The Abomination of Desolation

Chapter 12: The Table of Christ



So then let us observe the festival, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of evil and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Corinthians 5:8


Recall that John 4 relates an encounter between Yahshuah and a Samaritan woman in which the latter remarks that the Samaritans worshiped God at Mt. Carmel (or Moriah) rather than at Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. Yahshuah’s response addresses all questions pertaining to ritual authoritatively: God is Spirit, and as such, must be worshiped “in spirit and in truth.” Despite the fact that this is one of the Bible’s paramount theological messages, ritual and hypocritical lip service remain the sole focus of religious worship for most humans. The object of their devotion (Yahshuah), meanwhile, regards these offerings as frivolous, if not downright detestable.

This is not to say that ritual in general is frivolous. Though unimportant to God, superficial forms of worship can, if properly formulated, instruct participants about his nature and will. This is exactly the purpose of the sacrificial system of the OT, and why it was not entirely without value, just as the baptism ritual serves a useful purpose. However, in order for it to be beneficial, a ritual must have enough of a spiritual significance to the practitioner to inculcate some measure of spirituality in practice. Beneficial ritual therefore sows the seeds for its own demise, as it is never created as an end in itself, to be perpetuated, but aims, rather, to communicate spiritual principles which, once grasped, are then retained, while the ritual itself is discarded, having served its purpose. Once the sacrifice has been made, only more sin can create a new use for it; once the baptism has been performed, the sinner is supposed to be clean. (He is supposed to repent; he is not supposed to be baptized again.) Unfortunately, people lack spiritual understanding, and invariably get caught up in ceremony and ritual, as though they were the true object of faith, rather than the means. As we have observed in The End of Learning:

It has ever been seen that men in general have resorted to outward forms for the expression of their religion: sound piety, that is to say, light and virtue, has never been the portion of the many. One should not wonder at this, nothing is so much in accord with human weakness. We are impressed by what is outward, while the inner essence of things requires consideration of such a kind as few persons are fitted to give. As true piety consists in principles and practice, the outward forms of religion imitate these, and are of two kinds: the one kind consists in ceremonial practices, and the other in the formularies of belief. Ceremonies resemble virtuous actions, and formularies are like shadows of the truth and approach, more or less, the true light. All these outward forms would be commendable if those who invented them had rendered them appropriate to maintain and to express that which they imitate—if religious ceremonies, ecclesiastical discipline, the rules of communities, human laws were always like a hedge round the divine law, to withdraw us from any approach to vice, to inure us to the good and to make us familiar with virtue. That was the aim of Moses and of other good lawgivers, of the wise men who founded religious orders, and above all of Jesus Christ, divine founder of the purest and most enlightened religion. It is just the same with the formularies of belief: they would be valid provided there were nothing in them inconsistent with truth unto salvation, even though the full truth concerned were not there. But it happens only too often that religion is choked in ceremonial, and that the divine light is obscured by the opinions of men. Gottfried W. Leibniz600

So God is obscured by ritual fashioned and maintained by men who either lack spiritual understanding or want others to never acquire it because it gives them leverage over them. This is true wherever there is knowledge, because men crave power, but nowhere is it more true than in the case of religion—especially the religion of mainstream Christianity, wherein the gulf between the rulers and the ruled is greater than in any other institution of Man. Those most capable of formulating beneficial rituals are least inclined to do so, having not failed to observe that the masses of humanity are not the least bit interested in spiritual enlightenment, while they themselves are singularly driven by their lust for more and more temporal power. The acquisition of this power has always been the vocation of priestcraft, to the point that any powermonger willing to pretend like he is going to make any sort of concession to the oppressed classes (e.g., Pope Francis, or any politician) is treated as some sort of divine hero and people’s champion. So it should come as no surprise to learn that institutionalized religion has ritualized certain key events in history in order to suppress their spiritual meaning, while simultaneously convincing their adherents that acquisition of the boon of the religion (salvation from everlasting damnation in Christianity) is dependent upon perpetual participation in these rituals. Have we not already seen that this is the case with the initiation into the sect, where they openly lie to the masses about baptism while simultaneously reserving the laying of hands for themselves, though any fool could open a Bible and discern the contradiction?

Thus, while most people cherish ritual as the foremost expression of their religious sentiments, it is inevitable that these emotional ties are their foremost obstacles to actual spiritual growth and development. This is not by accident, but has been capitalized upon deliberately and without limitations. The fact that Christianity is now the most widely established religion on the planet owes itself to the fact that, among the ancient religious sects, it is the one most exploitative of common religious sentiments, established by the secular authorities which have had the least inhibition against using force to spread it and to stamp out divergent opinions. (This is why the Bible has been incorporated and adapted into the Christian paradigm, though substantially revised, because the Bible appeals to the spiritual nature of Man in the most profound way.) It is the one which affords the most power to such authorities, which therefore have the most incentive to adopt and spread it.

The chief sacrament of Judeo-Christian religion is the atonement sacrifice (and there is no fundamental difference between the Jewish sect established by Solomon and the Catholic sect established by the Roman king Numa and reestablished by the emperor Augustus). As such, both the Jewish Passover and the Christian Eucharist are deliberately designed to obscure the spiritual principles communicated by those who instituted them, in order to further their own aims of stifling such understanding among the masses of novices. To demonstrate that this is so, it will be necessary to review the Bible’s account of the Passover (in relation to both the OT and the NT) with a discerning eye. Some will object from the outset that such an endeavor is pointless, insisting that we cannot possibly overturn traditions now thousands of years old, but this assumes that antiquity magically confers validity, which is a fallacy so easily debunked that it could be invoked for practically any of the many sciences to show how the exact opposite is true. Like the hard sciences, if inquiries into matters of religious tradition have shown us anything, it has been the falsehood of this assumption, and we have already more than adequately shown how even a basic understanding of the Bible’s most important doctrinal themes has yet to be found in any nominally Christian author to date, with the exception of Tolstoy and Schweitzer, so it would be extremely foolish to suppose they got all of that wrong or simply lied about all of it, but have adequately discerned and told the full truth of its mysteries, which even they do not presume.

On the other hand, some will insist that no discernment should even be necessary, and this is the basis of the Church not feeling the need to bother trying. According to this logic, Scripture records God’s commands to Moses regarding Passover and Yahshuah’s commands to his disciples regarding the Eucharist, so there is no room for interpretation. Nevertheless, wildly varying interpretations of these commands have indeed been reached, and have even caused major divisions between sects, even if mainstream Judaism and Christianity would prefer not to speak about past controversies. The religious establishment would prefer to present its inferences as historical facts when they can be defended neither scripturally nor logically. Such division and controversy are inevitable wherever studious individuals begin to question things, as the Bible is primarily a historical narrative rather than an instruction manual (though it is much more useful to the latter end, if studied properly!), and the paucity of information about certain details demands that such inferences be made.

That this is not obvious to most people stems from the fact that most people understand neither the teachings of Christ nor the will of God. It can hardly be argued that either one would advocate a ritual contrary to itself, which is what we will find if we examine either of them with any understanding and then suppose that the Church’s position on the ritual is in keeping with the same spirit. The very purpose of ritual has always been to make the spiritual concrete, as much as can be done, so that all people who cannot discern the knowledge of God through the observation of Nature can still find another means through pomp, props and pretense (Romans 1:20-21). So it is only reasonable to conclude that if the principles taught by a ritual, however allegedly ancient or holy, conflict with the higher principles that we always otherwise see advanced in Scripture, then these rituals must be rejected as frivolous and counterproductive, if not actually evil and satanic, as in the case of the Christian Eucharist.

As we have said, the most important sacrament of Christianity (by far) is the Eucharist, which is theoretically based on the rite of the Passover. However, most people are not even aware of this fact, due to changes which have been made to the Roman calendar in order to turn the Passover into a weekly celebration without raising too much attention. (Christians insist that the Pascha of the New Testament is Easter, i.e. the Feast of Ishtar, rather than Passover, and even translate their Bibles to accommodate this blatant absurdity.) In light of our emphasis on the point that the sole value of any ritual lies in its communication of spiritual principles, it may seem incongruous to begin an examination of Passover by asserting that the most important feast day of the ancient Israelites has been celebrated on the wrong date for several thousand years, yet this fact will have to be firmly established before its significance can be explained, and before we can proceed.

The centerpiece of Passover observance is the Paschal lamb. Jews assert that, historically, the lamb was to be killed towards the very end of the 14th of Nisan (the first month of the Israelite calendar), then roasted and eaten during the first few hours of the 15th.601 The Israelites marked time such that a new day begins at sunset, so this equates to the slaughter transpiring mid-to-late afternoon, with the meal taking place after evening had begun. This timeline, which is rigidly adhered to by Jews, is derived from a particular interpretation of this passage:

“‘And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then all the assembly of the congregation of Yisra’ĕl shall kill it between the evenings. And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. And they shall eat the flesh on that night, roasted in fire—with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.’” Exodus 12:6-8

The proper interpretation of this passage revolves around the key phrase, “between the evenings.” Jews hold that their tradition safeguards this command, which is thus understood to mean between mid-afternoon (when the sun first begins to descend) and sunset.602 At best, this interpretation can only be said to honor the traditional sense of the word ‘evening’ rather loosely, seeing as it denotes the period of time at the end of the day. This is certainly true in comparison with the interpretation of Karaite Jews and Samaritans, who assert instead that ‘between the evenings’ is the stretch of time between sunset and total darkness.603 And while Jews have happily declared that they are the descendants of the same Pharisees who murdered Yahshuah,604 judging by this pedigree alone, we ought to be suspicious of any interpretation rooted in the Babylonian tradition. Upon closer examination, it will be discovered that the Christians have indeed based their most important ritual on the Jewish practice, with the Pharisees’ interpretation of it—i.e., the very same Abomination which he literally spent his life to abolish.

A plain reading of Exodus 12 argues against the 15th of Nisan being the proper date on which to observe Passover for the simple reason that the text fails to specify it. So while Jews insist that the phrase “that night” in v. 8 refers to the 15th, in light of its proximity to v. 6 and the lack of any other date mentioned in the interim, the logical conclusion is that this phrase cannot refer to anything other than the 14th. In fact, not only is the 15th of Nisan not mentioned anywhere in this passage; it is not mentioned anywhere in ch. 12, nor indeed anywhere in the entire book of Exodus.

“‘And this day shall become to you a remembrance. And you shall observe it as a festival to יהוה throughout your generations—observe it as a festival, an everlasting law.’” Exodus 12:14

It is truly absurd to claim that God commanded Israel to observe its foremost feast as an everlasting law, yet neglected to mention the date of this feast anywhere. Justifying the slaughter of the lambs at mid-afternoon of the 14th and eating the meal on the 15th can only be accomplished by insisting upon a stretched, controversial interpretation of one phrase. More tellingly, this position cannot be harmonized with the rest of Scripture’s testimony about Passover, a fact which is particularly evident in Numbers 33. We can only glean from this that the Jews have been lazy in their attempts to establish the proper date.

So they departed from Raʽmeses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month, on the morrow of the Passover the children of Yisra’ĕl went out with boldness before the eyes of all the Mitsrites, and the Mitsrites were burying all their first-born, whom יהוה had smitten among them. Also on their mighty ones יהוה had executed judgments. Numbers 33:3-4

Note that the Israelites are plainly described as departing Egypt “on the morrow of the Passover,” which is to say, the following day. Seeing as it is elsewhere stated that they left by night (Deuteronomy 16:1), this would place the beginning of the Exodus at approximately 24 hours after the slaughter of the lambs, and approximately 18 hours after the visitation of the angel of death and Pharaoh’s subsequent release of the Israelites from captivity (Exodus 12:29-31). Some have argued that the Exodus was characterized by haste, so it cannot be that it took the Israelites another full day before they even embarked. This objection will be dealt with shortly, but for now it should suffice to point out that the Exodus began while the Egyptians were burying their dead. This alone demonstrates that the Exodus could not have started on the same night as the plague, unless we are to believe that the Egyptians buried tens of thousands of bodies without burial rites or even a period of mourning, but instead set about digging graves as soon as the bodies hit the ground, contrary to their funerary customs (which they took very seriously).

Even if the Bible had failed to record these particular details, this entire controversy could be resolved by simply reflecting upon the question of what constitutes “observance” of Passover. Exodus 12 describes the killing of the lambs, the painting of the doorposts, the eating of the meal and the coming of the angel of death all as one event. None of the subsequent happenings can transpire without the first. To divorce the slaughter of lambs from all that followed by consigning it to a different day, then, is to disrupt this harmony and dilute the very meaning of the feast day. Therefore, is there any sense in which it can be said that Passover, as it has been practiced in Judaism for at least 2000 (probably more about 3000) years, has been observed properly, rather than subverted?

Moreover, the term ‘Passover’ is the English transliteration of פּסח (pesach, H6453), which comes from פּסח (Strong’s H6452), literally translated as ‘hop,’ or more figuratively as ‘skip over’ or ‘spare.’ Jews do nothing to observe Passover on the 14th of Nisan other than to slaughter lambs, yet this does not even correspond with the word’s meaning. Simply killing the lamb would accomplish nothing. Only if the Israelites used its blood to paint their doorposts would they be spared from the angel of death, but even then, the entire point is moot, as the lamb was killed some 18 hours too late, and the doorposts painted more than a day too late. One could hardly ask for a more succinct and elegant proof that the teaching of the Pharisees lead to death.

As though this were not all bad enough, the Jewish mode of observance also leads to other errors. A single false premise often leads to a myriad of errors and useless religious customs, and Judaism is nothing more or less than the amalgamation of doctrines derived from a misreading of the Law of Moses and the rest of the Old Testament, due to the total lack of understanding of its formularies. In this case, based on this particular error concerning Passover, Jews also fail to properly commemorate the festival which follows it.

“‘And you shall guard the Festival of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I brought your divisions out of the land of Mitsrayim. And you shall guard this day throughout your generations, an everlasting law. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening. For seven days no leaven is to be found in your houses, for if anyone eats what is leavened, that same being shall be cut off from the congregation of Yisra’ĕl, whether sojourner or native of the land.’” Exodus 12:17-19

Passover, on the 14th of Nisan, was directly followed by the Festival of Unleavened Bread, which lasted from the 15th to the 21st of Nisan. The former was meant to commemorate God’s decisive breaking of Egypt’s hegemony over the Israelites; the latter was mean to commemorate their subsequent, expeditious flight. Though clearly the two are intimately related, Scripture states that each is to be observed distinctly. One is set apart to God (a sabbath), and the other is for the Israelites (a feast). Without this realization that the slaughter of the lamb is for God (for religious purposes—not so you can save your skin and eat some lamb in the process, to kick off a week of feasting), the whole point of both becomes moot, and the act of slaughter becomes a sin against God which profanes a high sabbath. Notice that the Law prescribes the eating of bread during the commemorative feast (this is after the original event of the Passover now), but does not say anything about eating any kind of meat, only that Day 1 is for God.

“‘In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, between the evenings, is the Passover to יהוה. And on the fifteenth day of this month is the Festival of Unleavened Bread to יהוה—seven days you eat unleavened bread.’” Leviticus 23:5-6

In spite of this, owing almost entirely to the fallacious timing of their Passover observance, Jews blend the sabbath and the feast so as to render them indistinguishable. The reason should be obvious, especially in light of what happened after the Israelites left Egypt. The fact itself is perfectly illustrated in Wikipedia’s article about Passover, which states, “For the duration of Passover no leavened bread is eaten, for which reason it is called ‘The Festival of the Unleavened Bread.’”605 The result of this conflation of terms and feast days is that when Israel was supposed to be consuming unleavened bread, the Jews who came later were eating meat instead.606 This tradition was meant to remind the Israelites how their flight from Egypt was with such haste that they had no time to eat anything else, as well as to foreshadow the manna with which God would later sustain them in the wilderness. Transgressing the proper observance of it by eating meat instead of bread therefore amounts to commemorating the Israelites’ rejection of manna in favor of the food they had enjoyed in Egypt (Numbers 11:5), and has the opposite spiritual effect from the spiritual intent behind the origin of the ritual. Really, considering that most Jews do not even eat lamb on Passover, they might as well be eating quail.

Some have cited the Bible’s descriptions of the Festival of Unleavened Bread to assert the validity of Passover observance on the 15th of Nisan. As Exodus 12:19 stipulates that this festival is to last seven days, if it were true that the Passover meal should be celebrated at the beginning of the 14th, then this would result in eight days of eating unleavened bread. While valid, this objection also begs the question of why v. 18 mentions the 14th at all, as surely a superficial reading of the passage would not be so glaringly contradictory if the 15th was meant to be specified instead. Therefore, we must ascertain why the 14th of Nisan was included in this context but not categorized as a proper part of the festival.

In truth, this question has already been answered; as v. 17 declares, the Festival of Unleavened Bread commemorates the day that God brought the Israelites out of Egypt.607 We have already concluded from a plain reading of Numbers 33:3-4 that the physical liberation of Israel from Egypt began on the 15th of Nisan. Therefore, regardless of God’s command that unleavened bread should be eaten with the Passover meal, the 14th does not meet the major qualification for inclusion in this festival. It is certainly understandable that confusion exists concerning this issue, but clearly it was God’s intent that the Israelites should celebrate both the day on which he finally broke Pharaoh’s will and the day on which they left Egypt for good, but separately. To intermingle these festivals to such an extent that they are really one and the same, then, obscures the significance of both and, more importantly, transgresses God’s express commands, thereby indicating that the Jewish holidays are both vain traditions of men.608 After all, why would God wish for anyone to conflate the day of death with the resultant life and freedom which it facilitated? This may be how demented men think, but God does not delight in anyone’s death, which includes both unrepentant sinners and innocent scapegoats. Surely we can agree that the Jews would not regard the Passover as a festive occasion if they thought it commemorated the deaths of Israel’s firstborns, as it does Egypt’s.

As for the objection that this timeline of events does not adequately embody the haste with which Israel was supposed to depart, this can be easily refuted by a simple exercise in logic. Even the most combat-ready rapid deployment forces in any modern military, operating at optimal capacity, and comprised of mere hundreds of troops, rather than hundreds of thousands of men, women, children and livestock (Israel), can take up to 24 hours to mobilize and deploy. Even this kind of readiness takes drills to perfect codified protocols, which the Israelites lacked. They, on the other hand, were supposed to be already dressed and ready to go before they ate.

“‘And this is how you eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the Passover of יהוה.’” Exodus 12:11

And the children of Yisra’ĕl set out from Raʽmeses to Sukkoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides the little ones. Exodus 12:37

It is reasoned that because they were told to be prepared for their escape at the Passover meal itself, they had to have left shortly thereafter. After all, leaving 24 hours later does not exactly bespeak haste. But haste is relative, especially when it comes to numbers, so what is lackadaisical for a single family is a frantic scramble for an entire nation, as anyone who has ever been part of a large deployment (consisting of thousands) can attest. Moving a whole population of millions on short notice, with all its possessions, and with its invalids and elderly, without any preparation whatsoever, would be a logistical nightmare for anyone. To say that it would take a miracle to have it done within 24 hours would be to implicitly deny that it was indeed done by way of a whole series of miracles.

Recalling that Deuteronomy 16:1 specifies that the Israelites were brought out of Egypt “by night,” this implies that the Exodus began around sundown, right at the outset of the 15th of Nisan. If we consider the alternative, that the Israelites departed on the 14th, then it quickly becomes clear that the logistics of such a situation would have been impossible. If the angel of death came around midnight, and Pharaoh told Moses to leave shortly thereafter, this would require well over 1 million people (one of the largest population migrations in history—larger ones have typically spanned hundreds of years) to be notified of their imminent departure, pack their belongings, plunder the Egyptians (Exodus 12:35-36) and have successfully left the vicinity, all by 6 a.m. It is preposterous to suppose that this much activity could have been crammed into six short hours, especially considering that describing a large group of people as having been “brought out” strongly implies their having put considerable distance between themselves and their point of origin, when merely getting the tail end of the baggage train moving within a few days would have been an enormous accomplishment. Even marathon runners typically have to wait a few minutes to get started running because of those ahead of them.

If all this is still not enough, then the reader might also consider whether God would command the Israelites, who were otherwise engaged in a flight so frantic that they could not even spare time for their bread to rise, to suddenly halt their progress for an otherwise non-essential task (actually two non-essential tasks, as plundering the Egyptians was not necessary—besides, we all know that any real Jew would have searched for every last coin and valuable item in Egypt before being content to get out of there). For that is precisely what those who subscribe to the Jewish reckoning of Passover are obliged to believe:

“‘And do not leave of [the flesh of the Passover lamb] until morning, and what remains of it until morning you are to burn with fire.’” Exodus 12:10

The Festival of Unleavened Bread commemorates the haste with which the Israelites came out of Egypt, but this understanding must not trivialize the haste with which they prepared to come out of Egypt. If observed on their proper dates, both the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread are both honored, just as God intended and commanded. However, as soon as elements of each are mixed together, this cannot fail to obfuscate the meaning and significance of both. So let us now summarize what we have learned of the Exodus, lest we fall into the same pitfalls of misunderstanding as the Jews and Christians.

On the 14th of Nisan, the Israelites obtained their freedom, and on the 15th they left. Between sunset and total darkness at the beginning of the 14th, the Israelites slaughtered their Passover lambs. They used the blood of the lambs to paint their doorposts and lintels in order to signify their Israelite heritage (or, rather, their obedience) to the angel of death, they then roasted the lamb and ate its flesh with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. At midnight, the angel of death killed the first-borns in all households which did not have blood painted on the doorposts. In the chaos that ensued, sometime in the middle of the night, Pharaoh summoned Moses and released Israel from its bondage. Word spread throughout the Israelites’ camp that they were to leave Egypt immediately. They then spent the next 12 hours packing both their belongings and those of the Egyptians whom they plundered. Then, around the sunset that marked the beginning of the 15th of Nisan, roughly 1 or 2 million men, women and children made their way out, putting as much distance between themselves and the Egyptians as they could, as quickly as possible.

This explanation of events may be quite clear, but what the Jewish tradition lacks in validity it makes up for in antiquity and popularity. Both Josephus609 and Philo610 are on record as stating that the Passover sacrifices were supposed to be performed at mid-afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, with the Passover meal following shortly thereafter, at the start of the 15th. Historically speaking, this assertion has stood virtually unopposed, primarily because to Christians, such questions are of no consequence whatsoever, but secondarily, because they trust the Jews to tell them about these things as the competent authorities, contrary to Yahshuah who chastised and condemned them for their incompetence. Yahshuah’s own actions, in stark contrast to theirs, demonstrate that this controversy was raging over 2000 years ago, that discerning the correct answer is indeed of great consequence, and that the 14th of Nisan is indeed the proper date for Passover observance. The Gospels record not just that the Last Supper was an observance of Passover, but even that Yahshuah’s enemies performed the same act 24 hours later, when they were in the process of murdering him.

And on the first day of Unleavened Bread the taught ones came to יהושע, saying to Him, “Where do You wish us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” Matthew 26:17

Then they led יהושע from Qayapha to the palace, and it was early. And they themselves did not go into the palace, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover. John 18:28

This discrepancy has baffled Bible scholars for centuries, and has even led many to conclude that the Last Supper could not possibly have been an actual Passover meal. However, in light of what has already been reviewed here, the differences between Yahshuah and the Pharisees should not be surprising in the least. In fact, even the Mishnah (Pesahim 4.8a) attests that the proper date and time for making a Passover sacrifice was in dispute at this time.611 Nevertheless, following the line of reasoning that Yahshuah was a Jew, and that the Jews cannot possibly have been wrong about the date of Passover observance for over 2000 years, all manner of excuses are employed to explain away the Gospel accounts in favor of their tradition.

John 18:28, for example, is asserted to refer to the Pharisees’ desire to return to their homes and eat more of the lamb which they had already feasted upon earlier that night, around the same time as the Last Supper. As this verse specifies that “it was early,” it could be that Yahshuah was taken to Pilate’s palace in the very early hours of the morning, and the Pharisees intended to return to their homes before sunrise, at which time they would be required to burn whatever lamb’s flesh they still had. However, it is highly improbable that anything would have been on their mind aside from ensuring that Pilate was successfully coerced into approving Yahshuah’s execution. As it took nearly 12 hours before Pilate finally relented (John 19:14), with several attempts at lesser forms of appeasement in-between (and there is no indication that the mob ever dispersed), the Pharisees knew that they would need to apply all the pressure they could in order to succeed. This was their archenemy, whose stated objective was to abolish the Passover custom on the Passover, and they had already been plotting his murder for months; they were not about to squander the opportunity they had been waiting for just so they could return home and have some leftovers. On the other hand, John does yield some other clues for the attentive reader.

And it was the Preparation Day of the Passover week, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Yehuḏim, “See your Sovereign!” John 19:14

Therefore, since it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the stake on the Sabbath—for that Sabbath was a high one—the Yehuḏim asked Pilate to have their legs broken, and that they be taken away. John 19:31

There, then, because of the Preparation Day of the Yehuḏim, they laid יהושע, because the tomb was near. John 19:42

Most translators render each of these verses with the phrase “Preparation Day,” complete with capitalization, as if to signify a widely-recognized feast day. In fact, not only is there no such day described in Scripture, but the Greek manuscripts do not even contain the word for ‘day’ at this location in the verse. John 19:14 would be more properly translated as, “It was the preparation of the Passover.” (‘Week’ is not in the Greek, either.) Clearly one cannot prepare for that which has already transpired, so unless the Last Supper was not a Passover observance (in clear contradiction of Matthew 26:17), this constitutes conclusive proof that Passover was being observed at different times, just as John 18:28 would lead one to believe.

This serves as yet another example of how the errors of the Jewish paradigm have infected Christianity. Bible translators have gone so far as to invent a new feast day out of thin air to compensate for it. Nowhere does God command the observance of a specific day on which to prepare lambs for slaughter or to rid one’s house of leaven; most Jews now spend weeks readying their house for Passover by searching for leaven in every last corner, lest they be judged to have violated Exodus 13:7. So while Christians may criticize Jews for their ‘legalism’ on this point, as always, they fail to distinguish between legalism and obedience, both of which they dismiss as vestigial doctrines rendered useless by Christ’s sacrifice. Their conviction that nothing but this sacrifice matters results in the type of slothful thinking that invents feasts days instead of understanding what happened and why it matters, and why it should also matter to them, to the point of recognizing that God desires mercy and not sacrifice, rather than deliberately commemorating it. Perhaps if they learned that even their own cherished scriptures have been tampered with so as to further obfuscate the details of the Last Supper, this would cause them to modify their conclusions. After all, it seems more than a bit significant that the Synoptic Gospels consistently contradict each other in their presentations of these events.

And on the first day of Unleavened Bread the taught ones came to יהושע, saying to Him, “Where do You wish us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” Matthew 26:17

And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they were slaughtering the Passover lamb, His taught ones said to Him, “Where do You wish us to go and prepare, for You to eat the Passover?” Mark 14:12

And the Day of Unleavened Bread came when the Passover had to be slaughtered. Luke 22:7

Observe that only Mark and Luke mention the slaughter of lambs. Taken in conjunction with the disciples’ question to Yahshuah, the implication is that they would partake in lamb as well. In fact, God’s Word Translation even explicitly says as much, rendering Luke 22:8 as “Jesus sent Peter and John and told them, ‘Go, prepare the Passover lamb for us to eat.’” Matthew, on the other hand, proffers no grounds for such a supposition. As we have seen, the other reliable gospel (John) indicates that preparation of the Passover was a day, not an activity, but this, too, is selectively added onto where the facts do not fit the paradigm, so as to give it a different meaning than the one presented, from the same source material, in Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7. To merely call this policy biased or subjective hardly does it justice: it is thoroughly unscrupulous.

The impact of Mark and Luke’s amendments stretches far beyond casting Yahshuah as a carnivore. Most translations of Mark 14:12 go further than the ISR’s by specifying not “the first day of Unleavened Bread,” but “the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread.” The same inference is written into Luke 22:7 far less often, but still with some frequency. However, the Greek manuscripts do not contain any word which can be strictly translated as ‘festival,’ so this inference is questionable, and therefore it is uncertain whether the Gospels are referring to the first day on which unleavened bread was consumed (the 14th) or to the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread itself (the 15th). Many translations which do not read ‘the Festival of Unleavened Bread’ still mirror the ambiguity of the manuscripts and betray their own uncertainty by finding a happy medium and rendering the phrase as “the first day of Unleavened Bread,” complete with the capitalization for a proper noun, such as would befit a proper feast day.

In spite of the ambiguity, it does seem clear that Mark and Luke intended to present the 15th as the date in question, because they have added ἡμέρα (hēméra, G2250), which is translated as ‘day.’ Matthew 26:17 does not contain this word, and so in its case, the phrase in question can literally be translated as ‘the first of the unleavened bread.’ While the phrasing of Mark and Luke does not demand reference to the feast day, the addition of ἡμέρα certainly implies such. The real question is what Mark and Luke were aiming to accomplish by adding this word to the original gospel account along with the references to the slaughter of the lambs, neither of which John felt compelled to do. (And John is the one of the four with the longest narrative, by far.)

It could be that all this is nothing more than coincidence. Perhaps two Gentile writers who, unlike Matthew, were unfamiliar with the intricacies of Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread, were trying to make Matthew’s descriptions clearer to their readers. In the process, they have conveniently conveyed the impression that Yahshuah and his disciples celebrated Passover on the 15th of Nisan, just like the Pharisees. That same impression is reinforced by declarations made earlier in the same passages, and these declarations also deviate greatly from the corresponding verse in Matthew.

“You know that after two days the Passover takes place, and the Son of Aḏam is to be delivered up to be impaled.” Matthew 26:2

Now the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread was after two days. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to take Him through treachery and put Him to death. Mark 14:1

And the Festival of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called Passover. Luke 22:1

So we see that Mark and Luke are largely responsible for Christians conflating the distinct terms of ‘Passover’ and ‘the Festival of Unleavened Bread.’ This misdirection reinforces their insinuation that the Last Supper took place on the 15th of Nisan. While it may be objected that the additional detail of the lambs being slaughtered argues for the 14th instead, this does not account for the fact that in Roman timekeeping, a new day begins at midnight. From the perspective of Mark and Luke, and of their readers in the Roman audience, everything would have transpired on the same calendar date. In other words, it is not explicitly evident that they intentionally lied, but it is certainly evident that either this is the case, or else they did not know what they were talking about, and got it wrong.

In light of all the confusion that both the Jews and the Romans have contributed to this issue, the most pressing question is how Passover came to be celebrated on the wrong date to begin with. After all, to say that the Pharisees promoted observance on the 15th is not to say that they conceived of the idea. Instead, what we find is that they, like their predecessors, had no understanding of the meaning of the custom, because they were unrepentant, and were compelled to advocate a particular interpretation of Exodus so as to safeguard what had by that time become the centerpiece of their religion: the sacrifice.

In 1st century Palestine, Jews “honored” the Law of Moses by requiring that all Passover sacrifices be performed at the Temple. Accordingly, around this time of year, Jerusalem hosted tens of thousands of pilgrims who desired to observe the Torah’s commands (even though the mere existence of the Temple in Jerusalem constituted a thorough rejection of the Law). If the phrase “between the evenings” in Exodus 12:6 refers to the time of day between sunset and total darkness, then the logistics of the sacrifice would make it impossible. The Temple priests would have had to have performed an incredible number of sacrifices in a stretch of time no greater than 90 minutes.612 (Keep in mind that this was not merely a matter of killing animals and hurrying them along an assembly line as we see in “factory” farming now, but of cooking the meat on the altar.) On the other hand, one who was set-apart from the masses, observing the ritual in a private home with family, just as the Israelites of the Exodus did, would have had no problem meeting the original requirements. But the Temple priesthood, along with the bulk of the population who followed it, was not about to give up its sacrifices, even if this constituted a return to Egypt rather than an escape from it (as indicated, for example, in Hosea 7:11), so Scripture was bent so that they did not have to do that or else acknowledge the opposition of their pretense to God’s commands.

It is difficult to pinpoint when this change was made, but it certainly came early in Israel’s history. The only detailed accounts of Passover observance after the Exodus are in 2 Chronicles. Ch. 30 describes the efforts of Hezekiah of Judah (716-697 BC), who called upon the Israelites to observe Passover after it had not been performed for “a long time” (30:5). As such, ascertaining how to properly observe the festival would have been difficult, given that no one on hand had done it before, and reconstructing such details from Scripture alone demands, as we have seen, a certain amount of interpretation, which is subject to error. The text states that the priests who slaughtered the Passover lambs had not previously been set apart (30:3,15),613 which does not exactly inspire confidence in their spiritual discernment, and therefore their ability to properly reconstruct the ritual. Such doubts are validated by the text’s statement that during the Festival of Unleavened Bread, 17,000 lambs and 2000 bulls were sacrificed (30:24); such a gluttonous celebration evokes memories of Solomon’s dedication of the Temple, rather than of the perilous, ascetic flight of their ancestors.

Josiah (641-609 BC) capitalized on this precedent with an even larger celebration. This time the Temple hosted the slaughter of 37,600 lambs and 3800 cattle (2 Chronicles 35:7-9). 35:16 emphasizes that all of the Passover sacrifices were performed on that single day, as if to reassure the reader that the operation was efficient enough to comply with the commands of Exodus 12. So the fallacious interpretation of “between the evenings” was clearly orthodox by this time.

Each chapter of 2 Chronicles brags that the Passovers of their respective kings were more ostentatious than anything prior, so it goes without saying that God could not have failed to be pleased with Israel’s obedience (30:26; 35:18). Nevertheless, it hardly seems a coincidence that directly after Josiah’s Passover, the king’s failure to heed the words of God as spoken through his adversary resulted in his untimely death (35:20-24). Nor do we hold the overtly pro-Jewish Chronicles in the same esteem as the books of Samuel, which it blatantly plagiarizes and still manages to contradict in points of fact, thus making the legitimacy of the whole Bible suspect, as atheists are often keen to point out. Obviously, when Chronicles brags about the increasing enormity of the Passover sacrifices and Kings simultaneously declares them abominations to Molekh (which is the view explicitly conveyed in the NT), with the same corresponding detail, there is a discrepancy over the opinion relating to the matter of the sacrificial ritual itself.

Seeing as the primary factor which compelled the reinterpretation of the Passover’s institution was gratuitous animal sacrifice at the Temple, it makes more sense to suppose that Israel was first led astray in this regard at the time the Temple was constructed. The ostentatious Passover sacrifices of Hezekiah and Josiah certainly hearken back to Solomon’s christening of the Temple, which included the slaughter of 120,000 sheep and 22,000 bulls (1 Kings 8:63). It is perfectly in keeping with Solomon’s track record to suppose that the corruption of proper Passover observance in Israel can ultimately be traced back to him. That the pornographic Song of Songs, whose authorship is ascribed to Solomon, and which has no other value to a student of the Bible, is still read during the Festival of Unleavened Bread by Jews to this day614 only lends additional credence to this supposition.

Regardless of who introduced this diabolical formulation of the ritual, a command to commemorate Passover is not equivalent to a command to re-enact it. Sacrificing lambs in order to celebrate Israel’s liberation makes no more sense than would America honoring those who lost their lives on 9/11 by flying planes into skyscrapers (or rather, detonating explosive charges in the same, with people in them). How a people chooses to commemorate an event reveals much about its character, and the way this particular tradition has emerged from Israelite history does not exactly echo the gratitude, humility and obedience inspired by the original event. No Jew today takes the blood of the animal he has killed and spreads its blood on the outside of his door, and we do not suppose that this was done in Hezekiah’s time, either. What was commanded, for all time, was the observance of the Festival (or Feast) of Unleavened Bread (which was not part of the original Passover, but the commemoration of it), and we might ask how a feast of bread becomes a feast of animal flesh, except by way of a total disregard for the intent of the one laying down the custom. It would seem that the Israelites ate the lambs just once, that it was not intended that they should ever eat them again after they were commanded to burn the remains, and that their grumbling in the wilderness began as soon as they had left, within the first week. None of this is remotely implausible, based on what we have already covered, so it is apparent that Christians have inherited their views of the Passover from those who had already openly despised it before Moses had even received the Law that instituted its commemoration.

At this point, the real question that needs to be asked is whether the slaughter of the Passover lambs in Exodus 12 was actually a sacrifice in the first place. The text does not explicitly refer to it as such, and given that the sacrificial system of the Law had not even been instituted yet, none of the traditional components of a sacrifice were present. There was neither an altar nor a priest, just the head of household trying to comply with the instructions delivered by God through Moses. More importantly, it must be established why the Israelites would have had to offer a sacrifice at this time, otherwise we are left to assume that God set the price of their freedom in lambs’ blood for no better reason than that he delights in suffering. To counteract that notion, it first helps to illustrate that Egypt’s loss of its firstborn sons was not the act of a malevolent, capricious deity, but that, once again, it was done as the fitting, even karmic punishment of a crime.

Then the sovereign of Mitsrayim spoke to the Heḇrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puʽah, and he said, “When you deliver the Heḇrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death, but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” Exodus 1:15-16

This is especially true in light of the fact that Moses was God’s agent of vengeance for Israel, and that he was the one who had been spared this outcome. The significance of this would have been especially hard to miss for the Egyptians, whose religion and folklore were largely centered around the story/myth of the unjust murder of Osiris and his avenging by his son Horus. Nor was it merely some logistical oversight that the Israelites would have suffered the same fate as the Egyptians had they not followed Moses’ Passover instructions. Judging by how swiftly they turned their backs on Yahweh once they reached the desert, it is only reasonable to suppose that their behavior was similarly deplorable before they set one foot outside Egypt. Recall that this very fact is emphasized by no less an authority than Stephen, the apostle-appointed deacon.

“But he who was wronging his neighbour pushed him away, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?’” Acts 7:27

“This Mosheh whom they had refused, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’—this one Elohim sent to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Messenger who appeared to him in the bush. This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the Messenger who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the living Words to give to us, unto whom our fathers would not become obedient, but thrust away, and in their hearts they turned back to Mitsrayim.” Acts 7:35,38-39

As the Israelites were already rebelling against God and his appointed authorities even before the Exodus, justice and prudence both required that, rather than being rescued without so much as lifting a finger, they must have at least demonstrated a willingness to obey when their very lives depended on it. Failing this, it can hardly be said that they were even worthy of being freed from their captivity, much less under such special circumstances as divine intervention by way of the plagues and their miraculous preservation in the wilderness. Indeed, they were not so worthy, so the intervention required another victim to take their place among the Egyptians. However, the precedent for this action is in the sacrifice of Isaac, so we see that in order for the Israelites to be redeemed, their own firstborns needed to be sacrificed, but because God spared them out of mercy, they failed to learn their lesson. Even the Pharisees who provoked Yahshuah failed to realize that their alleged ancestors had been enslaved while they were in Egypt, because they were so focused on killing the Son that they neglected the Father.

So יהושע said to those Yehuḏim who believed Him, “If you stay in My Word, you are truly My taught ones, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” They answered Him, “We are the seed of Aḇraham, and have been servants to no one at any time. How do you say, ‘You shall become free’?” יהושע answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone doing sin is a servant of sin. And the servant does not stay in the house forever—a son stays forever. If, then, the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. I know that you are the seed of Aḇraham, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” They answered and said to Him, “Aḇraham is our father.” יהושע said to them, “If you were Aḇraham’s children, you would do the works of Aḇraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has spoken to you the truth which I heard from Elohim. Aḇraham did not do this. You do the works of your father.” Then they said to Him, “We were not born of whoring, we have one Father: Elohim.” יהושע said to them, “If Elohim were your Father, you would love Me, for I came forth from Elohim, and am here. For I have not come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not know what I say? Because you are unable to hear My Word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you wish to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it. And because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. Who of you proves Me wrong concerning sin? And if I speak the truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of Elohim hears the Words of Elohim, therefore you do not hear because you are not of Elohim.” John 8:31-47

In light of our examinations of the context of the original sin, will anyone contest that Satan murdered anyone in the beginning other than an animal, for any reason other than appetite? Or will they contend that the Jews were being accused of an entirely different and unrelated sin in this context? If not, then it stands to reason that the allegation is that anyone who eats animals is a murderer. Certainly, the allegation stuck, for Yahshuah is recorded as saying, “Who of you proves me wrong concerning (your) sin?”

As the point is conceded that the act performed during the original Passover constitutes sacrifice rather than murder, does this justify continued observance of this day with additional sacrifices? Whatever is answered here has far-reaching repercussions, seeing as it can be said that, in quite a literal sense, Israel laid its foundation on the blood of lambs, and the message of Christianity is predicated on (if not entirely comprised of) the notion of Yahshuah (or of Jesus) being the Passover lamb and the scapegoat for humanity’s sins. If neither Israel nor the Christian sect ever would have come into existence otherwise, does this not argue for the importance and centrality of animal sacrifice to the religious devotion for all who would worship God? More to the point, is it not the case that God’s commands at the first Passover strongly imply that he lent his sanction to more of the same? Even the use of the word ‘Passover’ in the Old Testament supports this interpretation, as it is most frequently employed to refer not to the events that transpired on the 14th of Nisan, but more particularly to the lamb that was to be slaughtered.

“‘And this is how you eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the Passover of יהוה.’” Exodus 12:11

“You shall slaughter the Passover to יהוה your Elohim, from the flock and the herd, in the place where יהוה chooses to put His Name.” Deuteronomy 16:2

Then they slaughtered the Passover on the fourteenth day of the second month. 2 Chronicles 30:15

We have already observed that פּסח stems from a Hebrew word meaning ‘skip over’ or ‘spare,’ so clearly there is an etymological basis for an intimate relationship between animal sacrifice and salvation. Superficially, this would seem to confirm the Judeo-Christian doctrine of vicarious atonement, which claims that one can only be forgiven and spared by causing some other creature to suffer the consequences of one’s own sins. If the significance of the Passover could be shown to be one of perpetual vicarious atonement, then the Prophets (including the Gospels and Epistles) could be shown to have been contravening God’s will in their opposition to the Abomination of Desolation. In that case, we may as well just throw the whole Bible out, as it is fundamentally laden with the absurdities and self-contradictions which the Christians invented and ascribed to it.

Due to how pervasive and pernicious the doctrine of vicarious atonement has been, and to the enormity of the ramifications, we trust that we will not be belaboring the point by soundly refuting it once again. Millennia of malicious and superstitious religious teachings have succeeded in convincing humanity that while God is perfectly loving and just, he is also mysterious and unfathomable (meaning, he frequently, or perhaps even always, acts contrary to reason), so we had best take the religious establishment’s word for it that he does indeed demand that innocent beings suffer and die before he will so much as consider forgiving the sins of a penitent. The truth of the matter, by contrast, is simple: God forgives sins when an individual repents, and instructive rituals are designed for the unrepentant only; nothing more is required than repentance, but repentance is still required even under the Law and Gospel, where the symbolic rituals of sacrifice and baptism are used to teach and uphold its value.

It will be countered that the wages of sin is death, so atonement is necessary to pay the price for one’s past actions. However, this assumes that atonement is not the necessary component of true repentance that it is, no doubt owing to Christian conceptions of repenting by way of feeling guilty and superficially pretending to want to do better in the future. Such commitments typically have all the force and effect of a New Year’s resolution, as opposed to the once-and-for-all profound change of heart we see demonstrated in the Bible by David’s contrition or Paul’s conversion. Nevertheless, it will still be asked how one can make atonement if not by causing something else to die, as death is said to be the required payment for sin. Clearly the answer is that the sinner himself must die to his former way of life. Unlike the Christians’ atonement doctrine, which only has support in the form of a sparsely applied metaphor in the Epistles, this is one of Yahshuah’s most prominent teachings, and the one which he did not encode in parable form, so that it was obviously intended to be received by all, rather than just by the adepts among his disciples. For one simply cannot be his disciple without doing this.

“Father, if it be Your counsel, remove this cup from Me. Yet not My desire, but let Yours be done.” Luke 22:42

“If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his stake daily, and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake shall save it. For what is a man profited if he gains all the world, and is himself destroyed or lost?” Luke 9:23-25

And יהושע, going up to Yerushalayim, took the twelve taught ones aside on the way and said to them, “See, we are going up to Yerushalayim, and the Son of Aḏam shall be delivered up to the chief priests and to the scribes. And they shall condemn Him to death, and deliver Him to the gentiles to mock and to flog and to impale. And the third day He shall be raised.” Then the mother of the sons of Zaḇdai came to Him with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that these two sons of mine might sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your reign.” But יהושע answering, said, “You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and to be immersed with the immersion that I am immersed with?” They said to Him, “We are able.” And He said to them, “You shall indeed drink My cup, and you shall be immersed with the immersion that I am immersed with. But to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.” Matthew 20:17-23

But יהושע said to them, “You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and be immersed with the immersion that I am immersed with?” And they said to Him, “We are able.” And יהושע said to them, “You shall indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the immersion I am immersed with you shall be immersed. Mark 10:38-39

This narrative is also depicted in Mark 10. Notice this analogy of the “cup” which Yahshuah himself applied to his preordained death, and as though to demonstrate the consistency of the metaphor, to his disciples, as well. Why would he pray to be spared the wrath of the Jews if his death was not a necessary sacrifice for humanity, rather than the predictable outcome of his instigating the abolition of the Abomination, based on the Jews’ long history of persecuting prophets? The Christians tell us that there was no other reason for him coming into the world than to die in our stead, and even go so far as to suppress his teachings in order to accentuate this false notion. So why was he not enthusiastically subjecting himself to it?

It goes without saying that the victim of a sacrifice does not want to die. This is why every meat-eater is a murderer, and openly condemned as such in the Bible. We are just pointing out the obvious when we say that no one wants to kill himself, but what we are really talking about here is the death of the ego and all its extraneous attachments, not of the self. We see this in Yahshuah’s use of the latter term, rendered as ἑαυτὸν (heautoú, G1438), meaning ‘himself,’ in Luke 9:25 (quoted above). That is to say that you can either live for yourself (your ego) by seeking self-gratification, or you can die to yourself by overcoming your ego and following Yahshuah’s example of service to others, which necessarily proscribes killing them both in your heart and in point of fact.

Paul also gives us his commentary on this matter. The significance of Yahshuah’s use of “cup” to describe his death while he was at Gethsemane is that the topic of the Last Supper was still on his mind—the implication being that to share in the supper (or at least in the baptism which followed it) was to share in his death, and vice-versa. (Judas also shared in the supper, and was the first of the Twelve to die, but he did not share in the baptism, and had no life in him. That he betrayed Yahshuah for greed and envy rather than as an act of service is self-evident.) Paul further establishes that the Eucharist is based on Yahshuah’s death, and therefore the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Master until He comes. 1 Corinthians 11:26

The implication here is that the one who has died to himself is living in obedience to Christ, and that this is what it means to have faith. So the “sacrifice” which redeems us is necessarily not Yahshuah’s, but that of the penitent’s own ego, which manifests in the decision to stop sinning once he has swallowed his pride and accepted that others are no less important than he is. If you do this, then Yahshuah died for you. If you do not, then in no sense are you going to inherit life, neither in this life, nor in the world to come.

“I have been impaled with Messiah, and I no longer live, but Messiah lives in me. And that which I now live in the flesh I live by belief in the Son of Elohim, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” Galatians 2:20

But you have not so learned Messiah, if indeed you have heard Him and were taught by Him, as truth is in יהושע: that you put off—with regard to your former way of life—the old man, being corrupted according to the desires of the deceit, and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the renewed man which was created according to Elohim, in righteousness and set-apartness of the truth. Ephesians 4:20-24

Those who are of Messiah have impaled the flesh with its passions and desires. Galatians 5:24

How easy it is to ask a lamb, or a savior, to die in our place, when in truth what God requires of everyone is egocide. It is not just a matter of our having to die, spiritually speaking, but that we must cause ourselves to die through our own conscious choices. Nothing is more precious to an individual than his own identity, a fact readily shown by just how steadfastly most people refuse even to admit their sins, much less do anything about them. We tend to identify with our learned behaviors, whether consciously or unconsciously, to such a degree that they are perceived as integral to ourselves. Most people can scarcely imagine living without them. Therefore, nothing could be a more proper payment for sin than shedding the blood of our own egos, and this is the only reason this is even sufficient to cover the sins committed by those egos, rather than the necessity of losing our own beings in the process.

Do you not know that as many of us as were immersed into Messiah יהושע were immersed into His death? We were therefore buried with Him through immersion into death, that as Messiah was raised from the dead by the esteem of the Father, so also we should walk in newness of life. For if we have come to be grown together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also of the resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was impaled with Him, so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, to serve sin no longer. For he who has died has been made right from sin. And if we died with Messiah, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Messiah, having been raised from the dead, dies no more—death no longer rules over Him. For in that He died, He died to sin once for all; but in that He lives, He lives to Elohim. Romans 6:3-10

One of the most applicable truths of the Passover metaphor is that none of the disobedient Israelites were allowed to enter the Promised Land, and that only Joshua and Caleb made the cut. (Another is that, ironically, Caleb was not even an Israelite. Perhaps a more profound one is the fact that Yahshuah bears the same name in Hebrew as Joshua, who led the Israelites into the Promised Land. We use the transliteration of Yahshuah instead of Joshua to distinguish them.) The rest had died in the wilderness in spite of the fact that their lambs had died for them, because they refused to repent even in spite of having been given a second chance. Not even Moses made the cut. Joshua and Caleb, on the other hand, were the only spies who, taking no thought of their own lives, had been sent into the Promised Land to report back that it was worth taking, rather than the others who were overwhelmed by fear of the gibborim and regret of having left Egypt.

We are our own Passover lambs, and the only means by which we can escape this Egypt of satanic global governance on Earth and make our way to the Promised Land of the kingdom of heaven is to slaughter ourselves (anything and everything within us that would oppose and rebel against God’s will). Anyone who has even so much as glimpsed the emotional and psychological suffering involved in this process knows that seeing it through to its end involves more sacrifice than killing any other being in lieu of it ever could. This explains why an incredibly straightforward concept remains exceedingly esoteric to Christians, who, instead of practicing and preserving this teaching, have succeeded only in bringing it to naught. The internal resistance to introspection and repentance is so strong that one would sooner believe and espouse anything, including the patently absurd notion that God (defined as “love”) relishes in the senseless slaughter of innocent victims (including his only brought-forth son), than the absolute moral or metaphysical necessity of repentance to achieve the same result.

This is why God, in his infinite wisdom, saw fit to give the Israelites a ritual by which they were to mimic and instigate this process. Far from intending to establish animal sacrifice as the status quo forever after, the point was to learn to internalize atonement, after which one would never need to sacrifice again. From God’s perspective, a sacrifice that teaches an individual how to repent and be righteous is well worth the life of a single animal, when the lack of repentance will directly result in the deaths of thousands, and the prolonged suffering of the same. On the other hand, when the system was subverted, so that sacrifices were performed with a façade of worship and obeisance, while rewarding the participant with a steak dinner, then the process which God himself initiated became a sin meriting death. And now that the justification of the farming and slaughter of animals has been taken up principally by the very same establishment which built itself up by supplanting the legacy of the one who gave up his very life to abolish it, and the same establishment claims the entitlement of divine mandate (“dominion”), this is a sin meriting the eradication of the whole human species.

After all, what ought we to learn from the law of the Nazarites, if not that one’s very participation in ritual sacrifice is a sin in and of itself (Numbers 6:11)? When the author of Hebrews states that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins,” we might well imagine that he had it in mind not that these sacrifices were not good enough for God, but that, far from discouraging and remitting it, the very act of sacrificing ensnares most people in a vicious cycle of sin. The only escape is to sacrifice oneself, just as Christ did, and to be dead to sin thereafter. Surely this is the only real benefit of the practice itself, as the Law exists to produce consciousness of sin, whereas the sin in question turns the body into a habitation for malicious demons and provides no tangible benefit to human health, while systematically destroying the whole world. What could possibly be more contrary to God’s will than this?

Christians, of course, will strenuously object that God could not possibly have prescribed sin as an antidote for sin, but this fails to account for the circumstances which gave rise to the sacrificial system (which they do not even care to address themselves), the proper consideration of which once again shows not only his innocence against their implicit charges, but his supreme wisdom and benevolence. Ideally, God would simply require repentance followed by righteous living, but we have already remarked on how difficult this is for most people. The lesson to be learned about the example of Israel is not that God loved his chosen people, and this somehow magically imparts some sort of righteousness to the sins of the Jews, as Christians routinely allege, but that God is willing to look past the worst sins of the worst sinners, even in spite of their open rebellion, should they simply repent. This is absolutely contingent on the repentance, for none who do not repent will be saved by whatever kind of atonement God has in store for those who do.

What, then, shall we say? Is there unrighteousness with Elohim? Let it not be! For He says to Mosheh, “I shall favour whomever I favour, and I shall have compassion on whomever I have compassion [Exodus 33:19].” So, then, it is not of him who is wishing, nor of him who is running, but of Elohim who shows favour. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this same purpose I have raised you up, to show My power in you, and that My Name be declared in all the earth [Exodus 9:16].” So, then, He favours whom He wishes, and He hardens whom He wishes. Then you shall say to me, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His counsel?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to Elohim? Shall that which is formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this? [Isaiah 29:16; 45:9]” Does not the potter have authority over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for value and another not for value? And if Elohim, desiring to show wrath, and to make His power known, with much patience tolerated the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His esteem on vessels of compassion, which He had prepared beforehand for esteem, even whom He called, not only us of the Yehuḏim, but also of the gentiles? As He says in Hoshĕa too, “I shall call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved [Hosea 2:23].” “And it shall be in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ there they shall be called sons of the living Elohim [Hosea 1:10].” And Yeshayahu cries out on behalf of Yisra’ĕl, “Though the number of the children of Yisra’ĕl be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved. For He is bringing a matter to an end, and is cutting it short in righteousness, because יהוה shall cut short a matter on the earth [Isaiah 10:22-23].” Romans 9:14-28

Now recall that the Watchers had already created a culture wherein ritually slaughtering animals and feasting on their flesh constituted the highest form of worship one could render the gods (save human sacrifice, that is). This is why the Israelites were the worst sinners in the world, and why the Abomination of Desolation was the target of Yahshuah’s animosity, for they had inhabited the lands of those who had most deliberately reestablished the practices set down by the Watchers, and had even adopted and made their abominations all the more grievous rather than exterminating them, as commanded. The example of Israel demonstrates mankind’s antagonism toward repentance, to the point of deliberately choosing the way of Nimrod over the way of life. The profligate practice of sacrifice and open antagonism against the idea of repentance were both abhorrent to God, so his manner of reconfiguring sacrifice through Moses was aimed at solving these problems. It served no other purpose, and we have seen how the prophets were always quick to remind their audiences that God does not delight in it.

So the only purpose of the sacrifice under the Law of Moses was to attain God’s favor and forgiveness, not to express worship. If the spirit of the Law was properly understood and communicated to those following its dictates, connecting animal sacrifice with sin would have had the effect of teaching and encouraging the Israelites to reform themselves, so that one could, in the future, avoid suffering the guilt of knowing that an animal from his own herd had died because of his sinfulness. This having been accomplished, if one was already in God’s favor by virtue of reform and living righteously, and thus had no more sins in need of forgiveness, then there was no more need for sacrifice. Properly employed, then, the sacrificial system sowed the seeds of its own abolition (as intended), and sin would eradicate sin, not accelerate the “overspreading of abominations” (Daniel 9:27). In all this it must be remembered that animal sacrifice is the legacy of the Watchers, not of God or even of Moses, who merely used their own tactic against them. By comparison, when Yahshuah exorcised the demons in the Gerasene demoniac, they begged him to be allowed to inhabit a herd of swine (Jews do not eat pigs!), and he allowed it, but only in order to destroy them (Matthew 8:28-34; Mark 5:10-20; Luke 8:26-39).

Clearly this war has been in progress for the entire length of mankind’s existence on this planet, and the extent of the Watchers’ influence simply cannot be underestimated. Even resistance to introspection and repentance can ultimately be traced to them, for let us not forget that it has been their tampering with human genetics, both directly and through the encouragement of the consumption of animal proteins, that has led to our inhabitation by unclean spirits. In fact, it is most proper to say that the primary objects of worship for most people are the spirits/gods who have accepted their invitation and taken up residence inside them.

Demons know their possessions far better than the possessions know themselves, and as such know precisely how to manipulate them into doing their bidding. So complete is the enslavement of most subjects that they would never dream of questioning, much less disobeying, the voices in their heads, because there is no consciousness of self or volition to combat them in the average person. This is what Paul means when he says their conscience is seared as with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2), because conscience is the voice that God puts in our heads, so in order for it to be drowned out in the cacophony of opposing wills, there has to be a strong demonic presence. When we speak of the masses of humanity, we are speaking of puppets, as though there is an alien presence in the vast majority of our species, so we are really speaking of the demons themselves, as the puppets have no conscious life of their own, apart from the conscience which they have suppressed. This is what it means when Yahshuah says that whoever sins is a slave to sin (John 8:34), and why he calls them “the dead.”

So thoroughly are these demons ingrained into a normal person’s psyche that they are perceived as one’s very own personality. Those few individuals that summon enough objective awareness and courage to disobey them (or to obey conscience) are in for the fight of their lives, as wresting control is experienced as an attack on one’s own identity. Considering how fiercely most people defend their “self” (ego) against threats originating from those around them, it is no wonder that they fail to declare war on themselves. They spend their whole lives cowering under the threats of the gods who live inside, ever terrified of the emotional and psychological torment they can inflict, perpetually appeasing them through obedience, no matter how contrary their commands may be to God’s, and no matter how destructive the results, both to one’s immediate well-being, and to that of those in their immediate environment, and to their eternal fate.

It is no wonder, then, that virtually everyone would rather kill his neighbor than reform himself, even if he does not see his neighbor as his neighbor due to a speciesist bias. Perhaps it is thought that if a certain threshold of sacrifice is surpassed, this will serve as an adequate substitute for righteousness itself. The more animals slain in God’s name, or the more one invokes, meditates upon and even revels in Christ’s torture and murder, the more pleased God will be with him. Obviously the only ones delighting in sin, suffering and death are the demons pulling the strings of humanity, led first and foremost by those who have instituted and promulgated mainstream Christianity as the front line of Satan’s influence over the world.

God, meanwhile, delights in mercy and penitence, and to accuse him of desiring sacrifice is to accuse him of taking pleasure in sin. Yahshuah testifies that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s own life for his friends (John 15:13). From this we can infer that there is no greater sin than to force a friend to lay down his life to save ours, much less for such a transient and unrewarding cause as taste. Even if we allow for an exception to the rule of “You shall not kill” based on necessity, then wherever no such necessity exists, such as to appease our appetite for flesh, it is still simply cold-blooded murder. Such is the height of selfishness, yet this is precisely what lies at the heart of Christianity, both in theory and in practice.

The bottom line when it comes to sacrifice is that ending the life of any creation is only ever allowed with the express consent of the Creator. His terms, which have been dutifully recorded in the Law of Moses, must be followed precisely, and any violations thereof must be met with swift, severe punishment. What punishment befits Christians, who offer neither mercy nor sacrifice but instead conscript all of Creation toward the satisfaction of their personal desires? Have we not already seen that God is just, that justice requires a punishment that fits the crime, and that the punishment for this is gehenna?

So far as Passover is concerned, what the meaning of the word ultimately reveals is that when one needs to be spared, some form of sacrifice will be necessary, but which particular form is left to the discretion of the one who needs to make it. An animal will do, but it is far better to offer oneself instead, and best of all not to ever subject oneself to judgment that would require salvation in the first place. Had Israel obeyed God after the Exodus, Passover never would have been an occasion for more sacrifice; if God had had his way, they would have been eating nothing but manna, and then entered the Promised Land and eaten its fruits without defiling the land and themselves. The occasion of more sacrifice would have demonstrated that they were still in need of atonement, and therefore still guilty, and so had never truly left Egypt at all. Had they obeyed, the proper mode of Passover observance would have been to give thanks to God for his mercy, his salvation from sin and the bounty he bestows upon those who love and obey him.

It is no coincidence that this description is precisely how the Gospels record Yahshuah observing Passover. The meal of the Last Supper was bread and wine, not lamb (a point which we will address in more detail shortly). Yahshuah and his disciples had no need to offer sacrifices to God in order to be spared his justice. They were already in his good graces, so the natural response was to thank him for having led them out of Egypt (spiritually) long before that night. This is reflected in the name of the ritual itself, the ‘Eucharist,’ from the Greek εὐχαριστία, meaning ‘thanksgiving.’615 And we know that he gave thanks before he broke the bread and gave it to his disciples (Matthew 26:26), both of which the disciples and early Christians were still doing when they celebrated the Festival of Unleavened Bread afterward (e.g., Acts 2:42; 20:7).

This goes a long way to showing the implications of the Festival of Unleavened Bread following directly after the Passover, because we know that Yahshuah upheld the Law perfectly, and that the Christians of the 1st century followed his precedent. Clearly, the pragmatic realities of the Exodus demanded the consumption of unleavened bread, but we cannot help from observing that this subsequent asceticism had a kind of karmic merit, considering how many animals had to suffer and die so that Israel could attain its freedom. More importantly, the Festival of Unleavened Bread clearly foreshadows the manna on which the Israelites would subsist in the desert, a sign of their dependence upon and faithfulness to God. Their subsequent rejection of the manna and clamor for meat, then, closely parallels the way in which their descendants turned the Passover into an occasion to kill and eat.

In spite of all this, Judaizers and Zionists will never be content with anything short of Jewish supremacy and the restoration of the Abomination. Obviously they could not care any less what Scripture has to say about anything, as their demons have made up their minds for them. Yet they will still try to drag the rest of us down to their filth by arguing that forever commemorating Passover with multitudinous sacrifices at the Temple is justified or even mandated by Scripture. Even the asceticism of the Festival of Unleavened Bread is eschewed in favor of more sacrifices, and a celebratory banquet feast of fine dining, which anyone can plainly see is basically the polar opposite in spirit of the original Passover anyway.

“You are not allowed to slaughter the Passover within any of your gates which יהוה your Elohim gives you, but at the place where יהוה your Elohim chooses to make His Name dwell, there you slaughter the Passover in the evening, at the going down of the sun, at the appointed time you came out of Mitsrayim.” Deuteronomy 16:5-6

“‘And in the first month, on the fourteenth day, is the Passover of יהוה, and on the fifteenth day of this month is a festival. For seven days unleavened bread is eaten. On the first day is a set-apart gathering, you do no servile work. And you shall bring near an offering made by fire as a burnt offering to יהוה: two young bulls and one ram, and seven lambs a year old, perfect ones they are for you, and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil. Prepare three-tenths of an ĕphah for a bull, and two-tenths for a ram. Prepare one-tenth of an ĕphah for each of the seven lambs, and one goat as a sin offering, to make atonement for you. Prepare these besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a continual burnt offering. According to these you are to prepare the food of the offering made by fire daily for seven days, as a sweet fragrance to יהוה. It is prepared besides the continual burnt offering and its drink offering.’” Numbers 28:16-24

While these passages can be employed to defend the transformation of Passover into a celebration of animal sacrifice, they still support, not refute, the conclusions reached above. Clearly, had the Israelites been faithful to God after the Exodus, they never would have been given the Law of Moses as it was written to begin with. As has been demonstrated in this treatise time and time again, one must not mistake the existence of a particular teaching or statute of the Law as justification for never seeking to be more righteous. If the purpose of the Law is to instruct those under its tutelage how to be righteous, then at some point, presuming its course of instruction was faithfully followed, it would surely come time to graduate.

This is precisely the status achieved by the Christians under Yahshuah’s tutelage when they received the baptism of fire, and their legacy to the modern world has been the destruction of the Temple, and with it, the abolition of the sacrifices. Is any modern Christian really prepared to condemn them as egregious transgressors of the Torah, rather than commending them for fulfilling God’s will? Perhaps not, but only on account of how their absurd notions of apostolic succession would quickly crumble in the wake of doing so, as opposed to any agreement whatsoever with their underlying paradigm.

Christians will acknowledge that Yahshuah is the supreme authority on the Law (i.e., on its interpretation), and his opinion on these matters could not be clearer, short of even more evidence to support it. For one thing, he and his disciples observed Passover in a private home. If they had really slaughtered an animal, as the Christians allege, then this would have been done contrary to Deuteronomy 16:5-6, or else someone among them would have had to have gone to Temple to have had it done. Considering that they had already been targeted by the Temple authorities specifically for trying to do away with the same sacrifice, it is absurd to suppose that they would have shown up there and even returned with the slaughtered animal, as they would have been arrested on the spot, just as Paul was later. Equally absurd is that Yahshuah, a Nazarite from the womb, would have defiled himself just by being in the presence of a carcass, let alone feasting on it, at this watershed moment in human history, at the very end of his life.

As for Numbers 28:16-24, in light of his violent crime of obstructing the sale of sacrificial animals within the Temple, it is fair to say that had he lived to see it, Yahshuah would not have made or allowed to be made continual burnt offerings during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. There is no evidence in the Bible or otherwise either that Yahshuah or his disciples ever had or demonstrated any tolerance for the continual practice of burnt offerings by unrepentant sinners, or that their own Passover or any other feast included a lamb. If we are to suppose as much just because the vast majority of Jews practiced these things, then we need to reconcile this notion with all kinds of other contradictions, such as that they were decidedly against the Jews at the fundamental level of their paradigm, that they picked corn on the Sabbath and that they ate without washing their hands, etc.

In summary, the ancient Israelites transgressed God’s commands by observing Passover on the wrong day and by making sacrifice its focal point, errors which are preserved by Judaism to this day. Once again, Jews do not typically eat lamb on Passover now, but only long to have the Temple and its practices reinstated as the major defining characteristic of their religion and ideology. However, they still eat meat as part of a feast, which is the same thing as sacrifice by scriptural standards, rather than keeping the spirit of the custom based on asceticism and haste.

This constitutes a prophetic warning to Christians. However, most prophecies are remarkable due to the fact that they go unheeded, and the calamity which they foretell comes to pass. In light of their prevailing attitude that the Old Testament and the Law of Moses are of no value, it should come as no surprise that the Christians are no exception to this rule, having failed to heed this warning, and that they have committed precisely the same transgressions with regards to their celebration of the Eucharist.

Christians believe that their obligation to practice the Eucharist ritual stems from Christ’s statement to “do this in memory of me,” but have spent precious little time contemplating what the “this” refers to. When someone does make an attempt to investigate the matter, it quickly becomes clear that the celebration of the Eucharist has always been rife with controversy. We have already noted that the Gospels present the Last Supper as a Passover meal. Most Christians are dimly aware of this fact, but they are under the guidance of the Church, which is so heavily invested in the continuation of its own Eucharist practice that they are led to believe that the weekly Mass/Communion service is the commemoration of the Last Supper, and that the association between the Eucharist and Passover is merely by coincidence. If the weekly Mass is indeed the commemoration of the Last Supper, then there is no Passover commemoration, and no obligation for Christians to observe it beyond the Church’s Eucharist rite. While this does not seem to bother Christians in the least, it certainly did bother the 1st century Nazarenes, from whom they claim to have derived their entire religion, as well as their own authority.

Quartodecimanism was the first and most important of the so-called Easter controversies. The term comes from quarta decima in the Vulgate, meaning the 14th, as in the 14th of Nisan.616 The name alone shows how openly biased the Church’s point of view is from the get-go. (Latin was the language of Rome, not of Asia or the Levant, where Christianity was practiced.) All Christians were intimately informed about the Last Supper and commemorated it on this date, which, in accordance with the Law of Moses, was ascertained strictly by the proper calculation of the lunar calendar, regardless of what day of the week it fell on. Rome and its bishops, on the other hand, insisted that Christ’s resurrection must always be celebrated on a Sunday. One might wonder what logic could defend such an argument, seeing how reverence for the instruction to “do this in memory of me” must surely entail commemorating the event on the proper date, which could never be safely accomplished if preference was always to be given to the day instead, and that necessarily being the wrong day, though it could technically happen to fall upon the right date. The obvious answer is that Rome had no such intent, but instead was steadfast in its quest to properly assimilate Christianity into its eclectic collection of pagan gods and rituals.

“This is what he said, ‘The fourth beast is the fourth reign on earth, which is different from all other reigns, and it devours all the earth, tramples it down and crushes it. And the ten horns are ten sovereigns from this reign. They shall rise, and another shall rise after them, and it is different from the first ones, and it humbles three sovereigns, and it speaks words against the Most High, and it wears out the set-apart ones of the Most High, and it intends to change appointed times and law, and they are given into its hand for a time and times and half a time. But the Judgement shall sit, and they shall take away its rule, to cut off and to destroy, until the end. And the reign, and the rulership, and the greatness of the reigns under all the heavens, shall be given to the people, the set-apart ones of the Most High. His reign is an everlasting reign, and all rulerships shall serve and obey Him.’” Daniel 7:23-27

The defense of Quartodecimanism in the mid-2nd century was led by no less an authority than Polycarp, who is universally acknowledged to have been a disciple of the apostle John, as well as being himself the presbyter (i.e. bishop, but the term ‘bishop’ denotes a priest of the Roman religion and is therefore exclusive of actual Christians) of Smyrna.617 (As John was the last of the apostles, this effectively made Polycarp the chief authority on Christian doctrine in the whole world, a fact which no doubt heavily influenced the events in question.) Clearly troubled by the divergent doctrines being taught in the name of Christianity, Polycarp visited the Roman bishop Anicetus and attempted to persuade him to alter Rome’s practices. Not surprisingly, his efforts failed, and while Irenaeus’ account that the two parted company amicably is doubtful, Anicetus at least had enough political acumen to realize that he lacked the authority to challenge Polycarp and the rest of the Christians throughout the world, whom Polycarp represented.618

This was not the case just a few decades later, when Victor I excommunicated Polycrates, the presbyter of Ephesus, along with all others who rejected Rome’s assertion that the resurrection must only and always be celebrated on the day of the sun god.619 Not only this, but he was also extremely impertinent, as well. This effectively consolidated Rome’s break from Christianity, which the Christians were obviously unhappy about, seeing as they were intent on overthrowing the Roman establishment (that is, the religious establishment, not the government), and having some of the Roman clergy on their side would have helped to have enabled this. This constituted a major setback which would inevitably lead to more and greater persecutions than they had already experienced. Nevertheless, the Christians were totally unmoved, convinced that the Romans’ position was completely without merit or precedence. Polycrates’ response to Victor’s demands that they desist on pain of increased persecutions, as recorded by Eusebius, ought to illuminate how fervent the early Christians were in their observance of the Passover:

We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming ... All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops [presbyters]; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. Polycrates620

Eusebius, writing on behalf of the Church, also grants the Roman bishop unwarranted benefit of the doubt, stating that Victor rescinded his orders because there was too much backlash, and that he ultimately did not want to disturb the peace and unity of the Church, even though this was exactly the point of the excommunication. In other words, according to Eusebius, he simply changed his mind. However, this is absurd, because changing his mind necessarily would have entailed relenting on the point of asserting his (and Roman) authority over the Christians. Clearly, the Roman clergy were far more interested in establishing power and supremacy, be it temporal or doctrinal, than convincing anyone of the merits of a single point of doctrine. They simply had no authority in the Greek-speaking world, so they had to wait until they had the force of an Imperial decree before dealing Quartodecimanism its death blow, which did not happen until Constantine conquered the Christians and held a large number of their presbyters hostage at Nicaea. After a fierce confrontation (‘debate’ would be the wrong word), the infamous First Ecumenical Council (‘ecumenism’ refers to the ideology of the centralization of ecclesiastical power, though it is typically defined by political euphemisms like “unity” and “cooperation”) proclaimed that the Sunday after the 14th of Nisan is to be the sole date of observance for Christ’s resurrection, based on the calendric observance of the spring equinox, favoring the mystery rites of Constantine’s god Sol Invicto (a.k.a. Mithras/Apollo). In other words, the edict declared that Christ’s own command would only ever be kept by accident. Centuries later, even this loophole was deemed too much of a concession, and therefore sealed with a new calculation which guaranteed that Easter would never be celebrated on Passover, lest anyone might mistakenly conclude that Rome wanted any association with true Christianity.

The First Council of Nicaea was just a formal attempt at imposing Constantine’s rule where his predecessor Licinius, himself a devout Christian, had previously favored and supported Christianity. Some of the Greek bishops showed up and were killed for opposing him, just as Licinius and his whole family and staff had been murdered by Constantine and became martyrs for their faith. Constantine’s despicable policy of assassinating even his own relatives (including his firstborn son who would have otherwise succeeded him) because they had been influenced by Christianity set a dangerous precedent for those who knew what he was about and were wary of putting themselves within his reach. Most of the Greek bishops never showed up at Nicaea, so Eusebius records that Constantine sent out an open letter addressed to those who could not be sufficiently threatened into attending, as if to appeal by way of reason, whereas he had only ever used brutal force and intrigue to achieve conformity:

It appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul … Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Savior a different way. Constantine621

“What was the Jews’ sin?” we might ask. The Savior’s “different way” is precisely what Nicaea rejected, and the “Jews” referred to here are none other than the true Christians. It is on the authority of the Bible that most of the converts to Christianity in Asia were among the Gentiles. Constantine’s hatred of the Jews is legendary, but he also labeled a “Judaizer” anyone who did not agree with the Roman error, which is ironic, considering that the Jews were wrong about their observance, too, and the Christians were not. This necessarily means that the suppression of the Quartodecimans was aimed only at Christians. In Constantine’s view, all Christians were Judaizers, and only the Roman version of Christianity adapted from Marcion and Valentinus, etc., in the context of the syncretic Roman religion, had any merit. Yet those who observed Passover on the 14th of Nisan only did so only because of Yahshuah and the tradition that he preserved and espoused, so it is truly incredible that “Christians,” rather than choosing between the teachings of Yahshuah and the teachings of the Pharisees, have rejected both while laying claim to the former’s legacy and the promises made to both, as if obedience was neither necessary nor beneficial, or even that disobedience constitutes obedience (“faith”).

Such extreme spiritual blindness even extends to those Christians who have put forth enough effort to discover that the Eucharist cannot be properly observed without reference to Passover, Rome’s subversions notwithstanding. (We will discuss these subversions in the next chapter.) Convinced that the Quartodecimans were correct so many centuries ago, they then ascribe to them Passover observance in the manner of Jews, which is to say, celebrating the Passover meal on the 15th of Nisan.622 This is the legacy of Constantine: even when the answer is inscribed in the very name of the people being invoked, the apostate Christians still manage to get it wrong when they set out to bring a false witness against them to justify their genocide.

One must wonder why, according to this viewpoint, the Quartodecimans considered themselves to have observed Passover on the 14th if they were following Christ’s example and celebrating the meal with bread and wine, rather than lamb, which even the churches do not do now, even in pretense of commemorating the Last Supper. Seeing how the only Passover-related activity that Jews executed on the 14th was the slaughter of the lambs, and their Christian ethic would have precluded such sacrifices, this would mean the Quartodecimans were doing absolutely nothing on this day. Furthermore, this is supposed to be the “Preparation Day,” as the following day is a “High Sabbath,” meaning they would have been doing nothing at all in accordance with either the Law of Moses or the spirit of the festival. Yet we are simultaneously asked to believe that they revered it to such an extent as to have been named after it, and to have stood their ground under such intense persecution that many thousands lost their lives in the struggle against Roman tyranny. Clearly this illogical conception of the Quartodecimans is motivated by the Christian’s pervasive, fervent belief that Jesus was their Passover lamb, so nothing can interfere with the symbolic verification of this belief. Suffice it to say that the obfuscations of both the Jews and the Romans have been so thorough that virtually no one knows even when to observe Passover or the Eucharist in accordance with the custom laid out in Scripture, much less how to do so in a manner patterned after Christ and pleasing to Yahweh.

In summary, the Quartodecimans (i.e. apostolic Christians) observed Passover on the 14th of Nisan, the Pharisees observing it on the 15th, and the Church in Rome forbade its observance altogether while commanding those of the other faiths to convert to Mithraism and celebrate Easter according to their tradition in lieu of it. It really is this simple, to such a degree that even if we failed to discern what is proper from Scripture alone, the pedigree of each paradigm makes it clear whose example should be followed. As much as we have criticized Jews for their incorrect (and sinful) practices and the implications thereof, at least they are trying to observe God’s commands. God is on record stating that Passover observance is an everlasting law, unlike the sacrifice, and Scripture makes it clear that their namesake obeyed it, so what excuse do the Christians have? They can plead ignorance to the underhanded schemes of millennia-old ecumenical councils, but Yahshuah himself says “seek and you shall find.” If they have not found, does this not suggest that they are not seeking, and therefore desire not to find?

When the Catholic Church successfully decoupled the Last Supper from Passover, Christians lost all context with which to evaluate the meaning and significance of Christ’s commands. What, precisely, did he intend for us to do in his memory? Christians have long considered the answer to be obvious: his reference could be to nothing other than the act of eating the bread and drinking the wine of their own non-related Communion rite with reference to his atoning sacrifice on the cross. It seems worth mentioning, then, that this famous command does not even appear in two of the three Synoptic Gospels.

And as they were eating, יהושע took bread, and having blessed, broke and gave it to the taught ones and said, “Take, eat, this is My body.” Matthew 26:26

And as they were eating, יהושע took bread, having blessed, broke it, gave it to them and said, “Take, eat, this is My body.” Mark 14:22

And taking bread, giving thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of Me.” Luke 22:19

Paul mentions it, too, having adjoined Mark’s version with Luke’s. In fact, he even goes one step further than the Synoptics, affixing the same command to Yahshuah’s statement about the wine. Such a blatant discrepancy as this makes the whole addition to Matthew suspect enough to warrant skepticism.

[A]nd having given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat, this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 1 Corinthians 11:24

And taking the cup, and giving thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood, that of the renewed covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew 26:27-28

And taking the cup, giving thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, “This is My blood, that of the renewed covenant, which is shed for many.” Mark 14:23-24

Likewise the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the renewed covenant in My blood which is shed for you.” Luke 22:20

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the renewed covenant in My blood. As often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me.” 1 Corinthians 11:25

That this phrase (without which there is no precedent for a commemoration of any kind) is glaringly absent in so many places is rather interesting, to say the least. Even if we assume its authenticity, clearly Christ’s command to “do this in memory of me” did not refer to the ritual itself. Israelites had been observing Passover in some capacity or another for nearly 1500 years by that point, and Yahshuah knew that this tradition would continue virtually unchanged long after he was gone, regardless of what he had to say about it. Instead, it makes far more sense to suppose that the focus placed on the items eaten at this meal had to do with his insistence that his disciples, both present and future, commemorate Passover just as he did: by eating bread, not lamb. Furthermore, these words were spoken, and the bread was broken and distributed, while they were already eating.

Many Christians become incensed by this very suggestion, especially when it is employed to establish that Yahshuah was a vegetarian, insisting either that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal at all, or that as such, he must have eaten lamb. Even though there is no evidence that any Christian ever commemorated the Last Supper with a lamb, it could not have been a proper Passover celebration without one, according to their view. This supposition is then used to establish that he was decidedly not a vegetarian, in contradiction of the other evidence and indeed of the entire prophetic tradition. The suggestion that it was not a Passover meal has already been refuted, so our focus will now turn to the question of the presence of a lamb.

The only hard evidence a Christian can point to in support of their claim is Luke 22:7-8. We have already discussed why this passage is suspect. Matthew and John make it abundantly clear that the Last Supper occurred on the 14th of Nisan, not on the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when the Jews would have been eating lamb. So whether Luke’s error was one of transcription based on lack of knowledge, or of a deliberate insertion to cause misunderstanding, is irrelevant; it is still an error. The text only speaks of pascha; v. 7 mentions the mandate of the Law of Moses, and v. 8 is Yahshuah’s command to prepare the meal. Obviously the intent of the command was to prepare the whole meal, rather than just one course. Most translations understand this already, and insert “lamb” after “Passover” in the first instance, but not in the second. Moreover, the following verse describes his disciples asking him where they ought to prepare, and the ones after that describe his answer, so the context makes it impossible to infer that they might have slaughtered a lamb at the Temple, and the whole preparation therefore would have been done contrary both to the Law of Moses and to the Jewish custom, so the assumption that could be made that they were doing it that way, based on 22:7, is necessarily shown to be false simply by putting the passage in its context.

And He sent Kĕpha and Yoḥanan, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us to eat.” And they said to Him, “Where do You wish us to prepare?” And He said to them, “See, as you enter into the city, a man shall meet you carrying a jar of water. Follow him into the house he enters. And you shall say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room where I might eat the Passover with My taught ones?’” And he shall show you a large, furnished upper room. Prepare it there.” And going they found it as He had said to them, and they prepared the Passover. Luke 22:8-13

Even supposing by some wild stretch of the imagination that Mark and Luke did intend to assert that Yahshuah and his disciples ate lamb on the 14th, this begs the question of why none of the Gospels make any mention of it. It is not as though they have failed to describe the meal’s other contents. Matthew and Mark mention bread (26:26; 14:22), wine (26:27; 14:23) and a dip (26:23; 14:20); Luke mentions bread (22:19) and wine (22:17); John mentions bread and dip (13:26). Are we really to suppose that all these items were detailed, but somehow the centerpiece of the traditional Israelite Passover meal failed to be mentioned by all four writers, even once? Obviously it is precisely the opposite: the evangelists wanted to make it abundantly clear that lamb was not eaten at the Last Supper.623 Even so, the Christians’ opposition to the fact that Yahshuah was a strict vegetarian is so vehement that they will even go so far as to invalidate their own traditions and place their authority above that of the Bible in order to deny it.

After agreeing to baptize him along with the sinners, John the Baptist looked at Jesus and pointed him out as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”. By doing so, he reveals that Jesus is at the same time the suffering Servant who silently allows himself to be led to the slaughter and who bears the sin of the multitudes, and also the Paschal Lamb, the symbol of Israel’s redemption at the first Passover. Catholic Catechism, 608

How can one plausibly maintain that Yahshuah presented himself as the new Paschal Lamb, yet also utilized the traditional lamb at the Last Supper? Surely his replacement of the old tradition with himself intentionally demonstrated its inferiority, so its presence at the meal, at best, would have led to confusion. Moreover, it must be asked why, if lamb was eaten, he stated that it was bread which was his body, when flesh is clearly the more appropriate comparison. This is on top of his repeatedly referring to himself as the “bread from heaven” in his teachings, in a clear and consistent association with manna, which God gave to the Israelites to silence their grumbling over not being allowed any meat, without which the Passover custom of slaughter never would have been instituted in the first place.

The answer to this riddle, of course, is that there is no answer. Yahshuah’s refusal to celebrate Passover in the traditional manner makes his vegetarianism obvious. If it could be said, drawing upon evidence in the Bible for support, that he changed anything in the Law of Moses or the customs of the Jews to accommodate his own views, then this would be it. Nevertheless, Christians make excuses in vain to explain why the same man whose rage-fueled outburst disrupted the sale of sacrificial animals in the Temple would turn right around and eat a sacrificed lamb a moment later. Hence the true nature of the Cleansing (purification) of the Temple is suppressed altogether, the focus having been placed on the moneychangers instead.

Despite all this, it would be out of character for him and erroneous to suppose that Yahshuah simply improvised a new manner of observing Passover. On the contrary, it was the Jews who had changed the custom, and he was harkening back to the days when the Israelites had feared God and obeyed Moses. It is clear that he was evoking a tradition even older than that of Moses, and that he did this not because he was reinventing it, but because he had received it by virtue of his kingly Nazarite heritage. We have already mentioned that Melchizedek’s encounter with Abraham is the basis of the Eucharist; the implication is that Yahshuah combined the traditions, so that Christians would understand that it did not suffice to observe the Law of Moses, and he was probably even trying to show his disciples which of the two traditions was superior to the other, thereby ensuring that the Nazarene sect would carry on the legacy of Melchizedek and his descendants in preference of Abraham and his.

And Malkitseḏeq sovereign of Shalĕm brought out bread and wine. Now he was the priest of the Most High Ěl. And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Aḇram of the Most High Ěl, Possessor of the heavens and earth. And blessed be the Most High Ěl who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” And he gave him a tenth of all. Genesis 14:18-20

We have already shown that Yahshuah’s authority derived from Melchizedek, as the high priest of the order of Melchizedek, and that this is the basis of his cryptic statement, “I am before Abraham.” So the fact that his offering was identical to Melchizedek’s is no mere coincidence. And far from being an irrelevant historical detail for us to gloss over, the book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that this has a special signification to the doctrines and rites of Christians. Among other things, it shows that Yahshuah’s intent was indeed to counteract the Jewish custom of sacrifice and to establish a different rule for those who practiced his teachings.

יהושע has entered as a forerunner for us, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Malkitseḏeq. Hebrews 6:20

And it is beyond all dispute that the lesser is blessed by the better. And one might say that through Aḇraham even Lĕwi, who received tithes, gave tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Malkitseḏeq met him. Hebrews 7:7,9-10

By like reasoning, we can even infer that the lesser is a member of the religious order of the better. This is not intended to belittle Yahshuah, for everyone on Earth is subject to his authority, and the same context of Hebrews tells us that he has inherited greater prestige than the angels in heaven. By contrast, it would be truly damning to his legacy to suppose, as the Christians do, that he was a random carpenter and that his teachings and practices came out of nowhere. Obviously this is exactly what the Pharisees were getting at when they said, “Is this not the son of Joseph?” and, “Now we know you have a demon.” So instead of dwelling on his position and taking it to mean either that he was inferior to Melchizedek, or that he was just God in the flesh, who just popped out of nowhere and suddenly started preaching when he turned 30, we ought to think soberly about who he was and what he was trying to accomplish. The fact that he has inherited all authority on Earth is all the more reason not to make the man himself into an object of worship, but instead to obey the teachings which he was charged with preserving and passing on.

Truly, then, if perfection were through the Lĕwitical priesthood—for under it the people were given the Torah—why was there still need for another priest to arise according to the order of Malkitseḏeq, and not be called according to the order of Aharon? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. Hebrews 7:11-12

In other words, Israel had failed to honor the Law of Moses, but the solution was not to abolish it altogether, as Christians assert, but instead to raise the bar even higher and insist upon adherence to the standard of the Nazarites whose ideology traces descent to Melchizedek. The Law cannot teach righteousness; it can only point out unrighteousness. It demands that a sacrifice be made to atone for sins, in order to show the sinner why he should stop sinning, but it cannot actually make a righteous man out of a sinner without causing him to repent. On the other hand, if a man shows a better way of living, perhaps he can break the habit of sinning in others by his example, and there is no better example than that of a person making a willing sacrifice of himself for the sake of others. So we have in the life and death of Yahshuah what the Law lacked in that it could not provide a positive example of piety, humility and charity, because its rite of absolution was aimed at preserving human life (the life of the sinner) rather than destroying it.

Those who feel compelled to honor the memory of Moses may be bound to sacrifice lambs at Passover, but to honor the memory of Christ requires that a Christian commemorate Passover in the manner befitting a Nazarite. It is not as though any Nazarite ever would have broken his vow and sacrificed a lamb at Passover, even in Egypt, so to obey Yahshuah’s command ultimately amounts to honoring the memory of Melchizedek as well. He was not introducing any custom that Nazarites had not been practicing continually for more than 1000 (probably more than 2000) years, but it certainly would have been important to emphasize these points to his disciples, none of whom had been Nazarites from the womb. So consider the significance of his having spent the last few hours before his execution stressing the importance of reviling sacrifices and meat consumption at all cost, no matter how intertwined with cherished traditions such practices had become. Clearly his foremost desire was that we honor his memory by imitating his life, which is to say, by following the way of the Nazarites.

So the focus of Passover to a true Christian is not on self-preservation and scapegoating, as the Jews would have it, which is actually counterproductive to self-preservation, as we have seen in the case of the Israelites dying off in the wilderness. The focus is rather on mercy, as God saved the Israelites because he is loving and merciful, and even sent his only brought-forth son to take our place. Moreover, the ritual is symbolic of our service to one another, for we have seen that Yahshuah washed his disciples’ feet to show them the importance of this service and then told them that they would understand the significance later. Melchizedek similarly could have used his authority to his own ends by demanding that Abraham provide him the tithe, as all priests of all religious denominations do, but instead Abraham gave it willingly because he honored Melchizedek and was happy to have his blessing. Even though he was Abraham’s master, Melchizedek was the one who made the offering, and Yahshuah was obviously well aware of this when he repeated the action for his disciples. The connection is so obvious, in fact, that it seems he wanted to be remembered not so much as the man who died to make a point and ultimately to abolish the sacrifice, but as the high priest of his (and their) order.

Christians, on the other hand, have interpreted Yahshuah’s command to observe the feast in his memory with no understanding of the context in which it was given, and so can only conclude that we must blindly mimic his actions. To them, it makes no difference if we are entirely oblivious to the motivations behind them, because the only thing that matters is that we go through the motions of doing as we have been told and allowing the “mystery” (‘secret’ in Greek) of the ceremony to work its magic. That the Church would even allow its parishioners to be so ignorant and stupid as to make themselves pawns of demons while adding a capture-bonding (Stockholm syndrome) love for the process to boot goes a long way to showing how the Church has deliberately perpetuated the Abomination of Desolation into the present age. That it would take its place at the head of the ceremony and even act in Yahshuah’s stead, as though it is the Roman clergy and not his disciples whom he ordained, when the precedent would suggest that it be performed in our own homes by the heads of our respective families, and then it even goes so far as to tell us that Yahshuah is the scapegoat for the sins which it fosters and encourages, makes it unforgiveable and irredeemable.

Taken to its furthest conclusion, the Christians’ reasoning results in the belief that the regular reenactment of the Last Supper constitutes a sacred act upon which our very salvation is dependent. Indeed, this is the official position of the Catholic Church: missing a single weekly Mass condemns the soul of even the otherwise devout Catholic to hell. Obedience to principled, righteous living, on the other hand, has no place in mainstream Christianity, and is ostracized as heresy, while those prophesying or otherwise practicing righteousness are openly persecuted as heretics. We can attest that this is true of Christians in general—even otherwise well-meaning Christians—rather than of their institutions or those who sit at the tops of their respective hierarchies. In fact, their masters can seldom even be bothered to address them, much less argue to no avail with those over whom they have no control.

When virtually the entire paradigm asserts a Christian’s freedom from all laws, even those which are perfectly reasonable and beneficial to abide by, it is easy to see why such laws would be ignored and obedience to them mocked, while it is thought that Jesus will be happy if we do nothing more than ingest our weekly magic wafer, which is not even reminiscent of broken bread. How ironic it is, then, that the running theme which Christians fail to commemorate from the night in question stands in stark contrast to their notions of salvation and spiritual sustenance by theophagy.

“A renewed command I give to you, that you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” John 13:34

“If you love Me, you shall guard My commands.” John 14:15

“He who possesses My commands and guards them, it is he who loves Me.” John 14:21

יהושע answered him, “If anyone loves Me, he shall guard My Word. And My Father shall love him, and We shall come to him and make Our stay with him. He who does not love Me does not guard My Words.” John 14:23-24

“Stay in Me, and I stay in you. As the branch is unable to bear fruit of itself, unless it stays in the vine, so neither you, unless you stay in Me.” John 15:4

There are several other passages in the same context of John 13-15 which we could also add to demonstrate the point even better, but which have been quoted elsewhere in this book.624 This demonstrates that Yahshuah’s most important teachings (being those which he imparted to his disciples immediately before his death) were aimed at establishing God’s law in their hearts, whereas Christians are likely to think that he had nothing new or significant to say since detracting from the Law of Moses in the Sermon on the Mount years earlier. In fact, John has devoted five whole chapters (13-17) to the events of the Last Supper, but covers the meal itself with only a handful of verses in passing (13:2-4). Does this not demonstrate how depraved and misguided the priorities of church-going Christians are? Not only that, but we find elsewhere in his teachings that the pomp and pretense of religious ceremony do indeed need to take a back seat to having the right mind.

“Do not labour for the food that is perishing, but for the food that is remaining to everlasting life.” John 6:27

Consider the circumstances of the Last Supper. Yahshuah knew he was about to die. He had spent the last several years of his life grounding his disciples in his teachings, and these were his last remarks. Given what we know of his values and behavior, what is more reasonable to suppose would be his top priority: emphasizing his most important teachings in order to prepare his disciples for the perils they would soon face without him, or imparting to them the instructions for a magical rite which had the power, in and of itself, to bestow salvation from a nonexistent everlasting torment upon all who partook of it, regardless of the fact that such salvation is actually supposed to come by way of baptism according to those who hold this position? Even without John, it is readily apparent which of these two options is more consonant with the man described in the Gospels. With it, there remains no excuse for believing the absurdity that is the second option.

Just as in the case of the first Passover, ultimately it is obedience to God’s commands which results in salvation. Yahshuah’s disciples were already well aware of what those commands are; his focus was on ensuring that they would be faithful to them. He also went so far as to lead by example when, in defiance of tradition, he refused to allow the butchering of a lamb to have any place at his final Passover meal, and also secured the commitment of his disciples to do the same forever after. We might even suppose that the Church’s entire purpose for dissociating the Eucharist from Passover was to suppress all knowledge of just how vehemently the man whose identity they stole rejected the sacrifices they were intent on perpetuating, even as this was clearly the primary motivation for mutilating the accounts.

In doing all this, Yahshuah has shown the righteous how they ought to understand Passover. We know that the term ‘Eucharist’ comes from a Greek word meaning ‘thanksgiving.’ While it may not be immediately apparent why, describing the Christian form of Passover observance in this way could not possibly be more fitting. Even in the Bible’s depictions of the Last Supper, which had already started, the actual rite itself began with thanksgiving for that which God has given us as food, which in this case even includes bread, which is made by men from the fruits of the earth, and in no sense whatsoever ever entails animal flesh. Knowing, as we also do, that the event is a replication of the offering of Melchizedek, it is worth recounting that the original event consisted of nothing more than a meal, thanksgiving, a blessing and a tithe (a voluntary offering)—no supplication of any kind, and no confession and absolution. Neither sin nor its atonement factors into it at all, so why should it so factor into the Eucharist?

Originally, the Israelites observed Passover according to Yahweh’s commands, and in consequence, just as promised, he delivered them from Egypt. The appropriate sentiment to express when one has been given a great gift is gratitude. Yahshuah, then, was responsible for making sure that his followers understood that their primary responsibility to God, as it relates to Passover, is to thank him for his deliverance from the hand of Pharaoh, just as Melchizedek said, “Blessed be the Most High Ěl who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” Really, the deliverance did not even happen when the Israelites went forth from Goshen, or when the angel of death stalked the streets, but when the Egyptian army was drowned in the Red Sea.

One could not possibly ask for stronger evidence of this assertion than that which is evident in the Didache (the ‘Teaching’ of the Twelve Apostles). Apart from the Gospel of Matthew, which is the official record of the events they witnessed and a testimony of the life of their master, the Didache was the sole collaborative account of Yahshuah’s teachings put together by his own disciples. It was originally considered, of itself, by the 1st century Christians, what we would now call the New Testament. That being said, here is what Yahshuah’s own disciples had to say about how the “thanksgiving” rite of the Passover feast was to be observed by Christians:

But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving, give thanks thus: First, as regards the cup, “We give you thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of your son David, which you made known to us through your son Yahshuah. Yours is the glory for ever and ever.” Then as regards the broken bread, “We give you thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through your son Yahshuah. Yours is the glory for ever and ever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may your congregation be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, for yours is the glory and the power through Yahshuah Messiah for ever and ever.” But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the master, for concerning this also the master has said: “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.” And after you are satisfied, give thanks thus: “We give you thanks, Holy Father, for your holy name, which you have made to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which you have made known to us through your son Yahshuah. Yours is the glory for ever and ever. You, Almighty Master, have created all things for your name’s sake, and have given food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to you, but have bestowed on us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your son. Before all things we give you thanks that you are powerful. Yours is the glory for ever and ever. Remember, Master, your congregation, to deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in your love, and ‘gather it together from the four winds’ [Matthew 24:31]—even the congregation which has been sanctified—into your kingdom which you have prepared for it. For yours is the power and the glory for ever and ever. May grace come and may this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David.” If any man is set-apart, let him come [to the table]; if any man is not, let him repent. Maran atha, amen. But permit the prophets to offer thanksgiving as much as they desire.Didache 9-10

Many Christian apologists judge the Didache harshly, owing in no small part to the absence of gratitude for Christ’s atoning sacrifice, especially in connection with the Eucharist. Clearly, when a long passage of this nature fails to mention (thereby flatly denying) that which the Christian believes is the primary and virtually only thing for which he ought to be thankful, it begs the question of whether the doctrinal sentiments of this document are trustworthy. But by now we should not still be so steeped in illusion as to the validity of the Christian paradigm, and conclude instead that this early 1st century proof of the true Christians’ (Yahshuah’s own disciples’) world view sternly rebukes the sacrificial focus of modern Christianity, just as Christ rebuked the sacrificial focus of his contemporaries as it pertained to Passover.

Once again, the entire point of Passover was salvation; the entire point of the Eucharist was to express gratitude for this salvation, which, to the early Christians, was not even a matter of their ancestors having been set free from Egypt, but of they themselves having been set free from the bondage of sin and death (which their ancestors were not), which the events of the original Passover were deliberately meant to foreshadow and prepare them for. To conceive of the Eucharist in such a way as to make it a reenactment of the original Passover, then, is to demonstrate that one has nothing to be grateful for precisely because one has still not been saved. That is to say that the more one aspires to demonstrate the security of his salvation by making sacrificial offerings of other beings, the more loudly he proclaims his own lack of salvation and therefore his perpetual need for it. To make the meaning of the Eucharist into a sacrificial offering is to destroy the very meaning of the ritual, and to locate oneself right back in Egypt, cut off from Israel’s inheritance—which, to the Christian, means everlasting life, or, from Christ.

Woe to those who go down to Mitsrayim for help, and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but who do not look to the Set-apart One of Yisra’ĕl, nor seek יהוה! Isaiah 31:1

A righteous man, by contrast, would know that the most appropriate attitude to hold toward a sacrificial victim is regret. Who would not feel at least somewhat guilty if any creature had to lose its life so that he could retain his own? This reaction is natural; to suppress it by couching an event in religious terms, complete with appeals to superstition and God’s “mysterious ways,” only serves to destroy discernment and drown out the voice of conscience, which God has given us for a very good reason. While this is not to say that gratitude would not be a component of one’s reaction, the primary component would be a resolution to submit one’s life to God’s ways, so that never again would one’s own sinfulness necessitate the suffering and death of another, much less a totally innocent, being. Nevertheless, this is precisely the attitude enshrined at the heart of Christianity by making Yahshuah into their Passover lamb, in spite of the fact that he rejected the use of the original and had no intention of serving as its symbolic replacement, but intended rather to do away with this association altogether.

Virtually every comparison one can make between him and the original Passover lamb fails to fit the bill. For one thing, the lamb chosen for slaughter was supposed to be without blemish (Exodus 12:5), which includes any sort of physical defect in its description (even a slight injury), and while Christians find this in accordance with Christ’s lack of sin, the fact that he was beaten and tortured before enduring three hours of agony on a stauros hardly lends support to their claim. How is this “kosher”? For another, the lamb was supposed to be roasted in fire (Exodus 12:8-9), a practice for which there is no credible evidence that the Romans subjected Christians to until centuries later. Any flesh of the lamb which remained until morning was supposed to be burned (Exodus 12:10), whereas Yahshuah’s body had to remain intact for three full days before he was resurrected. Its blood was also to be poured into a basin, and a bunch of hyssop was to be dipped into it to strike the lintel and side posts of the door with blood (Exodus 12:22), yet the Shroud of Turin provides the proof we need to be certain that he was buried with as much of the blood from his wounds as naturally flowed from his wounds, rather than that it was absorbed and the wounds cleaned. (The burial was done in accordance with ancient custom and expectation of resurrection. For example, a soldier who died on the battlefield was buried in his armor, rather than being embalmed or dressed, as in the heathen customs practiced now in all First World nations. This stems from the idea that the blood is life, and no less essential to a person’s body than his flesh; you would not want to be resurrected without it.)

Yahshuah also does not fit the description of a Passover lamb for several other reasons. For instance, he was murdered on a mountaintop, not sacrificed on an altar. His killers were Roman soldiers, not Levite priests, and to whatever extent that the high priest Caiaphas can be said to have participated in this “sacrifice” at all, the fact that his heart was filled with malice and vengeance is hardly consistent with the reverence with which the priests were supposed to conduct their offerings. So it is an invalid sacrifice just for that reason alone; it was sufficient enough to get the sons of Eli killed over their lust for animal flesh—never mind Caiaphas’ lust to see Yahshuah murdered. Yahshuah himself called the priests and the teachers of the Law “blind” no less than five times in the rant recorded in Matthew 23:16-26, in contrast with their outwardly going through the motions of presenting themselves as spotless, which means that on his authority, they were incompetent to offer an atoning sacrifice even in a strictly spiritual or metaphorical sense. In fact, the priest is only ever doing his job if he is teaching the precepts of the higher law in conjunction with the metaphor, as his first duty, otherwise the entire purpose of the ritual is lost and it becomes an abomination in every single case of sacrifice across the board.

And יהוה spoke to Mosheh, saying, “Speak to Aharon, saying, ‘No man of your offspring throughout their generations, who has any defect, is to draw near to bring the bread of his Elohim. For any man who has a defect is not to draw near: a man blind [Matthew 23:16-26] or one lame or disfigured or deformed, a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch. No man among the offspring of Aharon the priest, who has a defect, is to come near to bring the offerings made by fire to יהוה—he has a defect, he does not come near to bring the bread of his Elohim. He does eat the bread of his Elohim, both the most set-apart and the set-apart, only, he does not go near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a defect, lest he profanes My set-apart places. For I am יהוה, who sets them apart.’” Leviticus 21:16-23

And of Lĕwi he said, “Your Tummim and Your Urim belong to Your kind one, whom You tried at Massah, with whom You contended at the waters of Meriḇah, who said of his father and mother, ‘I have not seen them.’ And he did not acknowledge his brothers, or know his own children, for they have guarded Your Word and watched over Your covenant. They teach Your right-rulings to Yaʽaqoḇ, and Your Torah to Yisra’ĕl. They put incense before You, and a complete burnt offering on Your altar. O יהוה, bless his strength, and accept the work of his hands. Smite the loins of those who rise against him, and of those who hate him, that they rise no more.” Deuteronomy 33:8-11

Surely no Christian will stoop so far as to suggest that Caiaphas and his henchmen or even just the Maccabean priesthood were even right with God, much less when they declared that Yahshuah’s blood would be on them and on their children. The whole concept in the prophetic literature of the priests having “blood” (murder) on their hands comes from the fact that they sprinkled the blood of the scapegoats on the altar. Considering that the priests who sought Yahshuah’s death no doubt literally still had blood on their hands from the actual scapegoating ritual, and that Pilate was the one described as washing his hands (by implication, they did not), they accrued guilt from the act in God’s eyes, which no priest would have, had he performed the act in accordance with the Law. Every Levite always ceremonially washed his hands in front of the congregation before reading from the Torah or giving the priestly blessing, in order to show that he was competent to issue it, lest anyone in the congregation suspect otherwise. Likewise, Jews customarily wash their hands before every meal, and three times before the Passover Seder,625 so obviously there is no support for the notion that there was anyone there to perform the act in accordance with even the spirit of the Law, in the strictly metaphorical sense, as they then went to their homes to eat. Only Yahshuah was competent as a priest to perform this rite, and he not only did not want to die, praying to have his cup taken from him, but had also invoked Hosea’s “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” on two separate occasions documented by Matthew. Nor is there any evidence that any priest of his order ever performed any animal sacrifice, ever, or that such a one was bound to the rules pertaining to the Levites.

One could object that it was God’s will that Yahshuah die, considering that his prayer to have the cup passed from him was not answered affirmatively, but this ignores the fact that God does indeed desire mercy (it is the law represented by the will of God to which the metaphor is applied, not the Law of Moses), and that his death was necessary for abolishing the sacrifice. The Passover sacrifices had their basis in the express commands from God, whereas the mandate of “I desire mercy” obviously still applied to Yahshuah’s situation, while no command from the Torah did. (On the contrary, the Law of Moses would require that those who sought his death by bringing false witness against him be killed in retaliation.) This is critical to understanding how Yahshuah’s death does not constitute an atonement for sins, as the whole issue of killing is so completely against God’s will that no killing act is allowed unless he specifically tells us to make an exception, as his prerogative. Nowhere was any Jew or Roman instructed by God to perpetrate this crime, and it was said of the one who betrayed him to his death that it would have been better if he had not been born at all (Matthew 26:24). The very suggestion to the contrary is monstrous before God, seeing how the Law of Moses explicitly proscribes human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:30-31), without exception (Jeremiah 19:4-5). The Law of Moses even contains a very fitting precedent for rejecting the possibility of any human offering himself as an atoning sacrifice for others.

And it came to be on the next day that Mosheh said to the people, “You, you have sinned a great sin. And now I am going up to יהוה—if I might atone for your sin.” And Mosheh returned to יהוה and said, “Oh, these people have sinned a great sin, and have made for themselves a mighty one of gold! And now, if You would forgive their sin, but if not, please blot me out of Your book which You have written.” And יהוה said to Mosheh, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I blot him out of My book. And now, go, lead the people to the place of which I have spoken to you. See, My Messenger goes before you. And in the day of My visitation I shall visit their sin upon them.” And יהוה plagued the people because they made the calf, which Aharon made. Exodus 32:30-35

All this is not to say that Christians’ insistence that Jesus is their Passover lamb is not without a certain amount of symbolic significance (as everything else in the Gospels also has symbolic significance to the OT), only that the significance is purely symbolic, just as the validity of the original sacrifice was. In this regard, they are no different at all. God instructed the Israelites to slaughter the Passover lamb between sunset and dusk at the very beginning of the 14th of Nisan. Yahshuah, however, was not killed until mid-afternoon the same day, when the Jews were killing their lambs in preparation for their Passover meal that night. Just like the Jews, then, the Christians who paint their doorposts with the blood of Jesus have not been spared the plague: by their reasoning (and this is important, because the significance is symbolic), the angel of death has already come and gone some 15 hours earlier. And this does not even account for the fact that they have deliberately chosen their commemoration of the event to coincide with the wrong date (Easter Sunday) of the wrong event (the resurrection), though this is a tautology, as Easter really has nothing to do with any event in the Bible.

Once again, it can hardly be more fitting that the two religious paradigms which stake so much of their salvation on vicarious atonement miserably fail to execute their foremost sacrifices correctly. If this does not authoritatively demonstrate that sacrifice is the foremost impediment—not the path—to salvation, then it is difficult to imagine what would. Rather, salvation happens by way of repentance and following the way shown by Yahshuah. This way is not his death, but his life, and God is not the god of the dead, but of the living.

Seeing how righteousness and selflessness can both be best exemplified by sufficiently respecting God’s creations as to resolve never to destroy them, even if it means saving one’s own life, one might ask what greater sacrifice Yahshuah and his disciples could have made, having subjected themselves to condemnation and death by the letter of the Law out of unwavering determination to honor its spirit. Then again, it will be argued that the failure to sacrifice would result in one’s destruction by the angel of death just as surely as would a sacrifice performed too late. “What blood,” the Christian might accuse Yahshuah and his disciples, “have you painted your doorposts with?” The answer, of course, is their own. This does not merely refer to their deaths as martyrs retroactively, but to a life set apart to Yahweh, sacrificing their ego- or even self-interests on the altar of repentance in favor of obedience to his commands. These commands are written on the doorposts of the hearts of all who so obey, and the association with the Passover is so obvious and deliberate that it begs the question of how Christians can possibly be so uninformed about the spiritual significance of the event in relation to themselves and their professed ideology. Not only this, but the description of the commandment is what Yahshuah calls the greatest of them all, i.e. the most necessary one to follow. Note the clear implication, for all who can be bothered to read it, that the greatest command is to obey all the commands.

“And this is the command, the laws and right-rulings which יהוה your Elohim has commanded, to teach you to do in the land which you are passing over to possess, so that you fear יהוה your Elohim, to guard all His laws and His commands which I command you, you and your son and your grandson, all the days of your life, and that your days be prolonged. And you shall hear, O Yisra’ĕl, and shall guard to do, that it might be well with you, and that you increase greatly as יהוה Elohim of your fathers has spoken to you, in a land flowing with milk and honey. Hear, O Yisra’ĕl: יהוה our Elohim, יהוה is one! And you shall love יהוה your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your might. And these Words which I am commanding you today shall be in your heart, and you shall impress them upon your children, and shall speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up, and shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. And it shall be, when יהוה your Elohim brings you into the land of which He swore to your fathers, to Aḇraham, to Yitsḥaq, and to Yaʽaqoḇ, to give you great and good cities which you did not build, and houses filled with all kinds of goods, which you did not fill, and wells dug which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant, and you shall eat and be satisfied—be on guard, lest you forget יהוה who brought you out of the land of Mitsrayim, from the house of bondage. Fear יהוה your Elohim and serve Him, and swear by His Name. Do not go after other mighty ones, the mighty ones of the peoples who are all around you, for יהוה your Elohim is a jealous Ěl in your midst, lest the displeasure of יהוה your Elohim burn against you, then He shall destroy you from the face of the earth. Do not try יהוה your Elohim as you tried Him in Massah. Diligently guard the commands of יהוה your Elohim, and His witnesses, and His laws which He has commanded you. And you shall do what is right and good in the eyes of יהוה, that it might be well with you, and you shall go in and possess the good land of which יהוה swore to your fathers, to drive out all your enemies from before you, as יהוה has spoken. When your son asks you in time to come, saying, ‘What is the meaning of the witnesses, and the laws, and the right-rulings which יהוה our Elohim has commanded you?’ then you shall say to your son, ‘We were slaves of Pharaoh in Mitsrayim, and יהוה brought us out of Mitsrayim with a strong hand, and יהוה sent signs and wonders, great and grievous, upon Mitsrayim, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes. And He brought us out from there, to bring us in, to give us the land of which He swore to our fathers. And יהוה commanded us to do all these laws, to fear יהוה our Elohim, for our good always, to keep us alive, as it is today. And it is righteousness for us when we guard to do all this command before יהוה our Elohim, as He has commanded us.’” Deuteronomy 6

At this point we have more than sufficiently demonstrated that only self-sacrifice is pleasing to God, and that self-sacrifice amounts to offering the bulls of our lips and adopting a spirit of humility and contrition. While it may not be necessary at this point, it will nevertheless be highly informative to determine why Christianity came to the opposite conclusion regarding this matter, as with most others, to that which is in line with God’s will. This is no mere modern development, as though it were something that could be fixed by hearkening back to the fundamentals of the sect, but has its roots in doctrines espoused by some of the earliest Catholic Christians on record. Christians rarely dare to question anything written by the Church Fathers, owing to both their antiquity and pedigree, so it is not surprising that many of them conceived of the Last Supper in sacrificial terms. What follows is a selection of passages representative of the early view of the Roman clergy, the names of the writers and the estimated dates of composition.

Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation it won for the whole world the grace of repentance. Clement of Rome, c. 95 AD626

Now the offerings and ministrations He commanded to be performed with care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons. And where and by whom He would have them performed, He Himself fixed by His supreme will: that all things being done with piety according to His good pleasure might be acceptable to His will. They therefore that make their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed: for while they follow the institutions of the Master they cannot go wrong. Clement of Rome, c. 95 AD627

Let no man be deceived. Even the heavenly beings and the glory of the angels and the rulers visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ [who is God], judgment awaits them also. He that receives let him receive. Let not office puff up any man; for faith and love are all in all, and nothing is preferred before them. But mark those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up. Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD628

Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. Justin Martyr, 150 AD629

Recall that Polycarp was the presbyter of Smyrna, so Ignatius’ letter (quoted here) may as well be called Against Polycarp or Against the Christians as To the Smyrnaeans, but either title would as easily describe everything which Ignatius and Clement wrote of this nature. Are we really to believe that the early Christians had no concern for widows and orphans, though Isaiah (1:17) and James both define this as true religion which is pleasing to the Father (1:27), and Yahshuah cites the rest as the standard for being rewarded in heaven (Matthew 25:31-46)? Ignatius is often cited as the one clergyman of the Roman persuasion in the whole of the Middle East who deferred to the authority of the Roman bishop. Knowing this, how seriously can we take anything he had to say regarding his ideological opponents, the piety and orthodoxy of whom both speak for themselves? Here he is literally saying that because they reject the spurious Catholic doctrine, they abstain from the Eucharist itself! And if Justin is so sure of his position, then why does he need to resort to the fallacy of appealing to consensus, when Yahshuah and the Bible as a whole declare the whole world to be in rebellion against God, and will remain so until the very end of the age, when God’s wrath will be poured out to destroy its evil works?

Likewise, Clement’s notion that the whole world has been turned to repentance is patently absurd and begs the question of how Clement defined repentance. Among other things, he was writing during the reign of the emperor Domitian, who is practically unknown apart from his legacy of taking most of the blame for the widespread persecutions of Christians after Nero. (To be fair, the only emperors who deserve this infamy prior to Constantine’s era are Nero and Hadrian, but it is certain that Christianity was being suppressed and Christians were being murdered during Domitian’s reign—though not the “Christians” of Clement’s persuasion.) If Clement insists that the times and seasons are fixed and must be performed according to God’s will, then this serves to show that it is not insignificant that the Church has insisted on the wrong dates and the wrong rites, with the wrong theological beliefs attached to them, to the point of persecuting to death all who simply disagreed or refused to betray the true faith or blaspheme Christ, and certainly to the point of openly slandering those who so disagree now. These statements by the Church Fathers may seem impressive, especially as they so perfectly support the doctrines of mainstream Christianity, but to assume that the antiquity of these notions, as well as the long-standing tradition of honoring them, equates to their having derived from Yahshuah and the apostles themselves is not only a leap in logic, but more importantly, it is to ignore the stern warnings of these same apostles of wicked men who would try to deceive the Elect and lead them astray, as we have seen toward the beginning of this treatise.

Nevertheless, it is one thing to teach false doctrines, but another thing entirely to create them. The Church Fathers were guilty of propagating what is now the mainstream conception of the Eucharist, but they were not its originators. Instead, this conception seems to have originated as a twisted outgrowth of the “agape feasts” celebrated by Christians in the first few decades after the resurrection. It is well known that these communal meals were religious in nature; in fact, in some cases, they were so closely related to celebration of the Eucharist that they were actually seen as equivalent to it.630 This strongly supports the notion that the Catholic Mass had an original basis in the Christian Eucharist prior to the first major Easter controversy.

While there is no scholarly consensus as to the origins of agape feasts, it is not difficult to ascertain. Communal living was one of the most important features of early Christianity, though it is never recognized as such, if indeed it is recognized at all. Far from simply having loose associations with those professing the same beliefs, all Christians of the 1st century lived in or were at least encouraged to live in full-fledged intentional communities. Considering that they shared their possessions and depended upon one another for their very survival, communal meals were clearly the rule, not the exception, and breaking this rule was so frowned upon that it could get a member banned from the community. Given that bread was as much of a staple then as it is now, Christians hardly would have shared a meal at which it was not eaten. Most importantly, seeing how such communities had only even been founded because their members sought to abide by the teachings of Christ, it is fair to say that he would have been remembered, one way or another, with every meal they ate. Put this in light of the fact that his parents actually got up and moved to a different country so that he would be born in a town the meaning of which is ‘Place of Bread.’

The last major experience that Yahshuah shared with his disciples prior to his resurrection was a meal, so it is hardly surprising that these agape feasts were ubiquitous among early Christians, or that they would have been associated with the Last Supper. However, this does not mean that the early Christians believed that these gatherings constituted observance of Christ’s command to “do this in memory of me,” especially considering that they transpired throughout the year, not just on Passover. It is not as though Yahshuah and his disciples had never shared bread and wine prior to the Last Supper, but what made that meal particularly significant was not just the fact that he was about to be murdered, but the fact that it took place on Passover. After all, eating bread would not have been particularly noteworthy or offensive to a Jew at any other time of year, but to replace the traditional lamb with bread on Passover would have been incredibly divisive—to such a degree, in fact, that it was one of the defining characteristics of early Christianity. So to suppose that Christians back then were wholly ignorant of this fact, as they are now, is to force a modern interpretive bias on actual historical events.

The early Christians had frequent communal meals at which they honored Christ both in word and deed, but they did not confuse these agape feasts with the Eucharist, which could only properly be celebrated on Passover. This begs the question of how other people, who likewise identified themselves as Christians, came to such a different understanding, believing that a routine agape feast was no different than the Eucharist, that it must be celebrated weekly, and that the bread and wine offered by Christ were actually an invitation to share in his actual body and blood. The answer again revolves around the communities of the early Christians, particularly how exclusive they were, and the fact that the likes of Clement and Ignatius were only ever familiarized with the banquets and orgies of the Roman aristocracy, and could neither have imagined nor made it in the door of one of the communities established by Paul in Greece or Asia to see what went on there.

If any real Christian of the ancient world even bumped into one of these Roman aristocrats on the street, it was only by accident. We do them all a serious wrong to think that the Church Fathers had a better idea of what was going on in their homes, rather than interpreting it the way we should: by realizing that their communities were the natural enemies of the Roman bishops. Of course they were the targets of their animosity; they were an affront to their decadent and hedonistic way of life, the equivalents of what we might call cults or terrorist cells now. Nor is this any kind of exaggeration. The Roman government had already treated them as such from at least the reign of Caligula (37-41 AD), who ordered an altar and a statue of himself erected in the Temple (in response to the Jews’ destruction of another statue in Jamnia, which had been erected by the non-Jewish residents of that city, apparently to provoke them). This order was delayed by the Roman governor of Syria, and ultimately thwarted by the Judean king, both of whom anticipated that it would lead to a war. The Jews of Alexandria actually sent a delegation to Caligula, informing him that Jews around the world would rather rise in rebellion and die, and be destroyed as a nation, than see their temple so desecrated, so we can just imagine how the Christians felt about it, as they were already actively pursuing the end of the Abomination by then. (What we mean here is that, although it may seem extremist, the Jewish position was actually the moderate one. The Romans advocated the worship of all gods, including Caesar; the Jews were intolerant of the Romans’ ideas for desecrating the Temple, and the Christians were intolerant of the Jews’, and even of the Temple itself to some extent.)

In light of all the misconceptions, both ancient and modern, it is difficult to appreciate the rigor with which standard Christian teachings were enforced. Nevertheless, the Bible makes this point very clear, and we might recount the story of Ananias and Sapphira to show as much (Acts 4:32-5:13). One can scarcely imagine just how many modern Christians would fall dead at Peter’s feet if the same were asked of them (that they dedicate their entire fortunes to the community), or that they fight to the death for the preservation of the sanctity of the Temple against the Abomination, which all ideological Zionists by definition support. This passage ought to illuminate one of Yahshuah’s teachings, as it is famous precisely because of its perceived difficulty.

יהושע said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven. And come, follow Me.” Matthew 19:21

Missionaries have seen this as a call to discard all possessions at their earliest convenience and to go preach the “Gospel” in some Third World country. Most have concluded that it is a nice sentiment, but that it is not practical enough to be meant to have been taken seriously. Even missionaries are not inclined to live in abject poverty and cannot see the sense in bestowing everything they own upon some random homeless person, preferring to keep their houses in order for when they return to them. Clearly Christ had neither of these extreme ascetic values in mind, but instead was advocating entrance into one of the set-apart communities of the Essenes. Lest we forget, the word ebion means ‘poor.’

It was only in such communities that Christianity was taught and practiced in its purest form. Only in an environment of discipline and isolation could the perfection of the Christian ideal be attained. Division, deceit and heresy, on the other hand, quickly breed and propagate where people are not committed to ideals that require personal sacrifice. Instead, the world at large is interested in personal gain and self-satisfaction. This is precisely why God himself commands those who love him to separate themselves from the world—not out of some misguided, self-righteous desire to feel better than others, but out of dire necessity. This is what it means to be set-apart.

Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with Elohim? Whoever therefore intends to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of Elohim. James 4:4

This matter of being set-apart is incredibly important and central to what it means to be a Christian. Most people fail to account for the fact that early Christians were not all equal in their grasp of Christ’s teachings. This is true not just of individuals, but even communities. Intentional communities like Damascus had the resources and manpower to manage a program designed to initiate members into such teachings in a reliable, systematic way and then enforce adherence to them, such that anyone who rebelled against the leaders of the community would quickly find himself shut out. One need only read the Damascus Document or the Community Rule (see Appendix D) to get a feel for just how strict and regimented these communes were. Inside these communities, then, the true doctrines of Christ were taught and followed by people who had pledged their lives to this very enterprise. Anything could happen outside the watchful eyes of community leaders dedicated to the Nazarite mode of living, and these leaders were not keen on seeing their communities devolve and dissolve themselves due to individualistic desires.

Modern Christianity has somehow failed to even recognize the existence of these communities, much less their importance, so it is not at all surprising that the form of worship it holds to be God’s purest and final revelation to mankind is nothing more than the bastard offspring of Christ’s teachings adulterated with Judaism and with the syncretism of the Roman Empire’s mystery religions. Scriptural support for these errors largely traces back to Paul’s epistles, which were written primarily to the major Christian communities in Asia Minor, which then disseminated them to the smaller surrounding ones. One of the underlying themes of these epistles is the varying degrees of castigation directed at the recipients due to their lack of dedication to Paul’s teachings, and their correspondingly superficial understanding of them.

This ought to shed a great deal of light on why Paul’s mission to the Gentiles was so controversial among the Christians in Palestine. Such opposition is usually ascribed to xenophobia, and while this certainly seems to have been a factor, it also ignores the logistical problems posed by Paul’s plans. Nazarite communities had been present in Palestine for centuries, and seeing as how Yahshuah’s teachings were not new to them, they would have been prepared for an influx of new people wanting to live as he taught. Elsewhere, however, there was literally no foundation from which to work, and Paul was, at least at first, alone in his desire to risk spreading the Gospel under such hazardous conditions.

The Corinthians are a perfect example of Christians who were still commingled with the community at large. In fact, the very passage that reveals this is so also gives us a glimpse of the types of problems resulting from this less dedicated form of Christianity. Incidentally, the controversy was over the fact that they were not all eating together, as they were supposed to, and that, for some, individualistic desires took precedence over the spirit of the community.

For, when you eat, each one takes his own supper first, and one is hungry and another is drunk [full, sated]. Have you not houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the assembly of Elohim and shame those who have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise! 1 Corinthians 11:21-22

If not for Paul’s missionary work among the Gentiles, it is questionable whether Christianity ever would have spread and become as influential as it is. With that gamble came a price, and that price has been the loss of fidelity to Yahshuah’s original teachings. Christianity became like an overextended empire in that it was both the target of the outside envy of the barbarians in Rome, and administrative control diminished the further away any particular community was from the central authority—the furthest one being the one in Rome. Christians simply did not have the resources to grow as quickly as they did while maintaining the strict control that life in intentional communities afforded them, so Paul preached a message that was significantly dumbed down from the exacting standards of Damascus.

And, when I came to you, brothers, I did not come with excellence of speech or wisdom, proclaiming to you the witness of Elohim. For I resolved not to know any matter among you except יהושע Messiah and Him impaled. 1 Corinthians 2:1-2

Of course, this same message constitutes the heart and soul of Christianity today, so the manner in which Paul simplified his message to appeal to as broad an audience as possible was successful to such a degree that to even hint that true Christianity centered upon anything else amounts to heresy. Nevertheless, it is not necessary for us to challenge or debunk Paul on this point, for he does that himself by implication in the very next chapter of the same epistle. This practically constitutes a condemnation of the willful stupidity of Christians today.

And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual ones but as to fleshly, as to babes in Messiah. I fed you with milk and not with solid food, for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is envy, and strife, and divisions among you, are you not fleshly and walking according to man? 1 Corinthians 3:1-3

Clearly the depth of Yahshuah’s teachings are far greater than churchgoers can possibly fathom, and to the extent that it can be said that the New Testament supports the vicarious atonement doctrine at all, such a teaching constitutes nothing more than spiritual milk which takes a great deal of explaining to even make any sense. Paul saw enough potential in the Corinthian Christians that he diligently sought to disabuse them of their errors, and we do not fault him for this, but most of the Christians in Palestine did not share his optimism. One must appreciate that the Greek-speaking world as a whole was almost completely unfamiliar with the complex history and culture of Judea. The Corinthians’ understanding of Yahshuah’s teachings at the time of Paul’s writing was quite low, so a 21st century reader of the epistle should not mistakenly conclude that it, or any of the other NT writings, constitutes the sum total of all Christian revelation, even on one specific point. Advanced knowledge was only entrusted to those who had proved themselves worthy of it, not due to some power-hungry hierarchy bent on protecting its own interests (as in the case of Rome’s), but because most people simply are not interested in making the sacrifices required to obtain it.

And He said to them, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” And when He was alone, those about Him, with the twelve, asked Him about the parable. And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the secret of the reign of Elohim, but to those who are outside, all are done in parables, so that ‘seeing they see but do not perceive, and hearing they hear but do not understand, lest they should turn and their sins be forgiven them [Isaiah 6:9].’” Mark 4:9-12

The Corinthians had not been counted among those who were outside, but they certainly were not ready for the teachings given to those who had set themselves apart in places like Nazareth and Damascus. They were all baptized, certainly, but not all by fire. Behavior such as what they displayed during their agape feasts simply would not have been tolerated in a full-fledged Christian or Nazarite community.

So that whoever should eat this bread or drink this cup of the Master unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Master. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For the one who is eating and drinking unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Master. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

The significance of Paul’s rebuke on this matter cannot be overstated. Let us not forget that the same type of behavior resulted in death for Ananias and Sapphira. Paul was not being hypocritical for failing to threaten the Corinthians in like manner. They simply had not made the same type of commitment, and so could not be held to the same level of accountability. For that reason, it is evident how the dumbed down versions of Christian teachings were misapplied, even under Paul’s watchful eye.

Inside a community, errors in the understanding and practice of agape feasts never would have arisen. Individuals who had risen to prominence were entrusted with oversight of communal meals. As such, they would not have tolerated debauchery, nor would they have allowed divergent doctrines to fester, such as equating regular communal meals to the Last Supper, failing to commemorate Passover, or performing this ritual in any way other than what would be expected of a Nazarite. Outside the walls of these sanctuaries and bastions of Christianity, however, the doctrines of worldly religions were free to wage their assaults. With no self-regulating system of discipline and control in place to ensure the integrity of the apostolic teachings, subversion was inevitable, and the agape feasts were one of the primary targets for infiltration, seeing how Paul’s epistle is not the only place in the NT where they are ill-spoken of, as we have seen from Jude:

Woe to them! Because they have gone in the way of Qayin, and gave themselves to the delusion of Bilam for a reward, and perished in the rebellion of Qorah. These are rocky reefs in your love feasts, feasting with you, feeding themselves without fear, waterless clouds borne about by the winds, late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots, wild waves of the sea foaming up their own shame, straying stars [fallen angels, i.e. rephaim] for whom blackness of darkness is kept forever. Jude 11-13

Jude 12 is the only place in the New Testament where the term “rocky reefs,” translated from σπιλάς (spilas’, G4794), appears, so translators have had to ascertain its meaning by referencing other Greek works. Its most famous occurrence is in Homer’s Odyssey (iii.298; v.401,405). Therein is an account of Menelaus’ fleet crashing on the “rocky reefs” of Crete near Gortyn due to a great storm sent by Zeus. Zeus had intervened on account of Aegisthus, who had seduced Clytemnestra, the wife of Menelaus’ brother Agamemnon, while the brothers were away warring against Troy, and who was so overjoyed by the success of his scheming that he made great sacrifices to the gods in gratitude.631

Outside the Odyssey, Aegisthus is known as the son of Thyestes, who had lost his older sons after an affair with the wife of his brother Atreus (father of Agamemnon and Menelaus) provoked him to kill Thyestes’ sons and surreptitiously serve them for dinner. After this misfortune, Aegisthus was born of the union between Thyestes and his own daughter Pelopia, who he raped after she performed a sacrifice. Besides his murder of Agamemnon (his own cousin), his seduction of Clytemnestra and his usurpation of the throne of Mycenae, Aegisthus is also known for slaying his uncle Atreus while he was offering a sacrifice.632 So Jude’s mention of “rocky reefs” would have been recognized by his largely Greek audience as a reference to an extremely infamous character from Greek mythology associated with sacrifices, adultery, murder and meat-eating. The implication that they were bringing great peril upon themselves by allowing such people to share in their agape feasts would not have been lost upon his readers.

This same point is reinforced by the phrase “feeding themselves without fear,” also in v. 12, as ποιμαίνω (poimanó, G4165) typically has a meaning of ‘to tend as a shepherd’ (1 Corinthians 9:7, 1 Peter 5:2, Revelation 7:17), and so is to be understood as a reference to the bad shepherds who feast on the flock rather than caring for it. Considering that Paul rebuked the Corinthians for drunkenness at their agape feasts, it is easy to imagine how meat offered to idols might have been eaten at others. But even with the confusion and apostasy created due to the circumstantial challenges of his mission, Paul did not seem overly concerned. Instead, he exuded the confidence and optimism of a man whose orders had come from Yahshuah himself, believing that his plan was trustworthy, even if at times the results looked disastrous.

For in the first place, I hear that when you come together as an assembly, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. For there have to be factions even among you, so that the approved ones might be revealed among you. 1 Corinthians 11:18-19

Does not the very notion of intentionally allowing conflict within these communities in order to determine who was truly committed to God’s will defy so many of the assumptions Christians have about their alleged predecessors? Paul was operating a model very different from that used in Damascus and similar communities, but clearly there was a certain wisdom to it and it got results, or else it never would have garnered the support of the Christians in Jerusalem. So in light of all this we must ask, unless a Christian grasps the fact that these different approaches to attracting and teaching converts even existed, and unless he understands what it means to be an “approved one,” how can he ever hope to discover that the Eucharistic ritual he has received is precisely what Paul and the author of Jude were warning their audiences about? After all, most Christians today believe that there is nothing to even interpret or understand with regards to the Last Supper. To them, the words are there in black and white, so we need do nothing more than mimic the actions described, however the clergy decide, because the churches cannot possibly all be wrong or have some kind of hidden agenda.

The fact is, the different denominations of Christianity have been in bitter disagreement over the Eucharist for centuries, and it is no exaggeration to say that wars have been fought over what the correct view is between transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation—both of which are as absurd as they are lacking in support from Scripture. It is one thing for Catholics to go so far as to take Yahshuah’s remarks about being the bread of life in John 6 literally, but it simply defies credulity that they should base their Eucharist rite on this overly-unintelligent understanding and still maintain any kind of pretense of maintaining any semblance of truth. And even if the Protestant doctrine of consubstantiation is a bit more realistic, as it at least acknowledges that the bread is still bread (or the wafer is still a wafer, as it were) and the wine is still wine (or grape juice, or whatever), it still affirms the same ridiculous notion of the body and blood of Jesus being “in and under” the bread and wine (in Martin Luther’s words), as though that somehow makes it more logical. One might even suppose that the Catholic view is the more logical, as it reduces the absurdity to one count instead of two.

Even so, we would challenge all Christians of all denominations to respond to our argument that if Christ is indeed the bread from heaven, and this is to be taken literally, then he cannot also literally be the sacrificial lamb which makes atonement for sins. Otherwise the Church needs to start using flesh in its rituals, too. The alternative is to realize that both descriptions are metaphors, and that we are not supposed to be eating him, but rather his words.

Considering just how ridiculous the whole Christian view of the Eucharist is, it is self-apparent that the modern understanding of it is even worse than that of those Corinthians who had not yet even merited the description of “approved ones.” That is, those that even the overly optimistic apostle Paul barely considered worthy of sharing the same table as the real Christians, and certainly not of admission into the kingdom of heaven (these are his words, not ours), were still more knowledgeable about the Nazarene doctrines and more attuned to the Nazarite way of life than every single church-going Christian on the planet today. So if our goal is to be counted among those of whom God approves, we certainly cannot afford to toe the line of Christian doctrine and practice. We must not default on our responsibility to discern the truth of these matters, especially considering Paul’s stern warning about the judgment coming to anyone guilty of profaning the Eucharist, being much worse than if we had never participated at all.

So lost is modern Christianity on this issue, unfortunately, that to even employ the word ‘profaning’ elicits the assumption that reference is being made to the sacramental nature of the Eucharist, or even the notion of the unleavened bread used at these rituals somehow mysteriously being the very flesh of Christ himself. The Corinthians were not so foolish as to believe such a thing, judging by the lack of reverence in their assemblies. Instead, precisely the opposite is meant, which is to say that the notion of the Eucharist as a magical rite is precisely what profanes the memory of the Last Supper and defines it as the Mithraic rite that it is, when practiced by Christians. What was meant to be a simple meal celebrated in observance of Passover has morphed into the absurdly anti-scriptural notion of metabolic salvation. Consequently, we can certainly see why Nero’s persecution of the Christians did not meet much opposition among the Romans, for even the extremely bloodthirsty Romans regarded cannibalism too savage for their tastes (though they relished watching the alleged culprits being ripped apart by lions in the arena), and the Roman Christians do not seem to have even denied the charge of cannibalism.

But let us suppose that there is some merit to the association between the Eucharist and the agape feasts, which “holy communion” certainly is not. (We know of no Christian sect which actually feasts for Communion/Mass, though some are certainly in the habit of hosting potlucks, which is the modern equivalent of an agape feast.) In the eyes of Yahshuah and his followers, it would have been far better to hold not even one agape feast and observe Passover than to neglect the latter while requiring weekly attendance of the former, especially when it was encouraged to believe that one’s very salvation depended on attendance of such agape feasts. (As we stated earlier, the Catholic Church officially teaches that to miss a single Mass constitutes a mortal sin, i.e. you go to hell if you fail to show up once, until you “repent” and make it to the next one.) Yet this notion that it is more important to make the weekly service alleged to be an agape feast than to observe the Passover is precisely what modern Christianity has enshrined as doctrine.

Just as with the decoupling of Passover from the Eucharist, to find the culprit of these apostate doctrines, one needs to look no further than Rome. It was Rome, after all, that was foremost in the preservation and practice of several highly influential mystery religions, once they had been slowly grafted in from foreign nations over the centuries, and not a few writers have commented on the similarities between their ritual meals and the Christian Eucharist. The Dionysian Mysteries, for example, were particularly infamous, owing primarily to the use of drugs which enabled incredible acts of barbarism, all in the name of the pursuit of the divine.

The real meaning of the orgy [of omophagia—that is, the eating of raw flesh] was that it enabled the devotee to partake of a divine substance and so to enter into direct and realistic communion with his god. The warm blood of the slain goat was “sacred blood,” according to Lactantius Placidus. The god Dionysus was believed to be resident temporarily in the animal victim. One of the most remarkable illustrations of this ritual incarnation of the god was described by Aelian. Of the people of Tenedos, he said: “In ancient days they used to keep a cow with calf, the best they had, for Dionysus, and when she calved, they tended her like a woman in childbirth. But they sacrificed the newborn calf, having put cothurni on its feet.” The use of the tragic buskins symbolized the conviction that the god was temporarily incarnate in the calf—pious opinion did not doubt that. Primitive logic easily persuaded men that the easiest way to charge oneself with divine power was to eat the quivering flesh and drink the warm blood of the sacred animal. Some went farther and sought to assimilate themselves to deity by wearing the skin of the animal. The central meaning of the celebration was that it enabled the devotee to enter into direct and realistic communion with his god. Harold R. Willoughby633

Dionysus is the god of wine and drunkenness, so it is no wonder that the Christian rite comes from a combination of drunkenness and omophagia, albeit in a much tamer form, keeping the same elements. This particular passage is partly of interest owing to the fact that when Nero fed the Christians to lions, he had them dressed in animal skins. The obvious significance is that he sought to defile them, according to their own notions of defilement, if they stubbornly refused to defile themselves by worshiping the Roman gods according to the Roman custom of eating animal flesh. In Nero’s eyes, he was probably doing them a favor, just like Christians think they are doing their victims a favor whenever they preach their antigospel.

The association between the Christian version of the Eucharist and the Dionysian mysteries is particularly insightful because the latter were the most brutal and satanic of the ancient mystery rites that we know of. However, the Roman Jesus is only loosely associated with Dionysus, and his cult never caught on in Rome quite the way it had in Greece, due to the fact that the Romans were obsessed with law and order, and the cult of Dionysus (Bacchus to the Romans) was centered around the practice of inducing a totally lawless and orgiastic demonic state known as the Bacchic frenzy.634 Mithras (or Apollo) and Dionysus were both sons of Zeus, and Dionysus was preferred as the stand-in for Yahshuah by some, owing to the story of his death and resurrection (which was the main focus of the Dionysian mysteries), but by the time of Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea, Mithras had almost completely displaced Dionysus as the Roman impostor of Yahshuah. As early as about 155 AD (i.e. right around the point of highest contention concerning the Easter controversy—Anicetus is thought to have been elected in 155), the Romans’ own apologist Justin Martyr demonstrated the direct link between the Roman Eucharist and the Mithraic mysteries, showing evidence of the Roman syncretism:

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. Justin Martyr635

Because we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against authorities, against the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual matters of wickedness in the heavenlies. Ephesians 6:12

In other words, we are not arguing against the Eucharist, or the men who invented it, for Paul did not see the Mass as having been invented by men, but by demons, for he even calls it “fellowship with devils” (1 Corinthians 10:20 KJV). This association will become much more apparent later, but for now it suffices to point out that it was not the Mithraic mysteries which imitated the Roman Eucharist, but vice-versa. Only a fool believes that that which comes first by many hundreds of years is patterned after a more recent invention. In fact, as we will see, they are exactly the same, and Justin, like the other Church Fathers, simply failed to discern between the Eucharist established by Yahshuah and the one which he himself espoused. Nor is it hard to see why, as this is the same mistake repeated by every church-going Christian today, for the Roman version of the Eucharist is practiced in all churches everywhere throughout the world. We do not assume that they all know that they worship Mithras, according to the Roman fashion which had already been established throughout the empire before Yahshuah was even born, but that they do not know it.

While the details of the Dionysian and Mithraic mysteries may cause the myopic mind to disavow any associations with the Eucharist, what is important to note here is that the same theme is present in all three: the consumption of the items of food presented at these rituals confers upon the eater some form and measure of salvation. This is not at all the message that Paul relates in 1 Corinthians. To the contrary, he emphasizes (11:26) that the act of eating the bread and drinking the cup does not grant a person life, but rather proclaims Christ’s death.

Moreover, how is it that Yahshuah proclaimed that God’s idea of worship is spiritual, yet Christians believe that their salvation cannot be secured unless they participate in a ritual which is decidedly carnal in nature? Simply calling it a “mystery” does not change this, and only further evidences that its origin lies in the pagan mystery rites. Considering that meat-eating Christians are so fond of citing Yahshuah’s assertion, in order to rebut any argument in favor of his vegetarianism, that it is not that which goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him, is it not proper to retort that that which goes into a man’s mouth cannot possibly save him either? One can hardly conceive of a more crude interpretation than this of the Last Supper’s significance, nor entertain notions of a lower standard by which the all-knowing creator of the universe could judge an individual’s fitness for the kingdom of heaven. Nevertheless, the Church has managed to conceive of still greater ways to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, for the clergy would have us believe not just that one can only be saved by regular participation in its Eucharistic rituals, but that the bread and wine distributed at these rituals are none other than the veritable flesh and blood of “Christ” himself.636 This doctrine of transubstantiation (or consubstantiation, in the Protestant view) is primarily based on the dialogue of John 6, so in order to discredit it, we need to examine the text of this chapter in some detail.

In v. 26, Yahshuah begins to explain that he is the “bread from heaven.” This metaphor is not coincidental. Rather, he is plainly comparing his teachings to the manna given to the Israelites wandering the wilderness. Just as it was necessary for the Israelites in the time of Moses to depend on God for their physical survival, so it was necessary for the Israelites listening to Yahshuah’s words to depend on God, through Yahshuah’s teachings, for their spiritual survival.

Over the course of this explanation, however, those among his listeners who cannot digest its meaning, because they have no spiritual understanding, conclude that his intention is to feed them with his very flesh. The modern New Age paradigm adapted by Christians which conceives of Jesus as a peace-loving hippie, primarily concerned with never hurting anyone’s feelings, prevents most readers from recognizing Yahshuah’s response for what it is: derision. Perceiving that such a monumental misunderstanding is indicative of whoring after other gods (v. 45, also 8:43-47), Yahshuah is content to confirm their apostasy (Matthew 13:14-15; 7:6) by agreeing that only the consumption of his flesh and blood can lead to salvation, just as God had confirmed it through Moses by giving them the scapegoating ritual many centuries earlier.

Perhaps those engaged in the actual give-and-take of the conversation can be forgiven their confusion, but with the benefit of 2000 years of hindsight, and with the aid of Scripture, we should not be so ignorant, just as the Jews should not have been ignorant due to the legacy left behind by Moses. Instead, the parallels with Numbers 11 ought to be readily apparent to us. Like their ancestors, Yahshuah’s listeners could not fathom the concept of bread from heaven. The only sense they could make of his teaching (the only item they could be content with) was that he was offering them flesh to eat. That they had completely misunderstood his teaching and thus rejected him is evident in his statement, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh does not profit at all” (v. 63). One simply must stand in awe of the power of the Catholic brainwashing schemes, that so clear a statement can be completely ignored while this ridiculous doctrine still persists unscathed. Could it be any more apparent that the Church purposes to subject those with Christ between their teeth to the same plagues that met the Israelites in the wilderness?

As we have seen, the spirit of Scripture is that bread (signifying a variety of foods, all of which are summarily regarded as fundamentally contrasted with meat) is always superior to flesh for efficacy in pleasing God, as well as for nourishment, and that righteousness consists of being satisfied with this alone. In the context of the Last Supper, this understanding demands that we be satisfied with bread rather than lamb’s flesh, to say nothing of Christ’s flesh. By subverting this symbolic replacement and insisting, contrary to both reason and Scripture, that Yahshuah transformed the bread and wine into his own flesh and blood, the Catholic Church has sought to turn its adherents away from God’s gifts and demand sacrifice, not mercy. What is being rejected is not just bread, but the “bread from heaven,” which is to say, Yahshuah’s teachings.

If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema. Council of Trent, Session XXII, Canon 1637

In other words, if you are not a deicidal cannibal in the strictest and most literal sense of each of these words, then you are going to hell. This is the official view of the Church, which openly and unabashedly claims infallibility in determining these matters, and God’s very own authority in enforcing them. Obviously there is nothing even remotely resembling a scientifically verifiable process at work—we are supposed to take it “on faith” that the Church knows all the little nuances and that they are too hard for us to understand, so that there is no reason for the clergy to attempt a legitimate explanation, as opposed to the fact that it has none.

Though the Church’s teaching on this subject is extremely vague, many Catholics believe that the moment that the bread and wine become Christ’s flesh and blood is during the epiclesis, which is Greek for ‘invocation.’ This is the moment in the Mass when the priest enters his plea that the bread and wine be traded in for more desirable food. Several of these invocations are quite explicit about the exchange. We quote here straight from the Roman Missal:

In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing. Eucharistic Prayer I638

Therefore, O Lord, we humbly implore you: by the same Spirit graciously make holy these gifts we have brought to you for consecration, that they may become the Body and Blood of your Son our Lord Jesus Christ at whose command we celebrate these mysteries. Eucharistic Prayer III639

In the minds of the early Christians, there was no need to lodge a special request with God to make bread “holy”: it was already satisfactory by its very nature. Recall how the issue is treated in the Didache, which is the final authority on this subject: “As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may your congregation be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.” It could hardly be any clearer that Yahshuah’s disciples believed (i.e. were instructed by Yahshuah to regard) that plant-based foods were holy and blessed in and of themselves, without any magical incantations. Their prayer was always and only ever one of praise and thanks for it, just as we see in Josephus’ description of the Essene meals, and in Psalm 104 (especially vv. 1 and 14), for example. At the same time, it is evident that the “mysteries” being celebrated at Mass are entirely different in their spiritual intent precisely because they have an altogether different origin and context, regardless of how far the Church goes out of its way to make it appear otherwise. Practically the entire ceremony is a thinly-disguised modernization of the Mithraic and Dionysian mysteries adapted to the context of the Sethian Gnostic syncretism of Jewish and Pagan beliefs brought to Rome (primarily) first by Basilides, and then by Valentinus in the mid-2nd century.640

Try as it might, it is not possible for Rome to cover over its deceit entirely. Paragraph 2181 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that, “the Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice,” and that, “those who fail in this obligation commit a grave sin,” as if God has nothing better to do than to watch and see whether we show up to the weekly demonfest, and is thoroughly enraged if we neglect this duty. The Israelites, on the other hand, celebrated Passover once a year—and that was not even for the better part of the duration of their history.

What further evidence could one require to show that the meal served at Mass is not the least bit nourishing? After all, is there any food that perishes more quickly than flesh? Is any food less capable of satisfying an individual’s physical and spiritual needs? Who cannot see that the sole purpose for perpetuating this absurdity is to perpetuate the psychological dependency which churchgoers have on their captors, upon which the Church’s revenues are almost entirely dependent?

For that matter, is it really any wonder that a Catholic feels so ill at ease in his salvation, when it is so vulnerable as to be forfeited by missing one regularly scheduled dose of God’s flesh? Surely the apostles were not similarly troubled, even though they partook of this ritual with far less frequency, so we really ought to consider whether they knew something we do not. In light of the proclamations of the Council of Jerusalem, they certainly seem to have borne in mind God’s command against consuming blood, to say nothing of his command against human sacrifice, so one really must wonder how the institution which asserts with such great vehemence that its authority has derived from these apostles can nevertheless advocate human sacrifice, the consumption of raw flesh and the drinking of human blood (even if that human is “God”). In fact, it would seem that these acts are not just approved of, and not just necessary for salvation, but actually constitute the entirety of the new covenant itself.

Therefore, O Lord, we pray: may this same Holy Spirit graciously sanctify these offerings, that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the celebration of this great mystery, which he himself left us as an eternal covenant. Eucharistic Prayer IV641

“For this is My blood, that of the renewed covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew 26:28

First of all, “renewed” is not the same as “new,” which is how this is always interpreted. The covenant is the same throughout Scripture: everlasting life based upon and contingent upon obedience to God (e.g., Genesis 2:16-17; 9:9-17; 15:8-18; Psalm 89:3). Secondly, if the blood is of the covenant, then it cannot be the covenant. We might say that it sealed the covenant—we might even say that it reinstituted the covenant—but we cannot say that it is the covenant, only that it is the blood of the covenant. It does follow that the blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins, but not that the covenant entails blood being shed on one end and sins being forgiven on the other. Nor does it follow that the “it” in consideration here is the cannibalization of Christ, or anything else other than the ratification of the covenant by the one empowered to broker it.

And Mosheh came and related to the people all the Words of יהוה and all the right-rulings. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the Words which יהוה has spoken we shall do.” And Mosheh wrote down all the Words of יהוה, and rose up early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve standing columns for the twelve tribes of Yisra’ĕl. And he sent young men of the children of Yisra’ĕl, and they offered burnt offerings and slaughtered peace slaughterings of bulls to יהוה. And Mosheh took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that יהוה has spoken we shall do, and obey.” And Mosheh took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “See, the blood of the covenant which יהוה has made with you concerning all these Words.” Exodus 24:3-8

“See, the days are coming,” declares יהוה, “that I shall sow the house of Yisra’ĕl and the house of Yehuḏah with the seed of man and the seed of beast. And it shall be, that as I have watched over them to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict, so I shall watch over them to build and to plant,” declares יהוה. “In those days they shall no longer say, ‘The fathers ate sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are blunted.’ But each one shall die for his own crookedness—whoever eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be blunted. See, the days are coming,” declares יהוה, “when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Yisra’ĕl and with the house of Yehuḏah, not like the covenant I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Mitsrayim, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,” declares יהוה. “For this is the covenant I shall make with the house of Yisra’ĕl after those days,” declares יהוה: “I shall put My Torah in their inward parts, and write it on their hearts. And I shall be their Elohim, and they shall be My people. And no longer shall they teach, each one his neighbour, and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know יהוה,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares יהוה. “For I shall forgive their crookedness, and remember their sin no more.” Jeremiah 31:27-34

“Blessed be יהוה Elohim of Yisra’ĕl, for He did look upon and worked redemption for His people, and has raised up a horn of deliverance for us in the house of His servant Dawiḏ, as He spoke by the mouth of His set-apart prophets, from of old—deliverance from our enemies and from the hand of all those hating us, to show compassion toward our fathers and to remember His set-apart covenant, an oath which He swore to our father Aḇraham: to give to us, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, to serve Him without fear, in set-apartness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life. And you, child, shall be called prophet of the Most High, for you shall go before the face of יהוה to prepare His ways, to give knowledge of deliverance to His people, by the forgiveness of their sins, through the tender compassion of our Elohim, with which the daybreak from on high has looked upon us, to give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” Luke 1:68-79

Notice that according to this covenant, the “way of peace,” everyone dies for his own sins. The text of Jeremiah 31 is quoted verbatim in Hebrews 8:8-12, and again in 10:16-17, in an attempt to establish that the new covenant is brokered by Yahshuah. Jeremiah even alludes to Deuteronomy 6, bridging the gap between the Passover and the new covenant (that is, the covenant of renewal—the Restoration) foretold by Moses. Thus it is proved that Yahshuah had foreknowledge that his obligation was to institute the new covenant (or rather, to reaffirm the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham, effectively obviating the Law, because Israel had not kept its end) at Passover, especially in light of Zechariah’s prophecy concerning his son John, as recorded in Luke. The Septuagint of Jeremiah 31:32 actually reads “because they broke my covenant, and I turned away from them,” implying that God canceled the covenant specifically on account of Israel’s apostasy, while other renderings of the Hebrew texts read “though I was their master” instead of “though I was their husband,” implying that they were obligated to obey him—an understanding which is lost in the wake of postmodern feminism.

Now, if your husband takes you to court to sue for divorce based on your infidelity, which you make no effort at all to deny, except that you blame him for not making you happy enough, when in reality, he has done everything he ever could have to make you so—if he does this because he really wants to remarry so he can bear a son worthy of his name, and he also happens to be the judge, then who do you think is going to win the suit? You cannot just bribe the judge when the judge is also the plaintiff by saying, “Relax, it’s okay. See? I murdered your only and precious son. Here’s his blood as a peace offering. There. You can have your divorce, because I never loved you, but now you owe me everlasting life and also your kingdom as alimony. These were the terms of the contract I made with your son, in whom you invested your authority, while he was under extreme duress. (I had to torture him to get him to agree.) Of course, I cannot confirm this, because he refused to sign it, so you’ll just have to take my word for it. But I couldn’t let him live, because I knew you loved him and that you were unhappy with me and considering a divorce, so I killed him and ate him instead, partly because I hate you, but partly also in the hope that if I ate him, you would regard me as all that’s left of him. Now that he’s dead, your estate belongs to me, so hand it over, so that I can enjoy it with the one I love, your eternal enemy.”

Needless to say, you would not have your way. Yet it is a concise description of the expectations of Christians.

The implication of the whole theme of this new covenant, obviously, as it is presented in the Bible, is that there is no more scapegoating. Yahshuah confirmed it with his blood, certainly, but he did not die in our steads, to redeem our debts, so that we could receive the benefit of the covenant without holding up our end of it. To the contrary, by making this covenant, he effectively abolished the covenant where that was allowed. (By this, we do not mean to say that he did indeed abolish it, only that it became obsolete.) The whole point of even making the analogy was obviously to tell his disciples as much, as well as to hearken back to God’s covenant with Abraham via the rite of Melchizedek, as if to say, “I hereby formally declare the forgiveness of sins to those who stop sinning, who, in obedience to God and in remembrance of me, eat bread and drink wine on Passover (and at all other times) instead of eating flesh and sprinkling blood.” Is this not exactly what Moses himself expected, prophesied and yearned for, what the Prophets declared, and what the Twelve minus one preached at Pentecost?

Regardless of what Scripture has to say about it, the Church has determined that only those who have tasted bread-flesh from heaven can gain admittance to heaven. This stance requires continual sacrifices in order to feed the more than 1 billion Catholics and more than 1 billion Christians of other denominations with a steady supply of Christ-meat. Therefore, it is necessary to tap into his “sacrifice” time and time again, on into eternity; no one comes to the Father except through meat, and the offering which Christianity alone has at its disposal is the only attribute separating the “perfect religion” from the practices of savages. Needless to say, then, anyone who does not buy into this nonsense will not see much of a difference between the two, except that their notion of eating the flesh of a man born in the BC era whenever they bite into a wafer is equally absurd. As if this is not enough, the Church, which calls itself the “mystical Christ” (and only a fool, or someone with no comprehension of either Greek or English, could fail to see that this means ‘the Antichrist’), even tells us that repentance and remission of sins is not good enough; we need to eat Jesus, and God will settle for nothing short of it, and of our blind, unquestioning obedience to this rule, which he cannot even be bothered to command us himself, so that we have to rely on wicked men who always contradict themselves.

This indispensable requirement of an internal sacrifice, however, by no means makes the external sacrifice superfluous in Christianity; indeed, without a perpetual oblation deriving its value from the sacrifice once offered on the Cross, Christianity, the perfect religion, would be inferior not only to the Old Testament, but even to the poorest form of natural religion. Since sacrifice is thus essential to religion, it is all the more necessary for Christianity, which cannot otherwise fulfill its duty of showing outward honour to God in the most perfect way. Thus, the Church, as the mystical Christ, desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which surely cannot be either an independent addition to that of Golgotha or its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one self-same sacrifice of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made available for believers and unbelievers and sacrificially applied to them. The Catholic Encyclopedia642

It matters not that Yahshuah sacrificed his life in order to end sacrifice once and for all, nor that every real Christian who has ever lived has known, if only imperfectly, that this was his mission. What matters is obscuring the fact that to end the sacrifices is to end them—to put a stop to their wicked lies and privations permanently and completely, as they are the sole inheritors of the legacy of the Abomination, having long since destroyed all their rivals and established their hegemony throughout the world. In clear and deliberate opposition to the Bible, the Church teaches that Yahshuah came not to end the Abomination but to alter it, and the nature of the alteration was nothing more than a substitution of the victims involved, and that it is less messy and more suitable for children now, too. Otherwise, everything remains unchanged.

From all this, one might conclude that the Church and its god were so deeply threatened by Yahshuah’s assault that they exacted their ironic revenge by co-opting it and making him the focal point of the very practice he detested. This much should be obvious. For it was in the brokering of the covenant of the forgiveness of sins that Yahshuah himself told his disciples he wanted to be remembered, not as a corpse in the few hours he was hanging on a device designed to frame him, shame him and murder him. Yet it is the latter image which the Church has caused to be imprinted on everyone’s subconscious. The reason, ultimately, is not because Christians are abominable necromongers, like the Jews before them, and cannot abide the notion that we should obey God, but because Yahshuah abolished their religion when he abolished the sacrifice, so someone had to take the place of the sacrificial victim in order to keep the religion going, and there was no one else to turn to.

For many—of whom I have often told you, and now say to you even weeping—walk as enemies of the stake of Messiah. Their end is destruction, their mighty one [their god] is their stomach, and their esteem is in their shame—they mind the earthly. Philippians 3:18-19

This is precisely why the piece of “flesh” that Catholics consume at Mass is called a “host.” This term derives from hostia, which is Latin for ‘sacrificial victim,’ while hostia itself, according to Ovid, originated from hostis, meaning ‘enemy,’ because in ancient times it was customary to sacrifice a vanquished foe to the gods.643 So the Mass is a sacrificial offering to the LORD, Lucifer, of Yahweh’s anointed prophet, Yahshuah, commemorating Rome’s participation in his murder, a victory so pivotal that it is still celebrated on a daily basis some 2000 years later. Even the text of the New Testament was altered in the Vulgate (the vernacular Latin Bible) to include reminders of Rome’s conquest over Christianity, substituting hostia, i.e. ‘enemy’ (from hostire, ‘to strike,’)for θυσία (thysia, G2378), meaning ‘sacrifice’ or ‘victim,’ in Romans 12:1, Philippians 4:18, Ephesians 5:2 and Hebrews 10:12.644 While this may seem to be a matter of mere semantics, it is actually necessary for denying culpability in his murder, as even in legal terms, to kill a victim is to commit a crime against an innocent, but to kill an enemy is to provide a service in protection of the same.

The etymology of the word ‘Mass’ confirms this. It is commonly argued that the term used to refer to Catholic Sunday services comes from the Latin phrase Ite, missa est, which is translated as “Go, the dismissal is made.” Yet it would be absurd to believe that an institution as obsessed as the Catholic Church is with subtle details, especially pertaining to doctrine and ritual, would have named its central ritual after a word commanding its termination. In fact, this interpretation is based on a later form of missio, such as was found in Medieval Latin. In classical Latin, however, which is precisely what was in use when this phrase was written into the Roman Rite, missa is a perfect passive participle, which means that the phrase should instead be translated as “It has been sent.”

Thus, this phrase does not constitute the priest granting permission for the congregation to leave, but instead is a declaration that the sacrifice has been successfully offered to their god, a fact which, despite being a fact, “lacks scholarly supporters.”645 Therefore, Ite, missa est can be most properly understood to mean “Go, the sacrifice is made,” implying that the only purpose the Mass serves is to send the sacrifice: everything else is just window dressing to keep people entertained and make the affair seem like it has a biblical basis. After all, surely it is more in keeping with the nature of the Mass to instruct the congregation to respond “thanks be to God” to this sentiment (as in, “Thank God the sacrifice is accepted”) than it would be to have them verbalize gratitude that their hour-long commitment has finally come to an end (as in, “Thank God this is over and I can go home now”). The last thing the Church would ever want to do is encourage its parishioners not to come back.

Of course, Protestants have long objected to the Catholic insistence that the Mass is a literal sacrifice. The book of texts and rubrics utilized by the priest is called the Roman Missal, demonstrating that it is nothing if not an instruction manual for the proper performance of the sacrifice. Protestants use the same term, minus ‘Roman,’ and perform exactly the same ritual, without calling the priest a priest, though his function is exactly the same, so it is a wonder how they can even bring themselves to fuss about any particulars. According to them, it is a matter of having the wrong theological interpretation (not that the wrong interpretation would lead to the wrong ritual practice), based on the testimony of Scripture.

But He, having offered one slaughter offering for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of Elohim. Hebrews 10:12

The Protestants’ logic is that Yahshuah died once for us, and they are commemorating the Last Supper, as commanded, rather than that a new sacrifice is being made. This has no bearing on their atonement doctrine, but it does mean that the Protestant clergy do not technically see themselves as performing a sacrificial ritual, even though they still refer to it as a sacrament. Obviously this position is based on sheer ignorance and on a very superficial reading of Scripture, but in the Catholic view, this basically makes the whole thing pointless, for one does not need to go to Mass; one needs only to believe in Jesus. Keenly aware of this argument, the Church has covered its tracks by composing an elaborate rebuttal which amounts to saying that the sacrifices performed at Mass are not new, but instead are a continuation, or re-presentation (as opposed to representation), of the original:

When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present: the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present … The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross … The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner … this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1364,1366-1367

In order to obey Yahshuah’s alleged instruction to “do this in memory of me,” it is one thing to commemorate it, and it is another thing to re-enact it. To go so far as to assert that every Mass ritual creates a rift in time, making his sacrifice physically present to all communicants, is the height of sanctimonious nonsense. And this is the basis of the whole Christian religion. So we can plainly see that this religion amounts to little more than an elaborate scheme to uphold and justify the practice of eating meat despite that God has sternly commanded us not to, though we also allow that it is also a brilliant moneymaking scheme, and that the Church is avaricious.

Carl von Clausewitz famously observed that “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.” Sun Tzu famously observed that “All war is deception,” and that “The supreme art of war is to subdue your enemy without fighting.” Cicero famously observed that “The sinews of war are infinite money.” These maxims are common knowledge not just because the people who spoke them were famous in their own times, but because their authority on the subject of war stemmed from a keen understanding and, in the cases of the first two, a complete mastery of it.

There is a lot of money to be had in religion, and the Church has always sought a monopoly on it, making no attempt whatsoever to deny it. The very word ‘Catholic’ flaunts this. Christ is the Church’s declared enemy, so it is only natural that it would aim to subdue him and all his followers by deception after its many attempts at extermination proved a massive policy failure. Clearly Rome has no interest whatsoever in ceasing to sacrifice to its god, and as this cannot easily be reconciled with Scripture (or at all, for that matter), it has only afforded the Church one more opportunity to reinforce in the minds of its adherents the principle that the more improbable a proposition is, the more likely it is not just to be true, but to be the highest and most sublime of truths. Is there any religion that embraces and flaunts absurdity as proof of its superiority more often than Catholicism, and by extension, modern Christianity?

There is only one sacrifice, an eternal sacrifice, and we are partaking in it daily in the dimensions of time and space, on the temporal plane. Protestants tend to be stuck in time … whereas the Catholic tends to view things in terms of time and eternity. Steve Ray646

The attack on Protestantism is not at all without merit. Protestants have no idea what their religion is all about, and Protestant religion has become an entirely temporal affair in the sense that it amounts to worthless doctrine and meaningless ceremony. However, this is to the Protestants’ benefit, as they are not consciously sinning, so their sins will be forgiven, provided they repent in the end. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church is stuck in eternity because it has been the primary instrument of the Watchers’ will for 2000 years. The guilt of maximizing privation, suffering and death while simultaneously maintaining the guise of upholding the Bible’s message of love and compassion for God and neighbor has required it to attain heights of disingenuity that were hitherto unimaginable, and this is where the final judgment will exact its greatest toll. That the Church and its hierophants will be held accountable for willfully destroying the true religion of Christianity and perpetuating the sacrifices was foretold long ago.

Anyone who has disregarded the Torah of Mosheh dies without compassion on the witness of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think shall he deserve who has trampled the Son of Elohim underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was set apart as common, and insulted the Spirit of favour? Hebrews 10:28-29

Bringing Yahshuah’s teachings to naught amounts to trampling him underfoot, so while he would have us know that vicarious atonement is an abomination before God, who has only ever desired mercy and compassion, this is precisely the message that Rome could never tolerate. It was necessary to make Jesus the focal point and scapegoat of their entire religion, not just by asserting that he was born of a virgin as God in the flesh, but by making him the everlasting victim of the very sacrifices he sought to end, because they have no desire whatsoever to stop sinning, and cannot even be brought to admit it, except to say that it is a sin to even try—the first and greatest sin, even: pride. “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” therefore we must denounce, persecute, torture, kill and consign to hell whoever says that we should not continue to sin, but aim for righteousness, as in, “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” For it cannot be that Paul’s remarks in Romans 3 which they use to justify their original sin doctrine were meant to expose the Romans’ sin and admonish them so that they would stop sinning, and adopt a spirit of obedience, i.e. the Holy Spirit. (The etymology of the term for ‘Holy Spirit’ in the Old Testament literally gives it the meaning of ‘spirit of perfection.’)647

This, ultimately, is how Yahshuah’s teachings have been brought to naught. For while all the lip service is paid to Jesus, in truth the entire point of sacrifice is to make salvation dependent upon the one who kills, not the one who is killed. If God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to die for its sins, why would his son’s teachings matter in the least? The sole purpose for his existence was to submit to the knife of the life-giving priest, who alone we have to thank for extracting the blood of salvation. In this case, the only service which the victim provides is in not resisting, and the sooner he gets on with dying, the better.

Can anyone really fail to see that those who have claimed sole authority for the practice and oversight of the Eucharist have the temporal and spiritual enslavement of their adherents as their primary goal? Properly executed, the commemoration of the events of Passover and the Last Supper ought to uplift participants in these rituals, informing them about God’s loving and merciful nature, and instructing them in his will. Instead, they serve only to induce fealty and obedience to the Church through fear, threats of condemnation, and dependency of salvation. Even the love which is necessarily due to God gets channeled through the Church to wherever it sees fit, namely in the veneration of saints, defined as those who best serve the interests of the Church, with no other parameters.

Even positive attention for Jesus would constitute detracting from the love we owe to God, even if Jesus was the Roman reinvention of Yahshuah rather than Mithras, as it makes him the savior—a mistake which is as deplorable as it is ironic, considering that his very name literally specifies that Yahweh is the savior. This blasphemy is further compounded by the fact that they tell us that Jesus is God, so to venerate Jesus is to venerate God, and as God has no other material form other than the “mystical Christ” (the Church), the worship is centered around the objects of worship—Apollo, in the form of Jesus, and Artemis, in the form of the Church—neither of which is anything other than an abomination before God. So the worship “in spirit and in truth” that Yahshuah spoke of is completely neglected, rather than just partially, as it is not even God who is called “Father” in the Roman practice, but the priest.

This state of affairs would not be so detestable if the Church were truly as holy as it is always professing itself to be, but we all know the clergy are little more than Papist rapists. As it is, the Church has managed to convince its followers not just that a reprehensible murder was a divinely-sanctioned sacrifice, but that they are forever in the debt of those responsible for this crime. Instead of being outraged, as Stephen was, Christians are grateful. Instead of pledging their lives to the establishment of the kingdom of heaven, which necessarily means steadfastly opposing the forces which led to their namesake’s death, Christians praise the murderers for having secured their salvation, and even go so far as to allow them to rule over them in reward. One can hardly imagine a better way to dishonor Yahshuah’s memory than to worship the ideological descendants of his enemies, especially considering that he constantly warned all who would listen that it would happen, and admonished them not to participate in their apostasy.

So Christians are taught to glorify and participate in the killing of Christ through the instruction of the Eucharist, calling it a “sacrifice” as a euphemism for what is otherwise legally defined under canon law as murder and cannibalism. Perhaps more importantly, they are obligated to formally confess their guilt in the matter before the sacrament is even administered to them, lest the culpability belong to the priests only. Therefore, the Christian speaks truthfully, not figuratively, when he says that everyone is responsible for Christ’s death, for they not only openly flaunt their part in it, but they make no apologies, either.

Obviously the Church has worked very hard not just to sear guilt into the consciences of the faithful over a crime they were not even alive to see, but to inculcate in them the very same mentality that would have them persecute and execute Yahshuah if ever they were to encounter him, even though the blame rightly belongs to those who said, “Let his blood be on us and on our children.” They themselves are not even those children, but call themselves the “spiritual Israel,” as though they are heirs of this covenant of death, thus even going so far as to exonerate the culprits—the priests of both modern Christianity and ancient Judaism. What is Christianity, then, but an attempt to take the blame for Yahshuah’s murder, when that blame properly belongs to the Jews? What other intent can be deduced from the Palm Sunday services of the Catholics, wherein the congregation is instructed to play the part of the crowd gathered before Pilate, and rather than securing his freedom as would any sane-minded Christian with the benefit of 2000 years of hindsight, instead they chant in one loud, unified voice, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”?

However, let us not make the mistake of divorcing all these elements from their context. The Church does not accrue power as an end in itself any more than it inducts its followers into the spirit of antichrist for no good reason. Both are but means by which the masses can be instructed as to the form of worship that is pleasing to Lucifer. Machiavelli advised his “prince” to be both feared and loved if possible, but if not, the former is preferred. This was the mentality espoused by the cardinals of his time, then routinely called “princes of the Church,” right at the outbreak of the Reformation in Italy, which determined the course of modern Christianity on both fronts.648 So it is that the continual sacrifices of Christ give Christians their salvation to be thankful for, while also underscoring the terrible fate that awaits them if ever they think of defying the will of this world’s god like Yahshuah did.

“And do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the being. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both being and body in Gehenna.” Matthew 10:28

In light of all this, it is ironic that the Black Mass of Satanists is commonly understood to be a malicious subversion of the Catholic Mass, especially as its ritual is centered on host desecration, an offense so grave as to merit automatic excommunication (latae sententiae)under canon law. Of course, this understanding is predicated on the notion that what transpires at a Mass is holy. Little do the Christians know that their rite ultimately comes from the Manichaean rite, wherein (according to no less an authority by the Church’s standard than one of its very own doctors, Augustine), the host was already desecrated by the sprinkling of semen. It was only later that the Church found more use in adding the body and the blood together instead by dipping the host in the cup—a practice still carried on by Anglicans and others. Most Protestants (at least in America) take the host separately from the wine in a shot glass, but the option of taking the wine from a common cup is typically still given.

While a bloodless sacrifice seems preferable to more ancient religious practices, this is only because the Church’s tautological assertions of its own holiness shroud the monstrous reality of human sacrifice imposed upon God’s foremost prophet. In truth, nowhere have the ancient mystery rites, which the Church Fathers found so grossly offensive, been more faithfully preserved than in the Catholic Mass, save certain modifications for the sake of mass public consumption. As such, there is quite literally nothing Satanists could do to make the Mass more sacrilegious than it already is.

For example, the Black Mass invokes demons (or Satan, depending on which version of the Mass is performed) while the Catholic Mass invokes the LORD, which is to say the master of demons, thus demonstrating the superiority of the Roman rite. The invocations of the Mass, particularly those of the epiclesis, serve the purpose of summoning demons to be imbued right into the consecrated hosts. This may sound a bit far-fetched, but it is actually the deliberate intent of any invocation or incantation in any religious rite, and the only difference between this and what Christians already understand is that it is demons that are being invoked, rather than God. The people who created the liturgy of the Mass certainly had this in mind. Consider the following liturgical text of the Mithras cult in light of the fact that the stated reason that Christians have substituted the name of Yahweh for the name of Baal in their worship, following the precedent of the Masoretes before them, is that it is “too holy” to be uttered:

“Give ear to me, hearken … O Lord, you who have bound together with your breath the fiery bars of the fourfold root … because, on account of the pressing and bitter and inexorable necessity, I invoke the immortal names, living and honored, which never pass into mortal nature and are not declared in articulate speech by human tongue or mortal speech or mortal sound … Dwell in my soul! Do not abandon me, for one entreats you …”

After you have said these things, he will immediately respond with a revelation. Now you will grow weak in soul and will not be in yourself, when he answers you. He speaks the oracle to you in verse, and after speaking he will depart. But you remain silent, since you will be able to comprehend all these matters by yourself; for at a later time you will remember infallibly the things spoken by the great god, even if the oracle contained myriads of verses. Paris Codex649

We have already remarked on the significance of the origin of the word ‘host’ in Latin, but we would be remiss to ignore its English meanings, which include “a living animal or plant on or in which a parasite lives” and “an individual into which a tissue, part, or embryo is transplanted from another.”650 In the instructions of the Mithras liturgy, the host (a honey-cake—and this is why churches use wafers, as opposed to bread) was made from lotus seeds and then consumed by a scarab, which immediately died from eating it. The scarab was then immersed in oil and consecrated for seven days, at which point the initiate was free to feast with his fellow cult members, but the scarab itself was supposedly buried to immortality. So, really, the scarab was supposed to have been granted everlasting life by eating the host, when in fact it was just senselessly killed to suit the superstitious fancy of the initiate. Although the first part of the final sentence of the liturgy is still missing, the ritual is concluded with “lest we become a source of joy for our enemies.”

So while the proposition that anyone can be brought into “communion” with his enemy Yahshuah by ingesting a piece of his “flesh” is as metaphysically absurd as it is overtly hostile to his philosophy, this is not to say that one cannot become possessed by the types of spirits called upon and commanded by a Catholic priest. There is a certain logic in this. We have already seen that the consumption of flesh leads to demon possession, and that certain demons can be invoked by certain invocations, so it makes perfect sense that it would be necessary to cultivate the same qualities in the species of the Eucharist well after its deterioration from the elaborate rituals of the BC era. Otherwise, the perennial accusation that what Catholics reverence as Christ’s own body and blood are nothing more than mundane bread and wine would be true, and there would not be anything all that special about the Mass, such as would warrant explanation. As it is, what makes the Christian practice of the Eucharist special is precisely what distinguishes it from Yahshuah’s final meal with his disciples, as we have stated in the previous chapter:

Look at Yisra’ĕl after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the offerings sharers in the altar? What then do I say? That an idol is of any value? Or that which is offered to idols is of any value? No, but what the gentiles offer they offer to demons and not to Elohim, and I do not wish you to become sharers with demons. You are not able to drink the cup of the Master and the cup of demons, you are not able to partake of the table of the Master and of the table of demons. 1 Corinthians 10:18-21

While associating their abomination of the Eucharist with demons is sure to inflame Christians more than anything else, what condemns this ritual in God’s eyes are the spiritual principles it communicates. Mainstream Christianity’s formulation of the Eucharist teaches the most debased manner of selfishness imaginable, wherein the Christian is engulfed in a lust for salvation so overpowering that it spares neither the life nor the flesh of the savior he professes to revere. Christians are called to love their neighbors; where is their love for Christ? If there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for a friend, then does this not suggest that they are obligated to repent of their myopic pursuit of eternal life so as not to bring suffering and death upon their Messiah—their God? The proposition may sound terrifying, but it is the very leap of faith expected of us, and the standard by which God distinguishes between those who love him with their lives and those who love to worship him with their lips.

Christians may retort that Jesus is happy to lay down his life for them, and they are not about to refuse his charity. However, charity is motivated by need but repulsed by demands and bogus claims of entitlement. (There is no charity where there is entitlement.) Yahshuah states that the sick are in need of a physician (Matthew 9:12), but once they have been healed (taught the error of their ways), it is no longer the physician’s job to tend to their every need. Charity, then, is only given to those who appreciate it, and appreciation is expressed not in litanies of prayers and praise, but in the application of the gifts that have been given. Those who would be at their donor’s mercy in perpetuity without giving anything back except a little lip service which demonstrates their pleasure in his sacrifice will find themselves cut off from his graces altogether.

As Christianity is predicated on the notion of Jesus’ duty to suffer and die (and suffer torment in hell) so Christians can be spared the same, is it any wonder that they refuse to take the commands to love God and neighbor all that seriously? Could anything rival the hypocrisy of a god who issues these commands while simultaneously delighting in blood and death, and to such a degree that he must be so satisfied before sins can be forgiven? We can hardly blame the Christian for wearing a mask of piety in place of true virtue when the virtue of his god is nothing more than a façade. Under this paradigm, to express genuine love and compassion would make one more righteous than God; no Christian will risk eternal torment in hellfire for conferring such nobility upon himself.

Now put this in light of our present thesis. When Christians are unable to have mercy on the man they worship as God himself, is it any wonder their compassion for the rest of Earth’s creatures—human and nonhuman alike—is so woefully inadequate as to fall short of what, apart from their influence, would otherwise constitute common decency? What does it matter if a priest rapes a child when God demands the blood of the innocent to redeem the crimes of the wantonly wicked? What is wrong with killing and eating a turkey when God delights in the mass cannibalization of his only begotten son? Given that the Church makes salvation dependent upon the regular consumption of God’s flesh, should we really be surprised by its deafening silence regarding the suffering and slaughter of animals? By what logic could a Christian object to killing and eating animals, when his very salvation depends upon doing precisely that to his own savior? In that case, we might as well say that entrance into the kingdom of heaven is a matter of survival of the fittest, and those who are fit are those who have erased every trace of love and compassion from their hearts. At least that would be logical.

A deity who commands that his only son be devoured by and for the sake of his supposed people could not possibly object to their eating animals. To suggest as much is tantamount to blasphemy in the minds of Christians, and we have not meant to use the word ‘vitriol’ loosely or lightly at the beginning of this treatise to describe the typical response. That this is the prevailing mindset of the world at large and Christianity in particular is succinctly demonstrated in the reaction to a prayer proposed for recitation at burial services for animals. The reaction is that of George Weigel, recipient of the papal cross Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice (the highest medal that the Papacy can bestow upon a layperson) and best-selling biographer of Pope John Paul II. The prayer which Weigel took exception to, an Episcopalian collect, is as follows:

Almighty God, who make the beasts of the wild move in beauty and show forth the glory of your Name: We grieve the death of this creature, in whose living and dying the power of your Spirit was made manifest. We reverence the loss of that which was never ours to claim but only to behold with wonder; through Jesus Christ our Redeemer, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. Episcopal Church, USA651

We had a hard time even understanding what Weigel was trying to say, because it seems to us to lead to the opposite conclusion as what he intends. Weigel quotes this prayer in a mocking fashion, as if to evidence how appalling his view is. The tone underlying this reply demonstrates a total irreverence for Nature and for Nature’s God:

A former Vatican official known for his prowess with a deer rifle commented on [this prayer]: “I have my own prayer at the death of a wild animal. It begins, ‘Bless, O Lord, and these thy gifts …’” Another priest, seeing this, said “There’s plenty of room for all of God’s creatures … next to the mashed potatoes.” To which Former Vatican Official replied, “Don’t forget the gravy.” George Weigel652

But for the aid of Scripture and our long explanations of these issues through this treatise, one might wonder how it ever could have gone so wrong. How did Christianity become the predominant force for unremitting cruelty in the world when its founder stood for precisely the opposite? The answer lies in the particular approach Yahshuah’s apostles took to spreading his message. We know they were not so foolish as to believe that God demanded human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, yet this is the message they preached to a large part of their audience. All they ever meant to say is that God had already received the ultimate sacrifice; anything else would pale in comparison and therefore be a reproach to him. This is what gave them the leverage to preach that all other sacrifices, and therefore the consumption of meat that necessarily followed from them, must be put to a stop immediately and permanently. Given the severe deficiency of the audience, rather than telling the truth plainly and simply in the face of their opposition (which they also tried, as the OT prophets had tried before them)—that God always has hated and always will hate sacrifice—it was far better to assert that his wrath had finally been satisfied, and thereafter he could only be pleased by abstaining from the practice altogether. The successful spread of their message in the face of intense opposition validates and commends their rhetorical approach.

So grave was the threat posed by the spread of apostolic Christianity that the powers of the world first suppressed the movement through murder, and then, when that only succeeded in making it stronger by drawing positive attention to it and galvanizing it from within, they simply hijacked it. This was achieved by over-accentuating the apostles’ teaching that Christ was a sacrificial offering. Instead of this opening the door to insist upon the necessity of pursuing righteousness and perfection, the sacrifice was presented as the only thing that mattered; the teacher became the subject, the way became the destination, the gospel of Christ became the gospel about Christ, and all other teachings and imperatives were casually discarded.

Furthermore, the approach that was meant to end sacrifice forever actually enabled the enemies of Christianity to increase it exponentially. For now they could seize upon the apostles’ teaching that God wanted no more sacrifices after Christ and then use this to advocate not the end of killing and eating animals, but instead, only doing so outside of any kind of religious context. In other words, the sacrifices were secularized. No longer did priests, butchers and meat-eaters have to go through the charade of offering their victims to Jupiter before serving them for dinner: now it could be done quickly and efficiently, without all the superstitious nonsense that we now only find practiced in the churches. To make it a religious affair, after all, would be to Judaize and offend God (and let it be said that Constantine upheld the practice of sacrificing to all the Roman pantheon—of which Yahweh was not a part—to the day he died). God may have needed offerings of flesh once, but that was before Jesus fulfilled that need, or rather, before the mid-4th century when the Romans finally decided that it was easier to just focus on one type of sacrifice than dealing with a plethora.

So the spirit of error succeeded in co-opting even the message of the apostles. This should come as no surprise, as the same pattern has been repeated since the beginning, and the apostles themselves had already observed it happening and warned against it in their own time. However, considering how quickly this façade crumbles under the weight of examination, it ought to be apparent that the blame for this enormous deception does not lie solely at the feet of those who conceived of it, for their cleverness and skill can only obscure so much truth. Instead, those who have let themselves be deceived because they have wanted to believe the lie are also culpable. For one simple truth can never be overturned: the Creator is not fundamentally a destroyer, beyond necessity. And one day, after enough blood has been spilled in his name and enough humans and animals have died, perhaps God will remember what it was like when he said that Man was made in his image, and will not regret having done so. Until then, we men have an awful lot of catching up to do with his expectations of us.







600 Leibniz, pp. 49-50.

601 “Passover,” Wikipedia,

602-603 “Keeping Passover at the Proper Time,” Yahweh’s Restoration Ministry,

604 Although it is partly a matter of wishful thinking on their behalf, owing to a mostly fabricated identity, this is based on the testimony of the Jews themselves. According to the “Pharisees” entry of The Jewish Encyclopedia (1905 edition), “With the destruction of the Temple (70 A.D.) the Sadducees disappeared altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the Pharisees. Henceforth, Jewish life was regulated by the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older priestly tradition (Abot 1:1). Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future.” Likewise, The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (1943) says, “The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single piece of that literature … and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.” So whether or not the supposition of their genetic heritage is historically valid, religious Jews certainly see themselves as the ideological successors of the Pharisees, and this is beyond question.

605 “Passover,” Wikipedia,

606 As currently practiced, the Passover Seder does not contain lamb as its centerpiece. Instead, the zeroa is one of six different items on a Seder Plate, and most Jews do not even consume it. This is done because Passover sacrifices cannot be performed without the Temple in Jerusalem; otherwise, lamb would still be the focus of the meal.

607 יצא (yatsa’, H3318), is variously translated as ‘go,’ ‘bear out,’ ‘bring forth,’ ‘carry out,’ ‘depart,’ ‘escape,’ ‘go abroad,’ ‘pluck out’ and ‘proceed,’ which is to say that the Exodus and the festival which commemorate it denote the liberation caused by physical relocation, rather than a mere change in status by decree.

608 If one were to ignore all kinds of reasoning in an attempt to be clever, he might object by invoking the previously-mentioned fact that the 15th of Nisan is not directly mentioned anywhere in Exodus, and therefore question how this could be the case if it was deemed important enough to be a feast day which was to be guarded as an everlasting law. Yet one must wonder why, if Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread are meant to be observed on the same day, there are two separate commands about feast days to be kept (Exodus 12:14,17), which implies two separate and altogether distinct days. Furthermore, if the description of these observances in Exodus is not deemed satisfactory, one can always recur to Leviticus 23:5-6 instead.

609 On the Judean War, vi.9.3.

610 Questions and Answers on Exodus, i.11.

611 David Instone-Brewer, Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament, Volume 2, Eerdmans, 2004, p. 129; retrieved from

612 Ibid., pp. 129-130.

613 This is why the festival had to be celebrated in the second month rather than the first, as instructed in Numbers 9:6-11.

614 “Passover and Shir HaShirim,” Hebrew for Christians,

615 “Eucharist,” Wikipedia,

616 “Quartodecimanism,” Wikipedia,

617-618 Ibid.,

619 Ibid.,

620 Ecclesiastical History, v.24.

621 Ibid., iii.18.

622 William F. Dankenbring, “The Early Church and the Quartodeciman Passover,” Prophecy Flash!, Mar-Apr 2010, pp. 57-65; retrieved from

623 We have limited our discussion of this matter here in order to save space. However, our conclusion need not be taken for granted based on what is presented; we have addressed this issue and especially the question of whether Yahshuah actually ate fish at any other time in more tedious detail in Satan’s Synoptics.

624 John 14:15, 15:10, 15:13-14.

625 “Ritual washing in Judaism,” Wikipedia,

626 1 Clement 7:4.

627 1 Clement 40:2-4.

628 Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:1-2.

629 Dialogue with Trypho, cxvii.

630 Even a cursory understanding of the Essene customs, as provided by Josephus, will indicate that the agapē feast was a daily affair which the entire community participated in. This, of course, would mean that the Eucharist was seen as a special agapē feast, being the one that fell on Passover. While this may meet with some objection due to the extra solemnity of the Passover observance, it should be understood that all meals which the community ate together were solemn affairs, and all qualified as agapē feasts. The Passover meal and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were certainly eaten in this manner and are therefore not an exception, but rather the highest standard, being the one festival of the year which was holier than all others, having been both commanded by God and instituted not just by Moses, but by Yahshuah as well. As agape is charity or compassion, we might think of the feasts as meals of compassion, just as vegans today think of their lifestyle as compassionate, especially in regards to their food choices.

631 Odyssey, iii.253-300.

632 “Aegisthus,” Wikipedia,

633 Harold R. Willoughby, Pagan Regeneration: A Study of Mystery Initiations in the Graeco-Roman World, 1929, ch. 3; retrieved from

634 The women especially would roam the countryside looking for live animals to eat, and had no reservations about grabbing humans—especially babies, as they were easy prey. Although the Bacchus cult certainly did have a major place in Roman society, especially in the pre-Imperial era, the violence was toned down a great deal as compared with the cult in Greece, in no small part undoubtedly owing to the Romans’ legendary laziness. Instead of roaming the countryside in search of prey, aristocrats held orgies in their homes and generally limited their prey to cooked non-human animals. Compared with that of Greece, the Roman culture was fairly homogenous and its religious rites were practically universal, as the Roman civilization had sprung from one city-state, while the Greek had sprung from many, with no central authority. The Romans were far more concerned with the sexual nature of their orgies than with making themselves portals for demons, which was exactly the whole point of the Dionysian mysteries.

635 Justin Martyr, The First Apology, ch. 66, Early Christian Writings,

636 Protestants generally will not adopt either of these views, but they will still implicitly acknowledge the latter, even if they will not express it outright, owing to the fact that they are aware that it is patently absurd, so they take it to be a “mystery” (meaning no explanation is required, as it necessarily must be taken on “faith”) that the body and blood, presumably of a “spiritual” (non-material) nature, are miraculously imbued in the physical elements of the food, rather than that the physical elements of the food are miraculously transformed into the body and blood as physical elements. For the first part, they will argue that you are in danger of falling away from the faith if you do not believe in whatever ridiculous description their particular sect advocates and participate in the ritual regularly. The principle is the same for all Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians: you are eating Jesus, and you need to in order to sustain whatever faith has been imparted to you, whether by baptism or by God’s grace. The difference between the Catholic view and the Protestant view is that that is about all Protestants will generally claim to “know” about it, apart from whatever individual feelings they can associate with the resultant demon possession (or the placebo effect, depending on the person and on the nature of the consumed substances). Most regard the effect which participation has on their emotional state as indicative of a spiritual work constituting spiritual transformation, especially the first few times, before the possession is total. However, this spirituality is obviously extremely misplaced; if it were God working in them, then they would be transformed to the likeness which God desires, not that which can only reasonably be attributed to the work of Satan. When the Holy Spirit causes someone to repent, the change is both profound and permanent, unlike the fleeting emotions which Christians attach to the ritual, which can just as easily result from any type of ritual or learned behavior, religious or otherwise.

637 “Sacrifice of the Mass,” The Catholic Encyclopedia,

638 “Changes in the Priest’s Parts: Eucharistic Prayer I (The Roman Canon),” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,

639 “Changes in the Priest’s Parts: Eucharistic Pray III,” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,

640 Valentinus, who is now regarded as a heretic, as is Basilides, was two generations removed from the apostle Paul, according to Clement of Alexandria. (That is, he was allegedly instructed and probably ordained by one of Paul’s disciples, though this is not a big deal, as Paul had many disciples, and many were not worthy of the name.) He was one of the most influential Catholic teachers in Rome at that time, but was passed over when he made a bid to be elected that city’s bishop, and became disenfranchised from the Romans. From then on, the Church in Rome followed the doctrines of Cerdo, a prominent disciple of Simon Magus, and of Marcion, the son of the bishop of Sinope in Pontus, before taking a hardline approach to throw off its many foreign influences and declare itself the head of Christendom. This was right about the same time as Polycarp visited Rome in a last ditch effort to reason with the Romans—a fact which no doubt contributed to the coup de grâce of Marcion and his disciples, for they had all taught that vegetarianism was an absolute necessity for all Christians, not to mention their egalitarian views in regards to the role of women and of men of any social rank lesser in society than what the clergy enjoyed. Obviously the influence of Marcion was permanent, and his policy of mutilating the existing gospels and epistles or simply inventing new ones to suit his own doctrines was not forsaken, but set the precedent for the “tradition” which the Church has continually hearkened to in its defense against Scripture ever since.

641 “Changes in the Priest’s Parts: Eucharistic Pray IV,” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,


643-644 “Host,” The Catholic Encyclopedia,

645 “Ite, missa est,” Wikipedia,,_missa_est#Meaning.

646 Steve Ray, “Sacrifice of the Mass: Do Catholics Re-crucify Christ?,” Defenders of the Catholic Faith,

647 This is discussed in The End of Learning, 5.1.

648 It is no secret that Machiavelli was on friendly terms with and even acted as a mentor and advisor to Cesare Borgia, a crypto-Jew who was appointed a cardinal at the age of 18 by his father Pope Alexander VI, or that Borgia much preferred to combat the enemies of the Papacy through murder and force of arms than by trying to win their affection by any means. It was Borgia who personally created and led the Society of Jesus, before it officially became sanctioned as such, having been denied the glory of a military career by his father, who wanted him to follow in his own footsteps. It is also no secret that it was Borgia who had a personal vendetta against Girolamo Savonarola, whom he hunted and tortured before personally handing him his death sentence, going so far as to cut out his tongue so that he could not speak a single word at his public execution of immolation. This set the precedent for the Church’s violent persecution of “heretics” during the Counter-Reformation, the aim of which was clearly to instill fear and deter the spread of thinking (that is, of “heresy”). Protestant Christianity, on the other hand, never made any kind of ideological break from the Church in Rome, because discussion about the validity of its doctrines was never allowed or opened to the public, but was controlled by the princes (the cardinals) of the Church on the one side, and the princes (the electors) of the Holy Roman Empire on the other. The doctrines and practices of the non-Lutheran, non-Calvinist denominations of Protestantism diverge so very little from these control mechanisms, especially concerning the Eucharist, that most of the practices fall somewhere between the conservatism of Rome and the liberalism of Luther, if it can even be called that, while the doctrines fall somewhere between the conservatism of Luther and the liberalism of Calvin, and it would be frivolous to discuss them at any length.

649 This text is taken from the “Mithras” Liturgy from the Paris Codex, as edited and translated by Marvin W. Meyer;

650 “Host,” Merriam-Webster,

651-652 George Weigel, “Critter Prayers and Transhumanism,” First Things, 23 May 2012,