Comebacks for Converts

“Did you know that halakhah forbids that question?”…

Coffee Shop Rabbi

Image: Two faces with speech balloons. (Artwork by nchlsft/shutterstock.)

Last week I posted an entry that seemed to hit a nerve: Talking About Converts.  I thought it might be good to follow up with a post about ways to deal with nosy questions, etc. What follows is a question or comment (in italics) and some possible responses.

“Are you a convert?”

  • Yes. So were Abraham, Sarah and King David’s great-grandmother.
  • Did you know that halakhah forbids that question?
  • Why do you ask?

“Did you convert to get married?”

  • Did you?
  • Why do you ask?

“So, Plonit* tells me that you are a convert!”

  • Surely you and Plonit* are not gossiping about me!
  • Why is this your concern?

“You do realize that you’ll never really be Jewish, right?”

  • Why don’t you ask the rabbi about that?
  • Why would you say such a hurtful thing to me?
  • Well, then I…

View original post 224 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The End of Prophecy: Malachi’s Position in the Spiritual Development of Israel


God communicated to people through prophecy for nearly the entire biblical period, from Adam until Malachi. According to a prevalent Jewish tradition, prophecy ceased with Malachi, not to be renewed until the messianic age. In this article, we will consider a few traditional explanations of why prophecy ceased and some spiritual implications for Judaism over the ensuing 2,500 years and counting.

Overview of Malachi

Unlike Haggai and Zechariah, whose prophecies pulsated with messianic potential, Malachi lived a generation or two later—a generation in which that messianic potential appears to have been lost. At that time, the people’s political and economic suffering contributed to:

their feelings of rejection by God (1:2–5),
corruption of the priesthood (1:6–2:9),
rampant intermarriage (2:10–16), and
laxity in tithing (3:8–12).
God-fearing people were losing heart as well. Why remain righteous? Their sinful compatriots were successful, while God-fearing people suffered (2:17; 3:13–21)! All Malachi could answer was that for now, the mere fact of Israel’s continued existence proved that God still loved them (1:2–5). Only in some unspecified future would God bring complete justice (3:13–24).

According to a prevalent Jewish tradition, Malachi was the last prophet (see, for example, Tosefta Sotah 3:3; Yoma 9b; Sanhedrin 11a). That his book is positioned last in the Twelve Prophets does not prove he was the last prophet, since the book is not arranged in chronological order. However, it seems from textual evidence that he likely was the last of the Twelve. Radak and Abarbanel observe that unlike Haggai and Zechariah, Malachi does not mention the Temple construction; it was in use already. Malachi also condemns intermarriage (Mal. 2:10–16), a shared concern of Ezra and Nehemiah (458–432 B.C.E., see Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13:23–28). The widespread laxity in tithing (Mal. 3:8–12) also likely dates to Nehemiah’s time (Neh. 10:35–40; 12:44; 13:5, 10–12).

Even if Malachi were the last of the biblical prophets, there is no statement at the end of his book or anywhere else in the Bible stating categorically that prophecy had ceased. For example, Nehemiah battled false prophets (Neh. 6:5–7, 11–13) but did not negate the existence of prophecy in principle.

Nevertheless, the tradition that Malachi was the last prophet opened the interpretive possibility that Malachi was conscious of the impending end of prophecy.

A pronouncement (massa): The word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi (Mal. 1:1).

Most commentators understand the book’s opening word massa as another generic term for “prophecy.” However, Abarbanel notes that the term could also mean “burden.” One Midrash similarly understands massa in this vein:

?[Prophecy] is expressed by ten designations…And which is the severest form? … The Rabbis said: Burden (massa), as it says, As a heavy burden (Ps. 138:5) (Gen. Rabbah 44:6).

Within this interpretation, it is possible that Malachi viewed his mission with additional weight, conscious of his being the last of the prophets.

Similarly, several interpreters understand the book’s closing verses as a self-conscious expression that prophecy was about to end:

Be mindful of the Teaching of My servant Moses, whom I charged at Horeb with laws and rules for all Israel. Lo, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before the coming of the awesome, fearful day of the Lord. He shall reconcile parents with children and children with their parents, so that, when I come, I do not strike the whole land with utter destruction (Mal. 3:22–24).

Kara (on 3:22), Ibn Ezra (on 1:1), Abarbanel (on 1:1), and Malbim (on 3:22) explain that Malachi was aware that prophecy would stop with him. The word of God would henceforth be available only through the written word of the Bible. Malbim links the exhortation to observe the Torah to the prediction of Elijah’s coming. With the end of prophecy, the Torah would sustain the people of Israel until the messianic era, at which point prophecy will resume.

Why Prophecy Stopped

We now turn to three leading trends in traditional Jewish thought as to why prophecy ceased: sin, the destruction of the Temple, or a metaphysical spiritual transition.


Some sources suggest that the loss of prophecy was punishment for sin. Over 200 years before Malachi, the prophet Amos predicted the cessation of prophecy:

A time is coming—declares my Lord God—when I will send a famine upon the land: not a hunger for bread or a thirst for water, but for hearing the words of the Lord. Men shall wander from sea to sea and from north to east to seek the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it (Amos 8:11–12).

Avot D’Rabbi NathanB:47 explains that prophecy ceased as a consequence of people mocking the prophets.

Radak (on Hag. 2:5) suggests more generally that lack of fidelity to the Torah resulted in the loss of prophecy. A Midrash (Pesikta Rabbati 35) states that many Jews failed to return to Israel after Cyrus gave them permission, and therefore prophecy ceased. Commenting on Yoma 9b, which blames the lack of redemption in the Second Temple period on the fact that many Jews did not return, Maharsha similarly states that prophecy ceased as punishment for the non-return from exile.

Destruction of the Temple

Ezekiel chapters 8–10 describe a vision wherein God shows the prophet the rampant idolatry in Jerusalem. God’s Presence abandons the Temple and goes into exile. Radak (on Ezek. 9:3) explains that the absence of God’s Presence ultimately contributed to the disappearance of prophecy.

Although Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi prophesied after the destruction of the First Temple, a number of sources consider the destruction to have dealt a fatal blow to prophecy.

?In five things the first Sanctuary differed from the second: in the ark, the ark-cover, the Cherubim, the fire, the Shekhinah, the Holy Spirit [of Prophecy], and the Urim ve-Thummim [the Oracle Plate] (Yoma 21b).

As Benjamin is the last tribe, so Jeremiah is the last prophet. But did not Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi prophesy after him? R. Lazar says: they had limited prophecy. R. Samuel b. Nahman says: [Jeremiah’s] prophecy already was given to Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (Pesikta D’Rav Kahana 13).

The last prophets were diminished or, alternatively, were mere transmitters of Jeremiah’s message. Malbim (on Zech. 1:5–6) presents a more benign form of this approach:

I will not send new prophets, since there is no longer any need for prophets as you have seen all the prophecies of doom fulfilled against you…there is no longer any need for prophecy since you already understand God’s hand in history.

According to Malbim, there no longer was any need for prophecy since the message had already been given through earlier prophets.

Metaphysical Transition

Seder Olam Rabbah30 states that prophecy ceased in the time of Alexander the Great. Based on the rabbinic chronology, the Greek Empire began immediately following the end of the biblical period, so this time frame would synchronize with Malachi. Following this chronological assumption, R. Zadok HaKohen of Lublin observed that a metaphysical transition to an age of reason occurred in Israel and in Greece at the same time:

The proliferation of idolatry and sorcery in the gentile world paralleled divine revelation and prophecy in Israel. When prophecy ceased and the era of the Oral Law commenced, there appeared Greek Philosophy, which is to say, mortal wisdom (Resisei Laylah, 81b, Bezalel Naor translation).

This idea meshes with a talmudic statement that at the beginning of the Second Temple period, the temptation for idolatry ceased being the force it had been during the First Temple period (Yoma 69b). R. Yehudah HeHasid argued that once the urge for idolatry vanished there no longer existed the need for prophecy to counterbalance magic (Sefer Hasidim, Wistenetzky ed., p. 544; cf. R. Elijah of Vilna, commentary on Seder Olam Rabbah 30; R. Zadok, Divrei Soferim, 21b).

Similarly, a certain spiritual intensity was lost. Once the urge to idolatry had declined, prophetic revelation would have too much power if left unchecked. To preserve free will, prophecy had to cease as well (R. Eliyahu Dessler, Mikhtav me-Eliyahu III, pp. 277–278).

Religious Implications

According to the sin approach, the deprivation of the supreme gift of prophecy was a devastating punishment that has diminished the connection between God and humanity for the past 2,500 years since Malachi. Within the destruction of the Temple approach, the disappearance of prophecy was a necessary corollary of that cataclysmic event.

Although the loss of prophecy was a spiritual catastrophe, there still are some spiritual benefits to its suspension particularly within the approach that there was a divinely ordained metaphysical shift from prophecy-idolatry to human reason. In 1985, Professor Yaakov Elman published two articles analyzing the position of R. Zadok HaKohen of Lublin in reference to the transition from the age of prophecy to the age of Oral Law. According to R. Zadok, the end of prophecy facilitated a flourishing of the development of the Oral Law, a step impossible as long as people could turn to the prophets for absolute religious guidance and knowledge of God’s Will. Sages needed to interpret texts and traditions to arrive at rulings, enabling them to develop axioms that could keep the eternal Torah relevant as society changed.

Although the decline of revelation distanced people from ascertaining God’s Will, it simultaneously enabled mature human participation in the mutual covenant between God and humanity. This religious struggle is captured poignantly by the talmudic passage:

And they stood under the mount: R. Abdimi b. Hama b. Hasa said: This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, overturned the mountain upon them like an [inverted] cask, and said to them, ‘If you accept the Torah, it is well; if not, there shall be your burial.’R. Aha b. Jacob observed: This furnishes a strong protest against the Torah. Said Rava, Yet even so, they re-accepted it in the days of Ahasuerus, for it is written, [the Jews] confirmed, and took upon them [etc.]: [i.e.,] they confirmed what they had accepted long before (Shabbat 88a).

Rather than explaining R. Aha’s question away, Rava understood that revelation in fact crippled an aspect of free will. He proposed Purim as the antidote, since that represents the age when revelation ceased.

Although prophecy was the ideal state—and we pray for its return—its absence enables the flourishing of human reason, as we no longer have access to absolute divine knowledge. We must take initiative in our relationship with God or else the relationship suffers. R. Zadok applied this human endeavor to the realm of Torah study. Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik understood prayer as replacing prophecy, precisely with the imperative of our responsibility to keep the lines of communication between God and humanity open:

In short, prayer and prophecy are two synonymous designations of the covenantal God-man colloquy. Indeed, the prayer community was born the very instant the prophetic community expired and, when it did come into the spiritual world of the Jew of old, it did not supersede the prophetic community but rather perpetuated it…If God had stopped calling man, they urged, let man call God (The Lonely Man of Faith [New York: Doubleday, 1992], pp. 57–58).

Institutionalizing prayer rescued intimacy with God by creating a new framework for this sacred dialogue.

Although prophecy disappeared some 2,500 years ago, the underlying spiritual struggle continues to be manifest in contemporary society. Many people long for absolute knowledge of God’s Will. Consequently, there exists a compelling pull toward holy men (rebbes, kabbalists) or the over-extension of a da’at Torah concept that accords near-infallibility to Torah scholars. Though that appeal may be understandable, it must be remembered that (a) these individuals are not prophets and therefore do not have the certain divine knowledge that many accord to them; and (b) in an age lacking prophecy we have a far greater responsibility to learn Torah and pray, and to take that spiritual energy to infuse every aspect of our lives with sanctity. This requires a healthy dose of human reason and effort, coupled with an ongoing consultation with spiritual guides who can help us grow.

For further study, see:

Hayyim Angel, “The First Modern-Day Rabbi: A Midrashic Reading of Ezra,” in Revealed Texts, Hidden Meanings: Finding the Religious Significance in Tanakh(Jersey City, NJ: KTAV-Sephardic Publication Foundation, 2009), pp. 217–226.
Hayyim Angel, “The Theological Significance of the Urim VeThummim,” in Through an Opaque Lens (New York: Sephardic Publication Foundation, 2006), pp. 195–214.
Gerald Blidstein, “In the Shadow of the Mountain: Consent and Coercion at Sinai,” Jewish Political Studies Review 4:1 (1992), pp. 41–53.
Yaakov Elman, “R. Zadok HaKohen on the History of Halakha,” Tradition 21:4 (Fall 1985), pp. 1–26.
Yaakov Elman, “Reb Zadok HaKohen of Lublin on Prophecy in the Halakhic Process,” in Jewish Law Association Studies I: Touro Conference Volume, ed. B. S. Jackson (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 1–16.
Lawrence Kaplan, “Daas Torah: A Modern Conception of Rabbinic Authority,” in Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy, ed. Moshe Sokol (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc., 1992), pp. 1–60.
Bezalel Naor, Lights of Prophecy (New York: Union of Orthodox Congregations, 1990).


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Newton You Never Knew

The Newton You Never Knew
by Dr. Arnie Gotfryd

“In science, the search is only for the physical root and source of things whereas through Torah, one can discern the spiritual root.

In this way, one can also know the purpose of this object’s creation, in accordance with the divine will as He revealed it to us in His Torah.” – The Rebbe, Mind Over Matter, p.171

Dr. Gotfryd,

I just received your email about Newton and thought I would share this dvar Torah I gave last year at my (Chabad) shul in Atlanta, Ga.

Samuel Silver.
Dear Readers,

Here’s an extract of that fascinating and enlightening talk Reb Sam gave in honor of his fathers Yartzeit. AG
Sir Isaac Newton, probably the greatest scientist in the history of the world, was coincidentally born on December 25 in 1642. He is best known for his monumental scientific achievements:

By age 22, Newton was the greatest mathematician in the history of the world, although he kept this secret and didn’t publish his invention of Calculus for another 40 years. His Calculus and other mathematical creations are still used today.In the field of Optics, Newton (using a prism) established the heterogeneity of light and developed our understanding of color. Everything we know about light and color, from the color of the sky, to the formation of rainbows, to color vision is based on Newton. He also invented the reflecting telescope which is still today the basis for almost all large land and space based telescopes.Anyone who has studied physics has learned Newton’s three laws of motion, still fundamental to our understanding of the physical world.
Law of InertiaLaw of Acceleration Law of reciprocal actions: For every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force.

Newton is probably most famous for his discovery of the universal principle of gravitation, possibly as a he sat under an apple tree contemplating the motion of the planets and stars in heaven. He also developed the quantitative law of gravity. With these, he created his “system of the world” to explain the phenomena of heaven and earth in a single mathematical system.

What drove Newton to understand the physical world? This was a man who studied, usually alone 18 hours a day, 7 days a week for most of his life. What was he looking for?

It is only in recent years that we are learning Newton’s great secret – a secret that would have destroyed his career during his lifetime and is not being favorably received by modern secularists.

Upon his death in 1727, a big box of unusual papers was discovered in his room. Bishop Samuel Horsley, who was also a scientist, “was asked to inspect the box with view to publication. He saw the contents with horror and slammed the lid…” shut.[1]

Newton left these papers to his niece, and they sat in the family home unread for two centuries. None of the great universities or libraries was interested. Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, and the British Library all turned down offers for a donation. They were eventually sold at public auction in 1936 where they were spread around the world, but three main collections remained together:

John Maynard Keynes, the British great economist, eventually donated his to Kings College at Cambridge.The Babson family in America, donated to MIT.[2]And Israeli Professor Avraham Shalom Yahuda’s collection, now at the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.

It’s only in the past 20-25 years that these manuscripts have been made available, and scholars are still working on them. Unfortunately many others have not yet been found and may have been destroyed or lost forever.

The first and for many years only public statement about these papers was from Keynes, who in 1946 after reading through the papers he had bought, wrote that Newton was “a Judaic monotheist of the school of Maimonides. He arrived at this conclusion, not on so-to-speak rational or sceptical grounds, but entirely on the interpretation of ancient authority. He was persuaded that the revealed documents give no support to the Trinitarian doctrines which were due to late falsification. The revealed G-d was one G-d.”[3]

For Newton, the “ancient authority” in the “revealed documents” was our guide to the ultimate truth of the physical world, of what he called “true religion,” and of the one true G-d that not only created the universe, but “rules all things… as the Lord of all.”[4]

Like Thomas Jefferson after him, Newton was a Unitarian, a controversial Christian who rejected the concept of the Trinity.

To quote Jose Faur, a Jewish scholar who has studied Newton’s papers: “The papers reveal that Newton was a strict monotheist. He saw no need for a new revelation and rebuffed the Christian notion of atonement and salvation. Siding with Rabbinic tradition and contra Christian doctrine, he maintained that the Noahide precepts alone suffice for salvation, and thus there is no need for J—-‘ expiatory death. …Newton was resolute in his belief that the Law of Moses was not abrogated with the advent of Christianity… Therefore, the Christian Scripture must be understood in light of the Hebrew Scripture, and not the other way around.”[5]

Now you can understand why the Bishop slammed shut the lid on that box![6]

Professor Bernard Cohen, probably the foremost authority on Newton in the United States, sums up his interpretation of Newton by declaring: “Of course, Newton had a real secret, and concerning it he did his best to keep the world in ignorance.” He intended to uphold the theology and cosmology of the medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides. Cohen argues that this medieval synthesis of biblical religion with the philosophy of Aristotle constituted the ideal of Newton.

Newton’s library contained far more books on theology than on any other subject. He was not as expert in Hebrew as other British scholars such as one of his sources, John Selden, or to a lesser degree his friend John Locke; so many of his books were Latin translations of Jewish works, most notable Maimonides’ Mishne Torah and other seforim such as Seder Olam and Abravanel’s commentary on Leviticus. He also studied Kaballah, but through secondary sources.[7]

Jose Faur also tells us that: “Newton’s knowledge of Rabbinics was neither casual nor superficial. To illustrate, when expounding the apocalyptic conflict of Gog and Magog, Newton refers to the Targum or Aramaic Version of Esther, as well as to Vayikra Rabba, and the commentaries of Se’adya Gaon and Ibn `Ezra. In a discussion of a Rabbinic passage, Newton records the opinion of R. Aharon ha-Levi, the supposed author of Sefer ha-Hinnukh, and his disagreement with Rashi on the matter at hand.’ He also refers to the… Sifra as well as to the position of R. Aharon ibn Hayyim (born c. 1560), the author of Qorban Aharon. Later on, he discusses Seder Ma’amadot (the participation of the Israelites in the daily sacrifices) and quotes the opinion of Bertinoro on the Mishna Yoma (7:1). There are extensive copies inNewton’s own hand of passages from the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud in Latin.”[8]

While it appears that he did not have a complete translation of Moreh Nevuchim, one of his most “dog eared” volumes is a Latin commentary on Maimonides that includes many references to the Moreh which was Maimonides’ attempt to reconcile Torah with science and the philosophy of Aristotle.

Most people have no idea how influential Rambam and Jewish thought were in the development of western civilization, especially after the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century. For example, Newton along with other 17th Century scholars such as John Selden and Hugo Grotius who were the founders of International Law, accepted the seven Noachide Laws as the basis for civilization and all quote Rambam as their source.

I need to point out that Newton was not a crypto-Jew nor probably even philo-Semitic. As far as we know, he never even met a living Jew, even though they began returning to England during his lifetime.[9]

His study of and admiration for Jewish thought was a result of his belief in the validity of Biblical Scripture and Prophecy. As a Newton expert states, “Newton’s pursuit of the truths hidden in Nature is what made him famous, but his pursuit of truths hidden in Scripture was at least as important to him; both conceal aspects of the same truth.”[10] “The Key Element in all Newton’s theological pursuits is the action of the Supreme G-d’s Providence in history, particularly that of the ancient Jews and the Christian church which emerged from them.”[11]

One of Newton’s main areas of study was the physical dimensions and configuration of the Mishkan and Temples. He especially focused on the third Temple using the book of Yechezkel – Ezekiel, which contains detailed prophecies related to the third Temple to be built in Messianic times.

Newton looked at the Mishkan and the Temples as the Jews did – a representation of the universe as created by G-d. In manuscript after manuscript he made detailed analyses and drawings trying to understand the hidden meanings.
He worked out an analysis of the amah or cubit, titled, “A Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit of the Jews and Cubits of the several Nations.”[12] Newton was especially interested in the cubit as he thought it would allow him to determine the exact circumference of the earth in his studies on gravity. He believed that the Great Pyramid at Giza was built using the cubit as its basic unit of measurement, and he believed the Egyptians had learned the secret of Solomon’s Temple from Hiram the Phoenician king of Tyre who Solomon hired to assist in the construction.[13]

He also believed Jewish ideas were the basis for Greek mathematics and philosophy. In his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, he studied world history and determined that the Greeks had falsely predated their history by 300-400 years to cover-up that they had received their ideas in mathematics and philosophy from the Jews. For example, he hypothesized that Plato traveled to Egypt where he made contact with Jews.

In the introduction to his Chronology, Newton stated that “The Greek Antiquities are full of poetical fictions, because the Greeks wrote nothing in Prose, before the conquest of Asia by Cyrus the Persian.” He also points out what he calls “uncertainties” in the chronology of the Romans.

One of the fascinating conclusions of Newton was that the configuration of the Temple with the altar as a central point “was a reflection of the cosmic, heliocentric harmony of G-d’s universe.”[14] He believed the ancient Jews knew the sun was the center of the Solar System!

Newton’s friend John Locke reported a conversation where Newton explained the creation of matter by G-d as a process of drawing back – what we know as tzimtzum. Newton’s view of Kabbalah is still being debated by scholars, but it appears he believed the original Kabbalah had been corrupted by the idolatrous Egyptians in their contact with the Jews, and this corruption led to mistakes in Greek philosophy and especially Christianity where he attributed the erroneous idea of the Trinity to kabbalistic concepts of emanation,[15] neither of which I understand nor can explain.

Another interesting point is that Newton believed G-d created and continues to create all matter, constantly and everywhere. Some have attributed his source to Kabbalah, but it appears he developed it without recourse to Kabbalah, and in the secret manuscripts he blames Kabbalists for confusing this point – leading to a belief in primordial matter instead of Creation from nothing.

How today’s secularists and strident atheists will deal with the idea of the world’s greatest scientist being such a devout believer in G-d and divinely revealed scripture is still to be determined. But already, in G-d is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens attacks Newton as a religious fool who dabbled in alchemy.[16] What Hitchens omits is that serious scientists are now recreating Newton’s experiments which he indeed called alchemy. Instead of a mystical quest to create a “philosopher’s stone” to turn lead into gold, these scientists believe Newton was using ancient texts to develop a theory of matter, and his experiments anticipated modern chemistry.[17]

In summary, it is interesting that arguably the greatest scientist of all time, devoted his life to uncovering the secrets of Creation provided by G-d. Along with Rambam, he saw no conflict between science and G-d’s revealed Truth in scripture, providence, and the physical world.


[1] Quoted from Keynes in Bernard Cohen’s Franklin and Newton, p. 67.

[2] The Keynes and Yahuda papers seem to be the most theologically oriented.

[3] From Keynes’ 1946 article, “Newton the Man”, quoted in Newton, Maimonides, and esoteric knowledge. By: Faur, Jose. Cross Currents, Winter90/9.

[4] General Scholium, an appendix to Newton’s Principia Mathematica.

[5] Jose Faur, “NEWTON, MAIMONIDEAN,”  Review of Rabbinic Judaism, Volume 6, Numbers 2-3 / August, 2003

[6]Since some of Newton’s theological ideas were known by a few Newton specialists, “it became fashionable to assume Newton the young genius had had a nervous breakdown in his fifties” which impaired his intellect. Matt Goldfish, Judaism in the Theology of Sir Isaac Newton, p. 6, note 12.

[7] Newton’s main source of Kabbalah seems to be his friend, Henry More’s Kabbala denudata. He thought Plato might have met kabbalists in Egypt. Matt Goldfish, p.146. [Tzvi Freeman writes that More rejected the Kabbala Denudata, ed.]

[8] Newton, Maimonides, and esoteric knowledge.

[9] The Jews had been expelled from England in 1290 and were only allowed to begin returning under Cromwell in 1655 due to the heroic efforts of Menasseh ben Israel.

[10] Goldfish, P. 11

[11] Ibid

[12] There are several types of cubits (Amah’s) in the Torah. According to the Na’eh scale, the standard Amah id 18.9′, while the Chazon Ish calculates it at 22.7″. However, there were special measurements used in the Temple which were a little longer. See Steinsaltz’ Reference Guide to The Talmud. Newton determined that the special cubit used in Ezekiel’s Temple and Mishkan was between 22½” and 23″ (English inches). In Ezekiel (40:5), the cubit is defined as “a cubit and a handbreadth.” Instead of the normal 5 handbreadths, the sacred cubit used in the Temple was 6 handbreadths.

[13] Garry Trompf, Isaac Newton and the Kabbalistic Noah, p.110.

[14] Goldfish. P. 94

[15] He also thought the corrupted Kabbalah created mistakes in Judaism, but I have yet understood these. Newton had a major debate with Leibniz (who rejected his theory of gravity) on whether creation was ex nihilo or prime matter existed. Modern scholars think Leibniz was influenced by Kabbalah, which was one of the sources of Newton’s problem with him. See Goldfish, pp. 155-157.

[16] Hitchens, God is Not Great, p. 65. In trying to write-off religious scientists, he writes, “Sir Isaac Newton, for example, was a spiritualist and alchemist of a particularly laughable kind.”

[17] See “Alchemy and Theory of Matter,” Part 7 of Newton, edited by I. Bernard Cohen and Richard S. Westfall, Norton Critical Edition, 1995.


Posted in Newton,, Western civilization | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Isaac Newton, Reform Jew?



In a little write-up on a panel in New York of ex-Evangelical Christians turned secular literary intellectuals, Tablet magazine quotes critic James Wood of The New Yorker on Isaac Newton:

Isaac Newton could quite happily exist today if he was Jewish. He’d be living on the Upper West Side and going to one of those big Reform temples up there.

Newton was in fact a very Jewish sort of Christian. But as an aficionado of Reform Judaism?
Today, Newton may be claimed as a saint of the mechanistic-materialist view of the universe. But he was entirely comfortable making arguments for intelligent design. In the Opticks, he examined that of the human eye. In the Principia, that of the planetary system, which he said “could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” Studying him at Newton’s own university, Cambridge, my colleague Stephen Meyer recalls in his book Signature in the Cell that Steve’s atheist tutor warned him, “If you miss Newton’s theism, you’ve missed everything.”
On the other hand, he was not an orthodox Christian, not a Trinitarian.
So what was he? A scholar in Israel, José Faur, offers evidence of Newton’s heavy indebtedness to Maimonides. Newton was an incredibly accomplished Hebraist and probably learned Hebrew at Cambridge from Rabbi Isaac Abendana. His personal library was croweded with volumes of Hebraica. In private journals that have only recently been revealed and published, Newton wrote extensively about the Jerusalem Temple — its dimensions, geometry, furniture, and rituals — and the coded occult messages he believed were revealed in them. What could be more Jewish? Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch would later present the most systematic “decoding” ever attempted of the worship and architecture in the Tabernacle, the desert forerunner of the Temple described in the Torah. Newton would approve.


John Maynard Keynes purchased most of Newton’s religious papers that had been squirreled away unpublished since Newton’s death. Keynes observed:

Very early in life Newton abandoned orthodox belief in the Trinity….He was rather a Judaic monotheist of the school of Maimonides….Newton’s proverbial fear of controversy, his suspicious attitude and neurotic behavior, his obsession with secrecy, and his eventual departure from Cambridge to an administrative position in London — all this, becomes perfectly clear in light of the dreadful secret he had to hide all his life….In the main the secret died with him. But it was revealed in many writings in his big box.

Keynes again, basing himself on the religious and other writings Newton left behind:

Newton…looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had hid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt …. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements…, but also partly in certain papers and traditions handed down … in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty.

James Wood is wrong on one point. Today, Isaac Newton would be ridiculed as a “creationist in a cheap tuxedo,” and at any self-respecting Reform temple, quickly shown to the door marked Exit.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Globalist Long Game – Redefine Liberty Activism As Evil “Populism”

Submitted by Brandon Smith via,

One of the most favored propaganda tactics of establishment elites and the useful idiots they employ in Marxist and cultural-Marxist circles is to relabel or redefine an opponent before they can solidly define themselves.  In other words, elites and Marxists will seek to “brand” you (just as corporations use branding) in the minds of the masses so that they can take away your ability to define yourself as anything else.

Think of it this way: Say you want to launch an organization called “Movement Blue,” and you and others have gone through great struggle to grow this organization from the ground up.  However, just as your movement is about to achieve widespread recognition, someone else comes along, someone with extensive capital and media influence, and they saturate every outlet with the narrative that your movement is actually more like “Movement Red,” and that Movement Red is a terrible, no-good, bad idea.  They do such a good job, in fact, that millions and millions of people start calling you “Movement Red” without even knowing why, and they begin to believe all the negative associations that this label entails.

Through the art of negative branding, your enemy has stolen your most precious asset — the ability to present yourself to the public as you really are.

Negative branding is a form of psychological inoculation.  It is designed to close people’s minds to particular ideas before they actually hear those ideas presented by a true proponent of the ideas.  But beyond that, negative branding can also be used to trick groups and movements into abandoning their original identity.

For example, the concept of economic freedom for individuals –the freedom from overt government interference or government favoritism for certain people over others, the freedom to compete with ideas and ingenuity to build a better business and a better product, the freedom to retain the fruits of one’s labor — used to be widely referred to as “free markets”, as defined by Adam Smith.  The very basis of free market philosophy was to remove obstruction and economic oppression from the common man in order to inspire a renaissance in innovation and prosperity.  The problem is, you rarely hear anyone but libertarians talk about traditional “free markets” anymore.

Though Karl Marx did not coin the term “capitalism,” he and his followers (and editors) are indeed guilty of the pejorative version now used.  It has always been Marxist propagandists who have sought to redefine the idea of “free markets” in a negative way, and the use of the term capitalism is how they did it.  They have been so effective in their efforts that today even some free market proponents instead refer to themselves as “capitalists.”

While “free markets” denote freedom of the common man to pursue a better life through productivity and intelligence and merit, “capitalism” denotes a monstrous and blind pursuit of wealth and power without moral regard.  One gives the impression of fairness, the other gives the impression of tyranny.

Is there even such an animal as “capitalism?”  I can’t really say.  What I do know is that the system we have today, a hybrid mutation of corporatism and socialism, is certainly NOT a free market system if we are to follow the true definition and the original intent.  Yet, whenever cultural and economic Marxists attack the notion of economic freedom, they use the system we have now as an example of the failures of “free market capitalism.”

This is the magic of negative branding, and it is used in every facet of social life and geopolitics.

Now, before I get into the term “populist,” I recognize that people opposed to my position will immediately spring into a tirade about how liberty and sovereignty champions brand those against our ideals “in the exact same way.”  This is not quite true, though.

When we refer to “globalists” in a negative manner, we are taking a pre-existing label, something that they often call themselves, and pointing out that their philosophy is flawed and highly destructive based on historical evidence and verifiable facts.  We are not seeking to redefine them as anything other than what they already are.  We are merely exposing to the public what they OPENLY promote and believe and then offer our side and our evidence as to why their beliefs are wrong.

This is not what they do to us.  Instead, globalists and their cronies prefer that the public does not get to hear our views directly from us.  They rarely, if ever, actually use our publications as a source for their attacks on our principles.  They would much rather tell the public what we are and what we believe before they are ever exposed to us.  This is why you will often find that many participants in protest groups at events held by anti-globalists like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos have never actually seen or heard a single speech by the men in question.  They have no idea what we really stand for.  In fact, they protest our speakers, groups and movements based on what they were told we stand for by other biased sources.

This brings us to “populism.”

There has been a deep and concerted propaganda campaign taking place against liberty activists, sovereignty champions, anti-globalists, anti-SJW groups, and conservatives in general.  I noticed this particular campaign accelerating at the beginning of 2016, and it was the primary reason why I chose to take a hard stance on my predictions for Brexit passage and a Trump election win.  The propaganda narrative could be summarized as follows:

Since early 2016 (according to globalists and the mainstream publications featuring their opinions), there has been a rising tide of nationalists and “populists” in western nations.  This sudden surge in “populism” is inexorably tied to the Brexit movement and the support for candidates like Donald Trump.  Populism will overrun the existing “stability” of globalism and cause severe economic crisis in numerous countries.  It finds its roots in the “less educated” portions of the population, as well as in older generations that think they have something to lose if globalism succeeds.  It is also driven by an “irrational fear” of economic change, global interdependence and multiculturalism.  Populists are predominantly naive and desperate for “strongmen” leaders to fight for them.  Some of them are motivated by self interest, while others are motivated by racism.

You can see these sentiments expressed bluntly in numerous mainstream media outlets.  The Guardian has no qualms about linking the Brexit to “racism” and populism, for example.  The Washington Post also has had no problem linking the Tea Party and Trump supporters to racism and populism as well.

Beyond the paper-thin accusations of racism, the general thrust of the negative branding is clear; if you are against globalism (or elitism) and its major tenets, then you are a “populist.”  This is reiterated in recent articles from Bloomberg and The Guardian.

But in such publications, the most egregious argument is the one that is not directly made.  The insinuation is that “populism” is not just defined by a fear of corruption through organized elitism, but that this fear is UNFOUNDED.  Meaning, anyone who argues against the mechanizations of globalists, for instance, is not only redefined as a “populist,” but he/she is also, essentially, ignorant or insane.  See how that works?

The populist label is often used to describe a political movement built on the cult of personality, a sycophantic love affair with a celebrity dictator that tends to have ulterior motives.  Thus, the philosophical underpinnings of that particular movement are further eroded because they don’t even know why they are doing what they are doing; they are only playing a foolish game of follow the leader.

So, to recap, according to the establishment and their “press,” conservatives and sovereignty activists are actually “populists.” Our concerns over uncontrolled immigration and open borders are not based on rationalism and historic evidence of social and economic instability as well as the highly evidenced threats of terrorism; they are based on “xenophobia.”

Our concerns over the increasing fiscal weakness generated by the economic interdependence of globalism and our lack of self reliance are not based on math and logic, but our “lack of understanding” on how interdependence makes everything better.

Our concerns over rampant organized elitism and the corruption this entails are not based on numerous concrete examples, not to mention exposed documentation and the words of elitists themselves; they are based on a “fantasy world” of “tinfoil hatters” who just make stuff up while consuming heaping helpings of “fake news”.

If this is the case, then I suppose I should fasten my own tinfoil hat tightly and note that this narrative is part of an ongoing long-game by globalists.  They are not attempting to achieve the demonization of conservatives and sovereignty advocates today or tomorrow.  This is about preparing the public for a near future, perhaps five to 10 years from now, after they have sufficiently sabotaged the global economy and scapegoated us for the crisis this will cause.

Not possible, you say?  By all means, read my article ‘The False Economic Recovery Narrative Will Die In 2017’ for further explanation.  If we are not careful, we will be redefined not just by establishment propaganda, but by a global calamity that will be gift wrapped with our name on it and tied around our collective necks.

In the meantime, how do we fight back against this disinformation campaign?

One factor that a “populist movement” generally does not have is the ability to remain self-critical.  Populism, at least according to the mainstream media, requires a mentality of mass blind faith in a cause that is misunderstood or a leader that is dishonest.  The liberty movement and conservative groups still have some members who are not afraid to point out when we are going astray in our logic or our actions.

We have not been silenced by our own peers, yet.  Given enough crisis, it is hard to say how people will react.  A major terrorist attack, an economic panic, a war; these kinds of rip-tides can inspire a lot of intolerance for contrary views.  We are not there at this point, and as long as members of our movement are able to retain a critical eye, we will never be “populists.”

Another method is to refrain from adopting the “branding” that the establishment tries to use against us.  Beware of anyone within our groups and organizations who begins referring to himself or us as “populists” as if this is a label of which we should be proud.

In the long run, people with ill intent will call us whatever they want to call us.  The real issue is, will those labels stick?  Will we help them to stick by losing our composure and acting the way the propagandists always said we would?

Negative branding is about burning a hole in the historical record, because memes last far longer than people.  In 100 years, how will we be remembered?  This is what the globalists value most — future impressions of today by generations not yet born.  Because wars are not just fought in one moment over one piece of ground or over one idea; they are fought in ALLmoments, for days not yet passed, for the posterity of all ideas, even those not yet thought of.  If we do not fight back with this in mind, winning will be impossible. [1]

The Ability to Remain Self-critical. The irony is painfully obvious.

Meet Yvette Felarca. She’s a proud advocate of violent thuggery in the pursuit of shutting down speech that she deems unacceptable. If she decides you fit her definition of a fascist – a word she very clearly doesn’t have a handle on – she is in favor of using any and all methods to silence you. If that means assault, rioting, and vandalism, so be it.

The irony is painfully obvious.

Because her position is so patently absurd, I don’t really have a lot to say about it. All I’ll add is the following: As you watch the clip, keep two things in mind.

1. This woman is a public school teacher. Given her inability to see the flaws in her own arguments, I doubt she’s much of an educator. …But it’s important to remember that this is the sort of person who has sway over your kids for around eight hours a day.

  1. She offers a terrible definition of fascism. It’s not even close to correct. However, let’s put that aside. Let’s pretend her definition is correct. How can she not recognize that immediately after she stakes her claim about fascists, she proudly self-identifies as one? She is, inarguably, precisely what she claims to be silencing.

Exit question: In an era where virtually every school on Earth has a zero-tolerance policy toward violence, how can a school have a violence-advocate on staff?

Berkeley Unified School District: Fire Yvette Felarca


Source: [1]…badly-for-he

Posted in Activism | Tagged | Leave a comment

Was There Once a Different Hebrew Script?

Ketav Ivri vs. Ketav Ashurit


I recently read about some ancient writings that were in a script called Proto-Hebrew, which the Jews supposedly used to write in before the current Hebrew script. What’s up with that? Which Hebrew is the authentic Hebrew, and in what script was the original Torah written?


Indeed, there are two scripts. One is ketav Ivri (“Hebrew script”), also called Phoenician or Proto/Paleo-Hebrew. This is the “alternative” form of Hebrew you have discovered. This script was still widely in use during the age of the Mishnah, and was well known to the sages. The other script, ketav Ashurit (“Assyrian script”), is the one we know today as the Hebrew alphabet.

While this may be a fascinating revelation for some, your question regarding the script the Torah was written in is not a new one. In fact, the Talmud itself discusses this very question, and gives three opinions:1

a) Mar Zutra (some say Mar Ukva) said: “Originally, the Torah was given to Israel in Ivri letters and in the sacred (Hebrew) language. Later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashurit script and the Aramaic language. Finally, they selected for Israel the Ashurit script and the Hebrew language, leaving the Ivri characters and the Aramaic language for the commoners.” Who are the “commoners”? Rav Chisda said, “The Cuthites (Samaritans).” What is ketav Ivri? Rav Chisda said, “Libonaah2script [i.e., the ancient Hebrew].”

b) It was taught: Rebbi said: “Torah was originally given to Israel in Ashurit script. When they sinned, it was changed to roetz (Ivri script). When they repented, Ashurit script was reintroduced . . .”

c) R’ Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of R’ Eliezer ben Parta, who said in the name of R’ Elazar Hamoda’i: “This writing was never changed [i.e., it was always in Ashurit script].”

This is a page of the scripture of the Samaritans, who still use Ivri writing.
This is a page of the scripture of the Samaritans, who still use Ivri writing.

So seemingly, opinions (b) and (c)hold that the Torah was originally written in Ashurit, and opinion (a) holds that it was in Ivri. But it’s not so simple, as we shall see when examining the Tablets.

Miraculous Letters

The Talmud describes the miraculous script of the Tablets:

Rav Chisda said, “The letters mem and samech of the Tablets stood in place only by a miracle.”3

The Talmud explains that the letters were engraved all the way through the stone to the opposite side. Now, since the letters samech and (final) mem are completely closed, the section of stone in their centers was unattached to the body of the Tablets, and could have remained in place only through a miracle. This, however, is true only with regard to ketav Ashurit. In ketav Ivri, neither the mem nor the samech are completely closed.

What is especially difficult with this passage is that its author, Rav Chisda—who is effectively saying that the Tablets were given in ketav Ashurit—is the very same rabbi who agrees with and elaborates upon the first opinion above, that the Torah was given in ketav Ivri!

What complicates things even further is that there is an opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud that it was the letter ayin that was held in place miraculously. This would imply that it was written in ketav Ivri and not Ashurit, since the letter ayin in Ivri—as opposed to Ashurit—is indeed a closed letter.

See below how the samech and mem are closed letters in Ashurit, and the ayin is closed in Ivri:

Special Script vs. Common Script

To resolve this, Rabbi Yom Tov al-Ishbili, known as Ritva (approx. 1250–1330), explains that the Tablets and the Torah scroll that was kept in the Holy Ark were written in ketav Ashurit. This was considered a sacred script. However, neither Moses or the Israelites wished to use this holy script for mundane purposes. This reverence extended even to the Torah scrolls that were written for purposes of study by the masses, so they were written in ketav Ivri.4

Or as Rabbi Yehudah Loewe, known as Maharal of Prague (d. 1609), puts it, while the Tablets and the original Torah scroll were written in the beautiful Ashurit script (ashurit can be translated to mean “beautiful”), it is only logical that the Torah for the masses would be given to them in the script the people were familiar with.5

Rabbi David ibn Zimra, known as Radbaz (c. 1479–c. 1573), explains that when we say that the Tablets were written in Ashurit script, this is only the first Tablets, the ones about which the verse states, “Now the Tablets were G‑d‘s work, and the inscription was G‑d’s inscription, engraved on the Tablets.”6 The second set of Tablets, however, the ones about which G‑d tells Moses, “Inscribe these words for yourself,”7 were written in the script of the masses, i.e., ketav Ivri. Thus, the Babylonian Talmud is referring to the first set of Tablets, while the tradition in the Jerusalem Talmud is referring to the second set.8 However, the debate in the Talmud about the script of the Torah concerns which letters the Jews themselves used.

Radbaz further points out that until the Babylonian exile the Jews were referred to as Hebrews (Ivri’im), and their script may well have been the Hebrew (Ivri) script. However, after the Babylonian exile they were no longer called Hebrews, perhaps because at this time the beautiful ktav Ashurit script was taught by the prophets.9

These coins, with Ivri writing, were minted during the Mishnaic era in the years following the destruction of the Second Temple.
These coins, with Ivri writing, were minted during the Mishnaic era in the years following the destruction of the Second Temple.

Belshazzar and the Writing on the Wall

Some commentators posit that this is why, when the writing appeared on the wall during Belshazzar’s feast,10 none of the Jews present were able to interpret it. Most Jews were only familiar with ketav Ivri; only Daniel, a leader and the wisest Jew at the time, was familiar with ketav Ashurit. After this incident, the script became somewhat better known.11

King Josiah and Moses’ Torah Scroll

The above explanation also sheds light on another historical incident. In the course of the repairs to the Holy Temple in King Josiah’s reign, the high priest Hilkiah found a Torah scroll, and the Jews turned to a scribe to have it read. In the verses, Hilkiah describes finding not “a” but the” Torah scroll, i.e., the Torah scroll written by Moses himself.12 The reason many couldn’t read it was because it was written in ketav Ashurit.13

Script But Not Language

Although there are differing opinions as to the type of script the ancient Jews used, it is important to keep in mind that there is no disagreement regarding the language itself—all agree that the language of the Torah was Hebrew, the holy tongue, the language of creation.14

1. Talmud, Sanhedrin 21b.
2. According to Rashi, this means “large characters, such as are employed in amulets.” According to Tosafot, it is the name of a certain locale.
3. Talmud, Shabbat 104a.
4. See Ritva and Rashba to Talmud, Megillah 2b.
5. See Rabbi Yehudah Loewe, Tiferet Yisrael 64.
8. Responsa of Radbaz 3:883 (442).
9. Responsa of Radbaz ibid.; see also Rabbi Yehuda Loewe, Tiferet Yisrael 64.
10. Daniel, ch. 5.
11. Responsa of Radbaz ibid.; see also Rabbi Reuven Margoliot, Hamikra Vehamesorah, “Ketav Ashuri.”
13. See Rabbi Reuven Margoliot, Hamikra VehaMesorah ibid.

The content in this page is produced by, and is copyrighted by the author and/or If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you do not revise any part of it, and you include this note, credit the author, and link to If you wish to republish this article in a periodical, book, or website, please email

Posted in Hebrew Script | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How the Gospels were created. What the Church doesn’t want you to know?

By Tony Bushby.

In the fourth century, the Roman Emperor Constantine created a composite god, and commissioned the writing and compilation of the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament.

It has often been emphasized that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities. The Church agrees, saying:

“Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted.”
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, “the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled” (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels “do not go back to the first century of the Christian era” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6). This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ. In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that “the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD” (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time.

It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorized the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament. After the death of his father in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul and Spain, and then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the Roman Empire. Christian historians give little or no hint of the turmoil of the times and suspend Constantine in the air, free of all human events happening around him. In truth, one of Constantine’s main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their belief in numerous gods.

The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine’s efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called “Church Fathers” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1). They were “maddened”, he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467). The “peculiar type of oratory” expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5). Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians. In reality, they were:

“…the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses … they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets … they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables … and still the less do they understand … and they write nonsense on vellum … and still be doing, never done.”(Contra Celsum [“Against Celsus”], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)

Clusters of presbyters had developed “many gods and many lords” (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6). Presbyterial groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and “altar was set against altar” in competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century). From Constantine’s point of view, there were several factions that needed satisfying, and he set out to develop an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent confusion. In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilizing religious splinter groups was only one of Constantine’s problems. The smooth generalization, which so many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine “embraced the Christian religion” and subsequently granted “official toleration”, is “contrary to historical fact” and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim). Simply put, there was no Christian religion at Constantine’s time, and the Church acknowledges that the tale of his “conversion” and “baptism” are “entirely legendary” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).

Constantine “never acquired a solid theological knowledge” and “depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions” (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim). According to Eusebeius (260-339), Constantine noted that among the presbyterian factions “strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state”, but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god factions (Life of Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His advisers warned him that the presbyters’ religions were “destitute of foundation” and needed official stabilization (ibid.).

Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. When he conquered the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious adviser, Osius of Crdoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. The mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates “be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and travel to the city of Nicaea” in the Roman province of Bithynia in Asia Minor. They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies they orated to the rabble, “bound in leather” for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea (The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1917, “Council of Nicaea” entry). Their writings totaled “in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviours, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them” (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).

The First Council of Nicaea and the “missing records”
Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate. About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was “held in a hall in Osius’s palace” (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598). In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, “Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing” (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).

This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as “a set of gibbering idiots” (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, “On Councils” entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that “the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronized the vilest abominations” (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.

The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are “strangely absent from the canons” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius “occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor’s behalf” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620). There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. “Seventy Eastern bishops” represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage travelled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 “bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists” gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of “wild texts” (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, “Gospel and Gospels”) circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses: Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes (God’s Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).

Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods-Apollo and Zeus-but the great bulk of common people idolized either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanised version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as “the Divine Julius”. The word “Saviour” was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being “one who sows the seed”, i.e., he was a phallic god. Julius Caesar was hailed as “God made manifest and universal Saviour of human life”, and his successor Augustus was called the “ancestral God and Saviour of the whole human race” (Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952). Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalized on his coins as the “Saviour of mankind” (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Saviour and “Father of the Empire” was considered “God” among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters’ texts, but was not recognized in Eastern or Oriental writings.

Constantine’s intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion. “As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter… For one year and five months the balloting lasted…” (God’s Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire’s translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325). Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god. A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and “officially” ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite. That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire’s new religion; and because there was no letter “J” in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into “Jesus Christ”.

How the Gospels were created
Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:

“Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions’ sake.”
(God’s Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

“Make them to astonish” said Constantine, and “the books were written accordingly” (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39). Eusebius amalgamated the “legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one”, using the standard god-myths from the presbyters’ manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural “god” stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together “to form a new universal belief” (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story. Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce “fifty sumptuous copies … to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art” (ibid.). “These orders,” said Eusebius, “were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself … we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms” (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36). They were the “New Testimonies”, and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the “word of the Roman Saviour God” (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council “burnt” and declared that “any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders” (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.

Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church.Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended “for four years and seven months” from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title “Great and Holy Synod”, assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century. Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion.

The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as “a synod of fools and madmen” and sought to annul “decisions passed by men with troubled brains” (History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871). If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to “affrighted bishops” and the “soldiery” needed to “quell proceedings”, the “fools and madmen” declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him “the great champion of Christianity” which he gave “legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire” (Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86). Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was “self-interest” that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn’t called “Christianity” until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).

Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine’s New Testimonies were expanded upon, “interpolations” were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John “golden-mouthed” Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). The Latinised name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius’s personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).

The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying “put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven” (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).

The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying, “Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645). Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also “falsely written” (“The Letters of Jerome”, Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).

The shock discovery of an ancient Bible
The New Testament subsequently evolved into a fulsome piece of priesthood propaganda, and the Church claimed it recorded the intervention of a divine Jesus Christ into Earthly affairs. However, a spectacular discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed to the world the extent of later falsifications of the Christian texts, themselves only an “assemblage of legendary tales” (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). On 4 February 1859, 346 leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine’s monastery at Mt Sinai, and its contents sent shockwaves through the Christian world. Along with other old codices, it was scheduled to be burned in the kilns to provide winter warmth for the inhabitants of the monastery. Written in Greek on donkey skins, it carried both the Old and New Testaments, and later in time archaeologists dated its composition to around the year 380. It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical scholar, and he called it the Sinaiticus, the Sinai Bible. Tischendorf was a professor of theology who devoted his entire life to the study of New Testament origins, and his desire to read all the ancient Christian texts led him on the long, camel-mounted journey to St Catherine’s Monastery.

During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other ancient Bibles unavailable to the public, such as the Alexandrian (or Alexandrinus) Bible, believed to be the second oldest Bible in the world. It was so named because in 1627 it was taken from Alexandria to Britain and gifted to King Charles I (1600-49). Today it is displayed alongside the world’s oldest known Bible, the Sinaiticus, in the British Library in London. During his research, Tischendorf had access to the Vaticanus, the Vatican Bible, believed to be the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid-sixth century (The Various Versions of the Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library). It was locked away in the Vatican’s inner library. Tischendorf asked if he could extract handwritten notes, but his request was declined. However, when his guard took refreshment breaks, Tischendorf wrote comparative narratives on the palm of his hand and sometimes on his fingernails (“Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?”, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, lecture, 1869, available in the British Library).

Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.

A shudder of apprehension echoed through Christendom in the last quarter of the 19th century when English-language versions of the Sinai Bible were published. Recorded within these pages is information that disputes Christianity’s claim of historicity. Christians were provided with irrefutable evidence of willful falsifications in all modern New Testaments. So different was the Sinai Bible’s New Testament from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the dramatic new evidence that challenged its very existence.

In a series of articles published in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to attack the Sinaiticus’ earlier and opposing story of Jesus Christ, saying that “…without a particle of hesitation, the Sinaiticus is scandalously corrupt … exhibiting the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; they have become, by whatever process, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God”. Dean Burgon’s concerns mirror opposing aspects of Gospel stories then current, having by now evolved to a new stage through centuries of tampering with the fabric of an already unhistorical document.

The revelations of ultraviolet light testing
In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and “few scholars had set eyes on it” (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as “the oldest Bible in the world” (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.

Before I summarize its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors. Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).

Forgery in the Gospels
When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. These amendments can be recognized by a simple comparative exercise that anybody can and should do. Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible’s version of the New Testament, not modern editions.

Of importance is the fact that the Sinaiticus carries three Gospels since rejected: the Shepherd of Hermas (written by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius), the Missive of Barnabas and the Odes of Solomon. Space excludes elaboration on these bizarre writings and also discussion on dilemmas associated with translation variations.

Modern Bibles are five removes in translation from early editions, and disputes rage between translators over variant interpretations of more than 5,000 ancient words. However, it is what isnot written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church, and this article discusses only a few of those omissions. One glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles, saying: “The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour”. That is because there never was a virgin birth.

It is apparent that when Eusebius assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the Gospel of Mark, and the Church admits that it was “the first Gospel written” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 657), even though it appears second in the New Testament today. The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The Gospel of John is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40).

Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the “first” story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus “at about the age of thirty” (Mark 1:9), and doesn’t know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as “the son of God” do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today’s editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a “messianic bloodline” back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called “messianic prophecies” (51 in total). The Sinai Bible carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the “raising of Lazarus”, and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).

Despite a multitude of long-drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of “resurrection” appearances in ancient Gospel accounts of the story. Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named “K” by analysts. They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixth-century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Bibles. However, some 12th-century Gospels have the now-known resurrection verses written within asterisks marks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document.

The Church claims that “the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non (“without which, nothing”) of Christianity (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain” (1 Cor. 5:17). The resurrection verses in today’s Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying “the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine … almost the entire section is a later compilation” (Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading “The Evidence of its Spuriousness”; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading “Canons”). Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.

The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus’ resurrection to his disciples. The Church admits: “The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia(NCE), “Gospel of John”, p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).

“The Great Insertion” and “The Great Omission”
Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible. Six of those words say of Jesus “and was carried up into heaven”, but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today (“Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels”, F. C. Conybeare, The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct 1902, pp. 96-113). Ancient versions do not verify modern-day accounts of an ascension of Jesus Christ, and this falsification clearly indicates an intention to deceive.

Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because it now includes “The Great Insertion”, an extraordinary 15th-century addition totaling around 8,500 words (Luke 9:51-18:14). The insertion of these forgeries into that Gospel bewilders modern Christian analysts, and of them the Church said: “The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407).

Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as “The Great Omission”, a total of 1,547 words. In today’s versions, that hole has been “plugged up” with passages plagiarized from other Gospels. Dr Tischendorf found that three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke’s version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century, but the Church still passes its Gospels off as the unadulterated “word of God” (“Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?”, op. cit.)

The “Expurgatory Index”
As was the case with the New Testament, so also were damaging writings of early “Church Fathers” modified in centuries of copying, and many of their records were intentionally rewritten or suppressed.
Adopting the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-63), the Church subsequently extended the process of erasure and ordered the preparation of a special list of specific information to be expunged from early Christian writings (Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Rev. Charles Elliott, DD, G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, New York, 1842, p. 89; also, The Vatican Censors, Professor Peter Elmsley, Oxford, p. 327, pub. date n/a).

In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius. Its purpose was to prohibit publication of “erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers” that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine.

When Vatican archivists came across “genuine copies of the Fathers, they corrected them according to the Expurgatory Index” (Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus, R. Gibbings, ed., Dublin, 1837; The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, Joseph Mendham, J. Duncan, London, 1830, 2nd ed., 1840; The Vatican Censors, op. cit., p. 328). This Church record provides researchers with “grave doubts about the value of all patristic writings released to the public” (The Propaganda Press of Rome, Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, London, 1942, p. 182).

Important for our story is the fact that the Encyclopaedia Biblica reveals that around 1,200 years of Christian history are unknown: “Unfortunately, only few of the records [of the Church] prior to the year 1198 have been released”. It was not by chance that, in that same year (1198), Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) suppressed all records of earlier Church history by establishing the Secret Archives (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xv, p. 287). Some seven-and-a-half centuries later, and after spending some years in those Archives, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux wrote How The Great Pan Died. In a chapter titled “The Whole of Church History is Nothing but a Retroactive Fabrication”, he said this (in part):

“The Church ante-dated all her late works, some newly made, some revised and some counterfeited, which contained the final expression of her history … her technique was to make it appear that much later works written by Church writers were composed a long time earlier, so that they might become evidence of the first, second or third centuries.” (How The Great Pan Died, op. cit., p. 46)

Supporting Professor Bordeaux’s findings is the fact that, in 1587, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words, “Church history will be now be established … we shall seek to print our own account” Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a “New Learning” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, p. 442, vol. xv, p. 376). The evidence that the Church wrote its own history is found in Diderot’s Encyclopédie, and it reveals the reason why Pope Clement XIII (1758-69) ordered all volumes to be destroyed immediately after publication in 1759.

Gospel authors exposed as imposters
There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. An appreciation of the clerical mindset arises when the Church itself admits that it does not know who wrote its Gospels and Epistles, confessing that all 27 New Testament writings began life anonymously:

“It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves … they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

The Church maintains that “the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship”, adding that “the headings … were affixed to them” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656). Therefore they are not Gospels written “according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John”, as publicly stated. The full force of this confession reveals that there are no genuine apostolic Gospels, and that the Church’s shadowy writings today embody the very ground and pillar of Christian foundations and faith. The consequences are fatal to the pretence of Divine origin of the entire New Testament and expose Christian texts as having no special authority. For centuries, fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false, and this provides evidence that Christian writings are wholly fallacious.

After years of dedicated New Testament research, Dr Tischendorf expressed dismay at the differences between the oldest and newest Gospels, and had trouble understanding…
“…how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one.”
(Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1863, available in the British Library, London)

After years of validating the fabricated nature of the New Testament, a disillusioned Dr Tischendorf confessed that modern-day editions have “been altered in many places” and are “not to be accepted as true” (When Were Our Gospels Written?, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1865, British Library, London).Just what is Christianity?
The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?
Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that “it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions”. This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.

Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the “seven wise men” of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.

Tischendorf’s conclusion also supports Professor Bordeaux’s Vatican findings that reveal the allegory of Jesus Christ derived from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought “gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh” (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic cap, which popes imitated in various designs until well into the 15th century.

images-1   images-2

Mithra, one of a trinity, stood on a rock, the emblem of the foundation of his religion, and was anointed with honey. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called Easter after the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism-a time in which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion banquet of bread and wine, a ceremony that paralleled the Christian Eucharist and preceded it by more than four centuries.

Christianity is an adaptation of Mithraism welded with the Druidic principles of the Culdees, some Egyptian elements (the pre-Christian Book of Revelation was originally called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis), Greek philosophy and various aspects of Hinduism.

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ
It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life. This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:

“It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind … there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels.”
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)
This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:

“We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century.”
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence: the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a “fable” (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters…, op. cit.). [4]

Did The Original Followers of Jesus Vanish Just As Rabbi Gamliel Predicted?


Although the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually every page of the Jewish Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, this doctrine is not to be found anywhere in the New Testament either because primitive Christianity, in its earliest stages, was still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were completely unaware that the Church they had fashioned would eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although the worship of a three-part godhead was well known and fervently venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in religious systems such as Hinduism and Mithraism, it was quite distant from the Judaism from which Christianity emerged. However, when the Greek and Roman mind began to dominate the Church, it created a theological disaster from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly in place as a central tenet of the Church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by Vatican councils in Nicea and Constantinople.2

When Christendom adopted a triune godhead from neighboring triune religious systems, it spawned a serious conundrum for post-Nicene Christian apologists. How would they harmonize this new veneration of Jesus as a being who is of the same substance as the Father with a New Testament that portrays Jesus as a separate entity, subordinate to the Father, and created by God? How would they now integrate the teaching of the Trinity with a New Testament that recognized the Father alone as God? In essence, how would Christian apologists merge a first century Christian Bible, which was monotheistic, with a fourth century Church which was not? [2]





Posted in Church, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Before Going Viral Was a Thing

Millions around the world were glued to their televisions and praying for her safety as dozens of rescuers worked night and day to save Jessica McClure from inside an abandoned well.


In 1987, Baby Jessica made national news when she fell down a well at just 18 months. During her ordeal, her parents received support in the form of donations. They placed the money into a trust fund, which Baby Jessica was able to collect when she turned 21. Now, Baby Jessica is all grown up and has babies of her own. She says that she has no memories of the incident that made her go viral before going viral was a thing.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

1 of the Main Reasons It’s Still So Hard to Understand Why Hillary Clinton Lost










If you feel devastated and puzzled that while Hillary Clinton received more individual votes than Donald Trump, she will not be the next president, grab a tissue and allow us to explain what happened.

The United States voting process is centered on the electoral college, which is an organized group that elects the president and vice president. Each state gets a certain number of electors (representatives who actually vote) based on the size of its population. Highly populated states like California get more electors (55), while smaller states like Vermont get fewer (three). Most states have a winner-takes-all rule instead of a proportional allocation of votes.

When you voted on Nov. 8, you were actually choosing for electors who will vote on your behalf on Dec. 19. There are 538 electoral votes, and a candidate needs more than half (270) to win.

This means that while more people could have voted for Clinton (they did!), Trump still won because he got more electoral votes. According to The New York Times, Clinton received 62,391,335 votes (48 percent) and Trump got 61,125,956 votes (47 percent), yet she only pulled in 232 electoral votes and he tallied up 290.

This has happened four other times in our history when the candidate who won the popular vote lost the electoral vote and the election. The most recent example was in 2000, when Al Gore received more than half a million votes more than George W. Bush but still did not take the Oval Office.

And yes, sometime electors do go rogue, but according to The New York Times, these “faithless electors,” as they are called, have never changed the final presidential results.

Given the outcome on this election, tens of thousands of people are now signing petitions to abolish the electoral college system. But as the Washington Post points out, Democrats “have virtually no power to make that happen — and even they did have any power, it’d be immensely difficult,” since it is written into our Constitution.

At the end of the day, the Clinton vs. Trump election was extremely close, and if you were on the electoral losing side, know that there are many people (close to 60 million) who likely agree with you on several topics.

This is the time to meet with others (both like minded and not) to discuss the issues, donate to nonprofits you believe in supporting (such as Planned Parenthood), and make your voice heard to your state representatives. Then, in 2018 and 2020, encourage other millennials to vote, because the fate of the country will fall into your generation’s hands.



Save the Snowflakes is a special project of the Media Research Center with the aim of bringing attention and providing support to precious snowflakes across America, whose feelings continue to be hurt by conservative rhetoric, social triggers, disagreeable opinions or opposing points of view. #SaveTheSnowflakes

The Myth of Hillary’s Popular Vote ‘Victory’

By Tom Trinko

Many modern liberals are fascists at heart who can’t accept losing power; that’s why Bush wasn’t “their” president.

Those liberals are currently bemoaning the fact that Hillary won the popular vote which, according to them, means she should really be president, though were the case reversed we all know they’d be extolling the virtues of the Electoral College.

Driven by a lust for power liberals don’t get that everyone has to follow the rules; demanding the rules change when you lose so that you can win is a sign of immaturity and an unhealthy need for control.

But even if we ignore all that we don’t know if Hillary won the popular vote for the following reasons:

1) It’s the campaign: Trump campaigned to win the Electoral College because that’s how the law works. His people have pointed out that if law was that the popular vote winner won Trump would have spent more time in states that he couldn’t win, like California, in order to get more total votes. In that alternate reality would Trump have won? Neither we nor the Democrats have any idea. But it’s clearly unfair to say that Trump lost because he didn’t follow “rules” that weren’t rules during the election.

2) It’s the voter fraud: Everyone knows that Democrats are the kings of voter fraud. The dead are regular voters in Chicago for example. Similarly, it’s not an accident that California gave drivers licenses to illegals in early 2016 and Obama told illegals that it was safe for them to vote right before the election. A study of the 2008 and 2010 elections shows significant voting by illegals. Take away California and Hillary’s popular vote “victory” disappears. Those states where there are strong movements to let illegals vote, which includes California and New York, went heavily for Hillary. That indicates that voter fraud may have played a more significant role than liberals will admit. No one knows for sure how many people illegally voted, but we can be sure that they voted for Hillary. As a result, no one can say for sure that absent illegal votes Hillary would still have won the popular vote.

3) It’s the uncounted votes: In some states if the number of uncounted ballots is less than the victory margin the ballots are never counted. Hence we can’t know what the actual popular vote total is. That might sound shocking but since the popular vote total doesn’t matter why bother to keep track of it? Uncounted ballots tend to be absentee ballots that tend to favor Republicans that means that it’s quite possible that if all the ballots were counted Trump could win the popular vote.

4) It’s the voter suppression: There is voter suppression in the U.S. but it’s being done by the liberals. In California, there was no Republican candidate for Senate. Because California’s voters passed an initiative that had the two highest vote getters in an open primary face each other in the general election. So there were two Democrats running against each other for the Senate. While racist Democrats claim that Blacks are too stupid to get a photo IDs, those same Democrats think that Republicans being denied a candidate on the ballot won’t keep Republicans from voting. The reality is that in California, which everyone knew Trump would lose, the lack of a Republican Senate candidate meant that some Republicans didn’t bother to vote. We can’t know how many but we can be pretty sure they’d have voted for Trump, reducing Hillary’s supposed lead.

5) It’s the Trump factor: It’s no secret that a lot of people held their noses to vote for Trump. Many people in states that were never going to go for Trump, such as California and Virginia, didn’t vote for Trump because they knew it wouldn’t help Hillary — whom they disliked even more — and it made them feel like they weren’t supporting Trump. If those people knew that their ballots would have counted they would have voted for Trump.

6) It’s the laziness factor: The reality is that many people vote only because of the presidential race. The media worked hard to make it clear to the residents of many states that their vote would have no impact on who was elected president precisely because of the Electoral College. For the liberal media to now argue that all those Republicans who didn’t vote because the media told them their votes were worthless shouldn’t be counted if we suddenly decide to go by the popular vote is typical liberal dishonesty.

Even if we ignore the fact that the election was about the Electoral College, not about the popular vote we have no way of knowing if Hillary did win the popular vote.

Similarly we have no way of knowing that Hillary would have won the popular vote if the voters, and Trump, had known that the winner would be decided by the popular vote.

When your liberal friend starts spouting about the popular vote you’re now ready to explain why the whole popular vote issue is another example of fake news.



Posted in Election 2016 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Open Letter To All Of The Whiny Safe Space Liberals Crying Over Our ‘Racist’ And ‘Sexist’ Country

Chicks On The Right author Hannah Bleau (Red Dawn)

“Donald Trump is America’s middle finger to the media, Hollywood elites, progressive ideologues and everyone else in the world who hates our guts.”


By Hannah Bleau (Red Dawn)
November 9, 2016

The first half of last night was stressful. I could barely eat. Stupid Florida, always keeping us on the edge of our seats. I switched my networks around last night. I mostly relied on Fox News and Twitter. CNN wasn’t calling states as fast, and MSNBC is a last resort kind of thing. I vowed to stay away from that channel, UNLESS things started shaping up for Donald Trump.

Then the results started coming in. Flyover nation. North Carolina. Ohio. Florida? Wisconsin?!!! That’s when the wheels started falling off their wagon. That’s when I started thinking about Hillary Clinton’s defeat. I never really allowed myself to go there before. I didn’t want to get my hopes up, but my country came through. We the People are not stupid.

We the People defeated MSM. We the People defeated the establishment. We the People saved the Supreme Court. We the People rejected the power-hungry, seahag criminal in a pantsuit.

After they announced Wisconsin, commentators started to change their tune. They looked visibly nervous. Eventually, Mockarena told me it was safe to flip to MSNBC, and it was hysterical. I thought Rachel Maddow’s face was going to fall off.  I flipped back to Fox News. Juan Williams practically peed himself. I watched the cheese slide off his crackers in real time. It was something.

I scrolled through social media. Liberals were melting down. They wrote stuff like, “I don’t know how we consistently underestimated the quiet endurance of racism in America.” They whined over “flagrant sexism.” Others reposted stuff like this:


And this:

Trump won because he is racist. He won because he is sexist. He won because he is islamophobic. He won because he is homophobic.

And this:

Our country is extremely sexist. And I know it will take a man tweeting this for it to really resonate.

And this:

when you realize millions of people support a homophobic, sexist, racist, hateful person and made him the most powerful man..i’m so sick

And this:

We did not underestimate Trump. We over estimated the sexist, racist, homophobic, incredibly ignorant American voters.

I’m sick and tired of it. I’m sick and tired of these uninformed jackholes telling me that I’m racist, sexist, Islamophobic and homophobic. They have no basis for those claims. They’re consumed by their emotions.  Do they honestly believe Hillary Clinton lost solely because she’s a woman? It couldn’t possibly have anything with her being a pathological liar who’s spent her entire life pursuing political power? It had nothing to do with the fact that America’s not satisfied with her vision for America– an America with open borders, higher taxes and more bureaucratic scumbags in D.C. telling us how to run our lives?

We’re not racist. We’re not sexist. We want people to come into this country legally. That’s not racist. Progressive leadership in the big, urban cities hasn’t pulled the black community out of poverty. It’s worsened it. Liberalism has failed them. We acknowledge that. We want them to prosper. That’s not racist. And as for being sexist? All issues are women’s issues. I have no idea why liberals continue to separate them. Do they really believe we only care about vaginas, boobs and killing our offspring? Liberals assumed we (women) would vote for Hillary based on those reasons alone. THAT’S sexist, if you ask me. Women care about the economy. We care about national security. We care about the almost $20 trillion national debt. We care about the erosion of our freedoms. We care about the future of the Supreme Court. The list goes on and on and on.

I also saw some posts on how Trump’s victory signifies that America hates the LGBT community. NEWSFLASH: We elected a man who wants to keep dangerous anti-LGBT ideologues OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. Those people who want to throw them off rooftops? We don’t want them here. We want to protect the LGBT community. The fact that we stand for traditional family values and don’t want men in the women’s bathroom doesn’t take anything away from that. Not for one second.

We’re not racist or sexist. We’re freaking SICK AND TIRED of the political establishment crapping all over the Constitution and treading on our liberty. We’re sick of them refusing to uphold the rule of law. We’re sick of being told that this is as good as it gets. We want economic freedom. We want to keep more of our hard-earned money. We want healthcare premiums that AREN’T AS MUCH AS OUR MORTGAGES. We want people to enter our country LEGALLY. We believe in peace through strength.  Faith. Freedom. Family. We’re the most kick a** country that has ever existed. All you liberals whining over our “demise,” GET OVER YOURSELVES. You’re clueless. We were founded on the novel idea that we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Rights than cannot be given or taken away by a governing authority. This was about individual liberty. We reject government force and coercion. Votes. Favors. Political power. That’s the cycle of every progressive politician. We’re done. We’re sick of it. 

Another part of Ronald Reagan’s 1964 speech, “A Time For Choosing,” comes to mind.

“Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, “What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power.” But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.”

“Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we’re always ‘against,’ never ‘for’ anything.”

But we are. We’re for economic prosperity. Individual responsibility. Fiscal responsibility. Less government. More freedom. We’re sick of the liberal do-gooders shoving their BS agenda down our throats and calling us bigots when we reject their horrid ideas. We’re sick of them scoffing at the principles of liberty.

Donald Trump is America’s middle finger to the media, Hollywood elites, progressive ideologues and everyone else in the world who hates our guts.

I’m drinking the tears of our political enemies in a mug today and loving every minute of it. We defeated them. We have one more chance to prove that our ideas work. We’re right. We always have been.


Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment