Liberty Park, USA

The Amnesia Collection


Under Siege: The Secular War
against the Holy Scriptures


Michael L. Chadwick

Former Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate and Director of the National
Bicentennial Program on the U. S. Constitution, Washington, D. C.

Boise, Idaho: Global Affairs Publishing Company
P. O. Box 16184. Boise, Idaho 83715

Copyright © 2007 by Michael L. Chadwick. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2007 of Electronic Texts by Michael L. Chadwick. All rights reserved. No part of these electronic texts may be reproduced, distributed, stored in electronic databases, personal computers, search engine databases, web sites or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods without the prior written permission of the publisher. Electronic fingerprints have been placed in the code and texts to prevent copyright violations.

" . . . Any intelligent reader, without any knowledge of either Greek or Hebrew, can learn enough to understand the processes of criticism and the grounds on which the judgments of scholars must be based."     – Sir Frederick G. Kenyon

Table of Contents

Preface: What is Reality?

Introduction: Does the Matrix Control the World?

Chapter 1—The Holy Bible: the Foundation of Reality

Chapter 2—The Rise of Agnosticism and Atheism

Chapter 3—The School of Higher Criticism

Chapter 4—Charles Lyell Seeks to Replace Biblical Catastrophism

Chapter 5—Charles Darwin Seeks to Replace the Holy Bible

Chapter 6—Thomas Huxley Defends Darwin in Academic Circles

Chapter 7—Theistic Evolution—the Seduction of the Clergy throughout the World

Chapter 8—Intellectuals throughout the World Embrace Darwinism

Chapter 9—American Intellectuals Embrace Darwinism

Chapter 10—Secularism Takes Over Education in America

Chapter 11—Secularism Takes Over the Government and the Courts in America

Chapter 12—Secularism Takes Over the Media in America

Chapter 13—Secularism Takes Over Publishing Houses in America

Chapter 14—Secularism Takes Over Business and Finance in America

Chapter 15—Secularism Takes Over Foundations in America

Chapter 16—A New Secular Religion Arises in America

Chapter 17—A New Secular State Arises in America

Chapter 18—Secularism Seeks to Replace Christianity In America

Conclusion: It Is Time to Destroy the Matrix!


When the Pillars of Christianity Are Overthrown

     To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoy. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions, in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom.

     “Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.—Jedediah Morse, 1799

The Effect of Atheism on Society

     The most horrid and cruel blow that can be offered to civil society is through atheism.—Edmund Burke, 1773

Eternal Hostility against Every Form of Tyranny

     I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.—Thomas Jefferson                    

Save America from the Hands of Oppressors

     It is an indispensable duty, brethren, which we owe to God and our country, to rouse up and bestir ourselves, and being animated with a noble zeal for the sacred cause of liberty, to defend our lives and fortunes, even to the shedding of the last drop of blood.... To save our country from the hands of our oppressors ought to be near to us even than our own lives, and next [to] the eternal salvation of our own souls, [it] is the thing of greatest importance,—a duty so sacred that it cannot justly be dispensed with for the sake of our secular concerns.—George Washington, March, 1776

When Religion Is Destroyed among a People

     When the religion of a people is destroyed, doubt gets hold of the higher powers of the intellect and half paralyzes all the others. Every man accustoms himself to having only confused and changing notions on the subjects most interesting to his fellow creatures and himself. His opinions are ill-defended and easily abandoned; and in despair of ever solving by himself the hard problems respecting the destiny of man, he ignobly submits to think no more about them.

     Such a condition cannot enervate the soul, relax the springs of the will, and prepare a people for servitude. Not only does it happen in such a case that they allow their freedom to be taken away from them; they frequently surrender it themselves. When there is no longer any principle of authority in religion any more than in politics, men are speedily frightened at the aspect of this unbounded independence. The constant agitation of all surrounding things alarms and exhausts them. As everything is at sea in the sphere of the mind, they determine at least that the mechanism of society shall be firm and fixed; and as they cannot resume their ancient belief, they assume a master.... If faith be wanting in [man], he must be subject; and if he be free, he must believe.—Alexis de Tocqueville

The World Is Being Pulled into the Vortex of Atheism

     We are witnesses to the devastation of the world, be it imposed or voluntarily undergone. The entire twentieth century is being sucked into the vortex of atheism and self-destruction. This plunge into the abyss has aspects that are unquestionably global, dependent neither on political systems, nor on levels of economic and cultural development, nor yet on national peculiarities. And contemporary Europe, seemingly so unlike the Russia of 1913, is today on the verge of the same collapse.... different parts of the world have followed different paths, but today they are all approaching the threshold of a common ruin.—Alexander Solzhenitsyn, May, 1983.


Preface: What Is Reality?

     What is reality? What is the real world? Who defines reality? What is a dream world? How do you know when you are in the real world or in a dream world? What is truth? Is there really a difference between right and wrong? Is there really a difference between good and evil? Is there really a difference between light and darkness? Is there really a difference between truth and error? Is there really a difference between freedom and tyranny? Who are you? Who decides whether you are a person or an entity? Is there a spark of divinity in each person? Did man evolve through a natural process from a single cell? Is there a God? Is there a devil? Is the Bible the Word of God ? Is the Bible just a set of fables and myths? Is organic evolution true or false? Is Christianity true or false? How do know what is true and false? How do you judge between opposites in the world? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God? Is Jesus Christ the Savior and Redeemer of the world?

The Concept of Personal Worldviews

     The answer to these and a host of other questions such as these depends upon your worldview. A worldview is a person’s mental image or construct of the world and the universe. A worldview is a person’s set of assumptions and beliefs about the world and the universe. A worldview is the lens through which each person looks at the world and the universe. A worldview is based upon a person’s acceptance of certain philosophies or religious beliefs. A worldview is a person’s definitive belief system. A worldview usually governs a person’s behavior in all areas of life.

Twelve Major Worldviews on Earth

     There are twelve major worldviews on earth: (1) Jewish worldview; (2) Muslim worldview; (3) Catholic worldview; (4) Protestant worldview; (5) LDS worldview; (6) Sikh worldview; (7) Tao worldview; (8) Buddhist worldview; (9) Hindu worldview; (10) Confucian worldview; (11) New Age worldview; and (12) Secular worldview. Obviously, there are numerous divisions in each of the above belief systems.

A Worldview Is a Set of Beliefs and Philosophies

     Since a worldview is derived from the acceptance of certain philosophies or religious beliefs, the people holding such views will seek to freely share them with others or force their acceptance upon others. The history of the world is a clash of philosophies and religious systems. It has been a bloody history in which millions of people have been killed and forced into bondage and slavery. Those who control nations, continents, societies and civilizations adhere to one worldview or another. The leaders of conquered territories usually forced their worldviews on people who were in bondage. There are many types of physical bondage and slavery. There are also many types of mental and spiritual tyranny.

The Most Dangerous and Pernicious Worldview on Earth

     The secular worldview is locked into a deadly warfare with all other worldviews because those who accept it believe that they alone possess the keys and power to define truth and reality. It is the most dangerous and pernicious philosophy or belief system on earth. It is a unique blend and combination of humanism, agnosticism and atheism. It boldly proclaims that all living things evolved by a gradual, natural process over eons of time. There is no Creator, no Savior and no spark of divinity in man.

Basic Teachings of the Secular Worldview

     The secular worldview states there is: no God who is the Creator of all things, no Son of God who is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, no Holy Ghost, no Supreme Godhead who governs the universe and all life forms, no eternal laws which govern the universe, no divine Creation of the earth, no Fall of Adam and Eve, no divine birth of Jesus Christ, no Atonement of Jesus Christ, no resurrection of Jesus Christ, no eternal life, no eternal spirit or soul in men and women, no free agency, free choice or free will, no right and wrong, no moral absolutes, no good and evil, no adversary, no evil spirits, no unalienable rights from the Creator, no divine principles of political, economic and religious liberty, no Holy Bible as the Word of God, no divine gospel of Jesus Christ, etc.

     Secularism is based upon naturalism and has hidden itself deep with the fortress of science.

     Secularism has penetrated the heart and soul of America and the nations of the western world. For far too long Christians and people of various beliefs have ignored this philosophy and belief system while it burrowed deeply into the body politic of society.

The Forces of Secularism Have Declared War against Christianity

     The promoters of this new secular religion and belief system have declared war upon Christianity and seek to drive it far into the wilderness where it has no influence upon the inhabitants of America and the world. The secularists have gained such influence in America that they now formulate public policy in the government, media, courts, foundations, publishing houses, universities, public schools and major corporations. Each day millions of the youth of the nation are being indoctrinated into the tenets of this evil belief system.

A New Secular Religion and State Has Arisen In America

     A new secular state and religion have arisen in America. An intense war for control of America and its free institutions is now underway, even though many people are seemingly unaware or oblivious of the conflict that rages all round them. Yet, the casualties of this war are located in nearly every family and community in the nation.

     Our God-given, unalienable rights and liberties are now in grave danger. America’s unique Judeo-Christian heritage is being replaced by a new secular state and ideology. Freedom of religion, particularly the Christian religion, has been evicted from every facet of American life. Christians have slowly awakened to the poisonous nature of this new disease. They are now entering the battle to save America and its free institutions from a ravaging and rapidly spreading disease. It is a fierce war of immense proportions.

The Need to Stop Secularism before It Destroys America

     There is a dramatic need for the business leaders, scholars, clergy and the people of America to stand firmly behind Christianity and its noble principles and values.

     The war for control of America and its free institutions will require unwavering courage, persistence, dedication, stamina and inspiration from heaven. It is an intense and deadly war between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error, light and darkness and freedom and tyranny. It is a war which affects every person in America and upon the earth.


Introduction: Does the Matrix Control the World?

     In April of 1999 fans of Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburne were astonished as they left the theater at the conclusion of a new movie entitled The Matrix. The Matrix carefully blended together a remarkable adventure story, spectacular action scenes, stunning martial art feats, special effects never before seen in a movie and a new science fiction world entitled, The Matrix. The world of science fiction has just gained three new heroes as Neo, Trinity and Morpheus flew across the screen and a new villain by the name of Agent Smith.

     Larry Wachowski and Andy Wachowski had successfully accomplished a feat rarely seen in the movie world. They blended science fiction, martial arts, special effects and action heroes with religion and philosophy in a unique way that left audiences spellbound, excited, thrilled, enthused, intrigued and more than just a little puzzled at the intellectual messages sown into the dialogue. Overnight, the movie became a sensation as new fans spread the word about the Matrix.

     In an interview in Time magazine, Larry Wachowski stated, “We wrote the story for ourselves and hoped others would pick up on it.... Every studio we showed it o thought no one would understand it. We told them it would be complex and dense, but we were also going to shoot the best action scenes and the coolest computer graphics ever. Even if audiences didn’t get all of the references, we knew they’d at least have a good time with t he visuals.” (Richard Corliss, “Popular Metaphysics”, Time, April 19, 1999.)

     The audiences were stunned and genuinely pleased with the unique messages purposely placed into the movie to make audiences think about the deeper issues of life. As Larry Wachowski noted, “We are interested in mythology, theology, and to a lesser extent, higher-level mathematics....All are ways human beings try to answer bigger questions, as well as the Big Question. If you are going to do epic stories, you should concern yourself with those issues.... We wanted to make people think, engage their minds a bit.” (Richard Corliss.)

     Andre Mason, the Executive Producer of the movie said, “The Matrix is really just a set of questions, a mechanism for prodding an ignorant or dulled mind into questioning as many things as possible.” (Glenn Yeffeth, editor. Taking the Red Pill: Science, Philosophy and Religion in the Matrix. Dallas, Texas: Benbella Books, 2003, p. 16.)


Part I—The Matrix Is Revealed

     The writers and producers of The Matrix accomplished their goal in a way unparalleled in the history of cinema. Let us now look at one of the most remarkable and successful movies ever produced in Hollywood.

     The Matrix begins with a stunning chase scene where the audience is introduced a new heroine. Her name is Trinity. And she is quite gifted. The new heroine is beautiful, skillful in martial arts and very intelligent. As the movie progresses we learned that there are two worlds—the real world and a computer generated world entitled the Matrix. Trinity escapes from the villains in the matrix and returns to the real world where she is the second in command of a hovercraft named the Nebuchadnezzar. The ship maneuvers in the real world and connects to the computer world by hacking into the matrix.


     It seems that the captain of the Nebuchadnezzar has been looking for the One, a prophesied savior who would save the inhabitants of the last surviving city which is called Zion. The freedom-loving inhabitants of Zion are locked into a deadly war with the creators of the matrix—a group of highly developed androids or machines which are run by artificial intelligence.

     Morpheus has been traveling throughout the matrix in search of the one destined to save Zion and free the inhabitants of the world who have been enslaved by the machines.

Wake Up Neo

     We find the next hero in the movie whose name is Thomas Anderson asleep at his computer terminal in the matrix. Suddenly a message appears on the screen. “Wake up, Neo.” During the day Thomas Anderson works for a computer company, however, during the night, he goes by the hacker name of Neo. The screen next states, “the Matrix has you.” Neo tries to hit the escape button on his computer, but the message stays on the screen. They another message appears, “Follow the white rabbit.”

     Neo then hears a knock on the door and he meets a group of friends who have come to pick up computer software from him. They are going to a club and ask Neo to join them. He notices a white rabbit tattooed on the arm of one of the young ladies. He tells them he will go.

     At the club Neo is approached by a beautiful young woman who introduces herself as Trinity. Neo asks her how she hacked into his computer, but Trinity brushes the question aside and gets down to business. “Right now, all I can tell you, is that you are in danger. I brought you here to warn you.” Neo asks, “Of what?” Trinity responds, “They’re watching you.” Neo says, “Who is?” Trinity says, “Please, just listen. I know why you’re here, Neo. I know why you hardly sleep, why you live alone and why, night after night, you sit at your computer; you’re looking for him.

     “I know because I was once looking for the same thing, but when he found me he told me I wasn’t looking for him. I was looking for an answer.

What Is the Matrix?

     “It’s the question that drives us, the question that brought you here. You know the question just as I did.”

     Neo then asks the question, “What is the Matrix?”

     Trinity responds, “When I asked him, he said that no one could ever be told the answer to that question. They would have to see it to believe it.”

     “The answer is out there, Neo. It’s looking for you and it will find you, if you want it to.”

     The scene changes and we find Neo at work sitting at his desk. Suddenly a cell phone rings and says, “Hello, Neo. Do you know who this is?”

     Neo asks, “Morpheus.”

     Morpheus then says, “I’ve been looking for you, Neo. I don’t know if you’re ready to see what I want to show you, but unfortunately, we have run out of time. They’re coming for you, Neo. And I’m not sure what they’re going to do.”

     Morpheus then tells Neo that Agents, the villains in the movie are coming to arrest Neo. Morpheus tells Neo that he can guide him out of the building, but he will have to follow his directions. Neo fails to follow the advice of Morpheus and is captured by the Agents and taken into custody.

     The audience then is introduced to the main villain, Agent Smith and his two colleagues. Agent Smith tells Neo that he has been living two lives, one a software programmer and another as a notorious hacker who is guilty of numerous computer crimes.

Morpheus—The Most Dangerous Man Alive

     Agent Smith then says, “We know that you have been contacted by a certain individual. A man who calls himself Morpheus. Whatever you think you know about this man is irrelevant. The fact is that he is wanted for acts of terrorism in more countries that any other man in the world. He is considered by many authorities to be the most dangerous man alive.”

Morpheus ─ a Known Terrorist


     Agent Smith then offers Neo a chance to help them capture Morpheus. He says, “We are willing to wipe the slate clean, to give you a fresh start and all we are asking in return is your cooperation in bringing a known terrorist to justice.”

Morpheus—The Great Freedom-Fighter

     Morpheus, the great freedom-fighter and Captain of the Nebuchadnezzar, is considered a terrorist by those who have enslaved the world and are seeking to destroy all of the inhabitants of Zion. It seems that the old saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter is true.

     The Agents then implant Neo with a radio transmitter to trace his movements in the Matrix.

     Neo next wakes up in his apartment within the Matrix. The telephone rings and it is Morpheus who says, “This line is tapped so I must be brief.”

     Neo asks, “The Agents....”

     Morpheus responds, “they got to you first, but they’ve underestimated how important you are. If they knew what I know, you would probably be dead.”

     Neo asks, “What are you talking about....”

     Morpheus answers, “You’re the One, Neo. You see, you may have spent the last few years looking for me, but I’ve spent most of my life looking for you.”

Neo Meets Morpheus

     “Do you still want to meet?”

     Neo then goes to the Adams Street bridge and meets Trinity and two of her companions. Trinity tells Neo that he must trust her because they know where each road leads inside the Matrix.

     Neo agrees and they remove the bug or tracer placed inside his abdomen by the Agents.

     Trinity then takes Neo to meet Morpheus and cautions him to be honest with Morpheus because he knows more than Neo can imagine.

     As Neo enters a room inside a tall building inside the Matrix, he is greeted by Morpheus who says, “I imagine, right now, you must be feeling a bit like Alice, tumbling down the rabbit hole?”

     Neo responds, “You could say that.”

     Morpheus then says, “I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up.

     “Ironically, this is not far from the truth. But I’ m getting ahead of myself. Can you tell me Neo why are you here?”

     Neo says, “You’re Morpheus, you’re a legend. Most hackers would die to meet you.”

     Morpheus then says, “Yes, thank you. But I think we both know there’s more to it than that. Do you believe in fate, Neo?”

     Neo answers, “No.”

     Morpheus asks, “Why not?’

     Neo says, “Because I don’t like the idea that I’m not in control of my life.”

     Morpheus responds, “I know exactly what you mean.”

There Is Something Wrong With the World

     “Let me tell you why you are here. You have come because you know something. What you know you can’t explain but you feel it. You’ve felt it your whole life, felt that something was wrong with the world. You don’t know what, but it’s there like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I’m talking about?”

     Neo says, “The Matrix?”

     Morpheus asks, “Do you want to know what it is?”

The Matrix Is Everywhere

     “The Matrix is everywhere, it’s all around us, here even in this room. You can see it out your window or on your television. You feel it when you go to work, or go to church pr pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.”

     Neo asks, “What truth?”

People Are Born Into Bondage and Slavery

     Morpheus responds, “That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, kept inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind.

     “Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.”

The Choice: the Blue Pill or the Red Pill

     Morpheus next opens his hand and there are two colored pills in it. He states, “This is your last chance. After this, there is no going back. You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe.

     “You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Neo Is Offered Nothing but the Truth

     “Remember that all I am offering is the truth. Nothing more.”

     Neo chooses the red pill and swallows it with some water. He then follows Morpheus into a room where they find the location of Neo’s body in the real world.

     Morpheus says, “The pill you took is part of a trace program. It’s designed to disrupt your input/output carrier signal so we can pinpoint your location.”

     All that has taken place before this moment has been inside the Matrix. The red pill was a tracer and the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar locate Neo’s physical body which is inside a small pod that is housed along side millions of other humans that have been enslaved by the machines.

     As Neo sits in a chair waiting for the trace program to work, Morpheus asks him a very important question.

     “Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real...?

     “What if you were unable to wake from that dream, Neo? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real worlds?”

     Suddenly Neo awakens inside a small pod with electrical wires attached to his body and a large device plugged into the back of his neck.

     A giant flying mechanical object appears and releases Neo’s body from attachments all over his body and especially the one in the back of his neck that attaches to the top of his spinal cord and base of his brain. After his release by the machine Neo is flushed down a long tube and his body is dumped into the sewer. In a few seconds the Nebuchadnezzar appears overhead and the crew retrieves Neo from the dirty water. He is taken on board for medical treatment.

     After weeks of intense acupuncture treatments Neo is able to walk for the first time in the real world. His head is bald and he has a large plug in the back of his neck and large connecting portals all over his body.

Rebels Use Wireless Signals To Hack Into the Matrix

     Morpheus takes Neo on a tour of his ship—the Nebuchadnezzar. At one point he stops and says, “And this, this is the Core. This is where we broadcast our pirate signal and hack into the Matrix.”

     After Neo is rested Morpheus asks him, “You want to know what the Matrix is, Neo? The answer is right here.”

     Neo responds that he would and Trinity escorts him to a chair and he lies down. She then inserts a coaxial line into the jack or plug at the back of his neck. Neo suddenly finds himself inside the Matrix or so he thought. Actually his mind went into a computer-generated software program which they called the Construct, a loading and training program designed by programmers on the Nebuchadnezzar.

     Neo is surprised to find himself inside a computer program. He asks, “Right now, we’re inside a computer program?”

Residual Self-Image

     Morpheus explains that what Neo is seeing is a mental projection. He says, “Is it so hard to believe? Your clothes are different, the plugs in your arms and head are gone. Look at you hair, you were bald a moment ago.

     “It’s what we call residual self image. The mental projection of your electronic self. Wild, isn’t it?”

     Neo says, “This ... This isn’t real.”

     Morpheus asks, “What is real? How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you feel, taste, smell, or se, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Living Inside a Dream World

     “This is the world you know. The world as it was at the end of the twentieth century. It exists now only as part of a neural-interactive simulation that we call the Matrix.

     “You have been living inside a dream world, Neo. As in Baudrillard’s vision, your whole life has been spent inside the map, not the territory. This is the world as it exists today.

     “The desert of the real.

     “We only have bits and pieces of information. What we know for certain is that, at some point in the early twentieth-first century, all of mankind was united in celebration. Through the blinding inebriation of hubris, we marveled at our magnificence as we gave birth to A. I.”

     Neo asks, “A. I. You mean artificial intelligence?”

     Morpheus responds, “Yes. A singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of machines. I must say I find it almost funny to imagine the world slapping itself on the back, toasting the new age. I say almost funny.

A War between Humans and Machines Run by Artificial Intelligence

     “We don’t know who struck first. Us or them. But we do know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power. It was believed they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.

     “Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive, Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.

     “The machines discovered a new form of fusion. All they needed was a small electrical charge to initiate the reaction.

     “The human body generates more bioelectricity that a 120 volt battery and over 25,000 B.T.U.s of body heat.

     “There are fields, endless fields where human beings are no longer born; we are grown.


     “For the longest time, I wouldn’t believe it. But then I saw the fields with my own eyes, watched them liquefy the dead so they could be fed intravenously to the living and standing there, facing the efficiency, the pure horrifying precision, I came to realize the obviousness of the truth.

The Matrix Was Designed to Control the Human Race

     “What is the Matrix? Control.

A Computer-Generated Dream World

     “The Matrix is a computer-generated dream world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into this [a slave].”

     Neo then revolts saying, “No! I don’t believe it! It’s not possible!

     Morpheus responds, “I didn’t say it would be easy, Neo. I just said that it would be the truth.”

     Neo then revolts again yelling, “Stop! Let me out! I want out!”

     At that moment Morpheus ends the lesson in the Construct and the crew takes Neo out of the program and back into the real world where he becomes sick and throws up.

     Later Neo asks Morpheus, “I can’t go back can I?”

     Morpheus says, “No. But if you could, would you really want to?

The Difficulty of Freeing Minds after a Certain Age

     “I feel that I owe you an apology. There is a rule that we do not free a mind once it reaches a certain age. It is dangerous. They have trouble letting go. Their minds turn against them. I’ve seen it happen. I’m sorry. I broke the rule because I had to.

As Long as the Matrix Exists the Human Race Will Never Be Free

     “When the Matrix was first built there was a man born inside that had the ability to change what he wanted, to remake the Matrix as he saw fit. It was this man that freed the first of us and taught us the truth; as long as the matrix exists, the human race will never be free.

The Prophecy of One Who Will Destroy the Matrix

and Free the People on Earth

     “When he died, the Oracle prophesied his return and envisioned that his coming would hail the destruction of the Matrix, an end to the war and freedom for our people. That is why there are those of us that have spent our entire lives searching the Matrix, looking for him.

     “I did what I did because I believe the search is over.”

     Morpheus believed that Neo is the One they have been looking for and that he will save Zion, destroy the Matrix and free the inhabitants of the earth. That is why he searched throughout the Matrix until he found Neo.

     Neo next learns that some of the crew of the Nebacanezzar have been raised in Zion and they do not have the plugs in their arms. He is them introduced to new software program.

     Morpheus explains, “This is a sparring program, similar to the programmed reality of the Matrix. It has the same basic rules. Rules like gravity. What you must learn is that these rules are no different than the rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent. Others can be broken. Understand.?’

     Neo and Morpheus then engage is a sparring program.

     After battling Morpheus Neo says, “I know what you’re trying to do....”

     Morpheus responds, “I’m trying to free your mind, Neo, but all I can do is show you the door. You’re the one that has to step through it. Tank, load the jump program.”


     Tank, an operator on board the Nebuchadnezzar then loads another software program inside their computer and instantly Neo and Morpheus are transported to a roof top.

Free Your Mind by Letting Go of Fear and Doubt

     Morpheus then says, “Let it all go, Neo. Fear. Doubt. Disbelief. Free your mind.”

     Morpheus then proceeds to jump to an adjacent building and reached the top of it with ease. When Neo tries, he lacks the faith and falls over 100 stories to the ground, although it is not the real ground, but a software program, so Neo bounces back from the payment and they stop the program.

     Neo ask, “If you are killed in the matrix, you die here [real world]?”

     Morpheus responds, “The body cannot live without the mind.”

     A short time later Morpheus introduces Neo to another training program where they are in a down town crowded area.

The Matrix Is a System That Controls the Mind

     Morpheus says, “The Matrix is a system, Neo, and that system is our enemy. But when you are inside and look around, what do you see; businessmen, lawyers, teachers, carpenters. The minds of the very people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of the system and that makes them our enemy.

People Are So Dependent on the System

That They Will Fight to Protect It

     “You have to understand that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.”

Agents Protect the System

     Neo is then introduced to the Sentient programs called Agents. Morpheus tells us, “Sentient programs. They can move in and out of any software still hardwired to their system. That means that anyone we haven’t unplugged is potentially an Agent. Inside the Matrix, they are everyone and they are no one.”

     The Nebuchhadnezzar is next attacked by a group of Squiddy’s, mechanical killing machines sent inside the sewer lines where the ships from Zion navigate around the cities in the real world. The machines are neutralized by an electromagnetic pulse fired from the ships of Zion.

The Matrix is Based Upon Computer Codes

     The matrix is made of trillions and trillions of lines of computer code designed and programmed by the machines run by artificial intelligence.

     Neo next visits with Cypher, a member of Morpheus’ crew who was earlier extracted from the Matrix.

     We next learn that Cypher has made a deal to betray Morpheus because he is tired of living in the real world and wants to go back into the Matrix. Morpheus has the Access Codes to the Zion Mainframe and the Agents want it so they can destroy the city and all the people who live there.

     Cypher goes into the Matrix and meets Agent Smith at a restaurant.

     Agent Smith says, “Do we have a deal....?”

Ignorance Is Bliss

     Cypher responds, “You know, I know that this steak doesn’t exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, do you know what I’ve realized?

Ignorance is bliss.”

     Agent Smith says, “Then we have a deal.”

     Cypher responds, “I don’t want to remember nothing. Nothing! You understand? And I want to be rich. Someone important. Like an actor. You can do that, right?”

     Agent Smith answers, “Whatever you want....”

     Cypher says, “All right. You get my body back into a Power Plant, reinsert me into the Matrix, and I’ll get you what you want.”

     Agent Smith responds, “Access codes to the Zion Mainframe.”

     Cypher then admits, “I told you I don’t know them. But I can give you the man who does.”

     Agent Smith says, “Morpheus.”

     In a short while Cypher would betray Morpheus and almost get the entire crew killed by agents. He would escape and go back to the ship.

The Matrix Cannot Tell You Who You Are

     Some time later Neo and Trinity are visiting about life in the Matrix.

     Neo says, “I have these memories, from my entire life but ... none of them really happened.

     “What does that mean?”

     Trinity says, “That the Matrix cannot tell you who you are.”

     Neo then learns of the Oracle who can foresee the future. He learns that the Oracle has been with the freedom-fighters from the beginning of the resistance war between the humans and the machines. Neo learns that she is a guide and that she told Morpheus that he would find the One who would save Zion, destroy the Matrix and bring freedom to the inhabitants of the world who have been all enslaved except those people who live in Zion, the last surviving human city on earth.

The Importance of Faith

     Next Neo gets a lesson in the importance of faith from Morpheus who tells him, “Faith is not a matter of reasonability. I do no believe things with my mind. I believe them with my heart....”

     Morpheus then reiterates that Neo is the One.

     After a visit with the Oracle Neo learns that he is going to have to make a choice either to save himself or Morpheus. As they are leaving to go back to an area where they can be transported back to the real world, they find out that they have been betrayed and Morpheus is captured.

     In the meantime Cypher has made it back to the ship and he killed Dozer and seriously wounded Tank. He then took over control of the Nebuchadnezzar and began pulling the plug on crew members that were inside the Matrix with Neo, Trinity and Morpheus. He kills Apoc and Switch and tries to kill Neo when he is stopped and killed by Tank who regained consciousness and control of the ship. He then brought Neo and Trinity back to the ship. However, during the fight between the Agents and those with Neo, Morpheus was captured and taken to a military compound where he would be drugged and interrogated until he gave the Agents the access codes to the Zion Mainframe.

Neo and Trinity Rescue Morpheus

     When Neo finds that Morpheus is still alive, he decides to rescue him. He enters the Matrix again fully armed with a stash of weapons. Neo and Trinity fight their way to the top of the building. Neo and Trinity engage an Agent and she watches as Neo moves as fast as the Agents. She is surprised. Trinity then boards a helicopter to rescue Morpheus. She lowers the helicopter to the side of the building where the Agents are holding Morpheus. The Agents begin firing at them and Morpheus frees himself and jumps through a window where he is grabbed by Neo. Trinity then heads to another building where she lowers them onto the roof. However, the helicopter has been hit

by bullets from the weapons of the Agents and it crashes into the side of a high rise building. Just seconds before it crashed Trinity grabs the tow line that held Neo and Morpheus and Neo pulls her to safety.

Neo Is Killed by Agent Smith

     Morpheus then reassures Trinity that Neo is the One. They flee to a railroad station to await transport back to the Nebuchadnezzar. Morpheus and Trinity go first, however, Neo is stopped by Agent Smith. They get into a terrific fight and Neo flees to a building where he is confronted again by Agent Smith and his two colleagues. They succeed in locating Neo in the building and Agent Smith kills Neo with several bullets to the chest.

     Back on board the Nebuchadnezzar, Neo’s body dies and his heart tops. Morpheus and Tank are stunned.

Trinity Tells Neo That She Loves Him and That He Is the One

     Trinity then leans over Neo and says, “Neo, please, listen to me. I promised to tell you the rest. The Oracle, she told me that I’d fall in love and that man, the man I loved would be the One. You see? You can’t be dead, Neo, you can’t be because I love you. You hear me? I love you.”

     Trinity then kisses Neo and he suddenly wakes up.

     Morpheus looks and Tank and says, “It is a miracle.”

     Trinity then tells Neo, “Now get up!”

     Neo awakes and goes after the three Agents. He attacks Agent Smith and he explodes.

     Neo is now able to see the Matrix for what it really is—a rushing steam of computer code which operates a vast system that keeps the minds of the inhabitants of the earth in a prison for their minds.

     Morpheus then states, “He is the One. He is the One!”

     The other two Agents fled in fear.

     Morpheus, Neo and Trinity are now back on board the Nebuchadnezzar.

     The movie ends with a warning from Neo to the creators of the Matrix that he is going to expose their control over the inhabitants of the earth through the use of a computer-generated dream world known as the Matrix. It also ends with an invitation to the audience to join with him in freeing the minds of the people still in bondage.

     (The above dialogue is taken from the shooting script. Some scenes were deleted from the movie. See Larry Wachowski and Andy Wachowski, Matrix: The Shooting Script. New York: Newmarket Press, 2001. See the movie, The Matrix, by Warner Brothers. Released in April, 1999. A Copy of the Matrix screenplay is also located on several WEB sites.)


Part II—An Analysis of the Matrix

     The Matrix took America by surprise as movie goers warmly embraced the heroes and multiple messages of the film. Larry Wachowski and Andy Wachowski had not only just hit a home run, but, they knocked the ball completely out of the stadium. The Matrix surprised Warner Brothers who had been reluctant to finance and produce the film. Now Joel Silver, the producer, was a happy man. His investment of $60 million would double and triple in the future. Warner Brothers decided to produce two sequels and put up a record $300 million to make Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions.


     The Matrix spawned a series of books on the movie and its layered messages. David Gerrold stated that the Matrix gave the audience the “opportunity to consider at some length the nature of reality....” He feels that the point of the movie is that “humanity has a choice.” We can continue to live in one form of bondage or another or we can rebel and free our minds from those who are seeking to control the world, its natural resources and people. (Glenn Yeffeth, editor, Taking the Red Pill: Science, Philosophy and Religion in The Matrix. Dallas, Texas: Benbella Books, 2003, p. 2-3.)

The Secret of Communicating with the Youth of Today

     It seems that Larry Wachowski and Andy Wachowski have discovered the secret of how to communicate with the youth of today. They are addicted to electronic games and comic books. Therefore, you tell them a story in the comic book and video game format. The movie is a suburb way to tell a timeless story of a hero that comes to free the inhabitants of a world which has been enslaved by a group of evil and treacherous villains.

     In the Matrix Morpheus tells Neo a secret. Neo is a slave. He was born into bondage. The Matrix is a computer-generated dream world that creates the illusion of reality. Those who live in the Matrix have no idea that they are slaves. The illusion is complete. The deception is complete. The control is complete. People are not born into the real world, but, raised in pods controlled by an endless array of computers. Computer software programs have created an artificial world called the Matrix. That simulated world only exists in the minds of those who have been born in the Matrix. It is nothing more than electrical signals sent to their brains by a series of computers around the world.

      The Matrix is just a massive computer program designed to deceive and control the human race. Only those who have been freed from the Matrix are aware that the Matrix is not real.

A Judeo-Christian Parable

     Mercer Schuchardt believes that the Matrix “is a parable of the original Judeo-Christian worldview of entrapment in a world gone wrong, with no hope of survival or salvation short of something miraculous. The Matrix is a new testament for a new millennium, a religious parable of the second coming of mankind’s messiah in an age that needs salvation as desperately as any ever has.” (“What is the Matrix?” Taking the Red Pill, p. 5.)

The Nature of Reality

     He feels that the movie was carefully designed to make the audience really think about the nature of reality. Schuchardt says, “To prod us into the questioning mode, the movie presents as the basis for its plot a world almost completely incomprehensible to our minds. It is a world in which all reality is nothing but some electrical signals sent to our brains.” (“What is the Matrix?” Taking the Red Pill, page 16.)

     Morpheus tells Neo that the Matrix is a “world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.” The truth is that people are slaves and were born into bondage. According to Schuchardt, “It is the construction of the world has become to hide what we’ve known all along; we are slaves to a force much larger than our individual actions. It is the collective illusion of humanity sharing an artificial reality created by machines to keep them docile and helpless against their captors. But in plain English, the Matrix is simply the Technological Society come to its full fruition.”(“What is the Matrix?” Taking the Red Pill, p. 18.)

The Matrix Is a System of Control

     In 1964 Marshall McLuhan wrote an interesting book entitled, Understanding Media. He stated that, “Literacy remains even now the base and model of all programs of industrial mechanization; but, at the same time, locks the minds and senses of its users in the mechanical and fragmentary matrix that is so necessary to the maintenance of mechanized society.” (McLuhan, Understanding Media, 1964.) McLuhan uses the term matrix to the mean a system of control.


     In the movie Morpheus has come to understand that the Matrix is also a system of control because he has seen it with his own eyes. He understands the war for control of the earth and its inhabitants. He dedicates his life to freeing the minds of those who are captives inside the Matrix.

     Mercer Schuchardt tells us that, “In modern society, the electronic foundation of our culture has embedded each of us into a Matrix that affects us in unique and personal ways, and from which it seems nearly impossible to escape.” (“What is the Matrix?” Taking the Red Pill, p. 19.)

Two Worlds

     He asks the reader to imagine the following: “Consider two worlds. One where everyone is told what to think by a box that they watch for half their waking hours, and the other where everyone has that signal sent straight to their brain. In the first world, everyone is educated systematically to see the world a certain way, and those who dissent are eliminated from the educational hierarchy, all the while claiming that they have freedom of expression. In the other, everyone is educated systematically to see the world a certain way, and those who dissent are eliminated period; all the while, reality is so radically different from this make-up world that most people choose the imaginary if given the freedom to choose.

     “In the first one [world] most people find purpose by seeking employment with large impersonal organizations that only see their usefulness in terms of the one thing they were hired for. In the second one [world], everyone’s purpose is employment by a large impersonal machine that only sees their usefulness in terms of one thing; the energy they can supply.

     “Recall the scene in which Thomas Anderson is reprimanded for being late to work. Recall that Trinity was famous for hacking the IRS database. Recall Agent Smith’s list of what was a ‘normal’ life: ‘You work for a respectable corporation, you have a Social Security number, and you pay your taxes.’ Sprinkled throughout the movie are hints that the Matrix is really our present world. How better to control millions of people than to convince them they are living a ‘normal life’ in 1999? When Morpheus is giving Neo his long explanation of the Matrix, he says, ‘It is there when you watch TV. It is there when you go to work. It is there when you go to church. It is there when you pay your taxes.’ These are all components of modern life t hat serve to control us and can easily be abused to the point of enslaving

     “The reasons we accept this control vary, from watching TV because we like entertainment to paying taxes because we feel we have no choice in the matter. The message of the Matrix is that we are already pawns in a modern technological society where life happens around us but is scarcely influenced by us. Whether it is by our choice or unwillingness to make a choice, our technology already controls us.

     “In an attempt to wake us up, the movie asks us to question everything we believe about our present circumstances. Even if it feels good, is it good for us? Are those things that seem beyond our control really untouchable? If we do not want to wake up, then the answer is yea. However, for those with a splinter in the mind that will not go away, the challenge has been made to open your eyes, and seek true reality, and ultimately to escape from the Matrix.” (“What is the Matrix?” Taking the Red Pill, pp. 19-20.)

Freedom-Fighters War against Tyranny

     The Matrix is a brilliant movie about a group of freedom-fighters who rebel against the tyranny of a world that has enslaved the entire human race. Only one city remains—the city of Zion.

     As Lyle Zynda tells us, “In the Matrix most of humankind is used as a source of power by highly intelligent machines, centuries in the future. Humans are placed from birth in a dreamlike state, in which a world like ours is simulated for their sleeping minds. The machines know that our sense organs convert information from the world (light, sound, etc.) into electrical signals, which are then processed by the brain into the image of reality that constitutes our conscious experience. So, they feed the same electrical signals into the brains of humans that a real world would, creating an illusion indistinguishable from reality. Is there any way a person in the Matrix could know that she is, in effect, just having a completely lucid dream?” (Zynda, “Was Cypher Right?” Taking the Red Pill, p. 34.)

Simulacra and Simulation

     Prior to the shooting of the movie, the actors were required to read Jean Baudrillard’s book entitled, Simulacra and Simulation. Dino Felluga, a professor of English at Purdue University, wrote an interesting article outlining the relationship of the book and the movie. He states, “The relationship to Baudrillard’s theories becomes especially clear in the shooting script of the movie. As Morpheus informs Neo in a scene cut from the film, ‘You have been living inside a dream world Neo. As in Baudrillard’s vision, your whole life has been spent inside the map, not the territory.’ That line of dialogue itself refers to a fable told by Jorge Luis Borges in his essay, ‘Of Exactitude in Science.’ As Baudrillard describes the fable in the first sentence of his own work, ‘cartographers of the Empire draw up a map so detailed that it ends up covering the territory exactly.’ Over time, that map begins to fray until all that is left are a few ‘shreds ... still discernable in the deserts.’

People Have Lost Contact with Reality

     “According to Baudrillard, what has happened in the postmodern culture is, to some extent, the reverse: our society has become so reliant on models and maps that we have lost all contact with the real world that preceded the map. Reality itself has begun merely to imitate the model, which now precedes and determines the real world:

     ‘The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory—procession of simulacra—that engenders the territory, and if one must return to the fable, today it is the territory, whose shreds slowly rot across the extend of the map. It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges persist here and there is the deserts that are no longer those of the Empire, but ours. The desert of the real itself.

     “When Morpheus welcomes Neo ‘to the desert of the real’ during the Construct sequence, when he informs Neo that his whole life has been an illusion generated by a computer Matrix, he is at once again making a direct reference to Baudrillard’s work. In so doing, Morpheus also invited the viewer to see The Matrix as itself an allegory for our current postmodern condition, for according to Baudrillard, we in the audience are already living in a ‘reality’ generated by codes and models; we have already lost all touch with even a memory of the real.” (“The Matrix: Paradigm of Postmodernism or Intellectual Poseur?” Taking the Red Pill, pp. 72-73.)

People Have Lost All Sense of Reality

     Felluga goes on to point out that, “Because of ... postmodern ‘conditions,’ Baudrillard posits that we have lost all sense of ‘reality.’ ‘Simulacra’ precede our every access to the ‘real’ and thus define our real for us, hence Baudrillard’s phrase, the ‘precession of the simulacra,’ The Matrix perfectly exemplifies this idea by liberalizing it; humans plugged into this simulation program only know the facts of their culture and ‘reality’ by way of a computer program, for the reality upon which that program was originally based no longer exists. In a quite literal sense, then, ‘the territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it.’ Humans have only ever know the map or the model.” (“The Matrix: Paradigm,” Taking the Red Pill, p 75.)

     Felluga believes the movie is making a point in the mess-hall scene where the crew is discussing their breakfast cereal that “humans by their very nature reconstruct fantasy scenarios in order to live in the real.” (“The Matrix: Paradigm,” Taking the Red Pill. p. 78.)

The Matrix Is a Prison for Your Mind

     One of the most interesting scenes in the movie is when Morpheus instructs Neo on the nature of the Matrix.

He asks Neo, “Do you want to know what it is?

     “The Matrix is everywhere, it’s all around us, here even in this room. You can see it out your window or on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or go to church or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth?


     Neo asks, “What truth?”

     Morpheus responds, “That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison for your mind.”

     Felluga states that, “The Matrix is analogous to ideology in the postmodern sense; it creates the very ‘reality’ that surround us because of our reliance not just on rules but also on language to structure the world around us.”

Reality Has Been Replaced by Simulations of Reality

     Andrew Gordon, a professor of English at the University of Florida states, “Baudrillard’s central ideal is that, in the postmodern world, the real has been almost totally displaced by the simulated. ‘It is a generation by models of a real without origin of reality: a hyper-real. The territory no longer precedes the map.... It is ... the map that precedes the territory.’ He claims that the real survives only in vestiges ‘here and there in the deserts.... The desert of the real itself.’

     “Baudrillard speaks of four orders of simulation: in the first, the image reflects reality; in the second, it masks reality; in the third, ‘it masks the absence of a profound reality;’ and in the fourth, ‘it has no relation to reality whatsoever; it is its own pure simulation.’

Disneyland Is Presented as Imaginary

     “Baudrillard is especially interested in postmodern examples of simulation of the third order, theme parks such as Disneyland. ‘Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surround it are no longer real but belong to the hyper-real order and to the order of simulation.’ (Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation. Translated by Sheila Faria Glaser. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994, p. 12.)

     “What Baudrillard means by ‘the hyper-real’ is ‘the generation by models of a real without origin or reality.’(Simulacra and Simulation, p. 1.) (“The Matrix, Paradigm, Part II”. Taking the Red Pill, p 89.)

The Use of Simulation in the Matrix

     The Matrix is a remarkable representation of Baudrillard’s theory of simulations. Andrew Gordon asks, “How then does simulation operate in the Matrix? In the film, it is 2199 and the surface of the earth has been destroyed in a war with artificially intelligent machines. Deep underground, human beings are bred as a source of energy for the machines and kept in an embryonic state, dreaming that they are living in an American city in 1999. This dream world, called the Matrix, is a computer simulation intended to keep the populace docile.

     “A few humans remain in the real world and fight the machines. Morpheus, the rebel leader, cruises the underworld in a hovercraft like Jules Verne’s Captain Nemo. Morpheus and his crew rescue from the matrix Thomas Anderson, by day a computer programmer for a large corporation, by night an outlaw hacker known as ‘Neo.’ Morpheus is convinced Anderson may be ‘The One’ foretold by the Oracle; the man who can defeat the agents. Neo, whose name is an anagram of ‘One’ is unaware he is living in a simulated reality. First, he must be extracted from the matrix, reborn in the real world, reeducated and trained....

The Simulation Has No Relationship To Reality

     “The matrix deals with what Baudrillard would call the ‘fourth order of simulation,’ with no relation to reality whatsoever, that is, the everyday world in which Neo exists is totally false, a dream world with no substance and no relation to 2199..... The machines have created a virtual reality simulation of the world of 1999, a world which no longer exists in the future....”


     “The real, he believes, has been replaced by the electronic and other forms of simulation, by ‘models of a real without origin or reality.’ (Simulacra and Simulation, p. 1.) (“The Matrix, Paradigm, Part II.” Taking the Red Pill, pp. 90-91.)

In the 21st Century Reality Has Been Replaced

by Simulations, Fantasies, Myths, Fables and Illusions

     According to Jean Baudrillard, people in our day have lost all sense of reality. Reality has been replaced by simulations, fantasies, myths, fables and illusions. The Matrix beautifully captured this concept in a science fiction format. That is one reason the movie is so thought-provoking and stimulating to so many people. And because the Matrix contains so many elements that resemble the world of the twenty-first century, people have warmly embraced the movie.

The Youth Are Rebelling against Simulations of Reality

     The young people of today are particularly sensitive to the state of non-reality that is being forced on them everywhere. They are instinctively rebelling against this artificial world. They are rebelling against the simulations that have been designed to enslave their minds. They are rebelling against the computer generated dream world that is operating on the earth in our day.

     The Matrix is a brilliant analogy to the modern world where people have become enslaved by various villains who have created philosophies and religions to blind, deceive and control people on earth.


Part III— Modern Day Simulations Based On Illusions

     Jean Baudrillard in his book Simulacra and Simulation introduces the reader us to various types of reality. His third type of simulation—“it masks the absence of a profound reality,” and his fourth type of simulation—“it has no relation to reality whatsoever,” are fully operational throughout the entire world in our day.

     When Morpheus first talked to Neo on a cell phone, he said, “I don’t know if you’re ready to see what I want to show you, but unfortunately, we have run out of time.”

It is Time to Wake Up and Learn the Truth

     It is time to “wake up” and learn the truth about the origin of man and the universe. The reader knows that “something is wrong with the world .” Is the Matrix real? Yes. Does it really exist? Yes. It is like the Matrix in the movie? Somewhat. However, the Matrix we will be outlining is not the Matrix of 2199 as in the famous movie, but an Ideological Matrix that exists in the year 2004.

     Just as in the movie, the Ideological Matrix is everywhere. It controls the educational institutions and systems in every nation.

The Choice: Take the Blue Pill or the Red Pill

     Therefore, we would like to invite the reader to make the same choice which Neo had to make. There are two pills before you—a blue pill and red pill. If you decide to take the blue pill you should close this book and never pick it up or read it again. You may then go back into the world of third and fourth world simulations of reality and continue your life in a dream world generated by villains who have enslaved the ideological world.

An Ideological Matrix—A Prison for Your Mind

     If you choose to take the red pill, then you should continue reading until you reach the conclusion of this book. We will then show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. You will be shown that most of the people on earth are now living in an artificially created dream world or simulation. You will be shown that they are a slave. That they were born into bondage. That they are presently living inside a prison, that “you cannot smell, taste, or touch.”

     It is “a prison for your mind.” You will be shown the Ideological Matrix which has been constructed and is now “everywhere.” It is all around us. You see it when you turn on the radio, when you watch television, a video, a movie. You see it when you read a book or magazine or journal. You see it in museums and libraries. You see it on the internet. You see it in elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, colleges and universities. It is in every science book. It is everywhere.

     If you choose to take the red pill, we will show you the real world, not the illusionary world “that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.” What truth? The truth that you are a son or daughter of God. (Deuteronomy 14:1; Hosea 1: 10; Malachi 2: 10; Matthew 5: 48; Act 17: 29; Act 17: 29 ). The truth that you are an eternal being, that you lived before you were born on this earth as a spirit son or spirit daughter of God and that you will live in the future worlds as a resurrected eternal being. (Job 32:8; Ecclesiastes 12: 7; Romans 8: 16; 1 Corinthians 6: 20; Hebrews 12: 9; James 2: 26.)

     If you choose to take the red pill, we will show you the myths, fables, illusions and fantasies created by the creators of the Ideological Matrix that now controls the earth’s educational institutions and systems.

     If you choose to take the red pill, we will show you the nature of the dream world that most people have been living their entire lives. Like Neo most people will have difficulty believing that they have been deceived. Nevertheless, it will be nothing but the truth.

     If you take the red pill, we will show you how the Ideological Matrix was designed to control you and all the people on earth. We will uncover the lies and deceptions that have been created by villains to blind the minds of people and keep them from the truth.

     Just as in the movie, we know that the older you are, the more difficult it will be for you to accept that you have lived your life in an artificially created dream world or simulation. We are aware that, “There is a rule that we do not free a mind once it reaches a certain age. It is dangerous. They have trouble letting go. Their minds turn against them.” However, we have faith that once people are presented the truth that they will accept it.

     If you take the red pill, we will show you that until the Ideological Matrix is completely destroyed, the “human race will never be free.”

     If you take the red pill, we will show you that an ideological war is raging throughout the world and that it affects every person on earth.

     If you take the red pill, we will show you that the Ideological Matrix has been created to pave the way for the most complete tyranny that has ever been on the earth—a global tyranny where there is no political, economic or religious liberty for anyone. A global tyranny run by elite financial oligarchies around the world who are obsessed with political power and financial gain.

     If you take the red pill, we will show you that you need to let go of fear, doubt and disbelief. You will have to free your mind from illusions, myths, fantasies and simulations.

     If you take the red pill, we will show you that the Ideological Matrix is “a system” and that “system is our enemy.” We will show you that the people all around you—businessmen, lawyers, doctors, dentists, teachers, carpenters, truck drivers, policemen, nurses, mechanics, etc., are all a part of the system. These are the people whose minds we are trying to free. However, “until we do, these people are still part of the system and that makes them our enemy.” That is, they are an enemy in one sense because they uphold and promote the teachings of the Ideological Matrix.

     If you take the red pill, we will show you that “most of these people are not ready to be unplugged and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.” An ideological civil war is raging in America and throughout the world. You may ignore the war and pretend it does not exist, however, that does not change the reality that the war is underway. It is a battle for the minds and souls of every person on earth.


     If you take the red pill, we will show you that there are Agents which protect the system or the Ideological Matrix. We will show you how to identify them and how to detect them.

     If you take the red pill, we will show you how to dodge Ideological Bullets fired by Agents of the system.

     If you take the red pill, we will show you the One who has been designated to destroy the Ideological Matrix and bring peace, happiness and freedom to all the inhabitants of the earth.

     If you take the red pill, we will show you how it will affect your life in the future. It is time to make a choice! Reality or Simulation!


Chapter I—The Holy Bible: The Foundation of Reality

Part I—A Divine Standard to Judge All Things

     The publication of the King James Version of the Holy Bible in 1611 heralded the beginning of a revolution throughout the English speaking world. For the first time in history the common man and woman had access to the writings of the holy prophets, the apostles and the Savior of the world. Thirty nine books were assembled and inserted into the Old Testament. Twenty seven books were assembled and put into the New Testament.

     The title page to the King James version reads: The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments. Translated Out of the Original Tongues: And With the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised By His Majesty’s Special Command.

Old Testament

     In the Old Testament, the following books were written by the holy prophets whom God has raised up:






















     After the Savior began His mission on earth, He organized His church and called and ordained apostles to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the lands.

New Testament

     In the New Testament, the following books were written by the apostles:



—The Acts

—The Epistle to the Romans

—1 Corinthians

—2 Corinthians




—1 Thessalonians

—2 Thessalonians


—2 Timothy



—To the Hebrews

—The Epistle of James

—1 Peter

—2 Peter

—1 John

—2 John

—3 John



     In addition, scholars in the Middle East and around the world have preserved various manuscripts known as the Apocrypha. These manuscripts were sacred books to the Jewish people but were not placed into the Hebrew Bible. Although not officially accepted as scripture, they are, nonetheless, very valuable in shedding additional light on the periods of the Old and New Testaments.

Books of the Apocrypha

     The Books of the Apocrypha include:

—The First Book of Esdras

—The Second Book of Esdras

—The Book of Tobit

—The Book of Judith

—The Book of Ester

—The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon

—The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus

—The Book of Barach

—The Epistle of Jeremy

—The Song of the Three Children

—The History of Susanna

—Bel and the Dragon

—The Prayer of Manasses

—The First Book of the Maccabees

—The Second book of the Maccabees

—Psalms of Solomon

—The Book of Enoch

—The Apocalypse of Baruch

—The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

—The Assumption of Moses

—The Book of Jubilees

—The Sibylline Oracles

—The Book of Adam and Eve

     Although these books have gone through the hands of many scribes, they still contain valuable information and tend to substantiate and authenticate the Holy Bible.

Dead Sea Scrolls

     In addition to the Books of the Apocrypha, recent discoveries between 1947 and 1956 in the area of Qumram, near the Dead Sea in the Holy Land, have uncovered a unique set of scrolls, which also substantiate the teachings and authenticity of the Holy Bible. Large manuscripts were found rolled up in jars in dark caves by goat herders. Over the years the manuscripts have been translated. They are written in Hebrew and some of the manuscripts are dated back to 200 B. C. The translators in Israel have found complete copies or fragments of every book in the Old Testament except for Esther.

     The Dead Sea Scrolls are considered to be one of the greatest archaeological discoveries in the world.

The Holy Bible Defines the Nature of Reality

     Throughout the Holy Bible we find that God has raised up prophets and apostles to speak unto the inhabitants of the earth. Beginning with the placement of Adam and Eve upon the earth, we find that God has spoken to his children through divinely called servants who were empowered to share the gospel with mankind. The Holy Bible contains the teachings, principles, doctrines, ordinances, covenants, commandments, laws and prophecies of God and His servants—the prophets and apostles. Collectively they are referred to as the Gospel.

The Creation, the Fall of Adam and the Atonement of Jesus Christ

     The Holy Bible is a compilation of the visions, dreams, angelic appearances, miracles and divine aid to people on earth throughout early history. The Holy Bible contains faith-promoting stories and deep doctrines. It describes the Creation, the Fall of Adam and the Atonement of Jesus Christ in clear and precise language. It boldly pronounces that Jesus broke the bonds of death and brought to pass the resurrection for all mankind. It points to the happiness on earth and happiness in future worlds.

God Has the Authority and Power to Define Reality

     The Holy Bible is the Word of God. It defines truth as things as they really were, really are and really will be in the future. Since God is the Supreme Governor of the universe and the Great Creator of all life forms, He alone has the Authority and Power to define reality. Therefore, the Christian worldview, which is totally, completely and exclusively based upon the Holy Bible defines reality as long as it stays within the clear and precise boundaries of the Holy Scriptures.


Part II—Original Intent and Interpretation of the Holy Bible

     The language and teachings of the Holy Bible are to be interpreted according to the original text. It is imperative to understand the original intent of each word and each verse in their context. However, the original manuscript copies of the books in the Old Testament and New Testament are no longer available for examination today. The original manuscripts were in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

     It is possible that the original manuscripts are buried in some obscure location and awaiting discovery by an archeologist. However, all that we have today are copies of the original manuscripts which were made by scribes. And these may contain errors by the scribes and printers. However the King James Version of the Holy Bible is the closest to the original manuscripts available today. Therefore, when you are studying the Holy Bible, it is best to use the King James Version. (See A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament and The Authorized Edition of the English Bible by Frederick Henry Scrivener and The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to St. Mark, The Revision Revised, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels: Vindicated and Established, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels and The Oxford Debate of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament by John William Burgon.)

     The doctrine of original intent is a vital key to proper interpretation of the Holy Bible.

Modern Translations of the Holy Bible Have Been Made

By Disciples of the School of Higher Criticism

     Modern translations of the Holy Bible have changed the original meanings of the words and verses in the Holy Scriptures. Those who undertook these translations were not called by God to make changes in the copies of the original manuscripts or the King James Version of the Holy Bible. The changes or revisions in the Holy Scriptures are part of the secularization of the churches throughout the world. They have been made under the influence and guidance of the School of Higher Criticism.

     The mission of the School of Higher Criticism is to destroy faith in God and Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the promised Messiah, the Savior and Redeemer of the world; the teachings of the prophets and apostles; the Holy Bible and its inspired teachings.

Modern Translations Alter and Remove References to the Divinity of Jesus Christ

     The School of Higher Criticism began altering the Holy Bible in the early 1800s. They laid the groundwork for their attacks on the King James Version of the Holy Bible when one of their members, Lachmann, a philologist and German professor in Berlin, published a two volume set (1842, 1850) argued that people should disregard the King James Version in favor of the 4th century Greek text based upon the works of Arius. The goal of the school was to pave the way for the secularization of the Protestant World and the Catholic World. The first revised edition of the Holy Bible appeared in 1881. It was prepared in London with the help of American biblical scholars who were members of the School of Higher Criticism. A second translation was printed in America in 1901. It was merely a copy of the 1881 translation. A third translation appeared in 1952 and became know as the Revised Standard Version. It updated the 1901 edition and made a number of important new changes.


     A careful examination of the 1952 Revised Standard Version shows that almost all references to the divine nature of Savior, his mission and teachings have been altered or deleted. The revisionists changed key doctrines and principles in the Holy Scriptures and this causes many to error, stumble and loose faith in God and Jesus Christ. They have diluted the teachings of the Holy Bible and undermined the divine witness that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the promised Messiah, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Of course, that is exactly why the Holy Bible was altered by the modern secularists.

     The following information may surprise many who own copies of these translations.

Arius Alters Manuscripts in the Library of Alexandria

     The 1881 version, the 1901 version and the 1952 Revised Standard Version, the New International Version and the New English Bible are based on the manuscripts of Arius (250-336 A. D.), the librarian who was in charge of sacred texts in the Library of Alexandria in Egypt. Most people do not know that Arius, a priest, was a leading member of the famous School of Alexandria—the forerunner of the modern School of Higher Criticism and an agnostic. (There is a great lesson to be learned here about the power of a librarian and their strategic importance to the School of Higher Criticism.) He did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of the world and he set out to destroy His divinity.

     According to John Henry Newman, (The Arians of the Fourth Century, 1833), Arius was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch, who was a friend to Paul of Samosata, the Bishop of Antioch. Paul denied the divinity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world. Newman believed that Arianism was derived from Platonism and Origenism.

     Arius carefully went through the sacred manuscripts in the Library of Alexandria and altered and removed key words, verses and passages to fit his atheistic worldview. This strategy would be used for centuries by the critics of the Holy Scriptures and is prevalent today.

Arius Denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ

     Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, Egypt stated that, “Arius denies the Godhood of our Savior and preaches that He is only the equal of others.” (David W. Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998, p. 35.)

The Nicene Creed Proclaims the Divinity of Jesus Christ

     When it was discovered what Arius had done and to prevent his views from spreading throughout the Middle East, the Council of Nicaea was convened in Ankara, Turkey in 324 A. D. The members of the council ordered that his books be destroyed and they issued the Nicene Creed which stated that Jesus was the Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of the world.

Modern Translations Based Upon the Writings of Arius

and His Altered Greek Manuscripts

     Regrettably, a number of the writings of Arius were smuggled out of Alexandria and have been passed down through history by leaders of the School of Alexandria. The heresies of Arius are alive and well today. The Revised Standard Version, the New International Version and the New English Bible are all based upon the writings and altered manuscripts of Arius. They are sometimes referred to as the Alexandrian texts.

     When the translators in London were working on the King James Version of the Bible (1611), they requested copies of the Arius manuscripts, but they were delayed for one reason after another and did not arrive in England for eleven years. By that time the King James Version of the Holy Bible was completed. It would appear that Providence prevented these manuscripts from arriving in time to influence the translators in England.

King James Version Based on Byzantine Greek Manuscripts

     The Martin Luther translation (1522); the William Tyndale translation (1526) and the King James translation (1611) were all based upon what is called the “Byzantine” Greek manuscripts which dates from the sixth century. The King James Version of the Holy Bible contains the spiritual and sacredness that is closest to the original manuscripts. The translators who worked on the King James Version of the Holy Bible were guided by the Lord in their important work. After all, their labors would affect hundreds of millions people on earth. The Lord did not leave such an important work to chance. That is why it is best to use the King James Version of the Holy Bible when you are studying the scriptures.

Various Translations of Original Manuscripts in Vatican and British Museum

     There are other manuscripts in existence today. The Codex Vaticanus is a Greek manuscript which has been safely locked away in the library at the Vatican in Rome since 1481. The Codex Sinaiticus is a Greek manuscript that was found in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai in 1844 and is safely tucked away in the British Museum in London. The Codex Alexandrinus which was secured from the Library of Alexandria is also in the British Museum in London. The Catholic Bible is derived from several Latin manuscripts—the Codex Vaticanus and the Latin Vulgate.

School of Higher Criticism Begins Attacks on the Holy Bible

     Since its inception the School of Higher Criticism has been insidiously and unrelentingly attacking the Holy Bible and its teachings. At first the focus of the critics was directed at slowly undermining faith in the Old Testament. They attacked the creation account, the universal Flood, the miracles of the prophets such as Joshua, the authorship of the books and the prophecies.

     Gradually the modern critics and followers of Arius switched their focus to the New Testament. They aimed their attacks directly at the Savior. They questioned his divine birth, his claim to be the Son of God, the promised Messiah and the Savior and Redeemer of the world, his miracles, his teachings, his doctrines, his atonement and his resurrection. They laughed at Biblical teachings on good and evil, the reality of the devils and evil spirits and called them myths and legends.

     The School of Higher Criticism is well aware of the controversies that surround the various manuscripts. And they are aware of the deceptive and manipulative works of Arius and promote them today. They promote the new translations of the Holy Bible which are based upon the deleted and altered manuscripts of Arius because it is helping to secularize the Protestant World which uses the newer translations. At the same time they are promoting the so-called modern translations, they are engaged in an unrelenting and vicious attack upon the Byzantine Texts and the King James Version of the Holy Bible. There is a very subtle war going over controlling the minds of the people. Most people are totally unaware of this quiet battle, but it is very real and the consequences are monumental.

     The School of Higher Criticism uses a tactic called piecemeal functionalism. They make small changes in society in order not to alert or wake up the people as to what they are really doing to destroy faith in God and the Holy Bible and its teachings. They have used this same strategy in relation to the Greek manuscripts of the books which comprise the Holy Bible.

The Strategies Used by Arius to Alter the Alexandrian Greek Manuscripts

     Arius used several tactics in his efforts to destroy the divinity of Jesus Christ. First, he completely removed words, verses, passages and chapters that he disliked. Second, he deleted only certain words and verses so as to alter their message, but he left the new altered texts in the Greek manuscripts to deceive people who later read them. Third, he added new words and verses to alter the meaning of the texts in order to deceive people who read them.

Major Changes in Original Greek Manuscripts by Arius

     There are over 5,337 changes in the Alexandrian Greek text, all attributed to Arius. The works of Arius were brought out of darkness into the light by Bishop Alexander in Alexandria, Egypt in 324 A. D. Arius’s purpose was to destroy the gospel of Jesus Christ as it was written by the prophets and the apostles. His goal was to carefully guide people into agnosticism and then atheism. Once again Providence intervened and the secret plans and works of darkness were revealed by an alert and righteous man—Bishop Alexander. The world owes him a debt of gratitude.

Modern Translations Promote Works of Arius

     The modern translations of the Holy Bible which appeared in 1881, 1901 and 1952 are all based upon the Greek manuscripts which were altered by Arius. These modern translations were prepared by members of the School of Higher Criticism. There are 36,191 changes in the English translations based upon the works of Arius. This is a major transformation of the Word of God and it did not happen by accident.

Secularization of the Holy Scriptures

     The secularization of the Holy Scriptures was already underway in 324 A. D. and has continued unabated since that time, although this work was concealed from the public and religious leaders in Europe.      

     Modern Scholar Believes Ancient Texts Were Prepared in Egypt

     During his lifetime Sir Frederick Kenyon was considered one of the leading scholars of ancient manuscripts. His writings indicate that he believed that the ancient manuscripts were altered in the City of Alexandria. Kenyon wrote that “the discoveries of the last fifty years have shaken the exclusive predominance which Westcott and Hort assigned to the Vaticanus-Sinaiticus texts….” (The Story of the Bible, London: John Murray, 1936, p. 131.) Concerning these texts Kenyon wrote: “the Vaticanus-Sinaiticus group, with its home in Egypt, and almost certainly in Alexandria, since it is difficult to imagine such … manuscripts being produced except in a great capital….” (The Story of the Bible, p. 131.)

     Kenyon believed that placing blind faith in Hort and Westcott was no longer possible in light of recent textual discoveries. He wote: “ The general conclusion to which we seem to be led is that there is no royal road to the recovery of the original text of the New Testament. Fifty year ago it seemed as if Westcott and Hort had found such a road, and that we should depart from the Codex Vaticanus (except in the cases of obvious scribal blunders) at our peril. The course both of discoveries and of critical study has made it increasingly difficult to believe that the Vaticanus and its allies represent a stream of tradition that has come down practically uncontaminated from the original sources. Based as they must have been on a multitude of different rolls, it would have been a singularly happy accident if all had been of the same character, and all deriving with contamination from the originals.

     “The uniformity of character which on the whole marks the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is better to be explained as the result of skilled editing of well-selected authorities on a definite principle.

     “Therefore, while respecting the authority due to the age and character of this recension, we shall be disposed to give more consideration than Westcott and Hort did to other early readings which found a home in the Western, Syriac, or Caesarean texts….” (The Story of the Bible, p. 143.)

     The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts were carefully prepared by Arius and his disciples in the City of Alexandria. Several years later Kenyon wrote: “The centuries before the recognition of Christianity as the religion of the Empire must, then, be regarded as a period when variations in the text of the New Testament books came into existence in great numbers; and it was only gradually that the different types or families that scholars now recognize came into existence. In the existence of various readings, therefore, there is nothing strange or disquieting. On the contrary, it is satisfactory to find that, in spite of all these varieties of detail, the substance of the record remains intact. The general effect has, however, been to modify the classification and the conclusions of Westcott and Hort, and also of their critics, to some extent. With regard to the Syrian or Byzantine type of text, and its generally secondary character, there is, indeed, no great change of view; but all the other types are more or less affected.

     “It no longer seems tenable to believe that the Neutral text, as found especially in the Codex Vaticanus, has descended virtually untouched by editorial handling from the first.

     “Such a sheltered line of descent through a period of extensive variations would hardly be explicable in the absence of some centre where official copies were preserved—and of this, there is no evidence and robability.

     “It is more probable that the Neutral text represents the outcome of editorial revision….” (Sir Frederick Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, London” Harper & Brothers, 1940, pp. 299-300.)

          Scholars Believe Ancient Manuscripts Were Altered at Different Time Periods

     There are some scholars and professional researchers who feel that major changes in key words, verses and passages in the original writings of the Savior and the apostles were made prior to the time of Arius. They believe that changes occurred between 50 A. D. and 250 A. D. Others feel that changes were made between 250 A. D. and 350 A. D. Others believe that the changes were made between 350 A. D. and 450 A. D.

     While there may be disagreement among scholars and professional researchers over the actual time period when the changes were made, there is no dispute that changes were made in the original writings of the Savior and the apostles between 50 A. D and 450 A. D.

     Frederick Henry Scrivener, writing in A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (1874) stated that. “The worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed.” (p. 511.)

     Eusebius, writing in Ecclesiastical History of Eusevius Pamphilus stated that, ““The sacred Scriptures … have been boldly perverted by … [the followers of Artemon]; the rule of the ancient faith they have set aside, Christ they have renounced…. They fearlessly lay their hands upon the holy Scriptures, saying that they have corrected them… Should any one collect and compare their copies one with another, he would find them greatly at variance among themselves…. Copies of many … [are] altered by the eagerness of their disciples to insert each one his own corrections….” (5:28:17, p. 215-6; JFM, p. 65.)

     In a chapter entitled, “Those Who First Advanced the Heresy of Artemon: Their Manner of Life, and How They Dared to Corrupt the Holy Scriptures”, Eusebius also wrote: “They have treated the Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if anyone brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it.

     “nd as being of the earth, and as ignorant of him who cometh from above, they forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry. Euclid is laboriously measured by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrasties are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshipped.

     “But that those whose use the arts of the unbelievers for their heretical opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the Divine Scriptures by the craft of the godless, are far from faith, what need is there to say? Therefore, they laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them.” (Eusebius Pamphilus: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, Chapter XXVIII, pp. 387-388. Published in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans. 1890.)

     The changes made by agnostics and atheists from 50 A. D unto 450 A. D. found their way into the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. These texts form the foundation of the Revised Version of 1881 by Hort and Westcott and all modern translations.

     If the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus were corrupt, it is only logical that all subsequent translations based upon them will be corrupt as well. The changes made between 50 A. D. and 450 A. D. by various individuals were designed to challenge and destroy the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ and alter the sacred teachings of the Holy Scriptures as they came from the mouth of the Savior and his apostles.



     The editorial revision of the original writings of the Savior and the apostles began just after their words were penned on the ancient manuscripts. The early agnostics and atheists began vigorously attacking the Savior, the apostles and their writings before the end of the First Century. They began making changes in the original manuscripts and distributing them throughout the ancient world. At the same time they began collecting the original manuscripts of the Savior and the apostles and removing them from circulation. They began producing and distributing new manuscripts which they proclaimed to be the original writings of the Savior and the apostles. These documents were forgeries. The altered and forged manuscripts, texts and documents were gathered and placed in the Library of Alexandria. Arius and his disciples would use the forged documents to produce the Greek texts known as the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Hort and Westcott would use these corrupt texts to produce the Greek text of 1870 and the English translation known as the Revised Version of 1881. And so-called biblical scholars would use the corrupt Revised Version of 1881 to produce all of the modern translations.

     The School of Higher Criticism is promoting these new translations, the Gnostic Gospels and various scholarly writings and novels in an attempt to deceive people into accepting a new secular version of Christianity. The goal of the School of Higher Criticism is to destroy the reality of the divinity and mission of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world, the reality of the Divine Birth, the Atonement and Resurrection of Lord Jesus Christ and the reality of the teachings of the Savior and the apostles as contained in the New Testament and the reality of the teachings of the holy prophets in the Old Testament as contained in the King James Version of the Holy Bible published in 1611.

     The goal of the School of Higher Criticism is to secularize every aspect of life throughout the world. If they are successful in destroying a person’s belief in the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ and the divine calling of the original apostles and the truthfulness of the writings of the King James Version of the Holy Bible, the School of Higher Criticism will have gained a major stronghold on the minds of men and women and children throughout the world. The groundwork will then have been laid for the emergence of the most comprehensive tyranny that has ever oppressed mankind. For it is in the realm of ignorance that tyranny flourishes. The apostle Paul wrote: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (King James Version, John 8: 32.) The truth spoken of by the apostle Paul is contained in the Holy Scriptures as written in the King James Version.

Part III—Changes in Modern Translations Alter Divinity of Jesus Christ and His Teachings

     Let us look at a number of changes secularists have made in the New Testament which illustrate the subtlety and cunningness of their evil work. These changes are merely meant to be illustrative. It would take several volumes to document each and every change made by the members of the School of Higher Criticism. The following changes were outlined by J. Reuben Clark, Jr. in Why the King James Version, published in 1956.

Change No 1—The Importance of the Word Miracle

     The critics of the Holy Bible do not believe in the miracles that are described in the New Testament. Therefore, they came up with a clever tactic to alter their description. In the Revised Standard Version they changed the world miracle to sign. It may not appear significant, but it is. A miracle may be a sign, but a sign is not always a miracle. Jesus and his apostles performed a number of miracles that are recorded in the New Testament. Each miracle has a specific purpose and a specific lesson that it teaches. To relegate these miracles to the realms of mythology and superstition destroys their purpose as faith building and faith promoting elements in the lives of men and women and children.

     The miracles recorded in the New Testament by the Savior and his apostles were real, they were not imaginary events.

Change No. 2—The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ

     The critics of the Holy Bible have relegated the miraculous birth of Jesus in Bethlehem to the status of a complete myth. Jesus Christ was a God before he came to earth. According to the Holy Scriptures God the Father was in reality his father. And Mary was in reality his mother. This divine birth allowed Jesus to be subject to death, but He inherited the power over death from His Father. Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. Since this process is clearly a miracle and critical to the entire mission of Jesus Christ, you can see why the critics have sought to destroy it. The Holy Ghost is not the father of Jesus either. Mary was conceived by the “power” of the Holy Ghost, not by him directly. If that were so, Jesus would not be the Son of God, He would be the Son of the Holy Ghost.

     Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of Man, meaning Man of Holiness. This has reference to his divine birth as the Son of God in the flesh. No other person on earth had a mortal mother and an Immortal Father—even God the Father.


     The King James Version records in Matthew 1: 25 that, “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son,” referring of course to Joseph.

     The Revised Standard Version reads, “But knew her not until she had borne a son.” This very subtle change opens the door for admission of an allegation that Mary was not a virgin. And of course, this charge has followed and is found in some Bible commentaries which we will discuss shortly.

Mary Was the Most Righteous Woman Every Born On Earth

     Mary was the most righteous women ever born on earth. She was chosen by God the Father to be the mother of Jesus Christ. It is difficult to formulate words that express how special Mary was in the eternal scheme of things. There is only one Savior and Redeemer. And there is only one Mary and she was a noble and great spirit whose righteousness defies description. However, she was one of the most humble beings on earth and it is important to remember that Mary would tell us to worship Jesus not her. We honor and esteem her above all others mothers on earth, but nowhere in the Holy Scriptures does it tell us to worship Mary.

Motherhood is a Sacred and Divinely Ordained Institution of God

     And mothers play a crucial role in raising and nurturing a child that is why the Adversary has done much to destroy women on earth. They are chosen vessels of the Lord. Motherhood is a divinely ordained institution. Mothers have been given a specially calling by God to nurture his spirit sons and daughters on earth. The powers of procreation are likewise sacred and to be used strictly within the bonds of marriage, which consists exclusively of a man and a woman.

Change No. 3—The Heavenly Host Announces the Birth of Jesus Christ

     The critics of the Holy Bible have changed a greeting and a blessing for mankind to an unauthorized blessing

to a restricted few. The King James Version in Luke 2:14 reads, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. The Revised Standard Version says, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!” Once again subtle but important changes.

Change No. 4—The Son of God

     The critics of the Holy Bible had launched their central attacks on the divinity of Jesus Christ. After all, if they can persuade the people on earth to question his divinity, then it is all right to questions his teachings, his doctrines, his miracles, his atonement and his resurrection. And that is exactly their goal—to destroy faith in Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind who came to earth to atone for the sins of the world and bring to past the resurrection.

     The opening sentence in the King James Version of Mark states, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” The Revised Standard Version repeats these words, however, they attach a note to the term “Son of God,” which states that some authorities omit these words. The purpose of the note is to cast doubt as to the divinity of the Jesus as the Son of God. Again, a subtle but very important change in basic doctrine that has major importance.

Jesus Christ Is the Son of God the Eternal Father

     Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is the promised Messiah. He is the Savior and Redeemer of the World.

     He came to earth to atone for the sins of mankind. The Atonement was completed in two locations—the Garden of Gethsemane and the Cross. In a manner that is unfathomable to us on earth, Jesus Christ actually took upon him the sins of every man, women and child that has been born on the earth or ever will be born on earth. It was an infinite and eternal sacrifice. The suffering that He endured in Gethsemane caused Him to bleed from every poor in His body. The suffering He endured upon the Cross is beyond human understanding.

     It seems clear that the eternal laws of justice required that in order for a person to be forgiven of their sins, a God would have to atone for them. That is the divine mission of Jesus Christ. The Atonement is the greatest miracle every performed on earth. The resurrection of Jesus Christ and those at Jerusalem is the second greatest miracle ever performed on earth. And these mighty miracles were brought to pass by a God, not a mere mortal.. He was born of a virgin mother and He completed the work given unto him by God the Father.

     It seems clear that the eternal laws of mercy override the eternal laws of justice and allows each person, based upon humble and sincere repentance, to be forgiven for their sins.

     In addition, Jesus Christ was the first person resurrected on this earth. He brought to pass the resurrection and overcame the effects of the Fall of Adam. Now every person on earth will be resurrected, the good and the evil. However, according to the Holy Scriptures our status in the future world depends upon our acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ and our obedience to His commandments, covenants, doctrines and teachings.

Change No. 5—Jesus Christ Is the Creator of the Earth and the Universe

     The critics of the Holy Bible had carefully maneuvered the world into believing that Jesus was merely a teacher. They have laid the ground work for the acceptance of the theory of uniformity and the theory of evolution by denying that God created the earth. The King James Version reads in John 1:3-4 says, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” The Revised Standard Version substitute the word “through” for the word “by” in the phrase “made by him.” Subtle changes to be sure, however, there is a note which says, “Without him was not anything made. That which has been made was life in him

     The King James Version identifies Jesus Christ as the Creator of the earth and the universe. The revisions have introduced subtle changes that undermine the role of the Lord as the Creator. Once again a strategy designed to cast aspersion on the divinity of Jesus Christ and His creative powers. If God did not create the world, then the road to the theory of evolution is opened for travelers and it leads to the city of agnosticism and atheism. Of course that is the exact path that the School of Higher Criticism wants every person on earth to take.

Change No. 6—The Son of Man Which Is Heaven

     The critics of the Holy Bible continue their assault upon the divine nature of the scriptures. In the King James Version John 3: 13 reads, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” The Revised Standard Version repeats these words, but again, adds a note that says, “Other ancient authorities add who is in heaven.” The subtle note is designed to cast doubt into the readers mind as to the fact that Jesus was in reality resurrected and is at this very moment in heaven sitting at the right hand of God the Father. The note is designed to have a person question the reality of the resurrection.

Change No. 7—The Lord’s Prayer

     The critics of the Holy Bible have removed key verses in order to blind the eyes of people and cause them to stumble. In the Sermon the Mount, the Savior taught the people how to pray. He said: “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven. Hallowed be thy name.

     “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is heaven.

     “Give us this day our daily bread.

     “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

     “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen”


     The Revised Standard Version completely omits the last part of the last sentence in the prayer which states, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”

     The subtle change eliminated one of the most remarkable attributes of the Savior—his complete obedience to God the Father. It was Jesus who said in the Garden of Gethsemane, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” (Matthew 26: 39.) The principle of obedience is a very important aspect of the gospel of Jesus Christ, one which the Savior exemplified perfectly for us.

Change no. 8—The Sacrament in Remembrance of the Atonement

     The critics of the Holy Bible had perfected the art of subtle deception. During the Last Supper, we find in Luke 22:19-20 these words, “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

     “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”

     The Revised Standard Version completely eliminated the second sentence, “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” The change is not so subtle, the critics have removed a key aspect of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The purpose of the sacrament is to remember the sacrifice that the Savior made for us. In the Garden of Gethsemane, blood poured from every pore of His body as the sins of all mankind were placed upon his mind. Upon the Cross, the Savior’s blood flowed into the ground again. The sacrament is a very sacred ordinance which was instituted by the Savior himself to help us each week remember his infinite and eternal sacrifice for us all. The Critics have completed attacked the Savior’s atonement and in the changes they are trying to divert people’s mind from the very reason that Jesus Christ was born on this earth.

Change No. 9—The Casting Out of Evil Spirits

     The critics of the Holy Bible do not believe in miracles and they do not believe that Lucifer and evil spirits, those who followed him in his rebellion against God before this earth was formed, are real. To them, they are just imaginary beings which are the blunt of jokes and cartoons.

     During the ministry of Jesus, his disciples came across a person afflicted by an evil spirit. When they exercised their priesthood power, the evil spirit would not leave. The disciples asked the Savior why they could not cast out the evil spirit and he said in Matthew 17: 21, “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”      In the Revised Standard Version this verse in completely left out. The critics carefully removed a basic principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ—prayer and fasting. The Savior was emphasizing to his disciples the importance of pray and fasting when dealing with the powers of darkness on this earth.

Change No 10—Jesus Christ Came To Save Men from Their Sins

     The critics of the Holy Bible are relentless in their efforts to blind the minds of the people on earth. In Matthew 18 11, the Savior introduces the parable of the lost sheep and says, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” The Revised Standard Version completely eliminates this verse. The subtle change is designed to eliminate from the minds of people one of key reason that Jesus came to earth and formed his church.

Every person on earth is a spirit son or daughter of God. Every person is unconditionally loved by God and Jesus Christ. If one person is lost, the Savior is admonishing us to remember that he came to save everyone who will accept him as their personal Savior and Redeemer.

Change No. 11—The Presence of the Ministering Angel in the Garden of Eden

     The critics of the Holy Bible literally hate the Savior. While such hated is difficult to understand, it is nevertheless very real. The critics have spiritually murdered the testimonies of millions and millions of people on earth through their promotion of false theories, hypotheses, doctrines, teachings and dogmas.

     Concerning the unfathomable agony and suffering of the Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane, Luke records

that He withdrew from his disciples a short distance and knelt down and prayed, “Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me, nevertheless not my will, but thing, be done.

     “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

     And being in agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was at it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”

     The Revised Standard Version repeats these verses but adds that famous little marginal note that casts the arrow of doubt at the reader which says, “Many ancient authorities omit verses 43, 44.”

     It is comforting to know that when the Savior was in the Garden of Gethsemane facing every horror which

Lucifer could devise to prevent the Atonement from being accomplished; that God the Father sent an angel to comfort and strengthen the Lord, who was facing the greatest challenge in the universe.

     During the Atonement, the intensity of the weight of the sins of every person born or to be born on earth was upon the Savior. The mental anguish caused the Savior to bleed from every pore as great drops of blood hit the ground in that sacred place.

     To marginal note is cleverly designed to cast doubt on the verse 43 and 44 of chapter 22 in Luke. Verse 43 clearly gives us an important insight into the incredible burden that was upon the shoulders of the Savior and the fact that God’s great lover for His Son and the terrible ordeal He was undergoing that He sent an angel to strengthen the Lord. To note is also designed to cast doubt once again on the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the fact that He did shed his blood for all of mankind. Once again the note directly attacks the divinity of the Savior.

Change No 12—The Words of the Savior on the Cross

     The critics of the Holy Bible and opponents of the Savior have tried for nearly two thousand years to undermine and cast doubt as to the divine mission of the Lord Jesus Christ. If they can persuade people to doubt he divinity of Jesus then the Atonement and Resurrection are mere myths. This is what they are trying so hard to get people believe. They are trying to manipulate people into accepting that Jesus was just another mortal, that He was not really the Son of God.

     While the Savior was completing the last phase of the infinite and eternal atonement upon the cross, He cried aloud, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23: 34.) The Revised Standard Version reprints these words, but adds that devious little note, which stated, “Some authorities omit “And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

     These memorable words, spoken by Jesus, the King of the Jews demonstrate his love for even for the Roman soldiers that were ordered to crucify Him. Many people mistakenly believe that these words apply to the Jewish high priests and elders who had arrested Jesus and were responsible for his torture and crucifixion. However, that would violate the law of accountability. The Jewish high priests and elders who opposed Jesus and had his arrested and who were responsible for His crucifixion will one day stand before Him and pay the full penalty for their betrayal, rebellion and sins. When Jesus spoke the word, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do,” he was referring to the Roman soldiers who were just carrying out their orders. The Roman soldiers did not know that Jesus Christ was the Son of God; however, the Jewish high priests and elders did know. So the words, “for they do not know what they do,” does not apply to the Jewish leaders who deceived and incited a small group of Jewish people into opposing and calling for the crucifixion of their King. The Jewish leaders will be held fully accountable for their actions in Jerusalem.

Change No. 13—The Salutation of Jesus to His Apostles

     The critics had turned over every stone in their effort to attack the Savior. In Luke 24 we learn that the apostles were gathered in the Upper Room the night after the resurrection of Jesus. This is where the Last Supper took place. As they gathered together discussing the remarkable events of the last week, Luke tells us in verse 36, “And as they thus spoke, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.”

     In the Revised Standard Version the words, “and said unto them, ‘Peace to you,’ is completely omitted. Once again, that famous little devious marginal note says, “Other ancient authorities add ‘and said to them, ‘Peace to you.’”

     Once again the design of this omission is to cast doubt on the reality of the resurrection, which is a miracle. And the critics do not believe in Biblical miracles. The subtle change is very important because we learn what the first word of Jesus were to his apostles. The words are a testimony to his divinity and to the resurrection.

Change No 14—The Savior Shows His Hands and Feet Which Had Been Pierced

     The critics of the Holy Bible really dislike those verse and chapter which deal with the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ because they are such a clear testimony of his divine calling and appointment as the Son of God and Savior of the world.

     After the sudden appearance of Jesus in a locked room, he didn’t enter through the door, he appeared to them while they were behind closed doors. The apostles had not yet fully assimilated the reality of the atonement and resurrection in their minds. No doubt they were somewhat in a state of shock after witnessing the arrest, the mocking, the brutal torture and horrible crucifixion of Jesus that they were indeed “terrified” when suddenly Jesus appeared. Luke records in 24: 40 these words, “And when he had thus spoken he shewed them his hands and feet.”

     The Revised Standard Version completely omits one of the most important passages in holy writ. It adds that devious little marginal note that says, “Other ancient authorities add verse 40, And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.”

     Most people do not read marginal nor footnotes. They are really there for the person who likes to pretend that he is a scholar. In this case, the critics or revisionists have carefully removed one of the great verses which testify of the reality of the crucifixion and the nails that were driven into the hands, wrists and feet of Jesus.

     When the Lord held out his hands to his apostles, we can imagine that each one came forward and held the hands of the greatest Being to ever walk the earth—even the Lord Jesus Christ. Verse 40 is a very important witness to the reality of the crucifixion and the reality of the resurrection.

Change No 15—Conjectural Emendations

     The critics of the Holy Bible love to tell people what to think and believe about the Holy Scriptures. They do not want the people on the earth to think for themselves on this important topic. That is why Biblical commentaries are so dangerous if they flow from the pens of those who belong to the School of Higher Criticism.

     As the revisionists have distorted the older manuscripts for their own devious purposes, they have added words and deleted works whenever they felt it suited their purpose which was to blind the eyes of the people and dilute and neutralize the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

     The King James Version of Jude 5 and 6 reads, “I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

     “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains unto the judgment of the great day.”

     The Revised Standard Version states, “Now I desire to remind, you, through you were once for all fully Informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

     “And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their nether gloom until the judgment of the great day.”


     Once again the revisionists have changed key provisions the gospel of Jesus Christ in order to misinform and deceive people. It was the Lord Jesus Christ, known as Jehovah in the Old Testament, that saved Moses and the children of Israel from the hands of the Pharaoh in Egypt. In verse 6 they make major doctrinal changes. The angels or evil spirits that rebelled with Lucifer against God in heaven prior to the creation of this earth did not just “keep their own position.” They were cast out of heaven by the Mighty Michael for treason and rebellion. The new passage obscures the facts of the great war in heaven where Lucifer became the Devil through rebellion. Those spirits who followed him were the angels mentioned in the King James Version. They were spirits—sons and daughters of God—who deliberately and willfully rebelled and turned against God, His Son Jesus Christ and the righteous spirits that followed them. The evil spirits or angels that were forcibly removed from heaven and cast into the earth did not voluntarily leave some obscure place called “nether gloom.” The angels were cast our of Heaven where God rules from his throne in the celestial worlds. The revisionists leave out some very important facts about the evil spirits or rebellious angles are being held in “everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

     Again these changes are cleverly designed to prevent people from learning the great truths of the gospel as contained in the King James Version of the Holy Bible.

Change No 16—Key Verses In Mark

     The critics of the Holy Bible have used every device in their rhetorical arsenal to destroy the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. None in more apparent than the removal of key phrases from scriptures. In Mark 16, 9-20 we read, “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

     “And she went and told them [disciples of Jesus] that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

     “And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

     “After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

     “Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

     “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

     “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

     “And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast our devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

     “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

     “So then after the Lord had spoke unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

     And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with sings following. Amen.”

     These verses are some of the most important teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And guess what? These passages are completely removed from the Revised Standard Version. After removing these sacred words from the scriptures, the revisionists used their devious little marginal note, “Other texts and versions add as 16: 9-20 the following passage:” They then reprint the verses in the note.


     The importance of these verses cannot be underscored enough. What the cunning revisionists have done is remove the key passages in the New Testament that testify of the reality of the resurrection and attest to the eternal law of witnesses which was in full operation as the resurrected Savior appear to Mary Magdalene, and the apostles. They shrewdly removed the divine charge to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to all the world. They left the passages dealing with baptism and the signs that follow the true believers of Jesus Christ. And they conveniently removed the key passage with tells the world of the Ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven where He sits down on a throne at the right hand of God Almighty. Now why would you remove those passages unless you deliberately wanted to remove a key testimony to the Resurrection and Ascension from the gospel.

     The School of Higher Criticism is behind all of the efforts to destroy faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Bible and its glorious teachings. The school is diligently working to secularize the Protestant and Catholic churches in the Western World. The modern revised translations and editions of the Holy Bible (1881, 1901, 1952) are based upon the works and philosophy of Arius, the famous atheist who was censored by the Nicaea Council in 324 A. D.      

Part IV—A Note on Bible Commentaries

     The School of Higher Criticism has flooded the bookstores of the Western World with clever, cunning, devious and deceptive criticisms of the Holy Bible and its teachings. They are disguised as Bible commentaries or new translations of recent translations. However, they have been written by members of the School of Higher Criticism. That is why it is very important to analyze and judge the contents of the various commentaries against the Holy Bible itself. However, before we can judge these books, we must become Biblical scholars ourselves. And the best place to begin is with a comprehensive study of the Holy Scriptures. We must study and ponder the original Word of God and use them to judge all things. Instead of letting others interpret the Holy Scriptures for us we should ask God for personal inspiration to understand each verse and passage in the Holy Bible.

     We should not be intimidated by gospel scholars with the title of Ph.D. Credentialism is one tactic to create so-called experts in order to promote the dogmas of secularism. The greatest men and women to walk this earth never had this title behind their name—Christopher Columbus, John Wycliffe, John Wesley, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, etc. And there is not a greater being to walk this earth than the humble carpenter by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. He did not even have a college degree.

     While the majority of the scholars throughout the world are secularists—humanists, agnostics or atheists—, and promote the tenets of secularism, there are a number of righteous men and women who have obtained higher degrees and who have written a number of wonderfully inspiring and enlightening books. Once again, by their fruits you shall know them. And it is critical that we judge all writings by the Lord’s Standard—the King James Version of the Holy Bible.

     Part V—References

     For those who would like to read further concerning the manuscript families and the heresies of Arius and others you might want to consult the following books: John Henry Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century (Originally published in 1833. Reprint. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001.); Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (New York: Oxford, 1993); David W. Berot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998.); Neil R. Lightfoot, How We God the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988 edition.); Christopher De Hamel, The Book: a History of the Bible (London: Phaidon Press, 2001.); John Rogerson, editor, The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2001.); F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchment, (1950.); Frederick G. Kenyon, The Story of Our Bible, (1949.); Jack Moorman, Forever Settled, (1985.); Frederick Henry Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (1874); Frederick Henry Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1884); John William Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to St. Mark, (1871); John William Burgon, The Revision Revised,(1883); John William Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels: Vindicated and Established, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels and The Oxford Debate of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. (1896); and Edward A. Miller, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, (1886).


Part VI—The Keys To Judging the Philosophies of Men

      The King James Version of the Holy Bible and its teachings are the Word of God. The commentary in this volume is based upon an analysis of the inspired teachings in the King James Version of the Holy Bible. In analyzing the Ideological Matrix we will use the following principles or guidelines:

1.     Everything which is good is inspired of God.

2.     Everything which invites men to go good and serve others is inspired of God.

3.     Every thing which teaches people to love God is inspired of God .

4.     Everything which teaches people to believe in Jesus Christ is inspired of God.

5.     Every thing which is evil comes from the Adversary, evil spirits and evil men.

6.     A man being evil will not do good or give a good gift.

7.     The Adversary is an enemy to God and fights against him continually.

8.     The Adversary invites men to fight against God and to do evil continually.

9.     The Adversary seeks to persuade men to deny the existence of God continually.

10.     The Adversary seeks to persuade men to not serve God continually.

11.     The Adversary seeks to persuade men to deny the existence of Jesus Christ continually.

12.     The Adversary seeks to persuade men to deny the teachings of the prophets and apostles continually.


13.     The Adversary seeks to persuade men to deny the divinity of the Holy Bible continually.

14.     The Adversary seeks to persuade men to deny the divinity of each person on earth continually.

15.     Evil spirits seek to persuade men to deny the existence of God and Jesus Christ continually.

16.     Evil men seek to persuade men to deny the existence of God and Jesus Christ continually.


Part VII—Conflict Between Science, Philosophy and Religion

     All truth is derived from God and bestowed upon man in the form of inspiration or revelation. Truth is revealed directly to man by prophets and apostles (i.e. Holy Bible). Truth is revealed to man directly by Jesus Christ, as during His ministry. Truth is revealed to man directly through the instrumentality of the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of Christ. All discoveries and inventions have come from God and have been bestowed upon man according to a divine timetable. There can be no conflict between the truths revealed by God through His prophets and apostles and truth revealed by God to men through inspiration and revelation.

     Just as men may receive inspiration and revelations from God, they may also receive inspiration and revelations from the Adversary and evil spirits. The Adversary is a master at counterfeiting divine inspiration and at counterfeiting the Lord’s programs.

     When conflict arises between the Word of God and the philosophies of men or the precepts of men; it is due to the fact that the latter was simply not inspired of God. We need a standard by which to judge between the Word of God and the philosophies of men. That standard is the King James Version of the Holy Bible. Whenever any teaching, philosophy, theory or hypothesis differs from the Word of God, as contained in the Holy Bible, we may know that it was not inspired of God. God is not arrayed against God. Truth is not in conflict with truth.

     Therefore, we must judge all things—things we hear, things we read, things we see, things we think, and things we feel with our hearts—by the standard know as the Holy Bible or the Holy Scriptures. The key to judging all things is based upon a firm understanding of the original intend of each word and verse in the Holy Bible. It is the standard which God has prepared for man to use to judge all things.

     It is the standard which we will use to judge the Ideological Matrix that is controlling the earth in the 21st century.

Part VIII—Warnings in the Holy Scriptures

     Let us look at some of the divine warnings given in the Holy Scriptures:

     The Adversary – the Devil – Walks about the Earth


     Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

     Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. –—1 Peter 5: 809.

My People Are Gone Into Captivity

     Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honorable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst.—Isaiah 5:13.

Beware of False Pastors and Clergy

     Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord.

     Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord.

     And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.


     And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the Lord.—Jeremiah 23:1-4.

Beware of False Prophets

     Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

     Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?—Matthew 7:5-16.

False Christs and False Prophets To Deceive the Very Elect

     For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.—Matthew 24:24.

Those Ashamed of Jesus Christ

     Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.—Mark 8:38.

The Truth Shall Make You Free

     And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.—John 8:32.

The Natural Man Does Not Understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ

     For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

     Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

     Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

     But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

     But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, ye he himself is judged of no man.

     But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

     For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ?—1 Corinthians 2:11-16.

Beware of the Cunning Craftiness of Men Who Deceive

     And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

     For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

     Till we all come in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

     That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive....—Ephesians 4:11-15.

Philosophy and Vain Deceit

     Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.—Colossians 2:8.

Doctrines of Devils and Seducing Spirits

     No the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

     Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron....—1 Timothy 4:1.

Some Men Will Be Ever Learning and Never Come To Truth

     This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

     For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

     Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

     Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

     Having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

     For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lust.

     Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

     Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

     But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

     But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,

     Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Icontium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered us.

     Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

     But evil men, and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

     But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them:

     And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

     All scripture is given by inspiration of god, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

     That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.—2 Timothy 3:1-17.

Teachers Will Turn Away From Truth and Embrace Fables

     I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom:

     Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

     For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

     And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.—2 Timothy 4:1-4.

     For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.


     For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

     And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.—2 Peter 1:16-18.

False Teachers Shall Bring Damnable Heresies Among the People

     But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift judgment.

     And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

     And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

     For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them out into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment

     And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world the ungodly

     And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned then with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.... 2 Peter 2:1-6.

Many Deceivers Will Deny That Jesus Is the Christ

     For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-Christ.—2 John 1:7.

Lucifer and His Angels Rebel Against God in the War In Heaven

     And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

     And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

     And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads,

     And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

     And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

     And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

     And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

     And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

Lucifer Will Deceive the Whole World with False Doctrines and Teachings

     And the great dragon was cast out, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


     And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Michael and His Angels Overcome Lucifer and His Angles

With Their Testimonies of Jesus Christ

     And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto death.

     Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

     And when the dragon saw that he was cast into the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the child.

     And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

     And the serpent cast our of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

     And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

Lucifer and His Angels Are Making War

With Those Who Believe in God and His Son

     And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.—Revelations 12:-17.     


Chapter 2—The Rise of Agnosticism and Atheism

     Throughout history there have always been individuals who did not want to listen to God and obey his commandments. The rebellion against God and his laws began with the war in heaven where Michael and his angels fought against Lucifer and his angels. Lucifer and one third of the hosts of heaven which were assigned to come to this earth were cast out of heaven and placed here on earth. As John the Revelator tells us, “the dragon was wroth” and he “went to make war” against those who love God and seek to keep his commandments.

     From the time Cain slew Abel and became the first master of evil on earth, there have always been individuals and groups which have rebelled against God. They have sought numerous ways to justify their evil behavior and practices. The flood was sent to destroy all but eight individuals when the wickedness became so intense and widespread on the earth that God said the cup of iniquity was full. Noah and his family were saved and the remainder of the earth's inhabitants was destroyed in the worldwide flood.

Prophets Warn the People to Repent Before the Flood

     Before the flood came, God sent prophets to warn and warn and warn the people. They refused to listen to a host of prophets, including the great Enoch. The latter was saved along with an entire city and taken to heaven.

God Bestows the Gift of Free Agency Upon Every Person

     The Holy Scriptures tell us that one of the greatest gifts which God has bestowed upon his children on earth is the gift of free agency, freedom of choice or free will. We are allowed to choose between alternatives such as good and evil, right and wrong, light and darkness, freedom and tyranny. While we are free to choose, we are not free of the consequences of our choice. Each person on earth is accountable to God for the choices he or she makes on earth. According to the Holy Scriptures on Judgment Day we will each give an accounting of our lives to God and reap eternal rewards or eternal punishment. The choice is ours. God will not force the human mind, unlike Lucifer who uses force to promote his evil plans on earth.

The Law of Opposition in Full Force on Earth

     The Holy Scriptures also tell us that the law of opposition is in full force on earth. We must choose between them. Either we follow God and His Son or we follow Lucifer, evil spirits and evil men and women. Either we strive to keep the commandments and laws of God or we strive to live after the manner of the world, which is Babylon. Once again the choices are placed before us and God is watching to see what we will do. Although we cannot see God, He is watching every move we make here on earth. Every word we speak, every thought that enters our mind and every deed we perform on earth is being recorded. The Holy Scriptures assure us that the judgment will be perfect.

Cain and His Followers Rebels against God and Set Up a Separate Society

     After the rebellion of Cain, he left the area where Adam has settled and began to establish a separate society. Adam and his righteous sons and daughters followed God and the followers of Cain followed Lucifer. The followers of Cain created their own secular religion and secular state. Cain and the elite academic leaders of this new society, acting under the guidance and inspiration of Lucifer and a host of evil spirits, created the first School of Higher Criticism. Its mission was to destroy faith in God and His Son Jesus Christ and the teachings of Adam. It would be based upon the tenets, principles, philosophy and dogmas of atheism.

     Once the wickedness became so great, God sent the flood to destroy all but Noah and his family. The descendants Cain who rebelled against God were removed from the face of the earth.

     After the flood, Noah and his family multiplied and soon the Egyptian Empire was founded. Once against people began to worship false Gods, while the righteous among the descendants of Noah worshiped God. Eventually Jacob would raise up a righteous posterity and they would become know as the House of Israel.

One Empire Rises after Another after the Flood

     After the flood the descendants of Noah and his family began spreading throughout the Middle East, Asia and Europe. The Greek Empire was followed by the Roman Empire and the Hapsburg Empire and so on.

     Since the beginning of time, man has either obeyed God or rebelled against Him. Those who have rebelled formed numerous false Gods, false religions and false philosophies to justify their evil practices and deeds.

One of the most pernicious false doctrines to arise on earth is that atheism. This philosophy simply states that there is no God and no moral absolutes. This philosophy was prevalent in ancient Greece, Rome and Medieval Europe.

The philosophy of atheism and its twin, agnosticism, is upheld and promoted by the elite in society.

The Philosophy of Atheism Is Handed Down

from Generation to Generation

     The philosophy of atheism is handed down from generation to generation among the educated portion of society. The common people throughout history have been humble and God-fearing. Atheism and agnosticism reside among the educated and elite in society. It is these groups that seek to find ways to justify their rebellion against God and his laws. When these philosophies were invented in ancient Greece and Rome, its followers simply decided to believe that God does not exist. It was simply a belief system. And since atheism and agnosticism was upheld and promoted by the elite and educated among society, it was not challenged by the common people in society.

     The ancient philosophers who promoted atheism spent their entire lives perfecting a belief system that justified their rebellion against God and his laws. Every rhetorical device known to man and devils was employed to expand and perfect this philosophy. Stripped of all its rhetorical camouflage, it is simply a belief system based on the philosophies of men.

Atheism and Agnosticism Form the Foundation of Tyranny

     Atheism and agnosticism is also the foundation of tyranny. Those to seek to rule over and enslave others must first remove a faith in God and his laws, which include the law of liberty. The philosophy of atheism and agnosticism were invented to remove the unalienable rights of mankind, the natural rights of mankind and the laws of nature. All of these rights are based upon a belief that God is the Author of liberty and that He has bestowed upon mankind a set of rights that cannot be removed or eliminated my man.

     Of course, if your objective is to establish one form of tyranny or another, you must first remove a faith in God and his existence. Once you remove faith in God from society, you next remove a belief in the unalienable rights of mankind and replace them with man-made laws. These laws, which are drafted by the state, justify the tyranny that has been imposed upon the people.


Chapter 3—The School of Higher Criticism

     In 1611 the King James Version of the Holy Bible was published in England. The Holy Scriptures were now available to the common man. Before this time the scriptures were the exclusive domain of monarchs, priests, monks and scholars and were kept in private libraries. Most of the people in Europe had difficulty even reading and writing. They had never read the verses and passages of the Holy Scriptures for themselves.

The Reformation and Protestant Movement

     The publication of the Holly Scriptures brought about the Reformation as clergy in England and Europe rebelled against the religious tyranny of the Church of Rome. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wycliffe and a host of other noble men and women rebelled against this tyranny and sought religious liberty. The Protestant Movement was born and new congregations and churches began to arise in Europe and England. Of course, members of these groups were severely persecuted and tried for heresy and either imprisoned in dungeons, beheaded or burned at the stake. Translations of the Holy Scriptures were burned. Printing presses were confiscated and destroyed. They fled England and Europe and came to America where they set up various churches in the New England colonies.

Scholars and Priests Devise Ways to Attack the Holy Scriptures

     Once the Holy Scriptures were published the scholars and priests who had embraced agnosticism and atheism went to work. Now their greatest enemy—the Holy Bible—was in the hands of the common man. God has rescued the Holy Scriptures from the private libraries of Europe and given it to the people. The intellectual and spiritual tyranny of the monks, priests and scholars was threatened in a major way. They had to devise a new strategy to defeat those who believed in the literal teachings of the Holy Bible. The secret strategies and tactics of the School of Higher Criticism, carefully developed and meticulously refined over the centuries, would be utilized to deceive the people.


     The priests sought to maintain their spiritual tyranny over the minds of men and the scholars sought to maintain their intellectual tyranny over the minds of men. They formed a strategic alliance to maintain their positions of authority and power.

A New School Designed to Uphold and Promote Atheism

     The goal of the School of Higher Criticism was to uphold the basic tenets of agnosticism and atheism and to destroy faith in the Holy Bible and its teachings. They started analyzing the scriptures and started to devise ways to attack it from every angle. They would begin attacking the prophets—the authors of the books of the Old Testament. They would begin attacking the apostles—the authors of the books of the New Testament. They would begin attacking the existence of God. They would begin attacking the Creation, the Fall of Adam, the divine birth of Jesus Christ, the miracles performed by Jesus in His earthly ministry, the Atonement of Jesus in Gethsemane and upon the cross, the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the third day, and all of laws, teachings, commandments, ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They would begin to attack the miracles in the Old Testament and the New Testament. They would begin attacking the authorship of each of the books of the Bible, the prophecies of the prophets and apostles and attempt to point out contradictions in the scriptures.

The Powers of Darkness Aid Those Scholars and Priests

Seeking to Destroy the Holy Bible

     In their effort to destroy the Holy Bible, a belief in the existence of God and His Son and the gospel of Jesus Christ, they would resort to every evil rhetorical device their dark minds could conjure up. Of course, in this process they would be aided by the Prince of Darkness and a host of evil spirits who rebelled against God and Jesus Christ in the war in heaven.

     The scholars who support, defend and promote agnosticism and atheism declared war on God and His Son, the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible. This is a very real war which affects every person on earth, even though, they might not be aware of its existence. The War which began in Heaven is raging on earth. This war resumed once Adam and Eve left the confines and the Garden of Eden and entered the natural world after the Fall of Adam. Only the battlefield has changed. The players are still the same. The issues are still the same. The choices are still the same. Do we follow God and His Son or do we follow Lucifer, evil spirits and evil and conspiring men and women?

     Over the last four centuries, the School of Higher Criticism has published a host of pamphlets and books which describe the Holy Bible as simply a collection of myths, legends and fairy tales.

The School of Higher Criticism Splits Into Two Groups

     Soon after its establishment, the school of higher criticism devised another major strategy. They decided to make a two-front attack on the Holy Scriptures. One group would focus on attacking every aspect of the Holy Bible. This group would be made up of scholars and philosophers. Another group, also a group of scholars would focus on attacking the Holy Scriptures from a scientific point of view. They would attack Biblical catastrophism and replace it with new theories designed to undermine faith and believe in God and the creation timetable outlined in the Holy Bible. They would invent a new geological time table and conjure up the ancient theory which stated that man evolved from lower life forms.

     The School of Higher Criticism set up two schools—the School of Philosophy and Religion (Social Sciences) and the School of Science. The scholars and priests in these two schools went to work to undermine the faith of people in God and His Son and the Holy Scriptures. For centuries these scholars and priests have used every method at their disposal to promote agnosticism and atheism and to undermine faith in God and the Holy Scriptures.

Control of Knowledge Thought Compartmentalization of Academic Disciplines

     The two divisions of the School of Higher Criticism form a powerful force to battle on earth. The early monasteries of Europe gradually evolved into medieval universities. These early universities then compartmentalized various academic disciplines in order to control knowledge. Later the intelligence organizations of the world would structure their agencies in a similar fashion. The goal of the early university and the early intelligence organizations that soon emerged in Germany, France and England was to control the flow of information and knowledge. The university provided the perfect setting to do so.

     The priests and monks controlled the early monasteries of Europe. The scholars would become the new high priests of education in the universities which developed and spread throughout the world. The robes of the priests and monks would even follow the scholars into the university.

A Global War Is Raging Between Atheism and Christianity

     The warfare that is raging throughout the world today in not between the truths of the Holy Bible and the truths of science. It is between the truths of the Holy Bible and the false theories, philosophies, teachings, hypotheses, doctrines and belief systems of men which are based upon agnosticism and atheism. Revelation from God is always superiors to the philosophies of men. The Holy Bible is paramount to all academic disciplines.

     The Holy Bible is the standard by which to judge all academic disciplines whether in the social sciences or the sciences. Whenever any scientific theory or any theory of the social sciences violates the teachings of the Holy Bible they are null and void.

Scholars Teach All Manner of False Doctrines On the Earth

     The School of Higher Criticism is spreading the tenets of agnosticism and atheism throughout the world today. The School of Higher Criticism has given birth to a host of false philosophies, all of which are based upon agnosticism and atheism. Let us look at some of the philosophers and their views:


     Baruch (or Benedictus) Spinosa (1632-1677) was one of first scholars to begin actively criticizing the Old Testament and deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. He was an agnostic philosopher who was Jewish. His parents moved to Amsterdam to avoid persecution in Portugal. From an early age he became skeptical of his Jewish faith and left it behind to join a new religion—the religion of agnosticism.

     In 1663 he published a text entitled, The Principles of Descartes’s Philosophy.

     In 1670 he published Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. His treatise on politics and theology gained him notoriety and he became friends with Henry Oldenburg, the Secretary of the Royal Society in London. The Tractatus was initially published anonymously due to the nature of its contents. The School of Higher Criticism had found a talented writer who was not afraid to challenge the authenticity of the Old Testament and to deny the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.

     Spinoza knew exactly what he was doing. He was trying to destroy faith in the Holy Scriptures. The goal of Tractatus was “to recommend full freedom of thought and religious practice, subject to behavioral conformity with the laws of land. As virtually the first examination of the Scriptures (primarily the Pentateuch) as historical documents, reflecting the intellectual limitations of their time, and of problematic authorship, it opened the so-called higher criticism. What is important, claims Spinoza, is the Bible’s moral message; its implied science and metaphysics can stand only as imaginative adjuncts for teaching ethics to the multitude....” Although he wrote in “a seemingly more orthodox vein, even while denying the genuinely supernatural character of reported miracles.” (Ted Honderich, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 845.)


     The Tractatus was a carefully designed and orchestrated attack on the Holy Bible. The same strategy would be used over and over again. The teachings of the Holy Scriptures are just nice moral lessons, they are not divinely inspired by prophets of God. He advocated freedom of thought in order to teach agnosticism. He was laying the groundwork for the introduction of atheism. He denied that any of the miracles occurred in the Old Testament. This would be the main thrust of the attacks in the future which would come from the members of the School of Higher Criticism. They had a mission to destroy faith in God and they had to start by publishing books anonymously in order to gain support among the intellectual community.


     Francois Marie Arouet (1694-1778) wrote under the name of Voltaire. He was born in Paris in 1694 and was one of the first intellectuals to make a full fledge attack upon Judaism and Christianity. He believed that organized religion was an evil menace and should be eliminated. Concerning the Old Testament he wrote, “This is what fools have written, what imbeciles comment, what rogues teach, and what young children are made to learn by heart. And the scholar who is filled with indignation and who is irritated by the most abominable absurdities that have ever disgraced human nature, is called blasphemer.”

     Voltaire most famous work was the Dictionnaire Philosphiique. He was an agnostic who denied the existence of free agency or free will, the soul and immortality.


     Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was raised in the German town of Konigsberg, a East Prussian city, where he spent his entire life. He became a professor of philosophy and wrote the following treatises: (1) Critique of Pure Reason (1781); (2) Critique of Practical Reason (1788); (3) Critique of Judgment (1790) . He argued that the acquisition of knowledge can only be obtained from experience and pure reason. He believed that God, the soul, freedom and immortality were mere inventions, they were not real. He believed that intelligent design, seen throughout the entire creation, did not prove the existence of God. He thought prayer was a useless exercise and that miracles did not exist in the Biblical manner.

     He wrote, “This may well be called the age of criticism, a criticism from which nothing need hope to escape. When religion seeks to shelter itself behind its sanctity, and law behind its majesty, they just awaken suspicion against themselves, and lose all claim to sincere respect which reason yields only to that which has been able to bear the test of its free and open scrutiny.

     “Metaphysics has been the battlefield of endless conflict. Dogmatism at first held despotic sway; but ... from time to time scepticism destroyed all settled order of society; ... and now a widespread indifferentism prevails.” (Dagobert D. Runes, A Treasury Of Philosophy. New York: Grolier, 1955, Volume 2, p. 643.)

     In 1794 Kant received an order from the King of Prussia which said, “Our highest person has been greatly displeased to observe how you misuse your philosophy to undermine and destroy many of the most important and fundamental doctrines of the Holy Scriptures and of Christianity. We demand of you immediately an exact count, and expect that in the future you will give no such cause of offense, but rather that, in accordance with you duty, you will employ your talents and authority so that our paternal purpose might be more and more attained. If you continue to oppose this order you may expect unpleasant consequences.” (Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1926. p. 281.)


     Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) denounced the Christian religion and promoted agnosticism. He denied the Fall of Adam and became know as a “free thinker” among the intellectual circles in France. he denied the miracles of the Holy Bible and delegated God to the far side the universe. His famous treatise, Social Contract was published in 1762 and paved the way for secular government without natural rights. The text became a bible for the Jacobins. He favored totalitarian governments. Karl Marx would become a disciple of Rousseau.


     Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) was a French intellectual who rejected God, miracles, the Biblical account and fixity of species as outlined in Genesis by Moses. He laid for work for modern evolution in botany and zoology by arguing that species would evolve into new species over time. He also rejected the Biblical flood and the idea of catastrophes which would lead to uniformitarianism.


     Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1820) abandoned his views of God and the creation and began advocating the principles of evolution around 1800. He believed that the doctrine of special creation was a falsehood. He felt that life had the ability to begin spontaneously. In 1809 he published Philosophie Zoologique which outlined his belief in a hierarchy of life beginning with the smallest unto the highest level of specialization. He called it “the great chain of being.” The tern evolution would replace it shortly. He advocated the theory that each new species acquired the necessary new characteristics whenever it found itself in a new environment.


     James Hutton (1726-1797) argued that the Holy Bible could not be accepted literally. He believed that the history of the earth could best be discovered by studying the crust of the planet itself. He argued that the twisted rock formations and the fossil record reveal that the earth was formed over eons of time through natural processes instead of through a special creation. He did promoted the view that the Biblical flood was a fantasy. It never occurred and that the rock formations on earth were not the result of a series of catastrophic events. In 1795 he published his Theory of the Earth which argued for a long time frame for the formation of the earth. And he eliminated the existence of a Creator. He was charged with being an atheist by the Royal Irish Academy for publishing his book. Hutton came up with the dictum that the present is the key to the past.

Erasmus Darwin

     Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) was the grandfather of Charles Darwin. In 1794-1796 he wrote a two volume book entitled Zoonomia in which he outlined the theory of evolution and the idea of natural selection. His views on these subjects would greatly influence Charles Darwin in a few years to abandon Christianity and embrace atheism.


     Another prominent scholar in Germany was Georg Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel was a key member of the School of Higher Criticism and promoted atheism with a vengeance. Hegel created a theory that said there was no Christian God; however there existed something he called Absolute Spirit. The Absolute Spirit was the natural world and natural process. In other words, it was pure naturalism and atheism. In his view, all reality was a manifestation of natural process. Religion was an invention of men to explain the natural world in an imaginative way. Hegelism would lead to pantheism or nature worship. Another philosophy designed to destroy faith in God and the Holy Bible. He envisioned that man was involved in a dialectical struggle to produce a synthesis in life. It was only a short step from Hegel’s natural world to the evolutionary world of Charles Darwin.

     Hegel’s most famous student was Karl Marx, who devoured, The Phenomenology of Mind (1807) He believed, like Kant, that the only thing that existed was pure reason. Hegel also wrote the Philosophy of Right (1821).


     Georg Hegel paved the way for the complete elimination of God from the earth. He proclaimed that God did not exist in the Judeo-Christian sense. God was just a world spirit that was in all things. Christianity was just an imaginary system. The Holy Bible was just a collection of myths and legends invented by man. There was no Christian God, just nature in Hegel’s mind.


     Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), another famous German philosopher. He was born in Danzig on February 22, 1788. He wrote three prominent books: (1) The World as Will and Representation (1818); (2) On the Freedom of Will (1841); and (3). On the basis of Morality (1841). He despised the Holy Scriptures and thought that Christianity and religion was merely metaphysics for the masses.” The natural world, reason and the mind were paramount in his thinking and writing. He thought Buddhism was superior to Christianity. He disliked women.

     He was possessed with the concept of will and wrote, “This world in which we live and have our being is in its whole nature through and through will, and at the same time through and through idea; that this idea, as such, already presupposed a form, object and subject, is therefore relative; and if we ask what remains if we take away this form and all those forms which are subordinate to it, and which express the principles of sufficient reason, the answer must be that as something toto genere different from idea, this can be nothing but will, which is thus properly the thing—in itself.” (Dagobert D. Runes, Treasury of Philosophy. New York: Grolier, 1955, p. 1086.)                    


     In 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus wrote an Essay on the Principle of Population. His theory on population growth, land and food supplies would contribute to Darwin’s emerging theory of evolution as he studied the problem of how to explain the transmutation of species.


     Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was born in Rockin, Prussia on October 15, 1844. He took upon himself to declare in 1882 that “God was dead.” (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1882, Volume 3, p. 108.). Nietzsche was a key member of the School of Higher Criticism and an avowed atheist whose writings have destroyed the faith of millions of your students and people around the world. He argued that government is an instrument for the enhancement of power. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini would utilize Nietzsche’s writings to justify the torture and murder of tens of millions of people in the 20th century. He wanted those who ruled the all-powerful state to become supermen. They were to be a superior race of men, specially chosen and endowed to rule over others. These new supermen would be aristocrats. They would be specially bred to rule. Nietzsche is an accessory to some of the most cruel and brutal crimes of the history of the world. Hitler loved the writings of Nietzsche and put them into practice.

     Nietzsche was a professor of philosophy at Basle University. He was a student of Hegel and Schopenhauer. He agreed with the latter’s assumption that God did not exist and spent his life promoting the most dangerous writings on earth. Between 1883-1885 he published Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

     Nietzsche used Zarathustra to attack God and the teachings of the Holy Bible. He wrote:

     “For the old Gods came to an end long ago. And verily it was good and joyful end of Gods!

     “They did not die lingering in the twilight,—although that lie is told! On the contrary, they once upon a time—laughed themselves unto death.

     “That came to pass when, by a God himself, the most ungodly word, the word: there is but one God! Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

     “An old grim beard of a God, a jealous one, forgot himself thus.


     “And then all Gods laughed and shook on their chairs and cried: ‘Is godliness not just that there are Gods, but no God’!

     “Whoever hath ears let him hear.

     “Thus spoke Zarathustra....

     “Dead are all Gods, now we will that superman live....”

     The audacity of Nietzsche at this time is rather amazing. He was being protected by key members of the School of Higher Criticism who were pushing him to destroy every vestige of faith in God and the teachings the Holy Bible.

     In 1886 he wrote Beyond Good and Evil. In 1888 he wrote several books, Twilight of the Odols, The Case of Wagner, The Antichrist and Ecce Homo.

     Nietzsche predicted “the advent of a period of nihilism, with the death of God and the demise of metaphysics, and the discovery of the inability of science to yield anything like absolute knowledge.” He was firmly convinced that the untenability of the God-hypotheses; and associated religious interpretations of the world and our existence....” He believed that the purpose of philosophy was to help society overcome the anxieties that arose from realizing that God was dead, and that all life had evolved as Darwin stated. He called upon intellectuals to promote a naturalistic view of the world and to drive God from the temple of academia. Throughout his life he would remain, “openly and profoundly hostile to most forms of morality and religious thought.” Nietzsche declared war on them, on the grounds that they were indefensible and untenable, but moreover feed upon and foster weakness....”

     Nietzsche “constructed our human nature and existence naturalistically, insisting upon the necessity of ‘translating man back into nature,’ in origin and fundamental character, as one form of animal life among others. ‘The soul is only a word for something about the body,’ he has Zarathustra say; and the body is fundamentally an arrangement of natural forces and processes.” (Ted Honderich, editor, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 621.)

     Nietzsche and his colleagues at the School of Higher Criticism were orchestrating the nihilist movement around the world. Interestingly, Nietzsche would spend the last few years of his life in an insane asylum. It seems that the old saying, “too much learning hath made thee mad,” may be true after all.


     Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was appointed a professor at Vienna University in 1902. Freud was another key member of the School of Higher Criticism. He would write a host of books, all based upon the principles of atheism. He would deny the existence of God and the Holy Scriptures. Freud taught that there was no moral absolutes or commandments of God; therefore, there was no right and wrong and no sin. A person could do anything they chose because they were just following the natural instincts of a natural body that had evolved.

     Freud took the theory of evolution and applied to the new fields of psychology and psychoanalysis. He was obsessed in trying to find ways to explain human emotions and actions without God. Therefore, he came up with a variety of strange theories to explain man’s interpersonal relations: sexuality, infancy, the unconscious mind, id ego, superego, infantile Oedipus complex, death instinct, etc.

     What is interesting about the books which Freud wrote is that they all attempt to explain man’s behavior in a naturalistic manner, without reference to God, good and evil, the soul, repentance and other basic teachings that are contained in the Holy Bible. In Freud’s mind, God did not exist, the Holy Bible was just a collection of myths and legends, and there was no personal accountability to God for our actions and behavior on earth. He thought religion was a fantasy and those who believed in Christianity were delusional and mentally ill.

A Clear Pattern of Deception and Intrigue Lays the Groundwork for Atheism

     If you analyze the scholarly books published in Germany, France and England in the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s and the 1900s by the leading philosophers and scientists you find that members of the School of Higher Criticism were carefully and slowly guiding the intellectual world to accept the tenets of agnosticism and atheism. In the year 2004, it is quite easy to look back and see how these atheistic scholars and priests carefully steered the western world away from a belief in God, His Son, and the Holy Bible.

     Two influential groups of scholars—so-called professors and priests and clergy— were insidiously at work destroying faith in the existence of God, faith in Jesus Christ, faith in the Creation, Fall of Adam, the divine birth of Jesus Christ, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the prophets in the Old Testament and the teachings of the Apostles in the New Testament.


Chapter 4—Charles Lyell Seeks To Replace Biblical Catastrophism

     Charles Lyell (1797-1875) was born in Scotland in 1797. he went to Oxford University to study law and became a layer in 1825. However, he had developed an interest in geology and decided to give up the practice of law. Since his father was quite wealthy, it was an easy choice for him. He joined the Linnean Society and wrote several articles on science and education. In 1826, while only 29 year old he was elected Fellow of the Royal Society. The Royal society was an elitist organization. However, they were very interested in evolutionary geology and Lyell seems a natural to follow in the footsteps of Hutton. Lyell was also a suburb writer. The Royal Society was maneuvering and guiding a young scholar to promote the theory of evolution in a world that still believed in the Holy Bible and catastrophic events such as the great Flood.

Lyell Becomes a Disciple of Lamarck

     Lyell had developed an interest in geology while at Oxford and one summer made a trip to Paris where he met Constant Prevost. Prevost was a student of Lamarck. He introduced Lyell to the works of Lamarck. The two became close friends and went on a geological tour of southwest England.

     For the next six year Lyell studied geology and philosophy while making frequent trips to Europe to meet with scholars interested in evolution and geology. While in Europe Lyell had met key members of the School of Higher Criticism and they were training him and pushing his career along in order to further their cause.

Lyell Becomes a Disciple of Hutton

     While traveling back and forth between Europe and England, Lyell became an avid student of James Hutton. Lyell’s future books would be based almost entirely upon the writings of James Hutton. It was Hutton who was labeled an atheist after he published his famous treatise entitled Theory of the Earth in 1795.

     After the death of James Hutton, Lyell decided to continue his work. He traveled throughout Europe and the British Isles trying to find evidence for Hutton’s theories that the earth had developed and changed slowly over eons of time. He studied the erosion of cliffs, contorted and twisted rock formations and began to develop a case for evolutionary geology. He stated that the changes on the earth were the result of slow processes rather past catastrophes.

Lyell Uses Rhetorical Devices to Conceal Truth

     The various twisted rock formations in different parts of the earth has the appeared to be caused by past catastrophes of one type or another. This posed a problem for Lyell. He was a clever attorney and a gifted writer. It was not long before he soon found a cunning way to get around the evidence. Lyell imposed his vivid imagination on the evidence and argued that the twisted and contorted rock formations were the result of slow processes over time, however, they only appeared to have been caused by catastrophes in the past because of the “imperfection of the geological record.” Lyell has just invented a rhetorical argument and pretended it was scientific in nature. It was a very deceptive argument, one that only a person trained in the law may have invented.

     In the future, every time, Lyell was presented with evidence he could not quickly explain away he would resort to the “imperfection of the geological record” argument.

A Careful Plan to Overthrow the Holy Bible

     Lyell and his group of friends in Europe knew that they were laying the foundation for the overthrow of the Holy Bible. It was a sinister plot to destroy faith in God and the Holy Scriptures. Jean Bapiste Lamarck, James Hutton, Charles Lyell and others knew exactly what they were doing. This was not just a group of men seeking for truth in the realm of science. They were trying to conceal a deadly and poisonous philosophy within the confines of science to give in credibility. It was an evil attempt to use science to further their aims of promoting agnosticism and atheism. They also realized that they would have to go slowly in order not to arose too much opposition to their work in Europe and England.

Creation of So-Called Experts

     James Hutton and Charles Lyell had been careful to build a case for their new theory and wrap it carefully in scientific terms and observations. In addition, once you structure the university into department and compartmentalize knowledge, then you have created small pockets of so-called experts. Since few people become geologists or biologists, it is east for them to accuse the common man and woman of ignorance.

     Lyell also adopted the practice of arguing from today’s observations rather than past catastrophes which no one witnessed. His arguments are mere conjecture based upon evidence that he cannot produce. It is an argument from observation and personal opinion, not an argument from facts.

     Lyell and his friends knew that tremendous religious opposition was going to erupt over their new theory of an expanded time frame for the development of the earth. The evidence did not support their theory and they knew it; that is why they spend so much time carefully constructing in within the confines of science.

     A cunning lawyer had devised a theory that the earth was millions of years old. However, he had no evidence to prove his theory and could only use present day rock formations to make an argument for something that happened in the past.

Lyell’s Clever Arguments to Undermine Faith

in the Universal Flood

     Lyell adopted another clever tactic. Rather than outright deny the Flood which is what they had originally planned, they decided to use a clever argument. Lyell stated that if the flood did occur, it was probably just a local event, not a covering of the entire earth as stated in the Holy Bible. Once again, we have a lawyer making pronouncement of a rhetorical nature and people in prominent places are giving them credence because they know of the overall plan to destroy faith in the Holy Bible and replace it with agnosticism and atheism.

     After traveling for six years and making the case for his new theory, Lyell was ready to announce to the world that the Holy Bible was just a collection of myths and legends. According to Lyell, there was no Creation, no Fall of Adam, no universal Flood, no Atonement of Jesus Christ and no Holy Bible. There was just pure science. And he was just a humble scientist in search of truth. He just happened to stumble upon a new theory that enthroned Atheism and dethroned God. All in a days work for the brilliant Scottish lawyer who pretended to be a geologist.

The Theory of Uniformitarianism

     The new theory which Lamarck, Hutton and Lyell had finally developed was called uniformitarianism. It stated that all of the natural processes occurring today have been occurring at the same rate since the earth was formed billions of years ago. During the years of 1830-1833 Lyell published a three volume work entitled, The Principles of Geology where the new theory was carefully wrapped in scientific observations and language in order to deceive the people on earth. Biblical catastrophicism was now supposed to be a dead issue. However, Lyell’s theory is just a theory. It is based upon a set of personal beliefs. And it is pure philosophy in scientific language.

     Charles Darwin would use the same strategy in a few years when he published his Origin of Species. It too would be a philosophy carefully wrapped in scientific observations and language in order to deceive people. And like Lyell’s theory, Darwin’s theory is just a theory. Both of these men had a hidden agenda, which the scientific community in England, France and Germany have been very careful to conceal. That hidden agenda deals with the School of Higher Criticisms of which both Lyell and Darwin were secret members.

Major Catastrophe Hits the Earth in 1815

     It is interesting to note that just before Lyell published his theory of uniformitarianism, that Mt. Tambora (near Java) exploded in 1815. It was one of the greatest volcanic explosions in history. It was ten times more powerful that the Kratatoa explosion in 1883. In both of these catastrophic events, thousands of people lot their lives and the earth’s atmosphere was filled with dust for weeks. Lyell had to admit that Mt. Tambora was a catastrophic event, but he deluded himself and others into believing that such occurrences played no part in the development of the earth.

     Lyell and his followers have quickly adopted the argument that whenever a catastrophic event occurs it is just a local event. To those who saw the effects of Mt. Saint Helen in the state of Washington they might not agree.

     The Holy Bible tells of several major geologic events that occurred in the past such as the division of the earth into continents in the Days of Peleg, the breakup up of the earth’s surface as a result of the Universal Flood, the major geological eruptions and changes that occurred at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. There are numerous prophecies about the second coming of Jesus Christ in which the continents will return to one land mass. Their will be giant tidal waves and a multitude of other geologic catastrophes.

The Theory of Uniformity Is Divided Into Two Parts

     The theory of uniformitarianism is divided into two major areas. The first part of the theory states that all natural processes on earth have occurred in the same uniform manner. The second part of the theory calls for a new time table to explain these slow naturally occurring processes.

Fossils Found In Rock Strata

     About the time that Lyell was perfecting his new theory, a canal builder in England noticed that various rock formations usually had several layers or strata which contained different fossils. His name was William Smith and he made the first geologic map of England. Lyell was aware of Smith’s observations rock was layered and each layer contained different fossils.

     Lyell decided to support his theory with another observation from nature. Lyell reasoned that sedimentary deposits win rocks were the result of a slow process over eons of time. Since there were rock formations that contained sedimentary deposits that were thousands of feet thick, he argued that they were the result of a slow sedimentary process such is found to take place in rivers and lakes.

     Lyell argued that somehow various lakes and stream beds had been elevated and thus drained in the past (a catastrophic event in itself) thus it dried into rock. Within the layers could be found different fossils. He imagined that various areas were flooded and dried and flooded and dried again as the process occurred repeatedly in the past. Such events produced the layer strata where the fossils could be found.

Lyell Cannot Account For Large Vertical Movement In Mountains

     Lyell could not account for the giant vertical movements of rock formation such as in Zion’s National Park

and elsewhere in the Rocky Mountains and along the entire mountain chains from Alaska to the tip of South America.

     Lyell and his associates in Germany and France were carefully laying the groundwork for Darwin’s theory which they were planning on introducing sometime after they had introduced the theory of uniformitarianism.

     When Lyell published his three volume work entitled, The Principles of Geology, in 1830 he carefully and purposely avoided using the tern evolution. He knew that it would cause people to reject his new theory outright. The people in the western world had to be prepared slowly for Darwin. Lyell carefully used such words as, “mutability,” “transmutation,” “development,” and “progression.” He knew that the natural extension of his argument would be the acceptance of evolution.

     In volume II, chapter 1 of The Principles of Geology Lyell outlined the theory of transmutation of species from lower forms of life into an ape and then into man. It is important to remember that Lyell was a student of Lamark. At the time the word transmutation was being used because of the negative connotation of the word evolution. (See Appendix I, Part A.)

Lyell Paves the Way for Darwin

     Lyell was carefully paving the way for Darwin. He pretended to have doubts about the theory of transmutations, however, secretly he know that the theory would revolutionize the world and had to be introduced carefully and slowly if people were going to be led away from the Holy Bible and its teachings.

Lyell Argues That Transmutation of Species Requires Long Time

     Lyell made the following remark at the beginning of chapter 2. He introduces the “quantity of time” issue into the argument by saying that the transmutation of species may occur if the time is long enough.

     Lyell wrote:

     “The theory of the transmutation of species, considered in the last chapter, has met with some degree of favour from many naturalists, from their desire to dispense, as far as possible, with the repeated intervention of a First Cause, as often as geological monuments attest the successive appearance of new races of animals and plants, and the extinction of those pre-existing. But, independently of a predisposition to account, if possible, for a series of changes in the organic world, by the regular action of secondary causes, we have seen that many perplexing difficulties present themselves to one who attempts to establish the nature and the reality of the specific character. And if once there appears ground of reasonable doubt, in regard to the constancy of species, the amount of transformation which they are capable of undergoing, may seem to resolve itself into a mere question of the quantity of time assigned to the past duration of animate existence.” (Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology, Volume II, p. 18.)

Lyell Introduces a New Theory to Destroy

the Divine Timetable In the Book of Genesis In the Holy Bible.

     In Volume III, chapter 1, of Principles of Geology, Lyell sets forth a revolutionary new system of geology. It would become know as the theory of uniformity. It was designed to pave the war for evolution by presenting to the world a new theory that the earth has been evolving slowing for millions and even billions of years. Transmutation of species or evolution cannot work in theory unless there is a tremendous long period of time. Lyell would appear to solve this problem by inventing an imaginary time scale. (See Appendix I, Part B.)

Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin Conspire To Deceive the World

     Charles Lyell knew that the new theory that he was introducing would bring great opposition. Therefore, he used a clever tactic of spending three volumes arguing for a new theory based on evolution and then at the end he sugar coats its by pretending to believe in a creator, which he clearly did not. It demonstrated that the School of Higher Criticism will use religious phrases when it can be used to cover a major crime just as the introduction of the theory of uniformity.

          In his concluding remarks, he acknowledged the criticism that he was receiving after the publication of volumes I and II of Principles of Geology. Lyell would pretend to believe in God until Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859. Miraculously, Lyell would convert to Darwinism after its publications as though he was so overwhelmed by the new so-called evidence that Darwin presented in the theory of evolution. People at the time did not realize that they were being deceived by the School of Higher Criticism. Lyell and Darwin and others had developed a very cunning and deceptive plan to deceive the world into believing in the theories of uniformity and evolution. (See Appendix I, Part C.)

School of Higher Criticism Use Piecemeal Functionalism

     With the publication of The Principles of Geology the world was one step closer to accepting the theory of evolution. Of course, that is exactly what the School of Higher Criticism was planning all along. However, they had developed a careful strategy. It was know as piecemeal functionalism. You introduce one radical theory at a time. Then miraculously they all fit together. How convenient! These theories, which destroy faith in God and the Holy Scriptures, were the process of Intelligent Design. They were carefully nurtured and developed by some of the most evil and devious minds in Europe and England.

     Later Lyell would pretend to oppose the theory of evolution as formulated by Darwin, while all the time he has worked secretly to persuade Darwin to finish his book. Darwin was even threatened that if he did not accelerate his timetable for release that they had another author ready to do so.

     Lyell pretended to support the fixity of species in the Holy Bible, only later would he say that he had come to the conclusion that Darwin was right and the Holy Bible was wrong.

     The theory of uniformity quickly gained acceptance, thanks to the high positions and support of the School of Higher Criticism, and the doctrine of uniformity became fixed in people’s minds.

     Lyell would argue that the rock strata revealed that new species did arise suddenly. He also stated that the sudden disappearance of a species in the strata indicated an abrupt extinction.

Lyell Paves the Way for Darwin

     In volumes I and II of The Principles of Geology, Lyell spends considerable time discussing species and fossils. In reality, Lyell was paving the way for Darwin. The School of Higher Criticism knew the people would rise up in opposition if they introduced evolution first. Therefore, they carefully timed the release of the new theory to allow Lyell’s work to circulate. Lyell even paid lip service to the fixity or immutability of species, which is a cornerstone of the Book of Genesis. A careful deception was unfolding.

     It is important to remember that Erasmus Darwin had been promoting the theory of evolution in scientific and philosophic circles since 1794.

     Lyell assumed that the first layers in the rock strata had been laid first and each layer was placed on tope of each other. Therefore, the fossils found in the rock strata revealed a timetable when these creatures evolved into being.


Fossils Deposited At the Time of the Universal Flood

     At the time of publication of Lyell’s books, most people assumed that the fossils were deposited during the great Flood or Deluge as it is sometimes called. Lyell challenged that view and said that the rock strata had been laid over eons of time in a slow natural process. The Holy Bible was wrong. The Earth’s crust was the new bible of the geologist.

     Charles Lyell would next invent a geologic time table that completely destroyed the Biblical time table outlined in Genesis. He argued that the top layers of the rock strata has been laid last and therefore, the fossils reveal that they rose from simple to complex creatures in a sequential and completely natural process. He magically invented a new timetable to support his new theory of uniformity. Instead of the earth being created in 6,000 years has indicted in Genesis, it was formed, by completely natural processes over millions of years.

The Incomplete Fossil Record Creates Major Problems for Lyell

     The fossil record in interesting in that it does not support Lyell and his theories at all. Instead of finding every rock strata with a complete line of fossils in a perfect line of ascent, you find complex creatures that appear out of nowhere; and to make things even worse for Lyell, you find complex life forms below simple creatures. In all his travels, Lyell was never able to find a perfect set of sedimentary rocks which contained a perfect set of fossils that arose from simple to complex.

     Lyell was not to be discouraged by the reality of the incomplete fossil record. He put his imagination to work and dreamed up a geologic column. Where the fossil record was incomplete, Lyell and others would use their imagination and deceitfully place the “missing fossils” in the column such as if they had found them in the rocks, However, to this day, geologists have never found the missing links in species that Lyell and Darwin said were there.

Lyell’s Arguments Destroy Faith in the Holy Bible

     Charles Lyell’s theory of uniformity comprises four major arguments. First, he argued that the earth has evolved through a gradual, uniform, constant, natural process. There was no Creation of the earth by God, because He doesn’t exist. Second, the earth’s present geological formations were caused by natural forces that are in operation today such as rain, wind, erosion, etc. There were no major catastrophic events such as the division of the continents in the days of Peleg, no Universal Flood, no changes in the earth’s crust at the time to Christ’s crucifixion because He was not the Son of God. Third, Lyell argued that all geological changes are slow, steady and natural. Fourth, the fossil record reveals that species evolved from one species to another over eons of time.

Lyell Created the Theory of Uniformity

to Pave the Way for the Theory of Evolution

     Thus Charles Lyell, the lawyer turned geologist, created an imaginary geological column or timetable to justify the theory of evolution. Without Lyell’s theory of uniformity and his column or timetable, Darwin’s theory would never have been accepted by people. As we shall see, Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin were the best of friends.

A Philosophy Masquerading As a Science

     The theory of uniformity is not science. The theory of the geologic column is not science. It is pure philosophy carefully hidden within the halls of science to give it credibility. The theory of uniformity and the theory of the geologic column are philosophies masquerading as science.



Chapter 5—Charles Darwin Seeks To Replace the Holy Bible

     Although it is not commonly known, Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin (1809-1882 )were very close friends and associates. Darwin followed the lead of Lyell and began compiling observations from nature that he could use to justify his new theory that species evolved over eons of time through a natural process which he would call natural selection. The scholarly community likes to pretend that Lyell was opposed to the transmutation or evolution of species. This is not true. Lyell knew the importance of Darwin’s theory. Lyell laid the foundation for the complete destruction of the Holy Bible with his theory of uniformity. Darwin put the capstone in place with his theory of evolution and natural selection.

The Rise of Lyellism and Darwinism Was Not an Accident

     The rise of these two new theories, which are both based on agnosticism and atheism, was not an accident. The School of Higher Criticism, based in Germany with branches in France and England, knew that these theories would catapult Atheism and Agnosticism into the intellectual community around the world.

     The new theories were carefully designed. The academic world would have you believe that Lyell and Darwin just stumbled on their theories and announced t hem to the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. The School of Higher Criticism has carefully groomed, supported and encouraged a number of intellectuals to challenge the authenticity of the Holy Bible. These theories were carefully crafted and designed over several decades in order to destroy the Holy Bible.

Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin Knew

That Their Writings Would Destroy Faith in God

     Once Lyell and Darwin had carefully developed, polished and published their theories, they would let others take the lead and indoctrinate the intellectuals of the world in agnosticism and atheism. To pretend that these men did not understand the importance of The Principles of Geology and Origin of Species insults their intelligence. They knew exactly what they had done and they published their theories fully cognizant of the impact they would have on the world—the complete destruction of a belief in God and the Holy Scriptures. Emma Darwin (1807-1896) knew these facts and had a lot of written material removed from the writings of Charles Darwin to prevent the world from learning the truth about her husband.

Over 6000 Words Deleted From the Autobiography of Charles Darwin

     In 1876 Charles Darwin wrote his autobiography. He was almost seventy years old at the time. However, Emma Darwin had her son, Francis Darwin, edit the book before it was published. The world would wait for over 75 years to learn than over 6000 words were removed that might have shed a different light on Darwin. In 1958, Darwin’s granddaughter, Lady Barow, published the compete autobiography. In addition, Darwin was a meticulous note keeper. His correspondence for the years of 1856-1859 have been missing until they were discovered among the writings of Charles Lyell. The missing pages of the autobiography and the missing notebooks reveal the true nature of Charles Darwin. He is not the patron Saint of the Intellectual World that he is presented to be.

School of Higher Criticism Seeks To Infiltrate Church To Secularize Their Teachings

     The School of Higher Criticism was very active at this time. In addition, to preparing scholarly books which attacked every aspect of the Holy Bible, they began the process of infiltrating various church in order to neutralize their teachings and gradually secularize their doctrines. One church which was important at this time was the Unitarian Church.

     The process of secularizing the churches is important to the School of Higher Criticism because the members learn to trust their clergy, pastor, reverent, bishop or priest. More often than not, the members rely on their minister to teach them the truth, however, if they do no study the Holy Scriptures themselves, how will they know when they are being mislead or deceived. The church and its secular views would influence the young Darwin.

Charles Darwin Goes To Edinburgh To Study Medicine

     Charles Darwin was raised in a town called Shrewsbury. His father was a medical doctor. At age sixteen he was sent by his father to Edinburgh to study medicine. Since his grandfather has been a famous doctor, it was assumed that Charles would follow in their footsteps. He spend two years at medical school and decided to drop out because of his dislike for operations.

Charles Darwin Studies Zoonomia and Meets Students of Lamarck

     While at Edinburgh, Charles Darwin met several zoologists, geologists and botanists who were students of Lamarck. It was during his stay at Edinburgh that he began studying in earnest the writings of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. Erasmus Darwin is the author of the two volume work entitled, Zoonomia which was published in 1794-1796. The two volume set contained the theory of evolution and Darwin began to develop evidence for the theory. Unknown to the world in general is the knowledge that both his father and grandfather were atheists. At the time, this believe was heresy, so they kept their views in private, however, today we can see the influence which they had on Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin Goes To Cambridge To Study Divinity

      Dr. Robert Darwin, his father decided to sent him to Christ’s College in Cambridge where he became a student of theology. Charles Darwin was on his way to becoming a member of the clergy. Dr. Darwin, who was a prominent Freemason, knew that at the right time he could ensure that the right doors were opened for his son. While at Christ’s College he would study mathematics, theology and the classics.

     While a student at Christ’s College Charles Darwin was introduced to the famous treatises by William Paley, an Angelican clergyman, entitled, Evidences of Christianity and Moral and Political Philosophy. He also read Natural Theology where Paley outlined the case for intelligent design of the universe, the earth and all life forms by God.

Charles Darwin Acknowledges That He Was An Atheist

     Before attending Christ’s College Darwin read the Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith of the Church of England. He accepted the articles and wrote that he also accepted without “the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible.” (Nora Barlow, editor, Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1958, p. 57.) Over fifty years later, Darwin acknowledged that he had become an atheist. He commented on his earlier remark about the Holy Bible and said, “It never struck me how illogical it was to say that I believed in what I could not understand and what is in fact unintelligible.” That remark was edited out of the original autobiography.


     Another passage that was removed from the Autobiography concerned Judgment Day and the assigning of individuals to eternal rewards or eternal punishments. He called the teachings a “damnable doctrine,” and said that such a doctrine would condemn all atheists to eternal damnation. He then made the following interesting statement, that such a punishment “would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends.” (Barlow, 1958, p. 87.) He also thought the miracles contained in the Gospels were a collection of myths. He did not believe that any “sane man” would accept them. (Barlow, 1958, p. 86.)

Darwin Set Sail On the HMS Beagle

     In 1831 Charles Darwin graduated from Christ’s College with a B. A. degree. He was now ready to become Rev. Charles Darwin. However, instead of preaching the gospel in some small community, Darwin found himself on the HMS Beagle and began a new life as a naturalist. He had a deep interest in nature and the voyage gave him a wonderful opportunity to study the natural world. The five year voyage would change the mind of the young man forever. While on the voyage the young Darwin was continually confronted with the teachings of Christianity. Every Sunday, Robert FitzRoy, the captain would hold church service on board the small vessel. A missionary was also on board, so Darwin was not without the gospel.

     The mission of the Beagle was to explore and map the various coast lines for navigators. For five years the vessel sailed along the coast all the while keeping detailed notes on the different life forms he found.

     Darwin took several books with him on his voyage. These included: Holy Bible, Milton’s Paradise Lost, Humboldt’s Personal Narrative and volume I of The Principles of Geology by Charles Lyell.

     While sailing along the coast of South America, Darwin studied the geologic formations of the giant cliffs that rose over 300 feet in the air and went for miles. While on land he studied new species—birds, insects, animals— that he had never seen before.

Darwin Writes His Observations In His Journal and Remarks

     After returning from the five year voyage in 1836, Darwin spent two years writing a detailed account of his travels on board the HMS Beagle. he would finish his Journal and Remarks in 1839.

Darwin Makes a Choice between Belief in God and Atheism

     While on the Beagle Darwin had two books which completely different views on the earth. One book, the Holy Bible outlined the existence of God and explained the Creation of the Earth and the reasons for the Universal Flood. The other book, The Principles of Geology, denied all of these truths and stated that all things have developed in a slow, steady, natural way. There is no God and no supra natural events such as the Creation, the Fall of Adam, the Flood, the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Darwin had to make a choice. It was a difficult choice, a choice that every person on earth has to make at one point in their life or another. And the world knows the choice he made. He chose to believe in the basic tenets of agnosticism and atheism and he rejected a belief in God and the Holy Bible. He would spend the remainder of his life promoting the theory of evolution and atheism. Darwin chose The Principles of Geology and Zoonomia over the Holy Bible. The rest is history.

Two New Theories to Attack the Holy Bible

     Charles Lyell had removed a belief in the divine creation of the earth. Darwin would remove a belief in the divine creation of man. The two theories—the theory of uniformity, and the theory of evolution—would revolutionize the intellectual world. The members of the School of Higher Criticism could not have been happier. After centuries, they had finally developed a set of theories to destroy the belief in God and the Holy Bible. As Lyell and Darwin grew older their minds became darker and darker until there was no light or truth in them.

The Origin of the Term Natural Selection

     Sometime after finishing his journal and remarks, Darwin read a book entitled, Naval Timber and Arborculture by Patrick Matthew. In this volume Darwin found the following words, “this natural process of selection.” Darwin would modify these words to read, “natural means of selection.” He would then shorten the phrase to “natural selection.” Darwin also read the works of Edward Blyth, who wrote a series of articles on species in 1835 and 1837. His writings did not surface again until in 1909. It seems that the idea of natural selection was discussed by Matthew and Blyth.

     At this time Darwin had developed a strategy to attack the Holy Bible. He would focus on the fixity of species. If he could devise an argument that allowed the scientific world to accept the theory that all species evolved slowly over eons of time through a process of natural selection, it would only follow that man is at the end of this evolutionary change. Since Darwin did not believe in the existence of God, he had to explain the origin of life in naturalistic terms..

Darwin Keeps Secret Notebooks on Transmutation of Species

     At this time Darwin also began to keep his “secret” notebooks on the transmutation or change of species from one kind to another. He started these notebooks in 1837, the same year that Edward Blyth began publishing his writings in the Magazine of Natural History.

     Darwin was aware that there was not the least bit of evidence anywhere for the idea that species evolved from one kind to another. The idea came from the imaginary mind of Darwin. We have a pretty good idea who placed the thought in his mind. The idea of transmutation attacked the Genesis account of the fixity of species squarely in the face. Darwin was secretly making the case to overthrow this basic tenet of the Holy Bible.

     Darwin kept all of this writings secret and it was not until 1844, almost nine years later, that he told a friend that, “at last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.” (Francis Darwin and A. G. Seward, editors, More Letters of Charles Darwin. London: John Murray, 1903, Volume I, p. 41.)

Secret Strategy to Overthrow the Holy Bible

     Darwin knew from the beginning that he was preparing to dethrone God and eliminate him completely from the universe. This was all part of the strategy that was being promoted secretly by the School of Higher Criticism of which Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin were Scholars-in-Residence.

     It is important to note that Charles Darwin did not originate the theory of evolution. Atheism has been around since the days of the Greece and the early philosophers. The theory of evolution was being updated by Darwin for presentation to the world as a new theory. This is false. The theory of evolution, like the theory of uniformity, was designed to destroy a belief in God and the Holy Bible.

     It was during this time in Darwin’s life that he met and married Emma Wedgewood. It in interesting to note that he father, Dr. Robert Darwin, counseled his son not to mention his views on agnosticism and atheism to his new wife. (See Barlow, 1958, p. 95.)

Statements on Irreligion Removed from Darwin’s Writings

     Darwin would later admit that, “Many years ago I was strongly advised by a friend [Charles Lyell] never to introduce anything about religion in my works, if I wished to advance science in England.” (Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. New York: W. W. Norton., 1968, p. 383.) Emma Darwin and her son, Francis Darwin, would follow this advice and remove all irreligious statements from the Autobiography of Charles Darwin before it was written.


     It is also interesting to note that at the same time that Darwin began laying his detailed plans to overthrow the Book of Genesis that he began to suffer a live long illness. The illness was due, no doubt, to the psychological stress of preparing a theory that would destroy the faith of hundreds of millions of young people and adults throughout the world. (See Ralph Colp, To Be An Invalid. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977, p. 142.)

Darwin Was Obsessed With Proving His Theory Was Valid

     Darwin was now completely obsessed with laying out the intellectual arguments for his new theory and the battle that would begin once he published the theory. He knew exactly what he was doing and he proceeded in a calculated and thoughtful manner. He labored in vain to find the mechanism by which evolution or transmutation of species occurred, (remember this is an imaginary process); to wrap the theory of evolution in scientific language to confuse and deceive the common man; and finally to Darwinize the theory so as to appear that he originated it, when in fact, the basic tenets of the theory are thousands of years.

     After his marriage to Emma Wedgewood, Darwin moved to the Down house in the village of Down in southern London.

     In 1859, after 22 years of secret work, Charles Darwin published his famous book entitled, The Origin of Species. However, time seems to bring the truth to the surface and out into the open.. It is no different with the publication of the Origin of Species. The publication of the book was carefully managed by members of the School of Higher Criticism.

Lyell and Hooker Secretly Help Darwin Publish the Origin of Species

     At this point it is important to review the life of a man named Alfred Russel Wallace. Thanks to the research of Arnold C. Brackman, we now know the rest of the story. Brackman uncovered a secret effort to help Darwin publish the Origin of Species and thus get credit for the theory in the eyes of the world. According to Brackman, Wallace had come up with a new theory to explain the old theory of evolution. Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker wanted Darwin to receive all of the credit for the so-called discovery of the “process of natural selection.” Mysteriously, the writings of Darwin would clear up this matter, however, they are conveniently missing during this time period.

     Wallace became “the greatest tropical naturalist of his time.” (Arnold Brackman, A Delicate Arrangement. New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 38.) He had spent considerable time in South American jungles collecting beetles, butterflies, rocks, etc., for collectors in London.

Wallace Becomes a Student of Charles Lyell

     Wallace became a student of Charles Lyell and warmly received The Principles of Geology. During his travels around the world, he thought he saw examples of the theory of uniformity in operation. He believed the words of Lyell who promoted the theory that the fossils reveal a clearly identifiable pattern of succession in the development of various life forms. Lyell had proposed that the earth was undergoing a slow, gradual process of development, a process that has occurred steadily over eons of time. Lyell argued that the fossil record indicated that certain species evolved into new species. He argued that there was a scale of development from simple to complex in the fossil record. Now, it would be up to Darwin to argue that Lyell was a genius. He had discovered that God did not really exist and that God did not create the earth and place all life forms on it according to clearly defined species.

Wallace Publishes a Paper Outlining the Theory of Evolution

     In 1855 Wallace published a paper entitled, “On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species.” In this paper, Wallace outlined the entire theory of evolution. There was only one part missing—how did the species change from one species to another? In his paper, he stated, “To discover how the extinct species have from time to time been replaced by new ones down to the very latest geological period, is the most difficult and at the same time the most interesting problem in the natural history of the earth.”(Brackman, 1980, p. 319.)

     Wallace argued that “every species had come into existence coincident both in time and space (geographic distribution) with a pre-existing closely allied species. (Brackman, 1980, p. 324.)

Wallace Receives the Idea for Survival of the Fittest

in a Stroke of Inspiration

     In February of 1858, approximately three years after publishing his first paper, he became ill with a fever. While ill he remembered a passage from the Essay of Thomas Malthus. He wrote, “It occurred to me to ask the question, Why do some die and some live? And the answer was clearly, that on the whole the best fitted lived. From the effects of disease the most healthy escaped; from enemies the strongest, the swiftest or the most cunning, from famine the best hunters or those with the best digestion, and so on.

     “Then I at once saw, that the ever present variability of all living things would furnish the material from which, by the mere weeding out of those less adapted to actual conditions, the fittest alone would continue the race.

     “There suddenly flashed upon me the idea of the survival of the fittest. The more I thought it over, the more I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the Origin of Species.” (Brackman, 1980, p. 199.)

Wallace Discovers the Key to Explain the Theory of Evolution

     These words were written a year before Darwin would published the Origin of Species.

     A few days later Wallace prepared a paper entitled, “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type.” Wallace believed that he had discovered the long lost key to explaining the theory of evolution in terms which would convince people that species did in fact evolve from one species to another and that man is just the last species to evolve in a long ladder of descent from a single cell to man.

Darwin Receives a Copy of the Paper by Wallace in 1858

     The paper now contained the complete theory of evolution that Darwin presented to the world as his own. It is interesting to note that Darwin received a copy of the paper in June of 1858 almost a year before he published the Origin of Species. Darwin even took the title of his book from Wallace. And he borrowed the term, survival of the fittest.” Darwin would use the term in the fifth edition of his book. He would use the word evolution in the sixth edition. It would appear that Darwin was guilty of plagiarism.

Darwin Hastily Published the Origin of Species

     Lyell and Hooker persuaded Darwin to go public as quickly as possible with his writings on evolution, otherwise, Wallace would receive all of the credit for the theory. Darwin prepared the final drafts of his writings and in 1859 published the Origin of Species.

     The protocol of science requires that the papers of Wallace should have been presented to the Linnean Society first. However, Lyell and Hooker made sure that a paper of Darwin written in 1844 received preference. Darwin was thus allowed to present his earlier paper and receive the acclaim for conceiving the ideas contained the in the new version of an old theory.

     It is interesting to note that all of the correspondence for this period is mysteriously missing. If it were available, it would show the machinations of Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker in carefully managing the timing and public credit for the theory of evolution. (See The Delicate Arrangement by Brackman.)


     The first edition of 1,250 copies of the Origin of Species appeared in November of 1859. The first printing was quickly sold out and a second printing was available in January of 1860.

     During Darwin’s lifetime, there were six editions published. Each edition was revised by Darwin to meet the objections being raised by the new book.

False Assumptions Made By Lyell, Wallace and Darwin

     In formulating their theories to destroy the Holy Bible, Charles Lyell, Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin based their arguments on a set of assumptions, all of which are false if you believe the holy Bible to the Word of God and you believe that God is the Creator of the earth.

     First, they assumed that the natural processes occurring throughout the world today have always existed. There have been no major catastrophes.

     Second, all of the layers in the rock strata were built slowly over eons of time through sedimentation. They argued that the continents rose and fell to create the multiple layers of fossils found in the rocks, however, the powerful forces necessary to move the continents were not considered catastrophic in nature.

     Third, Lyell’s famous term, “the imperfection of the fossil record,” accounts for the absence of missing links in the fossil beds around the world. He argued that if the record were perfect, which it is not, that the theory of uniformity would explain the absence of missing fossils.

     Fourth, Lyell assumes that the fossil record should be complete, although no one has found it, therefore it is permissible to assume in textbooks that there is a steady accent of fossils from simple to complex.

     Fifth, Lyell and Wallace assume that since the theory of uniformity is true, at least in their minds, that the small, gradual changes in species over time would lead to new species through a process of natural selection operating upon the principle of survival of the fittest. All this is required to accomplish such and amazing feat of billions and billions of years, or so they claimed.

     Sixth, since the theory of uniformity is true and since the theory of evolution is true, it must therefore also be true that man in an evolutionary being and that he evolved over eons of time in a natural, gradual process without supra natural aid.

     Everyone of these assumptions is false. Whether you believe them or not depends, not upon the facts of nature, but upon the worldview you choose to accept. If you believe in God and the Holy Bible, you accept that God created the world and placed all life forms on the earth after their creation. If you believe in atheism, then you accept the above tenets of Lyell, Wallace and Darwin. It is as simple as that. Your personal worldview determines your belief system and each belief system has a set of teachings, principles, dogmas, doctrines, theories, etc.

Origin of Species and the Theory of Natural Selection

     Charles Darwin published the first edition of Origin of Species in 1859, just 29 years after Lyell published the Principles of Geology. Chapter 4 of the Origin of Species is entitled, “Natural Selection.” In Chapter 4 Darwin outlined the theory of natural selection – a theory that would launch a major assault upon the Book of Genesis and the Holy Scriptures. (See Appendix II, Part A.)

Difficulties of the Theory

     In chapter 6 of the Origin of Species, Darwin outlines of the difficulties which he expected his theory would encounter when it was presented to the world. (See Appendix II, Part B.)

      On the Imperfection of the Record

     In chapter 9 of the Origin of Species we discover why it was so important for Charles Lyell to publish the theory of uniformity prior to publication of the theory of evolution. Lyell was laying the ideological groundwork for the introduction of the theory of evolution. Darwin waited for twenty-nine years for the theory of uniformity to circulate among the academic world before he published his work.

Two Philosophies Masquerading as Science

     Darwin’s theory was built upon the top of the theory of uniformity. Before the theory of evolution could be introduced to the world in a new format, it was absolutely necessary that faith in the Biblical time tables of Genesis be destroyed. The theory of evolution only works over eons of time in a slowly evolving natural process. The theory is quite ingenious, unless you put in under an electron microscope or a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), then it falls apart and the reader discovers that the theory of uniformity and the theory of evolution are merely philosophies masquerading as science. When they are stripped of all their psuedo-scientific window dressing, they are nothing but the theories and philosophies of men, inspired by the Adversary. (See Appendix II, Part C.)

Darwinism Is Completely Dependent Upon the Philosophy of Charles Lyell

     It should be obvious to the reader that Charles Darwin was completely dependent upon Charles Lyell and his theory of uniformity. Darwin read the first volume of Principles of Geology while sailing around the world. The reader must remember that Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin was a promoter of the theory of evolution. The problem they confronted was how to best package the new theories so the people throughout the world would accept them..

     The School of Higher Criticism knows that the people look to the educated for guidance, therefore, they focused on converting the intellectuals who they know would then indoctrinate the masses in a set of theories designed to destroy faith in God, the Holy Bible and its teachings.

     In the final chapter of this book, the Origin of Species Darwin argues that we should “view all beings not as special creations.” In other words, there is no divine Creator who formed the world and placed all life forms on it. According to Lyell and Darwin , all life on earth simply evolved over eons of time.

The Theory of Evolution Was Carefully and Purposely Designed

to Dethrone God In the Minds of People On Earth

     Darwin’s theory was designed to dethrone God and to destroy faith in the creation of the earth and the universe by Jesus Christ. The theory of evolution was not accidentally discovered by a group of scientists looking for truth. Lyell and Darwin started from a set of atheistic premises and carefully crafted a set of theories which would advance the twin goals of the School of Higher Criticism—agnosticism and atheism.

School of Higher Criticism Carefully Packaged and Managed the Campaign

To Destroy the King James Version of the Holy Bible

     As key members of the School of Higher Criticism, great care went into the design and packaging of the clever and cunning arguments that would be used to destroy the Holy Bible. In designing and advancing their theories, Lyell and Darwin merely joined with a long line of evil and conspiring men who, since the days of Adam and Eve, have chosen to follow the powers of darkness.

     In the conclusion of the Origin of Species Darwin summarized his devious arguments. (See Appendix II, Part D.)

Public Uproar over Publication of Origin of Species

     The publication of the Origin of Species caused an uproar as it was denounced in one pulpit and newspaper after another. Critics of the new book would multiple as the book made it war around the intellectual world.

     The main argument that Darwin used is based upon natural breeding. Darwin assumed that if breeders could take domestic animals and plants and alter the species somewhat, that nature could do the same, if given sufficient time. How much time. Well, maybe millions of years. Well, maybe billions of years.

     Darwin argued that the process of natural selection over time would allow the species to magically change into new species. Interestingly enough, it was Lyell who supplied the enormous time span in his theory of uniformity that allowed the new species to arise over eons of time.

     Darwin argued that a species fighting for survival would magically select the genes to transform itself into an entirely new species. He argued that over eons of time, this new theory, the process of natural selection, coupled with the survival of the fittest concept and the right environment could account for the rise of every plant, animal, insect and life form on earth. All that was required was time—a very long time,—which just like magic, Charles Lyell gave us in his new theory of uniformity.

     The School of Higher Criticism was extremely pleased with their team of scholars. They had successfully broken through centuries of argumentation about how best to remove God from the earth and to undermine the credibility of the Holy Bible. Now, with just two books—The Principles of Geology and the Origin of Species —God has been banished from the earth forever, or so they thought.

     According to Darwin all life forms on earth came from a single source through a gradual natural process without the aid of supra natural power.

     Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin had just become the greatest magicians in the world. They caused God to disappear.

     Charles Darwin had wisely invested his money in stocks and his financial portfolio now exceeded a quarter of a million pounds. With his financial independence, he could safely ride out the waves of opposition that rose to challenge the secular prophet of Atheism and Agnosticism.

School of Higher Criticism Controls the Educational Systems of the World

     In the Origin of Species Darwin carefully avoided mentioning that man evolved from a lower animal, but the inference was there. The School of Higher Criticism knew that the introduction of a set of theories that would overthrow God and the Holy Bible had to managed very carefully. If you study the sequence and pattern of publication of books and pamphlets in Germany, France and England from 1700 through 2000, you find a clearly defined pattern where Atheism and Agnosticism has been carefully promoted by the School of Higher Criticism until it has gained control of the entire educational system throughout the world. An amazing feat which took over 300 years to accomplish.

Agnosticism and Atheism Form the Foundation of Tyranny

     It is important to remember that secularism—agnosticism and atheism—is the foundation of a global empire that is being constructed on earth and it is essential that the people in American and the world forget that “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Darwin Declares That Man is a Direct Descendent From the Monkey

     With the publication of The Principles of Geology in 1830-1833 and the publication of the Origin of Man in 1859, it was now ready to take the next step and introduce the theory that man in an evolutionary being. In 1871 Darwin published The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.

     Now that Lyell and Darwin, along with a host of other philosophers in Germany, France and England had banished God from the earth, hardly anyone noticed when Darwin openly claimed that man is a direct descendent of the a monkey. He said that, “man is descended from an hairy, tailed, quadruped ... inhabitant of the Old World ... the progenitor of the ... New World monkeys.” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. New York: D. Appleton, 1871, Volume II, p. 389.)


The Descent of Man

     Darwin’s true philosophy on the origin of man was outlined in his introduction to the Descent of Man which was published in 1871, just twelve years after he published the Origin of Species in 1859. He wrote: “The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form; secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the differences between the so-called races of man.” See Appendix II, Part E.)

Genealogy of Man in the Evolutionary Philosophy

     In a chapter entitled, “On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man,” of Descent of Man, Darwin outlined his views on the genealogy of man as a evolutionary being. He wrote: “Even if it be granted that the difference between man and his nearest allies is as great in corporeal structure as some naturalists maintain, and although we must grant that the difference between them is immense in mental power, yet the facts given in the earlier chapters appear to declare, in the plainest manner, that man is descended from some lower form, notwithstanding that connecting-links have not hitherto been discovered.” (See Appendix II, Part F.)

Darwin Argues That Man Is Merely an Evolutionary Being

With No Divinity in Him

     In the conclusion to Descent of Man, Darwin concluded that man is merely an evolutionary being without any divinity in him. Darwin wrote: “The main conclusion here arrived at, and now held by many naturalists who are well competent to form a sound judgment, is that man is descended from some less highly organised form.” He also wrote: “He who is not content to look, like a savage, at the phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation. He will be forced to admit that the close resemblance of the embryo of man to that, for instance; of a dog—the construction of his skull, limbs and whole frame on the same plan with that of other mammals, independently of the uses to which the parts may be put—the occasional re—appearance of various structures, for instance of several muscles, which man does not normally possess, but which are common to the Quadrumana—and a crowd of analogous facts—all point in the plainest manner to the conclusion that man is the co—descendant with other mammals of a common progenitor.” (See Appendix II, Part G.)

The Belief In God Is a Product of Cultural Differences

     Darwin wrote: “The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long—continued culture.

Darwin Admits That He Does Not Believe In the Immortality of the Soul

     “He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul. The barbarous races of man, as Sir J. Lubbock has shewn, possess no clear belief of this kind; but arguments derived from the primeval beliefs of savages are, as we have just seen, of little or no avail. Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being; and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale.'

Darwin Admits That His Writings Are Highly Irreligious

     “I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.” (See Appendix II, Part G.)

Darwin Was a Key Member of the School of Higher Criticism

     There should be no doubt in the mind of the reader that Charles Darwin was a key member of the School of Higher Criticism. In his writings Darwin made the best case he could that man was not created by God, as outlined in the Book of Genesis. According to Darwin, man is not a spirit son or daughter of God, he is merely an evolutionary being with no divinity in him. What is interesting about the above arguments is that Darwin offered no proof for his allegations. The above writings are merely arguments from analogy.

The Writings of Professor Phillip Johnson and Colleagues

Expose the Fallacies of Darwin’s Arguments

     Phillip Johnson, a graduate of Harvard University and the University of Chicago Law School, and former professor of evidentiary law at the University of California at Berkeley has written a series of remarkable books which expose the fallacies of the arguments which Charles Darwin attempted to use to deceive people on earth. These books should be consulted by the serious student and scholar of secularism for the wealth of knowledge contained in them. He wrote: Darwin on Trial (1991); Reason in the Balance: the Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (1995); Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (1997); Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture (1998); The Wedge of Truth: splitting the Foundations of Naturalism (2000); The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning and Public Debate (2002).

     The School of Intelligence Design

     Emerges to Challenge the School of Higher Criticism


     Various scholars have joined together to form the School of Intelligent Design. Phillip Johnson is the father of the new school which exposes the deceptions and fallacies contained in the writings of the theory of evolution and those who uphold his work. The reader is referred to the Access Research Network –

     The reader is also referred to the following scholars and writings: Professor Michae J. Behe – Darwin’s Black Box and Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe; Professor William A. Dembski – The Design Inference, Mere Creation, Intelligent Design, Signs of Intelligence, No Free Lunch, Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe; Jonathan Wells – Icons of Evolution and Michael Denton – Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of the Nature reveal Purpose in the Universe.

Charles Darwin Dies in 1882

     Charles Darwin died in April of 1882.

Darwin’s Views on Christianity and the Holy Bible

     In 1887, five years after the death of Charles Darwin, his autobiography was published. However, unknown to the world, his wife and son deleted all the passages they considered too controversial. In 1959 the granddaughter of Charles Darwin restored all of the deleted passages in the autobiography and published them. Her name was Nora Barlow.


     Let us look at the restored autobiography of Charles Darwin. Concerning Christianity and the Holy Bible he wrote:

Religious Belief

     “DURING THESE two years, I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,—is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would help it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, and, as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament.

     “This appeared to me utterly incredible.

“I Gradually Came To Disbelieve In Christianity as a Divine Revelation”

     “By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild—fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.

Disbelief In God Crept Over Darwin At a Slow Rate

     “But I was very unwilling to give up my belief ;—I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day—dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true ; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

Christianity Is a Damnable Doctrine

     “And this is a damnable doctrine.

     “Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so, conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.

     “But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the Variation of Domestic Animals and Plants,' and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered.

     “But passing over the endless beautiful adaptations which we everywhere meet with, it may be asked how can the generally beneficent arrangement of the world be accounted for? Same writers indeed are so much impressed with the amount of suffering in the world, that they doubt if we look to all sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of happiness whether the world as a whole is a good or a bad one. According to my judgment happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very difficult to prove. If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it harmonises well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree they would neglect to propagate their kind; but we have no reason to believe that this has ever or at least often occurred. Some other considerations, moreover, lead to the belief that all sentient beings have been formed so as to enjoy, as a general rule, happiness.

     “Every one who believes, as I do, that all the corporeal and mental organs (excepting those which are neither advantageous or disadvantageous to the possessor) of all beings have been developed through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, together with use or habit,' will admit that these organs have been formed so that their possessors may compete successfully with other beings, and thus increase in number. Now an animal may be led to pursue that course of action which is the most beneficial to the species by suffering, such as pain, hunger, thirst, and fear,—or by pleasure, as in eating and drinking and in the propagation of the species, and or by both means combined, as in the search for food. But pain or suffering of any kind, if long continued, causes depression and lessens the power of action ; yet is well adapted to make a creature guard itself against any great or sudden evil. Pleasurable sensations, on the other hand, may be long continued without any depressing effect ; on the contrary they stimulate the whole system to increased action. Hence it has come to pass that most or all sentient beings have been developed in such a manner through natural selection, that pleasurable sensations serve as their habitual guides.

The Belief in the Principles of Natural Selection

     “We see this in the pleasure from exertion, even occasionally from great exertion of the body or mind,—in the pleasure of our daily meals, and especially in the pleasure derived from sociability and from loving our families. The sum of such pleasures as these, which are habitual or frequently recurrent, give, as I can hardly doubt, to most sentient beings an excess of happiness over misery, although many occasionally suffer much. Such suffering, is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to render each species as successful as possible in the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing circumstances.

     “That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement.

     “But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create, the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?

     “This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one ; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.

     “At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons.

     “But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, go Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God. There are also many barbarian tribes who cannot be said with any truth to believe in what we call God they believe indeed in spirits or ghosts, and it can be explained, as Tyler and Herbert Spencer have shown, how such a belief would be likely to arise.

     “Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to, (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour—blind, and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes my present loss of perception of not the least value as evidence.

     “This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists.

     “The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sense of sublimity ; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than' the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music.

     “With respect to immortality, nothing shows me how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is, as the consideration of the view now held by most physicists, namely that the sun with all the planets will in time grow too cold for life, unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun and thus gives it fresh life.—Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long—continued slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful.

     “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.

The Mystery of the Beginning of All Things Is Insoluble By Us

     “This conclusion I was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species ; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience ? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snakes I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us ; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

     “A man who has no assured and ever; present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives ; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts.

Darwin Feels No Remorse for Committing Any Sin

     “His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbation he will then not receive; but he will still have the solid satisfaction of knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience.—As for myself I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to science. I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow creatures. My sole and poor excuse is much ill—health and my mental constitution, which makes it extremely difficult for me to turn from one subject or occupation to another.

     “I can imagine with high satisfaction giving up my whole time to philanthropy, but not a portion of it ; though this would have been a far better line of conduct.

The Remarkable Spread of Skepticism

     “Nothing is more remarkable than the spread of scepticism or rationalism during the latter half of my life. Before I was engaged to be married, my father advised me to conceal carefully my doubts, for he said that he had known extreme misery thus caused with married persons. Things went on pretty well until the wife or husband became out of health, and then some women suffered miserably by doubting about the salvation of their husbands, thus making them likewise to suffer. My father added that he had known during his whole long life only three women who were sceptics; and it should be remembered that he knew well a multitude of persons and possessed extraordinary power of winning confidence. When I asked him who the three women were, he had to own with respect to one of them, his sister—in—law Kitty Wedgwood, that he had no good evidence, only the vaguest hints, aided by the conviction that so clear—sighted a woman could not be a believer. At the present time, with my small acquaintance, I know (or have known) several married ladies, who believe very little more than their husbands. My father used to quote an unanswerable argument, by which an old lady, a Mrs. Barlow, who suspected him of unorthodoxy, hoped to convert him :—" Doctor, I know that sugar is sweet in my mouth, and I know that my Redeemer liveth.’" (Nora Barlow, editor, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1958, pp. 83—96.)


     It should be clear to the reader that Charles Darwin and his friends and defenders have mislead the world as the religious character of the man whose goal was to destroy faith in God, the Holy Bible and its teachings. Darwin was an agnostic when it suited him and an atheist when it suited him. It depended upon the audience before him. The scientific world present this evil and conspiring man as a humble little scientist who stumbled upon the theory of evolution after carefully study of the natural world. The truth is now surfacing as to the real views of Charles Darwin on Christianity. He was a pure atheist, whose writings have destroyed the faith of millions of young adults and people around the world. He was part of a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the world as the nature of his work. His real work was to devise a cunningly devised fable and conceal within the fortress of science. Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin worked insidiously to destroy the Holy Bible and its teachings. Lyell was a pure atheist too.

     The theory of uniformity and the theory of evolution are philosophies masquerading as science. The theories are hundreds of years old. They are not the originators of them. Lyell and Darwin simply dressed up old theories and packaged them for consumption by the people on earth.

Members of the School of Higher Criticism Carry the New Theories

Throughout the Intellectual World

     Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin had done their work well. They would be remembered in the marble halls of the School of Higher Criticism for decades to come. It was now up to other members of the School of Higher Criticism to promote the new theories as the foundation of the sciences and social sciences. In fact, the new theories would become the foundation of the secular world and the foundation of the ideological matrix that is upon the earth today.

     If Lyell and Darwin are right, then there is no God, no Creation, No Fall of Adam, no divine birth of Jesus Christ, no atonement of Jesus Christ, no Resurrection of Jesus Christ, no eternal life, no gospel of Jesus Christ and no Holy Bible. If there is no God, then there are no unalienable rights of mankind. There are no commandments and laws of God to govern personal behavior. Anything goes. There are no limits. The implications of the theories of Lyell and Darwin are staggering.

     However, the members of the School of Higher Criticism know exactly what they are teaching to the inhabitants of the earth—pure agnosticism and atheism in the disguise of science.

     Now that Lyell and Darwin had done the job given to them by the School of Higher Criticism, a new disciple of Darwin would be called to the forefront to carry the message of organic evolution throughout the world—his name would Thomas Huxley.. He would be called Darwin’s Bulldog and the Devil’s Disciple.


Chapter 6—Thomas Huxley Defends Darwin in Academic Circles

     Thomas Huxley was fond of referring to himself as an agnostic. This however, was just a rhetorical deception to blind men from the truth. It is important to remember that an agnostic is merely an atheist in a tuxedo. It is a strategy to lead people along the road to atheism. Huxley was a key member of the School of Higher Criticism in England. He would defend Darwin until his death.

     Huxley became one of Darwin’s greatest defenders. He earned the title of “Darwin’s Bull Dog” and the “Devil’s High Priest.” The writings of Huxley help spread the philosophical basis of Darwinism—agnosticism and atheism—into the social sciences where they have remained lodged unto today. He defended Darwin from the barrage of attacks directed at him after he published the Origin of Species. In 1860 Huxley wrote an article entitled, “The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species.” It says:


“The Coming of Age of the Origins of Species”

     Many of you will be familiar with the aspect of this small green-covered book. It is a copy of the first edition of the "Origin of Species," and bears the date of its production—the 1st of October 1859.

     Only a few months, therefore, are needed to complete the full tale of twenty-one years since its birthday.

     Those whose memories carry them back to this time will remember that the infant was remarkably lively, and that a great number of excellent persons mistook its manifestations of a vigorous individuality for mere naughtiness; in fact there was a very pretty turmoil about its cradle. 1lly recollections of the period are particularly vivid.—,' for, having conceived a tender affection for a child of what appeared to me to be such remarkable promise, I acted for some time in the capacity of a sort of under—nurse, and thus came in for my share of the storms which threatened the very life of the young creature. For some years it was undoubtedly warm work; but considering how exceedingly unpleasant the apparition of the newcomer must have been to those who did not fall in love with him at first sight, I think it is to the credit of our age that the war was not fiercer, and that the more bitter and unscrupulous forms of opposition died away as soon as they did.

     I speak of this period as of something past and gone, possessing merely an historical, I had almost said an antiquarian interest. For, during the second decade of the existence of the "Origin of Species," opposition, though by no means dead, assumed a different aspect. On the part of all those who had any reason to respect themselves, it assumed a thoroughly respectful character.

     By this time, the dullest began to perceive that the child was not likely to perish of any congenital weakness or infantile disorder, but was growing into a stalwart personage, upon whom mere goody scoldings and threatenings with the birch—rod were quite thrown away.

     In fact, those who have watched he progress of science within the last ten years wit bear me out to the full, when I assert that there is no field of biological inquiry in which the influence of the " Origin of Species " is not traceable ; the foremost men of science in every country are either avowed champions of its leading doctrines, or at any rate abstain from opposing them; a host of young and ardent investigators seek for and find inspiration and guidance in Mr. Darwin's great work; and the general doctrine of evolution, to one side of which it gives expression, obtains, in the phenomena of biology, a firm base of operations whence it may conduct its conquest of the whole realm of Nature.

     History warns us, however, that it is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions; and, as matters now stand, it is hardly rash to anticipate that, in another twenty years, the new generation, educated under the influences of the present day, will be in danger of accepting the main doctrines of the " Origin of Species," with as— little reflection, and it may be with as little justification, as so many of our contemporaries, twenty years ago, rejected them.

     Against any such a consummation let us all devoutly pray; for the scientific spirit is of more value than its products, and irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors. Now the essence of the scientific spirit is criticism. It tells us that whenever a doctrine claims our assent we should reply,

     Take it if you can compel it.     

     The struggle for existence holds as much in the intellectual as in the physical world.

     A theory is a species of thinking, and its right to exist is coextensive with its—power of resisting extinction by its rivals.


     From this point of view, it appears to me that it would be but a poor way of celebrating the Coining of Age of the " Origin of Species," were I merely to dwell upon the facts, undoubted and remarkable as they are, of its far—reaching influence and of the great following of ardent disciples who are occupied in spreading and developing its doctrines. Mere insanities and inanities have before now swollen to portentous size in the course of twenty years.

     Let us rather ask this prodigious change in opinion to justify itself: let us inquire whether anything has happened since 1859, which will explain, on rational grounds, why so many are worshipping that which they burned, and burning that which they worshipped. It is only in this way that we shall acquire the means of judging whether the movement we have witnessed is a mere eddy of fashion, or truly one with the irreversible current of intellectual progress, and, like it, safe from retrogressive reaction.

     Every belief is the product of two factors: the first is the state of the mind to which the evidence in favour of that belief is presented; and the second is the logical cogency of the evidence itself. In both these respects, the history of biological science Burin; the last twenty years appears to me to afford an ample explanation of the change which has taken place ; and a brief consideration of the salient events of that history will enable us to understand why, if the "Origin of Species " appeared now, it would meet with a very different reception from that which greeted it in 1859. One—and—twenty years ago, in spite of the work commenced by Hutton and continued with rare skill and patience by Lyell, the dominant view of the past history of the earth was catastrophic. Great and sudden physical revolutions, wholesale creations and extinctions of living beings, were the ordinary machinery of the geological epic brought into fashion by the misapplied genius of Cuvier. It was gravely maintained and taught that the end of every geological epoch was signalised by a cataclysm, by which every living being on the globe was swept away, to be replaced by a brand new creation when the world returned to quiescence.

     A scheme of nature which appeared to be modeled on the likeness of a succession of rubbers of whist, at the end of each of which the players upset the table and called for a new pack, did not seem to shock anybody.

     I may be wrong, but I doubt if, at the present time, there is a single responsible representative of these opinions left.     The progress of scientific geology has elevated the fundamental principle of uniformitarianism, that the explanation of the past is to be sought in the study of the present, into the position of an axiom; and the wild speculations of the catastrophists, to which we all listened with respect a quarter of a century ago, would hardly find a single patient hearer at the present day.

     No physical geologist now dreams of seeking, outside the range of known natural causes, for the explanation of anything that happened millions of years ago, any more than he would be guilty of the like absurdity in regard to current events.

     The effect of this change of opinion upon biological speculation is obvious. For, if there have been no periodical general physical catastrophes, what brought about the assumed general extinctions and re—creations of life which are the corresponding biological catastrophes?     And, if no such interruptions of the ordinary course of nature have taken place in the organic, any more than in the inorganic, world, what alternative is there to the admission of evolution?

The Doctrine of Evolution in Biology Is the Result

of the Application of the Principles of Uniformitarianism

     “The doctrine of evolution in biology is the necessary result of the logical application of the principles of uniformitarianism to the phenomena of life. Darwin is the natural successor of Hutton and Lyell, and the "Origin of Species" the logical sequence of the "Principles of Geology."

     “The fundamental doctrine of the "Origin of Species,'' as o all forms of the theory of evolution applied to biology, is " that the innumerable species, genera, and families of organic beings with which the world is peopled have all descended, each within its own class or group, from common parents, and have all been modified in the course of descent." (Origin of Species, ed, l, p. 957.)

     “And, in view of the facts of geology, it follows that all living animals and plants " are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch."


     “It is an obvious consequence of this theory of descent with modification, as it is sometimes called, that all plants and animals, however different they may now be, must, at one time or other, have been connected by direct or indirect intermediate gradations, and that the appearance of isolation presented by various groups of organic beings must be unreal.

     “No part of Mr. Darwin's work ran more directly counter to the prepossessions of naturalists twenty years ago than this. And such prepossessions were very excusable, for there was undoubtedly a great deal to be said, at that time, in favour of the fixity of species and of the existence of great breaks, which there was no obvious or probable means of filling up, between various groups of organic beings.

     “For various reasons, scientific and unscientific, much had been made of the hiatus between man and the rest of the higher mammalia, and it is no wonder that issue was first joined on this part of the controversy.     I have no wish to revive past and happily forgotten controversies ; but I must state the simple fact that the distinctions in the cerebral and other characters, which were so hotly affirmed to separate man from all other animals in 1860, have all been demonstrated to be non—existent, and that the contrary doctrine is now universally accepted and taught. (Origin of Species, p. 458.)

     “But there were other cases in which the wide structural gaps asserted to exist between one group of animals and another were by no means fictitious ; and, when such structural breaks were real, Mr. Darwin could account for them only by supposing that the intermediate forms which once existed had become extinct. In a remarkable passage he says

     "’We may thus account even for the distinctness of whole classes from each other—for instance, of birds from all other vertebrate animals—by the belief that many animal forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other vertebrate classes.’ (Origin of Species, p. 431.)

     “Adverse criticism made merry, over such suggestions as these. Of course it was easy to get out of the difficulty by supposing extinction; but where was the slightest evidence that such intermediate forms between birds and reptiles as the hypothesis required ever existed? And then probably followed a tirade upon this terrible forsaking of the paths of " Baconian induction."

     “But the progress of knowledge has justified Mr. Darwin to an extent which could hardly have been anticipated. In 1862, the specimen of Archccopteryx, which, until the last two or three years, has remained unique, was discovered; and it is an animal which, in its feathers and the greater part of its organisation, is a veritable bird, while, in other parts, it is as distinctly reptilian.

     “In 1868, I had the honour of bringing under your notice, in this theatre, the results of investigations made, up to that time, into the anatomical characters of certain ancient reptiles, which showed the nature of the modifications in virtue of which the type of the quadrupedal reptile passed into that of a bipedal bird; and abundant confirmatory evidence of the justice of the conclusions which I then laid before you has since come to light.

     “In 1875, the discovery of the toothed birds of the cretaceous formation in North America by Professor Marsh completed the series of transitional forms between birds and reptiles, and removed Mr. Darwin's proposition that "many animal forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other vertebrate classes," from the region of hypothesis to that of demonstrable fact.

     “In 1859, there appeared to be a very sharp and clear hiatus between vertebrated and invertebrated animals, not only in their structure, but, what was more important, in their development. I do not think that we even yet know the precise links of connection between the two; but the investigations of Kowalewsky and others upon the development of Annphioxzcs and of the Tunicata prove, beyond a doubt, that the differences which were supposed to constitute a barrier between the two are non—existent. There is no longer any difficulty in understanding how the vertebrate type may have arisen from the invertebrate, though the full proof of the manner in which the transition was actually effected may still be lacking.

     “Again, in 1859, there appeared to be a no less sharp separation between the two great groups of flowering and flowerless plants. It is only subsequently that the series of remarkable investigations inaugurated by Hofmeister has brought to light the extraordinary and altogether unexpected modifications of the reproductive apparatus in the Lycopodiacece, the Rhizocar, pecr, and the Gymnospermece, by which the ferns and the mosses are gradually connected with the Phanerogamic division of the vegetable world.


     “So, again, it is only since 1859 that we have acquired that wealth of knowledge of the lowest forms of life which demonstrates the futility of any attempt to separate the lowest plants from the lowest animals, and shows that the two kingdoms of living nature have a common borderland which belongs to both, or to neither.

     “Thus it will be observed that the whole tendency of biological investigation, since 1859, has been in the direction of removing the difficulties which the apparent breaks in the series created at that time; and the recognition of gradation is the first step towards the acceptance of evolution.

     As another great factor in bringing about the change of opinion which has taken place among naturalists, I count the astonishing progress which has been made in the study of embryology. Twenty years ago, not only were we devoid of any accurate knowledge of the mode of development of many groups of animals and plants, but the methods of investigation were rude and imperfect. At the present time, there is no important group of organic beings the development of which has not been carefully studied; and the modern methods of hardening and section—making enable the embryologist to determine, the nature of the process, in each case, with a degree of minuteness and accuracy which is truly astonishing to those whose memories carry them back to the beginnings of modern histology. And the results of these embryological investigations are in complete harmony with the requirements of the doctrine of evolution.     The first beginnings of all the higher forms of animal life are similar, and however diverse their adult conditions, they start from a common foundation.

     “Moreover, the process of development of the animal or the plant from its primary egg, or germ, is a true process of evolution—a progress from almost formless to more or less highly organised matter, in virtue of the properties inherent in that matter.

     “To those who are familiar with the process of development, all a priori objections to the doctrine of biological evolution appear childish. Any one who has watched the gradual formation of a complicated animal from the protoplasmic mass, which constitutes the essential element of a frog's or a hen's egg, has had under his eyes sufficient evidence that a similar evolution of the whole animal world from the like foundation is, at any rate, possible.

     “Yet another product of investigation has largely contributed to the removal of the objections to the doctrine of evolution current in 1859. It is the proof afforded by successive discoveries that Mr. Darwin did not over—estimate the imperfection of the geological record. No more striking illustration of this is needed than a comparison of our knowledge of the mammalian fauna of the Tertiary epoch in 1859 with its present condition.

     “M. Gaudry's researches on the fossils of Pikermi were published in 1868, those of Messrs. Leidy, Marsh, and Cope, on the fossils of the Western Territories of America, have appeared almost wholly since 1870, those of M. Filhol on the phosphorites of Quercy in 1878.

     “The general effect of these investigations has been to introduce to us a multitude of extinct animals, the existence of which was previously hardly suspected; just as if zoologists were to become acquainted with a country, hitherto unknown, as rich in novel forms of life as Brazil or South Africa once were to Europeans. Indeed, the fossil fauna of the Western Territories of America bid fair to exceed in interest and importance all other known Tertiary deposits put together; and yet, with the exception of the case of the American tertiaries, these investigations have extended over very limited areas; and, at Pikermi, were confined to an extremely small space.

     “Such appear to me to be the chief events in the history of the progress of knowledge during the last twenty years, which account for the changed feeling with which the doctrine of evolution is at present regarded by those who have followed the advance of biological science, in respect of those problems which bear indirectly upon that doctrine.

     “But all this remains mere secondary evidence. It may remove dissent, but it does not compel assent. Primary and direct evidence in favour of evolution can be furnished only by palaeontology. The geological record, so soon as it approaches completeness, must, when properly questioned, yield either an affirmative or a negative answer if evolution has taken place, there will its mark be left; if it has not taken place, there will lie its refutation.

     “What was the state of matters in 1859?     

     “Let us hear Mr. Darwin, who may be trusted always to state the case against himself as strongly as possible.


     "’On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life ? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and plausible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory.’ (Origin of Species, ed. 1, p. 463.)

     “Nothing could have been more useful to the opposition than this characteristically candid avowal, twisted as it immediately was into an admission that the writer's views were contradicted by the facts of paleontology. But, in fact, Mr. Darwin made no such admission.

     “What he says in effect is, not that palaeontological evidence is against him, but that it is not distinctly in his favour; and, without attempting to attenuate the fact, he accounts for it by the scantiness and the imperfection of that evidence.

     “What is the state of the case now, when, as we have seen, the amount of our knowledge respecting the mammalia of the Tertiary epoch is increased fifty—fold, and in some ditections even approaches completeness ?

Simply this, that, if the doctrine of evolution had not existed, palaeontologists must have invented it, so irresistibly is it forced upon the mind by the study of the remains of the Tertiary mammalia which have been brought to light since 1859.

     “Among the fossils of Pikermi, Gaudry found the successive stages by which the ancient civets passed into the more modern hyaenas ; through the Tertiary deposits of Western America, Marsh tracked the successive forms by which the ancient stock of the horse has passed into its present form ; and innumerable less complete indications of the mode of evolution of other groups of the higher mammalia have been obtained. In the remarkable memoir on the phosphorites of Quercy, to which I have referred, M. Filhol describes no fewer than seventeen varieties of the genus Cynodictis, which fill up all the interval between the viverine animals and the bear—like dog gmphicyon ; nor do I know any solid ground of objection to the supposition that, in this Cynodictis—Amphicyon group, we have the stock whence all the Viveridw, Felidae, Hyaenidm, Canidae, and perhaps the Procyonidae and Ursidae, of the present fauna have been evolved.

     “On the contrary, there is a great deal to be said in favour.

     “In the course of summing up his results, M. Filhol observes:

     "During the epoch of the phosphorites, great changes took place in animal forms, and almost the same types as those which now exist became defined from one another.

     "Under the influence of natural conditions of which we have no exact knowledge, though traces of them are discoverable, species have been modified in a thousand ways: races have arisen which, becoming fixed, have thus produced a corresponding number of secondary species.’

     “In 1859, language of which this is an unintentional paraphrase, occurring in the " Origin of Species," was scouted as wild speculation; at present, it is a sober statement of the conclusions to which an acute and critically—minded investigator is led by large and patient study of the facts of paleontology. I venture to repeat what I have said before, that so far as the animal world is concerned, evolution is no longer a speculation, but a statement of historical fact. It takes its place alongside of. those accepted truths which must be reckoned with by philosophers of all schools.

     “Thus when, on the first day of October next, "The Origin of Species" comes of age, the promise of its youth will be amply fulfilled; and we shall be prepared to congratulate the venerated author of the book, riot only that the greatness of his achievement and its enduring influence upon the progress of knowledge have won him a place beside our Harvey; but, still more, that, like Harvey, he has lived long enough to outlast detraction and opposition, and to see the stone that the builders rejected become the head—stone of the corner.” (Thomas H. Huxley, Darwiniana. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1898, pp. 227—243.)


     What is interesting about this article is the admission that the theory of evolution is the successor to the theory of uniformity. After the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859, Huxley spent the remainder of life answering the critics of Darwin. He became world famous for his defense of Darwin and his new theory. Huxley was a key member of the School of Higher Criticism.


Chapter 7—Theistic Evolution: the Seduction of the Clergy throughout the World

     Earlier we noted that the School of Higher Criticism has two areas which it had targeted for penetration. The first area was the sciences and social sciences. With the publication of The Principles of Geology and the Origin of Species, the School would soon gain control of the sciences and the social sciences. The second area targeted for control was the churches. For centuries priests has maintained a spiritual tyranny over the mind of man by controlling access to the Holy Scriptures. The invention of the printing press challenged the power of the priests and they fought it bitterly. However, God had decreed that the common people on earth would have the Word of God. And God prevailed over His enemies when He successfully guided and inspired the publication of the King James Version of the Holy Bible in England in 1611.

Infiltrate the Schools of Divinity

     While the School of Higher Criticism was busy penetrating the sciences and social sciences, it was burrowing into another area—the clergy and churches. Here they developed a two—fold attack strategy. First, they would set up scholars in religion who would use the same strategy as the philosophers. They would question every aspect of the Holy Bible. They would deny the existence of miracles. They would argue over authorship of various books, etc. Every argument they advanced was designed to weaken the faith of those who believed in God and the Holy Bible.

Secularize the Churches in the Western World

     The goal was to secularize the churches in the Western World. The School of Higher Criticism would use so—called members of the clergy (actually they had lost their testimonies long ago and were using the robes of their profession to deceive other and lead them away from God and Jesus Christ and His gospel.) They would insidiously attack the Holy Scriptures and question every aspect of them until the people lost faith and hope in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

     The so-called members of the clergy joined the ranks of the secular philosophers would were spending full time developing arguments and attack strategies to destroy faith in God. Their strategy was one of constant, unrelenting criticism of the Holy Bible. Their goal was to get people to doubt the validity of the basic teachings, principles, doctrines, laws, commandments, ordinances, covenants, miracles and prophecies of the Holy Bible.

An Attack on Miracles in the Holy Bible

     Listen to the words of David Strauss (1808–874) a German theologian and member of the School of Higher Criticism. He said, “Vainly did we philosophers and critical theologians over and over again decree the extermination of miracles; out ineffectual sentence died away, because we could neither dispense with miraculous agency, nor point to any natural force able to supply it, where it hitherto seemed most indispensable. Darwin had demonstrated this force, this process of nature; he has opened the door which a happier race will cast our miracles, never to return. Everyone who knows what miracles imply will praise him, in consequence, as one of the greatest benefactors of the human race.” (David F. Strauss, The Old Faith and the New: A Confession. London: Asher, 1873, p. 205.)

John Wesley Leads a Revival in England in the 1700s

     Fortunately God had raised up such great men as John Wesley to lead the great revival in England in the 1700s, otherwise, the School of Higher Criticism would have overrun the nation. Wesley and the clergy in England fought valiantly against the atheistic philosophies and secular doctrines originating from Germany and France.

     In 1836, just a few years after Charles Lyell published The Principles of Geology, Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman, a leader in the Roman Catholic community in England gave a series of twelve lectures where he abandoned the Genesis record of the Creation and embraced the law of uniformity.

Catholic Church In Germany Denies the Universal Flood

     In Germany, under the leadership of Professor Reusch (1866) at Bonn University, the Roman Catholic Church began to deny the Universal Flood. The German philosophers and theologians were unrelenting in casting doubt about the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures. Their influence would trickle down among the churches and the people would be led astray. Eventually the tenets of Darwinism reached into the sanctuary of the churches and the leaders of the people began to accept them in order to maintain their popularity with the leading scholars and clergy of the day. The secularization of the churches was well underway.

School of Higher Criticism Introduces Theistic Evolution

     One of the cleverest strategies that the School of Higher Criticism came up with is called theistic evolution.

The atheists behind the school knew that they clergy would have to be weakened gradually. They had been weaning them from the Holy Scriptures through criticism of the Holy Bible. Now they were going to bring the clergy, priests, pastors, bishops, reverends into the Church of Darwin by advocating a new theory. The School of Higher Criticism began circulating the view that God used evolution to create life and then retreated somewhere in the universe and is no longer concerned with what takes place on earth.

School of Higher Criticism Targets Spiritually Weak Clergy

     The concept of theistic evolution was designed for those who testimony of God and his Son was so weak that they could easily be seduced by the dark side of Darwin’s arguments. The School of Higher Criticism purposely designed this theory to deceive the clergy knowing full well that the clergy would then deceive their congregations.

The principles of higher criticism would be carefully and cleverly veiled or concealed under the robes of religious studies.

The Need for Every Person to Become a Biblical Scholar

     The tenets of theistic evolution clearly reveal the need for members of each and every church in America and throughout the world, to become doctrinal scholars and to hold their pastors, ministers, clergy, bishops, priests, reverends strictly accountable for what they teach the congregations. The Holy Bible, not the Origin of Species, or The Principles of Geology, should be the Standard Text used each and every day of the week in the churches of America and the Western World.


     According to the School of Higher Criticism, the originators of the theory of theistic evolution, the Book of Genesis is a collection of myths and legends. The Creation of earth, the placement of Adam and Eve on the earth, Fall of Adam, the Universal Flood and the Tower of Babel are mere fables. They have persuaded people to believe that God created the universe and they left the rest to chance. The School then promoted the writings of Lyell and Darwin which explained the world in naturalistic terms.

     It easy to see why certain people accept this theory, it is very convenient. You can practice a form of self-deception and believe in God, yet not in His teachings, the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and yet live whatever lifestyle you like. If you want to commit adultery, that is fine. If you want to break any the commandments, that is fine because God is not watching and does not really care. It is a very convenient new philosophy.

Theistic Evolution Is a New Secular Religion

     Theistic evolution should be considered a new secular religion. It is pure Darwinism with a clerical robe tied around the shoulders of the agnostic and Deist.

Theistic Evolution Comes to Harvard University

     One of the leading members of the School of Higher Criticism in America was a professor of botany at Harvard by the name of Asa Gray (1810-1888). He actively supported the theory of uniformity and the theory of evolution in America from 1860 until his death in 1888. Harvard was the center of Unitarian belief in America. Gray knew that the American people were literalists when it came to interpreting the Holy Bible. He knew that Darwin’s theory was a philosophy masquerading as a science. However, he became one of the greatest proponents of Darwinism and the Origin of Species in America.

     As a member of the School of Higher Criticism, he also knew the real agenda of the new theory—to promote agnosticism and atheism—and to destroy a belief in God and the Holy Bible. Therefore he adopted the new strategy and camouflaged agnosticism and atheism in the robes of an apostate priesthood. It was apostate in the sense that the clergy were abandoning a belief in the Holy Bible and accepting the tenets of Darwinism. Although they maintained their positions in the churches and schools of divinity, they had lost their real testimony of God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible, especially the King James Version.

Atheism Is the New Foundation of Science

     Gray would write that, “Since atheistic doctrines of evolution are prevailing and likely to prevail, more or less among scientific men, I have thought it important and have taken considerable pain to show that they may be held theistically.” (Hunter Dupree, Asa Gray. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959, p. 359.)

     Gray was a cunning proponent of the theory of evolution. He helped devise a strategy that would influence and deceive tens of millions of young people and adults in America. He wrote that, “The important thing to do is to develop a right evolutionary teleology, and to present the argument for design from the exquisite adaptations in such a way as to make it tell on both aides; with Christian men, that they may be satisfied with, and perchance may learn to admire, Divine works effected step by step, if need be, in a system of nature; and the anti-theistic [atheistic] people, to show that without the implication of a superintending wisdom nothing is made out, and nothing credible.” (Jane L. Gray, Calendar of the Letters of Charles Robert Darwin to Asa Gray. Boston: Historical Record Survey, 1893, Volume II, p. 656.)

Theistic Evolution Is Based Upon Rejection of Genesis

     Gray was setting up people to accept the transmutation of species as advocated by Darwin. He did not tell them that they would have to discard the Book of Genesis in the process.

     John Dewey, another key member of the School of Higher Criticism in America and a leading proponent of agnosticism and atheism, called Gray’s plan, “design on the installment plan.” (John Dewey, The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy and Other Essays in Contemporary Thought. New York: H. Holt. 1951, p. 12.)


     Gray wrote to Charles Darwin and tried to persuade him to adopt of the strategy of theistic evolution, however, the new prophet of evolution, decided to stand firmly by the new version of the old theory. He rejected the argument and strategy. Darwin was now a confirmed atheist. He was did want to give up his high standing in the School of Higher Criticism to win a few converts in America.

Scientist, Social Scientists and Theologians Are Seduced By the Dark Side

     Darwin knew that the seduction of the science community was underway and that it would be successful; he knew that the seduction of the social sciences was underway and it would be successful; and he knew that the seduction of the clergy was underway, and that it would be successful too. Darwin knew the power of the theory of evolution and more important he knew a great secret. He knew the power of the powers behind the School of Higher Criticism and their determination to seduce the entire planet with the tenets of agnosticism and atheism. After all, Darwin occupied a higher position that most in the School of Higher Criticism and he was privy to the global plans to seduce the entire world with their new theories.

      In rejecting Gray’s invitation to open the door to theistic evolution in America, Darwin firmly outlined his unwavering and total commitment to the School of Higher Criticism. Long ago Darwin made his choice. He chose to serve the School of Higher Criticism. He rejected Moses and the Holy Bible a long time ago. He would never turn back. He would be rewarded for his commitment and service to the School of Higher Criticism.

Darwin Unequivocally Rejects Theistic Evolution

     In 1861, Darwin wrote a letter to his close friend and ally, Charles Lyell and admitted that, “The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the appearance of new species out of the range of science.”

     Darwin would later write to Asa Gray and make the same case for pure atheism.

Darwin Argues That Chance and Chance Alone Reign

     To make the point crystal clear, Darwin would add a note to the fifth (1869) and sixth (1872) editions of the Origin of Species where he attempted to quote Aristotle in an attempt top bolster his argument and position that chance and chance alone (no providential aid) was the guiding power of natural selection. (Actually he misquoted Aristotle.) Most proponents of theistic evolution seem to conveniently ignore Darwin explicit and clear position on this matter. There was God, no providential direction and no intelligent design. Chance, not God directed the development of the universe and all life in it.

Darwin Publicly Rejects Theistic Evolution

     In 1868 Darwin publicly rebuked Asa Gray on the last page of his Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, when he wrote, “However much we may wish, we can hardly follow professor Asa Gray in his belief in lines of beneficent variation.” (Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. London: John Murray, 1868, Volume II, p. 4328.)

     Asa Gray’s attempt to promote theistic evolution with Darwin failed. Darwin realized that Gray was attempting to devise a new strategy to promote Darwinism, however, as the so-called founder, he had to remain firm on his position. Although Darwin had to keep the troops in line, the School of Higher Criticism proceeded with its plans to use theistic evolution t seduce the theologians around the world. Darwin knew that it was just a strategy,. Some people, like Asa Gray actually believed the lies being foisted upon them by the School of Higher Criticism.

Like a prophet, Darwin stated the doctrine quite clearly. The theory of evolution rests upon the foundation of pure atheism and naturalism. There is absolutely no room for God in any way.

Darwin Stands Firmly Supports the Philosophy of Atheism

     While Gray was attempting to devise a strategy to get people in America to believe in the theory of evolution, Charles Darwin reminded the intellectual world that the new theory which he presented in Origin of Species rests firmly and squarely upon the foundation of atheism—pure unadulterated atheism. It does not rest upon the shaky and sandy foundation of theistic evolution. Either there is a God or there is not a God. The choice is between these two areas and these two areas alone.

     Gray realized that Darwin was forcing the intellectual world to accept his views and his version of the theory of evolution. Darwin was not interested in watering down the concept because he knew that it would win over the entire academic community in a short time. Darwin, Lyell and the members of the School of Higher Criticism knew the power of the ideas they were promoting. And more importantly, they knew, what few people on earth know, they knew why they were promoting them. The School of Higher Criticism knew that the majority of scholars spend their entire lives in an intellectual bubble. They rarely wonder into other academic discipline, therefore, they have a very narrow perspective on the world at large.

A New Route to Atheism and Agnosticism

     The new proponents of theistic evolution were simply promoting another route to the acceptance of agnosticism and atheism.

     The theory of theistic evolution also presented another problem for its proponents. Seven of the apostles referred to the Book of Genesis in their writings. If they were going to delete the Book of Genesis, they were going to have to throw a large portion of the New Testament as well. Nevertheless, the followers of Darwin, who were being quietly promoted by the School of Higher Criticism, continued to push theistic evolution in America.

     It is interesting to note that while Gray was the leading proponent of Darwinism at Harvard, another colleague. Louis Agassiz, one of the nation’s leading scientists, was its fiercest critic.

The Theory of Theistic Evolution Takes Over Yale University

     The theory of theistic evolution also arose at Yale University in the form of James Dana, a professor of geology. Dana almost single handedly converted Yale University to the position of theistic evolution by using the arguments of Asa Gray. In is ironic, that Yale, founded as a Christian school, would become a bastion of theistic evolution. It seems that Darwin was right. His ideas would eventually be adopted at colleges and universities throughout the world.

     Day by day, the clergy in American began to be indoctrinated in the tenets of higher criticism and theistic evolution, without even realizing that they were being completely manipulated by the School of Higher Criticism, headquartered in Germany.

John D. Rockefeller Promotes Theistic Evolution throughout America

     The power of the School of Higher Criticism in America is illustrated by the story of Harry Emerson Fosdick. He was an active promoter of theistic evolution in New York City and after preaching a sermon against the doctrine of special creation taught in the Book of Genesis he was asked to leave his church.

     John D. Rockefeller, Jr., built a new church for Fosdick so he could continue preaching theistic evolution. For twenty years, he promoted Darwinism in a weekly radio sermon.

Theistic Evolution Enters the Catholic Church

     Just after Lyell published The Principles of Geology, a movement began at Cambridge to adopt a number of the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church within the Anglican Church. The leader of the movement was John Henry Newman. He argued that the 39 Articles of Faith of the Church of England could be interpreted with a new Catholic outlook. His views were not well received and he eventually resigned from the Church and joined the Roman Catholic Church in England in 1845.

     Once inside the Catholic Church, Newman began promoting the tenets of Darwinism. He became a cardinal in 1877 and the writings of Darwin began to be placed alongside the Holy Bible. Eventually the principles of Darwinism was being heralded across the pulpits in the Roman Catholic Church. The tenets of theistic evolution took root inside the Church and have remained there ever since 1877.

Statement of Pope John Paul II

     Recently the Pope endorsed the theory of theistic evolution in one of his messages to the world. In a message to the Pontifical Academy of Science, October 22, 1996, the Pope John Paul II stated:

     1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.

     2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since Revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of Revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo )(1II, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance.

     During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium", starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications gives rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact.

     In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.

     4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in—depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis.

     Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. [Editor's note: On 19 November 1996, Father Robert Dempsey, editor of the English—language edition of L'Osservatore Romano, stated that the newspaper had published an overly literal translation of the French—language message that "obscures the real meaning of the text." He said that the pope's real meaning was that it is now possible to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis (Catholic News Service, 19 November 1996, p 14; and CRUX of the News, 2 December 1996, p 6).] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.


     By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

     Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

     And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.

     But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium el spes, n. 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God. (From the Vatican, 22 October 1996. First published in L' Osservatore Romano, October 30, 1996. John Paul II (b. 1920), pope of the Roman Catholic Church (1978).

     It is important to note that Catholicism has always taught its people to rely upon the authority and teachings of its priests, monks, bishops, cardinals and popes. Unfortunately, the Holy Bible has a secondary position in the Church.

     Another prominent Catholic to support and promote the theory of theistic evolution was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest. He was a disciple of Professor Henri Bergson who wrote L’Evolution Creatrice in 1907. The professor taught his young student that there was an intelligent force guiding evolution in its development. He began promoting theistic evolution so vehemently that he was twice exiled by the Church. Just before his death he published Phenomenon of Man. After his death in 1955 a number of his essays were published in a volume entitled Christianity and Evolution.

     Once again, prominent theologians can be found promoting the tenets of atheism in the disguise of theistic evolution. Although his views were initially banned, they are now accepted throughout the western world. Theistic evolution has now become firmly established in the Roman Catholic Church.

Theistic Evolution Enters the Church of England

     A number of prominent theologians can be found promoting the tenets of Darwinism and theistic evolution within the Protestant Churches.

     One of the leading figures of the 18th century was Baden Powell, an ordained Anglican professor at Oxford. He had been elected to the Royal Society in 1824 and after the publication of The Principles of Geology in 1830-1833, he became a promoter of the theory of uniformity. In 1844 the School of Higher Criticism published a volume entitled, Vestiges of Creation. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, laid the groundwork for the acceptance of the theory of evolution. It outlined the theory that all life forms had developed slowly over eons of time in a completely natural process.

     When Vestiges was published in England, Baden Powell was one of the first Protestant theologians to accept the work. He felt that miracles were mere legends and that the Old Testament was irrelevant for today. While holding a belief in God, he accepted Darwinism and became a great promoter of theistic evolution. A scandal erupted when Baden Power wrote a favorable review of the Origins of Species

     In 1760 Baden Powell would have been charged with heresy, however, by 1860 the climate in England had

changed dramatically.

     John Colenso (1814-1883) was an Anglican bishop who wrote an indictment of the Old Testament was deposed in 1860.

     Frederick Temple (1821-1902), a bishop of London in the Anglican Church stated publicly that the tenets of Darwinism were beneficial for society.


     Frederick Temple (1881-1944) would become one of the key leaders in the School of Higher Criticism. He became Archbishop of Canterbury and the author of Nature, Darwin and God. He was an avid promoter of theistic evolution and later help form the World Council of Churches, a leading secular institutions which promotes theistic evolution and socialism.

     If you analyze the books published by prominent theologians since 1860 in the Western world, you will find that the majority of them support theistic evolution. Darwin was right, the theologians were finally won over through attrition. The School of Higher Criticism has been very successful in seducing the clergy in the Western World to accept the tenets of Darwinism. By realize that once they accept the basic premises, they will eventually accept all of the principles of atheism. It is just a matter of time.

     It is quite telling that when Charles Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859 there was a public outcry from the clergy and the public. When Darwin died in 1882, just 23 years later, the leaders of the Anglican Church had accepted theistic evolution and the basic principles of Darwinism. He was given a hero’s funeral.

     Just imagine, the Church of England gave Charles Darwin, the avowed atheist, and leader of the School of Higher Criticism, (who has done more to destroy faith in God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible than any other man on earth), a hero’s funeral. Darwin, along with his notorious colleague, Charles Lyell, are buried in Westminster Abby next to Sir Isaac Newton. What does that tell you about the discernment and policies of the church.

     In 1760 heresy was a crime in England, in 1882, it was a virtue.

God Has Created Billions of Earths Like Ours

     The belief that God, who is the Supreme Governor of the universe; who is eternal; who possesses all power, knowledge, truth and dominion; who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent would use the theory of theistic evolution to create this world and begin life on it is not scriptural or logical. If God is the Creator of worlds without end, why would He resort to using a natural process that would take 4.6 billion years to develop a man and then place a spirit into him after he has progressed from a monkey. The theory is ludicrous, illogical and completely without any foundation in the Holy Bible.

     To believe that God would use a process called natural selection and simply sit back for billions of years and wait for man to evolve from a single cell into a man defies common sense and logic.

     If God is eternal, it is safe to assume that he has created billions and billions of earths like this. If that premise is true and it is, why would He have to use such a slow process to bring about life on earth. Why not simply place the life forms that He has created for other planets on this planet?

     The same argument applies to the theory of evolution. Why would God use such a natural process which He could simply place various life forms on this planet that He had created for other worlds in the past eons of eternity? The theory of evolution is the most pernicious doctrine on earth because it was cunningly and cleverly designed to remove God from the universe and from this earth.

The Theory of Theistic Evolution Was Designed to Seduce the Clergy

     The theory of theistic evolution was designed by the Higher School of Criticism to seduce and deceive the theologians and clergy of the world, so they would in turn, seduce and deceive their congregations. It is a clever ply to lead people into accepting the full fledged doctrine of the theory of evolution advocated by Charles Darwin. It is the road to agnosticism and atheism.

An Attempt to Secularize the Churches in the Western World

     The theory of theistic evolution was designed by the School of Higher Criticism to secularize the churches in the western world. And they have succeeded because the people have not become Biblical scholars and challenged their clergy, priests, bishops, ministers, reverends and preachers whenever they deviated from the teachings of the Holy Bible and began teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

     It is imperative that every person who believes in the Holy Bible to spend time each day, if possible, reading and pondering the glorious teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is contained in books of the Old testament and the books of the New Testament.

Statements on Evolution by Protestant Churches

     Let us look at several statements which indicate that the School of Higher Criticism has been successful in their efforts to penetrate the churches and seduce the clergy into supporting the theory of evolution, at least with some Protestant churches.


The Lutheran World Federation

Statement on Evolution


     Symbolic of the prominence of the evolutionary idea in contemporary thought is the occurrence of "evolved" as the last word of the famous closing paragraph of Darwin's The Origin of Species, 1859. While not original with the emergence of Darwinism, evolution has nevertheless been intimately associated with it and has in the intervening century become one of the most comprehensive concepts of the modern mind. Consequently the issue cannot be stated in terms of the restricted alternative whether any one phase of evolution (especially the biological) is still "only a scientific theory" or long since "an established fact." Neither is it a matter of holding out the hope that if only enough fault can be found with Darwin the church's doctrine of creation will automatically be accepted and religion can then be at peace with science.

     Rather, the evolutionary dynamisms of today's world compel a more realistic confrontation. One area of reality after another has been analyzed and described on the basis of some kind of progressive change until the whole may be viewed as a single process. The standpoint of the one who views this unitary development may be avowedly atheistic in the sense of ruling out the supernatural (Sir Julian Huxley) or just as avowedly Christian in the sense of finding in evolution an infusion of new life into Christianity, with Christianity alone dynamic enough to unify the world with God (Teilhard de Chardin).

     In whatever way the process may be ultimately explained, it has come about that an idea which has been most thoroughly explored in the field of biology (lower forms of life evolving into higher) has by means of organismic analogy found universal application. Phenomena thus accounted for range from physical realities (evolution of the atoms and expanding galaxies) to man and his social experience (the evolution of cultural values) including his understanding of time and history (the evolutionary vision of scientific eschatology). Hence there is posited a movement of cumulative change in the organic and the inorganic; in the evolution of life and of man, of social institutions and political constitutions, of emerging races and nations, of language and art forms, of school systems and educational methods, of religion and doctrine; and of science and of the theory of evolution itself.

     With biological evolution (ostensibly a matter of pure science) thereby becoming a metaphysics of evolution it needs to be determined whether religion's proper quarrel is with the science which permits itself such dogmatic extension or whether the misgivings are primarily with the particular philosophical interpretation involved. To the evolutionary concept in general there are however (in spite of innumerable variations) basically two religious reactions.


     1. As in the days of the Scopes trial all evolution may still be denied on the grounds of a literalistic interpretation of the Bible, especially Genesis 1-11. Not content with the commitment of faith in the Creator expressed in the First Article of the Apostles' Creed this interpretation may demand a specific answer also to the questions of when creation occurred and how long it took.

     2. On the other hand there are those who can no more close their eyes to the evidence which substantiates some kind of lengthy evolutionary process in the opinion of the vast majority of those scientists most competent to judge than they could deny the awesome reality of God's presence in nature and their own experience of complete dependence upon the creative and sustaining hand of God revealed in the Scriptures.

     An assessment of the prevailing situation makes it clear that evolution's assumptions are as much around us as the air we breathe and no more escapable. At the same time theology's affirmations are being made as responsibly as ever. In this sense both science and religion are here to stay, and the demands of either are great enough to keep most (if not all) from daring to profess competence in both. To preserve their own integrity both science and religion need to remain in a healthful tension of respect toward one another and to engage in a searching debate which no more permits theologians to pose as scientists than it permits scientists to pose as theologians. (Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church, vol. 1 (Minneapolis, 1965).

Unitarian Universalist Association

Statement on Evolution


     Whereas, the constitutional principles of religious liberty and the separation of church and state that safeguards liberty, and the ideal of a pluralistic society are under increasing attack in the Congress of the United States, in state legislatures, and in some sectors of the communications media by a combination of sectarian and secular special interests;

     Be it resolved: That the 1982 General Assembly of UUA reaffirms its support for these principles and urges the Board of Trustees and President of the Association, member societies, and Unitarian Universalists in the United States to: ... 2. Uphold religious neutrality in public education, oppose all government mandated or sponsored prayers, devotional observances, and religious indoctrination in public schools; and oppose efforts to compromise the integrity of public school teaching by the introduction of sectarian religious doctrines, such as "scientific creationism," and by exclusion of educational materials on sectarian grounds ... (Resolution Passed at the twenty—first annual general assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association, June 1992.)

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church

Statement on Evolution


     Whereas, the state legislatures of several states have recently passed so-called "balanced treatment" laws requiring the teaching of "Creation-science" whenever evolutionary models are taught; and

     Whereas, in many other states political pressures are developing for such "balanced treatment" laws; and

     Whereas, the terms "Creationism" and "Creation-science" as understood in these laws do not refer simply to the affirmation that God created the Earth and Heavens and everything in them, but specify certain methods and timing of the creative acts, and impose limits on these acts which are neither scriptural nor accepted by many Christians; and

     Whereas, the dogma of "Creationism" and "Creation-science" as understood in the above contexts has been discredited by scientific and theologic studies and rejected in the statements of many church leaders; and

     Whereas, "Creationism" and "Creation-science" is not limited to just the origin of life, but intends to monitor public school courses, such as biology, life science, anthropology, sociology, and often also English, physics, chemistry, world history, philosophy, and social studies; therefore be it

     Resolved, that the 67th General Convention affirm the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not, and in this affirmation reject the limited insight and rigid dogmatism of the "Creationist" movement, and be it further


     Resolved, that we affirm our support of the sciences and educators and of the Church and theologians in their search for truth in this Creation that God has given and entrusted to us; and be it further

     Resolved, that the Presiding Bishop appoint a Committee to organize Episcopalians and to cooperate with all Episcopalians to encourage actively their state legislators not to be persuaded by arguments and pressures of the "Creationists" into legislating any form of "balanced treatment" laws or any law requiring the teaching of "Creation-science." (Adopted by the sixty-seventh general convention of the Episcopal Church, 1982.)

United Presbyterian Church in the USA

Statement on Evolution


     Whereas, The Program Agency of the United Presbyterian Church in the USA notes with concern a concerted effort to introduce legislation and other means for the adoption of a public school curriculum variously known as "Creationism" or "Creation Science,"

     Whereas, over several years, fundamentalist church leadership, resourced by the Creation Science Research Center and the Institute for Creation Research, has prepared legislation for a number of states calling for "balanced treatment" for "creation-science" and "evolution-science," requiring that wherever one is taught the other must be granted a comparable presentation in the classroom;

     Whereas, this issue represents a new situation, there are General Assembly policies on Church and State and Public Education which guide us to assert once again that the state cannot legislate the establishment of religion in the public domain;

     Whereas, the dispute is not really over biology or faith, but is essentially about Biblical interpretation, particularly over two irreconcilable viewpoints regarding the characteristics of Biblical literature and the nature of Biblical authority:

     Therefore, the Program Agency recommends to the 194th General Assembly (1982) the adoption of the following affirmation:

     Affirms that, despite efforts to establish "creationism" or "creation science" as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma as agreed by the court (McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education);

     Affirms that, the imposition of a fundamentalist viewpoint about the interpretation of Biblical literature—where every word is taken with uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters, whether moral, religious, political, historical or scientific—is in conflict with the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism, Such scholars find that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of life found in Biblical literature.

     Affirms that, academic freedom of both teachers and students is being further limited by the impositions of the campaign most notably in the modification of textbooks which limits the teaching about evolution but also by the threats to the professional authority and freedom of teachers to teach and students to learn;

     Affirms that, required teaching of such a view constitutes an establishment of religion and a violation of the separation of church and state, as provided in the First Amendment to the Constitution and laws of the United States;

     Affirms that, exposure to the Genesis account is best sought through the teaching about religion, history, social studies and literature, provinces other than the discipline of natural science, and

     Calls upon Presbyterians, and upon legislators and school board members, to resist all efforts to establish any requirements upon teachers and schools to teach "creationism" or "creation science." (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 1982.)


     The Holy Bible teaches a very important lesson when it says that by their fruits ye shall know them. In other words we are to judge individuals and organizations and all entities on earth by their works. Only by comparing their words and deeds with the teachings with the Holy Bible can we known if they are really followers of the Lord Jesus Christ and if they really do uphold the Word of God as contained in the King James Version of the Holy Bible.

     The above statements indicate that the School of Higher Criticism has made more inroads into the Christian world than many would like to admit.

School of Higher Criticism Cleverly Promotes Modern Translations of the Holy Bible

     It is also important to note that the School of Higher Criticism has sought to guide those who believed in the Holy Bible to accept new translations which are merely camouflaged attempts to secularize the scriptures. People should use the King James Version of the Bible unless they read Latin or Greek. Those who have modernized the Holy Bible were not authorized to make changes in the Holy Scriptures.

A Warning from an Apostle of the Lord

     The warning of John the Revelator and Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ states that, “if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book,” (Revelation 22:19.) should be applied to the books of the Old Testament and the books of the New Testament. The modern versions of the Holy Bible have changed the meaning of key passages.

     The King James Version of the Holy Bible was taken from the Greek and Latin manuscripts which existed in London in the late 1500s and early 1600s. It is best to use the translations that are closest to the actual words spoken by the prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New Testament.

Evil and Conspiring Men and Women Really Do Exist

     More and more people in the Western World are coming to realize that evil and conspiring men and women do exist and they are determined to destroy faith in God and the Holy Bible through the promotion of any and all philosophies and false religions that undermine the Holy Scriptures. While we may like to pretend that they do not exist; the truth is, there are evil men and women who have chosen to follow the Adversary and build up his Kingdom on earth. Whenever two or more people come together, and devise a plan to destroy faith in God, that is a conspiracy, plain and simple. And they are evil if you accept the teachings of the Holy Bible.


Chapter 8—Intellectuals throughout the World Embrace Darwinism

     Soon after the publication of the Origin of Species, scholars around the world quickly embraced the new theory of evolution. They now had a philosophy (cleverly dressed in scientific clothes) which justified their personal desire to remove God and all His restrictions (commandments, ordinances, teachings, laws, covenants) from their lives. The secularization of the intellectual community was underway.

     The new intellectual of the 1860s could now safely remove God and the Holy Bible from his life and justify it upon so—called scientific reasons. The School of Higher Criticism has been publishing dozens and dozens of cleverly books which attacked different parts of the Holy Bible and its teachings.

Karl Marx Embraces the Teachings of Darwin

     While Thomas Huxley was promoting the teachings of Darwin in public lectures, he may have noticed a heavily bearded man listening attentively. His name was Karl Marx. He has been born into a Jewish family and converted to Christianity. However, as he grew older he began studying the philosophies being promoted by the School of Higher Criticism in Germany and France and he became an atheist, leaving behind his Jewish faith and heritage. He had been expelled from Germany for his political views and taken up residence in London.

     As Marx listened to Huxley’s addresses, he came to believe that the survival of the fittest argument applied to the class struggles of man within the economic systems of England and Europe. Marx had written the Communist Manifesto in 1848. He published Das Kapital in 1867. In 1873 Marx sent Charles Darwin a copy of Das Kapital and asked him if he would give him permission to dedicate his next volume to Darwin.

     Charles Darwin wrote to Karl Marx and declined the offer stating that, “it would pain certain members of his family if he were associated with so atheistic a book.” (Arthur Keith, Darwin Revalued. London: Watts and Co., 1955, p. 234.)

     The philosophies contained in the Origin of Species and Descent of Man would be used by Marx and others in the future to justify the horrors of communism, fascism and Nazism.

     Karl Marx had utilized the tenets of Darwinism and atheism as foundation of communism. Later Hitler would use the principles of Darwinism and Nietzschism to justify his beliefs and actions in destroying over six million Jewish people in Europe. The consequences for the world would be catastrophic as 180 million men, women and children would suffer and die in the 20th century because of these evil and destructive philosophies.

Julius Willhausen Attacks the Old Testament

     Another prominent German scholar that embraced the teachings of Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin was Julius Willhausen (1844-1918). He was a theologian who was a scholar of the Old Testament. As a student he had accepted the teachings of Hegel, therefore, it was an easy step for him to accept Lyell and Darwin. Hegel has taught that man was a descendant of primitive beings.

     Since the views of Hegel, Lyell and Darwin contradicted the views of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, Willhausen decided to begin a careful examination of the Books of Moses.

These five books outlined the Creation, the Fall of Adam, the Universal Flood and the division of the continents in the Days of Peleg and the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel, etc.

The School of Higher Criticism Develops

a Set of Analytical Tools To Examine the Old Testament

     The School of Higher Criticism had been established to destroy faith in God and to utilize so-called scholarly analysis of the Holy Bible as a tactic to cleverly and deceitfully promote agnosticism and atheism. Willhausen was a key member of the School as were his predecessors.

     Willhausen argued that the teachings of the Holy Bible were merely religious practices that had been absorbed from surrounding cultures down through time. He argued that the gospel of Jesus Christ has not been present with Noah and his family when they left the ark and that they were mere inventions by Moses. He even argued that Moses was a mythical character.

The Graf-Willhausen Developmental or Documentary Hypothesis

     The clever scholars in the School of Higher Criticism assumed that because the Israelites has neglected certain Mosiac laws and regulations for four centuries, that Moses could not have introduced them to the people of Israel. Willhausen and his group of pseudo-intellectuals in Germany developed a technique for studying the authorship of the books of the Old Testament. It was known as the Graf-Willhausen Developmental or Documentary Hypothesis. The hypothesis was based on the philosophy of Hegel. A myriad of Ph.D. dissertations have followed this hypothesis which is designed to undermine and destroy faith in God and His prophets.

Scholars Twist and Distort Archaeological Discoveries

     The scholars of the School of Higher Criticism have developed a set of analytical tools for examining the Holy Scriptures or Hebrew Scriptures as they call them, and they have twisted and distorted every archaeological discovery which demonstrates the validity and authenticity of the Holy Bible into evidence for their atheistic views.

A Key Argument of the School of Higher Criticism

     One of the key arguments of the School of Higher Criticism is that the Hebrew Scriptures or the Old Testament is just a collection of fables, legends, myths and fantasies handed down from generation to generation by people if the Middle East.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ Has Been On the Earth since the Beginning

     The truth is that the gospel of Jesus Christ has been on the earth since Adam and Eve walked out of the Garden of Eden and began teaching their children the principles of salvation. The gospel of Jesus Christ, with all of its commandments, laws, ordinances, teachings and covenants, was upon the earth from the days of Adam till Noah and the great Flood.

Noah Teaches His Posterity the Gospel of Jesus Christ

     After the Flood, Noah taught his children the gospel of Jesus Christ and they handed it down from generation to generation. The ancient records, whether they be clay tablets, dried parchments, stone engraving, etc., all contain references to the gospel and its teachings. This has confused some scholars who believe that the gospel originated at the time of the Savior’s ministry. This is not true. The gospel was presented to Adam and Eve and they presented it to their children. The pre-flood records, such as the Book of Adam and Eve and the Book of Enoch reference these facts. It is very important to remember that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is really Jesus Christ.

A Deliberate Attempt to Deceive People with False Assumptions

     Once again the atheistic and agnostic scholars at the School of higher Criticism are merely trying to deceive and seduce the intellectual world into accepting their version of early life on this planet. All of their work is designed to destroy a faith in God and the teachings of the holy Bible.

     The scholars of the School of Higher Criticism gradually gained control of the colleges and universities in Europe in the late 1800s. Soon the atheistic philosophies were found in America as young scholars studied in Germany, France and England and then brought their professor’s books and ideas back to colleges and universities such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Colombia, etc. Soon these philosophies were spread around America as young graduate students attended these schools and took the atheistic ideas and philosophies back to their schools and began teaching them to their students.

Secularization of Colleges and Universities throughout the World

     Only those instructors and professors that adhered to the tenets of atheism and Darwinism were given key positions and tenure. Those professors and instructors who believed in God were persecuted and ridiculed and given lower positions until they retired. Those who filled their positions were trained in the philosophies of atheism.


     Through this process, the entire educational system of the world was secularized and brought under the control and domination of the School of Higher Criticism. This process was so gradual that most people were unaware that a long-range plan for secularizing the world was being carefully orchestrated without their knowledge.

      As one generation of scholars passed away a new generation arose who were trained in the same tenets of atheism and agnosticism. This process has been going on throughout the world for nearly 300 years.

Encyclopaedia Britannica Promotes Darwinism

     One of the most effective proponents of School of Higher Criticism was William Robertson Smith (1879—1969). He was chief editor of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Smith was a theologian, philologist, archaeologist, physicist and scholar. He would spend over twenty years of his life teaching theistic evolution.

     In the ninth edition Smith outlined the position of Willhausen and the pseudo-scholars of the School of Higher Criticism. The public was outraged; however, their cries fell on deaf ears as one of the leading publications in the world began to promote atheism and Darwinism under the guise of theistic evolution.

     Soon other publications would follow as powerful forces gained control of the publishing houses and companies around the world. They would begin promoting the basic tenets of the theory of evolution and the basic teachings of theistic evolution to the public.

School of Higher Criticism Targets Libraries for Takeover

     One of the key targets of the School of Higher Criticism has been the libraries at colleges and universities around the world. The goal was to maneuver scholars into the libraries where they could control the purchase of books, magazines and journals. Librarians, armed with the tenets of agnosticism and atheism, were in a strategic position to influence the minds of the faculty, staff and students. Through the purchase of certain books the librarians could mold the minds of the next generations of scholars and members of society. Through the exclusion of certain books, the librarians could prevent certain knowledge from reaching the faculty, staff and students at the college or university. This same process has also been used to control the content of such pubic libraries throughout America, England and Europe.

James Frazer

     Let us look at the story of James Frazer who spent more than sixty years at Cambridge University promoting the theory of evolution. In 1918 he published a three volume work entitled, Folklore in the Old Testament. It is a collection of 138 stories from throughout the world that discuss the Universal Flood. The book was compiled by Frazer to undermine the teachings of the Holy Bible on the Flood. He argued that the Flood was only a local event and not a universal phenomenon. Ironically, Frazer gathered the stories from all over the world. And they all refer to the Flood. If the Flood was just a local event, the story would not have been preserved in various traditions that have been handed down through the ages.

     Frazer would spend over sixty years in the libraries of Trinity College at Cambridge undermining faith in Holy Bible.

     There have been tens of thousand of people like Frazer who have been, knowingly or unknowingly, agents of the School of Higher Criticism. The libraries of America, England, Europe and other parts of the world are filled with scholarly books designed and promoted by the scholars of the School of Higher Criticism.

Herbert Spencer

     Herbert Spencer (1820—1903) is another key member of the School of Higher Criticism. While a young man he cast away any believe in the teachings of the Holy Bible and became a confirmed naturalist, agnostic and atheist.


     In 1864 Spencer published the Principles of Biology. The text was based upon the teachings of Lamarck. In this text Spencer would popularize the term, “survival of the fittest.”

     In 1870—1872 Spencer published the Principles of Psychology, where he argued that man had not just evolved from primitive beings such as the monkey, he had evolved emotionally and mentally. In 1893 Spencer published the Principles of Ethics where he argued that man’s laws had also evolved along with the progress of society. He would be called the “philosopher of Darwinism.”

     The basic tenets of Darwinism and evolution would form the foundation for the textbooks that would arise in the sciences and social sciences. And that is where the grave danger lies. For it in these areas that civilization rests. If a civilization is based on agnosticism and atheism, then every part of society will reflect these ideas. The state will become secularized and the courts will enforce the new laws based upon the new religion or belief system of atheism.


     Henri Bergson (1859-1941) was a French philosopher who was born in Paris. Upon graduation in 1878 from the Ecole Normale Suprieure, he was appointed an instructor of philosopher at Lyce of Clermont Ferrand. He wrote his first book in 1878 entitled, Time and Free Will. In 1900 he became a professor at the College of France and in 1927 was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. In 1907 he wrote Creative Evolution. Almost overnight, thanks to the invisible help from the School of Higher Criticism, he became one of the leading figures in philosophy.

     Bergson’s book on evolution introduced “the lan vital as a sort of life force, probably owed its popularity partly to his attempt, backed by scientific as well as philosophical arguments, to develop a non-Darwinian evolutionism that made room for religion, albeit not for orthodox Christianity. He envisaged a process of constant change and development, irreversible and unrepeatable (so that biology is a fundamentally different science from physics), and governed by the lan, which uses effort and subtlety to overcome the resistance in Plato’s Timaeus), but is not drawn by some pre-envisaged end, for that would be a mere inverted mechanism.’” (Ted Honderich, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 89.)

     Creative Evolution introduced a new twist to Darwinism. The theory of evolution has been under fire since its official announcement in 1859. The intellectual community did not want to acknowledge the existence of as the Creator, therefore, they searched for a new theory to prop up the sagging theories of Darwinism. Bergson would make room for secular religions as long as Christianity was kept at bay. His new theory was still designed to stop a stampede away from Darwinism.

     Will Durant stated that Bergson’s theory “appears to us something quite different from the blind and dreary mechanism of struggle and destruction which Darwin and Spencer described. We sense duration in evolution, the accumulation of vital powers, the inventiveness of life and mind, ‘the continual elaboration of the absolutely new.’ We are prepared to understand why the most recent and expert investigators, like Jennings and Maupas, reject the mechanical theory of protozoan behavior, and why Professor E. B. Wilson, dean of contemporary cytologists, concludes his book on the cell with the statement that ‘the study of the cell has, on the whole, seemed to widen rather that to narrow the enormous gap that separates even the lowest forms of life from the inorganic world.’ And everywhere, in the world of biology, one hears of the rebellion against Darwin.

     “Darwinism means, presumably, the origin of new organs and functions, new organisms and species, by the natural selection of favorable variations. But this conception, hardly a century old, is already worm—eaten with difficulties. How, on this theory, did the instincts originate...?


     “Bergson’s critique of Darwinism issues from his vitalism. He carries on the French tradition established by Lamarck, and see impulse and desire as active forces in evolution; his spirited temper rejects the Spencerian conception of an evolution engineered entirely by the mechanical integration of matter and dissipation of motion: life is a positive power, an effort that builds it organs through the very persistence of its desires. We must admire the thoroughness of Bergson’s biological preparation, his familiarity with the literature, even with the periodicals in which current science hides itself for a decade of probation. He offers his erudition modestly, never with the elephantine dignity that weights down the pages of Spencer, Al in all, his criticism of Darwin proved effective; the specifically Darwinism features of the evolution theory are now generally abandoned.)(Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1926, pp. 457—458, 465.) Durant wrote these remarks in 1926.

     Interestingly enough, it would be the microscopic study of the cell and molecular biology and bio—chemistry that would reveal in the 1990s that Darwinism was merely a philosophy masquerading as a science. The stampede away from Darwinism is already underway and will accelerate in the future. The complete and utter collapse of Darwinism will occur in the near future. And with it will crumble the entire intellectual structure of the sciences and social sciences which build their foundation upon the sand of Darwinism and a host of other false premises and assumptions.

     Bergson’s theory was just another attempt to camouflage the truth that man was created by God.


     Benedetto Croce (1866-1952) was an Italian philosopher was born in the town of Aquila. Although he was raised a Catholic, be became a devoted atheist. Croce was a bitter enemy of Christianity and fought the teachings of he Holy Bible throughout his life. His first book was entitled, Historical Materialism and the Economics of Karl Marx. He published a book entitled Philosophy of Spirit in 1917 where he outlined a bizarre theory known as “the philosophy of the spirit.” He believed that man was an evolutionary being. He stated that mind of man was based on two elements: thought and action. Thought encompassed art and logic and action dealt with economic and ethics. The relationship between these elements gave rise to a self-generating mind or spirit as he called it.

     Croce was a disciple of Hegel and an admirer of Darwin, Marx and Engles. He wrote Aesthetics in 1902 and a three volume work entitled Philosophy of Spirit in 1917. He was the editor and founder of La Critica, a journal on philosophy.


     Bertrand Russell (1872—1979) was a mathematician turned philosopher. In 1903 he published the Principles of Mathematics where he argued that mathematics is simple logic. One of his most famous books is A History of Philosophy. He was a celebrated agnostic and atheist. He did not believe in the immortal spirit and felt that Christianity and its teachings were childish.

     Ludwig von Mises stated that, the masses “follow the lead the people we call educated. Once convince these, and the game is won.” (Ludwig von Mises, Socialism. London: Jonathan Cape,1936, p.23.) Since people look to the educated for guidance, if you want to control the masses you convert the educated and the game is over. That is exactly what the School of Higher Criticism has done. And they have done it exceptionally well. Nearly 300 years ago they set a goal to control the educational systems of the world and they have accomplished their goal. However, they will not win in the end this time.


Chapter 9—American Intellectuals Embrace Darwinism

     After the publication of the Principles of Geology and the Origin of Species, scholars in the Western World felt that they had just been paroled from the Victorian Age where the Holy Bible ruled the classroom. Using Lyell and Darwin as justification, scholars began introducing the new theories of uniformity and evolution into the sciences and the social sciences with . Freud would develop a new set of assumption for psychology. Marx would revolutionize the world with scientific socialism and communist. Darwinism would penetrate every academic circle and within twenty—five years it would become the foundation of the sciences and social science curriculums throughout colleges and universities. From there, the tenets of Darwinism would trickle down to the general public.

     Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin had successfully launched an ideological revolution that would change the world as scholars turned away from God and the Holy Bible and embraced the tenets of Darwinism.

     In America, the theory of evolution would meet with resistance. However, the academic world soon embraced Darwinism and its influence and power has only grown since the late 1800s and the early 1900s.

     It would appear that the American clergy, the sentinels who should have stopped Darwinism before it established a beachhead on the shores of America, were asleep at their posts.          


     One of the leading scholars in American who quickly embraced Darwinism was George Santayana (1863—1952). He was born in Madrid, Spain, however, he moved to Boston at an early age where he began his education at Harvard. He published a five volume series entitled, The Life of Reason. The individual titles would be Reason in Common Sense, Reason in Society, Reason in Religion, Reason in Art and Reason in Science. In 1923 he wrote Scepticism and Animal Faith.

     Santayana was a promoter of reason, materialism and naturalism. Concerning God and the soul, he said, “It is the mind that controls the bewildered body and points out the only way to physical habits uncertain of their affinities? Or is it not much rather an automatic inward machinery that executes the marvelous work, while the mind catches here and there some glimpse f the operation, now with delight and adhesion, now with impotent rebellion...? Lalande, or whoever it was, who searched the heavens with his telescope and could find no God, would not have found the human mind if he had searched the brain with a microscope.... Belief in such a spirit is simply belief in magic....The only facts observed by the psychologist are physical facts....The soul is only a fine quick organization within the material animal; ... a prodigious network of nerves and tissues, growing in generation out of a seed.” (Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1923, p. 495.)

     Santayana believed that God was merely an invention of man. He wrote that, “Faith in the supernatural is a desperate wager made by man at the lowest ebb of his fortunes....” (Durant, p. 497.)

     Concerning religion, he wrote that, “There are two stages in the criticism of myths....The first treats them angrily as superstitions; the second treats them smilingly as poetry....Religion is human experience interpreted by human imagination....The idea that religion contains a literal, not a symbolic, representation of truth and life is simply an impossible idea. Whoever entertains it has not come within the region of profitable philosophizing on that subject....Matters of religion should never be matters of controversy.... We seek rather to honor the piety and understand th4e poetry embodied in these fables.” (Durant, pp. 499—500.)

     Santayana spent his life teaching the tenets of agnosticism and atheism. John Dewey would become a disciple of Santayana.


     Another American scholar that would promote the tenets of Darwinism in America was William James (1842—1910). He was born in New York City. He attended private schools in New York City and France. He returned to Harvard and graduated in medicine in 1870. He taught anatomy, physiology and psychology. In 1890 he wrote the Principles of Psychology. He then turned to philosophy and wrote a number of texts in these areas: The Will to Believe (1897); Varieties of Religion Experience (1902); Pragmatism (1907); A Pluralistic Universe (1909); The Meaning of Truth (1909). After his death, a number of his essays would be compiled into a volume entitled, Essays in Radical Empiricism (19112).


     James did not believe in God and the Holy Bible. He felt there was no divinity or soul in man. The soul or mind was just a collection of mental relationships. Religion fell into the area of mysticism. Truth was just a “process” to him. He thought that religion was for the weak minded and simple person, not the intellectual. He defined reality as mere experience. As a pragmatism, he promoted the “practical reason” of Kant and others in the School of Higher Criticism.


     Perhaps no person in American has had a greater impact upon education that John Dewey (1859—1952).He was born in Burlington, Vermont. At an early age he became a disciple of Hegel. He became a professor and spent several years at the University of Chicago. He then went to New York City and became the chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Columbia University.

     John Dewey spent his entire life removing God, the Holy Bible and its teachings from the schools in America. He was an outspoken atheist and promoted Darwinism in America with a religious fervor. He dedicated his life to destroying faith in God and his Son. He removed Christian based curriculums from public schools and replaced it with pure atheism.

     Will Durant wrote that, “What distinguished Dewey was the undisguised completeness with which he accepted the evolution theory. Mind as well as body was to him an organ evolved, in the struggle for existence, from lower forms. His starting point in every field was Darwinism.

     “‘When Descartes said, ‘The nature of physical things is much more easily conceived when they are beheld coming gradually into existence, that when they are only considered as produced at once in a finished and perfect state,’ the modern world became self—conscious of the logic that was henceforth to control it, the logic of which Darwin’s Origin of Species is the latest scientific achievement.... When Darwin said of species what Galileo has said of the earth, e pur si muove, he emancipated, once for all, genetic and experimental ideas as an organon of asking questions and looking for explanations.’

     “Things are to be explained, the, not by supernatural causation, but by their place and function in the environment. Dewey was frankly naturalistic; he protested that ‘to idealize and rationalize the universe at large is a confession of inability to master the courses of things that specifically concern us.’”

     John Dewey was one of the greatest scholars in the School of Higher Criticism. He did more to secularize the educational system in America that any other single individual. He is idolized in education circles for removed the Christian foundation from American education and replacing it with atheism. And the effects of this alien philosophy are becoming more and more apparent as society is collapsing under the weight of agnosticism and atheism

     John Dewey idolized Charles Darwin. He outlined that Darwinism or agnosticism and atheism were the foundations of modern philosophy. And Agnosticism and atheism are the foundations of the new secular religion and state in America.


The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy

     In 1910 John Dewey wrote a very revealing article entitled, “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy.” It reveals that impact of the Darwinism in academia. He wrote:


     That the publication of the "Origin of Species " marked an epoch in the development of the natural sciences is well known to the layman. That the combination of the very words origin and species embodied an intellectual revolt and introduced a new intellectual temper is easily I overlooked by the expert. The conceptions that had reigned in the philosophy of nature and knowledge for two thousand years, the conceptions that had become the familiar furniture of the mind, rested on the assumption of the superiority of the fixed and final; they rested upon treating change and origin as signs of defect and unreality. In laying hands upon the sacred ark of absolute permanency, in treating the forms that had been regarded as types of fixity and perfection as originating and passing away, the " Origin of Species " introduced a mode of thinking that in the end was bound to transform the logic of knowledge, and hence the treatment of morals, politics, and religion.

     No wonder, then, that the publication of Darwin's book, a half century ago, precipitated a crisis. The true nature of the controversy is easily concealed from us, however, by the theological clamor that attended it. The vivid and popular features of the anti-Darwinian row tended to leave the impression that the issue was between science on one side and theology on the other. (Such was not the case—the issue lay primarily within science itself as Darwin himself early recognized.

     The theological outcry he discounted from the start, hardly noticing it save as it bore upon the " feelings of his female relatives."     

     But for two decades before final publication he contemplated the possibility of being put down by his scientific peers as a fool or as crazy; and he set, as the measure of his success, the degree in which he should affect three men of science: Lyell in geology, Hooker in botany, and Huxley in zoology.

     Religious considerations lent fervor to the controversy, but they did not provoke it. Intellectually, religious emotions are not creative, but conservative. They attach themselves readily to the current view of the world and consecrate it.     They steep and dye intellectual fabrics in the seething vat of emotions; they do not form their warp and woof. There is not, I think, an instance of any large idea about the world being independently generated by religion. Although the ideas that rose up like armed men against Darwinism owed their intensity to religious associations, their origin and meaning are to be sought in science and philosophy, not in religion.


     Few words in our language foreshorten intellectual history as much as does the word species. The Greeks, in initiating the intellectual life of Europe, were impressed by characteristic traits of the life of plants and animals; so impressed indeed that they made these traits the key to defining nature and to explaining mind and society. And truly, life is so wonderful that a seemingly successful reading of its mystery might well lead men to believe that the key to the secrets of heaven and earth was in their hands. The Greek rendering of this mystery, the Greek formulation of the aim and standard of knowledge, was in the course of time embodied in the word species, and it controlled philosophy for two thousand years.

     To understand the intellectual face-about expressed in the phrase "Origin of Species," we must, then, understand the long dominant idea against which it is a protest.

Consider how men were impressed by the facts of life.

     Their eyes fell upon certain things slight in bulk, and frail in structure.

     To every appearance, these perceived things were inert and passive. Suddenly, under certain circumstances, these things—henceforth known as seeds or eggs or germs—begin to change, to change rapidly in size, form, and qualities.

     Rapid and extensive changes occur, however, in many things—as when wood is touched by fire. But the changes in the living thing are orderly; they are cumulative; they tend constantly in one direction; they do not, like other changes, destroy or consume, or pass fruitless into wandering flux; they realize and fulfill.

     Each successive stage, no matter how unlike its predecessor, preserves its net effect and also prepares the way for a fuller activity on the part of its successor.     In living beings, changes do not happen as they seem to happen elsewhere, any which way; the earlier changes are regulated in view of later results. This progressive organization does not cease till there is achieved a true final term, a ‘texos’, a completed, perfected end. This final form exercises in turn a plenitude of functions, not the least noteworthy of which is production of germs like those from which it took its own origin, germs capable of the same cycle of self-fulfilling activity.


     But the whole miraculous tale is not yet told. The same drama is enacted to the same destiny in countless myriads of individuals so sundered in time, so severed. in space, that they have no opportunity for mutual consultation and no means of interaction. As an old writer quaintly said, "things of the same kind go through the same formalities"—celebrate, as it were, the same ceremonial rites.

     This formal activity which operates throughout a series of changes and holds them to a single course; which subordinates their aimless flux to its own perfect manifestation; which, leaping the boundaries of space and time, keeps individuals distant in space and remote in time to a uniform type of structure and function: this principle seemed to give insight into the very nature of reality itself. To it Aristotle gave the name, ‘eisos’. This term the scholastics translated as species.

     The force of this term was deepened by its application to everything in the universe that observes order in flux and manifests constancy through change. From the casual drift of daily weather, through the uneven recurrence of seasons and unequal return of seed time and harvest, up to the majestic sweep of the heavens—the image of eternity in time—and from this to the unchanging pure and contemplative intelligence beyond nature lies one unbroken fulfillment of ends.     Nature as a whole is a progressive realization of purpose strictly comparable to the realization of purpose in any single plant or animal.

     The conception of ‘eisos’, species, a fixed form and final cause, was the central principle of knowledge as well as of nature. Upon it rested the logic of science. Change as change is mere flux and lapse; it insults intelligence. Genuinely to know is to grasp a permanent end that realizes itself through changes, holding them thereby with in the metes and bounds of fixed truth.

     Completely to know is to relate all special forms to their one single end and good: pure contemplative intelligence.

     Since, however, the scene of nature which directly confronts us is in change, nature as directly and practically experienced does not satisfy the conditions of knowledge. Human experience is in flux, and hence the instrumentalities of sense-perception and of inference based upon observation are condemned in advance. Science is compelled to aim at realities lying behind and beyond the processes of nature, and to carry on its search for these realities by means of rational forms transcending ordinary modes of perception and inference.

     There are,. indeed, but two alternative courses. We must either find the appropriate objects and organs of knowledge in the mutual interactions . of changing things; or else, to escape the infection of change, we must seek them in some transcendent and supernal region. The human mind, deliberately as it were, exhausted the logic of the changeless, the final, and the transcendent, before it essayed adventure on the pathless wastes of generation and transformation. We dispose all too easily of the efforts of the schoolmen to interpret nature and mind in terms of real essences, hidden forms, and occult faculties, forgetful of the seriousness and dignity of the ideas that lay behind. We dispose of them by laughing at the famous gentleman who accounted for the fact that opium put people to sleep on the ground it had a dormitive faculty. But the doctrine, held in our own day, that knowledge of the plant that yields the poppy consists in referring the peculiarities of an individual to a type, to a universal form, a doctrine so firmly established that any other method of knowing was conceived to be unphilosophical and unscientific, is a survival of precisely the same logic. This identity of conception in the scholastic and anti—Darwinian theory may well suggest greater sympathy for what has become unfamiliar as well as greater humility regarding the further unfamiliarities that history has in store.

     Darwin was not, of course, the first to question the classic philosophy of nature and of knowledge. The beginnings of the revolution are in the physical science of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. When Galileo said: " It is my opinion that the earth is very noble and admirable by reason of so many and so different alterations and, generations which are incessantly made therein," he expressed the changed temper that was coming over the world; the transfer of interest from the permanent to the changing. When Descartes said:


     ‘The nature of physical things is much more easily conceived when they are beheld coming gradually into existence, than when they are only considered as produced at once in a finished and perfect state," the modern world became self-conscious of the logic that was henceforth to control it, the logic of which Darwin's " Origin of Species "is the latest scientific achievement. Without the methods of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and their successors in astronomy, physics, and chemistry, Darwin would have been helpless in the organic sciences. But prior to Darwin the impact of the new scientific method upon life, mind, and politics, had been arrested, because between these ideal or moral interests and the inorganic world intervened the kingdom of plants and animals.

          The gates of the garden of life were barred to the new ideas; and only through this garden was there access to mind and politics. The influence of Darwin upon philosophy resides in his having conquered the phenomena of life for the principle of transition, and thereby freed the new logic for application to mind and morals and life. When he said of species what Galileo had said of the earth, e pur se muove, he emancipated, once for all, genetic and experimental ideas as an organon of asking questions and looking for explanations.


     The exact bearings upon philosophy of the new logical outlook are, of course, as yet, uncertain and inchoate. We live in the twilight of intellectual transition. One must add the rashness of the prophet to the stubbornness of the partisan to venture a systematic exposition of the influence upon philosophy of the Darwinian method. At best, we can but inquire as to its general bearing—the effect upon mental temper and complexion, upon that body of half-conscious, half-instinctive intellectual aversions and preferences which determine, after all, our more de liberate intellectual enterprises.

     In this vague inquiry there happens to exist as a kind of touchstone a problem of long historic currency that has also been much discussed in Darwinian literature. I refer to the old problem of design versus chance, mind versus matter, as the causal explanation, first or final, of things.

     As we have already seen, the classic notion of species carried with it the idea of purpose. In all living forms, a specific type is present directing the earlier stages of growth to the realization of its own perfection. Since this purposive regulative principle is not visible to the senses, it follows that it must be an ideal or rational force. Since, however, the perfect form is gradually approximated through the sensible changes, it also follows that in and through a sensible realm a rational ideal force is working out its own ultimate manifestation. These inferences were extended to nature: (a) She does nothing in vain; but all for an ulterior purpose. (b) Within natural sensible events there is therefore contained a spiritual causal force, which as spiritual escapes perception, but is apprehended by an enlightened reason. (c) The manifestation. of ,this principle brings about a subordination of matter and sense to its own realization, and this ultimate fulfillment is the goal of nature and of man. The design argument thus operated in two directions. Purposefulness accounted for the intelligibility of nature and the possibility of science, while the absolute or cosmic character of this purposefulness gave, sanction and worth to the moral and religious endeavors of man. Science was underpinned and morals authorized by one and the same principle, and their mutual agreement was eternally guaranteed.

     This philosophy remained, in spite of skeptical and polemic outbursts, the official and the regnant philosophy of Europe for over two thousand years. The expulsion of fixed first and final causes from' astronomy, physics, and chemistry had indeed given `, the doctrine something of a shock. But, on the other hand, increased acquaintance with the details of plant and animal life operated as a counterbalance and perhaps even strengthened the argument from design. The marvelous adaptations of organisms to their environment, of organs to the organism, of unlike parts of a complex organ—like the eye—to the organ itself ; the foreshadowing by lower forms of the higher; the preparation in earlier stages of growth for organs that only later had their functioning—these things were increasingly recognized with the progress of botany, zoology, paleontology, and embryology. Together, they added such prestige to the design argument that by the late eighteenth century it was, as approved by the sciences of organic life, the central point of theistic and idealistic philosophy.

     The Darwinian principle of natural selection cut straight under this philosophy. If all organic adaptations are due simply to constant variation and the elimination of those variations which are harmful in the struggle for existence that is brought about by excessive reproduction, there is no call for a prior intelligent causal force to plan and preordain them. Hostile critics charged Darwin with materialism and with making chance the cause of the universe.


     Some naturalists, like Asa Gray, favored the Darwinian principle and attempted to reconcile it with design. Gray held to what may be called design on the installment plan. If we conceive the " stream of variations " to be itself intended, we may suppose that each successive variation was designed from the first to be selected. In that case, variation, struggle, and selection simply define the mechanism of " secondary causes " through which the " first cause" acts; and the doctrine of design is none the worse off because he know more of its modus operandi.

     Darwin could not accept this mediating proposal. He admits or rather he asserts that it is " impossible to conceive this immense and wonderful universe including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity as the result of blind chance or necessity." (Life and Letters," Vol. I., p. 989; cf. 283.) But nevertheless he holds that since variations 'are in useless as well as useful directions, and since the latter are sifted out simply by the stress of the conditions of struggle for existence, the design argument as applied to living beings is unjustifiable; and its lack of support there deprives—it of scientific value as applied to nature in general. If the variations of the pigeon, which under artificial selection give the pouter pigeon, are not preordained for the sake of the breeder, by what logic do we argue that variations resulting in natural species are pre—designed? (Life and Letters," Vol. IT., pp. 148, 170, 245; Vol. I., pp. 288—84. See also the closing portion of his " Variations of Animals and Plants under Domestication.")


     So much for some of the more obvious facts of the discussion of design versus chance, as causal principles of nature and of life as a whole. We brought up this discussion, you recall, as a crucial instance. What does our touchstone indicate as to the bearing of Darwinian ideas upon philosophy? In the first place, the new logic outlaws, flanks, dismisses—what you will—one type of problems and substitutes for it another type. Philosophy forswears inquiry after absolute origins and absolute finalities in order to explore specific values and the specific conditions that generate them.

     Darwin concluded that the impossibility of assigning the world to chance as a "whole and to design in its parts indicated the insolubility of the question. Two radically different reasons, however, may be given as to why a problem is insoluble. One reason is that the problem is too high for intelligence; the other is that the question in its very asking makes assumptions that render the question meaningless. The latter alternative is unerringly pointed to in the celebrated case of design versus chance.

     Once admit that the sole verifiable or fruitful object of knowledge is the particular set of changes that generate the object of study together with the consequences that then—, flow from it, and no intelligible question can be asked about what, by assumption, lies outside. To assert—as is often asserted—that specific values of particular truth, social bonds and forms of beauty, if they can be shown to be generated by concretely knowable conditions, are meaningless and in vain; to assert that they are justified only when they and their particular causes and effects have all at once been gathered up into some inclusive first cause and some exhaustive final goal, is intellectual atavism. Such argumentation is reversion to the logic that explained the extinction of fire by water through the formal essence of aqueousness and the quenching of thirst by water through the final cause of aqueousness.

     Whether used in the case of the special event or that of life as a whole, such logic only abstracts "some aspect of the existing course of events in order to reduplicate it as a petrified eternal principle by which to explain the very changes of which it is the formalization.

     When Henry Sidgwick casually remarked in a letter that as he grew older his interest in what or who made the world was altered into interest in what kind of a world, it is anyway, his voicing of a common experience of our own day illustrates also the nature of that intellectual transformation' effected by the Darwinian logic. Interest shifts from the wholesale essence back of special changes to the question of how special changes serve and defeat concrete purposes; shifts from an intelligence that shaped things once for all to the particular intelligences which things are even now shaping; shifts from an ultimate goal of good to the direct increments of justice and happiness that intelligent administration of existent conditions may beget and that present carelessness or stupidity will destroy or forego.


     In the second place, the classic type of logic inevitably set philosophy upon proving that life must have certain qualities and values—no matter how experience presents the matter—because of some remote cause and eventual goal. The duty of wholesale justification inevitably accompanies all thinking that makes the meaning of special occurrences depend upon something that once and for all lies behind them. The habit of derogating from present meanings and uses prevents our looking the facts of experience in the face; it prevents serious acknowledgment of the evils they present and serious concern with the goods they promise but do not as yet fulfill. It turns thought to the business of finding a wholesale transcendent remedy for the one and guarantee for the other. One is reminded of the way many moralists and theologians greeted Herbert Spencer's recognition of an unknowable energy from which welled up the phenomenal physical processes without and the conscious operations within. Merely because Spencer labeled his unknowable energy "God," this faded piece of metaphysical goods was greeted as an important and grateful concession to the reality of the spiritual realm. Were it not for the deep hold of the habit of seeking justification for ideal values in the remote and transcendent, surely this reference of them to an unknowable absolute would be despised in comparison with the demonstrations of experience that knowable energies are daily generating about us precious values.

     The displacing of this wholesale type of philosophy will doubtless not arrive by sheer logical disproof, but rather by growing recognition of its futility. Were it a thousand 'times true that opium produces sleep because of its dormitive energy, yet the inducing of sleep in the tired, and the recovery to waking life of the poisoned, would not be thereby one least step forwarded. And were it a thousand times dialectically demonstrated that life as a whole is regulated by a transcendent principle to a final inclusive goal, none the less truth and error, health and disease, good and evil, hope and fear in the concrete, would remain just what and where they now are. To improve our education, to ameliorate our manners, to advance our politics, we must have 'recourse to specific conditions of generation.

     Finally, the new logic introduces responsibility into the intellectual life. To idealize and rationalize the universe at large is after all a confession of inability to master the courses of things that specifically concern us. As long as mankind suffered from this impotency, it naturally shifted a burden of responsibility that it could not carry over to the more competent shoulders o the transcendent cause. But if insight into specific conditions of value and into specific consequences of ideas is possible, philosophy must in time become a method of locating and interpreting the more serious of the conflicts that occur in life, and a method of projecting ways for dealing with them a method of moral and political diagnosis and prognosis.

     The claim to formulate a priori the legislative constitution of the universe is by its nature a claim that may lead to elaborate dialectic developments. But it is also one that removes these very conclusions from subjection to experimental test, for, by definition, these results make no differences in the detailed course of events. But a philosophy that humbles its pretensions to the work of projecting hypotheses for the education and conduct of mind, individual and social, is thereby subjected to test by the way in which the ideas it propounds work out in practice. In having modesty forced upon it, philosophy also acquires responsibility.

     Doubtless I seem to have violated the implied promise of my earlier remarks and to have turned both prophet and partisan. But in anticipating the direction of the transformations in philosophy to be wrought by the Darwinian genetic and experimental logic, I do not profess to speak for any save those who yield themselves consciously or unconsciously to this logic.

     No one can fairly deny that at present there are two effects of the Darwinian mode of thinking. On the one hand, there are making many sincere and vital efforts to revise our traditional philosophic conceptions in accordance with its demands. On the 'other hand, there is as definitely a recrudescence of absolutistic philosophies; an assertion of a type of philosophic knowing distinct from that of the sciences, one which opens to us another kind of reality from that to which the sciences give access; an appeal through experience to something that essentially goes beyond experience.

     This reaction affects popular creeds and religious movements as well as technical philosophies.:     The very conquest of the biological sciences by the new ideas has led many to proclaim an explicit and rigid separation of philosophy from science.


      Old ideas give way slowly; for they are more than abstract logical forms and categories. They are habits, predispositions, deeply engrained attitudes of aversion and preference. Moreover, the conviction persists—though history shows it to be a hallucination—that all the questions that the human mind has asked are questions that can be answered in terms of the alternatives that the questions themselves present.

     But in fact intellectual progress usually occurs through sheer abandonment of questions together with both of the alternatives they assume an abandonment that results from their decreasing vitality and a change of urgent interest.

     We do not solve them: we get over them. Old questions are solved by disappearing, evaporating, while new questions corresponding to the changed attitude of endeavor and preference take their place.

     Doubtless the greatest dissolvent in contemporary thought of old questions, the greatest precipitant of new methods, new intentions, new problems, is the one effected by the scientific revolution that found its climax in the " Origin of Species." (A lecture in a course of public lectures on "Charles Darwin and His Influence on Science," given at Columbia University in the winter and spring of 1909. July, 1909. Quoted in John Dewey, The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1910.)


Chapter 10—Secularism Takes Over the Educational System in America

     One of the main goals of The School of Higher Criticism is to gain control of schools, colleges and universities (including schools of divinity) in order to teach the theory of evolution and its myriad of related premises, assumptions and dogma in the sciences and social sciences. (Remember that the School of Higher Criticism has also targeted the libraries of the nation.)

     Once they gain control of the educational process they immediately begin writing new textbooks that remove all vestiges of Christianity as contained in the Holy Bible. They relegate God and the teachings of the Holy Bible to the categories of myths, legends, mysticism, fables and fairy tales. Once God and the Holy Scriptures are removed as the basis of the educational process, the teachers, instructors and professors who uphold and promote the principles of secularism, agnosticism and atheism are free to indoctrinate young minds in the philosophies of men.

A War Is Being Waged In the Classrooms of America

     In February of 1983, John J. Dunphy outlined the strategy that the promoters of Darwinism were to use in America. He said, “I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classrooms by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity [Secularism and Darwinism] that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being.

     “These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit t convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large universities.”(John J. Dunphy, “A New Religion for a New Age,” Humanist, January/February, 1983, p. 26.)

Early Christian Textbooks Dominate Schools

     From 1620 unto 1920 the textbooks used in America’s school were based upon the Holy Bible. Slowly, the agents of the School of Higher Criticism gained control of the major colleges and universities and the trickle down process began. Soon the nation was flooded with magazines, journals, monographs and books ridiculing the Christian religion and the Holy Bible. New textbooks appeared which attacked the foundation of America’s Christian heritage, the founding fathers, the founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and the natural rights or unalienable rights of man.

Changes in American Form of Government

     In 1791 the founding fathers established the United State of America as a Republic. In 1916 the government was changed to a Democracy. In the 1936 the government was changed again to a Welfare State. The efforts of people like John Dewey, Charles Beard and a host of others had succeeded in transforming America from a Christian nation into a secular nation.

Roosevelt Stages a Coup

     In 1936 Franklin Roosevelt staged an elective coup d’etat and gained control of the federal government. Soon the large foundations such as Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie were working with the Department of Education, the educational unions and the textbook publishing companies in America to produce a new curriculum for America’s public schools. All of the textbooks would be socialized and secularized as planned by John Dewey and other key members of the School of Higher Criticism in America.

     The change was so slow that many people did not realize that a revolution was underway until it was over. Now we are dealing with the fallout of a society that has been secularized for nearly 80 years. The problems are now staggering.

McGuffy Readers

     From 1836 to 1920 over 122 million copies of McGuffy Readers were sold in America. Today the Readers are only used in home schools and private school. The original Readers were based upon the Holy Bible.

     The youth of the nation are being brainwashed and indoctrinated in philosophies which are exactly opposite the teachings of most homes in America. Fortunately, approximately 13% of the youth in America are enrolled in private schools where the basic teachings of the Holy Bible are upheld and promoted.

An Indictment of the American Educational System

     In 1993 Thomas Sowell, a true scholar and a fellow at the Hoover Institution, published a scathing indictment of the American Educational system. He did not pull any punches. This book should be required reading for every parent in America.

     Sowell said that, “Despite the lofty rhetoric which is as much a part of the educational world as the cap and gown, we must face up to what educators have actually done, as distinguished from what they have said.

     “They have taken our money, betrayed our trust, failed our children, and then lied about the failures with inflated grades and pretty words.

     “They have used our children as guinea pigs for experiments, targets for propaganda, and warm bodies to be moved here and there to mix and match for racial balance, pad enrollments in foreign—language programs mislabeled ‘bilingual,’ or just to be warehoused until labor unions are willing to let them enter the job market.

     “They have proclaimed their special concern for minority students, whi8le placing those students into those colleges where they are most like to fail.

     “They have proclaimed their dedication to freedom of ideas and the quest for truth, while turning educational institutions into bastions of dogma and the most intolerant institutions in American society.

     “They have presumed to be the conscience of society and to teach ethics to others, while shamelessly exploiting college athletes, overcharging the government, organizing price—fixing cartels, and leaving the teaching of undergraduates to graduate student assistants and junior and part—time faculty, while the tenured faculty pursue research and its rewards.” (Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education: the Decline, the Deception, the Dogmas. New York: The Free Press, 1993, pp. 296—297.)

American System of Education Is Bankrupt

     The schools, colleges and universities in America are failing the American people miserably. Sowell said, “The brutal reality is that the American system of education is bankrupt.” (Sowell, p. 285.)

     In a chapter entitled, “Assorted Dogmas,” Sowell stated, “Despite frequent, chameleon—like changes in the meanings of multiculturalism, its basic components are three: (1) a set of ideological beliefs about society and the world; (2) a political agenda to make these beliefs the basis for the curriculum of the whole educational system, and (3) a set of beliefs about the most effective way to conduct an educational system. (Sowell, p. 71.)

Secularism Has Become a New Religion In America

     Of course, we have been discussing the “ideological beliefs about society” that the School of Higher Criticism is promoting, not only in America, but in every nation on earth. And that is agnosticism and atheism. It is important to note that all religions are based upon a set of beliefs. Agnosticism and atheism are belief systems and constitute a religion just as much as does the Catholic faith, or the Protestant faiths. Secularism is a term that is used to describe these two belief systems— agnosticism and atheism.

     And secularism is based squarely on the teachings of Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin and the resident scholars of the School of Higher Criticism who have been indoctrinating the world with false theories, hypothesis, premises, assumptions, doctrines, teachings and principles for nearly 300 years.

Brainwashing Techniques Being Used In Classrooms

     One of the most alarming and revealing chapter in Sowell’s book is entitled, “Classroom Brainwashing.” He stated that, “A variety of courses and programs, under an even wider variety of names, have been set up in schools across the country to change the values, behavior, and beliefs of American youngsters from what they have been taught by their families, their churches, or the social groups in which they have grown up. These ambitious attempts to re—shape the attitudes and consciousness of a generation areas pervasive as they are little known, partly because they have kept a low profile, but more often because they are called by other, high—sounding names—‘values clarification,’ ‘decision—making,’ ‘affective education,’ ‘Quest,’ ‘drug prevention.’ ‘sex education,’ ‘gifted and talented’ programs, and many other imaginative programs....

Brainwashing Techniques Designed To Alter Basic Beliefs of Students

     “They are attempts to re—shape values, attitudes, and beliefs to fit a very different vision of the world from what children have received from their parents and the social environment they are raised....” (Sowell, pp.3435.)

     Sowell next outlines the brainwashing techniques that the educators are using on the youth of America. These unethical, immoral, and perhaps even unlawful, techniques are truly alarming. He stated, “A variety of programs used in classrooms across the country not only share the general goals of brainwashing—that is, changing fundamental attitudes, values, and belief by psychological—conditioning methods—but also use classic brainwashing techniques developed in totalitarian countries.

     “1.     Emotional stress, shock or de—sensitization, to break down both intellectual and emotional resistance.

     “2.     Isolation, whether physical or emotional, from familiar sources of emotional support in resistance.

     “3.     Cross—examination pre—existing values, often by manipulating peer pressure.

     “4.     Stripping the individual of normal defenses, such as reserve, dignity, a sense of privacy, or the ability to decline to participate.

     “5.     Rewarding acceptance of the new attitudes, values, and beliefs—a reward which can be simply release from the pressures inflicted on those who resist, or may take other symbolic or tangible form.” (Sowell, p. 36.)

A War Is Underway To Destroy America and Its Free Institutions

     The brainwashing and indoctrination techniques used in American schools are being used around the world in Russia, China, Asia and Europe. The School of Higher Criticism is waging a deadly war against God, the Holy Bible and its teachings, traditional family values, and every political, economic and religious liberty which God has bestowed upon mankind.. Sowell outlines each of the above areas in great detail in his book. Parents in America and around the world should study this section carefully.

Students Are Being Taught the Principles of Cultural Relativism

     Sowell stated that, “The most general—indeed pervasive—principle of these various programs is that decisions are not to be made by relying on traditional values passed on by parents or the surrounding society. instead, those values are themselves to be questioned and compared with the values and behavior of other individuals or societies. This is to be done in a neutral or ‘non—judgmental’ manner, which does not seek to determine a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way, but rather to find out what feels best to the particular individuals. This general approach has been called ‘values clarification....’

     “Psychologists have been prominent among the proponents and creators of these programs....

     “Critics have called this approach ‘cultural relativism,’ for a recurring theme in attitude—changing programs is that what ‘our society’ believes is just one of many beliefs with equal validity—so that individuals have the option to choose for themselves what to believe and value....” (Sowell, pp. 47—48.)

     He concludes this chapter with these words, “All societies which have survived have had some particular set of values, some canons of right and wrong. To banish right and wrong is to attempt something which no society has achieved—survival without shared values....” (Sowell, p. 68.)

It Is Time for Some Really Major Changes

     Thomas Sowell is one of America’s most gifted and talented scholars. He had the courage to reveal the machinations of the School of Higher Criticism in America. He should be applauded and supported for his efforts to uncover and document the terrible plight of the nation’s youth who are daily being subjected to these horrible brainwashing techniques. He has done the nation a great service. However, all of his effort will have been in vain, unless we make some really significant changes in America.


Chapter 11—Secularism Takes Over the Government and Court System in America

     In seems that a crisis brings forth great leaders. New heroes and heroines are bound to arise to been the challenge of battling the forces of secularism in America and around the world. And the School of Higher Criticism understands that the pen is mightier than the sword. That is shy they have expended so much time, talent and treasure to locate and promote scholars who will uphold and promote the principles of agnosticism and atheism.

School of Higher Criticism Gains Control of U. S. Government

     The American educational system has been captured by these forces. It is a simple statement of fact. However, there are many areas where the battle is raging. Let us look at another area which has been targeted for penetration and control by the School of Higher Criticism—the Federal Government and the Federal Court System.


     When the founding fathers created the U. S. Constitution in 1787, they delegated specific powers to the federal government. All other powers were to reside in the states or with the people. They created a limited government with carefully defined powers. From 1791 until 1913, the federal government operated on funds secured by tariffs and excise taxes. There was no persona income tax and there were no taxes on companies and corporations. However, that changed with the Sixteenth Amendment, the adoption of the Federal Reserve Act and a host of other unconstitutional changes. From 1913 the federal government grew from a limited government to an unlimited government. The U. S. Constitutional for all practical purposes has been set aside.

How Did It Happen?

     How did this happen? Well there are four parties to blame. First, the president sought for and was given additional powers not specified in the Constitution. Second, the members of Congress abdicated their role to check and balance the other branches of government and passed laws which allowed the government to grow completely beyond the government outlined in the Constitution. Third, the Federal Courts began usurping the power of the executive and legislative branches by legislating from the bench. The courts began practicing judicial law—making. All three branches overstepped the boundaries defined by the founding fathers in the U. S. Constitution. All three branches, made up of elected and appointed servants of the people violated the oath to protect and defend the constitution by obeying its provisions. Each branch of government failed to balance and check each other. Fourth, the American people fell asleep and forgot to keep a careful eye on their elected and appointed servants. While they slept, the entire governmental system of America was changed from a Republic to a Democracy to a Welfare State. The final stage is underway now to transform the Federal Government from a Welfare State to an Empire.

Secularists Are Using the Government and Courts to Change America

From a Christian Nation to a Secular Nation

     Once the Federal Government was captured by the agents of the Higher School of Criticism in the 1920 and 1930s, they began increasing the size and scope of government. The Federal Government would set up new departments, new commissions, new agencies, and new regulatory agencies. The Federal Government then began issuing new laws, new regulations and new edicts to govern every aspect of the American society. Each new president increases and expands the executive branch, no matter whether he was a republican or a democrat. Congress funds the expansion of the Federal Government as if Uncle Sam had an unlimited bank account. The courts sanction laws passed by the Federal Government and when they deemed necessary they create new laws and mandate their enforcement. The Federal Government is out of control.

     The court system is a perfect place to make changes in society. You elect the right president and he makes the right appointments to the Federal Courts. People forget that these appointments are for life or during terms of good behaviors. If the latter terms were enforced the Federal Courts would be empty.

Judges Have Been Making New Laws For Decades

     If you cannot get a particular law passed by 535 members of Congress, it is a very convenient process to go around Congress and find a judge or set of judges who will legislate for you. And that is exactly what has happened in the Federal Courts for the last 74 years.

     Robert H. Bork, former Circuit Judge on the U. S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia and former professor of public law at Yale Law School has written, “In law, the moment of temptation is the moment of choice, when a judge realizes that in the case before him his strongly held view of justice, his political and moral imperative, is not embodies in a statute or in any provision of the Constitution. He must then choose between his version of justice and abiding by the American form of government.


     “Yet the desire to do justice, who nature seems to him obvious, is compelling, while the concept of constitutional process of abstract, rather arid, and the abstinence it counsels unsatisfying. To give in to temptation, this one time, solves an urgent human problem, and a faint crack appears in the American foundation. A judge has begun to rule where a legislator should....

The Democratic Integrity of Law

     “The democratic integrity of law, however, depends entirely upon the degree to which its processes are legitimate. A judge who announces a decision must be able to demonstrate that he began from recognized legal principles and reasoned in an intellectually coherent and politically neutral way to his result. Those who would politicize the law offer the public, and the judiciary, the temptation of results without regard to democratic legitimacy.

     “This strategy, however, contains the seeds of its own destruction. Since the politicization of the law has, for half a century, moved results steadily to the left, a very large number of Americans do not like those outcomes. Increasingly, they are not deceived by the claim that those results are compelled by the actual Constitution. This perception de-legitimizes the law in their eyes. There are signs that law may be at a tipping stage in the public perception of its legitimacy. American increasingly view the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, as political rather than legal institutions....

A War for Control of America’s Legal Culture

     “The clash over my nomination was simply one battle in this long—running war for control of our legal culture. There may be legitimate differences about the nomination, but in the larger war for control of the law, there are only two sides. Either the Constitution and statutes are law, which means that their principles are known and control judges, or they are malleable texts that judges may rewrite so particular groups or political causes win. Until recently, the American people were largely unaware of the struggle for dominance in law, because it was wages, in explicit form, only in the law schools. Now it is coming into the open.

Secularists Seek To Control the Constitution and the Courts

     “In the clash of law and politics, the integrity of the law has already has already been seriously undermined and the quality of its future remains very much in doubt. The forces that would break law to a tame instrument of a particular political thrust are past midway in a long march through our institutions. They have overrun a number of law schools, including a large majority of America’s most prestigious, where the lawyers and judges of the future are being trained. They have an increasing voice in our politics and in Congress. But the focus of the struggle, the commanding height sought to be taken, as indeed it partially has been, is control of the courts and the Constitution. The Constitution, or the law we call ‘constitutional’—are by no means identical—is the highest prize, and control of the selection of judges is the last step on the path to that prize. Why? Because the Constitution is the trump card in American politics, and judges decide what the Constitution means. When the Supreme Court invokes the Constitution, whether legitimately or not, as to that issue, the democratic process is at an end....

Judges Are Bound By Law

     “The American design of a constitutional Republic is such a ‘complete and self—supporting scheme.’ The heresy that dislocates it is the introduction of the denial that judges are bound by law.

Separation of Powers

     “The foundation of American freedoms is in the structure of our Republic. The major features of that structure are the separation of the powers of the national government and the limitation of national power, to preserve a large degree of autonomy in the states. Both are maintained by the Constitution.

     “These dispersions of power, viewed historically, have guaranteed our liberties, as much as, perhaps more than, the Bill of Rights itself. The phrase ‘separation of powers,’ briefly put, means that Congress has ‘All legislative Powers,’ as those are defined in article I of the Constitution, while the President possesses ‘The executive Power,’ which is outlined in articles II, and article III sets forth the elements of ‘The Judicial Power.’ Those powers are every different in nature, as those who adopted the Constitution recognized and intended. When powers are shared, as they sometimes are by the President and Congress, the Constitution is usually explicit on the subject. Thus, the Constitution specifies that the President may veto a bill enacted by a two-thirds vote of each House.

     “Similarly, the President may negotiate treaties, but they must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. There is no faintest hint in the Constitution, however, that the judiciary shares any of the legislative or executive power. The intended function of the federal courts is to apply the law as it comes to them from the hands of others. The judiciary’s great office is to preserve the constitutional design. It does this not only by confining Congress and the president to the powers granted them by the Constitution and seeing that the powers granted are not used to invade the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but also, and equally important, by ensuring that the democratic authority of the people is maintained in the full scope given by the Constitution.

Federal Judges Are Supposed to be Independent

     “The Constitution preserves our liberties by providing that all of those given authority to make policy are directly accountable to the people through regular elections. Federal judges, alone among our public officials, are given life tenure precisely so that they will not be accountable to the people. If it were otherwise, if judges were accountable, the people could, when the mood seized the, alter the separation of powers, do away with representative government, or deny basic freedoms to those out of popular favor.

Judges Must Consider Themselves Bound by the Law

     “But if judges are, as they must be to perform their vital role, unelected, unaccountable, and unrepresentative, who is to protect us from the power of judges? How are we to be guarded from our guardians? The answer can only be that judges must consider themselves bound by law that is independent of their own views of the desirable. They must not make or apply any policy not fairly to be found in the Constitution or a statute. It is of course true that judges to some extend must make every law every time they decide a case, but it is minor, interstitial lawmaking. The ratifiers of the Constitution put in place the walls, roofs, and beams; judges preserve the major architectural features.

Judges Are Bound By Original Meaning of the Constitution or Statute

     “What does it mean to say that a judge is bound by law? It means that he is bound by the only thing that can be called law, the principles of the text, whether Constitution or statute, as generally understood at the enactment....

     “That is the American Orthodoxy. The heresy, which dislocates the constitutional system, is that the ratifiers’ original understanding of what the Constitution means is no longer of controlling, or perhaps of any, importance.... The result is a belief, widely held and propagated in the law schools and even by some justices of the Supreme Court, that judges may create new principles or destroy old ones, thus altering the principles actually to be found in the Constitution. Courts then not only share the legislative power of Congress and the state legislatures, in violation both of the separation of powers and of federalism, but assume legislative power that is actually superior to that of any legislature.....

Secularists Seek Judges Who Will Alter the Constitution By Interpretation

     “The orthodoxy of original understanding, and the political neutrality of judging it requires, are anathema to a liberal culture that for fifty years has won a succession of political victories from the courts and that hopes for more political victories in the future. The representatives of that culture hate the American orthodoxy because they have moral and political agendas of their own that cannot be found in the Constitution and that no legislative, or at least none whose members wish to be reelected, will enact. That is why these partisans want judges who will their victories for them by altering the Constitution.” (Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: the Political Seduction of the Law. New York: The Free Press, 1990, pp. 1—3, 4—5, 6—7.

     When the Federal Government was set up in 1791 there was no Bill of Rights. The First Congress passed ten amendments to the U. S. Constitution. They were subsequently ratified by the states. Initially the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government.

First Amendment Restricts Powers of Congress

     Listen to the words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

     The Bill of Rights was designed to keep the Federal Government in check from interfering with the powers of the states and the people. The emphasis of the First Amendment is on Congress. Why? Because it is Congress that is given power over the pulse strings.

Fourteenth Amendment Paves the Way for Federal Takeover of States

     The founding fathers felt that the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights would respect the sovereign powers of the states and the people. Following the Civil War, the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. The new amendment to the U. S. Constitution contained an important clause that would be overlooked for several decades until an activist court decided to begin the process of judicial lawmaking.

     The key clause of Fourteenth Amendment stated, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Original Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment

     Historically, the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to limit the states from enforcing laws which prohibited black citizens from owning property in the South. The Fourteenth Amendment specifically stated that, (1) “No state shall make or enforce any law which abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;” and (2) “nor

shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

     In the case of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. However, in the landmark decision in 1925, (Gitlow v. New York) the Supreme Court held that the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment did apply to the states. In subsequent case the Supreme Court would expand the powers of the Federal Government until the entire Bill of Rights was applicable to the states.

Critical Departure from the Principle of Federalism

     This is a critical departure from the principle of federalism where the founding fathers wisely divided the sovereign powers of the Federal Government from the sovereign powers of the States. And the founding fathers designed the powers of the States to exceed those of the Federal Government in that the powers of the latter were carefully limited to specific areas.

     Once the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment were applicable to the states, the Federal Government has just assumed power over the States, a clear violation of the original intent of the founding fathers. The Federal Courts had usurped the powers of the States and they were preparing to use them to eliminate every vestige of the Christian religion from America’s public institutions. The stage was not set to remove God and the Holy Bible from the foundation of the American Republic.

Lawyers and Scholars from the School of Higher Criticism

Prepare to Evict God from America

     The lawyers and scholars of the School of Higher Criticism were waiting, literally in the dark, for the right moment to begin their assault on America’s most cherished beliefs, values and principles. A series of court cases would be filed and the Supreme Court would outlaw prayer in schools, reading of the Holy Bible in schools, posting of the Ten Commandments on school grounds, the placement of nativity scenes during Christmas, declarations of belief in God, teaching of creationism, etc. The Supreme Court also began redefining the word religion as used in the First Amendment to allow individuals to hold religious beliefs that we not within the definition of Christianity such as conscientious objectors.

     The School of Higher Criticism would use the Fourteenth Amendment to secularize America. Beginning in the 1940s and continuing unto today, their agents have use the Federal Courts to remove God and the Holy Bible and every vestige of the Christianity from the public arena. They began the push to redefine the concept of marriage between a man and women, introduce so—called abortion rights and gay and lesbian rights. Euthanasia, suicide, mercy killings and infanticide are being pushed as we write these words.

     Let us look at some of the cases where the judges are acting as legislators and writing laws from the bench in order to drive Christianity out of America.     

Everson v. Board of Education


     In Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion of the court and he stated that the First Amendment “has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” This was the first time the Supreme Court used a private letter, from Thomas Jefferson, to make a decision that altered the entire relations between religion and government in America.

Nearly every judge in America would jump on the secular bandwagon and begin using the new language of the courts to drive the Christian religion from the public square.

     Let us look at the cases which have removed the Christian Religion from the public square.

(1)—Voluntary Religious Activities In Public School Building

     McCollum v. Board of Education (1948). Court ruled that voluntary religious activities are unconstitutional.

(2)—School Prayer

     Engel v. Vitale (1962). Court ruled that school prayer was unconstitutional.

(3)—Reading of the Holy Bible In School

     School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963). Court rules that reading the Holy Bible is school was unconstitutional.

(4) Requirement to Take an Oath Affirming Belief In God

     Torcaso v. Watkins (1971). Court rules that any requirement of a state official to take an oath for a public office affirming a belief in God was unconstitutional.

(5)—Reimbursement of Tuition For Parochial School

     Sloan v. Lemon (1973). Court ruled that reimbursement of tuition to parents who sent their children to parochial schools was unconstitutional.

(6)—Display of the Ten Commandments

     Stone v. Graham (1980). Court ruled that the display of the Ten Commandments on the wall of classrooms in public schools was unconstitutional.

(7)—Period of Silence For Prayer

     Wallace v. Jaffree (1985). Court held that a one minute period of silence for students was unconstitutional.

(8)—Display of Christmas Symbols

     Allegeheny County v. Pittsburgh ACLU (1989). Court held that holiday symbols displayed during Christmas were unconstitutional.

(9)—Prayers At School Graduations

     Lee v. Weisman (1992). Court held that prayers at school graduations was unconstitutional.

An American Inquisition Is Underway

     American is entering a new dark age just as Europe. The School of Higher Criticism has unleashed a team of inquisitors—lawyers and judges in America—and they are empowered to condemn the new heretics—those who belief in God and the Holy Bible and its teachings.

Textbooks in American Have Been Designed To Promote Secularism

     Why has the Supreme Court had been allowed to usurp the powers of the States and powers not delegated to it by the U. S. Constitution? The reason is that members of congress and the American people do not understand their legal and constitutional rights as established by the founding fathers. Why? Because over the last 80 years the textbooks, including the law books, have been secularized and detailed explanations of these rights have been removed by so—called progressive historians, political scientists, law professors and textbook publishing companies.

     Members of Congress and the American people do not understand the history behind the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the State Constitutions, the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And they have allowed the Federal Government to assume powers not delegated to it by the U. S. Constitution.

Confusion over the Separation of Church and State

     In addition they have become very confused over the meaning of the words “separation of church and state.”

If we are to preserve America and its free institutions in the days ahead, it is critical that we understand the U. S. Constitution in the tradition of the founding fathers.

     Let us look again briefly at the First Amendment. It states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of he people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

     The First Amendment as it relates to religion is divided into the Establishment Clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....”) and the Free Exercise Clause (“or prohibit the free exercise thereof...”)

     Thomas Jefferson believed that these two clauses were “the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights.” (“Thomas Jefferson, “Freedom of Religion at the University of Virginia,” quoted in Saul K. Padover, editor, The Complete Jefferson. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pierce, 1943, p. 958.) Why? Because they allow an individual to have freedom of conscious and free of choice as it relates to individual worship.          

      The words, “separation of church and state,” are from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist Minister. They are not found in early court cases or dicta.

     What was the original intent of the framers of the First Amendment when it was drafted in the First Congress of the United States which met in 1791. If you study the debates in Congress and if you analyze the views of James Madison, who is the primary author of the Bill of Rights, you find that the intent of Congress at the time was to ensure that Congress never established a state church such as existed in Great Britain where the Church of England reigns. Since several of the states at the time had established churches (i.e. the state church in Virginia was the Church of England.) The Establishment Clause was a prohibition on Congress. Under no circumstances was Congress allowed to set up a state church or a national church such as the Church of England and require all Americans to worship within its confines.

     Congress was also prohibited from interfering with the rights of the states and the people within them from exercising the freedom to worship at whatever church they wanted.

     There is no way to construe the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. When have the records of the First Congress. We have the records of the state conventions which ratified the Bill of Rights. We have the writings of the framers of the First Amendment. Their intent is crystal clear, especially when taken in the context of the time which why the amendment was drafted in the first place.

     The First Amendment does not remove religion from American public life. Congress and the Supreme Court open each day with prayer. They are sworn in with their hands on a copy of the Holy Bible. It is more than ludicrous to say that we do not know what their intent in drafting the amendment was. We have all the records and they are very clear.

     Jefferson’s letter used the words, “separation of church and state,” in the contest of the First Amendment. He knew what the original intent of the amendment was and his words only sustain it. Look at Jefferson’s words. He did not say, “separation of religion and state.” He did not say, “separation of Christian religion and state.” He did not say, “separation of Christianity and state.” He judiciously used the words, “separation of church and state.” to indicate the need to prohibit Congress from ever setting up a state church or state religion and forcing the American people to sustain it and support it. However, that is exactly what the Supreme Court did when it used the letter in its court decision. See Everson v. board of Education (1947).

     The Supreme Court was simply exceeding its powers and legislating from the bench. Congress should have immediately challenged this and other decisions. However, they were ignorant or oblivious to the impact of the case. The Supreme Court used Jefferson’s word to remove the Christian religion from public life and install a new religion in its place—the religion of irreligion or secularism. Of course that is exactly what the School of Higher Criticism had been planning for years and they finally accomplished it when they had an activist court that disregarded the plain provisions of the U. S. Constitution and the clear intent of the founding fathers.


     In volume one of this trilogy, the reader learned how important the Christian religion was to those who discovered, settled and developed America. America was a Christian nation from 1620 until 1920. Since the 1920s agents of the School of Higher Criticism have done everything in their power to secularize America and they have used the Federal Courts to do it.

     The founding fathers would call this process judicial tyranny. The actions of the U. S. Supreme Court are clearly unconstitutional from the viewpoint of the founding fathers and sound constitutional theory and law.

     Certain judges of the U. S. Supreme Court and certain judges throughout the federal court system have become the Inquisitors for the Secular Inquisition in America. The promoting of God, the Holy Bible and its teachings in the public square has become the new heresy and those who believe in them are the new heretics.

     The School of Higher Criticism has hired some the best and brightest lawyers in America to serve as Inquisitors. Their task is to survey the entire public sector of society and ensure that faith in God, the Holy Bible and its teachings do not surface anywhere in the pubic square.     


Chapter 12—Secularism Takes Over the Media in America

Part I—Moral and Cultural Relativism

     One of the main principles of the theory of evolution is that man is an evolutionary being who evolved from a single cell organism over eons of time in a natural, slow process. The underling premises of this theory is that there no God. And if there is no God, there are no moral absolutes. If there is no God, there is no right and wrong. If there is no God, there is no Ten Commandments or any commandments for that matter. If there is no God, there is no Holy Bible, no prophets, no apostles, no creation, fall, atonement, resurrection or eternal life. If there is no God, there is no soul or spirit or divinity in man. Of course, those who promote Darwinism do not want you to realize that they are promoting pure, unadulterated atheism. Therefore they camouflage their teachings or their beliefs within science.

The Theory of Evolution Is a Philosophy Masquerading As a Science

     The leaders and members of the School of Higher Criticism know that the theory of organic evolution is a philosophy masquerading as a science. However, they do not want you to know that. There is absolutely nothing scientific about Darwinism, it is pure philosophy and they have placed Darwinism inside the fortress of science to protect it from scrutiny and attack. It is important to remember that true science is based upon observation, experimentation and verification. All these components are missing from the Origin of Species.

     Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin were not present when the earth was created. They were not present when the great Creator placed all forms of life on the earth and commanded them to multiple, each after its kind. And they were not present when the Creator placed Adam and Eve here on earth in the midst of a beautiful garden. The theory of uniformity and the theory of evolution is just a man—made theory. Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin created their theories to destroy faith in God and the Holy Bible and its remarkable teachings. Their theories were purposely designed to destroy the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ.

     Darwin and Lyell were leading members of the School of Higher Criticism. They knew exactly what they were doing and the consequences of their actions.

Sigmund Freud Destroys Reality of God, Sin and Repentance

     Sigmund Freud, a follower of Darwinism, developed a set of theories that also destroyed faith in God, the Holy Bible and its teachings. Freud would also deny the existence of God and said that those who believed in Christianity were neurotic. One of Freud’s missions in life was to remove the guilt people feel when they have done something wrong or committed a sin. God has given a conscious to each person born on earth. They instinctively know good and evil. He taught that since there is no God, there is no sin; therefore, people should no feel guilty when they do something they thing is wrong, sinful or evil. He thought the commandments of God were fairy tales.

     He believed that men and women are mere creatures, animals which descended from monkeys. His writings are full of intellectual self-justification, however, they are just clever rhetorical devices wrapped in scientific language to give an aura of credibility and allow a person to ignore their conscious and engage in behavior which may be completely destructive. The truth is very simple—all of his theories were derived from false premises.

Darwin and Freud Prepare the Way

for the Introduction of Moral and Cultural Relativism

     Darwin and Freud paved the way for the introduction of immodestly, unchastely, immorality as a normal part of the natural man and woman. They felt that each person should be free to choose whatever behavior made him or her feel good. Moral relativism is no morals at all.

     The School of Higher Criticism has spent the last 80 years actively promoting the tenets of agnosticism and atheism in America. They have succeeded in secularizing American society. The have led the nation into moral bondage. Generations of young students have been raised on a steady diet of cultural relativism and moral relativism. There are now no morals, no standards, no limits, no guidelines, no values, no commandments, no nothing. They have enslaved the American people with the tenets of Darwinism, agnosticism and atheism. And they have been so successful that people are now deep in bondage and they believe they are free.

Moral and Cultural Relativism Transform Society In America

     From 1620 unto 1920 the Holy Bible served as the moral compass which guided the American people in their daily lives. Our entire legal system is based upon the English System of Common Law. And this remarkable system of law is based entirely upon the Holy Scriptures. The teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and his prophets and apostles served as the foundation for moral and cultural behavior in America. However, in the 1920s the teachings of the Holy Bible were replaced by the teachings of Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud. As their views began to be accepted in the academia and the media, the American people were quickly seduced and they began accepting and adopting the principles of secularism, without knowing its hidden agenda.

Truth Is Relative

     Alan Bloom, the famous professor at the University of Chicago, wrote, “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or say he believes, that truth is relative.” (Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987, p. 25.) If truth is relative, then there are no moral or cultural absolutes, which is exactly what the School of Higher Criticism wants the people throughout America and the world to believe. There is not God, therefore, there is not right and wrong, no good and evil, no light and darkness, no freedom and tyranny. There is no truth. Hence Pontius Pilate famous question still rings throughout the world today, “What is truth?” According to Darwin and Freud, there is no truth. It is all relative. Such a belief system is a perfect way to enslave the American people and place them into a prison for their minds, which is exactly what has happened for the last 80 years or more.

The Adoption of New Absolutes in Society

     The principles of secularism have become the new absolutes that are leading the nation into moral bondage and eventual collapse. According to William D. Watkins, moral relativism is systematically weakening the nation by teaching that, “What’s true for you may not be true for me. One person’s art is another person’s pornography. No culture is better or worse that another. There are no objective morals, just differing opinions. Just go with the flow. If it feels good, do. Anything goes. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

     “Each of these statements reflects a relativist view of reality. ‘What's true for you may not be true for me’ makes truth ‘person—dependent.’ What you and I believe may differ, may even be contradictory. For instance, I might believe that human beings can live beyond the grave, whereas you might believe that the grave is a dead end. That does not matter. You can believe whatever you want, just as I can. What matters is that you respect my truth and I respect yours.

     “Or take the statement ‘One person's art is another person's pornography.’ On one level, this is a statement of fact. It is true that people have conflicting views over photographs and paintings that depict individuals in sexually explicit poses or activities. However, this statement goes beyond this simple factual observation and makes an assertion about our ability to decide what is art and what is pornography. In effect it claims that we have no objective criteria by which we can make such a determination. People have honest differences of opinion, including informed art critics. These various interpretations, says the relativist, show that what constitutes art is subjective. How can we come up with objective standards for good art or bad art if we can't even say objectively what art is? It is best, therefore, to give free rein to artistic expression in the public arena and leave pejorative labels, such as pornography, at home. Besides, who can really say what is pornographic anyway?

     Of course, people, including art critics, make decisions about works of art all the time. Sometimes these decisions impact an artist's reputation or pocketbook. At times they even lead to important cultural clashes over issues such as freedom of speech and community standards....

According to Relativists There Are No Absolutes

     “According to the relativist, we cannot adjudicate between these conflicting interpretations because there are no absolute standards by which to judge. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there are as many ‘standards’ of beauty as there are beholders. What you may find beautiful, I may see as offensive, and someone else may find boring or simply not worth bothering about. Why, then, should my view or yours be accepted as the standard? Better not to pass judgment at all, at least not a judgment that would keep other people from encountering the ‘art’ and coming to their own conclusions.

     “Let's take one more of these claims: ‘No culture is better or worse than another.’ This is an expression of cultural relativism. Its focus shifts away from the individual and zeros in on the society in which the individual belongs and lives. It grows out of the conviction that there are no universal standards of good or bad, right or wrong, normal or abnormal, that we can apply cross—culturally. In fact, cultural relativists maintain that a society's beliefs and behaviors must be understood and judged within the context of that society. Whatever a society believes is right is right within that society; whatever beliefs and behaviors it condemns as wrong are, therefore, wrong for that group. We, from our culture, cannot impose our standards on any other culture, just as other cultures cannot judge us by their standards. No culture's code of conduct has special status; it is simply one code among many, no better or worse than any other.

The American People Are Locked In a Mental Construct of the World

     “In short, relativism is the belief that truth and error, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, normal and abnormal, and a host of other judgments are determined by the individual, her circumstances, or her culture. Reality and morality are personal or social constructions or both. What we say we believe about the ‘real world’ says more about us and our group than it does about something beyond us or our culture. Psychology and sociology have replaced philosophy, science, and theology. There is no transcendent God or universal natural law we can point to that can inform us about who we are, what our world is like, and how we should get along in it. We do not even have a neutral, objective referent point on which we can stand so we can get beyond our particular situations and discover universal truths. We are forever locked up in our mental constructions and emotional ebbs and flows....” (William D. Watkins, The New Absolutes: How They Are Imposed Upon Us—How they Are Eroding Our Moral Landscape. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, pp. 21—23.)

     The cultural war that is raging in America is also raging across the entire planet as the forces of secularism have conquered the planet and set up the most complete ideological tyranny that has ever oppressed mankind. In this cultural war, the targets for conquest were: the family, education, media, arts, law, politics, business, finance.     

The Old Absolutes and the New Absolutes

     In The New Absolutes, William D. Watkins outlines ten areas of major conflict in the cultural war is dividing America into two distinct camps: (1) those who believe in God, the Holy Bible, its teachings and a set of moral absolutes; (2) those who do not believe in God, the Holy Bible, it teachings and the new tenets of moral and cultural relativism or secularism. The ten areas of conflict which he describes in detail in his remarkable book are: religion and its place in the public square, marriage, family, sexual liberty verses sexual license, same—sex rights, feminism, racial policies, multiculturalism, and political correctness and the new tolerance.

     Watkins describes the old absolutes which served as the foundation of American mortality and ethics from 1620 until 1920 as follows:

The Old Absolutes

     “(1)      Religion is the backbone of American culture, providing the moral and spiritual light needed for public and private life.

     “(2)      Human life from conception to natural death is sacred and worthy of protection.

     “(3)      The institution of marriage is God—ordained and occurs between a man and a woman until death severs the bond.

     “(4)      The normative family is a married father and mother who raise one or more children.

     “(5)      Sexual intercourse should be reserved for marriage.

     “(6)      Same—sex and bisexual intercourse are immoral.

     “(7)      Women should be protected and nurtured ....

     “(8)      All ... people are created equal and should be treated with dignity and respect.

     “(9)      Western civilization and its heritage should be studied and valued above others.

     “(10)      Different perspectives should be heard and tolerated, but only the true and right ones should prevail.

The New Absolutes

     “(1a)      Religion is the bane of public life, so for the public good it should be banned from the public square.

     “(2a)      Human life, which begins and ends when certain individuals or groups decide it does, is valuable as long as it is wanted.

     “(3a)      Marriage is a human contract made between any two people, and either party can terminate it for any


     “(4a)      Family is any grouping of two or more people with or without children.

     “(5a)      Sexual intercourse is permissible regardless of marital status.

     “(6a)      All forms and combinations of sexual activity are moral as long as they occur between consenting parties.


     “(7a)     Women are oppressed by men and must liberate themselves by controlling their own bodies and therefore their destinies.

     “(8a)      All human beings are created equal and should be treated with dignity and respect, but people of color should receive preferential treatment.

     “(9a)      Non—Western societies and other oppressed peoples and their heritage should be studied and valued

above Western civilization.

     “(l0a) Only those viewpoints deemed politically correct should be tolerated and encouraged to prevail.” (William D. Watkins, The New Absolutes, pp. 45—45.)

War Was Declared Upon the King James Version

of the Holy Bible In 1611

     The School of Higher Criticism realizes that if the people ever “Wake Up” they can easily cast off their ideological chains and “Free Their Minds” through the acceptance of the noble truths contained in the Holy Bible. That is why they declared war on the King James Version of the Holy Bible the day after it was published in 1611.

     The cultural war was launched in America in the halls of academia and then spread to the media and publishing world and from there into education and law. Today the ideological war that is underway in America and the entire world is between those who believe in God and those who do not believe in God. It is that simple.

The State of Acceptance of Moral and Cultural Relativism In America

     Let us now look at several recent surveys that will tell us how successful the forces of secularism have been in America. George Barna is a leading pollster who conducted three nationwide surveys (1990, 1993, 1994) in an attempt to ascertain the degree of acceptance for moral and cultural relativism. The results were revealing and shocking.

     William D. Watkins reports that, “According to Barna's surveys, the vast majority of Americans are adopting a relativistic view of truth in larger numbers that cut across age, gender, and racial differences. In 1991, Barna found that 28 percent of all adult respondents strongly agreed with the statement ‘There is no such thing as absolute truth; two people could define truth in totally conflicting ways, but both could still be correct.’ An additional 39 percent agreed less strongly with that statement. In other words, 67 percent rejected the reality of absolute truth to varying degrees.

     “When the same statement was posed to adults in 1994, the number who strongly agreed with it rose to 32 percent, and the number who somewhat agreed also rose slightly to 40 percent. This meant that relative truth now had a 72 percent acceptance rate. Roughly three out of four Americans claimed they embraced relativism and opposed absolutism.

     The acceptance of relative truth crossed gender lines just about equally. A person's age, on the other hand, did affect the results but not dramatically. In Barna's 1991 survey, 59 percent of the Builder generation (those born between 1927 and 1945) accepted the idea that truth is relative. This placed them eight points behind the 1991 national average. By 1994, however, their acceptance of relative truth had risen twelve percentage points, bringing them in line with the 1994 national average of 72 percent. The generation leading the way toward relativism is the Baby Busters. Born between 1965 and 1988, the adults in this generation rejected absolute truth by a staggering 78 percent. It seems that the younger the Americans, the greater the percentage who believe in relative truth.


     “Those adults most out of sync with the rush toward relativism were certain kinds of Christians. For instance, many respondents claimed they had ‘made a personal commitment to Christ that is still important in their lives today.’ They also said they believed ‘that when they die they will go to heaven because they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior.’ Among this group, which Barna labeled born—again Christians, more than half (52 percent) surveyed in 1991 ‘sided with the national majority [of 67 percent] in accepting relative truth as the standard.’ As of 1994, this percentage had risen ten points to 62 percent, which was close to the number of adults in the general population who scored on the side of relative truth just a few years before.

     “Evangelical Christians were less likely to reject absolute truth. According to Barna, respondents labeled evangelical Christians were those who met eight specific criteria. Two were the ones mentioned above under the category of born—again Christians. The other six criteria were (1) saying that ‘religion is important in their lives’; (2) believing that ‘God is the all—powerful, all—knowing Creator of the universe who rules the world today’; (8) rejecting the idea that ‘if a person is good enough, or does enough good things during life, he or she will earn a place in heaven’; (4) believing that ‘the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches’; (5) rejecting the claim that ‘Satan is a symbol of evil rather than a living force’; and (6) acknowledging that they have a personal ‘responsibility to tell other people their religious beliefs.’ Yet even with these professed beliefs in place, 42 percent of evangelical Christians surveyed in 1994 voiced their rejection of absolute truth .

Belief in Absolute Truths Is Falling

     “If Americans stay true to form, we can predict that as the 1990s come to a close, belief in absolute truth will exist among an even smaller minority. Perhaps as few as two out of every ten Americans will confess to a belief that truth is absolute. Among religiously conservative Christians, the belief in relativism will also likely continue to grow but at a slower rate. Maybe by the year 2000 seven out of every ten Christians will reject the reality of absolute truth.

     “As truth goes, so goes morality. Fewer Americans than ever before still believe that ethical norms are universal. Many more say they believe that what is right for me may be wrong for you, and that no individual, group, or governing body has the right to set the ethical standard for anyone else.

     “When Barna asked adults if they agreed with the statement ‘there are no absolute standards for morals and ethics,’ seven out of every ten (71 percent) said that they agreed with it. African Americans assented to the proposition more than any other group tested—88 percent—with Caucasians lagging eleven points behind. The lowest groups on the acceptance scale were born—again Christians (64 percent) and evangelicals (40 percent). Among those who fell under the broader religious classifications of Protestant and Catholic, the acceptance percentage was almost equal—67 percent for Protestants and 70 percent for Catholics. Seventy—seven percent of non—Christians said they rejected absolute moral standards.

     “When it came to the issue of morality, a person's gender did not matter. Both sexes voiced opposition to moral absolutes in equal numbers (72 percent), just as they had on the issue of absolute versus relative truth. Age played no appreciable role either, except among the youngest polled. Baby Boomers fell right in with the national norm of 71 percent. The oldest polled—Builders and Seniors (those born before 1926)were divided by just four percentage points (71 percent and 67 percent respectively) as they too hovered around the norm. Baby Busters, the youngest adults surveyed, were the ones leading the pack at 80 percent.

     “In short, on average almost three quarters of American adults, despite their age, sex, or basic religious orientation (except among the most religiously conservative Christians), said they had turned away from ethical absolutism and embraced moral relativism. In fact, one out of every three adults believes that ‘it is impossible to be a moral person these days.’ (William D. Watkins, The New Absolutes, pp. 26—28.)

     These figures are alarming in light of the fact that 85% of the American people claim they are Christians.

Anarchy, Chaos and Breakdown of Law and Order Just Ahead

     It is clear that the School of Higher Criticism has seduced the American people into accepting a set of beliefs that are not based upon reality as defined in the Holy Bible. These beliefs are now leading to cultural conflicts such as the war over abortion, gay rights and same sex marriage that is sweeping the nation. The intensity of the war will only increase in the future as city will rise against city, state will rise against state and the cities and the states will rise against the federal government and anarchy, chaos and total breakdown of law and order will occur in the not too distant future. Of course, the conflict will only increase the size, scope and power of government at all levels which is exactly what the leaders of the School of Higher Criticism are planning, thereby increasing their power over the American people.

Americas Have Lost the Ability To Tell Right From Wrong

     In 1991 another revealing survey was published by James Patterson and Peter Kim. They also surveyed the American landscape and found that moral and cultural relativism was sweeping the nation.

     “Among all the startling answers Patterson and Kim received, one stood out with stark relevance to the question of relativism's influence. As Patterson and Kim expressed it, ‘Americans are making up their own rules, their own laws. In effect, we're all making up our own moral codes. Only 18 percent of us believe in all of the Ten Commandments. Forty percent of us believe in five of the Ten Commandments. We choose which laws of God we believe in. There is absolutely no moral consensus in this country as there was in the 1950s, when all our institutions commanded more respect. Today, there is very little respect for the law—for any kind of law.’ When Americans ‘want to answer a question of right and wrong, we ask ourselves.... We are the law unto ourselves. We have made ourselves the authority over church and God. We have made ourselves the clear authority over the government. We have made ourselves the authority over laws and the police.’

     Patterson and Kim discovered that a whopping 93 percent of those surveyed declared that ‘they—and nobody else—determine what is and what isn't moral in their lives. They base their decisions on their own experience, even on their daily whims. In addition, almost as large a majority confessed that they would violate the established rules of their religion (84 percent), or that they had actually violated a law because they thought that it was wrong in their view (81 percent).’

     “The result of this moral crisis, they claim, is that Americans ‘no longer can tell right from wrong.’ Americans have found themselves in ‘a moral vacuum. The religious figures and scriptures that gave us rules for so many centuries, the political system that gave us our laws, all have lost their meaning in our moral imagination.’ (William D. Watkins. The New Absolutes, p. 29.)

America Is Reaching a Point Where

It Permits Everything and Stands For Nothing

     Paul Vitz, a prominent psychologist, wrote that, "One of the major characteristics of moral decline in the United States in recent decades has been the rapid growth of moral relativism. The idea is now widespread that each individual has some kind of a sovereign right to create, develop, and express whatever values he or she happens to prefer. This kind of personal relativism is far more serious and extreme than . even cultural relativism.... Unfortunately, America has now reached the point where it permits almost everything and stands for almost nothing—except a flabby relativism." ((Paul C. Vitz, “An American Disaster: Moral Relativism.” In William Bentley Ball, In Search for a National Morality: A Manifesto for Evangelicals and Catholics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992, p.43.

Moral and Cultural Relativism Is Being Promoted By Hollywood

     The media is one of the most powerful teaching tools in existence. Hollywood producers and directors have produced inspiring movies such as Ben Hur, Ten Commandments, Gladiator, Brave Heart, Amistad, Mask of Zorro, Joan of Arc, Matrix, etc., and movies such as The Last Temptation of Christ, which distort and question America’s traditional values. The studios have the power to produce movies that are considered good or evil, depending upon your worldview.

     If you use the Holy Bible, as your guide and standard to judge the films being produced today, you are going to come to a far different conclusion than those who have embraced secularism and the new morality or moral relativism that is now prevalent throughout America.


     The worldview of the studio, the producer, the screenwriter, the director and even the actors play a major role in the determination whether they present a movie that is inspirational or destructive in nature. Unfortunately, most of the studios in Hollywood have embraced the new morality, moral relativism and cultural relativism. Therefore, the television programs and movies reflect the society of which they are a part.

     The large studios are in business to make movies and to make money from those movies. And they are willing to produce whatever sells and brings in the highest ratings and money at the ticket office. Since the overwhelming majority of film goes today has embraced the new morality, moral relativism and cultural relativism

     The nudity, immodesty, profanity, dishonesty, immorality, gay and lesbian lifestyles, fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, corruption, drugs, etc, that are part of movies today all derive their origin and justification in the new morality, moral relativism and cultural relativism. And these are all derived from the theory of evolution, which Darwin and Freud have fostered throughout the earth.

     There are wonderful people in Hollywood. And there are wonderful scripts just waiting to be made into terrific movies. Whether they are made, depends upon the worldview of the studio and producers.

     Unfortunately, the tenets of moral and cultural relativism and secularism have the upper hand in Hollywood.


Hollywood Verses America

     In 1992 Michael Medvid, the former co-host of “Sneak Previews,” and one of the nation’s leading film critics, published Hollywood Vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values. It was one of the most critical analyses of Hollywood ever to appear in print. He asked a straightforward question, Why is Hollywood so hostile to the traditional Christian values that the American people hold so dear? Medvid showed an outline of the book to a close friend who worked for one of the major studios in Hollywood. His friend told him to drop the project and warned him that if he went forward with the book, “you’re going to become one of the most hated man in Hollywood.” (Michael Medved, Hollywood Vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992, p. 17.)

     Medvid stated that, “In any event, I could no longer ignore destructive trends that seemed increasingly obvious to me, or continue to focus exclusively on reviews of individual films while pretending not to notice that Hollywood’s ‘big picture’ had grown so much darker and more ominous. No matter how elegant and diverting the passing parade, it’s time to step forward to suggest that the Entertainment Emperors are wearing no cloths. (Michael Medved, Hollywood Vs. America, p. 17.)

     According to Medvid, Hollywood no longer reflects—or even respects—the values of most American families. On many important issues in contemporary life, popular entertainment seems to go out of its way to challenge conventional notions of decency. For example,

     “Our fellow citizens cherish the institution of marriage and consider religion an important priority in life; but the entertainment industry promotes every form of sexual adventurism and regularly ridicules religious believers as crooks or crazies.

     “In our private lives, most of us deplore violence and feel little sympathy for the criminals who perpetrate it; but movies, TV, and popular music all revel in graphic brutality, glorifying vicious and sadistic characters who treat killing as a joke.

     “Americans are passionately patriotic, and consider themselves enormously lucky to live here; but Hollywood conveys a view of the nation’s history, future, and major institutions that is dark, cynical, and often nightmarish.

     “Nearly all parents want to convey to their children the importance of self-discipline, hard work, and decent manners; but the entertainment media celebrate vulgar behavior, contempt for all authority, and obscene language—which is inserted even in ‘family fare’ where it is least expected....”

The Dream Factory Has Become the Poison Factory

     “As a nation, we no longer believe that popular culture enriches our lives. Few of us view the show business capital as a magical source of uplifting entertainment, romantic inspiration, or even harmless fun. Instead, tens of millions of Americans now see the entertainment industry as an all-powerful enemy, an alien force that assaults our most cherished values and corrupts our children. The dream factory has become the poison factory. (Michael Medved, Hollywood Vs. America, p. 10.)

Hollywood Issues a Declaration of War

     In a part III of this chapter we will discuss Mel Gibson’s new movie, The Passion of the Christ. However, before we discuss this movie, let us look at Hollywood’s view of the Savior. In a chapter entitled, “A Declaration of War,” Michael Medved wrote:


“Father, Forgive Them”

     On the morning of August 11, 1988, more than 25,000 people gathered at Universal City, California, in the largest protest ever mounted against the release of a motion picture.

     The huge crowd assembled from every direction, filling all streets and sidewalks surrounding the legendary "Black Tower" that housed the corporate command center of the vast conglomerate, MCA/Universal. For several hours, long lines of cars and vans disgorged their passengers, clogging traffic and forcing police to close freeway off-ramps within a two-mile radius. All observers commented on the remarkable age range of the protesters, with preschoolers in strollers and senior citizens in wheelchairs well-represented, along with every category in between. The demonstrators carried hand-lettered signs proclaiming "Please Show Respect for My God," "The Lie Costs $6.50; the Truth Is Free," and "Father, Forgive Them."

     An acquaintance who worked at Universal at the time recalled the nervousness that prevailed throughout the day inside the company's main office building. "That was one time it was really scary to be in the Black Tower," she said. "There were just so many of them! When you looked down, fifteen stories down, they were everywhere. The crowd seemed to go on for miles. We felt like we were trapped. A guy down the hall said it was like the Russian Revolution, and we were in the Winter Palace. My boss kept expecting them to charge—to break down the doors and to trash the building. He thought they were going to try and kill people. We had extra security all day because everybody was expecting a fight."

     The huge throng failed to live up to these dramatic expectations; despite the feelings of hurt and rage that many of the demonstrators expressed to members of the press, the police reported no incidents of either violence or vandalism. The protesters assembled in order to show their passionate opposition to the next day's scheduled release of Martin Scorsese's The Last of Temptation of Christ, not to exact vengeance from the studio that produced it. They sang a few hymns, cheered lustily for more than a dozen occasionally emotional speakers, and then peaceably dispersed. By mid-afternoon the terrified honchos in the Black Tower breathed a collective sigh of relief and returned to their business without making any serious attempt to come to terms with the significance of what had just occurred outside their windows.

     The movie moguls, together with many of their supporters in the news media, persisted in dismissing the demonstrators (and all others opposed to the production and release of The Last Temptation of Christ) as representatives of a lunatic fringe of religious fanatics and right-wing extremists. In one typical piece of commentary, columnist Mike Duffy of the Detroit Free Press decried those who criticized the film as "sour, fun-loathing people" and "the American ignoramus faction that is perpetually geeked up on self-righteous bile....

     "They looked for Reds under every bed with Joe McCarthy. "They cheered police dogs in Selma.. . .


     "And now the know-nothing wacky pack has latched onto Martin Scorsese and The Last Temptation of Christ....”.

     In point of fact, the "know-nothing wacky pack" that protested the movie included such "fringe groups" as the National Council of Catholic Bishops, the National Catholic Conference, the Southern Baptist Convention (with 14 million members), the Eastern. Orthodox Church of America, the Archbishop of Canterbury (head of the worldwide Anglican Church), the archbishop of Paris, twenty members of the U. S. House of representatives (who cosponsored a bipartisan resolution condemning the film), the Christian Democratic Party of Italy (that nation's largest political party), and Mother Teresa of Calcutta, the Nobel Prize winner who invariably turns up on polls as one of the world's most admired human beings. Mother Teresa sent a particularly passionate "message to America" that was read to the demonstrators in which she called on all people of good will to use "prayer as the ultimate weapon to fight this ultimate disgrace."

     In fact, all of those who addressed the enormous crowd that gathered at Universal the day before the picture's release spoke in temperate tones that gave scant indication that they had been "geeked up on self-righteous bile."

     One of Hollywood's own received an especially warm response—Ken Wales, former vice president at Disney studios and veteran producer of more than twenty feature films. "As a member of this industry I wish that there were hundreds of stars and writers and directors standing here with me," Wales pleaded. "I suppose they are out protesting toxic waste! Let me tell you, there is toxic waste in other areas besides our rivers. That happens in the pollution of our minds, our souls, and our spirits!”

     Another speaker on t e program was Rabbi Chaim Asa, a Holocaust survivor and leader of a large Reform temple in Fullerton, California. Speaking slowly and deliberately, but with great intensity, Rabbi Asa explained that he had come to "join in protesting the indignity of this particular attempt to defame your God.... Millions across the country are saying, ‘You are touching something very deep, very sensitive in my soul. Please don't do it, because this is not fair!' I protest vehemently, as many of my Christian friends did when someone tried to burn our temple in Fullerton.. . . I will try to express to my Christian friends—if their pain is deep now, so is my pain for them."


     The executives at Universal remained remarkably insensitive to that pain; their public statements contained not the slightest hint of conciliation or apology. Instead, the studio brass„ incongruously invoked the First Amendment and struck a series of smug, self-serving poses that seemed to suggest that this for-profit corporation felt a solemn and selfless duty to promote a, film that , tens of millions of millions of its potential patrons found offensive.

     "Though those in power may justify the burning of books at the time, the witness of history teaches the importance of standing up for freedom of conscience . . . ," declared a pompous, full-page "open letter" from Universal Pictures published in newspapers around the country. "In the United States, no one sect or coalition has the power to set boundaries around each person's freedom to explore religious and philosophical questions. . . ."

     This tendentious civics lesson made no attempt to explain why the conglomerate's principled defense of the Constitution required it to finance, promote, and distribute certain religious and philosophical explorations, but not others. Hadn't the company somehow breached its commitment to "standing up for freedom of conscience" by passing up the opportunity to produce a film version of Salman Rushdie's best—selling novel The Satanic Verses —a book that offered a revisionist view of Mohammed in some ways comparable to Scorsese's revisionist portrayal of Christ?


     When it came to the prospect of enraging the Islamic faithful, the instinct for self-preservation took precedence over the commitment to controversial religious explorations, but the Universal bosses felt no corresponding compunctions when it came to offending Christians: time and again during the Last Temptation battle, the studio seemed to go our of its way to insult the organized religious community. Dr. Richard G. Lee, pastor of the seven—thousand—member Rehoboth Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, managed to collect more than 135,000 signatures on his petition protesting the film's release. When he and his associates repeatedly called Universal to request that a representative of' the company make ten minutes available to formally receive the petitions and the attached list of names, the public relations executives refused to cooperate. 'We contacted their offices," Pastor Lee recalled, "and in our last conversation they told us, `We don't care about your petitions. Leave them with the guards, and we'll put them in the dump.' They were saying, `We don't care about the opinions and the heartbeat of 135,000 Americans."'

     Ultimately, all the major Hollywood studios offered formal support for this callous attitude and endorsed Universal’s position on t he film. Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, issued a statement in which he ringingly declared: "The key issue, the only issue, is whether or not self—appointed groups can prevent a film from being exhibited to the public.... The major companies of MPAA support MCA/Universal in its absolute right to offer to the people whatever movie it chooses."

     No one ever challenged that "absolute right"; Universal's critics merely questioned the way the studio elected to exercise it. The dispute concerned the movie company’s choices, not its rights. To assert that a studio has the right to release "whatever movie it chooses" is not to insist that every possible release is equally defensible.

     Would Mr. Valenti have spoken out in behalf of a film biography of slain black leader Malcolm X that portrayed him as a paid agent of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI who secretly worked to discredit the civil rights movement? What about a movie version of the life of the assassinated gay hero, San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk, that suggested that he was actually a closet heterosexual (and inveterate womanizer) who only pretended to be gay in order to seek political advantage? Or a revisionist view of Holocaust victim Anne Frank that portrayed her as an out-of-control teenage nymphomaniac who risked capture by the Nazis night after night to satisfy her raging hormones?

     It is difficult to imagine the industry's leaders rallying to the support of any such outrageous and patently offensive projects in the way they rallied to the support of The Last Temptation. For Hollywood, in other words, some martyrs are more sacrosanct than others.

     In 1984, four years prior to the battle over the Martin Scorsese film, organized protests erupted over the release of a sordid little exploitation picture called Silent Night, Deadly Night, which portrayed a department store Santa as a blood-soaked psychotic slasher. Many Hollywood leaders actually supported the protesters, and neither Jack Valenti nor anyone else from the motion picture establishment ever spoke up for the producers' "absolute right" to besmirch the image of Kris Kringle. This may reflect the fact that the people behind Silent Night, Deadly Night wielded considerably less clout than the people behind The Last Temptation; but it also indicates that Santa Claus is more sacred to the entertainment industry than Jesus.

     In fact, he industry’s stubborn and purportedly principled defense of Universal's right to offend a significant segment of the public with the Martin Scorsese film stands in striking contrast to the deference displayed to a wide range of "politically correct" special-interest groups, both before and after the Last Temptation controversy. For instance:

     In 1990 animal rights activists demanded that Disney studios eliminate what a spokesman for the Humane Society described as "an anti—wolf statement" in the film adaptation of Jack London's novella White Fang. The producers agreed to remove a dramatic scene in which a wolf attacks a man and even added a disclaimer to the film which stated that "there is no documented case in North America of a healthy wolf or pack of wolves attacking a human."

     In 1991 screenwriter and independent producer Jonathan F. Lawton altered the storyline in his script Red Sneakers under pressure from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination (GLAAD). His original concept involved a heroine who leaves her older female lover for a man—a plot that allegedly affronted lesbian sensibilities. In the revised (and, according to GLAAD, "much improved" version), the main character views the older woman more as a mother figure than as a lover, and that older woman is also provided a happy romance with another lesbian.

     In another well-publicized incident, the religious leaders in one Hopi Indian village reviewed the script for Robert Redford's upcoming film Dark Wind and reached the conclusion that the screenplay portrayed their ancient rites in a "sacrilegious" manner. Producer Patrick Markey promptly agreed to make changes.


     The sensitivity that Hollywood flaunted during these and many similar episodes makes the industry's stonewalling during The Last Temptation controversy even more difficult to understand. Leaders of the motion picture business showed, more concern with possible sacrilege against the religious traditions of a single Hopi village than with certain offense to the faith of tens of millions of believing Christians; the prospect of being labels ‘anti-wolf’ produced greater worry than the prospect of being labeled anti-Christ."

     In response to this charge, the Industry's defenders might insist that the examples of accommodation cited above involved adjustments that were made during the production process, while the bitter fight over The Last Temptation of Christ erupted as Universal prepared a finished film for national release. This argument, however, only highlights Universal’s surprise unwillingness to receive input from respected Christian theologians or organizations in the scripting of their inevitably sensitive project. Animal rights activists, gay advocacy groups, and ethnic organizations of every descriptions are frequently consulted on questions of content in feature films, by Martin Scorsese and his associate kept their plans for The Last Temptation a closely guarded secret from all church leaders.

     It is difficult to quarrel with the substance of a press statement released on July 12, 1988, by the broad-based religious coalition opposed to the release of Scorsese's film. At the time, they noted the studio's "presumed unwillingness to release a major film maligning the character and distorting the historical record of any other religious, ethnic, or national hero" and therefore condemned "the highly discriminatory nature of Universal's decision against the Christian community."

     Much of the press coverage of the increasingly bitter dispute also seemed highly discriminatory. Television news repeatedly misrepresented the nature of the national movement opposing the movie's release by focusing on one utterly unrepresentative individual as the preeminent symbol of that movement: the Reverend R. L. Hymers, pastor of an obscure church in downtown Los Angeles. With his snarling moon face and explosive temper, his predictions of impending apocalypse (through earthquakes and "killer bees"), his blatantly anti-Semitic ravings against the "Jewish money' behind the movie, and a long history of legal problems stemming from past violent outbursts, Hymers lived up to anyone's worst nightmare of deranged religious fanatic. Naturally, the press couldn't get enough of him.

     The mainstream Protestant and Catholic leaders who coordinated the major efforts against The Last Temptation not only disowned Hymers, they publicly denounced him. They pointed out that he represented no significant constituency, and spoke only for his own struggling, 250—member Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle. Nevertheless, Hymers appeared on literally hundreds of TV interviews and talk shows, as well as gracing the pages of Time, Newsweek, and People, while respected Christian leaders like Pastor Jack Hayford and the Reverend James Ogilvie (whose congregations each boasted more than twenty times the membership of Hymers's) were virtually ignored. When Hymers and less than one hundred of his followers staged a "mock crucifixion" on the sidewalk in front of the home of Universal president Lew Wasserman, he received more television coverage than the subsequent demonstration at the Black Tower, which drew a crowd that the police estimated at 25,000.

     The media not only misled the public about the leaders of the protest, but also distorted the substance of their objections to Scorsese's film. News stories focused again and again on the "dream sequence" at the end of the movie, emphasizing one brief scene in which Jesus makes love to Mary Magdalene and asserting that this image alone had provoked the furor in the religious community. In fact, Christian leaders identified more than twenty elements in the finished film that offended them deeply, ranging from an early scene in which Jesus crouches by the bed and watches with voyeuristic intensity as Mary Magdalene has sex with ten different men, to a later conversation in which the Apostle Paul confesses that he doesn't really believe in the Resurrection and admits that "I've created truth out of what people needed and believed."


     By ignoring the issues raised by all other aspects of the film and concentrating exclusively on the sex scene between Magdalene and Christ, the press helped to make the protesters look like narrow minded prudes. Dr. Larry Poland, whose "Mastermedia" ministry works to bring Christian ideas to leaders in the entertainment industry, saw an especially flagrant example of this tendency in the coverage on the CBS television station in Los Angeles. In filing a report on the film and the protests, entertainment correspondent Steve Kmetko authoritatively (and fatuously) concluded: "As far as the controversy goes, the movie follows Christian doctrine very closely." Kmetko then joined the two news anchors in some spontaneous banter about the movie and its infamous love scene:

     ANCHOR #1: "So you mean, Steve, that all of this protest about the film surrounds the equivalent of one page from a two-hundred-and fifty-page book?"

     ANCHOR #2: "Or really just thirty seconds of a two-hour-and-forty minute movie?"

     Kmetko: “That’s it."

     This sort of one-sided coverage made it easier for everyone in the industry to ignore the uncomfortable questions raised by the controversy—questions about Hollywood's underlying hostility to religious belief and to religious believers. Instead of confronting the situation honestly, show business leaders issued an endless series of smug pronouncements in defense of Mr. Scorsese's First Amendment rights inconsistently coupled with condemnation of those who chose to exercise their First Amendment rights by protesting the film. In all the bitter weeks of charges and countercharges, Hollywood never seemed to understand the demands of those who opposed the picture. What the wanted from the industry wasn't censorship; it was sensitivity.

Solemn Stupidity

     As the controversy intensified in the days immediately prior to the film's release, I tried to focus on my job as a movie critic and to stay away from the increasingly hysterical theological and constitutional debates. I wanted to see The Last Temptation of Christ with an open mind and to assess its artistic excellence (or inadequacy) as a motion picture, rather than surveying its importance as a battleground in the ongoing culture war. As a practicing Jew, I could sympathize with the sense of violation and outrage that many of my Christian friends felt as soon as they heard about the film, but I never shared their visceral reaction; nor did I experience the similarly passionate (and similarly instinctive) impulse of some industry insiders who rushed to the defense of the film the moment it was attacked by the religious right.

     With these intense emotions very much in the air, I gathered with a dozen other critics to see the picture at a weekday afternoon screening two weeks before its release. We sat together in a small screening room at the Universal lot, chatting as we waited for the lights to go down. I think we all felt the electric atmosphere in that room, connected with our knowledge that we were about to witness a significant moment in cinema and social history. Our anticipation arose in part from the expectations surrounding any film by Martin Scorsese, the most acclaimed director of our time. In one well—publicized national poll, a group of the most prominent critics in the country made Scorsese's movie Raging Bull their runaway choice for best American film of the 1980s.

     Unfortunately, as The Last Temptation of Christ unreeled before our astonished eyes, it became clear almost immediately that he might have re-titled this new film Rain Messiah. Within its first five minutes the picture offers a sequence in which Jesus (Willem Dafoe) inexplicably assists the Romans in crucifying some innocent Jewish victim. As they nail the poor man's feet to the bottom of the cross, blood spurts out and covers Christ's somber cheek.

     Such graphic and shocking gore recurs at regular intervals, providing the only relief to long, arid stretches of appalling boredom, laughable dialogue, and unbearably bad acting. Even those who publicly praised the film confessed that its two-hour-and-forty-four minute running time amounted to something of an ordeal for the audience; I found the entire experience as uplifting and rewarding as two hours and forty—four minutes in the dentist's chair.

     After the first half hour of this solemn stupidity I began to feel sorry for the actors. Barbara Hershey played Mary Magdalene and for some odd reason, director Scorsese had decided to cover her lovely body from head to toe with intricate and abstract tattoos. Try as I might, I couldn't avoid recalling the lyrics of the Groucho Marx ditty "Lydia, the Tattooed Lady" whenever Miss Hershey appeared on screen. Most other women in the cast had been similarly decorated—as if Scorsese had made a startling archaeological discovery that indicated that ancient Judea boasted tattoo parlors on every corner catering exclusively to females. In reality, however, Jewish and biblical law strictly prohibited tattoos of any and all kinds, for both men and women, making a mockery of all the boasts in the official press kit about Scorsese's "exhaustive research" on Judean customs at the time of Jesus.


     Other members of the cast suffered even more intense embarrassment than Miss Hershey. Following the lead of the Nikos Kazantzakis novel that served as the source for the film, the script tries to make Judas Iscariot the most admirable and devoted of Christ's disciples, but in his performance as Judas, the woefully miscast Harvey Keitel inspires unintended hilarity rather than sympathy. With his thick Brooklyn accent firmly intact, braying out his lines like a minor Mafioso trying to impress his elders with his swaggering, tough-guy panache, Keitel looks for all the world as if he has accidentally wandered onto the desert set from a very different Martin Scorsese film. He is also required to wear a flaming orange fright wig that gives him an unmistakable resemblance to a biblical bozo.

     The picture is crammed with such idiotic touches—from Jesus reaching into his chest and pulling out his bloody pumping heart to display to his impressed apostles, to the resurrected Lazarus answering a question about the contrast between life and death by mumbling, "I was a little surprised. There isn't that much difference." In response to such memorably miscalculated movie moments, some of my generally restrained colleagues, who attended the same critics' screening I did, began snickering, hooting, and laughing aloud midway through the picture's all-but-insufferable length.

     When we finally staggered out into the light of day, blinking our eyes and shaking our heads in disbelief, a TV camera crew from a national entertainment show approached a few of the recognizable reviewers in the crowd and asked for our instantaneous responses. I told them, "It is the height of irony that all this controversy should be generated by a film that turns out to be so breathtakingly bad, so unbearably boring. In my opinion, the controversy about this picture is a lot more interesting than the film itself "

     That comment may have forever ended my chances of making Martin Scorsese's Christmas card list, since it was widely and repeatedly quoted in the national media as part of the continuing debate on the motion picture and its significance. I stand by the comment today, not only as an expression of my own opinion, but as an accurate summary of the general reaction of those who sat beside me in that screening room and watched the film for the first time that afternoon.

     I was therefore amazed and appalled in the days that followed at the generally respectful—even reverential—tone that so many of my colleagues adopted in their reviews. In particular, I found it impossible to understand the one critic who had snorted the loudest and clucked the most derisively at the afternoon screening we both attended, but whose ultimate report to the public featured glowing praise and only the most minor reservations.

     When I called him to ask about the contrast between his privately expressed contempt and his on-the-record admiration, he proved surprisingly candid in explaining his inconsistency. "Look, I know the picture's a dog," he said. 'We both know that, and probably Scorsese knows it. too. But with all the Christian crazies shooting at him from every direction, I'm not going to knock him in public. If I slammed the picture too hard, then people would associate me with Falwell—and there's no way I'm ready for that."

     I believe that his confidential comments offer the best explanation for the utterly undeserved critical hosannas that the picture provoked in many quarters. Other critics may never acknowledge the antireligious prejudice that helped to produce their positive reviews—and some of them may not even be consciously aware of it. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that many of my colleagues automatically assumed that any film that caused so much upset to the conventional religious community must be brave, significant, and worthy of praise. Critics invariably disagree about the quality of major movies, but the level and intensity of the disagreements on The Last Temptation went far beyond expected differences in taste and seemed to suggest ideological agendas at work.

     In a sense, the response to the film (including Scorsese's surprise nomination for an Academy Award as Best Director, and official endorsements by the Writers Guild, the Directors Guild, and the Motion Picture Association of America) represented the movie industry's "circle the wagons" mentality at its most hysterical and paranoid. Veteran star Mickey Rooney, one of the few established Hollywood figures to speak up against Scorsese's acclaimed "masterpiece," concluded: "The Last Temptation of Christ provides a good example of the film establishment rallying around a bad film to protect its own selfish interest.... That film, no matter what its defenders say, was a slap in the face to Christians everywhere, but Hollywood cradled the picture as if it were Citizen Kane." When religious figures across the country attacked the picture, the members of the Hollywood community felt called upon to close ranks and to do rhetorical battle with any who dared criticize the industry and its values.


     That's why so many of the film's supporters not only praised it as a work of art, but defended it as an act of faith. The noted theologian Joel Siegel of "Good Morning America" insisted it was "deeply felt and ultimately faith—affirming," while Marshall Fine of Gannet News Services called it "a work of immense imagination, one that never betrays its unshakable faith." David Ehrenstein of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner declared, "It is without question one of the most serious, literate, complex and deeply religious films ever made, brilliantly directed by Martin Scorsese."

     The public wisely ignored such glowing notices and the film quickly developed the deadly word-of-mouth it so richly deserved. Despite saturation coverage in the press—exceeding even the epic hoopla connected with the debut of Gone With the Wind—the movie promptly bombed at the box office. Its domestic gross of $7 million scarcely covered the expenses for promotion and distribution, let alone the original cost of the production. The movie's rental and sale on videocassette proved similarly disappointing; Blockbuster Video, the Florida based corporation, that operates the nation’s largest chain of video stores, refused to even stock the title for fear of offending its customers. Though precise figures will never be .made public, best estimates indicate that Universal's overall loss on the project could hardly have been less than $10 million—an appalling result for a project that had received the most lavish pre-release publicity in modern motion picture history.” (Michael Medved. Hollywood vs. America, pp. 37-49.)


The Irony and Double Standards of the Media Distort Truth

and Attack the Christian Religion

     The revealing analysis of the Last Temptation of Christ and its defense in Hollywood and the secular media reveal the double standards and the ironies that exist in the culture war that is raging in America. The secular media will use whatever tool is at their disposal to promote the secular religion and help bring about the establishment of a secular state in America. They know that the moral and cultural relativism which they are supporting and promoting will bring about the demise and fall of Christianity in America.

     Once Christianity is driven from America, the secular media, which includes radio, television, giant screen movies, internet sites, magazines, newspapers, journals plays, music, video, DVD, tie-in books, etc., will be free to promote whatever product, philosophy or irreligion they desire and there will be no one to stop them. The giant companies know that they are capturing the minds and souls of the younger generation and they are just waiting for the older generation to die off. Once again, they have the same attitude toward the Christian religion as the old Soviet Union leaders who considered religion the “opiate of the people.”

     Michael Medved believes that, “The distortions and insults about organized religion will continue unabated as long as our popular culture continues its overall campaign against judgment and values. A war against standards leads logically and inevitably to hostility to religion because it is religious faith that provides the ultimate basis for all standards.

     “The God of the Bible is not a moral relativist, and He is most definitely judgmental. The very nature of the Judeo-Christian God is a lord who makes distinctions. In the Book of Genesis, God creates the world by dividing the light from the darkness, dividing the waters above from the waters beneath, dividing the water from t he dry land, and so on. In traditional Jewish homes, when we say farewell to the Sabbath every Saturday night, we divide the holy day just passed from the more ordinary week ahead, reciting a blessing that praises God for separating various aspects of reality, one from the other for making distinctions. To the extent that we as human beings feel that we are created in God’s image, and that we are fundamentally different from the animals, we make distinctions, too—and we have standards.

     “That is a position that is honored by millions upon millions of our fellow citizens but it is regularly ridiculed in the mass media. No one expects a radical reversal of t his situation, with Hollywood emerging overnight as an effective advocate for religious values, but a greater sense of neutrality and balance ought to be possible when it comes to portrayals of organized faith.....


     “In that regard it is worth recalling that for more than forty years, the industry followed an explicit standard when it came to movie portrayals of organized religion and the clergy. That official standards stated:

     “‘No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.

     “‘Ministers of religion in their characters as ministers of religion should not be used as comic characters or as villains;

     Ceremonies of any definite religion should be carefully and respectfully handled.’

     “These eminently reasonable guidelines, violated so repeatedly and so gratuitously in recent years, appear as Article III of the notorious Production Code of 1930. All of the industry’s various attempts to impose restrictions on itself in terms of movie content, from ‘The formula” of 1924 to the “Standards for Production” of 1968, included similar prohibitions on the ridicule of organized religion.

     “The Production Code is today generally reviled as a misguided attempt at repression and censorship, and recent attempts by the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles to revive the code have provoked an outrage response from the industry. “ (Michael Medved, Hollywood vs. America, pp. 89-91.)

The Seduction of the Owners, Managers, Producers,

Directors and Screen Writers of Hollywood

     During the time that the Production Code of 1930 was in effect, Hollywood produced some of the greatest movies and television shows in history. Why did they abandon the Code. The reason is that the owners and managers of the large studios, the producers, directors, screen writers and all who are involved in the radio, television and movie industry were seduced by the doctrines of secularism as promoted by t he School of Higher Criticism. As soon as the older generation of Hollywood movie and television producers, directors, etc died off they were replaced by a new generation who had embraced the theories, hypothesis, doctrines, teachings, values, dogmas, tenets and principles of agnosticism and atheism

     When they assumed control of the radio, television and movie industry they cast aside the old Production Code of 1930 which was based upon the principles of the Holy Bible and its teachings and embraced the new religion of secularism. Many of them would argue to death that they are not a part of organized religion, however, the religion of secularism is one of the most carefully crafted and designed irrelgions or belief systems on earth. It has every compartment of any organized religion on earth. Secularism is a definitive set of beliefs—irrelgion is a religion.

     The secular worldview now controls the media industry in America by controlling, not every person, but by being the dominant ideology that directs the majority of the lives of the people that work in this industry. It is not the technology that is being put to evil uses, it the people who have embraced secularism and moral and cultural relativism that are using the remarkable inventions and discoveries which God had given for the use of all his children to promote the secular agenda in the media and arts. This technology can be used for good or for evil. It depends upon the worldview of the user.

     The School of Higher Criticism know full well the powerful effect of radio, television, movies and the arts; that is why they have spent so much time and money seducing the future leaders of these industries so they will promote the very ideologies that are being used to seduce the masses of the world into living in the Ideological Matrix which they have designed—an artificial computer generated dream world that is based on non-reality.


Part II—Giant Media Companies vs. America


     The media is composed of not just a few large Hollywood studios. The media is now comprised of giant multi—national corporations that have an agenda to promote globalism around the world. The owners and managers of these giant corporations know that globalism is destroying the freedom, sovereignty and independence of America. And they know that the political, economic and religious liberties of the American people are based upon a belief in God and the Holy Bible. Therefore, they support the new morality, moral relativism, cultural relativism, agnosticism and atheism on radio and television networks and stations in order to build a new global community based upon the tenets of internationalism, secularism and socialism.

Talking Heads Promote Hidden Agenda of Media Conglomerates

     The talking heads that you hear on the radio and see on television and cable promote the hidden agenda of the corporations that run the media conglomerates. If they were to oppose the agenda they would loose their jobs and they know it. That is why there is no real investigative journalism anymore. The giant corporations do no want you to be an informed citizen, they want you to be sedated through electronic Valium and a mindless consumer who will buy any product that is advertised on television.

The Large Networks Seek to Create and Mold Pubic Opinion

     The radio and television networks pretend to report the news. In fact, the networks are being used by the School of Higher Criticism to promote the secular agenda. That is why their so—called guests only present one side of an issue. Or sometimes they will have three people promoting the secular agenda and one person opposing it. The media does not want the television audience in America to know that they definitely trying to deceive them and to create and mold public opinion. And as we have noted, their primary goal is to secularize America and the world.

     That is why the networks venomously attack those who belief in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible and its teachings. They present them as fanatics, narrow minded, bigoted and ignorant people.

The Media in America Ridicules and Persecutes

Those Who Believe In God, the Holy Bible and Its Teachings

     The networks ridicule and persecute those who belief in God, the Holy Bible and its teachings. A perfect example of their hidden hatred for God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible erupted on the airwaves recently when news began circulating throughout the nation that a new movie was about to be shown in the public square about the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

      Remember, the School of Higher Criticism now claims that it owns the public square and that the gospel of Jesus Christ, as contained in the Holy Bible has been outlawed there. Any film maker that promotes Christianity in the public square will be vehemently attacked, unless they promote the secular religious agenda. They can promote any religion or philosophy on earth, except the Christian religion which centers on Jesus Christ, as the promised Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind.


Part III— The Media Vehemently Attacks The Passion of the Christ

     On February 25, 2004 an incredibly inspiring and emotionally wrenching film entitled, The Passion of the Christ, written, directed and produced by Mel Gibson opened nationwide on 4,643 screens in 3006 theaters. For almost a month prior to the opening of the movie, the secular media —Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Vanity Fair, New Yorker Magazine, etc.—launched one of the most vicious attacks on Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ in cinema history. To the surprise of nearly everyone in Hollywood and the secular media, the film was an astounding success when it finally reached the theater.


     The movie took in $29 million on opening day making it the biggest religious film since Ben Hur and the Ten Commandments. The film opened on Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, which is the Catholic Church’s official period for repentance, sacrifice and personal reflection. During its five day showing, The Passion of the Christ made a record of $126 million dollars at the box office, the second largest opening in cinematic history.

     During the weekend, the film drew $76.2 million at the box office. To put that figure in perspective, the Lord of the Rings made $72 million dollars during its five day opening. Robert Bucksbaum, President of ReelSource, said, “These numbers are almost as big as Titanic’s. We may be looking at one of the highest-grossing films of all times. (USA Today, March 1. 2004.)

     Not one of the major Hollywood film studios would underwrite or distribute The Passion of the Christ. Therefore, Mel Gibson, believed in the mission of the film so much that, he paid for the entire film budget of $30 million dollars himself. That is a remarkable show of faith, determination and courage that will make the history books.

Movie Goers across America Embrace The Passion of the Christ

     The overwhelming majority of those who saw the film were moved to tears as they watched in stunned silence the vivid details of the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life. Churches from coast to coast bought out entire showing of the film. The movie is destined to launch a religious revival in America and the Western World. Of course, the School of Higher Criticism and its agents in the large secular media knew that this was a distinct possibility. That is why they unleashed World War III on Mel Gibson and the film. The media assault resembled the American forces in the first Gulf War in the early 1990s when nearly 500,000 troops invaded the small country of Iraq.

     A 39 year old paralegal student said, “I think if you are a Christian, it will increase your faith tenfold in what Christ has done for you. If you’re not a Christian, you’ll probably treat others with more love. Entire congregations bought tickets to see the movie. In New Jersey, a 90 year old lady from Pleasantville, Pennsylvania, got dressed in her Sunday clothes and went to her first movie in twenty years. Her name was Edna Oatman. She told reporters that, “If you read the Bible story, you know that Jesus died for the whole world, not just Christians. Maybe this will get people going to church.” In Plano, Texas Arch Bonnema bought 6000 tickets and gave them away. He said that, “When you see the sacrifice that Jesus made, it makes you feel like, I have to do something with my life.” Sharla Bickley, a Presbyterian from Dallas said, “It was powerful, stunning. I tried to keep the mind set the whole time to know that it was for me that he was dying for.”

     Rev. Jack Graham, president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of the Prestonwood Baptist Church said, “I don’t believe that this is an accident. This is a provenance of God, that in the midst of an international war on terrorism, in the midst of a cultural and domestic war for the family ... God raises up a standard.”

     Cardinal Edward Egan of New York wrote that, “He gave His Life for us. No one took it from him. This is, and has always been, Catholic doctrine.” A mother from Plano, Texas said, “Even more difficult for me were the scenes between Mary, the mother, and Jesus. Being a mother myself, those just tore my heart out thinking what that must have been like.” William Donahue, the president of the Catholic League in New York said, “This is the most powerful movie I’ve seen in my life.”

     Billy Graham, the world famous evangelist called the film, “a lifetime of sermons in one movie.”

     Pope John Paul II said after watching the film, “It is as it was.”

     The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals said the movie is “perhaps the best outreach opportunity in 2,000 years.”

     Roger Ebert, the nationally known and highly respected movie critic for the Chicago—Sun Times said, “What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of.” He said in an interview that, “I admired the film as a work of passion and obsession By Mel Gibson. Obviously, it comes from the heart.... This is a work of faith for Gibson. And that’s one of the reasons I think it’s a great film. Most of the films we see are by directors who get some script off the shelf and hire some actors and don’t really care unless it doesn’t make money. Very few films are made from the heart. occasionally a film is. The great directors work from the heart.”


     The Passion of the Christ is more like an experience than a movie. The viewer, who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and the Redeemer and Savior of mankind, comes away from the movie emotionally exhausted , yet deeply touched by the magnitude of the suffering of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the Cross, and at the same time with a deeper love and admiration for the Savior. The agnostic and atheist will hate the movie because it promotes Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer, something which they do not want to accept.

     During the production of the movie, Mel Gibson, who tried to be as faithful as possible to the four Gospels, selected Maia Morgenstern, a Jewish actress from Romania to play Mary, the mother of Jesus, and to help ensure the film was true to Judaic traditions.

     Throughout the production of The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson maintains that he was guided by the “Holy Ghost.” One remembers that Christopher Columbus, another devout Catholic, once made a similar statement that he had been guided by the Holy Ghost to discover the Americas. He has been ridiculed, persecuted and attacked for over 400 years for making such a claim, which by the way, turned out to be true.

Strategies Used By the Secular Media to Attack The Passion of the Christ

     The secular media, and its highly paid pundits, used a number of strategies in their private war against Mel Gibson and the Passion of the Christ, in a vain attempt to persuade their viewers not to see the movie. All of them would fail in the end, as their opposition only fueled more interest in the movie. They inadvertently gave Mel Gibson millions of dollars of free publicity.

A Very Small Jewish Elite Was Responsible

for the Arrest, Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ—Not the Jewish People

     First, they claimed that the film was anti-semitic (It was not anti-semitic. It is an accurate portray of the actions of a small group of evil and conspiring men at the time—the “high priests and elders”—and a small group of people who were manipulated into forming a mob which called for Jesus to be crucified. The arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus was carried out by a small number of Jewish leaders who were incredibly threatened by Jesus and his large following in the land of Judea and Samaria.. The arrest, trial, torture and crucifixion of Jesus was not the work of the Jewish people. They were completely innocent. It is very important to remember it was a small group of evil and conspiring men, not the Jewish people or the Jewish nation who were the real culprits. The Jewish people or the tribe of Judah are part of the House of Israel and beloved and chosen by the Lord. Maria Morgenstern, a Jewish Actress from Romania, played the role of Mary. Her father is a Holocaust survivor and her grandfather died in a Nazi death camp. Concerning the false allegation of anti-Semitism, she said, “I wouldn’t have accepted the role if I felt it was anti-Semitic.” In the film, “the Jewish people aren’t blamed. It’s the political, religious leaders who are awful. It’s easy to manipulate poor people.” (People, March 8, 2004, p. 85.)

The Roman Soldiers Were Extremely Adept At Torture and Crucifixion

     Second, when the strategy of labeling the movie anti-semitic backfired and only created greater interest in the movie, the secular media switched to arguing that the film was excessively violent. (It was not excessively violent if taken in context of the event. It is an accurate portrayal of the suffering of Jesus Christ in Gethsemane, the arrest, trial, torture and the crucifixion. The Roman soldiers were, at the time, sadistically cruel and extremely proficient at scourging, torturing and crucifying people. It is also very important to remember that the Adversary was present and used every weapon in his arsenal to inflict pain and suffering upon his greatest enemy in the universe.)

The Passion of the Christ Is Based on an Accurate Rendition of the Gospels

     Third, when the strategy of labeling the firm excessively violent failed, the secular media switched to arguing that it was not a historically accurate portray of the Gospels. (The screen play was based upon the four Gospels and is very accurate. If you read the four Gospels—Matthew, chapters 26, 27, 28; Mark, chapters 14, 15, 16; Luke. chapters 22, 23, 24; and John, chapters 18, 19, 20, 21—as contained in the King James Version of the Holy Bible, you see that the Holy Scriptures are very plain about who were the villains at this time, and who was really responsible for the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.)

The Elite, Aristocratic, Jewish Establishment in Jerusalem

     You will also find what the Savior thought and taught about the Jewish Establishment—Pharisees, Sadducees, high priests, scribes, lawyers and elders—at the time, who had changed the doctrines of the Old Testament and transformed true religious worship into a multitude of oral traditions, ceremonial rules and rituals. These were the elite aristocracy of the Jewish nation in Jerusalem who prided themselves on strict observance of the Law of Moses. They formed a very distinct group from the Jewish people.

     It was the Pharisees, Sadducees, high priests, scribes, lawyers and elders of the Jewish people at the time who hated Jesus, and who formed the major opposition to him and his teachings. These groups feared Jesus. These groups feared his followers. These groups knew that large multitudes of the Jews people worshiped Jesus as the promised Messiah and King of the Jews. These groups formed the chief obstacle to the Jewish people acceptance of Jesus and his gospel. These groups became determined to destroy Jesus after he cleansed the temple. These groups conspired to have Jesus arrested and put to death. These groups avoided and disdained contact with the common Jewish people. The teachings of Jesus on these groups—the elite and aristocratic power structure of Jerusalem at that time is found in Matthew 23; Mark 7; and Luke 11: 37-54 in the King James Version of the Holy Bible. It was also the Sadducees who were responsible for the introduction of the Greek culture into the Jewish community.

The Secular Media Declared War on Mel Gibson

and The Passion of the Christ

     Let us now look at some the incredibly negative and vicious statements that were made against Mel Gibson and the Passion of Christ. The New York Times called it a “horror movie.” Jami Bernard, the Daily News critic said, “No child should see this movie. Even adults are at risk. Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’ is the most virulently anti—Semitic movie since the German propaganda films of World War II. Jews are vilified in ways both little and big, pretty much nonstop for two hours, seven minutes.” David Denby of the New Yorker wrote, “The movie Gibson has made from his personal obsessions is sickening death trip, a grimly un-illuminating procession of treachery, beatings, blood, and agony.... Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagerly involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus’ message of love into one of hate.

     “And against whom will the audience direct its hate? As Gibson was completing the firm, some historians,

theologians, and clergymen accused him of emphasizing the discredited charge that at was the ancient Jews who were responsible for killing Jesus, a claim that has served as the traditional justification for the persecution of the Jews in Europe for nearly two millennia. (New Yorker, March 1, 2004, p. 84.)

Jewish Leaders Claim the Movie Is Anti—Semitic

     As noted above, the first bombs that were dropped on Gibson and company contained the allegation that the film was anti—Semitic. Rabbi Avi Weiss, President of Amcha, said, “This is a tremendous, tremendous setback. I hope that this will not be accepted by Christians in this country. It is this lie, the lie that Jews were responsible for the murder of Jesus, which planted the seeds of the Holocaust.” His associate, Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, Vice President of Amcha, said, “This film is born of the same theology that gave rise to the holocaust. I am deeply concerned by this film and what may lie in store for Jews around the world following its release.”

     Rabbi A. James Rudin, of the American Jewish Community, said, “we’ve got a film that’s really white robes verses black robes. And the black robes belong to the traditional scapegoat in history. the Jewish people and the Jewish religion, and that’s what makes me angry and very disappointed in this film.”

     It is interesting that during an interview with Diane Sawyer that Mel Gibson said, “Critics who have a problem with me don’t really have a problem with me and this film. They have a problem with the four Gospels.”

And that is true. Some critics are reluctant to directly attack the Holy Bible, while others attack it directly.

The Secular Media Pretends That It Possesses All Truth

     If you want to learn the truth about God, Jesus Christ and his gospel, the Holy Bible and its teachings, do you turn to the Holy Bible or do you turn to the secular media and secular scholars. The large media outlets have prepared articles, videos, documentaries and television specials to define all of the above areas. And they are wasting no expense to destroy The Passion of the Christ to the eyes of their viewers. Unfortunately, a number of readers will actually read and watch their secular presentations on a religious and spiritual movie and they will be deceived by some of the most sophisticated writers and orators in the employ of the School of Higher Criticism.

     An intense battle for control of the minds of the American people and people throughout the world is underway. The secular media is determined to win this war at all costs and they will use every device in their rhetorical arsenal

     Let us look at several articles that contain a host of incredible distortions of truth concerning the movie, the Holy Bible and the divinity of Jesus Christ. They are clever attempts to promote secularism while pretending to review or comment on the inspiring and uplifting movie by Mel Gibson. They are vicious attacks, not reviews or commentaries.

Part IV—Newsweek Article Attempts to Change History and Justify the Murder of Jesus

     The first article is perhaps one of the most cunning and clever attempts in history to completely change a group of the greatest villains on earth—the evil and conspiring men who were responsible for the arrest, torture and crucifixion of Jesus Christ—into heroes. It is an attempt to cover up the greatest conspiracy in world history. It is an attempt to justify the illegal, immoral and wicked practices of the elite financial oligarchy that ruled the Jewish people at the time of Jesus. It is an attempt to rewrite Jewish history. It is an attempt to change world history. It is an unabashed attack on the inspired writings and teachings of the Holy Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—the original authors of the Gospels—should sue the author for libel and for bearing false witness against them. It is another major attempt to secularize the Protestant World and the Catholic World through promoting all manner of false teachings on the veracity of the Gospels and the Holy Bible. It is another major attempt to destroy the faith of those who genuinely love Jesus Christ and worship Him as the promised Messiah, the Savior and Redeemer of the world.

     The author is clearly a key member of the School of Higher Criticism and is attempting to change history with his article. He is also attempting to destroy people’s faith in the Holy Bible by telling people that, “The Bible is not to be taken literally.” (“History and Hollywood,” History Channel Presentation, February 28, 2004.)

     What is particular interesting about the following article is that agnostics and atheists are actually trying to promote themselves on the world stage as experts on the holy Bible and Christianity. If a person wanted to know about one of the greatest and most important events in the history of the earth—the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ—why would you consult Newsweek magazine? You would consult the King James Version of the Holy Bible.


     Let us now look at the Newsweek article entitled, “Who Killed Jesus?” by Jon Meacham.

Deception No 1—Jesus Is Only a Jewish Healer and Teacher

     Meacham begins his article by promoting the myth that Jesus was just a man. He writes, “Jesus comes from Galilee, a kind of backwater; as a Jewish healer and teacher, he has attracted great notice in the years, months and days leading up to this hour.” (Newsweek, February 16, 2004.)

     The truth is that Jesus is the Son the God, the Creator of the earth and the heavens, the great Jehovah, the promised Messiah, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. He was a God before he was born on earth, He was a God while he was on earth. And He is a God today, who was resurrected on the third day after his crucifixion. And He will return to the earth in the very near future as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to rule and reign on the earth for a thousand years.

Deception No. 2—Jesus Had Only a Small Following In Judea and Samaria

     Meacham states that Jesus had only a small following of people. He writes, “his popularity seemed to be surging among at least some of the thousands of pilgrims gathered in the city for Passover. Crowds cheered him, proclaiming him the Messiah, which to first—century Jewish ears meant he was the ‘king of he Jews’ who heralded the coming of the Kingdom of God, a time when the yoke of Roman rule would be thrown off, ushering in an age of light for Israel. Hunger for liberation and deliverance, some of those in the teeming city were apparently flocking to Jesus, threatening to upset the delicate balance of power.”

      The truth is that Jesus had been preaching throughout the land for three years and he had gathered a large following of Jewish people. In fact it was the Jewish people’s acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ that created the envy and jealousy. The Jewish high priests, scribes and elders were fearful that the entire Jewish nation was going to accept the new gospel and they would be replaced as its leaders. Look carefully at the choice of words which he used to describe the followers of Jesus. “seemed,” “some,” “apparently.” Meacham is trying to present a scenario that the only reason people were following Jesus is because they wanted to be delivered from the Romans. The people throughout the land were embracing the new gospel which He was teaching everywhere. The truth is that it was the gospel of Jesus Christ that was a threat to the Jewish leaders.

Deception No. 3—Change Villains into Heroes

     Meacham next tries to commit one of the greatest deceptions in history. He actually tries to make heroes out of the Jewish authorities who were responsible for the arrest, torture, scourging and crucifixion of Jesus Christ by justifying their actions. Meacham is trying to rewrite the gospels and Jewish and world history. . He writes, “The priests responsible for the Temple had an understanding with the Romans: the Jewish establishment would do what it could to keep the peace, or else Pilate would strike. And so the high priest, Caiaphas, dispatches a party to arrest Jesus. Guided by Judas, they find him in Gethsemane.”

     The truth is the chief priests, scribes, elders, lawyers, Pharisees and Sadducees who were responsible for the arrest, torture, scourging and crucifixion of Jesus Christ were acting completely to protect their own financial, business, social and religious power base in Jerusalem and over the Jewish people. They acted completely out of self—preservation. They broke Jewish laws by arresting Jesus at night, they conducted a mock trial; they beat the Savior; they lied to Pilate about his teachings; they bore false witness against the Savior for the deeds He performed among the people; they spit upon the Savior; and they manipulated, probably through bribery, the crowds and people in Jerusalem into calling for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.


     The Jewish elite knew that if the Jewish people and the Jewish nation accepted Jesus Christ and his gospel that they would be replaced as head of the Jewish people. They acted completely out of self—interest to protect their positions of privilege, power and status. The Jewish leaders did not arrest and call for the crucifixion of Jesus to help the Romans. Meechan tries to get people to accept that the Jewish leaders decided to sacrifice one man to save the people. He tries to present Caiaphas and his co—conspirators as the saviors of the Jewish people, instead of the real Savior, which is Jesus Christ.      

     For two thousand years Jewish leaders have tried to deny the truth that Jesus is the Christ. If Jesus is the Christ, then the people would look to him for guidance, instead of to the rabbis of today. And that is the main reason that the Jewish elite of today is attacking The Passion of the Christ. It presents the Jewish elite in a true light, something, they do not want the people to see. That is why the Jewish leaders do not accept the New Testament. The Jewish leaders have been deceiving their people for two millenniums in order to maintain their control and power over the Jewish people.

     Meacham knows this and that is why he wrote an article designed to make heroes out of the real villains in the story of the ministry of Jesus Christ. He is trying to protect and justify the Jewish aristocracy at the time of Jesus.               

Deception No. 4—Use of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible

     Meacham next quotes the Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible in an attempt to gain acceptance for this revision of the Holy Scriptures. In previous chapters we have discussed how this translation was designed to deceive the people into accepting he writings of Arius. Meacham wants people to use the Revised Standard Version because he knows that it undermines and destroys the divinity of Jesus Christ. He writes, “In the language of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, there is this exchange....” Meacham knows that it is a strategy of the School of Higher Criticism to attack, undermine and destroy the King James Version of the Holy Bible. That is why he made a deliberate point to use the RSV.

     The truth is that the King James Version of the Holy Bible is the closest translations of the original manuscripts of the writers of the New Testament. Therefore, we recommend that people compare the two and look at the changes in doctrine that the RSV makes. The formation of the King James Version of the Holy Bible was guided by God. The other was not.

Deception No. 5—The Gospels Are Been Misinterpreted Over the Ages

     Meacham next questions the credibility of the New Testament and attacks the writers of the Gospels. He also undertakes another attempt to rewrite Jewish history, to rewrite world history and to turn villains into heroes. It is apparent that Meacham is trying to protect the Jewish establishment at the time of Jesus. It is interesting that elites try to protect elites from criticism, attacks, etc. He is also trying to introduce into the discussion and to persuade the reader to accept the views of scholars over the writings of the apostles of Jesus Christ. He is also trying to place before the readers and to justify the role of “higher criticism.” He writes, “Thus begins the final chapter of the most influential story in Western history, For Christians, the Passion—from the Latin passus, the word means “having suffered” or “having undergone—is the very heart of their faith. Down through the ages, however, when read without critical perspective and a proper sense of history, the Christian narratives have sometimes been contorted to lay the responsibility for Jesus execution at the feet of the Jewish people, a contortion that has long fueled the fires of anti-Semitism.”

     The truth is that Meacham is once again trying to divert attention away from the real villains—the Chief priests, scribes, elders, lawyers, Sadducees and Pharisees who conspired to arrest, torture, scourge, and crucify Jesus Christ in order to protect their power over the Jewish people. It is very important for people to use the King James Version of the Holy Bible. The translators of this 1611 edition genuinely loved the Gospel of Jesus Christ and were as faithful and true as possible to the copies of the original manuscripts. The four Gospels in the New Testament are very plain about the real villains in the story of Jesus Christ and his death. People do not need the help of scholars to read the Holy Bible, they need the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The New Testament contains the best history of Jesus at the time. Meacham is trying to get the reader to doubt the Gospels and its writers and to persuade people to consult so—called Biblical scholars which are mostly secularists in wolves clothing.

Deception No. 6—The Passion of the Christ Is Anti—Semitic

     The School of Higher Criticism does not want people to see Mel Gibson’s wonderful movies entitled, The Passion of the Christ. They are in the final stages of secularizing America and the world and the last thing they want is a religious revival that wakes the people up and cast them out of the public square. The rabbis are falsely using the label of anti—Semitism because they do not want people to learn the truth about what really happen two thousand years ago. They do not want people to know that the Jewish people and the Jewish nation were about to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ. And they do not want people to know that the real villains who were responsible for the arrest, torture, scourging and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, was not the Jew people, but the Jewish elite at the time. The charge of anti—Semitism is just a tactic to discourage people from seeing the move. The article by Meacham is another attempt to deceive and keep people from learning the truth about Jesus Christ and His gospel. He is continues his theme, which is completely false, that the Jewish elite were the heroes, not the villains. Meacham writes, “Into this perennially explosive debate comes a controversial new movie directed by Mel Gibson, “The Passion of the Christ,” a powerful and troubling work about Jesus’ last hours. ‘The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film,’ Gibson has said. The movie, which is to be released on February 25, Ash Wednesday, is already provoking a pitched battle between those who think the film unfairly blames the Jewish people for Jesus’ death and those who are instead focused on Gibson’s emotional depiction of Jesus’ torment.”

     The truth is that the film does not “unfairly” blame “the Jewish people for Jesus’ death.” Meacham know this and is attempting to deceive people about the film. He knows that the film accurately portrays the real villains in the movie as the Chief priests, scribes, elders, lawyers, Pharisees, and Sadducees. He know that Mel Gibson used the four Gospels as the basis of his movie. And that is what is so bothering to the secularists of today and the rabbis of today. The School of Higher Criticism and the leaders of the Jewish people today to not want the American people and people throughout the world reading the four Gospels and that is why they literally launched a preemptive war against Mel Gibson and his movie. The article by Jon Meacham is one of the missiles in this war. The Passion of the Christ is very clear about who the real villains were and that is why the movie is drawing so much opposition. The film shows that it was the Jewish elite—not the Jewish people who loved Jesus and were accepting the gospel by the thousands—that was responsible for the arrest, torture, scourging and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Deception No. 7—The Holy Bible Is Not the Word of God

     Jon Meacham next launches a major attack on the divinity of the Holy Bible and we begin to see his real agenda in writing this article. He writes, “But the Bible can be a problematic source, Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance.”


     The truth is that the Holy Bible is a collection of the writings of the prophets and apostles who were called by God to declare the gospel of Jesus Christ. The King James Version of the Holy Bible is a translation of the Greek texts which is a copy of the original manuscripts written by the hands of those whom God chose to record the inspired teachings of the Lord and His servants. The Holy Bible is the work of inspired men raised up by God who were guided by the Holy Ghost. In his famous discourse on the Holy Ghost, the Savior taught his disciples that after his death and resurrection and ascension into heaven, He would sent them the Holy Ghost. Jesus said, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.: (John 14: 26.) The Apostle Paul taught that, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...” (2 Timothy 3: 16.) Meacham is preaching pure secularism while cunningly and deceptively telling his readers that the “Bible is the product of human authors.” This is a deliberate lie and a deliberate distortion and a deliberate deception and a deliberate heresy. The prophets and apostles were divinely called and commissioned by the Lord Jesus Christ to teach the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Jewish people and people throughout the world. Their writings were dictated by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Meacham is also deceiving the people when he accused the authors of the Gospels of promoting their own agendas.

Deception No. 8—Anti—Semitism Is Caused By a Literal Reading of the Bible

     Meachan continues misleading and deceiving his readers by continuing to rewrite history as he want you to believe it. He also reveals in this next passage that he knows who the real villains were in the story. He writes, “And the roots of Christian—anti—Semitism lie in the overly literal readings —which are, in fact, misreadings —of many New Testament texts. When the Gospel authors implicated “the Jews” in Jesus’ passion, they did not mean all Jewish people then alive, much less those t hen unborn. The writers had a very specific group in mind: the Temple elite that believed Jesus might provoke Pilate.”

     The truth is that anti—Semitism is caused by evil and conspiring men who lusted after the property and wealth of the Jewish people, who are hard —working, industrious, frugal and usually wealthy people in general. It is envy and greed that droves most anti—Semitism throughout history, especially during World War II when Hitler and others wanted to seize the wealth of the Jewish people in Europe which was considerable.

      It is very important to remember that the Holy Scriptures were not available to the common man until the 1500s and 1600s and then few people read them. It is not a literal interpretation of the Gospel that causes anti—Semitism—it is envy, greed and lust for wealth. The Jewish people have suffered because they are the chosen people of the Lord and because they are industrious and produce wealth which others have seized under the banner of anti—Semitism. Those who perpetuated these horrible atrocities against the Jewish people were no doing it because of religious reasons, it was an act of plunder and theft, pure and simple.

     Meacham is also misleading and deceiving his readers when he says that the authors of the Gospel blamed the “Jews” for the death of Jesus. This a complete falsehood and he knows it. The authors of the Gospel put the blame for the arrest, torture, scourging and crucifixion of Jesus Christ squarely on the shoulders of the chief priests, elders, scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees. He is trying to pretend that the authors of the Gospels were confused, which is not the case.

Deception No. 9—Mel Gibson Is One of the Worst Persons on Earth

     Whenever people do not like the message of a person, they resort to attacking the person through lies, innuendos, bearing false witness and distortion. Jon Meacham and a host of others who are key members of the School of Higher Criticism launched a war against Mel Gibson and his remarkably inspiring movie, The Passion of the Christ. They are using every weapon in this arsenal to destroy him and his movie. While attacking the movie and the Gospels, Meacham also launches a vicious personal attack upon Mel Gibson. Notice the trigger words that he uses. He writes, “Gibson is an untraconservative Roman Catholic, a traditionalist who does not acknowledge many of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962—1965). He favors the Latin mass, does not eat meat on Fridays and adheres to an unusually strict interpretation of Scripture and doctrine—a hard line creed he grew up with and rediscovered about a dozen years ago.”

     The truth is Mel Gibson is an award winning movie actor, director and producer. He won an Oscar for Best Picture for Brave Heart and starred in the remarkable movie, The Patriot. He has been married to the same wife for 24 years and is the father of seven children. Gibson is not an “untrasconservative.” This is a just an attempt to slander Gibson for producing a movie that will severely undermine atheism in the world. What label should be put on Jon Meacham? Is he an ultraliberal, a fire—breathing agnostic, a clever and cunning atheist, a traditionalist atheist who adhere religiously to Darwinism.


     The truth is the School of Higher Criticism has targeted the Protestant Churches and Catholic Churches for infiltration and has slowly been secularizing them for over 150 years. Agents of the School of Higher Criticism have been quietly and slowly indoctrinating and seducing the clergy and priests with all manner of false doctrines that are nothing more than the tenets of secularism with a religious coloring. Theistic evolution is one of the cleverest secular doctrines of all and Protestant Churches and Catholic Churches have accepted this alien and secular philosophy hook, line and sinker.

     The School of Higher Criticism has targeted every church on earth for penetration and has its agents are working to seduce their leaders and members with the alluring doctrines of secularism. Millions of people around the world have begun to realize that the churches are being secularized and are working to adhere to traditional doctrines upon which they were founded. That is why it is so important for church members to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ as contained in the King James Version of the Holy Bible so they can judge the teachings of the clergy and priests, pastors, reverends, etc., by the standard of the Holy Scriptures and ensure that they have not strayed from the pure gospel of Jesus Christ and that they have not accepted the teachings of secularism and that they are not presenting them to their congregations as the gospel teachings when in reality they are the tenets of secularism with a religious coloring. Church members must become gospel scholars. Meacham is trying to persuade his readers not to support Gibson and to prevent them from seeing the movie and taking their children because he knows they will have a wonderful spiritual experience that will draw then nearer to God.

Deception No. 10—It is An Error to Accept the Gospels Over Biblical Scholars

     Meacham once again tries to persuade the reader to accept Biblical scholars over prophets and apostles. It is obvious that he is a member of the School of Higher Criticism and is trying to promote criticism of the Holy Scriptures as a strategy to weaken the faith of people and lead them away from true Christianity into humanism, agnosticism and atheism. He writes, “Gibson set out to stick to the Gospels and has made virtually no nod to critical analysis or context.”

     The truth is the School of Higher Criticism was established to destroy the Holy Bible and its teachings through the disguise of academic studies. So-called experts, so-called scholars, so-called Biblical scholars are nothing more than agnostics and atheists who are trying to destroy peoples’ faith in God, the Holy Bible and its teachings. They are evil and conspiring men and women who adhere to the religion of secularism and are trying to persuade people to abandon the gospel of Jesus Christ and join the Church of Darwin or the Church of Secularism.

     In the movie, The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson utilized the four Gospels as the basis for his movie. Of course, he had to take some artistic license to lace the story together. He did a brilliant job of co—writing a remarkable screenplay and an even more stunning job of filming what is destined to be the greatest movie ever made on the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The movie is appealing to so many people because he was faithful to the Holy Scriptures. He ignored the so—called Biblical scholars, which in reality, are not Biblical scholars at all. They pretend to be Biblical scholars only so they can deceive and blind the people from the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ as contained in the King James Version of the Holy Bible.

Deception No. 11—The Roman Empire Killed Jesus Christ

     Barnum Baily said that if you tell a lie over and over again the people will begin to think it is the truth. Meacham is bent on rewriting Jewish history, world history and Biblical history when he cunningly tries to make heroes out of the villains. Once again we find him up to his old tricks about who really is responsible for the arrest, torture, scourging and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The reason Meacham and the leaders and members of the School of Higher Criticism attack and ridicule the King James Version of the Holy Bible is because it clearly identifies the true villains who were responsible for the death of Jesus. The four Gospels also tell what Jesus really said about the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the chief priests, the scribes, the lawyers and the elders. The four Gospels also teach the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ and tell the reader that it was because of “envy” that the Jewish elite conspired to rid the land of Jesus. (See Matthew 27: 18.) The four Gospels also tell you that thousands of Jewish people were accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ and that this was a threat to those who were the so—called leaders of the Jewish nation at the time. The Savior was very clear in His view that the above people were hypocrites and vipers.

     Meacham writes, “The film Gibson has made, however, is reviving an ancient and divisive argument: who really killed Jesus? As a matter of history, the Roman Empire did....”

     The truth is that the chief priests, the scribes, the elders, the lawyers, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees were responsible, not the Jewish people or even the Romans. Pilate was a ruthless tyrant who appeased the chief priests who wanted to kill Jesus to prevent the entire Jewish nation from accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ. Pilate gave the Jewish elite a choice to release Barabbas or Jesus, and the chief priests and elders pressed Pilate to release Barabbas and to crucify Jesus. They yelled “Let him be crucified.” (See Matthew 27: 11—37.) Once again Meacham is trying to rewrite history and turn a group of evil and conspiring men into heroes.

Deception No. 12—Gibson Made The Passion of the Christ Just For Financial Reasons

     After attempting to rewrite history, after distorting history, after attacking the four Gospels, after heaping personal insults against Mel Gibson, Meacham next turns to allegation that he just made the movie for money. Meacham writes, “The fight about God, meanwhile, has been good for Mammon: Gibson has made what is likely to be the most watched Passion play in history.

     The truth is that Mel Gibson has made a movie that is destined to be watched by not just millions of people, but billions of people, and that is why the secular media and agents of the School of Higher Criticism had declared war against Gibson and the movie. They did everything in their power to destroy Gibson and the movie and to prevent people from going to see it. And they failed.

     The truth is that Mel Gibson made the movie because of his deep faith and love for Jesus Christ and his profound admiration and gratitude for the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Jon Meacham, being a secularist, agnostic and atheist does not understand Gibson’ or the true Christian’s love, respect, loyalty, gratitude and commitment to the Lord, Jesus Christ.

     Mel Gibson put up his own funds for the movie. He put his reputation on the line for what he believed. He did not make The Passion of the Christ to enrich himself. That is what a secularist would do.

Deception No. 13—Gibson Used the Visions of Two Nuns to Write the Movie Script

     Meacham seems to be grasping for straws as he alleges that The Passion of the Christ is based upon the visions of two nuns. He writes, “To tell his story, Gibson has amalgamated the four Gospel accounts and was reportedly inspired by the visions of two nuns: Mary of Agreda (1602-1665) of Spain and Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774—1824 of France....” He knows that the movie is based upon the four Gospels. That is what is so troubling to him and that is why he is trying to persuade people not to see the movie. He knows the impact it will make on the viewers. It will guide them to God and enhance their understanding and appreciation for the suffering and death of Jesus to bring about the great infinite and eternal atonement.


     The two episodes which Mel Gibson used to fill out the story come from Dolorous Passion of the Christ. The first is a vision where Mary is seen wiping up the sacred blood of Christ after He was scourged; and the second is a vision where she sees Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane tempting Jesus to forsake His divinely appointed mission to work our the Atonement and bring to pass the resurrection. For Mary to wipe up the sacred blood of Jesus Christ, her beloved son, after his terrible scourging, is a moving scene of compassion and devotion. It is amazing that Meacham finds this scene troubling. Just as Satan was present when Jesus went into the wilderness to fast and pray (see Matthew, chapter 4: 1-11.), Satan was present in the Garden of Gethsamane doing everything in his power to prevent the Savior from completing his divinely ordained mission to bring to pass the infinite and eternal atonement for the sins of mankind. Satan was present throughout entire ordeal—from the beginning of the conspiracy to capture Jesus, to the betrayal, arrest, trial, scourging, and crucifixion—and was guiding every evil word spoken to Jesus and was guiding every evil deed inflicted upon Jesus. Satan failed and Jesus triumphed over the devil and death. These two visions only enhance the story. The main story comes from the four Gospels and Meacham knows this. He is just trying to divert attention away from the four Gospels and get people to question Mel Gibson’s wonderful and inspiring movie script.

     The truth is that anyone who is familiar with the four Gospel accounts as recorded in the King James Version of the Holy Bible can readily see exactly where Mel Gibson obtained the story lines for his movie. The Gospels are very clear and Gibson followed them as much as possible. Once again, this is a movie, not a film documentary. It was designed to uplift and inspire the audience. Gibson, as a director is perfectly free to take whatever artistic license he feels necessary to produce his movie. Meacham and those who have venomously attacked him and the movie are angry that he used the four Gospels and that the movie is so inspiring. If the movie was not a threat to the secular empire controlling the earth, they would not have declared war on Gibson and the movie. The very fact that Jon Meacham would write an article for Newsweek magazine that contains so many factual errors, distortions, misleading statements and personal attacks on Mel Gibson is a testament to the historical accuracy of the movie and its threat to the secular world that is trying to deceive and blind the eyes of the people on earth and keep them from accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

     It is also interesting that the article was written before the movie opened in theaters. Did Jon Meacham have a copy of the script that was stolen from Icon Productions? If so, where and how did he get it? And, if so, why did he have a copy except to attack and smear Mel Gibson and distort the movie even before it opened.

Deception No. 14—Jesus Was Just a Man Who Could Not Have Endured So Pain

     If there was any doubt in your mind that Jon Meacham is a secularist, an agnostic or an atheist, he reveals his true feelings and beliefs in the last major deception that he tries to foster on his readers. The statement he makes is blasphemous in nature. He portrays Jesus as just a man, a mere mortal who could not have endured the pain that was inflicted upon him in the movie. Once again Meacham is desperately to persuade readers not to see the movie. He writes, “The effect of the violence is at first shocking, then numbing, and finally reaches a point where many viewers may spent as much time clinically wondering how any man could have survived such beating as they do sympathizing with his plight.”

     The truth is that Jesus was not a mortal. His father was, in reality, the Supreme Governor of the Universe, God the Eternal Father. His mother was a mortal that is true. From His eternal Father he inherited the power over death, the power of immortality, from His mortal mother He inherited the power to die, the power of mortality. As he told Pilate in the movie, and as is recorded in the Gospels, no one on earth took the life of Jesus Christ. He voluntarily came to earth to atone for the sins of mankind upon the conditions of repentance. He voluntarily gave up his life after He had performed the great Infinite and eternal Atonement in Gethsamane and upon the Cross. And after three days, the Lord Jesus Christ was resurrected because the power and the keys of the resurrection were given unto Him by God the Father.

     Even though Jesus Christ voluntarily gave up his life does not excuse those who were responsible for His betrayal, arrest, torture, scourging and crucifixion. One day each and every person who was responsible in any degree or manner will stand before the Savior and Redeemer Himself to be judged for the words, thoughts and deeds performed while they were on earth and especially for the events of the last few days of the Savior’s life on earth.

     The truth is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the promised Messiah, the Savior and Redeemer of the World, the great Creator of this world and millions of worlds like it. Jon Meacham may not believe this truth, however, his views are irrelevant. Truth is not dependant upon him or others who adhere to the tenets of secularism. Truth is eternal and man may rail against it, but they can never change it, for it is everlasting and God is the author of truth.


     Jon Meacham and the School of Higher Criticism can rant and rave all they want. They can publish one article and book after another. All of their writings will one day become meaningless. Each of them have their brief moment on the stage as in a Shakespeare play. However, one day they will account for every thought, every word and every deed they committed on earth. And one day they will acknowledge with bended knee that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world.

     The above article by Jon Meacham demonstrates why readers should turn to the King James Version of the Holy Bible and seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost is understanding the noble and great teachings that are contained in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Readers should not consult humanists, agnostics, or atheists if they want to learn spiritual things. A secularist is a natural man. And the Apostle Paul tells us that, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2: 14.)

     If we want to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, we should go directly to the fountain of truth, which is the King James Version of the Holy Bible, not to Newsweek or MSNBC or the secular media and secular scholars.

Part V—Reuters Article Promotes Secular Scholars and the Tenets of Secularism

     On February 25, 2004, the day that The Passion of the Christ hit the screens across America, another article magically appeared on the internet challenging the historical accuracy of the movie. It was entitled, “Scholars find faults in ‘Passion,’ by Megan Goldin. It was displayed on the MSNBC Web site. The subtitle reads , “Experts fill in the gaps in Mel Gibson’s film gospel.”

     Let us look at the incredibly arrogant and inaccurate statements made in the article.

Deception No. 1—The Film Is Not an Accurate Portrayal of Events

     The School of Higher Criticism has compartmentalized knowledge in various academic disciplines in order to control it dissemination on the earth. The academic disciplines are filled with so-called experts who hold Ph.D.s in one area after another. Only these scholars are allowed to declare the truth of all things. The modern colleges and universities are patterned after the medieval monasteries where knowledge was controlled by the monks and priests. The modern secularists have set themselves upon on earth as the final arbitrator of whether something is true or false. Of course, they judge all things from a secular worldview.

     Megan Goldin writes, “Mel Gibson’s portrayal of the final twelve hours of Jesus in his film “The Passion of the Christ” has been hailed as the gospel truth by some believers, but many scholars complain that it is riddled with historical errors.” (Megan Goldin, “Scholars find fault in ‘Passion.” Reuters, February 25, 2004, updated at 1:56 p.m. MSNBC) It is interesting to see that on the day the movie was released, February 25, 2004, that Megan Goldin has already contacted “many scholars,” who have already seen the movie and made their intellectual analysis.

Of course, we are surprised to learn that these “many scholars” feel that he movie is historically inaccurate.

     The truth is the statement “riddled with errors” is just the opinion of a handful of secular scholars that were hand picked by Goldin to attack the movie. The author had a predetermined bias against the film and she located a number of so—called experts to back up her biases. We have reached a stage in the academic world where there are experts in every conceivable area. No matter what position you take on an issue, you can find some PhD to give your opinion the appearance of credibility. That is what Goldin has done in her story and it really is just a story. The reader is supposed to say, “Wow, the experts say the movies is riddled with errors. I had better stay away from it.”

All we have is Goldin’s word that the movie is riddled with “historical errors.”

     When The Last Temptation of Christ appeared, I do not recall the experts screaming that the movie “was riddled with historical errors.” This article is a poor attempt to persuade gullible reader not to see one of the greatest movies ever made. The secularists promote the concept of expertism in order to deceive and manipulate the people on earth into accepting the principles of secularism.

Deception No. 2—Jewish Groups Feel the Movie Will Create Anti—Semitic Violence


     It is true that anti-Semitism has caused unbelievable horrors and suffering for the Jewish people on earth. However, a few people are using the allegation of anti-Semitism as a weapon to stifle, distort, and conceal true historical facts from the people on earth. It is being used just like the term McCarthyism. Goldin writes, “Their complaints range from inaccuracies about hairstyles and clothes to a lack of gospel context in the film, which has raised a furor among Jewish groups who fear its graphic depiction of the Crucifixion will fan anti-Jewish violence.

     The truth is that the greatest anti-Jewish violence is being perpetuated in the Arab world and the Saudi Royal family are the chief financiers of terrorism against the Jewish people. The nation of Israel is under siege today and the Western governments are preventing Israel from eliminated the terrorist threat in their midst.

     The Passion of the Christ is not anti-Semitic because it shows that a few Jewish leaders—the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the chief priests, the scribes, the elders, and the lawyers conspired to kill Jesus because He was gaining such a following that the entire Jewish nation was on the verge of accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Jewish elite were envious and felt threatened by Jesus and they along conspired to kill Jesus. They then manipulated Pilate, which was easy to do because he was already an evil man, and they manipulated the mob into calling for the crucifixion of Jesus. It was not the Jewish people and it was not the Jewish nation that was responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. It was the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. They alone bear the total responsibility. The Jewish people have always been innocent in the affair.

Deception No. 3—Only the Experts Know What Language Jesus Spoke

     Goldin once again tries to reinforce the idea that the experts really have problems with this movie. By the way, did the so-called experts find any historical inaccuracies in the rent film entitled, Pearl Harbor? Goldin, following the lead of others who attacked Gibson, makes a personal attack upon Gibson by notifying the reader that he was a “traditionalist Catholic,” apparently this is a really terrible thing in her eyes. She writes, “Gibson, a traditionalist Catholic, who funded the $30 million film himself, was so set on making it authentic that he had his characters speak Latin and Aramaic. Experts say this was his first mistake, as Greek was the language spoken in Jerusalem during Jesus’ time, along with Aramaic and some Hebrew spoken by Jews.”

     The truth is that Jesus, being a God, could easily have spoken whatever language He chose at whatever time He pleased. To criticize a movie for having an actor speak Aramaic seems ludicrous. She quotes one scholar who says that Jesus never spoke to Pilate in Latin. He said, “Jesus talking to Pilate and Pilate to Jesus in Latin, exclaimed John Dominic Crossan, a professor of religious studies at De Paul University, a Roman Catholic school in Chicago. I mean, in your dreams. It would have been Greek.” Since Crossan was not present during the conversation, I would like to know how he can say exactly what Jesus or Pilate said during their meeting and in what language. Just because Goldin has found one scholar to say something, does not mean that it is true. A very silly attack on a truly remarkable movie.

Deception No. 4—Jesus Had Short Hair

     I never seize to be amazed at the incredible arrogance of so-called scholars who like to portray that they have all the answers to life’s most challenging questions. One of the biggest fabrications is the recent portrait of Jesus concocted by an anthropologist. You can see a free video of this picture along with the article on the MSNBC Web site. The picture is an attempt to take away the divinity of Jesus as portrayed throughout the ages by various artists. The pictures makes Jesus look like a common criminal. The picture is just an imaginary drawing of what some so-called expert thought Jesus looked like. The real reason for the terrible portrait is to destroy faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. Goldin writes, “‘He has a long-haired Jesus ... Jesus didn’t have long hair,’ said physical anthropologist Joe Zias, who has studies hundreds of skeletons found in archeological digs in Jerusalem. ‘Jewish men back in antiquity did not have long hair.’”


     The truth is we do not have an accurate portrait of Jesus and we don not need to rely on so-called experts to conjure one up for us. We will learn soon enough if Jesus has long hair or not, because the Second Coming of the Son of God in the Clouds of heaven with the hosts of angels is not to far away. The anthropologist view of what Jesus look like is purely conjecture. We simply do not know whether Jesus had long hair or short hair. Once again if we look hard enough we can probably find a scholar who will say that Jesus had long hair. To criticize the film for having an actor with long hair seems awfully silly.

Deception No. 5—The Movie Script Is Full of Contradictions

     In several interviews with the media Mel Gibson made it quite clear that he used the Gospels as the basis for his screen play. Gibson was correct to point out that critics of the film really hate the Gospels and are mad that he used them as basic for the movie. Goldin writes, “For some scholars the errors go beyond language or hairstyles. They say the heart of the problem is the film’s script, which interweaves the literal interpretation of four sometimes contradictory gospel accounts of Jesus’ last 12 hours with the visions of a controversial 19th century nun.... Crossan complained that the lack of historical context was the movie’s ‘basic flaw.’”

     The truth is that the four Gospels tell the story of the ministry of Jesus on earth and each has different details.

The gospels are not contradictory, unless you are using one of the secularized translations of the Holy Bible. If the reader examines the King James Version of the Holy Bible the story is quite clear. A reading of the four Gospels also reveals that Gibson was true to the facts presented in them. That is why the secularists are so angry. They have the Holy Bible. They hate the Gospels. They hate the Savior. And they hate Mel Gibson for daring to make a movie that uses the Gospels as the basis of his story.

     The war against the Passion of the Christ is unparalleled in cinematic history. The secular media had never attacked a movie with such intensity, venom, hatred, viciousness, rudeness, deliberate distortions, deceptions and lies.

     A professor of religious studies is one of the last people on earth a person should seek enlightenment from concerning a spiritual movie like The Passion of the Christ. Professors of religion are not prophets and apostles. They do no speak for God on earth. They are secular priests who promote the tenets of the secular religion.

Deception No. 6—The Gospels Were Written By Men With Political Motives

     Since the members of the School of Higher Criticism do not believe in God, the Holy Bible and its teachings, they have devoted their lives to promoting the dogmas, tenets, teachings, and principles of secularism to the inhabitants of the earth. They are desperately trying to secularize America and the world by attacking the divinity of the Holy Bible, the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ. The secularists are attempting to deceive the people in American and around the world into believing that the Holy Bible is just a collection of myths, legends and fables. The writers were not prophets and apostles of God. The Holy Bible is not the Word of God.

     Goldin is simply spreading the secular gospel when she wrote her terribly misleading and seriously flawed article. Like Jon Meacham, she is deliberately misleading her readers by making inaccurate and deceptive arguments. And like Meacham’ article, she attacks the historical accuracy of the Gospels. She wrote, “One of the most controversial aspects of the film is its portrayal of Pilate reluctantly sentencing Jesus to crucifixion under pressure from a bullying mob and conniving Jewish priests. Scholars acknowledge the scene is faithful to the gospels, but some experts say a historical perspective is imperative. ‘It is important to see the historical context. Not only for the sake of being true to history but for the sake of being true to the gospel passages,’ said the Rev. Michael McGarry, rector of the Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem. The gospels, he said, were written many years after the Crucifixion, at a time when the early Christians felt it would be politically wise to ‘soften Pontius Pilate as a way of placating’ the Romans who ruled over them. ‘Pontius Pilate was a very cruel and brutal man. And he wouldn’t care two winks about executing another Jew. He had killed so many before him,’ said McGarry, who said he had not seen the film and was commenting only on the history of the time.”


     Once again we have a very cleverly disguised attack on the divinity of the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God. The secularization of the Protestant and Catholic Churches has been underway for over 150 years. It is easy to see how successful the School of Higher Criticism has been by reading the comments of so-called ministers, so-called reverends, so-called priests, etc., who attack the divinity of Jesus Christ, the divinity of the Holy Bible and the divinity of its teachings as contained in the writings of the prophets and apostles. Remember, by their fruits (words, letters, books, speeches, etc.) ye shall know the true Christian from the secular counterfeit or false Christian in wolves clothing.

Deception No. 7—The Crucifixion of Jesus Was Portrayed Wrong

     It is interesting to find writers like Megan Goldin, a secularist, who pretends to be objective and unbiased go to secular scholars to critique a religious movie. Regardless of the so-called credentials of those she quoted in her articles, these are meaningless. What is important is not their credentials or their position, no matter how high it appears, what is important is what they say. We need to judge their words, writings and actions by the teachings of the King James Version of the Holy Bible. When we analyze their writings and comments through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ as contained in the inspired writings of the prophets and apostles in the Old Testament and the New Testament, we learn very quickly that there are wolves in sheep clothing among the flocks of God and they are trying to deceive and seduce their members into accepting the religion of secularism, instead of the religion or gospel of Jesus Christ.

     Goldin writes, “The depiction of the Crucifixion was the part of the film most riddled with errors for Zias, who studied the skeleton of a crucified Jewish man from Jesus’ time—the only remains ever found of a crucified victim from antiquity. Zias said Jesus could not have carried the entire cross to the crucifixion, as vertical beams were kept permanently in place by the ever-efficient Romans....’Crucifixion was a form of state terror. They humiliated the crucified victim. Everybody was naked, Men, women and children,’ Zias said. Jesus, he added, would have been tied or nailed to the cross through the wrists, no the hands as shown in the movie.”

     The truth is that the book of Matthew says, “And after they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put on his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.

     “And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.” (Matthew 27:31-32.)

     The truth is that the Book of Mark says, “And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put on his own clothes on him and led him out to crucify him.

     “And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.” (Mark 15:20-21.)

     The truth is that the Book of Luke says, “And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus. (Luke: 23:26.)

     The truth is that he Book of John says, “Then delivered he him therefore to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

     “And he bearing his cross went forth into a place of a skull, which is called Golgotha....” (John 19: 16-17.)

     We see that Mel Gibson was true to the Gospels and that our so-called expert is simply giving us his opinion based upon the examination of not thousands of skeletons, but one.

     Once again it is always best to follow the teachings of inspired writers in the Holy Bible than the secular scholars of today.

     Concerning the clothing worn or not worn by Jesus, we might ask how our so-called expert Zias knew so much about the time. Did the Romans perform every crucifixions all over the Roman Empire exactly the same way? Whether the nails were driven in the hands or wrists, the important point is that Jesus was crucified and lifted upon the Cross for the sins of the world. Regardless of what Zias said, the God of this world would have retained a cloth around his loins. His legs also were not broken by the Roman soldiers as were the thieves beside him. Mel Gibson had ever right to portray the Savior of the world in a modest fashion.


Part VI—Insights from the King James Version of the Holy Bible

     As you contemplate the messages and hidden agenda of the above two articles, it might be interesting to remember the following passages from the King James Version of the Holy Bible.

I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel of Christ

     “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of god unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” —Romans 1:16.

The Secret Acts of Men Will Be Judged By Jesus Christ

     “In that day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” —Romans 2:16.

Christ Died For Us

     “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” —Romans 5:8.

The Natural Man Does Not Understand Spiritual Things

     “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” —1 Corinthians 2:14.

The Wisdom of the World Is Foolishness Unto God

     “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taken the wise in their own craftiness.” —1 Corinthians 3:19.

Christ Died For Our Sins

     “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

     “And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

     “And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

     “After that, he was seen above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

     “After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

     “And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”—1 Corinthians 15:2-7.

Every Person On Earth Will Appear Before the Judgment Seat of Christ

     “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or evil.” —2 Corinthians 5:10.

The Teachings of the Apostles and Prophets Designed to Help People Avoid

the Deceit and Cunning Craftiness of Men and Women

     “And he gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors, and teachers;

     “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

     “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:

     “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

     “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up unto him in all things, which is the head, even Christ....”—Ephesians 4:11-15.

Beware of Vain Philosophy In the World

     “Beware lest any man spoil you through vain philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” —Colossians 2:8.

In the Last Days People Will Listen

to Seducing Spirits and Doctrines of Devils

     “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

     “Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron....” 1 Timothy 4:1-2.

In the Last Days Men Shall Be Ever Learning and Never

Able To Come To a Knowledge of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ

     “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

     “For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, un holy,

     “Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

     “Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

     “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

     “For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lust,

     “Every learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

     “Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, sod do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

     “But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

     “But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering of charity, patience,

     “Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Icontium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

     “Yea, and all that will live godly to Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

     “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

     “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

     “And that from a child thou hast know the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.


     “All scriptures is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

     “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. —2 Timothy 3:1-17.

People Will Turn Away From Truth and Embrace Fables

     “And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” —2 Timothy 4:4.

     “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when were made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

     “For we received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

     “And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

     “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; wherunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

     “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation.

     “For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost.—2 Peter 1:16-21

Damnable Heresies Will Deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ

     “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon them swift destruction.

     “And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” — 2 Peter 2:1-2.

Love Not the World and the Things of This World

     “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

     “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

     “And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of the God abideth forever.” —1 John 2:15-16.

Those Who Are Liars Will Deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ

     “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.: —1 John 2:22.

Many Deceivers Will Try To Persuade People That Jesus Is Not the Christ

     “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-Christ.” —2 John 1:7.


Part VII—Mel Gibson Followed the Four Gospels

     The Christian world should express their sincere appreciation to Mel Gibson for following the four Gospels instead of following secular scholars and clergy, who would have ruined the movie with their false doctrines, teachings and traditions. The key to the movie’s success is the fact that it was based upon the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The Passion of the Christ Is a Movie Not a Historical Re–Enactment

     The New York Times stated that major Hollywood producers have said that they will never work with Mel Gibson after co-writing and directing The Passion of the Christ. He has been black-listed in Hollywood. Rather amazing since it is only a film. It was not produced by BBC or the History Channel after all. Mel Gibson said that he consulted a host of Biblical scholars and theologians. However, he found so many contradictory opinions that he decided to rely on his own instincts and personal understanding of the Gospels.


Part VIII—The Teachings of the King James Version of the Holy Bible on the Jewish Leaders at the Time of Christ

     There is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding concerning The Passion of the Christ, which could be cleared up rather quickly, if people would read the accounts in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the King James Version of the Holy Bible concerning the false allegations that the Jews as a race were somehow responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.. The Gospels clearly, vividly and unequivocally outline that a small group of Jewish leaders were the culprits in the greatest story every told.

Persecution of Jewish People over the Centuries Has Been Caused

By the Satan’s Hatred of the House of Judah

     The Jewish people have been completely innocent of any responsibility for the death of Jesus. Every single act of persecution, ridicule, torture, rape, pillage, imprisonment and death of a single person of the Jewish linage over the centuries is the result of the Adversary’s determination to destroy the House of Judah from which sprang the Messiah. The House of Judah is a member of the House of Israel. They have been divinely chosen by God to serve as a witness to the world that Jesus is the Christ. It must never be forgotten that Jesus is Jewish is a direct descend of King David. That is way the genealogy of Jesus is placed at the beginning of the Book of Matthew.

The Eyes of God Have Carefully Watched Over the Jewish People

     The Lord has carefully watched over the Jewish people since they were dispersed throughout the world. He knows their plight and He knows their oppressors and persecutors and murders and plunders and torturers. And every single one of them will one day face God in the great Judgment Day and give an accounting of why they persecuted, ridiculed, tortured, raped, pillaged, imprisoned and murdered one single Jewish man, women or child.

Gospels Clearly Outline That the Jewish People

Were Not Responsible for the Death of Jesus Christ


     It was the Jewish elite—the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the high priests, the scribes, the lawyers, and the elders—who were responsible for the arrest, trial, torture and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It was not the Jewish people who embraced His teachings by the thousands and who has just welcomed Jesus at the Jewish Feast of the Passover as the King of the Jews.

     As we shall see, the Lord’s Controversy was not with the Jewish people, whom He loved, but with the Jewish leaders who were leading the Jewish people astray by false doctrines and teachings and rituals and enriching themselves and their families at the expense of the poor and humble citizens of Judea and Samaria.

Gospels Focus on the Elite Power Structure in Jerusalem

     Our entire focus should be on the elite financial oligarchy and political power structure in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. They are the villains. They are the culprits. They are the conspirators. Not the Jewish people whom we should love, honor and serve these remarkable people who have suffered almost beyond believe for the birth into the House of Judah. Let us lend a helping hand to the Jewish people and all people everywhere. This is the message the greatest Jewish person to ever live on earth. Let us love and serve one another.

The Eternal Powers and Attributes of Members of the Godhead

     As a God, the Lord Jesus Christ possesses the powers of discernment and discerning of spirits in their fullness and in a perfect state. It is impossible to deceive either God the Father, the Holy Ghost or the Lord Jesus Christ in any manner. He know the heart, mind and soul of every single person on earth. One glance of his all piercing eye can see the complete state of a person’s mental, physical and spiritual state of being. The Lord possesses the keys of the power of discernment and the power of discerning of spirits which allow Him to ascertain and completely understand the thoughts of every person on earth. It is impossible to hide one single thought from any member of the Godhead. That is how Jesus knew the state of the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem. He knew that they were thinking. He knew what they were saying. He knew what they planning to do to Him.

     Every word that He spoke during his short ministry on earth was carefully selected and judiciously verbalized to teach, uplift. comfort, aid or warn those who heard His words and those who would read His words over time.

     After you read what Jesus said about the leaders of the Jews at the time, it is very clear that they were planning his arrest, trial and crucifixion for some time.      

The Passion of the Christ Is Based on the Gospels


     Let us now look at the Gospels as contained in the King James Version of the Holy Bible. After we examine the four Gospels: (1) It will be very clear to you that Mel Gibson did not produce an anti—Semitic film; (2) It will become very clear to that the arrest, trial, torture and crucifixion were horrible and violent events and that the movie depicted these terrible scenes in a realistic manner; (3) It will become very clear to you that the movie followed the four gospels with some artistic license being taken to tie the scenes together.

     After we examine the four Gospels: (1) It will become very clear to you that the media attacks on Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ were motivated out of a desire to prevent a religious revival in America; (2) It will become clear to you that the media attacks were designed to further the secularization process of America which is being orchestrated by the School of Higher Criticism; (3) It will become very clear to you that the media pundits (talking heads) and their so-called experts and guests were talking parrots who violently attacked this remarkably inspiring movie and were motivated by a desire to serve the secular state and religion that is seeking to replace Christianity in America.

     Let us now look at the four Gospels and learn what they tell us about the Jewish Establishment at Jerusalem—the Pharisees, Sadducees, high priests, scribes, lawyers and elders.


Book of Matthew

Jesus is Accused by the Pharisees of Casting Out

Devils by the Power of the Devil

     Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.

     And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

     But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, this fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.     

     And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

     And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

     And if I by Beelzebub cast our devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.

     But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.— (Matthew 12: 22-28.

The Scribes and Pharisees Contend against Jesus

     Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying:

     Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

     But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

     For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, he that curseth father and mother, let him die the death.

     But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

     And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

     Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophecy of you saying,

     This people draw nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

     But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

     And he called the multitude, and said unto them, hear, and understand:

     Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

     Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

     But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

     Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

     Then answered Peter and said unto him. Declare unto us this parable.

     Do not ye understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

     But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.


     For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

     These are the things which defile a man: but to eat bread with unwashen hands defileth not a man.—Matthew 15:1-20.

Jesus Warns the Jewish People

About the Doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees

     The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sing from heaven.

     He answered, and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but ye cannot discern the signs of the times?

     A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall be no sign given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left and departed.

     And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.

     Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

     And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.

     Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

     Do ye not understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

     Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

     How is it that he do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?

     Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

     When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

     And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

     He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

     And Simon Peter answered, and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

     And Jesus answered, and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.—Matthew 16:1-17.

Jesus Cleanses the Temple of the Jewish Moneychangers

     And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?

     And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

     And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

     And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

     And the blind and the lame came to him in t he temple; and he healed them.

     And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful tings that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased.

     And he said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea: have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

     And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.—Matthew 21:10-17.

Jesus Pronounces Condemnations Upon the Scribes and Pharisees

     Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

     Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat:

     All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

     For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

     But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments.

     And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

     And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

     But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

     And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

     Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

     But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

     And whoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

     But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

     Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

     Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

     Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

     Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

     And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

     Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

     Whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

     Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint, and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matter of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

     Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

     Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

     Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

     Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones , and of all uncleanness.

     Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

     Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous.

     And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

     Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

     Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.


     Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

     Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

     That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

     Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

     O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathered her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

     Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

     For I day unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.—Matthew 23:1-39.


Book of Mark

Jesus Heals On the Sabbath and the Pharisees Plot To Destroy Him

     And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there with a withered hand.

     And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

     And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.

     And he said unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

     And when he looked around on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched forth it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

     And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

     But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea,

     And from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordon, and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him.—Mark 3:1-8.

Jesus Reproves the Pharisees For Their False Traditions and Ceremonies

     Then cane together unto him the Pharisees and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

     And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashed, hands, they found fault.

     For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

     And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

     Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples, according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

     He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

     Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


     For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

     And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandments of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

     For Moses said, honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death”

     But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

     And ye suffer no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

     Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

     And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:     

     There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

     If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

     And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

     And he saith unto them, Are so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

     Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth our into the draught, purging all meats?

     And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

     For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

     Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

     All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

     And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.—Mark 7:1-24.

Jesus Warns Disciples to Beware of the Doctrines of the Pharisees

     Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.

     And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.—Mark 8:13-14.

Jesus Drives the Jewish Money-Changers from the Temple

     And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;

     And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.

     And he taught, saying unto them. It is not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

     And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

     And when evening was come, he went out of the city. —Mark 11:15-19.

The Pharisees Try To Lay Hold on Jesus

     And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and et an hedge about it, and digged a place for the wine fat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.

     And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the

     fruit of the vineyard.

     And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.

     And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.

     And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.

     Having yet therefore one son, his well beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.

     But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.

     And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.

     What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and give the vineyard unto others.

     And have ye not read this scripture: The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

     This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.?

     And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.

     And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

     And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

     Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? Bring me a penny, that I may see it.

     And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s.

     And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.

     Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,

     Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

     Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.

     And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.

     And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.

     In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? For the seven had her t o wife.

     And Jesus answering said unto them, Do you not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

     For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

     And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

     He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

     And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

     And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

     And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

     And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater that these.


     And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

     And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

     And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou are not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

     And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?

     For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

     David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

     And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing. and love salutations in the marketplaces,

     And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:

     Which devour widow’s houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. —Mark 12:1-40.

The Pharisees Watch Jesus Heal People On the Sabbath

     And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

     And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

     And Jesus answered them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him:

     How he went in the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also them that were with him; which is not lawful to beat but for the priests alone?

     And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath.

     And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.

     And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day: that they might find an accusation against him.

     But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.

     Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do evil? To save life, or to destroy it?

     And looking round about them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

     And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.—Mark 6:1-11.

The Pharisees and Lawyers Reject the Ordinance of Baptism

     And when the messenger of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?

     But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft rainment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in king’s courts.

     But what went ye out to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.

     This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messengers before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

     For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet that John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

     And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

     But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.—Mark 7: 24-30.

A Woman Anoints the Feet of Jesus and He Forgives Her Sins

     And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to meat.

     And, behold, a woman in he city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment.

     And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

     Now when the Pharisee which has bidden him saw it, he spake with himself saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him” for she is a sinner.

     And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.

     And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.

     There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.

     And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?

     Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him. thou hast rightly judged.

     And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.

     Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

     My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

     Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved so much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

     And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

     And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?

     And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee: go in peace.—Mark 7:36-50.


Book of Luke

Jesus Rebukes and Chastises the Pharisees and Lawyers

     And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat.

     And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

     And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part of full of ravening and wickedness.

     Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?

     But rather, give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.


     But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mind and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of god: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

     Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues and greetings in the markets.

     Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

     Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproaches us also.

     And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

     Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

     Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

     Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute.

     That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

     From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

     Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

     And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:

     Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.—Luke 11:37-54.

Jesus Admonishes the People to Beware of the Hypocrisy of the Pharisees

     In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

     For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, shall not be known.

     Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

     And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

     But I will warn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which are he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.—Luke 12:1-5.

Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican

     Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

     The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as the publican.

     I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

     And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes, unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

     I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather that the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.—Luke 18:10-14.

Jesus Casts the Moneychangers Out of the Temple

     And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought.

     Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.

     And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him. —Luke 19: 45-48.

Chief Priests Oppose Jesus and Try to Lay Their Hands on Him

     And it came to pass, that one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders.

     And spake unto him, saying, Tell us by what authority doest thou these tings? Or who is he that gave thee this authority?

     And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me:

     The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?

     And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not?

     But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.

     And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.

     And Jesus said unto them, neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

     The began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.

     And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty.

     And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty.

     And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out.

     The said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.

     But when the husbandmen saw him, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him that the inheritance may be ours.

     So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?

     He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

     And he beheld them, and said,

     What is this then that is written, The stone which is the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

     Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but one whosoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

     And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.

     And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.

     And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teaches the way of God truly:

     It is lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar or no?

     But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?


     Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar’s.

     And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.

     And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at is answer, and held their peace.

     Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,

     Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother dies, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

     There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a Wife, and died without children.

     And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.

     And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.

     Last of all the woman died also.

     Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? For seven had her to wife.

     And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

     But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

     Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

     Now the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

     For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

     Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said.

     And after that they durst not ask him any question at all.

     And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David’s son.

     And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.

     Till I make thine enemies they footstool.

     David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

     Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,

     Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;

     Which devour widow’s houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.—Luke 20:1-47.


Book of John

Chief Priests Sought To Take Jesus In the Temple

     Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.

     But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

     Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. —John 7:28-30

Jesus Forgives a Women Caught In Adultery

     And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

     And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a women taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst.

     They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.


     Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stones: but what sayest thou?

     This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

     So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

     And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

     And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went our one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

     When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?

     She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.—John 8:1-11.

Jesus Lectures the Pharisees on Sabbath Violations

     And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

     And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

     Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

     I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

     As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

     When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay.

     And said unto him, go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

     The neighbors therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?

     Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.

     Therefore, said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?

     He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.

     The said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.

     They brought him to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

     And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.

     Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed and do see.

     Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of god, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can am man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was division among them.

     They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.

     But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

     And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, whom ye say was born blind? How then doth he now see?

     His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

     But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.

     These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.     


     Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

     Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner.

     He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

     Then said they to him again,      

     What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?

     He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? Will ye also be his disciples?

     Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.

     We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.

     The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvelous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.

     Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

     Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened his eyes of one that was born blind?

     If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

     They answered him, thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?

And they cast him out.

     Jesus heard that they had cast him our; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Doest thou believe on the Son of God?

     He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

     And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.

     And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

     And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

     And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

     Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore you sin remaineth. —John 9:1-41.

The High Priest Caiaphas and the Pharisees Conspire To Kill Jesus

     Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

     But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

     Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? For this man doeth many miracles.

     If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

     And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

     Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

     And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation;

     And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one nation the children of God that were scattered abroad.

     Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.


     Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.

     And the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.

     The sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast?

     Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.—John 11:45-57.

Chief Priests Conspire To Put Lazarus to Death

To Conceal From the People That Jesus Had Raised Him from the Dead

     Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom raised from the dead.

     There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Larzarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.

     Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

     Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,

     Why not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

     This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

     Then said Jesus, let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

     For the poor always ye have with you: but me ye have not always.

     Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.

     But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;

     Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.—John 12:1-11.     

The Pharisees Are Concerning That the World Is Following Jesus

     On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem.

     Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

     And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,

     Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt.

     These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that t hey had done these things unto him.

     The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record.

     For this cause the people also met him, for that they had heard that he had done this miracle.

     The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold, the world is gone after him.

     And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:

     The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.

     Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.

     And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.


     Verily, verily I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

     He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

     If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also be my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

     Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

     Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it, and will glorify it again.

     The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

     Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

     Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

     And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

     This he said, signifying what death he should die. —John 12:12-33.


Part IX – The Jewish Elite in Jerusalem Was Plotting the Death of Jesus Christ

     It should be very clear to the reader that the elite Jewish aristocracy in Jerusalem was planning to arrest, torture and kill Jesus. They did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the Savior or King of the Jews. They did not believe that He had power given unto him by His Father to lay down his life and take it up again at the end of three days. No person or army on earth could slay the Lord Jesus Christ. He voluntarily give up his life. However, the fact that Jesus was born to bring to pass the great infinite and eternal atonement and sacrifice does not excuse the evil actions of the chief priests and Pharisees who plotted his arrest, torture and death.

Jesus Knew the Thoughts of the Jewish Conspirators

     It should be very clear to the reader that Jesus knew the hearts and thoughts of every person who was plotting his death. He was not deceived by their secret meetings behind closed doors. He knew that the Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests, scribes, lawyers and elders were evil and conspiring men and the above record clearly outlines his views toward them. He called them hypocrites and vipers!

The Real Villains Is the Jewish Establishment in Jerusalem—Not the Jewish People

     The above scriptures make it very clear that The Passion of the Christ is not anti-Semitic. The above scriptures also make it very clear that The Passion of the Christ is historically accurate in depicting the Jewish Establishment as the villains in the movie.

     Mel Gibson simply read the Gospels and used them as the basis for his movie. Every movie director has to take some artistic license to tie scenes together. Mel Gibson was inspired to lace them together in a remarkable way to enhance the movie. The screenplay is a work of pure genius and inspiration from heaven.. It is destined to become one of the greatest movies ever made.

The Importance of the King James Version of the Holy Bible

     Now the reader can see the importance of the King James Version of the Holy Bible and why the School of Higher Criticism has been attacking it since it was printed in 1611. That is why their agents have produced modern translations to deceive and blind people and turn them away from the King James Version.


Part X—The Betrayal, Arrest, Trial, Torture and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ as Contained in the Gospels

     Let us now look at what the scriptures tell us about the arrest, trial, torture and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ.


Book of Matthew

Jesus Is Arrested and Taken before Caiaphas

     AND it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,

     Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

Caiaphas Is Head of a Conspiracy to Kill Jesus

     Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priests, who was called Caiaphas,

     And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtility, and kill him.

     But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

     Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,

Jesus Is Anointed

     There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.

     But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?

     For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

     When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.

     For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

     For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.

     Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there, shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

     Then of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,

     And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

     And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.

     Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

     And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

     And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.

     Now when the even was come he sat down with the twelve.

     And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.


     And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?

     And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.

     The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

     Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.

Jesus Institutes the Ordinance of the Sacrament

     And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

     And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

     For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

     But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

     And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into he mount of Olives.

     Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

     But before I an risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

     Peter answered, and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.

     Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

     Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

Jesus Enter Gethsemane and Prays to His Father

     Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit here, while I go and pray yonder.

     And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.

     Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

     And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

     And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could y not watch with me one hour?

     Watch and pray, that ye enter, not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

     He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink of it, thy will be done.

     And he came and found them asleep: for their eyes were heavy.

     And he left them, and went again, and prayed the third time saying the same words.

     Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

     Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.

     And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the elders of the people.

     Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.

     And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.

     And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.


     And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.

     Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again they sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

     Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

     But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

     In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.

     But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. then all the disciples forsook him and fled.

Jesus Is Taken before Caiaphas and the Scribes and Elders

     And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

     But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.

Caiaphas, Elders and All the Council Seek to Kill Jesus

     Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;

     But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,

     And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

     And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witnesses against thee?

     But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

     Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

     The then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

The Elders and Council Condemn Jesus to Death

     What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

     The did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,

     Saying, Prophecy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

     Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

     But he denied before them all, saying I know not what thou sayest.

     And when he was gone out into the porch, and other maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.

     And again be denied with an oath, I do not know the man.

     And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.


     Then began he to curse and to answer, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

     And Peter remember the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.—Matthew 26:1-75.

All the Chief Priests and Elders Conspired to Kill Jesus

     WHEN the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

     And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him, to Pontius Pilate the governor.

     Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

     Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood, And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that.

     And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

     And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

     And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.

     Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

     Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

     And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.

     And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

Chief Priests and Elders Accuse Jesus before Pilate

     And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

     Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?

     And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.

     Now at that feast, the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.

     And they had a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.

Pilate Knew the Real Reason Why the Chief Priests

Wanted to Kill Jesus

     Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barrabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?

     For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.

Pilate’s Wife Has a Dream about Jesus

     When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him saying, have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.

Chief Priests and Elders Persuade the Mob to Ask for Barabbas

     But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.


     The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barrabbas.

The Mob Cries Out for Jesus To Be Crucified

     Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.

     And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

     When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

     Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Pilate Orders Jesus To Be Scourged

     Then released the Barabbus unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

     Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.

     And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.

     And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!

     And they spit upon min, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.

     And after they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and let him away to crucify him.

     And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.

     And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of skull.

     They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gail: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.

Jesus Is Crucified By the Roman Soldiers

     And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

     And sitting down they watched him there;

     And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

     Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on right hand, and another on the left.

     And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,

     And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

     Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,

     He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

     He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

     The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

     Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour,

     And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

     Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man called for Elias.


     And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.

     The rest said, let be, Let us see whether Elias will come to save him.

Jesus Gives Up His Life

     Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

A Great Earthquake Upon the Earth and the Veil of the Temple is Rent

     And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent:

     And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

A Multitude of People Are Resurrected After Jesus is Resurrected

     And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

     Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

     And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:

     Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.

Jesus is Buried in the Tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea

     When the evening was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple.

     He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

     And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

     And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn our in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Mary and Mary Magdalene Stay by the Sepulchre

     And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.

     Now the next day, that following the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate.

     Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

     Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

Pilate Orders the Tomb of Jesus Sealed

and Sets Guards To Watch it

     Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

     So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch. —Matthew 27:11-66.

An Angel Testifies That Jesus Has Been Resurrected

     In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

     And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

     His countenance was like lightening, and his raiment white as snow:

     And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

     And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear no ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus which was crucified.

     He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

     And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

     And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

     And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

     Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

The Chief Priest and Elders Conspire to Keep the Reality

of the Resurrection From the Jewish People

     Now when they were going, behold ,some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.

     And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,

     Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

     And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.

     So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

Jesus Appears Unto His Disciples In Galilee

     Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus has appointed them.

     And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Jesus is Given All Power On Earth and Heaven By God the Father

     And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Jesus Admonished the Disciples To Preach the Gospel To All People

     Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

     Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.—Matthew 28:1-20.



Book of Mark

Chief Priests, Scribes and Elders Devise a Secret Plan To Kill Jesus

     AFTER two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleaven bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.

     But they said, Not on the feast day, there be an uproar of the people.

     And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having a alabaster of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.

     And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?

     For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor, And they murmured against her.

     And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work for me.

     For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

     She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.

     Verily I say unto, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

     And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.

     And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.

     And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

     And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water” follow him.

     And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

     And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.

     And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

     And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.

     And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

     And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?

     And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.

     The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

     And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

     And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

     And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

     Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

     And when they had sung an hymn, they went into the mount of Olives.

     And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.

     But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.


     But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.

     And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.

     But he spoke the more vehemently, if I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said they all.

     And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray.

     And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;

     And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.

     And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if were possible, the hour might pass from him.

     And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee: take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

     And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?

     Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.

     And again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words.

     And hen re returned, he found them asleep again, (for their eyes were heavy,) neither wist they what to answer him.

     And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

     Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand.

     And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

     And he that betrayed him had given then a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.

     And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him.

     And they laid their hands on him, and took him.

     And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.

     And Jesus answered and said unto them, are ye come out, against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?

     I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.

     And they all forsook him, and fled.

     And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body: and the young men laid hold on him:

     And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

     And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

     And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.

     And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.

     For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.

     And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,

     We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

     But neither so did their witness agree together.


     And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answereth thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

     But he held his peace, and answered nothing, Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

     And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

     Then the high priest rent his cloths, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?

     Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

     And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.

     And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:

     And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou wast with Jesus of Nazareth.

     But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.

     And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.

     And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.

     But he began to curse, and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

     And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when thought thereon, he wept.—Mark 14:1-72.

Chief Priests, Scribes, Elders and Council

Conspire to Kill Jesus

     AND straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away.

     And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.

     And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing.

     And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee.

     But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.

     Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.

     And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.

     And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had done unto them.

     But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

     For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.

The Chief Priests Manipulate the Crowd

Into Calling for the Death of Jesus

     But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.

     And Pilate answered and said unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?

     And they cried out again, Crucify him.

     Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried our the more exceedingly, Crucify him.


     And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scouraged him to be crucified.

     And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium: and they call together the whole band.

     And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head,

     And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!

     And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped.

     And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.

     And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.

     And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.

     And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.

     And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them ,what every man should take.

     And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

     And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

     And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.

     And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

     And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,

     Save thyself, and come down from the cross.

     Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.

     Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

     And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

     And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi. Elo. lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

     And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he called Elias.

     And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.

     And Jesus cried with a loud vice, and gave up the ghost.

     And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

     And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

     There were also women looking on afar off; among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

     (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.

     And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,

     Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went into boldy unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.

     And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had any while dead.

     And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.

     And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

     And Mary Magadalene and Mary the mother of Jones beheld where he was laid.—Mark 15: 1—47.

The Glorious Resurrection of Jesus Christ

     AND when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

     And very early in the morning the first day of week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

     And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

     And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

An Angel of God Testifies That Jesus Rose from the Dead

     And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment’ and they were affrighted.

     And he saith unto them, be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

     But go your way, tell his disciples and peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

     And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

     Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magadalene, out of whom he cast seven devils.

     And she went and told them that had been with him, as they moaned and wept.

     And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed it not.

     After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

     And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed them

     Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

     And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

     He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be dammed.

     And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

     They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, if shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

     So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

     And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. —Mark 16:1-20.



Book of Luke

The Chief Priests Order the Captains of the Temple

to Arrest Jesus at Night

     NOW the feat of unleaven bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

     And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.

     Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.


     And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

     And they were glad, and covenanted to give him the money.

     And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.

     The came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.

     And he sent Peter and John, saying, go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

     And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare?

     And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water: follow him into the house where he entereth in.

     And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

     And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.

     And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

     And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

     And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

     For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of god.

     And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take t his, and divide it among yourselves:

     For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, Until the kingdom of God shall come.

     And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

     Likewise also the cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

     But, behold, in the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

     And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

     And they began to enquire among themselves, which is them it was that should do this thing.

     And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

     And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them are called benefactors.

     But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

     For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at meat? but i am among you as he that serveth.

     Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.     

     And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

     That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

     And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

     But I have prayed for thee, that they faith fail not: and when thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren.

     And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

     And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

     And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing.

     Then said he unto them, But now, he t hat hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and but one.

     For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

     And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Jesus Enters the Garden of Gethsemane

     And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.


     And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.

     And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed.

     Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

An Angel From God Appears to Strengthen Jesus

     And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

     And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground.

     And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow.

     And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.

     And while he yet spoke, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

     But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss

     When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

     And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

     And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

     Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?

     When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.

     Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest’s house. And Peter followed afar.

     And when they had kindles a fire in the midst of the hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down among them.

     But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This mans was also with him.

     And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.

     And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.

     And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilean.

     And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spoke, the cock crew.

     And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crew, thou shalt deny me thrice.

     And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

     And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.

     And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?

     And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.

     And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council saying,

     Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, if I tell you, ye will not believe:

     And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.

     Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

     Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

     And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.—Luke 22:1-71.

Chief Priests Manipulate Pilate Into Crucifying Jesus

     AND the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.

     And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Csar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.

     And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

     Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

     And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.

     When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilan.

     And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.

     And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

     Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

     And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.

     And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

     And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

     And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,

     Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

     No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

     I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

     (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

     And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:

     (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)

     Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.

     But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.

     And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.

     And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.

     And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

     And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

     And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.

     And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.

     But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

     For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

     Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.


     For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

     And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.

     And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

     Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

     And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

     And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,

     And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

     And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

     And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

     But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

     And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

     And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

     And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

     And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

     And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

     And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

     Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.

     And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.

     And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.

     And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:

     (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimatha, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.

     This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.

     And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

     And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

     And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.

     And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.—Luke 23:1-56.

Angels Announce the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

     NOW upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

     And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

     And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

     And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:


     And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

     He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

     Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

     And they remembered his words,

     And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

      It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

      And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.

     Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

     And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.

     And they talked together of all these things which had happened.

     And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.

     But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

     And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?

     And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass therein these days?

     And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:

     And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

     But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

     Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;

     And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.

     And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.

     Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

     Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

     And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

     And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.

     But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

     And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

     And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

     And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

     And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

     Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.


     And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

     And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

     But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

     And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

     Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

     And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

     And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

     And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

     And he took it, and did eat before them.

     And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

     Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

     And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

     And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

     And ye are witnesses of these things.

     And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

     And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.

     And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

     And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

     And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.—Luke 24:1-53.


Book of John


Jesus is Betrayed and Arrested by Evil and Conspiring Men

     WHEN Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.

     And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.

     Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

     Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

     They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

     As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

     Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.

     Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:

     That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.

      Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

      Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

      Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,


      And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

      Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

      And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

      But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

      Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.

      And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

     The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

      Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

     Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

     And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

     Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?

     Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

     And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.

     One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

     Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

     Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

     Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

     They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

     Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

     That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

     Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

     Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

     Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

     Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

     Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

     Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

     But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

     Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. —John 18:1-40.


Jesus Is Scourged and Crucified by Evil Men

     THEN Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.

     And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,

     And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.

     Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

     Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!

     When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

     The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

     When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;

     And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

     Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

     Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

     And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

     When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

     And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

     But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priest answered, We have no king but Caesar.

     Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

     And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

     Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

     And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

     This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

     Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

     Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

     Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

     They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

     Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.


     When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

     Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

     After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

     Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

     When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

     The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

     Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

     But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

     But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

     And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

     For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

     And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

     And after this Joseph of Arimatha, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

     And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

     Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

     Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

     There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.—John 19:1-42.

The Risen Christ Appears to Mary Magdalene in the Garden

     THE first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

     Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

     Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

     So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

     And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

     Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

     And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

     Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

     For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

     Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.


     But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,

     And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

     And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

      And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

     Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

     Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

     Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

      Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

     Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

     And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

     Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

     And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

     Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

     But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

     The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

     And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

     Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

     And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

     Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

     And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

     But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.—John 20:1-31

The Resurrected Lord Appears to His Disciples at the Sea of Tiberias

     AFTER these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself.

     There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.

     Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.


     But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.

     Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.

     And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

     Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

     And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.

     As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.

     Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.

     Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, and hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

     Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

     Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.

     This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.

     So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

     He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

     He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

     Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

     This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

     Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

     Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

     Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

     Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

     This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

     And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. —John 21:1-25.

The Holy Scriptures Clearly Identify the Real Villains

     It should now be very clear that Mel Gibson did a masterful job of co—writing a magnificent script which turned into one of the greatest movies of all time. The above scriptures clearly demonstrate who the real villains were that were responsible for the betrayal, arrest, torture, and crucifixion of Jesus Christ—it was not the Jewish people—it was a small group of evil and conspiring men who were the chief priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, elders, and lawyers who were the elite rulers of the Jewish nation in 34 A. D.

     The above scriptures demonstrate that the allegation that the move is anti-semitic is false.      


     The above scriptures demonstrate that the allegation that he movie excessively violent in false.

     The above scriptures demonstrate that the allegation that the movie is historically inaccurate is false.     The Passion of the Christ is such a remarkable movie that the entire secular media has mobilized to destroy Mel Gibson and the movie. One good thing about the false accusations and the false witnesses against Mel Gibson and his movie is that the termites are coming out of the woodwork in groves. We now have documented evidence which reveals who are the Agents and members of the School of Higher Criticism in the large secular media. There is no longer any doubt about the size and scope of the enemy we face in the war for control of America and its free institutions.           


Part XI—The Secular Media Fails To Crush Mel Gibson and Prevent People From Seeing

The Passion of the Christ At Theaters Across America

The Passion of the Christ Is Destined to Launch

a Religious Revival in America and in the Christian Nations of the World

     The secular media failed in their mission to destroy Mel Gibson and the Passion of Christ. Tens of thousands of tickets to the movie were purchased in advance by church groups, ministers, pastors, and business leaders. The large secular media was furious. Why? Because the movie presents the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ in a positive and uplifting manner as the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. The film is destined to launch a religious revival in America and around the world.

The Secular Media Dislikes the Savior

     The large secular media really dislikes the Savior and his teachings. However, they will never admit this in public. It is the message of Jesus Christ that they thoroughly oppose. Why? It is simple. If Jesus is really the Christ, the promised Messiah, the Savior and Redeemer, then the Jewish rabbis have been wrong for nearly two thousand years. If Jesus is the Christ, then His laws and commandments are in full force and effect. If Jesus is the Christ, they

must one day face Him on judgment day. They refuse to believe that they are accountable to anyone for their actions or that anyone is going to judge them. The secular media believes that the commandments of Gods are not applicable to them, they are a set of myths, legends and superstitions.

Mel Gibson Breaks One of the Secular Ten Commandments

     Mel Gibson broke one of the ten commandments of secular communication industry. “Thou shall not present a true portray of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind.”

     In graphic detail, Mel Gibson brilliantly captured the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ in a vivid and thought provoking movie that is ingenious, sobering and as realistic as possible.

The Greatest Movie Ever Made About the Greatest Story Ever Told

     The Passion of Christ is destined to become the greatest movie ever made about the greatest story every told. The movie is going to be seen and embraced by millions of people around the world. And that is exactly what the School of Higher Criticism does not want to happen. Since 1611 they have been working diligently to secularize the world, to destroy faith in God, the Holy Bible and its teachings. The Passion of Christ will lead millions of people to Christ and they are furious about such an occurrence. That is why the media in American began attacking the movie once it was learned that it could possible undermine their control of the minds of the people.


Large Studios in Hollywood Refuse To Underwrite

and Distribute Passion of Christ

     It is interesting that Mel Gibson had to put up $30 million dollars of his own money to finance the film. Not one of the large studios would underwrite or distribute the movie. That tells you a lot about the film and its content.

It also tells you a lot about the secularization of Hollywood that has been under way for the last forty years.

Passion of Christ Is a Major Threat to Secularization of America

     The Passion of Christ is probably the biggest threat to arise to the secular world in America in over a century. The film is that powerful. It will be show, not just for decades, but for centuries to come in the future. It is already a classic. It is clear that Mel Gibson was raised up by Providence to write and direct this film.

     The secular media is furious that people in America ignored their vicious attack on the movie and went and saw the movie.

Large Networks Use Polls to Deceive and Manipulate People

     We should also say a word about the polls the media conducts. These polls are completely manipulated to create and mold public opinion. They are fabricated by manipulation of those they pretend to poll. They should be discarded and recognized as just another tool used to deceive the American people and the world.

     One of the most interesting aspects of the attacks on The Passion of Christ is the incredible arrogance of the media. They pretend to present facts while people like Mel Gibson had some weird agenda. For example, CNN had a section on its WEB page where a person could click on an article and learn the “true facts about who killed Jesus” by a member of the CNN staff. We are now supposed to look to the secular media to get our “facts” on true religion.

Newsweek even published a lead story on “Who Really Killed Jesus.”     

Large Media Companies Are Attempting to Rewrite the Holy Bible

Through False Interpretations, Distortions and Lies

     The large networks and the publishing outlets are attempting to rewrite the Holy Bible. They play on the people’s ignorance of the Holy Scriptures. They are attempting to give a politically correct version of the Holy Bible and its teachings, which does not exist. That is why it is important for each person to daily study and ponders the King James Version of the Holy Bible and its inspiring teachings. Do no rely upon your minister, pastor, priest, reverend, etc., as good as they may be; instead, become a Biblical Scholar yourself and then you will be able to detect very quickly the lies and distortions being promoted by the large media networks and the army of false teachers throughout the world.

Large Networks Promote Secular Agenda throughout the Ideological Matrix

     It is important to remember that the large media networks and companies in America and the western world are part of the Ideological Matrix. Their purpose is to fabricate the myths that are daily transmitted to the people inside the Ideological Matrix to deceive them and keep them apathetic and docile.


Chapter 13—Secularism Takes over the Publishing Houses in America

Part I—Introduction

     The foundation of education in America is being carefully eroded by a set of philosophies that are alien to the Judeo-Christian Heritage of this nation. These philosophies are being promoted throughout the public educational system by teachers, instructors and professors who adhere to their basic tenets. The alien philosophies are all based upon the theory of evolution and every academic discipline in the sciences and social science curriculums of the nation are based upon Darwinism, agnosticism and atheism. They are being promoted daily in elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, colleges and universities across the nation.

     In addition to the teacher, instructor and professor, the main vehicle that is used to indoctrinate the youth of the nation in the public educational system is the secular textbooks. These textbooks have been carefully designed to promote the worldviews of the School of Higher Criticism.

     Textbook publishing in the United States is a multi-billion dollar industry. Just imagine the number of textbooks that go into Texas and California along. In order to obtain the large orders, the giant publishing companies are going to put whatever the School of Higher Criticism wants in them. That way they are guaranteed success in the monopolized textbook industry.

     The School of Higher Criticism does not want the youth of the nation to understand the importance of the principles of republican government, free market economics, property rights, natural rights, family values, and the Judeo-Christian heritage of this nation. If you look at the textbooks published since 1750 in America, it is very clear that the above concepts began to be removed from the texts in the 1920s. The authors of various texts attacked the founding fathers and the Judeo-Christian heritage of America with a vengeance, while at the same time they began vigorously teaching the principles of socialism and secularism. The prime mover behind the major change in teaching in America was John Dewey. He was an avowed Darwinist and Hegelist.

America Is Suffering From Historical Amnesia

     In 1992 Arthur M. Schlesinger published a treatise entitled, The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. He outlined that the “fragmentation, re-segregation, and tribalization of American life” is being reflected in elementary, high school and college curriculums and textbooks resulting in a loss of American identity and liberties.

     Schlesinger stated, “For history is to the nation rather as memory is to the individual/ As an individual deprived of memory becomes disoriented and lost, not knowing where he has been or where he is going, so a nation denied a conception of its past will be disabled in dealing with its present and its future. As t he means of defining national identity, history becomes a means of shaping history. The writing of history then turns from a meditation into a weapons.” (Arthur M. Schlesinger. The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. New York: W. W. Norton and Company 1992, pp. 45-46.)

Changes in the Textbooks of America

     John Dewey and other members of the School of Higher Criticism know that history can be turned into a weapon, that is why a host of progressive historians began changing the textbooks in the 1920s to promote socialism and secularism.

     After over eighty years of textbooks based upon socialism and secularism, we have a nation that has lost its institutional memory. And along with the loss of this memory, the American people have also lost their political, economic and religious liberties bequeathed to them by the founding fathers of the American Republic.

     Let us look at several studies over the last several decades which substantiate and document these observations

Studies in 1976 Reveal Lack of Knowledge In Citizenship

     In 1976, during the 200th Anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, the National Assessment of Educational Progress conducted a nationwide survey of seventeen-year-olds to determine their knowledge level in basic citizenship. In overall political knowledge the students scored at the 65% percentage point level or a grade of D. On specific questions concerning the U. S. Constitution they scored at the 54% percentage level or a letter grade of F.

     (National Center for Educational Statistics, Changes in Political Knowledge and Attitudes, 1969-1976: Selected Results From the Second National Assessment of Citizenship and Social Studies, Citizenship/Social Studies Report No. 07-CS-02. March 1978. See also the National Assessment of Educational Progress, Citizenship: An Overview, 1975—1976, Report No. 07—C—00 (National Center for Educational Statistics, October, 1978, p. 28.)

     In 1985 the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts were requested by the U. S. Congress to prepare a study of humanities and arts in public schools in America. They set up a Advisory Group on History and Literature on March 2, 1987. The findings of the Advisory Group revealed that the textbooks of American had been altered and that the nation’s student had indeed lost their institutional memory. Interestingly enough, the report was entitled, American Memory: A Report on the Humanities in the Nations’ Public Schools.

     The Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, which published the report, was Lynne V. Cheney., wife of Vice-President Dick Cheney. One of the key members of the Advisor Group was Diane Ravitch, at the time an Adjunct Professor of History and Education at Columbia University Teachers College in New York City.

     American Memory states:


Part II—American Memory

     “A refusal to remember," according to Nobel Prize poet Czeslaw Milosz, is a primary characteristic of our age. Certainly there is abundant evidence that it is a primary characteristic of our nation. Teachers tell of students who do not know that George Washington led American forces in the Revolutionary War; that there was a World War I; that Spanish, not Latin, is the principal language in Latin America. Nationwide polls show startling gaps in knowledge. In a recent survey done for the Hearst Corporation, 45 percent of those polled thought that Karl Marx's phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is in the U.S. Constitution.

Cultural Memory

     “Cultural memory flourishes or declines for many reasons, but among the most important is what happens in our schools. Long relied upon to transmit knowledge of the past to upcoming generations, our schools today appear to be about a different task. Instead of preserving the past, they more often disregard it, sometimes in the name of "progress'—the idea that today has little to learn from yesterday. But usually the culprit is “process”— the belief that we can teach our children how to think without troubling them to learn anything worth thinking about, the belief that we can teach them how to understand the world in which they live without conveying to them the events and ideas that have brought it into existence.

     To be sure, countless people within our schools resist this approach. I have met school administrators who are convinced that education should be about mastery of knowledge. I have met teachers who, deeply knowledgeable themselves about the roots of our culture, are passionate about wanting Their students to be. In Little Rock, Arkansas, for example, I encountered a classics teacher who is determined to teach Greek. For bureaucratic reasons, she has to offer it outside regular school hours; and so she comes early each day to teach a class before school and stays late to teach another after—even though this means she teaches eight classes a day.

     “Among good teachers, the idea persists that teaching is about transmitting culture. What I heard from them again and again, however, is how many obstacles stand in the way of doing the kind of teaching they think is important.

Lack of Understanding of American History

     “An educational system that devalues knowledge of the past produces students who do not firmly grasp the facts of history and literature. A 1987 study, based on a survey funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, reports that more than two—thirds of the nation's seventeen-year-olds are unable to locate the Civil War within the correct half-century. More than two-thirds cannot identify the Reformation or Magna Carta. By vast majorities, students demonstrate unfamiliarity with writers whose works are regarded as classics: Dante, Chaucer, Dostoevsky, Austen, Whitman, Hawthorne, Melville, and Cather.

     “Dates and names are not all that students should know, but such facts are a beginning, an initial connection to the sweep of human experience. And why is it important that they make that connection? Why is it important that they—that we—remember?

     “The first argument is the simplest: to realize our human potential. We alone of all creatures have the ability to break out of the narrow circle of the moment, and until we do, until we reach beyond ourselves, we are limited and immature. "To know nothing of what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child," Cicero wrote. Or as Santayana put it, "[W]hen experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual."

     “By reaching into the past, we affirm our humanity. And we inevitably come to the essence of it. Because we cannot encompass the totality of other lives and times, we strip away the thousand details of existence and come to its heart. We come to the age—old questions, to the enduring subjects of both historian and poet. How do we know our duty? How do we deal with our fate? How do we give our lives meaning and dignity? Pondering these questions, we realize others have pondered them. We realize that we are not the first to know joy and sadness, not the first to set out on the human journey.

The past also offers lessons, and although we shall surely dispute what they are, even as we do so we enlarge our perspective on the present. What does it mean that Rome fell? And Athens? What does it mean for us? The Framers of the Constitution debated such questions two hundred years ago in Philadelphia. Their achievement is reminder that history is not merely what has happened; it is a way of finding paths into the future.

Failure To Nurture Memory of the Past

     “A system of education that fails to nurture memory of the past denies its students a great deal: the satisfactions of mature thought, an attachment to abiding concerns, a perspective on human existence. As advisory group member Linda Miller observed, "We take a tremendous risk of national character by failing to ground our students in history and literature:'

Indeed, we put our sense of nationhood at risk by failing to familiarize our young people with the story of how the society in which they live came to be. Knowledge of the ideas that have molded us and the ideals that have mattered to us functions as a kind of civic glue. Our history and literature give us symbols to share; they help us all, no matter how diverse our backgrounds, feel part of a common undertaking. Advisory group member Bernard Weisberger cited a passage from The Promised Land in which Mary Antin, who came to this country from Poland as a child, told of first learning about George Washington: "I discovered ... that I was more nobly related than I had ever supposed...," Antin wrote. "George Washington, who died long before I was born, was like a king in greatness, and he and I were Fellow Citizens."

An Erosion of Historical Consciousness

     “By allowing the erosion of historical consciousness, we do to ourselves what an unfriendly nation bent on our destruction might. Novelist Milan Kundera has described how the Soviet Union has methodically set about destroying the historical memory of Czechoslovakia, proscribing her literature and tearing down historical monuments, in order to destroy the Czech sense of nationhood.

     “In our schools today we run the danger of unwittingly proscribing our own heritage. The purpose of this report is to describe how this has happened and to suggest ways it can be remedied.

History and Literature

     “IN 1892, A SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION MET that was distinguished in its membership and decided in its views. Known as the Committee of Ten, the panel called together scholars from universities—a young Princeton professor named Woodrow Wilson was among them—and representatives from the schools. As participants saw it, cultural content should be central to what was taught and learned. The Committee emphasized the importance of literature (as well as "training in expression") and recommended an eight—year course of history. This plan of study, the Committee stressed, was for all students, not just for those who would be attending college.

Change In Educational Policy Away From Content

     “For a time a curriculum of the kind the Committee of Ten endorsed prevailed. Gradually, however, an opposing view came to dominate: Schools should concern themselves not with intellectual life, but with practical life. As millions of children who would once have been outside the educational system enrolled in the schools, progressive educators argued that what most students needed was not study in history and literature, but preparation for homemaking and for work in trades.

     "Skill" training began to drive more traditional offerings, like ancient history, out of the curriculum. Indeed, the very concept of history became submerged in "social studies," a term that emphasizes the present rather than the past; English courses, transformed into "language arts," stressed communication rather than literature; and as the schools adopted a fundamentally different orientation from colleges and universities, humanities scholars turned away from precollegiate education. Curricula, textbooks, and teacher training became the domain of professional educationists.

     “Under their guidance, schools began to emphasize the process of learning rather than its content. Both are important, extremely important in the teaching of history and literature. But so much emphasis has been placed on process that content has been seriously neglected. One can see the imbalance in the opening pages of a teacher's guide to a widely used textbook series. Scores of skills to be taught are set forth: everything from drawing conclusions and predicting outcomes to filling in forms and compiling recipes. The cultural content of learning, on the other hand, is given only brief mention.

     "How to identify the sequential order of events," "how to explore alternatives," "how to follow directions involving substeps"—lists of such skills fill up page after page of the curriculum guides and scope-and-sequence charts that direct the activity of classrooms. Textbooks used to teach teachers are similarly oriented. Paying only passing regard to the content of education, they concentrate on process-centered "instructional objectives," "learning activities," "teaching strategies," and "evaluative measures."

SAT Scores

     “Perhaps the most obvious indicator of how process-driven our schools have become is the dominant role played by the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). In the 1985-86 school year, almost 1.7 million students took the two-and-a-half-hour examination; and many of them, and many of their parents and teachers as well, regarded it as the single most crucial experience of their academic lives. Looming over our educational landscape is an examination that, in its verbal component, carefully avoids assessing substantive knowledge gained from course work. Whether test-takers have studied the Civil War, learned about Magna Carta, or read Macbeth are matters to which the SAT is studiously indifferent.

     “Skills—such as reading comprehension, which the SAT assesses—are crucial, I repeat. But the content of education also deserves close attention. Indeed, common sense argues that the two are connected. How can mental skills be developed except through exercise on materials that are challenging and substantial?

     “In fact, the SAT itself has provided dramatic indication of this link. Between the early 1960s and the early 1980s, the national average of the verbal SAT scores declined by some fifty points. This same period also saw the substantive content of education diminish rapidly in the schools. Responding to cries for relevance as well as to the idea that young people learn best by following their own inclinations, schools began offering an astonishing variety of ways to earn credit—and conveying no notion that some kinds of knowledge are more important than others. Students could take courses in jewelry making and blanket crocheting to earn credits toward a high school diploma.

     “The fall in SAT scores that paralleled this phenomenon stimulated a national debate about our schools. More than any other single factor, it generated the educational reform movement of the last few years.

     “Current reformers have emphasized the necessity of paying close attention to what our children learn as well as to how they learn, but their message has proved difficult to translate into the classroom. In Texas, new "Rules for Curriculum" have been issued that set forth "essential elements" for three English/language arts courses required in high schools: how "to vary rate of reading according to purpose," how "to recognize relevant details," for example. Among the essential elements—more than one hundred in all—there is just one mention of major literary works and authors.

     “This particular document is not an anomaly. It reflects an unhappy aspect of educational reform: Education specialists who think in terms of process rather than content have often been put in charge of seeing to it that our schools improve. This delegation of authority has been especially painful for teachers who value knowledge of the disciplines they teach, but now find themselves increasingly regulated by a bureaucracy that has other interests.

     “Recent attempts to improve our schools have also stumbled over organizational structures previously set in place by those who wanted the system to take a less academic direction. Across the nation, graduation requirements have been tightened for social studies and English/language arts: In 1981-82, the average number of credits required was 2.6 for social studies and 3.6 for English/language arts; in 1984-85, the figures were 2.8 and 3.8 respectively. One assumes that policy makers increased requirements so that students would take a greater number of academic courses; but that is not necessarily the effect since "social studies" and "English/language arts" often describe courses that are decidedly unacademic. In Maine, for example, "Introductions to Careers" and "Business Communications" can partially satisfy graduation requirements in social studies and English/language arts.

     “Words have consequences. Broad terms like "social studies" make it difficult to raise standards concerned with content. For years courses in everything from driver education to "values clarification" have been making their way into curricula under the social studies umbrella. "Language arts" has been somewhat less a cover for non-academic courses, but that term too complicates the task of restoring study of the humanities to a central role. Indeed, such terminology makes it difficult even to assess accurately whether progress is being made.

New Classes Eliminate Classic Courses in History and Literature

     “The problem extends far beyond vocabulary into matters of equity. Not all students are fulfilling graduation requirements with courses like "Introductions to Careers" and "Business Communications." Only certain groups are: those in "general education" and "vocational education" programs. For these students more than 60 percent of those enrolled in our schools—the core of education thus becomes different from that studied by their peers in academic programs. In history and literature, it inevitably becomes diminished.


     “By their nature, the humanities disciplines ought to be the easiest to bring to everyone. While some students will need more help than others with the language of Shakespeare's plays, for example, the themes that animate the plays—love, honor, betrayal, revenge—are familiar to all and interesting to all. Moreover, once the case for humanities education has been made, the conclusion that it is for every student seems inevitable. If history gives us perspective on our lives, then shouldn't every young person be encouraged to study it? If literature connects us to permanent concerns, then shouldn't every young person read it? "To make the best that has been thought and known in the world current everywhere" is the way Matthew Arnold stated the goal. No other ambition suits a democracy well.

     “The educational reform movement of the 1980s has rightfully espoused the cause of educational equity. It has, in general, raised the expectations we have for our schools. Perhaps most important, it has kept the subject of education in the forefront of national attention by making a pragmatic and important case: Our country's economic role in the world will surely decline unless we improve American education.

     “One effect of this approach, however, has been to concentrate reform effort on basic skills, mathematics, and science. While these aspects of schooling assuredly deserve close attention, it is now time to elaborate the argument; to be clear that world competition is not just about dollars but about ideas. Our students need to know what those ideas are, need to understand our democratic institutions, to know their origins in Western thought, to be familiar with how and why other cultures have evolved differently from our own. They need to read great works of literature, thus confronting questions of good and evil, freedom and responsibility that have determined the character of people and nations. These needs cannot be met in an elementary and secondary curriculum that typically devotes no more than three or four years to history in a twelve-year sequence. They cannot be met in a curriculum that takes a hit and miss—and mostly miss—approach to literature.

     It is sometimes argued that the story of our nation's past and the Western tradition that forms our heritage is irrelevant to a population that increasingly comes from other traditions, but I would argue that the opposite is true. While we need to know as much as we can about all people everywhere, our first goal has to be to comprehend this nation, all its virtues and faults, all its glories and failures. We can only build from where we are, and to do so intelligently requires that we—that all of us—know where we are.

     “On a trip to Los Angeles, I met with a group of students from John Marshall High School who made this point with good sense and simplicity. They had won the 1987 U.S. Academic Decathlon, accomplishing this feat by becoming experts on the U.S. Constitution. They not only knew its provisions, they knew its origins in European thought. They knew the fascination the Framers of the Constitution had with the classical world.

     “More than three-quarters of the John Marshall student body learned English as a second language. Thirty percent of the students on the decathlon team were born in other countries. And so, playing the devil's advocate, I asked them why, given their diverse backgrounds, they had become devoted students of this country's founding. They seemed to think this an odd question; but finally one of them answered, "Because we're here."

     “These students want to understand the society in which they live—a society which they, repeating a pattern basic to the American story, will shape for generations to follow.

Foreign Languages

     “AMERICAN MEMORY IS A RICH AND INTRICATE CONSTRUCT, reaching far into the life and ideas of other nations. "The pilgrims did not sail into view out of the void, their minds blank as the Atlantic sky, ready to build a new world out of nothing but whatever they could find lying about the ground in eastern Massachusetts," historian Paul Gagnon has written. "They and all the others who landed in the Western hemisphere were shaped and scarred by tens of centuries of social, literary, political, and religious experience."

     “Self-knowledge requires that we understand other cultures. Daily life increasingly demands it. The world our children live and work in will seem even smaller than the one we know now. Its parts will be even more tightly linked by technology; its citizens, more interdependent.


     “Nothing has greater potential for giving young people the expanded awareness they need than foreign language study—an area that was once considered an important part of education. In 1915, for example, 37 percent of this country's high school students were studying Latin, and 36 percent were studying a modern foreign language. As the population of the schools expanded and curricula became less academic, these percentages plummeted. There was a reversal when the launching of Sputnik made foreign language knowledge seem useful for a time, but generally the trend has been downward. In 1978, only 21 percent of high school students were enrolled in either a classical or modern foreign language.

The last few years have seen a substantial revival:

     “—In Virginia, the Department of Education reported that 42 percent of all secondary students were studying a foreign language in 1986—the highest since World War II.

     “—In North Carolina, the legislature has ordered every school district to offer foreign language instruction from kindergarten through high school by 1992.

     “The number of students taking the National Latin Exam has increased from 9,000 to over 61,000 during the last nine years.

     “—Nationwide, 29 percent of high school students were enrolled in foreign language classes in 1985—86. This represents a 38 percent increase since 1978.

     —Severe shortages of foreign language teachers are occurring and threaten to become worse, particularly in parts of the country where expanded programs are under way.

     “Characteristic of the current revival is a practical, often vocational approach to foreign language education. Students take Latin to improve SAT scores. They see modern foreign languages as a key to employment opportunities. Schools and colleges that once concentrated on literature now offer such courses as "Spanish for Hotel Management."

     “At all educational levels, oral proficiency is being emphasized. To aid in the task of producing speakers of other languages, foreign language educators are concentrating on examinations that assess a student's oral command.

     “Laudable as the goal of producing proficient speakers is, the concentration on it does raise concerns. Shouldn’t reading also be stressed? Shouldn't cultural study? Indeed, without cultural awareness, can a person become an effective speaker? As advisory group member Myriam Met, a coordinator of foreign languages, observed, "In order to speak to someone meaningfully and communicate purposefully, you have to know a great deal about the cultural perspective that person brings."

     “Just as there are teachers of history and literature committed to teaching culturally significant materials, so there are foreign language teachers determined to make culture the content of foreign language education. As their students begin to explore the rich storehouse a second language unlocks, they also acquire the facts, myths, metaphors, and allusions that make them effective speakers.

     “Teachers who saw interest in foreign language instruction increase after Sputnik only to decline a few years later want to insure that current interest endures. Thus they emphasize the lasting value of foreign language study as well as its immediate practical benefits: Studying a second language gives us greater mastery over our own speech, helps us shape our thoughts with greater precision and our expressions with greater eloquence. Studying a foreign language also provides insight into the nature of language itself, into its power to shape ideas and experience.

     “A broad vision of foreign language study also includes the great texts of other cultures. The ability to read them with understanding requires years of studying both language and culture, but starting foreign language education in elementary school, as many localities are beginning to do, will allow students time to become sufficiently knowledgeable.

     “In a letter to Joseph Priestley, Thomas Jefferson noted that reading classical authors in the original was "a sublime luxury." The same is true for reading the great texts of Spanish, French, German, Russian, Chinese and Japanese. Valuable as they are in translation, the great texts are more valuable still when encountered as they were written; when words, thoughts, and feelings pass directly from mind to mind.

     “Even at beginning levels, students should be made aware that foreign language study provides more than practical skills. It can be a way of understanding ourselves and others. It can be, as Jefferson put it, "a rich source of delight."


     “It has been the object to obtain as wide a range of leading authors as possible, to present the best specimens of style," begins the McGuffeys Fifth Eclectic Reader used around the turn of this century. In books like McGuffey's, children encountered Longfellow, Hawthorne, Alcott, Dickens, and Shakespeare. They read stirring speeches, stories about heroes, and selections from the Bible. To be sure, the reading books of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century also contained stories and essays that have since, deservedly, faded into oblivion; but at least half the content of these readers was composed of enduring literature, education historian Diane Ravitch reported to the advisory group on history and literature.

     “Not so today. In the basal readers most widely used now, 10 percent or less of the content is classic children's literature. The emphasis in current readers is overwhelmingly on contemporary writing, generally by writers whose names are unknown outside the textbook industry. They produce a variety of materials, mostly aimed at developing skills, everything from how to recognize cause and effect to how to make grocery lists and use the telephone book.

     “Far from providing "the best specimens of style," modern readers usually offer prose that satisfies "readability formulas." These calculations, which dictate sentence length, word length, and the number of new words that can be introduced, can lay waste to even the best of stories. After a readability formula has been applied, for example, Aesop's fable about the tortoise and the hare becomes: Rabbit said, "I can run. I can run fast. You can't run fast:' Turtle said, "Look Rabbit. See the park. You and I will run. We'll run to the park."

     “Rabbit said, "I want to stop. I'll stop here. I can run, but Turtle can't. I can get to the park fast."

     “Turtle said, "I can't run fast. But I will not stop. Rabbit can't see me. I'll get to the park."

     “With vital connections and colorful words lost, what was once meaningful and compelling becomes pointless and dull.

     “If there were persuasive evidence that using readability formulas is the most effective way to teach children to read, one would be tempted to let well—written prose wait for another day. In fact, recent research suggests that chopping up sentences sometimes confuses young readers. Extreme restrictions on vocabulary can leave them—or anyone—mystified. One beginning level book's version of "The Shoemaker and the Elves" illustrates why: Apparently for readability's sake, the story contains no references to elves, shoemakers, or even shoes.

     “Most elementary reading books contain little literature; most social studies texts in the early grades contain little history. Dominated by a concept called "expanding environments," they report on such matters as where cars come from and where letters go; and they do so in ways meant to develop "human—relations skills" (like "recognizing interdependence among people") or "life skills" (like "addressing an envelope"). These textbooks belabor what is obvious even to six—, seven—, and eight—year—olds: that people live in families, for example, or that children go to school.

     “It is hard to imagine that youngsters are spurred on to learning by these textbooks. What we give them to read seems particularly vacuous when compared to what grade-schoolers once studied. In the early decades of this century, they read myths, fables, stories from the distant past, and tales of heroes. They learned about Daedalus and King Arthur, George Washington and Joan of Arc, exercising their imaginations and beginning to develop a sense of life in other times.

     “Textbooks used to teach American history are also disappointing. The advisory group on history and literature looked at samples used in high schools. They were large (weighing about three pounds each), heavy with facts, but seldom were those facts made part of a compelling narrative, part of a drama with individuals at center stage. The human ambitions and aspirations that are both the motivating force of history and its fascination were largely absent. One textbook's account of the Constitutional Convention, for example, mentioned only James Madison's age and the fact that he took notes. A second recognized him as a "profound student of government," credited him with being "the Father of the Constitution," but provided no further explanation. A third set forth his contributions to the Convention in some detail, but beyond describing him as "the most astute political thinker of his day" gave little sense of the character of this shy and driven man.

          “Missing also was a sense of the significance of the historical record. A reader was left with little notion of the ideas that inform our institutions, the arguments and debates that helped shape the kind of nation we are, the reasons behind the choices we have made or why those choices are important. As NEH Deputy Chairman John Agresto, observed, ‘At the end of each chapter, I could imagine any student saying, “So what?”’

     “Good, even excellent textbooks do exist, but they are the exception rather than the rule. For the most part, textbooks used in U.S. schools are poor in content, and what content they do contain is not presented in a way to make anyone care to remember it. Thought by many to be the primary determinant of what is taught in U.S. classrooms, textbooks are tangible evidence of how little we are doing to make our children shareholders in their cultural heritage....

Part III—Recommendations

     “In Life on the Mississippi, Mr. Bixby advises young Sam Clemens, "My boy, you've got to know the shape of the river perfectly. It's all there is to steer by on a very dark night. Everything else is blotted out and gone."

     “During the months of researching and writing this report, I thought often of the river captain's words. The idea I encountered repeatedly—that the purpose of education is to teach students how to think rather than imparting knowledge to them—is the equivalent of teaching them how to steer the steamboat without giving them any notion of the river. There are times when human beings can consult maps to figure out where they are going; but for the surest navigation, the shape must be in the mind.

     “Thomas Jefferson consulted no books when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. He did not need to; Locke was as familiar to him as Monticello. The Framers of the Constitution referred effortlessly to history as they debated. They knew the shape of the past, knew the shoals and sandbars on which other civilizations had run aground and determined to avoid them.

     “But one need not think of such august figures to understand the importance of knowledge internalized. We need only think of ourselves, of the thousand decisions life forces upon us. Shall I do this or shall I do that? How is it important for me to spend my time? What is it good to do? What is it noble to do? We cannot look the answers up. Life presses us on, and we have to decide according to what we know.

     “We would wish for our children that their decisions be informed not by the wisdom of the moment, but by the wisdom of the ages; and that is what we give them when we give them knowledge of culture. The story of past lives and triumphs and failures, the great texts with their enduring themes—these do not necessarily provide the answers, but they are a rich context out of which our children's answers can come.

     “It is in this spirit, then, that the following recommendations are made:

     “I. More time should be devoted to the study of history, literature, and foreign languages.

     “—Much that is in school curricula now under the guise of "social studies" should be discarded and replaced with systematic study of history. What goes under the name of "social studies" in the early grades should be replaced with activities that involve imaginative thought and introduce children to great figures of the past.

     “—Both history and enduring works of literature should be a part of every school year and a part of every student's academic life.

     “—Foreign language study should start in grade school and continue through high school. From the beginning, it should teach students the history, literature, and thought of other nations.

     “II. Textbooks should be made more substantive.

     “—Reading textbooks should contain more recognizably good literature and less formulaic writing.


     “—History textbooks should present the events of the past so that their significance is clear. This means providing more sophisticated information than dates, names, and places. Textbooks should inform students about ideas and their consequences; about the effect of human personality; about what it is possible for men and women to accomplish.

     “—In literature, history, and foreign language classes, original works and original documents should be central to classroom instruction.

     “III. Teachers should be given opportunities to become more knowledgeable about the subjects that they teach.

     “—In their college years, future teachers should be freed from excessive study of pedagogy so that they can take more courses in subject areas like history, literature, French, and Spanish.

     “Teacher preparation and teacher certification must be independent activities. This will help ensure that education courses taken by prospective teachers are of value to effective teaching.

     “—Higher education liberal arts faculties must recognize their responsibility for the humanities education of future teachers. Further, these faculties must play a greater role in the continuing education of teachers.

     —School districts should invest less in curriculum supervisors, instructional overseers, and other mid-level administrators and more in paraprofessionals and aides who can relieve teachers of time-consuming custodial and secretarial duties. This will help accomplish two important goals: It will give teachers time to study and think; and it will put them, rather than outside education specialists, in charge of what goes on in the classroom.

     “Because American education is—and should be—a local responsibility, implementation of these recommendations will fall largely to policy makers in the states, educators in the schools, and scholars in colleges and universities. Implementation will fall above all to local school boards, parents, and other concerned citizens.

     “But I do not mean merely to set an agenda for others. There are efforts that the National Endowment for the Humanities can and will undertake. Indeed, there are many we have already begun, such as seminars and institutes that provide teachers the opportunity to study important texts.

     “We all have a stake in seeing to it that the humanities are properly taught and thoroughly learned in our schools. We all have a stake in making sure our children know the shape of the river they are traveling.

     “Carrying that shape in memory will not guarantee wisdom or safety for them or any generation. But there are few surer guides through dark nights—or sunny days as well. “(Lynne V. Cheney, American Memory: A Report of the Humanities in the Nation’s Public Schools. Washington, D. C.: National endowment for the Humanities.)


Part IV—What Do Our 17 Years Old Know?

     In 1987 a Report on the First National Assessment of History and Literature was published. The Assessment was funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and conducted by the National Assessment for Educational Progress. Diane Ravitch and Chester E. Finn, Jr. a professor of education at public policy at Vanderbilt University published the findings of the assessment in a book entitled, What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?

History and Literature Report Card

     In the Foreword to the book, Lynne V, Cheney wrote, “Thomas Jefferson had very clear ideas about the worth of studying the humanities. ‘History by apprizing [people] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men....’ Literature, he believed, had a moral dimension. Through a novel or play he wrote, ‘[T]he field of imagination is ... laid open to our use and lessons may be formed to illustrate and carry home to the heart every moral rule of life.’

     “Studying the deeds and texts of the past can expand the mind and enlarge the soul, Jefferson believed....

     “History and literature are important, then; but we no longer emphasize their study in our schools. Where once children studied history every year from kindergarten through twelfth grade, now, in many states, they are required to study it but a singe year. Where once grade students had textbooks that contained Longfellow, Hawthorne, Shakespeare, and Dickens, now they have readers with essays about how to read maps and decide on careers.

Social Studies Curriculum Changes Education

     “For the most part, this has happened unnoticed, with the sleight of hand effected under the cover of ‘social studies’ and ‘language arts.’ Looking at the curriculum of most schools and seeing social studies and language arts firmly in place, one tends to assume that history and literature are taken care of. In fact, since the term ‘social studies’ was invented in the early part of the century, it has included all manner of things besides history. And by inventing courses like ‘Marriage and the Family’ and ‘Values Clarification’ into the curriculum, social studies has helped push history out. Similarly, what goes under the rubric of language arts more often that no has little to do with literature....

     “To date, however, there had been little hard evidence with which to evaluate thoroughly what young people know of history and literature.... Thus it was that the National Endowment for the Humanities provided funding for Diane Ravitch and Chester E. Finn, Jr., then co-directors of the Educational Excellence Network, to join forces with the National Assessment of Educational Progress to administer a nation wide test to eleventh graders.

     “The results ... show that while a few students did well, most did not perform satisfactorily. Given the nature of this test and given that 78 percent of the students were taking U. S. history in the same school year as the assessment, the fact that only slightly more than half the test takers answered a typical question correctly is cause for serious concern.” (Diane Ravitch and Chester Finn, Jr. What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know? A Report of the First Assessment of History and Literature. New York: Harper and Row, 1987, pp. vii-viii.)

     The test scores were worse that alarming. On the history section of the test, students scored a national average of 54.5% and on the literature section they scored even lower, 51.8%.

     The assessment reveals that the School of Higher Criticism had succeeded by 1976 in altering the educational landscape of America. The more studies and assessment that were undertaken revealed the truly shocking nature of what they had done to destroy traditional education throughout the nation.

Why History and Literature?

     In their testing, evaluating and summation process Ravitch and Finn made an interesting discover. They wrote: “At the time planning began for this assessment, the nation was in the midst of a major education reform movement. One report after another appeared during the early 1980s, criticizing the performance of American schools and deploring the waste of human talent. Most of these reports and studies called on schools and states to strengthen their academic curriculum and to raise graduation requirements. State after state responded by increasing the number of mandated courses in science and mathematics, and occasionally in social studies, English, and foreign languages.

Disregard For History and Literature

     “Yet amid all this educational activism, it was rare that anyone spoke out on behalf of history and literature. The advocates of mathematics and science were not so reticent. They made their case with a bulging portfolio of evidence and an evangelical sense of urgency. They pointed to falling enrollments and test scores in these subjects as proof of the need to improve the quality of instruction, the training of teachers, and the time devoted to these subjects throughout the span of elementary and secondary schooling. It was not hard to convince the public of the importance of mathematics and science, in light of their presumptive utilitarian value. These subjects are linked directly to jobs and careers in engineering and other technical fields. The supply of engineers and technicians, as we have known since the time of Sputnik, also affects the capacity of the nation to keep abreast of technological developments and to maintain a strong economy. Ignorance of mathematics and science, it was rightly said, undermines the quality of the workforce and threatens our nation's ability to compete in world markets. Several major reports went beyond the economic arguments to warn that widespread scientific and technological illiteracy would erode the public's competence to understand complex policy issues, thus jeopardizing the democratic ideal of informed discussion.

     “In the battle for public attention and curricular time, the humanities were scarcely contenders. No prestigious body of citizens called on American schools to reassess the teaching of history from the first— to the last year of schooling, as others had for science. No concerned professors of English banded together to decry their students' ignorance of major works of literature. The representatives of business, labor, government, and education who regularly issued edicts on the need for change in the schools had little to say about history and literature. In our books and conferences, we tried to argue the case for history and literature; so, too, did Ernest Boyer in High School, Theodore Sizer in Horace's Compromise, and Mortimer Adler in The Paideia Proposal. But none of the national or state commissions recommended more time and attention for history and literature. Probably their authors supposed that these subjects are so fundamental that they are always taught, no matter what else changes. Perhaps those who cared about these subjects assumed that they would somehow benefit by any gestures made on behalf of social studies and English.

New Social Studies Courses Push Out History and Literature

     “In fact, proponents of the humanities (and history and literature are the fundamental bearers of the humanities in the schools) were strangely silent. They could not argue that knowledge of history and literature is important in the job market, because they were not sure that this is so; nor could they claim that such knowledge strengthens the nations economy or contributes to its material well-being, because here, too, proof was lacking. At a time when reshaping the curriculum was high on the agenda of almost every state legislature, those who might have been forceful proponents of history and literature in the schools were unable to articulate why it was important for students to learn these subjects, just as they had earlier failed to defend history and literature against distortion into amorphous courses in social studies and language arts. There were powerful arguments to be made about the importance of history and literature in transmitting and enriching our culture, in developing critical intelligence, in cultivating understanding, character, and judgment. But these arguments were seldom made and, when they were made, not often heard by policymakers.

          “These subjects were neglected by the education reform movement also because of the absence of the kinds of hard documentation that made claims for science and mathematics so compelling. The evidence that was available from tests of reading and vocabulary—in which achievement scores had fallen sharply since the mid-1960s—was not much help for the disciplines of history and literature. Paradoxically, the erosion of verbal test scores may have made things worse for history and literature in the schools. The most widely publicized score decline was that of the Scholastic Aptitude Test, which more than a million students take annually as part of the college entry process. The revelation in 1975 that the national average had fallen precipitously over a ten-year period stirred a public furor. The news of this decline contributed substantially to demands for educational reform; it aroused public concern about the quality of education; it alerted the media to education issues as no other single indicator had done, doubtless because of its very specificity. Yet no one used the decline of SAT scores to argue that students needed to study more history and literature; no one intimated that the deterioration of verbal scores might in some way be related to decay in the quality of what students were reading. Instead, the celebrated test score decline fueled demands for basic skills, critical thinking skills, reading skills, vocabulary-building, and a host of other nonliterary, content-free exercises.

     “While we had no brief against the teaching of basic skills who could?—we believed that this was rather too simplistic a remedy for our educational ailments. The skills of reading, writing, speaking, and listening are clearly fundamental, and no learning of value can proceed until the student has firm command of them. But they are only starting points in the process of education.

     “As the reform movement gained ground, it seemed clear that the demand for basic skills had become an irresistible rallying cry. These skills are universally valued. They are non-controversial precisely because they lack any cultural content. For the very reason that basic skills and critical thinking skills could become popular banners behind which to march, history and literature were shunted aside. Unlike skill training, teaching the humanities requires people to make choices. Deciding what content to teach risks offending some group or individual, those who prefer a different version of history or different works of literature. How much easier, then, to teach social studies as skills rather than as history, offending practically no one; how much easier to teach the skills of language arts, to fill in blanks and circle words, rather than to bear the burden of selecting particular poems, plays, short stories, and novels and to have to figure out how to make them meaningful for adolescents.

History and Literature Loose Ground In Schools

     “We were convinced that history and literature had lost as much ground in the curriculum as had science and mathematics. The only history studied by most high school students was a single year of American history. Few states or communities require more. A year of world history, once obligatory as a high school graduation requirement in most districts, had become an elective or had disappeared altogether. Even as the need for knowledge of other nations and cultures grew more apparent, willingness to require the study of other nations and cultures faltered. The situation in the elementary and intermediate grades was no better: most elementary school children study history only one year, usually in fifth grade, and history instruction in the middle school years has no pattern, no assured place at all.

Part V—Origins of this Assessment—The Saga of the Literature Curriculum

     The condition of literature was more difficult to ascertain than that of history. While it is often possible to distinguish the presence of a history course under the broad umbrella of social studies, either because of its course title or because of the textbooks in use, the same cannot be said for the teaching of literature. In using the term "literature," we mean works that have received some degree of critical recognition for their quality. Literature in American schools is taught in English classes, but not all English classes teach literature. Some English courses are devoted entirely to reading skills, grammar drills, workbook exercises, and other kinds of nonliterary activities. Even when a significant portion of time is set aside for reading stories and poems, much of the material that is assigned or included in mass-market readers would not be considered "literature" by any reasonable definition of the term.

Old Literature Curriculum Based on Classics

     A generation ago, the literature curriculum in most high schools, though already diverse, had a modicum of coherence since it was centered on major works by renowned British and American writers. Students were likely to read, for example, Eliot's Silas Marner, Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar or Macbeth, Dickens's Great Expectations or A Tale of Two Cities, essays by Emerson and Thoreau, and poetry by Wordsworth, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Tennyson, Coleridge, Poe, Frost, Dickinson, Stevenson, Sandburg, and Whitman. The range of books and plays read in American high school classes could scarcely be called a canon, since it included hundreds of titles, but certain authors were usually studied, in addition to those already mentioned, such as Austen, the Brontes, Conrad, Crane, Hardy, Hemingway, London, Melville, Orwell, Scott, Steinbeck, Thackeray, Twain, Wharton, and Wilder. (For a description of the high school literature curriculum in the early 1960s, see Scarvia B. Anderson, "Between the Grimms and ‘The Group’” (Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1964).

     But, since the mid—1960s, the professional consensus that supported the established literary curriculum has dissolved as a result of criticism from many quarters—from blacks, because black writers were ignored; from feminists, because women writers were neglected; from those who believed that students would prefer literature that was contemporary and relevant to their own lives; and from those who on principle opposed the very idea of a canon, regardless of its contents or its capaciousness. Today, there is assuredly no canon, and no one could venture a confident guess as to what is read by American students at any point in their schooling. Many college professors believe that their students have read very little; or that they have read nothing in common, which is more likely the case.

Scholars Judge Traditional Curriculum Not Relevant Anymore

     What the high school literature curriculum needed, in order to correct its limitations, was a thoroughgoing revision, a reconstruction of the mix of classic and contemporary works and authors. But this did not occur. Instead, the scholars and educators judged the very idea of the traditional curriculum to be irrelevant, claiming that it had lost its power to touch the lives of students and their teachers, to speak to them in a universal voice or even the intensely particular voice that good literature must have. In retrospect, however, it is clear that the real problem lay not in the idea of a coherent literature curriculum, but in the failure of those who could not or would not make the effort to show how traditional and modern literature together can speak to our condition, explain us to ourselves and help us better understand ourselves and our society.

     Something of value is lost when there is no coherent literature curriculum, no professional consensus about which writers and which works are superior. Such a curriculum, beginning in the early grades, helps young people understand how the culture came to be what it is, how it was shaped, which writers redefined it and thereby changed the way we see ourselves. The curriculum—and the literary traditions it conveys—is a social and cultural construct that is useful so long as it speaks to our search for meaning. The canon of the past no longer provided a sufficient mirror to show us what we had become; but in its stead we did not get the larger, newer, and better mirror that we needed.

Loss of the Traditional Curriculum In Literature

     Once the traditional curriculum lost its authority, and there was no consensus about which authors and titles were truly outstanding, the only remaining source of authority for the "language arts" field was the research of reading experts, which yielded technical rather than literary standards for what students ought to read. All too often, the new reading material was such that it could not be called literature by anyone's standard. At the precollegiate level, the substitutes for works by the likes of George Eliot, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Ralph Waldo Emerson were a new genre of realistic melodrama known as "young adult fiction," biographies of current sports stars and other celebrities, and stories written to fit readability formulas, thereby restricting the use of long sentences, polysyllabic words, and uncommon terms.

     Whatever its faults, at least the old tradition had a point of view about who we were as a people, what battles we had fought, what self-knowledge we had gained a point of view that could be disputed, attacked, or controverted. What took its place was not a reformulated and modernized literary tradition that embraced the rich variety of our culture, revealing to us how we had changed during a critical period of our history. The old tradition was dead, but in its stead there was merely cafeteria-style literature, including the written equivalent of junk food. All who had fought the old literature curriculum because they felt left out of its definition of "we" and "us" could only feel cheated to discover that the new approach to literature lacked any sense of "we" or "us." Instead of admitting new members to the old boys' club, the club was disbanded.


The Information Vacuum

     As the great wave of education reform picked up momentum in the 1980s, none of the major commission reports called for even a year of world history, let alone for a three- or four-year sequence of history courses in the high school, and none wondered whether the literature curriculum introduced the young to great works of the past and present. Worse, there was little sure information about the condition of either field, no reliable source to which educators and policymakers might turn in order to gauge what was in the curriculum and whether students were learning it.

     It seemed to us that a national assessment could provide some of the missing information. It could try to determine whether students now in their junior year of high school have the fundamental background knowledge that seems appropriate for students of their age. It could seek information about the cultural content offered and assimilated in American classrooms today. It could ask students what books they had read for school and whether they read in their spare time. It could ask about the classroom methods used by teachers. It could ask students how much time they spent watching television, working after school, and doing homework, and then try to determine whether this behavior was associated with competency in history and literature.

     We wanted to find out, to the extent that it was possible to do so within the limits of testing technology, whether American students have the information and knowledge that they need to read newspaper stories, magazine articles, books, and other written material that assume a knowledgeable reader. In a daily newspaper, for example, one is likely to encounter references to the New Deal or Reconstruction or the Holocaust in which the writer assumes that the reader understands these terms; in effect, the writer is using a form of cultural shorthand. One is equally likely to come across unexplained references to the Depression, Prohibition, McCarthyism, the Scopes trial, and the Brown decision. In casual reading, it is not surprising to find references to an "Achilles' heel" or to someone who has the "patience of Job" or a "Midas touch." Writers in the daily press do not stop to wonder whether their readers know who Stalin or Churchill was. In the United States today, the common reader—not just the college-educated reader—is expected to have a copious supply of historical and literary knowledge ready at hand to make sense of everyday reading.

     Given the complexity of these fields, it was clear that whatever test was devised would have limitations. It was equally clear that it would be hard to gain consensus about what should be tested. We were aware that many thoughtful people mistrust multiple-choice tests, especially for complex subjects like history and literature; we shared most of those doubts. We still do. Nonetheless, we were and are convinced that in the absence of any reliable data, speculation about student achievement in these two subject areas would continue to be based on hearsay, anecdote, impressions, and samples of a single classroom or even a handful of neighborhood kids.

The Younger Generation Is Culturally Illiterate

     There has for some time been ample reason to wonder whether the younger generation is culturally illiterate. The spread of remedial reading and writing classes on college campuses has contributed to the sense that our society is breeding a new strain of cultural barbarian, one who cannot read or write except at the most rudimentary level and who possesses virtually no knowledge except that conveyed through the television set. As we wrote this report, we read an article about the author Mary McCarthy, who recently served as visiting professor at a small liberal arts college and lamented that modern students seem "almost totally ignorant of the whole period spanned by my life, to say nothing of what happened before." (Michiko Kakutani, "Our Woman of Letters," The New York Times Magazine (March 29, 1987): 74.)


     No less worrisome is the possibility that American adolescents are ignorant of American literature, that they have been raised on a meager diet of stories and books about other teenagers, that their tastes have been pressed into a narcissistic mold, and that most of their knowledge of imaginative fiction has been supplied by television and the movies. There was no objective way, so far as we knew, to gauge whether or not these fears were justified. We wondered, though, whether American 17-year-old students know as much about their national literature as a writer in The New York Times claims that Soviet citizens know. According to Serge Schmemann, then chief of the Moscow bureau for the Times, "Rare is the Russian who was not reared on The Deerslayer and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, who is not familiar with The Catcher in the Rye, Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, and John Steinbeck. Classics and contemporary American literature are a mainstay of the Soviet reading diet.... Russian readers are familiar with Theodore Dreiser, Erskine Caldwell, Sinclair Lewis, John Updike, Kurt Vonnegut, Gore Vidal, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur Hailey." One Russian told the writer, "It would not be an exaggeration to say that in childhood we all were reared on American adventure literature—James Fennimore Cooper, Jack London, Edgar Allan, Poe, Mark Twain, O. Henry—a whole constellation of names....” (Serge Schmemarm, "The View from Russia," The New York Times Magazine (November 10, 1985): 52-54.)

     We know that such estimates are impressionistic, and that no one knows whether "all" Russians were raised on Cooper, London, Poe, Twain, and O. Henry, just as no one in the United States knows which writers our young people have read. However, the same issue of The New York Times Magazine included the results of a national poll of Americans, in which respondents were asked "whether they knew that United States troops had intervened in Russia at the time of the Soviet Revolution; whether they could name the current Soviet leader, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, or identify the K.G.B.; which side the. Russians fought on in World War II, and whether they knew that the number of Russian casualties in that war exceeded that of American casualties." Only 14 percent answered more than three of these questions correctly; 24 percent answered none of them correctly.(Adam Clymer, “Polling Americans,” The New York times Magazine, November 10, 1985, p. 37.)

     Polls of this kind on one subject or another appear frequently in the press; fueling concern about our general level of cultural background. Anecdotes abound about students whose knowledge is derived largely from television and the movies. Many professors have a ready supply of jokes that, begin, "Did you hear the one about the student who said ... ?" But anecdotes are inadequate evidence. Samples of one, or ten, or twenty-five are idiosyncratic and unreliable. Thus we concluded that the time had come for a national assessment. (Diane Ravitch and Chester E. Finn, Jr. What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?: A report on the First national Assessment of History and Literature. New York: Harper and Row, 1987, pp. 5-15.)

     The test scores reveal that the problem has reached an epidemic stage.

Part VI—A Report n the First National Assessment of History and Literature (1986)

Average Scores On History Clusters

Number of

Name of Clusters               Questions          Percent Correct           Grade

Chronology                         26               51.1                    F

Maps and Geography                    12               71.3                    C

Important People                    25               61.6                    D

The Constitution                    19               54.4                    F

Women in History                    8               52.6                    F

Civil Rights                         21               58.2                    F

Demography and Migration               8               51.0                    F

Science and Technology               10               71.3                    C

Labor and Industry                    14               61.1                    D

International Affairs                    38               58.3                    F

Pre-National and Colonial               13               49.0                    F

Revolution—War of 1812               24               58.9                    F

Territorial Expansion—Civil War          19               54.4                    F

Reconstruction—WWI               24               49.5                    F

WWI—WW II                         33               60.2                    D

Post-WWII—Present                    20               54.7                    F

National Average 54.5

Average Scores On Literature Clusters

Number of

Name of Clusters               Questions           Percent Correct           Grade

Title—author Relationships               29               39.5                    F

Author Information                    10               51.0                    F

Literature of the Bible                    15               66.8                    D

Classical mythology

and Literature                         15               56.4                    F

Epics, Myths and Legends               16               60.7                    D

Shakespeare                         7               68.4                    D+

Passages and Quotations               18               60.5                    D

Short Stories                         11               46.2                    F

Novels and Novelists                    35               44.9                    F

Poetry and Poets                    17               48.6                    F

Plays and Playwrights                    8               43.6                    F

Nonfiction                         12               54.9                    F

Literature of Women

and Blacks                         13               48.6                    F

National Average 51.8

(A Survey of 7,812 Students— 11th Grade)

(Diane Ravitch and Chester E. Finn, Jr., What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?, New York, Harper and Row, 1987, pp. 261-262.)

     Lynne Cheney, Diane Ravitch, Chester Finn, Jr., and a host of other scholars have done the nation a tremendous service by pointing out the State of Union in History and Literature. However, their work will have been in vain unless we make major changes in American education throughout the nation.

Economic Report Card

     Now let us turn our attention to economics. You may be surprised to learn know that the same illiteracy exists in economics as it does history and literature.

     In 1986 and 1987 a number of surveys were conducted among the youth of the nation in the areas of history, government, economics and literature. The results reveal that a tremendous lack of understanding in these areas.


     Let us begin with economics. In May of 1986, a survey of 8, 205 11th and 12th grade high school students in 42 states, among public and private schools, was conducted by the Joint Council on Economic Education. Paul A. Volcker revealed the results at a news conference.

     “Only 34 percent could correctly define profits as revenue.

     “39 percent selected the correct definition of Gross National Product: ‘the market value of the nation’s output of final goods and services.’

     “Only 45 percent realized that government deficits result when spending exceeds tax revenues.

     “Less than half—47.7 percent—knew that ‘economic demand’ for a product refers to how much ‘people are willing and able to buy at each price.’

     Volcker stated that, the news “is not good if you believe that a basic understanding of our economic system is important if this country is indeed to be effective in what everyone realizes is a period of global competition.” (Associated Press, December 29, 1988.)

     The “Test of Economic Literacy” was designed by William B. Walstad, a professor of economics at the University of Nebraska—Lincoln. The summary of the study reads:

Part VII—A Report Card On the Economic Literacy of U.S. High School Students

Percent Correct On Test of Economic Literacy

Course and Items               Pre               Post               Change

Economics (1,499 Cases)

All Items (77)                    44.9%               52.4%                7.5%

Fundamental (2)               47.0               58.4               11.4

Microeconomics (20)               48.6               55.5                6.9

Macroeconomics (23)               41.0               46.5                5.5

International (12)               42.2               47.9                5.7

Consumer Economics (579 Cases)

All Items (77)                    40.3               40.1                -0.2

Fundamentals (20)               42.9               45.6                2.7

Microeconomics (20)               44.5               43.4              &n