed and Islam receive their historical origin.
( From McClintock and Strong): Arianism:
“…..A heresy with regard to the person of Christ which spread widely in the church from the fourth to the seventh centuries. It took its name from Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, said to have been a Libyan, and a man of subtle, but not profound mind. The most probable account is that he was educated in the school of Lucian the martyr at Antioch; and the doctrinal position of Lucian (scientifically nearer to the subsequent doctrine of Arius than of Athanasius) helps to explain not only how Arius’s view arose, but also how it happened to be so widely received (comp. Dorner, Person of Christ, div. 1, vol. 2, p. 490; Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 2, 10; Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. 3, 5). He is said to have favored Meletius (q.v.), who was deposed A.D. 306; but it appears that Peter, bishop of Alexandria, the great enemy of Meletius, ordained Arius deacon (Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 1:15) about A.D. 311, but soon, on account of his turbulent disposition, ejected him. When Peter was dead, Arius feigned penitence; and being pardoned by Achillas, who succeeded Peter, he was by him raised to the priesthood, and entrusted with the church of Baucalis, in Alexandria (Epiphan. Haeres, 68, 4). It is said that on the death of Achillas, A.D. 313, Arius was greatly mortified because Alexander was preferred before him, and made bishop, and that he consequently sought every occasion of exciting tumults against Alexander; but this story rests simply on a remark of Theodoret (Hist. Eccles. 1, 2) that Arius was envious of Alexander.
I. Ancient Arianism. —
1. First Period: to the Council of Nice. — The eloquence of Arius gained him popularity; and he soon began to teach a doctrine concerning the person of Christ inconsistent with His divinity. When Alexander had one day. been addressing his clergy, and insisting that the Son is co-eternal, coessential, and co-equal with the Father in, Theod. 1:11), Arius opposed him, accused him of Sabellianism, and asserted that there was a time when the Son was not, since the Father who begot must be before the Son who was begotten, and the latter, therefore, could not be eternal (Socrat. Hist. Eccl. 1, 5). Such is the account, by the early writers, of the origin of the controversy. But if it had not begun in this way, it must soon have began in some other. The points in question had not arrived at scientific precision in the mind of the church; and it was only during the Arian controversy, and by means of the earnest struggles invoked by it, carried on through many years, causing the convocation of many synods, and employing some of the most acute and profound intellects the church has ever seen, that a definite and permanent form of truth was arrived at (Dorner, Person of Christ, div. 1, vol. 2, p. 227)…..”
The famous Christian expositor and Apologist; John of Damascus, writing in the early 8th century, has the following to say on the Arian origin of Islam in his “ Fountain of Knowledge”: (ON HERESIES):
“…..Heresy 101. There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, who was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Zappocq KSVOL, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’ (99) These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom
in their own language they called Khabar, which means great. (100) ” And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk,(101) devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration. He says that there is one God, creator of all things, who has neither been begotten nor has begotten. (102) He says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron.(103)……”
[(99) Cf. Gen. 16.8. Sozomen also says that they were descended from Agar, but called themselves descendants of Sara to hide their servile origin
(Ecclesiastical History 6.38, PG 67.1412AB) .
(100) The Arabic kabirun means ‘great,’ whether in size or in dignity. Herodotus mentions the Arabian cult of the ‘Heavenly Aphrodite’ but says that the Arabs called her Alilat (Herodotus 1.131) .
(101) This may be the Nestorian monk Bahira (George or Sergius) who met the boy Mohammed at Bostra in Syria and claimed to recognize in him the sign of a prophet.
(102) Koran, Sura 112.
(103) Sura 19; 4.169.]
It ought to be noted that “ Aphrodite/ Venus/ Alilat/Allah” is a heathen deity representing the “ morning star”, which the Romans called “ son of Aurora ( Dawn), or “ Lucifer”…. ( please refer to the following definition by Sir William Smith; “Dictionary of Antiquity”, article: “Lucifer”:
“…..Lucifer, or Phosphorus, that is, the bringer of light, is the name of the planet Venus [ in Greek “ Aphrodite”], when seen in the morning before sunrise. The same planet was called Hesperus, Vesperugo, Vesper, Noctifer, or Nocturnus, when it appeared in the heavens after sunset. Lucifer as a personification is called a son of Astraeus and Aurora or Eos, of Cephalus and Aurora, or of Atlas. By Philonis he is said to have been the father of Ceyx. He is also called the father of Daedalion and of the Hesperides. Lucifer is also a surname of several Godesses of Light, as Artemis, Aurora, and Hecate…..”
The title of Venus/Aphrodite/Alilat/ Allah, in Arabic, of “ Akhbar” was anciently the same as “ Khabar”, both meaning “ great”. The name was contracted and applied also to the “ Kaaba” at Mecca where the ancient Arabs worship the “ stone of Aphrodite” believed to have fallen from the heavens. The Christian Church during the Dark Ages, at least in the East, firmly believed that Islam, which was generated from the heresy of Arius and the Ebionites and Elkasaites, was the forerunner of the final Antichristian movement, and would culminate in the last Antichrist.

For the first two centuries in the Western regions of the Roman Empire, and much longer in the East, the written language and theology of the Church was still Greek Gentile ( the entire New Testament being recorded in Greek), and NOT Hebrew or Latin. We must stress that the early tension between Christians and the Jews in the Roman Empire of the first two centuries of the Christian Era, and the rejection of Jewish influences in support of the New Covenant, was a very JUST and necessary tension, since the bloody animosity of the Jews against the early Church was so extreme and real, that Christians had no option but to remain separate and predominantly Gentile in nature… Yet about this time occurred three quite extraordinary stirrings within the Christian Church itself which were to have permanent repercussions for both Jew AND Gentile:
1) The revival of the GNOSTICISM of Simon Magus ( the Samaritan convert from Zoroastrian Magianism as recorded by Luke in the Book of Acts, who later apostasized and became the opponent of Saint Peter at Rome) and the fusion of the Gnosticism of Alexandria with the earlier Judaizing Ebionitism by the heretic Cerinthus;
“.…. Ever since the conquests of Alexander the Great, an intense interest had been felt throughout Asia Minor and Egypt in Hellenistic philosophy and Oriental theosophy; and while the old mythologic fables and professed systems of positive revelation had lost their authority, many thoughtful persons had discovered under these what they looked upon as a uniting bond of truth and the elements of a universal religion……. The result was that, near the time of the first promulgation of Christianity, a number of new systems of religious philosophy sprung up independently in different countries, and exhibited similar characteristics. They were usually formed by incorporating with the national religion what seemed attractive elements in foreign systems, and softening down what was harsh and incredible in the popular faith and worship. In this way we discover a nearly simultaneous origin of the Judaistic philosophy at Alexandria, of Essenism and Therapeutism in Egypt and southern Palestine, of the Cabbalistic literature in Syria and the East, and of New Platonism among the Hellenistic nations. These were all offshoots from the same general root, and not necessarily deriving anything original, but unquestionably drawing much assistance from one another. Similar circumstances everywhere called forth similar phenomena with no conscious interdependence….. We thus account for the origin of Gnosticism, and easily reconcile the conflicting views of different writers respecting it. As the early ecclesiastical writers were themselves acquainted almost exclusively with Occidental literature, they ware in the habit of ascribing the rise of Gnosticism to the study of Grecian philosophy, and especially of Platonism, and they appeal to the cosmogonies of Hesiod and others for the exemplars of the Gnostic speculations…….” (McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia: “Gnosticism”).
The first codification of “ Gnosticism” within the early Christian Church was made by Simon Magus ( as mentioned by Luke in the book of Acts of the Apostles), who apostasized from the Faith and became an opponent of the Apostle Peter at Rome. His later successor in the heresy was one “ Valentinus”, who brought the teachings of Simon Magus into a more popular form. Essentially, it consisted of the revival of the ancient Philosophies of the heathens, coupled with the initiation rites of the “ mystery religions”, particularly Zoroastrianism, Hermeticism and Mithraism, and is referred to in Scripture as the “ mystery of INIQUITY which doeth already work…” The legacy of Simon Magus was married to early Christian Judaizing tradition by the heretic Cerinthus who flourished in the late first century and early second century A.D., against whom the Apostles John, Paul and James raised an outcry in their Epistles….
“…..Cerinthus, a traditional opponent of St. John. It will probably always remain an open question whether his fundamentally Ebionite sympathies inclined him to accept Jewish rather than Gnostic additions. Modern scholarship has therefore preferred to view his doctrine as a fusing together and incorporating in a single system tenets collected from Jewish, Oriental, and Christian sources; but the nature of that doctrine is sufficiently clear, and its opposition to the instruction of St. John as decided as that of the Nicolaitanes.
Cerinthus was of Egyptian origin, and in religion a Jew. He received his education in the Judaeo-Philonic school of Alexandria. On leaving Egypt he visited Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Antioch. From Palestine he passed into Asia and there developed τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀπωλείας βάραθρον (Epiph. xxviii. 2). Galatia, according to the same authority, was selected as his headquarters, whence he circulated his errors. On one of his journeys he arrived at Ephesus, and met St. John in the public baths. The Apostle, hearing who was there, fled from the place as if for life, crying to those about him: “Let us flee, lest the bath fall in while Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is there.”
The value of this and other such traditions is confessedly not great—that of the meeting with St. John in the bath is told of “Ebion” as well as of Cerinthus;—but a stratum of fact probably underlies them, and they at least indicate the feeling with which the early “Churchmen” regarded him. Epiphanius, by whom the majority are preserved, derived the principal portion of his statements partly from Irenaeus, and partly, as Lipsius has shewn with high probability, from the now lost earlier work of Hippolytus on heresies.
His doctrines may be collected under the heads of his conception of the Creation, his Christology, and his Eschatology. His opinions upon two of these points, as preserved in existing works, support the usual view, that Cerinthus rather than Simon Magus is to be regarded as the predecessor of Judaeo-Christian Gnosticism.
Unlike Simon Magus and Menander, Cerinthus did not claim a sacred and mystic power. Caius the Presbyter can only assert against him that he pretended to angelic revelations (Eus., Theod.). But his mind, like theirs, brooded over the co-existence of good and evil, spirit and matter; and his scheme seems intended to free the “unknown God” and the Christ from the bare imputation of infection through contact with nature and man. Trained as he was in the philosophy of Philo, the Gnosis of Cerinthus did not of necessity compel him to start from opposition—in the sense of malignity—of evil to good, matter to spirit. He recognized opposition in the sense of difference between the one active perfect principle of life—God—and that lower imperfect passive existence which was dependent upon God; but this fell far short of malignity. He therefore conceived the material world to have been formed not by “the First God,” but by angelic Beings of an inferior grade of Emanation (Epiph.). More precisely still he described the main agent as a certain Power (δύναμις) separate and distinct from the “Principality” (ἡ ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντεία, v. Suicer, Thes. s.v. αὐθ.) and ignorant of τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα θέον. He refused in the spirit of a true Jew to consider the “God of the Jews” identical with that author of the material world who was alleged by Gnostic teachers to be inferior and evil. He preferred to identify him with the Angel who delivered the Law (Epiph. and Philastr.). Neander and Ewald have pointed out that these are legitimate deductions from the teaching of Philo. The conception is evidently that of an age when hereditary and instinctive reverence for the law served as a check upon the system-maker. Cerinthus is a long way from the bolder and more hostile schools of later Gnosticism.
The Christology is of an Ebionite cast and of the same transition character. It must not be assumed that it is but a form of the common Gnostic dualism, the double-personality afterwards elaborated by Basilides and Valentinus. Epiphanius, the chief source of information, is to many a mere uncritical compiler, sometimes following Hippolytus, sometimes Irenaeus. Now it is Christ Who is born of Mary and Joseph (Epiph. xxviii. 1), now it is Jesus Who is born like other men, born of Joseph and Mary; He differs from others only in being more righteous, more prudent, and more wise; it is not till after baptism, when Jesus has reached manhood, that Christ, “that is to say, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove,” descends upon Jesus from above (ἄνωθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἄνω Θεοῦ· ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντείας, Iren.), revealing to Him and through Him to those after Him the “unknown Father.” If, as Lipsius thinks (p. 119), Irenaeus has here been influenced by the later Gnostic systems, and has altered the original doctrine of Cerinthus as given in Hippolytus, that doctrine would seem to be that he considered “Jesus” and “Christ” titles given indifferently to that One Personality Which was blessed by the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Power on high (ἡ ἄνωθεν δύναμις). This Power enables Jesus to perform miracles, but forsakes Him at His Passion, “flying heavenwards.” So, again, it is Jesus, according to one passage of Epiphanius, Who dies and rises again, the Christ being spiritual and remaining impassible; according to a second, it is Christ Who dies, but is not yet risen, nor shall He rise till the general resurrection. That passage, however, which allows that the human body of Jesus had been raised from the dead separates its author completely from Gnostic successors…..” ( Wace: Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature)…

Epiphanius; Bishop of Salamis in the late 4th century, in his great apologetical work called the “ Panarion”, had the following to say on the origin and legacy of Cerinthus:
“…..Against Cerinthians or Merinthians,
1,1 Now Cerinthus in turn, the founder of the so-called Cerinthians, has come from this bestial seed, bringing the world his venom. But almost nothing different from Carpocrates [one of the early Gnostic heretics] is spouting out into the world, just the same harmful poisons.
1,2 For he slanderously gives the same account of Christ as Carpocrates, that he was born of Mary and Joseph’s seed, and likewise that the world was made by angels.3 In the inculcation of his teaching he differs from Carpocrates in no way except only in this, that he adhered in part to Judaism. He, however, claims that the Law and prophets have been given by the angels, and the law-giver is one of the angels who have made the world.
1.4 Cerinthus lived in Asia and began his preaching there. I have already said of him that he too preached that the world was not created by the first, supreme power—and that when “Jesus,” the offspring of Mary and the seed of Joseph, had grown up, “Christ,” meaning the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, came down to him in the Jordan4 from the God on high, revealing the unknowable Father to him, and through him to his companions. 1, And therefore, because a power had come to him from on high, he performed works of power.5 And when he suffered, the thing that had come from above flew away from Jesus to the heights.6 Jesus has suffered and risen again but the Christ who had come to him from above flew away without suffering7—that is, the thing which had descended in the form of a dove—and Jesus is not Christ. 2,1 But he too has come to grief, as all you lovers of the truth can see. He claims that the law-giver is not good, but he sees fit to be obedient to his Law—plainly, as to a good one. (2) How can the evil one have given the good Law? If it is good not to commit adultery and good not to murder, how much more must the giver of these commandments be better—if it be granted that the person who does not do these things is good! And how can someone who advises what is good, and gives a good Law, be accused of doing evil? The man who takes this sort of line is crazy!
2,3 Now this man is one of the ones who caused the trouble in the apostles’ time when James wrote the letter to Antioch and said, “We know that certain which went out from us have come unto you and troubled you with words, to whom we gave no such commandment.”
(4) He is also one of those who opposed St. Peter because he had gone to St. Cornelius when Cornelius had been vouchsafed a vision of an angel and had sent for Peter. And Peter was dubious and saw the vision of the sheet and the things that were in it, and was told by the Lord to call nothing common or unclean.
(5) And so Cerinthus stirred the circumcised multitudes up over Peter on his return to Jerusalem by saying, “He went in to men uncircumcised.”
(6) Cerinthus did this before preaching his doctrine in Asia and falling into the deeper pit of his destruction. For, because he was circumcised himself he sought an excuse, through circumcision if you please, for his opposition to the uncircumcised believers.
3,1 But because the Lord unfailingly cares for mankind, safeguards the clarity of the truth in the sons of the truth, and has granted the holy apostle Peter to give the refutation of Cerinthus and his party, the stupidity of Cerinthus becomes evident. (2) St. Peter said, “I was in the city of Joppa, and at midday, about the sixth hour, I saw a sheet let down, knit at the four corners, wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts and creeping things. And he said unto me, Slay and eat. And I said, Not so, Lord; for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And, behold, immediately there were two men already come unto the house, and the Spirit said unto me, Go with them, nothing doubting.”
3,3 And then he explained how this had been said to him as a parable and how he had been doubtful at the time, till the Lord showed him plainly the things he was teaching him through the words and images. (4) For the instant he opened his mouth when he had come to Caesarea, the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius. And seeing this, Peter said, “Can any man forbid water to these, which have been counted worthy to receive the Holy Ghost as we were at the beginning?” (5) But all this was a mystery and an act of God’s lovingkindness, so that St. Peter and everyone else would realize that the salvation of the gentiles is not of man but of God. God had granted the gift of the Holy Spirit, the vision of the angel, and the acceptance of Cornelius’ prayer, fasting and alms, beforehand, so that the apostles—St. Peter especially, and the other apostles—would deprive no one truly called by God of that with which they had been entrusted.
4,1 But these doings took place then at the instigation of that false apostle Cerinthus. Another time too, he and his friends caused a discord at Jerusalem itself, when Paul arrived with Titus, and Cerinthus said, “He hath brought in men uncircumcised with him”—speaking now of Titus—“and polluted the holy place.” (2) And so Paul says, “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But because of the false brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, to whom we gave place by subjection not even temporarily.” And he used to command the uncircumcised, “Be not circumcised. For if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” (3) Circumcision was a temporary expedient until the greater circumcision arrived, that is, the laver of regeneration—as is plain to everyone, and is shown more clearly by the things the apostles said, especially the holy apostle Paul. For he insists, “To them we gave place by subjection, not even temporarily.”
4,4 But to anyone who is willing to observe what the apostles went through at that time, it is amazing how the things a spirit of imposture inspired this faction to do betray the character of those who caused the commotion among the apostles with their heresies. (5) For, as I have said, no slight disturbance arose then, after they had rebelled, become false apostles, sent other false apostles—first to Antioch, as I have said already, and to other places—to say, “Except ye be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” (6) And these are the ones the apostle Paul calls “false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.”
5,1 For they use the Gospel according to Matthew—in part and not in its entirety, but they do use it for the sake of the physical genealogy—and they cite the following as a proof-text, arguing from the Gospel, “ ‘It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master.’ (2) What does this mean?” they say, “Christ was circumcised; be circumcised yourself ! Christ lived by the Law; you too do the same.” And therefore some of them are convinced by those specious arguments as though overcome by deadly drugs, because of the circumcision of Christ. (3) They discount Paul, however, because he did not obey the circumcised. Moreover they reject him for saying, “Whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace,” and, “If ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.”
6,1 In turn this Cerinthus, fool and teacher of fools that he is, ventures to maintain that Christ has suffered and been crucifi ed but has not risen yet, but he will rise when the general resurrection of the dead comes. (2) Now this position of theirs is untenable, both the words and the ideas. And so, in astonishment at those who did not believe in the coming resurrection of the dead, the apostle said, “If the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised; “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” and, “Be not deceived; evil communications corrupt good manners.” (3) Again, he likewise gives their refutation to those who say that Christ is not risen yet by saying, “If Christ be not raised, our preaching is vain and our faith is vain. And we also are found false witnesses against God, that he raised up Christ, if so be that he raised him not up.” , as though it was apostolic preaching that Christ was not risen and the dead are not raised (at all).
6,4 For their school reached its height in this country, I mean Asia, and in Galatia as well. And in these countries I also heard of a tradition which said that when some of their people died too soon, without baptism, others would be baptized for them in their names, so that they would not be punished for rising unbaptized at the resurrection and become the subjects of the authority that made the world. (5) And the tradition I heard of says that this is why the same holy apostle said, “If the dead rise not at all, why are they baptized for them?” But others explain the text satisfactorily by saying that, as long as they are catechumens, the dying are allowed baptism before they die because of this hope, showing that the person who has died will also rise, and therefore needs the forgiveness of his sins through baptism.
6,6 Some of these people have preached that Christ is not risen yet, but will rise together with everyone; others, that the dead will not rise at all.(7) Hence the apostle has come forward and given the refutation of both these groups and the rest of the sects at once on . And in the testimonies that he gave in full he produced the sure proof of the resurrection, salvation and hope of the dead (8) by saying, “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,” and again, “Christ is risen, the firstfruits of them that slept.” This was to refute both kinds of sects at once and truly impart the unsullied doctrine of his teaching to anyone who wanted to know God’s truth and saving doctrine.
7,1 Hence it can be observed at every point that Cerinthus, with his supporters, is pathetically mistaken and has become responsible for the ruin of others, since the sacred scriptures explain it all to us, clearly and in detail. (2) For neither is Christ the product of Joseph’s seed—for how could the “product” be a sign and, further, how will be words of Isaiah be upheld, “Behold, the Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,” and so on?
(3) Further, how can the holy Virgin’s words to Gabriel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” be fulfilled—and his answer, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee,” and so on? (4) And once more, how can their stupidity not be exposed when the Gospel plainly says, “Before they came together she was found with child?”
7,5 But that they did not come together at all is plain to see. Heaven preserve us from saying so! Otherwise, he would not have made provision to entrust her to the holy virgin John after the crucifi xion, as he says, “Behold thy mother”—and to her, “Behold thy son.” (6) He should have entrusted her to her relatives, or to Joseph’s sons, if they were his sons by her—I mean James, Joses, Jude and Simon, Joseph’s sons by another wife. Joseph had no relations with the Virgin, heaven forbid—after childbearing the Virgin is found inviolate…..”
2) The arrival of the MONTANIST movement is the second great influence in the 2nd century A.D. to which attention must be drawn in relation to the forementioned developments;
“……Montanus (1), a native of Ardabau, a village in Phrygia, who, in the latter half of the 2nd cent., originated a widespread schism, of which traces remained for centuries.
I. Rise of Montanism.—The name Montanus was not uncommon in the district. It is found in a Phrygian inscription (Le Bas, 755) and in three others from neighbouring provinces (Boeckh—3662 Cyzicus, 4071 Ancyra, 4187 Amasia). Montanus had been originally a heathen, and according to Didymus (de Trin. iii. 41) an idol priest. The epithets “abscissus” and “semivir” applied to him by Jerome (Ep. ad Marcellam, vol. i. 186) suggest that Jerome may have thought him a priest of Cybele. That after his conversion he became a priest or bishop there is no evidence. He taught that God’s supernatural revelations did not end with the apostles, but that even more wonderful manifestations of the divine energy might be expected under the dispensation of the Paraclete. It is asserted that Montanus claimed himself to be the Paraclete; but we believe this to have merely arisen out of the fact that he claimed to be an inspired organ by whom the Paraclete spoke, and that consequently words of his were uttered and accepted as those of that Divine Being. We are told that Montanus claimed to be a prophet and spoke in a kind of possession or ecstasy. He held that the relation between a prophet and the Divine Being Who inspired him was the same as between a musical instrument and he who played upon it; consequently the inspired words of a prophet were not to be regarded as those of the human speaker. In a fragment of his prophecy preserved by Epiphanius he says, “I have come, not an angel or ambassador, but God the Father.” See also Didymus (u.s.). It is clear that Montanus here did not speak in his own name, but uttered words which he supposed God to have put into his mouth; and if he spoke similarly in the name of the Paraclete it does not follow that he claimed to be the Paraclete.
His prophesyings were soon outdone by two female disciples, Prisca or Priscilla and Maximilla, who fell into strange ecstasies, delivering in them what Montanus and his followers regarded as divine prophecies. They had been married, left their husbands, were given by Montanus the rank of virgins in the church, and were widely reverenced as prophetesses. But very different was the sober judgment formed of them by some of the neighbouring bishops. Phrygia was a country in which heathen devotion exhibited itself in the most fanatical form, and it seemed to calm observers that the frenzied utterances of the Montanistic prophetesses were far less like any previous manifestation of the prophetic gift among Christians than they were to those heathen orgiasms which the church had been wont to ascribe to the operation of demons. The church party looked on the Montanists as wilfully despising our Lord’s warning to beware of false prophets, and as being in consequence deluded by Satan, in whose power they placed themselves by accepting as divine teachers women possessed by evil spirits. The Montanists looked on the church leaders as men who did despite to the Spirit of God by offering the indignity of exorcism to those whom He had chosen as His organs for communicating with the church. It does not appear that any offence was taken at the substance of the Montanistic prophesyings. On the contrary, it was owned that they had a certain plausibility; when with their congratulations and promises to those who accepted them they mixed a due proportion of rebukes and warnings, this was ascribed to the deeper art of Satan. What condemned the prophesyings in the minds of the church authorities was the frenzied ecstasy in which they were delivered.
The question as to the different characteristics of real and pretended prophecy was the main subject of discussion in the first stage of the Montanist controversy. It may have been treated of by Melito in his work on prophecy; it was certainly the subject of that of Miltiades περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν προφήτηϖ ἐν ἐκστάσει λαλεῖν; it was touched on in an early anonymous writing against Montanism , of which large fragments are preserved by Eusebius (v. 16, 17). Some more of this polemic is almost certainly preserved by Epiphanius, who often incorporates the labours of previous writers and whose section on Montanism contains a discussion which is clearly not Epiphanius’s own, but a survival from the first stage of the controversy. We learn that the Montanists brought as Scripture examples of ecstasy the text “the Lord sent a deep sleep (ἔκστασιν) upon Adam,” that David said in his haste (ἐν ἐκστάσει) “all men are liars,” and that the same word is used of the vision which warned Peter to accept the invitation of Cornelius. The orthodox opponent points out that Peter’s “not so” shews that in his ecstasy he did not lose his individual judgment and will. Other similar instances are quoted from O.T…..”

The following very revealing and disturbing quotation from John of Damascus on the Montanistic practices is worthy of careful consideration.. Montanus was a priest of Cybele, according to Jerome, and the tradition of Cybele was inherited by the Roman “ Sybils”, particularly the “ Sybil of Thyatira” historically known as “ Sambatha” to which the Apocalypse of John alludes. The prophetic utterances and traditions of the Sybils ( the daughters of Je-Zebel, of “ Ahab” fame) are to this day held in esteem and are perpetuated by the Roman Papacy and Church:
“…..48. The Cataphrygians, or Montanists, or Ascodrugites accept the Old and New Testaments, but they also introduce other prophets of whom they make much a certain Montanus and a Priscilla.
49. The Pepuzians, who are also called Quintillians, and with whom the Artotyrites * are connected, constitute a distinct heresy. Although they belong to the Cataphrygians, they hold other things which these last do not. Pepuza, which is a certain town lying between Galatia and Cappadocia and Phrygia, they hold sacred. In fact, they claim that it is Jerusalem. There is, however, still another Pepuza. Furthermore, they permit women to hold authority and to officiate as priests. And they celebrate certain mysteries during the course of which they pierce a new-born child with bronze needles, as is the custom of the Cataphrygians. Then, having mixed flour with its blood, they bake a host of which they partake as communion. They also tell a mythical tale of Christ revealing Himself there in Pepuza to Quintilla or Priscilla, in female form. They use both the Old and New Testaments, altering them in conformance with their own ideas.
* The correct form is Tascodrugite. According to Epiphanius, it is a name of Phrygian origin meaning ‘nose-pegger/ from their custom of putting the forefinger to the nose while praying (Panarion, Heresy 48.14, PG 41.877B) . (also) * ‘Bread and cheese eaters’……….”
( It ought to be noted that during the revival of Montanism at the time of the Reformation in Europe by the Radical Militant AnaBaptists of Thomas Muntzer and his predecessors, the rallying cry for the AnaBaptist peasants was “ BREAD and CHEESE”.. Their battle standard was the “ Rainbow”, which has continued to this day in the form of the “ new Rainbow Movement”; the “ New Age Movement” and the “rainbow alliance”…. Montanism was also a prominent feature of the French Revolutionaries ( to which the present “ New Age Movement also appeals), who, being largely drawn from the French Martinist Masonic Lodges, donned the “ red Phrygian cap” as their disctinctive symbol of historical allegiance, under the pretense of the “ emancipation of the peasants and lower class”… Engels, of Marx and Engels fame, wrote an entire book on the historical connections between the AnaBaptist Revolution in Europe, the French Revolution, and the Socialist Revolutions of 1848; the precursors of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.. The Communist president of former Yugoslavia; Tito, who held sway over Yugoslavia for many decades, proudly draped a scene from Muntzer’s AnaBaptist Peasant Revolt in Germany as a backdrop in his office, in honour of Engels’ and Marx’s legacies…..)
3. The advent of the Montanist Tertullian and the commencement of Latin Christianity from the cradle of Montanism is the third great influence to arise from the forementioned developments…
The first two of the above influences to arise in the second century A.D. had in common the desire to establish a “ kingdom of God on earth” and to inaugurate a “ new millennium” utopia which would be presided over by the adherents of the respective twain heresies.. Cerinthus had been the first to revive the Ebionite Judaizing claims for a literal kingdom of the Jews on earth in express imitation of the TRUE, which was accurately depicted by the Apostle John in the Apocalypse. Cerinthus presented, however, a counterfeit kingdom on earth to the world, and qualified and permeated it with a thorough Gnostic heretical element and theology that stemmed from the NeoPlatonic Gnostic school at Alexandria, and was in effect the revival of the ancient “ Golden Age” pagan aspirations, which sought to bring back the “ lost age of Saturn”… This mix of Judaizing Ebionite Heresy and Gnosticism, was regarded by the later Nicean Bishops of the Patristic Church as such an aberration, that they threw the TRUE baby out with the bathwater at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, and placed in the Nicean Creed an anti-Cerinthian clause which denied in effect the possibility of a “genuine” and literal kingdom to the Jews ( the Millenium). The famous clause of “ and His Kingdom shall have no end” was specifically designed to counter Cerinthus’ Gnostic Ebionite Jewish Kingdom-on-earth theories..
“…..The Chiliastic eschatology of Cerinthus is very clearly stated by Theodoret, Caius, Dionysius (Eus.), and Augustine, but not alluded to by Irenaeus. His silence need perhaps cause no surprise: Irenaeus was himself a Chiliast of the spiritual school, and in his notes upon Cerinthus he is only careful to mention what was peculiar to his system. The conception of Cerinthus was highly coloured. In his “dream” and “phantasy” the Lord shall have an earthly kingdom in which the elect are to enjoy pleasures, feasts, marriages, and sacrifices. Its capital is Jerusalem and its duration 1000 years: thereafter shall ensue the restoration of all things. Cerinthus derived this notion from Jewish sources. His notions of eschatology are radically Jewish: they may have originated, but do not contain, the Valentinian notion of a spiritual marriage between the souls of the elect and the Angels of the Pleroma…..” ( Wace: Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature; “ Cerinthus”).

The pre ( ante)- Nicene Church, however, including church Fathers such as Barnabas, Irenaeus, Justyn Martyr, Papias and Hippolytus, in the main firmly believed and taught that there would be a literal Jewish kingdom of Messiah/Christ on earth ( the millenium), but that it would NOT have anything in common with the Gnostic-Ebionite “ Golden Age of Saturn” Kingdom of Cerinthus, whose teachings on the subject were understood to be the very ones that would in the last days usher in the final Antichrist, who was regarded universally to be an Apostate Jew descended from the Jewish tribe of DAN ( according to Jeremiah’s prophecy to that effect), and whom the entire Jewish nation would eventually receive and embrace UNTIL the time when, having rebuilt their temple, he would proclaim himself to be God, and thereby abominate the latter-day sanctuary/temple of the Jews..

Jeremiah 8:14-17 proceeds thus (original KJV):
14 Why doe wee sit still? Assemble your selues, and let vs enter into the defenced cities, and let vs be silent there: for the Lord our God hath put vs to silence, and giuen vs waters of gall to drink, because we haue sinned against the Lord. (Jer 4:5; Jer 9:15; Jer 23:15); 15 We looked for peace, but no good came: and for a time of health, and behold trouble. (Jer 14:19);
16 The snorting of his horses was heard from Dan: the whole land trembled at the sound of the neighing of his strong ones, for they are come and haue deuoured the land, and all that is in it, the citie, and those that dwell therein. (Jer 4:15);
17 For behold, I wil send serpents, cockatrices among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you; saith the Lord. Ps 58:4-5;…..”

“…….Cerinthus denied also the resurrection of Christ. He adhered in part to
Judaism, and considered the Mosaic law binding on Christians. He taught
that the righteous would enjoy a paradise of delights in Palestine, and that
the man Jesus, through the power of the Logos again coming upon him, as
the Messiah, would reign a thousand years” (Farrar, Ecclesiastes Dict.
s.v.). It is supposed that Cerinthus and his doctrines are alluded to in John’s
Gospel. The system of Cerinthus seems to combine Ebionitism with Gnosticism, and the Judaeo-Christian millenarianism……” ( McClintock and Strong’s article on “Cerinthus”).

The despised doctrine of the future Millenial Rule of Christ Jesus from the throne of David in Jerusalem in a revived Jewish Kingdom based in Palestine ( as believed in by the Apostles and their earliest disciples) became despised precisely because of its counterfeiting by the heretic Cerinthus. It became scornfully referred to as “ Chiliasm”, and after the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., only a handful of Bishops such as Methodius of Olympus, were to find any degree of success in promulgating it… Bishop Fausset in his “ Bible Dictionary” had the following to say on the true Millenium:
“The millennium. The period of Christ’s coming reign with His saints over this earth, delivered from Satan’s presence. As Satan and His kingdom in successive stages sink, Christ and His kingdom rise (Revelation 19-20). Satan, having been foiled in his last desperate attempt to overthrow Christ’s kingdom by Antichrist or the beast, shall by the just law of necessary retributive consequence be bound immediately afterward and imprisoned in the bottomless pit a thousand years. On the same just principle they who have suffered for Christ, and not worshipped the God-opposed world power, shall come to life again and reign with Christ (2Ti 2:12), at His coming, a thousand years. Their resurrection is “the first resurrection.” “The rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years are finished: blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.”
Ten, the “world number”, raised to the third power, the “divine number”, expresses the world pervaded by God. Possibly the “thousand” may extend much longer than the literal number. So also (Phi 3:10.) Paul’s ambition was to “attain the resurrection from out of the rest of the dead” (exanastasis). So our Lord declares (Luk 20:35), “they who shall be accounted worthy to obtain the resurrection from the dead cannot die any more, for they are equal unto the angels, and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.” Again, to the apostles (Luk 22:18), “ye are they who have continued with Me in My temptations, and I appoint unto you a kingdom as My Father hath appointed unto Me, that ye may eat and drink with Me at My table, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Again (Mat 19:28), “ye that have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Those “beheaded (virtually or actually, literally, hatcheted) for Jesus and for the word of God” stand first; then they” who have not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands,” i.e. did not treat the world’s riches, ambitions, and pleasures as their portion. Jesus implies, in reply to the request of Zebedee’s two sons, that there are places of peculiar honour reserved by the Father for those who drink Christ’s bitter cup (Mat 20:22-23). Thus, “whosoever shall lose his life for Christ’s sake (in will or deed) shall save it” (Mar 8:35). Satan thought to destroy God’s people by persecutions (just as previously to destroy Christ, Revelation 12); but the church is not destroyed from the earth, but raised to rule over it; Satan himself is shut up for a thousand years in the “abyss” (” bottomless pit”), preparatory to the “lake of fire,” his final doom. As before, by Christ’s ascension, he ceased to be accuser of the brethren in heaven, so during the millennium he ceases to be seducer and persecutor on earth.
As long as he rules in the darkness of the world we live in an atmosphere tainted with evil physical and spiritual (Eph 2:2). Christ’s coming will purify the world (Mal 3:3). Sin will not wholly cease, for men shall be still in the flesh, and therefore death will come, but at long intervals, life being vastly prolonged as in the days of the patriarchs (Isa 65:20); but sin will not be that almost universal power that it is now. Satan will no longer seduce the flesh, nor be the “god” and “prince of this world” (Joh 14:30; 2Co 4:4), which now “lieth in the wicked one” (1Jo 5:19). The flesh, untempted from without, shall become more and more subject to the spirit. Christ with His saints, in transfigured bodies, will reign over men in the flesh. The millennial nations will be prepared for a higher state, as Adam would have been in paradise, had he never fallen (Rev 21:1-24; Rev 21:26).
This will be the manifestation of “the world (“age”, aion) to come” already set up invisibly in the saints in “this world” (Heb 2:5; Heb 5:5). As each seventh year was Israel’s year of remission, so of the world’s seven thousands the seventh shall be its sabbatism (Heb 4:9, margin). Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian, expected an earthly millennial kingdom; not until millennial views carnally confounded the state of the transfigured king-priests with that of the subject nations in the flesh, and the church itself sought a present visible kingdom with Rome as its center, instead of hoping for it only when Christ shall come, was the doctrine abandoned by the church and apostasy set in. Earth, not becoming transfigured until after the millennium, shall not be, during it, the meet home for the transfigured saints; but from heaven they with Christ rule the earth, the comparatively free communion between the heavenly and earthly churches being typified by Christ’s communion at short intervals with His disciples during the 40 days between His resurrection and ascension.
Old Testament prophecy everywhere anticipates Christ’s kingdom at Jerusalem: Jer 3:17; Isa 4:3; Isa 11:9; Isa 35:8; Isa 60:61; Isa 60:65-66; Ezekiel 37 to 48, etc., etc. He confirms His disciples’ expectation of it, but corrects their impatience to know the time (Act 1:6-8). The kingdom begins, not as the carnal Jews thought, from without, but from within, spiritually; then when Christ shall be manifested it shall be manifested outwardly (Col 3:4; 1Jo 3:2). The papacy blasphemously anticipates the visible headship which Christ shall then assume, “reigning as kings” without Christ (1Co 4:8).
“When Christianity became a worldly power under Constantine, the future hope was weakened by joy over present success” (Bengel); the church becoming a harlot ceased to be the bride going to meet her Bridegroom. The saints’ future priesthood unto God and Christ “in His temple” (Rev 1:6; Rev 5:10; Rev 7:15; Rev 20:6) is the ground of their kingship toward men. Men will be willing subjects of the transfigured priest-kings whose power is the attraction that wins the heart, not counteracted by devil or beast. Church and state will be coextensive; and the church and the world no longer in mutual repulsion. The distinction between them shall cease, for the church will be co-extensive with the world. The veil shall be taken off Israel first, then off all people, and the kingdoms of this world shall be the kingdoms of Christ (Rev 11:15; Isa 25:7). Christ’s glorious appearing, the church’s transfiguration, antichrist’s destruction, and Satan’s binding, will dispose the nations to embrace the gospel.
As a regeneration of elected individuals “taken out” from Jews and Gentiles (Act 15:14) goes on now, so a regeneration of nations then. As the church begins at Christ’s ascension, so the visible kingdom at His second advent. What the transfigured priest-kings shall be in heaven, that the Israelite priest-kings shall be on earth. A blessed chain of giving and receiving: God, Christ, the transfigured bride, i.e. the translated church, Israel, the world of nations. The outpouring of the Spirit on Israel (Zec 12:10) will usher in the new period of revelation, which has been silent so long as Israel, God’s chosen mediator of revelations, and of establishing His manifested kingdom on earth, has been in the background. God from the first, in dividing to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, set their bounds “according to the number of the children, of Israel” (Deu 32:8). Now is the time of preaching; then shall be the time of liturgy of “the great congregation” (Psa 22:25; Ezekiel 40 to 48; Zec 14:16-21; Isa 2:3).
Art and music will be the handmaids to spiritual worship, instead of drawing off the soul to sensuousness. Society will be pervaded by the Spirit of Christ. Earthly and heavenly glories shall be united in the twofold election: elect Israel in the flesh shall stand at the head of the earthly nations; the elect spiritual church, in the heavenly kingdom, shall reign over both. These elections are for the good of those to whom they minister respectively; compare, as to Israel’s mediating blessedness to the nations, Rom 11:12; Rom 11:15; Mic 5:7. The extent of rule (the “ten” or “five cities”) is proportioned to the degree of faithfulness, as the parable teaches (Luk 19:13; Luk 19:15; Luk 19:17; Luk 19:19); all vessels of glory are filled, but those of larger dimensions are of larger capacity for glory (2Ti 2:20-21; Isa 22:24).
Peter (2Pe 1:16-18) makes the transfiguration the earnest of Christ’s coming in glory (Matthew 17); it is the miniature specimen of the millennial kingdom: first, Christ in glory, then Moses a specimen of those raised from the dead at Christ’s coming, then Elijah a specimen of those who never taste death, but being found alive are transfigured in a moment (1Co 15:51-52); finally Peter, James, and John, the specimen of Israel and the nations in the flesh who shall desire the tabernacling among them of Christ and the transfigured saints: “Lord, it is good to be here,” etc. The privilege of our high calling in Christ is limited to the time of Satan’s reign; when he is bound there will be no scope for suffering for, and so no longer the reward of reigning with, Him (Rev 3:21; 1Co 6:2.).
Even during the millennium there is a separation between heaven and earth, humanity transfigured and humanity in the flesh. Hence, apostasy can take place at its close; out of the one element of evil in it, the flesh, man’s birthsin the only influence then preventing the saving of all souls. In the judgment on this, the world of nature is destroyed and renewed, as the world of history was before the millennium. Only then the new heaven and earth are perfected. The millennial heaven and earth, connected but separate, are but a foretaste of the everlasting state, when the upper and lower congregations shall be no longer separate and new Jerusalem shall descend from God out of heaven. The millennium shall be the last season of grace; for what can move him in whom the church’s visible glory, evil being circumscribed on all sides, evokes no longing for communion with the church’s King? As the history of nations ended with the church’s millennial manifestation in glory, so that of mankind in general shall end with the separation of the just from the wicked. (Auberlen, Daniel and Revelation.)
As “kings” the transfigured saints shall have subjects; as “priests” they shall have people to whom they shall mediatorially minister blessings from God, namely, the men on earth. The scene of the kingdom is not in, but “under, heaven”; on or over the earth (Rev 5:10; Dan 7:27). The kingdom shall be where the tares once were (Mat 13:41), i.e. on earth. “The meek shall inherit the earth”; like Caleb, alone faithful among the faithless, inheriting the very Mount Hebron on which his feet trod 40 years before (Mat 5:5; Num 14:23-24; Jos 14:9). It will be a time of Sabbath peace, uninterrupted by war (Heb 4:9; Isa 2:4; Zec 9:10; Hos 2:18). Even the savage animals shall lose their ferocity (Isa 11:6-9; Isa 65:25). Christ’s king-priesthood (Zec 6:13) shall be explained in the services of the glorious temple at Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40-48).
The marriage of the Lamb and bride, then begun in heaven, shall unfold the mysteries of the now obscure Song. The theocracy, or rule of God in Christ, shall supersede the misrule of earthly potentates who ruled for self. Finally, when the corrupt flesh and Satan shall have been cast out forever after the millennium, the general resurrection, judgment, and regeneration of our home shall follow.The same Spirit regenerates the believer’s soul now (Rom 8:11), his body at Christ’s coming, and his home (Psa 104:30; Rev 21:1) after the millennium. The earth, once baptized with water, shall be baptized with fire (2Pe 3:7; 2Pe 3:10-13). Earth and nature shall be regenerated, as the nations were previously in the millennium.
The saints not merely, as in it, reign from heaven over the earth; but the heavenly Jerusalem, having the glory of God, shall descend on earth, far eclipsing Israel’s Jerusalem in the millennium. The saints shall be God’s city and bride, God causing His glory to shine out through them, as the flame through a jasper colored lamp (Rev 21:10-11-23). “The nations of them which are saved,” namely, during the millennium (which will be the age of the regeneration of nations as this is the age of the regeneration of individual souls) “shall walk in the light of” the heavenly Jerusalem, i.e. the wife of the Lamb; for the elect church shall hold the primacy among the redeemed throughout eternity, because she alone shall have witnessed for Christ in the face of an opposing world and the prince of darkness (Rev 21:24).
In the primitive paradise there was but a garden with a solitary pair; but in the final paradise and the regenerated earth city and garden shall be combined, the perfect communion of saints with individual blessedness and perfection. Satan loosed no more; the saints under the blessed necessity of sinning no more; the groans of nature hushed (Rom 8:18-23); no more sea, literal or figurative (Dan 7:2-3; Isa 57:20; Rev 21:1; Rev 21:4); no more pain, crying, death. When Christ shall have accomplished the purpose of His mediatorial kingdom by bringing all things into subjection to the Father, God will be all in all. The unity of the Godhead will then be prominent, as His Trinity is now; “His name will be one,” and He will come then first into direct communion with His redeemed. Lord, hasten it in Thine own time (Zec 14:9; 1Co 15:24)……”

SYNARCHY AND THE EURO-WORLD EMPIRE

SYNARCHY AND THE EURO-WORLD EMPIRE

Much has been touted over the last decade in various conspiracy circles concerning the role that the doctrine of Synarchy has played in the formation of the European Union.. Most of it has substance and is infact accurate, yet some of it stems from quarters that are themselves Neo-Platonic and Nominalistic in origin, and therefore somewhat dubious in motivation… What most mere conspiracy theories ( as opposed to conspiracy facts) fail to recognize is the telling fact that the doctrine of “Synarchy”, or “ Joint Rule” ( according to Webster’s Dictionary) has mainly stemmed from Neo-Platonic circles, due to its emphasis on social control through the use of Republican Socialism, which the Greek Philosopher Plato expounded in his famous “ Republic”.. By inference, if indeed society has been polarized by a conspiracy going back thousands of years, as our modern Comparative Philosophers claim, where Aristotelianism represents the “Active” life, and Platonism represents the “ Contemplative” life; namely, into Active and Contemplative camps; left wing and right wing; low and high; we must understand SYNARCHY as NOT consisting of EITHER a Platonic or Aristotelian bent, but of being a FUSION and SYNTHESIS ( to use Hegel’s terminology) of the twain.
The Philosopher Hegel, who was an avid student and follower of the Bohemian/ German Rosicrucian Theosopher Jakob Boehme, codified this historical “ polarized tension” as the right wing and the left wing of politics. Boehme had much earlier, @ 1612, adumbrated the very same in his “ Aurora”, the “ Mysterium Magnum” and the “ Three Principles of the Divine Essence” and other works, which both Hegel AND Louis Claude de Saint Martin ( the founder of the Martinist Order of Freemasonry, whose lodges were the first to openly support and actively promote the cause of the American Revolution and the Bavarian Illuminism of 1776, the French Revolution of 1789, and the Socialist European Revolutions of 1848) later expounded in their systems. Boehme’s “ Three Principles” were the basis of Hegel’s “ Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis”; and herein lies the key to all social, political, religious, ideological, psychological control..
The cardinal Masonic motto; “ OUT OF CHAOS; ORDER”, is an ancient adage that goes back not merely to Adam Weishaupt and the Jesuit Illuminism of Bavaria, or to Hegel and Boehme, but to the time of the first heathen King/Prophet: Zoroaster/ Nimrod; the founder of ancient Babylon, and the first Ceasar, Pharaoh and Emperor of the known world. It was the trade of the HUNT that brought the wily Ethiopean Giant Nimrod/ Zoroaster into prominence and world dominion about 4100 years ago; for Nimrod was the “ great Osiris/Orion”, the “ hunter of men”, whose skill lay in the secret of conquest by an initial “division into polarized camps” and then FUSION through the final great “ synthesis”, or “ alchemical work”, namely SOCIAL SYNARCHY and Joint Rule by a cabal ( UNIONISM) which consisted of ONE Emperor-King, and ONE anointing PRIEST, and a “ Venetian-like” retinue, or Collegia, of several (TEN was the original number of supporting National Kings or Rulers, according to the number of the Kings of Phoenician/Etruscan Atlantis) of “ Philosopher-Kings”, who gave their unequivocal support and allegiance to the Emperor VIA the Priest-Prophet, or “ Pontifex Maximus”..
Synarchy is, therefore, BOTH Aristotelian AND Platonic, and cannot exist as one without the other.. In it’s idealistic form, it embodies the teachings of Socrates who, after Zoroaster, Hermes/ Hiram Abiff, and Pythagoras, was regarded as the quintessential “ Philosopher from the Heavens”, and whose mantle finally fell on the shoulders of Apollonius of Tyana: the evil magician and imposter of the first century, who in the early years of the Christian Era was compared to our Lord Jesus Christ himself, being a worker of counterfeit miracles and an advisor of Emperors; much in the same vein as Simon Magus,( who is depicted as the author of “ simony” ( trading in spiritual things), in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, written by Saint Luke), and of the Druid Priest/Prophet/ Magician “ Merlin”, in the days of Prince/King “ Arthur”, some 500 years after Apollonius of Tyana.
It remains an undeniable fact that the present-day European Union, which was infact founded by Venetian supporters of Saint Yves d’Alveydrey’s politico-spiritistic ( and undeniably Machiavellian) “ occult” doctrine called SYNARCHY, is the precursor of the FINAL 10-Horned European Kingdom of Apocalyptic Prophecy, which once again shall straddle the ancient borders of the Roman Empire in its greatest extent, and shall be the cause for the unification of the entire globe under a single Emperor/Tyrant, who will be supported by a final Pope/False Prophet, and backed up by a Collegia of Kings drawn from the boundaries of the old Roman Empire, in imitation of the 10 Kings of ancient Babylon and the Phoenician/Etruscan Atlantis of Plato fame( as described by the Philosopher Plato in his works), and, in more recent times, patterned after the Doge of Venice’s Kingdom; his supporting Bishop, and his retinue of 10 governing Princes.
The political ecumenism of Venice, from whose bosom Machiavellianism has spread over the entire Western world ( having brought to the Western world modern Masonry and Rosicrucianism from the Middle East in the form of Druze Ismaili Theosophy during it’s various conquests and escapades from the time of the Crusades and onwards), has been the great catalyst for the unification of Europe and the revival of ancient SYNARCHIC Imperialism. From Venice; like some revived horned beast from the sea, has spread the concept of Imperial unity for the European Continent and, by extension, the entire world itself. It remains to be seen which small nation of the NORTH ( for the final Antichrist will stem from a small northern European Kingdom, and will be descended from the Jewish tribe of Dan) of Europe will in the very near future supply that “ unjust world judge” at whose coattail the Jewish nation will tug seeking revenge against her historical enemies…… In Luke 18: 1-8 we have a clear depiction of the coming relationship between the final Emperor/Antichrist of Europe, as a “ World Judge” ( Dan, in Hebrew, means a “ Judge”), and the nation of Israel represented by a widow:
1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;( Rom 12:12; Eph 6:18; Col 4:2; 1Thess 5:17); 2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: 3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. 4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; 5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. 6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. 7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? (Rev 6:10); 8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Though the following excerpt from Jeffrey Steinberg comes from a quarter which harbours insufficient understanding regarding the true origin and agenda of SYNARCHY, nevertheless the following information is a very accurate account, though only brief, of the intimate links between both Socialism AND Imperialism and the coming world SYNARCHY. It must be noted that Synarchy is NOT a “ Jewish Conspiracy” or “ invention”, but has its origin in the Tower-Building-World-Unifying strategies that were initiated by Nimrod/Zoroaster over 4000 years ago, and that were inherited by a chain of willing successors that included the Jewish tribe of Dan via Hiram Abiff and the Ismaili/Druze tradition in Islam:

“…..The Pan European Union
( written by Jeffrey Steinberg, and quoted from the Internet-based “ Modern History Project”):
In 1922, Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi launched the Pan European Union, at a founding convention in Vienna, attended by more than 6,000 delegates. Railing against the “Bolshevist menace” in Russia, the Venetian Count called for the dissolution of all the nation-states of Western Europe and the erection of a single, European feudal state, modeled on the Roman and Napoleonic empires.
“There are Europeans,” Coudenhove-Kalergi warned, who are “naive enough to believe that the opposition between the Soviet Union and Europe can be bridged by the inclusion of the Soviet Union in the United States of Europe. These Europeans need only to glance at the map to persuade themselves that the Soviet Union in its immensity can, with the help of the [Communist] Third International, very quickly prevail over little Europe. To receive this Trojan horse into the European union would lead to perpetual civil war and the extermination of European culture. So long, therefore, as there is any will to survive subsisting in Europe, the idea of linking the Soviet Union with Pan Europe must be rejected. It would be nothing less than the suicide of Europe.”
Elsewhere, Coudenhove-Kalergi echoed the contemporaneous writings of British Fabian Roundtable devotees H.G. Wells and Lord Bertrand Russell, declaring:
“This eternal war can end only with the constitution of a world republic…. The only way left to save the peace seems to be a politic of peaceful strength, on the model of the Roman Empire, that succeeded in having the longest period of peace in the west thanks to the supremacy of his legions.”
The launching of the Pan European Union was bankrolled by the Venetian-rooted European banking family, the Warburgs. Max Warburg, scion of the German branch of the family, gave Coudenhove-Kalergi 60,000 gold marks to hold the founding convention. Even more revealing, the first mass rally of the Pan European Union in Berlin, at the Reichstag, was addressed by Hjalmar Schacht, later the Reichsbank head, Economics Minister and chief architect of the Hitler coup. A decade later, in October 1932, Schacht delivered a major address before another PanEuropa event, in which he assured Coudenhove-Kalergi and the others:
“In three months, Hitler will be in power…. Hitler will create PanEuropa. Only Hitler can create PanEuropa.”
According to historical documents, Italy’s Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini was initially skeptical about the PanEuropa idea, but was “won over” to the scheme, following a meeting with Coudenhove-Kalergi, during which, in the Count’s words, “I gave him a complete harvest of Nietzsche’s quotes for the United States of Europe…. My visit represented a shift in the behavior of Mussolini towards PanEuropa. His opposition disappeared.”
At the founding congress of the Pan European Union in Vienna, the backdrop behind the podium was adorned with portraits of the movement’s leading intellectual icons: Immanuel Kant, Napoleon Bonaparte, Giuseppe Mazzini, and Friedrich Nietzsche…..”
The Apocalypse of Saint John sums the matter up succinctly:
(Revelation Chapter 13):
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea,[note that Mercury, in Hermetic emblemata, is depicted as being “ born from the sea” P.C.] having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.( Dan 7:20; Rev 17:3); 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. 4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? (Rev 18:18); 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. (Rev 11:2); 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. (Dan 7:21; Rev 11:7); 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Exod 32:33; Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5; Rev 17:8; Rev 20:12; Rev 21:27); 9 If any man have an ear, let him hear. 10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. (Gen 9:6; Matt 26:52; Rev 14:12);
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.( Rev 11:7); 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. (Rev 13:3; Rev 19:20); 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,[ note that Thor, or Jupiter, is regarded by the ancients to preside over all prophecy AND to cause “ fire to come down from heaven.The Priest of Rome, the Pontifex Maximus, was a priest of Jupiter. P.C.] (2Thess 2:9; Rev 16:14); 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. (Deut 13:1; Matt 24:24; Rev 16:14; Rev 19:20); 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. (Rev 19:20); 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:( Rev 19:20); 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.( Rev 14:11); 18 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. (Rev 17:9);

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH AND WORKS

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH & WORKS

“….So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith without works and I will show you faith by my works. You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that – and tremble with fear. (Mark 1:24); But would you like evidence, you empty fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? (Gen 22:10); You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected by works. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend….”

JAMES 2: 17-23 ( NET BIBLE TRANSLATION)

The express statements in the Book of James, and the various passages by the Apostle Paul, which unequivocally convey the truth that we are justified INITIALLY by Faith alone ( as Clement of Rome also confirms in his Epistle to the Corinthians) and CONTEMPORANEOUSLY ( as well as subsequently) by meritorious Works ( of “Righteousness”, in OPPOSITION to futile Mosaic “ Works of the Law”), clear up all presumptions and suppositions adequately. The polarization of the Western Christian world since the time of the Reformation into two opposing camps where NEITHER side has the full and actual truth on the subject of “ Justification”, shows clearly the depth of ignorance that has prevailed, and continues to prevail, on this matter amongst Theologians, Ministers of Religion, and Christians in general. This “ bone of contention” has been gnawed by the two parties from both ends simultaneously, yet neither has managed to tug the bone from the jaws of the other, and in the minds of the average Christian, the matter remains a concern of “ lobe-splitting” proportions. Converts from “ Faith to Works” ( from the Reformed point of view to the Roman Catholic one), or from “ Works to Faith” ( from the Roman Catholic to the Reformed view) interchange constantly. This two party system in Theology and Religion, with it’s final goal of doctrinal “ synthesis” for the purpose of an ecumenical “ status quo”, or “ peace”, has proven to be a bane to one and all, and has served to divide not only congregations, but entire nations, into warring camps that are entirely devoid of the complete truth. The confusion in the minds of Believers between the futile and now abrogated “ Works of the Law (of Moses)”, and the very necessary “ Works of Righteousness” subsequent to Faith and Regeneration ( which are essentially “personal” in nature and NOT merely “ imputed” to the individual), has not been allayed in the Western Churches to this day. The Greek Orthodox Church and some of the other Eastern Orthodox Churches have ( though neglecting their rich doctrinal inheritance in many, if not most, other areas), however, maintained in large degree a thorough and accurate definition and stance regarding the intricate relationship between Faith and Works in Justification.. To quote from McClintock and Strong’s “ Cyclopedia” again:
“….2. The Greek Church. — Little discussion and little controversy has occurred on this doctrine in the Greek Church. Faith and works together are regarded as the conditions of salvation. The words of James are referred to first, yet faith is declared to be the stock from which the good works come as the fruits. The description of faith proceeds from the definition in the Epistle to the Hebrews to the acceptance of the entire ecclesiastical tradition. Man is said to participate in the merit of the Mediator not only through faith, but also through good works. Among the latter are comprised the fulfilment of the commandments of God and of the Church, and, in particular, prayers, fastings, pilgrimages, and monastic life. They are considered useful and necessary not only as a means of promoting sanctification, but also as penances and satisfaction….”
McClintock and Strong’s article, in their “ Cyclopedia”, is a reasonable synopsis of the definition and historical interpretation of the doctrine of “Justification”..

Justification
(some form of the verbs צָדִקδικαιόω), a forensic term equivalent to acquittal, and opposed to condemnation; in an apologetic sense it is often synonymous with vindication or freeing from unjust imputation of blame.
I. Dogmatic Statement. — This term, in theological usage, is employed to designate the judicial act of God by which he pardons all the sins of the sinner who believes in Christ, receiving him into favor, and regarding him as relatively righteous, notwithstanding his past actual unrighteousness. Hence justification, and the remission or forgiveness of sin, relate to one and the same act of God, to one and the same privilege of his believing people (Act 13:38-39; Rom 4:5; Rom 4:8). So, also, “the justification of the ungodly,” the “covering of sins,” “not visiting for sin,” “not remembering sin,” and “imputing not inequity,” mean to pardon sin and to treat with favor, and express substantially the same thing which is designated by “imputing or counting faith for righteousness.”
Justification, then, is an act of God, not in or upon man, but for him and in his favor; an act which, abstractly considered, respects man only as its object, and translates him into another relative state; while sanctification respects man as its subject, and is a consequent of this act of God, and inseparably connected with it.
The originating cause of justification is the free grace and spontaneous love of God towards fallen man (Rom 15:3; Rom 15:24; Tit 2:11; Tit 3:4-5). Our Lord Jesus Christ is the sole meritorious cause of our justification, inasmuch as it is the result of his atonement for us. The sacrificial death of Christ is an expedient of infinite wisdom, by which the full claims of the law may be admitted, and yet the penalty avoided, because a moral compensation or equivalent has been provided by the sufferings of him who died in the sinner’s stead (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Rev 5:9). Thus, while it appears that our justification is, in its origin, an act of the highest grace, it is also, in its mode, an act most perfectly consistent with God’s essential righteousness, and demonstrative of his inviolable justice. It proceeds not on the principle of abolishing the law or its penalty, for that would have implied that the law was unduly rigorous either in its precepts or in its sanctions.
Faith is the instrumental cause of justification, present faith in him who is able to save, faith actually existing and exercised. The atonement of Jesus is not accepted for us, to our individual justification, until we individually believe, nor after we cease to live by faith in him.
The immediate results of justification are the restoration of amity and intercourse between the pardoned sinner and the pardoning God (Rom 5:1; Jam 2:23); the adoption of the persons justified into the family of God, and their consequent right to eternal life (Rom 8:17); and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Act 2:38; Gal 3:14; Gal 4:6), producing tranquillity of conscience (Rom 8:15-16), power over sin (Rom 8:1) and a joyous hope of heaven (Rom 15:13; Gal 5:3).
We must not forget that the justification of a sinner does not in the least degree alter or diminish the evil nature and desert of sin. Though by an act of divine clemency the penalty is remitted, and the obligation to suffer that penalty is dissolved, still it is naturally due, though graciously remitted. Hence appear the propriety and duty of continuing to confess and lament even pardoned sin with a lowly and contrite heart (Eze 16:62).
II. History of the Doctrine. —
1. The early Church Fathers and the Latin Church. — Ecclesiastical science, from the beginning of its development, occupied itself with a discussion on the relation of faith to knowledge; but even those who attributed the greatest importance to the latter recognized faith as the foundation. A merely logical division into subjective and objective faiths and an intimation of a distinction between a historic and a rational faith (in Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata. 2, 454; Augustine, De Trinitate, 13, 2), were of little consequence. Two conceptions became prevailing: Faith as a general religious conviction, particularly as confidence in God, and the acceptance of the entire doctrine of the Church, fides catholica. The formula that faith alone without the works justifies is found in the full Pauline sense in Clemens Romanus (1 ad Corinthios. c. 32) and is sometimes used by Augustine polemically in order to defend the freedom of grace and the priority of faith. More generally it is used as an argument against the necessity of the Jewish law (Irenaeus, 4:25 Tertullian, adv. Marcell. 5, 3). The oecumenical synods were instrumental in gradually giving to the conception of fides catholica the new sense that salvation could be found only by adherence to ecclesiastical orthodoxy. But as a mere acceptance was possible without a really, Christian sentiment, and as the Pauline doctrine was misused by heretics in an antinomian sense, it was demanded that faith, be proved by works. Church discipline developed this idea with regard to the sins of the faithful, so as to demand a satisfaction through penances and good works (Augustine, Serm. 151, 12). It became, therefore, the doctrine of the Church that such faith alone works salvation as shows itself in acts of charity, while to merely external works faith or charity is opposed as something accessory. Pelagius assumed only a relative distinction between naturally good works and the good works that proceed from faith; in opposition to which Augustine insisted that the difference is absolute, and that without faith no good works at all are possible. As salvation was thought to be conditioned by works also, it was, even when it was represented as being merely an act of God, identified with sanctification. The importance attributed to abstention created gradually a distinction between commands and advices, and the belief that through the fulfilment of the latter a virtue greater than required would arise (Hermas, Pastor Simil. 3, 5, 3; Origen, In Epistolam, ad Romans 3; Ambrose, De Viduis, 4, 508).
2. The Greek Church. — Little discussion and little controversy has occurred on this doctrine in the Greek Church. Faith and works together are regarded as the conditions of salvation. The words of James are referred to first, yet faith is declared to be the stock from which the good works come as the fruits. The description of faith proceeds from the definition in the Epistle to the Hebrews to the acceptance of the entire ecclesiastical tradition. Man is said to participate in the merit of the Mediator not only through faith, but also through good works. Among the latter are comprised the fulfilment of the commandments of God and of the Church, and, in particular, prayers, fastings, pilgrimages, and monastic life. They are considered useful and necessary not only as a means of promoting sanctification, but also as penances and satisfaction.
3. Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. — The Scholastics regarded faith as an acceptance of the supersensual as far as it belongs to religion, differing both from intuition and from knowledge; and although essentially of a theoretic character, yet conditioned by the consent of the will; which, however, in the description of faith, is reduced to a minimum. Originally only God is an object of faith, but mediately also the holy Scriptures; as a summary of the Biblical doctrines, the Apostles Creed, and, as its explication, the entire doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. As an accurate knowledge of the doctrines of the Church cannot be expected from every one, the subjective distinction was made between fides implicita and explicita; the former sufficient for the people, yet with the demand of a developed belief in some chief articles. There was, however, a difference of opinion on what these articles were, and even Thomas Aquinas wavered in his views. Faith may, even upon earth, partly become a science, and appears in this respect only as the popular form of religion. It is a condition of salvation, but becomes a virtue only when love, as animating principle [forma], pervades it [fides formata]; with a mere faith [informis] one may be damned. The fides formata includes the necessity of the good works for salvation, but they must be founded in pious sentiment. All other works not proceeding from faith, are dead though not entirely useless. The necessity of good works is fully carried out only by the inculcation of penance as satisfactiones, but with constant reference to a union of the soul with Christ, and the moral effect of the good works. Justification, according to Thomas Aquinas, is a movement from the state of injustice into the state of justice, in which the remission of sins is the main point, though it is conditioned by an infusion of grace which actually justifies men. As an act of God which establishes in man a new state [habitus], it is accomplished in a moment. Among the people the Pelagian views prevailed, that man, by merely outward works, had to gain his salvation, and the Church became, especially through the traffic in indulgences, a prey to the immoral and insipid worship of ceremonies. In opposition to this corruption, many of the pious Mystics pointed to the Pauline doctrine of faith.
4. Doctrine of the Reformers of the 16th Century and the old Protestant Dogmatics. — The Reformation of the 16th century renewed the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone, emphasizing in the sense of Augustine, the entire helplessness of man, and made it the fundamental doctrine of the Reformed Church. This faith is represented as not merely an acceptance of historic facts, but is distinguished as fides specialis from the general religious conviction, arising amidst the terrors of conscience, and consisting in an entire despair of one’s own merit and a confident surrender to the mercy of God in the atoning death of Christ. Worked by God, it does not work as virtue or merit, but merely through the apprehension of the merit of Christ. Its necessity lies in the impossibility of becoming reconciled with God through one’s own power. Hence this reconciliation is impossible through good works, which are not necessary for salvation, though God rewards them, according to his promise, upon earth and in heaven; but, as a necessary consequence, the really good works will flow forth from faith freely and copiously. The opinion of Amsdorf, that good works are an obstacle to salvation, was regarded as an unfortunate expression, which may be taken in a true sense, though it is false if understood in a general sense. As man is unable to satisfy the law supererogatory works and a satisfaction through one’s own works are impossible. Justification through love is impossible, because man cannot love God truly amidst the terrors of conscience. Hence justification is a divine judicial act, which, through the apprehension of the justice of Christ, apprehended in faith, accepts the sinner as just, though he is not just. This strict distinction between justification and sanctification was maintained on the one hand against Scholasticism, which, through its Pelagian tendencies, seemed to offend against the honor of Christ, and to be unable to satisfy conscience, and on the other hand against Osiander, who regarded justification as being completed only in sanctification. The works even of the regenerated, according to the natural side, were regarded by the Reformers as sins. The Reformed theology in general agreed with the doctrine of justification as stated above, yet did not make it to the same extent the fundamental doctrine of the whole theology. According to Calvin, justification and sanctification took place at the same time. The dogmatic writers of the Lutheran Church distinguished in faith knowledge, assent, and, confidence, assigning the former two to the intellect, the latter to the will. From the fides generalis they distinguished the justifying faith (specialis seu salvifica), and rejected the division into fides informis et formata. As a distinguishing mark, they demanded from a true faith that it be efficient in charity. For works they took the Decalogue as a rule; a certain necessity of works was strictly limited. But, however firmly they clung in general to the conception of justification as something merely external (actus forensis) and foreign (imputatio justitiae Christi), some dogmatic writers held that justification had really changed something in man, and indeed presupposed it as changed. Hollaz pronounced this doctrine openly and incautiously, while Quenstedt designated these preceding acts as merely preparatory to conversion.
5. Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation. — The Council of Trent, in order to make a compromise with the Pauline formula, recognized faith as the beginning and the foundation of justification, but the full sense which Protestantism found in it was rejected. This faith is the general belief in divine revelation, though in transition to a special faith, yet a mere knowledge which still gives room to mortal sins. Justification is remission of sins and sanctification, through an infusion of the divine grace, in as far as the merit of Christ is not merely imputed, but communicated. It is given through grace, but as a permanent state it grows through the merit of good works according to the commandments of God and the Church, through which works the justified, always aided by the grace of God in Christ, have to render satisfaction for the temporal punishment of their sins and to deserve salvation. Not all the works done before justification are sins, and to the justified the fulfilment of the commandments of God is quite possible, although even the saints still commit small, venial sins. A further development of this doctrine is found in the writings of Bellarmine. He admits faith only as fides generalis, as a matter of the intellect, yet as a consent, not a knowledge. Though only the first among many preparations for justification a certain merit is ascribed to faith. The Council of Trent had rejected the imputation of the merits of Christ only as the exclusive ground of justification; Bellarmine rejected it altogether. He explicitly proclaimed the necessity of good works for salvation, though only a relative salvation. “The opera supererogationis, which were not mentioned at Trent, though they remained unchanged in tradition and practice, are further developed by Bellarmine. According to him, they go beyond nature, are not destined for all, and not commanded under penalties.
6. Modern Protestantism. — Socinus denied any foreign imputation, also that of the merit of Christ. When supranaturalism in general declined, the points of difference from the Roman Catholic Church were frequently lost sight of Kant found in the doctrine of justification the relation of the always unsatisfactory reality of our moral development to the future perfection recognized in the intuition of God. De Wette declared it to be the highest moral confidence which is founded on the communion with Christ, and turns from an unhappy past to a better future. Modern mystics have often found fault with the Protestant doctrine as being too outward, and approached the doctrine of the Roman Church. The Hegelian School taught that justification is the reception of the subject into the spirit, i.e. the knowledge of the subject of his unity with the absolute spirit or, according to Strauss, with the concrete idea of mankind. According to Schleiermacher, it is the reception into the communion of life with both the archetypal and historical Christ, and the appropriation of his perfection. Justification and sanctification are to him only different sides of the carrying out of the same divine decree. Many of the recent dogmatic writers of Germany have again proclaimed this doctrine to be the essential principle of Protestantism, some taking justification in the sense of a new personality founded in Christ, others in the sense that God, surveying the whole future development of the principle which communion with Christ establishes in the believer, views him as righteous. One of the last dogmatic manuals of the Reformed Church distinguishes conversion and sanctification as the beginning and progress of a life of salvation, and assigns justification to the former.

Bishop A.R.Fausset, in his “ Cyclopedia”, has the following definition and exposition of the term “Faith”:

Faith

Heb 11:1, “the substance of things hoped for (i.e., it substantiates God’s promises, the fulfillment of which we hope, it makes them present realities), the evidence (elengchos, the ‘convincing proof’ or ‘demonstration’) of things not seen.” Faith accepts the truths revealed on the testimony of God (not merely on their intrinsic reasonableness), that testimony being to us given in Holy Scripture. Where sight is, there faith ceases (Joh 20:29; 1Pe 1:8). We are justified (i.e. counted just before God) judicially by God (Rom 8:33), meritoriously by Christ (Isa 53:11; Rom 5:19), mediately or instrumentally by faith (Rom 5:1), evidentially by works. Loving trust. Jam 2:14-26, “though a man say he hath faith, and have not works, can (such a) faith save him?” the emphasis is on “say,” it will be a mere saying, and can no more save the soul than saying to a “naked and destitute brother, be warmed and filled” would warm and fill him.
“Yea, a man (holding right views) may say, Thou hast faith and I have works, show (exhibit to) me (if thou canst, but it is impossible) thy (alleged) faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.” Abraham believed, and was justified before God on the ground of believing (Gen 15:6). Forty years afterward, when God did” tempt,” i.e. put him to the test, his justification was demonstrated before the world by his offering Isaac (Genesis 22). “As the body apart from (chooris) the spirit is dead, so faith without the works (which ought to evidence it) is dead also.” We might have expected faith to answer to the spirit, works to the body. As James reverses this, he must mean by “faith” here the FORM of faith, by “works” the working reality. Living faith does not derive its life from works, as the body does from its animating spirit.
But faith, apart from the spirit of faith, which is LOVE (whose evidence is works), is dead, as the body is dead without the spirit; thus James exactly agrees with Paul, 1Co 13:2, “though I have all faith … and have not charity (love), I am nothing.” In its barest primary form, faith is simply crediting or accepting God’s testimony (1Jo 5:9-13). Not to credit it is to make God a “liar”! a consequence which unbelievers may well start back from. The necessary consequence of crediting God’s testimony (pisteuoo Theoo) is believing in (pisteuoo eis ton huion, i.e. “trusting in”) the Son of God; for He, and salvation in Him alone, form the grand subject of God’s testimony. The Holy Spirit alone enables any man to accept God’s testimony and accept Jesus Christ, as his divine Savior, and so to “have the witness in himself” (1Co 12:3). Faith is receptive of God’s gratuitous gift of eternal life in Christ.
Faith is also an obedience to God’s command to believe (1Jo 3:23); from whence it is called the “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; Rom 16:26; Act 6:7), the highest obedience, without which works seemingly good are disobediences to God (Heb 11:6). Faith justifies not by its own merit, but by the merit of Him in whom we believe (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6). Faith makes the interchange, whereby our sin is imputed to Him and His righteousness is imputed to us (2Co 5:19; 2Co 5:21; Jer 23:6; 1Co 1:30)…..

McClintock and Strong in their “ Cyclopedia” have the following definition of the term “ Works” (of the Law as well as of Righteousness):

Works
(ἔργα), “works, or deeds, of the law,” is equivalent to the works which the law requires, or the entire performance of those works which the moral law, whether written or unwritten, i.e., law in general, whether applicable to Gentile or Jew, demands (Rom 2:15; Rom 3:20; Rom 9:12; Rom 9:32; Rom 10:6; Rom 11:3; Gal 2:16; Gal 3:2; Gal 3:5; Gal 3:10; Eph 2:9). On the ground of works, i.e., of perfect obedience and therefore of merit, none can be justified, because “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” If, then, any are justified at all, it must be of grace; but this grace, although freely bestowed and without any just claims on the part of the sinner, is still not unconditionally bestowed. Faith in him who died to save sinners is requisite to prepare one for the reception of pardon; and he who is justified in this way, as a consequence of his faith, is still justified in a manner altogether gratuitous. The reader will mark the difference between the phrase “works of the law,” in the above passages, and the expression “work of faith” or “good works” (1Th 1:3; 2Th 1:11; 2Co 9:8; Eph 2:10; Col 1:10; 1Ti 5:10; 1Ti 5:25; 1Ti 6:18; 2Ti 3:17; Tit 1:6; Tit 2:7; Tit 2:14; Tit 3:1; Tit 3:8; Tit 3:14).
In the writings of Paul, works of the law always designates the idea of perfect obedience, i.e., doing all which the law requires. But works of faith or good works are the fruits of sanctification by the Spirit of God; the good works which Christians perform, and which are sincere, are therefore acceptable to God under a dispensation of grace, although they do not fulfil all the demands of the law. On the ground of the first, Paul earnestly contends, at length, in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, that no one can be justified. The latter he everywhere treats as indispensable to the Christian character. So also the apostle James, when disputing with those who make pretensions to Christian faith, and mere pretensions, maintains that no man has any good claim to the faith of a Christian who does not at the same time exhibit good works; in other words, he avers that a mere speculative faith is not a real Christian faith (Jam 2:14-26). In a word, Paul has taught us that justification is not on the ground of merit, but of grace: James has taught us that a faith which will entitle one to hope for justification must be accompanied with evangelical obedience. Both are true and faithful teachers; the doctrines of both are equally the doctrines of the gospel. Good works, in the gospel sense of these words, are an essential condition of our acceptance with God; but on the ground of perfect obedience to the divine law, no one ever was or ever will be accepted.
In an evangelical sense, good works are those actions which spring from pure principles, and are conformable to truth, justice, and propriety; whether natural, civil, relative, moral, or religious. The phrase is often used of acts of charity. The qualities of a good work, in the Scriptural sense of the term, are,
(1) That it be according to the will of God; (2) that it spring from love to God (1Ti 1:5); (3) that it be done in faith (Rom 14:23); (4) that it be done to the glory of God (1Co 10:31; Php 1:11).
The causes of good works are,
(1) God himself (Heb 13:21); (2) union with Christ (Eph 2:10); (3) through faith (Heb 11:4; Heb 11:6); (4) by the word and spirit (Isa 3:3; Luk 8:15; 2Ti 3:16).
As to the nature and properties of good works in this world,
(1) They are imperfect (Ecc 7:20; Rev 3:2; (2) not meritorious (Luk 17:10; Tit 3:5); (3) yet found only in the regenerate (Mat 7:17). The necessary uses of good works,
(1) They show our gratitude (Psa 116:12-13); (2) are an ornament to our profession (Tit 2:10); (3) evidence our regeneration (Job 15:5); (4) are profitable to others (Tit 3:8).
Perhaps we should not allow Scripture itself to remain silent for too long on the matter of the correct reception of the “ mustard seed of Faith”. Truth so often is conveyed, at least in the infallible Word of God, through parables..

“So listen to the parable of the sower: (Mark 4:13; Luke 8:11); When anyone hears the word about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches what was sown in his heart; this is the seed sown along the path. (Matt 4:23); The seed sown on rocky ground is the person who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. But he has no root in himself and does not endure; when trouble or persecution comes because of the word, immediately he falls away. The seed sown among thorns is the person who hears the word, but worldly cares and the seductiveness of wealth choke the word, so it produces nothing. (Matt 19:23; Mark 10:23; Luke 18:24; 1Tim 6:9); But as for the seed sown on good soil, this is the person who hears the word and understands. He bears fruit, yielding a hundred, sixty, or thirty times what was sown.”

Matthew 13: 18-23 ( NET BIBLE TRANSLATION)

The following passage from James 2: 14-26 conveys the most remarkable Scriptural concert of truth on the real relationship between Faith and Works ( of Righteousness). It remains to this day, along with the expositions on the subject by the Apostle Paul, the only full Scriptural exposition, and forms the foundation of a thorough reconciliation between Faith and Works in Justification.
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? (Matt 7:26; Jas 1:23); 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, (Luke 3:11; 1John 3:17); 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.7 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.8 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (Mark 1:24); 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? (Gen 22:10); 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?9 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6); 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? (Josh 2:1; Josh 6:23; Heb 11:31); 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Clement, Bishop of Rome, writing in the first century A.D., conveys the Apostolic teachings on the matter accurately in the following excerpt from the Ante-Nicene Fathers of the First Century:

Chapter XXXI.—Let us see by what means we may obtain the divine blessing. Let us cleave then to His blessing, and consider what are the means of possessing it. Let us think over the things which have taken place from the beginning. For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? was not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac, with perfect confidence, as if knowing what was to happen, cheerfully yielded himself as a sacrifice. Jacob, through reason of his brother, went forth with humility from his own land, and came to Laban and served him; and there was given to him the sceptre of the twelve tribes of Israel.
Chapter XXXII.—We are justified not by our own works, but by faith. Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart;
but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Chapter XXXIII.—But let us not give up the practice of good works and love. God Himself is an example to us of good works. What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immoveable foundation of His own will. The animals also which are upon it He commanded by His own word into existence. So likewise, when He had formed the sea, and the living creatures which are in it, He enclosed them [within their proper bounds] by His own power. Above all, with His holy and undefiled hands He formed man, the most excellent [of His creatures], and truly great through the understanding given him— the express likeness of His own image. For thus says God: “Let us make man in Our image, and after Our likeness. So God made man; male and female He created them.” Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, “Increase and multiply.” We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.
Chapter XXXIV.—Great is the reward of good works with God. Joined together in harmony, let us implore that reward from Him. The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: “Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.” He exhorts
us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will. Let us consider the whole multitude of His angels, how they stand ever ready to minister to His will. For the Scripture saith, “Ten thousand times ten thousand stood around Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him, and cried, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the Lord of Sabaoth; the whole creation is full of His glory.” And let us therefore, conscientiously gathering together in harmony, cry to
Him earnestly, as with one mouth, that we may be made partakers of His great and glorious promises. For [the Scripture] saith, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which He hath prepared for them that wait for Him.”
Chapter XXXV.—Immense is this reward. How shall we obtain it? How blessed and wonderful, beloved, are the gifts of God! Life in immortality, splendour in righteousness, truth in perfect confidence, faith in assurance, selfcontrol in holiness! And all these fall under the cognizance of our understandings [now]; what then shall those things be which are prepared for such as wait for Him? The Creator and Father of all worlds, the Most Holy, alone knows their amount and their beauty. Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit,
whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vainglory and ambition. For they that do such things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but also those that take pleasure in them that do them. For the Scripture saith, “But to the sinner God said, Wherefore dost thou declare my statutes, and take my covenant into thy mouth, seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee? When thou sawest a thief, thou consentedst with him, and didst make thy portion with adulterers. Thy mouth has abounded with wickedness, and thy tongue contrived deceit. Thou sittest, and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother’s son. These things thou hast done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest, wicked one, that I should be like to thyself. But I will reprove thee, and set thyself before thee. Consider now these things, ye that forget God, lest He tear you in pieces, like a lion, and there be none to deliver. The sacrifice of praise will glorify Me, and a way is there by which I will show him the salvation of God.”

CLEMENT OF ROME First Letter to the
Corinthians Chapters 31,32,33,34,35..

So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith without works and I will show you faith by my works. You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that – and tremble with fear. Mark 1:24; But would you like evidence, you empty fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? (Gen 22:10); You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected by works. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend…

JAMES 2: 17-23 ( NET BIBLE TRANSLATION)

Then Jesus said to him, “‘If you are able?’ All things are possible for the one who believes.” Luke 17:6;

Immediately the father of the boy cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!”
MARK 9: 23-24 (NET)

The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” LUKE 17:5 (NET)

He told them, “It was because of your little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you.”
Matthew 17:20 ( NET)

Jesus answered them, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen…
Matthew 21:21 (NET)….