Nudity and the Church

Nudity and the Church

      Many churches and denominations run on being conservative. I feel that it is the church doctrine and who wrote it to be conservative and as the church grew in numbers, the doctrines stuck with no change and traveled from church to church. This goes with the lack of mortification, religious in-tolerance and change in doctrines. Many state that nudity is immoral and sinful. I totally dis-agree at every level.
Nudity in the bible and in other holy books from other religions all basically state that there is nothing wrong with nudity.


Here is Christian Scripture:


Taken from the Bible for affirmation of the written word

From the Old Testament:

Isaiah 20:2: "The Lord told Isaiah, the son of Amoz, to take off his clothing, including his shoes, and to walk around naked and barefoot" (MPOV) Isaiah's nudity, which was to continue for three years, was symbolic of the Assyrians conquering Egypt and Ethiopia, when they carted their prisoners away naked and barefoot. Isaiah was clearly acting as a naturist, but not necessarily of his own choosing. And God used his nudity to teach others. Many centuries later, St., Francis of Assisi followed Isaiah's behavior. He removed his clothes in the center of the village. He and Brother Rufino later preached nude in church.

Job 22:6: "For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for naught, and stripped the naked of their clothing." (KJV) This is a criticism of unrighteous people who are totally lacking in empathy for other individuals. They are so keen to exploit others that they take from the naked what they do not have: clothes. There is no condemnation for the naked in this passage.

Micah 1:8: "Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and naked" Like Samuel and Isaiah, Micah prophesied while unclad (nude).

Wiccan Religion prays nude (skyclad) but not all do.

From the New Testament:

Mark 10:46-50: "... blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging...And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus." (KJV) It is unclear why he wished to come to Jesus naked. But his actions were not condemned.

John 13:4-5 (KJV): Jesus "... riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded." This is a passage from the last supper. After finishing eating, Jesus removed all of his clothes, wrapped himself in a towel and later used the towel to wash the feet of his disciples. He washed their feet nude. This is way of showing his own humbleness, humility and respect for his followers. ~** what is taught here is that, Jesus was the model servant and he showed his servant attitude to his disciples.  Washing guest feet was a job for a household slave to carry out when guest arrived. Jesus wrapped a towel around his waist, as lowliest slave would do, and washed and dried his disciples’ feet with the towel that he wore. If even he, God in the flesh, is willing to serve, we as followers must also be servants willing to serve in any way that glorifies God.  ~ Imagine being Peter and watching Jesus wash the feet of others nude as a lowly slave would. Seeing his Master behave like a slave must have confused Peter. He did not understand Jesus’, teaching that to be a leader, a person must be a servant. This is not a comfortable passage for leaders who find it hard to serve those beneath them. ~ How do you treat those who work under you? Whether they are children, employees, volunteers or a congregation?

1 Corinthians 8:9: "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak." Some interpreters believe that this is a generic statement that a Christian must not engage in any behavior that might cause another believer to falter. They might argue that nudism may tempt some persons to have unclean thoughts. Other interpreters note that the passage is preceded and followed with discussions of eating meat that had been used in Pagan rituals.

The Gospel of Thomas is a recently discovered Gospel that was in wide use among early Christian groups, but which never made it into the official canon of the Bible. One verse reads: 
"His disciples asked, 'When will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you?' Jesus answered, 'When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the son of the Living One, and you will not be afraid.' "
Nudity in this case appears to be referring to achieving a state of personal innocence and not being afraid of what others think in the public or churches.

Romans 14:13, Paul writes:

"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

That is, social nudity may be acceptable for one person, yet might cause another person who is more susceptible to sin to falter and sin. Thus one is obligated to avoid social nudity out of concern for others. If applied to social nudism and not preaching nudism.

I have been unable to find a passage in the Bible that specifically condemns public nudity, as in attendance at a naturist resort. There appear to be none which condemns private nudity. There seem to be a number of passages that mention nudity in the presence of others as acceptable behavior. There also appears to be many instances in the history of the Christian Church where public nudity was a normal activity. We would conclude that naturism is not disallowed by the Bible, or by church tradition and that Christians should feel free to investigate naturism freely. Many prophets including Jesus preached were seen nude (as in the last supper).
The two passages in Roman cited above have been used to condemn social nudity. But this appears to be based on incorrect beliefs about the possibility of lustful thoughts.

Pope John Paul II, while still a Polish Cardinal wrote: "Nakedness itself is not immodest... Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment.

Religious Event in Seoul South Korea.
Nudity is part of it.

So how would it stand in a church in regards to nudity? At the core of the church it would be condoned. This doesn't mean that I would be standing butt naked on the pulpit. It means that I would wear semi-sheer robes and that nudity is okay.
At the congregation level, it simply means that if someone came to church with holes in their pants and a woman was showing a little of her rear end means, that the church would say nothing and be totally in support and tolerant of how he or she dresses. Yes, that can mean showing cleavage and bellies. My Ministry would NEVER judge by outward appearances. Even God does not judge by appearance, because he judges by whats in the heart and not the clothes or lack of them on the body.

Sussana

Again, conservative judgmental intolerance is what makes people leave the church. Next Generation churches are growing because they have become more relaxed and tolerant. Lessons for mainstream churches is to make major changes or face extinction by more younger, liberal people.

I wear semi sheer clothing all the time. I get frowns and I get praises. I am just me and I shed those shames and bare my heart and soul for all to see.

In the biker world where I come from, judging seems to be much less than the non rider.

Blessings,

Rev. Dr. Gale Candice Revilla

On a hot summer day, I tend to wear
skimpy outfits on the bike.

The Secret Gnostic Teachings

The Gnostic Cross

The Secret Gnostic Teachings of Jesus the Christ

I am Gnostic which is a sect of Christianity. Are there many of us around? No! But it is changing slowly. Why you may ask? Because the Gnostics were considered evil and contradicted the orthodox churches. Those churches stated that anyone who was Gnostic would speak of heresy against God and the church. The Gnostics were killed, murdered and imprisoned by the Roman Orthodox church. All records and writings were wiped out until 1945 when the Nag Hammadi scrolls were found in Egypt. Then the tables turned and the truth came out.

These ancient writings were discovered in 1945 which revealed more information about the concept of reincarnation from the sect of Christians called "Gnostics".  This sect was ultimately destroyed by the Roman Orthodox Church, their followers burned at the stake and their writings wiped out.  The writings included some long lost gospels, some of which were written earlier than the known gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  The Gnostic Christians claimed to possess the correct definition of "resurrection" - based on Jesus' secret teachings, handed down to them by the apostles. The existence of a secret tradition can be found in the New Testament:

"He [Jesus] told them, ' The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" (Mark 4:11-12)

"No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." (1 Corinthians 2:7)

"So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God." (1 Corinthians 4:1)

A fragment of the Secret Gospel of Mark, one of the Gnostic texts discovered, describes Jesus performing secret initiation rites.  Before the discovery of Gnostic writings, our only knowledge of it came from a letter written by Church Father Clement of Alexandria (150 AD - 211 AD), which quotes this secret gospel and refers to it as "a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being perfected."  He said, "It even yet is most carefully guarded [by the church at Alexandria], being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries."  Clement insists elsewhere that Jesus revealed a secret teaching to those who were "capable of receiving it and being molded by it."  Clement indicates that he possessed the secret tradition, which was handed down through the apostles.  Such Gnostics were spiritual critics of the orthodox Church of what they saw as not so much a popularization as a vulgarization of Christianity.  The orthodox church stressed faith, while the Gnostic church stressed knowledge (gnosis).  This secret knowledge emphasized spiritual resurrection rather than physical resurrection.  Indeed, the Gnostic Christians believed reincarnation to be the true interpretation of "resurrection" for those who have not attained a spiritual resurrection through this secret knowledge.

The Symbol of Gnosis (knowledge)

The New Testament talks about this gnosis (knowledge):

"Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues." (1 Corinthians 12:7-10)

"For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding." (Colossians 1:9)

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus states that the Pharisees, the founders of rabbinic Judaism for whom Paul once belonged, believed in reincarnation.  He writes that the Pharisees believed that the souls of bad men are punished after death but that the souls of good men are "removed into other bodies" and they will "have power to revive and live again."  The Sadducees, the other prominent Jewish sect in Palestine, did not emphasize life after death and according to the Bible "say there is no resurrection" (Matthew 22:23).  From what we have just discussed, it is clear that what Matthew really states is that the Sadducees "say there is no reincarnation".

The following are some the secret teachings of Jesus from the Gnostic gospels that affirm reincarnation, revealing the secret knowledge:

"Watch and pray that you may not be born in the flesh, but that you may leave the bitter bondage of this life." (Book of Thomas the Contender)

"When you see your likeness, you are happy.  But when you see your images that came into being before and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will bear!" (Gospel of Thomas)

In the Book of Thomas the Contender, Jesus tells the disciple Thomas that after death those who were once believers but have remained attached to things of "transitory beauty" will be consumed "in their concern about life" and will be "brought back to the visible realm".

In the Secret Book of John, reincarnation is placed at the heart of its discussion of the salvation of souls.  The book was written by 185 AD at the latest.  Here is the Secret Book of John's perspective on reincarnation: 

All people have drunk the water of forgetfulness and exist in a state of ignorance.  Some are able to overcome ignorance through the Spirit of life that descends upon them.  These souls "will be saved and will become perfect," that is, escape the round of rebirth.  John asks Jesus what will happen to those who do not attain salvation.  They are hurled down "into forgetfulness" and thrown into "prison", the Gnostic code word for new body.  The only way for these souls to escape, says Jesus, is to emerge from forgetfulness and acquire knowledge.  A soul in this situation can do so by finding a teacher or savior who has the strength to lead her home.  "This soul needs to follow another soul in whom the Spirit of life dwells, because she is saved through the Spirit.  Then she will never be thrust into flesh again." (Secret Book of John)

Another Gnostic text, Pistis Sophia, outlines an elaborate system of reward and punishment that includes reincarnation.   The text explains differences in fate as the effects of past-life actions.  A "man who curses" is given a body that will be continually "troubled in heart".  A "man who slanders" receives a body that will be "oppressed".   A thief receives a "lame, crooked and blind body".   A "proud" and "scornful" man receives "a lame and ugly body" that "everyone continually despises."  Thus earth, as well as hell, becomes the place of punishment.

According to Pistis Sophia, some souls do experience hell as a shadowy place of torture where they go after death.  But after passing through this hell, the souls return for further experiences on earth.  Only a few extremely wicked souls are not allowed to reincarnate.  These are cast into "outer darkness" until the time when they are destined to be "destroyed and dissolved".

Several Gnostic texts combine the ideas of reincarnation and union with God.  The Apocalypse of Paul, a second-century text, describes the Merkabah-style ascent of the apostle Paul as well as the reincarnation of a soul who was not ready for such an ascent.  It shows how both reincarnation and ascents fit into Gnostic belief.

As Paul passes through the fourth heaven, he sees a soul being punished for murder.  This soul is being whipped by angels who have brought him "out of the land of the dead" (earth).  The soul calls three witnesses, who charge him with murder.  The soul then looks down "in sorrow" and is "cast down" into a body that has been prepared for it.  The text goes on to describe Paul's further journey through the heavens, a practice run for divine union.

Pistis Sophia combines the ideas of reincarnation and divine union in a passage that begins with the question:  What happens to "a man who has committed no sin, but done good persistently, but has not found the mysteries?"  The Pistis Sophia tells us that the soul of the good man who has not found the mysteries will receive "a cup filled with thoughts and wisdom."   This will allow the soul to remember its divine origin and so to pursue the "mysteries of the Light" until it finds them and is able to "inherit the Light forever."  To "inherit the Light forever" is a Gnostic code for union with God.

For the Gnostic Christians, resurrection was also a spiritual event - simply the awakening of the soul.  We believe that people who experience the resurrection can experience eternal life or union with God, while on earth and then after death, escape rebirth.  People who don't experience the resurrection and union with God on earth will reincarnate.  Jesus states the following the Gnostic Gospels:

"People who say they will first die and then arise are mistaken.  If they do not first receive resurrection while they are alive, once they have died they will receive nothing." (Gospel of Philip)

Paul writes in several places that resurrection involves a spirit body.  Such a definition corresponds with spiritual resurrection and reincarnation:

"It [the dead body] is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." (1 Corinthians 15:44)

"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." (1 Corinthians 15:50)

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ."   (Colossians 2:13)

The Gnostics claimed their terminology was sprinkled through the Epistles.  For example, the author of Ephesians uses the words "awake", "sleep" and "dead" in a Gnostic sense:

"But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." (Ephesians 5:13-14)

Some of the Greek words in the New Testament translated as "resurrection" also mean to "rise" or "awake".   Therefore, argued the Gnostics, when Paul says people can be part of the resurrection, he is really saying that their souls can be awakened to the Spirit of God.

We know that in some passages Paul writes about the resurrection as a present rather than a future event:

"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.  If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.  For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.  Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.  For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.  The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.   In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus." (Romans 6:3-11)

Colossians also seems to describe the resurrection as a present-day event:

"Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God." (Colossians 3:1)
"Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator." (Colossians 3:9-10)

In the above passage, taking off the old self and putting on the new is a code for the resurrection, which, again, is described as a present-life event.

The Gnostic manuscripts present a clear, simple and strong vision of the resurrection.  First, the Gospel of Thomas disabuses people of the notion that the resurrection is a future event:

"His followers said to him, 'When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?'  He said to them, 'What you look for has come, but you do not know it.'" (Gospel of Thomas)

In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is saying that the resurrection and the kingdom are already here.  We simply do not realize it - or, in the Gnostic sense, we simply have not integrated with them.

Jesus explained the concept of resurrection before raising Lazarus from the dead:

"Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:23-26)

In these verses, Jesus tells Martha her brother Lazarus will "rise again". Martha mistakenly thinks Jesus means Lazarus will come out of his grave at Judgment Day. Jesus corrects her by stating that those who believe in Him will live, even before they die. Jesus is referring here to spiritual regeneration. Jesus also states that those who die believing in Him, will never die. This clearly implies reincarnation. The flip-side to this is that those who die not believing in Him, will have to die again (i.e. reincarnate). It is interesting to note that by raising Lazarus from death, Jesus is forcing Lazarus to live out the rest of his life only to die physically again. By raising Lazarus from death, Jesus seems to be demonstrating that one does not wait until Judgment Day to rise.

Jesus flatly tells Nicodemus:

"I tell you a truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (John 3:3)

Nicodemus misunderstands what Jesus means by "born again":

"How can a person be born when he is old?   Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" (John 3:4) 

In response, Jesus states:

"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.  Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." (John 3:5-6)

In context of these verses, Jesus is talking about the process of resurrection, that is, being born of water and being born of the Spirit.  Jesus describes physical resurrection (to be born of water) and spiritual resurrection (to be born of the Spirit).  They are two similar yet different processes.  From these verses, the case can be made that Jesus taught the concept of resurrection as being physical rebirth as well as spiritual rebirth.

In the Apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon, recognized by the Catholic Church and the Church of England, is the following verse:

"... I was given a sound body to live in because I was already good." (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20)

This verse raises the following question:  How is it possible to get a body after you have already been good if reincarnation is a fact?

Flavius Josephus records that the Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls lived "the same kind of life" as the followers of the Greek philosopher Pythagoras who taught reincarnation.  According to Josephus, the Essenes believed that the soul is both immortal and preexistent which is necessary for belief in reincarnation.

One scroll entitled "The Last Jubilee" mentions reincarnation.  This scroll is about the "last days" during which time it says, a  "Melchizedek redivivus" (reincarnate) will appear and destroy Belial (Satan) and lead the children of God to eternal forgiveness.  Parts of this scroll has been unreadable and will be denoted by this  '. . .'  symbol.   Here is it's message:

"Men will turn away in rebellion, and there will be a re-establishment of the reign of righteousness, perversity being confounded by the judgments of God.  This is what scripture implies in the words,  "Who says to Zion, your God has not claimed his Kingdom!"   The term Zion there denoting the total congregation of the "sons of righteousness"  that is, those who maintain the covenant and turn away from the popular trend, and your God signifying the King of Righteousness, alias Melchizedek Redivivus, who will destroy Belial.  Our text speaks also of sounding a loud trumpet blast throughout the land on the tenth day of the seventh month.   As applied to the last days, this refers to the fanfare which will then be sounded before the Messianic King." (The Last Jubilee)

The Nag Hammadi scrolls brought the
Gnostics to light with their knowledge of Jesus'
Secret teachings

Melchizedek was the High Priest described in the Bible.   It is interesting to note that some early Christians believed Melchizedek to be an early incarnation of Jesus.  If this is true and the above passage of the Dead Sea Scrolls can be believed, then the passage is very likely referring to Jesus Himself and His second coming.

The Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Jewish mystical tradition of union with God went back to the first, if not the third, century before Christ.  Jewish mysticism has its roots in Greek mysticism which espoused reincarnation.  Some of the hymns found with the Dead Sea Scrolls are similar to the Hekhalot hymns sung by the Jewish mystics.  One text gives us unmistakable evidence of Jewish mysticism.  It is called "Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice".   Also, fragments of 1 Enoch, which is considered the oldest evidence of Jewish mysticism, were also found with the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Since Jewish mysticism existed in the third century before Christ, as Enoch indicates, then it would certainly have been present in first-century Judaism.  As stated earlier, this twin idea of divine union and reincarnation can be found in early Christianity and one can easily conclude that it was the key to the heart of Jesus' message.

Reincarnation has been a tenet for thousands of years for certain Jews and Christians. The Zohar is a work of great weight and authority among the Jews. In II, 199 b, it says that "all souls are subject to revolutions." This is metempsychosis or a'leen b'gilgoola; but it declares that "men do not know the way they have been judged in all time." That is, in their "revolutions" they lose a complete memory of the acts that have led to judgment. The Kether Malkuth says, "If she, the soul, be pure, then she shall obtain favor.. . but if she hath been defiled, then she shall wander for a time in pain and despair. . . until the days of her purification." If the soul be pure and if she comes at once from God at birth, how could she be defiled? And where is she to wander if not on this or some other world until the days of her purification? The Rabbis always explained it as meaning she wandered down from Paradise through many revolutions or births until purity was regained.

Under the name of "Din Gilgol Neshomes" the doctrine of reincarnation is constantly spoken of in the Talmud. The term means "the judgment of the revolutions of the souls." And Rabbi Manassa, son of Israel, one of the most revered, says in his book Nishmath Hayem: "The belief or the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is a firm and infallible dogma accepted by the whole assemblage of our church with one accord, so that there is none to be found who would dare to deny it. . . . Indeed, there is a great number of sages in Israel who hold firm to this doctrine so that they made it a dogma, a fundamental point of our religion. We are therefore in duty bound to obey and to accept this dogma with acclamation . . . as the truth of it has been incontestably demonstrated by the Zohar, and all books of the Kabalists."

So, is heaven on earth already but we can’t see it? Once we see the light (union with God) we leave earth as we know it and enter a door to another part of earth?

These questions can be answered once one gains the gnosis of the secret teachings of Jesus the Christ.

Blessings,

Rev. Dr. Gale Candice Revilla D.D.

Did Jesus the Christ live in India?

Did Jesus the Christ live in India?

50 years after his resurrection, Jesus was still teaching his father’s words. But, it wasn’t in the Middle East rather, in another part of the world – Asia!

In my own research I have found information from published books that bring our true destiny into the light. One of these profound books comes from German writer and researcher, “Holger Kersten.” In some of my research, there is word that Jesus had a twin brother. Could there have been two Christ’s? Jesus is worldly and not just to a specific area as many ancient doctrines suggest.

Holger Kersten: "It is simply of vital importance to find again the path to the sources, to the eternal and central truths of Christ's message, which has been shaken almost beyond recognition by the profane ambitions of more or less secular institutions arrogating to themselves a religious authority. This is an attempt to open a way to a new future, firmly founded in the true spiritual and religious sources of the past".

---

Thus begins Holger Kersten's book "Jesus Lived in India". This German book is a thorough, methodical and authoritative examination of the evidence of Christ's life beyond the Middle East before the Crucifixion and in India and elsewhere after it.

This article is a summary of Kersten's exhaustive research into Christ's travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir. Kersten notes the many parallels of Christ's teachings with other religious and cultural traditions and suggests that at least some of these figures may have been one and the same personality. It is not possible, Kersten asserts, to disprove that Christ went to India. The current information documenting Christ's life is restricted to the gospels and the work of Church theologians. One can hardly trust these sources to be objective considering their obvious interest in maintaining the authority of their Church and its grip on the masses.

The Russian scholar, Nicolai Notovich, was the first to suggest that Christ may have gone to India. In 1887, Notovich, a Russian scholar and Orientalist, arrived in Kashmir during one of several journeys to the Orient. At the Zoji-la pass Notovich was a guest in a Buddhist monastery, where a monk told him of the bhodisattva saint called "Issa". Notovich was stunned by the remarkable parallels of Issa's teachings and martyrdom with that of Christ's life, teachings and crucifixion.

For about sixteen years, Christ travelled through Turkey, Persia, Western Europe and possibly England. He finally arrived with Mary to a place near Kashmir, where she died. After many years in Kashmir, teaching to an appreciative population, who venerated him as a great prophet, reformer and saint, he died and was buried in a tomb in Kashmir itself.

The first step in Christ's trail after the Crucifixion is found in the Persian scholar F. Mohammed's historical work "Jami-ut-tuwarik" which tells of Christ's arrival in the kingdom of Nisibis, by royal invitation. (Nisibis is today known as Nusaybin in Turkey) . This is reiterated in the Imam Abu Jafar Muhammed's "Tafsi-Ibn-i-Jamir at-tubri." Kersten found that in both Turkey and Persia there are ancient stories of a saint called "Yuz Asaf" ("Leader of the Healed"), whose behavior, miracles and teachings are remarkably similar to that of Christ.

The many Islamic and Hindu historical works recording local history and legends of kings, noblemen and saints of the areas thought to be travelled by Jesus also give evidence of a Christ like man; the Koran, for example, refers to Christ as "Issar". Further east, the Kurdish tribes of Eastern Anatolia have several stories describing Christ's stay in Eastern Turkey after his resurrection. These traditional legends have been ignored by the theological community.

Kersten also suggests that prior to Christ's mission in the Middle East, he may have been exposed to Buddhist teachings in Egypt. After his birth in Bethlehem, his family fled to Egypt to avoid Herod's persecution. Surprisingly some scholars now acknowledge that Buddhist schools probably existed in Alexandria long before the Christian era.

More clues are drawn from the Apocrypha. These are texts said to have been written by the Apostles but which are not officially accepted by the Church. Indeed, the Church regards them as heresy since a substantial amount of the Apocrypha directly contradicts Church dogma and theology. The Apocryphal 'Acts of Thomas', for example, tell how Christ met Thomas several times after the Crucifixion. In fact they tell us how Christ sent Thomas to teach his spirituality in India. This is corroborated by evidence found in the form of stone inscriptions at Fatehpur Sikri, near the Taj Mahal, in Northern India. They include "Agrapha", which are sayings of Christ that don't exist in the mainstream Bible. Their grammatical form is most similar to that of the Apocryphal gospel of Thomas. This is but one example giving credibility to the idea that texts not recognized by the Church hold important clues about Christ's true life and his teachings.

In tracing Christ's movements to India and beyond, Kersten also discovered that many of his teachings, which have been gradually edited out of the modern Bible were originally Eastern in nature. Principles such as karma and re-incarnation, for example, were common knowledge then, and seem to have been reaffirmed by Christ. Imagine the implications that this discovery holds for Western Christianity and its churches, who have kept Christ in their doctrinal top pockets and have constrained the entire Western culture within the narrow teachings of blind faith, organized religion and original sin!

Further clues are cited from The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, and the Gospel of Thomas which are of Syrian origin and have been dated to the 4th Century AD, or possibly earlier. They are Gnostic Scriptures and despite the evidence indicating their authenticity, they are not given credence by mainstream theologians. In these texts Thomas tells of Christ's appearance in Andrapolis, Paphlagonia (today known as in the extreme north of Anatolia) as a guest of the King of Andrappa. There he met with Thomas who had arrived separately. It is at Andrapolis that Christ entreated Thomas to go to India to begin spreading his teachings. It seems that Christ and Mary then moved along the West coast of Turkey, proof of this could be an old stopping place for travelers called the "Home of Mary", found along the ancient silk route. From here Christ could easily have entered Europe via France. He may have even travelled as far as the British Isles, for in England there is an ancient oak tree called the "Hallowed Tree" which (says local legend) was planted by Christ himself.

In his travels through Persia (today's Iran) Christ became known as Yuz Asaf (leader of the Healed). We know this because a Kashmiri historical document confirms that Isa (the Koranic name for Christ) was in fact also known as Yuz Asaf. The Jami - uf - Tamarik, Volume II, tells that Yuz Asaf visited Masslige, where he attended the grave of Shem, Noah's son. There are various other accounts such as Agha Mustafa's "Awhali Shahaii-i-paras" that tell of Yuz Asaf's travels and teachings all over Persia. It seems that Yuz Asaf blessed Afghanistan and Pakistan with his presence also. There are for example two plains in 

 near Gazni and Galalabad, bearing the name of the prophet Yuz Asaf. Again in the Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, Thomas says that he and Christ attended the Court of King Gundafor of Taxila (now Pakistan), in about 47AD, and that eventually both the King and his brother accepted Christ's teachings. Kersten claims that there are more than twenty one historical documents that bear witness to the existence of Jesus in Kashmir, where he was known also as Yuz Asaf and Issa. For example the Bhavishyat Mahapurana (volume 9 verses 17-32) contains an account of Issa-Masih (Jesus the Messiah). It describes Christ's arrival in the Kashmir region of India and his encounter with King Shalivahana, who ruled the Kushan area (39-50AD), and who entertained Christ as a guest for some time.

{Christ's life in India, after the crucifixion, challenges current Church teachings at their very foundation. The theology of Saint Paul, the major influence on modern Christianity, is empty fanaticism in the light of this discovery.|

The historian Mullah Nadini (1413) also recounts a story of Yuz Asaf who was a contemporary to King Gopadatta, and confirms that he also used the name Issar, ie. Jesus. There is also much historical truth in the towns and villages of Northern India to prove that Jesus and his mother Mary spent time in the area. For instance, at the border of a small town called Mari, there is nearby a mountain called Pindi Point, upon which is an old tomb called Mai Mari da Asthan or "The final resting place of Mary". The tomb is said to be very old and local Muslims venerate it as the grave of Issa's (ie Christ's) Mother. The tomb itself is oriented East-West consistent with the Jewish tradition, despite the fact it is within a Muslim area. Assuming its antiquity, such a tomb could not be Hindu either since the Hindus contemporary to Christ cremated their dead or scattered their ashes as do Hindus today.

Following Christ's trail into Kashmir, 40km south of Srinagar, between the villages of Naugam and Nilmge is a meadow called Yuz-Marg (the meadow of Yuz Asaf, ie. Jesus). 

Then there is the sacred building called Aish Muqam, 60km south east of Srinagar and 12km from Bij Bihara. "Aish" says Kersten is derived from "Issa" and "Muqam" place of rest or repose. Within the Aish Muqam is a sacred relic called the 'Moses Rod' or the 'Jesus Rod', which local legend says, belonged to Moses himself. Christ is said to also have held it, perhaps to confirm his Mosaic heritage. Above the town of Srinagar is a temple known as "The Throne of Solomon", which dates back to at least 1000BC, which King Gopadatta had restored at about the same time as Christ's advent. The restoration was done by a Persian architect who personally left four inscriptions on the side steps of the temple. The third and fourth inscription read: "At this time Yuz Asaf announced his prophetic calling in Year 50 and 4" and "He is Jesus -- Prophet of the Sons of Israel"! Herein lies a powerful confirmation of Kersten's theory. 

Kersten suggests that Christ may have travelled to the South of India also, finally returning to Kashmir to die at the age of approximately 80 years. Christ's tomb, says Kersten, lies in Srinagar's old town in a building called Rozabal. "Rozabal" is an abbreviation of Rauza Bal, meaning "tomb of a prophet". At the entrance there is an inscription explaining that Yuz Asaf is buried along with another Moslem saint. 

Both have gravestones which are oriented in North-South direction, according to Moslem tradition. However, through a small opening the true burial chamber can be seen, in which there is the Sarcophagus of Yuz Asaf in East-West (Jewish) orientation!

According to Professor Hassnain, who has studied this tomb, there are carved footprints on the grave stones and when closely examined, carved images of a crucifix and a rosary. The footprints of Yuz Asaf have what appear to be scars represented on both feet, if one assumes that they are crucifixion scars, then their position is consistent with the scars shown in the Turin Shroud (left foot nailed over right). Crucifixion was not practiced in Asia, so it is quite possible that they were inflicted elsewhere, such as the Middle East. The tomb is called by some as "Hazrat Issa Sahib" or "Tomb of the Lord Master Jesus". Ancient records acknowledge the existence of the tomb as long ago as 112AD. The Grand Mufti, a prominent Muslim Cleric, himself has confirmed that Hazrat Isa Sahib is indeed the tomb of Yuz Asaf!

Thus Kersten deduces that the tomb of Jesus Christ Himself is in Kashmir!

The implications of Kersten's discovery are monumental. Christ's life in India, after the crucifixion, challenges current Church teachings at their very foundation. The theology of Saint Paul, the major influence on modern Christianity, is empty fanaticism in the light of this discovery. Threatened also are the doctrines of obedience to the Church, original sin, salvation through blind faith and the non-existence of reincarnation, etc. Yet these ideas underlie the morality and ethics, (or lack of them), that govern the entire Western social structure, from the legal system to medical health care schemes. It is no wonder that the modern Churches and their secular interests refuse to consider such a proposition as Kersten's!

In Conclusion: The book is well worth reading and understanding of how a different religion sees Christ Jesus and what he did for the people of Asia. It is a shame that the doctrines of the Bible can change only if it follows certain beliefs and their ideology.

When one steps outside the box but never leaving it, a new light comes into view. Being that I am Gnostic, It is only simple logic that I am going to research more about Jesus and our Lord God.

According to the ancient India scripture, the Christ was teaching and learning in Asia. Was Jesus a twin or did he in fact live in India 50 years after his resurrection in the Middle East? It would seem that both Mary’s were with him as well as Thomas so that it was the one and the same Jesus that had died on the cross 47 years or so earlier. What didn’t make it into the canonization of the Bible that was re-written in the early 1600’s didn’t mean that it didn’t happen. But it does upturn the modern doctrines used today and how quickly the church turns its back to credible Apocryphal scripture. If it is NOT in the bible, it didn’t happen is being naïve to credible facts of the life of Jesus the Christ.


The Synopsis of "Jesus Lived In India" by Holger Kersten was written by Dr Ramesh Manocha & Anna Potts with my own comment insertions.

Blessings,

Rev. Dr. Gale Candice Revilla D.D.

Is Jesus and God the same?

JESUS and THE FATHER = ONE GOD?

Let me give you an example of what this article contains: “I am the Creator and my son is the creation. I give my son full power under my authority on earth to represent me. The son is not me and I am not him, but with our combine understanding we are one.  I am that I am and he is who he is. Through him you will know me because we are one. He sits on the right side of my throne. His name is, “Yeshua” (Jesus). Many will call my name, “Yahweh.” (God). I am “Yahweh” and he is, “Yeshua.”

Now if I left it at that and I was one of the greatest theologians in modern day, you might and I say that lightly, you might believe what I said that, God and Jesus are two separate beings. But people of intelligence are stubborn when it comes to going against their own belief. Religious dogma gets in the way quickly and they try to turn it around stating that I am some left wing nut with no merit and that I don’t know what I am talking about. So, with that in mind, it is best to confirm and affirm what I just said in the first paragraph by using scripture. Understand that Judaism claims the separation and Christianity does not. Who is right? I believe this article will clear that up.

Note: some of the text was written by another author and I put my own insertions and concurrence with the original writer to give a continuity of the overall text article.

Someone may argue, "But, didn’t Jesus say that He and his Father were one?

Yes, Jesus did say that. But what did He mean by it? Did He mean that 1+1=1? Did He mean "one" in number, or "one" in spirit and purpose? Obviously, He meant that they were united in purpose and spirit. Here, again, our religious brethren must resist the temptation to assign Christ’s statements to some nonsensical body of mystical sayings.

God’s Word directs us to, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith Yahweh…" (Isaiah 1:18). Also, remember “Toland’s” sage advice: "Reserve judgment on whatever is uncertain and assent only to clear precepts." Mysticism and mystery have no place whatsoever in a person’s belief structure. You cannot honestly build a belief structure on a mystery. An honest man must remain silent concerning a mystery, for the fact that it is a mystery to him proves that he possesses no intelligent data on the subject.

Building on a mystery is like shooting in the dark. Odds are greater than a million to one against you ever hitting the target which you cannot see. Ministers who build on mystery are shooting in the dark, and usually lying.

Jesus claimed that He and his Father were one. To turn this alleged mystery into common sense, we only have to read some related scriptures.

First, let’s examine the passage in question by reading it in context.

John chapter 10:

My Father, which gave them to me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.

"There!" they say, "See! He and his Father are ONE! Jesus and Yahweh are the same person!" But, is that really what it says? In light of the verse preceding it, would it be consistent?

Verse 29; says that the Father gave disciples to Jesus. Jesus didn’t give them to himself. Remember, give and take requires two parties: the giver, and the taker. Also, Jesus says that Yahweh is GREATER than all.

Reason and common sense must prevail lest we find ourselves lost in mindless, pagan mysticism. In the incapacitated mind of the pagan, two can equal one, and three can equal one. In fact, multiple gods can simultaneously be one god. Two, three, or 10,000 gods can equal ONE god – as in Hinduism. This can happen in their minds because their brains have been shoved into neutral. Their minds no longer seek logical answers.

Christians are supposed to have sound minds. What then? Are we to believe that Jesus was a dual god, like the Roman god Janus? Was He saying that two equals one? No, of course not! He was simply using a common form of expression that makes good sense unless taken out of context. You can find such common expressions throughout the Bible.

For instance, John 17:

11 .…Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we.

21. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us…

22. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them: that they may be one, even as we are one:

In this case, the pagan might envision Yahweh, Jesus, and the disciples ALL part of one big god. Which is not the case.

Matthew 19:

…Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain (two) shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh…

One flesh? Literally? Of course not! That’s absurd.

Galatians 3:

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither, male or female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Obviously, being "one" with someone has no bearing on number. Therefore, it signifies something other than quantity. Jesus was not claiming some kind of mystical identification as Yahweh, any more than He was suggesting that all his disciples were only one person. He only meant that they were one in purpose and authority. Don’t let pagan nonsense confuse you. Use common sense and don’t complex the content of what Jesus stated over and over throughout the New Testament concerning his father.

Continuing in John 10:

Then the Judeans took up stones again to stone him (Jesus). Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Judeans answered him, saying, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”

Now here we have an interesting statement. The Judeans were accusing Jesus of the same thing the churches today accuse Him of – namely, that He claimed to be God. The difference is that today’s churches like it, and the Judeans hated it.

Remember, Jesus didn’t claim to be Yahweh; He claimed to be "one" with him – an expression meaning to share the same purpose or motivation. He then goes on to address the term "god" itself. Jesus answered them:

…Is it not written in your law (in Psalms 82:6), I (Yahweh) said, Ye are gods?

Who "are gods?" Yahweh originally said that to Israelites. Jesus was reminding the Judeans that Yahweh had called their ancestors "gods." How could just mortal men be "gods"?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; ay ye of him (Jesus), whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Obviously, the Israelites were not supernatural gods. They were just "elohim" (powerful ones) in their day. Jesus pointed out that if Yahweh had called their ancestors "gods," then it certainly wasn’t blasphemy for Him to claim to be the Son of God. Keep in mind that the Priest never stoned him because most caught on to what Jesus meant.

If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him (two persons; the Son was motivated by the Father).

If those Judeans had been listening they would have heard the meaning of "being one" with someone. They would have also learned what the word "god" ("elohim" in Hebrew; "theos" in Greek) really meant. But, most of the Pharisees weren’t listening, and neither are the churches today.

Besides, in several clear passages, Jesus declares that He and Yahweh, together, equal TWO in number.

John 8:

15. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of TWO men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, AND the Father that sent me beareth witness of me (two witnesses). Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Jesus answered, If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me…

Someone may still wonder, "With all these scriptures showing clearly that Jesus and Yahweh are not the same, how is it, then, that the idea came to be so wide-spread? And how is it that so many people think the Bible actually teaches it? Why is it such a popular doctrine if it’s so clearly wrong?"

Well, there are yet several scriptures that we haven’t addressed. Also, our English versions of the Bible have been translated (or rather miss-translated) to make certain scriptures appear to say, at least on the face of them, that Yahweh himself became a flesh-and-blood of man. Of course, it is easier to accept them that way if you are already bias. But, at this point we must admit that someone who reads only the English versions of the Bible could feasibly be led into that error unknowingly.

Now, let’s start with John 17:

And this is eonian life; that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. ("eonian life" = the spiritual awakening given during this New Covenant age).

That "eonian life" is described as an ability to "know the only true God (Yahweh), AND Jesus Christ, whom Yahweh sent." Now, keep that point squarely in your mind.

I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (KJV)

On the face of this one, it may appear to be saying that Jesus lived WITH (along side) Yahweh before the earth was created. However, if that were the case, this verse would also do great violence to the theory that Jesus and Yahweh are one and the same. It would be saying that Jesus and Yahweh were two beings.

But, as we unweave the confusion of this verse, and translate it correctly, we see its actual meaning.

5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with (in addition to) your glory which I am sharing with you before (in front of) the world. (Corrected; according to the Greek).

What Yahweh had already accomplished through Jesus had been glorious. Now, Jesus was praying for a greater glory to be accomplished in his death and rising to immortality.

This verse does not say what the KJV translators insinuated. When you read it correctly, it fits with the text much better.

What did Jesus say?

Yahweh was glorified in Jesus as a witness before all the world. Jesus had completed the work that He, as a mortal, was created to do, and Jesus was now looking forward to a greater glory (i.e. the expected glory of being raised to immortal life and ascending the throne).

We are a word-controlled people. People can be changed just by changing the meanings of words they use. If we allow our words to be controlled, then we will be controlled.

The Bible is a very old document. Even the English translation of the Bible is very old. To understand this old document we must be very careful that we do not misuse its words. We can’t ignore them, nor can we assume that others have been honest with them. The WORDS are more important than gold! We should be at least as protective and responsible over these words of life as we would that much gold. This requires more than just casual reading from one of the many English versions.

In this case, just as in many others, the sensible and logical conclusion is the right one, and we can dispense with the so-called mystery.

John 1:

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Jesus declared Yahweh to men. But, NO MAN has seen Yahweh. Now, don’t miss this important point.

Has any man seen Jesus? Yes, of course.

Has any man seen Yahweh? No!

What, then, was Jesus? Was He Yahweh? No, because men saw Jesus.

What was He then? John says He was THE DECLARATION OF GOD (i.e. the LOGOS)!

John 17:

I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

Jesus refers to Yahweh as "Thee" and "Thou" – obviously not referring to himself. Jesus says He had manifested the Father’s name (i.e. He displayed Yahweh’s "name"; his "authority"). His Father gave Him authority to represent Him. The representative cannot be the one being represented!

The next passage in question is John 14:

6. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

We just read that no one had seen the Father. Is this a contradiction?

If we accept the premise that Jesus does not contradict himself, then He must be telling us something else.

Philip saith unto him, Lord show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet has thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Is Jesus contradicting himself? Is He saying that men really HAVE seen Yahweh?

Now understand, I’m saying that we can’t throw out any of these scriptures. If there appears to be a contradiction, we must have enough faith in God’s Word to believe that the error comes from man – not from Jesus. We must believe that the scriptures make sense when we don’t misuse them. Therefore, contradictions come from erroneous translations and/or interpretations – not from Jesus, nor the inspired Word of God. So, we only need to find and correct the error that men have inserted. Furthermore, to interpret the scriptures correctly, we should read them in context which is very important when reading the bible. So, let’s see what else is said in this passage.

Notice verse 10:

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, …

Now wait a minute! Which is it? Is He the Father? Or is He IN the Father? Obviously, being "in the Father" is not the same as "being the Father." If Jesus WAS the Father, wouldn’t he have said "I AM THE FATHER" rather than saying "I am IN the Father"? If He was the Father, He missed a perfect opportunity to clearly tell them who He was.

10. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak NOT OF MYSELF: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

When He spoke of the Father He spoke NOT OF HIMSELF! That’s what verse ten says! Now, that is not hard to understand.

Again, in John 7, Jesus makes a distinction between himself and Yahweh:

…My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Jesus’ doctrine was not his! What did He mean by that? If Jesus was Yahweh, then He would have been saying that the doctrine was not Yahweh’s! Whose, then, would it have been? Not Jesus’! Not Yahweh’s! Could it have been, perhaps, Baal’s doctrine; or maybe the serpent’s doctrine? Whose? Where might this impossible scenario take them? I’ll tell you where it will lead the gullible. It’ll lead them right into Judeo-Christianity (Jewish Christianity).

However, if Jesus was Yahweh’s Son, then it all makes perfect sense. The Son got his doctrine from the Father. The works and the words that flowed from Jesus were manifested words and works of Yahweh. They were done in the Father’s name. They "declared" Yahweh unto the world. They were the works and the words of the Father – manifested through Jesus. That’s not to say that Jesus was the Father. Keep that straight! The Father was in Jesus! Remember, no one has seen God. But, men did see Jesus. Jesus was visible. They could touch Him. Many people saw Jesus. But, the Father is invisible to man.

When Philip looked upon Jesus, he was looking at AN IMAGE of the Father. An image…not in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense. Yahweh cannot be described in the physical sense because He is not physical.

If God looked physically like Jesus, then men could have looked upon Yahweh just as easily as they looked upon Jesus. But they couldn’t! Jesus was the image of Yahweh in greater, different ways than physical ways. Just remember: an image of a thing is not the thing itself. Jesus was the image – not the Father himself.

Next, Hebrews 1:

God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, through whom he also arranged the ages. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Jesus was "the express image" of his Father. An image of a thing is not the thing itself. It is a reflection of the thing itself. Jesus reflected Yahweh.

II Corinthians 4:

3. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this age hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (Jesus = image).

Colossians 1:

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation (Invisible means incapable of being seen by the eye. Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God). For in him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through (on account of) him, and for him:

Again, the image of a thing is NOT the thing itself.

Also, we must remember that Adam shared the same status – that of being the image of God. For that matter, WE TOO share that status, as sons of God. Obviously, "being in the image of God" does not equate to "being God."

"All things created" (i.e. this universe, if you will) were created ultimately for the Son who was to inherit all things. Yahweh created all things for Jesus so the Son would inherit all things.

Now read verse 17:

And he is preeminent in all things (referring to status, not time), and in him all things consist. And He is the head of the body who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;

It pleased the Father to place all fullness in the person of Jesus. Jesus was like a vessel filled to the very top. But you see, no matter how great an imagination you may have, you cannot imagine a vessel large enough to contain all of Yahweh. Jesus could not contain Him; Yahweh cannot be limited and contained in a vessel. The Father is limitless and un-containable. Yet, all fullness was in Jesus.

Chapter 2:

For in him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fullness of Godship bodily (not "Godhead").

I Kings 8:27; II Chronicles 6:18

But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!

If heaven and earth cannot contain Yahweh, then neither can the mortal body of a man. Jesus was filled with Godship. However, the contents of a vessel is not the vessel itself. Jesus was the vessel and the contents was of the godship of the Father. The word, "Godhead," indicating a plurality of gods as rendered by the KJV translators, is another misnomer – possibly a prejudice held over from the pagan Roman concept of a "Forum of gods."

In I Timothy 3, we find a related scripture which is often quoted to support the idea of a mysterious "Godhead." I quote it below, correctly from the Greek:

And without question, great is the wonder of godliness which (The KJV wrongly inserts "God" here) was manifest in the flesh, justified in spirit, witnessed by messengers, preached in nations, believed in the world and received in glory."

This is not talking about God, or a so-called "godhead." It is talking about "godliness" or "holiness." Godliness was manifest in the flesh. The KJV translators wrongly inserted "God" in the place of "which." They completely perverted the meaning of this scripture. Translational anomalies like this only serve to further confuse people. Translators should be more responsible.

What is "The mystery (wonder) of godliness?" It is the miracle of a man receiving inspiration from God. The implanted desire to be godly is unnatural to man. It is a miracle when God causes a man to desire godliness. This miracle, or "mystery," is manifest in flesh when a man’s nature is turned – from depravity, to godliness. In 2 Peter 1:3-4 we are told that we acquire the "divine nature" (godliness) through gaining "the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue.

This is the wonder of godliness among men.

Just remember these basic premises:

An image of a thing is not the thing itself.
The contents of a vessel is not the vessel itself.
A "full" vessel shows the limit of the vessel – not the limit of that which fills the vessel.
The Creator is not the creation.
The Infinite is not finite.
The Eternal does not cease to exist.
The Father is not the Son.

"IN THE NAME"

Yahweh’s Son, Jesus – the Inheritor – had authority, in the name of the Father, over his inheritance.

Angels (messengers) also communicated Yahweh’s word to men. They spoke in Yahweh’s name, too. But the churches admit that angels are not Yahweh. They were expressions of Yahweh, to be sure. They spoke the word of Yahweh. They commanded performance with the authority of Yahweh. They issued Yahweh’s commands as if they were coming from Yahweh himself. BUT THEY WERE THE MESSAGE CARRIERS – NOT THE MESSAGE SENDER! That is an important difference. Jesus, also, spoke for Yahweh. He was the Message itself in flesh form. But let’s not confuse the message (Jesus) with the message sender (Yahweh).

We see more of this direct representation of Yahweh in Revelation 21:

9. And there came unto me one of the seven angels…

The messenger (angel) was talking to John. The conversation carries over into chapter 22:

6. And he (the messenger) said unto me (John), These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of

the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

Behold, I come quickly: (Who comes quickly? This messenger? NO. Yahweh! Yahweh comes quickly. But the messenger is the one saying "I come quickly"): blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the messenger (angel) which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the saying of this book: worship God.

Here’s a fellow servant, saying "I come quickly"! John thought, "This must be God himself." So he fell down to worship before Him and the messenger says, "No, I’m not God – I am the messenger of God."

John misunderstood. He made an error. In fact, John’s error of assuming the angel to be Yahweh is similar to the churches’ error of assuming that Jesus is Yahweh. However, both were speaking for Yahweh.

The book of Revelation was a communication delivered to John by a messenger sent by Jesus (Revelation 22:16), and by the Father (Revelation 21:6). The messenger spoke for both Jesus and his Father – as if they, themselves, were actually speaking. In that capacity, the messenger would frequently use phrases like: "I am the Alpha and Omega," or "I am the first and the last." These phrases are idiomatic expressions, used in both the old and new scriptures, to mean "I am without peer"; "I am above all."

In the book of Revelation, where this messenger speaks for Jesus, who in turn speaks for Yahweh, some of the expressions can almost appear to be equating Jesus with Yahweh. But they aren’t. The messenger speaks for Jesus, but he isn’t Jesus. He also speaks for Yahweh, but he isn’t Yahweh. He speaks for them both, together.

When he says, "I am the Alpha and Omega," he is speaking for Yahweh, who authorized him to send the messenger, who in turn, gives it to John.

Now look at John 8:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

This verse is sometimes used to suggest that Jesus was Yahweh – at the time of Abraham. But, again, upon fair consideration, we find that it does not say that. In the first place, it did not project Jesus back in time. It projects Abraham forward in time – to Jesus’ day. We find help to understand this by looking at Hebrews 11.

Here, we read of faithful Abraham. In verse 8 it says, "By faith Abraham" – and then it goes on to explain how Abraham was called out into a new land. In verse 9 it starts: "By faith he sojourned in the land of promise…"

Abraham acted upon faith. He is known as "the father of the faithful." Notice the definition of faith as it is stated in verse one:

Now faith is assurance of things expected; contemplation of things not in sight (corrected according to the Greek text).

Also, Genesis 15:

And he (Yahweh in a vision) brought him (Abram) forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in Yahweh; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

By faith, Abraham was assured of things that he expected, and he contemplated things that he hadn’t personally seen. But Abraham’s faith was not blind! He believed the promise of his God whom he knew, by personal experience, to be capable of fulfilling promises and doing the impossible.

In II Corinthians 5:7, we learn that the godly "walk by faith, not by sight." Abraham didn’t need to physically experience "Jesus’ day" in order to "see" it. Faithful Abraham saw Jesus’ day – not by sight, but he saw it by faith. By the same token, verse 10 says: "For he (Abraham) looked for a city which had foundations, whose builder and maker is God." This was the city of God: New Jerusalem. By faith, Abraham saw that city that was not yet built. In the same way, Abraham looked forward by faith and saw the day of Jesus.

Also, in Romans 4:17, Paul speaks of Abraham’s faith in that God who "calls those things which don’t exist as though they exist." In other words, through faith God caused Abraham to see future things that were not yet physically in existence.

Continuing in John 8, we find another stumbling block:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV)

It is sometimes claimed that Jesus used the term "I am" to show that He was Yahweh and therefore existed before the time of Abraham. They point to Exodus 3:14, where Yahweh said his name was "I am that I am" (or more correctly, "I am the one who exists") and claim that the terms are synonymous. Once again, however, careful and fair analysis shows otherwise.

As always, we must read scripture in context. Let’s go back and read from verse 50 to see how Jesus leads up to this statement:

And I seek not mine own glory: there is one (another one) that seeketh and judgeth.

He sought not his own glory, but rather Yahweh’s – a strange statement if Jesus was Yahweh.

Also, verse 54:

Jesus answered, If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me;…

Jesus kept shunning the honor and insisting that it be placed where it belonged – back with the Father, and away from himself.

Would it make sense in the earlier parts of the chapter to say, "I don’t deserve the honor; my Father deserves the honor!" and then turn around in verse 58 and say, "I am the one who deserves all of the honor?" No! Of course not!

Furthermore, the semantics involved prove that the term "I am" could not have meant what some claim. Look at the sentence structure. If "I am" = Yahweh, the verse would read:

…before Abraham was, Yahweh.

As you can see, it doesn’t work. Jesus did not say, "Before Abraham was, I was the "I am. In order to match their claim, the phrase would need more words.

Furthermore, the phrase in Exodus does not match the one in John when read from the Greek. This clearly indicates that they have different meanings. John 8:58 reads:

…before Abraham, I am (EGO EMI) to become (GENESTHAI) (i.e. "I am to become greater than Abraham").

Here, notice that the verb is not "was" (past tense), but rather "to be" or "to become" (infinitive tense). Also, "to become" fits with "I am" – not with "Abraham" as the churches claim. It reads, "…I am to become," not "before Abraham to become…."

Jesus was saying "I am to be…" in the same sense as you or I would say "I am to go," or "I am to stay."

The Greek construction bears this out. Jesus says "EGO EMI" (I am). Now, compare the Greek construction of Exodus 3:14 as taken from the Septuagint Greek Old Testament.

And God spoke to Moses, saying EGO EMI HA ON (I am the one existing); and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, HA ON (the one existing) has sent me to you.

According to Greek usage, if Jesus had wanted to say that He was "THE EXISTING ONE," He would not have said "EGO EMI." He would have said "HA ON."

What, then, was Jesus saying in verse 58? He was stating that He had a position of even greater importance than Abraham.

…before Abraham (in priority, or rank), I am to be.

Jesus is greater than Abraham. In his ministry, his sacrifice and his rising from the dead – in all that He did, He was the greatest of Yahweh’s creation.

In conclusion: Now again comes the task of un-brain washing the billions who believe that Jesus and Yahweh are the same beings. When one reads the original Hebrew and Greek Bible which; is where the King James Version is translated. Words were changed and/or miss-translated and people start to believe otherwise words that were never written or that have different meanings. Understand that, the Judeans of that biblical time were ready to stone Jesus for claiming he was God himself. Jesus then explained that he was NOT God and through him God speaks. They then dropped those stones and Jesus was never stoned to death. The churches today say what the Judeans were ready to stone him for claiming. The Judeans hate it when they say Jesus (Yeshua) is, “Yahweh” (God). If one never reads the Hebrew bible or the Greek bible, then one would never know or understand why the Christians believe one way and the Judeans another way. If we are to take the original text from the Hebrew and Greek bible and translate it to English, then it should be done properly and not to fit one’s own religious belief. Jesus said it plainly and we ALL should hear his word. That he is NOT “Yahweh” (God) and he said so.

Way too many cults do this to fit their own agenda and warp the actual written word of God and his son Jesus.

The written word of God and Jesus are inerrant and infallible. It only becomes fallible if someone miss-reads the original text and inserts their own belief and over time billions believe it to be the truth. I give you the truth as it was originally written. Now take it to heart or wash it away. The truth has been said.

Blessings,

Dr. Gale Candice Revilla

aka Reverend Mother