Elohim II: Six

Part 1: Revelations

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shew it unto you

(John 16:12-14)

Chapter 1: Antichrist

Search and you shall find; there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed for the Seeker: Knock and the door will be opened for you

From the reference to the earth, our Mother, 666 would seem to represent something good and valuable: The Womb we grow in. Yet, here in the West we see 666 as a symbol of evil - the number of the beast, antichrist - Satan incarnated. When viewed free of prejudice it should be evident, though, that 666 actually symbolises something we should be happy about and rejoice - why else be here in a human form?

Perhaps there may be more than one meaning or interpretation to the number, and with the passage opening this book it may be appropriate to begin this chapter by taking a look at where the idea of 666 as a symbol of evil comes from.

The concept of antichrist is usually connected to the tale of the last days as told in Revelation - though that text does not contain the word antichrist. Revelation does speak of the beast as Yeshua’s enemy, though, of a false prophet, who serves the beast, and of the great whore. As it is shown to me, Revelation was produced by a woman made to hallucinate through eating fungi. She was a relative of the Apostle John: He was her uncle it is said while I type this. Subsequent to Revelation she went on to produce the first version of John it is added - though without the aid of hallucinogens.

Both texts are generally believed to be newer than that, I think, but it is worth remembering that the gospels we know today are end products that have gone through layer after layer of editing throughout centuries. Thus, what we have today is texts that have gone through round after round of editing, translation, and directed rephrasing, so there is not necessarily a direct discrepancy between what I am being shown and what is generally believed. More specifically there are three main concepts that penetrates the mists of time and which we should dwell at here: The beast, the whore, and the false prophet.

The whore is a city and its people. The word Babylon is used in Revelation, but Babylon is in this context more of a concept than of a place-name: The representation of hubris and decadence (as illustrated by the Tower of Babel). The real name of the whore is found in Revelation 17:18: And the woman which you sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. In those days that phrasing could only refer to Rome - a city, an emperor, and a people impersonating human misbehaviour and moral corruption.

The reference to Rome is obvious in every sense of the word if you consider how Rome first ravaged Judea and then persecuted the Christians for centuries. On the internet you may also find numerous references to the Roman Church as the whore: Someone who has slept with all the rulers of the earth in search of mammon. It is embedded in those references that we are talking about the whore also spoken of in Revelations, and that connection makes perfect sense when you consider the words of Thomas Hobbes: The papacy is really nothing more than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire sitting on its grave.

In light of this it may not be the biggest surprise that the beast spoken of in Revelation is the Roman Emperor. Again there is an unmistakeable reference in the text - this time in 13:18, Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred three score and six.

The passage refers to an ancient form of encryption, translating names into numbers so that they were recognised by the initiated only (an appropriate survival strategy in those days if you were critical towards those in power).

According to this coding system, 666 refers to the name Nero - the Roman emperor who had Christians crucified along the roads into Rome when he needed scapegoats for the great fire of Rome - a fire instituted at the command of the emperor to clear land for lucrative building plans he and his friends had planned to feed their insatiable greed: It could not be accomplished without the removal of numerous existing buildings, and the easy shortcut saving a lot of squabbles was simply to burn them down. The brilliant plan backfired, though, as the fire turned into arson and burned down much of Rome.

In that perspective, a reference to Nero as the beast makes pretty good sense, and considering how the American investment bank Goldman Sachs triggered the global economic collapse by gambling billions in 2007 on a bet that the real estate bubble would burst, which it then did the following year, partly due to the effects of the bet, one is left to wonder how much our world has actually improved since the days of Nero - at least at the level of our self-declared elite.

However, 666 is a result of the later adaptations of the biblical texts, as in the earliest known text fragment the number was not 666 but 616 - a number that referred to the Roman emperor Caligula.

It was Caligula who instituted the public worship of the Roman emperor as a god, and it was he who had his statue erected in the Jerusalem temple to remind the Jews that they should worship not only Yahweh but also - and not least - him. If you consider that the one principle above all for the Jews was monotheism, the disrespect and the disregard in the act is almost unimaginable:

To have only One God was the principle Moses taught them - and which the collapse of their unified state and the Babylonian captivity hammered out. So to them the statue - and what it represented - could be nothing but ultimate foul and defilement; a symbol of pure evil. In fact, the erection of the statue was a major reason behind the Jewish rebellion in 66AD - which Rome brutally crushed: If you are a god, how much do you need to respect mere human beings?

Considering that the earliest Christians, the Nazarenes, were a Jewish sect, 616 would seem like the perfect name for the beast...

In contrast to how it is often viewed, Revelation is thus not so much a tale of our distant future but a tale of the current present at the time - a situation many Jews saw as the last days: This was the time when the detestable Roman emperor had misbehaved so badly that it brought about a Jewish rebellion. It was that situation which lead to the creation of Revelation, instilled the text with its explosive energy.

So 616 is the number of the beast.

Caligula reigned AD37-41, whereas Nero reigned AD54-68, so the accounts given here add up to a tale of how and why John’s niece produced Revelation at a time when the profane desecration of the temple consumed the Jews, making war with Rome inevitable - while for the later Roman Christians it made more sense to consider Nero the ultimate symbol of evil

- So 616 turned into 666...

The niece then wrote down her uncle’s narratives about his days with Yeshua - what we now know as the Gospel of John. For me it looks like she did that at Ephesus in Asia Minor, and that it was some years after she wrote the war epic we know as Revelation - it was when the Jewish rebellion had been crushed and there was a certain amount of urgency about preserving certain things.

This way of describing the events fits well with an account I found in a Danish book by the author Hans Lynggaard. The title of the book is Marias Lære, which would translate into something like the teachings of Mary, and it is the tale of how he made a hike on foot across Europe guided by the Virgin Mary. On the way she told him the story of how she, John, Maria Magdalene, the apostle Jacob, and Josef of Aramithea sailed to Massilia (Marseille) in France after the crucifixion. Arrived in Massilia the party split up, and she and John walked across Europe to Ephesus - the hike Hans Lynggaard now repeated.

The idea that Revelation is the earliest of the two texts may not be in line with established views, but it is how it is presented to me, and it may explain why I do not see the niece as a Christian in our sense of the word, but rather as a member of a congregation in the church founded by John the Baptist: Like the Essenes, these people were Nazarenes rather than Christians in our Romanised understanding of Christian. A secret transmission of that knowledge may explain why the two Johns melted almost into one in the theology of the Cathars and the Knights Templar, who ascribed John to both of them.

In Revelation Rome and Caesar represent evil incarnated - the earthly lord who is so lost in his own power over our world that he considers himself divine and insists that the people must worship him as a god.

Two thousand years later it remains like that, for our earthly rulers still put themselves up on pedestals and demand that we must submit to them and serve them before anything else - even God the One and Only: To act out their despicable commands is our indisputable duty regardless of how foul they are - and if we refuse the demand we are to be educated - motivated - taught our lessons - so we don’t make any mistakes about who is the ultimate ruler here.

It is for that reason I end up using the same old concepts in my writings about the present, for our earthly rulers are invariable and incurably children of darkness - children of our fears and our misunderstandings about this world: As Asmodeus incarnated, power still seeks to acquire what belongs to God, and its servants are just as depraved as they always were.

- Then there is the false prophet - antichrist - where does he fit in?

The false prophet is mentioned only three times in Revelation. Every time he appears in the bible it is rather non-specifically, and he is never referred to as antichrist. To find that name in the bible we must instead look elsewhere, and the four hits that pop up if you search for antichrist in the online version of the King James Bible are: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that ANTICHRIST shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (1 John 2:18) 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) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:3) 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 antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

To understand what is being said in these quotes we must remember that during its first centuries, Christianity was represented by a cacophony of rivalling groups so diverse that historians have concluded that the only thing they had in common was the claim they made to being Christian. It is easy to imagine that scenario as a very noisy market where each sect claimed to have the one and only perfect interpretation of the gospels - and vehemently and loudly insisted that everyone else was in error. In that inferno texts like the Epistles of John were probably widespread - texts where the true believers confirmed their own perfect faith, while branding everybody else for their erroneous faith and for listening to false prophets.

- So an antichrist in the original sense was quite simply someone who preached the wrong gospel - and who was annoyingly successful at it.

While in Revelation God’s enemy is Caesar, who seeks to dominate the world until the Energy of Christ comes to rule us - when we reach the stage of development the old Mayans referred to as the Fifth Age - the message about God’s enemy has by now been spliced with the contents of the epistles to produce a new angle where the beast is mixed up with antichrist, the enemy of true faith - perhaps an obvious fate for an organisation sitting on the grave of the empire.

Since true faith is the possession of the Church - God’s representation and His finest servant in its own imagination - the concept has also developed into one where the first action of antichrist will be to demolish the Church. Someone may well do just that - demolish the Church - but if you consider that the Church is quite simply the great whore who as usurped the gospels and abused them for own profits, one is left to wonder if that someone actually is an enemy of God and Yeshua? Might it not rather be that he - unlike the Church - serves God and Yeshua?

The concepts dealt with in this chapter are therefore not what they originally were, but rather a purposefully created mix of this and that defined by the Church in its authority as the owner of the one and only truth.

That way the Church could make its own version of the concept of antichrist, but equally important for this chapter the Church could also redefine the role of women and the Feminine. It is hard to imagine the earliest Christian church developing if not for the contribution of women, but these days things are very different: The Church is suppressive towards women and to that end it has turned them into representations of evil, of the carnal - temptresses leading virtuous men into their demise. They are almost represented as antichrists in that respect.

Thus, while the Church has a hard time finding the path of Christ and seems more concerned with gaining wealth, power, and prestige, it became convenient to create this whole mix into a brew vilifying 666 - our Earth-Mother.

So that is what has happened at the level of energy, and what we therefore see represented here in our world of form, but the earth and the Mother are aspects of the same thing, so it is no wonder that a culture so disrespectful towards women also treats the earth as shit (and vice versa). How degrading towards the Feminine our patterns of thoughts and behaviour have been for centuries can be illustrated with a curious example I found in Science 5th October 2010, where it appeared under the title of Who’s Your Mommy:

Thoroughbred is considered the prime of horse breeding, and recent genetic studies have tried to establish the genetic roots of these horses. The study showed that whereas on the paternal side they could be traced back to a handful of horses imported to Europe from Arabia some centuries ago, there was no clear origin on the maternal side, for in generation after generation the stallions had been mated with any mare on hand, as only the nobility of the father was important for the quality of the offspring: The mother was quite simply there to get pregnant and give birth - or as the conclusion runs in the article: Nobody gave a shit about the females.

The irony is that this strategy may actually have been an advantage for the horses, as they avoided the inbreeding that would have resulted if there had been only a handful of founding mothers. However, the disrespect for the Feminine cries to Heaven and it is like that we have treated our women too, isn’t it: The important thing is whether the father is of noble blood.

In the middle ages it was even believed that the unborn child existed in the man’s sperm as a seed he then planted in the womb of a woman like you would plant seeds in your garden - so all the mother contributed was fertile soil.

In this culture, in this field of imagination, oppression of women was a logic result - as was disrespect for the earth and the earthly. The resulting behaviour where we have abused our earth and our women for centuries was almost a given thing, and unless something drastic happens to change things we may take the abuse all the way to where She breaks down under us. But how will we survive then?

Can we survive without the Mother in us?

There is one more angle to the concept of antichrist we should touch upon in this chapter - another reflection of the fact that the bible we know today is the result of centuries’ worth of creative editing:

Among the oldest New Testament text fragments we know of, there is one in Greek, which does not contain the word antichrist but the word Antechrist. If you do not have your Greek readily present, the difference in spelling may seem trivial, but in practice it is far from trivial, for while anti- means against, ante- means before, so Antechrist translates into before Christ - which does not refer to someone who is against Christ but to a forerunner of Christ Consciousness. So the Antechrist is he who is sent to bring Christ Consciousness through here on earth: He is not the Energy itself but its embodiment and it is through him the true nature of the mysteries finally will be revealed as spoken of in John 16: 12-14.

To see Antechrist successful in this task is something we should all wish for - at least if we wish to serve the Light. Not least should the Church be delighted, but since the coming of Antechrist also marks the establishment of the New Covenant, there is the inconvenient little aber dabei that his mission will make the Church superfluous. So it is Antechrist - and not antichrist - who will demolish all churches and sects. However, since the Church has long since become a meme, and a present day embodiment of the beast we know from Revelation, it is merely interested in its own growth and survival. Lying down to die, just because some stupid Antechrist shows up, is about the last thing it wants to do.

So while the Church should look forward to his coming in great Anticipation - if it did in fact serve God and Yeshua - that event is actually what it dreads more than anything, since the Church is only here for its own maintenance and glorification, so to the Church there is no difference between antichrist and Antechrist. It is for that reason the false prophet from Revelation has been mixed up with Antechrist to make him an antichrist.

This construction is a bit of a mishmash, but from the point of view of the Church the result is highly desirable, as it makes people crowd with the Church - the ghost of the beast - in fear of the one they should embrace at his coming among us, falsely believing that the enemy of the church must be their enemy too.

- So through its myths the Church mobilises the people for its defences against the will of God and the coming of His Kingdom.

What an irony...

Through this circuitous road I thus end up at the same conclusion as Martin Luther once did, when he declared the Roman Church an antichrist. It put him in the forefront of a theological revolution that led to the birth of Protestantism. The resulting Protestant Church did in fact put some of the oddities of the Roman Church behind it - such as the trade of absolution: The idea that the Church is so Almighty that it can force God’s Hand, wherefore money given to the Church can save your soul - perhaps an echo of the emperor’s megalomania.

However, most of the artificial construction we know as Christianity and its silly ideas was left untouched - such as the concept of virgin birth, the fabricated story about the birth of Yeshua, and the equally peculiar tale of his resurrection after the crucifixion - so the Reformation barely scratched the surface.

It is also so that we still celebrate our day of rest on the first day of the week (Sunday, the day of the sun) and not on the last day (Saturday, the Sabbath), which would have been the Holy day for Yeshua, since he was a Jew - though the instruction in the bible is rather unmistakeable: The day of rest is to be the seventh day and not the first.

However there were limits to how much Luther could change if he was to be left with a saleable product - something that had a needed air of novelty, yet was sufficiently familiar to be readily embraced. Besides, the Christian church has always seen a need to set itself apart from the Jews (who killed Yeshua). In that sense it was better to stick with a holiday introduced by the Roman Emperor who made Christianity a Roman state religion while remaining a pagan sun-worshipper.

There is therefore something half done about the Reformation, and the common trend of the Christian churches towards anti-Semitism showed its ugly face during and after WWII where Lutherans helped the Nazis round up Jews and where the Roman Church help Nazi-criminals escape to South America: There was this shared undercurrent caring a wish to see this detestable people who had crucified and killed our Saviour eradicated once and for all - though it was actually due to his death on the cross that he saved us all, if the Christian theology is correct, so perhaps we should rather hail the Jews for their great service to humanity?

The Christian churches did clearly not think that far, so it was not only Hitler who looked for the Endlösung der Jugendfrage, and if you can sink that low, have you then not lost your rightful claims to be God’s tool on earth?

We are to give God what belongs to God, we are to give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and we are to give Yeshua what belongs to Yeshua - as Yeshua once phrased it - so perhaps we should rewind all the way to the beginning and start all over again: Leave the Church to keep the Christianity it has invented itself and paid for with Caesar’s money, and seek Light and Love instead?

Chapter 2: False prophets and will-o’-the-wisps

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:16-20)

As it is evident from the epistles, antichrist is not really a particular person but rather a name for all those who claim to know the way and who therefore insist on taking us down a road that leads us astray. In that sense they are quite like the will-o’-the-wisps we know from old European folklore: Pale blue lights shining from the treacherous grounds of the moor to lure innocent travellers into their undoing.

The comparison becomes particularly relevant when you consider that here on earth we walk around blinded by darkness while longing for the Light. Whenever we see a light shine, or believe we see a light shine, we are therefore easily drawn to it and caught up in it - like moth irresistibly attracted to a lamp.

Antichrists light fake lights in the dark to attract us. When we see the light from their lamps we may believe that it is true Light, so we follow it naturally, but it is just the light of cunning will-o’-the-wisps luring travellers into the bottomless grounds of the moor: What they show us is not the way home to God.

As you can only know what you have experienced for yourself, I had to experience that principle on my way to Enlightenment, and the demonstration was served by the two gurus, Fleur and Grima, a certain Arven had chosen to follow blindly, and who therefore passed through my life in the course of 2006 and 2007: They were her will-o’-the-wisps.

Along the way I discovered that I actually had old connections not only to Arven but also to both of her gurus, and later the pieces to the puzzle fell into place. Considering that we have a habit of bumping into the same souls lifetime after lifetime, it should perhaps not be the biggest of surprises that there was this kind of a connection between us, but it took me a while to see it clearly.

My main connection to Fleur of relevance here goes back to the siege of the Cathars at Mont Segur in 1244. Before we met in this lifetime we had both noticed our connections to that event, and when Arven and I had a private sitting with Fleur late in 2006, I took the opportunity to ask her what our connection had been there, and Fleur disclosed that she was my teenage daughter at that time.

Later I discovered that I had been one of the Cathar leaders, which was not so strange for after our people had been more or less wiped out by the pope and the king, we were pretty much only the leaders left when we made our last stand in the Mont Segur mountain fortress.

I was a mature man when it happened, and to me there had been a peculiar grandeur to this way of dying, but to Fleur it had been a very different experience: She was a girl of sixteen who lost the life ahead of her, and all she remembered was the hunger and the thirst - all the pain and suffering - she told me.

In a sense of things, that experience was only what I as her father had told her to expect of life on earth, for as Cathars we saw the physical world as a place of sin and suffering: It was the realm ruled by Asmodeus, the mighty lord of darkness. For us the road home to God therefore went through forsaking the physical - except for tending to simple needs such as food, water, cloth to cover the body and a roof over the head.

We are shaped by our parents, so the sins of the parents are inherited by the children. Fleur was therefore shaped by those teachings, and seven hundred years on they were still ruling her life, as I learned in rather unpleasant ways when early in 2007 Arven and I were on a joint pilgrimage to India run by Fleur and Grima, for it was an unnecessarily tough and strenuous journey - not much Love and Light there.

From this narrative you could conclude that it was my own erroneous teachings that now came back and exploded in my face, but one could also wonder if it might not rather be Fleur who had misunderstood what I tried to teach her seven hundred years earlier.

I would certainly prefer to buy into the second explanation, obviously, but to be on the safe side I would like to make use of the opportunity to recall any and all I might have taught her which is not the teachings of the Light; anything that does not serve the Highest Good.

It is this kind of terrible power we have over our children, and perhaps I did learn my lesson for in this lifetime I have made my best efforts to only indoctrinate my children with common decency and a practically determined need for some organisation, so that our daily life can flow easily:

Persuading them to abide by the Ten Commandments and the golden rule of only doing to others what you would like them to do to you (or as it runs in the silver rule: Don’t do to others what you would not like them to do to you) will have to do. Everything else is just a matter of the care and concern needed to help them develop and unfold in accordance with their own wishes and desires. That may not always be so easy, but at least I make my best efforts, and what more can anyone do?

Psychologists and ethologists discuss and