Gnosticism and the formation of the Early Church

Almost every nation on earth has legends, or fables of a flood in which only a small number
of people survived, usually in a canoe, or boat. The Bible speaks of this legend as a world-
wide flood in which only Noah and his family survived. As with most stories of the Bible, the
flood has been relegated to mythological status; but as is the case with most myths and
legends, there was originally substance to the original story, which has been distorted over
the passage of time. However, the account given is neither a fable or a distortion of truth; it
is a record given by the holy men of old while inspired by the Holy Spirit. Evidence of this
can be found in the prophecy of the Seventy `weeks' of Daniel Chapter 9; which prophesied
when the Messiah would be baptized, when He would be `cut off, but not for Himself'
(crucified), when the Gospel would go to the gentiles and the final destruction of Jerusalem.

After the flood, Nimrod, a grandson of Noah and the son of Cush built the Tower of Babel on
the plains of Shinar in defiance of God, so that if another flood ensued, it would not only
reach above the waters so that he and his people would survive, but reach into the heavens
and dethrone God Himself, if that were possible. He was a strong and mighty man, who
protected his people from the wild beasts which were by that time roaming the earth. It is
from Cush and Nimrod that the Negroid races originated. Legend has it that he was slain by
his uncle Seth, or Ham, for blasphemy, cut into thirteen pieces, and cast into the Tiber River.
After he died, his wife Semiramus became pregnant and gave birth to a white child. She
instructed her people that in death Nimrod had fought the gods of the underworld, and
after successfully defeating them, flew to the Sun, and having been purified by it, was re-
incarnated as the child Tammuz - the Sun god. The Reverend Alexander Hislop, who was a
historian of the mid-nineteenth century, records the derivation of the name `Tammuz' in his
classic work, entitled `The Two Babylons':

`The name Tammuz, as applied to Nimrod or Osiris, was equivalent to Alorus or the "god
of fire," and seems to have been given to him as the great purifier by fire. Tammuz is
derived from tam, "to make perfect," and muz, "fire," and signifies "Fire the perfecter," or
"the perfecting fire." To this meaning of the name, as well as to the character of Nimrod
as the Father of the gods, the Zoroastrian verse alludes when it says: "All things are the
progeny of ONE FIRE. The Father perfected all things, and delivered them to the second
mind, whom all nations of men call the first." (CORY'S Fragments) Here Fire is declared to
be the Father of all; for all things are said to be its progeny, and it is also called the
"perfecter of all things." The second mind is evidently the child who displaced Nimrod's
image as an object of worship; but yet the agency of Nimrod, as the first of the gods, and
the fire-god, was held indispensable for "perfecting" men. And hence, too, no doubt, the
necessity of the fire of Purgatory to "perfect" men's souls at last, and to purge away all
the sins that they have carried with them into the unseen world.' (Alexander Hislop, `The
Two Babylons', Chapter VII `The Two Developments Historically and Prophetically
Considered, Section II The Beast from the Sea.'; originally printed 1853.)

Over time, the Sun came to represent Nimrod and a system of religious worship was devised
by the ancient Babylonians to explain how man is saved. This system is now known as
astrology and confused the worship of man with God. Babylon means confusion; just as
Nimrod and Semiramus introduce this system of religious confusion into the world, so also
did the Lord God confuse the tongues of men to slow its spread into the surrounding
nations.

`Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the
language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the
face of all the earth.' (Genesis 11: 9)

Within the idea that Nimrod was the central sun god who had been cleansed of sin by the
purifying rays of the sun, lay the germinal seeds of ancestor worship. The men which came
to be worshiped as gods were seen to be mighty by their descendants; they were tall of
stature and exceptionally long-lived. The first two generations of men lived on average
about 800 years; hence the expression `as old as Methuselah' originates with Methuselah
living to about one thousand years. But as the entrance of sin into the world corrupted the
nature of men, in His divine providence the Lord God shortened the ages of men, so that
they might not be fully corrupted by the ravages of sin. Even Nimrod, who lived two
generations afterward, lived for over two hundred years. But he was the last of the long-
lived ancient men who were tall of stature, and after him men lived an average of one
hundred and twenty years. By the time of Moses, the allotted days of men were threescore
and twenty years, for the accumulated effects of sin had by that time corrupted the race of
men so much, that the trials and tribulations of everyday living wears down the constitution
of many.

When these legendary men and women died, they came to be depicted as the twelve
constellations in the sky which we now know as astrological symbols. But as the sun was
considered to be the mightiest of all, then all other signs were considered to be weaker
emanations of it. Hislop records that the Greek gods in particular, are relatively easily traced
back to their original source. For instance, he informs us that Hermes, the `Father of the
Gods' was originally deified as Ham, one of the sons of Noah. The astrological star sign
Sagittarius pictures the mythological Centaur, which was half man and half horse; shooting
his bow into the stars. This horse-man - replete with bow and arrow depicts Nimrod himself
as the horse-man who subdued wild beasts by protecting his people with bow and arrow
and was known as `a mighty hunter before the Lord'. (Genesis 10: 9) Gemini, the twins, is a
dualistic star sign, not only does it represent good and evil, but it represents the
hermaphroditic god which is both male and female. It represents Adam and Eve as the
`twins' who first sinned, for Eve was taken from the side of Adam, and the two were
originally of `one flesh'. (Genesis 2: 22-24) Cancer the crab represents Adam's sin - it
pictures man walking `sideways' to the law of God.

This dualistic system of ancestor worship began and has been with us in varying degrees
ever since. In this system, the twelve signs of the Zodiac represent facets, or characteristics
of the central sun god. Each sign that is above the horizon influences for good, and each sign
below the horizon influences for evil. But as the solar year progresses, that which is above
the horizon and influences for good, sinks below the horizon into the underworld and then
influences one's life for evil. By the same token, those signs which have lain in the
underworld fighting death emerge victorious to be purified by the rays of the sun and once
again influence for good. But each constellation was further subdivided into three smaller
`room' gods, making three in all. Thus we see the first trinity formed, and it portrayed
Nimrod as the central god, and his wife and child were considered to be emanations issuing
from him. These thirty six star signs represented all of the constellations in the known
universe and portrayed the manner in which the ancients believed God deals with man.
They represented the sacred number `36', which was further represented by the number
`666' - which was considered to be the `Grand Number of the Sun', and is the consecutive,
or `grand number' of all; for if we add together 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 . . . . . to 36, the sum total, is
the `grand number' of 666.

`Going deeply back into Babylonian astrology, we find the real reason for the sanctity of
the number 36. The Babylonians divided each of the 12 houses in the zodiac into three
rooms, making 36 in all. They then divided the entire remainder of the sky into 36
constellations, and appointed the ruling god of each constellation to rule over one of the
36 rooms in the Zodiac. Since the spirits of the departed were believed to go to and dwell
in the stars - a teaching very much alive today, there was therefore not a spirit in the
heavens, not a star in the sky which was not represented in the 36 rooms of the Zodiac,
and to swear by the number 36 was to swear by every god in the heavens above, as well
as by all the spirits of the departed. The 36 gods were called decans because each ruled
over the 10 degrees of the zodiacal circle and over 10 days of the 360-day year. The seven
planets or the 7-headed astrological dragon ruled over the 36 decans and over them all, as
we have noted, ruled the sun, `the father of the gods.' It was natural and inevitable that
since the summary number of the numbers from 1-36 is 666, this number (called the
`Grand Number of the Sun'), should have been assigned to the sun-god as the cosmic god
who not only ruled over all the other gods but also was their heavenly parent. Herein lies
the reason for the `Solar Seals' in use before the time of Christ as amulets to ward off evil
that might come from the 36 decans.' (`On the Trail of the Serpent', Murl Vance, pp. 26-
27.)

The `Solar Seal' depicted here is a good luck charm which the ancients wore around their necks to ward off
evil spirits. The sum total of the numbers viewed on the reverse face of this amulet add up to `666'. Three
Hexagrams can be seen on the obverse face of this amulet. They represent the dualistic nature of the Gods,
each formed by placing a reversed triangle (or Triad of divinity) on top of another. The apex of one points to
the sun, the giver of light, and the other to the underworld, or darkness. A Triad can also be seen in the
upper left corner with a strike-through line through it. This was later refined as a Masonic symbol centuries
later - the `Eye of Horus' - `the falcon headed god who sees everything with his piercing gaze'; which is the
all-seeing eye found inside the unfinished capstone of Freemasonry. Another amulet which the ancients
wore bore the letters `SSS' with a strikethrough line drawn through it, as shown here. This represented the
serpent, or line of planets, slithering its way through the heavens. Each `S' signified the number six, hence
the number `666'.

In Greek, the word "hex" signifies the number 6; to put a `hex' on someone is to cast an evil
spell on them. It is common to find the hexagram in astrology; this signifies the dualistic
nature of the gods which the ancients believed in. It signifies two equilateral triangles, or
Triads of Divinity placed one on top of the other, thus forming the hexagram as a
representation of the 36 constellations of the heavens. As we have a trinity of `room' gods
in each `house' of the twelve constellations; thus making 36 in all, so also does the triangle
represent the divinity of this trinity - the three 60 degree angles which formed each side of
this triad were considered to represent Nimrod, Semiramus and Tammuz. As each angle is
60 degrees, then each god of this three-in-one god was considered to control 12 decans at
any one time; six decans, or gods which were above the horizon, and this was then
replicated with the triangle which points to the underworld.

While Ham, the son of Noah may have been the first to build structures out of stone and
might therefore considered to be the first Mason, it was Nimrod, who built the Tower of
Babel out of stone in ancient Babylon in defiance of God. In this, we see Nimrod depicted as
the first Mason who desired to set his people free from the law of God - Nimrod was the
first Free Mason.

Numerology is intimately associated with astrology; they are part and parcel of the same
system. Hislop asserts that Nimrod's name means `number'; he was the first `numberer' of
men. In numerology, each number is reduced to its originating number, which is originally
derived from the `Grand number'. So in each equilateral triangle we also find this `Mystery
number' in the angles which form it. 60 degrees + 60 degrees + 60 degrees = (6+ 0) + (6+0) +
(6+0) = 666. If we further reduce this, we find that the first breakdown of the originating
number is 18. i.e ; 6 + 6 + 6 = 18. But as the god of this system is considered to be both good
and evil, male and female, with the apex of one triad (triangle) pointing to light, and the
other to darkness, or evil; then the originating number is 18 + 18 = 36. (Each `18' is the sum
of the degrees of each triad.) But if we further break down this mystery number; we then
find that 1 + 8 = 9. The numbers 6 and 9 are considered to be interchangeable; and in the
eastern religions are seen as spokes which are directly opposite to and therefore
antagonistic to each other in the `wheel of life'. This `wheel of life' is a representation of the
transmigration (or reincarnation) of the soul, the numbers `6' and `9' are regarded as the
dualistic numbers - one points above to light, which represents the male divinity, and the
other below to darkness, which represents the female divinity, as it is the female (Eve) who
is considered to have committed the first sin and plunged man into darkness. They
represent the night and day in each 24 hour period of each solar day in every solar year.
Thus the hexagram of astrology also represents the `Grand number of the Sun' as a
complete representation in itself. One example of a triad which is currently in world-wide
use is depicted on the American dollar bill, on which we find the unfinished capstone of
Freemasonry.

These Masonic symbols form the Great Seal of the United States and were placed on the American Dollar
bill in 1934 by F. D. Roosevelt, who was the 32nd President of the United States.

On the reverse, or hidden side of the Great Seal - which is not normally viewed in public, we find the
Masonic `Triad of Divinity'; with the `unfinished capstone' and illuminated `eye of Horus' forming the apex.
The words `Annuit Coeptus' mean `Providence favours our undertakings'. In the subjective sense of the Latin
this is written in, the subject (Providence) is the illuminated eye. Novus Ordo Seclorum means `A New Order
of the Ages'. On the obverse side of the Great Seal was placed the bald headed eagle, which represented the
phoenix `rising from the ashes', or Nimrod reincarnated as Tammuz. Above this we find a representation of
the 13 colonies of America which were signatories to the `Declaration of Independence' - assembled in the
form of a hexagram. Underneath them we find a banner which reads `E Pluribus Unum', which means `Out
of many, one'. Ironically, the dollar bill reads `IN GOD WE TRUST'. But which God?

According to Manly P. Hall, who was an honorary 33rd degree Mason, the illumination of
the `Mysteries' irradiates through the signs of the zodiac from the throne of Lucifer, the
fallen arch angel of God.

`The central triangle contains three three flames - the Divine Trinity. From the lowest of
the flames proceeds the divine outflow . . . . descending through the throne of Saturn . . . .
[and] and at the throne of Lucifer, in whom the divine outpouring is concentrated and
reflected. From him the divine light irradiates in succession to d (Capricorn), e (Gemini), f
(Libra), g (Tauras), h (Pisces), i (Aauarius), k (Cancer), I (Virgo), m (Aries), n (Leo), o
(Scorpio), p (Saggitarius), thence back to d. The zodical circles represent twelve orders of
great and beneficent Spirits, and the smaller circles within the ring of fixed stars mark the
orbits of the sacred planets.' (`The Secret Teachings of all Ages', Manly P. Hall, 1928, p.
441.)

Albert Pike, who was the Grand Master of the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, U.S.A in
the late 19th century, confirms this in the official publication `Morals and Dogma of the
Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry', which he wrote in 1871.

`LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness!
Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors
intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!' (p. 284.)

For many years, this book was only made available to a Mason after he had reached the
33rd degree, which is the highest degree which a Mason can attain. In order to prevent the
teachings of the book being make available to the general public and Masons who had not
attained this level of `illumination', it was required that the book be returned to the lodge
after the death of the Mason.

Freemasonry speaks of itself as having its origins in antiquity. When we delve deeply into
the ancient myths from which it is derived, Freemasony says of itself that it's `science' began
before the flood:
`Adam's line lineal son, descending down the seventh of Adam, before Noah's flood, there
was called a man named Lamech, the which had two wives; the one called Adah and
another Zillah; by the first wife, that was called Adah, hE begat two sons; that one was
called Jabal, and the other called Jubal. The elder son, Jabal, he was the first man that
ever found geometry and masonry, and he made houses . . . . And he was Cain's master
mason, and governor of all his works, when he made the city of Enock, that was the first
city; that was the first city that was ever made , and that made Cain, Adam's son and gave
to his own son, Enock, and gave the city the name of his son, and called it Enock. . . .
Soothly as the Bible saith in the chapter, that is to say, the 4th of Genesis, that it saith
Lamech begot his other wife, that was called Zillah, a son and a daughter; the names of
them were called Tubal Cain, that was the son, and his daughter was called Naamah . . . .
and these three brethren aforesaid had knowledge that God would take vengeance for
sin, either by fire or water, and they had greater care how they took counsel together, and
by all their understanding they said that (there) were two kinds of stone of such virtue,
that the one would never burn, and that stone is called marble, and that other stone that
will not sink in water, and that stone is named brick and so they devised to write all the
sciences that they had invented in these two stones, so that if God would take vengeance
by fire, that the marble should not burn; and if God should send vengeance by water, that
the other should not drown; and so they prayed their elder brother Jabal that (he) would
make two pillars of these two stones, that is to say of marble and of brick, and that he
would write in the two pillars all the sciences and crafts that they had invented, and so he
did, and therefore we may say that he was most cunning in science, for he first began and
performed the end before Noah's flood . . . And after this flood many years, as the
chronicle telleth, these two pillars were found, and as the Policronicon saith, that a great
clerk that (was) called Pythagoras found that one, and Hermes (18) the philosopher, found
that other, and they taught forth the sciences that they found therein written. (`Mackey's
National Freemason, October, 1871 to September 1872', Albert Mackey, pp. 95, 96, 132-
134; quoted from "The Matthew Cooke MS''; dated ca. 1450.)

Over the intervening centuries, these legends have at times become a little confused; some
believe that only one person found these pillars of stone and the `science' recorded on
them:

`After the destruction of the world, these two pillars were discovered by Hermes, the son
of Shem. Then the craft of Masonry began to flourish and Nimrod was one of the earliest
patrons of the art.' (The veil of Isis, or, The mysteries of the Druids', W. W. Reade, 1861, p.
169.)

Although Shem was the son of Noah, according to the Bible, Hermes (or Ham) was his
brother; not his son, and according to this text, it is Ham who reputedly found the two
pillars of stone. However, we find in another ancient text that the name of Ham is struck
out, and the name of Nimrod, his grandson is inserted:
`And it is written in the Policronicon, and in the master histories and in other histories
more, and this in part witnesseth (the) Bible, in the same X chapter (of Genesis,) where it
saith that Asur, that was nigh (of) kin to Nimrod (22) went out of the land of Shinar, and
he built the city (of) Nineveh, and Plateas, and other more.

Note 22: In the original "Cam," i.e. "Ham" is stricken out, and Nembroth, i.e. Nimrod,
inserted in an interlineation.' (Mackey, p. 133, 135; quoted from Cooke MS.)

Nimrod was the grandson of Ham (Genesis 6:10, 10:6, 10:8). While we can never be
completely sure whether Ham first discovered the ancient pillars of stone, or his grandson
Nimrod; or if Ham found one pillar of stone and Nimrod the other, we do know that it was
Nimrod who is recognized as becoming the first Mason and rebelling against God when he
built the Tower of Babel.

`After the Deluge, the great-grandson of Noah found one of these stones, and saw the
science on it, and taught it to other people. "And at the making of the Tower of Babylon
there was masonry first made much of." Nimrod was a mason as well as a hunter, it
seems, and fond of his science, or, as we should now say, trade. And when the city of
Nineveh and other cities in the East were to be built, he sent his cousin, the King of
Nineveh, threescore of masons to assist him.' (`Mackey's National Freemason, October,
1871 to September 1872', Albert Mackey, p. 373; Quoted from the Notabilia of John
Timbs, London, 1872.)

At its crux, Masonry bears the mantel of that most ancient religion of ancestor worship,
which is but thinly disguised by astrology. However, most Masons are entirely ignorant of
what `The Craft' really teaches and never proceed past the lower degrees. Its secrets are
concealed from all, except `the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect'. However, this does not
imply that the majority of Masons are Luciferians. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The majority of Mason - that is those who are in the lower degrees; are entirely ignorant of
what this system really teaches, and are misled by `false interpretations and
`misrepresentations'.

`Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its
secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and use false explanations and
misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be mislead; to
conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it . . . .
Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it . . . . So
Masonry jealously conceals its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters
astray.' (Pike, pp. 89-90.)

But when a candidate who is deemed to possess `the right stuff' has successfully proceeded
through the various degrees of Masonry to where he is considered to be `illuminated'
enough to be initiated into the higher mysteries - he finally finds the answer to the
`mystery' which he has come in search of:

`The sun having now gained his meridian height, darts his rays to the centre and shines on
a white marble pedestal, on which is a plate of gold. On this plate is a double triangle, and
within the triangle some words they cannot understand; they therefore take the plate to
Zerubbabel. There the whole mystery of Masonry - as far as known to Masons - is
unveiled; what the Masons had long been in search of is found, for the mysterious writing
in a triangular form is the long-lost sacred word of the Master Mason, which Solomon and
King Hiram deposited there, as we have seen in the master's degree. This word Jabulon =
Jah [Jehovah] + Bel + On, Hebrew, Assyrian and Egyptian names of the sun, is the logos of
Plato and St. John, the omnific word; but the above compound name, intended to bear
the same import, is substituted by modern Masons.' (`The Secret Societies of All Ages &
Countries, Volume 2; Charles William Heckethorn, 1897, p. 31.)

This long-lost, sacred word of Freemasonry' was made up of a composite of three words,
and literally means `Jehovah in the Sun'. This is the most profound secret of Freemasonry; to
know this is to know all that a Freemason can know `in regard to the nature of God.'

`The True word of a Mason is to be found in the concealed and profound meaning of the
Ineffable Name of Deity, communicated by God to Moses; and which meaning was long
lost by the very precautions taken to conceal it. The true pronunciation of that name was
in truth a secret, in which , however, was involved the far more profound secret of its
meaning. In that meaning is included all the truth that can be known by us, in regard to
the nature of God.' (Pike, p. 507.)

After learning the object of his worship, the neophyte of the `Higher Mysteries' then has
access to the seething energies of Lucifer.

`When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application
of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething,
surging energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward he
must prove his ability to properly apply energy.' (`The Lost Keys of Masonry, Or the
Legend of Hiram Abiff', Manly P. Hall, p. 76.)

The following account gives the Masonic version of the creation of Adam and Eve, and Cain
slaying Able, their sons:

`Ancestory of Hiram Abiff - Solomon having determined on the erection of the temple,
collected artificers, divided them into companies, and put them under the command of
Adoniram or Hiram Abiff, the architect sent to him by his friend and ally, Hiram, king of
Tyre. According to mythical tradition, the ancestry of the builders of the mystical temple
was as follows: One of the Elohim [gods], or primitive genii, married Eve and had a son
called Cain; whilst Jehovah or Adonai [Christ], another of the Elohim, created Adam and
 united with Eve to bring forth the family of Abel, to whom were subjected the sons of
Cain, as a punishment for the transgression of Eve. Cain, though industriously cultivating
the soil, derived little produce from it, whilst Abel leisurely tended his flocks. Adonai
rejected the gifts and sacrifices of Cain, and stirred up strife between the sons of the
Elohim, generated out of fire, and the sons formed out of the earth only. Cain killed Abel,
and Adonai, pursuing his sons, subjected to the sons of Abel the noble family that
invented the arts and diffused science. (Heckethorn, p. 3-4.)

According to this account, Eve bore Cain after marrying `a primitive genii', whom can be
none other than Lucifer! Christ is depicted as having procreated with Eve, who then gave
birth to Abel, whom Cain slew - and it was Christ who was responsible for Cain slaying Able,
after `stirring up strife' between the two young men! Christ then sought vengeance on the
`sons of Cain', pursued them, and subjected them to the `sons of Able'. In other words, in
this skewed and blasphemous version of the creation of man, it is Christ who is evil, and
Lucifer who is good!

`Luciferians or the initiates of kindred rites, while still labouring under a strange delusion,
act deliberately and glorify Lucifer as the principle of good. To them he is the equal of the
God of the Christians whom they describe as the principle of evil.' (`Occult Theocracry',
Judith Miller, 1933, p. 31-32.)

The Bible warns us of those who call darkness light, and light darkness:

`Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light
for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!' (Isaiah 5:20)

For it is in the city of ancient Babylon where this practice first began; it is here where we find
the origins of the ancient `Mystery' religions.

`The city of Babylon then became the origin of the ancient `Mystery' religions: `The city of
Babel, later to become old Babylon, was the origin and fountainhead of all organized
`higher' learning. They studied the heavens and invented astrology, numerology and the
zodiac . . . It was here that the Babylonian elite developed their illuminated Mystery
Schools into a system of high priest god-kings (Pontifex Maximua) to rule over the masses
. . . . Old Babylon became the `prototype that affected and influenced every civilization, of
every culture, in every nation, on every continent of this earth… The initiates, when fully
‘Illumined,’ always come away with a Plan… to dominate the world. (`The Grand Design
Exposed', John Daniel, p. 121).

As the legend of the flood became confused, so also did the legends of the creation of man
also become confused. Eventually, the ancient Babylonians no longer believed in creation ex
nihilo; which is to say `creation out of nothing’, as Christians believe, and as Noah had
taught his sons to believe after the flood. They came to believe that the gods emerged in
pairs from a formless, watery waste – a primordial ooze which was in itself divine. They
identified it as chaos; lacking definition, boundary and identity. The gods were given
different names according to the different dialects spoken by the different countries, and
while `the adept' in the `Mysteries' retained their ancient records of the flood and the deeds
of their forefathers, the profane were diverted from this knowledge and were instead
taught fables which contained hidden within them kernels of truth. For instance, the
Sumerian God Enlil was the god of the air who united with his mother to begat mankind. His
gift to man was the pickaxe, so that man could construct cities, which included his own
sacred city of Nippur, which was situated in ancient Babylonia. Obviously, Enlil was none
other than Nimrod, the first man to construct cities. His brother Enke, the `lord of the earth'
who opposed him was the god of smith craft and alchemy, who came to earth to rescue
humanity after the flood. According to legend, he instructed `Atrahasis', a great king before
the flood, to build a boat to escape the coming deluge. Enki can be none other than Tubal
Cain, who was the first artificer in metals and conspired with his sister and mother to build
the two pillars of stone, so that the `seven sciences' of the ancients might be preserved if
man survived the flood.

`Ye shall understand that this son Tubal Cain was the (the) inventor of smith's craft, and of
other crafts of metal . . . . . and his sister Naamah was the inventor of the weavers craft . .
. . and these three brethren . . . . took their counsel together . . . . . and therefore they
wrote their sciences in two pillars of stone, and some men say that they wrote in the
stones all the seven sciences . . . . ' (McKay, `Mathew Cooke MS', p. 132.)

The ancient Sumerians also have legends of the speech of man being confused at ancient
Babylon, which is recorded in the Sumerian epic entitled `Enmekar and the Lord of Aratta'.

`Once upon a time there was no snake, there was no scorpion,

There was no hyena, there was no lion,
There was no wild dog, no wolf,
There was no fear, no terror,
Man had no rival.

In those days, the lands of Subur (and) Hamazi,

Harmony-tongued Sumer, the great land of the decrees of princeship,
Uri, the land having all that is appropriate,
The land Martu, resting in security,
The whole universe, the people in unison
To Enlil in one tongue (spoke).

(Then) Enki, the lord of abundance (whose) commands are trustworthy,

The lord of wisdom, who understands the land,
The leader of the gods,
Endowed with wisdom, the lord of Eridu
Changed the speech in their mouths, (brought) contention into it,
Into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.'

It is of considerable interest that the Sumerian epic records that at one time there were no
wild beasts, no poisonous creatures and no fear - which supports the Biblical account of the
Garden of Eden being perfect before the entrance of sin into the world.
After the Lord God confused the speech of men at Babylon so that this idolatrous system of
worship might be slowed, the people fanned out across the lands - and so the nations of the
earth began. The people worshipped the same Gods, but with different names. For instance,
Cush, the father of Nimrod, came to be identified as the Greek god Kronos, or chaos, God of
the underworld; but in his reincarnation was also known in the Sumerian as Marduk, God of
the Sun, after he emerged victorious on the summer solstice, from which he battled death
in the underworld.

The summer solstice is the shortest day of the year and usually falls on December 21 or 22;
just before Christmas day. It came to be identified with Nimrod emerging victorious from his
battle with death in the underworld, and is known in mythology as `The Birthday of the
Invincible Sun'. From this primordial ooze first proceeded Marduk in his two phases, as (in
the Sumerian) Marduk god of light, and (in the Greek) Kronos, god of death and destruction,
and from him a succession of gods was believed to have emerged in a process known as
emanation. As each pair of gods gained sharper definition as they emerged from those that
preceded them, so also did the divine world in which they lived begin to take definition in a
process of divine evolution. It is this principle of `divine evolution' which can be found
thousands of years later in the formation of Plato's `The Republic', within which were
contained the germinal seeds of Darwin's theory of evolution. Thus, in the Babylonian
account of creation, creation was only achieved after a long struggle that was fought against
almost overwhelming odds; the principle of which is reflected in Darwin's system of
evolution. Thus the legacy of the ancestor worship which the Babylonians originally believed
led them to believe that the gods were essentially not that much different from mortal men,
as both had been created from the same divine substance; the main difference being that
they were considered to be much more powerful and of course immortal. Records from
ancient Mesopotamia speak of a deluge, after which Marduk the central god of the sun slew
the Tiamat, the god of the waters and created a new world. He divided her body into two –
the habitation of the gods and the world of men. But as it was necessary to bring forth order
from chaos, he next devised the laws which were needed to keep all things in their place,
and thus prevent the universe from disintegrating back into the chaos from whence it had
originally come. This could only be achieved by devising a special liturgy:

`from which the universe receives its structure, the hidden world is made plain and the
gods assigned their places in the universe.’
(`The Babylonian Creation, Poems of Heaven and Hell, from ancient Mesopotamia, p. 99.)

But in order to maintain the order which had been created, it had to be repeated every year
on the birthday of Marduk, the Invincible Sun, which was, as we have already noted, the
summer solstice. At this time the gods met at Babylon, which was regarded as the centre of
the world, and built a great ziggurat where celestial rites in honour of Marduk could be
performed. This ziggurat, or Tower of Babylon, symbolized the infinite heavens above, and
when finished, Marduk took his seat at the summit, and the gods cried out:

`This is Babylon, city of the god, your beloved home.’ (ibid.)

They then performed the liturgy which maintains the fabric of the universe itself and each
year men would make pilgrimages to the holy city in which Marduk was believed to have
dwelt, so that man could commune with the gods and participate with them in the place in
which they might be found. This stylized Babylonian account of creation reflected the
building of the Tower of Babel after the flood, with the idea of going in search of God
eventually finding expression in the three monotheistic religions – the Jews make
pilgrimages to find God in Jerusalem, the Muslims to Mecca, and the Catholics to Rome.

The Greeks expanded upon the ideas of the Babylonians. Although they retained the idea
that the gods emanate from an infinite and supreme god, they objected to the idea that the
gods can share in the passions of mortal men and still retain their divinity. Thus they sought
to elevate the gods far above the base passions and sensualism of men, and believed that
the nobler and more endearing virtues of the `higher nature’ of man reflects the nature of
the gods themselves. For this reason, they believed that pure thought, unsullied by the
sensualism of this world, is the highest degree of virtue to which anything can ascribe and
believed that the male emanations of light represented pure thought, and the female
emanations their companion souls:

` . . . . . if we take the male gods to represent the Intellectual powers and the female gods
to be their souls – to every Intellectual Principle [or fully divine God] its companion Soul –
we are forced, thus also to make Aphrodite the Soul of Zeus.’ (Plotinus, `Enneads’ 3.5.2.)

They also retained the idea that just as men dwell on the earth, so also do the Gods dwell in
the heavens, but refined the system of the Babylonians by stipulating that it is impossible
for the Gods to descend into the abode in which mortal man dwells, for if this were to
happen then the gods themselves would become corrupted by the sensualism that is found
in the world of men.

` . . . . The Heavenly Aphrodite, daughter of Kronos [or Zeus] . . . . . .must be the soul at its
divinest: unmingled as the immediate emanation of the unmingled; remaining ever Above,
as neither desirous nor capable of descending into this sphere, never having developed the
downward tendency, a divine Hypostasis [expression] essentially aloof, so unreservedly an
Authentic Being, or fully divine god, as to have no part with matter. . . ‘ (ibid., 3.5.8.)

Hence they developed a philosophical system of logic which separated the gods from man
by a vast chasm, as it was unthinkable that the gods could partake of the sensualism of men.
Hence, their view of the cosmos, which was dualistic in nature; began to be formed. Just as
the Babylonians believed that the divine cosmology consisted of a hierarchical system of the
gods, so also did the Greeks, and at the apex is the One God from which all else is derived.
According to the Greek philosopher Plotinus (205 – 270 A.D.), who founded the neo-platonic
school of philosophy (or New Platonism), we find that the One is best described in this
manner:

`If we are to think positively of the One, there would be more truth in Silence . . . . . [The
One] is not a thing, but is distinct from all things. [It] is Everything and Nothing, it can be
none of the existing things, and yet it is all.’ (`Enneads’ 5.6, 5.3.11, 7.3.2.)

As this pantheistical One God in All was considered to be completely ineffable, the Greeks
believed that there is nothing which we can say about It, except that It completely eludes
the grasp of our finite minds. Hence Valentinus, a Gnostic who lived in the middle of the first
century A.D., believed that the One is:

`. . . .perfect and pre-existent . . . . . . dwelling in invisible and unnameable heights: this is

the pre-beginning and forefather of depth. It is uncontainable and invisible, eternal and
ungenerated, is Quiet and deep Solitude for infinite aeons. With It is thought, which is
called Grace and Silence.’ (Quoted from Iranaeus, `Heresies’ 1.1.1.)

The Greeks reasoned that as we exist, then therefore this `nothingness which is everything’
desired to make Itself known. Therefore the One somehow transcended Itself by
manifesting a part of Itself in thought. But the Greeks differed from the Babylonian view as
to how the Gods actually achieved definition. Whereas the Babylonians believed that each
pair of gods achieve sharper definition as they emanate from the One, the Greeks instead
developed a view which likened creation to a stone dropped in a pool of water. Just as the
stone creates ripples which become weaker the farther they radiate from the centre, so also
did the Greeks liken this to the inherent divinity of the Gods becoming much weaker as each
succeeding generation moved further from the Original Source of divinity. Thus the dualism
engendered by this system determined that each pair of emanations reflected a God that
was both male and female. Some believed that:

`Sophia (wisdom), the last of the emanations, fell from grace when she aspired to hidden
knowledge of the inaccessible Godhead. Because of her overweening presumption, she
had fallen from the Pleroma [divine world] and her grief and distress formed the world of
matter.' (`A History of God', Karen Armstrong, p. 114.)

Like most cultures, the Greeks had legends of a fall which had taken place far back in
antiquity and this account of Sophia mirrors this, for we find that the last of these
emanations aspired to sensuality, and in doing so lost almost all knowledge (gnosis) of its
inherent divinity. As a result, it fell from the abode of the Gods and formed the world of
matter. But just as the Greeks inherited their conception of the Gods from Babylon, so also
did they inherit the hierarchy of the priesthood and its accompanying “Mysteries” from the
same source.

`In that system [of ancient Babylon], secret confession to the priest, according to a
prescribed form, was required of all who were admitted to the “Mysteries”; and till such
confession had been made, no such initiation took place. Thus . . . . this confession as
observed in Greece, [is referred to] in rites that can be clearly traced to a Babylonian origin
. . . . . After referring to the fact that the Egyptian priests claimed the honour of having
transmitted to the Greeks the first elements of Polytheism, he [Ouvaroff] thus concludes:
“These positive facts would sufficiently prove, even without the conformity of ideas, the
Mysteries transplanted into Greece, and there united with a certain number of local
nations, never lost the character of their origin derived from the cradle of the moral and
religious ideas of the universe. All these separate facts - all these scattered testimonies,
recur to that fruitful principle which places in the East the centre of Science and
civilization.’ (Alexander Hislop, `The Two Babylons’, pp. 9, 13.)
As each pair of Gods was considered to have emanated from those which preceded them,
then after thirty six pairs of emanations had been formed, the divine world was considered
to have been complete. God had emanated from God, and man and the entire creation had
also emanated from God. Needless to say, the number `36' also represented the `Grand
Number of the Sun' in their mysteries; and:

`. . . . . the celestial order is from God, the living things of earth from the gods sprung from
God’ (`Enneads’, 2.1.5.)

But as the first of the emanations were considered to have originated from the divine fabric
of the One itself and were therefore inaccessible to mere mortal men, then the souls of
fallen men could never return to their divine home if it were not for the fact that the less
attenuated emanations are much closer to our fallen state of grace, than are (in the Greek)
Zeus (or Kronos) and Aphrodite, the first two emanations which were believed to aspire to
perfection itself. Therefore these weaker emanations were considered to be accessible to
fallen man. And although the Greeks professed to follow Plato by ascribing worship to the
One God – they in fact worshipped many, as the many `lesser’ deities which they were far
more comfortable in worshiping (for the reason that it was these deities which were
accessible to them), were in fact considered to be weak emanations of the One which are
sufficiently attenuated to our fallen state, so that they are able to assist us in our quest of
`becoming’ like the gods and thus achieve perfection. Greek thought hinged upon this
concept:

`A man’s one task is to strive towards making himself perfect. . . . ‘ (`Enneads’ 2.9.9.)

They believed that the souls of men are inherently corrupted by the material plane of
existence in which we reside. As Sophia was considered to be the very last of the
emanations to be formed and it is from her that the material plane of existence emanated,
then therefore the souls of men are far removed from the One and retain little, if any gnosis
(knowledge) of the One. But as the Greeks also believed that it is impossible for those who
are not initiated into the `Mysteries’ to `remember’ our original divinity and thus realize our
`True Self’, then we must first receive the assistance of the priest and the philosopher, so
that we might purify the soul by denying the body and exercising the intellect; which thus
imitates the activity of God Himself by `becoming’ Divine. For this reason:

`Platonism was one of the most popular philosophies of late antiquity. The new Platonists
[neo-platonists] of the first and second century were not attracted to Plato the ethical and
political thinker, but Plato the mystic. His teachings would help the philosopher to realize
his true self, by liberating his soul from the prison of the body and enabling him to ascend
to the divine world.’ (Karen Armstrong, `A History of God’, p. 110.)

According to the Greek philosophers, the one thing that places man in a privileged position
over the plants and animals is the intellect; and the exercise of this godly capacity of reason
enables fallen man to `realize’ the divine God within.

`Man is in a privileged position: his human soul had the divine gift of intellect, which
makes him kin to God and a partaker in the divine nature. This godly capacity of reason
puts him above plants and animals. As body and soul, however, man is a microcosm of the
universe, containing within himself its basest materials as well as the divine attributes of
reason. It is his duty to become immortally divine by purifying the intellect. Wisdom
(Sophia), was the highest of all human virtues; it was expressed in contemplation (theoria)
of philosophical truth which, as in Plato, makes us divine by imitating the activity of God
Himself. `Theoria’ was not achieved by logic alone, but was a disciplined intuition resulting
in an ecstatic self-transcendence. Very few people are capable of this wisdom, however,
and most can achieve only `phronesis’, the exercise of foresight and intelligence in daily
life. (ibid., p. 49.)

Hence the Greek conception of the hierarchy of the priesthood mirrored that of their Gods.
At the top of this hierarchy of divinity was pure intellect with no material substance. As it is
both thinker and thought, it must therefore be God. But whereas the western mind believes
that thought is an activity – something you literally do; the Greek philosophers believed that
human reason is a process which intuitively grasps something which we have always known
but have forgotten, for in reality we are all fallen divinities who have forgotten the eternal
reality of the divine soul which exists within us all. Therefore the realization of one’s
inherent divinity – or `ecstatic self-transcendence’ – remained the province of the priest and
the philosopher, as only they had been subjected to the demanding rigours which led to
enlightenment. This resulted in the `nous’, or awareness of the philosopher transcending
the material plane of existence (in which the souls of men reside in everlasting corruption),
and the soul remembering its original union with the One at a time before time itself
existed, when the souls of men first emanated from the One and `fell’ to this plane of
existence.

Aristotle encapsulated this philosophy by postulating that salvation consists of the

movement of the creature toward its creator. Thus the Platonic idea of perfection
postulates God in an eternal moment of contemplation of Himself, as He is the highest
object by which all knowledge can attain - the souls of men are correspondingly drawn to
the One by a process of divine attraction. But as Greek logic teaches that anything which
resides on the material plane of existence is basically flawed, then the One must be entirely
unaware of fallen man, for if He were, then His divinity would be corrupted by beholding
our imperfection. Therefore the Greeks felt compelled to develop a system of philosophy
which effectively quarantines God from the corruption of the material plane of existence by
placing Him far removed from the experiences of men. But as man’s capacity for Reason has
the potential to imitate the divine activity which is the sole province of God, then the
exercise of this facility allows man to realize his inherent divinity and thus achieve
perfection by `becoming’ his True Self; as the Greeks believed that the One was incapable of
reaching down to fallen man at his level, as to do so meant that the One would then
become `aware' of the material plane of existence, and this action in itself would have the
effect of corrupting the divinity of the One. As Plotinus informs us:

`Since evil is here, “haunting this world by necessary law”, and it is the Soul’s design to
escape from Evil, we must escape hence. But what is this escape? “In attaining likeness to
God”, we read from Plato. And this is explained as “becoming just and holy, living by
wisdom *the exercise of the intellect+”, the entire nature grounded in Virtue.” (`Enneads’,
2:1.)
The Greek conception of the One Supreme God, which is `everything, yet nothing’ pictured
Him as a deistic Prime Mover, who is impassive, aloof, ineffable, inexpressible and (more to
the point) completely inaccessible to fallen man. He remains quite indifferent to the
universe, for as to have actually created it implies that He would have involved Himself in
physical activity which (as far as the Greeks were concerned), was quite impossible, as this
would have indicated an awareness of that which is not divine. Instead, the Greeks believed
that through the exercise of the intellect, the divine activity of the One is imitated; thus
liberating the soul from the body which encumbers it by weighing it down, so that it might
return to its divine home. Thus the entire concept of Platonic philosophy rested firmly upon
the `a priori’ belief of the divine origin and therefore immortality of the soul:

`Our doctrine of the immortality of the heavenly system rests on the firmest foundation
once we have the sovereign agent, the soul . . . . . how could anything once placed within
this Soul break away from non-being: No one that understands this principle, the support
of all things, can fail to see that, sprung from God, it is a higher stay than bonds.’
(`Enneads’, 2.1.4.)

But as the Original Source is neither male nor female, but merely is; with all life considered
to be imperfect emanations of the first two divine emanations, we find that the Greeks also
believed that life itself is merely an `energy’ (energeia) or thought which imperfectly reflects
the activity of the One:

`. . . . . the Soul. . . . . appears to be present in the bodies by the fact that it shines into
them: it makes them living beings not by merging body, but by giving forth, without any
change in itself, images or likenesses of itself like one face caught by many mirrors.’
(`Enneads’, 1.8.)

Thus, the only true reality was considered to be participation in the Divine Life of the One by
`realizing’ one’s True Self; as the body was considered to be subject to dissolution, as it is
merely an imperfect reflection of the eternal soul. But the Greeks also believed that the soul
could be further corrupted by a sensualistic and licentious lifestyle to a point where it
cannot be liberated from the material plane of existence when we die and ascend to the
divine world. As a result it might therefore be re-incarnated into the form of an animal in
the next – a process which could repeat for eternity, as the soul has forgotten its True Self
and is incapable of remembering it. Thus Plato’s philosophies of an ecstatic transcendence
in fact mirrors those of the New Age movement; which in a large measure is derived from
Platonic philosophies, as are some eastern religions. So when we begin to look at the
philosophies which heavily influenced the formation of the early Church, we first look to
Plotinus, as in his writings we find the distillation of over eight hundred years of the
speculation of Greek thought. He subjected his philosophies to those of Plato and Aristotle
and was a student of Ammonius Saccas; who coincidentally taught Origen, who was one of
the Fathers of the Catholic Church. Karen Armstrong, an ex Catholic nun observed that
Plotinus:

`. . . . . influenced generations of future monotheists in all three of the God religions . . . .

.he had absorbed the main currents of some 800 years of Greek speculation and
transmitted it in a form which has continued to influence such crucial figures in our own
century as T.S. Elliot . . . . Plotinus regarded the first two emanations to radiate from the
One as divine since they enabled us to know and participate in the life of God. Together
with the One, they formed a Triad of divinity which was in some ways close to the final
Christian solution of the Trinity.’ (`A History of God’, p. 122.)

This system of New Platonism gradually became accepted into the early Church and
dramatically affected `the final Christian solution of the Trinity', in the sense that the two
primary antagonists, Athanasius and Arius, had both been influenced by Greek philosophy
to varying degrees. Their focus was not on the fact that Christ has achieved salvation for
man, but instead emphasized how He has achieved salvation for man. It was also a power
play for control of the early Church; and to the victor belonged the spoils:

`Timothy Barnes sees the myth of Arianism as adopted by Athanasius in `Against the
Arians I' as a clever but cynical move to disguise a theological struggle as a political one,
and thereby win support for his cause from other ecclesiastical quarters. Other twentieth-
century commentators, less admiring of Athanasisus’ political skill and therefore more
disgusted by what they see as his hypocrisy, have also taken this view in one form or
another. It should be asked, therefore, whether Marcellus and Athanasius (co-authors of
the myth in my view) are likely actually to have believed the picture of the Arian heresy
they themselves have created and were to propagate as widely as possible. I suspect its
creation was nearer to a temptation they found themselves unable to resist. They had no
doubt, after all, that their enemies were theologically and politically extremely dangerous,
and doing great harm to the churches . . . . . The myth of Arianism . . . is a myth with a
seductive power which has scarcely been bettered by that of any other heresy. It was all
too plausible. What better way for Athanasius and Marcellus to explain to themselves and
everyone else the murderous hatred of the Eusebian party, than to see it as nothing more
nor less, than the war of heterodoxy against orthodoxy?’ (`Marcellus of Ancyra and the
lost years of the Arian controversy, 324 – 345’ by Sarah Parvis, p. 191, Oxford University
Press Inc., New York, 2006.)

Thus we find that Arius's polemic of Christology became subjugated by the `orthodox' view
of Athanasius, with the epithet `Arianism' becoming a by-word for heresy; when in fact the
central point upon which the two men argued was not the fact that Christ was manifested
`in the flesh'; but instead how the incarnate Christ could have been manifested `in the flesh'
without having His divinity corrupted by this material plane of existence.

Arius' answer was that Christ was `strong god', but not `full god', and had His divinity
conferred upon Him in advance, as He virtuously overcame sin `in the flesh':

` ". . . . foreknowing that he would be good, God by anticipation bestowed on him this
glory which afterwards, as man, he attained from virtue." Much has been made of this
passage, to the effect that Arius maintained that it is only as a result of his virtuous action
that Christ merits his status as Son so that the same sonship can be offered to others. . . . .
Christ ends up a third type of being, between God and creation: created, as other
creatures, yet specifically endowed, so as to bridge the gap between the two, and so not
as one of the creatures.' (`The Nicene Faith', John Behr, p. 144.)
For Arius and his followers, salvation consisted of imitating the perfect example of Christ.
This in turn mirrored the Greek idea of salvation, which consisted of the creature being
drawn to the Creator by a process of divine attraction, so that the creature might imitate
the Creator, and thus achieve perfection.

`The most recent full study of Arius is that of [Rowan] Williams, who having explored the
historical context of Arius and the theological background for his position, then turns (in
the third and, implicitly, most important section of the work) to his philosophical context,
suggesting that Arius' position can best be seen in terms of his indebtedness to various
trends in Neoplatonism.' (ibid., p. 134.)

It is from Arius that the `example theory' of the atonement is derived; semi-arian
conceptualizations of the pre-incarnate Christ having a `beginning' and therefore not being
`self-existent' and `co-existent' lead to Christ being depicted as slightly inferior to the Father
(but pictured nevertheless as `strong god'); who saves us `by example'. The basic precept of
Christianity - `justification by faith' is diminished, as adherents of this style of worship are
forever `trying' to overcome sin by `being like Christ' and failing miserably in their efforts.
Arianism by necessity enjoins a legalistic style of worship, as it presents its adherents with a
depleted view of the divinity of Christ.

Athanasius' answer was to posit a `self existent' Christ who is therefore fully divine; which
became the orthodox position and is reflected in the Chalcedonian Creed, which was
formulated from his writings some one hundred and twenty four years later in 451 A.D.
Athansius believed that Christ avoided corruption by taking upon Himself the pre-lapsarian
nature of Adam; which is to say that Christ took upon Himself the nature of Adam before He
sinned - although He was tempted by `innocent infirmities' such as thirst and hunger, He
was not tempted by what came to be later termed `indwelling sin'; which further confused
the issue and depicts Christ as a sinner! So for Athanasius and his followers, Christ was
effectively quarantined from the trials and tribulations of `everyman' by not being `tempted
as we are in the likeness of sinful flesh' (Romans 8: 3) - when in fact Scripture states the
opposite! He reasoned that in taking upon Himself `flesh' which is exempt from being
tempted to sin, then therefore His divinity cannot be corrupted by the `flesh' which fallen
man partakes of. He believed that:

`. . . . all created nature, of left to its own principles, was in flux and subject to dissolution.
To prevent this and keep the universe from disintegrating back into non-being, he made
all things by his very own Logos and endowed the creation with beings.'
(Athanasius`Against the Heathen', 41.)

It should not be thought so strange that Athanasius employed this sort of speculation when
in fact scholars universally accept that he had drunk deeply of the well of Plato:

`The Alexandrian catechical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, the
greatest theologian of the Greek Church as its heads, applied the allegorical method to the
explanation of Scripture. Its thought was influenced by Plato: its strong point was
theological speculation. Athanasius and the three Cappadocians [Fathers of the Church]
had been included among its members. . . . . .' (`Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic
Church', by Hubert Jedin, p. 29.)

He also advocated what has come to be known as the `world soul' view; which is not far
removed from the New Age conception of `Gaia', and betrays the influence which neo-
platonism had on the formulation of his theology:

`Consistently, therefore, the Word of God took a body and has made use of a human
instrument, in order to quicken the body also, and as He is known in creation by His works
so to work in man as well, and to shew Himself everywhere, leaving nothing void of HIs
own divinity and knowledge of Him. For I resume and I repeat what I said before, the
Saviour did this in order that, as He fills all things by His presence, so also might He fill all
things with the knowledge of Him . . . . For He was made man that we might be made
God.' (Athanasius, `On the Incarnation', 1.54)

This is of course pantheism; the writings of this `Father of the Church' are the foundation
upon which all so-called `orthodox' Christian doctrines are built upon. The doctrine of
`vicarious substitution', which is believed to be orthodox theology by Catholic and
Protestant alike, takes the position which Athanasius first posited - i.e, that Christ took upon
Himself the `sinless' flesh of Adam, so that He might be quarantined from sin. But as it is a
manifest fact that only that which is assumed can be saved, then this doctrine presents us
with a Christ which is not so far removed from the deistic Prime Mover of the Greeks; who is
so far removed from the affairs of mortal men, that `He' cannot possibly save us, and we
must go in search of him so that we may find him. It maligns the character of God, and does
injustice to John 3: 16, which states that:

`For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son to us. . . .'

For if the Son is so far removed from our ordinary affairs and was not tempted as we are,
yet without sin - then how do doctrines such as this affect the quality of the love which the
Father and Son have for us? For if Christ has not descended all the way from heaven to give
`help' to us where we need it most, then the `love' which They have for us is a hollow
promise and the God of the Bible is a straw man - a divine farce. But heretical doctrines such
as this would never have found entrance into the Christian Church in the first place if not for
the fact that by the time the Nicene Creed was formulated in 324 A.D by the First
Ecumenical Council bearing that name, the foundation upon which Platonism is built (which
is the doctrine of the immortality of the soul), had already found its way into the Church, via
the Hellenization of Jewry in the fifth century B.C.

`In the fourth year of the eighty-seventh Olympiad, Plato, the famous Athenian
philosopher, was born . . . . . for having, in his travels to the East, (whither he went for his
improvement in knowledge), conversed with the Jews, and got some insight into the
writings of Moses, and their other sacred books, he learned many things from them which
the philosophers did not attain unto and therefore he is said by Numenius to be none
other than Moses speaking Greek; and many of the ancient fathers speak of him to the
same purpose.' (The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments with a
Commentary and Critical Notes', Adam Clarke, 18334, p. 994.)
While it is quite plausible to believe that Plato subjected the idea of the One Supreme God
found in the Old Testament to the rigours of Greek philosophy - it is just as plausible to
believe that the Jews subsequently gleaned many things from Plato; the syncretism of
Hellenistic ideas of the afterlife into the Hebrew religion were virtually unknown by Jewry
before the fifth century B.C. As a result, these two antagonistic philosophical systems of
belief became conflated into one in the form of neo-platonic philosophy, which further
subjected the philosophies of Plato to Christ. By the time the Council of Nicea was
convened, the doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul had gained such wide spread
acceptance among Christians in general that it was a non-issue and was instead regarded as
an `a priori' belief at that Council. Anders Nygren, a Lutheran Bishop of the mid-twentieth
century understood only too well the effect that this doctrine had on the formation of the
creeds of Christendom.

`The ancient Church differs most of all from Hellenism in its belief in the Resurrection.
Christian tradition affirmed the 'Resurrection of the flesh,' which the Apologists opposed
to the Hellenistic doctrine of the 'Immortality of the soul.' The antithesis was conscious
and intentional, for at no point so much as this was their opposition to the Hellenistic
spirit felt by the early Christians. The Platonic, Hellenistic doctrine of the Immortality of
the soul seemed to the Apologists a godless and blasphemous doctrine, which above all
they must attack and destroy (Justin Dial. lxxx. 3-4) Their motto in this regard might well
be Tatian's word: 'Not Immortal, O Greeks, is the soul in itself, but mortal. Yet it is
possible for it not to die.' (Tatian Oratio ad Graecos, xiii. 1). T
The difference between Christian and non-Christian in this matter was so great
that belief in the 'Resurrection of the flesh' could become a shibboleth. One who believes
in the 'Immortality of the soul' shows thereby that he is not a Christian. As Justin says: 'If
you have fallen in with some who are called Christians... and who say that there is no
resurrection of the dead, but that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not
imagine that they are Christians.' (Dial. lxxx. 4) (ibid., pp. 280-281). (Agape and Eros, Tr. by
Philip S Watson, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1969.)

Obviously, Christians in the first and second centuries regarded this doctrine as
blasphemous, for they reasoned that if when we die, we go straight to heaven or are
tormented eternally in hell, as the pagans taught; then what need is there for a Saviour? Is
the atonement reduced to little more than Christ being a divine Traffic Director who directs
where we should go when we die? But just as serious are the implications that this doctrine
of the divine origin of the soul - the natural immortality of the soul - implies, for it mirrors
the first great lie spoken by the serpent to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

`But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, All of you
shall not eat of it, neither shall all of you touch it, lest all of you die. And the serpent said
unto the woman, all of you shall not surely die: For God does know that in the day all of
you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and all of you shall be as gods, knowing
good and evil.' (Genesis 3:2-5)

Men `naturally' believe that they will live forever in some form or another, and thus this lie
has been perpetuated throughout the ages, for the simple reason that this doctrine of the
divine origin of the soul implies that men `naturally' become `as gods' when they die. We
naturally believe in our heart of hearts that we are in no need of a Saviour, for we will live
forever. But the Bible plainly refutes this and declares that:

`The soul that sins, it shall die.' (Ezekiel 18:20)

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, are of divine origin and were written in stone by
the finger of God. In a negative sense, they reflect the character of God and the love which
He has for fallen humanity. As everybody sins, then everybody would die what the Bible
terms `the second death' (Revelation 2:11), or eternal separation from the Giver of Life
forever, if it were not for One who has stood between the breach in the law and eternal life
which is promised to those who are faithful. Logically, as the Law itself is of divine origin,
then only a divine Sacrifice can atone for the broken Law, and doctrines such as this deny
the atonement which Christ, the divine Son of God wrought for us at Calvary. It is no
coincidence that every religion on earth which teaches the divine origin of the soul has its
roots in the `Mystery' religions of ancient Babylon, where man first became worshipped as
God. It is for this reason that at the pinnacle of this `Mystery' religion, sits a `woman', of
whom the Bible declares:

`And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and
precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and
filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY,
BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the
martyrs of Jesus.' (Revelation 17:4-6)

How terrible! This woman is the inheritor of the Mystery religion of ancient Babylon and is
described as having persecuted and slain the people of God who hold Jesus as their Saviour
throughout the ages. But this `Mystery' religion also permeates every strata of society, for
the Bible declares:

`For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of
the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed
rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven,
saying, Come out of her, my people, that all of you be not partakers of her sins, and that
all of you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God has
remembered her iniquities. Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her
double according to her works: in the cup which she had filled fill her to the double. How
much she has glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give
her: for she says in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.'
(Rev. 18:3-7)

Scripture exhorts us to `come out of her' and not partake of her sins. The Bible exhorts the
faithful to return to the Creator God of Scripture and:

`Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment has come: and worship him
that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.' (Rev. 14:7)
Although doctrines such as the natural immortality of the soul deny the atonement, this
does not in itself deny that the Bible is the word of God, for the prophesy of the 70 `weeks'
of Daniel is proof enough in itself that the Bible is indeed the word of God! The fault is not
with God, it is instead with men, who, in being puffed up in their own vain glory and deceit,
have interpreted Scripture by subjecting it to the precepts of the philosopher; thinking that
this would improve upon the plain word of God. They have confused the character of God
with the character of men, by infusing Greek philosophy into Scripture, and have obscured
the love of God by presenting Him in doctrinal form as being far removed from the troubles
of men and too impotent to save us. This has resulted in a `gospel' which has little, if any
power to convert the sinner to Christ. There will be a reckoning for this, as heaven holds the
records of those who have been lost to Christ yet would have been converted to Him if the
gospel had been clearly presented free of the superstitions of men.

The manner by which Christ actually saves us is depicted by Messiah in His Sanctuary, and
pictures Him as a Saviour who is close to us, `even at the door'. He is the good Shepherd,
actively looking for the sheep that doesn't even know it is lost! For the High Priest
represented Christ, and was not only closely identified with His people, but in a figurative
and corporative sense as His people. This was particularly pertinent on the Day of
Atonement:

`The high priest in his official capacity was not simply a man. He was an institution; he was
a symbol; he was the embodiment of Israel. He bore the names of Israel in the two onyx
stones “upon his two shoulders for a memorial”; he. carried them in the twelve precious
stones “in the breastplate of Judgment upon his heart”; he bore “the judgment of the
children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually.” Exodus 28:12,29,30. He thus
carried Israel both on his shoulders and on his heart. On his shoulders he carried the
burden of Israel; in the breastplate, on his heart, the seat of affection and love-the mercy
seat he carried Israel. In the Urim and the Thummim that is, the Lights and the Perfection
(verse 30, A.R.V., Margin)-he bore “the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart.
In the golden crown upon the miter inscribed with “HOLINESS TO THE LORD,” he bore the
“iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts,”
and this that“they may be accepted before the Lord.” (Verses 36-38)
“The high priest was to act for men in things pertaining to God, 'to make
propitiation for the sins of the people' (Hebrews 2:17). He was the mediator who
ministered for the guilty. 'The high priest represented the whole people. All Israelites
were reckoned as being in him. The prerogative held by him belonged to the whole of
them (Exodus 19:6). That the high priest did represent the whole congregation appears,
first from his bearing the tribal names on his shoulders in the onyx stones, and, second, in
the tribal names engraved in the twelve gems of the breastplate. The divine explanation
of this double representation of Israel in the dress of the high priest is, he 'shall bear their
names before him upon his two shoulders for a memorial' (Exodus 28:12, 29). Moreover,
his committing heinous sin involved the people in his guilt: 'If the anointed priest shall sin
so as to bring guilt on the people' (Leviticus 4:3). The LXX reads, 'If the anointed priest
shall sin so as to make the people sin.' The anointed priest, of course, is the high priest.
When he sinned, the people sinned. His official action was reckoned as their action. The
whole nation shared in the trespass of their representative. The converse appears to be
just as true. What he did in his official capacity, as prescribed by the Lord, was reckoned as
done by the whole congregation: 'Every high priest is appointed for men' (Hebrews 5:1).” -
The National Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4, page 2439, art. “Priest.”
The representative character of the high priest should be stressed. Adam was the
representative man. When he sinned, the world sinned, - and death passed upon all men.
(Romans 5:12) “By one man's offence death reigned; . . . by one man's disobedience many
were made sinners.” Verses 17-19. So likewise Christ, being the second man and the last
Adam, was the representative man. “It is written, The first man Adam was made a living
soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. . . . The first man is of the earth, earthy:
the second man is the Lord from heaven.” 1 Corinthians 15:45-47. “As by the offence of
one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Romans 5:18. “For as by one
man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous.” Verse 19. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22.
The high priest, being in a special sense a figure of Christ, was also the
representative man. He stood for all Israel. He carried their burdens and sins. He bore the
iniquity of all the holy things. He bore their judgment. When he sinned, Israel sinned.
When he made atonement for himself, Israel was accepted.' (`The Sanctuary Service', M.L.
Andreason, p. 53-55, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1937.)

If Christ had sinned, then all men would have died with Him on the cross. There would have
been no forgiveness for sin, and the individual names of the entire race would have been
blotted out of the Book of Life forever. However, in overcoming sin, although all men die
and sleep in the dust until the resurrection:

` . . . . . so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law
and in the prophets: and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that
there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.' (Acts 24:14-15)

Adam was the first representative man of the race; `in' Adam, all men died at the very
moment that he sinned. But as Christ is the second representative man of the race, all men
have already been made alive `in' Christ at Calvary; some to eternal life; some to receive the
sentence of eternal condemnation and separation from the Giver of Life Himself; which can
only mean eternal death, for no life can survive if it is separated from God.

`Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even
so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.'
(Romans 5:18)

Note that the verse says `all men'; not just those who think that they have bought into a
bargain by being converted to Christ and therefore deserve to be saved. No. On the cross, a
positive legal and forensic judgement was passed in favour of the entire race, for all men
were `in' Christ when He bruised the serpent's head with His heel at Calvary. All we can do,
is look on in awe, and say `Thank you, Lord!' And in our response, we find the germinal
seeds of a faith that has been planted within us by our Redeemer, and that is `a faith which
works by love'. (Galatians 5: 6) it is a genuine heart-felt appreciation of what Christ has
already done for us that leads us to a turning away from sin and genuine conformity to the
law; for it is by His Spirit of Grace that we are sanctified:

`Know all of you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but all of you
are washed, but all of you are sanctified, but all of you are justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.' (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

The free gift of salvation which has already been wrought for all can be refused. It's entirely
our choice - we can choose to cling to Christ, or cling to those things which entertain us for a
season yet separate us from God. But Christ is too much of a Gentleman to impose His will
upon our own and arbitrarily force us to worship Him, as He instead lets the Gospel testify
of the unconditional love which the Father and Son have for us. The only reason anyone can
be lost is because they actively refuse the promptings of the Holy Spirit of the Father and
Son to return to Them:

`. . . . where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.' (Romans 5:20)

How much? Much more!

Copyright K. Jones, 2010.