Be careful with what you think you know

From the Infancy Gospel of Thomas [First Greek Form]:


6. And a certain teacher, Zacchaeus by name, was standing in a certain place, and heard Jesus thus speaking to his father; and he wondered exceedingly, that, being a child, he should speak in such a way. And a few days thereafter he came to Joseph, and said to him: Thou hast a sensible child, and he has some mind. Give him to me, then, that he may learn letters; and I shall teach him along with the letters all knowledge, both how to address all the elders, and to honour them as forefathers and fathers, and how to love those of his own age. And He said to him all the letters from the Alpha even to the Omega, clearly and with great exactness. And He looked upon the teacher Zacchaeus, and said to him: Thou who art ignorant of the nature of the Alpha, how canst thou teach others the Beta? Thou hypocrite! first, if thou knowest. teach the A, and then we shall believe thee about the B. Then He began to question the teacher about the first letter, and he was not able to answer Him. And in the hearing of many, the child says to Zacchaeus: Hear, O teacher, the order of the first letter, and notice here how it has lines, and a middle stroke crossing those which thou seest common; (lines) brought together; the highest part supporting them, and again bringing them under one head; with three points of intersection; of the same kind; principal and subordinate; of equal length. Thou hast the lines of the A.

7. And when the teacher Zacchaeus heard the child speaking such and so great allegories of the first letter, he was at a great loss about such a narrative, and about His teaching. And He said to those that were present: Alas! I, wretch that I am, am at a loss, bringing shame upon myself by having dragged this child hither. Take him away, then, I beseech thee, brother Joseph. I cannot endure the sternness of his look; I cannot make out his meaning at all. That child does not belong to this earth; he can tame even fire. Assuredly he was born before the creation of the world. What sort of a belly bore him, what sort of a womb nourished him, I do not know. Alas! my friend, he has carried me away; I cannot get at his meaning: thrice wretched that I am, I have deceived myself. I made a struggle to have a scholar, and I was found to have a teacher. My mind is filled with shame, my friends, because I, an old man, have been conquered by a child. There is nothing for me but despondency and death on account of this boy, for I am not able at this hour to look him in the face; and when everybody says that I have been beaten by a little child, what can I say? And how can I give an account of the lines of the first letter that he spoke about? I know not, O my friends; for I can make neither beginning nor end of him. Therefore, I beseech thee, brother Joseph, take him home. What great thing he is, either god or angel, or what I am to say, I know not.

8. And when the Jews were encouraging Zacchaeus, the child laughed aloud, and said: Now let thy learning bring forth fruit, and let the blind in heart see. I am here from above, that I may curse them, and call them to the things that are above, as He that sent me on your account has commanded me. And when the child ceased speaking, immediately all were made whole who had fallen under His curse. And no one after that dared to make Him angry, lest He should curse him, and he should be maimed.


Sheep and Goats

Matthew 25:31-33
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
First: There is no separation based on the color of wool.
Second: Right means good. Left means bad.
Third: Sheep means good. Goats means bad.
Fourth: Son of Man comes means judgment for Christians, not anybody else … not coming to judge people following someone other than Jesus Christ.
Fifth: Christians judged are the good sheep (on the right) and the bad goats (on the left), all who identified themselves as Christian.
Sixth: Sheep Christians have the Son of Man’s throne in their hearts. Goat Christians have the Son of Man’s throne in their heads.
Seventh: Heart-led sheep act as Jesus Christ. Brain-led Christians act as Judas Iscariot.
Important to know: Black sheep get persecuted more because they do more [acts of faith] for God. Other sheep get persecuted less, but they do acts of faith that help the black sheep deal with their persecution. White goats do more pretending to be Christians and make more money doing so. Black goats are false shepherds [many wearing educational collars], often with the hearts of wolves and visions of eating young lambs on their minds.
More good stuff: Jesus comes to judge Christians. God judges all the rest.
Moral of the story: Be a sheep.

Understanding Royalty

With all the hoopla surrounding the marriage of Harry and Meagan, I felt it might be of interest to explain a few things that Americans do not realize about British royalty.

First of all, one might like to know why Harry has no last name. He has a title and a number ranking in line to the throne. He was named Henry Charles Albert David, and he is the Prince of Sussex. He is sixth in line to the crown.

The reason Harry does not have a last name is it is understood he is descended from Jesus of Nazareth, making all royal families inherit the understood but unclaimed “last name” of Christ. All royal families have the right to claim royal status because they are the bloodline of Christ.

The bloodline of Christ did not reach Europe directly as a child born of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus bore the holy son known as John, the writer of the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, and the Revelations of John. Before John was imprisoned on Patmos (as an old man), he had married a woman of dark skin, who was a Jewish believer of Jesus as the Messiah, either Egyptian or Ethiopian. This couple had a daughter, who as an infant floated on a raft from Alexandria to southern France, along with Mary Magdalene (John’s mother), Mary Salome, Mary of Cleopas (Mary Jacobé), Martha, Lazarus, Maximin of Bethany, Sidonius and Joseph of Arimathea. The raft was without a sail and drifted to a place now known as Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer.

This bloodline is that which has been theorized in the books that have been written about the Holy Grail. The daughter of John, referred to as “the Black Madonna,” was raised by these women Apostles of Christ as the carrier of a most holy bloodline. As such, “Sangraal,” “Holy Grail, is actually “Sang Rael,” “Blood Holy” or “Holy Blood.” This becomes the blood of Christ that was symbolized by a cup of wine at the Passover Seder meal (a.k.a. The Last Supper).

This bloodline was married to men who were Apostles of Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit. They were saints who gave rise to more female carriers of this holy DNA, who were married to more saintly men, under the careful segregation of communes of saintly Christians. These Apostles would lead by example in the surrounding villages, helping others as needed, while making miracles happen. The people knew these communes were most holy and helpful, so the people protected them and their ways that were Jewish-rooted. The model for knights that would serve true royal kings, all around Europe, was those who were filled with the Holy Spirit.

This long history led to the dynasties that would organize and rule the nations of Europe. To maintain the purest level of the bloodline, the sons and daughters of royal houses were arranged in marriage for that purpose. The revolutions that overthrew royal houses severely limited the gene pool, so that by the Twentieth century the British royal family was the last of its kind.

Throughout all of the centuries, the presence of Christ’s blood did not make a saintly king or queen. It was important for this bloodline to have a proper education, which included deep discussions on spiritual matters and the role and responsibility that a royal child had been born into. It is not too different from the education the Tibetans give to their chosen one, to make sure the reincarnation of a Dali Lama is properly guided. Still, the blood of Christ was intended to get direct spiritual guidance from one who was a true Saint, having the Holy Spirit within him. This teacher of kings and queens was supposed to be the popes, cardinals and bishops of the Church. However, just as there was decay in the bloodline over time, there was also the same collapse of the Church of Rome.

The last true pope lasted only 33 days before he was murdered. (and the cover-up began)

The Church of England was created by Henry VIII, because he did not like the controls the Roman Catholic Church’s pope placed on him. He rebelled against that Church and created his own, in a similar likeness, but not on equal status with the king. That revolution would dilute the bloodline of the English, but it would keep them on life support after other royal houses were eliminated. When the King of England allowed the people to run the country, with a House of Lords designated to defend the crown legislatively, that sacrifice kept their heads attached to their necks. However, the roles and responsibilities of the royal blood began to get lost.

The House of Windsor, which is led by the current Queen of England, Elizabeth, has faced its own struggles with staying pure. The line began with George I and George II, both of who only spoke German, refusing to learn English.  George III was the first of the line to speak English, and he was the monarch that lost the colonies in the new world to independence.  George V was king during the First World War, when his cousins, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicolas II, both saw their reigns ended, with George V losing his royal titles in Germany and Russia. He successor was Edward VIII, whose reign lasted less than a year, as he abdicated the throne to be married to an American divorcee, Wallace Simpson. Because his new wife was divorced and the king is the official head of the Church of England, which did not allow divorce, Edward abdicated because his wife could not hold the title of Queen of England. His successor was his younger brother, George VI, who had a stutter and shunned public speaking, which a king must do. That was especially important as England entered into the Second World War and the king had to steady the people through speeches. Still, under his rule England lost its empire and was reduced to a commonwealth. George VI died at the age of 56, leaving the throne to his eldest daughter, Queen Elizabeth. She has ruled England since 1952, now 66 years, and is now 92.

While the Queen of England appears to be still managing at her elderly age, her eldest son, Prince Charles, is now 69 years old. The decision for the queen not to abdicate and turn the throne over to her eldest son has not been made carelessly. This is because Charles has proved himself unworthy of the throne and Queen Elizabeth is the last pure royal who has not sinned beyond the bounds that royal rule allows. Both Prince Charles and Prince Andrew (age 58), the sons of Elizabeth, are of the pure bloodline of Christ, but both have committed cardinal sins that bar both from heading the Church of England, the least of which is divorce.

Without going into the tainted background of Prince Andrew (known in his younger days, by the press, as “Randy Andy”), Charles has some very dirty laundry that has been kept quiet by the royal house. It is publicly known that he married Diana Spencer (of common blood) and had two sons, William and Harry, who were obviously a dilution of the bloodline of Christ. It is also publicly known that Charles and Diana divorced, with the royal house attempting to claim sole possession of the royal heirs, although the British courts gave Diana, as the mother, full rights to the children. This then led to the mysterious death of Diana, along with her Muslim boyfriend-fiancée Dodi Fayed, which then ended any disputes about parental care of two young princes, in line to the British crown. This adds murder to the list of Charles’ disqualifications for being king. It has not been an official charge, but the queen knows full-well that Charles was involved in ordering that execution.

What is not realized, although there are those that surmise this, is the possibility that Charles never married Diana out of physical attraction to her sexually. Charles was busy lusting for the married woman, Camilla Bowles, and merely chose Diana as a seventeen year old to be his bride, playing on her naiveté. This was because Charles was expected to marry and have children and his uncle, Lord Mountbatten, gave him that advice about choosing a very young and controllable girl to be his wife. In reality, Charles would have to be homosexual (another strike against his being crown worthy) to not be attracted to Diana Spencer sexually; but Charles and Diana never had sex together.

This leads to the question, “Who is the father of William and Harry, if Prince Charles is gay?” That yields a double-edged answer, the first of which leads one back to Randy Andy.

Prince William was born on June 21, 1982. That means he was conceived around October 1981. In February of 1981, Prince Andrew began a casual relationship with a woman by the name of Koo Stark (an American photographer and actress). With Andrew being a lady’s man and with Charles being married to a young lady of beauty, one who was still a virgin, Prince Andrew had a sexual encounter with Diana on the grounds of a royal estate. Diana did not welcome this sexual advance, but she seemed to enjoy the roughness of rape. She became pregnant with a son whose blood was royal, one who looks like his father (not Charles).

William and “Uncle” Andrew

Prince Harry was born on September 15, 1984. That means he was conceived around December 1983 or January 1984. By that time, Diana was completely shunned by Prince Charles and Prince Andrew was actively on duty in the British navy, Diana was limited to contact with her butler and a bodyguard named Barry Mannakee. Mannakee was reassigned in 1986, after news leaked that Diana had fallen love with someone in service to the princess, between 1984 and 1986. It was presumed there was an affair between Diana and Mannakee, which would point to the arrival of Harry as the evidence of her crime of adultery.  Mannakee would die in an automobile accident in 1987 (a convenient death), but Prince Harry favors him (not Charles).

Barry and Harry.

This means that Harry is of common blood, with no royal blood part of his being. This lack helps explain his wild and rebelliousness as a youth, which goes beyond a young prince mourning the death of his mother.

Queen Elizabeth is well aware of the lineage of these two princes, but both have now matured into married men, with both of their wives of common blood. This makes the sons of William at least one-quarter royal DNA, but any offspring that Harry and his American actress wife might have will be purely mongrel blood, of not royal consequence. Of the whole lot, Prince William is the only reasonable choice to head the Church of England, and the queen knows this quite well.

In the symbolism of the dilution of royal blood into common blood, happening at a time in history when the concept of equality has laughed at the prospect of royalty and a bloodline of Christ, the end of the British crown is within sight. Harry knows the intrigue of his supposed father, Prince Charles, and wishes the power that allowed Charles to murder his mother destroyed. This strong desire must be seen as having purposefully led Harry to choose an American actress with a black mother to be his bride. To show his total disdain for the Church of England, he chose the American black head of the U. S. Episcopal Church, who gave the sermon at the royal wedding, in which he twice named the black community organizer and political activist Martin Luther King, Jr., but only once gave mention to a quote of Jesus Christ. It was appropriate that someone not filled with the Holy Spirit speak common words of fantasy as a guiding principle of two commoners wedding in a fantasy affair – a royal pretense.

Love, love, love. Love is all you need. Now I’ll sit down cause we got to get you all married.” No need for the blood of Christ.

When Queen Elizabeth does die, and it is assured that she will not live forever, it is quite possible (if not probable) that she will have set into place the revelation of crimes committed by her son Charles, which goes beyond the murder of his ex-wife. Diana’s butler met with the queen for three hours, when charged with theft of royal belongings – personal letters and a diary written by Diana.  That meeting ended with the queen coming out with the butler (Paul Burrell) and exonerated him, saying, “All charges have been dropped.”  Diana obviously had evidence that would have stripped Charles of all rights to children he did not sire.

Diana and her butler Paul Burrell.

Charles’ ascent to the throne will be short-lived, in more ways than one. The future is a most unstable place, where a great tragedy is about to unfold. The end of a bloodline, in conjunction with the long ago ended spirit line of the papacy, means the Western nations face that uncertainty on the strengths of men and women of common blood, with no true religious commitments to the One God.

So, enjoy the pomp and circumstance of fancy carriages and a beautiful young couple in a ceremony fit for future kings. Few people in America understand why such a lavish affair is warranted. Soon, Prince Andrew’s daughter will wed. She is the offspring of an English commoner – Sarah Ferguson. Princess Eugenie has set her royal wedding spectacular for October 12, 2018. When that news event occurs, perhaps you will understand what royalty is about.

The Imaginations of a Heroin Addict

Here is the deeper interpretation about one of the worst song in the 20th century. It was written and recorded by the late Liverpudlian rock star, John Lennon. Maybe you will recognize the lyrics.

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky

There is nothing of a revelatory nature in those imaginations. It has no roots in anything taught by a Hindu guru who loved the money of Western rock and roll stars. These were the imaginations of the Sadducees of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Some think they disappeared after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple, but the reality is they evolved into the money changers of the world (Genevan bankers, Zionists, and Illuminati Freemasons), so the philosophy here is just John singing about his love of money.  I imagine another line to this verse, making it a sextain or sestina, would be: “Imagine there’s no Jesus, I’m bigger than that guy.”

Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too

“Living for today” can be seen as the paycheck to paycheck way so many Americans live, with a few credit cards maxed out, hoping for the end of the world so no one will ever have to pay the debts incurred. After watching Donald “Adulterer” Trump screw Americans under the age of 40 yesterday (3/23/2018), there might not be a country left soon, so it isn’t hard to imagine that.  China and Russia have bought half of our land (hard stolen from wars against the natives), which means we Americans will have a hard time determining what order to sing multiple national anthems before going to work in the slave mines. I imagine Americans might be forced to enjoy singing “I’m back in the U.S.S.R., you don’t know how lucky you are, boy.”  Of course, “Nothing to kill or die for” was a prediction that the gun control acts to come will take away that Constitutional right of Americans. And, as we all know, Communists nations (the aforementioned China and Russia) have “no religion too,” so prepare to start praying to the government for loaves of bread and toilet paper.  John loved that imagination.

Imagine all the people living life in peace, you  [cue the dog howling soundbite]

Here’s an oxymoron: “living life in peace.” “Peace” means eternal rest, which comes from death. For rock stars of the sixties, that typically meant drug overdoses were the best thing one could be “living” for. Ole Johnnie was a heroin addict for five years (that we know of, maybe more). He survived, but it must have made him completely deaf, because he went back to Yoko Ono. Her voice can drive those who have ears that can hear into drug addiction.

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Here is the famous “dreamer” line, the marcher’s tune for illegal immigrants in America and the Socialist politicians that depend on their votes.  Unfortunately, John wasn’t aware of the poor at all.  The “dreamers” reference means drugged up English rock star trying to avoid the high taxation of England.  He was singing about his pals who were trying to immigrate to the United States of America. He wasn’t the only one. Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger, Rod Stewart, and Elton John were just some of the old gang from England that John wailed, “I hope some day you’ll join us.”  Then they would be illegals not paying any taxes and a “world [without borders] will be as one,” their financial utopia.  I doubt John cared that the European Union would form as part of the One World Government plot, but he guessed right there.

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man

Imagine a Beatle without billions of cash in the bank … nah, I can’t do it. Neither could John. That why he wrote, “I wonder if you can.” There was no question mark … because it was a rhetorical statement … tongue in cheek, British rock star humor. After all, he was always the fat-witty Beatle. When he mused, “No need for greed and hunger,” he did little to promote the Live Aid in 1984.  Of course he was dead personally and professionally long before then … but that’s still no excuse.  Still, can you remember a time when he was seen standing on a street corner in Harlem, handing out free hundred dollar bills? I can’t.  Maybe buying heroin, but not giving it away – the greedy bastard.  Always feeding his hunger for smack.  And “a brotherhood of man”? Was he leaving women out again … after he sang (squawked) with Yoko about “Woman is the nigger of the world”?  He had a “brotherhood of man” that was the addicts he hug out with in California – Harry Nielsen, Kieth Moon, and Phil Specter.  Now that is quite a brotherhood – all rich, white, rock & roll addicts.

Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you  [elongated Howl … ooooowww]

Here again is the Communist marching tune. Unfortunately, the fall of Communism (Russian variety) happened after John found happiness through a warm gun (“bang, bang, shoot, shoot”), so he never got to see the truth of how the commonly owned everything of the U.S.S.R. rapidly became the personal possessions of the 1% elite of Russia – their new oligarchs.  Those thieves were set free to steal the wealth of a vast nation and leave the poor, ignorant masses without a clue their world has changed.  “Excuse us while we share the people’s world among ourselves.”  It is that stolen money that allows Russia’s mega-billionaires to help themselves to American land. The Russians are happily “sharing all the world” and getting richer off it.

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Chorus explanation.  The dreams of a heroin addict, who is certainly not the only one.  Nothing special here.  Move along.  Move along.

“March for Our Lives” sounds like what the Japanese told the British captives in Bataan

I know that some mentally unstable young person having access to weapons that are typically referred to as “guns,” more specifically “assault weapons” and “AR-15s,” leads to horrible, terrible, shockingly unnecessary events, where children in schools have been slaughtered is bad. Let me make that BAD, in all-caps. I’ll even go as far as to say it is BAD, BAD, BAD.

That said, if an AR-15 was cocked, loaded and laying on a tree stump in the woods and no one was around, would it shoot and wound or kill anyone? If the answer were, “Yes,” then no one would ever be able to buy guns, because the guns themselves would be shooting and wounding and killing everyone around gun manufacturers, gun stores and gun shows. Just the pure carnage of guns gone wild would kill the sellers of guns, so only idiots would go anywhere to buy a gun. If an idiot did that, then the idiot would suffer the same fate of anyone coming near such uncontrollable gun lunacy.

Of course, the answer to the philosophical question is, “No.” The reason is guns do not wound or kill people of any kind: It takes a crazed gunman to use a weapon to destroy lives; and if one who is crazed is left without the availability of guns to buy, then that would mean crazed killers would turn to knives, swords, bows and arrows, hammers, air compressor nail guns, baseball bats, rocks, sticks, and even bare hands to get the craziness out of their systems.  All of the above would be used to wound and kill.

After the recent school shooting in Florida, I heard someone suggest arming teachers in schools, so the students and other employees at schools would have, in essence, a first defender against some crazed gunman, to defend the children until police could arrive. I also heard the argument that arming teachers would be dangerous, as teachers are not skilled with guns. People argued that putting guns in schools would do more harm than good.

The people that argue against arming teachers as a line of defense at a school are the same fools that are now marching around cities in America, promoting the punishment of guns by laws that would ban them. It is the latest media event to be broadcast into the homes of America, suggesting: “Look at how much people are against gun violence in America, especially the rampant killing of America’s school children with assault weapons, like AR-15s.”

Before I state my feelings and thoughts about such propaganda, let me first address the suggestion that teachers be armed in schools.

  • First, a “teacher” would have to be either a man or woman with military experience, where the person given a gun would not immediately pee oneself, thinking the gun will shoot him or her while not looking.
  • Second, the “teacher” would have to volunteer to be armed during school hours.
  • Third, there would have to be a minimum of three such teachers who would be armed, as many as six, so the arming would only take place when the chosen “teacher” was not teaching students. They would act as armed security during their normal hours of not teaching.
  • Fourth, there would only be one weapon that would be used to arm a “teacher,” which would be worn around the waist with a belt and holster. That weapon of choice would be kept in the front office of the school, where each designated “teacher” would go to relieve the armed “teacher” before him or her.
  • Fifth, the “teacher” would observe visitors entering the main entrance of the school, with real classroom teachers, those having classrooms near all other entrance points at the school, assigned to make sure all door are closed and locked, so unauthorized entrance would be deterred.
  • Sixth, communication devices would be assigned to the armed “teacher,” linking he or she to the front office, should an emergency call take the “teacher” away from the front office post. Any such emergency call would initiate a call to local police authorities.

The cost of such a program would be the cost of a firearm, belt and holster, ammunition, a communication device, and a secure gun safe. The greatest savings would come from utilizing the personnel already employed by the schools. Should a school find itself without enough qualified “teachers” to be armed, then the PTA could request parents with qualifications and free time to volunteer in this capacity. Substitute teachers could also be given consideration. The point is the presence of an armed guard ANYWHERE has the effect of deterring criminal acts.

Such a protective plan must also be realized as not being foolproof. In the same regard, someone can be killed by a driverless car while crossing the street. One could be killed by a meteor strike. There can never be a total protection from bad things happening. All security measures have their limits, just as all school districts have financial budget limitations.

Now, about the protest marches that seemingly want to address children being killed by assault weapons and guns.  I have witnessed a woman that has a highly influential position at one particular organized religion (of the Christian variety) – she wears a high, pointed hat above her high priestly robe and carries around a crooked staff – advertising on Facebook about how happy she is to go on one of these marches.

  • First of all, I believe there is no greater protector of humanity than God.
  • Second, it disgusts me when leaders of religions (especially those professing to be closer to God than the sheep in the pews) begin twisting moral values into new words spoken by God and Jesus Christ, where the wants, desires, and ways of holy men and women are god-sent to promote the social values of those leaders.

That, in my mind, is misleading.  Certainly, some folk think their brains have been surely filled with philosophies that God would strongly support.  They feel so strongly about their personal beliefs, they walk outside the realm of their religion to stand publicly in the political arena.  This is misleading because it is pretentious to seemingly proclaim it has been their faith in God that has sent them out into the world as protesters, recommending humanity’s ignorant masses be forced to comply with God’s wishes.  It becomes a classic example of “I am a priest because I am holier than thou, and I associate with a political party that is holier than any other party that would preach a sermon against what I believe.”  It implies Jesus Christ was against guns.

The problem with that last issue is Christian clergy marching for gun control is just as evil as are imams calling for fatwas. Having some leftist do-gooder casting blame on all right-wing conservatives is about as far away from knowing Jesus Christ as can be. Not once did Jesus promote the elimination or control of Roman weapons, even though Herod the Great had some unknown number of children under the age of two slaughtered, simply because some wise men came asking where they could find the King of the Jews.  One would think Jesus would have gone to protest in Jerusalem saying he was Marching for His Life – Ban Crucifixion Now!!!

Jesus did not do that.  Instead, he told his disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me.” (Luke 9:23)

When someone wearing religious garb stands in public promoting a fear of guns, they are not promoting faith in God. Jesus said, “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25)

Why would someone with a high ranking in an organized church be standing, arm-in-arm with other politically motivated protest organizers, promoting the control of firearms, if not for the purpose (at least on the surface) of saving lives?

If you are going to do that, toss away the clerical collar and put on your satanic robes and funny hats with long, curly horns. Trying to save lives means you want others to lose their souls.  You are proposing that the people give up guns (now) and kneel before government, when God commanded, “Thou shall have no other gods before me.”  If everyone would kneel before God, it does not matter what instruments of destruction are within arm’s reach.

The ultimate reason there are crazed gunmen going into schools and shooting innocent children, wounding and killing them needlessly, is the same reason crazed gunmen in the sixties shot President John Kennedy, his brother Bobby Kennedy, and clerical protest leader Martin Luther King.  Those deaths were perpetrated to gain popular support for the war in Vietnam (Kennedy out Johnson in), keeping a shadow government propping up its puppet leaders (eliminate a potential president that would expose the evil in government), and breaking all connections Americans had with their God and Jesus Christ (let the government destroy the family values of poor black folk through freebie government programs). Then, as now, the C.I.A. and other agencies of American government (F.D.A. is one of many) are deeply involved (secretly) with the indoctrination of children, through mind altering experiments.

Our government is practiced in the evil arts of making as many people as crazy as possible. The government wants children to kill children with guns, so the masses will get behind the public wanting to have the right to bear arms limited or eliminated.  An unarmed populace is just as defenseless as a school full of children, when there is no one on the premises to protect them against crazed gunmen.

As most Americans will not believe this view of mine, a minority of Americas will believe it wholeheartedly.  Still, whether or not it is believed is of no consequence. No law ever written by man has ever stopped anyone from breaking the laws.  Just as guns do not wound and murder innocent people, laws do nothing to protect innocent people.  The only laws of significance are those written on the hearts of those who fear the consequences of breaking a Law of God.

The American view of government worship can actually be seen as racist, in the regard that Americans see themselves as an elite race of human beings that are better than others in the world. To grasp this assessment, imagine how much good would be seen in priests and politicians marching in some African nation, calling for the control of guns because some “rebel faction” has guns and is taking over areas of a nation, killing, wounding, and raping students. Taking away guns would do nothing to protect the people there, because the people there are too poor to afford to buy guns for protection in the first place. They depend on the government military to protect them.  However, the government military numbers fewer than the “rebels.”

Add to that the aspect that individuals making up most African militaries are also so poor they would be lured to look the other way, so “rebels” can do their evil deeds.  Should priests be advocating forced limitations placed on the citizens of Africa being armed for self-protection?  If not, then their advocacy in America is racist.

This is a regular state of business in the “third world” – the “nigger world” (pardon my French) compared to the elite of America and Western Europe – but here in America, where everyone has free access to credit cards and free government handouts, we can be so elite as to turn up our noses at the thought of ordinary people owning guns.

The French, as well as practically all of Europe and the people in Brussels and Geneva running the European Union, have strict limitations on ownership of firearms. France, as well as many Western European nations, has let refugees and illegal aliens settle there. With many coming from North Africa, a high influx of Muslim people has entered into nations where the laws have been largely based on the morals and principals of Christianity. The Muslims are under the influence of their religious masters, where Islam (the leaders thereof) has taught millions of Muslims to hate Westerners and to see Christians as evil people.

Instead of news about school children being murdered by crazed gunmen, France has been where Islamic terrorist have been killed by police, after innocent civilians have been murdered. Not only do these terrorist use guns illegally obtained, they drive rental trucks down promenades, killing people who do not get out of the way. They detonate bombs, many of which are made from legally obtained base materials, which kill people they have targeted (like newspapers that publish satirical cartoons). Lately, one Islamic terrorist gunman who killed several in a spree of murder, was said to have possessed hand grenades.  Are those not illegal to be owned by citizens of France?  Yes they are.

The point is clear.  No government control of firearms can ever protect the people from the surprise attacks of people under the influence of evil.

I firmly believe there is a Holy War coming. When it will happen is anyone’s guess; but it is planned and already has elements of that plan in place.  Gun control will do nothing but embolden the enemies of America.  There are African-American groups across America that call themselves Muslim, which have grown to large numbers over the past six or seven decades, who seek to destroy the government that they believe enslaves all people not Caucasian.  Contrary to MLK’s nonviolent revolution, the believe (like stated by Malcolm X) no revolution comes without violence.  A violent revolution demands one possess guns.  An easier violent revolution comes when those you wound and murder have nothing to defend themselves with.

The legal changes proposed, which are designed towards the disarming of populations, will do nothing to change those who have already disarmed themselves, for whatever reasons – moral, political, or spiritual. These intended changes will have the effect of legal mistreatment being mandated against those who do not wish to disarm, when they have never shown any signs of mental instability or a desire to wound or murder other human beings. Once a nation has forbidden its population to bear arms, the protection of a whole nation then depends on the strength and preparedness of that nation’s military – usually a small percentage of the total population able to bear arms.  In America, the president is the Commander in Chief of the military, which demands the president be sane and competent, not like a mad dictator with all the arsenal of his military at his disposal, to run amok wherever he may choose.

There is divine prophecy that states nations of unarmed people will be overrun by those who seek to destroy them.  There will be surprise invasions in nations where the people believe fully in the government (laws) protecting everyone, of all races, creeds, national origin, and religious conviction.  Their trust is put in civility, not God.  Their enemies (secretly in hiding and waiting to attack) know full well how being with arms, against those without arms, the strong can take from the weak.  What the rich have can then be theirs, easily taken by wounding and killing the defenseless, with absolutely no qualms about how the rich might feel about such loss.

Perhaps, some clergy and politicians will protest in marches then?  Would it not be better to protest now for all being freely armed, because the government cannot (maybe even will not) lift a finger to prevent evil?

Will it be then like it is today, when the person who plots the demise of innocents stands arm-in-arm with some moron Christian cleric, both singing “We shall overcome”?   The moron thinks those song lyrics says good will overcome evil. Unfortunately, the smiling subtrevert (subversive element here secretly) will be thinking, “We shall overcome you who Allah hates.”

The Letters of Nostradamus

1. The Letters of Nostradamus: Realizing a Prophecy of Jesus Christ

I wrote this book in response to people saying, “Can’t you just sum up what Nostradamus wrote, without all the specific details?” The answer was to write about the contents of two letters Nostradamus wrote, which accompanied the final edition of Les Propheties: The Preface and the Letter to King Henry II of France. Those two epistles explain the systems at work in the language of the poems [quatrains], the source being from God, through Christ, and both general and specific explanation of the characters who will be in play in a future that will terrorize the world.

This book was my third attempt to publish the meaning of Nostradamus’ most famous work, but it was a first for me in two ways. First, I had written a 700+ page book that was largely based on the translations of others, although I had reordered the quatrain English translations to fit the order that the French presented. That book included a translation and interpretation of the Preface, but not the letter to Henry II of France. The first for me was a much better translation of both letters, due to my having found an Old French to Old English dictionary [Randle Cotgrave’s 1611 edition) as a tool. I, therefore, translated each word of both letters, without relying on the translations of others.

The second breakthrough was a dawning that came to me while I was in the process of translating the letter to Henry II. While my translations of the Preface had offered new insights into its meaning, the order of that letter remained intact, as a difficult to grasp letter (as to how the letter related to a thousand 4-line poems), with a clear beginning, middle, and end. As I translated each word of the letter to Henry, it dawned on me that the letter was clearly not in the original order it had to have been written in, as sections of the letter were clearly continuations of other sections, with the two separated by pages of letter text. That dawning that occurred to me meant the letter had to be divided into parts (following a logical system, based on punctuation and marks) and then reorganized into a lucid letter that explained the meaning of the quatrains [the intent of the letter was to explain just that to the king].

From my first ability to see the meaning of the individual quatrains, where each of them was free to be rearranged into a new order, where stories unfolded within a grand epic poem, the reordering of the letter to Henry II was explaining (without doing so directly), “If you want to know the meaning of the quatrains, then you have to see the need to rearrange them, just as this letter will make no sense without the same action done to it.” Thus, for the first time I realized the vital importance of reorganizing the letter to King Henry II so that it transformed from the ravings of a madman into a logical explanation of the meaning of the poems [when also reordered].

The end result from my own translations was a much clearer idea of what the letters meant, which confirmed the meaning I had seen in my attempts to reorder the quatrains into a storyline. Still, the element of teaching how to understand Nostradamus, through presenting the Old French text, and then the English translation, followed by tedious explanations of how what appears to state this actually states that is what led people to constantly interrupt and ask, “Isn’t there a sampler way?” My answer was to write in the voice of Nostradamus, as if he could fill in the blanks that were created between each word of his text. That voice, being entrapped by a 16th century world knowledge that explained a distant future shown, left it to the reader to see from the same eyes, while being able to realize comparisons to our modern age [such as “fire in the sky” easily seen today as jet planes or missiles].

This book is written in four parts, with friends telling me I should have reduced the first and fourth parts (the introduction and conclusion), as the two middle parts are where the value lies. I offer that advice to anyone interested, as I have not been transformed from common laborer to master novel author. I see [I am shown by a higher mind than my own] meaning from the words of Nostradamus and I have to write that meaning down [I am compelled to serve God], so others can find their way to see what I see. If only reading parts two and three helps maintain one’s desire to read further, then skip the boring parts.

I offer this book for $15.00 U.S., plus shipping.

I will add one aside to this edition that I offer. The final edit did not catch all grammatical errors. Those errors were corrected in the second edition, which has different cover art and a different publisher. This book was first published by a print-on-demand thief, who kept all the royalties from its book sales [I was not the only one they stole from]. That experience led me to become a print-on-demand publisher, one that only published my books, so no thieves (other than the usual suspects – retailers) would again be involved with my publications. However, I have copies still available from that learning experience, which is all I offer here, now; keeping in mind that part of the cost was from thief middleman markup, which I paid to obtain copies.

The Systems of Nostradamus

2. The Systems of Nostradamus: Instructions for Making Sense of The Prophecies

Because the reason the French have never been able to understand Les Propheties is the rules of French language (syntax) do not apply, the errors of attempting to translate Nostradamus’ most famous work from syntactical French become compounded and magnified. Nostradamus did not write a thousand rhyming poems in an effort to leave a legacy of chicanery that earned him little more than a hindsighted reputation of charlatan, who apparently had no true concept of his native tongue – French (Old as it may have been). The reality is simple: No one would write as much dribble as Nostradamus supposedly did, with no true purpose and intent.

The division of philosophy that is known as Logic has rules by which analysis of questionable material (such as Les Propheties) must be examined. Unfortunately, all logic has been tossed aside, as evidenced by the mass perception of Nostradamus that has been projected, ever since his death. No one, prior to myself (as far as I know), has ever presented the theory that Nostradamus was the equivalent of a Biblical prophet, who was filled with the Holy Spirit and in possession of the Mind of Jesus Christ, who acted as a completely subservient to God, while he wrote what he was told to write, in the confusing way that he wrote it. The Systems of Nostradamus presents the logic that makes the Old French become a holy language, following holy rules.

Once one is able to stop trying to force the words of Nostradamus’ quatrains and letters into the box of normal syntax, one is able to begin to see a system of language that is so obvious it is overlooked. I call this language in which Nostradamus wrote the language of God, where there are fixed rules (the same as have French and all other languages) that allow for understanding to come. These rules then become the chapters of this book.

This book is not an easy read, in the sense that one does not go to a study and sit down with a book with a title like “Basics of English Composition,” and begin reading from front cover to back cover. This is likewise a textbook that serves as a teaching aid for a language, while also being a  reference guide that assists one in reading Nostradamus as a divine language (not simply French). It states the repetitious factors that are found in The Prophecies (one example being capitalization) and explains how each factor has to be read. Examples from Nostradamus’ text are then presented, with that factor’s application demonstrated, with some whole quatrains interpreted from beginning to end, based on the presence of that factor and knowing how to use its rule, so that making understanding come forth is possible.

This book is a must have for any serious student of Nostradamus, who will need to know how to read holy prophecy in the future. The same rules can be applied, generally and specifically, to all of the holy texts of the Holy Bible. In fact, it has been my understanding that originated in an ability to understand Nostradamus that has taken me to interpreting the readings that come from those sacred texts. If one can stop being blinded by thoughts of wizardry and illogical imaginations as being possible in a real world (because none of that has every really been more than trickery), then one can see how holy mysteries are indeed real; but just as the text of Nostradamus appears to be gibberish, the presence of the Holy Spirit is required so one can have the truth his holy words reveal. By working with the texts of Nostradamus, while referencing the systems pointed out in The Systems of Nostradamus, one can show God a desire to find the truth personally; and slowly one’s eyes will open to see the truth for oneself, making the result be strong and lasting. Belief can never be solely based on what one is told to believe. It must be proved on a personal, meaningful level.

I offer this book for $15.00 U.S., plus shipping.

The $25-Million Answer

3. The $25-Million Answer: How Nostradamus Told Where to Look

This book deals with the character that shaped the stage of world terrorism as it is known today – Osama bin Laden. I began writing this book in January 2011, when bin Laden had been a fugitive on the F.B.I.’s Ten Most Wanted list for nearly a decade (9 years, 4 months). From the onset of my ability to understand the quatrains of Les Propheties, which was soon after the events that occurred on September 11, 2001, I saw that someone like bin Laden was written into several poems, even knowing (based on the information surrounding that character) where a concerted search should take place.

Soon after the reward of twenty-five million dollars was offered for the arrest and capture of bin Laden, I called the local F.B.I. office and talked to a field agent, requesting a meeting a some coffee shop, so I could produce the quatrains that indicated someone very much like bin Laden and where those quatrains indicated where his leadership found refuge. I was not willing to disclose full information over the phone, and the agent suggested I call back “after he had told his superior and got approval for such a meeting.” When I got back in touch he flatly said he would not meet without more information, at which point I told him it was a “prediction” of Nostradamus. I explained I could act as a “paid advisor,” teaching them how to decipher what he wrote. If captured, I would not expect any reward money. I was told by the agent at that point, “The F.B.I. does not pay for advisers.”

The motivation to call the F.B.I. was more to offer my assistance, as a citizen; but at the same time I was hesitant about helping the U.S. government, as I have serious doubts about the trustworthiness it has earned. Nostradamus wrote about terrible times ahead, based on the corruption of the leaders of world powers (the U.S. being only one of those corrupted). Therefore, once I was rejected by that field agent, I was relieved to have been told “No.”  I was exonerated of all guilt for not doing my “patriotic duty.”

In my book The Letters of Nostradamus, the character that fits Osama bin Laden was not specifically named, so I could not speak in the voice of Nostradamus and say, “Osama bin Laden.” That character could only be identified generally, based on the words Nostradamus wrote; and no character of the future was ever specifically named [not even Adolph Hitler] by Nostradamus. While it was his naming of mythological and historical figures, whose characteristics could be projected on the characters of the future, no one of the future was referenced by specific name. Thus, all evidence that can be attributed to Osama bin Laden is solely based on general characteristics.

As the year 2010 came to a close, I felt it was time to identify that character [which many published authors of The Prophecies had also seen] in a series of quatrains that contained the word “mountain” (singular, plural, and various spelling in French).  Osama bin Laden is strongly associated with being a “mountain man.” In two of those quatrains, the same specific “mountains” were named, which was where I felt Osama bin Laden could be hiding out. Those mountains were far from the Middle East, thus no one would think to look there.  Thus, I began work writing and editing this book, which I published in April 2011.

After nine years and seven months, on May 1, 2011 (May 2 in Pakistan), the news came out that Osama bin Laden had been killed. My book had not even been out a month, so no one had purchased it. No one was wanting to get the $25 million reward, which was very quickly taken down by the F.B.I. No one ever read [well, nobody except maybe a friend or two who bought copies of the book from me] where I said Nostradamus told he would be hiding, which was not in Pakistan.

When I said that Nostradamus wrote about the corruption of world leaders as why I did not feel the F.B.I. was 100% trustworthy, let me just say that Barry Scheck (of O.J. Simpson DNA mumbo-jumbo fame … that led to jurors questioning hard evidence of a murderer) would have a field day cross-examining the Navy SEAL Team Six wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am DNA testing that they reported proved the body they threw into the Indian Ocean was Osama bin Laden’s.  We have to take the government’s word as truth … which helped Barack Obama win re-election.

Anyone ever hear how Lee Harvey Oswald told reporters, “I’m a patsy,” not long before someone shot him on live television? He was, in effect, denying he was the gunman, much less the “lone gunman” in the JFK assassination. Soon afterwards, Oswald was walked to his assassin, when the “patsy” was gunned down on live television, so Oswald could speak no more.  Did the American public buy that force-fed conclusion? Hardly.  Few believe the conclusions our tax paid dollars have paid for government investigations.

There is a show on The History Channel (“Hunting Hitler”) that has presented reason to believe that Adolph Hitler did not commit suicide in the Berlin bunker in 1945, like all the history books say. Instead, evidence shows he escaped capture and went to Argentina, where many other high ranking Nazis went also. My point is we Americans cannot always believe what we are told to believe. It is that lack of trustworthiness our government has earned, from decades of lies having been exposed.

Let me just add that I have no problem with this book being read and analyzed. Even Sasha Cohen [Borat] joked about Osama bin Laden still being alive [in The Dictator, 2012], with only a body double having been murdered. Keep in mind how Barack Obama won reelection in 2012, largely because he claimed he was the hero that killed America’s worst enemy. It forces one to ask the question: Why couldn’t America’s ace intelligence personnel capture bin Laden years earlier?

If all that was a lie, then Osama bin Laden is still out there … hiding in plain view … with no one looking for him. Knowing that is a real possibility, I suggest reading the news, especially that about the recent move by Catalonia’s efforts to secede from Spain and become an autonomous nation. Prior to that there have been increased terrorist acts in France, especially in Southern France (the region Nostradamus lived). While all of that seems disjointed and not linking together, my book makes all of that tie in with the character that is still in hiding, whose character is like Osama bin Laden’s.

I offer this book for $10.00 U.S., plus shipping.

Nostradamus and Our Lady of Fatima

4. Nostradamus & Our Lady of Fatima: An Interpretation by Robert Tippett

In 2012, I began writing more about Biblical interpretations, based on the abilities I had in understanding the text of Nostradamus. My wife was in seminary, so I was getting a firsthand look at how little is taught priests-to-be, as far as how one’s faith is deepened so it is enabled to deepen the faith of parishioners. One of my interests of research was an old book I had read about Marian Apparitions.

From that renewed research, I realized that Nostradamus wrote the word “Virgin” multiple places in his quatrains and letters. Simply because of the systems I had come to realize, “Virgin” brings about the essence of the Roman Catholic Church, which reveres the Virgin Mother (unlike any other Church). Several of the Marian Apparitions had the appearance of the Virgin Mary telling children (mostly) about the lack of faith that was seen in the Church. In one account she expressed anger in having to hold her Son’s arm back, from striking the Church. In the apparition at Fatima, Portugal, a prophecy was given to a girl who would become a nun later in life (Sister Lucia). That woman wrote three letters to the Pope in Rome, warning of the end of the Church, is Russia was not re-consecrated.

This view that is stated in prophecy then becomes visible as a parallel prophecy that was told by Nostradamus, three hundred years prior. It is even possible to see the same warnings coming from the quatrains, such that the quatrains can be read as prophesying a later prophecy of the world’s end. The Prophecies of Nostradamus (when reordered properly) tell of the destruction warned of by Sister Lucia in much greater detail.

I believe there is worthwhile information presented in this book, as it ties Church approved prophecies [the Marian Apparitions] with the unseen reality that Nostradamus wrote from similar divine inspiration. I enjoyed writing this book, even though the topic is the destruction of world due to a lack of faith and good leaders. I believe serious students of Nostradamus will enjoy it also, as it details how to interpret the various quatrains, based on the systems that are affixed to the divine language in which Nostradamus wrote.

I offer this book for $10.00 U.S., plus shipping.

John 1:1-18 – Deeper View

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.'”) From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.


Now that Advent has passed and the Christ child has been born into true Christians, the Church liturgy enters into the Twelve Days of Christmas, which covers one Sunday this year. The twelfth day of Christmas is Friday, January 5, 2018, with the Epiphany recognized on Saturday, January 6, 2018. This reading repeats part of the Advent 3 reading (that where “John” is mentioned – verses 6-8), while adding in the parts that were omitted, before and after that duplicated part. It will be read aloud in a church by a priest on Sunday, December 31, 2017, as the first (and only) Sunday of Christmas. This reading is important because John places focus on “the Word” (capitalized) and “the Word became flesh,” which was Jesus Christ.

It may be confusing to read “the Word” and come away with a concrete grasp of the meaning. Certainly, we are reading “words” to see that, so Jesus can be the reason for the Holy Bible – a collection of many books with lots of words. However, there has to be more to John’s use of “Logos,” because divine Scripture comes from the Godhead, through a prophet, and has multiple meanings.

There are 331 variations of the word logos in the New Testament, with another 276 other forms from that root word. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) shows 38 different translations of the 331 uses, with “word” the most frequent in the singular number (179 times). Still, “statement” is the translation eighteen times, with “speech” and “message” the translations ten times each. When that multiplicity of meaning is understood, it is not beyond the scope of reason to translate verse 1 as saying, “In beginning was the Statement, and the Speech was with the [One] God, and God was the Message.” Such a translation might be easier for some to grasp than the one we all know and love; and that would not be a mistranslation.

The Greek word (capitalized) “Houtos” has been translated as “He,” which leads the reader to assume “the Word” is a male entity; but the word is more commonly used (in the masculine singular) to denote “This,” which is relative to that stated prior. The word “Logos” is a masculine noun, such that a masculine pronoun would be used to denote it. This means “This” is the condition of verse 1, where “Logos” is “This” that was the focus of verse 1. Thus, verse 2 states, “Thisthe Plan – was in beginning with the [One] God,” repeating that statement, while implying yet another translation of “Logos.”

Verse 3 uses the masculine pronoun “autou” (the masculine genitive of autos), where, “him” has to be understood as God. When “Panta” (variation of “Pas”) is translates as “All things,” with “hen” the assumption of “one [thing],” then verse 3 says all Creation, in the material plane, came “through God,” as the physical manifestation of God’s Idea of Reason (other translations of “Logos”). Nothing came into being by accident or haphazardly by chance. So, if one leans towards the randomness of a Big Bang theory, that theory is dismissed by John. Everything has come according to God’s Master Plan.

Verse 4 is split into two segments: “In him life was” and [following a comma] “and the life was the light the [One] of men.” The repeated word “zōē” says “life,” which has to be understood as the “breath of God,” which is more than the physical oxygen taken in from the atmosphere (air), but the spiritual presence of “life” within, which causes a body of flesh to draw upon that through breathing. This means the “light” (“phōs”) is that “radiance” that is the soul “of men.” The “light” of the soul is the extension of God into human beings; and it is this “light” that lets mankind sense a higher purpose in “life.” Through the soul, God’s Thought (another translation of “Logos”) is heard.

In verse 5, where John wrote, “And the light in the darkness shines,” this is like the Creation story, where it was written, “Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning–the first day.” (Genesis 1:3-5) In all of this, especially when Genesis says, “God separated the light from the darkness,” and “darkness [God] called night,” the symbolism of “light” and “darkness” is “life” and “death.” This means the “darkness” (“skotia”) is matter that is void of “life,” but when the “light” of a soul enters into dead matter (“light in the darkness shines”), then spiritual “life” is extended to the material realm.

When verse 5 ends by John writing, “and the darkness it not overcame,” where the implication is that “darkness” cannot put out the “light” of “life,” the opposite is also true. Just as “light” can illuminate through the “darkness” and expose that which does not naturally emit “light,” the “darkness” does not cease to be, because of “light.” In the Creation story, both “light” and “darkness” are physical realities of the material realm; but the “light” of “life” is absent of physical features that can be measured. This means the power of verse 5 is the “spiritual light” that is the soul, connected to God, “appears” (variation of “phainei” – “shines”) without being seen. As long as “life” exists, the “darkness” of death cannot overcome it.

While all of the first five verses of John’s Gospel can be read as the “light” of Christ, and thus applicable to Jesus Christ, the real focus is on God and His Master Plan that existed “in the beginning.” Jesus Christ was part of that plan, but everything (including Jesus) came through Him, as without Him not one can be.” Think of a candle with its wick unlit. Its only purpose is to become a “light” in the “darkness.” That becomes reality through thought in the darkness – inspiration leading will.

Verse 6 has the capitalized word “Egeneto” beginning it, which is the imperfect tense of the verb “ginomai,” meaning “to come,” which is relative to the past but still on-going. This means “Came” is a better translation than “There was” because “Came” does not imply no longer being present, as does “was.” Thus, verse 6 says, “Came man (one known as “Adam”) having been sent alongside of God.” The Greek word “para” means “alongside of,” such that it is the root of the word “parallel.” Thus, “Came man” as “an Apostle” (“having been sent” is rooted in “apostelló”), who is one knowing God, through His “light.”

After a comma, John then wrote, “onoma autō Iōannēs,” which literally states, “name his John,” but when the name “Iōannēs” is known to translate (from the Greek application unto Hebrew) as “Yahweh Is Gracious,” it says, “name his God Is Gracious.” That says the “name” is that of the one who “Came,” as a lineage to “mankind,” that was “alongside of God.” That bloodline is proof that “God Is Gracious.” As such, in that lineage, there will be named one or more named “John,” in honor of that graciousness.

Because lineage is relative to the “names” of one’s forefathers (see the lineage of Jesus in Luke and Matthew for proof), the relationship of John the baptizer and Jesus is through the “name” of Mary’s and Elizabeth’s father (Aaron), who raised righteous daughters. In this same vein of thought, John (the author of this Gospel) is also of the “name his [the “man” who “Came alongside of God], because he honors “God Is Gracious” by proper name. Because John was an Apostle and prophet, he was of that righteous lineage sent by God. That states, indirectly and directly, that John the Beloved was a blood relative of Jesus.

The word “onama” not only means “name,” but also “authority” and “cause.” This means there is less importance in the “name” of “a man” who “Came,” although the name Jesus is readily recognized by hundreds of millions of people (if not billions). Still, the greatest impact comes from knowing the “authority” that is applied to “a man,” such that “a man” is known by the “reputation, fame, and character” synonymous with the “name.”

Verse 7 then repeats (in a different manner) the statement “Came a man,” by stating “He came,” which follows the name “John.” The repetition is not coincidence, as “John came” because of the one who “Came” before him. By seeing this duplication of Jesus in John, one is able to grasp that him coming “as a witness” means more than simply being able to say, “I saw him.” The Greek word “martyrian” not only means “a witness” but also as “evidence,” to bear the same “reputation.” One does not do that by saying, “I was born of the bloodline of holiness,” as that has repeatedly been shown in Scripture to failures of righteousness. John could only come to be evidence of Jesus Christ by carrying on that reputation of Spirituality.

That “reputation” is then (following a comma) the act of “testimony,” that is the “Word” of the LORD, spoken by the Son, from the Father. The condition “that he might testify” as a “witness” is “concerning” (from “peri”) his spreading the truth of the “light.” That truth cannot be recited from memory and explained as if reading a book of instructions. They are spoken from the source, as Jesus spoke the Word, so other “might believe through him” – Christ John. This also includes John the Baptist, as when he said, “There goes the lamb of God,” the first disciples of Jesus “believed” and “through him” (John the Baptist) became Apostles of Jesus Christ.

Following a period mark, verse 8 states “Not was he the light.” This reference to “the light” returns the reader to the explanation that “the life was the light of man,” which was God. God’s “light” leads all who are part of His Holy lineage. Thus, Jesus admitted frequently that he spoke for the Father, who was “the light.” Since all Apostles after Christ have become replications of Jesus, as Christ, the Holy Spirit brings the Christ Mind, which is “the light” of God the Father. Therefore, John “was not the light,” any more than Jesus was “not the light,” because “the light” is God.

Following a comma, John repeated that “John” (as an Apostle) “came that he might witness (give evidence, testify, or give a good report) [in words] regarding the light” of God. This restates the purpose of an Apostle-Saint, each reborn as Jesus, all who speak the truth of the Father so that “light” can guide others to God and Christ. That is then stated in verse 9, as, “Was the light the [One] true, that which enlightens every man, coming into the world.”

It is important to see the end segments of verse 9 as saying “the [One] light (“that”)” is not limited to one “man.” It “enlightens every man,” or is “revealed to all men” that has met the qualification set by God, which is what denotes an Apostle and Saint. The comma that separates the segment that says, “coming into the world,” is not telling of a physical birth process that brings enlightenment, but each “man enlightened” is a newly reborn Jesus “coming into the world.”

The power of verse 10 is the power of Christianity and its universal spread. Once God sent His Son Jesus, the Messiah, into “the world,” his coming and going (Ascension) began that spread. It was more than hearsay that convinced others to believe in that “man” who “Came.” Still, the translation above that says, “the world came into being through him” is better translated as, “the world through him was born.” While Jesus “Was in the world,” Jesus then “emerged, came back, was reborn” (the essence of “egeneto” – “he came”). The final segment says, “and the world him not knew” (or “the world did not know the man Jesus – in the flesh”), yet the world believed.

Verse 11 then begins with the statement, “He came to what was his own” (literally, “To the own he came”), which says only those who had proven themselves worthy received the Holy Spirit and the Mind of Christ. The translation above that says, “and his own people did not accept him,” refers to the Jews who rejected Jesus the “man,” who did not receive the Holy Spirit. This not only means the Jews who had Jesus killed but to Judas Iscariot and others who proved themselves unworthy of “receiving” God and Christ within.

Verses 12 and 13 are shown above as stating, “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.” This is a series of segments about the Apostles and Saints who did “receive him,” which means they were reborn as Jesus. They “received him” through marriage to God, filled with the Holy Spirit. Thus, the reason they “believed” was because they had become “in his name” – Jesus reborn. The aspect of being the “children of God” is due to this rebirth of the Son of God within all Apostles and Saints, so all became the children of the same Father. To be “born,” but “not of blood (relationship) or of the will of the flesh (one’s brain devoted to self needs) or of the will of man (which is to live for death and reincarnation) means this was not a normal birth, but one of Spiritual birth. Because it involved the Holy Spirit, this birth was due to God.

Verse 14 seems to make a transition that focuses on the life of Jesus. Because John repeats the word “Logos” here, as “And the Word became flesh” is the only other use of that word since verse 1. Because John wrote “Logos,” rather than naming Jesus, its use cannot be limited to only that identity. It still means the “Plan” of God was to place His “Message” in a human “body” (“flesh”). Without the limit of only Jesus, this segment’s statement returns to the beginning of holy men sent to earth, such that Jesus became the final reincarnation of one soul into human form. This segment beginning with the capitalized conjunction “And” (“Kai”) says incidence of the “Word becoming flesh” was preceded by others before.

When the second segment states, “and he lived among us,” the plural pronoun implies life of God’s Messenger in his lifetime. This presence then became noticeable, as segment three states, “and we beheld the divinity (or glory) of him,” which is the documented miracles the followers of Jesus witnessed. Those “divine” oral words and manifestations of miracles was proof that Jesus was like the “only Son of God,” who was “alongside of the Father,” as God extended to earth. Jesus proved to be “full of messages from God” and those were the “truth.”

At this point, verse 15 repeats the name John, which states, “John testifies concerning him.” The above translation shows this as an aside, placing the verse in parentheses, but to states this information is unnecessary to the flow of the text is wrong. Because the author does not name himself in his book, the reference here is to John the Baptist, which acts as a direct example of Jesus coming as God’s Messenger of truth. The use of the Greek word “peri,” meaning “concerning, about, conditions, and around,” says that “John testified” of the measure that will prove the follower to John will be greater than he. It is not a specific announcement of Jesus as the Messiah that was “witnessed.”

In that regard, John reported that “John” was “saying” in his words of testimony, “This” is what to look for as far as “who John spoke.” First, the public attention gained by John as a baptizer would mark the timing to which another would “come after,” The one who would come will be “of higher rank” than John, in the eyes of God. Finally, on a Spiritual level of divinity, this one to follow will be “most important” to Judaism and the world. This was the testimony of John the Baptist.

Verses 16 through 18 are not directly attributable to John the Baptist, as John the author returns to using the plural pronoun “we” (“hēmeis”), which included him as one who could testify to the “fullness” or “completion” of the Baptist’s “conditions.” The use of “plērōmatos” compliments the statement of John’s “condition” of the Messiah, who would be “full of grace (or divinity) and truth,” with “full” representative of the Greek word “plērēs.” That proof was the presence of “grace upon divinity we all received” from Jesus Christ.

John testified for himself and others, who were Jews. As a religious group to whom Jesus came in the flesh, they all knew “the law through Moses was given” to lead the children of Israel. However, “the divinity” of that law, “and the truth” the words of that law held were not grasped until “through Jesus Christ” that depth of meaning “came.” The timing of that understanding was not during the life of Jesus in the flesh, but after he had died, risen and ascended, then returned through the Holy Spirit.

Verse 18 is divided into four segments, with the first one stating that “No one has ever seen God.” That matches what God told Moses, where one has to be a soul to be in the presence of God, so Spiritual “sight” allows that view. As a follow-up to that statement, John then repeated the word “monogenēs,” which means “only-begotten” or “unique.” He used the same word in verse 14, where the implication was Jesus had the “divinity as unique (or only-begotten) alongside the Father.” Here, the only way for one to know the Father is to be “God’s only-begotten,” which comes from God’s presence in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit only comes when “the [One] being in the bosom,” where the Greek word “kolpon” implies the heart, but also physical union, synonymous with “intimacy.” This is being married to “the Father,” such that the laws of God are written in one’s heart, giving birth to the Christ Mind. It is from the Christ Mind that “he [God] has made himself known” to an Apostle.