God must have a sense of humor.

I have been considering something I read in Chapter 2 of Dowling's heretic gospel. Dowling claimed to have received his false gospel from the Akashic Records. That non-existent "book" is supposed to be in Sanskrit. But when Dowling mimics the Gospel of Luke, he stupidly calls Jesus by the Greek name "Jesus".

I would think that someone translating from Sanskrit to English would not lean on Greek for words to express the original language. Obviously, I don't know Sanskrit, and I don't know any Greek apart from my Bible and Concordance. But I know enough to ask these questions. Isn't there a word in Sanskrit for savior? Why not use that in stead of a Greek word?

Perhaps it is to fool stupid people who don't want to receive the the true Gospel anyway?

Well, the reason I think it's strangely funny is that the fake "book of life", the Akashic Record, is supposed to be in Sanskrit. This book that Dowling's fake gospel claims to have come from does not exist! There are no manuscripts of it. It is supposed to be a book that you read out of thin air through ESP. That alone is quite funny, but the kicker is that it is supposed to be in Sanskrit!

Sanskrit means 'self-made', or 'made up' if you please. How's that for a punch line?

A person would have to be pretty stupid to take that made-up hogwash over the Holy Bible. Even many of the Gospel-mocking liberals recognize that we have ancient manuscripts of the Bible.

Somebody is going to ask, Do you really think that God would laugh at someone being fooled? Why not? He says that the heart of man is desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). Jesus said that we can't do anything without Him (John 15:5). Everybody gets to choose, and if they insist on choosing foolishly, He won't stop them. Friend, you prove God right when you reject Jesus Christ and then want to complain that he allowed you to do it. By doing that you prove yourself to by your own problem. He says you're a problem for yourself. Why don't you listen to Him?

'Self-made'. Get it?

The only trouble is that in proving God right you prove yourself to be wrong. I'll agree, that isn't so good. That's a bitter pill to swallow!

PS: There is a concept of salvation, in the general sense, in Hinduism. Sanskrit words exist to describe it. It's nothing like the concept of salvation in Christianity or Judaism, but it's there nevertheless. So there is good reason to believe that Dowling could have provided a name for Jesus (Savior) from Sanskrit.  It's funny how the simplest things tend to betray a lie for what it is. That is certainly the case for Dowling's phony Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Greatest Impact of Heresy? (Whence hath it tares?)

I'm caught up in an ever-expanding search to identify heretics and heresy in recent times. I am beginning to see that heresy and hypocrisy in the Church have a two-pronged effect. It causes distress and doubt within the Body of Christ. And it obscures the person of Christ by "scrambling" the message.

These heretics, like Levi Dowling, blend a lot of leaven with a little bit of God's Word. Some of this trash will be quite palatable to the average church member. It will seem like scripture to the average so-called Christian who rarely steps foot in a Gospel-preaching church. It will become the "bible" for those looking easy feel-good religion. Others will just decide all religion is foolishness, because paganism seems to permeate it all.

I was just reading a bit about Rosicrucianism and a connection was implied between that heresy and Lutherinism. And for a moment I wonder if Christianity hasn't been utterly corrupted? -- I don't believe it has, because we have a wonderful Shepherd. He told us about the tares growing with the wheat (Matthew 13), so we'd know that He knows about them, and we don't have to lose faith over this kind of nonsense. -- But I can see that heresy is meant to cause confusion within and without.

Well Christian brother or sister, it's up to you to be sure of those things which you have received in Christ. The Holy Spirit is given to you for that purpose. He'll take the things of Christ and show them unto you. He's the author of the Word, and you have Him to help you understand it. He'll also convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. Read the genuine Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Accept no substitutes!

Yikes! Many birds in the mustard tree.

I was writing articles for this web log when I began to uncover a string of heresies and heretics. I decided to start another blog to organize thumbnail sketches of what I was finding, a catalog of heresy if you will. My quest began with Levi H. Dowling and his "Aquarian Gospel". I found Dowling's heresy through Jim E. Bakers "The Source" cult. I stumbled onto "The Source" cult when browsing through videos to rent at Amazon.

One of my latest encounters along this line involves L. Frank Baum. He wrote the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz about 3 years after he joined the super-cult of Theosophy. How many children of my generation (an increasingly godless group) grew up watching The Wizard of Oz year after year on television. I also think back to my own rejection of the Catholic faith of my early childhood, and my investigations in to the occult and mystery religions. I've begun to wonder what real and specific connections between the growth of apostasy in the last century and the rise of influential heretics are going to turn up?

I just discovered that Alfred Kinsey had ties to Theosophy. I already knew, through the work of Judith Reisman, that he was a hideous sexual pervert. I had also stumbled on to Alice Bailey, and her ties to the United Nations, three years ago. It's interesting to start seeing connections between them and their fowl works.

It's also rather overwhelming to consider.

The False Aquarian Gospel

It has been said that Satan has entered the church through the side door. Jesus taught the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven in parables, and He painted pictures of the church being influenced by the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. If you don't agree, friends, then just read Matthew 13 very carefully. The LORD gave the keys of correct interpretation to his disciples. Use those keys to gain understanding, friends!

Jesus taught that apostasy would enter the church. Matthew 13 is all about the work of the Church, the efforts of Satan to hinder the work, and of coming judgment. The tree that grows from a mustard seed (Mat 13:31-32) is a picture of the organized church. Mustard is an herb. It doesn't grow on trees. The tree Jesus is speaking of is a new creation, supernatural if you please. The birds of the air are a picture of Satan's disciples (Mat 13:19) . What are they doing in Matthew 13:32? They are lodging in the tree. Satan's disciples are in the organized church, and they've been there from very early in the history of the church. Eusebius and others wrote about them. They were busy in the early church teaching heresy.

They've been busy in recent times too. The Aquarian Gospel Of Jesus The Christ is an excellent example of syncretism and idolatry. It was written by a very religious fellow by the name of Levi H. Dowling. Dowling (1844-1911) was a publisher of Sunday school materials. He was a Chaplin in the US Army. Dowling preached and pastored a small church. He was involved in the prohibition movement. Many of his time would consider Dowling to have been an outstanding Christian. But his driving goal was to "build a white city", a task which he claimed to have received in a series of visions. Dowling interpreted the "white city" to be the false gospel he was to write.

Levi H. Dowling was a fraud as a Christian worker. He claimed to have received the vision of the "white city" early in life. He rejected the notion of Hell as a child. Despite whatever he taught or professed as an active church member and worker, Dowling culminated his life by publishing a work that denies all of the essential doctrines of the Holy Bible and of the Church. His book preaches a created Christ, not divine, who did not die for the sins of anyone. The Christ that Dowling's gospel proclaims is merely an avatar. Men who trust in such things worship several of the kind. Dowling's bible was a pagan "book of life" intended to supplant the Lamb's Book of Life (Rev 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, 21:27). The Aquarian Gospel comes from that false book, according to Dowling.

As one who trust's in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of my sins, I say it comes from the pit of Hell!

But someone is going to say; That was a long time ago, what about now? Let me ask you a question; What are liberals preaching today? The Jesus Seminar boys preach a Christ that was merely human. Their Jesus did not have the power to work miracles, die for the sins of the world, or rise from the tomb. Their Christ is not virgin-born, nor is he God. They say that the Gospels are full of false information. Liberals say that the Holy Bible is rife with error. They say that we can't rely on the Bible. Folks, biblical errancy is a cornerstone of the movement to legitimize open homosexuality in churches!

The only difference I see between liberalism in the church and Levi Dowling is that the fruit of his work has already gone to seed. The fruit of Gospel-mocking liberalism is still hanging on the tree.

Kugel, a tasty desert or a nauseating stew?

You can read about Kugel as a desert or you can read a little about James Kugel's new book. I prefer the desert.

I don't mean to pick on this guy, but I thought I'd try to find out what he's selling in more detail.  Going by his "Appendix 1: Apologetics and Biblical Criticism Lite”, he doesn't offer much in the way of scholarship.  I grabbed a portion from that appendix wherein he discusses Isaiah's Servant Song prophecies.  This is 'scholarship lite' folks.  I'll defend that comment below.  In the meantime please read what Kugel says...

From a relatively early time, some researchers suggested that the Deutero-Isaiah’s references to the suffering “servant of the Lord” cannot reasonably be taken as prophecies about Jesus (even though they are explained as such in the Gospels). But this was a hard pill for many Christian commentators to swallow. So, while not arguing the Jesus connection directly, many sought to assert that these passage were somehow special, different from the rest of the book of Isaiah. Christened the “Servant Songs” (though truly, there was nothing songlike about them!), they were alleged to have been composed quite separately from their surrounding texts:[14]

The[se] songs represent a special strand within the book of Deutero-Isaiah, and therefore they did not come into being at the same time as their contexts. Nevertheless, they owe their origin to Deutero-Isaiah.[15]

They are marked out not only by a special theme, independent from that of the rest of the work, but also but the fact that they have evidently been interpolated in their present context, from which they can be removed without any resultant damage or interruption.[16]

The text itself offers no real support for such assertions, and most scholars have now come to reject them.[17] Understandably, however, it is still hard for some to let go completely. Thus, even while denying any specific connection to Jesus, commentators have continued to see the “servant of the Lord” as a messianic figure[18] – though again, the text offers no support for this – or at least to evoke the suffering of Jesus and his crucifixion in the process of commenting on Isa. 52:13-53:12.[19] As the very last of apologetic options, the identity of the “servant of the Lord” is alleged to be one of Scripture’s great mysteries:

The reason I say this is 'scholarship lite' is that I expect a lot more from a Harvard Hebrew professor. Kugel leads the reader to think that the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah's suffering servant prophecy (52 & 53) is a Christian invention.  I'd expect a Hebrew scholar to acknowledge the rabbinic writings on this matter and deal with them.  The Babylonian Talmud tells us that rabbis interpreted these passages as being about the Messiah.  There is no excuse for a  biblically literate Jew to say it is a mystery, particularly one who promotes himself as a Hebrew scholar.  I find the man to be a liar on this point.

Permit me to share two snippets from rabbinic sources below.  Bear in mind that these are translations from Hebrew sources, and they are widely available.

The first:

Rab said: The world was created only on David's account (for Psalms).  Samuel said: On Moses account (for Torah);  R. Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah's] name? -- The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come (Gen_49:10).  The School of R. Yannai said: His name is Yinnon, for it is written, His name shall endure for ever (Psa_72:17):  e'er the sun was, his name is Yinnon.  The School of R. Haninah maintained: His name is Haninah, as it is written, Where I will not give you Haninah (Jer_16:13).  Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, Because Menahem ['the comforter'], that would relieve my soul, is far (Lam_1:16).  The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted (Isa_53:4). -- [Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b (Rodkinson; Sanhedrin, ch 11, p 311)]

Epstein , Rabbi Dr. I. (Ed.) - Babylonian Talmud, (The Soncino Press, London, 1934)

Rodkinson, Rabbi Michael L. - New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, (Boston New Talmud Publishing Co., Boston, 1903)

 The second:

The fourteenth verse in the second chapter of Ruth is thus explained. 'Come thou hither' is the prediction of Messiah's kingdom. 'Dip the morsel in the vinegar,'  (Rth_2:14) foretells the agony through which Messiah will pass, as it is written in Isaiah (cap. 51), 'He was wounded for our sins, He was bruised for our transgressions.' 'And she set herself beside the reapers' predicts the temporary departure of Messiah's kingdom. 'And he reached her a parched corn' means the restoration of His kingdom.--Midrash Ruth 5.

Rapaport, Samuel - Tales And Maxims From The Midrash, (George Routledge & Sons Limited, London, 1907), p. 44

 Friends, why doesn't Kugel deal with all of the Hebrew sources? 

Funny note on the second quote, Samuel Rapaport complained about Christians finding support in the rabbinic writings.  He wrote about this in his introduction to Tales And Maxims From The Midrash. He didn't give any compelling reason other than to imply that it made it hard for him to respect Christians. I'll leave it to the interested reader to look that up.

One Kugel makes me hungry.  The other makes me sick, because his work stinks.

This just in....We've been reading the Bible wrong!

(Harvard Genius Decodes the Bible)...according to his publisher.

In How to Read the Bible, Harvard professor James Kugel leads the reader chapter by chapter through the "quiet revolution" of recent biblical scholarship, showing time and again how radically the interpretations of today's researchers differ from what people have always thought. The story of Adam and Eve, it turns out, was not originally about the "Fall of Man," but about the move from a primitive, hunter-gatherer society to a settled, agricultural one. As for the stories of Cain and Abel, Abraham and Sarah, and Jacob and Esau, these narratives were not, at their origin, about individual people at all but, rather, explanations of some feature of Israelite society as it existed centuries after these figures were said to have lived. Dinah was never raped -- her story was created by an editor to solve a certain problem in Genesis. In the earliest version of the Exodus story, Moses probably did not divide the Red Sea in half; instead, the Egyptians perished in a storm at sea. Whatever the original Ten Commandments might have been, scholars are quite sure they were different from the ones we have today. What's more, the people long supposed to have written various books of the Bible were not, in the current consensus, their real authors: David did not write the Psalms, Solomon did not write Proverbs or Ecclesiastes; indeed, there is scarcely a book in the Bible that is not the product of different, anonymous authors and editors working in different periods.

Such findings pose a serious problem for adherents of traditional, Bible-based faiths. Hiding from the discoveries of modern scholars seems dishonest, but accepting them means undermining much of the Bible's reliability and authority as the word of God. What to do? In his search for a solution, Kugel leads the reader back to a group of ancient biblical interpreters who flourished at the end of the biblical period. Far from naïve, these interpreters consciously set out to depart from the original meaning of the Bible's various stories, laws, and prophecies -- and they, Kugel argues, hold the key to solving the dilemma of reading the Bible today.

How to Read the Bible is, quite simply, the best, most original book about the Bible in decades. It offers an unflinching, insider's look at the work of today's scholars, together with a sustained consideration of what the Bible was for most of its history -- before the rise of modern scholarship. Readable, clear, often funny but deeply serious in its purpose, this is a book for Christians and Jews, believers and secularists alike. It offers nothing less than a whole new way of thinking about sacred Scripture.

Apparently the poor soul who wrote this blurb has never heard of the Graf-Wellhausen theory or the Jesus Seminar. The book will appeal to liberals and posers who think it is better to just throw in the proverbial towel on inerrancy. It's "dishonest" not to cave into this so-called scholarship?

The guy who wrote this must be one of Kugel's underlings, or perhaps he is the shoeshine boy who grovels at Kugel's feet. Why he talks like they recently dug up a witness from Shechem to interview about the whole Genesis 34 incident. Dinah never raped? Really? Being scholars they must have video tape or something solid, don't you think so? Well, I'd better chuck my theology! This changes everything!

It changes nothing. This is older than Moses. This goes back to Eden. Hunter-gatherers indeed!

The Work of God

I hope and pray that my struggles with faith will be mostly private. Undoubtedly, some reader will ask why I pray for that. Isn't faithlessness in vogue these days?

After all, apostates like Bart Ehrman, John Spong, and Marcus Borg make a name for themselves with works of faithlessness. All of those men are well known for their opinions on the reliability of the Bible. Their opinion is that the Bible is not reliable as a historical document or a revelation of God. They present a picture of Christianity where people are encouraged to believe in the Bible as a metaphor, nothing more, nothing less. They present a very lack-luster, watered-down, weak picture of Christ. They deny the deity of Jesus and promote a vision of Christianity that winks at sin and preaches universal salvation. It's a picture that is devoid of judgment and is extremely popular these days.

I understand that as many as 70% of Americans claim to be Christian, but one only has to look around at our culture to see that few believe in judgment. Blogspot is an excellent example of the works of a nation that thumbs its collective nose at judgement. Just flip through the blogs here and most of what you'll see is futility, vanity, or abominations. I spent some time doing that last night, and 90% of what I saw was garbage. I didn't keep statistics, but every tenth blog was a very elaborate boilerplate advertisement for pornography. Those blogs are a clear and blatant violation of the Blogger Content Policy, but I am still searching for the correct way to report them to Google. But even if I found the magic hyperlink for reporting this blog scum, I know from past experience that corporate America is not interested in righteousness. Nor do they fear judgment.

So what is the work of God? Jesus put it in a nutshell, which you can find in the 6th chapter of John's gospel. He said, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." That is it friend. The work of God is saving people from eternal torment. God is doing that through His Son, Jesus Christ. He brings men to faith in Him through the hearing of His Word. So the work of God is to spread the Gospel.

That simple truth is a tremendous principal that I have struggled with.

To be continued in part 2.

Crazy Feminism

I lean on Dr. Albert Mohler to keep me informed of cultural phenomena of interest to Christians. His web log is invaluable to me. I recommend it highly to all.

Dr. Mohler's July 23rd blog entry deals with some nutty commentary by Nona Willis-Aronowitz. She rejoices over the her observation that casual sex is "certifiably pop culture". Willis-Aronowitz suggest that one of the goals of feminism is to empower women by enabling them to feel good about themselves via taking the guilt out of "nonmarital sex". It's almost laughable, if not for the fact that it is tragically sad, how feminism has sown the rotten seeds of fatherlessness and marital dysfunction that seem to plague our nation today. Is feminism entirely to blame for the harvest of bastardization and sexual immorality in America? Perhaps not entirely, but it certainly led the way.

On May 31st, Mohler wrote about a UK study done on teenage boys from fatherless households. It turns out that boys without fathers generally grow to be men who have a low regard for women. They become users and fixers in there relationships with women, and develop a penchant for petty crime. It seems that single mothers stand a greater chance of raising males to be abusers and deadbeat dads, than they do in raising men who will love women and care for children. According to another article by Mohler, medical researchers are helping to further this Orwellian madness by developing sperm from bone marrow. What, we don't have enough already?

Another notable blog post from Dr. Mohler deals with insane logic used by loony liberals at the United Nations. The killing of baby girls is apparently a serious problem in some parts of the world. Some leaders are concerned that perhaps as many as 100-million baby girls have been killed through practices like sex-selective abortion. The United States introduced a resolution calling for condemnation of the practice of female infanticide, but liberals in the European Union blocked the measure. Our EU friends say that it would be wrong of us to tell women not to kill their baby girls, because we'd be intruding on the reproductive rights of those women. How ridiculous its that? It goes against the feminist ideology to protect the lives of girls if it means taking a stand against abortion!

The movement that is supposed to advance the cause of women is the worst thing for them.  Feminists want to turn women into soulless sluts who raise up men that abuse women. They think it is better to decimate the female population of the world than preserve the lives of girls. It's not a liberation movement after all.  Feminism is an experiment in eugenics, Nazi style.

Ye blind guides!