Download prophecy04.zip (~500 kb)

To download all the prophecy pages as a zip file, you can right click, using the right hand mouse button instead of the usual left button, and choose 'save link as' or 'save target as' from the pop up menu depending on your browser, and save the file to your disk drive. For the text of a suggested email on this subject, CLICK HERE

      The page on the the Virgin Birth has been rewritten and reposted. I have also expanded and reposted the page on Satanic cults, as it supposedly applies to me, , UFOs and 666. Before I discuss the feedback I will mention that my site has been listed on the following specialized directory - God Server. Once again this is one of those mixed spiritual directories, and not a specifically Christian directory, because, as I mentioned last week, I cannot get listed on anything that is run by the churches (web rings, directories, search engines, you name it).

      Which brings me to the first feedback of the day. I have received some flack about 'Satanic links' on my link page. Now as for the Hindu links, those will stay. They bear directly on my discussion of the Christ myth on my Reflections page, and one of the points I made in that discussion was that people remain so ignorant of the scriptures of other traditions that they are easily tricked by certain types of propaganda which purports to prove that 'all scriptures and religions are the same' (the Kersey Graves assertion). If you actually consult the original sources you will find that while there are similarities, there are also differences. So my links to the World's scriptures will also stay. As for the Spiritual search engines, like 'God Server' which I am adding to my list today, these people seem to be very open minded for 'Satanists' as they have me listed on their sites. And when someone is as hard up for links as I am their open mindedness and generous linking up is appreciated. It is also common courtesy to link back to them. And this type of criticism is just exactly the type of thing I was mentioning before, in that churches practice strict censorship, do not allow or encourage honest discussion and open debate, and really, if they had their choice, would probably much prefer to go back to the 'good old days' when the churches could severely censor not only debate but also those who engaged in debate (we all still remember the rack and the stake). Churches do have a reason for censoring people, after all, as you can tell by surfing the pages on my site. Censorship is a defensive response when an organization cannot withstand any examination or critique.

      The story page on my site generated the following response:

a very well written page, and well planned. I wonder about the roaring thing you mention, is there any possible other explaination for it? like maybe an earth quake or something? It is difficult for me to imagine God being so mad at one person, maybe it was the town that angered Him? just a thought.

      Oh it is possible for God to get that mad at one person. I still wince when I think of all those reporters I went after (I remember damning one third of the world's reporters to hell, not to mention damning President Clinton to hell, damning CNN to sink into a crack in the earth and go down to hell, among so many, many other things.) The lesson here is that while Yahweh is very, very patient sooner or later you will get treated by Yahweh the way you treat others, and if you are very sinful and unpleasant well that experience will be very unpleasant. Call it a last ditch cure. As for Yahweh being angry at the town there was really no reason for that. There are still so many people in this town who don't have a clue. If there is a moral to this story, it is that when I keep urging churches and reminding them that 'it is mercy that Yahweh requires, and not sacrifice' I am reminding them for a reason. If you damn, for example, 'the (so called) 'unsaved good'' then I think myself, to make a prophecy, that there are certain churches that will sooner or later run out of luck and go for one of those 'little talks with Yahweh' themselves (so always stop and think about how you would like to be treated, and then treat others the same way). Churches also should not practice oppression or perjure themselves, because Yahweh might want to sooner or later have a little talk with those churches about that conduct as well. In the future I am going to have to write a piece titled, 'how to bounce back after having a little chat with Yahweh' for the benefit of those churches who will, much to their own surprise, find their own judgments returned to them by Yahweh, and as strict and cruel as the judgments of some churches can be, they will be really hard up for some good advice in that day.

      Someone claimed that my pages were prompting for a download of some sort.

I guess I can't view your pages.They are trying to get me to download something ???

      I would appreciate an email from anyone who experiences something like this. What page? What message? My webserver is renewed every night, but you do have to wonder if maybe some hacker visited the site and put something there. I have looked the site over and cannot find anything, and I never get prompted to download something, so I don't know what to think about this. By the way, I keep getting emails inviting me to visit such and such a place, and normally I hit delete. I also got sent something in a 'doc' file yesterday, which got deleted. If you respond to these 'invitations' you will leave behind your IP address on the server log, and then you might get paid a little visit by a hacker. Just a thought. If you wish you can send me an email and I can email you whatever pages you were interested in, or perhaps I could email you a 'zipped' version of the site you could browse offline.

     And another point raised:

are you planning to start a cult or something?

      No. I am planning to share my testimony and examine the various sources in the Bible, to establish that their are various sources in the Bible, so that people can become aware that they are actually making choices here. As for starting a cult, I certainly get a lot of help from up there and I do not come alone, which is something to consider. As for 'cult' - just what qualifies as a cult, anyways? For my part, since it is the truth that we are not alone, and since so many people hold the false belief that we are alone, it is important to me to testify so that they can at least have the opportunity to come out into the light.

     My piece on the Virgin Birth was bound to provoke some negative responses.

I read a lot of your stuff, and could not find your important opinion of the virgin birth, but wonder what you are thinking. I have long held the opinion that you can learn a great deal about a man's character by what he says about his mother. You can also tell a lot by what he says about the Mother of Our Lord. If you guessed I'm Catholic, opps, it was never a secret.

     First, I should point out that this page on the virgin birth has been rewritten since you first read it. I no longer think that Matthew was responsible for the Anti-Gentile bigotry found in the gospel, nor do I think that Matthew was responsible for the denial of David and the Virgin Birth story which followed. (My point was that David was a Moabite, and Moabites are cursed forever, and that there are dualistic presentations of David in the Jewish Testament, both for and against David, and that because of this tension in the Jewish community, some of whom were against the Torah reform encapsulated in the Sermon on the Mount, and for the 'infallible inerrancy' of the scriptures instead, and, to repeat, because both David and Joseph were under the ban of the eternal Moabite curse (as well as the bans concerning those born of mixed marriages in general) it then became neccesary to preserve both Joshua as Messiah and the infallible inerrancy of the Torah by ditching Joseph as Father of Christ and bringing on the Holy Spirit instead. The fact that Mary then became a virgin was inconsequential, since no one was looking for a 'virgin birth', but rather for a way to deny both David and Joseph, and since they were breaking with Paul and the rest of the early church in denying David (not to mention breaking with the rest of the planet by insisting that babies can be born without fathers) it was necessary for them to find 'scriptural support' and the passage in Isaiah which they choose was mistranslated in the Greek Septuagint to read 'virgin' (it should have read 'young woman') and so Mary became a virgin as an incidental side effect. The passage in Isaiah is obviously twisted and taken out of context as well, but then most of the Messsianic prophecies they could have used mention David, so they had to leave the beaten track in choosing prophecies as well.

      As for saying bad things about Mary, all I said about Mary in the entire piece is what I just mentioned, that she became 'a virgin' simply because Isaiah was mistranslated. Let us be honest. You are mad about the virgin birth discussion, and thus you are going fishing for charges to lay. As for saying bad things about Mary, my advice would be that you read the Gospel of Mark. According to Mark, Mary and the rest of Joshua's family thought he had gone insane and tried to lock up him up. Joshua's response was to disown both his mother and the rest of his family, according to Mark. (Who is my mother? My mother is those who do the will of God.) The implication of the passage in Mark is that Mary was not doing the will of God. This point is further driven home in another sequence of parables in Mark's gospel, where first Joshua raises the dead, and then immediately afterwards Mark mentions that Joshua was given no honor by his own family, that his own family had such powerful unbelief that they literally poisoned Joshua's ability to do miracles, leaving him astounded (because after all, in the context of Mark's gospel, Joshua had just raised the dead, but his family continued to have unbelief, and suddenly, Mark suggests, Joshua could do no more miracles, except to heal maybe a few sick people, and in the context of the passage, we can assume that they probably were not to sick). This is what Mark had to say about Mary and the rest of Joshua's family. The virgin birth story originated in the Matthew community, and they had to break ranks with the rest of the church, including Paul, to assert that 'Joshua was not the descendant of David' (therefore Joseph was not his father). As for the flowery propaganda of Luke, it is just that, plain and simple propaganda, of the type the church specialized in for centuries (taking over the gods of other religions, or, in this case, coopting both Artemis of the Ephesians and Asherah (also known as Isis) by offering up Mary as a substitute goddess. Luke was an extremely shrewd propagandist as the great popularity of goddess worship in the church down through the ages proves so well. He knew exactly what he was doing, and Luke did not think much of Paul (or better said, Paul's radicalism) so ditching Paul and the rest of the church to join the chorus line with that Matthew gospel and ditch David, and then go on to make Mary a type of goddess was no problem for Luke. (I am not adding new pages to this site until I get done scanning microfilms for my newspaper gif page, but one page that really needs to get done is my analysis of Luke. That gospel is not 'a history book.' Like every gospel it was a propaganda effort of a certain church group, and that is not that difficult to prove.) So, to sum up, I had little to say about Mary, other than that she was not a virgin, and Mark had a lot worse things to say about Mary than I ever did.

      Now as for my reasons for discussing the Virgin birth, what I am really discussing on this page, and on others, is Christian theology. On the rewritten Virgin Birth page I strengthen this allusion by bringing up more pertient facts about the different points of view about the question 'Who was Joshua Messiah'. The point of view that states that he was an incarnate God, or even, some would insist, literally God incarnated, is just one point of view among others, and since I am in the business of bringing the various sources and traditions of both the Jewish people and the Church out into the light of day, I cannot simply be 'a good boy' or 'a good sport' and leave the Virgin Mary alone. You see, churches damn even 'the unsaved good' to hell on the grounds that they did not partake of the Levite Whole offerings Sacrifice of a perfect sinless god incarnate (you do, after all, need a good excuse to go around daming people even you must acknowledge are innocent, and so there is the theological excuse). It is actually just an excuse for being dogmatic about one particular interpretation of scripture, something I can only resist and struggle against by exposing traditions, and if that means exposing the Virgin Mary (as popular as that goddess might be) then so be it. This is also my way of struggling against the inhumane doctrines of the church, the slavery to credo and dogma, and it is also my way of struggling against the powerful antipathy in the church against difference of any sort, not to mention the overt pride of certain churches in the superiority and perfection of their own particular tradition. The best way to do this, in my estimation, is to hold no sacred cows myself, and to relentlessly pursue my course of exposing the fact that the Bible itself is a compilation of various human traditions that span the spectrum, and perhaps in this way churches might learn to be a little more tolerant, not to mention a little more compassionate, a little more devoted to humanity rather than so devoted to credo and dogma.