The Antichristian Phenomenon
The following essay was originally written 1-15-2006, by Cleric and myself, but we lacked a good place to post it to create serious debate, so it went largely ignored and forgotten for over a year and a half. When the Antichristian Phenomenon webpage opened this week, we knew that we had found a place to post. Since originally writing this, ISoS and I have learned much more. Expect a series of essays from us in the future.
The topics of this essay include corruption of scripture, closed-minded nature of Christian bible study and commentary, an in-depth comparison between Christian and Jewish texts using Genesis 1:1 as a focus, a look into the names of God, and a little bit about Cathars.
Enjoy.
While reading through Jewish commentary it became very obvious that scrutinizing the specific usage of Hebrew words is essential to divine the true meaning of a passage. Through reading commentaries such as “Etz Hayim” it was not surprising to find that much of the meanings of the Torah have been lost in translation. Unfortunately, looking over Christian-biased commentary and various “New Editions” made that fact painfully clear. Time and arrogance has tarnished the true meaning and left a standing legacy of falsehoods.
Jewish commentary on the Torah is more objective than the Christian, but it is rarely read by the general populace. Instead, the only views the general populace find are those spoon-fed to them through their priests or Christian commentaries such as “Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary,” which is a popular Christian commentary used since 1706, referenced on most Bible study sites, and in many bible study books.
“Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary” is a key example of the corruption by age and arrogance. The commentary opens in a conceited introduction dripping with arrogance. It appeals to the straight and narrow Christian, who is treading along the path to salvation that the church has placed in front of them. The preface contains the hypocritical mission statement of
“…it will be expected that I give the world also some account of this bold undertaking; which I shall endeavor to do with all plainness, and as one who believes, that if men must be reckoned with in the great day, for every vain and idle word they speak, much more for every vain and idle line they write. And it may be of use, in the first place, to lay down those great and sacred principles which I go upon, and am governed by, in this endeavor to explain and improve these portions of holy writ; which endeavor I humbly offer to the service of those (and to those only I expect it will be acceptable) who agree with me in these six principles.”
Following this extravagant (plain?) mission statement is a list of six close-minded beliefs common to Christianity. For example, the third reason is that “divine revelation is not now to be found nor expected anywhere but in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament.” This may seem true to the average church-goer who does not even realize that other texts exist, so it might come as a shock to the general population that other religions have texts that hold the same value as the Old Testament. In addition, the general population might also be shocked to hear that there are a slew of commentaries that convey levels of “divine revelation” to the readers.
“Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary” attempts to be one of these books, yet, through this fantastic claim of the author, it is thrown into a soup of meaninglessness by the author’s own admission, while at the same time shunning such texts as the Koran, the Apocrypha, Etz Hayim, and various Hindu, Taoist, and Gnostic texts.
Furthermore, to completely shun other texts away is the greatest folly of ignorant peoples, as well as the claim that they can offer no more truth to the Tanakh or the New Testament. Even the New Testament boldly states at the end:
“I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.” (Revelations 22:18, The New American Bible: Saint Joseph Edition)
It would seem that from the outset Christianity was doomed to fall into the trap of Biblical literalness and while it may have been Constantine’s intention to stem the fraud of other texts milling about in his time; it does put an absolute damper on the Christian ability to truly understand their God in complete fullness. For instance, in the Gematria texts it states
“The Bet (=2) refers to the two [divisions of the] Torah, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, to teach you that the world was created in the merit of the Torah and those who study it.” (Baal Haturim Chumash: Bereishis “The Davis Edition” p. 2)
A further comment states
“The explanations, interpretations and expositions of the Written Torah which were originally transmitted orally, but were eventually committed to writing in the Talmud, Midrash and similar works.” (Baal Haturim Chumash: Bereishis “The Davis Edition” p. 2 Comment 3b)
Here it is clearly pointed out that the Hebrews maintained their oral tradition even after Torah was written down and it wasn’t until some time after that the truth of the word of God was revealed in written form when they wrote Talmud Bavli. It appears that the entire Christian church and existence would seek to shun these books for no other reason than it says to do so in their Bible.
The author of “Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary” then backs up his claim through a confusing series of biblical quotes, and noble words for Christian ears. Naturally, it appeals to his Christian audience, who now firmly believe that the author is inspired by a divine being which could ONLY BE the God of Christianity. The author then continues his claim with the seemingly inconceivable sentiment:
“if the scriptures be not really a divine revelation, they are certainly as great a cheat as ever was put upon the world”
but then he vehemently defends a claim that it could never be a cheat with
“for bad men would never write so good a book, nor would Satan have so little subtlety as to help to cast out Satan; and good men would never do so wicked a thing as to counterfeit the broad seal of heaven and affix it to a patent of their own framing, though in itself ever so just. No, there are not the words of him that hath a devil.” (All three quotes, “Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary”, preface)
Unfortunately for the author and the general population, if a being were truly evil, that being would conceal himself and use a seemingly-good objective as cover for the true ugliness underneath. To blindly repudiate every doubt that every word in all Scripture is the work of a good deity would be foolish. How much of this book of theirs is absolute truth and how much is merely opinion by those who authored it?
As the Christian commentary continues, it speckles its half truths with praise and ego boosters for both the reader and the deity. For example, while the author rambles off topic, he states
“The azure sky and verdant earth are charming to the eye of the curious spectator, much more the ornaments of both. How transcendent then must the beauty of the Creator be!”
First off, this segment has nothing to do with the verse described (Genesis 1:1-2, where the earth has NOT YET BEEN CREATED). It also is not in the “plain language” the author devotes himself to in the mission statement. Also, the author splices in praise to his deity. In a popular commentary, is it not more important to provide objective truths? As the author cries for the glory of his Lord, he begins to lose the purpose of his commentary. While the purposes are lost, the true meanings of the verses slide into the darkness and become overlooked.
Commentary may play a major role in the corruption and tainting of scripture, but nothing can destroy a message more than over-simplifying it, or flat out mistranslation. A prime example of this havoc is a version of the bible written by Eugene Peterson entitled “The Message.” Anyone who reads just a snippet of this text may initially think they just picked up a children’s bible, but it was written for adults. “Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness. God’s Spirit brooded like a bird above the watery abyss.” (The Message, Genesis 1:2) Yes, this is intended for mature, adult reading. The earth is a soup, yet it is empty, and it is black. This is needless to say, a very inaccurate translation. The original Hebrew text says nothing about soup, birds, ink or “God’s Spirit.” Unfortunately for those looking for truth, books like The Message are in circulation, perverting the original text in the spirit of “understanding.”
Many people looking for the truth will seek an exact or literal translation. A version exists entitled “Young’s Literal Translation.” Unfortunately for the voracious readers of this title, the title itself is a misnomer. The translation is far from literal. For an obvious example, in Genesis 1:1 ‘Elohim’ is translated as “God’s.” Unfortunately for the author of “Young’s Literal Translation,” ‘Elohim’ is not possessive, it is plural. Immediately following this, the possessive ‘Elohim’ becomes singular (see paragraph eight for more on the meaning of the word Elohim). The “literal” aspect of this translation is lost when the same important word is translated differently in the first three verses. It appears that there is more shocking news for the general population; “literal” translations are not literal at all. In fact, they don’t even agree with each other. While for merely Genesis 1:1 “Young’s Literal Translation” says “In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth…” The literal translation of the Torah says “When God began to create heaven and earth…” It looks like anyone who wants a literal translation has to learn Hebrew. If one does not read and study the true commentaries or the language in which the book is originally written in, then how can one hope to exact truth and wisdom? Naturally all that is happening is the perpetuation of ignorance to the general populace just because it is written in their language.
As shown above, the first line of the Bible Genesis 1:1 has been translated in more than one way. Expanding on this fact, we can see that in the Torahs derived from the Hebrew, the first line reads “When God began to create heaven and earth,” which is slightly different from the Standard English translation of “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” A translation from The Bahir is “In the beginning created God the heaven and the earth” (The Bahir p. 5). In this line of utmost importance, the major Hebrew word that comes under great scrutiny is “be-reshit” the word to signify “created.” In both Sefer ha-Bahir (The Book of Brilliance) and Sefer ha-Zohar (The Book of Radiance) it is stated that the part of the Hebrew word as “reshit” in actuality means Wisdom (The Zohar Pritzker Edition p. 17, The Bahir p. 2).
Therefore, wisdom is a very fundamental function in terms of the creation of the universe. “The Hebrew stem of the word translated as “create” is used in the Bible only for divine creativity. It signifies that the created object is unique, depends solely on God for its coming into existence, and is beyond the ability of humans to reproduce. The verb never means ‘to create out of nothing.’” (Etz Hayim p.4) This merely proves the very specific nature of the word choice used and lends credence to the importance of it relating to the word Wisdom. Yet in a world of such absolutist ignorance, how can one believe that Wisdom is the integral source of creation? Perhaps it is wisdom that is the great unifier. In relation to man and God, it brings them together on an even field of understanding.
God’s true meaning seems to have been lost in translation, so to speak. The fact that the word Wisdom is used in conjunction with the word “created” would signify that there was some sequence of logic that the universe was founded on, perhaps conceptually similar to the algorithms used in a computer program. As everyone knows, computer programs are just a complex sequence of alpha-numeric identifiers that translate into machine code so the computer can respond to the commands. So hidden beneath the words programmers see on a standard C++ program is a complex set of instructions designed for the machine to read. You do not see them, you do not hear them, but they are there. It has been known for hundreds if not thousands of years that the Hebrew language bears a very similar quality. Within the words spoken is a complex set of numerical rules, patterns and values that relate to that language specifically. The ancient art is known as Gematria, and it would lead one to suppose that this language is the basis for the program. Beneath the words is a hidden wisdom on how the specific nature of this universe was designed. Understanding this hidden method in turn brings us closer to understanding the meaning of God. It’s not just about the words themselves; it’s the meaning, the syntax hidden within the chosen words. However, this Wisdom only helps to understand How God created, not Why God created. So what is the purpose? What is the true meaning behind the hidden numerals in the guise of words?
The first time God is mentioned in the Biblical passage of Genesis the word Elohim is used. The Hebrews find this specific word choice very curious, but from Christian commentary it seems that the Christians don’t even know what it means. Most of the world considers this word to simply mean “God.” However, if one looks into the Hebrew language one will find that “-im” is indicative of the plural form of a word, similar to Seraphim (Seraphs) or Nephilim (Divine Beings). The proper singular form for God should be written as El, a word derived from other Semitic languages and even often used in other ancient Near Eastern polytheistic religions.
Etz Hayim states in its commentary “The Hebrew term for God used throughout this account of Creation is not the unique sacred divine name YHVH, but elohim, a general Hebrew word for “deity,” which can also refer to pagan gods. Although plural in form, it almost always appears with a singular verb or adjective. The name, connoting universalism and abstraction, is most appropriate for the God of Creation” (Etz Hayim p. 4).
Many Christians may read this and assume that it is the sacred trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) that is the meaning behind the pluralizing of God. Even “Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary” makes this claim. Let that be thrown to the wind; Christians believe that Yeshua was God! However, if he was literally God then there would be no need for the plural form to be used. In addition, “the son” could not be a separate part of the trinity at this point, unless he was EQUIVALENT to god, and if he was equivalent to god at this point in time, he would not be a “son,” he would be a “brother” or there would only be one being; Yeshua. After all, a single male creator would not be begetting sons unto himself in the midst of creating his universe! In fact, it might be difficult for a single male to beget sons at all, without a female to birth them and the only other potential existing being an overlooked masculine “Holy Spirit.” That is, unless you want to believe that they are all separate entities.
So let that notion be put aside now and let us focus on the point of the plurality of God. The Christian Bible made note of Elohim at the end and sought to define it in this manner “Elohim: Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty. Elohim ordinarily designates God in his Action on the world in contrast to Yahweh which is used of the God of the covenant. (Ex 3, 14)” (The New American Bible: Saint Joseph Edition p. 419)
It would seem the Christian sector is seeking to disassociate with the other names of God found in the Old Testament and tries to create some reach of a reason to back up the plural form. For example, where is the comment on the name El Shaddai? Nor does it state in any Jewish commentary read thus far about how it relates to “majesty,” an interesting choice word to describe Elohim and Adonai. Nor is Jehovah mentioned in the comments at the end of this text as well. The fact that the word appears amidst singular verbs could have a couple possible points of reference. Overtime of the oral tradition of Jewish teachings the words could have been lost in their precise forms. Or on the other hand God could be made up of multiple beings that technically total one. The concept of the ten Sefirot in Kabalistic teachings would seem to support that outlook. Ultimately there is one God, but there are specific paths of wisdom to that one God. Furthermore the concept of there being seven heavens in the Judaic teachings seems to supply further evidence for this idea. Could there be a God per layer of heaven? Obviously, no one can be definitively sure in this plane of existence, but there must be an absolute meaning and relevance to the plural forming of the word.
Legends surrounding this purpose passed down through the ages would seem to have led the Cathars to rethink the general Christian teachings of the time they lived in. In their rendition of Earth’s creation (and all things material) it is Satan who has control of these things, and he is the creator of Man and Woman and all the creatures of this world, under the express permission of the One True God. (See: The Gnostic Bible: The Gospel of the Secret Supper (pp. 742-750).
This may jump slightly further ahead in the commentary, but the point is to express the possible reasoning behind why the word Elohim is plural. (Nota bene: It does not state in “The Gospel of the Secret Supper” that Satan created the universe, just that Satan revealed the lands on which we walk and that he created Man and Woman as slaves.)
In Midrash Akiva taught:
“Just as the existence of a house testifies to the builder and the existence of a garment testifies to the weaver, so the existence of the world testifies to God who fashioned it” (Mid. Tem. 3) (Etz Hayim p. 3-4).
This quote, while probably intending to prove that God is good, should note well such things as Numbers 31: 17-18
“Now, therefore, slay every male among the children, and slay also every woman who has known a man carnally; but spare every young woman who has not had carnal relations with a man.”
Does this sound like the type of God that has a loving and benevolent heart? Clearly one can suppose that the Cathars may have been on the right track with their notion. However, the overall violent nature of God presented in the Bible it would seem there is an underlying One True God that holds Wisdom above all things. But lies and corruption seem to have perverted the initial message, and much was lost in translation.
The Cathars looked beyond the reasoning that works such as “Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary” employed: bad men COULD write so good a book, Satan COULD cast himself out (as an illusion to acquire more followers, servants, and sects in his selfish name), good men could blindly affix a false seal of heaven to ’something so just’. The key is casting off the blindness and looking at this material world with new eyes, discerning truth from lies. There are words of him that hath a devil.
Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.
