Hollywood attacks on Bible Truth

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1 Tue, Jul 26, 2016 - 9:13am
Joined: Nov 3, 2011

Hollywood attacks on Bible Truth

Hollywood has been an effective tool to put false narratives into the Public sphere for years.

Since most people do not read the Bible, most people absorb these false stories as Gospel.

[Pun intended]


Let's debunk a few.

May God Bless all who contribute here.

Good Manners and civil discourse only please, hopefully We can learn something new.



"The Real Story of the Council of Nicea"

June 5, 2006 Issue

John D. Hagen, Jr.

"The Da Vinci Code is a systematic attack on the divinity of Jesus Christ. The book’s author, Dan Brown, pursues his quarry with an obsessiveness that overrides good storytelling technique. And Brown’s characters (supposedly in mortal danger, always just one step ahead of being captured) continually take time out to utter rambling sermons and pedantic lectures. Brown’s lectures incorporate all sorts of bizarre counterfactual propositions. The most egregious center around the Roman emperor Constantine. Brown claims that Constantine invented Jesus’ divinity and imposed it through a relatively close vote at the Council of Nicea, which was convened in 325 A.D.

This is preposterous. The doctrine adopted at Nicea had been discussed since the time of the apostles, and the relatively close vote was 316 to 2! But tens of millions of people have read Dan Brown’s version of the matter including millions who recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday morning. And, sadly, millions more will absorb it in movie theaters in the weeks ahead. As Hollywood’s recension of The Da Vinci Code descends on us, we should recall the authentic story of the Nicene Creed."


Tue, Jul 26, 2016 - 9:44am
Joined: Nov 3, 2011

Dust Off

Dan Brown has made a great amount of money exploiting the Holy Scriptures and writing fiction with bits of Historic truth mixed with flights of fancy.

His books are best sellers and he has talent, unfortunately low information Christians and the general populace cannot discern where facts end and fiction starts.

It speaks poorly of Bible literacy among the multitudes of genuine Christians, the nonbelievers deserve a pass here, but Christians should know better.

Dust off that Bible and read it, study it, show yourselves approved,

rightly dividing the Word of God.

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. "

2 Tim 2:15 kjv

The Bible is a precious gift, many countries in the East will execute you for having one in your possession.

In some countries a single page may be all the Bible that the whole Village has, carefully hidden and cherished.

We in the West are so fortunate to have freedom to practice our Faith openly, it may not always be like this.

Let God speak to your heart, through His inspired Word.

May God Bless

Tue, Jul 26, 2016 - 10:14am
Joined: Nov 3, 2011

Nicean Creed

The Real Story con'd

June 5, 2006 Issue

John D. Hagen, Jr.


The Little Hero

"The true story is much more dramatic than the fantasy promoted by Dan Brown. And the gist of the story is almost exactly the reverse of Brown’s account. For decades after Nicea, the power of the Roman state was used against supporters of the creed adopted by the council. Constantine and his successors repeatedly intervened on the side of the Arian heretics, the deniers of Christ’s divinity."


"The Arian crisis began around 318, when Arius, a priest of Alexandria, began teaching that Jesus Christ is not God. He reasoned as follows: the biblical concept of son, begotten of the Father, implies a beginning of existence. Therefore the son is not eternal, but was created out of nothing a being prior to other creatures, but a creature nevertheless, different in nature from God the Father, and adopted by God as we are."


"The vast majority of the bishops were adamantly hostile to Arius’s doctrine. The Da Vinci Code’s statement that there was a relatively close vote is absurd. Of the 318 bishops at Nicea, the Arians apparently numbered 17.


"An eyewitness states that they looked like an assembled army of martyrs, many bearing scars from the Roman persecutions some had the right eye dug out; others had lost the right arm. One had been deprived of the use of both hands by the application of a red-hot iron."


"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one being with the Father."


"This great affirmation of Christ’s divinity resounds down the centuries, emphatically rejecting notions of Jesus like those promoted by Dan Brown."

read more link below;


Tue, Jul 26, 2016 - 11:10am
Joined: Nov 3, 2011

Let Us Reason Ministries Dan Brown Examined


Is the Council of Nicaea where Everything was Decided?

Dan Brown claims the Roman Catholic church created a divine Christ and an infallible Scripture. p. 233 Teabing states, “Jesus' establishment as the 'Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea.” “until that moment in history [the council of Nicaea in 323 AD], Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet” (p. 233). Brown claims “That the divinity of Jesus was first raised and established at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, “ prior to that time, no one—not even Jesus’ followers—believed Jesus was anything more than a “mortal prophet.

A key character in the book announces, that the idea of the divinity of Jesus was hatched by the Roman Emperor Constantine as a political power play. The Emperor led the bishops to declare Jesus as the Son of God by a vote. “A relatively close vote at that,” the text elaborates. p. 233)

The council boldly claimed Jesus being uncreated as the faith of the Church and named Arianism as a heresy and Arians as heretics. This was NOT a close vote? Only two out of more than 300 bishops failed to sign the creed. Where is this man reading his history from, a candy-bar wrapper?

If Jesus is not God then what He said is false, and anything he did becomes absolutely meaningless, especially the atonement. And that is message Brown is trying to get through in his book.

Brown feelings are not hidden. He routinely refers to the Church as “the Vatican.” He systematically portrays it throughout history as deceitful, power-hungry, scheming and murderous. I’m not going to defend the atrocities by Popes who indeed made it their business to remove even Christians and control counties. But almost all the conspiracies he finds on the church do not exist nor had the influence he attributes to them.

The Church may no longer employ crusades to slaughter, but their influence is no less persuasive. No less insidious.” What the backsliding Church did in defiance of Christ, Brown and others do by their pen, and is no less serious. As the cliché goes “the pen is mightier than the sword.”

In The Da Vinci Code, Brown adopts Arius as his representative for all pre-Nicene Christianity because of his gnostic loyalty, disregarding history. Referring to the Council of Nicaea, Brown claims that “until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.”(p.233) “At [the Council of Nicea]…many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon – the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus….” (Da Vinci Code p. 233.)

Brown is irresponsible between distinguishing fact from fiction. The average reader without any knowledge of history can only assume his claims are factual. The council was about one thing, the debate of Arius’ new teaching, that Jesus was created -- not sacraments, Easter or anything else on his list.

Dan Browne has it backwards. It was not Jesus’ deity that was questioned in the early church ( prior to 200 ad) but His humanity. The Gnostics refused to believe that God could take on human flesh, to them it was too evil. the very sources he refers to hold an opposite position to his theory.

It was around the year 318 A.D. n Alexandria, Egypt that attention was focused on a man named Arius who began teaching in OPPOSITION to the church. Arius insisted that, “there was a time when the Son was not.” (Christ must be numbered among the created beings - highly exalted, to be sure, but a creation). This controversy became very sharp and began dividing the Church. Bishop Alexander was teaching that Jesus, the Son of God, had existed eternally, being “generated” eternally by the Father. Arius wrote to Eusibius “We are persecuted because we say the Son had a beginning, but God is without beginning.” (Letter to Eusibius, 321 A.D). Alexander called a synod in 321 A.D. Constantine did not even attend the council of Nicaea because of his age, (and because he had no theological knowledge), but was represented by two presbyters. Almost all the Council consisted of bishop's (estimations of 300 or more) from the eastern Churches where this heresy was thriving.

Neither the church or man “invented” the divinity of Jesus. This was already the held belief by the Church, because it was claimed by Jesus himself and proclaimed by the apostles in the Bible. If one reads the early church documents, the consistent teaching is that Jesus is God in the flesh these are written hundreds of years before the council. The 7Q4 fragment of I Tim 3.16 “God appeared in a body” dated to 50-80 AD by leading papyrologists.

How can Brown be right when so many pastors taught Jesus was God nearly 200 years before Constantine. 100 AD Ignatius of Antioch “I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you" (Letter to the Smyraeans) “Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time”

Hippolytus “For Christ is the God over all” (Refutation of All Heresies 10.34).

Iranaeus (lived between 120-202 A.D.) “In order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King.”

150 AD Justin Martyr “The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63)

Scholar J.N.D. Kelly writes that “the all but universal Christian conviction in the [centuries prior to the Council of Nicaea] had been that Jesus Christ was divine as well as human. The most primitive confession had been ‘Jesus is Lord’ [Rom 10:9; Phil 2:11], and its import had been elaborated and deepened in the apostolic age.” Remember Mt.16 – Peter’s confession of Jesus’ deity “he is the Son of the Living God.Brown is absolutely wrong on this but does he care? I think not.

The Gnostics View

Members of the various gnostic sects had a secret knowledge not available to others; it was given to them by a series of lesser mediating divinities either called Archons or Aeons; they had a dualistic view, an antithesis between matter and spirit, body and soul and a hatred of the physical world that was often believed to have been created not by God but by a lesser, evil demigod to imprison the souls of human beings. None of these beliefs are Christian.

The book claims that the gnostic Jesus is far more human than the divine Jesus of the four canonical Gospels contained in the Christian Bible. The fact is -- the Gnostics did not believe Jesus was truly human because of their dualistic worldview. Docetism was a form of Gnosticism that rose later in the first century. (comes from the Greek word dokeo, meaning “to seem” or “appear”). Their philosophy was that matter is inherently evil and that God was not subject to any human experiences or feelings. Jesus only appeared to have flesh, they denied his genuine humanity, and said he was really a (spirit) phantom. In other words he was not human, the very opposite of what Brown claims is the truth. Since this was the held belief of Gnostics it would be impossible to reconcile Jesus was married and went off to have children. Again the sources he used to confirm his theory are actually speaking against it. What Brown quotes say the opposite, they deny he was human not divine. All one has to do is read the Gnostic gospels and the debates that occurred 150 years BEFORE the Nicaean council to find this out.

The Fact is Jesus being BOTH God and man is not an exclusive New Testament idea but an Old Testament one that is spoken of by prophets hundreds of years apart. Isa.9:6 , Jer.25:5-6 the branch who is a man His name is called THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Zech.12:10 God says they will look upon me and mourn for son whom they pierced.

The New Testament gives clear evidence of Jesus being viewed as divine throughout the New Testament. Numerous passages affirm the absolute deity of Christ, such as John 1:1 (“the Word was God” and became flesh), Mt.1:23) “God with us fulfilling Isa.7:14. John 5:18 (“calling God His own Father, making himself equal with God”), John 20:28 (Thomas saying “[you are] my Lord and my God”), “Titus 2:13 (our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ”), Romans 9:5 (“God over all, blessed forever”), and Colossians 2:9 (“within Him dwells all the fullness of being God in bodily form”), and many others attribute the Son of God being the creator. He is called the Lord from heaven in 1 Cor.15:47.

In fact, one would have to remove passages from almost every book of the New Testament to not have it teach he was divine.

The debate at Niacea was about whether Christ was a created being, which Arius of Alexander was promoting, or that he was the same substance (homoousia as God, being God) as Bishop Alexander proposed. Both sides argued in the council from the Scriptures, expounding with language and logic. It was a young deacon name Athanasius who joined in the debate and shined in his biblical expertise and settled the issue. Arius was pronounced as teaching heresy and deposed from teaching by an overwhelming vote in the council who were present at the debate.

In Brown’s book Teabing states “The word heretic derives from that moment in history” (p. 234) (the time of Constantine, in the early fourth century). If so, how did New Testament authors in the first century refer to “heresies” 2 Peter 2:1 and “a man that is a heretic” Titus 3:10 hundreds of years before. Even Irenaeus in the second-century was able to write a book entitled “Against Heresies”100 years before this council. Hippolytus in his “Refutation of All Heresies” 7:22 written in 230 AD. Again Brown is wrong on his facts, by this time in the book it matters little as he is on a roll with one wrong assumption built upon another.

Teabing states that Constantine “was a lifelong pagan who was baptized on his deathbed, too weak to protest.” (p. 232)

This is about as close to the truth on church history that Brown gets. Constantine at first settled the issue of the deity of Christ by banishing Arius who opposed it, but it only proved temporary. Constantine received Arius' friend Eusebius of Nicodemia on his deathbed, and was baptized an Arian willingly (337 A.D.). Supporting Arius' view, the Roman church then rejected the Trinitarian view, and his son who took his fathers place disposed Athanasius and his followers. For the next 50 years Arianism was supported and became a major movement inside the Church of Rome. So it is nothing like what Brown writes in his book that the church made Jesus into deity, the people he cites actually denied it.

According to Browns book “Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false,” laments one of Brown’s characters. The real truth was rejected. The word Everything is the fuel that makes his theory run. Brown takes a negative view of the Bible and promotes a distorted image of Jesus. He’s neither the Messiah or a humble carpenter but a wealthy, trained religious teacher bent on regaining the throne. He makes him into what the Pharisees were like.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The character Teabing referring to Nicaea council states that the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that “the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda ….” (p. 234)

The Qumran society was monastic community within Judaism that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Da Vinci Code claims they are part of the “earliest Christian records.” But they contain no “Christian teachings” whatsoever, they predate Christianity by at least 100 years. They are also the products of an ancient Jewish community that was separated from the Judaism of their day. They contain – among other things – some of the oldest known manuscripts of the Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls actually confirm that the Old Testament we have today has not changed and affirms it being accurate. Which does the ultimate damage to Brown’s theory of the Bible being drastically changed by unscrupulous men. Instead it confirms the accuracy of the text being intact for thousands of years.

What Dan Brown's character goes on to say about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library intentionally misleads the reader. He says: Fortunately for historians, some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s (sic) hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert. And, of course, the Coptic Scrolls (sic) in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. In addition to telling the true Grail story, these documents speak of Christ's ministry in very human terms. (The Da Vinci Code, p.234).

The Nag Hammadi texts are incorrectly called “scrolls” in this book when they are codices. In the Nag Hammadi library contains 13 codices 52 tractates (6 which are duplicates). And the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 (not the 1950’s). If the author can get something this elementary wrong, we must question the other historical “facts” presented elsewhere to see if they too are wrong. This Coptic codex was acquired in Cairo in 1896 by Dr. Rheinhardt, it was not published until 1955. It is missing pages 1 to 6, pages 11 to 14 -- these included sections of the text up to chapter 4, and portions of chapter 5 to 8.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were not in the possession of the Nicene council so how could they prevent them from being part of the Bible? In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not Christian documents, they do not contain any “gospels” nor mention Jesus Christ’s ministry on earth at all. They were Old Testament scrolls prior to his birth. Brown seems to lack integrity in his research everywhere one turns. And they especially do not mention anything about Jesus and Mary Magdalene having children, or being married.

Over 60,000 scrolls, fragments and manuscripts were uncovered—of which one-third were Scriptural, mostly copies of Old Testament books including internal documents for the Qumran community. They contain portions of every Old Testament book except Esther. They predate the New Testament, carbon-dated to the second-century BC. prior to Christ.

We find the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced by a community of mostly male Jewish celibates, precisely the kind of people Langdon in Browns book asserts couldn’t have existed within Judaism at the time of Jesus. Once again this goes against Brown’s theory of Jesus must be married because all Jewish men are married. The very evidence Brown brings forth to undermine the consistent story of the canonical Gospels teach contrary to the “secret Christianity” Brown says they represent.

The Bible

In chapter 55. Teabing, answers some questions from the two lead characters about the nature and background of their quest. To begin: “…The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven… The Bible is the product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book” (The Da Vinci Code p.231).

No, man wrote it ass God spoke to the prophets spanning over 1500 years. The text of the New Testament is comprised of over 24,000 copies or pieces of manuscripts, some dating as early as first century many more from the second and third century. There is no other ancient piece of literature with such manuscript evidence. We have manuscripts dating back to the first century and they are what we hold in our hand today, no changes. Recently a piece of Matthew was found where Carston Theide dates back into 60 AD. The Bible has been translated into many languages; our literal English translated Bibles are often translated directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts so the argument over so many translations is moot one. Versions or translations of the New Testament into Syriac, Old Latin, Egyptian, etc. began far after the completion of the canon of the New Testament was circulated (the later 4th and fifth century).

Teabing in the book goes on with more specific claims: “Jesus Christ was a historical figure of staggering influence, perhaps the most enigmatic and inspirational leader the world has ever seen….Understandably, His life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land…More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them…The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great” (p.231).

Was Jesus a figure of “staggering influence” did “thousands of followers” write of him? The answers to this is, No. Jesus’ never traveled outside Palestine, he was known among the Jews, especially the poor and hurting. There are only a few first-century works outside the Scripture about Jesus and none compare to the eyewitness accounts in Scripture.

Were there eighty Gospels out of which four were chosen by Constantine? This is a completely unsubstantiated claim from his book and history. again, they weren’t choosing Bible books at Nicaea but debating if Jesus was created by God or is the creator who is God FROM the Bible.

The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine’ (Brown p.231).

Again Browns research of history is failing, Constantine was not the decider of the canon. In fact, he played no role in its assembly; the church at large was responsible. Church History tells us the Church had a near complete New Testament canon of Scripture 170 years before the council of Nicaea. Almost all the New Testament books were written between 45-75 A.D excluding the apostle John’s writings occurred in 80-95 A.D. From the beginning the church copied and shared the original documents to circulate the apostles writings. These books were read copied and distributed as scripture by individual Christians. We have examples of letters in scripture written by the apostles who said they were to be read to all. “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren.” 1 Thess.5:27 “to be read to all the church’s” Col.4:16 “read to the church of Colosse and the Laodiceans” Gal.1:21 “to the church’s of Galatia.” Paul in jail asks to bring to him the parchments the scrolls. Peter states of Paul’s letters there are hard things to understand, so it is obvious they were copied and read even by the apostles. Early church leaders considered letters and eyewitness accounts authoritative and binding only if they were written by an apostle or close disciple of an apostle. This way they could be assured of the documents' reliability. As pastors and preachers, they also observed which books did in fact build up the church

And we have the evidence of the church as well proving they had the New Testament Bible. Clement of Rome, 95 A.D. in his Epistle to the Corinthians quotes from Matthew, Luke, Romans, Corinthians, Hebrews, I Timothy, 1 Peter. Many of the church fathers (bishops) quote the New Testament such as Polycarp (69-155 A.D.) quotes much of the New Testament (Mt., Acts, Hebrews, 1 Pt. And 10 of Paul's letters) to his letter to the Philippians. Justin Martyr (100-160 A.D.) quotes all 4 Gospels, Acts and the epistles of Paul and Revelation. Portions of the gospels were read every Sunday in church. Clement of Alexandria 165-220 names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. Irenaeus 135-210 quotes from all the New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John. Origen 185-254 names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments. Tertullian 160-240 mentions all the New Testament books minus James, 2 Peter and 2 John.

Tatian, about A.D. 160, made a “Harmony of the Four Gospels called the “Diatessaron,” is an evidence that Four Gospels were generally recognized among the churches.

When you read the early “church fathers” the one consistent teaching that comes through is that they are completely convinced Jesus is God himself from the Scripture that Brown says they do not have. These are bishops and teachers from the 100 and 200 long before the Nicaean council (Brown claims) enforced on the church the supposedly minority position of Christ's divinity.

The proof to counter a decidedly modern edition of the Greek New Testament is the manuscript evidence. The quotations of the Greek scriptures by the Greek fathers confirm the authenticity of the original text. Nearly every verse of the New Testament in Greek can be recovered from quotations of the New Testament by the early church pastors (or scholars, apologists) in their writings. In fact all but 11 verses can be put together by collecting the early church writings, it is the same scripture we have today.

At Council of Nicea in 325 - Athanasius in his debate with Arius quoted from almost all the books of the New Testament, (not from the Gnostic gospels) he said the 27 books are the springs of salvation, do not add or take away from them. So these were already accepted by the Church need no council to affirm them (though the Roman Catholic church did have meetings years after to put closure to the canon it was not necessary).

The early Church did not establish the canon (official set of New Testament writings) at Nicaea. The New Testament writings were long since recognized inspired of god because of their authorship and agreement with what was revealed. We need to understand that the gospels and letters were written in the first generation of the eyewitnesses of the facts. Other gospels, not by eyewitnesses were rejected in the long history of the church because they did not coincide with what is already written. In the same way today we would reject the new book of Mormon today, because it does not agree but actually opposes what is delivered to us in the Scripture.

By the time of Origen (185-254 A.D.), there was general acceptance on nearly all of the New Testament we have today. There was a ongoing discussion on only six epistles to be part of the New Testament canon in a certain area of the church (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude.) Nobody questioned which Gospels should be included, they were accepted for along time. New Testament dates they were written: Matthew, 50-70 AD, Matthew; An eyewitness. Mark, 50-70 AD, Mark; An eyewitness. Luke, 56-60 AD, Luke who compiled the eyewitnesses accounts; John, 85-95AD, John; An eyewitness. These are the dates accepted by conservative scholars who are not liberals.

The distribution of the Gnostic writings are not proportionate to the acceptance of the Gospels by the apostles throughout the world from Asia to Africa.

Pagan Influences

Peter Jones who written extensively on the Gnostics says of Brown: Brown’s “positive” approach resurrects “pre-Christian” symbols and promotes the ancient spirituality of paganism-the worship of Nature as god. Brown’s hope for the future of the planet in the Age of Aquarius is the all-inclusive circle, “the divine feminine” and the figure of the Goddess. He finds this message encoded in the blocks of the Roslyn Chapel, which he calls “the Cathedral of Codes” (p.432).

Each block was carved with a symbol…to create a multifaceted surface” (Da Vinci Code p.436)“…Christian cruciforms, Jewish stars, Masonic seals, Templar crosses, cornucopias, pyramids, astrological signs, plants, vegetables, pentacles and roses…Rosslyn Chapel was a shrine to all faiths…to all traditions…and, above all, to nature and the goddess” (p. 434).

Brown' assumption is that Christianity borrowed ideas from pagan sources. While there may be some surface level similarities of Christianity and other religions beliefs, that doesn't mean that Christianity borrowed from them. Similarities do not mean sameness nor prove they come from a common source. One needs to go under the surface to see how weak brown's arguments are in this matter.

The idea of the goddess is a main point in Browns theory. It is intentional to bring doubt on historical Christianity. Another Assertion in the book is about the name YHWH: God’s original name. The Jewish Tetragrammaton YHWH— the sacred name of God—in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah” (Da Vinci Code p. 309).

This is completely false! The term “Jah” is not even a Hebrew word, Hebrew uses Yah, a contracted form of YHWH. And throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, “Yah” is coupled with a masculine verb. In Psalm 106:1, for example, halal Yah means “Praise the Lord” or “Praise Yah.” Havah has nothing to do with some “androgynous physical union” with “Jah.” This is from someone's imagination

The word Yahweh is derived from the single Hebrew word I am that I am - in Hebrew eyeh ashur eyeh, meaning He is the self existing, self sufficient one, He is the cause of all things, it is from the root word to be.

YHWH derived from Jehovah is completely false. The name “Jehovah” didn’t even exist until the thirteenth century at the earliest (and wasn’t in common use until the sixteenth century), and it is an English word not Hebrew or Greek word. We can trace the name Jehovah to the first person to use it a Roman Catholic monk from the 1200’s. “The first recorded use of this form dates from the thirteenth century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book “Pugeo Fidei” of the year 1270.” It was created by artificially combining the consonants of YHWH (or JHVH) and the vowels of Adonai (which means “Lord”). which resulted in the hybrid term [J]YaHoWaH. Or what is known in English as Jehovah. Jehovah becomes a 16th century rendering for the King James Version of the Hebrew YHWH using the vowels for the name.

In the book, Langdon claims that “YHWH comes from the name Jehovah, which he insists is an androgynous union between “the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah.”

If you go to the Encyclopedia or theological dictionary it shows that Browns Langdon is wrong. The Hebrew, not “pre-Hebraic” word for Eve is found in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament is hawwâ, (pronounced “havah”), which means “mother of all living.” There is no androgynous meaning of this, but Brown formulates his facts never veering off the Gnostic slant of his novel to diminish real Christian teaching. He is using the enemies of Christianity to interpret Christianity.

Brown claims that Jews in Solomon’s Temple adored Yahweh and his feminine counterpart, the Shekinah, “[E]arly Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the Temple, no less. Early Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s Temple housed not only God but also His powerful female equal, Shekinah” (Da Vinci Code p. 309).

They believed no such thing. The Shekinah is not the name of a goddess, but a Hebrew words that means “dwelling, or presence.” The Shekinah glory is the visible manifestation of God’ presence. This Shekinah in the Old Testament was called the kvod adonai which means glory of the Lord. Kvod (Glory) in Hebrew and means mean’s weight. In the New Testament it is called in Greek Doxa Kurion. God would often manifest himself in glory so the Israelites would know he is among them. It is used for Jesus in John 1 “The word became flesh and ‘dwelt’ among us.” Dwelt in Greek is skeinei, which is from the Hebrew mishkhan, which is the same root as shekinah. It means to tabernacle as God did in the Old Testament tabernacle. It infers that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament..

Ritualistic sex was NEVER sanctioned in the temple. This could only take place at the time of the Temple’s corruption, after Solomon, when there was disobedience to the Mosaic Law by priests who defiled the temple with religious prostitution (1 Kings 14:24 and 2 Kings 23:4-15). Pagan altars were repeatedly torn down by various kings and prophets of Israel ( Judges 6:25-26,28,30).

Sabbath and Sunday

Written as if this was taken right out of a Sabbatrian book like the 7th Day Adventists, Brown makes another historical inaccuracy part of his brand of truth. In the book Teabing states “Even Christianity’s weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans.” Langdon adds, “Christianity honored the Jewish Sabbath of Saturday, but Constantine shifted it to coincide with the pagan’s veneration of the sun. To this day, most churchgoers attend services on Sunday morning with no idea that they are there on account of the pagan sun god’s weekly tribute – Sunday” (pp. 232–233).

Nothing could be further from the truth. This is the type of misinformation people get from cults. Although early Christians met on “the Lord’s day,” they still considered Saturday to be the Sabbath.

A number of writers from the post-apostolic period confirm the practice of Christians gathering for worship on Sunday. Justin the Martyr (150 AD) describes Sunday as the day when Christians gather to read the scriptures

The Epistle of Barnabas (120-150) The Didache (60-80 AD) and Other later testimonies from Irenaeus, Dionysius, Tertullian of Africa Cyprian, Pliney the younger and Melito of Sardis (late 100’s) which all pre-date Constantine by over 100 years.

In the New Testament epistles there are only 2 references to the Sabbath (Col.2:16, Heb.4:4). The apostle Paul explains clearly that the day is not obligatory for Christians, it was a commandment from God to Israel, not the Church.

Schaff- Herzog Encyclopedia of religious knowledge 1891 Ed., vol.4 Article on Sunday. “Sunday… was adopted by the early Christians as a day of worship... Sunday was emphatically the weekly feast of the resurrection of Christ, as the Jewish Sabbath was the feast of creation. It was called the Lords day, and upon it the primitive church assembled to break bread.

So Brown’s “lesson in history” fails again.

Teabing asks what would happen if people found out that the greatest story ever told (a reference to the Biblical story of Christ) “is, in fact, the greatest story every sold” (p. 267). If Brown is correcting the story with all these facts, is he not selling his book. Whose selling what? Most of the Bibles throughout the world have been funded to be given away. Many churches give away free Bibles. What has “The Da Vinci Code” done? It tries to keep people in unbelief having them think his story is the truth and the Bibles history is not. Its intent is to turns sincere seekers away from examining Christianity and only bring confusion.

Brown’s attack on our faith may provide us with greater opportunities for evangelism, but we need to know how to counter it. Hopefully I have helped to give a few answers to his challenge.

In conclusion the “Jesus” portrayed in “The Da Vinci Code” is not the Lord Jesus Christ of the Bible. Jesus warned us that there would be “false Christs.” (Matthew 24:24) false gospels: This is one of them. We are told they will believe in fables in the last days and not the truth.

How can a book like this stay this long on the shelves and continue to be a bestseller? It's easy. People would rather believe the lie than believe the truth.

© 2009 No portion of this site is to be copied or used unless kept in its original format- the way it appears. Articles can be reproduced in portions for ones personal use. Any other use is to have the permission of Let Us Reason Ministries first. Thank You.

We always appreciate hearing from those of you that have benefited by the articles on our website. We love hearing the testimonies and praise reports. We are here to help those who have questions on Bible doctrine, new teachings and movements. Unfortunately we cannot answer every email. Our time is valuable just as yours is, please keep in mind, we only have time to answer sincere inquiries from those who need help. For those who have another point of view, we will answer emails that want to engage in authentic dialogue, not in arguments. We will use discretion in answering any letters.

Let Us Reason Ministries

Tue, Jul 26, 2016 - 1:21pm
Joined: Nov 3, 2011

Gospel of Thomas


In The Da Vinci Code, Brown adopts Arius as his representative for all pre-Nicene Christianity because of his gnostic loyalty, disregarding history. Referring to the Council of Nicaea, Brown claims that “until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.”(p.233) “At [the Council of Nicea]…many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon – the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus….” (Da Vinci Code p. 233.)

Brown is irresponsible between distinguishing fact from fiction. The average reader without any knowledge of history can only assume his claims are factual. The council was about one thing, the debate of Arius’ new teaching, that Jesus was created -- not sacraments, Easter or anything else on his list.



The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine’ (Brown p.231).

"Again Browns research of history is failing, Constantine was not the decider of the canon. In fact, he played no role in its assembly; the church at large was responsible. Church History tells us the Church had a near complete New Testament canon of Scripture 170 years before the council of Nicaea. Almost all the New Testament books were written between 45-75 A.D excluding the apostle John’s writings occurred in 80-95 A.D. From the beginning the church copied and shared the original documents to circulate the apostles writings. These books were read copied and distributed as scripture by individual Christians. We have examples of letters in scripture written by the apostles who said they were to be read to all. “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren.” 1 Thess.5:27 “to be read to all the church’s” Col.4:16 “read to the church of Colosse and the Laodiceans” Gal.1:21 “to the church’s of Galatia.” Paul in jail asks to bring to him the parchments the scrolls. Peter states of Paul’s letters there are hard things to understand, so it is obvious they were copied and read even by the apostles. Early church leaders considered letters and eyewitness accounts authoritative and binding only if they were written by an apostle or close disciple of an apostle. This way they could be assured of the documents' reliability. As pastors and preachers, they also observed which books did in fact build up the church"

The Gospel of Thomas – A Christian Evaluation

Home The Gospel of Thomas – A Christian Evaluation

July 2, 2007

Don Closson looks at the Gospel of Thomas, considering its relationship to the four gospels included in the New Testament. His Christian evaluation of this text demonstrates that it is a later work written in the fourth century after Christ and inconsistent with the original first century writings. Some of the ideas presented in this document were rejected by the early church of the first century.

What Is It, and Why Is It Important?

Anyone who has visited the Wikipedia web site, the online encyclopedia with almost two million entries, knows that while the information is usually presented in a scholarly style, it can be a bit slanted at times. So when I recently read its entry for the “Gospel of Thomas,” I was not surprised to find it leaning towards the view that this letter is probably an early document, earlier than the other four Gospels of the New Testament, and an authentic product of the apostle known as Didymus or Thomas. The two Wikipedia sources most mentioned in support of this position are Elaine Pagels, professor of religion at Princeton, and the group of scholars known as the Jesus Seminar. Both are known for their distaste for evangelical theology and traditional views on the canon in general.

What I found more interesting, though, is the background discussion on the article. Wikipedia includes a running dialogue of the debates that determine what actually gets posted into the article, as well as what gets removed, and here the discussion can be a bit more emotional. One contributor argues that no Christian should be allowed to contribute because of their bias and commitment to the canon of the New Testament. He adds that only atheists and Jews should be allowed to participate (no bias here). The discussion also reflects the idea that as early as the beginning of the second century, the Catholic Church was conducting a massive conspiracy to keep certain texts and ideas out of the public’s hands and minds.

For those who have never heard of the Gospel of Thomas, let me provide some background. A copy of the Gospel of Thomas was found among thirteen leather-bound books in Egypt in 1945 near a town called Nag Hammadi. The books themselves are dated to be about A.D. 350 to 380 and are written in the Coptic language. The Gospel of Thomas contains one hundred fourteen sayings that are mostly attributed to Jesus. Parts of Thomas had been uncovered in the 1890s in the form of three Greek papyrus fragments. The book opens with a prologue that reads, “These are the secret words that the living Jesus spoke and Judas, even Thomas, wrote,” which is followed by the words “the Gospel according to Thomas.”{1}

Why should Christians take the time to think about this book called by some “the fifth gospel”? Mainly, because the Gospel of Thomas is one of the oldest texts found at Nag Hammadi, and because it is being offered by some scholars as an authentic form of early Christianity that competed with the traditional Gospels but was unfairly suppressed.

Dating and Canonicity

Elaine Pagels of Princeton University argues that there was an early competition between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas, and that it was mishandled by the early Church Fathers. As a result, Christianity may have adopted an incorrect view of who Jesus was and what his message actually taught.

A key component in this debate is the question of when the Gospel of Thomas was written. Pagels defends a date earlier than the Gospel of John, which would put it before A.D. 90. She and others support this idea by arguing that Thomas is different in both form and content than the other gospels and that it has material in common with an early source referred to as Q. Many New Testament scholars argue that there existed an early written text they call Q and that Matthew and Luke both drew from it. Since Q predated Matthew and Luke, it follows that it is earlier than John’s Gospel as well.

However, most scholars believe that Thomas is a second century work and that it was written in Syria.{2} Thomas may contain sayings going back to Jesus that are independent of the Gospels, but most of the material is rearranged and restated ideas from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

An argument against an early Thomas is called the criterion of multiple attestations.{3} It goes something like this. The many early testimonies that we have regarding the teachings of Jesus contain material on the end times and a final judgment. These early testimonies include Mark, what is common to Matthew and Luke (i.e., what is in Q), what is unique to Matthew, and what is unique to Luke. All include end times teaching by Jesus. Thomas does not. Instead, Thomas seems to teach that the kingdom has already arrived in full and that no future event need occur. The Gospel of Thomas shows the development of later ideas that rejected Jewish beliefs and show the inclusion of pagan Greek thought.

Craig Evans argues that the Gospel of Thomas was not written prior to A.D. 175 or 180.{4} He believes that Thomas shows knowledge of the New Testament writings and that it contains Gospel material that is seen as late. Evans adds that the structure of Thomas shows a striking similarity to Tatian’s Diatessaron which was a harmonization of the four New Testament Gospels and was written after A.D. 170. This late date would exclude Thomas from consideration for the canon because it would be too late to have a direct connection to one of the apostles.

Gospel Competition

Was there a marketplace of widespread and equally viable religious ideas in the early church, or was there a clear tradition handed down by the apostles and defended by the Church Fathers that accurately and exclusively communicated the teachings of Jesus Christ?

A group of Scholars sometimes known as the “New School” believe that the Gospel of Thomas is an alternative source for understanding who the real Jesus is and what he taught. As noted earlier, Elaine Pagels and the Jesus Seminar are two of the better known sources that defend the authenticity and early date of the Thomas letter. They believe that orthodoxy was up for grabs within the early Christian community, and that John’s Gospel, written around A.D. 90, was unfairly used by Irenaeus in the late second century to exclude and suppress the Thomas material.

Pagels writes that Irenaeus, in his attempt to “stabilize” Christianity, imposed a “canon, creed, and hierarchy” on the church in response to “devastating persecution” from the pagan and Jewish population, and in the process he suppressed other legitimate forms of spirituality.{5} Pagels admits that by A.D. 200 “Christianity had become an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the one ‘true faith’.”{6} But it is not entirely clear to Pagels that the right people and ideas won the day; we could be missing an important aspect of what Jesus taught.

Because of this she believes that we need to rethink what orthodoxy and heterodoxy mean. Just because Irenaeus labeled a set of ideas as heretical or placed a group of writings outside of the inspired canon of the New Testament doesn’t necessarily mean that he was right. Pagels adds that Christianity would be a richer faith if it allowed the traditions and ideas that Irenaeus fought against back into church.

Evangelicals have no problem with the idea that there were competing beliefs in the early church environment. The biblical account mentions several: Simon the magician in Acts, Hymenaeus and Philetus in 1 Timothy, and the docetists, who believed that Jesus only “appeared to be in the flesh,” are referred to in John’s epistles. However, they do not agree with Pagels’ conclusions.

The various religious ideas competing with the traditional view were rejected by the earliest and most attested to sources handed down to us from the early church. They were systematically rejected even before Irenaeus or the emergence of the canon in the third and fourth centuries.


Attempts to classify the contents of the Gospel of Thomas have been almost as controversial as dating it. Those who support it being an early and authentic witness to the life and ministry of Jesus argue that it offers a form of Christianity more compelling than the traditional view. For instance, in her book Beyond Belief, Elaine Pagels explains how she discovered an unexpected spiritual power in the Gospel of Thomas. She writes, ‘It doesn’t tell you what to believe but challenges us to discover what lies hidden within ourselves; and, with a shock of recognition, I realized that this perspective seemed to me self-evidently true.”{7} This statement comes after a time in her life when she had consciously rejected the teachings of evangelical Christianity. It also coincides with the height of the self-actualization movement of psychologists Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow which would have made the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas seem very modern. Pagels argues that just because Thomas sounds different to us, it is not necessarily wrong, heretical, or Gnostic.

So what does Thomas teach? On a spectrum between the traditional gospel on one end and full blown Gnosticism of the late second century on the other, Thomas is closer to the four traditional Gospels of Matthew Mark, Luke, and John. It includes comments about the kingdom of God, prophetic sayings, and beatitudes, and doesn’t contain Gnostic elements regarding the creation of the world and multiple layers of deity. However, its one hundred fourteen sayings portray Jesus as more Buddhist than Jewish.

According to Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, “the bulk of the gospel seems to reflect recastings of the synoptic material, that is, a reworking of material from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.” In doing so, Jesus comes across more as a wise sage turning his followers inward for salvation rather than towards himself as a unique atonement for sin. For instance, Saying Three includes the words, ‘When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that you are sons of the living father. But if you do not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.'” Bock concludes that ‘In Thomas, the key to God’s kingdom is self-knowledge and self-understanding. Spiritual awakening produces life.”{8}

Even if the Gospel of Thomas is a first century document, it is offering a different gospel. Early church leaders compared the teachings of Thomas with the oral tradition handed down from the apostles and with the traditional gospels and rejected Thomas.


Although the focus here has been the Gospel of Thomas, our discussion is part of a larger debate. This larger question asks which ideas and texts present in the first and second century should be considered Christian and included in what we call the canon of Scripture. In other words, are there ideas and texts that were unfairly suppressed by individuals or the organized church in the early days of Christianity?

In his book The Missing Gospels, Darrell Bock lists three major problems with the view held by those who think that we should include the Gospel of Thomas and other so called “missing gospels” into the sphere of orthodox Christianity.

First, this group undervalues the evidence that the traditional sources are still “our best connection to the Christian faith’s earliest years.”{9} Elaine Pagels and others work hard to show that all religious ideas during this time period are human products and have equal merit. They also claim that we know little about who wrote the four Gospels of the NT, often implying that they too could be forgeries.

While there is a healthy debate surrounding the evidence supporting the traditional works, Bock asserts that, “the case that the Gospels are rooted in apostolic connections either directly by authorship or by apostolic association is far greater for the four Gospels than for any of the other alternative gospels,” including Thomas.{10} He adds that “the Gospels we have in the fourfold collection have a line of connection to the earliest days and figures of the Christian faith that the alternatives texts do not possess. For example, the Church Father Clement, writing in A.D. 95 states, ‘The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent forth from God. So Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ. . . . Having therefore received their orders and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and full of faith in the Word of God, they went forth.”{11}

Secondly, supporters of these alternative texts fail to admit that the ideas taught by the “missing gospels” about the nature of God, the work and person of Christ, and the nature of salvation were immediately rejected from the mid-first century on.{12}

Finally, those who support Thomas are wrong when they claim that “there simply was variety in the first two centuries, with neither side possessing an implicit right to claim authority.”{13} Instead, there was a core belief system built upon the foundation of the Old Testament Scriptures and the life of Jesus Christ.

As Bock argues, Irenaeus and others who rejected the ideas found in the Gospel of Thomas were not the creators of orthodoxy, they were created by it.


1. Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 62.
2. Darrell L. Bock, The Missing Gospels, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006), 61.
3. Ibid., 62.
4. Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 67.
5. Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief, (New York: Random House, 2003), inside front cover.
6. Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), xxiii.
7. Pagels, Beyond Belief, 32.
8. Bock, The Missing Gospels, 166.
9. Ibid., 202.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., 204.
12. Ibid., 207.
13. Ibid., 211.

© 2007 Probe Ministries

Don Closson

Don Closson served as Director of Administration and a research associate with Probe for 26 years, until taking a position with the same title at the Centers of Church Based Training (ccbt.org) in 2013. He received the B.S. in education from Southern Illinois University, the M.S. in educational administration from Illinois State University, and the M.A. in Biblical Studies from Dallas Theological Seminary. He has served as a public school teacher and administrator before joining Probe and then the CCBT. He is the general editor of Kids, Classrooms, and Contemporary Education.

What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3-minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.

Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:

Probe Ministries
2001 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 2000
Plano TX 75075
(972) 941-4565

Copyright/Reproduction Limitations

This document is the sole property of Probe Ministries. It may not be altered or edited in any way. Permission is granted to use in digital or printed form so long as it is circulated without charge, and in its entirety. This document may not be repackaged in any form for sale or resale. All reproductions of this document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright 2016 Probe Ministries) and this Copyright/Limitations notice.

Tue, Jul 26, 2016 - 1:26pm
Joined: Nov 3, 2011

March 23, 2016 Gnostic

March 23, 2016

Gnostic chiliastic evolution: Satan's alternative plan of salvation

By Linda Kimball

"...so far as human wisdom and resources are concerned, the salvation of sinners is as impossible as raising the dead. Every conceivable method of expiation and purification has been tried without success." Charles Hodge

In the hearts of all humans, bar none, is the possibility of evil, thus sin, said GK Chesterton, is as obvious as potatoes. This being the case it is completely irrational for the unrepentant to think they can purify themselves and others when it is their evil conscience and will turned toward wickedness – aspects of their souls – that need cleansing. And it is because man is evil and depraved, that the 20th century's purification movements – Marxist Communism and Nazi Socialism – purified the human gene pool by murdering in excess of 160,000,000 men, women and children of which in Russia, approximately half were Christians. According to Srdja Trifkovic, persecution and martyrdom of Christians under 20th century totalitarianism, and mainly of Russian Orthodox Christians under Communist Bolshevism,

"....is by far the greatest crime in all of recorded history....Attempts at "killing the soul" started only months after the Revolution of 1917." Persecution and martyrdom was, "several times greater than the Holocaust in terms of innocent lives brutally destroyed. It has killed more Christians in a few decades than all other causes put together in all ages, with Islam a distant second as the cause of their death and suffering. And yet it still remains a largely unknown, often minimized, or scandalously glossed over crime." (New Martyrs of the East and Coming Trials in the West, Srdja Trifkovic, OrthodoxyToday.com)

In his analysis of Marxist Communism, early conservative intellectual Frank Meyer describes it as the state form taken by a materialist pagan,

"...faith determined to rule the world" Communism is the "final synthesis of all heretical tendencies that have pervaded Western civilization for many centuries." (The Conservative Intellectual Movement, pp. 251-252)

Communism is a godless, philosophically pagan form of heretical Jewish elements and heretical Protestant liberalism's upside-down, anti-creation account grounded in a chiliastic-evolutionary, apocalyptic proclamation of a coming new order based in belief in the inevitability of evolutionary progress from molecule to sea-weed, reptile, ape, hominid, and finally god-man and in the perfectibility of this fallen world. (1)

Chiliasm in Greek means 'thousand years' and is primarily a godless version of the millennial belief expressed in some Christian denominations that there will be a paradise on earth where Christ will reign for a thousand years prior to the final judgment and future eternal state.

The contemporary chiliastic-evolutionary movement is Technocracy. The world is being actively transformed by an amoral power elite and their minions according to a very narrow economical/political/social philosophy called Technocracy, and it is impacting every segment of society in every corner of the world:

"Technocracy is being sponsored and orchestrated by a global elite led by David Rockefeller's and Zbigniew Brzezinski's Trilateral Commission...Originally started in the early 1930's, Technocracy is antithetical to every American institution that made us into the greatest nation on earth. It eschews property rights, obsoletes capitalism, hates politicians and traditional structures, and promises a lofty utopian dream made possible only if engineers, scientists, and technicians are allowed to run society. When Aldous Huxley penned Brave New World in 1932, he accurately foresaw this wrenching transformation of society and predicted that the end of it would be a scientific dictatorship unlike anything the world has ever seen." (Preface, Technocracy Rising, Patrick Wood)

Huxley concluded that Technocracy produces scientific dictatorship designed to scientifically engineer, manipulate, dominate and control the world's wealth and resources and micro-manage every human being in every detail of his life. Moreover, said Huxley, the scientific and evolutionary system itself would become a god that was worshipped and questioning any aspect of it, such as the validity of evolution as empirical science, or any decision or outcome would be tantamount to blasphemy.

Like its' 20th century counterparts, Technocracy is the evolutionary chiliastic expression of a coming Golden Age that is the culminating hubris of Promethean god-men who having 'murdered' the Christian God mean to purify and remake man and creation.

In "Science, Politics and Gnosticism," highly respected political philosopher Eric Voegelin (1901-85) identifies many modern Gnostic movements. They range from Comte's positivism, to progressivism, Hegelianism, Masonry, Marxist Communism, Nazi Socialism, Schleiermacher's doctrine of faith, Protestant liberalism, and Luciferian Theosophy.

In an upside-down exegesis typical of Gnosticism, Helena Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy, leading Masonic thinker, and important formulator of chiliastic evolution wrote in her book, "The Secret Doctrine" volume II,

"...it is but natural...to view Satan, the Serpent of Genesis, as the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind..." (Theosophy University Press, 1888, p. 243, 513)

Chiliastic-evolutionary systems are modern forms of ancient and very "elitist" pre-Christian and Christian-era Gnosticism which assigns the Holy Triune God to hell and instead worships Lucifer. Furthermore, it teaches that salvation is attained through the 'elitist' knowledge of Gnostic teachers such as gurus, god-men, certain scientists and Oprah Winfrey, a contemporary spiritual guide possessed of the knowledge of the Gnostic cosmogony.

With Satan as the spiritual father of an army of unrepentant Gnostic pagans, it is no wonder that modern Gnostic systems have so far produced every dictatorial, genocidal utopian movement of the 20th century and underpin contemporary spiritually pagan, chiliastic New Age and Technocratic globalist's hopes and visions. In his article, "Leftism a Radical Faith," Bruce Riggs notes that much of the political history of the extended 20th century is that of massive extinctions of citizenries by their dictatorial governments:

"Take the engineered mass starvations, torture chambers, firing squads, and gulags of Lenin and Stalin; Nazi gas chambers; Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge killing fields; the genocides of Mao's "Great Leap Forward,"; and the tyrannical North Korean Sung dynasty, and one will find that over one hundred million people have been slaughtered." (2)

The authors of the Black Book of Communism point to the godless anti-creation Darwinian "biological and zoological" strain of thinking as the engine of evil that proved itself a most effective means of denying the humanity of millions of victims:

"This strain of thinking is why so many of the crimes of Communism were crimes against humanity, and how Marxist-Leninist ideology managed to justify these crimes to its followers." (The Black Book of Communism, Stephanie Courtois, p. 751)

The devilish Gnostic rebel Vladimir Lenin concurs. Anti-creation Darwinism put an end to the belief that human, animals, and vegetable kinds bear no relation to one another and,

"that they were created by God, and hence immutable." (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p. 9)

Twentieth century Gnostic pagan god-states systematically dehumanized and murdered millions of people in order to create an imagined earthly Eden purified of evil, and this is clearly insane. Yet this evil religion whose spiritual father is Satan continues today as a God-hating, globally elitist, evolutionary progressive, politico-centric faith entirely disdainful of orthodox Christian and faithful Jewish beliefs and contemptuous of those who subscribe to them.

In short, devilish Gnostic chiliastic evolution is a Satanic spiritually pagan religion with the look of a religious inquisition that represents the 20th century heretical version of orthodox Christianity. Unless we grasp this crucial point the nature of this devilishly evil religion will elude us. (3)

Rise of Satan's Chiliastic Technocratic Utopia

In "False Dawn: The United Religions Initiative, Globalism, and the Quest for a One-World Religion," Lee Penn wans that the United Religions Initiative (URI) and the Gaia initiative represents the spiritually pagan religious facet of the coming Technocratic New World Order. The URI is a United Nations organization that to a significant extent is animated by Satanic Gnostic chiliastic evolution. In preparation for the coming new order, a 'new' pagan spiritually is under construction of which the Earth Charter is set to become its Holy Writ.

Crafted by a conclave of 'Wise Persons' headed by former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev, the Charter's benign sounding verbiage,

"and symbolic nature camouflages its dangerous purpose. The Charter is intended to become a universally adopted creed that will psychologically prepare the world's children to accept the necessity of world government to save the environment. It is also an outrageous attempt to indoctrinate your children in the UN's New Age paganism." (The New World Religion, William F. Jasper, New American, 2002)

The URI has attracted a diverse group of activists and powerful supporters such as the Dalai Lama, progressive churchmen from the People's Republic of China, pro-gay Episcopalians, radical Muslims, feminist goddesses and witches, rich capitalist foundations, the Club of Rome, the Temple of Understanding, and the Lucis Trust, formerly called Lucifer Publishing. (pp. 5, 7, 23-26)

Prominent supporters include occultist Robert Muller (former UN assistant secretary general and father of Common Core), Neale Donald Walsh, George Soros, Mikhail Gorbachev, Maurice Strong, Ted Turner, and Barbara Marx Hubbard. (ibid)

Penn notes that evolution is absolutely ventral to the ambitions of Technocratic global elites. Thus after more than eighty years of nearly unopposed evolutionary evangelization in schools, seminaries, pulpits, media, academia and elsewhere global elite god-men like Jeremy Rifkin are finally free to declare that evolution is a living "Mind" enlarging its domain as it evolves up and through the "chain of species." Moreover, now that the evolution god "Mind" reigns supreme, global elitists no longer feel like guests in someone else's home and therefore obliged to make their behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules:

"It is our creation now. We make the rules (and) establish the parameters of reality. We create the world (and) no longer have to justify our behavior...We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever." (Algeny, Rifkin, 1983, p. 188)

Here we see that in the completely delusional, entirely depraved (Jer. 51: 17-18), and ultimately demonically orchestrated global elite dream-scape it is not the personal Triune God who has created and sustains the world. No, it is each Gnostic man-god who creates and sustains his own world and meaning in every moment out of his own divine consciousness. In other words, since according to the devil the substance of the Holy Creator God is distributed throughout all of the cosmos, including the mind of man, then by occult magic rituals such as transcendental meditation and brain-altering drugs, man can tap into the god-force within, thereby becoming a little god who controls the cosmos because he controls "Mind." The physical world then, is an illusion because reality is inside the divine mind of the god-man.

Given the likelihood that an ancient evil intelligence has crawled inside Rifkin and other Technocratic god-men the fact that New Age spirituality relies heavily on spirit revelations channeled through mediums such as Blavatsky, Bailey, Benjamin Crème, Robert Muller, Neale Donald Walsh and Barbara Marx Hubbard, to name but a few, should come as no surprise. Penn observes that all together they form a comprehensive anti-Gospel setting forth a Gnostic progressive vision of apocalyptic spiritualized totalitarianism that includes:

1. Praise for Lucifer as the light-bearer and giver of wisdom

2. Highly evolved humans are gods.

3. Advocacy for extreme population control

4. Concentrated hate directed at faithful Judaism, orthodox evangelical Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism5. Forecasting a pending, and for them, desirable selection of mankind in which the progressives enter the New Age millennium and reactionaries face extinction. For "New Age Apostles of 'progressive' Social Darwinism, these casualties are a necessary price to pay for human evolution." (Penn, p. 7)

Speaking through Barbara Marx Hubbard, her spirit guide 'Christ' prophesied in 1995 that the Rider of the Pale Horse will use the 'sword' as one of his means to "kill those who choose to remain self-centered." (ibid, Penn, p. 322)

The meaning of 'self-centered' is briefly defined in the Global Biodiversity Assessment; a document mandated by the U.N. sponsored Convention on Biological Diversity. This document explicitly refers to Christianity as a faith that, rather than making God and humans one with nature, has instead set God and humans "apart from nature," a process in which nature has "lost its sacred qualities." The document states:

"Conversion to Christianity has....meant an abandonment of an affinity with the natural world." (Al Gore, The United Nations and the Cult of Gaia, Cliff Kincaid, americasurvival.org, 1999)

In other words, because orthodox Christianity teaches that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the Triune God and His creation that is only breached by Jesus Christ then idolaters like Jeremy Rifkin do not and cannot share the substance of the Triune God as pantheism teaches. According to Christianity man is radically different from the Lord and atonement, purification and mediation is achieved only through Jesus Christ, Who rose from the dead. This means that neither Rifkin nor any other Technocratic global elitist is god but rather an evil idolater speeding along the broad, smooth highway to hell.

All modern Gnostic pagan movements share the same chiliastic goal: a coming "new pantheist order" and "new pagan god-man" completely purified of all evil and existing in oneness with the evolutionary god force. This means extermination of all faithful Christians and Jews and other dissenters who refuse to become one with the god of forces.

Purification also extends to Biblical moral standards, sexual ethics, traditional marriage and traditions derived therefrom since they have been by-passed by the ongoing process of evolution. These will be changed just as all distinctions between nonlife forms, life forms and gender will be blurred in the idea of evolution from molecule to ape to man and woman to transgender to androgynous god-man. In the same way, all distinctions between good and evil, nations and religions will be merged in the chiliastic vision of worldly purification.

In conclusion, Gnostic chiliastic evolution is the anti-gospel of Satan, thus the antithesis of the glorious Gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ. So powerful is the stranglehold of Satan's anti-gospel on millions of darkened Western minds that it has imaginatively inverted the order of creation and reversed the direction of Biblical theism, meaning that the millions of people whose minds are in bondage to Satan and his legions can no longer think right-side up. With creation ex nihilo virtually replaced by the evolution god it is now believed that men have not fallen from perfection but are instead gradually evolving upward from their ape beginnings toward greater and greater spiritual perfection.

For all Westerners who are perhaps uncomfortable with, offended by, or outright hostile toward the personal Holy Triune God and His plan of salvation Satan's anti-gospel provides them a chiliastic plan of purification and a substitute deity – evolution – the animated god force of the cosmos which men believe they can control and direct. Through scientifically controlled and directed evolution they imagine they are destined to realize unimaginable spiritual advances.

1. Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose

2. Leftism a Radical Faith, Bruce Riggs, American Thinker, 2014

3. ibid, Klaus Fischer

© Linda Kimball


This wonderful article is penned by this amazingly sharp woman.

Linda is a real treasure of deep thought and insight, imho.

Linda Kimball

Linda Kimball is the author of numerous published articles and essays on culture, politics, and worldview. Her writings are published both nationally and internationally. Linda is a team member of Grassfire, New Media Alliance, and MoveOff.

Tue, Jul 26, 2016 - 1:37pm
Joined: Nov 3, 2011

An Excellent Resource




The purpose of this web site is to set out all of the Christian writings that are believed to have been written in the first and second centuries, as well as a few selected from the early third. I have also included non-Christian documents that may have special bearing on the study of early Christianity in order to make this web site a comprehensive sourcebook. I have provided links to English translations for all of these documents. When available, the work has also been provided in the original language, usually Greek. I have also provided information and scholarly opinion regarding the background, authorship, dating, and provenance of these documents. These comments are intended to provide an introduction.

I did not want to follow the common scheme of organizing early Christian documents into the canon and apocrypha, which is simply anachronistic. Because it is the most intuitive and useful, I have ordered them based on one possible chronological scheme. My judgments concerning the authenticity and dating of the documents concerned are made in the best tradition of biblical scholarship. Nevertheless, the ordering is almost certainly wrong in some part. To provide some bearings, a range of probable dating is provided for the scheme, but this range of dating can be disputed. All dates are approximate. An alphabetical listing is also provided as an easier way to find a specific text."