by: Thomas E. Blaylock, Jr
CHAPTER 6 :THE BIBLE
Now, let's roll up our sleeves and get serious about the Christian Bible. This study about the Bible will help you understand how some of your beliefs got to you and how most religious people view the Bible today. The purpose is to help you know and understand the difference in the Clear Thinker's approach to the Bible and the religious believer's approach to it.
If you were a sculptor with great talent and had a beautiful block of marble, what would you make with it? The block of marble is six feet by four feet by four feet. You may describe what you would make out of it in as few as one word, or you may describe it in detail, or even draw a picture if you wish. So stop right here and decide what you would make out of the block of marble before reading any farther.
In asking a group of thirty people there will usually be at least twenty or more different objects or uses for the block of marble. A few typical uses for the marble will be such items as large praying hands, beautiful woman, hunting dog, athletic man, vase, a rooster, a horse, a bird, a book (the Bible), a cat, a bath tub and one innovative idea of a stack of large children's blocks spelling out "go gators". Even in the ones which are alike, let us say a beautiful woman, the image which the maker has in mind will differ. One will have the woman with a baby in her arms, another will have her in a nude pose, one will have her doing something, others will have her sitting, or standing, or praying, or singing, or even in some sexy pose. There will be no two who have seen the same identical thing in the block of marble.
Someone asked me what I saw in the stone. I saw a tomb stone in it. On that stone I would like to see this epitaph.
HERE LIES BELIEF.
IT DIED FROM HONEST CLEAR THINKING.
You have seen what each person saw in the block of marble is different from what others saw.
WHAT IS THE POINT?
The point is, people all use the Bible in the same manner as we used that block of marble. A sculptor approaches the block, looks it over and sees something in it. Different sculptors see different things. Some see a beautiful vase, a horse, a woman, a child, a cat, a bird or even a pair of hands. So the sculptor begins to chip away at everything, WHICH DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE IMAGE WHICH HE SEES IN IT.
That is exactly how denominations, religions and individuals use the Bible. They approach it with the image already in their heads. They chip away, discard or ignore everything which does not agree and conform to the image (doctrines) which they see in it.
Think for a moment of all the Christian denominations, sects, and cults, all of which get their teachings straight from the same one and only, Holy Bible. Yet, some of their doctrines are so diverse as to be mutually exclusive. That is, if one doctrine is correct the other one can not possibly be true. So they all chip away everything which doesn't agree with the preconceived notion they brought to this Holy Book.
Take a look at a few parts of the Bible which different denominations chip away and discard. Some chip away the ban on women speaking and teaching in church, foot washing, Mary having other children, God telling lies to his people. Some chip away speaking in tongues, salvation by works, salvation by faith, salvation by marriage. Did you know in the Bible, women are to be saved by bearing children? (1 Timothy 2:15.) Now that is a plan of salvation which should also include men, then we could scrap all the rest of the plans of salvation.
Some chip away some of the miracles, or permanent salvation. Some chip away national salvation, or universal salvation. Some chip away this prophesy or that prophesy. Some even chip away the divinity or the humanity of Jesus. Some denominations chip away the creation of the universe, or even the whole of the Old Testament. And of course, some chip away whole books, or parts of books of the New Testament. The Jews chip away the whole of the New Testament. Some chip away, or ignore, all of the writings attributed to someone called Paul, or of someone called James, or of books called Peter or John. Some chip out the earth standing still, or this miracle, or that one, and some exclude all the miracles in the whole Bible. Some chip out all literal references to hell.
In fact, if there were only one Bible, and each Christian denomination was allowed to remove the parts which they do not believe, which they believe to be in error, which they believe do not apply to them, or which they ignore, there would hardly be a scrap of the Bible left. And that mind you, is what happens when we listen to ALL the denominations who say they believe in the Holy Bible, who tell us it is the Word of God and some who tell us they believe it from cowhide to cowhide.
Can you imagine ten sculptors all working on the SAME block of marble? One is trying to chip out a bird, another a woman, one a flower, others a dog, a child, a vase, one a book, one a star, a horse or a hand. What happens? Before anyone has a chance to do a bit of work, they all start chipping away at one another with their hammers and chisels.
If you can see that, you now have the best seat in the house for watching the Council of Nicaea (Nice) set up by Constantine in 325 A.D. In establishing his state religion, Constantine needed to bring several feuding and persecuted religious organizations together into one strong central organization which could be controlled from the top by the state.
The idea was to bring all these large and small scattered religions which worshiped a Savior Anointed (a Jesus Christ) together, incorporate their sacred writings, unite their leadership and form a single strong organization which would have a deep and broad appeal. This NEW conglomerate religion would become the official state (political) religion. It would be coequal and fused with the Mithraic (Mithric or Mitharic) religion (worship of God through God's crucified Son, Mithra) and the Sol Invictus religion (worship of God through the Sun's son, Apollo). The Mithraic religion was a lower social form of Sol Invictus which worshiped Apollo as the Savior Anointed (the Jesus Christ) the Sun's son. (The Sun was the visible sign of the invisible God.) This NEW conglomerate religion would become the only religion the state would recognize. All other religions which refused to join would become outlawed, persecuted and eradicated. And it became so.
Now, Constantine had attached himself, as a student, to the Eastern part of the early church called "The Way". He did this because he had become friends with Hosius a leader of "The Way" in Rome, and one named Eusebius of Caesarea. They were interested in solving the question of the divinity of the saviors (Those called Jesus or Savior). Was the Jesus of "The Way" of God, from God, or was he God himself? Eusebius was in favor of the reasoning of one, Arias, who said Jesus was begotten, coequal with, but not The God himself. Jesus was the SON of God, therefore, he could NOT BE THE GOD. However, The religion of Mithra whose doctrines were being studied by the leaders of The Way also worshipped their Jesus Christ (Savior Anointed) and THEY had already solved this problem. (Their Savior, Mithra, was God incarnated in the flesh to suffer and save the world from sin and Satan.) Up to this time The Church of The Way had never claimed that their Jesus (Savior) was God.
It is said, Constantine, while in battle, looked up one day and saw a sign in the heavens. That sign was a "CROSS". Then into his head came the notion (or revelation) which said, "In this sign (of the cross) conquer." Without doubt, Constantine was well acquainted with the Mithraic Church because he was also a soldier and Mithra was known as the soldier's religion. They worshiped Mithra the Persian crucified Jesus Christ (Savior Anointed).
The problem Christians of today must face, at this point, is this. The sign of the "CROSS" was NOT used at all by the early Jewish church (called, THE WAY). They worshipped the Jewish Savior Anointed (Jesus Christ) and used the symbol of the lamb or the fish. The ONLY religion in the Roman Empire which used the "CROSS" as its symbol of faith was the Mithraic religion called, "Christian " (little anointed one). They were called Christians by their enemies and the Sol Invictus to belittle them. "Christians were little-know-it-alls" who worshiped a Savior Anointed (Christ).
Even before the Council of 325, Bishops of "The Way" were envious of the cross used by the Mithraic church. The Mithraic religion worshipped Mithra, their Persian Jesus Christ (Savior Anointed). Their Jesus Christ (Mithra) died on a "cross" in the old Persian method of execution several hundred years before the Jewish Jesus Christ (Savior Anointed) was claimed to be executed in the Roman method of execution, likely by "poling" (impaling).
Constantine was a worshiper of Sol Invictus (Apollo and/or Mithra). He wanted to combine all the saviors to make ONE savior (one Jesus) and make him into THE GOD. In fact, he wanted to name the new savior, Apollo or Mithra and make one of them into THE SUN GOD (THE Deity ) to give status to his new church. This NEW religion would then mesh with his own religion and become one.
To deify someone was not difficult. After all, Constantine had recently deified his own father and expected the same to be done for himself. So he summoned the church called "The Way" and the church called Mithraic (or Christian) along with Sol Invictus and any other scattered sects and churches who worshipped a Savior Anointed (a Jesus Christ). He was going to unite (or amalgamate) all the saviors into one savior (one Jesus), settle this question of the divinity of the savior once and for all time, and build a strong single STATE CHURCH.
Constantine began immediately to lay the ground work for his NEW State Church. In 321 AD, he enacted the Edict of Tolerance. This gave Christians (Mithraic, The Way and others) new freedom. In addition, he declared that all businesses, courts, transactions, shops of work and entertainment were to be closed on SUNDAY in honor of the Sun God (Apollo and/or Mithra, the savior anointed) and that ALL GODS were to be worshiped on that day. He also declared that all Gods (including Mithra, the Jewish Savior and Apollo) were born on the third day after the winter solstice (by our calendar, December 24th - 25th. This is the first day astronomers can observe the return of the Sun.) The Gods were to be celebrated at that time with festivals and worship. Up until this time the savior of The Way (the Jewish Jesus) had not been declared as a God.
Constantine even decided on a name for his religion. It was to be known (by literal translation into the English language) as the DIVINE UNIVERSAL ASSEMBLY. (Think about the meaning of those words as they relate to the Divine Roman Empire. Don't forget, the Roman emperor was considered soon to be a God and the empire was considered to be divine - from God or holy also.)
The religious and political language of that period was Greek. The Greek word "Divine" which can also mean "Separate" transliterates (brings the sound of the Greek word) into English as HOLY. "Universal" comes into English as CATHOLIC. "Assembly" comes into English as CHURCH. Thus, was born the NEW conglomerate (confederated and amalgamated) religion of all religions which worshipped a savior anointed (a Jesus Christ). They became the new,
HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Literally hundreds and hundreds of priests and leaders from many other religious organizations throughout the vast Roman Empire came to the Council at the command of Constantine. He was the Emperor of the Roman Empire and one did not defy the Emperor without a good reason, or even with a good reason. So they all came together to take part in the new "political" experiment, designed to make one church organization out of SEVERAL VARIED RELIGIONS who worshiped a Savior Anointed (a Jesus Christ). Also, the fact that the "Assembly" was held in the East made it easier for those of the Eastern Church of the Way and the Mithraic "Christian" Church to be well represented. Constantine also wanted to hide the truth of his plan from the Romans in Rome until it was an accomplished fact.
Hundreds who originally came to the council were killed, some before they got there. Others were driven away after they did, or were put in prison by those who finally succeeded in getting the upper hand. The most ruthless were obviously the winners in that struggle. Many fights, screaming, nasty words, objects thrown, books burned and hostilities were recorded by those who were driven away - including Arias. Almost all of those killed, driven away, or put in prison, were worshipers of the Jewish Savior of "The Way". Why just them? Because they were the only ones who did not already claim that their particular Savior Anointed (Jesus Christ) was God himself. Who was in charge here anyway? No one even knows who presided over the Council. It was a free-for-all. But in the end, Constantine got exactly what he wanted.
Those who were left were to decide on a creed for the new church. They were also to decide on which (and what parts) of over three hundred gospels and writings would go into the new DIVINE BOOK (Holy Bible) and which would not. They fought and fussed among themselves until Constantine finally stepped in, appointed a head man, his friend Eusebius, and said, "What he says goes in, goes in. What he says stays out, stays out."
Very early it was agreed that they would NOT name the Savior Anointed, that is, Mithra, Apollo or the name of the Jewish savior (Judas or Issa, which ever it was). They felt that would be too divisive. (Many scholars think the original Jewish Jesus was the Man of Light written about in the Dead Sea Scrolls about 125 BC.) Instead of using the personal name of one of the saviors, they would simply use the TITLE, (SAVIOR ANOINTED ) or, transliterated into English, Jesus Christ. That is how the Jesus of the Bible got his name. It is a TITLE! This way, all saviors anointed would be included into the new church.
One man who is claimed to be the Jewish Jesus was called Issa (or Jissa) in the far East.
Still other scholars claim that the only man which actually fulfills some of the claims about the Jewish Jesus, in the Jewish history of that period, was a man named Judas or Jeshu of Gamla (in Galilee). This man was a Nazarene (a religious sect title). He is listed as Judas Bar Abbas. Or, in another place as Jeshu Bar Abbas (Son of God). He was called a Nazarene in both accounts.
There was NO town called Nazareth in Jesus' supposed time.
The present town of Nazareth was established during the later Jewish and Roman war and later called Nazareth by the Catholic church. The histories claimed this Judas Jeshu was anointed (Christ) or Messiah (there have been many). His feet and head were anointed by a woman who used a fortune in prized spices and she dried his feet with her hair. Judas led a rebellion against the Romans. He was impaled by the Romans and the only charge against him was, "The King of the Jews". No other person in Jewish or Roman history was killed by the Romans under the charge of "The King of the Jews".
This Judas or Jeshu had a carpenter father called Joseph of royal Davidic blood, a mother named Mary, brothers named James, Joses, Simon and Judas, and sisters not named. (See Mt.13:55-56.) He had sons named Jacob and Simon (later arrested by the Romans) and a son named Menahim. This same son. Menahim, was the one who lead the final rebellion against Rome which ended the nation of Israel in 70 AD. (See The Wars of the Jews by Josephus Flavius, Book XVIII.)
Meanwhile, back at the Council (the free for all), the hostility and problems continued, so it was finally solved by first agreeing to a creed. This gave them a standard on which to discuss the divinity of the NEW Jesus (the Savior) and to make selections of those books and sections of books which could be updated to conform to the new creed and which were not too offensive to the majority of those who were left. As a result, we have a book which says drinking is good and one which says drinking is bad. It says making money is good and making money is bad. It says charging or paying interest is good, and it says paying and charging interest is bad.
This Book says everyone will be saved and it says no one will be saved. It says follow the orders of your political leaders, and it says not to follow the orders of your political leaders. It says to leave all and follow God, and it says to stay where you are. It says don't drink. It says it is ok to drink. On every issue of life, except one, it takes both sides of the question. The only issue about which the Bible is certain (and I might mention the one issue which Rome could not do without) is the issue of slavery. Slavery is regulated, defended and supported by the Almighty, the Holy Ghost, the Jesus and the Divine Universal Assembly (Holy Catholic Church) according to Constantine's Bible.
In other words, there is something for everyone in the Bible. You can "prove" anything by it and you can "disprove" anything by it. Where do you think all the many sects and denominations in Christendom came from? They came straight out of the Bible, every last one of them. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Seventh Day Adventists and Christian Scientists, who wrote their own Holy Books, still use the Bible to "prove" many of their points (doctrines).
I am trying to make a point. I am trying to show you the Clear Thinking Philosophy in action in the area of religion. We are looking at this philosophy in action as it examines the founding of the Catholic Church and the Holy Bible.
The first thing the Clear Thinker notices when he approaches a problem, whether it be religious, political, social or personal, is few people actually study the facts, or look in the right places for the truth of the matter. If you want to find out if a man is a thief and a liar, you don't ask his family and his buddies. You ask the victims! Also, ask yourself, "Who were the victims?"
Most people read the Bible, or any reference work, for only one purpose. That purpose is, TO PROVE A PRECONCEIVED POINT OF VIEW. They will search the Bible, the newspaper, reference books, any source, looking for those statements which back up, or tend to "prove" their views and beliefs. They will even lift out of context, they will distort, they will misread, so determined are they to prove themselves right. They will also ignore and hide those things which prove or tend to prove they are wrong.
Religious people BELIEVE they are right and cannot possibly be wrong. Therefore, any contrary evidence MUST be in error and is something which the Devil is using to try to deceive the faithful. These same people believe it is also permissible for them to use a lie, or to tell a lie to "prove" that their belief is correct. After all, since their belief IS correct, in the long run it is not really a lie. Once the WHOLE TRUTH is made known, the lie is really just an insight into a truth which others have not yet clearly seen. That is another type of chaos which Belief produces.
The Clear Thinking philosophy, on the other hand, demands of its followers, that they find and know what the correct position is, NOT that they prove some position to be correct. So we study the surrounding histories of that period of time. We study what the religious leaders had to say, and what the civil authorities had to say. We study what the opposition had to say. We study what individuals wrote about the issues. We compare, we analyze, and we stand flabbergasted and in awe at the differences between the historical records of the civil authorities and the claims of the religious authorities.
Finally, when the evidence is actually overwhelming we draw our conclusions. We find the Council of Nicaea to be a hatchet job by Constantine to renovate, update and create a NEW POLITICAL STATE RELIGION out of the doctrines of the Mithraic religion called Christian, and the Jewish and Greek religion called, The Way.
Many Clear Thinkers have died or been tortured because they revealed these same things in the past. Truth is sometimes a very dangerous commodity to possess. I Salute The United States of America! The Clear Thinking philosophy does not necessarily demand that an Honest Thinker puts his safety in danger in order to explain or follow the position he finds to be correct. But it does demand he knows what he is doing, and what the facts are.
Truth is always hated by the lie. Read any history book and find out who it was that tortured and killed whom. Why? It would have been simple enough to produce evidence showing the truthfulness of the Church's position. But when you have NO truth on your side and NO evidence, the best you can do is to kill the messenger, the truth teller, and hope, thereby, to prove your point. Of course, it does prove one point. That is, there is NO proof of the claims, nor of the truthfulness of the official church records about the Council of Nicaea of 325 AD (including most other claims).
The big question which comes now is, "How can we know the facts?" Half of the answer is summed up in the word "HONESTY". The other half is found in locating and testing the various claims against each other and against known science, facts and good acceptable morals. One could use the words "research" and "thinking" to describe the second half. First, honesty demands that one look in the right places for the TRUTH of the matter. This is actually harder than the work of research. It also means one will accept the answer once it has been laid open to him. One must lay aside preconceived notions, beliefs and biases. It is hard work, but it is RIGHT!
As for how the Clear Thinker sees the Bible, he must honestly conclude the Bible is the work of many men. No one knows who wrote a single line of it. The Bible has been revised, edited, added to, and subtracted from since the inception of each of its many little books. A short study (of the Babylonian Tablets, Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic and Mithraic literature) proves beyond doubt, there is little conclusive original work in the New Testament, or Old Testament. Every major aspect of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (the Jewish one) in the New Testament, was written hundreds of years earlier about Mithra in Persian and Indian Holy Books.
Many of these things were also written around 125 BC about the Man of Light in the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the New Testament miracles and the Sermon on the Mount. Many scholars think the Man of Light, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, IS the model for the Jewish Jesus Christ - miss dated and modified by using known names of political leaders of the later period. The last writings of the Dead Sea scrolls were stored about 100 AD. They include the history of Judah through the supposed life time and death of Jesus and the claimed beginning of the early church of the Jews. They wrote about every other religion and other Gods and other political and religious movements. Yet, not one word is mentioned about Jesus, or the apostles, or the church called "The Way". NOT ONE SINGLE WORD. They wrote about everything else, but not the early church, apostles or Jesus. Why?
It is claimed Mithra did many of the same things which the Bible claims Jesus did, and that claim for Mithra was made hundreds of years before Jesus (the Jewish one) was supposed to have lived. In fact, the Crucified Savior, Mithra, was called, Iesus Christos (Jesus Christ ) or "Savior Anointed" (his title). Mithra also instituted all of the so called Christian ordinances and sacraments, such as the Eucharist (Communion or Lord's Supper), Baptism, Foot Washing, Forgiveness of Sin, Unction, Holy Matrimony, Mass and all the rest of the so called modern Christian Sacraments. All of this was no less than seven hundred years BEFORE the Jewish Jesus was supposed to have been born. Crishna (one of the Indian Jesus Christs) also did these same claimed things over three thousand years ago as did Hesus in the west a bit later.
For that matter, anyone buried under the sign of the CROSS before the FIFTH CENTURY AD, was buried as a Mithra worshiper (called, Christian). Those of the early Jewish and Greek church (called, THE WAY) were buried under the sign of the fish or the lamb. From my studies, it seems the Jewish Jesus was NOT crucified. If he was killed at all by the Romans, then he was probably poled. The Romans usually poled their victims. The Persians were the ones who crucified. Mithra was the Crucified Savior. There are tile floors, murals and pictures in Iran, Iraq and India which are over three thousand years old. They show a crucified God (or man) on the cross with a hole in his side, nails in his hands and feet and thorns on his head.
The Jewish Jesus was the Poled Savior. The word translated crucified in the English Christian Bible is the word which literally means "poled" (or impaled). Why did they NOT use the Greek word for crucified? There is little historical evidence that the Romans ever crucified anyone. However, they poled or impaled thousands and LATER the church called that poling, "crucifixion". I will leave to your research or imagination the type of death this was. Count Dracula was the last to use this Roman method of death.
The Mithra celebrations of Christmas, All Saints day, Lent, Easter, etc., were incorporated into the NEW Christian mythology by Constantine's NEW state church. The early pre-Nician Jewish church (The Way) held ONLY Jewish ceremonies and holidays. Their worship on the Jewish Friday evening or Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraic Lord's Day, or Sunday worship. This too came from Constantine and the Mithraic religion when many Mithraic doctrines were incorporated into Constantine's new religion called the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. However, the early Jewish church had already been drawn to some of the Mithraic teachings since that church also worshiped a Jesus Christ (Savior Anointed). Mithra worshipers suffered the same tortures and discriminations which the Jewish worshipers suffered under the Romans. The Romans made little to no distinction between the two religions since they both worshiped the Savior "Anointed" (the Christ). They called both groups, "Christians".
At the time Constantine was forming his new church at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., other than Sol Invictus (Emperor worship of God through the Sun) Mithra was the largest religion in the Roman Empire. It's doctrines had also begun to intermingle with the early church (The Way) of the Jews. And it is known, they often swapped guest priests. At first, in Rome, Mithra was known as the "Soldier's Religion" brought to them from Persia to Rome by the Greeks. Constantine's plan was to so integrate the religions of Mithra, The Way and Sol Invictus that all their symbolism, creeds and history became one. This enabled Constantine to now possess the ONE AND ONLY soul saving religion in the Roman Empire. It is said at first he wanted the savior's name to be Apollo but later settled on Savior Anointed (Jesus Christ) the TITLE to obtain some unity.
Following the Council of Nicaea, the NEW Holy Catholic Church did everything in its power to stamp out all old records and history of both the earlier Mithraic church and the earlier Jewish church called, "The Way". They substituted NEW records to give Constantine's NEW church both a "divine" book and a "sacred" history.
Even today you must go to translations of scholarly works by Jews, Germans, Greeks, Persians, Indians and the Dutch to find information on the Mithraic Church. Catholic Rome did a good job of hiding the information. (See The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge and its Bibliography. Early editions of Encyclopedia Britannica has some of this information.) (Read the life of Constantine by at least two different authors.)
Some scholars say there is no record of these things in the Christian writings of that day. Certainly there isn't! They were destroyed and/or hidden! But there are many NON Christian records. Besides, if the Mithraic church had nothing to do with the Council of Nicaea, why did the NEW church go on a five hundred year campaign to destroy every record of BOTH the Mithraic church, and the early Jewish church? They even destroyed the records of the Nicean Council itself?
One of the most difficult historical events to research is the 325 A.D. Council of Nice (Nicaea). The accounts are conflicting. Many accounts were written one or two hundred years AFTER the Council. The letters from Council attendees to friends, or other ministers, or church leaders give differing dates, differing accounts, differing numbers, differing results and differing information.
There is NO official (public) report from the meetings - only Eusebius' book. The council lasted two months, or three months, or four months depending on whose account one reads. Many clerics and Bishops came early and/or stayed late while they worked on writing or rewriting and compiling the New Testament books.
Some of the letters written by priests to each other were supposed to be written BEFORE the Council, but are proven to have been written much later, AFTER the Council. The lowest number of official attendees is given as two hundred and eighty. The highest number of official attendees is given as one thousand and eight hundred. The unofficial attendees (scribes, grooms, students, lesser clergy, sons, friends, etc.) numbered into the thousands. This was a big "blowout" and extravaganza to show off Constantine's new city capitol (Constandinople) and new temple. It is said that his new temple was the eighth wonder of the world. Constantine wanted a new soul saving religion to go along with his new temple and new capitol city of Constantinople. He got both!
In many of the accounts, there is criticism over the fact, that not one single prayer was offered during the entire Council (two or up to four months). Constantine's opening remarks did use the name of God in a general way, but no one counted it as prayer. Even Eusebius notes that there were no prayers. This prayer business was one of the meanest debates at the Council as recorded by the dissenters. WHY?
THEY HAD NOT YET SETTLED ON, TO WHOM THEY SHOULD PRAY,
AND IN WHOSE NAME TO DO IT.
After the Council, the church (the winners) destroyed thousands of letters and accounts. To possess a letter, or an account, or a record about the Council of Nicaea was PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. And a large number were killed. The church established a reward system for anyone turning in such letters and accounts, or for turning in their friend or enemy for possession of some of this material. Thank goodness numbers of the accounts survived. Is this religion? Has it changed any since then? Or, is this something else?
Certainly, The Holy Catholic Church was not trying to hide the information which they tell us today about the Council. What they were trying to hide was the TRUTH about the Council, why it was called, who attended, what went on and what the results were.
We can be sure the official information given to us by the church today about the Council has very little truth in it. We must glean for the real purpose by studying the politically and religiously powerful forces prior to the Council. The religious power was in the hands of the then state religion, Sol Invictus, and of the Mithraic Church, and to a smaller degree in the hands of "The Way" of the Jews, BOTH of the latter religions were called "Christian".
It is interesting that scholars, who have not bothered to examine these facts, are very confused over how and why such a strong and prolific religion as the Mithraic Church should fade from western history in less than fifty years. They attribute the demise to the fact that the new Divine Universal Assembly (Holy Catholic Church) simply overshadowed it. Not so! The old Mithraic Church BECAME the NEW Holy Catholic Church. It was the Jewish sect called "The Way" which was absorbed and disappeared.
Before the new conglomerate church became the official HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, the Mithraic priests had been baptizing in the name of their Jesus Christ (Mithra) for several hundred years. They had been calling themselves followers of the Christ for hundreds of years. They were also called Christians, as a derogatory term by those who opposed their religion. These Mithraic priests had adopted the term Christian for themselves and simply continued to call themselves and their church members, CHRISTIANS.
They preached the same sermons they had been preaching for hundreds of years, used their same Christian symbols, read some of the same sacred writings, which were now being called the DIVINE BOOK or HOLY BIBLE. Their Bible stories were reworked so that the Persian stories and Jewish stories were mingled and now set to read as though they happened in more recent times rather than hundreds of years earlier. They preached the same Jesus Christ which they preached in Persia for hundreds of years, changing only the time and place of his life and death and some names of his followers and officials. They incorporated the stories of their Jesus Christ (Mithra) into the gospels and letters of the New Testament. They also incorporated some of the teachings of Appollonius called Pol of Tyana. In 325 AD, Mithra went from a religion where they worshiped mostly in secret caves and homes (due to the persecutions) to a Temple religion called The Holy Catholic Church.
There were many books circulating in the early Jewish church of "The Way" and some of them were writings by Mithraic priests or clerics. There were several different Matthews, Marks and Lukes. There were about two hundred gospels. There were letters written by leaders of the various congregations (both Mithraic and The Way) which were read and discussed. But most of these were refused by the Mithraic church and only those which could be rewritten to conform to the NEW Creed were accepted. The others were hunted down and destroyed, often along with the owners.
Now, it was not the power or influence of the Mithraic priests which caused their doctrines to dictate the outcome of the Council. It was not the power or influence of the church called The Way. It was the power and will of Constantine who had already decided what the outcome should be. It was he who had decided that the Savior (the Jesus) must be THE HIGHEST GOD in order to give great and holy status and prestige to his NEW Holy Catholic Church, his Temple and his City (Constantinople, now Istanbul).
In other words, the worshipers of Mithra did not change anything much, except to change the date and place of THEIR Jesus Christ and give their allegiance to the NEW official state HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH which the emperor Constantine had newly formed. It also meant that the Mithraic priests now had new bosses from the former church of The Way.
On the other hand, those who had been a sect of the Jewish religion, which they called "The Way", had to change everything. They had to change every single one of their Jewish holidays. They had to adopt the new (old) symbolisms of the Mithraic church, including the "cross". They had to change their day of worship from Friday evening to Sunday morning, (The Sun God, Apollo's day). They had to change their terminology to conform to the new terminology adopted from the Mithraic religion. They had to allow sculpture in their churches as well as paintings. Up to this time, such imagery was forbidden by their Holy Book and considered one of the worst kinds of sin. They had to change their doctrines and accept the NEW CREED of the Holy Catholic Church. Those who didn't accept were killed or banished. And many were!
One thing the Jewish sect won was the inclusion of the Old Testament in Greek into the NEW DIVINE BOOK. The Old Testament was the only Bible which the early Jewish church possessed. Since the Mithraic priests held the Jewish writings in high esteem, there was little opposition to its inclusion. Where as, the worshipers of Mithra had to make few changes in their worship, the Jewish sect had to make a great multitude of changes.
Another thing which the leaders of the earlier church (The Way) accomplished, was to get their own Bishops and leaders into the highest places of the NEW church. They were able to do this because they were the most educated, already had a system of hierarchy in place and because there were few Mithraic priests who had the experience of ruling over a large organization. These Jewish leaders swapped their historical foundations and apostolic teachings for NEW POWER over their own people and those not yet in their NEW religion. Power quickly becomes oppressive and wealthy.
The Clear Thinker looks at all of this and reaches the conclusion, the Bible and the religions are man made. Much of the Bible, the gospels and some of the letters, were just a fusion and rewrite of accounts about Mithra, Krishna, Apollonius and the Man of Light known to us from the Persian, Gnostic and Escene writings.
We will stop here and look at some of the other Jesus Christs of the world.
OTHER SAVIORS ANOINTED (OR JESUS CHRISTS)
One of the problems which Bible Christianity must face is, there is not a single precept or claim in the Christian Bible which was not already being taught by ancient religions for thousands of years prior to the advent of modern Christianity. They even had their "plans of salvation", usually called, "The Path", "The Way", or "The Mysteries".
The earliest historical records in India and Tibet tell of the Hindu Jesus Christ (Savior Anointed) who was claimed to be a God. He descended to be born of a virgin, worked miracles in his youth and early life, including the raising of the dead. He preached moral concepts, said he was God's Son, had twelve students who followed him, was betrayed by one of them, was killed on a tree, run through with a spear, rose again on the third day, was seen by many people and after forty days, ascended into heaven from the top of a mountain in full view of hundreds of people. This would be no less than about four thousand years ago. His "gospel" was preached in Israel many years before and even during the time the Jewish Jesus Christ (Savior Anointed) was supposed to have been born. The Escenes carried on debates with these teachers of Hinduism, and they taught each other their doctrines and beliefs. The Escenes were looking for a Jewish Messiah, not a universal Messiah. Is there a connection?
This Hindu Jesus Christ died "once and for all time" to redeem all mankind from their sins and the evils of life. By believing in this Hindu God, when one died, he would go to the judgment and then to heaven to be with their Savior Anointed (Jesus Christ) for eternity. The paintings and murals of this God Man, show that soon after his death, he was pictured with nail holes in his hands and feet, and a spear hole in his side, as were earlier saviors. Yet, secular civil accounts say he was killed by an arrow which went through his heel and pinned him to a tree where he was speared in the side and died penned to the tree. (This hearkens back to an even earlier savior, [about 8000 BC]. Of this savior we have little knowledge except that he died on a cross for the sins of the world and is pictured the same as the Jewish Jesus. He was pictured as black.)
This God, Savior Anointed, Hindu's name was Chrishna (Krishna) which some say in one Indian dialect, means "anointed or appointed". There are sculptures and paintings (some are over three thousand years old) of Chrishna nailed on the cross which are exactly the same as modern pictures of the Jewish Savior Anointed (Jesus Christ). Chrishna was often pictured as being blue. Does this not show the Christian Jesus is a "copy cat" of a "copy cat", or what?
Mithra, who was also crucified on a cross, likewise, did all these God like things. He is also pictured the same as Chrishna. In one mural he is pictured as hanging in the heavens on a cross with his arms outstretched, and with a caption saying, "Come unto me all you who are burdened."
In fact, including Chrishna and Mithra, there are known to have been many crucified, anointed saviors who were killed on a cross, pole or tree. All were Gods who were born in some divine way to a virgin on or about the third day after the shortest day of the year (our December 24 - 25th). They were saved in infancy from some evil death, showed divine genius in youth, later taught divine precepts, worked miracles (healed the sick and raised the dead), had twelve students or followers, was betrayed by one of them, was killed on a cross (tree or pole) entombed, raised again on the third day, appeared to their followers, told their followers of their divine sacrifice for the evils and sins of the world. They then ascended into the sky where they intercede with God on behalf of all men. Here is a short list of a few of those Saviors.
These few names are copied from the book, (Sixteen Crucified Saviors, by Kersey Graves). There are many more, some of local origin, but many are of more general reputation. Some of these claimed Gods (Christs) in English are:
NAME AND THE DATE THEY DIED (APPROXIMATELY)
KRISHNA (CHRISHNA) 2000 B.C. (2500 B.C., or before.)
SAKIA 600 B.C.
THAMMUZ 1160 B.C.
WITTOBA 552 B.C.
IOA 600 B.C.
HESUS 834 B.C. (Jesus, by new translation.)
QUEXALCOTE 587 B.C. (Claimed not to have died.)
QUIRINUS 506 B.C.
AESCHYLUS PROMETHEUS 547 B.C.
THULIS 1700 B.C.
ALCESTOS 600 B.C.
ATYS 1170 B.C.
CRITE 1200 B.C.
BALI 725 B.C.
MITHRA 1800 B.C. (or earlier.)
JESUS CHRIST 34 AD
APPOLLONIUS (Pol of Tyana) 98 AD.
There were also many lesser or more local saviors and this list does not include the Egyptian Gods. Osirus should be included because he seems to have been the first western God who did most of these Christ like activities.
We need to look at Apollonius of Tyana (known as Pol of Tyana) because some of his many deeds, travels and teachings are preserved for us in the Holy Bible. Pol was the Cappadocian Savior who worked miracles, preached morals, preached a Gnostic Christ, which was a spiritual being living in the spiritual world who did not ever become corruptible flesh. Instead this Christ, taught by Pol, entered Mithra (as a dove) at his baptism and left him at his crucifiction. He then became the spiritual sacrifice of the Christ for mankind.
Some reports said Pol himself died to save mankind. Much of his activities are recorded in the Bible as those things attributed to a man called Paul of Tarsus in the New Testament. Some of Pol's known letters (to the same towns listed in the Bible as letters of Paul) were known and quoted in the second, third and fourth century by Greek historians. These fourth and fifth century historians claimed Pol's letters are the basis for the letters which the fictitious Paul of the Bible was supposed to have written. They accused the Christians of plagiarism (stealing someone else's work) and they denied that a Paul or Saul of Tarsus ever lived!
Many of these writings, which are attributed to someone called Paul in the New Testament, came straight out of known Gnostic texts and other writings. It has been well demonstrated that the Paul of Tarsus in the New Testament is claimed to have done many of the same deeds, spoke some of the same words and made the same claims as was earlier attributed to Apollonius who was called Pol of Tyana (a suburb of Tarsus).
Pol was a real man, a Mithraic or Gnostic philosopher, who was written about in a number of OFFICIAL court histories, by both the Romans and the Greeks. Also recording him were the Egyptians and others. Pol preached his Gospel all over the Middle East, Europe, and even over in India and Persia. The Holy Catholic Church succeeded in destroying much of this material. Today we must depend on the writings of Philostratos, several others who eulogized Pol, and the Christian writers who tried to discredit Pol's claims, works and teachings.
Many of the events which were supposed to have happened to the Paul of the New Testament, were events which were KNOWN to have happened to Pol of Tyana. Some of the same words which were recorded officially as statements of Pol, were reported to have been said later by Paul in the New Testament. There is not one single scrap of non Christian evidence that Paul of the New Testament was a living person. There is NO civil historian who records him as they do Pol of Tyana. Yet, in spite of the extensive efforts of the early HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, to wipe out every trace of Pol of Tyana, they did not completely succeed. His deeds, his travels, and even some of his teachings have been saved in the East from the censorship and destruction which the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH pursued for several hundred years.
Some scholars say that not only did Paul not exist, but all of the teachings attributed to him are the teachings of Pol of Tyana. Pol is known to have traveled widely. It may have been Pol who preached and wrote all of the LETTERS TO THE EARLY CHURCH which claimed to help the early church of The Way understand the spiritual Jesus (the savior), the prophesies of the Old Testament, the teachings of the gospels and the truths of The Way. Without doubt, whoever it was, he certainly changed the whole course of the early church and created doctrinal differences which violently still exist today.
I am not saying that a man called Paul, mentioned in the New Testament did not live, though many scholars do give strong evidence that Paul was only a mythical character patterned after Pol. Nor, am I saying that a man called Paul did not do some of the things written about him. I am saying that another well known man, Pol of Tyana, also did many of the same things. He did these things earlier than did Paul, and he did these things for another religion, called Mithra, whose followers were called Christians, whose symbol was the cross. There are secular records which give details of Pol, his sermons and life. Pol was worshiped as a Savior in Cappadocia.
Finally, the Clear Thinker discovers, as he studies the Bible, any short honest effort in the Old Testament or the New Testament will uncover scores of errors there. (See Chapter 28.) To open a real can of worms on the subject, there is not one single bit of substantial WESTERN evidence that the Jewish Jesus Christ, or Joshua Messiah, of the New Testament ever lived during the period claimed.
This was a telling blow to the early Holy Catholic Church. It's adversaries, especially among the Jews, denied, and STILL DO (doctrinally) that the Jewish Messiah Christ ever lived. Constantine's NEW Catholic Church did the three things which it could to stop their adversaries. They killed those whom they could catch. They tried to destroy all of the writings which tended to oppose the new church. Finally, they "manufactured" what proof they thought would be accepted by their own worshipers and tried to use this new "PROOF" in support of their newly created religion.
The HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH inserted an account about Jesus into the work of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. They did the same thing in Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and later they did the same to the writings of Suetonius among others. These forgeries are blatant, (bold and obvious) written in language and styles unknown to the earlier historians. The forgers used words and spellings which did not come into vogue until centuries after the original historians were dead. Names for towns were used which did not come into being until AFTER the original historians themselves were dead. The term "CHRISTIAN" was used in some of the forged passages. This would have made them Mithraic worshipers, not members of the Jewish sect called "THE WAY" who worshiped the Jewish "Savior Anointed".
Also, these histories and works, BEFORE they were altered, were well known to the defenders of the early HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. Yet, not one single Christian writer ever mentioned these interpolated (fake) passages in defense of Jesus being a real person. These inserts were not yet written. It was only in the eighth century AD and later in the sixteenth century when they are first used. However, before the eighth century, those who opposed the new church, spoke and wrote often of the fact that NONE of the historians who covered the supposed period of the life time of Jesus Christ and the early church, never even mentioned Jesus, Paul, or the Apostles. Neither did they find any mention of the great turmoil which was claimed to surround Jesus, his disciples, or early church. And these were scholars of the histories of THAT period. The defenders of the early church used the most outlandish arguments one could imagine, trying to prove Jesus was a real person and not just a composite of several mythological "Christ" characters as the Jews and Greek scholars charged.
In the final analysis, the Christians had to rely on the NEW HOLY BIBLE, which Constantine got the Council of Nicaea to put together. All these defenders of the faith could say was, "The Bible says, the disciples, who would not lie, said Jesus lived and did this and that." Thus, it remains today! They said you must believe and not doubt. It was the late SEVENTH CENTURY AD before the church FOUND the first "PROOF" that Jesus was a real person. That is when the old copies were destroyed and updated versions written to conform to the new "FACTS".
In old Persia, Tibet and India there exists ample evidence that Jesus (the Jewish one) was a real historical person. They do give an earlier date for him (which might make him the Man of Light in the Dead Sea Scrolls). There exists books, scrolls and legends concerning the teachings and activities of Jesus (called Issa in the East). His sojourn in the East from his fourteenth year through his twenty ninth year was first spent at the feet of Brahman priests whose doctrines he rejected. They sought to kill him because he insisted on teaching the common people, so he escaped. He next was accepted by a type of Buddhist priests and learned their language and holy books. There were many Buddhists before the last Buddha. He became a great Buddhist teacher and is referred to today as Saint Issa.
(Until the 1700's there was no "J" in the languages. Thus, "I" and "H" in the old languages are often translated with a "J" today. So, Issa would be Jssa, their form of the word for "savior" in one of the languages.)
When Jesus left the Buddhists, he said, "I must be about my Father's business." When he was thirty years old (the earliest age for a Buddhist master or priest) he went back to Judah, raised such a stink with the Pharisees, that with in three months they sought to have him killed. The Buddhist's accounts agree on this. They also say that Saint Issa (Jesus) was of royal blood, or a King. But the Buddhist's accounts do not agree on whether he was actually killed or not. Some say he escaped to the west, married and had children. Those who say he was killed, say it was reported to them hundreds of years later that he was killed by the Pharisees against the will and law of the Romans. They know nothing of a resurrection or ascension. (All those added stories came later, just prior and after 325 AD).
In fact, the Buddhists in Japan INSIST that Jesus left his family in Europe (Spain), came to Japan, and they can point you to the very house in which Jesus (Issa) lived out his last years, and the place where he is buried. This they claimed BEFORE the western men of faith arrived in the Orient.
The Christian churches in the west still seek to deny and hide this valuable proof of Jesus as a real historical person. Such evidence, publicly accepted, would undercut their doctrines, destroy their plans of salvation and contradict large portions of Constantine's New Holy Bible.
Not a single book in the gospels can be honestly and confidently attributed to the person whose name appears at the beginning of each book. All these books were written by persons unknown. Many Christian scholars say the names at the beginning of these books were simply who the books were dedicated to, not who wrote the books. Not a single eye witness (to any of the marvelous tales told about Jesus in these books) wrote a single word of the Bible. To give testimony, or to be a witness, one must tell what HE has personally seen or heard. He may not officially tell what someone told him about the event. He can not say it is the truth, because he CAN NOT KNOW. The only book really claimed by some religious scholars to be by an eye witness is that of the book John, and we will examine that shortly.
In addition, these books about Jesus disagree, not only with each other, but even with statements made in one part of the book with statements made in a later part of the same book. Jesus stayed in the grave three days and three nights (from sundown Friday night [which was Saturday to the Jews] until before sunup Sunday morning). Add those religious numbers up. There was an angel at the tomb. There was not an angel at the tomb. Jesus first appeared to one. He first appeared to two. He first appeared to the eleven. Which account tells the truth? Are they all wrong? Look it up.
Matthew, Mark and Luke records the ministry of Jesus as being about THREE MONTHS long (from his baptism to his death). So, also, say the Buddhists. If the Buddhist's records are correct, then the ministry of Jesus in Judah lasted just three months.
The Gospel of John on the other hand, claims the ministry of Jesus lasted over THREE YEARS. All four accounts make separate and opposing claims as to when Jesus was poled (crucified), who was there when it happened, what time he died, who was at the tomb, who saw the apparitions of Jesus and under what circumstances. All disagree over whether Jesus ascended or not. Those who say he did, differ on where it happened, when it happened and who was present. The earliest known Christian writers claim Jesus lived over fifty years, well into manhood, before he died, presumably in some normal way. They were disputing the claims of some that Jesus was poled (crucified) buried and resurrected. They claimed Jesus was a MAN and he was not killed by the Jews or Romans.
If Jesus was a real living person, how is it even possible that close friends of his could have differed so wildly in their account of his life, ministry, teachings and death? The only honest conclusion at which one can arrive is, the writers neither knew him personally, nor did they have any first hand information from anyone who did know him. If we were to say one of them knew him personally, it would be impossible to say which one. The only one who can be eliminated for sure is the writer of the book called John. He didn't even have a third hand account of Jesus. Is the Holy Spirit responsible for these differences? If not, who is guilty of it?
One could go on and on with the different accounts of the genealogies of Jesus, the time of the poling (crucifixion), the copying from the Gnostic texts, of the miracles and the sermon on the mountain, the earthquake which caused the saints to wake up out of their graves and walk around Jerusalem, the killing of the children of Bethlehem, the copied Lord's Prayer, Jesus going into Egypt, etc. All said to be true in one book and contradicted in another one. Not one single Roman or Jewish record confirms, or even mentions, a single one of these tales. There are hundreds of items like these and you should read the mishmash written by priests and preachers who try to find some acceptable explanation for these errors and inconsistencies. They avoid even talking about the fact that there is NO civil record or evidence AT ALL.
The Bible is only a book of TESTIMONY, or as some have called it, "A book of gossip". That is, the writers, who were not there, are testifying to certain things and events as though they personally experienced them. They testify to certain events as being true and therefore, they are asking you to believe that what was written are the true accounts of those events. Let us interview some of those who are giving witness and testimony about these unusual and wonderful religious claims.
It is claimed that you wrote the book called, Matthew. Why did you use spellings in your book which did not come into practice until after the third century AD?
I was led by the Holy Spirit.
Why in Matthew 28:15 did you write, "And this story has been wildly circulated among the Jews to this very day."? Does that not indicate the story was written a long time after the man called Matthew was dead? Then, if you were not at least two hundred years old, you were not an eye witness to any of the events in Matthew, correct? Only an eye witness can give testimony about an event.
It is claimed you wrote the book called Mark? Were you an eye witness to any of the events described in this book? And how do you know those things are true?
No. I was told by Peter, Paul and Barnabas.
But, you were not a witness? Was Paul a witness?
No, Paul was told by God who whispered in his ear - in a vision.
Why did you use so many Latin words in your gospel and why are several of these words spelled as they were spelled in the third century and not spelled as they were spelled in the first century?
I was writing to the Romans.
Then the book which bears your name was written much later than is claimed and unless you lived to be well over two hundred years old you could not have written the book called Mark.
No need to call the writer of the book called Luke. He got all of his information from Paul (possibly a fictious character) who got his information in a vision - whispered to him in his head. Luke was nnot an eye witness. So next, we call the writer of the book called John. It is claimed that you wrote the book called John. Were you an eye witness to what you wrote?
You said Jesus was God?
Did you say a man must believe what you wrote about the Savior (Jesus) and if he did not believe, he would be condemned by God and forever cast into hell and separated from God? And why are these the same exact words used by the Mithraic Church about their Jesus Christ called Mithra?
I don't know.
Then we must look deeper into what you have said.
The Gospel of John begins with, "In the beginning was the Word. . . ." This and many more sections of John are direct quotes from the Oriental holy books. These quotes were also copied by some of the Greek religious writers and philosophers at least two centuries before the Christian era. Other parts of John comes from Gnostic writings, many of which were also copied from Buddhist's scriptures. What do you have to say about this?
You must believe and not doubt!
There is a major problem with the Gospel of John. It is an altogether different religion than Matthew, Mark and Luke describe. John's religion is almost totally Mithraic and follows Buddhist and Gnostic texts, while the other gospels are somewhat more Jewish in nature. The combination of Buddhist and Gnostic philosophy is Mithraic in tone and fact. It is the Gospel of John which sets the theology of most Fundamental Protestant doctrines. ALL scholars agree that John was written much later than the other gospels and letters and that it does not conform to the other books of the gospel, nor to the letters of other Bible writers. It is very, very different.
There must be a reason why the book, "John" follows the Mithraic doctrines so closely. Why? No eye witness to the life and teachings of Jesus could have accidentally, or even on purpose, changed those Jewish accounts into a different Mithraic type of religion as happened with the book called John, and certainly not if he ever knew the man Jesus. It is interesting that the ministry of Mithra lasted three years. According to John, the ministry of Jesus lasted the same amout of time. Is there a connection?
Someone who did not know the truth about the New Testament events in the life of Jesus, or who sought to change those events, wrote the book called John (whatever those events were, IF there were events). He may have been a Mithraic or Gnostic priest. He may have written the book called John, as late as the end of the fourth century AD, and certainly not earlier than the end of the third century. The Mithraic doctrines began to penetrate the religion of "The Way" quite early in its history.
The New Testament gives us three religions. First, there is the Jewish type found in Matthew, Mark and Luke which is a type of new covenant between God and all the Jewish believers as a whole. Then there is the Gnostic and Mithraic type found in John which is a despotic and ridged type of religion with magic formulas and dire threats against disbelievers. Finally, there is the religion of Paul which is sort of a middle of the road between the other two. It is a spiritual and philosophical religion between God and the individual believer.
Clear Thinkers accept the Bible as a unique book which has widely affected the culture of the past and present. They see no evidence a God inspired a single word of it. They do see a great deal of evidence that the Bible was copied from earlier accounts of different religions and from men who lived a long time before the Christian era. They do see a multitude of errors in it (see Chapter 28 on errors). They also find scores and scores of added bits of information and statements which were not even present in Constantine's first Holy Book.
All in all, Clear Thinkers find the New Testament unreliable in the areas of history, ethics, morals, science, economics, education, psychology, political science, social relationships, justice, family relationships, and yes, even in religion. The Holy Bible is the work of many men, therefore, men must judge it.
Why are there so many errors still in the Bible? The leaders of the religions have had hundreds of years to rid their Holy Book, their doctrines and their teachings of those things which are "dead giveaways" that the Bible and their religion itself is simply man made. Why have they not taken out those internal statements which expose their stories as being false? The reason is, because they haven't had to. The believers have been quieted and kept in servitude by the simple FEAR that to honestly and seriously study into these things would be to doubt, and to doubt is to SIN UNPARDONABLY. To sin this SIN is to lose their salvation and all of the good things which their religion has promised them for the future.
The gullible, the fearful and the guilt ridden shall inherit the Holy Bible and the church. (They deserve it.)
FEAR MAKES GOOD BELIEVERS.
To rid yourself of fear and guilt, learn to think. To embrace the Clear Thinker's philosophy, one must desire to know the truth over and above any emotional attachment which he may have to any belief. In fact, there are Clear Thinkers in many of our churches today. Good work can be done almost anywhere, in or out of religious organizations. (Later, we will be discussing the Clear Thinker's view of staying in the church, Chap. 7 - 8.) But, before one can embrace honesty and the philosophy of the Clear Thinker, he must honestly ask and honestly answer some questions.
"If I found out much, or even all, I have been taught by church, Bible, mother, etc., were proven false, could I stand up under the emotional strain? Could I stand up under the bitterness of finding out I have been lied to and deceived? How would I react if I suddenly found there is no heaven or hell as taught by the religions? If I am one who makes my living from those who support the church, (a priest, minister, teacher, professor, etc.) could I give up my job, or stay on as a Clear Thinker? Could