In this video Dr Kevin McCairn PhD neuroscientist has a discussion with E. Michael Jones Catholic writer, former professor at Saint Mary’s College in Indiana and the current editor of Culture Wars magazine concerning consciousness and metaphysics. At the conclusion of the discussion after E. Michael Jones leaves, I join Dr McCairn for a chat. Though I differ on the theology it was refreshing to listen to E. Michael Jones and his rational presentation of metaphysics.

Logos, language, mathematics, and nature

My position is that there is a connection between these abstract concepts which are to a lesser or greater degree focused on nature and on the activity of divine agency in the material world. The following short video has an interesting understanding of the role that language plays:


Language is unique in communicating and structuring abstract ideas, crucial to our thought processes and therefore of critical importance to consciousness and metaphysics. It also determines relationships and hierarchical structures. I give my children and my dog a name, they do not name me. When language is combined with mathematics and that is used to describe creation, we are dealing with something uniquely powerful and as far as I can determine this first occurred with the proto-Hebrew language and passed via Phoenician to the Greek language. Below are some initial findings which I hope to express in a separate article, but they demonstrate that Genesis encodes the cyclical nature of the destructive and creative process that was also known to other ancient civilizations. What makes the Semitic approach unique is that it combines language and mathematics (sacred geometry) with revelation resulting in an ontological unfolding of a continuously evolving manifestation of consciousness. The divine name is not just linked with what God is, but with what God will be. Everything lives and moves and has its being in him, ipso fact he is then the source of consciousness and we are nodes in the matrix. The Genesis narrative highlights alienation and existential angst.

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons" (Gen 3:7).

The word naked has the following values: ‘ê-rum-mim (naked) עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם – 360 Standard / 72 Ordinal and 360 x 72 =25,920 years which is the number of years in the Platonic Great Year considered by the ancients (and Newton) to reflect the Precession Cycle. The full Hebrew verse has the standard value 4066 whereas the other verse with the plural form (‘ă·rūm·mîm עֲרוּמִּים   std 366 / 78 ord) in Genesis 2:25 has the value 2,626 (std) and 4,066-2,626 = 1,440 (the minutes in a 24-hour day) which is 2 cycles of 720.  The figures 72 and 144 (or multiples thereof) are found in all the ancient precession cycle calendars from the Babylonian, Mayan, Indian etc. 18 x 1,440 =25,920

(note that both numbers reduce to 9), moreover the sum of the squares of these two numbers (144^2 +72^2) is also 25,920.  The value of the word naked pre-fall (Gen 2:25- 366/78) is different to the value after the fall (Gen 3:7 naked= 360/72). The serpent in Gen 3:1 is described as cunning (crafty, shrewd) with the word cunning having the same values   (366/78  both reduce to 6) as naked in Gen 2:25 (before the fall) with the full verse (as we have seen) reflecting double the yhvh name value (2626) reflecting their primeval innocence with emphasis on both male and female imaging yhvh (And they were both naked the man and his wife and were not ashamed) hence the double 26.

That the word naked can when re-pointed and differentially contextualized (cf. Job 5:12 and Job 15:5 עֲרוּמִ֑ים) take on the negative connotation of crafty (=the serpent) demonstrates that the omniscient narrator already anticipates that the idyllic harmony will be ruined by rebellion. The phrase “were not ashamed” (ולא יתבששו) just happens to have the ordinal value of 101 and 26 x 101 =2626 (the std value reduces to 11=2). We saw previously the mathematics and sacred Geometry connected with Genesis 1:1 –

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Gen 1:1)

Std value =2,701 Ordinal =298      בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ


There is much more, we are just scraping the surface.











The verse triangle can be inscribed in a circle with a radius of 42 units. Adding the seven Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1 in different combinations, one will find 23 multiples of the number 37, including a compound figurate square of 23 hexagrams (37 7²) and cubes of hexagrams (37 2³) and (37 3³). Random chance would indicate only about three multiples. Note that each of the seven words is used exactly twelve times in making up the 23 multiples of 37 (i.e., 913 appears twelve times; 203 appears twelve times, and so on). Here are the gematria and order of each of the seven Genesis 1:1 words: 913, 203, 86, 401, 395, 407. And there is much more (reserved for future articles).

The Logos

There is therefore a nexus between language, mathematics and nature resulting in the revelation of what John refers to as the Logos in his prologue. The first verse of the Fourth Gospel builds on the geometry of Genesis 1:1 by adding a plinth to the triangle:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος,  καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. 

Standard =3627, Ordinal= 605









The Triangular  plinth of 3627 has 12 divisors with a totient of φ = 2160 which happens to be a Platonic month. The value of the first triangle (2701) and plinth (3627) is equivalent to the 112 th triangular number (6328) which also happens to be the length of the base making the perimeter 333 dots and the product of the digit pairs (63 x 28) is the square of 42 as does the ordinal value of both verses, which sums up to the Triangular number of 42 (903).








Therefore, we have a direct connection between the Genesis 1:1 and that of the Fourth Gospel with the appearance of Jesus on the scene described in terms of creation. Moreover, the name used for Jesus in the Talmud (וּשֵׁי Yēšū) which is often hostile towards him has the ordinal value 37 which is the same as the Hebrew word for wisdom which is in turn the 37th triangular number (666+37 =703) and Yēšū also has the standard value of 316 which is the mirror of 613 the number of commandments (mitzvot) in the Torah (Tractate Makkot 23b). With the word becoming flesh (καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο : kai o logos sarx egeneto) the word flesh (sarx) in the Greek giving us the value 361 we have the unusual triumvirate of : 316 (Yēšū) 613 (word) 361 (flesh) the sum giving the 1290 days of Daniel 12:11 (from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away…).

LIVE – E. Michael Jones: Consciousness and Metaphysics (3:14)


Is the Prologue of John influenced by Platonic, Philonic or Gnostic concepts?

A case can be made that all three strands of thought cross-fertilized each other especially as the Fourth Gospel was written to the church at Ephesus and the Gospel emphasized the superiority of Christ over John the Baptist and the influence of Jewish gnostic sorcery (cf. Acts 19) a church that was made known the manifold wisdom (Sophia) of God (Eph 3:10)….  And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge (gnosis), that ye might be filled with all the fulness (pelorma) of God (Eph 3:19). Ephesians is employing gnostic terminology, the problem was that Gnosticism became “secret knowledge” only available to initiates and it tended to regard the material creation as evil and slip into Docetism, namely that Christ’s body was not human but either a phantasm or of real but celestial substance, and that therefore his sufferings were only apparent. For this reason, early Christianity rejected extreme forms of Gnosticism and the Fourth Gospel emphasizes that the Logos became flesh thus emphasizing his physical body and his human nature.

Many Christians use the Latin word incarnation for the Logos which is derivative from the ecclesiastical Latin verb incarno, itself derived from the prefix in- and caro, “flesh”, meaning “to make into flesh” or, in the passive, “to be made flesh” as in the Word became flesh in the Latin Vulgate “et Verbum caro factum” understood as  a hypostatic union of the divine nature and the human nature and pointing to pre-existence, co-substantiality etc. More apropos to Johannine usage would be the term phanerōthē (Greek: φανερωθῇ) carrying the idea of manifestation, a word that occurs frequently in the Greek NT, particularly in the Gospel of John with reference to Jesus’ manifesting to Israel (John 1:31), manifesting glory (John 2:1), manifesting truth and light (John 3:21), manifesting the name (John 17:6), manifesting his risen self (John 21:2,14).  Jesus is seen by John as the ultimate manifestation of the name (I AM) although a lesser manifestation is encountered in the healing of the blind man whose visage was altered that much as to make him unrecognizable to the crowd who questioned his identity to which he replied with the “I AM” formula; “Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I AM “ (John 9:9  Note that he in italics in the KJV is added by the translator). Jesus explicitly says- “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest (phanerōthē) in him” (John 9:3).  In the act of healing the blind man becomes an example of the manifestation of divine power. Moreover, the phrase this is he is the 45 th time that Οὗτος (Houtos) is used in the Fourth Gospel with the other forty-four times referencing Jesus, where it is either translated as this one, or in combination “this man” or as “the same” as in the first occurrence of the gospel; “The same was in the beginning with God” (John 1:2) with all 45 occurrences reflecting the value of Adam in the Hebrew (45), Jesus is depicted as the last Adam ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ (1 Cor 15:45) the express image (Heb 1:3).

It is thought that the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo merged the Ancient Greek Logos philosophy (the principle of cosmic reason) with the Hebrew concept of Wisdom, God’s companion and intimate helper in creation (See Prov 8 article on wisdom to follow soon). Logos became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c. 535 – c.  475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge, but the concept was already in use in the Hebrew scriptures before it was popularized in Greek philosophy.  Moreover, sacred geometry, higher mathematics and the length of the Great Precession Year was encoded into the language before it appeared in Greece (watch from 16 mins):


The fact remains that the concept of LOGOS in the Hebrew Bible was earlier than the Greek philosophers and the remarkable “coincidence” that the translation of John 1:1 having the same value as Psalm 107:20 is remarkable.


A rough Timeline demonstrates that the sacred geometry and mathematics in Scripture  is earlier than the Greeks and earlier than  Hermes Trismegistus / Gnosticism.

  • Isaiah-Hezekiah 700 BC -Logos
  • Babylonian Exile 586 BC
  • Pythagoras (570-495 BC)
  • Heraclitus c. (535 – 475 BC)-Logos
  • Plato c. (428-348 BC)
  • Euclid 330 BC
  • Archimedes c. (287 – 212 BC)
  • Hipparchus c. 120 BC Precession year
  • Ptolemy c.170 BC Precession year
  • Legendary Hermes Trismegistus c.170 BC


Exposition Johannine prologue

The translation used is the KJV of John 1.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Note: The absence of an article in the phrase In the beginning rendering In beginning note also the accusative preposition pros indicates movement towards a destination called THE God differentiated from god by the absence of an article. G. R. S. Mead places the prologue of the Fourth Gospel in a gnostic context and is partly correct as it was at Ephesus that followers of the John the Baptist were found (Acts 19:1-3) and the Mandæans (lit. Gnostics—mandā = gnōsis) of the lower Euphrates who are the only known surviving community of the ancient Gnosis.The Sidrā d’Yahyā (Book of John) deal with the life and teachings of John the Baptizer.  Mead  renders the first verse as; “In Beginning was Mind; and Mind was with GOD” which offers the temptation to substitute mind with “tensor field” or “consciousness” or perhaps translate Logos as “purpose” or “idea” or “reason” until we realize that Logos is translated as Word 208x  and  as saying 50x in Young’s concordance and sending forth the word is idiom for sending an agent (like a prophet) to speak on God’s behalf.  The terms of the Fourth Gospel must be defined by the Johannine corpus because he has his own distinct idiom. Thus, John refers to The Word in three other places, and in each case his allusion is to Jesus the Man. “His name is called the Word of God” (Rev. 19:13). “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life” (1 Jn. 1:1); that is, they heard his preaching, they saw his miracles, they looked upon him crucified, and they handled him when risen from the dead (Lk. 24:39). “Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw” (Rev. 1:2). Even this passage, which at first sight seems to require a different meaning for “the word of God” lines up with the others when it is realised that this is the first of a series of triads which meet the reader in Revelation 1 (compare verses 4b, 5a, 7). In fact, “the testimony of Jesus and all things that he saw” is the exact equivalent of 1 John 1:2. The tentative conclusion concerning “the Word” in John 1:1 would therefore appear to be that it means Jesus the Man, and not Jesus the Idea or Purpose.

The identity of the expression: “In the beginning” with Genesis 1:1 has led many to assume that John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the visible creation. But a careful use of the concordance reveals that out of 16 other instances where John speaks of “the beginning”, in no single case does he allude to Genesis 1:1. Admittedly, in two of them he refers to Genesis, but in both instances (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8) the allusion is to the serpent. This, however, is Genesis 3 and not the beginning of creation, when all material things were made by the word of God: “And God said…”

It is impressive to observe that all other occurrences of “the beginning” in John’s writings have to do with the beginning of the ministry of Jesus or the beginning of discipleship or some related idea. A few examples:

“And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning” (John15:27).

“And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you” (John 16:4).

‘Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning” (John 8:25).

“For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him” (John. 6:64).

“Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning” (1 John 2:7).

“For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another” (1 John 3:11).

This list should be conclusive. John 1:1 is speaking about the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. Hence, appropriately, the immediate reference to the Baptist: “There was a man sent from God whose name was John” (v.6), a reference which in the traditional exposition is badly out of place.  Mark’s gospel is now seen to have exactly the same approach: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face” (Mk. 1:1,2). And in Luke’s introduction also: “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses-and-ministers of the Word” (Lk. 1:1,2). Note here also, that, as in John, “the Word” must be Jesus; the phrase “eyewitnesses and ministers” requires this.

So we see that it is a matter of allowing the Bible to interpret itself.

There is much more that I could say  but the article would become too long.   It is however interesting to note that John the Baptist is and we are explicitly told that he was not that Light (John 1:6-9).  The reason for the emphasis on Lights is because the annunciation of the birth of John occurred (see my commentaries) at the Feast of Lights a Feast that celebrated the cleansing and re-dedication of the temple (cf. John 2:21) after the defilement wrought by Antiochus Epiphenes.  The birth of Jesus who was six months younger than the Baptist would have seen him presented at the temple at Pentecost as the fruit of the Spirit.  The point is that John the Baptist was the forerunner to herald the new temple (Jesus Christ) and the church at Ephesus need to be reminded that despite the unusual circumstances of John’s birth he was not “that light”.

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.  And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace (John 1:15-16).

The emphasis is on the superiority of Christ note the use of the word fullness or the Greek pléróma. The Greek pléróma (plērōmatos, πληρώματος) in Gnosticism understands the spiritual universe as the abode of God and of the totality of the divine powers and emanations but a similar phraseology occurs in the Greek version of Isaiah 6:3 (LXX): “Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full (πλήρης/plérés) of his glory”. The root (plē-) expresses totality, and implies full quantity (“up to the max”). DNTT (1,733) notes its cognates (plērēs, plēroō, plērōma) all come from the root (plē-/plēthō) meaning “full in quantity.” Thus plḗthō (“to fill or complete”) refers to “that which is complete in itself because of plenitude, entire number or quantity. . . . the whole aggregate,” WS, 395,96). In Christian theology the totality or fullness dwells in Christ denoting that he received the spirit without measure (John 3:34). So, although there is cross fertilization one need not speak of dependence but rather shared motifs, however, once again we see that the Johannine corpus draws on the Old Testament for conceptual language.

Not only is Jesus depicted as superior to John, he is greater than Jacob (John 4:12), has a greater witness than John (John 5:36), is greater than Abraham (John 8:53), he is before John (John 1:15), and before Abraham (John 8:58) he has the fullness and is the I AM and yet the the Father is greater than him (John 14:28) for  he is greater than all (John 10:29). Rater than construct theories to explain these apparent anomalies and contradictions  Christians should examine scriptures where it is explained how Abraham “saw my day”  because in the mount of the LORD it shall be seen (Gen 22:14) and  Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off (Gen 22:4 ) and he called the place Yahweh Yireh  or Yah will be seen.  The love of God would be manifest in the place where Jesus was sacrificed.  This is about manifestation and bearing the name.

In John 1:30 the Greek for ‘preferred’ is literally ‘became’ (γέγονεν, gegonen) and the Greek for man (ἀνὴρ,anēr) is very often used to refer to a husband. A literal reading could therefore just as well be, “after me cometh a husband,who has come before me, for he was first of me”. In the case of Redemption by the kinsman redeemer the one that comes AFTER and takes the place of the dead husband comes BEFORE. Jesus born after John took precedence before him because he had come to raise seed to the dead.


  • Note that the women praising Ruth say, “… do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem” (Ruth 4:11) and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem from the line Of David and a direct descendant of Ruth.

I could continue writing about the Fourth Gospel but this must suffice with some earlier material on John 1:3-4 and staircase parallelism.

Your web browser doesn’t have a PDF Plug-in. Click to download Covid articles



Scripture is multivalent and encoded sacred geometry and mathematics in the language before the Greeks systematized their mathematics and their philosophy. The fact that the encoding operates across the  Hebrew/Greek language barrier with reference to cosmology and astrophysics is remarkable. Scripture can only be understood intertexually and any deviance from proper hermeneutics leads to error. That said, scripture can be read by a child and  the truth can be grasped in a child like manner.

Complexity emerges from simple rules employed iteratively and the outcome of the “causal chain” is the same regardless of the input variables. But who sets those initial rules? As E. Michael Jones inferred, philosophy and rationality will only get you so far as beyond a certain point is unknowable.  At this point the believer falls back on faith which in its outworking becomes as real as “data” and is classed as “evidence” of unseen realities (Heb 11:1) as the consciousness of the believer with the help of God the source of all, calls into being the things that are not as if they were (Rom 4:17).

Jesus was superior to all who came before but by his own admission he was not greater than the Father. No man has seen the Father yet whoever saw Jesus in action had seen the Father (John 14:8-10). Unlike Adam he was the perfect image and the face of Jesus is the reflection of God’s glory (2 Cor 4:6). World without end. Amen.


Classical vs Gnostic Christianity

Classical vs Gnostic Christianity

I was late joining the debate at 45 mins into this four-hour stream.

Classical vs Gnostic Christianity With John Brisson & Robert Ferrell (4:00 hrs)


Robert Ferrell’s area of expertise is the the Gospel of Thomas from the Nag Hammadi find in 1945.  John Brisson is an Evangelical Christian who used to be a Gnostic and recently made a video demonstrating Rockefeller connections with the funding of Gnostic research and publications.


My first point is that in addressing Gnosticism we face an epistemological challenge as claims of hidden knowledge and expertise closes any debate as does any claim of special revelation. The difference with Christianity is that any truth claims are not hidden but open to examination and can be tested with regards to prophetic and historic veracity. Jesus makes a point about transparency:  “I have spoken openly to the world, I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret” (John 8:20).  On the surface this may seem to contradict his penchant for speaking in parables so that, seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand (Matt 13:13) but the parables acted as a filter because anyone who did not understand (like his disciples) could come to him afterwards and ask and he would willingly explain.  So, the idea of secret knowledge only available to initiates (which was practiced in many occult religions) was contrary the gospel teachings.  There was no special “in-group”. 

Robert focused on the similarity of language and concepts found in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, but this should not come as a surprise as it comes from a similar milieu as the synoptic traditions, but it has not developed the complex theology and intertextual as scripture. Intertextuality is a hermeneutical strand of poststructuralism whereby texts imbed, reuse, allude to or echo precursor materials so that innovation is grounded in established tradition.   Gnostic writings can make no claim to this complex development. In fact, the Nag Hammadi library is an eclectic collection that includes a Gnostic Redaction of Plato’s republic (Coptic translation) and the words of the pagan text “Eugnostos the Blessed” put into the mouth of Jesus as “The Sophia of Jesus Christ”.   The Gnostic text is trying to gain legitimacy by attributing the pagan text to Christ.  I would suggest that this is the Gnostic modus operandi, namely parasitizing and infiltrating established religions a tactic which was familiar to Judaism who in later centuries syncretized and adopted some of the Gnostic teachings such as the divine sparks found in the Kabbalah.  In the complex Gnostic cosmogony Sophia or Wisdom is one of the various emanations of God but in this theology, it is “Wisdom” who rebels against the spirit and creates Yaltabaoth or the demiurge Yahweh of the Bible.  That does not sound very wise to me but rather stupid.  Thus, the material creation or “prison” is the result of Sophia rebelling.  Of course, the opposite is the case in Biblical literature were wisdom is personified or a  hypostatization such as in the poem of Proverbs eight and  where (Prov 9:10) the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (the  first use of the word afraid is when Adam hid himself from Yahweh in Gen 3:10).  The stream Egypt Redux has a transcript and video in which I discuss James Dunn’s research on wisdom in Christology in the Making.

 What is referred to as the “Book of Enoch” is actually a collection of three different parts (1, 2 and 3 Enoch) with only 1 Enoch being dated before the New Testament, with a range of 2nd BC – 1st AD according to Charlesworth (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols), Charlesworth, James, (ed). Doubleday: 1983). but more probably close to the Maccabee period ca.167 BC (middle of the range) as the first 36 chapters seem to be pre-Maccabean. The other sections are dated after the NT; 2 Enoch (late 1st AD) and 3 Enoch (5-6th AD). Borger suggests that Enoch could be the 7th king in the Sumerian King list. First, let’s note that the Sumerian version is more elaborate, more ‘spectacular’, more miraculous, and more complex than the biblical version. The surprisingly long-life spans in the bible (i.e. hundreds of years) are DWARFED by the tens of thousands of years in the Sumerian list! The Sumerian heroes of each period are twofold–a king AND a sage–instead of a single leadership figure as in the OT. (Borger in “I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11., Hess, Richard, and David Tsumura (eds.), Eisenbrauns: 1994). The function of ascribing a later document to an ancient Israelite hero such as Moses, Enoch, and Joshua is known as pseudepigrapha (or, more properly, pseudonymity), and scholars today are still unsure of exactly why the authors did this…It is not at all clear that they actually intended their audience to believe that, in the case of Jubilees, that Moses actually contradicted himself or omitted portions of his ‘earlier’ work the Pentateuch. A basic methodological principle of comparative studies in the ANE, stated by noted Assyriologist Kitchen is that in the Ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa. In the Ancient Orient, legends were not simplified or turned into pseudo-history (historicized)… (Ancient Orient and Old Testament., Kitchen, KA, IntervarsityPress: 1966.)

The book of 1 Enoch shares many terms with the OT book of Daniel begging the question if it is dependent (or vice versa). J. Goldingay comments as follows on the Similitudes; “The Parables are uninstanced at Qumran, and current opinion regards them as belonging to the Roman period. Their most interesting parallel to Daniel (more likely suggesting dependence on Daniel than on a common source) is their taking up the humanlike figure and the one advanced in days of 7:13. “That Son of Man” (1Enoch) 46-48, alongside the “head of days” with hair white like wool; see also chaps.62; 69), God’s elect and righteous one, is eventually identified with Enoch (71.14). Thus Daniel 7 is one of the texts that is used to interpret the significance of Enoch and his translation, reported with such tantalizing brevity in Gen 5; and it leads to or justifies a belief in Enoch’s functioning as eschatological judge”. J. Goldingay, Daniel, (Word Biblical Commentary, ed., D.A. Hubbard, G.W. Barker, J.D.W. Watts, R.P. Martin; Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1989), Intro, xxviii.  Jude but Peter reference Enoch   in a polemical fashion not because they were promoting the pseudepigrapha but because they were countering an antinomian subversion (on this see my article on Fallen Angels).

The priestly and cultic background of 1 Enoch is also increasingly recognised, particularly the role of the Day of Atonement ritual in the “Watchers Cycle” where scholarship understands the story of the “Fallen angels” as a mythological satire against the Samaritan schismatic’s – who (joined by some of the Jerusalem priests) established their own priesthood and form of worship. Moreover, the sending away of the scapegoat to Azazel (= the strong one) on the day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) reflects sending the nation into Babylonian exile (dry places= the wilderness). The only place the word is found in the Hebrew bible is in Leviticus 16: 8-10 as a proper name but it does appear in 1 Enoch where it is embellished into a story about fallen angels and demons. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (vol 2) suggest that the Aramaic forms point to dependence on Leviticus (Gabelein, Frank E. (1990). The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. pp. 590). Be that as it may, Jesus references the Atonement ritual and the Passover ritual and explicitly mentions Azazel (strong one):

Luke 11:21-26:  When a *strong [man] armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:  22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.  23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.  24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.  25 And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.  26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

* the word [man] is not in the original Greek

The context of the discussion is the accusation that Jesus is casting out demons by the power of the chief demon Beelzebub. Jesus had cast out the unclean spirt with the miraculous healing of Legion and placed the unclean spirit in the swine that drowned in the “abyss” (Luke).   Legion was found healed and sitting at Jesus’ feet listening to the gospel.  That is an acted atonement ritual but the unclean spirit is not ritually placed by the priest on a goat and then sent away (into the wilderness) but on an unclean animal (pig) that drowns. The nation had returned from Babylonian exile and found the “house” clean because Jesus had swept the temple and removed the money-changers in imitation of the pre-Passover feast of unleavened bread where Israelites spring cleaned their homes and “removed the leaven” (corruption) in preparation for the Passover sacrifice of the Lamb. Moreover, in the parable, after having gone through the cleansing ritual (exile) the man takes in seven more demons and becomes completely possessed. This is obviously a reference to the dynasty of the high priest Caiaphas and his relatives seven of whom controlled the priesthood until its destruction in AD 70.  The “house” was removed because they had gone completely insane.  In Jewish lore (probably under Hellenistic influence) Azazel becomes the red, hairy goat like devil.  This is a conflation of the biblical story of Edom the brother of Jacob who is described as red and hairy combined with the scapegoat that “bears the iniquity of the nation”and was sent into the wilderness (dry places). Thus, another myth is born.  The story of Cain and Able is also based on the Day of Atonement Ritual with Abel being slain (at the entrance to the Sanctuary of Eden) and Cain being sent away into exile (representing the Jewish nation) and being called a vagabond, which term is picked up in Acts 19 when Paul speaks about the “vagabond” Jews and the exorcist Sceva and his “seven sons” which flee the house naked and wounded.

This brings us to Ephesus which was a very important city in Asia Minor (Turkey) and a center of Jewish and Christian interaction.  In Church tradition John (the brother of James and disciple of Jesus) took the mother of Jesus (Mary) to Ephesus and looked after her.  It is off the coast of Ephesus on the island of Patmos that John is said to have been banished and received the Apocalypse delivered to seven churches in Asia Minor.  It is where Paul (in Acts 19) discovers disciples of John the Baptist who had never heard of Jesus (Paul re-baptises them into Jesus). It is also where Paul encounters the “sorcerer” Sceva.  It is in my view the destination not only of the Epistle to the Ephesians, but of the Fourth Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews (probably written by Barnabas). It is notable that the epistle to the Ephesians contains (in polemical fashion) references to Gnostic theology cf. Ephesians 2:2; “ Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince (archon) of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (Eph 2:2) which is juxtaposed with “the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself” (Eph 1:5) and what then of Kosmokrator (see my article) which is the counterpart to the angel of death. These are polemical texts addressing the attack on the church by gnostic and Judaistic elements.  The Fourth Gospel should also be understood against this background particularly with reference to the Prologue which de-mythologizes and reuses Platonic, gnostic and Philonic terms in a masterpiece of bringing out new meaning.  The gap between the Greek philosophic understanding of form  and pure reason was bridged by the essence or LOGOS becoming material in the person of Jesus Christ which Christians refer to as incarnation (I prefer manifestation) this is why Christians rejected the docetic/gnostic teaching that Jesus was not real (he was just a ghost or spirt) and not flesh or blood which becomes a litmus test in the first century (1 John 4:1-3). Gnosticism was rejected by the early church. However, “Gnostic language” is encountered (Proarkhe (“before the beginning”, Greek: προαρχή), Arkhe (“the beginning”, Greek: ἀρχή)) with John the Baptist explicitly stating (though using different Greek): “This (Christ) is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me”. (John 1:30). One of the reasons for writing the gospel of John was to demonstrate the superiority of Christ over the patriarchs and John the Baptist.   The synoptic gospels and the Fourth Gospels are not “history” (but they contain history) they are not biographies (but they contain biographical material) they are not theology (but they contain theology) they are sacred history, and each gospel is different because they were written to counter specific problems in the church using Jesu’s ministry as an example and were sent to different churches (audiences).  And they all concentrate (focal point) on the Passion narrative (last week).  The Fourth Gospel is enigmatic because its style is so different and is seen as late and therefore unhistorical. However, the scholar John A.T. Robinson (Redating the New Testament/The Priority of John) following his mentor Dodd argues the case that the writer had access to very early material. This would make the gospel both early and late (do you see the problem?). The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St John’s fragment, was discovered in Alexandria and has been dated by different scholars in a range from 100-150 AD and 125-175 AD.  My own investigations (especially the story of Nathaniel) show connections with the Bar Kochba revolt (ca.132-135 AD) where the false messiah was recognised by the chief Rabbi (Akiva), but this does not mean that it is ex-eventu (John 5:43   I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.) I can recommend Andersons’ book The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered  although I am not in complete agreement with his historical outline of Johannine Christianity (pp. 196-199). As to Hebrews, it demonstrates (in my view) awareness of the problem in Ephesus; Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God (Hebrews 6:1), this is the Baptism of Repentance (of John the Baptist): “If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame” (Hebrews 6:6). In other words, you cannot progress from the Baptism of Repentance (John) to the baptism of Jesus and then revert to John. It is my view that the Gnostic Mandeans who revere John the Baptist and who now live in Australia (as Iraqi refugees) and practice multiple washing and Baptisms originated with the movement in Ephesus that Paul discovered. Moreover, the message to the Hebrews (Jews at Ephesus) corresponds with the message given by Christ to Ephesus in the Apocalypse.

Note that the message in Revelation 2:1-7 to Ephesus is based on the garden of Eden and with the seven branched candlestick (menorah design is based on a tree) symbolizing the tree of life (v.7).


And the Correspondence between Hebrews and Ephesians:


The Gnostics at Ephesus claimed superiority of “illumination” (compare the Illuminati) or special knowledge brought by the serpent in Eden.  Not illumination by God’s spirit. Then there were the Judaists who claimed superiority via the Law. At some historical point Judaists and Gnostics syncretized certain doctrines in the Kabbalah which together with the Kybalion became the New Age teaching of the technocrats (full title: The Kybalion: A Study of the Hermetic Philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece) is a book originally published in 1908. And so we have gone full circle from Egypt the home of Hermetics, alchemy, magic and illumination. It was Egypt were Moses challenged the Hermetic “magicians” Jannes and Jambres by casting down a serpent (2 Tim 3:8). Paul warns Timothy to avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science (gnosis) falsely so called (1 Timothy 6:20). It is ironic that the KJV should translate gnosis as “science” almost as if they are pointing towards ancient Hermetic alchemy and transformation as practiced by the transhumanist science in their quest for immortality.  The serpent and the Eden mythology is key to Gnostic theology which points to ancient pre-Sumerian origins. From the Serpent, Nawcash, in the Garden of Eden; Atum, the Egyptian snake-man; and Quetzalcotl, the feathered serpent god of the Mayans to the double-helix snake symbol of Enki/Ea in ancient Sumerian literature, the serpent has been the omnipresent link between humans and the gods in every culture.

Do the “Lizard people” represent a priestly class that practiced head binding (as among the Peruvian elite)?  When it says that the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made (Gen 3:1) is the beast a reference to an empire (like they are in Daniel) eg. the Ubaid. (??). The symbol of cyclical destruction is the ouroborus (snake eating its own tail) with reference to the 25,920-year “Precession Year” when creation is unmade and “reset” (The Great Reset). It seems to me (still  examining the idea) that the serpent story represents two different ways of overcoming the existential  threat, namely, to transcend and become gods through knowledge and science (Gnosticism-transhumanism-technology) or through faith in the promise delivered to Eve and the Abrahamic Revelation which rejects both the Hermetic/Gnostic approach and the superstitious approach of sacrificing children to a “solar deity” to appease wrath. If I am correct, then the ancients were aware of cyclical destruction and solar flaring, and this seems likely as our ancestors must have survived previous catastrophes. Someday I must write a book about the subjects that I have only briefly touched upon here, but I feel we are running out of time.  I chose to follow the path of faith, believing that life has purpose and meaning and that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Here are more resources which include links to my articles on Ephesus (three articles)

Egypt Redux

Gnostic History

The Holiness code and Transgression

Search the Gnostic tab on my blog for further resources.

 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted....(2 Corinthians 11:3-4 )

Holocaust Commiserations

Holocaust Commiserations

I would like to offer my commiserations to the Jewish people who suffered during WW2. It seems like an opportune moment to offer my sympathy and solidarity to the Jewish people especially as the nations are commemorating the liberation of the labor camp Auschwitz (by Russia). Many Jews were dispossessed of their property and many died from starvation and disease. Official Red Cross numbers put the total of dead in all camps at 270K– the vast majority of those died from typhus outbreaks towards the end of the war due to a lack of foodstuffs reaching the camps because of Allied bombing of German rail hubs. These numbers were published by Poland probably because the survivors are seeking reparations from them. For that I am truly sorry (I sincerely mean that).  We are just glad that it was not really six million because that would be unthinkable; we would hate to see suffering on such an industrial scale. We are glad that population numbers rebounded so quickly.We know that you got confused with a Talmudic prophecy that predicted that 6 million had to die before you could return to the land.  You probably got mixed up because you had a holocaust from 1915-1938 which was widely reported in the news papers (New York Times July 20th, 1921: “6 Million Jews Face Extermination By Massacre” @14:55) and then you had a second holocaust during WW2. That is probably the cause of your confusion. We are glad that you will take the opportunity of the commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz to set the record straight. And we are glad that you have not carried your victimization trope over to the interpretation of the Torah, by making Isaiah 53 refer to the holocaust.   You realized that it would be wrong to take a prophecy about the messiah and apply it to the holocaust. As Jews you know that God does not approve the misuse of his word.

NOTE: The First World War was popularly called the “War of the Three Cousins” (Kaiser, King of Great Britain and the Russian Emperor). Two world wars were conceived back in 1850 … 1860 by a group of European and English bankers. The goal of the First World War was to destroy empires in Europe and the removal of wealthy ruling families from power (this was possible, the Russian German branch was physically destroyed). The Second World War was needed to consolidate the power of bankers, dismember Europe and incite mutual hatred of Europeans to each other (German National Socialists were a tool in the hands of bankers Warburg, the Bolshevik – Communists were a tool in the hands of the same bankers – Jacob Schiff (died in 1920 year if I’m not mistaken) and other ghouls from Wall Street). Divide and Conquer, the Cold War was a continuation of the policy of bankers. 


Not least we would like to thank you for extending forgiveness to us for our sins.  You could have held it against us in perpetuity, you could  have manipulated us and made us pay forever. Instead you chose the higher path. Your graciousness in acknowledging the sacrifice of the 60 million people who died during the war, of which approximately 27 million inhabitants of the European part of Russia in order to liberate Europe (liberate you).  We understand that you had no role to play in any of this but simply got swept along and victimized as innocent bystanders.  Like a man who walks into a bar and every bar he enters erupts in a fight.  Someone always punches him in the face for no reason and he gets thrown out. Those bar tenders are a strange lot. We  know and are deeply ashamed of our behavior.  We repent in dust and ashes.  We know how deeply you feel for the fate of the Germans at the end of the Second World War and we know that you vociferously denounced Bolshevism which was the greatest human slaughter of all time. “The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators.” (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008), Nobel-Prize-winning novelist, historian and critic of Communist totalitarianism)


We would also like to apologize for the fact that neither Eisenhower, Churchill, nor de Gaulle mention the death camps in their history of the war.  Such a glaring omission is scandalous. If they were still alive they would be prosecuted and jailed for denial. “Three of the best known works on the Second World War are General Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe (New York: Doubleday [Country Life Press], 1948), Winston Churchill’s The Second World War (London: Cassell, 6 vols., 1948-1954), and the Mémoires de guerre of General de Gaulle (Paris: Plon, 3 vols., 1954-1959). In these three works not the least mention of Nazi gas chambers is to be found. Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi “gas chambers,” a “genocide” of the Jews, or of “six million” Jewish victims of the war.”


Will you accept on behalf of all the stupid goyim (your obedient servants) our sincerest apologies?  Can you now tell us the truth about 9/11?  Will you raise a memorial to the 3 million Muslims killed in the Middle East? By the way, who is behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve?  Who runs the CB’s media etc?   The truth?  I thought not….I should not have asked….shame on me. 


The goyim know

The Law will not stop the truth

Truth will always out

Jesus is the truth



You don’t even know what that means do you?  And neither does your Rabbi.

If you want to know read the Introduction on page 1-2