The Lake of Fire

Installment XVI-HELL: Part C


[CAUTION: Some of the material near the end of this Installment contains explicit descriptions necessary to facilitate better understanding, and is for mature readers only.]

There is not one verse in the Old Testament Scriptures that speaks of punishment after death or in death. And there are only a couple of Scriptures in the Old Testament that speak of a resurrection back to life from the dead. Moses mentioned nothing concerning rewards or blessings under the Old Covenant that went beyond this present temporary life in the land. A resurrection to life other than the righteous is mentioned by Daniel only in these words:

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting [ olam/eonian] life, and some to shame and everlasting [ olam/eonian] contempt" (Dan. 12:2.)

There was nothing in the Law of Moses that suggested anything, good or bad, after death or in death. Death was the consummation of both the sinner and the saint. It is clear that Job, Daniel, Moses, and possibly David had some knowledge of the resurrection of the dead. It was not, however, taught anywhere in the Law of Moses. To Israel under Moses, death was the final chapter.


5500 BC-Creation of heaven & earth (Gen. 1:1) According to the Septuagint.

4004 BC-Creation of heaven & earth according to Archbishop Ussher.

2285 BC-The worldwide flood of Noah's day (1500 yrs. earlier by Septuagint.)

2160 BC-Building the Tower of Babel in Mesopotamia.

1995 BC-Abram [Abraham] is born in Ur of Mesopotamia.

1895 BC-Isaac is born.

1835 BC-Jacob is born/1744 Joseph is born.

1700 BC-Famine in Egypt ends.

1688 BC-Jacob dies.

1634 BC-Joseph dies.

1600 BC-Israel prospers in the land of Egypt for 150 years.

1450 BC-Israel is forcibly conscripted into hard labor under the 18th Dynasty.

1355 BC-Moses is born of the tribe of Levi.

1275 BC-Passover, Israel leaves Egypt, Arrives at Mt Sinai, Builds Tabernacle.

1234 BC-Israel invades Canaan under Joshua, Destroys Jericho.

1228 BC-Joshua divides Canaan among the Tribes of Israel.

1211 BC-Joshua dies and Israel is ruled by system of Judges.

1025 BC-Saul reigns as king over Israel for 21 years.

1004 BC-David is made king over Israel for approximately 40 years.

965 BC-David dies, Son Solomon builds the Temple-total reign 40 years.

597 BC-Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem, takes thousands to Babylon.

516 BC-Destroyed Temple rebuilt.

450 BC-Malachi, last prophet for 400 yrs.

3 BC-Birth of Jesus the Messiah and John the Baptist.


"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall SURELY DIE" (Gen. 2:17.)

The wages for eating the forbidden fruit was "you shall surely die." And:

"In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread, till you return unto the ground [not be turned into a terrorist's hellhole of endless torture in some pagan hell] : for out of it [the ground] were you taken; for dust you are, and unto dust shall you return" (Gen. 3:19.)

Death began immediately. Notice a better translation of Gen. 2:17:

" die shall you BE DYING" ( Concordant Old Testament.)

Their life was but a slow death until they returned to the dust of the ground. God said that their judgment for sinning was to be RETURNED to the ground from whence they came. They didn't come from some terrorist's hellhole of torture in fire, so how could they "return" to such a place when God plainly stated that they would "RETURN unto the ground?" They came from the earth and they returned to that earth.

God cursed the serpent, and God cursed the ground, but nowhere did God curse Adam and Eve. God pointed out the different judgments against Adam and Eve, such as multiplied childbearing pains, sorrow in gathering food all the days of his life, thorns, thistles, and sweat, but no mention of punishment in death or after death.

If Adam and Eve were to have a far greater punishment (trillions and trillions of times greater) at death or in death or after death, why did not God warn them of such a horrible destiny? Why would God tell them one thing and then pull a trick on them and do something totally different when the time came?

Listen to what God said to Ezekiel:

"When I say unto the wicked, You shall surely die [hey, isn't that exactly what God did say to Adam?] and you give him not warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at your hand" (Ezek. 3:18.)

Are we to believe that God held Ezekiel to a higher standard of morality than God holds for HIMSELF?

God told Ezekiel that He would require Ezekiel's blood if he did not warn the wicked so they could be saved from death. Do we then turn around and accuse God of a lower standard in which God Himself has utterly failed to warn the human race of a destiny that is trillions of times worse than mere death? God would hold Ezekiel responsible for the death of just one wicked person, whereas God Himself feels no responsibility for failing to warn the entire human race of a fate trillions of times more severe?


Notice very carefully God's conversation with Cain:

"But unto Cain and to his offering He [God] had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why are you wroth? And why is your countenance fallen? If you do well, shall you not be accepted? And if you do not well, SIN lies at the door. And unto you shall be his desire, and you shall rule over him" (Gen. 4:5-7.)

God warned Cain that if he did not do well, that sin would be at his door. But did God say "endless torment and punishment would be at his door?" No.

"And Cain talked with Abel, his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him. And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel your brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And He said, What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries unto Me from the ground.

And now are you cursed from the earth which has opened her mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand: When you till the ground it shall not henceforth yield unto you her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shall you be in the earth" (Verses 8-12.)

Did God threaten Cain with "endless punishment in some subterranean hellhole of torture in fire?" No. But notice Cain's reply:

"And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me out this day from the face of the earth, and from Your face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth: and it shall come to pass, that every one [any one] that finds me shall slay me" (Verse 13-14.)

What? My punishment is greater than I can bear? If Cain thought being a fugitive and vagabond and having poor crops was greater than he could bear, what pray tell would he have thought had God told him that he would be punished for all eternity in some hellish pit of fire? Did God fail to tell Cain about the "endless torture" because He was afraid it would be too much for Cain to psychologically handle? Did God fail to inform Cain of his coming endless punishment because He was afraid it might discourage him, or some other unfathomable fiendish foolishness?

Search all we may, we won't find this pagan doctrine of Christendom in the Scriptures. But hold on, there's more. We are not finished with this account of Cain yet.

"And the Lord said unto him, Therefore, whosoever slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him" (Verse 15.)

Let's all use our brains together on this one: Cain is a murderer. It doesn't get much worse than that. Not only a murderer, but, a murderer of his OWN BROTHER. But God tells us that if someone should find and slay Cain the murderer, then that person would have vengeance taken on him seven times greater? SEVEN TIMES GREATER than burning in some fabled hell for all eternity? Seven times greater than that? Are they kidding? Are they out of their cotton-pickin' minds? Can any human mind conceive of a punishment seven times GREATER than being tortured in fire for all eternity?

Here then would be the orthodox logic of this whole scenario: Kill your brother, and receive a certain punishment: but kill the murderer of his brother, and receive "seven TIMES greater" punishment. Can we all say: Contradiction, Square Circles, Theological Insanity?

There is nothing greater, or "seven TIMES greater" than an eternity of torture in fire. Does someone wish to stop and seriously argue this point? Then how is it possible that any who would kill Cain, would have a punishment "seven times greater" than Cain, if his punishment is to be tortured in real fire endlessly? Well of course, Cain's punishment will not be an eternity of torture in fire. This is but another Christian Hoax and Christian Lie designed to keep all of you in constant fear for your eternal well being (if you don't give your pastor ten percent PLUS of all your annual salaries! It's not ALL about the money: it is ONLY about the money!)

Cain died, just as his parents (Adam and Eve) died. But there is no punishment in death. Cain's "punishment" was here on this earth while Cain was still alive, not after. And likewise, anyone who found and killed Cain would have punishment on this earth while they were still alive, "seven times greater," than that of Cain.


"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually... And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall DIE" (Gen. 6:5 & 17.)

All mankind are said to be only evil continually. That's a lot of evil. And what does God say their punishment for all this evil will be? They shall die. Punished endlessly? No, they "shall die." Do we think that God lied to the whole world? Do we think that God said, "shall die," but secretly meant: "punished endlessly?" Ask your pastor if he has an answer to this Christian enigma?

It apparently took a hundred years to build the ark, and so for a hundred years Noah warned the world that God would kill them for their gross sins. But not one word that God would punish them endlessly after they died:

"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, DIED" (Gen. 7:22.)

Why doesn't even one of these verses tell us that this wicked people will be judged in death and then sentenced to an eternity of torture in real fire? Why? Why wouldn't God give us at least one verse somewhere? He could have said something like this: "Be it known to all sinners that whosoever repenteth not of his sins and dies, shall be sentenced to punishment in fire so hot as to burn brass, and he shall never ever be set free, and his pain and suffering shall never come to an end, no not ever, saith the Lord."

There are thousands and thousands and thousands of words in the Old Testament Scriptures, so why isn't there one word warning us that unrepentant wicked people will be sentenced to an eternity of torture in real fire? Why? The books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy have 186 combined chapters. So why couldn't at least one of these 186 chapters contain at least one verse which warns of the horrible eternal torture for most of the human race? Why? Prov. 6:6 admonishes, "Go to the ANT you sluggard, consider her ways and be wise." Does any serious-minded human on this planet believe that it is more important to know the work habits of ants (many so tiny one needs to get on his knees with a magnifying glass to even see one,) than to know the eternal destiny of billions and billions of human beings?

Does anyone hear what I am saying? Does anyone truly see what the Scriptures quoted here say? Does anyone see "eternal punishment" in even one of them? Yet the Christian Church assures us that this punishment is there even if it is not seen and not stated.

Not one verse. Not one word. Not one mention in the entirety of the Old Testament Scriptures regarding endless punishment. How much longer are you going to sit and listen to the septic-tank swill about a Loving God Who is going to torture most people's teenagers, mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, great grandmothers and great grandfathers, in an eternal hellhole of literal fire, without mercy, forever? Have you no conscience? Have you no love? Have you no respect or fear for your Creator God at all, that you can attribute such gross sins and immorality to your own Loving Heavenly Father?

Did all the people drowned in Noah's flood go to hell? No... they DIED. Were they tortured or punished endlessly? No... they DIED. Are they in a place of punishment now? No... they're DEAD. Did Jesus say that those in the flood are now being punished in some kind of a hellhole? No... "...and the flood came and destroyed them all" (Luke 17:27.) Is it possible for destroyed dead people to know pain and misery and punishment? No...

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything" (Ecc. 9:5.)

Hence, not one of the many men, women, and children who lived before the flood and died in the flood are presently being punished endlessly. Daniel tells us that these wicked people

"...shall AWAKE... to shame [reproach] and [for] eonian contempt [repulsion, abhorrence] " (Daniel. 12:2.)

This is the "the lake of fire/second death" of Rev. 20.


Were any of these people told or warned that not only would they die for their sins, but that they would also be punished in death endlessly? No, of course not. Not a word. Where then did the Church get the teaching that God punishes the wicked after death and in death? Not from the Hebrew Scriptures, that's for sure.

Every generation since Adam and Noah has witnessed their loved ones either dying or being killed. Life is short, and everyone knows it and is very conscious of it:

"For the living know that they shall die..." (Ecc. 9:5a.)

But Solomon and the Kingdom of Israel knew more than just the fact that they would all die one day. They also knew something that few theologians, few pastors, few Christians on earth know and believe, which is:

"...but the dead know not anything" (Ecc. 9:5b.)

Is there an orthodox theologian alive who believes this divinely inspired Scripture?

Likewise, in the New Testament, we are told emphatically that:

"For the wages of sin is DEATH..." (Rom. 6:23.)

Yet millions believe many Scriptures contradict Rom. 6:23. How can anyone put their faith in a book that they believe contradicts itself? If the theologians and your pastors are correct in teaching that "For the wages of sin is eternal life in the lake of fire," how do they account for Rom. 6:23 which clearly states: "For the wages of sin is death?"

It's very simple if you happen to be a deceiving, hypocritical, heretical, lying theologian. Their answer is: "Death IS eternal life (in the lake of fire.)" Theologians have no problem with square circles and contradictions.

What would God say if there really were such a hellhole of eternal torture in fire, and if someone about to be thrown into this hellhole would inquire of God: "But God, I thought Your Word said: "For the wages of sin is DEATH..." not LIFE in some terrorist hellhole of eternal torture by fire? How would the God of Christendom respond? Would He say: "Well, sometimes My Word does contradict?" or "So maybe I changed My mind?" or "I'm sorry, I lied?" or maybe "Ooooh, picky, picky, picky...?"


The People of God in the Old Testament never believed in an "immortal soul," for like Ezekiel, they knew that:

"Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins, it [the 'soul'-Heb: ' nephesh'] shall die" (Ezek. 18:4 & 20.)

And for no other reason than to hear Himself speak (I guess,) God repeats it again in verse 20: "The soul [Heb: 'nephesh'-same 'nephesh' that Adam became when he was MADE ALIVE by God, Gen. 2:7.] that sins, it [the 'soul'] shall die..."

Maybe God forgot that He had already said the same thing in verse 4, for surely He didn't repeat this twice in one chapter because it is IMPORTANT or anything!

Perhaps God will ask the greatest and leading theologians of Christendom, how it is possible that when God teaches twice in 16 verses, that souls "die," that they are at the same time "immortal?" Well, heck, let's not wait till the White Throne Judgment, let's ask it now: Christian Theologians of the world: "How is it possible for you to teach that souls are immortal, when God Himself teaches us twice in 16 verses that souls die?"

What more does God require of the sinner for his sin, other than "the soul that sins, IT SHALL DIE?" Here is the Scriptural answer:

"For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and EVERY transgression and disobedience received [past tense] a JUST RECOMPENSE of reward [Gk: 'a just retribution'] (Heb. 2:2.)

Every transgression, disobedience and sin of the past has already "received... a just retribution." How is it then that the Church teaches these sinners must yet be tortured an eternity for their transgressions and disobedience?

Why don't all of you reading this ask your pastor why he teaches that the "soul ( nephesh)" of man is immortal, when God teaches us twice in 16 verses that the "soul [nephesh-the very part of man that is said to be immortal] dies," and therefore cannot possibly be immortal. Let me know what kind of answers you receive. Just tell them L. Ray Smith of is conducting a survey using reader participation.


I have said for many years that Christendom is a religion of contradictions and square circles. Do you think I jest?

Jesus Himself acknowledged that He believed the Truth of these statements in Ezekiel 18 when He taught:

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in gehenna" (Matt. 10:28.)


I am now going to show you how to be smarter and more knowledgeable than most theologians in the world-(at least in this one little point.) Okay; follow very closely, for we are going to get really really technical for a few minutes:

First: Can God "destroy the body?" Well, yes, of course He can; Jesus just said that He "is ABLE." So God "IS able to destroy the body." Now, I believe Jesus. I think that most of you believe Jesus. But, do orthodox pastors and theologians believe Jesus? Yes, from all that I know, they do believe Jesus on this point.

Next: Can God "destroy the soul?" Well, yes, of course He can; Jesus just said that He "is ABLE." So God "IS able to destroy the soul." Now, I believe Jesus. I think that (some of) you believe Jesus. But, do orthodox pastors and theologians believe Jesus? No, of course not. How can a soul which they teach is immortal ever be "destroyed?" Now let's proceed to some more "technical stuff:"

God created humanity in two stages, not three (Gen. 2:7):

[1] "And the Lord God formed man [Heb: ' adam, a human being'] of the dust [Heb: ' aphar, powdered gray, hence clay'] of the ground [Heb: 'adamah, soil']

[2] "and breathed into his nostrils the breath [Heb: 'n'shahmah, puff, wind'] of life [Heb: 'chay, alive, life, living'] and man became [Heb: 'hayah, exist, be, become, come to pass'] a living [Heb: 'chay, alive, life, living'] soul [Heb: 'nephesh, a breathing creature, animal, vitality, mind, mortality'.] "

Well, there you have it: God's abbreviated version of how He created humanity.

Let me next draw your attention to something that few Christians have ever seen, even though it is right before their eyes in every Bible on earth. I said that God created man in two stages rather than three. I emphasize this because theology teaches that God made man in three stages. Here is their unscriptural version: First God formed the man of the ground, Second God breathed life into the man, and Third God put an immortal soul into the man. If you doubt that this is what they teach, ask your pastor.

However, did we read of these fabled three stages of man's creation in the Scripture quoted above? No, no we didn't. We read of two things in man's creation at the hands of God. First God formed the man of the ground, Second God breathed life into the man, and Third God...? God what? There ain't no Third. "man became a living soul" is part of stage Two. There is no third stage. God did not "put an immortal soul into the man." Where do we read of such unscriptural nonsense?

God didn't need to do anything after He breathed into him the breath of life. It was the breath of life from God that caused the man to become a living soul. God didn't put a soul into Adam; Adam is a living soul. The spirit of man, which God gives to every human, is like a light switch-Switch it 'on' and the light glows: Switch it 'off' and the light is dark, gone, dead. Put the spirit in the man, and the man is a living soul: take the spirit out of the man, and the man is a dead soul. Do you think that even your children could understand this Scriptural Truth? Perhaps you should teach them, and then they could teach your pastor.

The "body" of the deceased is gone forever. In resurrection to immortality, God gives everyone a new spiritual body. God can bring back the person in any "body" He desires. When God puts your "spirit" (not you soul) but your spirit (which has no consciousness) back into another body (as in a resurrection with a new spiritual body,) the same real person/soul will live again. God can do this, but man can't, so fear God.


I personally use Dr. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. It is a most helpful book. However, when it comes to the major "damnable heresies" of Christendom, Dr. Strong plays the same game of contradictions and square circles, as do the pastors and theologians.

Next, let's study Strong's definition of soul in the Hebrew and soul in the Greek:

In the Hebrew Scriptures, soul is translated from, H5315 nephesh = neh'-fesh

From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly,) desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y,) (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy,) lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.

Say, did you catch that one word Dr. Strong used to define the soul- nephesh?

He used as a definition of "soul," the word "MORTALITY." How pray tell, can pastors, teachers, and theologians tell us that man's soul is IMMORTAL, when the very definition of "soul- nephesh" is "MORTAL." Yes, of course, Godly men inspired by God's Holy Spirit have always known that man is "mortal"- "Shall MORTAL man be more just than God..." (Job 4:17.)

And so, what kind of a "living soul" did Adam become? Why a "living [mortal] soul," of course. Maybe that's why Jesus also stated that "souls" can be "destroyed." We cannot separate the man from his soul in two different parts, as though the soul were something that existed independently of the body. For this reason, when the Bible speaks of "people" dying or being destroyed, it sometimes refers to them as "souls," for the soul is the person. Adam himself was the "living soul." (See: Joshua 10:28,35,37,39.)

In the Greek Scriptures, soul is translated from, G5590 psuche� = psoo-khay'

"From G5594; breath, that is, (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from G4151, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from G2222, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew [H5315], [H7307] and [H2416]: - heart (+ -ily,) life, mind, soul, + us, + you."0

Next notice this statement in Strong's definition of psuche above: "G4151, which is the rational and IMMORTAL SOUL." Oh really? Just like that? Notice how casually Dr. Strong just dropped that little gem into his definition of soul. First he confirms the fact that the soul of man is MORTAL, but then quickly asserts that there is, however, another, different Greek word, which really does mean immortal soul, and it is the Greek word # 4151- pneuma.

Even though Dr. Strong knew the Hebrew word nephesh meant "mortal," and not "immortal" he nonetheless must be quick to inform us of his own personal heresy, and tell us that although the nephesh/soul of man is mortal. Nevertheless man also possesses an "immortal" soul. And in so doing, we must conclude that that ( 'mortal' Job 4:17) man possesses two souls: one mortal and one immortal. Do Christians ever think about all these unscriptural heresies? Of course not. As we learned in the Army-"Ours is not to reason why; ours is but to do or die."

So the Greek word #4151 = pneuma, is the "immortal soul?" I would have never guessed: I always thought pneuma meant "spirit." You all know, I hope, that in the King James Version, the words "spirit" and "ghost" are translated from the exact same Greek word " pneuma," don't you? Well, now you do.

Now, get this: pneuma is used in the Greek Scriptures approximately 360 times. And Dr. Strong tells us that this word pneuma IS the word for "immortal soul." So just how many times do you think this word is translated "immortal soul" out of the 360 verses which contain the Greek word pneuma?" Oh, go ahead-guess. Three hundred? Two hundred? Fifty? Ten? Three? One? Would you believe not even once? What about the "soul" by itself. How many times is pneuma translated "soul?" Three hundred? Two hundred? Fifty? Ten? Three? One? Would you believe none?

That's right, none. Not once is this word pneuma, which Dr. Strong tells us is the proper word for "immortal soul," actually translated "immortal soul." It is always translated "spirit" [sometimes, 'ghost'], but never "immortal soul." Nor is it even translated "soul" even without the prefix, "immortal."


The pagan teaching of an "immortal soul," was believed by all nations immediately following the flood, even though there is not a word concerning immortal souls or suffering in death in all of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Here are some of the things New Testament Jews believed long before there was a single New Testament Greek Scripture written:


"And as Jesus passed by, He saw a man which was blind from his birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:1-2)

What? How, pray tell, could this blind man be responsible for his own blindness when we are plainly told that he was born blind? Not only did the disciples believe the pagan doctrine that the soul is immortal, but they believed that souls could transmigrate from one body to another body.

The idea that the disciples are presenting to Jesus is the pagan doctrine known today as "The transmigration of souls." This doctrine teaches that souls do not just live on, as in "immortal" after death, in some fabled hellhole of eternal torture, or some heaven on a rock in outer space; but rather that at death, the immortal soul migrates to inhabit the body of another person about to be born into the world.

Many in the world today continue to believe in reincarnation and the transmigration of souls. There are some pagans who believe that the souls of the dead can also reappear in the life of a pig, snake, or some other animal.

Seriously, why would Christ's disciples believe that a man could have sinned before he was ever born?

But what is even more remarkable is the fact that Jesus did not correct them, but rather went along with and acquiesced to their pagan notions. Jesus did not demean their foolish statement or their foolish belief, but countered with:

"Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents..." (John 9:3.)

Jesus spoke the truth, for truly this man had not sinned. However, Jesus did not inform them that it would have been impossible for him to sin before he was born. But Jesus did not expose this pagan heresy to His disciples at this time. For what possible reason would Jesus want to keep His own disciples deceived?

BEELZEBUB-Lord of the Flies :

"But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow does not cast out devils, but by BEELZEBUB the prince of the devils [ruler of the demons] " (Matt. 12:24.)

Did Jesus believe in this mythological god of the pagans? Notice how Jesus answered these Pharisees:

"And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?" (Verse 27.)

Some might think that Jesus is conceding that He indeed believed in this Beelzebub, Lord of the Flies. How foolish. Jesus did not believe that pagan gods were real.

Notice what Strong's says about Beelzebub:

Beelzeboul beh-el-zeb-ool' Of Chaldee origin (by parody upon [H1176]); dung god; Beelzebul, a name of Satan: - Beelzebub.

The Hebrew #1176 is Baal-Zebub which means "Lord of the fly." And as flies gather around dung, the Jews sarcastically referred to this deity of the Ekronites as the "god of dung," or "the dung god."

Did Jesus really believe that there is such a god as this Beelzebub, god of dung?

Of course He didn't, but neither did He expose this pagan heresy to the Pharisees either.


On another occasion:

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that You are John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets" (Matt. 16:13-14.)

Some even thought that He might be John the Baptist, which is really strange, seeing that Jesus was already the same age as John, when John was beheaded.

Did Jesus Christ believe in reincarnation and the transmigration of immortal souls? Where did this teaching come from, and why does Jesus make reference to it? Why didn't Jesus expose this pagan heresy to His disciples instead of going along with their false statements?


"And in hell [Gk: ' hades'] he [the Rich man] lift up his eyes, being in torment, and sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom" (Luke 16:23.)

The Egyptians called their place of punishment in the underworld, amenti. When the Greeks borrowed most of the Egyptian myths surrounding this place called amenti, they called it by the name hades.

Thomas Thayer supports Professor Stuart, Greppo's Essay, and Spineto, that: "The Amenti of the Egyptians originated the classic fables of Hades and Tartarus." (Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, Chapt. 3, P. 7.)

Did Jesus believe that when people die, they are consciously alive and tormented in the pagan hell of the Greeks named after their pagan god, hades?

Why would Jesus use pagan religious doctrines and beliefs to teach spiritual truths of God? Haven't these things deceived the Church and caused the many different denominations of Christendom? Yes, of course they have, and so have all the parables which Jesus taught that virtually no Church understands. The Church does not even understand the few parables that Jesus explained!

How many theologians believe and understand that all the parables are the same parable? Tis true:

"And He [Jesus] said unto them, Know you not this parable? And how then shall you know all parables? (Mark 4:13.)

All parables are the same parable. I know: it boggles the mind. It takes the Spirit of God to understand these spiritual teachings.

And just as when Jesus said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," no one understood what He meant until it was fulfilled. Everyone thought he meant the literal physical stone temple rather than His own body.

Likewise, only the "Chosen few" can understand the parables as they are fulfilled in their own lives, generation by generation, until the parables are fulfilled.

The Jews of Jesus' day learned these pagan teachings referred to above, plus many more, but from where did they learn them? For a fact they did not learn them from Moses, the Prophets, or Hebrew Scriptures. Who taught these pagan doctrines? Can we trace back such doctrines as "the immortality of the soul," "reincarnation," "consciousness and everlasting punishment after death?" Yes, we can.


The Scriptural origin of Egypt is extremely easy to trace, though don't expect many in the secular world to agree with this:

"The sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth" (Gen. 10:1.)

"And the sons of Ham, Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan" (Gen. 10:6.)


" H4714 Dual of H4693; Mitsrajim, that is, Upper and Lower Egypt: - Egypt, Egyptians, Mizraim."

There it is: "Mizraim," Noah's grandson through his son Ham is EGYPT.

Egypt is mentioned from Genesis to Revelation--558 times (more than any other nation except Israel.) This statistic alone should speak volumes to us regarding the importance of Egypt in God's plan for humankind. It behooves us to learn more about the nation of Egypt, its history, its culture, and its religion. It has everything to do with understanding the many unscriptural doctrines of the Christian Church.


In this Installment on hell, I want to take you back to the beginning of things as far as possible. The main object I have in mind is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the teaching of life immediately following death, the immortality of the soul, and the teaching of a hell wherein the wicked are punished and/or tortured endlessly, are all inventions of the ancient pagans, centuries before the people of Israel began to believe and teach these doctrines, or even before Israel existed.

Accurate chronology to date some of these developments is difficult for sure. That is not to say we cannot get the order of things in proper sequence even if we may be off on the actual dates. We do not know the exact date for creation, or for the flood, or for the birth of Abraham. Nonetheless, if we believe and have faith in the Scriptures, for sure we know that the Creation came first, then a couple of thousand years later came the flood, and a few hundred years later Abraham was born.

Most chronologists and archaeologists place known historical events somewhat further back in time than can be accurately proved. Known historical events as the uniting of Upper and Lower Egypt at the founding of Memphis under Pharaoh Menes is placed around 3100 B.C. This may be a few hundred years too early.

Ussher's chronology would put the flood of Noah's day at a little less than 2300 B.C. But this hardly fits the Secular date for Menes uniting Egypt eight hundred years earlier (earlier than the life of Ham and Mizriam, the ancestors of the Egyptians.) However, if we were to adopt the chronology of the Septuagint, we would have possibly 1500 more years to work with (5500 Septuagint date minus 4004 Ussher's date.) Hence the date of 3100 B.C. for Menes uniting Egypt may be closer to the Biblical chronology than thought, plus allowing a few centuries for the settling and populating of Egypt previously under many local kings and rulers.

Interestingly, the secular chronology of Egypt puts the development of hieroglyphic writing at 3400 B.C., which would put their early history within the range of the Septuagint chronology. These dates are all approximations at best.


As we shall see, there are some vestiges of truth concerning God and creation found in the ancient religious beliefs of the Egyptians. For example, the teaching in every nation that the human race was saved on a boat during a flood. However, many strange and unscriptural doctrines regarding the origin of man and the afterlife also were birthed in these ancient civilizations. There is a Scripture given us by the Apostle Paul which precisely describes the process by which the different civilizations totally corrupted the Truths of God immediately following the flood (Rom. 1:18-23.)

We saw earlier that Egypt descended from Mizriam, son of Ham, son of Noah. Next let's look at another descendant of Ham through his first son, Cush:

"And Cush begat NIMROD: he began to be a mighty one in the earth... and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel..." (Gen. 10:7 & 10.)

Concerning Babel, we read this:

"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of SHINAR: and they dwelt there" (Gen. 11:1-2.)

Shinar was located in a portion of what became Babylonia in Mesopotamia. There they began to build a tower and there God:

"...confounded their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth..." (Gen. 11:7-8.)

Notice that Noah lived an additional 350 years after the flood (Gen. 9:28,) and it was his grandson Nimrod who established a civilization in Shinar where they built a tower. And so the scattering of the people into different languages and different nations, occurred long before the death of Noah, just this side of the flood. Chapter 10 first gives us the names of the sons and grandsons of Ham, Shem, and Japheth, and then in chapter 11, it goes back in time and explains how all these nations received their different languages (See Gen 10:5,) and how God scattered them abroad over the land. So the building of nations and civilizations began very shortly on this side of the flood in the very lifetime of Noah.

There appears to be plenty of time for Egypt to be established into a powerful nation under the Pharaohs in the space of a few hundred years when we are once again reintroduced to her in the latter chapters of Genesis, and the book of Exodus where Egypt is a fully established as a powerful and civilized nation.

There is no necessity to stretch the history of early Egypt out beyond the parameters of Genesis. If a site is desirable for a settlement, a lot can happen within a few centuries.

Things developed much more quickly after the flood in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Europe, and the Mid-East, than historians portray. This is partly due to the notion that everything came about through slow, drawn-out evolutionary processes. Truth be known, there was never a period in human history when the majority of humanity lived like savages. People made houses, wore fine clothing, had language and writing, farmed the land, and had sophisticated tools from the very dawn of human existence. Suggesting that the general population of the world lived like savages in caves, able only to communicate by grunting, while gathering wild berries and throwing rocks at animals for food, is preposterous.

Adam and his immediate family, spoke in whole sentences, wore clothing, farmed the land by tilling the ground, domesticated animals, built houses, baked bread, made musical instruments, worked with both brass and iron, had writing, kept chronological and genealogical records, and recorded their history,


As the early Egyptian settlers along the Nile lost virtually all truth they had before the flood and through their ancestral family of Noah, they replaced that lost knowledge with strange and fanciful myths. And, as they lost knowledge of the True God, which brought them safely through the flood, they began worshipping man-made gods. Although they lost sight of the True God and His teachings, they did not, however, lose sight of the world's first giant lie.

That first recorded lie in history survived the first couple of thousand years, survived the flood of Noah's day, survived the expansion of civilization in Mesopotamia, through all the myriads of Egyptian mythology, the Exodus, the four world-ruling kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, survived the introduction of Christianity into the world, survived the Dark Ages, the Middle ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, survived the modern translations of Scriptures, and is presented flourishing in a frenzy of Christian world evangelism.

This "damnable heresy" is taught and believed with such vigor and enthusiasm, that to speak the Scriptural truth against it is to open oneself up to ridicule and persecution from the Christian community. Any outsider coming into the Christian faith would surely believe that it was God who said, "you shall NOT SURELY die," and that it was Satan who said, "you shall SURELY die" for that is what the Church believes and teaches, contrary to the hundreds of Scriptures which state otherwise.

This lie is the very bedrock of not only orthodox Christian theology, but also that of virtually every pagan and heathen religion on the face of the earth, throughout the history of the world.

(Although the pagans may tolerate what we are teaching at, I guarantee you that the Church will not. There will come one day a reckoning with, and you can take that to the bank. Even the "Church of Satan" will be tolerated, but the Truths of God will never be tolerated. When the Church leaders perceive that their pagan heresies are being exposed, and it begins to look as if their goose that is laying the golden eggs of tithes may be getting ready to fly the coop, there will be hell to pay.

The fear of the hereafter; the fear of being tortured in some hellhole of eternal fire, the fear of the clergy and the authority of the Church, this hideous, hideous fear, is the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is in fact, the money machine that keeps the wealth flowing into the Christian coffers.)


"And the woman said unto the serpent. We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, YE SHALL NOT SURELY DIE" (Gen. 3:2-4):

"Ye shall not surely die" is the world's first recorded lie.

Most of the population of the world including all of orthodox Christianity continues to cling to this original lie of Satan. God said: "you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:17.) But Adam and Eve did not literally physically die on the day that they ate the forbidden fruit, did they? No, and that is not exactly what God said. The phrase "you shall sure die" is translated from two Hebrew words: tmuth & muth. The first tmuth is translated in Hebrew interlinears as "you shall die," and muth is translated "to die," or together, "to die, you shall die." Here are a couple of translations who follow the Hebrew very closely:

"to die shall you BE DYING" ( Concordant Literal Old Testament)

"the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed TO DIE"
(The New American Bible.)

And so clearly, the Hebrew shows that on the very day that Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, they would not literally and physically die immediately, but that the process OF DYING would begin and would occur eventually. Now then, who told the Truth-the serpent or God? The answer is as simple as 1, 2, 3, 4:

[1] God told Adam if he sinned, he would die: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, AND HE DIED" (Gen. 5:5.)

[2] Does everyone sin? "For ALL have sinned..." (Rom. 3:23.)

[3] What does sin bring? "For the wages of sin is DEATH..." (Rom. 6:23.)

[4] Will all born of Adam die? "For as in Adam ALL DIE..." (I Cor. 15:22.)


But is this what the Christian Church teaches regarding sin and death? No, no it isn't. They have, in fact, translated some Scriptures to say the diametric opposite of what God has told us. Notice how the King James and many modern Bibles translate the following verse:

"And whosoever lives and believes in Me shall NEVER DIE. Believe you this?" (John 11:26.)

Wait a minute; wait a minute; wait a minute! What, pray tell, is going on here?

God told Adam that if he sinned then he would be dying until he ultimately died. And we have Scripture on that. Paul informs us that all mankind has sinned, and that the wages of sin is death. Furthermore we are told by inspiration of God's Holy Spirit that ALL in Adam will die. Then we read a verse in the King James Bible which boldly states that those who believe in Christ (even though they too have sinned,) "...will NEVER DIE."

God told Adam, "you shall SURELY DIE." The Serpent then said to Eve, "you shall NOT SURELY DIE." Does everyone agree that the serpent contradicted God? Does the serpent's statement agree or disagree with the statement of God? The serpent contradicts God, doesn't he? Yes, of course he does. This is extremely elementary. But... BUT, John 11:26 states in the King James, that whosoever believes in Jesus, "shall NEVER DIE." Now then, to whose statement does "shall NEVER DIE agree? Does it agree with God's statement "shall SURELY DIE," or with the serpent's statement, "shall NOT SURELY DIE?" Houston, we have a problem.

Did Jesus say one thing to Adam back in the Garden and then contradict Himself in His teaching of John 11:26? Does Jesus "change?" No. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and for ever" (Heb. 13:8.) Not only does the serpent's statement contradict God's statement, but according to the King James, even Jesus Christ contradicts God's statement. Surely this cannot be. Remember all those statements of God regarding "adding to or taking from" the words of God? Well, I'm afraid the King James has done it again. Let's take a look at this phrase "shall never die" from John 11:26 in a Greek Interlinear:

If you have e-Sword, you can see that the word translated "never" is the translation of three Greek words, not just one. Does it really take three Greek words to represent our English word "never?" No it doesn't.

The Greek word oudeic means "not ever, none, nought" as in when Peter said to Jesus, "I will NEVER [#3762-- oudeic] be offended" (Matt. 26:33.) This word is translated "never" dozens of times in Scripture. However, in John 11:26 where we read "shall NEVER die," the word "never" is the singular word translation of three Greek words, not one of them being #3762, oudeic."

"So what," you say? So maybe it behooves us to see just what Greek words God used in this verse, that's what. This is one of those huge translation errors. This verse as recorded in the King James flat out contradicts God's statement back in the Garden, that's why.

The word "never" in John 11:26 is translated from:

#3364 = oume, "a double negative; not at all, neither, never, nor ever."

#1519 = ice, "to, into, throughout, for."

#165 = aion, "age."


Notice how more responsible translators have rendered this verse:

"...should by NO means BE DYING for the EON." ( Concorant Literal New Testament.) There is no phrase, "shall NEVER die."

"...NOT ever shall DIE to THE AGE." (Jay P. Green: Interlinear Greek-English New Testament-from the Interlinear, not the translation.) There is no phrase, " shall NEVER die."

"...NO one living and believing in Me, shall DIE to the AGE." ( Emphatic Diaglott.) There is no phrase, "shall NEVER die."

"...shall in ANYWISE DIE unto times AGE-abiding." ( Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.) There is no phrase, "shall NEVER die."

For sure, "All have sinned... the wages of sin is death... in Adam all die."

However, those "in Christ... should by no means be dying for the eon." And the reason is simple and Scriptural:

"...that He should give eonian life to as many as You have given Him"
(John 17:2)

And that:

"all which He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day" (John 6:39.)

Yes, we shall all die, but not for or through the eon. We will be raised and reign with Christ through the coming millennial eon (and beyond- "Know you not that we shall judge the world" (I Cor. 6:2.)

And so it should be clear to all, that there is no word "never" in this Greek verse.

And oh how the translators hate to deal with this powerful little word aion in this verse, but they completely leave out. As anyone can plainly see, there are times when the translators just pretend that this little word, aion, isn't even there. Theologians and preachers really hate when I expose things like this. No, I mean they really, really hate it. This verse in John 11:26 is one of their major "proof texts" by which they try to substantiate and legitimize their unscriptural pagan doctrine of the immortality of the soul, thus contradicting God's own statement in Gen. 2:17, "you shall surely die."

In verse 50 below, the phrase "...that a man may eat thereof, and NOT DIE," needs to be addressed, as this KJV translation sounds as though believers will not die, or maybe not EVER die. This assuredly is not the case.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on Me has everlasting life [Gk: 'eonian life'.] I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead ['and died'.] (John 6:47-49.)

This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and NOT DIE [Greek aorist {indefinite} = 'may not BE DYING'.] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever [Gk: 'eon'-for the age] ..." (Verses 50-51.)

...Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal [Gk: ' aionios/eonian,' not 'eternal'] life; and I will raise him up at the last day... (Verses 53-54.)

This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead ['and died'] : he that eats of this bread shall live for ever [Gk: 'for the eon'-age] " (Verse 58.)

These faulty translations "contradict sound doctrine" (Titus 1:9.)

Many may feel that verse 50 teaches clearly that a Believer will "not [ever] die." But are these verses really teaching that if we believe in Jesus and eat of Him, that we will never ever die? No, of course not. Bear with me for a few minutes, as what you are about to learn is of paramount importance.

The Jews insisted that, " it is written, He [God] gave them bread from heaven to eat" (John 6:31.) But how did Jesus respond to their statement and quotation from the Hebrew Scriptures?

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you NOT that bread from heaven; but MY Father gives you the true bread from heaven... I am the bread of life..." (Verses 32 & 35.)

Those who eat of Christ, "the bread of life," have life. What kind of life?

Verse 54 in the King James says "eternal life." But the Greek knows nothing of "eternal" life, but rather "eonian" life. Eonian life is a gift:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal [Gk: 'eonian'] life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23.)

But has any saint since Pentecost actually been given eonian life without ever dying first? No. What saith the Scriptures: "For in Adam all die..." (I Cor. 15:22.) What then is the only hope of ALL believers who die in Adam? Why the resurrection from the dead, of course. Pathetically and ironically, what most Christians consider a totally useless doctrine, Paul tells us is our only hope of ever living again after we die.

So do we enter eternal life upon death, as Christendom teaches? NO, let's read it:

"So also is the resurrection of the DEAD [notice please, that nowhere in Scripture does it speak of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the LIVING, or of the resurrection of the BODY] , it is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a SPIRITUAL body... the first Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [that would be Jesus] was made a quickening [living] SPIRIT " (I Cor. 15:42-46)

Not a quickening PHYSICAL body.

Notice that we are first made a "natural body." Adam (and all of his children-that's US,) did not have an "immortal soul," did he? His body was a "natural" body. Only Jesus was made a "living SPIRIT." It says so right here. Can the natural man with a natural body of flesh and blood ever enter into the Kingdom of God? "...flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" (Ver. 50.) Does the orthodox Christian Church teach that we will have PHYSICAL BODIES in the Kingdom of God? Yes, yes they do-but then again, none of their doctrines are from the Scriptures. "It is raised [from the dead] a SPIRITUAL BODY" (Ver. 44.)

Do these verses contradict the verses we have been reading in John 6? No, of course not. But didn't John 6:50 say, "...that a man may eat thereof [of Christ] , and NOT DIE?" The Believing Elect of God will not die as did the fathers in the wilderness who ate NOT of that true Bread from heaven. The answer is that we will " not die FOR THE EON" (John 11:26,) because we have "eternal [eonian] life in us" (John 6:54.)


How much eonian life do we have in us? Will we not ever die since we have "eonian life" abiding in us at present? Do we have Scripture on that? No we don't. But do we have a Scripture that says the amount of "life" which we do have in us is a sure promise that we WILL LIVE with Jesus throughout the coming eons? Yes we do:

" are sealed with that holy SPIRIT of promise ['promise' of WHAT?] which is the EARNEST [Gk: 'down payment or deposit'] of our [future] inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory" (Eph. 1:13-14.)

Well there it is, UNTIL the redemption of the purchased possession." And when do we get that? We were already reading about it in I Cor. 15. Let's read this entire section of Scripture as it is the whole plan of God from the creation of Adam down to the "redemption of the purchased possession" of the Few Chosen Elect Saints of God:

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

"As is the earthy, such are they also which are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have born the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep [According to Christendom, no one will ever sleep. They contradict by saying there is no such thing as sleep in death, but they lie: Psalm 13:3, 'Consider and hear me O my God...lest I sleep the sleep OF DEATH'] , but we shall all be changed [When? This is so important. WHEN shall we be changed? At the instant that all believers DIE? NO...] , In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump [Then, and only then, and at NO OTHER TIME IN HISTORY!] : for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead [The 'dead,' mind you, not the living, but the dead] shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed"

"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

This is the reason we continue to live after the eons are over. Not because we were promised something called "eternal or everlasting life," but because at the resurrection we will be given "incorruption and immortality," which means "death-less-ness."

"So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."

When? When will death be "swallowed up in victory?" When we die? Do people really die and go to heaven? Where do the Scriptures teach any such pagan doctrine? It is at "the resurrection of the dead" that death is swallowed up in victory, and not one second earlier. Then, we will literally " be saved" as all the Scriptures teach .

"O death, where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory?" Excuse me... 'Oh grave?' Oh really? Ten times the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek word "hades" to be used, and nine of those ten times the King James translates hades as "hell." But in this only solitary verse of I Cor. 15:55, they translated it "grave." Do you know why? I'll tell you why. Because theologians wanted to protect their pagan doctrine of eternal punishment in hades at all cost, even if that meant fraudulently being inconsistent with the Greek word "hades."

The translators did not want the people to know that there is "victory" over their unscriptural pagan hell, that's why! Read it:

"O death, where is your sting? O grave [hades] where is your victory?

The Greek "hades" is the Christian hell. But God is telling the whole world in this verse that hades will have no victory over the dead. The saints are redeemed from hades, as did David also attest:

"But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave [Heb: 'power of sheol,' and Strong defines the Hebrew word 'sheol' as the Greek word 'hades'] ..." (Psalm 49:15.)

There is REDEMPTION from sheol/hades, and there will be NO VICTORY for sheol/hades, and this is no small part of the "Good News Gospel" which the Church of Babylon has hid from the eyes of all Christendom. You are now learning the Truth of God's Scriptures, not the evil pagan fantasies of Christendom.

Now then, back to John 6 once more. Do all these Scriptures we just read in I Corinthians 15 (which totally contradict the "die and go to heaven" myth of Christendom) agree with what we were reading about "NOT DIE" and "by no means should be DYING FOR THE EON" in John 6:50 and 11:26? Absolutely.

There is a phrase in John 6 that Jesus repeats several times. A phrase that Christian theologians and preachers and teachers seem to be oblivious to, and yet, that phrase pin-points the exact time WHEN our "eonian life" will begin, and it agrees word for word with I Corinthians 15 and the rest of the Bible. Notice the verses of Scripture leading up to John 11:26 already discussed. What do the Scriptures tell us will happen "at the last day?" Verse 24 answers it

"Martha said unto Him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day" (John 11:24.)

The "last day" is the "the resurrection" from the dead. Next notice how Jesus answered her:

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in Me, though he were dead [Margin reads: 'may die'] , yet shall he live: And whosoever lives and believes in Me shall never die [Gk: 'should by no means be dying for the eon.] Believe you this?" (Verses 25-26.)

Now if everyone reading this in the King James does not see a blatant contradiction, then they must be blind. Notice what the King James says:

[1] If someone believes in Christ and then dies, yet shall he live, contradicts:

[2] If someone believes in Christ, he will never die.

Am I going to fast for any one?

I apologize for the length of these rather technical sections on the Scriptures, but I am trying to make it as simple as I can. We are now really getting down to the nuts and bolts; the nitty and the gritty of True Scriptural Doctrine. The Scriptures tell us that the Kingdom of the Heavens is like a treasure hid in a field. This parable tells us that the spiritual treasures of God's Word must be sought after with great diligence. People don't let treasures lying around in open fields for all to take at their leisure.

And remember it is God Who has hidden these spiritual treasures. The Church does not believe that these treasures are hidden at all. That is why they are deceived by their unscriptural belief that the Bible is to be taken "literally," and that everything is only understood in "context, context, context." They refuse to believe that Jesus spoke in parables to hide the meaning of His teachings. They refuse to believe that it is God Himself who deceives the false prophets:

"And if the prophet be deceived when he has spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet" (Ezek. 14:9.)

Stay with it. Don't give up, thinking that this is too complicated. Read it over and over and over again, and it will begin to show crystal clear.


Let's be clear that the believing saints of Paul's day who had previously passed away, were absolutely dead when Paul speaks of them.

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive [How can they be made alive if as John 11:26 says in the King James, that those in Christ 'never die?'.] But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's [These are those who belong to and believe in Christ. But when are we told this 'afterward' will be? At the time of the death? No. Let's read it...] at His coming" (I Cor. 15:22-23.)

And just when is this "resurrection of the dead" for the saints who "are Christ's?" We read it above. Martha said it: " at the last day." And so the phrase "at the last day," and "at His coming," are one and the same event.

Where do we read in Scripture that at death or in death we "shall put on immortality?" Or that at death or in death we will, "be like Him?" Or where do we read that "to be absent from the body IS to be present with the lord" There is no such Scripture. That Scripture is virtually always misquoted. These things do not happen at death or in death or immediately after death. Yes, it is true that, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels...," but it is not the fullness of what we shall be.

We already read that:

" were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the EARNEST [the 'earnest' is the down payment or interest only] of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory" (Eph. 1:13a & 14.)

The word "until" is a time word meaning "indicating the point reached"-Strong's Greek Dictionary. Well when do the Scriptures clearly tell us this "point is reached?" Certainly not at death, in death, or shortly after death. No, here is the clear Scriptural truth as to when our indicated point of redemption is reached and we will finally be fully "like Him," not as an earnest or down payment, but rather paid in full.

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be [If not now, when? At or in death? No...] : but we know that when He shall APPEAR, we shall BE LIKE HIM: for we shall see Him as He is" (I John 3:2.)

There is our answer. So much for the pagan theory about immortal souls flying off to heaven at death.

Now back to John 6 once more. So when then are those who are said to "have eternal [Gk: 'eonian'] life," really given eonian life in full? When they die, at their death, as orthodoxy teaches? The reason John could give us the answer in I John 3:2 is because John heard it first hand himself directly from Jesus Christ Himself. In fact, Jesus told them when this event would be four separate times.

[1] "And this is the Father's will which has sent Me, that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again [At the resurrection from the DEAD] at the last day" (John 6:39.)

[2] "And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on Him, may have everlasting ['eonian'] life [When? Now? At their death? NO...] and I will raise him up [At the resurrection from the DEAD] at the last day" (John 6:40.)

[3] No man can come to Me, except the Father which has sent Me, draw him: and I will raise him up [At the resurrection of the DEAD] at the last day" (John 6:44.)

[4] Whoso eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal [Gk: 'eonian'] life; and I will raise him up [At the resurrection of the DEAD] at the last day" (John 6:54.)

John was fully aware of the true facts regarding their own death and when and what event they would be raised from the dead. Did John himself believe that he would "never die" as the translators pervert God's Word in the very gospel account attributed to John in Chapter 11:26? No. Let's read John's own account of his own death.

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee... another shall gird thee, and carry thee where you [Peter] would not. This spoke He, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, He said unto him, Follow me" (John 21:18.)

Did not Peter believe in Christ so that according to the King James wording in John 11:26 he "...shall never die?" NO. Notice that Jesus Himself signified " what death he [Peter] should glorify God." Continuing...

"Then Peter, turning about sees the disciple whom Jesus loved [that's John] following: which also leaned on the breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrays you? Peter seeing him said to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus said unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to you? Follow you Me.

Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple [John] should not die: [But was this saying abroad true? No it wasn't.] yet Jesus said NOT unto him, He shall not die [There it is: Jesus did NOT say that John would "not die." Jesus didn't say it here, and neither did He say it back in Chapter 11:26 either] : but, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to you?"

Here then we have a verse that plainly states that Jesus never said that John would not die. And if John, Christ's favorite Apostle, would die, then who pray tell would be those so highly qualified in John 11:26, who would "never die?" Everyone dies, but the Elect will not die [into, for, or through the eon.]

Did John in fact live until Jesus would "come?" Why yes He did. Many years later, in the spirit, John did indeed see Jesus come:

"And I [John] saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse, and He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True... And out of His mouth goes a sharp sword that with it He should smite the nations; and He shall rule them with a rod of iron... And He has on His vesture and on His thigh a name written, KINGS OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS..." (Rev. 19:11-16.)

John indeed, did tarry till he saw Jesus come. Any questions? God doesn't lie; the Scriptures don't lie; but sometimes the translators do make mistakes. Jesus never said to anyone ever that they "shall never die."

Listen to what God says through Ezekiel:

"...for why will ye DIE, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the DEATH of him that DIES, says the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and LIVE ye" (Ezek. 18:31b & 32.)

Can we not see that God contrasts life with death, not life with ETERNAL TORTURE IN FIRE? Why would God be so concerned over them "dying," if what in reality was going to happen to them was that they would "be tortured eternally in a hell fire?" Is there anyone out there who has his brain in gear while I am giving you all of these hundreds of Scriptural truths?


God said: "to die, you shall surely be dying," (Gen. 2:17) and "Adam... DIED" (Gen. 5:5.) Paul said that "For ALL have sinned," and that "The wages of sin is DEATH..." And therefore: " Adam ALL DIE..." (I Cor. 15:22.) What theologian calling himself a Christian would deny these profound Scriptural statements of Truth?

Well, now that you asked, I'll give you one such example. Recently I turned the channel to TBN, while Jack Van Impe was on. I thought I heard the statement, "we never die." I thought maybe I didn't hear it correctly so I spent the twenty bucks for the DVD to be sure of what I heard. Sure enough, in this DVD entitled "BEYOND THE GRAVE," here is the statement: "Once we are born we NEVER DIE." Followed by this statement: "That soul, that spirit goes on to live forever."

What can I say to that unscriptural nonsense except, Oh really? By the way, although Jack claims to have tens of thousands of Scripture Verses memorized, not one verse was quoted to back up either of these quotations from his program. And how is it even possible that the "soul and spirit" can be confused as to be one and the same thing. Let me give you a Scripture verse on that:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit..." (Heb. 4:12.)

Clearly, the soul and the spirit are two different things which can be separated one from the other. I'll bet that Jack even has this verse memorized. But of what value is it to memorize these verses and not teach or believe what they say?

God said to Adam: : "you shall SURELY die" (Gen. 2:17)


The serpent said: "you shall NOT surely die" (Gen. 3:4.)

Theologians say: "you shall NOT surely die."

Christianity says: "you shall NOT surely die."

King James says: "you shall NEVER die" (John 11:26.)

Van Impe says: "Once we are born we NEVER die."

So who ya gonna believe?

The whole orthodox Christian Church teaches that man's soul is "immortal."

Albeit God contradicts the whole Christian World by saying, "you shall surely die." Man is not immortal. Man has no immortal soul. God only, and "only He has immortality" (I Tim. 6:16.)

I will now put the final Scriptural nail in the coffin of the "immortal soul" doctrine. I will now give you a Scripture that states that there was no such thing as an "immortal" soul, or an immortal anything concerning man in the Old Testament Scriptures. Certainly there is such a thing as "immortality," but it assuredly is not something that any man save Jesus has ever possessed:

Who has saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His Own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is NOW made manifest by the APPEARING of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Who has abolished death [no one abolished death in the Old Testament] , and has brought life and IMMORTALITY TO LIGHT THROUGH THE GOSPEL" (II Tim. 1:9-10.)

There it is. It is ONLY through the teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that the knowledge of a coming "immortality" for mankind was made known, and even then, it is something that is yet future; something that must be "put on" at the time of the resurrection of the dead (I Cor. 15:53,) not something that any sinning human has ever possessed.

We read in II Cor. 11:3 that the serpent beguiled or deceived Eve in the garden. How did he do this? Did the serpent merely state, "you shall not surely die," and Eve said, "Okay Mr. Serpent, I'm deceived, really, really deceived, so let me eat an apple now"? No, Paul says that the serpent beguiled her by his "subtlety," that is his craftiness, his trickery.

The serpent made Eve think that she already possessed immortality within herself, and therefore told her, "you shall NOT surely die," whereas God plainly told them that eating of the tree of knowledge would cause them to die.


People ask if I have a "creed." I tell them, no, and that I have never read a creed or statement of faith which was Scripturally true. The most famous of all creeds is "The Apostles Creed." Actually, all of the Apostles would turn over in their graves if they knew what unscriptural trash is being attributed to them. The second to the last line reads: "I believe... in the resurrection of THE BODY." Well, I don't. The Scriptures don't. The Apostles didn't. Jesus didn't.

In Scripture we read of, "the resurrection OF THE DEAD" fifteen times. We read of "the resurrection... of the just and unjust," "resurrection of life," "resurrection of judgment," "the resurrection of Christ," but we never ever read of "the resurrection of the BODY."

So why doesn't the "Apostles Creed" say, "I the resurrection OF THE DEAD" instead of the body? Because the orthodox Christian Church doesn't believe that we EVER DIE, that's why: "And the serpent [Satan the devil] said unto the woman, You shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4.) Who would ever believe the devil's lie over the Truth of God: " shall surely die" (Gen. 2:`7)? Who? Who, you ask? Who would be so incredibly foolish as to believe Satan over God? Why the entire worldwide orthodox Christian Church, that's who.

Yes, the world's first recorded lie is still believed by the majority of the human race including the world of Christendom. What about you- what are you now going to believe? You now have a choice between truth or tradition-which will you choose? It is far more fearful for most to leave the bosom of the Babylonian Whore than it is to turn their backs on their God and Saviour! When most are faced with Scriptural Truth of Pagan Tradition, most are quick to choose ungodly, unholy, unscriptural pagan tradition.

We will now continue tracing the history of this Satanic lie regarding man's condition and whereabouts after death. The very bedrock of Christian doctrine regarding the fate and condition of the dead is traced back to the nation whose very name is synonymous with SIN:

"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city [Jerusalem] , which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified" (Rev. 11:8.)

And the first of these three was Egypt.


Here is one Egyptian version of the origin of the universe: "From the beginning there was nothing but a water chaos called Nun, and from that came the god Atum, who had created himself. He made the earth god Geb, and his sister (and wife) Nut, goddess of the sky. To hold up and fill the sky they had two children, the boy Shu, the god of the air, and a girl Tefnut, goddess of moisture and rain. This family of four was the very foundation upon which the world existed as they represented: earth, water, air and the sky" (Egyptian gods, By Ottar Vendel, p. 7)

There is an element of truth in this Egyptian creation theory. Notice that in the beginning there was nothing but Nun which is described as a "water chaos." Notice how the Concordant Version translated Gen. 1:2,

"Yet the earth became a CHAOS and vacant and darkness was on the surface of the submerged CHAOS."

Interesting that the Egyptians also start with a "watery CHAOS." And what of the Greeks and Romans? They too subscribed to this Chaos as the first thing that existed, which they called "The Womb of Darkness" from which sprang the first "Cosmic Egg." Only in Greece, they made an actual god out of this chaos.

In the Genesis account God creates the heavens and the earth, the earth is in chaos, God summons the light, forms the firmament, and raises the dry earth out of the waters. Egyptian mythology preserves hints of this truth. They start with the watery chaos, and then have the land rise up out of the chaos, which was the first spot, which the light from heaven shone on. They called this first piece of land, the Benben stone. And yes, it was in the shape of a pyramid. It was this pyramid-shaped Benben stone that would become prominent in Egyptians architecture being placed at the top of all obelisks which many historians and Egyptologists will clearly tell you is but a stylized erect phalic symbol.

The womb, the phallus, eggs, sex and fertility were at the very core of all ancient religions. And virtually all of these symbols have been passed on down through the Christian Church via the architecture of her temples and churches, her holy days and festivals, her symbols and mythology, and her doctrines.

In the place of the Creator God, the Egyptians placed man himself, "Atum," their first real god Atum united with the rising sun god Ra and together they later were joined to form Atum-Ra, who gave birth to the god Shu who, according to the Egyptians, supported the sky. In Greece he was known as Atlas who supported the whole earth on his shoulders. Shu's wife and sister was Tefnut who to the Greeks was Ephnis. Atum created Geb the earth god. To the Greeks he was Gaia the earth god. Geb's wife and sister was Nut, who was Rhea of the Greeks.

Geb and Nut gave birth to Nephthys who was Apharodite to the Greeks. Their second child was Osiris, the Dionysus and Hades of the Greeks. Osiris was the god of the Egyptian netherworld. Hades was the Greek god of the underworld.

Virtually all of the great gods of Egypt became the great gods of Greece and Rome. They invented a few characters of their own, but the main characters of Greek mythology come straight out of Egypt. And all of this is a matter of reams of documented history.

The lowest and worst part of hades is called "Tartarus" in Greek.

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Gk: 'tartaroo'] ..." (II Peter. 2:4.)

Tartaroo is the Greek tartarus. But tartarus is not from the Greek, it is EGYPTIAN. Tartarus comes from the Egyptian word "tartar," which had to do with the lamenting at Egyptian funerals when a loved one was forbidden burial across the lake.

The paradise of the Egyptians was called Elisout or Elisaeus, or the Fields of Reeds. When copied by the Greeks and Romans these areas of paradise were called the Elysian Fields. All of the major gods and goblins of the Egyptian netherworld were copied and reintroduced into Greek mythology. From there they were copied by the Romans, and then allowed to remain as part of the Roman Catholic Church, even though the theologians knew these practices and beliefs were pagan to the core.

God has sternly warned:

"Take heed to yourself that you be not snared by following them [the pagan nations] , after that they be destroyed from before you: and that you enquire NOT after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? EVEN SO WILL I DO LIKEWISE" (Deut. 12:30.)

And just why does God say they should NOT do such a thing? Here's why:

"Thou shall NOT do so unto the Lord your God: for [here comes the REAL reason from God's Own mouth...] EVER ABOMINATION to the Lord, which He HATES, have they done unto their gods, for even their sons and their daughters they have BURNT IN THE FIRE TO THEIR GODS" (Deut. 12:31.)

But SURELY the world of Christendom today would never, ever, ever have such an "ABOMINATION... which God HATES," in their arsenal of foundational, bedrock, fundamental doctrines, would they? Maybe it is time that we grow up and get our heads out of the sand. OF COURSE Christendom has these abominations which God hates in their most basic and necessary doctrines, but with one difference. They have taken this doctrine of the Canaanites burning their sons and daughters in fire to their gods to a level of total insanity.

What are we clearly told by Paul concerning the apostasized church of our day?

Paul said:

"...evil men and imposters seducers [Gk: 'imposters'] shall wax [grow] worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived" (II Tim. 3:13.)

These are those which Paul says:

"...shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (II Tim. 4:2-4.)

One cannot turn away from the truth, unless they once had the truth. This is speaking of the Church. But how has today's Church gotten worse and worse than burning their sons and daughter in fire? By teaching that their sons and daughters will not be burned up in fire, as the Canaanites did, but by teaching that their sons and daughters will BURN IN FIRE FOR EVER! Here is but one proof of such "damnable heresy" (II Pet. 2:1) in today's Church:

"...every BOY and every GIRL who dies without knowing Jesus Christ spends AN ETERNITY IN A CITY WHERE THE FIRE IS NEVER QUENCHED and the worm dieth not." (Directly quoted from John Hagee's Sermon entitled: "The Seven Wonders of Hell.")

John Hagee says of this eternal torture for boys and girls with Jesus Christ in fire, that, "IT'S JUSTICE."

I have been accused of being a "Calvinist." Let me now personally and publicly denounce his damnable theology as rank, unscriptural heresy.

Calvin had the same doctrine of children, apparently, as John Hagee and others:

"How did it come to pass that the fall of Adam, without remedy, should involve so many nations, with their INFANT CHILDREN, in eternal death [by which he means eternal torture in fire], but because of the will of God? It is a horrible decree, I confess!" ( Calvin's Institutes, Book III, c. 23, 7.)

Read the following quotation from Thayer's Paper, and weep:

"'The condemnation of the CHILDREN dying without having been baptized," says the Catholic Bossuet, "is an article of firm faith of the church. They are guilty, since they die in the wrath of God, and in the powers of darkness.. Children of wrath by nature, objects of HATRED AND AVERSION, CAST DOWN TO HELL with the OTHER DAMNED, they remain there EVERLASTINGLY subject to the HORRIBLE VENGEANCE OF THE DEVIL.' Thus the learned Denis Peteau has decided, as well as the most eminent Bellarmin, the Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence, and the Council of Trent."

Whereas Calvin himself calls this damning of the children "a horrible decree," modern follower of Calvinism, Dr. James Kennedy, has euphemized Calvin's "horrible decree" down to "Hell is FAIR." I am not sure how any modern followers of Calvin can euphemize his burning of Christian believers at the stake. What hideously evil men John Calvin and Martin Luther were.

And Christians by the thousands ask who I think I am that I should be judging such prominent theologians? I don't judge them, I just expose their damnable heresies as I have just done one more time.


The earliest Egyptian myths concerning creation range from the fanciful and bizarre to hints of the actual Biblical record. Different regions of the Nile Valley had their own individual gods of creation. Here are a few:

ATUM is said to have created everything including himself (figure that one-I will not, however, tell you how he supposedly did it, as it is rather disgusting.) He then was said to create woman from some flesh off of his own hand.

THOTH was the creator according to a myth from Upper Egypt. He first created four frogs and four snakes.

PTAH the god from Lower Egypt made the world by simply speaking the words, and the land rose up from the sea. Notice how close this really is to the Biblical account in Genesis.

KHEPER is said to have made all the gods from out of his own body.

KHNUM from Aswan in the south is said to have made the world and its first people on a potter's wheel, by taking mud from the Nile. Once again, we have a few hints of the truth in this myth.

AMON like Atum created everything including himself at the beginning of time.

RE from Heliopolis is said to have created the world by using a tear from his eye.

No Egyptian myth suggests that any of their gods always existed. Each supposedly came into existence at some time in the remote past.

Understand that virtually all Egyptian myths are fanciful, exaggerated, contradicting, convoluted, and bizarre. One can go nuts trying to sort it all out or trying to put things into some kind of chronological order. Here's another widely accepted Egyptian myth concerning the beginning of creation:

The sky goddess Nut is pictured as a female figure in blue, covered with stars. Her toes are touching one horizon, with her body arched forward and her fingers touching the other horizon. Her body thus produces the arched starry sky of heaven. Her arched torso is held up by her son Shu, (god of the air,) who stands on his prone father Geb, who is the god of earth.

Each morning Shu turns into a pig and she eats up all the stars. Each evening she rebirths all the stars back into the heavens again. This she does every morning and evening.

The sun god Ra ruled the day. He is pictured as a man with the head of a bird with a red disc representing the sun, on his head, with a cobra's head poking out. Ra was maybe the main god of Egypt from the fifth dynasty until the end of the dynasties. While in other parts of Egypt such gods as Aman ruled supreme. Later on these two gods would be united and worshipped as Aman-Ra.

What, you might ask, has this pagan Egyptian nonsense to do with the Christian teaching of "endless punishment?" Everything-this fantastic, comical, absurd pagan religion of the Egyptians is the bedrock foundation for the most basic of Christian doctrines and heresies. This stupid religion is the basis for fundamental Christian teachings. The [1] immortal soul, [2] judgment at death, [3] entrance into a paradise for some, and [4] never-ending punishments for others, were the fundamental elements of Egyptian paganism, and they are likewise the fundamental elements of Christian doctrine.


Look a little further into the pagan Egyptian religion, and maybe you will begin to see why the Christian religion is one of absurd and evil contradictions, unscriptural practices, and square circles. Recall that Geb and Nut gave birth to Osiris. We will stick with Osiris for a bit, as he figures prominently in the death/heaven/hell scenario.

The Osiris myth claims that Orisis was the first King of Egypt. His goddess queen, Isis, was also his sister. Osiris taught the Egyptians how to worship the gods and how to live. Osiris had a brother named, Set. Although Osiris had a human body and a human head, as did Isis, his sister/queen, Set on the other hand, had a human body but the head of an unknown animal (slightly similar to a jackal.)

Now I know that some of you are going to start wondering just where this whole thing is going and why am I taking you there. Simple: I want to show you where the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and judgment at death, and two destinies of either heaven or hell upon death, came from. And I want to impress you with the utter stupidity involved in the formulation of these doctrines by the very worst of the ancient pagans, the very nation whose name is synonymous with SIN-EGYPT.

One day Osiris held a feast and his son Set brought a beautiful coffin that he had made. Set promised to give the coffin to the person whose body fit into it the best. Osiris tried first (as in fact Set crafted the coffin so as to fit Osiris perfectly.) When Osiris got in, Set and his servants quickly closed the lid and nailed it shut. They then threw it into the Nile. Later, Osiris' grieving wife Isis, heard of a marvelous tree that sprung on the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean, that a king used to build a palace. Isis heard that this was the spot where her husband Osiris came ashore in his coffin. She traveled there and got a job as hairdresser for the queen. Having access to the palace, she searched until she found the coffin.

By night she managed to get the coffin on a boat headed for Egypt. Upon arrival she hid it in the marshes of the Nile delta. She opened the coffin for one farewell evening with her husband, but Set was hiding and watching. When Isis went to sleep for the night, Set took his brother's Osiris' body and cut it into fourteen pieces and spread them all over Egypt. Isis enlisted the help of her son Anubis and her sister Nephthys to find the fourteen pieces of her husband. After many years they found all the pieces but one (yes, that one,) which was eaten by a fish, so Isis made one out of wood, and then put the whole body back together again. She also "erected" (yes, that is the proper word) stone phallic symbols all over Egypt as reminders to everyone what part of Osiris was missing and which they were to be on the lookout for. More of that in Part D.

Isis then asked the sun god Ra to bring him back to life for just one night of love making, which he did. The next day Osiris died again and was embalmed by Anubis becoming the world's first mummy. Later Isis gave birth to a son named HORUS. Set turned himself into a snake and nearly killed Horus. So Isis and her son hid in the marshes until he was grown, whereupon Set once more tried to kill him. They fought for three days when Troth (the god of wisdom and all that good stuff) stopped the fight and took them both to the Underworld to the Court of Law. There it was found that Set was a liar and was sentenced to pulling "The Boat of Millions of Years" across the watery heavens forever. (I guess to the Egyptians, millions of years were equal to forever.) Horus then ruled as king of Egypt.

I have already shown you several versions as to how the first humans were made. Next I will try and pull all of these gods together and show how they all figure into the Underworld and what happens when humans go there at death.


There were different places in Egypt that had "sacred lakes." Lake Acherusia near Memphis may have been the model for this custom. According to Diodorus there were judges or assessors who would determine the character of the deceased persons, and to determine the day of burial. This judgment took place on the shore of such a lake (the burial tombs being on the other side.) Forty-two judges were appointed for this task. Anyone could then bring charges against the deceased person. If the judges deemed the person to be evil, he would be denied the journey across the lake for burial.

If the accusations could not be substantiated, or if there were no witnesses against the deceased, then the relatives could eulogize their loved-one with praise, prayer and supplications to the gods of the underworld so as to have him received into the society of the blessed. The multitude assembled acclaimed him of excellent character and asked that he be joined into the regions of Amenti (the Hades of the Greeks.) They would then put him into a boat and ferry him across the lake to his burial site or sepulcher.

Should he be found guilty of evils in his life, however, he would be refused immediate transfer across the lake and would be taken to the home of the deceased and propped against the wall for a period of time during which prayers were offered (and of course a little money under the table for the priests to shorten this purgatory period.)

This, unfortunately, was not their only judgment. No, there's more. Upon entering the Underworld or Netherworld, the deceased would be judged again at the Court of Osiris (remember the fourteen piece, minus one, husband of Isis.) Well it seems that Osiris became the head honcho in the Underworld. This place of judgment was known as "The Island of Fire." It was not an easy task to even get to the Court of Osiris. One had to pass many gates, doors, and tricky passages to get there. One had to answer questions, know the names of the gods, secret formulas, and the like before one would be allowed to pass through.

After getting through the various gates successfully, the lion god, Aker, would take him through the last gate where he would face the fourteen members of a jury in The Tribunal Hall. There he would be allowed to give his version of his life on earth. Next we are introduced to Anubis (originally a god from Abydos in Upper Egypt, later a son of the sun god Ra, and still later a son of Osiris,) who is pictured as a man with the head of a black jackal. He takes the deceased into the courtroom where his heart is weighed on a balance scale, and recorded by the god of wisdom, Throh. Anubis is the god of cemeteries and embalming.

If the deceased heart was not too heavy with sins during his life, he would then be brought before the throne of Osiris who would grant that he could pass through and continue his voyage to the afterlife, where he would be granted a plot of land in the "Field of the Reeds." This field of reeds was the paradise of the ancient Egyptians. Here they would grow crops, drink beer, and live a life of plenty similar to their farms and homes along the Nile River Valley.

Should the heart be heavy with earthly sins, however, the beast Ammut, who sat under the scale, would gobble up his heart, and he would then be brought before Osiris who would pronounce the worst possible fate for an Egyptian. Right here, however, we have two teachings. According to some Egyptian mythology, if a person were not extraordinarily wicked, he would be given a sort of purgatory where his soul would be put into the body of another, or an animal. According to Wilkinson, "the souls which underwent transmigration were those of men whose sins were of sufficiently moderate kind to admit of that purification; the unpardonable sinner being condemned to ETERNAL FIRE," which Thayer points out to mean "never ending fire," as they had no one word to represent "eternal."

And so we see the "heaven and hell" doctrine of the Protestant Christians, and the "heaven and hell or purgatory" of the Catholic Christians, being taught by the Ancient Egyptians long before there were any such things as Old Testament or New Testament Manuscripts.


Here's another option to the Field of Reeds for those judged righteous in Osiris' Court. In place of a parcel of land similar to their home on the Nile, those worthy souls deemed righteous by the gods could be passengers on The Boat of Millions of Years, riding with the sun god Ra.

It appeared a simple fact to virtually all ancient peoples that the Sun traveled across the sky from the Eastern horizon to the Western horizon. The sun was warm, and gave light, and therefore understandable that God-rejecting pagans would consider the sun to be a god. Not just an orb of fire, but an actual god. And so, they developed a complicated and extremely stupid set of doctrines regarding this sun god that they named Ra.

Since the sky is blue like the waters of the sea, they believed that the upper sky was water. They believed that the sun traveled across an ocean of water every day. Believing that the sun was also a fire, they quickly figured out that an orb of fire in an ocean of water would be extinguished. Hence, they put the sun and Ra the sun god in a boat to keep it dry from the watery sky. This open reed boat (much like the reed boats along the Nile) was pulled across the sky every day by the evil god Set, the brother of Osiris and Isis. On board were the gods Geb (the earth god) and Heka plus the companions of Hu and Sia. Hu was a minor god created by Ra to help fight the evil spirits on their daily journey across the sky. Sia is mentioned in "The Book of the Dead" as having the position of protecting the private parts of the dead.

In the very center of the boat was a huge scarab beetle holding up the sun disk above his head. The Egyptians observed that scarab beetles rolled round balls of dung along the ground, which came to symbolize the round disc of the sun. This beetle was known by the name Kheper. He was the god of rebirth. At the prow the god Upuaut navigated by night, assisted by pilot fish Abtu and Ant who swam in front of the boat. How stupid, you say.

The daytime journey across the sky was not as perilous as the night journey through the underworld, but it too had its problems. There was always the threat of the evil snake-crocodile coming up out of the heavenly sea and attacking the boat and its passengers. The myth of the daily voyage of Ra the sun god across the heaven was a type of allegory of the struggles of man down on the earth. Just making it through the day was not only a constant struggle for man, but even for their gods. It is hard to imagine anyone desiring such a monotonous eternity.

How stupid, you say. How stupid? Are you kidding, this is the stuff of which Christian Doctrines are made. These stupid Egyptian myths are the very bedrock of Christian doctrine. It is from Egypt that the Greeks and Romans borrowed their pagan doctrines, which have now been palmed off to the Christian Church as being BIBLICAL! Don't laugh at these stupid myths of the Egyptians, for they are very building blocks of major Christian doctrines. Everlasting punishment, immortal souls, heavens and hells, judgments at death, mansions in the sky, physical bodies, and happy hunting grounds, are but the trappings and paraphernalia of Christian doctrine.


At death, an Egyptian had several options as to where or how he would live in his paradise. For one, he could expect to live in the area of his tomb, or among the stars, in the celestial regions with the sun god Ra, or in the Underworld in the Fields of Reeds with their little farm and servants. Once again, these ideas have come down to us in many cultures. The American Indians looked forward to their "Happy Hunting Grounds." A Jehovah's Witness flyer reminded me of the happy hunting grounds of the Indians, but it is also very close to what Christians picture their fabled planet heaven to be like. All of these tales, myths, and Christian doctrines of heaven are but a desperate attempt to reject the realm of the spirit and hang onto the realm of the physical, the FLESH.

They care not that the Scriptures plainly teach that

"Flesh and blood CANNOT inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption" (I Cor. 15:50.)

Yet telling an orthodox Christian that they will not have a physical body in their fabled physical heaven of the flesh is like telling a little child that there is no Santa Claus.

A Jehovah's Witness gave my wife a little flyer the other day which pictured a beautiful valley scene with children playing with bears and deers, people of different races conversing with one another, and still others picking luscious fruit in baskets, all with the hillsides dotted with modest cottages and homes. This is how they picture paradise, virtually identical to the pagan Egyptians and their Fields of Reeds and their little farms along the Nile of the Underworld. Many Christians picture something similar in a celestial setting on a rock planet in outer space with clouds, little naked winged Cupids, lush fields with trees and streams running through cities of streets paved with gold, and other such things.

Is any of this stuff Scriptural? No, of course not, It can all be traced back to the pagan religion of the pagan Egyptians. Just as the Egyptians believed that their soul continued to live at death without their body, so Christians teach this same unscriptural pagan doctrine. Just as the pagans wanted to be reunited with the physical flesh bodies in the Underworld, so too, do Christians believe and desire that their naked souls in heaven, will one day be united with a body of flesh once more. They want to be reunited with a PHYSICAL body in which to live for all eternity. Yet the Scriptures know of no such thing as living in physical bodies.

I hear theologians speak of the "resurrection of the BODY." Why they even make it a part of their grandest creeds, yet the phrase "resurrection of the body" is nowhere found in Scripture. It is the "resurrection of the DEAD" that is taught in Scripture. Dead PEOPLE will be resurrected, not dead BODIES. And our new resurrected bodies will be SPIRITUAL, and not physical (I Cor. 15:44.)

Jesus took on several different forms for the sake of those He appeared to after His resurrection. Mary thought He was the gardener. The men going to Emmaus didn't know who they walked with, at the seaside the apostles knew it must be Jesus, but they didn't dare ask; and once He appeared in the body in which He was crucified so that the Apostles would know for sure that it is He. But I assure you that Jesus will not live through eternity in a physical body symbolizing SIN; and to add insult to injury, a body that is full of holes. What foolishness.


The Egyptians were way ahead of today's science (or maybe rather: science-fiction.) They mummified their bodies for the express purpose of preserving their bodies forever. It was essential that they have physical bodies in the hereafter. Poor people unable to afford the expense of mummification could substitute little figurines to take the place of an embalmed body. The wealthy Pharaohs built huge pyramids that are now referred to as "Resurrection Machines."

Little did the Egyptians, or the apostate Church realize that the body does not exist independent of spirit. Without the spirit from God united with the body, no body will ever live. It is the spirit that gives life, not the soul. Man only becomes a living soul after God adds the SPIRIT. This is theology 101; however, not one orthodox seminary on earth understands or believes this Scriptural truth.


Did you ever wonder why it is that so many Christians are almost violently opposed to our teaching that exposes the trinity theory? Just why is the trinity the bedrock of all Christian doctrines along with the immortal soul and judgment upon death theory? Because man desperately wants to believe that he too is a "trinity" composed of three separate entities of body, soul, and spirit in one being, and that he is really immortal even though his physical body will die. Virtually every pagan religion in the world believes man is immortal, as are the gods. It is too frightening for them to believe that when they die, they are really dead, and that they will remain dead until or unless God resurrects them back to life.

Did the ancient Egyptians believe in the trinity of man: body, soul, and spirit? Yes, of course they did. The soul of man, called Ba, was the consciousness of the man and dwelled inside the body. The spirit-like aspect of man was called Ka. The Ka was like an invisible spirit double of the man. Both the Ka and the Ba where present in every human at birth. The Ba (soul) was pictured as a bird with the head of a man. Every evening the Ba could leave the mummy body and return back to earth among the living and check on friends and relatives. This is how the dead could keep in contact with the living. This is in fact the same hocus-pocus that mediums use to deceive people into believing that one can communicate with their dead loved ones.

There is more superstition and witchcraft in some Christian doctrines than any theologian would ever admit to. The souls of people do not go to a heaven or hell upon death. Such doctrines are straight out of the tombs of the Pagan Egyptians.

This trinity of man and immortality of the soul nonsense is Egyptian (SIN,) not Scriptural (RIGHTEOUSNESS.)


ETERNITY: Make no mistake about it, the Protestant Church has and always will bow to the authority of the Roman Church. No matter how many adjustments, additions, or deletions they make to their Roman heritage, they are still, nonetheless, Roman to the core. Every time you open your King James Bible and believe that its pages are "inerrant," you bow to the Catholic Church.

"Eternity" is not an Hebrew word, neither is it Greek, nor English. Then why is it found in your King James Bible? Who put it there and from where did it come?

Our [now] English words "eternal" and "eternity" come from the Latin word aevum. Dictionaries define this word as meaning, "lifetime, life, age, mankind living at a particular time." From aevum comes aeviternus� and the adjective aeternus which is our English word eternal. The doctrine of "everlasting punishment" is based on this LATIN word borrowed from the CATHOLIC Vulgate Bible.

I said that "everlasting punishment" is NOT SCRIPTURAL, but is based on the Latin word aeternus which comes directly out of the Catholic Vulgate Bible.

Satan is a master at what he does, and what he does is DECEIVE (Rev. 12:9.) How could Satan get the entire Church of Christ to believe in and worship the rank paganism of sinful Egypt? By writing manuscripts discrediting God's Word?

By getting men to accuse God falsely? By getting a bunch of kids to start churches of Satanism? No, nothing so elaborate. Such things are but smoke screens. All Satan did to change the ENTIRE Word of God from something meaningful and marvelous into something dreadful and deplorable, was to change the meaning of one little word. ONE WORD, would "deceive the WHOLE WORLD" (Rev. 12:9.)

The doctrine came from Egypt, from where it was borrowed by the Greeks, and passed on to the Romans. In order for the Catholic Church to hold on to this pagan doctrine, so as to have almost supernatural power over the people by the use of this fear doctrine, they found it needful to find a way to interject this most damnable of all pagan doctrines into the very translation of the Scriptures themselves. This is the single most egregious sin against "man adding unto the things of God's word" in the history of God's recorded word.


Do the Protestants believe that they worship on the Day of the Sun because it is sanctioned in the Scriptures? How absurd. Here is why the Protestants worship on the Day of the Sun:

Most likely, somewhere on that marquee identifying which Church you attended will be a message giving the time and day of either worship services or mass. And on most churches, that day will be SUNDAY. And why are most Christian worship services held on the "day of the sun?" Not that believers, are to esteem one day above another (Rom. 14:5,) but it is interesting that most Christians around the world do worship on the day of the sun-Sunday.

The Catholic Church, that is the Roman Church, came out of pagan Rome. And the Romans celebrated the day of the sun as a day of festivities and pagan worship. It is therefore only natural that the Roman Church should adopt this pagan day of worship just as many other Roman aspects of pagan worship were incorporated into the Roman Catholic Church, and then passed on to the Protestant Churches.

The Lord's Day, Sunday, is not Scriptural, nor is it Protestant. It is Roman Catholic:

"Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord's Day, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be Judaizing [keeping God's commandment to keep the Sabbath], let him be anathema from Christ" ( A History of the Church Councils, by Charles J. Hefele, Volume 11, p.316.)

God said:

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy" (Ex. 20:8.)

But the Roman Catholic Church said, NO, you must profane the Sabbath day of God by working on it, and keep the Roman day of worship in the Day of the SUN-Sunday. And who is it that the Protestant World follows, God or the Roman Church? Why the Roman Church, of course.

Catholic Priest T. Enright, one-time president of Redemptorist Father's College (Kansas City,) in one of his lectures, as published in the Industrial American, Harlan, Iowa, referred to this decision made at the Council of Laodicea in the following excerpt:

"My brethren, look about the various wrangling sects and denominations. Show me one that claims or possesses the power to make laws binding on the conscience. There is but one on the face of the earth -the Catholic Church -that has the power to make laws binding upon the conscience, binding before God, binding under the pain of hellfire. Take, for instance, the day we celebrate - Sunday. What right have the Protestant churches to observe that day? None whatever. You say it is to obey the commandment, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' But Sunday is not the Sabbath according to the Bible and the record of time. Everyone knows that Sunday is the first day of the week, while Saturday is the seventh day, and the Sabbath, the day consecrated as a day of rest. It is so recognized in all civilized nations.

I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who will furnish proof from the Bible that Sunday is the day we are bound to keep, and no one has called for the money. If any person in this town will show any Scripture for it, I will tomorrow evening publicly acknowledge it and thank him for it. It was the Holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday, the first day of the week. And it not only compelled all to keep Sunday, but at the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, anathematised those who kept the Sabbath and urged all persons to labour on the seventh day under penalty of anathema. "Which church does the whole civilized world obey? Protestants call us every horrible name they can think of - anti-Christ, the scarlet-colored beast, Babylon, etc., and at the same time profess great reverence for the Bible, AND YET BY THEIR SOLEMN ACT OF KEEPING SUNDAY, THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THE POWER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH" (December 19, 1889.) (Emphasis are mine.)

And which ancient nation paid more homage to the Sun than any other? Why Egypt, of course. The Egyptian sun god, Re or Ra was worshiped everywhere in Egypt throughout its ancient dynasties. Once again, a major symbol of Christian worship traces its beginning back to pagan Egypt.

All of the worst religious teachings of pagan Rome are still in the Christian Church. The major Christian doctrines of who is man, what is man, what is man's purpose on earth, and what is man's eternal destiny, are believed by Catholics and Protestants alike, and all of them are pagan to the core. And all of them came from pagan Egypt, through pagan Greece, through pagan Rome, into the Church of Rome, through the King James Bible, and into the homes and lives of billions of unsuspecting Christians worldwide.


The architecture, holy days, and doctrines of the Church are pagan.

Here is what God warns against just such things:

"Thus says the Lord, LEARN NOT THE WAY OF THE HEATHEN..." (Jer. 10:2)

Deut. 12:30- "Take heed to yourself that you BE NOT SNARED BY FOLLOWING THEM, after that they be destroyed from before you, and that you enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? EVEN SO WILL WE DO LIKEWISE."

Lev. 20:23- "And YOU SHALL NOT WALK IN THE MANNERS OF THE NATION, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I ABHORRED them."

Lev. 18:3- "After the doings of the land of EGYPT, wherein you dwelled, SHALL YOU NOT DO: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, where I bring you, SHALL YOU NOT DO: neither shall you walk in their ordinances."


Since none of these things which the Jews of Jesus' day believed were taught in the Law of Moses, just where did the Jews learn of these pagan doctrines?

Most theologians are clearly deceived; however, not all are ignorant. Many theologians know at least some of the material I am presenting to you. But they don't want you to know or understand any of it. It has been the purpose of the ruling privileged elite to keep the masses at bay by evil indoctrinations, deceptions, and gross fear.

From Thayer's "Doctrine of Eternal Punishment," we read the following:

"Any one at all familiar with the writings of the ancient Greeks or Romans, cannot fail to not see how often it is admitted by them that the national religions were the INVENTIONS of the legislator and the priest, for the purpose of governing and restraining the common people [AKA-'The DUMB SHEEP'.] Hence, all the early lawgivers claim to have had communications with the gods, who aided them in the preparation of their codes.

The object of this SACRED FRAUD was to impress the minds of the multitude with religious awe, and command a more ready obedience on their part. Hence Augustine says, in his 'City of God,' 'This seems to have been done on no other account, but as it was the business of princes, out of their wisdom and civil prudence, TO DECEIVE THE PEOPLE IN THEIR RELIGION; princes, under the name of religion, persuaded the people to believe those things [to be] true, which THEY THEMSELVES KNEW TO BE IDLE FABLES; by this means, for their own ease in government, tying them the more closely to civil society,' B.iV 32."

There are countless Historians who have clearly come to see the fraudulent origins of most of today's religious doctrines (Christianity first and foremost.)

From Bishop Warburton:

"Hence, they [priests and lawyers] enforced the belief of a future state of reward and punishments by every sort of contrivance."

And it is EGYPT that is the originator of these gross and evil doctrines of eternal torture after death of the souls which supposedly cannot die.

The Egyptian priests and legislators invented these damnable heresies, and the Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans thought it was the best thing that ever happened to them since homemade chocolate fudge. What a clever and inexpensive way to keep the people in constant fear of their religious and civil leaders!

Historians have called Egypt, "The MOTHER OF SUPERSTITIONS." Does "Mystery Babylon the Great, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS, and the abominations of the earth" come to mind when you read that?

Greek and Roman lawyers, philosophers, and priests, acknowledge their indebtedness to Egypt in this respect, and freely credit her with the ORIGINAL INVENTION OF THE FABLES AND TERRORS of the invisible world; though it must be allowed that they have improved somewhat upon the hints given, and shown a wonderful inventive faculty of their own. (Paraphrased from some of Thayer's material.)

So, how did they keep the dumb sheep in line? By filling their heads with visions of eternal torture in fire if they didn't obey every whim of their religious and civil leaders.

"How LONG, ye simple ones [Heb: 'silly, seducible, foolish, na�ve'] will ye love simplicity [Heb: 'silliness, seductiveness, foolishness, na�vete'] ? And the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?" (Prov. 1:22.)

Yes, how true: "...fools HATE knowledge." I do my best to free people from the spiritual dictators over their lives, but often they not only hate the knowledge that I give them, but they also hate me for teaching them.

"My people have been lost sheep: THEIR SHEPHERDS HAVE CAUSED THEM TO GO ASTRAY..." (Jer. 50:6.)

Does even one in two billion Christians believe that this verse of Scripture is true? Oh, I almost forgot...this Scripture was written to only the physical Jews of old (we must always consult the Christian orthodox god of "context, context, context",) and therefore this verse has absolutely no relevance to the Church today. I speak as a fool:

"Now ALL THESE THINGS HAPPENED UNTO THEM [For example: 'The SHEPHERDS causing the sheep to go astray' under the Old Covenant] for examples [Of how the Shepherds are 'causing the sheep to go astray' under the New Covenant] and they are written for OUR ADMONITION [We who are 'Jews inwardly'-spiritual Jews (Rom. 2:29)] , upon whom the ends of the ages are come" (I Cor. 10:11.)

"The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means and My people LOVE TO HAVE IT SO..." (Jer. 5:31.)

Unbelievable... UNBELIEVABLE. I watch ministers on television use, and abuse, and accuse their congregations, over and over again. And do they get up and walk out? NO... they APPLAUD. That's right, they applaud the abuse of their ministers. "The priests bear rule by their means [by their forced coercion] , and they LOVE TO HAVE IT SO..."

Did the Church learn these pagans heresies from God or from Egypt?''

"WOE to the rebellious children, saith the Lord, that take counsel, but NOT OF ME; and that cover with a covering [Heb: 'devise a plan, weave a web'] , but not of My spirit, that they may add sin to sin: that walk to go down to EGYPT, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of EGYPT! Therefore shall the strength of Pharaoh be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt your CONFUSION...

That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceit. Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us" (Isa. 30:1-3 & 9-11.)

The prayer of Israel, and today's church, is to "cause the Holy One of Israel to CEASE FROM BEFORE US." Oh they don't consciously think that that is what they are praying for, but that is, nonetheless, what they want. They want "smooth things," they want their prophets to prophesy "deceit." They don't want the truth: "They can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

  • It was from Satan and then from the Egyptians that the Church got the teaching of an immortal soul, not from God.

  • It was from the Egyptians that the Church got the teaching that there is judgment at death, not from Moses.

  • It was from the Egyptians that the church learned the pagan teaching of entering a paradise at death, not from the Law or the Prophets.

  • It was from the Egyptians that the church learned of a never-ending punishment at death, not from the Hebrew Scriptures.


This next section is from Thayer's Doctrine of Endless Punishment, quoting many historians regarding the deceitful use of pagan doctrines of punishment.

"Greeks and Romans, Lawgivers and Philosophers, acknowledge their indebtedness to her in this respect, and freely credit her with the original invention of the fables and terrors of the invisible world; though it must be allowed that they have improved somewhat upon the hints given, and shown a wonderful inventive faculty of their own.

These records of the ancient Greeks, confirmed by the monuments as illustrated by modern scholars, open to us the origin of the doctrines of a judgment after death, and of future endless rewards and punishments, for the good or evil deeds of this life. From the Egyptians it passed, with suitable modifications, to the Greeks and Romans. Diodorus himself clearly shows that the fables of the Acherusian lake, of Hecate, Cerberus, Charon, and the Styx, have their original in these Egyptian ceremonies and doctrines.

And Professor Stuart, in a note to Greppo's Essay on Hieroglyphics, accepts the statement of Spineto, that the Amenti of the Egyptians originated the classic fables of Hades and Tartarus, Charon, Pluto, the judges of hell, the dog Cerberus, the Chimeras, Harpies, Gorgons, Furies, "and other such unnatural and horrible things with which the Greeks and Romans peopled their fantastic hell."

It is curious to note the exactness of the copy in many particulars.

  • The Egyptian Acherusia gives us the Greek Acheron, and perhaps Styx.

  • The Egyptian Tartar, significant of the lamentations of relatives over the dead refused burial on account of their wicked lives, furnishes the Greek Tartarus, where the wicked are punished.

  • The funeral boat across the lake, the ferryman, and the gold piece in the mouth of the dead, give rise to Charon, his boat, and fee, and the passage across the Styx into Hades.

  • The cemetery beyond the lake, surrounded by trees, called by the Egyptians Elisout or Elisaeus, is the original of the Greek Elysian Fields, the abode of the blessed.

  • The three infernal judges, Minos, Aeacus, Rhadamanthus, are borrowed from the Egyptian judges of the dead; and the heads of animals symbolizing these judges, mistaken by the Greeks, are changed into monster Gorgons, Harpies, Furies, &c.

But, as I have remarked, though the Greeks borrowed, they altered and improved. And, true to that individualism which was a marked a characteristic of that people, they are not satisfied with the Egyptian method of generalizing respecting the punishments of the wicked, but begin specifying particular sinners, and particular kinds of punishment adapted to particular offenses. Hence the fables of Ixion, Tantalus, Tityrus, &c., whose torments in the infernal regions are mentioned in the beginning of this chapter. Everything must be sharp, pointed, and dramatic, to suit the lively genius of the Greek; and the terrors of the invisible world must be presented in a way to strike the imagination in the most powerful manner, and produce some direct result on the individual and on society.

The whole thing is designed for effect, to influence the multitude, to restrain their passions, and to aid the magistrate and ruler in keeping them subject to authority. It is the invention of priests and lawmakers, who take this as the easiest method of governing the people. They claim the "right divine" to govern; claim that their laws originate with the gods, as we have shown above; and that, therefore, the gods will visit on all offenders the terrors and tortures of the damned. Hence, through the joint cunning of priest and legislator, of church and state, mutually supporting each the other, we have all the stupendous frauds and falsehoods respecting the invisible world."


Polybius, the historian, says:

"Since the multitude is ever fickle, full of lawless desires, irrational passions and violence, there is no other way to keep them in order but by the fear and terror of the invisible world; on which account our ancestors seem to me to have acted judiciously, when they contrived to bring into the popular belief these notions of the gods, and of the infernal regions." B. vi 56.

Dionysius Halicarnassus treats the whole matter as useful, but not as true. Antiq. Rom., B. ii Livy, the celebrated historian, speaks of it in the same spirit; and he praises the wisdom of Numa, because he invented the fear of the gods, as

"a most efficacious means of governing an ignorant and barbarous populace." Hist., I 19.

Strabo, the geographer, says:

"The multitude are restrained from vice by the punishments the gods are said to inflict upon offenders, and by those terrors and threatenings which certain dreadful words and monstrous forms imprint upon their minds...For it is impossible to govern the crowd of women, and all the common rabble, by philosophical reasoning, and lead them to piety, holiness and virtue - but this must be done by superstition, or the fear of the gods, by means of fables and wonders; for the thunder, the aegis, the trident, the torches (of the Furies,) the dragons, &c., are all fables, as is also all the ancient theology. These things the legislators used as scarecrows to terrify the childish multitude." Geog., B. I

Timaeus Locrus, the Pythagorean, after stating that the doctrine of rewards and punishments after death is necessary to society, proceeds as follows:

"For as we sometimes cure the body with unwholesome remedies, when such as are most wholesome produce no effect, so we restrain those minds with false relations, which will not be persuaded by the truth. There is a necessity, therefore, of instilling the dread of those foreign torments: 10 as that the soul changes its habitation; that the coward is ignominiously thrust into the body of a woman; the murderer imprisoned within the form of a savage beast; the vain and inconstant changed into birds, and the slothful and ignorant into fishes."

Plato, in his commentary on Timaeus, fully endorses what he says respecting the fabulous invention of these foreign torments.

And Strabo says that

"Plato and the Brahmins of India invented fables concerning the future judgments of hell" (Hades.)

And Chrysippus blames Plato for attempting to deter men from wrong by frightful stories of future punishments.

Plato himself is exceedingly inconsistent, sometimes adopting, even in his serious discourses, the fables of the poets, and at other times rejecting them as utterly false, and giving too frightful views of the invisible world. Sometimes, he argues, on social grounds, that they are necessary to restrain bad men from wickedness and crime, and then again he protests against them on political grounds, as intimidating the citizens, and making cowards of the soldiers, who, believing these things, are afraid of death, and do not therefore fight well. But all this shows in what light he regarded them; not as truths, certainly, but as fictions, convenient in some cases, but difficult to manage in others.

Plutarch treats the subject in the same way; sometimes arguing for them with great solemnity and earnestness, and on other occasions calling them "fabulous stories, the tales of mothers and nurses."

Seneca says:

"Those things which make the infernal regions terrible, the darkness, the prison, the river of flaming fire, the judgment seat, &c., are all a fable, with which the poets amuse themselves, and by them agitate us with vain terrors." Sextus Empiricus calls them "poetic fables of hell;" and Cicero speaks of them as "silly absurdities and fables" ( ineptiis ac fabulis.)


"It has been handed down in mythical form from earliest times to posterity, that there are gods, and that the divine (Deity) compasses all nature. All beside this has been added, after the mythical style, for the purpose of persuading the multitude, and for the interests of the laws, and the advantage of the state." Neander's Church Hist., I, p. 7. 11

Another quote from Thomas Thayer's paper on The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment:

"Anyone at all familiar with the writings of the ancient Greeks or Romans, [who admittedly received their basis doctrine of hell from Egypt] cannot fail to note how often it is admitted by them that the national religions were the INVENTIONS OF THE LEGISLATOR AND THE PRIEST, for the purpose of governing and restraining the common people [commonly called 'dumb sheep'.]"

Hence Augustine [considered by many to be the greatest theologian in history] says, in his ' City of God,'

"This seems to have been done on no other account, but as it was the business of princes, out of their wisdom and civil prudence, to DECEIVE THE PEOPLE IN THEIR RELIGION; princes, under the name of religion, persuaded the people to believe those things true, which they themselves KNEW TO BE IDLE FABLES; by this means, for their own ease in government, tying them the more closely to civil society." (All CAPS emphasis is mine.)

My, how well this religious deception of the masses continues to be in the 21st century.


When I say that virtually all of the doctrines and traditions of the Church are from pagan sources, I am not exaggerating. There are dozens of things that are pagan within the Church of Christendom today. As this paper is getting rather lengthy, I will call your attention to just one: From where did we get the word "church?"

Walk up to almost any church of any denomination in any nation on earth, and It immediately distinguishes itself from all other kinds of buildings. Let's now look at a few of the symbols which transform a building into a Christian Church.

First, you might notice near the highway or on the sidewalk, a marquee with a name such as, Church of the Nazarene, or First Baptist Church, or Our Lady Catholic Church. These unique buildings we call churches have many things in common, not the least of which is the designation of the word "church" itself. What does the word "church" mean, and from where did it come? The Scriptures? No. The word "church" is neither Hebrew no Greek, so when these languages were translated into English Bibles, the word church was already in existence.

The word "church" found in most (not all) Bibles is translated from the Greek word " ekklecia," and it means "called out ones." The word "church" is defined in most dictionaries as: "A building for public worship, especially Christian worship; the company of all Christians as a spiritual body." This, however, tells us nothing concerning the origin of this word and its original definition, meaning, and usage. Some theologians have erroneously stated that the word church comes from the Greek " kyrios" which means "lord," and thus "church" is those who belong to the Lord, or references the "Lord's house." This is not, however, the origin or original meaning of the word "church."

Church is a very early English word that meant "circle" (the shape of a circle,) while the Greek word translated "church" is " ekklesia" and means "called out one," and more properly answers to the English words, congregation, assembly or group.

In Acts 19:32 ekklesia refers to a riotous mob. And ekklesia is never applied to a building for worship. Furthermore, there can be only one "Lord's House," and that was the temple in Jerusalem, only. Local congregations and synagogues or assembly halls were never designated "The Lord's House."

"Bethel" is the word for "Lord's House" in Hebrew. Yet, this "Lord's House" became an abomination to the Lord, along with all other such "Lord's houses."

"For the saying that he cried by the word of the Lord against the altar in Bethel, and against all the houses of the high places which are in the cities of Samaria, shall surely come to pass... Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again of the lowest of the people priests of the high places... And this thing became SIN unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth" (I Kings 13:32-34.)

And so, in rebelling against God's commands, "Bethels" were built throughout the land. And just as Israel continually looked to the heathen for their religious practices (Ex. Jer. 10;1-5,) so did the heathens borrow from Israel. These "Bethels" or "houses of the Lord" became popular among the heathens. Bethels were being built throughout Europe, West Asia, and North Africa. They usually used the Greek spelling "baetyls," but they were the same high, religious places of worship, which God condemned. So even if a "Bethel" was a "house of the Lord," it was still condemned by God. Here are the historical facts regarding "church."

Professor Smith of Smith's Dictionary of the Bible states that "church" comes from a word meaning "circle," which is akin to our word "circus."

Professor Lipsius (German theologian during the Reformation) also shows that "church" came from "circle." Professor A. F. Fausett of Home Bible Study Dictionary" agrees with Professor Lipsius. The exhaustive ten volume Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature under the word "church" states that: "It was probably connected with the Latin circus, circulus, and with the Greek kuklos. Lipsius, who was the first to reject the received tradition, was probably right in his suggestion" (Vol. II, p. 322.)

Robert Brown's work The Myth of Kirke" also confirms that " kirke" (church) means "Circle" or "Circular" (p. 22.)

Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, under the entry "church" has this:

"The etymology of this word is generally assumed to be from the Greek, kurious oikos (house of God); but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of the Greek . No doubt the word means 'a circle.' The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular [witness circular Stonehenge, the most ancient stone megaliths on earth.] Compare Anglo-Saxon ' circe,' a small church, with ' circol,' a circle."

In Scotland it is called " Kirk" and in Gemany it is " Kirche," in England it is the word " Circe" (the "c" having a "k" sound.) My brother-in-law lives north of Cologne in a small city called Neukirchen meaning New Church.

But according to Brown's book, "Kirke/Circe" was also the name of a Goddess.

Kirke or Circe was the daughter of the Sun god, who was famous for taming wild animals for her circus. But get ready for this, Circe is pictured holding a golden cup in her hand mixed with wine and drugs, by which she controlled the kings of the world. Now where have we heard that before?

"And the woman [always the symbol for a church/kirke] was arrayed in purple and scarlet color [these colors symbolize wealth and high position] , and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication" (Rev. 17:4.)

What else are we told is in the golden cup of this church?

"...the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication" (Ver. 2.)

But there is something else. Remember that Brown above also mention drugs along with wine. Is our lady church of Revelation 17:4-5 "MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" also involved in DRUGS?

In the following chapter, we have described the fall of this Babylonian Church System. Notice what Rev. 18:23 lists among her many abominations:

"...for the merchants were the great men of the earth; for by your sorceries were all nations deceived."

Just what are these "sorceries?"

The Greek word translated "sorceries" in this verse is pharmakeia. Dr. Strong's first definition of this word is, "medicine." Our words "pharmacy" and "pharmaceutical" (DRUGS) are derived from this word. This harlot church peddles spiritual DRUGS to the world! And so, clearly this pagan goddess Kirke not only stamps Christian religions of the world with her name: "Kirke, Kirche, Church," but also she is the Mystery Babylonian Harlot Church of Rev. 17 and 18. This Church has committed spiritual fornication among the leaders of the world, and has caused the inhabitants of the world to be made drunk and drugged by the contents of her golden cup.

What about you? Are you yet so drugged and drunk on this Harlot Church that you cannot see to walk the straight and narrow way of Christ, which leads to life?



Most religious festivals of the world have something to do with sex or fertility. The Christian Holy Days are no different. They ARE, in fact, little more than these same pagan festivals with Christian orientations. Christmas, for example IS the pagan Roman Saturnalia or sometimes called "The Festival of Lights." But even the Saturnalia predates the founding of Rome by centuries. This same festival can be traced to Babylon, and yes, you guessed it, to Egypt and their winter celebration of lights.

December 25 is near the winter solstice. It is the time when the sun after having been at the lowest point in the heavens, begins to rise over the world with renewed vigor and power. It was the time of heathen festivities in worship of the sun. The vernal equinox is the point where the sun crosses the celestial equator, about March 20, making day and night of equal length everywhere. This was the time of pagan spring festivals.

The day of December 25 acquired a new significance under the rule of Emperor Aurelian. He proclaimed this day as "Dies Natalis Invicti Solis," or the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun. This was because of a strange Eastern religion, Mithraism, whose god Mithras was identified with the Unconquered Sun. During the Saturnalia work of every kind ceased. Schools were closed.

The Roman Saturnalia was boisterous. But whatever the behavior of some Romans, others were simply merry. They ate big dinners, visited their friends, etc. The halls of the Romans were decked with boughs of laurel and of green trees, with lighted candles and with lamps--for the hovering spirits of darkness were afraid of light. Bonfires were lit in high places to strengthen the reviving sun in his course. Candles and green wreaths were given as presents, the streets were crowded with noisy processions of men and women carrying lighted tapers, and public places were decked with flowers and shrubs. The practice of giving and receiving presents was almost as common then as it is now at Christmas. Our present day "Christmas spirit" is actually the spirit of this old Roman festival.


Semiramis was the wife/mother of Nimrod the mighty hunter whose kingdom was Babel (Gen. 10:9-10.) From there I will just quote from, as their site has a concise history of Easter:

"She [Semiramis] taught that the moon was a goddess that went through a 28 day cycle and ovulated when full. She further claimed that she came down from the moon in a giant moon egg that fell into the Euphrates River. This was to have happened at the time of the first full moon after the spring equinox. Semiramis became known as "Ishtar" which is pronounced "Easter", and her moon egg became known as "Ishtar's" egg." Ishtar soon became pregnant and claimed that it was the rays of the sun-god Baal that caused her to conceive. The son that she brought forth was named Tammuz.

Tammuz was noted to be especially fond of rabbits, and they became sacred in the ancient religion, because Tammuz was believed to be the son of the sun-god, Baal. Tammuz, like his supposed father, became a hunter. The day came when Tammuz was killed by a wild pig. Queen Ishtar told the people that Tammuz was now ascended to his father, Baal, and that the two of them would be with the worshippers in the sacred candle or lamp flame as Father, Son and Spirit. Ishtar, who was now worshipped as the "Mother of God and Queen of Heaven", continued to build her mystery religion.

The queen told the worshippers that when Tammuz was killed by the wild pig, some of his blood fell on the stump of an evergreen tree, and the stump grew into a full new tree overnight. This made the evergreen tree sacred by the blood of Tammuz. She also proclaimed a forty day period of time of sorrow each year prior to the anniversary of the death of Tammuz. During this time, no meat was to be eaten. Worshippers were to meditate upon the sacred mysteries of Baal and Tammuz, and to make the sign of the "T" in front of their hearts as they worshipped. They also ate sacred cakes with the marking of a "T" or cross on the top.

Every year, on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, a celebration was made. It was Ishtar's Sunday and was celebrated with rabbits and eggs. Ishtar also proclaimed that because Tammuz was killed by a pig, that a pig must be eaten on that Sunday. By now, the readers of this tract should have made the connection that paganism has infiltrated the contemporary "Christian" churches, and further study indicates that this paganism came in by way of the Roman Catholic System. The truth is that Easter has nothing whatsoever to do with the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Similar legends abound in Northern Europe: Scholars, accepting the derivation proposed by the 8th-century English scholar, St. Bede, believe the name Easter is thought to come from the Scandinavian "Ostra" and the Teutonic "Ostern" or "Eastre," both Goddesses of mythology signifying spring and fertility whose festival was celebrated on the day of the vernal equinox. Traditions associated with the festival survive in the Easter rabbit, a symbol of fertility, and in colored Easter eggs, originally painted with bright colors to represent the sunlight of spring, and used in Easter-egg rolling contests or given as gifts.

Regardless how accurate all of these histories are in every detail, one thing is for sure. Rabbits and eggs are symbols of fertility, and all pagan and heathen cultures worshipped sex and fertility. Therefore, Easter is pagan, and the Church has absolutely no authority for gracing this pagan sex and fertility festival with the Name of Jesus.


What is a "Sheila-na-gig," you ask? Look it up in your dictionary. It's not there, you say? Hmmmm? I wonder why--it was a well-known word in Europe and Britain for centuries. Why do you suppose this word just dropped out of all our English dictionaries?

If you still have any doubts-ANY, that the Christian Church is steeped in sex and fertility worship, and rank paganism, then check into the "Sheila-na-gigs" of Christianity during the middle ages.

Sheila-na-gigs are so lewd, so pornographic, and utterly disgusting, that you can no longer even find the word Sheila-na-gig in most English Dictionaries. They are a part of Christianity's recent past, that church historians and theologians would rather you never, ever find out about.

These statues, carvings, idols and images of Sheila-na-gigs are no mere "golden calves" worshipped by Egypt and Israel. Nor are they mere pictures and statutes of the pagan Greek god Zues, fraudulently said to be pictures of a long-haired Christ. If you think that "the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION spoken of by Daniel standing in the holy place" (Matt. 24:15,) was something horrible, wait till you learn what these Sheila-na-gigs standing in the holy places of the Christian Churches of Northwestern Europe and Britain were all about.

Sheela-na-gigs defined:

"Sheela-na-Gigs are carvings of naked females posed in a manner which displays and emphasises the genitalia. They were first brought to scientific attention in the 1840s by antiquarians. The name "sheela-na-gig" was first published in the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 1840-44 as a local name for an exhibitionist carving which was once attached to the gable wall of a church. The name sheela-na-gig comes from the Irish language - the most likely interpretations are Sighle na gCioch meaning "the old hag of the breasts," or Sile-ina-Giob meaning "sheela (a name for an old woman) on her hunkers."

Other recorded names include the Devil Stone, the Idol, the Evil Eye Stone, Julia the Giddy, Shiela O?Dwyer, Cathleen Owen, St. Shanahan, Whore, the Witch, and the Hag of the Castle."

"Sheela-na-Gigs are religious carvings of women, special women, the symbolical representation of femininity and/or actual female deities or Goddesses. They were placed on churches, castles and other important buildings of the medieval period and, until quite recently in some instances, they acted as dedicatory or protective symbols promoting good luck and fertility.

But their meaning goes much deeper and the fact that they were erected over the doorways of churches and castles and otherwise placed in every prominent positions suggests that they were a very potent and powerful image, obviously the primary religious belief of the people of that era of christianity." From Sheela-na-gigs by Jack Roberts

Sheila-na-Gig = sheela na gig, from the Irish Sile n� gCioch" = sheela na gee-och, which means Sheila of the breasts. An ancient fertility icon, Sheila-na-Gigs are stone figurines of women, usually many breasted, and holding open their vaginas. Found in isolation and in medieval church walls. From Susan McKeown

"Aside from the transformative religious mysteries of sacrifice and initiation, the obvious life-giving and growth-promoting powers of the vulva and its secretions have given rise to a widespread use of representations of the female genitalia as apotropaic [to ward off evil] devices. A similar apotropaic function seems to have prompted the placing of squatting female figures prominently exposing their open vulvas on the key of arches at church entrances in Ireland, Great Britain, and German Switzerland. In Ireland these figures are called Sheelagh-na-gigs. Some of these figures represent emaciated old women. These images are illustrations of myths concerning the territorial Celtic goddess who was the granter of royalty. When the goddess wished to test the king-elect, she came to him in the form of an old hag, soliciting sexual intercourse. If the king-elect accepted, she transformed herself into a radiantly beautiful young woman and conferred on him royalty and blessed his reign. Most such figures were removed from churches in the nineteenth century. ( Encyclopedia of Religion, article YONI, Vol. 15, p.534.)

Who would ever sanction such a display of pagan filth, one might ask? Dr. Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D. answers:

"It should be recalled that the depiction of these women blatantly showing their genitalia in the most prominent places of a Cathedral or church were sanctioned and ordained by the Christian ecclesiastical authorities with the approval and approbation of the papacy in Rome (after all, some of them were found on churches as late as the nineteenth century.)"

Even the large Catholic Cathedrals where adorned by these lewd idols, which Cathedrals were the home of the high-ranking Bishops.

All of this pagan nonsense found in the Christian Church came out of Rome and Greece and Egypt. The worship of sex and fertility pictured by symbols of sex and reproduction and fertility was a major part of pagan religion, and Egypt was the origin of many of these pagan practices. Did God reveal His truth to the Egyptians and expect Moses to learn the truths of God from the Egyptians? Moses learned all the pagan customs of Egypt, but he did not pass so much as one of them onto Israel. All that Moses taught Israel CAME FROM GOD.

What does God think of the religion and wisdom and customs of Egypt?


Moses knew well the religion of the Egyptians. He was raised as an Egyptian. Endless punishment for the wicked was a most common doctrine through all Egypt, and Moses was reared in the greatest center of learning:

"And Moses was learned in ALL THE WISDOM of the Egyptians..."
(Acts 7:22.)

Yet, did Moses ever warn Israel of this pagan fate of the wicked taught by sinful Egypt?

NO. Did Moses believe that this Egyptian myth was the Truth of God? NO.

"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelled, shall ye not do..." (Lev. 18:3.)

"Cast you away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am the Lord your God" (Ezek. 20:7.)

I Kings 4:30- "And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and ALL the wisdom of Egypt"

Yet Solomon never mentioned endless punishment to immortal souls upon death in any of his writings. If Solomon knew that the Egyptian doctrine of immortal souls being tortured in an eternity of hell fire were a true teaching from God, surely he would have mentioned it just once.


Let's read what God thinks of the "divine revelations" of truth in the nation whose very name is the personification of SIN. Here is God's judgment on Egypt:

"Surely the princes of Zoan [ancient city in Egypt's Delta] are FOOLS, the counsel of the wise counselors of Pharaoh is become FOOLISH: how say you unto Pharaoh, I am the son of the wise, the son of ancient kings? Where are they? Where are the wise men? And let them tell you now, and let them know what the Lord of hosts has purposed upon Egypt.

The princes of Zoan are become FOOLS, the princes of Noph [ancient name for Memphis] are DECEIVED; they have also seduced Egypt, even they that are the stay [the mainstay] of the tribes thereof.

The Lord has mingled a PERVERSE SPIRIT in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to ERR IN EVERY WORK THEREOF, as A DRUNKEN MAN STAGGERING IN HIS OWN VOMIT" (Isaiah 19:11-14.)

Well, there you have it: "FOOLS, FOOLISH, FOOLS, DECEIVED, PERVERSE SPIRIT, ERR IN EVERY WORK, DRUNKEN MAN STAGGERING IN HIS OWN VOMIT." Does this sound like the kind of people and doctrines that we want to base the future destiny of the entire human race upon? Where did the now Christian doctrine of immortal souls, judgment at death, eternal punishment for the wicked, come from? From Egypt. This is a matter of well-documented history, not speculation.

I am ridiculed and poked fun at on chat rooms all over the country. What we teach on is considered by orthodoxy to be the very very worst of heresy taught anywhere in the world. Yet their damnable heresies as Peter calls them, came from a clear trail leading back to Egypt from people whom God Himself calls:

"foolish deceived and perverse men who err in everything as drunken men staggering in their own vomit."

The bedrock foundation of Christian doctrine comes out of Egypt by way of Greece, Rome, the Roman Church, and perverted bible translations into the homes of billions of unsuspecting Christians.

In a nutshell: Did God teach Moses or any patriarch or prophets of the Old Testament this Egyptian heresy of everlasting punishment? NO. Does the whole orthodox Christian Church teach this damnable heresy throughout the world? YES. I rest my case. I could close with this and go onto the next Installment.

The most sickening of all heresies and religious teachings in the entire world is the Christian doctrine of ENDLESS TORMENT. And this unscriptural doctrine came from the "FOOLISH DECEIVED AND PERVERSE MEN [OF EGYPT] WHO ERR IN EVERYTHING AS DRUNKEN MEN STAGGERING IN THEIR OWN VOMIT"!

Nevertheless, let it be known from the Scriptures, that as vile, wicked, and disgraceful the ways of the Egyptians were, God will yet have mercy upon them. Just like wicked Jerusalem and even Sodom (Ezek. 16:55,) Egypt will be SAVED. After God "smites and heals" Egypt [in JUDGMENT], and "sends them a Saviour" (Isa. 19:20 & 22,) He will save them:

"Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, BLESSED BE EGYPT MY PEOPLE, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel [albeit Israel will be 'the third, not the first of these three, Ver.24] mine inheritance" (Isa. 19:25.)

How pray tell, does "BLESSED be Egypt MY people" fit into the damnable Christian doctrine from Egypt who is, as we speak, burning in an eternal hellhole of fire?

When will we open our eyes to God's Truths on these matters?


It means that virtually everything about Christendom-from its name 'Church,' to the architecture of their buildings, to the origin of their holy days and doctrines, is all straight out of heathenism, of which God Almighty declares:

"LEARN NOT THE WAY OF THE HEATHEN... inquire NOT after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? Even so WILL I DO LIKEWISE" (Jer. 10:2 & Deut. 12:30.)

All Christian doctrines that are not out of paganism are nonetheless, unscriptural. Many Christians today call themselves "Fundamentalists." How "fundamentally" wrong can one be when he does not even believe that Jesus Christ even DIED for his sins? You say, "Oh, but Fundamentalists DO believe that Christ died for their sins. Oh really? And do they believe that he was "dead?" No, of course not. They believe that only his body died, therefore making Christ a liar and making the Saviour of the world, a cadaver! The Scriptural truth is: "...Christ DIED for our sins according to the Scriptures" (I Cor. 15:3.)

But was Christ "dead" when He "died?" Fundamentalists say, "NO." They say that he was never in the tomb for three days; they say that He went to hell for three days; they say that we was preaching to IMMORTAL SOULS for three days. But here is what the Scriptures say:

"Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of Man be risen again FROM THE DEAD" (Matt. 17:9.)

"And go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen FROM THE DEAD" (Matt. 28:7.)

"Thus it was written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise FROM THE DEAD the third day" (Luke 24:46.)

"This is now the third time that Jesus showed Himself to His disciples, after that He was risen FROM THE DEAD" (John 21:14.)

"And killed the Prince of life [yes, but was He DEAD?] whom God has raised FROM THE DEAD..." (Acts 3:15.)

"For if the DEAD rise not [Van Impe says once we are born, we NEVER DIE, so how can anyone be raised from the dead if they don't die?] , then is NOT CHRIST RAISED: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, YE ARE YET IN YOUR SINS" (I Cor. 15:16-17.)

Now then, where was Jesus all the while He was "dead?" I heard one of the biggest names in televangelism say recently that Jesus was being tortured in some hellhole for three days. Of course most Christians believe he was in a safer section of this hellhole. But then others believe He was in heaven with the thief crucified beside Him. Never mind the fact that after His resurrection Jesus told Mary that He had not even yet ascended to His Father. Is nothing they teach Scriptural? No, nothing.

Either Jesus was dead or we don't have a Saviour. Jesus could not be raised from the dead if He wasn't dead in the first place.

"And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. HE [not His body, but 'He' Jesus Himself] is not here: for HE is risen as He said, Come and see the place where THE LORD [the LORD, not the Lord's body; not the Lord's cadaver, but the LORD HIMSELF] lay. And go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen FROM THE DEAD..." (Matt. 28:5-7.)

I mean just how easy can this believing the Scriptures be compared to believing the lies and unscriptural heresies of the Church? Just read it and believe.

So, how important is the resurrection "from the DEAD" to Fundamental belief? It is totally useless. If you are any orthodox Christian and you die, the teaching is that you go straight to heaven, bypassing this totally unnecessary "resurrection from the DEAD" stuff. Evil pagan doctrines are precious "idols of the heart" to them, and yet the truth of the resurrection from the dead is "foolishness unto them." I cannot even imagine denying the necessity of what Paul shows us is our ONLY HOPE-the resurrection from THE DEAD.

Let me let you in on a little Scriptural Secret. I say secret, because not one in a hundred thousand knows the truth of this. Here's the secret: No one in the history of humanity has ever died and gone to heaven. This is but another of the Pagan myths of Christendom. And furthermore, no orthodox Christian ever will die in the future and go to heaven. Neither will any of them be in the first resurrection, unless and until they bitterly repent of their association with:


The only way INTO the First Resurrection is to:

"Come OUT OF HER, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues" (Rev. 18:4.)

I have hundreds more pages on this subject, but I think I will now bring this Part C to an end.


Theologians and preachers think that they have this whole Greek hades thing all figured out. They know how many compartments are in this Greek hell, and who is going there and what happens there and all about it. They have studied what the Greeks have to say about their little hades/hell place of eternal torture, and it's all quite simple to them. Whatever the Greeks say this hades of theirs is and represents, then that's the way it is. After all, should not the Greeks know all about their very own hell? This, however, presents a problem that I doubt few have ever considered.

If theologians think that it is the Greeks who should be defining the meaning of the Greek Scriptures to us, then I submit that they have created their own two-edged sword. Here is just one major problem they will have to solve:

The word in Greek for "hell" is hades, and the word in Greek for "God" is theos.

Now then, since theos comes form deus and deus from Zeus (Zeus being the main god of the Greeks,) did Jesus really teach that,

"You shall love the Lord your God [the Greek theos, deus, that is, ZEUS] with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and GREAT COMMANDMENT" (Matt. 22:37-38)?

According to the Greek Scriptures, did Jesus really teach that the great commandment is that we should LOVE the Greek god theos, that is Zeus? Are we really to "LOVE the Greek god ZEUS," with all our heart, soul and mind, in order to avoid being eternally tortured in the Greek hell of hades? The theologians have not thought this through very well. If the Greek Scriptures do indeed teach that the unjust go to the Greek hell, hades, then they also teach that the just are to love the Greek god, Zeus! Think about it. Be sure to read "HELL"-Part D.

May God grant you the faith and courage to trust Him that He might give you "the love of the truth that you might be saved" (II Thes. 2:10,)

Part 16-D1: